Maine Office of Child and Family Services:

Child Welfare Evaluation and Business

Process ReDesign
Final Report

February 8, 2019

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign
Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 6
Methodology .......................................................................................................................................................... 10
Agency Strengths .................................................................................................................................................. 16
Quick Wins ............................................................................................................................................................ 19
Technology Gaps and Opportunities ..................................................................................................................... 29
Practice and Policy: Organization-Wide ............................................................................................................... 46
Policy and Practice: Intake .................................................................................................................................... 58
Policy and Practice: Assessment .......................................................................................................................... 67
Training and Professional Development ............................................................................................................... 81
Court Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................... 90
Workload Measures ............................................................................................................................................ 101
Case Reviews: Findings and Opportunities ........................................................................................................ 105
Staff Survey ......................................................................................................................................................... 109
Appendices .......................................................................................................................................................... 115

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign
Executive Summary

Overview
The Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS)
sought an evaluation of its Child Welfare program’s business processes. To accomplish this, OCFS engaged
Public Consulting Group (PCG), a national expert in child welfare who brings extensive knowledge of program
operations and policy to our comprehensive evaluations and business process reviews. This engagement consists
of three phases that run from October 2018 through March 2020 and aims to evaluate the current system to
identify changes needed to improve the safety, permanency, and well-being for children and their families who
are served by the agency and to develop a plan to implement and sustain needed change. The goals of this
project are five-fold:
1. To use a variety of qualitative and quantitative research methods to gain a detailed and data-informed
understanding of operations, policies, processes, and activities around child welfare management that
impact the ability of OCFS to effectively and efficiently serve families
2. To develop recommendations that are in line with the vision of the agency, draw on national best practices,
and are grounded in ensuring child safety
3. To successfully implement recommendations and make desired changes to the service delivery model
4. To engage staff and stakeholders throughout
5. To create a self-sustaining environment where staff are drivers for new and sustained changes to
continually improve the system

In Phase I: Business Process Assessment and Analysis, the results of which are described in the following
pages, PCG utilized a multi-step process for systematically collecting, analyzing, and synthesizing data.

Figure 1: Discovery Activities

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 1
Strengths
During the course of this phase of the project, PCG identified a number of areas of strength within current OCFS
practices. Several of these strengths center on the dedication of agency staff, their willingness to work together
and support each other, and their strong expressed desire to help children and families improve their lives. In
addition, OCFS has already identified several areas of need and is taking steps to address them. These areas
include: MACWIS and the intake hotline phone system, both of which are set for replacement in the coming
months; additional staffing lines for the intake unit; and the implementation of the SDM tool throughout additional
units beyond intake and investigation. Additional strengths were revealed during PCG’s reviews of several difficult
cases, where positive findings related to communication, documentation, and provision of services were identified
by the PCG team even in cases where significant challenges were encountered in other areas of the case.

Recommendations
PCG’s approach to this engagement is aligned with the vision of OCFS, and centers on quickly developing
improved and more efficient business processes for the lifecycle of a case, with a clear focus on improving
outcomes related to child safety. As a part of their work over the last year, OCFS has undertaken a period of
self-assessment and reflection to identify areas of improvement, and they have already implemented (or
begun implementing) major changes. It is worth noting that in the recommendations that follow, we focus on
several of those changes, either acknowledging the effort and encouraging consistent application and/or providing
additional support and value for changes that are already in process. We grouped the recommendations into
memos by common theme to make implementation more manageable. Each of these groupings and associated
recommendations is laid out in the table that follows.

# Recommendations: Quick Wins

Establish a centralized, up-to-date document storage for policy and practice. OCFS should establish a
1 centralized document storage location (intranet, shared drive, or other location that is linked to the policy manual)
where staff can view the latest and most up to date policy and practice memos.
Streamline the printing of Discovery in MACWIS. OCFS should develop a “button” for Discovery that will allow all
2
Discovery related documentation, over a selected period, to be compiled and printed with the click of a button.
Formalize an ongoing training management plan for future implementation(s). OCFS should develop a
3 formalized, shared training management plan for the rollout of each new process and tool. This will create a repeatable
structure for each rollout that aligns to the different needs of staff throughout offices.
Improve consistency with case closing summary. OCFS should convene a group of intake, assessment and
4 permanency workers to discuss key information that be required in the closing summary and design a clear model for
writing the closing summaries that all workers are then subsequently trained to follow when closing a case.
Further build infrastructure to have staff-led input on practice and policy changes and implementation efforts.
5 To continue and, more importantly, formalize the involvement of staff in key processes, OCFS should further build the
infrastructure to support engaging staff in making practice and policy changes, and their implementation efforts.
Develop a consistent, structured and transparent way to share updates and changes with staff. OCFS would
6
benefit from a more consistent and structured approach to communication about changes.
Consistently prioritize geographic case assignment. Thoughtful consideration of travel requirements when
7 assigning cases will allow caseworkers to reinvest hours of travel time into meaningful visits with children and families
and the proper amount of time needed to complete documentation accurately.
Designate additional notaries in each office. PCG recommends that OCFS identify at least one additional staff in
8
each office — who travels infrequently and whose office presence is consistent — to serve as an additional notary.
Provide policy clarification and training around criminal background checks. OCFS should ensure that the
9 criminal background check is done whenever the kinship assessment is performed letting the family know that the
agency is ultimately concerned about the child and the child’s safety.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 2
 # Recommendations: Technology
Make minor changes to MACWIS to increase efficiency. PCG is recommending a review and series of potential
10 changes that include creating templates, reducing duplication of data entry across screens, and reviewing the ability
for intake to initially input directly into MACWIS instead of Word documents.
Work with OIT to ensure efficient operation of hardware and software, and flexibility to support future
solutions. OCFS should work with OIT to make exceptions to the current 5-year expected lifecycle of equipment (and
11 look at shortening that schedule, long-term) for any hardware older than 3 years that exhibits chronic issues that lead
to duplication of effort or lost work. In addition, work should begin now to determine what changes may need to be
made to the hardware currently in use to support planned software upgrades.
Provide staff with updated transcription options. OCFS should reevaluate the transcription products available on
12 the market, test one or more of them with a small group of staff and determine whether the current breed of transcription
software is more accurate or better suited for this application than the Dragon software.
Implement a mobile “front end” that connects to MACWIS. OCFS should consider a front-end that builds a bridge
13 between MACWIS and a potential replacement system that allows caseworkers to collect data in the field and avoid
significant duplication when they return to the office.
Move toward use of an electronic document management solution. OCFS should eliminate or greatly reduce the
14 use of paper where possible by utilizing an existing solution known to the state that may or may not interface directly
with MACWIS and/or ensure that the MACWIS replacement includes a document management solution.
Ensure successful procurement and implementation of new call center system. As a part of the procurement
15 and roll-out of the new intake phone system, OCFS should provide change management activities to prepare staff,
ensure comprehensive training on and utilization of new features, and provide consistency in reporting.
Explore ability to utilize electronic signatures for clients and courts. OCFS should explore the use of electronic
16 signatures for clients and courts, wherever possible, to help reduce the administrative burden on staff and allow for
greater focus on client-related activities.
Create an internal dashboard, with potential for external release in the future. OCFS should create a centralized,
17 regularly updated internal dashboard featuring the key metrics that leadership and staff can use to determine
performance trends.
Undertake key steps to successfully procure and implement a MACWIS replacement. Preparing to both sunset
18 a legacy system and implement a robust CCWIS system is not easy. PCG has made a variety of recommendations to
ensure a successful roll-out of the MACWIS replacement system.
# Recommendations: Policy and Practice ― Organization-Wide
Prioritize a complete realignment of policy with practice. OCFS should continue to prioritize updating the policy
19
manual to align with the practice model and practice changes that have been outlined through memos.
Increase compliance with statutory timeframes. Caseworkers, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney Generals
(AAGs), need to communicate honestly and openly about the trajectory of a case and likelihood of reunification with
20
family members. Every part of the system must be responsible for complying with the statutory time frames and the
law and every case should aim to provide permanency for a child within one year.
Update caseload size, standards, and ratios. PCG recommends that Maine continue to aim to be at or below the
21
caseload best practice of 1:10.
Clarify processes so that decisions have at least two-tier review with clear roles and responsibilities at each
level. PCG recommends that OCFS revisit their policy and practice regarding Team Decision-Making (TDM) so that
22 when TDM is applied, it is applied in a manner consistent with best practices. In addition, OCFS should clearly outline
in policy every critical decision point a caseworker needs to make and clearly define when supervisory review is
needed, by whom, and tangible descriptors regarding what that supervision will look like and responsiveness for it.
Set clear expectations for communicating new inappropriate reports made against open cases. OCFS should
23 set clear expectations for how open case information should be shared between workers; Intake should always notify
ongoing caseworkers who are managing the case and their supervisors of all reports.
Develop comprehensive performance-based contracts to maximize returns. To maximize efficiency and value to
24 the state, OCFS should structure contracts, if possible, to pay-for-performance to emphasize the results-oriented
nature of the relationship. OCFS should develop logic models that specify the expected inputs and outcomes.
Clarify positioning around child rights vs. parent rights. The agency, through its caseworkers and leadership, must
25
make the decision that its primary responsibility and obligation is to the best interest of the child/children.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 3
 # Recommendations: Policy and Practice ― Intake
Improve processes and ensure adequate staffing to handle intake calls and volume. The state has made a
commitment to improve the services at intake with the addition of seven positions: two supervisor lines and five
26 casework lines. Moving forward, PCG recommends OCFS fill vacant positions with experienced, well-trained staff,
develop a back-up plan to ensure calls are answered live, consider additional changes to staffing to stagger schedules,
and improve training for intake staff.
Enhance effectiveness and efficiency of information collection process. OCFS should improve and streamline
27
the process whereby intake workers collect information from callers.
Align report reclassification with Structured Decision-Making (SDM) model. PCG recommends continuing to
monitor and evaluate the impact of the SDM tool and make adjustments to the tool as needed with the goal of ultimately
28
discontinuing the practice of automatic reclassification of reports once the tool is functioning properly within intake and
assessment.
Ensure that supervisors review reports within 24 hours. OCFS should ensure that every report receives second-
29
level, supervisory full review within 24 hours to ensure accurate decision-making and a timely response.
# Recommendations: Policy and Practice ― Assessment
Tighten assessment practices to further assure child well-being. PCG recommends that OCFS implements
practice and culture changes that tighten practices and encourage caseworkers/supervisors to prioritize the child’s
30
best interest; the caseworker simply must make a decision that is in the child’s best interest and be prepared to make
recommendations to the supervisor and the AAG that the circumstances require a different course of action.
Maintain timeframes currently in policy. PCG recommends, as we are sure the department will do, close monitoring
of the impact of recent policy changes on the timeliness metrics. We also recommend maintaining the state’s 24- and
31
72-hour timeframes for initiating an investigation as well as the 35-day timeframe to close assessments. These are in
line with industry standards.
Improve supervisory support for assessment staff. OCFS should expedite supervisor reviews of new reports, form
32 an on-call team to act on off-hour reports, and ensure there is a robust alert system that prioritizes and tracks the clock
from initial report to keep supervisors informed and alerted to initiate the assessment timely.
Add enhancements to the kinship placement process. OCFS should continue to prioritize kinship placements and
conduct due diligence efforts to find family members for placement, while also working to institute temporary safety
33
placements. OCFS should also identify and train district kinship care specialists who are able to complete expedited
background checks and home evaluations for emergency placements.
Provide additional support for administrative and investigation activities. In addition to exploring hiring detectives
34 for investigations, OCFS should review the daily tasks performed by caseworkers to determine how administrative
tasks could be shifted from caseworker to support (with additional staff dedicated, as needed) or contract staff.
Increase efficiency in accessing an authorizing agent for emergency child removal process. OCFS should
increasing efficiency of case processing around court authority by collaborating for more immediate access to the
35
judges in emergency situations and evaluating statute to determine the ability to modernize the approval process,
through email or text, with legal due process considerations
Re-assess the ARP program to align to best practice and define the referral process. It is of the utmost
36 importance that policy is clear and concise, the referral criteria is explicit, and the practice is consistent and
implemented with fidelity across provider agencies.
# Recommendations: Training
Build on supervisory tool to promote growth and professional development of staff. OCFS should either modify
the current Supervisory tool or create a companion tool to compile and analyze the results of the current tool to help
supervisors and caseworkers address bigger picture issues that cut across cases and caseloads. OCFS should also
37
ensure that supervisory meetings are used to develop opportunities for learning and improvement, and that frequent,
routine supervision that allows time for professional growth, and not just case reviews, is a priority for every manager
in a supervisory role.
Align new caseworker trainings and training techniques with national best practices. OCFS should implement
38
more experiential training components into new hire training.
Ensure that intake supervisors and staff are properly trained to identify high-risk cases. PCG recommends
OCFS adopt the brief, unit-meeting training schedule in addition to its current training opportunities offered for ongoing
39
professional development. Supervisors, being so critical to the successful implementation of the mission, vision, values,
policy, practice and outcomes of the agency, must also receive more specialized training.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 4
 # Recommendations: Training
Use quality assurance process to support agency policy and practice model and training needs. OCFS should
40
ensure that QA staff, and their feedback, are part of the training development and continuous improvement process.
# Recommendations: Court
It is worth acknowledging that while these recommendations are being made to OCFS, some of these recommendations are
beyond OCFS control alone. They would require support and action from the courts as well.
Offer domestic violence training to judges, attorneys, guardian ad litems, and other court staff. We recommend
41
OCFS encourage judges and court staff attend all applicable trainings from NCJFCJ.
Provide training to judges and other court staff on child welfare, OCFS’ practice model, policy, and additional
42 compliance standards. It would be beneficial to ensure that all judges have a basic knowledge of general best
practices in handling child welfare cases.

43 Hire retired judges with extensive child welfare knowledge and experience to mentor Maine judges.

Promote inclusion in the Model Courts Project for Maine. Data on Model Courts has been able to lend support
regarding the tangible difference inter-agency collaboration can make in positive outcomes for children and families
44
Caseworkers need to be strong in their convictions when they have credible evidence, even if they fear being turned
down by the judge; they need to be able to use the court as an ally when there are major safety/compliance issues.
Develop a clear policy regarding continuances and pre-trial hearings. To help increase timeliness with child
welfare cases, PCG recommends utilizing pre-trial hearings. In addition, the courts should develop a firm policy
45
regarding continuances in child welfare cases in order to ensure that their usage is minimized and that child welfare
cases remain prioritized.
Establish time-certain courtrooms. Time-certain courts would be an ideal solution for scheduling court proceedings
of child welfare cases in Maine. This method of court-scheduling is considered a best practice standard by NCJFCJ
46
and its efficiency has been documented in practice; we therefore recommend Maine move in this direction as
permissible by the courts.
Ensure better inclusion of natural/informal supports in the courtroom. PCG recommends OCFS work to ensure
a practice whereby informal supports are included in the court processes so that their involvement is acknowledged
47
and continued. While this approach is typically taken for child welfare involved cases in Maine, it needs to be the
standard and one which is strictly upheld.
Set a standard of “one family-one judge.” While this approach is typically taken for child welfare involved cases in
48
Maine, it needs to be the standard and one which is strictly upheld.
Establish court performance measures. In order to understand the extent to which efforts to improve child welfare
court processes have made a difference, it is essential to establish court performance measures. The court
49
performance measures will track data which can be used to confirm any progress that has been made and to identify
any ongoing challenges.
# Recommendations: Random Moment Time Study (RMTS)
Update the workload analytic tool so workload can be measured on an ongoing basis. OCFS and PCG should
50 apply results from the RMTS and national best practices to determine how many supervisors, specialists and support
staff are needed. OCFS should also update the time caseworkers time have available for casework.
Improve efficiencies in practice. OCFS should Increase the percentage of time staff have available to engage with
51
clients.

Table 1: Recommendations Summary

In addition, as part of this effort, PCG reviewed eight case records which were selected by OCFS. Due to the
small sample size, and the nature of the cases, it was difficult to generalize the findings as typical case practice.
The cases selected were some of the most severe and problematic, with issues ranging from child death or serious
injury to chronic neglect. Regardless, the case record reviews were valuable because they provided an opportunity
to take a deep dive into some of OCFS’ most difficult cases to determine what the core issues were and what
could be done differently in the future to support better outcomes for children and families. In the full report that
follows, PCG provided a matrix of strengths, challenges, and opportunities for improvement as it relates to the
entirety of the child welfare system, based on what we found in those eight (8) cases.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 5
Introduction

Project Overview
The Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS)
sought an evaluation of its Child Welfare program’s business processes. While the state has a relatively small
population of 1.3 million, Maine OCFS has faced disproportionately large public child welfare challenges from
more referrals and assessments for abuse and neglect to more intensive staff regulations around assessment
and case follow up. This evaluation aims to identify changes needed to improve the safety, permanency, and well-
being for children and their families who are served by the agency and to develop a plan to implement and sustain
needed change.

The state engaged Public Consulting Group (PCG) to conduct a comprehensive evaluation and business process
review. This project is broken down into three (3) phases, starting in October 2018 and running through March
2020, as shown and detailed below.

Figure 2: Phases of the Maine Office of Child and Family Services Child Welfare Business Process Redesign Project

• Phase 1, whose results are described in the following pages, identified where initial practice and process
changes are needed. During this phase, our team performed an abbreviated workload study, engaged
internal and external stakeholders, and observed/documented intake and assessment processes to
uncover needs and suggest changes needed to improve efficiency and case practices. More specifically,
for Phase 1, PCG conducted an evaluation of the:
o Process efficiency and effectiveness of the child welfare system
o Practice performance and outcomes for intake and assessment
o Policies as they relate to current practices
o Staffing and technology needs to improve practice performance and outcomes
• Phase 2 will expand our evaluation to permanency and adoption case practices, including licensing, while
at the same time we will develop implementation plans for recommendations from Phase 1, focusing on
intake and assessment processes, including changes to policy, practice, business processes, and
technology.
• Phase 3 will be used to develop sustainability plans to support a culture of continuous improvement and
ongoing implementation management.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 6
Goals and Vision
The goals of this project are five-fold.
1. To use a variety of qualitative and quantitative research methods to gain a detailed and data-informed
understanding of operations, policies, processes, and activities around child welfare management that
impact the ability of OCFS to effectively and efficiently serve families
2. To develop recommendations that are in line with the vision of the agency, draw on nation-wide best
practices, and are grounded in ensuring child safety
3. To successfully implement recommendations and make desired changes to the service delivery model
4. To engage staff and stakeholders throughout
5. To create a self-sustaining environment where staff are drivers for new and sustained changes to
continually improve the system

Our approach to this engagement is aligned with the vision of OCFS, to quickly develop improved and more
efficient business processes for the lifecycle of a case, with a clear focus on improving outcomes related to child
safety. As a part of their work over the last year, OCFS has undertaken a period of self-assessment and
reflection to identify areas of improvement, and they have already implemented major changes. It is worth
noting that in the recommendations that follow, we focus on several of those changes, either acknowledging the
effort and encouraging consistent application and/or providing additional support and value for changes that are
already in process.

PCG’s recommendations, combined with the findings from a review and report by the Maine Office of Program
Evaluation & Government Accountability (OPEGA), provides the state with a comprehensive picture of what is
working well across in the child welfare system and where there are needs still to be met.

Document Overview
To assure a fundamentally sound and high-functioning organization, leadership must focus on the core tenets of
child welfare service delivery before focusing on current or specific issues. Historically, child welfare has had to
contend with a complex combination of societal issues (poverty, domestic violence, substance use disorder and
the opioid crisis, and mental health and mental illness to name just a few). The crisis lens through which child
welfare often operates can be a barrier to implementing improvements to service delivery to enhance practice,
outcomes, and sustainable solutions. The first steps forward in enhancing a strong child welfare agency in
Maine include bolstering the foundational components that will guide continuous quality improvement
for practice for the future. We believe the foundational components include leadership, policy, practice, and
training, which must be aligned to a communicated vision that is clearly understood by all staff, including:
1. Encouraging and supporting strong leadership
2. Having a vision
3. Following and implementing best practices
4. Being aware of changing child welfare and child protection philosophical issues
5. Effectively recruiting and retaining caseworkers
6. Retaining effective supervisors
7. Offering programs that meet the needs of children and families
8. Holding programs accountable and responsible for outcomes
9. Utilizing data to manage and continuously improve

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 7
We have made, in the following sections, recommendations that align with these fundamentals. We also
encourage OCFS to continually strive to meet these basic elements in their organization and practice. The
recommendations are organized in chapters, which represents the original memos, according to the following
structure.

Focus Area # Recommendation

1 Establish a centralized, up-to-date document storage for policy and practice

2 Streamline the printing of Discovery in MACWIS
3 Formalize an ongoing training management plan for future implementation(s)
4 Improve consistency with case closing summary
Further build infrastructure to have staff-led input on practice and policy changes
5
Quick Wins and implementation efforts
Develop a consistent, structured and transparent way to share updates and
6
changes with staff
7 Consistently prioritize geographic case assignment
8 Designate additional notaries in each office
9 Provide policy clarification and training around criminal background checks
10 Make minor changes to MACWIS to increase efficiency
Work with OIT to ensure efficient operation of hardware and software, and
11
flexibility to support future solutions
12 Provide staff with updated transcription options
13 Implement a mobile “front end” that connects to MACWIS
Technology 14 Move toward use of an electronic document management solution
15 Ensure successful procurement and implementation of new call center system
16 Explore ability to utilize electronic signatures for clients and courts
17 Create an internal dashboard, with potential for external release in the future
Undertake key steps to successfully procure and implement a MACWIS
18
replacement
19 Prioritize a complete realignment of policy with practice
20 Increase compliance with statutory timeframes
21 Update caseload size, standards, and ratios
Clarify processes so that decisions have at least two-tier review with clear roles
Policy and Practice: 22
and responsibilities at each level
Organization-Wide
Set clear expectations for communicating new inappropriate reports made against
23
open cases
24 Develop comprehensive performance-based contracts to maximize returns
25 Clarify positioning around child rights vs. parent rights
Policy and Practice: Improve processes and ensure adequate staffing to handle intake calls and
26
Intake volume

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 8
 Focus Area # Recommendation

27 Enhance effectiveness and efficiency of information collection process

28 Align report reclassification with Structured Decision-Making (SDM) model
29 Ensure that supervisors review reports within 24 hours
30 Tighten assessment practices to further assure child well-being
31 Maintain timeframes currently in policy
32 Improve supervisory support for assessment staff
33 Add enhancements to the kinship placement process
Policy and Practice:
Assessment 34 Provide additional support for administrative and investigation activities
Increase efficiency in accessing an authorizing agent for emergency child removal
35
process
Re-assess the ARP program to align to best practice and define the referral
36
process
Build on supervisory tool to promote growth and professional development of
37
staff
Align new caseworker trainings and training techniques with national best
38
practices
Training
Ensure that intake supervisors and staff are properly trained to identify high-risk
39
cases
Use quality assurance process to support agency policy and practice model and
40
training needs
Offer domestic violence training to judges, attorneys, guardian ad litems, and
41
other court staff
Provide training to judges and other court staff on child welfare, OCFS’ practice
42
model, policy, and additional compliance standards
Hire retired judges with extensive child welfare knowledge and experience to
43
mentor Maine judges
Court 44 Promote inclusion in the Model Courts Project for Maine
45 Develop a clear policy regarding continuances and pre-trial hearings
46 Establish time-certain courtrooms
47 Ensure better inclusion of natural/informal supports in the courtroom
48 Set a standard of “one family-one judge”
49 Establish court performance measures
Update the workload analytic tool so workload can be measured on an ongoing
50
RMTS basis
51 Improve efficiencies in practice

Table 2: Recommendations Summary

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 9
Methodology

Overall Approach
This document describes the approach used to perform analyses and develop findings and recommendations for
meeting future needs of OCFS. Sources included:
• Interviews with OCFS leadership and staff
• Listening sessions with field office staff from across the state
• In-person observation of day-to-day processes
• A survey of staff
• Review of policy and other relevant documentation
• Mapping of key processes with OCFS staff
• Data analysis and review (from Maine’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System,
MACWIS)

PCG utilized a mixed-methods approach for analyses with strong input from staff and leadership. Quantitative
data derived from MACWIS is limited to the quality and quantity of information contained in the data set. There is
no way to hypothesize or analyze data that is missing. To contextualize the data, qualitative information from
interviews, listening sessions, in-person observations, and staff surveys were used to work in tandem with
quantitative data sets to more clearly define outcomes and offer explanation of trends. The following research
questions guided the discovery process.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 10
 Figure 3: PCG/OCFS Research Questions

PCG utilized a multi-step process for systematically collecting, analyzing, and synthesizing data.

Figure 4: Discovery Activities and Products

Below is a more detailed summary of all activities that PCG completed throughout the project to develop analyses
and recommendations contained herein.

I. Project Kickoff. PCG launched the project with a kick-off

meeting on October 1, 2018. The kick-off allowed PCG to
gain an understanding of OCFS’ goals for the project and
establish the basis for the start of our analysis. PCG used
the kick-off to hear from OCFS leadership, identify key
stakeholders, discuss ways to ensure the staff voice was
heard, create project management tools, and establish a
project schedule with check-ins. A result of this meeting was
also the creation of leadership feedback structure (see
Figure at right) that developed the Oversight Steering
Committee, led by the Commissioner, the Oversight
Leadership Team, led by the OCFS Director, the staff-led Figure5:
Figure 3:Project
Project Leadership
Leadershipand
andCommunication
Communication
Structure
Structure
Collaborative, and the Stakeholder Steering Committee.
The latter two committees are discussed below.

II. Interviews with Leadership. At the beginning of this engagement, PCG interviewed all OCFS leadership
to understand how each team member’s role contributed to achieving the agency’s strategic goals and
objectives. We also sought to understand the culture and philosophy of the agency as well as recent and
planned changes.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 11
As a key component of this project, PCG has, and will continue to, engage staff, administration and external
stakeholders; this endeavor provides valuable perspectives that supports a thorough and accurate evaluation.
PCG developed a four-fold strategy (III through VI, below) to gather information, conduct detailed discussions,
mine ideas from staff, communicate information about the project, and begin to develop a sustainable service
delivery model for the future. Activities included:

III. Site Visits with interviews and observations of business processes. Goals for initial site visits were to:
• Secure a baseline understanding of processes, steps, interactions, and overall service delivery
system
• Begin to identify issues that impact service delivery/efficiency and generate ideas to address them

We will follow these site visits with additional visits to the same or other offices throughout the course of
the project to validate and test ideas as they are developed.

IV. A Change “Collaborative” was engaged as a core working component of the project. Made up of a
dozen or so staff at all levels from across the state, this group has been asked to be an active part of
developing, designing, testing, and implementing the change efforts. While initially the Collaborative was
asked to map business processes and provide feedback and guidance (what’s working, what’s not, what’s
repetitive, what doesn’t make sense, where time is wasted, where there are errors/missteps likely to occur,
etc.), we will ask them to quickly transition to providing thought leadership and investment going forward.
They will be empowered by leadership to be active in the design of a future state model as well as the
rapid implementation of a “new normal” and set of solutions among peers.

V. Townhall-Style Listening Sessions were conducted across the state during October and November
2018. These half-day meetings at five sites across the state were open to all child welfare staff to share
the message of this project and get feedback on where staff are struggling or see opportunities to refine
processes. We asked those who could attend to:
• Come with issues and questions from their peers
• Be active listeners and participants
• Communicate the project’s goals and activities once they return to their local offices

Going forward, the listening sessions, whose style and composition we may replicate as Change
Workshops, will be designed to engage staff in discussion and planning regarding efforts. In addition, we
will examine the project’s impact on current service delivery at the local level as well as disseminate
information consistently to local staff across the state.

VI. Stakeholder Steering Committee. As this project moves toward the implementation of new policies and
processes developed during the assessment phase, it is important to include both internal and external
stakeholders in the process. The ME OCFS Child Welfare BPR Stakeholder Steering Committee was
developed to provide a two-way channel of communication focused on the recommendations and their
implementation, ensuring that stakeholders are aware of potential changes to practice and policy and
have a way to provide feedback that can make the implementation process as efficient and effective as
possible. Committee members, including OCFS and DHHS staff as well as those from partner agencies,
advocacy organizations, and other state agencies listed below:
• Spurwink Child Abuse Program • Office of the Maine Attorney General
• Maine’s Child Death and Serious • Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Injury Review Panel • Maine General Hospital
• Northern Light Hospital • Edmund N. Ervin Pediatric Center
• Child Welfare Services Ombudsman

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 12
 • University of Southern Maine, Muskie • Maine Youth Leadership
School of Public Service • Maine CASA
• Adoptive and Foster Families of Maine • Women in Crisis Center
• Community Care • Maine Department of Education, Special
• Maine Department of Corrections Services
• Youth Leadership Advisory Team • Maine Medical Center

This group will meet regularly to learn about these potential changes and plans for implementation, and
to have the opportunity to communicate directly with OCFS leadership about the challenges and
opportunities that these changes present from their unique perspectives.

VII. Surveys with Child Welfare Staff Across the State gave each employee a voice and an opportunity to
share both strengths and weaknesses of the current process of delivering services, we conducted a
survey in the beginning month of the project. OCFS sent an email message to its staff containing a link to
the online survey, encouraging them to participate. A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix A.
Staff were given two weeks to respond, with an additional three days provided to increase the rate of
participation. A total of 214 staff responded.

Type of Participant Number of Participants

Program Administrator 6
Assistant Program Administrator 4
Supervisor 41
Caseworker 120
Support Staff 21
Other 22
Total 214

Table 3: Survey Participation by Staff Class

In addition to staff involvement, PCG conducted additional activities aimed at understanding issues at a
foundational level. These included:

VIII. Data and Information Review. The data review was completed utilizing MACWIS to quantitatively
determine how well staff are adhering to specific policies. PCG receives monthly data extracts from
MACWIS and imports those extracts into a secured database. Data was analyzed using SQL and R to
track policy adherence and visualize changes over time.

IX. Policy Review. Maine’s current policy manual, as published on the OCFS website, and policy update
memos, as provided by management, were thoroughly reviewed by PCG policy specialists. The first part
of the review looked for inconsistencies and redundancies in existing policy in terms of timelines,
procedures, and definitions. The results were summarized and matched to what OCFS staff reported in
interviews, listening sessions, and site visits to develop a clear picture of the relationship between policy
and practice.

The second part of the policy review focused on policies that drive practice and those that are impacted
by legislative timeframes. A matrix tool was developed to examine intake, assessment, permanency,
adoption and licensing policies. The tool enabled matching policies with case-level data fields to develop

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 13
 valid and reliable measures of OCFS practice as captured in MACWIS. Front-end MACWIS data fields
where caseworkers, supervisors and other OCFS staff enter information about the children and families
on their caseloads was matched to back-end MACWIS data. Matched data fields were analyzed to
determine the best and most viable measures of OCFS practice. Results of the policy analysis were
provided to PCG’s data analysts who compared quantitative MACWIS findings with OCFS policy and
national best practices.

X. Process Mapping. As a component of project discovery, PCG worked with the Collaborative to document
the “As-Is” processes for OCFS. Processes are documented using a rudimentary Lean value stream
mapping process. Value stream mapping is a facilitated Lean method used for capturing both the workflow
and the movement of information supporting a process. The focus is on identifying how effectively the
process delivers value to the customer. Fundamental to the value stream mapping method is that the
value creators, i.e. OCFS staff, with their understanding and unique perspective, who create the maps.
The following OCFS processes were mapped for this evaluation:

Intake Assessment

Documentation of intake calls Overview of assessment process

Intake subreporting process Assessment assignment

SDM to supervisor Preparation for assessment

Intake supervisor report review Preparation assessment subprocess

District supervisor report review and assignment Establishing jeopardy

Employment CPS check Discovery and jeopardy subprocess

Development of PPO

Figure 6: Process Maps Developed

The Collaborative will be used to further develop process maps for permanency, adoption, and licensing
departments as the project progresses.

XI. A Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) was administered to district and central intake staff between
November 5, 2018 through December 14, 2018. An email was randomly sent to staff with a link to the
survey asking them to identify the activity in which they were engaged at the time of the survey. While
similar to the RMTS used by OCFS for administrative cost claiming, the list of activities and tasks was
more discrete for this study to capture greater detail on the types of activities staff complete for different
types of cases, the proportion of time they are engaged in those activities and who performs them.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 14
 Supervisors, caseworkers, specialists, support staff and licensing workers participated in the study, with
a separate sample selected for each staff type. The table below summarizes the sample size for each
staff type and the rate of response. Different sample sizes were drawn for each staff type, taking into
account the number of staff within each grouping. During the first couple of weeks of the RMTS, staff were
identified in a couple of the staff categories who did not qualify for participation. Samples were adjusted
to ensure a sufficient number of responses were obtained after omitting those which no longer qualified.

Staff Type Sample Size Surveys Completed Response Rate

Supervisor 2,000 1,668 83%
Caseworker 3,086 2,604 84%
Specialist 902 739 82%
Support 1,000 851 85%
Licensing 750 692 92%
Overall 7,738 6,554 85%

Table 4: RMTS Participation by Staff Class and Response Rate

XII. Best Practices Review. We performed an extensive analysis of practices and policies across child
welfare agencies (at both the state and local level) to identify nationwide best practices in the delivery of
services that would be specifically applicable to Maine. Using PCG’s expertise from past child welfare
engagements, the team conducted a comparative examination of Maine’s current services delivery model
with other state models. The goals of the best-practices research were to identify where states have had
successes in the areas of meeting federal timelines, practice, process, technology, and staffing, as well
as successes implementing new technology systems, improving outdated practices, and streamlining
services. We took a two-phase approach to the best practices research.

Phase 1: We conducted a broad-based, best practices research study, looking at the areas listed below
and drawing on our team’s knowledge of where states had achieved success and innovated to overcome
problems facing the child welfare community. More specifically, PCG focused on examining the following
areas for best practices:
• Hotlines/intake
• Technology implementation
• Meeting timelines
• CFSR results

Phase 2: We selected a few states for in-depth research as to really understand their operations and
factors that have led to their overcoming challenges and/or achieving successes in key areas. For this
research PCG relied on three major data sources: open source data, primary data from interviews with
states, and PCG subject matter expertise. These states included: North Carolina, Indiana, Delaware,
Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Tennessee, Arizona, Texas, Illinois, Minnesota,
Kentucky, Oregon, Virginia, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and New York.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 15
Agency Strengths

Strengths Identified in Current Agency Practices

Over the course of our review and in developing the recommendations in this document, the PCG team identified
a number of areas of strength within current OCFS practices. This section details those strengths and highlights
areas where OCFS should either continue or build on current activities.

Staff Are Committed to the People They Serve. In PCG’s survey, staff were asked what they enjoy most about
their job, and a majority of respondents (61%) indicated that it was helping to improve the lives of children and
families. This speaks to the overall dedication of the staff and the focus that they maintain on the people that they
serve. It is not always the case that staff find the core purpose of their job is the thing that they enjoy most, so this
is certainly a strength for OCFS.

Positive Findings from Case Reviews. As part of this project, members of PCG’s team conducted case reviews
of eight particularly challenging cases to identify ways that OCFS could improve the way in which they were
handled. Even in these difficult cases, several positive findings were identified:
• Timely initiation of child welfare response
• Prompt referrals to services
• Frequent contact with parents and providers
• High quality documentation and evidence available to the courts
• Provision of concrete services/tangible supports to families in need

These are significant components of the work done by the caseworkers and supervisors and speak to the level of
commitment and communication by staff to the people they serve. While these were some of the most challenging
cases encountered by OCFS, both in terms of the elements of the cases and the agency’s response, it is important
to note that this focus on the needs of children and families was present and identifiable throughout the work that
was reviewed.

Strong Peer Support. PCG’s staff survey identified teamwork and strong peer support as two of the elements
that caseworkers feel are strengths within OCFS. Nearly 20% of survey respondents said that working with their
peers was the thing that they enjoyed most about their job. When asked about the things that help them provide
support services to children and families, survey respondents commonly noted that teamwork, both inside and
outside of the agency, was key to their ability to provide this support.

Centralized Intake Hotline. More than half of all states, along with Washington, D.C., have centralized their child
welfare intake operations. This has been cited as a best practice because of the consistency and efficiency that
centralization of this important work makes possible. A study presented by Casey Family Programs cited research
showing that states with centralized intake systems may take slightly longer to investigate referrals, but they
identify more cases and confirm more victims than in states where intake is managed locally. OCFS’ centralized
intake hotline operation positions the agency to take steps to continue to increase consistency, productivity, and

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 16
efficiency while also helping to ensure the best possible outcomes for the children and families that require the
agency’s services.

Data Tracking and Analysis. OCFS has an internal team that creates reports, conducts analysis, and provides
information to agency leadership based on data gathered from MACWIS. The agency uses this data to plan and
analyze current operations and to inform decisions about changes and improvements to service provision. Using
data and analysis to drive decision-making allows OCFS to more accurately measure the impact of changes and
progress towards desired outcomes. In this way OCFS can take a measured, iterative approach to implementing
change.

Development of Supervisory Tool. The recently implemented supervisory tool is discussed elsewhere in this
document, but it is important to note that despite any other concerns about this tool, it requires supervisors to
regularly review the work of their caseworkers in a structured and consistent way. In a field dominated by
emergencies large and small, supervisor/caseworker interaction can often be driven by the crisis du jour. A regular
check on the work being done in a non-crisis environment is crucial to ensure overall quality of casework and
consistency of services.

Commitment to Increasing Service at Intake. In addition to the new phone system noted above, OCFS has
also committed additional staff lines to help reduce the call drop rate and increase the percentage of calls to the
intake hotline that are answered the first time. It is clear that the agency understands the scope of this problem
and is taking steps to address it on multiple levels.

MACWIS Replacement. OCFS has determined that MACWIS, while capable, should be replaced by a more
robust CCWIS system, and has already taken several major steps towards replacement. A new system can
address or eliminate many of the issues identified by staff with MACWIS that may be related to the older
technology on which it is based. A thoughtful approach to MACWIS replacement will allow for the integration of
updated business processes alongside a best of breed IT solution, which could have a significant impact on
workflow, workload, and the time available to staff to interact with children and families.

Phone System Replacement. OCFS is currently in the process of procuring a new and improved phone
management system for use with the centralized intake hotline, with the intention of having a new system up and
running by April 2019. The agency is seeking a robust call management system that will help more actively
manage calls and provide comprehensive statistics and monitoring, allowing OCFS to better respond to shifts in
demand and to achieve the goal of answering virtually every call that comes in and reducing the call drop rate.

Support Systems and Technologies. Recognizing both the unique needs of caseworkers and other staff who
spend significant time in the field and the challenges posed by the geography of Maine, OCFS has worked to
respond to these needs with systems and technology that aim to provide efficiencies and improve processes. This
includes laptop computers for use in the field, cell phones (and smartphones for staff who go into the field), tablets,
satellite phones, and dictation software. Although not all of these items were implemented successfully, OCFS
should be credited for attempting to provide solutions to issues raised by staff.

Robust SDM Tool and Decision-making Structure. OCFS has in place a system to guide staff decision-making
around key events in the life-cycle of a case, helping to ensure a consistent approach to cases across all districts.
While SDM was initially implemented in intake, recently investigation staff have begun using the tool, and
additional units are scheduling to be trained on SDM in the coming months. The use of a standardized tool to
determine how a case is approached and managed at key decision points provides structure to the day-to-day
work of staff.

Quality Improvement (QI) Staff Housed with Intake and Districts. Including Quality Improvement staff within
the intake unit as well as each of the districts allows for a focus on continuous improvement across all lines of

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 17
work. This allocation of staff also allows caseworkers and supervisors to see QI staff as a part of the work that
they do and as part of the team “on the ground,” rather than as a group that comes in from the central office to
identify problems with their work. Integrating QI staff into the workforce in this manner enhances the ability for
areas of concern to be identified in day-to-day work and presented back to staff with the context necessary for
staff to understand the need for change or improvement.

Alignment of Investigation Timelines. OCFS has recently updated its Investigation policy, and in the process,
has changed the starting point for activities that must be completed within 24 or 72-hours to start earlier. The new
starting point is now the time when the report is received by intake, rather than when it is sent to the district. This
change, while reducing the amount of time OCFS has to respond, is in alignment with national best practices, and
is an important step by the agency to promote consistency of response.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 18
Quick Wins

Quick Win Recommendations

We believe that the recommendations in this memo/chapter represent opportunities to provide OCFS with some
“quick wins” that will generate excitement among all stakeholders, show the seriousness of this effort, and lay the
groundwork for long-term redesign efforts. In addition, a central theme among discussions with staff is
“assessment fatigue,” meaning staff, while expressing gratitude for the opportunity to give input, are hopeful that
leadership can turn their input into action. While, singularly, none of these recommendations have direct,
significant impact to efficiency or outcomes, collectively they represent a solid, concerted effort to help OCFS
leadership to begin the effort of making significant change. Each recommendation herein was selected according
to the following criteria:

Figure 7: Criteria for Recommendations

# Recommendations
1 Establish a centralized, up-to-date document storage for policy and practice

2 Streamline the printing of Discovery in MACWIS

3 Formalize an ongoing training management plan for future implementation(s)

4 Improve consistency with case closing summary

5 Further build infrastructure to have staff-led input on practice and policy changes and implementation efforts

6 Develop a consistent, structured and transparent way to share updates and changes with staff

7 Consistently prioritize geographic case assignment

8 Designate additional notaries in each office

9 Provide policy clarification and training around criminal background checks

Table 5: Quick Win Recommendations

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 19
1. Establish a centralized, up-to-date document storage for policy and
practice
OCFS currently communicates policy and practice changes to staff via memos which are emailed to staff. While
emailed memos make for easier, quicker mass distribution, it is not a best practice for communicating policy and
practice changes to staff if policy is not subsequently updated as well. Though we will ultimately recommend
reconciling practice updates with memos and moving to making all practice updates through the formal structure
of a policy change, as a first step, we recommend that OCFS establish a centralized document storage location
(intranet, shared drive, or other location that is linked to the policy manual) where staff can view the latest and
most up to date policy and practice memos. This will:
• Lessen risk associated with staff using outdated policy
• Reduce the amount of time that caseworkers must dig through emails
• Reduce the frequency with which caseworkers must ask supervisors questions
• Permit staff to focus more time on adhering to protocol and value-added work

Centralizing the storage of policy and practice changes will prepare the agency to validate that all practice changes
are supported by and converted to policy. Keeping staff apprised of current policy and practice requirements will
assure that staff are considering and following the appropriate protocol when completing daily tasks.

In addition, in the meantime, the structure and timing of memos should be reviewed to include more prescriptive
details and timelines, so staff more clearly understand the changes before they need to be implemented. Every
memo communicating policy or practice changes should include the following:
• Overview of the change(s) made to policy or practice
• When the change(s) takes place (or reference back in the case of clarifications)
• Why the change(s) was made and how it relates to the overall vision of the agency
• A link to the where the latest policy or practice guidelines are stored

2. Streamline the printing of Discovery in MACWIS

Discovery is a key component of the case lifecycle and a lot of different forms and documentation are required to
be delivered to the Court. To prepare the materials, caseworkers must search for multiple forms and
documentation, and print each one individually to compile the required information for Discovery. In addition,
caseworkers reported that with regularity, when attempting to print the narrative log for a selected date range,
MACWIS will freeze and/or crash. As a result, time can be extended because caseworkers may be required to
print multiple versions using a shorter date range which adds additional time to complete the task. Depending on
the age of the case and the months printed, this administrative task could take caseworkers (not clerical in many
offices) up to 30-60 minutes to complete.

Through our evaluation of Child Welfare business processes, we learned that MACWIS has an assessment
functionality that allows caseworkers to check a box which, on the back-end, pulls together all assessment related
documentation for printing and filing. We recommend developing a similar “button” for Discovery that will allow all
Discovery related documentation, over a selected period, to be compiled and printed with the click of a button.
The following screens/modules should be included as part of streamlined printing for Discovery:
• Narrative log
• Intake summary report
• Visitation module

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 20
 • Family plan/child plan module
• Family team meeting/matrix module

Creating this functionality will virtually eliminate the significant time required to prepare documentation for court,
allowing it to happen more rapidly and be less burdensome on staff. Caseworkers can then reallocate the time
savings to tasks that will eliminate risks and potential harm to the child or children. In addition, we recommend
OCFS consider exploring how to formalize the use of email for sending discovery documents instead of hand
delivering or mailing to multiple recipients.

3. Formalize an ongoing training management plan for future

implementation(s)
As with any high-functioning child welfare organization, OCFS offers training opportunities to staff to better
understand processes and tools that are used throughout child welfare. Training is fundamental in preparing staff
for future success in their roles and ultimately allow them to better serve their community. Through reviews of
training materials and discussions with staff at Listening Sessions, we have identified the implementation of
significant policy/practice changes as an area where training can be improved. Formalizing the organization of
and improving training that covers policy/practice changes will better support the needs of staff and ensure all
staff are properly trained and familiar with processes and tools to excel in all responsibilities.

To enhance OCFS’ current system of training, we recommend that OCFS develop a training management plan
for the rollout of each new process and tool. This will create a repeatable structure for each rollout that aligns to
the different needs of staff throughout offices. It will also set staff expectations on what to anticipate from a training
perspective and the support that will be offered during times of change. OCFS should consider the following steps:
1. During training rollout, first, mid-level leadership (PAs, APAs, and supervisors) should be informed of
changes to allow time to prepare, ask questions, be trained, and understand how staff and the work will
be impacted.
2. Next, training should be rolled out to those mid-level managers so that when staff complete training,
leadership and supervisors will be knowledgeable and prepared to answer questions.
3. Lastly, clear, concise training should be rolled out to all staff, timely and in advance of changes. All staff
who are potentially impacted in some way should be trained, though consideration of type, materials, and
length of training should be made based on total impact.

Included below are key components to incorporate in every training management plan.

Communication Learning on Demand

To ensure that training is most effective, the channels in Offering online versions (such as the Adoption training) that
which you communicate are very important. This begins with staff can take as their schedule permits is of utmost value. It
initial communication about training to staff and through to is often difficult to find mutual training times for all staff to
the methods of training you will use, such as online training, participate, and even so, there may be unexpected situations
in person training, refresher training, etc. It is important to that arise creating conflict. An audio/video recording hosted
offer multiple methods of training to take into consideration online allows staff to complete required training as their
different styles of learning. schedule permits. It also allows the opportunity to refresh their
knowledge on the subject as needed.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 21
 Ongoing Refresher Training Scheduled Trainings
Periodically hosting live refresher training provides staff an With any implementation, it is important to have a scheduled
opportunity to refresh their understanding of how to training plan to ensure staff are familiar with the process or
complete processes or use tools, as well as take a deeper tool. Offering several sessions will allow staff to select a time
dive into the learnings once they are a little more familiar that works with their schedules. This should be organized and
with processes or tools. It provides new hires the opportunity communicated in advance to allow ample amount of time for
to take the same live training initially offered to all other staff staff to manage their time to participate.
to ensure all staff are trained equally.

Figure 8: Key Training Components

4. Improve consistency with streamlined case closing summary

During process mapping, we identified the time and risks associated with interpreting closing summaries, which
varied in content, structure and quality. The variation impacts research which is done by intake workers to gather
additional information which is required from assessments and cases that have been closed when accepting and
documenting new reports. A lack of critical information in the closing summary hinders the ability for intake workers
to make informed decisions for new reports and avoid potential risks and harm to the child or children involved.
Currently, searching and reading through lengthy case documentation and summaries to identify needed
information adds up to an hour per day. Outside of intake, caseworkers face similar challenges when reviewing
assessments and case histories.

We recommend that OCFS convene a group of intake, assessment and permanency workers to validate the below
table and discuss key information that be required in the closing summary to streamline the process and make it
more efficient for back-end users. At a minimum, we believe the summary should include:

# Template Requirement
1 Why OCFS got involved including the allegations. Short and concise but including all valid information.
The findings and a summary of information supporting the decision (e.g., unsubstantiated because Mom took
immediate protective action, had boyfriend removed from the home and has a protection order to ensure no
2
further contact vs. unsubstantiated because family refused to cooperate with investigation or only
unsubstantiated).
Who the participants are including first name, last name, relationship and DOB (if learned through investigation)
3
to ensure intake knows whether the new report has all the same players or new ones.
4 Closing recommendations.

Table 6: Key Components of a Closing Summary

Once the requirements are identified, OCFS should design a clear model for writing the closing summaries that
all workers are then subsequently trained to follow when closing a case. This will not only help easily identify why
the assessment or case was closed, but also more quickly and better inform the decision regarding a new report.
Overall, this will both create efficiencies in the intake process allowing intake workers to focus more time
on fielding incoming reports as well as save time at the district level where some workers are spending a
lot of time making very lengthy closing summaries that aren’t needed for intake.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 22
5. Further build infrastructure to have staff-led input on practice and
policy changes and implementation efforts
Engagement of the workforce in solutions that impact their day to day work is essential to service delivery and
meeting outcomes. Research strongly suggests that leaders who engage the workforce in multiple ways improve
trust, decrease stress, and increase retention. 1

The workforce’s input in creating the vision of the organization and the strategies to achieve it will forward their
commitment and buy-in to change. Since staff have a direct line
of access to what the work entails it is important that they play a
direct role in impacting practice and policy decisions and In addition, workers who experience a
implementation efforts. Staff across all levels and districts have culture with authentic engagement and
an opportunity to bring unique perspectives to the table based recognition, will demonstrate those same
on their roles, locations and experience. To have an engaged traits when working with clients.
workforce, staff need to feel that they understand and are a
part of creating the vision of the agency. It was consistently noted in Listening Sessions that staff want
to be more involved in decisions on practice changes and roll-out of those changes.

To continue and, more importantly formalize the involvement of staff in key processes, OCFS should further build
the infrastructure to support engaging staff in making practice and policy changes, and their implementation
efforts. This environment will promote knowledge sharing between leadership and staff and allow staff to be heard
and make an impact to their work. In the end, the agency will be more transparent, and a greater level of trust will
be built amongst all staff levels. When staff are involved in the process, they serve as a liaison between leadership
and other staff. This allows them to bring collective thoughts from staff to leadership, while also being able to relay
messages to and increase excitement among peers. Having active change agents and supporters of decisions
being made within the agency will increase the success of implementation and promote consistent practice in the
work being done.

Examples of ways to involve staff in practice and policy changes, and implementation efforts:
• Commit to continue the Collaborative long-term and expand membership as needed: The
Collaborative, or something like it, is created to provide a focused, consistent, and empowered cohort of
agency staff to look at data, ask difficult questions, research promising practices, and engage in the
development and implementation of recommendations to improve agency practices, performance, and
outcomes. The objective of the group is to validate potential changes with agency staff, ensure strong
communication around change, and to closely manage the implementation process for any
recommendation on which the agency wishes to move forward.
• Involve staff in meetings discussing potential policy and practice changes: it is advantageous to
have front line workers who are impacted by practice and policy changes in meetings alongside leadership
where it is being discussed, to best leverage staff expertise to influence the process when considering
these changes. Another jurisdiction we worked with created “Results Teams” that come together when
there is a change needed in practice or an issue needs to be addressed. These are teams made of staff
who come together as needed to provide input and guide direction on how changes should be
implemented and the impact they will have to process and families.
• Provide forums for staff pre- and post-implementation to see how the changes are working and
impacting the work: providing open forum sessions or surveys for staff to provide feedback will provide

1
Glisson, C., Green, P. & Williams, M.J. (2012). Assessing the organizational social context (OSC) of child welfare systems: Implications for
research and practice. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(9), 621-632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.06.002

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 23
 insight into what is working well and areas for improvements in implementing change, giving staff the
opportunity to identify changes that should be eliminated or modified as they are not as effective as
anticipated. This feedback also will help leadership to better understand what is working well for staff, so
they can utilize similar methods in future initiatives.

6. Develop a consistent, structured, and transparent way to share

updates and changes with staff
Communication and transparency from leadership and across the organization are essential in building a culture
of trust, collaboration, improved morale and more engaged staff. In his study, as noted in Dr. Paul Zak’s article
The Neuroscience of Trust, it was found that only 40% of employees report they are well informed about their
organization’s goals and (and more importantly) strategies to achieve those goals. 2 This type of uncertainty leads
to chronic stress of the workforce, undermines teamwork, and ultimately leads to turnover.

Our interviews and Listening Sessions with staff have validated that staff would like to be more informed on the
vision of OCFS and changes within the agency to allow them to better understand and align to the mission to best
perform their duties. In each of the eight Listening Sessions across Augusta, Bangor, Portland, Houlton and
Ellsworth, one of the consistent responses from staff was the need for more consistent, timely and
transparent communication, and a more clearly communicated vision for the agency.

OCFS would benefit from a more consistent and structured approach to communication about changes. By
working to improve avenues of transparency, staff will feel more connected and aligned to the vision and be better
positioned to succeed at achieving it. To build a transparent organization, it is important for leadership to
communicate frequently and in a thoughtful manner. Ensuring communication about how initiatives and strategies
within the organization are aligned with each other is critical to increasing the workforce’s knowledge into practice
changes that impact safety, permanence, and well-being.

There are multiple avenues by which OCFS leadership can share information with the workforce including:
division-wide staff meetings; electronic newsletters or update emails; key intranet messages; videos via the
agency director; and smaller team meetings. According to data from the staff survey, forty-two (42) percent of
the staff noted they would prefer to learn about (policy and practice) changes at team meetings with their
supervisor. In addition, leadership could also hold monthly roundtables that allow the workforce face-to-face time,
providing a consistent venue to ask questions about strategies, issues, or major changes impacting the work.
Regardless of the channel, OCFS should seek to answer the following questions for staff as information is
consistently communicated about changes and/or upcoming initiatives:
• What is happening?
• When is it happening?
• How does it impact staff?
• How will staff stay in the loop?
• If/when are there trainings?
• How will it change staff process?
• Where can staff go to find more resources or information?

2
https://hbr.org/2017/01/the-neuroscience-of-trust

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 24
Below is one simple example, a newsletter or info sheet that can be shared at team meetings, which should take
minimal effort to prepare, uses a simple design,
and provides high-level and concise information.
This can be done while informing staff how a
policy change will impact them, where they can
find additional details, and how they can have
their questions addressed. Information provided
through a newsletter, on the intranet, or another
communication channel should be visually
appealing and stored so that staff have archival
access. Staff will be able to stay informed on
updates, policy or practice changes, training, best
practices and office happenings. Being informed
and feeling more connected to leadership through
communication will improve staff satisfaction and
ultimately increase productivity and quality of
work.

Figure 9: Sample Newsletter/Info Sheet

7. Consistently prioritize geographic case assignment

Given the geographic distance that needs to be covered by OCFS staff across districts, we recognize it is
challenging to eliminate the entirety of travel time required by caseworkers to complete visits and other aspects
of their work. Maine is a large and rural state that often requires miles of travel in between destinations. This fact
often causes caseworkers to spend more time on travel which impedes the amount of time they can allocate to
actual visits and documentation.

Data from the 2016 random moment time study (RMTS) was used to measure the amount of time caseworkers
spend in the average week engaged in travel. As shown in the table below, it is evident that Districts 4, 6 and 8
experience a higher percentage of travel time per 40-hour week than other districts. This travel time includes time
to travel to court hearings, judicial reviews, and court related meetings, including time to visit with children and
families; most of the time is derived from travel to meet with children and families.

Weekly Avg District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8
Percentage 5.77 5.26 6.92 8.58 3.02 8.73 4.62 8.53
Time (Hours) 2.3 2.1 2.8 3.4 1.2 3.5 1.8 3.4

Table 7: Average Driving Per District

It goes without saying that travel is required to see children and families; however, to reduce the time spent on
travel, we recommend that supervisors across all districts and offices work to ensure they give high priority to
geographical considerations when assigning cases. In other jurisdictions where we have seen similar struggles
(in at least one office in North Carolina caseworkers routinely spent close to 20% of their time a week driving to
visit with children and families, or court), reductions were seen when geography was made a (higher) priority in
case assignment. Assigning cases that are closer to a caseworkers’ home area or other pre-assigned cases will
decrease the distance between destinations. We acknowledge that this is currently being taken into consideration
by some offices and supervisors when assigning cases and is well received by staff where that is the case. It does
not seem to be the same practice for every case, office and supervisor. Thoughtful consideration of travel
requirements when assigning cases will allow caseworkers to reinvest hours of travel time into meaningful visits
with children and families and the proper amount of time needed to complete documentation accurately, which in

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 25
turn will help others during a review or transfer of a case. This will also increase employee job satisfaction and
reduce the staff burnout.

8. Designate additional notaries in each office

Through interviews and process mapping with staff across positions and districts, we noted delays associated
with waiting on notaries in offices. Based on the data and our understanding of roles within OCFS, not all offices
have an adequate number of “office-bound” staff, or those who are in the office regularly, to serve as notaries. For
example, the District 6 Bangor office has five designated notaries across the roles of PA, APA, supervisor and
caseworker, all of which may be required to travel outside of the office, be pulled into meetings, or need to address
emergencies making them less available to staff. District 7, Machias office, only has one designated notary in the
role of LTC specialist; this does not provide adequate coverage for times this staff member is out of the office or
unavailable. Due to other workload priorities or being in the field themselves, many of the individuals designated
as notaries are not always readily available when needed. Given the requirement to have documents notarized
for the Court, caseworkers are often left to either travel to another destination with an available notary or
experience a waiting period until a notary is available. Staff estimate that the process to notarize a document
could take between one and eight hours depending on wait time and travel time required, as shown below.
While this is not a work stoppage, this wait time delays the overall process and prevents caseworkers from moving
work more quickly toward completion.

Figure 10: Notary Process Map

We recommend that OCFS identify at least one additional staff in each office who travels infrequently and whose
office presence is consistent to serve as an additional notary in every office. OCFS will incur a small application
and renewal fee of $50 for each notary plus required supplies and will need to permit the notary applicant the
appropriate time to complete the certification process. This will ensure that designated notaries are available in
every office and that there will be proper coverage of that responsibility, thereby enhancing caseworkers’ access
to a notary and eliminating the wait and travel time, which in turn will allow caseworkers to focus on tasks more in
line with the child’s best interest.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 26
9. Provide policy clarification and training around criminal background
checks
We performed case reviews as a part of this assessment; these reviews revealed an opportunity for leadership to
clarify policy documentation requirements around background checks as a part of kinship assessments. Even in
kinship assessments, criminal background checks should be a priority. Children should never be placed prior to
the completion of a thorough and complete background check. This is a policy requirement (V.D-7).

“If it is determined that a child is in Immediate Risk of Serious Harm, the assessment supervisor notifies the placement
supervisor of the intent to file a request for a Preliminary Protection Order and gives the placement supervisor the current
relative information, to allow the caseworker to begin exploring this possible placement. Potential relative resources must
be explored and ruled out as a possibility before looking at other placement resources, including family foster home
placements. If placement with relatives is ruled out as a possibility, then there must be sound rationale for this decision.

The newly assigned caseworker makes initial contacts with the relative resources and identified fictive kin and does an
initial assessment and background check of the potential resources. The caseworker begins by having a one-on-one
conversation with the potential resource, to gather names, address, dates of birth, and social security numbers. This
information is used to check Child Protective history, Bureau of Motor Vehicles history, request a State Bureau of
Investigation report, and to call local police and sheriff’s departments to assess the background of the potential resource.

The documentation will be entered into the MACWIS narrative.”

Currently, OCFS already has a system of obtaining criminal background checks through electronic methods at
locations throughout the state in place, but it is imperative that caseworkers make the referral and see it through
to completion. At the time a kinship assessment is performed, the criminal background check should be performed,
and the results made a part of the file. This should be done when a kinship placement is being considered as an
appropriate placement, whether or not it is ultimately authorized or not. It happens such that a kinship assessment
may be performed months in advance of when placement of the children ultimately occurs. Having a completed
assessment, inclusive of background check, streamlines the kinship placement process if it is ultimately needed.
Making sure that the criminal background check is done whenever the kinship assessment is performed lets the
family know that the agency is ultimately concerned about the child and the child’s safety.

OCFS should work to clarify, train staff — as needed — to assure caseworkers are following policy without
exception.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 27
Implementation Considerations
We recognize that implementing all nine (9) “Quick Wins” may, in fact, mean that implementation is no longer
“quick” and have provided the below matrix for consideration in prioritization. The above recommendations we
detailed are categorized according to impact on staff workload and amount of effort required to implement.

is delineated in a separate color to indicate that it should be measured against client experience, on the
same scale of low to high, instead of impact on staff workload.

Figure 11: Implementation Matrix

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 28
Technology Gaps and Opportunities

Overview
The Technology Gap and Opportunity Analysis detailed herein will provide OCFS with:
• The approach to conducting the analysis
• Recommendations to address technology gaps identified in the analysis
• Additional information and opportunities for Maine Automated Child Welfare Information System
(MACWIS) replacement

In addition, there are legislative and regulatory changes underway that are impacting the technology used by child
welfare agencies nationally, including Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) compliance
and the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA), the latter of which will impact how services will be provided,
paid for, and tracked through the CCWIS system. Consideration of these implications in providing
recommendations for meeting the future needs of the agency is necessary to secure federal funding and to
establish a framework for meeting the new requirements related to prevention services and congregate care.

It is also worth noting there are significant strengths within the current technological infrastructure and direction of
the agency that should be noted. They are described below.

MACWIS replacement. OCFS is quickly moving down the path of replacing MACWIS with a federally certified
CCWIS system. This will give the state the opportunity to reimagine how technology can support child welfare
practice and operations in a way that can positively impact the organization. It is desired that through the design
and implementation of interoperable systems, across the spectrum of child welfare stakeholder and contributing
organizations, the business value will be realized through process efficiencies, improved data quality, increased
employee satisfaction (and therefore, reduction of turnover), and ultimately improved outcomes for children.

Phone system replacement. OCFS is currently in the process of procuring a new and improved phone
management system for use in intake. The goal is to have this new phone system up and running by April 2019.
This agency is, appropriately, procuring a robust call management system that will help more actively manage
calls and provide comprehensive statistics and monitoring. The system should provide the technological
framework to help support a reduction in the call drop rate.

Support systems and technologies. The agency has made strides over the years to provide caseworkers with
systems and technology that aim to provide efficiencies and improve processes. This includes laptop computers
for use in the field, cell phones (and smartphones for staff who go into the field), tablets (however ineffective
that proved), and dictation software.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 29
Approach
To identify technology gaps, PCG first met with staff within the various business functions of OCFS to gain an
understanding of their business needs and the technology-related issues that impact their ability to provide the
best service to children, families, and other agency stakeholders. Other data sources were used to inform the
content of this document, including:
• Interviews with OCFS leadership and staff
• Listening sessions with field office staff from across the state
• In-person observation of day to day processes
• Review of policy and other relevant documentation
• Mapping of key processes with OCFS staff
• Data gathered from focus groups, observations, and information shared by OCFS

The key activities for conducting the analysis are as follows:

Identify Current
Solicit Feedback Review Best Recommend Document
Uses of
from Users Practices Solutions Findings
Technology

• Meet with staff • Conduct listening • Draw on • Provide • Document output of

• Conduct sessions to experience recommendations analysis
interviews and gather feedback working with other to address gaps, • Document
observations of on technology states based on feedback feedback and
current practices needs • Review national and best practices challenges
• Review policy and • Analyze and map best practices, as • Acknowledge • Document
documentation current business well as current OCFS efforts to recommendations
processes, CWS technology address gaps and
• Document
including uses of landscape, suggest current
additional
technology including practices that can
opportunities based
challenges and be expanded
on current OCFS
opportunities
activities

Table 8: Technology Gap and Opportunity Analysis Activities

This analysis focused mainly on the systems used by OCFS CWS staff daily. The most prominent of these is
MACWIS, the case management system used by OCFS to maintain electronic records of all Child Protective
Services activities for the children and families it services and support the programmatic activities of the child
welfare system. Concerns voiced by staff largely revolved around the need to access multiple systems to gather
or generate information to populate MACWIS and the actual hardware components provided to staff to complete
their work, both in the office and in the field. Another system of focus in this analysis is the phone system used by
the intake hotline staff.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 30
Recommendations
This memo includes recommendations on how OCFS can integrate the anticipated new call center solution into
its current operations, rather than ways to improve the current system.

# Recommendations
10 Make minor changes to MACWIS to increase efficiency

11 Work with OIT to ensure efficient operation of hardware and software, and flexibility to support future solutions

12 Provide staff with updated transcription options

13 Implement a mobile “front end” that connects to MACWIS

14 Move toward use of an electronic document management solution

15 Ensure successful procurement and implementation of new call center system

16 Explore ability to utilize electronic signatures for clients and courts

17 Create an internal dashboard, with potential for external release in the future

18 Undertake key steps to successfully procure and implement a MACWIS replacement

Table 9: Technology Recommendations

10. Make minor changes to MACWIS to increase efficiency

OCFS is in the process of seeking a replacement for MACWIS; that process is addressed elsewhere in this
document. However, our extensive experience has shown that the procurement and implementation process for
a new CCWIS-compliant system can take several years. During that time, OCFS staff will still be reliant on
MACWIS. Discussions with OCFS clarified that while MACWIS can be updated as frequently as once per month,
making changes to the system can be expensive. Even seemingly minor changes can cost thousands of dollars
to implement and can vary greatly based on the nature of the change. While costs are not budgeted by individual
change, there is an annual project budget that includes these adjustments. Despite the potential costs in terms of
time and funding, PCG has identified five smaller-scale activities that OCFS can undertake to both improve
efficiency for users in the short-term while helping prepare for the implementation of a potential MACWIS
replacement.

Process mapping demonstrated several instances where information that was captured outside of MACWIS, either
over the phone or in person, was then entered into MACWIS separately. Figure 12, below, illustrates a component
of the intake process, where a caseworker gathers information from a caller to the hotline and enters the report.
This process requires caseworkers to enter duplicative data into multiple sources, including Microsoft Word
templates and MACWIS.

Figure 12: Component of Intake Process –

Collecting Information and Entering it into
MACWIS Requires Double-entry of Data

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 31
While these calls generally average about 8-9 minutes, based on data from OCFS, they can range up to 20-30
minutes for a detailed report or a complex situation. The caseworker may need to complete multiple Microsoft
Word templates depending on the situation (e.g., the call involves two separate families or cases, requiring
multiple reports to be completed). Once the information has been collected and the call has been ended, the
caseworker must then go back and copy or retype the information into the proper windows in MACWIS. Based on
PCG’s observations and discussions with caseworkers, this can take up to another 15 minutes to complete. The
need to capture information and then reorganize it for entry in another system means that even caseworkers who
can “type and talk” as they take calls will need a significant amount of “wrap up” time, resulting in fewer calls that
can be answered.

As part of the intake process, caseworkers also need to access several systems in screening allegations, outside
of MACWIS, to gather or verify information about a family. The OCFS Policy Guide states that, “additional sources
of information include the following: (1) previous MACWIS reports or entries, and (2) information relevant to
complete the report decision from related databases such as ACES, BMV (Bureau of Motor Vehicles), SBI
(criminal history), and SOR (sex offender registry),” meaning that at least 4 separate systems, not linked to
MACWIS, may need to be reviewed prior to making a screening decision. The Structured Decision-Making tool
(SDM) must also be completed. While that does not take a long time, since the information required is already
being collected via the template in most cases, the result does need to be documented separately in MACWIS.

With the above practice considerations in mind, some potential solutions to improve efficiency include the
following:
• Determine whether it is most efficient to move intake templates into MACWIS – it is not clear at this
time whether Word templates are being used because it is not possible to create these templates in
MACWIS, or because staff prefer to use Word instead of MACWIS. As part of the larger business process
review, PCG is recommending that OCFS explore entering data directly into MACWIS rather than Word
templates. Creating templates in MACWIS that mirror the Microsoft Word templates currently in use would
allow intake caseworkers to enter information directly into MACWIS as they receive it. Based on
observation alone, entering data directly into MACWIS and forgoing the Word templates could save
caseworkers, conservatively, 5-10 minutes per call.
• Create templates that mirror the current MACWIS data entry flow more closely – if Word templates
are retained, or there are significant time or financial barriers to direct-entry into MACWIS, OCFS should
redevelop the templates currently in use into something that follows the current MACWIS data entry flow
more closely. Redeveloping the templates will not provide as much time savings as direct entry to
MACWIS, since data will still need to be re-entered, but it will make that data entry quicker, more accurate
and — most importantly — ensure critical pieces of the intake interview are not missed. More detail can
be found in Recommendation 27.
• Determine where other duplications of entry take place – our initial analysis did not allow for a full
review of all the areas or steps where information must be entered into MACWIS multiple times or entered
in one or more systems in addition to MACWIS. It is worth noting that the generic issue of duplicate entry
was raised more than a dozen times in the listening sessions that PCG conducted with OCFS caseworkers
and supervisors, and our observations of staff indicate that this is a more widespread issue. As we move
further into this engagement, OCFS could benefit from a more complete identification of where the issue
of duplication occurs to determine if there could be additional potential improvements to MACWIS.
• Explore other ways to enhance MACWIS while preparing for implementation of the replacement –
dovetailing on the in-depth review of system entry proposed above, there are short-term activities that
OCFS can pursue that would both improve the user experience with the current system while also helping
to prepare for the implementation of the new system, expected to be procured soon. Some of these
activities include:

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 32
 o Review and update data standards and data governance program – data quality is a significant
component of the new CCWIS regulations. OCFS does not need to wait until a new solution has
been procured to create a team to clarify and update data standards and data governance plans
to prepare for the MACWIS replacement. Clear data standards and data governance can also
benefit users of the current system to ensure that the proper data is being collected and that data
quality standards are high.
o Create a governance team to manage changes – any short-term changes to MACWIS should be
made within the context of its impending replacement. A governance team can include a change
management team as well and should make decisions around things that need to be updated in
MACWIS from a functionality standpoint and have oversight over the work being done to prepare
for the implementation of the replacement system. The data governance team can report into this
group but will likely end up being part of the larger steering committee for the implementation
project. The governance team plays a key role in ensuring that the decisions about the current
system and its replacement are not siloed.
o Evaluate ability to leverage solutions already in use by the state – other Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS) agencies, such as the Office for Family Independence (OFI), have
document management systems and are able to utilize scanned documents and reduce reliance
on paper and manual filing. Expanding the use of this system to include OCFS could have a
significant impact on staff efficiency at a lower cost than the procurement of a separate, OCFS-
focused system, addressing such issues as the discovery process (printing) identified in the Quick
Wins memo. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and Center for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS) have encouraged states to leverage technology investments across
agencies and programs, and OCFS should work with the Office of Information Technology (OIT)
to determine whether there are other enterprise systems or assets that could support the work of
the CWS. Examples of other assets could include a master provider index, a master client index,
web services, and financial and/or provider management tools.

11. Work with OIT to ensure efficient operation of hardware and

software, and flexibility to support future solutions
OCFS staff are issued hardware that meets the minimum standards necessary to run the software that is required
to complete their duties, but many staff report that their computers and other hardware are unreliable. There
is concern that hardware failures and software crashes, which are reported to happen frequently, are related, and
result in lost work or duplication of effort. In instances where data is lost, this can compromise the safety and well-
being of the children being served and put the agency at risk.

Information Technology hardware for OCFS staff is obtained through an arrangement with the state’s Office of
Information Technology (OIT). OIT’s policy is to ensure that this hardware meets the minimum standards for the
software being used. Technical specifications for laptops currently being provided by OIT call for, at a minimum,
an Intel Core i5 processor and 4GB of RAM. 3 This exceeds the minimum requirements for Windows 10 and
Microsoft Office, and, for now, is likely to meet the minimum requirements of many CCWIS solutions. It is possible
that there are staff using laptops with a less robust configuration, because OIT is also required to conform to a
legislative mandate requiring the desktop/laptop fleet be utilized to an average lifecycle of 60 months, or 5 years.4

3
https://www.maine.gov/oit/services/catalog/client-tech/workstations.html
4
Ibid

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 33
It should be noted that OIT does not employ a 5-year replacement schedule, but rather expects that equipment
will last a minimum of 5 years. Equipment that fails during that time period will be evaluated and may be replaced,
likely with used hardware. Best practices generally call for hardware replacement policies ranging between
3 and 4 years, with some practices calling for a replacement in as few as 2 years.5,6

Simply meeting the minimum requirements may not result in optimal performance. While not required, upgraded
hardware will likely result in improved performance for any software application. OCFS should work with OIT to
make exceptions to the current 5-year expected lifecycle of equipment (and look at shortening that
schedule, long-term) for any hardware older than 3 years that exhibits chronic issues that lead to
duplication of effort or lost work, such as software crashes. This will ensure that staff who rely on laptops
and other hardware to capture information in the field are not using components near the very end of their
projected lifespan.

Furthermore, work should begin now to determine what changes may need to be made to the hardware
currently in use to support planned upgrades, including the intake call center (which may require tablets for
supervisors) and the MACWIS replacement system, which may have higher minimum requirements than the
current system. Outfitting all caseworkers with upgraded equipment will take time and training. Planning for those
changes should begin as soon as requirements for these new systems have been identified.

12. Provide staff with updated transcription options

OCFS staff who work in the field capture a tremendous amount of information day-to-day, and certainly on a
weekly basis. A single case may involve interviews with multiple parents, children, and other involved parties,
often on a tight timeline. Even follow up visits must be documented clearly and completely. Caseworkers that
indicated that there are two ways that they handle documenting their contacts:
1. Some record interviews and go back and transcribe them later
2. Others bring their laptops and try to type while conducting the interview

Those who transcribe later spend a considerable amount of time on the combination of the interview (which may
take an hour or more) and subsequent transcription (although transcription time varies based on typing speed). If
transcription isn’t done almost immediately, a mental refresher is often needed. Those who type as they go
indicated they feel as though they are not fully present for the interview itself. OCFS has provided staff with Dragon
speech recognition software. Most of those with whom we spoke found it to be inaccurate, not much of a timesaver
once the need to go back and address mistakes was factored in, and therefore not useful.

Even more importantly, however, there are also other ways that the need for staff to transcribe can be minimized
or eliminated. The below table details just a sampling of products that are currently on the market.

Option Example Places Used Description

Front-end mobile Diona Arizona, New Some mobile front-end solutions include speech to text
solution York City, functions that fully record the audio and provide text files that
Minnesota, are integrated with the case record. This type of solution could
North Carolina provide nearly instant transcriptions of interviews as well as
counties digital recordings made using a phone or tablet.
Call center focused CallMiner’s TBD This kind of software creates a written transcript of calls which
speech-to-text Eureka shortens call aggregate time and reduces the amount of after-

5
https://www.cio.com/article/2928183/desktop-hardware/what-is-its-strategy-for-replacing-laptops.html
6
https://i.crn.com/sites/default/files/ckfinderimages/userfiles/images/crn/custom/INTELBCCSITENEW/WhitePaper_EnterpriseRefresh.pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 34
 Option Example Places Used Description
call work for caseworkers to perform. There are several other
advanced capabilities that this or a similar system can bring to
OCFS, allowing supervisors to more easily monitor the
performance of intake staff while also allowing the agency to
gather information about client interactions that may not come
through in case narratives.
Transcription service Speakwrite North Carolina With a transcription service, caseworkers can dictate notes or
counties, record an interview via a phone app or a dictation hotline.
Oregon, Texas Within a few hours, the information captured is transcribed into
a document and returned.

Table 10: Transcription Options

Regardless of what OCFS chooses, transcription technology has improved significantly in recent years. Therefore,
we recommend that OCFS reevaluate the transcription products available on the market, test one or more
of them with a small group of staff and determine whether the current breed of transcription software is more
accurate or better suited for this application than the Dragon software. In addition to reducing time in transcribing,
all the system examples above, and others like them, also serve as excellent tools in training new workers,
significantly reducing the ramp-up time.

13. Implement a mobile “front end” that connects to MACWIS

The geography of Maine makes reliance on mobile technology difficult in some places and nearly impossible in
others. Staff from more remote parts of the state reported that neither cell service nor wireless internet is available
(a fact confirmed by coverage maps from all major cell service providers). A prior attempt by the state to outfit
staff in those regions with satellite phones was unsuccessful. There have been previous attempts to allow staff to
access MACWIS remotely, but the bandwidth required to run that system is such that a very strong Wi-Fi signal
would be required, something that is not generated by mobile hotspot technology. Therefore, caseworkers must
gather information manually and return to the office to enter their documentation into the system, thus removing
the option of caseworkers to enter information into the system as it is gathered. Time delays associated with
this process impact data quality and timeliness, caseloads, and general worker satisfaction.

Several software providers have developed mobile systems of engagement that interface with older legacy
systems, such as MACWIS. These solutions are platform agnostic, eliminating compatibility concerns. They
provide an upgraded user experience without the need to replace the entire existing system and can be utilized
on tablets, reducing the need for staff to bring laptops into the field. These products can also be used offline,
allowing caseworkers to collect data on site and then transmit
information back to the central system once connected to the internet
A “front-end” mobile solution can
again. This is ideal for areas with limited cellular connections. One
serve as a bridge between
product with which PCG has experience during client work, Diona, allows
MACWIS and a potential
for offline data entry, as well as for the integration of assessment tools
replacement system.
such as SDM, reducing the need to access multiple systems. This
system, and some others available in the marketplace, have invested
significantly in research and development with the child welfare community and have caseworkers on staff who
have helped develop products, taking into account the field and client perspectives. Mobility tools often have an
immediate impact on improving data quality, as data is entered timelier and at the point of origination.

Following the lead of other states including Arizona and Virginia, OCFS could adopt one of these systems
to build a bridge between MACWIS and a potential replacement system. The benefits of adopting one of
these systems include:

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 35
 • A more straight-forward, mobile-tailored user interface
• The ability to pre-populate information from the legacy system when appropriate
• The ability to operate in the field without a connection to the internet, so that workers don’t need to wait
until they return to the office to re-enter information

As noted above in Recommendation 12, some mobile solutions also include a speech to text function, which
would further reduce the need for caseworkers to spend time on data entry after an interview or home visit. More
time in the field is more quality time supporting children and families, while reducing the administrative burden on
the caseworkers. Commercial-off-the-shelf mobile solutions can be implemented as quickly as four months,
making this a quicker win for many agencies who are looking to address issues in the field, and gain staff buy-in
for future change.

Whichever solution that OCFS considers, it should serve as a bridge between the current and replacement
systems. That is, it must be scalable and adaptable to the MACWIS replacement so that staff can have a
seamless transition to the new solution. Minimizing impacts of change will improve acceptance and
sustainability of the new technologies. In addition, this is a great time to initiate an organizational change
management practice and nurture champions across the agency. These “champions of change” can help the
agency to capitalize on this quick win, and the expected improvements in the user experience, and to help staff
see the benefits of the longer, larger-scale change that will be necessary to implement a MACWIS replacement
system.

14. Move toward use of an electronic document management solution

OCFS is heavily reliant on paper documents. In some offices, there is little in the
way of a physical document management system, leading to boxes placed
wherever there is space and making it difficult and time consuming to track down
paper files when needed. In addition, files may be transferred between
caseworkers multiple times, leading to the potential for lost or damaged records
each time a physical file changes hands. Some offices have worked to address
these concerns by creating transfer packets, physical file folders that contain
hard copies of all the most important documents; however, this only adds to the
amount of paper in circulation. The intense paper-based environment presents
data security concerns and increases risk to the agency, including:
• Presenting a tripping hazard in some locations
• Having files unsecured and potentially unaccounted
• Possibly provoking Federally-applied penalties
Figure 13: Example of Case File • Compromising organizational credibility and reputation
Storage in a Local Office

When all data resides in a secured database, it is within the control of the
organization to manage it. When paper documents are spread across the offices, cars, and homes of caseworkers,
the probability of that data being compromised increases significantly. With proper architecture and management,
electronic data storage is far more secure than paper; in general, it is less costly as well. 7

7
https://www.datastorageinc.com/blog/paper-records-vs.-electronic-records-the-great-debate

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 36
Therefore, we recommend OCFS undertake the following series of steps to eliminate or greatly reduce the
use of paper where possible.

Document Management Strategy

Short-Term: Better organize current paper documentation and do a complete

inventory of what needs to be kept to meet record retention requirements

Medium-Term: Explore utilizing an existing solution known to the state that may or
may not interface directly with MACWIS

Long-Term: Ensure that the MACWIS replacement includes a document

management solution or can be integrated seamlessly with a solution purchased in the
medium-term recommendation

Figure 14: Document Management Plan (By Phase)

More specifically, in the short-term, OCFS should dedicate some staff time to organizing the current paper file
system. At a minimum, this should include designating a central location for shared files in each office and ensuring
that a consistent filing system is established and implemented, taking into account all relevant record retention
requirements. This will reduce the time spent searching for paper files, ensure record retention requirements are
being met, and communicate to staff that the matter is being addressed. Following industry standard best practices
and security guidelines, paper files should be in a secure location with managed access to the files.

In the medium-term, OCFS should explore any opportunities to leverage document management systems that
may already be in use in other state agencies. In addition to reducing costs and implementation time, this would
allow access to a group of established peer users of the system who can assist with training and implementation.
This solution need not interface directly with MACWIS but should be flexible enough to connect with the MACWIS
replacement system, if needed. In addition, moving from medium-term to long-term, OCFS should explore
additional opportunities for document management including continued off-site storage combined with on-demand
scanning or back-scanning of materials with a long or infinite retention schedule.

The long-term solution is integrating a document management solution into the MACWIS replacement system.
This system could be a component of the new system, or an additional system that is paired with the MACWIS
replacement (potentially carried over from the
medium-term solution). The best solution for OCFS
could include a combination of methods; several Barcoding documents, as part of a document
counties in North Carolina have moved away from management solution, can help streamline document
paper altogether through a combination of scanning scanning and indexing, removing the need for this
and off-site storage, allowing them to retrieve scans of work to be done manually.
off-site files while having forms built into a case
management system and/or imaging all new files that come in. Addressing document management needs in
tandem with the MACWIS replacement will ensure that document management is integrated into the planning
process for the new system as closely as possible.

The benefits of a well-integrated document management system include quicker and easier case tracking, fewer
requests for clients to supply information, enhanced data security and quality, and the ability to more easily transfer

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 37
cases (and manage workloads) across offices and business units. As OCFS moves along the continuum of
document strategy options, the agency should look for ways to reduce the reliance on paper and the manual
completion and delivery of documents at every step along the way, to most fully take advantage of the benefits of
improved document management.

15. Ensure successful procurement and implementation of new call

center system
Operating a dedicated centralized telephone intake hotline for child welfare intake reporting is considered a best
practice, one utilized by many states including Texas, New Jersey, Virginia, many counties across North Carolina,
and Colorado. In a study presented by Casey Family Programs, nearly all the states with centralized
hotlines reported that consistency, accuracy, and efficiency were key benefits to the centralization of their
process. Centralized hotline systems also give caseworkers the ability to dedicate more of their time to the quality
of the work and being available to serve clients in the field. 8

OCFS is currently operating a centralized intake hotline, but the phone system in use dates back several decades
and does not allow for tracking the information needed to effectively manage a call center setting, which is
essentially what the centralized intake hotline is. The current phone system, which has been tabbed for
replacement, has very little in the way of call center management functionality. Supervisors are not able to track
much more than the amount of time staff are on the phone and the wait time of the caller. OCFS has begun the
process to procure a fully-integrated call center technology system to better manage the intake hotline. This
system is expected to help the department dramatically increase the number of calls that are answered and reduce
dropped and abandoned calls as well as voicemail messages that require multiple calls to resolve.

The proposed replacement for the current intake hotline phone system is expected to include many more features
of a traditional call center, allowing supervisors greater ability to understand and manage staff time and activities
in real-time, rather than relying on reporting after the fact. In addition, enhanced call tracking ability will help OCFS
to understand the true nature of abandoned calls. In some cases, it may be that repeat callers simply hang up
and redial when they do not reach a live person but end up being counted as abandoned calls. Improved tracking
within a replacement system will help pinpoint where additional staff resources should be placed to meet
the goals for answering incoming calls.

While OCFS has set an ambitious target of about 4 months to stand up the new system from the time of
procurement, PCG’s experience indicates that this is feasible if staff training is completed and any business
process changes have been developed and are ready for implementation. There are some things that OCFS
should consider during the procurement and implementation process to ensure that implementation is as effective
as possible:

Provide change management activities to prepare staff – the addition of new call center tools can change
the nature of the job responsibilities and expectations for current intake hotline staff. Staff view themselves as
caseworkers and may feel that they have been shifted to a call center-type position depending on how
vigorously these new call center features are employed. Other CWS staff are subject to the same kind of data-
driven, over-the-shoulder supervision, so it is important to communicate that the implementation of this new
system is tied to the need to live-answer more calls and reduce the overall risk to children. Intake staff will
need to embrace their unique role within OCFS as the front door for child welfare concerns from the

8
Casey Family Programs. “What are the elements of an effective hotline system?”, https://caseyfamilypro-wpengine.netdna-
ssl.com/media/SC_Elements-of-an-effective-hotline-system_12.21.17_cm.pdf.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 38
 community; managers and supervisors can use the data that will be available to them to challenge staff and
drive a new focus on the reduction of “lost” calls. The emphasis must be on getting to as many reports as
possible, in a way that promotes efficient use of staff time and a thorough approach to gathering necessary
information, because an unanswered call is a potential child in danger who is not being helped. During and
prior to the implementation process, OCFS leadership should look to include the following activities in the
implementation planning process:
• Identify current strengths and gaps that may impact the organization’s readiness and capacity to
implement change. This includes scanning for risks that may endanger a successful launch, such as
lack of trust between staff and leadership, operational capacity, and unclear messaging.
• Steer change by communicating the vision both inside and outside the organization; setting
expectations, such as a reduced rate of dropped or missed calls; generating buy-in; empowering
employees to make decisions, take ownership, and do their best work; providing training, support and
coaching to staff before, during and after the change; responding to challenges and resistance in a
constructive way; and enabling staff to “stumble forward,” embracing mistakes and learning from
them.
• Communicate change by developing a strategy for how, when, and to whom information should be
communicated. The newsletter proposed in the Quick Wins memo is one option for communication
across the agency, but OCFS should consider a more
targeted form of communication for the team implementing
the call center system.
• Accomplish quick wins and celebrate successes early and
often to generate buy-in and enthusiasm while showcasing
tangible results.
• Take an iterative, phased approach, whenever possible.
Ideally, change should be released in manageable, bite-
size pieces, then field-tested, monitored, and refined using
the Plan-Do-Check-Act model (Figure 15). Staff and
management must remain flexible throughout the process.
Call center features that work in other environments may
not provide the desired results in this application, and an
iterative approach will help OCFS adjust as needed if that is Figure 15: Plan-Do-Check-Act Model

the case.
• Document procedures to remove ambiguity and encourage consistent communications and
operations. Standard operating procedures should include clearly defined roles and responsibilities,
easy to follow checklists and tools, a transparent process for updates and improvements to the
procedures, and risks and mitigation steps that can increase the likelihood of success.

Ensure comprehensive training on and utilization of new features – similarly, it is important that there be
a significant amount of training and that it be ongoing. OCFS should consider employing coaching techniques,
which can help staff take ownership of their work, steer their development and be part of the change process.
Both staff and supervisors will need to be comfortable with the new system well before it goes live. Training
must continue over the first several months of implementation, at least. With implementation planned for the
Spring of 2019, communication about the new system (including features, design-looks, timeframes,
and opportunities for input) should begin as soon as a new vendor and system has been identified.
Training should not just focus on the “what” but also the “why” – that is, the ways that these new features can
help intake hotline staff do their jobs better and provide a higher level of service to children and families.
Connecting the new features to expected outcomes will help improve adoption of these features by staff.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 39
 Fully capture and understand baseline data – the first several months of the new system should be devoted
to fleshing out a complete picture of the number, frequency (by at least half hour), and types of calls that the
hotline receives. Measurements such as abandonment rate, calls per day per caseworker, average speed to
answer, and average call handle time should all be applied at individual and hotline-wide levels. Other data
points that could be helpful to OCFS in monitoring and adjusting staffing and workload during this period
include:
• Occupancy Rate. This rate is the percentage of time that caseworkers are performing work-related
duties. It is calculated by subtracting idle time from totaling call handing and after call work time and
dividing it by total time logged into the system. Occupancy rates are inversely proportional to service
level and high occupancy rates indicate that staff are less available to field calls, callers wait longer,
and service level declines. Low occupancy rates indicate that staff are more available to field calls,
calls are answered sooner, and service level increases.
• Staff Utilization. Utilization is a metric that compares the time a caseworker is in an active call state
(on a call, after call wrap-up or waiting for a call) versus the total time logged into the system. Higher
utilization rates are directly correlated to staff being in their seats and available to take phone calls.
• Average Handle Time (AHT). This metric consists of talk time plus after-call work (wrap-up time), and
is a factor used in determining overall workload and staffing requirements. The longer staff are on a
phone call and conducting after-call work, the less time they are available to take another call.
Average handle times vary greatly depending upon the type of call received.

While OCFS is tracking some of this information at the hotline-wide level, such as abandonment rate, average
speed to answer, and average handle time, the new system will allow for enhanced tracking of these metrics
at the individual level. Individual-level data on these metrics will help supervisors to understand where there
are performance issues and will provide them with a more complete picture of the performance of each team
member.

In addition, data should be collected on how many calls are duplicates, how many come from law enforcement,
medical professionals, or other external partners, or are transfers to casework staff, and when these calls
come in and how they are dispatched. The data can determine how to employ staffing resources and whether
there are other call center features that should be added, such as creating additional queues that callers can
select (relating to emergency status or the urgency of the call) or implementing a call-back or “hold my place”
feature, which would allow a caseworker to return the call when the caller’s place in line comes up, rather than
requiring a caller to remain on hold.

Provide consistency in reporting functionality – any new call center system that OCFS chooses will likely
have more robust reporting capabilities than the current system. To make the most of these capabilities, a
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) guide should be created that can be used by anyone to describe the
different reports and dashboards the system can produce and how OCFS defines certain measures produced
from said dashboards. This SOP document should also guide users on how to read the data properly based
on what the dashboards and reports produce. Similarly, intake hotline caseworkers should have access to
data that is relevant to their work as well so that they can measure themselves in between check-ins with their
supervisors.

16. Explore ability to utilize electronic signatures for clients and courts
As caseworkers conduct assessments, there are several points where documents must be signed by parents,
medical providers, and even judges. This often requires OCFS staff to track down the person in question and
have them sign a paper form, leading to lots of driving and time spent doing what is essentially an administrative
task. Discussions with staff around the Preliminary Protection Order (PPO) process suggest that even during

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 40
business hours, bringing a notarized petition to court for a judge’s signature could take 1-3 hours, including travel
time. This could take even longer during non-business hours. Once an on-call judge is located, the caseworker
must travel to that judge’s current location, which may be outside of his or her county or district, to complete the
process.

OCFS should explore the use of electronic signatures for clients and courts, wherever possible, to help
reduce the administrative burden on staff and allow for greater focus on client-related activities. There are
a number of software packages that facilitate the use of electronic signatures (DocuSign is one example), but
OCFS should look to incorporate electronic signatures into their existing systems if possible. E-mail encryption
reads receipts for messages that have been sent to clients, and push notifications notifying clients that a document
is ready for signature are all tools that can assist with the usability and security of an electronic signature system.

Electronic signatures are viewed as a best practice that reduce the time and effort spent gathering signatures on
releases and other documentation. In the United States, the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) of 1999
and the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN) of 2000 provides the validity and
enforceability of electronic signatures. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands
have enacted state laws validating electronic signatures, with all but 3 adopting the UETA. Illinois, New York, and
Washington have not adopted the UETA, but have similar statutes validating electronic transactions. 9 Both Acts
have four (4) basic requirements for the signature to be recognized as valid under U.S. law: 10
1. Intent – electronic signatures are only valid if each party intended to sign
2. Consent – all parties must consent (agree) to complete applicable business processes electronically
3. Association of signature with the record – the system used to capture the transaction must keep an
associated record that reflects the process by which the signature was created or generate a textual or
graphic statement (which is added to the signed record) proving that it was executed with an electronic
signature
4. Record retention – electronic signature records must be capable of retention and accurate reproduction
for reference by all parties or persons entitled to retain the contract or record

The ESIGN Act allows for the same legal status as handwritten signatures within the U.S. This means any law
with a requirement for a signature can be satisfied with an electronic signature. Further, this ACT allows
electronically executed agreements to be presented as evidence in court and prevents the denial of validity or
enforceability of an electronically signed document solely because it is in an electronic form.11

More specifically, ACF clarified its position on the use of electronic signatures when responding to a question
about the use of electronic signatures on applications for IV-D services. The Office of Child Support Enforcement
(OCSE) was asked if there is a Federal prohibition against State IV-D agencies accepting electronic signatures
on online applications for IV-D services. OCSE stated that there was no Federal prohibition against State IV-D
agencies accepting electronic signatures on applications for IV-D services; however, States must determine if this
practice is allowable under State law.12 A number of states, including Arizona, Florida, and Massachusetts, and
other jurisdictions, including Buncombe County, NC, are utilizing electronic signatures within their child welfare
business processes, for components such as family assessments and action plans. Maine has had a digital
signature act in place since 1999.13 OCFS should confirm that there are no exceptions pertaining to child welfare
information prior to moving forward. Many states have also moved to allow electronic notarization of documents,

9
UETA & ESIGN Overview. https://www.getsigneasy.com/esign-act/
10
UETA and ESIGN Requirements. https://www.docusign.com/learn/us-electronic-signature-laws-and-history
11
Guide to Electronic Signatures. https://acrobat.adobe.com/content/dam/doc-cloud/en/pdfs/adobe-sign-us-guide-e-signatures-wp-ue.pdf
12
OCSE - Policy Interpretation. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css/resource/use-of-electronic-signatures-on-applications-for-iv-d-services
13
http://legislature.maine.gov/statutes/10/title10ch1053sec0.html

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 41
with some utilizing web cameras or other technology to conduct notarizations remotely, but that would require a
change in Maine law to implement.

In addition, OCFS should ensure that any potential MACWIS replacement system, as well as any mobile
solution and document management system it decides to pursue, has electronic signature capability or
can accommodate it. A mobile solution should also include the ability to include the GPS code for a signature
location, which can help OCFS confirm when and where a visit took place.

17. Create an internal dashboard, with potential for external release in

the future
OCFS is tracking, or has the capacity to track, many different data points that can be used to help manage
workloads, identify challenges, and determine whether the agency’s work is achieving its intended outcomes.
Timelines around determining intake reports to be appropriate or inappropriate, beginning assessments within 24
or 72-hours, and completing assessment activities within 35 days, as well as analysis of the determinations made
during each of these activities, and any trends that may be forming, can be difficult to track when these data points
are presented independently from each other. Even regular updates from leadership are not always enough to
convey a clear notion of what is happening with the work of the agency, leaving managers, supervisors and their
teams to rely on outdated, or worse, anecdotal information about how, for example, policy changes are impacting
caseloads. In addition, while OCFS has worked hard to create a data-driven culture at the top levels of leadership,
this culture does not always extend to staff and line supervisors and provide the support needed to improve
practice outcomes and the casework level.

As one step to continue improving the culture around data, we recommend OCFS create a centralized,
regularly updated internal dashboard featuring the key metrics that leadership and staff can use to
determine performance trends. This will help increase transparency for staff around perceived changes in
caseload or outcomes, provide an internal progress report for OCFS staff, track historical performance and
accomplishments, and highlight problem areas that require further investigation. Publishing this data regularly will
provide a touchstone for supervisors to use when discussing issues with their teams as well as individual staff,
allowing them to compare their performance to that of their peers, as opposed to standards that can feel arbitrary
or externally imposed.

As part of this project, PCG has collected and analyzed a significant amount of data. Our team has already begun
thinking about which of these data points could be included in an internal dashboard for OCFS. OCFS could build
upon this work to develop its own dashboard system. Certainly, this feature should be included in any MACWIS
replacement solution. It is important, too, that the dashboard be easily accessible to staff. Ideally, it should be
hosted on an intranet site or other location that staff are likely to access frequently. The example in the figure
below, was developed by PCG staff when they worked for the child welfare agency in Buncombe County, NC.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 42
 Figure 4: Example of dashboard for child welfare agency in Buncombe County, NC
Figure 16: Example of Dashboard for Child Welfare Agency in Buncombe County, NC

This example reflects the kinds of high-level data points that could be included, and the simple, clear design that
a dashboard should have.

Finally, OCFS should strongly consider making the dashboard available to external partners, and possibly
even the general public, after a period of time. Several other states, including New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Florida (Figure 177, below), make child welfare dashboards available on their public-
facing websites. These dashboards feature varying levels of depth, but each can provide a snapshot of the current
state of the system. OCFS is often in the public eye in times of tragedy. Providing an external scorecard can help
convey a more positive message about the good work that goes on each day, and about the progress the agency
is making in ensuring that children in Maine are living in safe, permanent and stable environments that support
their well-being.

Figure 17: Public-facing Dashboard from the Florida Department of Children and Families

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 43
18. Undertake key steps to successfully procure and implement a
MACWIS replacement
OCFS is currently undergoing the process of replacing MACWIS with a federally certified CCWIS system. The
first step in achieving this goal is performing the due diligence of defining what is needed with a recommendation
and roadmap for the immediate path forward. The business process review (BPR) and technology gap and
opportunity analysis that PCG is conducting will support OCFS in building a business case to secure buy-in from
federal partners. Moreover, this moves the organization toward procuring a CCWIS-compliant solution to gain the
advantage of leading technology capabilities to improve data, enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the child
welfare program practices, and ultimately improve the outcomes for the children and families served by OCFS.

Preparing to both sunset a legacy system and implement a robust CCWIS system is not easy. OCFS
should consider the following prior to procuring a replacement for MACWIS:
1. Funding – any option for implementing a statewide child welfare system will require substantial state and
federal funding, which means OCFS will need to justify a budget for the project. As such, it will be
necessary to develop plans to maximize both state and federal funding opportunities when developing a
technology solution. It is PCG’s understanding that OCFS has not yet determined its budget for the
MACWIS replacement. Finalizing funding for a program is important. If the funding isn’t in place, it is not
likely the program will meet anticipated goals or be completed to the satisfaction of stakeholders. Financial
planning needs to happen not only at the state level, but also at the federal. At the state level, state
sponsors are important in supporting the effort to secure state funds for the program and working with the
budget committee to get funding approved. On the federal level, an Implementation Advance Planning
Document (IAPD) needs to be submitted to show the program is in alignment with CCWIS
recommendations and to formally request federal funding to support the program. Once the funding is
secured, Advance Planning Document (APD) updates will need to be submitted to keep the federal
stakeholders up to date in the program’s progression.
2. Business Process Redesign – in the original Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) the
Administration for Children and Families encouraged states to rethink business processes, data trading,
and the stakeholders involved in the spectrum of child welfare services. As OCFS embarks on procuring
and designing a replacement for MACWIS, we strongly recommend taking the time to evaluate the
stakeholder involvement within and outside of the agency, the methods by which the agency engages
with children and families, and the processes currently in place. Building a newer version of what already
exists will not allow OCFS to reap the benefits of modern technology solutions to improve the organization.
Understanding the art of the possible can enhance the caseworker experience and provide a fresh
perspective on the agency’s work. This goes beyond just efficiency and into engagement and inclusion.
3. Choosing the right solution for OCFS – the first step in achieving this goal is to thoroughly evaluate the
available alternatives against a defined set of requirements to determine the most viable solutions. Given
the lack of prescriptive requirements for CCWIS, there is a variety of solution options on the market. These
include platforms, Commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)/best-of-breed and transfer solutions (although no
state has yet implemented a CCWIS compliant solution). We further describe the market and solutions in
the CCWIS section later in Appendix B.

A cost-benefit analysis should also be conducted to help guide key decisions and support federal funding
requests. From there an implementation roadmap can be developed that describes a path forward. Some
states have opted to procure a feasibility study vendor to complete this work in an objective manner. A
feasibility study will engage OCFS internal stakeholders (such as executives, deputy directors, field workers,
IT, etc.), as well as those external to the agency (such as private agencies, community providers, and other
agency partners) to identify and understand deficiencies in existing systems and processes and explore areas
for policy and procedural change. Upon completion of the feasibility study and identification of the

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 44
 recommended alternative that best fits OCFS’s needs, the State will determine the best functional solution
based on its technical viability and business value.
4. Developing an implementation roadmap that yields incremental benefits – after selecting the
alternative that is right for OCFS, the agency will need a plan to get there. The roadmap for the CCWIS
implementation strategy considers all programmatic, operational, and technical aspects of a change of
this magnitude. It goes beyond the software development lifecycle to include things such as policy
changes, funding, budgeting, legal, training, and more. These “workstreams” are often overlapping and
in some cases interdependent. A visual roadmap will demonstrate the relationship and dependencies of
the workstreams and serve as a valuable tool as the plan is executed. Deployment of new systems can
be very challenging when fully replacing a legacy system, as they are not architected in a modular way.
As such, this requires building of bridges between old and new systems for a modular release strategy.
Given the risk associated with that approach, some states are opting to implement a traditional “big-bang”
approach, even when developing modularly. The data conversion and deployment plans must be well
planned with contingency plans to ensure success.

Plans change. OCFS will encounter administration changes, new regulations, conflicting priorities, or other
needs arising that it is not able to predict at the time the roadmap is developed. Using the roadmap as a
baseline for managing change will be valuable to assessing impact to the overall timelines, budget, and
organization. The roadmap should be updated, as required, and can serve as valuable input to Advance
Planning Documents (APDs) for federal funding requests.

Leveraging enterprise assets to reduce infrastructure and capital investments for the new solution –
OCFS should review options within DHHS and other state agencies to utilize solutions that have already
been procured and implemented. This will reduce costs as well as risk, since these technologies will already
be in place within the state environment. Areas to focus on include document imaging, master client index,
master provider index, web services, data warehouse, and platform and COTS license agreements.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 45
Practice and Policy Improvements
Organization-Wide Recommendations

Organization-Wide Recommendations
To have the best possible outcomes in child welfare, agencies must
continually evolve to meet the changing demands and needs of
children and families. Like the gears in a factory, practice, process,
and policy must align for the organization to function smoothly. This
memo presents recommendations for improvements at an
organizational-level. Recommendations for intake and assessment
follow in subsequent memos.

The eight recommendations outlined below represent opportunities for policy and practice improvement that have
the greatest potential to impact people across the organization and improve outcomes for the children and families
served by OCFS.

# Recommendations
19 Prioritize a complete realignment of policy with practice

20 Increase compliance with statutory timeframes

21 Update caseload size, standards, and ratios

22 Clarify processes so that decisions have at least two-tier review with clear roles and responsibilities at each level

23 Set clear expectations for communicating new inappropriate reports made against open cases

24 Develop comprehensive performance-based contracts to maximize returns

25 Clarify positioning around child rights vs. parent rights

Table 11: Practive and Policy (Organization-Wide) Recommendations

19. Prioritize a complete realignment of policy with practice

A guiding practice model is a critical part of aligning mission, vision, and policies, which in turn promotes
efficiency and consistency across all program areas. A practice model also serves as a guiding theme to support
all tools and decisions (e.g., SDM). In turn, the policy found within the practice model provides guidance for the
organization and caseworkers to ensure safe environments for children and day-to-day practice. It is the tool
that clearly defines what actions are necessary to keep children safe and ensure consistent behavior among
staff. In addition, clear policy with consistent application ensures public confidence in safe practices.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 46
OCFS has a clearly outlined practice model, but the day-to-day practices do not align with policies. In each
of the examples provided below, however, staff have noted that guidance from leadership has either eliminated
the practice, practice is different across districts and offices, or oversight has let enforcement of the practice
slip.

Currently, per the policy manual, a facilitated family team meeting (FFTM) is required to be held before
any emergency removal of a child from the home, prior to the decision to file a straight petition requesting
removal or immediately prior to any recommended removal or placement change from a relative or non-
related caregiver against the caregiver’s wishes, according to Maine’s Child and Family Services Policy
IV.D-6, unless the Program Administrator or Assistant Program Administrator has approved and
documented in a MACWIS narrative the approval along with justification of the decision that a FFTM will
not be held.

OCFS staff and management have stated that new staff are no longer trained on FFTM or teaming
practices. However, staff who have been trained on these practices can utilize the techniques. Instead,
new staff are trained on the old formula for conducting family team meetings, which creates a mismatch
in practice among staff and does not align with policy.

Policy mandates a Safety Plan be developed with the parent/caregiver and the family’s informal or formal
supports when possible to control and manage the signs of danger within the child’s environment as part
of the child protection assessment, when needed to make a child safe. According to Maine’s Child and
Family Services Policy IV.D and IV.L.: “…a plan may be proposed by the family, child, worker, or other
person for care of the child outside of his own home. Use of informal care arrangements during initial
phases of assessments may be required and can provide safety and continuity for the child.”

Two OCFS memos dated June 6, 2018, and July 3, 2018, indicate that safety planning decisions require
the approval of a Program Administrator or Assistant Program Administrator. This is accomplished
through the Team Decision Making process with the caseworker and the caseworker’s supervisor. For a
child to remain in the home in the care and custody of their parents when safety threats exist, a family
team meeting is facilitated by a Teaming Specialist or Supervisor. However, staff consistently reported
that safety planning was no longer being done to maintain a child safely in the home or in a kinship care
home.

According to Maine’s Child and Family Services Policy IV.K, Signs of Safety mapping is used to gather
needed information when conducting an assessment in a substance abusing family to understand a
person’s struggle with addiction or substance use. Staff have reported inconsistent application of the
principles of Signs of Safety.

As noted in the Quick Wins memo, OCFS currently communicates policy and practice changes to staff via email
and emailed memo but does not consistently update the written policy manual with changes to practice and
policy. OCFS needs to either formally adjust policy in the cases (such as the above) where they have intended
to make policy changes, and/or re-emphasize how practice should align to policy in the cases where practice
has simply strayed from what is supposed to happen. More specifically, we recommend that
1. OCFS update the policy manual to align with the practice model and practice changes that have
been outlined through memos in the current policy updates underway. Going forward, changes to

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 47
 practice should be updated and documented clearly in the policy manual. If practice memos are
distributed, then they should reference where the corresponding policy can be found.
2. Remind staff, through QC/QA case reviews or supervisor conferencing to actually follow the
policies as they currently stand where practice deviates from OCFS’ intent.

20. Increase compliance with statutory timeframes

During PCG’s eight case reviews it was found in most cases that statutory time frames were exceeded, and
there was a noted lack of urgency noted by reviewers. In multiple
cases, it was due to a singular allegation that was not in and of itself
“significant” or “dangerous” enough to create a significant safety Every part of the system must be
concern. Special concern was noted regarding cases that became responsible for complying with the
court involved. In one case, jeopardy was not found until one year statutory time frames and the law.
later, and 16 months after jeopardy was found, the case was still open
with no permanency plan implemented. In another case, the time to complete a single hearing took more than
a month to complete. There were also several cases, particularly those with either mental health or domestic
violence issues present, where there appeared to be an inability or unwillingness to reach a conclusion and/or
communicate decisions to the adult family members. Providing support and resources to safely and
appropriately communicate decisions about permanency to the family is an important systemic issue.

OCFS currently has the following policy timelines, shown below in Table 12.

Looking closer at one example of “urgency”, in review

OCFS Policy Timelines
of select cases and MACWIS data, the agency met
Initiation for assessment 24-hours or 72-hours the 72-hour initial response expectations 84 percent
Closure for assessment 35 days of the time. This is discussed further in the
Permanency 12 months Assessment Recommendations memo. As noted
above in Table 12, OCFS policy specifies that
Adoption after entry into CWS 24 months
assessments should be completed within 35-days.

Table 12: OCFS Policy Timelines Statewide Percentage of 72-Hour

Assessments Meeting Timeframes
However, according to data from MACWIS,
100%
once the case begins proceeding through “the
80%
process” of assessment, the agency struggles
to maintain momentum, completing only 66 60%
percent of assessments within 35-days (shown 40%
below in Figure 18). OCFS’s rate of timely 20%
completion of assessments within 35 days and
0%
their rate of achieving permanency for children
within 12 months, per OCFS policy, leave room
for substantial improvements.
From Intake Approval to First Contact
In addition, The Children’s Bureau has long From Initial Approval to Final Approval
reported that children do best when raised in a
stable family setting. When parents are not Figure 18: Statewide Percentage of 72-hour Assessments Meeting
Timeframes
found to be a safe and appropriate home for
their children, the caseworker must establish a plan for a different permanency outcome. In some cases,
reunification is not viable because of prior involuntary termination or an extremely egregious act. In other cases,
there may be a history of repeated abuse and neglect, repeated unsuccessful attempts through service referrals,

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 48
or it may become clear, based on a history of past and current behavior, that further services will be
unsuccessful.

According to the Children’s Bureau and the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), states are required to make
decisions about termination of parental rights when:
• A child has been in foster care for 15 months or more out of the last 22 months
• The Court has ruled that the infant was abandoned
• The “parent committed murder or voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent; aided, abetted,
attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit such a murder or voluntary manslaughter or committed a
felony assault that resulted in serious bodily injury to the child or another child of the parent.”14

Statutory time frames for child protection cases are based on child and family research, considering a child’s
sense of time, bonding and attachment, reactive attachment disorder, trauma, among other things. On the
most recent Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) in 2017, the Permanency Goal for Child was assigned
a rating of Area Needing Improvement. Three issues were: (1) delays in changing goals to adoption due to
significant time between child entry into care and filing of termination of parental rights with the Court; (2)
parents being given extended period to reunify despite little demonstration of progress being made in services
to alleviate jeopardy issues;15 and (3) not working concurrently with both parents.

To increase the agency’s overall sense of “urgency” and help the effort to meet timelines, we recommend the
following:
• Caseworkers, in consultation with the Assistant Attorney Generals (AAGs), need to
communicate honestly and openly about the trajectory of a case and likelihood of reunification
with family members. The child’s safety and permanency should be considered as their best interest,
even if it is difficult to close the door on the possibility of reunification with the biological parent.
• Every case should aim to provide permanency for a child within one year. This timeframe is
influenced by the allegations, age of the child, family dynamics, repeat referrals and other individual
circumstances. According to ACF’s National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being, longer periods
of time in foster care are associated with greater risk for remaining in foster care instead of achieving
permanency.16 Lack of development of secure attachment in children or loss of secure attachment can
result in a child’s inability to rely on their caregivers to attend to their needs of proximity, emotional
support and protection, and contribute to escalating behavior problems which reduce the child’s
chances for ultimately achieving permanency. 17 In addition to the traumatic stress caused by abuse and
neglect, removal from their primary caregiver into foster care increases emotional trauma by further
disrupting attachment.18 Fortunately, these studies also suggest that these risks may be partially offset
by a positive and stable caregiving environment.19 Therefore, the amount of time a child remains in care
without true permanency should be limited. The permanency process should move faster, when
possible, and anything more than one year should be rigorously questioned and reviewed.
• Technology should be used as constant reminders of the need for timeliness and moving a case
toward permanency.

14
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/groundtermin.pdf#page=2&view=Grounds for termination of parental rights
15
https://www.maine.gov/dhhs/ocfs/documents/Maine-Annual-Progress-Services-Report-2018.pdf
16
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nscaw_ltfc_research_brief_19_revised_for_acf_9_12_13_edit_clean.pdf
17
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4128499/
18
https://www.attachmenttraumanetwork.org/
19
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2749813/

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 49
 • Every part of the system must be responsible for complying with the statutory time frames and
the law. The AAGs and the Court as well as parents’ attorneys and GALs must know the statutory
timeframes and the law and be held responsible for adhering to them. Cases that exceed statutory
timeframes must be intensely reviewed and actions taken to request that they be expedited.

21. Update caseload size, standards, and ratios

A manageable workload impacts the ability of caseworkers to provide the services and oversight on cases that
promote positive outcomes for
Current OCFS Caseload Size Averages
families. Most states struggle
with managing caseloads – Type Goal Caseload Actual Caseload Ratio
Missouri (20-30 cases per Assessment (n=87) 6-8/month 1 to 7.8
worker depending on type),
Permanency (n=75) 12-15 cases 1 to 10.6
North Carolina (counties vary but
some report up to 15-18 in Adoption (n=16) 15-18 cases 1 to 16.8
investigation), Oklahoma Mixed (n=95) — 1 to 10.2
(reports of up to 30 cases per
worker), Kansas (an average of Total (n=273) 1 to 10 1 to 10
38 across all workers) and others Table 13: Caseloads by Position Type
have all reported similar issues Mixed caseworkers have less than 85% of a given case type
The “n” in the table is number of caseworkers
with managing caseload size
and intensity.
Average caseload sizes in October for OCFS staff with assessment, permanency, adoption, and mixed
caseloads are provided in Table 13, above, as well as an overall caseload size for those same staff. Figure 19
displays how those workloads have changed from October 2016 through October 2018. Items of note include:
• The average caseload generally
increased over the past year, most 20
notably for those who are primarily or
Average Caseload

15
solely assigned adoption cases. This
is likely due to a decrease in the number 10
of adoption cases (close to 40 percent
between January 2017 and October 5
2018) with a corresponding, yet sharper,
decrease in the count of caseworkers 0
assigned to adoption cases (close to a
50 percent decrease in the same time
period). Adoption Assessment Mixed Permanency
• Caseload sizes have also increased
notably for caseworkers assigned to Figure 19: Statewide Caseworker Workloads by Worker Type
assessment and permanency cases,
which are likely the result of the increased case volume for both assessment and custody cases (more
than doubling for custody cases).
• The caseload size for staff who carry a mixed caseload has remained fairly constant, despite a
marked reduction in the number of caseworkers assigned a mix of cases to manage. This is likely the
result of shifting caseworkers who previously carried a mixed caseload to a more specific type of case.

Overall, the volume of cases staff manages at any one time increased this past year while the number of OCFS
caseworkers has decreased. In fact, the overall number of caseworkers is now the lowest it has been in
the last five years while the total number of cases and assessments are the highest, leading to even

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 50
higher caseloads for Maine’s caseworkers.

CWLA Best Practice for Mixed Caseloads The Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) offers
states suggested caseload sizes, ranging between 1:10
Caseload Ratio Type
and 1:12, depending on where families are located (rural
Children out of home versus urban, respectively). Standards are also provided
1 to 7
(one child = one case) to help agencies measure resource needs for caseworkers
Families in home who carry a mixed caseload.
1 to 3
(one family = one case)
While CWLA’s standards offer states a benchmark as to
Families for initial assessment
1 to 4 what caseload sizes might be, they do not take a state’s
(one family = one case)
unique case practice into consideration, nor do they take
1 to 14 Total families/cases into consideration that not all caseloads are equal. For
instance:
Table 14: Best Practices for Caseload Ratios
• They do not account for states’ individual policies for
handling a case. While there are federal requirements which all states must follow, how states
implement those requirements vary which in turn can impact the time needed to handle a case
appropriately.
• Within a given type of case, there is variation in the time needed to work with a family and/or child. For
example, the time it takes to work on a case involving a child who is placed out of the home will vary by
where that child is placed (e.g., in a family foster home versus a residential setting versus a pre-adoptive
home).
• Caseworkers who are defined as carrying a single caseload type, e.g., permanency cases, carry mixed
caseloads. The time it takes to work with a family whose child remains in the home is different from a
case where a child has been placed in foster care.
• In Maine, more so than other states we see, caseworkers in most departments are performing a lot of
their own administrative work (e.g., paperwork, filing, scheduling drug screens, obtaining releases for
information, transport, transcription, or visitation) without a lot of clerical support.
• There is a rural aspect to much of the state which requires caseworkers to spend considerable drive
time to meet with children and families, attend court proceedings, and track down judges, notaries, and
other resources as necessary. Some of this time can also be attributed to state policy and practice of
court and judge availability to OCFS. This is discussed further in the Assessment Recommendations
memo.

Because of the factors listed above, we recommend that Maine continue to aim to be at or below the
caseload best practice of 1:10.

OCFS is fortunate to have time standards for specific case types which can be used to better inform the time
staff need to handle cases on a monthly basis, in accordance with Maine’s policies. This information can be
used to measure how many caseworkers are needed to handle OCFS’ caseload volume, enabling the agency
to take steps toward reducing caseworkers’ caseload size while ensuring cases are handled according to policy
and better positioned to achieve positive outcomes. Three data points are used to measure the number of
caseworkers needed to handle an agency’s caseload:
• Case volume, by case type
• Time needed to handle a case by case type
• Time available for casework

OCFS data on hours available to work on cases will be updated following completion of the random moment
time study, which is currently being administered to caseworkers, supervisors, specialists and support staff for

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 51
this assessment. So far, preliminary results show staff are spending more time on cases than they had
previously. When the available data for the three data points are applied to the count of cases and volume of
caseworkers for October 2018, limiting the calculation to assessment, permanency and adoption cases and the
caseworkers who worked on those cases, a resulting preliminary calculation of an additional five additional
caseworkers were needed to allow staff to manage their cases in accordance with goals and policy.

Many supervisors are directly responsible for making case assignment decisions. Thus, it is essential that
supervisors have a system for assigning cases in a fair and equitable manner. The process should take into
account the anticipated workload of a case, the worker’s experience and capabilities, geography, and the
worker’s current caseload. Although there may be pressure to do so, supervisors should resist the urge to give
high-performing workers higher caseloads or more complex cases. This approach can backfire by unfairly
overloading the best workers, prompting them to leave.20

22. Clarify processes so that decisions have at least two-tier review

with clear roles and responsibilities at each level
Each day and on each case, caseworkers are asked to make many critical decisions (e.g., to file court action,
to remove children immediately, to keep children at home, to substantiate or un-substantiate an assessment,
or to find suitable placements for children) that require strong supervision to ensure that the correct decision is
made.

OCFS has already taken some steps to clarify the supervisory role through the issuance of practice change
memos on June 6 and July 3, 2018. The June 6, 2018 practice change memo states that:

“Any decision that directly impacts the safety of a child must be reviewed and approved by a supervisor
including, but not limited to, decisions about the level of supervision during visitation and medical decisions.
Decisions related to safety planning, kinship assessments, trial home placement, and permanent placement
with the parent must be reviewed and approved by an APA or PA.”

This practice change memo further states that an internal Team Decision Making (TDM) process will be
implemented, and includes the caseworker, supervisor, APA, or PA. The TDM will be used for the following
situations:

• “Safety planning for children to remain in the home in the care and custody of their parents when safety
threats exist
• Filing PPOs
• Kinship assessment prior to placement”

Per the Annie E. Casey Foundation, TDM as a model “includes family members for all decisions involving child
removal, change of placement, reunification or other permanency plans” because it is, “a much more effective
way to approach the critical issue of placement for potentially at-risk kids compared to the traditional model of
agency personnel telling the family what to do.” 21 The way TDMs are described in the practice change memo
is thus not fully compliant with fidelity to the TDM model. Therefore, PCG recommends that OCFS revisit their

20
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/case_work_management.pdf
21
https://www.aecf.org/resources/team-decision-making/

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 52
policy and practice regarding TDM so that when TDM is applied, it is applied in a manner consistent
with best practices.

According to the June and July practice change memos, there are contingency plans in place for instances
where a supervisory decision needs to be made after hours and the district APA or PA is unavailable. In these
instances, the decision will be reviewed by either another district’s APA, PA, the Regional Associate Director,
or the Associate Director of Child Welfare Services. While this is a step in the right direction, PCG further
recommends that OCFS outlines in policy every critical decision point a caseworker needs to make and
clearly defines when supervisory review is needed, by whom, and tangible descriptors regarding what
that supervision will look like and responsiveness for it. PCG will work with OCFS to develop/update desk
guides for staff that outlines these practices.

To achieve this, OCFS could

build on the key decisions
matrix developed following
the 2016 Organizational
Assessment which outlines
all possible critical decision
points for a caseworker at
each point in a case. That
document should be
updated and revised to
match best practice
standards today, and a more
robust section should be
added regarding the
supervisory role at each
critical case point. The
updated key decisions
matrix could then be used as
a guide for developing
updated/new policy.

Limiting the review process

to an internal two or three tier Figure 20: Another process, such as third-party review, is an alternative approach to an
review within OCFS is not internal review process
the only approach to
supervision and review, OCFS should consider other processes for review in the future. In Rowan County,
North Carolina there is an opportunity for third party review (shown in Figure 20, above). Utilizing a third party
when more challenging decisions need to be made, or when there is disagreement, is another option OCFS
should explore further.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 53
23. Set clear expectations for communicating new inappropriate
reports made against open cases
Currently, OCFS policy (IV. C. Intake Screening and Assignment, Section F) states:

“When new information is added to a Narrative Log in an open report, assessment, or case, the intake
caseworker notifies the District Office (DO) caseworker and the DO caseworker’s supervisor by tickler.”

However, in practice it does not appear to be working this way. Caseworkers report, and observation supports,
that unless a report is determined as appropriate with a new investigation to the assessment unit, the
caseworker or supervisor on the open case (either in assessment or permanency units) is not always directly
informed of the report. Instead, the inappropriate reports are listed in the electronic case file in MACWIS without
specific notification to ongoing staff. Supervisors are also supposed to send emails to staff, but this does not
always happen, or staff does not always see/read the email. Failing to have an automated, clear process for
communicating information about inappropriate reports is problematic for three reasons:
1. Reports of any kind about a family with an open case may include details that are important for the
ongoing caseworker to know.
2. Even reports that do not arise to the level of being marked as “appropriate” may contain information
that the ongoing caseworker can use in relation to their overall knowledge of the case to gain insight
and identify potential risks for the children and family involved. The lack of internal communication
opens the department to risk that subtle signs of risk may be missed even though reports were made.
3. A failure to notify ongoing staff of the information may result in a disjointed response from the
department which can frustrate police, medical professionals, or community members who are making
the reports but not seeing them fully considered.

Therefore, we recommend:
• OCFS should set clear expectations for how open case information should be shared between
workers and developing processes for doing so is critical to overcoming this barrier. Enhancing
communication practices around new reports is not intended to eliminate the investigation of multiple
reports on a single family, but to increase communication and information between staff about their
respective cases.
• Intake should always notify ongoing caseworkers who are managing the case and their
supervisors of all reports (inappropriate and appropriate) made against an open case and information
about cases of the same family using the existing report notification tickler system.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 54
24. Develop comprehensive performance-based contracts to
maximize returns
According to examples provided, OCFS service contracts specify the provider expectations in terms of quantity
of service units, but do not link expectations to the impact of those services. For example, the current foster
home recruitment contract states:
• Two hundred and fifty (250) people will attend informational meetings by the end of the year. That is
sixty-two (62) people per quarter
• Forty percent (40%) of interested persons will follow through with an application per quarter
• Ninety percent (90%) of the identified targets in the state plan will be completed each quarter

Notably, the listed performance measures do not include a measure of how many foster home resources
are actually acquired (nor does it pay based on such
Tennessee, largely considered a state outcomes) which is arguably the primary goal of the
leader in performance-based contracting, provider. The contract is also unclear as to the consequences
has been very successful. We of not meeting performance targets. Thus, the link from provider
recommend Maine review the performance to contract payments is also not clear. It is evident
methodology and basic principles that that Maine has tried to incorporate some elements of
Tennessee has provided to other states
performance-based contracting, but its efforts are inconsistent
and service providers.
and have no real financial teeth.

Nationally, performance measurement in child welfare contracting has included performance expectations for
the last twenty years. Performance should be measured by the impact of services and determine whether the
contract is renewed.22 Three types of performance-based contracts were identified by the Department of Health
and Human Services Quality Improvement Council (DHHS QIC). 23
• Payments-based contracting for providers such as foster and adoptive parent recruiting, home studies
and adoptive placements. These contracts pay providers only when they have met a key milestone
and, thus, produce the greatest risk to the provider. For example, foster care recruiters would be paid
per foster home resource acquired.
• Rewards and Penalties. Under these models, providers receive base contract payments on top of
which they are paid incentives (or are charged penalties) for their performance on select measures. In
Idaho, for example, in its resource family recruitment contracts providers receive a flat monthly fee for
ongoing recruitment activities as well as a small incentive payment for each family recruited. The state
can determine what proportion of the payment to use in each category; Florida, Iowa, Idaho and
Tennessee have used this approach.24 Tennessee, largely considered a state leader in performance-
based contracting, has also been very successful at using this approach with residential and other
providers to improve timeliness to permanency and reduce reliance on congregate care. We
recommend Maine review the methodology and basic principles that Tennessee has provided to other
states and providers. It can be found in the link in the footnotes. 25
• Caseload Model for contracting with agencies provides multiple levels of in-home and out-of-home
care. Agencies cannot hold on to cases for extended periods of time; instead they are required to accept
a certain percentage of new referrals and move a certain percentage to permanency each year. If the

22
http://socialinnovationcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/building-performance.pdf
23
https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/ensuring-quality-contracted-child-welfare-services
24
https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/75631/report.pdf
25
https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/dcs/documents/for-providers/Perf_Based_Contracting_Contract_Incorporation.pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 55
 agency provides multiple levels of care, it must balance the
cost of the higher levels by stepping some children down to Because Maine is challenged by its
a lower level as new ones come in. Agencies that fail to rural nature, it is critical that
achieve the standards set under the contract risk serving contracts be structured in a way as
more higher-level children than they are being paid for or to sustain the resource as well as
provide for accountability for state
having their new intakes placed on hold. Illinois and Missouri
funding.
have used this approach. Some level of this type of
contracting could be applied to the ARP contract.

To maximize efficiency and value to the state, contracts, if possible, should be structured to pay-for-
performance to emphasize the results-oriented nature of the relationship. OCFS should consider classifying
its different types of contracts (e.g., in-home services, residential services, resource development), developing
logic models that specify the expected inputs and outcomes, and developing templates to apply
consistently to providers. Performance measures, quarterly reporting, payment mechanisms and
incentives/penalties must be aligned for effective contract management and provider accountability. PCG will
provide several examples to Maine OCFS leadership to use as guidance as well as address any funding
concerns.

Specifically, we recommend OCFS do the follow:

• Going forward, explicitly, for foster and adoptive family recruitment, Maine should use a system such
as in Florida, Iowa, Idaho, Tennessee, and Illinois where both effort and outcome are rewarded.
For example, when incentives and rewards contracting was implemented in Illinois, it helped to establish
a sense of urgency for service providers, better communicated the organization’s vision, created a plan
for short-term wins, and institutionalized these new practices.26
• Service contracts such as for Alternative Response Program (ARP) should combine effort with
incentives, making a portion of the payment tied to the performance measure that already exists
(e.g., 94.6 percent of families with case closures as services successfully completed will not have a
subsequent finding of child abuse and neglect within six months of closing. The state would have to do
the measurement for each contractor tying their caseload to performance reports.

Because Maine is challenged by its rural nature, it is critical that contracts be structured in a way as to sustain
the resource as well as provide for accountability for state funding.

25. Clarify positioning around child rights vs. parent rights

The debate between parents’ rights and children’s rights has been part of the child welfare dialogue for more than
a half century. The argument aligns itself with two positions: the parents right to exercise their judgment and
discretion regarding children in their home and a child’s right to be safe and to be well. These two positions have
clashed for years and are best represented by the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) of 1974
and the Adoption Assistance Act of 1980 which seemed to settle on reunification with parents as the primary goal.
This goal was then superseded by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 which determined that the
primary priority is the safety and well-being of the child.

The question though is not what the court’s position is in the adversarial process, but what position does the
agency (through its caseworkers) take as it determines service needs and capacity, makes referrals, holds

26

https://cfrc.illinois.edu/pubs/pt_20110801_UsingDataAndPerformanceBasedContractingToDrivePracticeChangeForChildrenAndYouthInResi
dentialCareInIllinois.pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 56
individuals accountable for service compliance and completion, integrates service treatment and compliance
between parent and family services with child services, and makes decisions based on those two — often
competing and contradictory — service provisions.

The agency, through its caseworkers and leadership, must make the decision that its primary
responsibility and obligation is to the best interest of the child/children. Once the agency decides to become
engaged, whether through an ARP, court involvement or otherwise, its focus and primary responsibility is to the
child. This messaging must be part of the agency’s culture and be communicated down throughout the
organization. It is the parent’s responsibility to demonstrate their commitment to sustainable and meaningful
change and improvement by strengthening those qualities that have been assessed and determined to need
improvement.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 57
Practice and Policy Improvements
Intake Recommendations

Intake Recommendations
Currently, callers who do not reach a live person have the option to leave a voicemail; these messages are then
transcribed by a rotating member of the staff on a piece of paper, with return calls managed manually. This system
allows for several possible missteps. There is the possibility that a caller might give up and not leave a message
or abandon the call. The person transcribing the voicemail could get the
message wrong. The voicemail might also literally fall through the cracks
if a voicemail slip is lost, and calls may not be returned in a timely fashion
as this part is left to staff to self-determine who has the time to call back.
It also leads to situations where the caller cannot be reached, either due
to a non-working or incorrect phone number, or because they would
prefer not to leave their contact information.

Only 66 percent of intake hotline calls were answered by a live person

Figure 21: The voicemail slips at one of their between January 1 and October 31, 2018, according to OCFS’ statistics.
more organized moments The percentage has improved slightly over the most recent three months,
reaching an average of 69 percent.
However, of the remaining 30 percent Intake Unit Data Average Average
of calls that do not get answered, *(January - October 2018) 2018 CY 2018 FY
roughly 20 percent were abandoned.
This means that a fifth of the people Total # Offered Calls to Unit 6133 5904
who are calling to report suspected
# Incoming (Answered Live) Calls 4048 4084
abuse or neglect give up waiting and
hang up. They may eventually call Avg Answer Speed (average hold time in min) 3 3
back, but that is an unknown; and, if Avg Length of Incoming Calls (in min) 9 8
they do, then by the simple fact of
Max Delay *Single longest in month 54 60
being repeat callers they are adding to
call volume and wait times for others. # Abandon Calls 1280 1140
Avg time Calls Abandon 4 3
Also, of significance is the maximum
% (rate) of Abandoned Calls 21% 19%
wait time (for a call to be answered) in
a month. This has been as high as 90 # Voicemails 805 680
minutes (August 2018) and as low as # Outgoing Calls 3315 3315
34 minutes (February 2018). In % of Answered (live) Calls 66.50% 69.20%
addition, not all voicemail messages
are able to be returned the same day,
Table 15: Intake Data this Calendar Year
which delays the screening and
investigation process. It is not clear
from OCFS tracking what the success rate is in reaching callers who have left voicemails.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 58
According to Casey Family Programs, a leading voice on child welfare research and program design, the following
are the key elements of an effective hotline: 27

Effective Hotline Elements OCFS Status

1 Consistent and timely response • Response is untimely (see below data)
• See organization-level Recommendation 19 for more detail
2 Clear policy guidance • OCFS has a robust Structured Decision-Making (SDM) tool that
provides needed decision-making structure
Reliable decision-making • Inconsistent decision-making with a limited review process
3
processes (reference Recommendation 29 for more detail)
• Intake should be staffed with some of OCFS’ most experienced
4 Skilled workforce
child welfare professionals
• QI Manager housed with intake
5 Continuous quality improvement
• Additional CQI Infrastructure might be value-add

Table 16: Key Features of an Effective Hotline

To address these issues, align policy and practice, strengthen the role of intake staff and processes, and better
ensure the safety of children, we present the following five recommendations.

# Recommendations
26 Improve processes and ensure adequate staffing to handle intake calls and volume

27 Enhance effectiveness and efficiency of information collection process

28 Align report reclassification with Structured Decision-Making model

29 Ensure that supervisors review every report within 24 hours

Table 17: Practice and Policy (Intake) Recommendations

26. Improve processes and ensure adequate staffing to handle intake

call volume
Best practice dictates that every call should be answered quickly by a live person, even if only to immediately
assess the situation and need. Per Casey Family Programs, “it is vital that the system is sufficiently staffed so that
reports of child maltreatment are answered quickly and processed efficiently. Agencies must monitor workload
levels in real time and adjust hotline staffing levels whenever necessary to ensure sufficient staffing and
oversight.”28

The state has made a commitment to improve the services at intake with the addition of seven positions:
two supervisor lines and five casework lines. The addition of these five new caseworkers should have a
significant impact on call response time. In addition, OCFS remains committed with the inclusion of five contracted
staff through the fiscal year. We encourage the agency to continue to monitor their ability to answer calls live
daily/weekly as new staff come online.

27
Casey Family Programs (2011). Centralized Intake Systems. Seattle WA: Casey Family Programs.
28
https://www.casey.org/what-are-the-elements-of-an-effective-hotline-system/

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 59
To reduce the percentage of calls that are not answered live, OCFS should:
• Fill vacant positions with experienced, well-trained staff. While hiring is already underway, we
encourage OCFS to staff these positions with seasoned staff who have significant knowledge of child
welfare practices. Research has noted, given how crucial appropriate screening and decision-making is
at the beginning of a family’s involvement with the agency, the importance of staffing intake with staff who
have substantial experience in child welfare.29 While a majority of states do not require intake staff to have
previous internal experience, some states who are higher performing and have lower turnover rates of
intake staff do have such a requirement. For example, Washington state requires prior child welfare
experience for staff to have a role in intake and most of its hires are internal transfers from other divisions
in child welfare.
• Develop a back-up plan to ensure calls are answered live. Even with additional casework staff, and
especially as they are being trained and acclimated to the work, intake may not be able to meet the
threshold of 90+ percent of calls answered live at all times. Therefore, we propose that central intake
should have a multi-tiered plan to answer and document completely every incoming call. Ideally, first line
central or district intake workers will speak directly to callers immediately. If this is not possible, one
consideration is to have calls roll over to a support staff person or contract staff who could take basic
caller information and pass back that information to intake call takers as they become available. Once the
updated phone system comes online in 2019, a component of the backup planning can include detailing
call patters and employing predictive analytics to alter staff schedules and develop backup plans centered
on key times.
• Consider additional changes to staffing to stagger schedules. For example, in Texas, leadership
employs predictive analytics software to manage staffing during peak call times. The data helps
supervisors to make educated decisions about when more or less staff are needed to meet call demand
patterns. With the development of a more advanced and “live” data collection system through the new
phone software, OCFS should see improvements to data that will help with the implementation of this
recommendation.
• Improve training for intake staff. In addition, intake staff, supervisors and caseworkers need on-going
opportunities for skill development through training, coaching, and over-the-shoulder support. Training for
intake is detailed further in the Professional Development memo, Recommendation 39.

By staffing the intake District with enough experienced and thoroughly trained caseworkers and having a plan for
handling call volumes, OCFS can more closely reach its goal of answering every call live.

27. Enhance effectiveness and efficiency of information collection

process
OCFS’ intake call data from 2018 shows that caseworkers spend an average of 8 minutes, 49 seconds on the
phone with incoming callers. Intake caseworkers note that this average time does not factor out the multiple robo-
calls they receive each day. Time on the phone only represents a fraction of the time workers spend overall in
documenting a call.

OCFS performance guidelines suggest that intake caseworkers spend no more than 10 minutes on a call and 15
minutes completing the required documentation. Caseworkers are making best attempts to adhere to these

29
https://www.casey.org/what-are-the-elements-of-an-effective-hotline-system/

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 60
standards; however, staff report system challenges with MACWIS (e.g., saving data, system hang ups, no spell
check, and slowness) that interrupt report documentation. Caseworkers state that they typically use a Word
document to capture information about a report during the initial call, before it is entered in MACWIS. In the figure
below, each of the steps in yellow highlight a point where the intake worker documents the call outside of MACWIS,
which later gets input in MACWIS.

Figure 22: During documentation of the intake report, workers use a word template to take information instead of direct entry into
MACWIS, identified at each step highlighted in yellow

Ideally, data entry happens in the most direct route possible, directly into MACWIS. However, if there is a
technology gap, such as unreasonable system delays during data entry, interim solutions may be needed to
increase efficiency until a system fix can be made, if at all. During a study conducted in Toronto of the Children’s
Aid Society, PCG found that preparing data in Word could actually be a time saver. In some cases, such as when
a system is slow to handle data entry, if it does not have spell and grammar check, or when case notes or other
documents will be used subsequently in court, caseworkers find it beneficial to prepare text in Word, for example,
and then copy and paste the text from Word into the case management system, which is a short (less than one
minute) exercise.

In addition, through interviews and process mapping with staff, we have documented the multiple channels that
reports come in to the intake Unit, which include phone, email, fax, and in-person. See Appendix C for a detailed
process map. Needed information cannot always be collected during the first contact, requiring call backs or
additional research (e.g., address lookup). The variety of reporting methods and lack of report detail both increase
potential risk to the agency by increasing delays in OCFS response. In other words, if the method of report
submission and detail inclusion are inconsistent, caseworkers must spend more time chasing down information
to be able to make reliable decisions. This, in turn, delays the ability of the department to react timely.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 61
To streamline the intake process, we recommend OCFS:
• Develop an online reporting service for mandated reporters (for non-emergency reports). Online
reporting platforms are used in several states, including Arizona, Missouri, Minnesota, Texas and Illinois,
to improve the ability of mandated reporters to submit complete and accurate information on-demand,
instead of waiting for a returned call.30 In Minnesota and Florida, they use the online reporting for any type
of report or reporter. Until an online reporting system is up and running, OCFS should dedicate a telephone
line for frequent types of reporters, such as hospitals, schools, law enforcement or just mandated reporters,
until online reporting can be implemented. This may include or be preceded by the development of a
template to guide reporters through each required piece of information OCFS needs. This template
can include guidance on the level of detail to collect, with a method for consistently collecting relevant
information in a standard format using example text. In addition, it should provide as many closed-ended
formats and/or structured responses as possible (e.g., location/address of family, contact information,
child’s school, known safety issues, etc.)
• Reviews intake calls and collection template practices. These reviews will help OCFS inform the current
questions about data entry process and once a standard practice is established, ongoing reviews will help
supervisors identify the need for refresher training that may be required if the cause is related to staff
preference for open-format documentation over the MACWIS system navigation. Refresher trainings for
MACWIS can be used to keep staff from falling into “bad habits” in their data entry practices.
• In addition to the implementation of online reporting, OCFS should consider additional efficient ways to
gather complete information on hotline calls without substantially increasing call times (and thus
preventing increases in hold times and calls that are abandoned by reporters). It is considered best practice
to go through all of the
baseline questions, every
Reducing the time, it takes caseworkers to collect and document
time, to screen a call. There
reports will expedite the process of determining appropriate cases and
are, however, some options to
improve the accuracy of information transferred to assessment.
consider include having
specialized questions for
certain types of allegations with reminders built into the system to prompt those questions, system edits to
enforce information gathering, and enhanced training. A pilot study could be designed to test the
enhancements made to improve the quality of the call process.
• Analyze results of the current time study and conduct additional observations of staff. If changes
cannot be made to MACWIS to allow for streamlined, direct-input, OCFS should explore whether the
practice of documenting in a Word template prior to entry into MACWIS is a duplication of effort or whether
it is personal preference/time-saving. This analysis should include direct staff observation of the intake
documentation process, which should include process flow documentation. The observation should look
specifically at data entry conducted at intake, including steps like “Recording Information in MACWIS” and
“Completing Forms in Preparation for Computer Input.” Preliminary findings from the recent random
moment time study found that caseworkers did not account for time “completing forms in preparation for
computer input,” even though this has been reported as a standard practice by supervisors and staff in the
Collaborative. Additional analysis can help OCFS determine what the impact of the report preparation
outside of MACWIS has on the overall process and what the best standard process should be. The study
can also identify the exact points at which MACWIS creates data entry delays and the best process for
increasing efficiencies for intake documentation in the short- and long-term.

30
http://unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/Final%20Reporting%20Bulletin%20Professional%20Perceptions.pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 62
 • Consider the use of support staff to promote efficiencies within the documentation process. Early
results from the random moment time study indicate support staff spend 12 percent of their time preparing
information for MACWIS and/or recording information in MACWIS. Caseworkers across all units spend an
average of 16 percent of their time recording information in MACWIS, with intake workers spending 78
percent of their time on case-specific intake activities. The additional study and analysis of intake
documentation should focus some time on exploring how support staff can absorb more
documentation/data entry time from intake workers.
• Implement supervisor review of incoming calls. For ongoing quality assurance, supervisors should
review a percentage of intake calls — listening in or sitting with staff during the call — to assess whether
they are asking questions and documenting responses correctly and consistently. During an assessment
PCG completed of the implementation of a centralized abuse hotline in New Jersey, they found staff were
completing the right activities, but that the quality of work varied widely across call takers. By listening to a
random set of calls for a select number of workers, we identified issues that supervisors could address
individually with each worker and provide coaching to promote change. With supervisors reviewing of a
percentage of live calls, they will have the staff-specific knowledge they need to provide direct coaching
support about intake interviewing practices. Supervisors can also shadow staff as part of reviews to learn
about their documentation practices and identify training opportunities for staff.

28. Align report reclassification with the Structured Decision-Making

model
OCFS implemented a major policy change in March 2018, as a result of a crisis situation, to more effectively
highlight reporting patterns that do not individually rise to the level of investigation. This policy requires automatic
reclassification of the third report to an appropriate report when two previous inappropriate reports have been
received and requires de novo assessments on appropriate reports for open cases. In addition, the department
also began utilizing the Structured Decision-Making (SDM) model in early 2018 within the intake department to
more systematically evaluate reports.

In addition to ensure accurate classification of reports at intake, accurate, thorough assessment of

appropriate reports is equally as important for identifying mistreatment that may not be as apparent (such
as emotional abuse or long-term neglect). Approximately 75 percent of all cases in the child protection system are
for neglect by itself or in combination with other types of abuse which means that about 25 percent of cases are
for more apparent types of abuse (i.e. physical or sexual).31 Environments that are marked by aggressive or
threatening verbal abuse, repetitive or chronic neglect, or other threatening, intimidating or dangerous behaviors
for children can be as damaging and as destructive as physical or sexual abuse. 32 That is particularly true where
those behaviors are repetitive and ongoing. It is left to the caseworker/supervisor to assess and evaluate the
extent to which previous adult/parental behaviors have caused the family to come to the attention of the agency
and services referred have been unsuccessful in ameliorating or changing the behaviors. To this end, OCFS
completed SDM training with the Assessment department in December 2018 to further standardize the depth and
scope of investigations in hopes of providing intervention sooner and preventing repeat maltreatment.

According to data from MACWIS, substantiation of reports has decreased over the past fiscal year for both reports
that were originally classified as appropriate and those that were reclassified from inappropriate to appropriate.
Substantiation for reclassified reports has declined from an average of 14 percent mid-2018 to an average of

31
https://americanspcc.org/child-abuse-statistics/
32
https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/chronic_neglect.pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 63
seven (7) percent in late 2018. This progression appears to correlate with the increased familiarity of staff using
the SDM model and reliability of the decisions made. This is shown in the table, below.

In addition, according to MACWIS, there has been a slight increase in the percentage of investigations with new
appropriate reports within 12
40% months. As shown below,
35% approximately 29 percent of
cases that started in November
30%
2015 had a new appropriate
25%
report within 12 months, where
20% about 35 percent of cases that
15% started in November 2017 had a
10% new appropriate report within 12
5% months. It is likely that this is at
least partially attributable to the
0%
increase in investigations overall, it
may also be indicative of a need for
more thorough, systematic
Percentage of Innappropriate Reports that Became Substantiated investigations.
Percentage of CPS Assessments that are Substantiated
As assessment staff begin to utilize
Figure 23: Percentage of Reports that Become Substantiated the SDM tool to complete
investigations and make decisions
about cases, we recommend monitoring subsequent reports and instances where patterns of reporting may still
appear. This information should be used to further adapt the SDM tool at intake and assessment stages so that it
can more effectively capture
these scenarios around child
40%
safety.
35%
While at least two other states
have similar reclassification 30%
practices, automatic
25%
reclassification is not recognized
as a national best practice. 20%

And, OCFS data demonstrates 15%

that while it may have been 10%
necessary at one time to bring
attention to subtle call patterns, 5%
with the implementation of SDM, 0%
the practice may, eventually, no
longer be necessary. The data
suggests that automatic
reclassification of reports offers
diminishing returns and may, Figure 24: Percentage of investigations with new appropriate report within 12 months

eventually, only serve to

increase workload; it also assumes the decision-making tool, in this case SDM, is not yet working perfectly as
there are still some reclassified reports being substantiated. To that end, we recommend continuing to monitor
and evaluate the impact of the SDM tool and making adjustments to the tool as needed with the goal of
ultimately discontinuing the practice of automatic reclassification of reports once the tool is functioning
properly within intake and assessment departments.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 64
29. Ensure that supervisors review every report within 24 hours
Currently, OCFS central intake
supervisors report that they are Statewide Average Number of Days from Intake Report
reviewing full reports for those to Supervisor Approval for Inappropriate Reports and
classified as inappropriate but are only Percentage Approved Within 1 Day
reviewing summary reports for those
10 80%

Days to Supervisor Approval

classified as appropriate. The district
8 60%
supervisors are then reviewing full
appropriate reports. OCFS policy 6
40%
states that a decision, including 4
supervisory review, should be made 2 20%
within 24 hours of the initial report. As
0 0%
more serious reports require an
immediate response or one inside 24
hours, all reports should be reviewed
within 24 hours to ensure timely Average Time to Supervisor Approval
responses can be made. Percentage Approved Within a Day

According to MACWIS, review

Figure 25: Days from Intake Report to Approval and
supervisors are more often than not able Percentage Approved within 1 Day
to review reports initially marked as
appropriate within 24 hours but have
struggled to meet the requirement to complete a review of inappropriate reports since March 2018. While
the average time for review has fluctuated greatly in the last nine months, as of September the review of
inappropriate reports was still roughly a day behind.

During fiscal year (FY) 2018, intake staff recorded 10,924 appropriate reports and 11,602 inappropriate reports
with approximately four and a half intake supervisors reading and reviewing them. At some points of FY 2018,
four supervisors were employed and at other points five were employed. OCFS intake staff note that on average
a report may take 2 to 30 minutes to read and review, depending on the experience of the supervisor and the
complexity of the case. In total, according to data from the RMTS, supervisors spend approximately three
and a quarter hours or 41 percent of their work day reviewing reports. This is, however, in addition to other
job requirements of providing daily support to casework staff, answering case-specific questions, engaging staff
in weekly 1:1 supervision time, participating in weekly unit meetings and monthly supervisor meetings, weekly
duty days, and making referrals.

Since decision-making is vulnerable to biases and mental shortcuts, intake screening is susceptible to systematic
errors. As previously discussed, second-level review helps mitigate this and increases accuracy in screening
decisions, as well as establishing response times. Other states like Idaho 33 and Nebraska34 have established
these timely supervisory review processes.

Ultimately, we recommend that Intake supervisors, as the leadership of the unit responsible for screening reports,
review all reports. We acknowledge, however, that the agency has staffing challenges and needs to prioritize its
resources. We agree that the priority needs to be on answering calls, appropriately screening reports, and
reviewing reports timely (even if that happens at the district level). Recognizing the latter, that timely report review

33
https://isc.idaho.gov/cp/manual/Idaho_CP_Manual-3rd_Edition.pdf
34
http://www.sos.ne.gov/rules-and-regs/regsearch/Rules/Health_and_Human_Services_System/Title-390/Chapter-3.pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 65
is a critical job function for supervisors and an integral part of the process of starting a case down the right path,
we recommend OCFS:
• Ensure that every report receives second-level, supervisory review within 24 hours to ensure accurate
decision-making and timely response. For inappropriate reports this will happen at intake (as well as
summary-level reports for appropriate) and for inappropriate reports it will happen at the district within 24
hours of receipt. Lapse in a second-tier review or delay in completing a timely review increases risk to
child safety and the department.
• Review results from the current workload study and consider reallocation of resources to help
supervisors meet job demands. Results from the study will help OCFS to identify the extent to which
additional staff might be allocated to intake and/or if job duties might be reallocated so that intake
supervisors have the time available to complete this critical review process.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 66
Practice and Policy Improvements
Assessment/Investigation Recommendations

Assessment Recommendations
The Children’s Bureau cites that child protection services in every state require investigation of reports to be
initiated in a timely manner, usually within 72 hours. In addition, guidance suggests, and most states require some
investigations to be initiated immediately, in as little as two hours and no longer than 24 hours, when there is the
belief that the child may be in imminent danger. The
24-hr Assessment Initiation Timeliness Children’s Bureau also states that guidelines for
9/17-8/18 determining level of risk and different response
times is left to individual states. Presently, in Maine,
when a report contains allegations of abuse or
5%
neglect per Title 22 and the report is marked as
“Appropriate” for intervention, then the necessary
response timeframe is determined:
• 24 hours for high severity risk: allegations
include imminent safety concerns exist,
95% including potential occurrences of sexual
abuse and/or physical abuse with injury
• 72 hours for low-to-moderate safety risk:
Within 24-hr Started After 24-hr allegations include safety concerns, such as
the potential for physical abuse and neglect to
Figure 26: 24-hour Assessment Initiation Timeliness occur
In the 2017 Child and Family Services Reviews
(CFSR), Maine received an overall rating of “Area Needing Improvement” for performance in the outcome of
Timeliness of Initiating Investigations of Reports of Child Maltreatment, where 73 percent of cases reviewed met
policy timelines. According to recent MACWIS data, assessment workers are still not always meeting the goals
for timely initiation of assessments. In Maine, between September 2017 and August 2018 as shown in Figure 26,
95 percent of assessments requiring a 24-hour response were started timely, meaning that 5 percent were
started late.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 67
Between September 2017 and August 2018 as shown at right in Figure 27, 84 percent of assessments requiring
a 72-hour response from intake approval to the initiation of
the assessment were started timely. This means that 72 hour Assessment Initiation
1,088 assessments were not initiated timely during the Timeliness 09/17-08/18
12-month period.35

Anecdotally, interviews with staff suggest that cases 16%

assigned to assessment prior to a weekend or holiday are Within 72-hr
often not meeting the initiation timeframes due to the delay
in supervisor review and transfer to assessment. Under
audit, a case will be marked as incomplete if the 24- or 72- Started after
hour timeline is not met, regardless of situation. 72-hr
84%
Assessment Completion Timeliness
09/17-08/18
Figure 27: 72-hour Assessment Initiation Timeliness

According to MACWIS data, assessment workers are

not always meeting the 35-day timelines to
34% Within 35 complete assessments. Between September 2017
days and August 2018, 66 percent of assessments were
completed within 35 days. The 2017 Child and Family
66% Completed Services Review (CFSR) also gave Maine a rating of
after 35th day “Area Needing Improvement” for performance in the
outcome of Risk and Safety Assessment and
Management, where only 40 percent of cases reviewed
met policy timelines. Maine should aim for a 100
Figure 28: Assessment Completion Timeliness
percent timeliness rate across all federal measures to
meet the standard of a high performing agency. To improve efficiency, practice, processes and the ability of staff
to meet policy around timeframes, we recommend the following changes in assessment.

# Recommendations

30 Tighten assessment practices to further assure child well-being

31 Maintain timeframes currently in policy

32 Improve supervisory support for assessment staff

33 Add enhancements to the kinship placement process

34 Provide additional support for administrative and investigation activities

35 Increase efficiency in accessing an authorizing agent for emergency child removal process

36 Reassess the ARP program to align with best practice and define the referral process

Table 18: Practice and Policy (Assessment) Recommendations

35
Per MACWIS data analysis conducted in November 2018 for this report.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 68
30. Tighten assessment practices to further assure child well-being
Both “well-being” and “safety” are terms that have confounded the child protection community for years.
Statistically approximately 75 percent of all cases referred to the child protection system are for neglect, meaning
only 25 percent of the cases are for abuse. If the narrow interpretation of safety is physical or sexual abuse, then
children are safe in 75 percent of the cases. The fact is that safety has a broader meaning than those 25 percent
of cases. In addition, the issue of well-being has a broader meaning than just being safe.

One of the goals of the child protection system ought to be that children are free from emotional abuse which
means that they are not subject to aggressive or threatening verbal abuse, repetitive or chronic neglect, or other
behavior by an adult which does not provide a safe, friendly, threatening, intimidating or dangerous environment.
Often those environments for children are as damaging and as destructive, long-term, as physical or sexual abuse.
That is particularly true where those behaviors are repetitive and ongoing. In addition, they are most destructive
when an agency becomes involved, but the situation remains unresolved; the child is left with a sense that there
will be a change in adult behavior in the home, but services unsuccessfully address those behaviors.

Many of our case reviews, while small in number, revealed the need to ensure tight policies and practices that
support ensuring children are safe and their well-being is enhanced in situations that are not straight-forward
abuse. In Recommendation 28, we make the suggestion that OCFS move away from its policy of three
inappropriate reports equals an appropriate report. Both this change, as well as an overall move to having
Assessment use SDM, mean that it is then left to the caseworker and supervisor to, rather subjectively (though
we would contend that this can be built, somewhat, into SDM in future iterations) assess and evaluate the extent
to which previous adult/parental behaviors have caused the family to again come to the attention of the agency
as well as the parent’s ability to make significant changes to improve the child’s well-being. In addition, it is key to
understand how/why referred services have been unsuccessful in ameliorating or changing the behaviors. We
recommend that OCFS implement practice and culture changes that tighten practices and encourage
caseworkers/supervisors to prioritize the child’s best interest; the caseworker simply must make a
decision that is in the child’s best interest and be prepared to make recommendations to the supervisor
and the AAG that the circumstances require a different course of action. The safety of the child is at risk
when the services offered continued to place the child’s well-being in danger.

31. Maintain timeframes currently in policy

When it comes to initiation timeframes for investigations, states have discretion both when those timeframes start
and the length of time to initiate. For Maine, the change in policy, effective December 17, 2018, changes the
starting point to when intake receives the initial report of abuse as opposed to the previous policy of starting the
“clock” for assessments when the report is received at the District; this change is in alignment with “best practices”
across the country. However, the change in policy means shorter response times for assessment/investigations,
as intake supervisors may still need to review and pass along. We recommend, as we are sure the department
will do, close monitoring of the impact of these recent policy changes on the above timeliness figures.
The follow-up timeframes have not changed, remaining 24- or 72-hours to initiate and 35 days to close.

Best practices, data from other states, and experts would say that the state’s 24- and 72-hour timeframes
for initiating an investigation are on par with industry standards; we therefore recommend maintaining
that policy. The only differentiation is that some states have a shorter turnaround for cases that require an
“immediate response,” i.e., there is present danger to the child that qualifies as an emergency but may not have
warranted calling law enforcement and yet requires an immediate response from the agency. States that have
this shorter timeframe include: Washington D.C, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, Iowa, New Jersey, Illinois,
among others. We advise further research into other states and an internal review of policy and practice on what
must be completed prior to case closure. There does not appear to be a clear “best practice” but some other states

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 69
only mandate that the child and perpetrator be interviewed, and safety assessed within the initial assigned
response time. We recommend that Maine conduct further research into the practices in these other states
and consider formalizing a policy requiring a 1-2-hour response time for certain allegations. In general,
these cases should be a relatively small number of assessments; data from Indiana indicates it is around five to
ten percent of all assessed reports.

Data from our most recent survey of states indicates that 42 of 50 states had a time range for assessment closure
of roughly 30-60 days. For the states that allow cases to go longer (or on the longer end of that range), of which
there are few, some problems were noted. First, caseworkers could hold onto cases with limited activity for an
extended period of time and referral to services and follow-up were not as strong as they should have been.
Second, the longer caseworkers managed a case, the more of a relationship they had with the parents and
children the more difficult it was to transfer the case. Finally, the longer the case was carried by the assessment
worker, the more likely it was that the ongoing caseworker would reevaluate the case, sometimes resulting in
contradictory or repetitive services. Because of these reasons and their impact on the family, as well as the impact
on caseworker workload, we recommend that Maine continue to utilize 35 days as their timeframe to close
assessments. We recommend ensuring that:
• Supervisors make sure that they are done in the 35-day timeframe
• There is a good transition from one caseworker to the other
• Caseworkers are encouraged to not feel obligated to keep cases for the full 35 days

32. Improve supervisory support for assessment staff

Looking closely at supervisory support for caseworkers, currently, the supervisor-to-staff ratio averages 1:6 across
the state. Supervisors spend 19 percent of their time engaged in supervision. The percentage of time is fairly
evenly split between consulting with workers (6 percent); approving or authorizing reports, assessments or other
case actions (4 percent); and reviewing cases and reports (4 percent). In addition, supervisors spend 38 percent
of their time on non-case-specific work. Acknowledging the small sample size for the case review, it is worth
noting that for the cases reviewed, there were inconsistencies in supervisory leadership and support that did not
ensure children were best served by the agency’s involvement. In two of the cases we reviewed, the number of
referrals to the hotline about the families – in one case more than 20 referrals and in another more than 30 referrals
– should have resulted in a stronger concern for the safety and well-being of the children in the development of a
stronger sense of urgency. While no individual referral in and of itself may have caused an immediate concern for
the safety and well-being of the child, the combination of those cases should have. An experienced and trained
supervisor should have raised questions about that, particularly given the length of the case and the failure to get
to permanency.

It is important for staff, across the agency, but especially with the complexity and workload of assessment to have
the supervisory support to help keep children safe and move them toward permanence. Therefore,
recommendations include:
• Expedite supervisor reviews of new reports and form an on-call team to act on off-hour reports.
Supervisors should review new reports within 24 hours of the report. If supervisors may not be available
or cannot act timely on reports from intake, an on-call team should be organized to initiate contact within
the 72-hour timeframe. The implementation of these measures may shift the prioritization of work for
intake workers, assessment workers and supervisors, to respond more immediately. We know that
resources to dedicate an on-call assessment team may not be available immediately, so we also
encourage OCFS to consider alternative arrangements such as having intake approve and assign to a
district-level on-call Assessment worker/team who can review and respond as needed.
• Increase supervisor consultation during ongoing assessments to enhance the quality of risk and
safety management and to oversee compliance with timeliness standards. Supervisors are an

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 70
 influential resource: their advice, counsel, mentoring, oversight and constant engagement with the
caseworker about the status of the case is critical. Supervisors have authority, experience and training
that should give them critical insight into policy, the practice model, and other aspects of the child
protection system that they can reinforce to assist the case to a timely and appropriate conclusion. OCFS
should conduct a review of assessment supervisor tasks and involvement in decision-making to determine
where supervisor-to-staff consultation can be enhanced. Supervisors should be trained and challenged
to meet the needs of every case, but particularly those with multiple referrals and an extended lifetime of
involvement with the agency.
• Ensure there is a robust alert system that prioritizes and tracks the clock from initial report to keep
supervisors informed and alerted to initiate the assessment timely. Technology should be used to
provide constant reminders of the need for timeliness. While, CCWIS systems provide this service, OCFS
should also be sure that this is implemented as a process in all offices, with oversight from supervisors
and managers. Technology is only as useful as is it applied, and alert systems within any case
management system can easily be ignored or overlooked in practice. The tracking and management of
assessment timeframes should be prioritized and managed, using a standard practice, with training for all
supervisors and managers.

33. Add enhancements to the kinship placement process

Currently the OCFS policy on safety planning is that it is only done for in-home cases. If there cannot be a plan
made to keep a child safely at home, a Preliminary Protection Order (PPO) is done. While having a blanket policy
to either safety plan in-home or remove a child may increase the ability of the department to ensure the safety of
the child in the short-term, it does not capitalize on family efforts nor is it sensitive or respectful to the family or
child.

Our recommendations are three-fold:

1. Continue to prioritize kinship placements and conduct due diligence efforts to find family
members for placement. Research confirms that if children need to be removed from their home, they
do best with kin, and that family connections are critical to healthy child development and a sense of
belonging.36 Helping children maintain important family connections, while still working toward the goal of
reunification with parents, is in their best interest. Relatives are the preferred resource for children who
must be temporarily removed from their birth parents because it maintains the children's connections with
their families. In our case reviews, we found, in several instances, (though not necessarily indicative of
practice overall, simply of note to encourage the tightening of practice) a failure to locate biological fathers,
locate kinship placements, and engage kinship supports. In cases where children are removed from
parents, the Court can sanction a placement with kinship resources, even though they may not be
licensed. Also, licensing kinship resources can be expedited through one-on-one licensing training.

There are multiple benefits to children of using kinship resources related to safety. First and foremost,
children know their kinship caregivers, therefore somewhat reducing the trauma involved in removal from
their home. Secondly, children in kinship placements adjust better, are less likely to experience school
disruptions, behavioral problems, and psychiatric disorders. 37 Also, their placement stability increases,
which improves outcomes for the child, especially children of color. There is continuity in the community
the child knows, therefore preserving existing connections. Kinship care also encourages reunification in
an earlier timeframe and strengths the ability of families to give children the support they need.

36
https://www.aecf.org/blog/how-to-creating-a-kin-first-culture-in-child-welfare/
37
https://www.aecf.org/blog/what-is-kinship-care/

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 71
 2. Institute temporary safety placements. There are opportunities to develop a formal process of out-of-
home safety planning that meets best interest of the child. One of the more common forms of safety
placements in North Carolina is a temporary safety placement with someone, usually a relative, that
parents ask to temporarily care for their children to ensure their safety during assessment or during the
delivery of in-home services.38 It is important to note that temporary safety plans are just that: temporary.
In addition, they are different than safety resources and kinship care due to the lack of Court involvement
for temporary safety plans. They are also designed to be of a very short duration; they should last only as
long as it takes to complete the assessment regarding whether the immediate safety concerns can be
addressed and the child(ren) returned home. The literature on North Carolina’s policies note that is
“important to have clear guidelines and policies that outline when this should occur.” 39
3. Identify and train district kinship care specialists who are able to complete expedited background
checks and home evaluations for emergency placements. Having a process to streamline the
conducting of background checks is essential for ensuring that kinship placements can quickly be found
to support the best interests of the child. In addition, North Carolina reports that one of the challenges of
temporary placements is that the assessments of resources can be time-consuming and tedious.

34. Provide additional support for administrative and investigation

activities
Workload has become more and more of an issue particularly as it impacts caseload. Based on the preliminary
findings from the most recent Random Moment Time Study (RMTS), caseworkers spend considerable time on
what could be defined as “administrative tasks”, with varying (by office) levels of support from clerical staff or case
aids. According to preliminary findings from the most recent RMTS, support staff spend roughly 14 percent of their
time on visitation supervision and transportation (8 percent and 6 percent, respectively). While these are
categorized as case-specific activities, their workload is not fully designed to directly support caseworkers or
include tasks such as: preparing discovery documents for court, computer documentation, referrals and other
assistance. According to RMTS data, caseworkers spend an equal percentage of time documenting their
casework as they do engaging with families, children, providers, collaterals and/or others.

One of the “administrative” functions that caseworkers are typically asked to do is to locate an absent parent,
typically a father, and ultimately extended family. This is important not only for the legal requirements to engage
absent parents, but also to provide additional kin resources for such things as out-of-home/relative placement;
transportation to counseling, therapy or school; transportation to and provision for parental visitation, and
ultimately for the possibility of permanency through kinship placement.

Child welfare processes may be delayed due to lack of information, causing conflict between the Court and OCFS
and delaying permanency for the child. Courts want to see that reasonable efforts have been made to identify
family members and that DHHS has investigated all avenues to track down missing information or people relevant
to the child’s permanency plan. Investigative work involves interviewing, safety and risk assessment, and decision-
making, but it frequently also requires the raw work of tracking people down – from witnesses, to biological fathers,
to other kin. Without reasonable effort to do this investigative work, cases may be slowed by unanswered
questions in court.

38
http://www.practicenotes.org/v20n1/CSPN_v20n1.pdf
39
http://info.dhhs.state.nc.us/ olm/manuals/dss/csm-10/ man/CSs1201c4-05.htm and https://www2.ncdhhs.gov/info/olm/manuals/dss/csm-
60/man/cs1408.pdf (pages 13-18)

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 72
We, therefore, recommend OCFS:
• Hire detectives to assist with assessment investigations. OCFS should partner with a sheriff’s
association, local chiefs of police association, or the commander of the State Police for assistance in the
request for funding of these positions. OCFS has emphasized the need for enhancing interview
techniques and investigative methods, including training for critical thinking, problem-solving, and
motivational interviewing. However, investigative work is time-consuming and often requires a level of skill
and expertise already embodied by professionals in law enforcement. Caseworkers lack the formal
training and skills to embark on the sometimes-aggressive investigative techniques that child welfare work
requires to quickly and accurately locate and collect the right people and evidence needed to fully
investigate a report and/or be prepared for a hearing. Police detectives have the knowledge and skills
needed to track down the right people who will lead to finding someone – from a missing parent, to
witness, to perpetrator. Hiring detectives who are then trained on the child welfare system and particularly
the agency practice model can also assist in improving the communication and working relationships
between local law enforcement agencies in the district or the county such as Sheriff, local police
departments and even the State Police.

Indiana's Child Protective Services (CPS), where detectives work for the agency, have found that local
law enforcement’s understanding of the child protection philosophy, process and system enhances the
relationship between the local CPS agency and law enforcement. That understanding, and relationship
also assist the agency caseworkers in several ways:
1. It removes some of the administrative, non-social work burdens from the caseworker
2. The hired detectives are more experienced at finding people which improves the legal aspects of
the case by finding fathers at the front end rather than part way through
3. The hired detectives are available not only to find absent parents, but to serve notice of
proceedings such as hearings or subsequent filings like TPR
4. The hired detectives are available to go with caseworkers on child removals or at other events
where there is advance notice of potential problem such as caseworker visits or child and family
team meetings where there is a known domestic violence issue
5. The hired detectives can assist in training by being able to talk about interview and investigative
techniques that are more law enforcement related

• Explore the use of support staff to alleviate any administrative work currently done by
caseworkers or supervisors that, if removed from their workload, would free up time for other
required casework. Currently support staff spend 41 percent of their time on non-case specific tasks.
They spend three percent of their time on Discovery and 12 percent of their time preparing information for
MACWIS or recording information in MACWIS. To make the most of caseworkers’ time, support staff time
should be primarily dedicated to supporting the administrative functions of casework. Best practices from
other states include the use of contract and support staff to free up full-time caseworker staff. Child
Protective Services in North Carolina’s Buncombe County shifted all administrative work to support staff
and contracted out for other services. Transportation and visit supervision are provided by contracted
social service organizations, administrative assistants are responsible for all office work, and meetings
are documented using electronic transcription technology. Maine should review the tasks performed
by caseworkers on a day-to-day basis and determine how administrative tasks could be shifted
from caseworker to support (with additional staff dedicated, as needed) or contract staff to assist
in the time-consuming assessment tasks, including, but not limited to:

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 73
 Task Specifics
• Finding openings
Child care • Authorizing payment
• Setting up start dates and specifics of paperwork
• Scheduling with contract agency
Transportation • Notifying parents
• Coordinating schedules
• Transferring medical records
Records • Transferring school records
Visitation • Supervising (when contract slots max out)
• Diligent searching
Paperwork • Discovery preparation
Table 19: Ways Support Staff Can Relieve Administrative Burden

By allocating the work of identifying and locating the right people and places to detectives or other supportive
staff, caseworkers can focus on their work of interviewing to continue their assessment and decision-making.
Making additional resources available to assessment workers allows more time for the case planning and the
placement needs of children and families. The addition of skilled investigative staff has been found to be
successful in Indiana, where cases move along through court quicker because they do not often lack the discovery
of people or evidence. Detectives employed by child protective services in Indiana have also contributed to an
increase in locating kin, expanding options for placement and reducing placement delays or disruptions, providing
better outcomes for children.

35. Increase efficiency in accessing an authorizing agent for

emergency child removal process
Judges are notoriously difficult to reach to gain authority for the emergency removal of children. When court is not
open (evenings, weekends, and holidays), it is not always clear to staff which judge is available to authorize
removal of a child. In addition, child welfare staff are limited by the current police hold times (typically a 6-hour
hold for children at risk of immediate harm) while they obtain signature on a PPO.

Below we detail two options for increasing efficiency of case processing around court authority:

1. Collaborate for more immediate access to the judges in emergency situations by working with courts
to expand and structure their availability to child welfare staff
o Formalize the availability of judges for emergency orders by negotiating an on-call schedule or
back-up phone tree with judges for emergency contact
2. Evaluate statute to determine the ability to modernize the approval process, through email or text,
with legal due process considerations – if there is not current statutory authority, consider amending
the child protection code to match the current criminal code

It is recommended by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court judges (NCJFCJ), that courts issue
speedy orders for child welfare agencies,40 including providing off-hours coverage and access to caseworkers and
supervisors. To allow for such rotation in sparsely populated rural counties, one judge should be empowered to
take emergency calls for more than one county.

40
https://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/%20NCJFCJ%20Enhanced%20Resource%20Guidelines%2005-2016.pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 74
Collaboration between OCFS and the Courts should include the establishment of a method of judicial availability
for emergency orders for removal of children. This may include the establishment of a “phone tree” with on-call
availability 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Judicial availability should also address the possibility of using email or text message for authorization once the
emergency order is reviewed. Further research is needed to evaluate the current local practices for other parts of
the legal system, such as the criminal justice system. OCFS may present a case for this option by comparing how
the current system allows for off-hours, electronic judicial search warrants, as implemented in Maine in 2012. 41

3. Second, a more direct alternative is to change legislation to use police more directly in the removal
of children – give police the authority to remove children to eliminate the need for judge’s orders in
emergency removals, and/or expand the hold times allowed by police to hold children outside of the home
to meet the timeframes needed by OCFS to acquire court authority for removal

In some states, such as Indiana, law enforcement is authorized with the authority to remove children and law
enforcement personnel are able to transfer children to the custody of the child protection agency without the
involvement of the court until their review at the subsequent hearing. 42

This recommendation promotes the best interest of the child by allowing communication between OCFS and
police to share OCFS concerns about immediate harm and allow the police to make the safety decision for
emergency removal.

36. Reassess the ARP program to align with best practice and define
the referral process
According to information gathered during interviews and listening sessions, the current Alternative Response
Program (ARP) policy does not clearly define the cases that should be referred to ARP versus traditional
investigations. Further, the current ARP policies and practices do not align with national standards for ARP
because they focus significantly on safety and risk of maltreatment. In its current state, ARP may be utilized as a
way to refer low to moderate risk cases to private agencies for an investigation-like process. The United States
Department of Health and Human Services states that, “The primary distinguishing feature of alternative
responses is that they do not produce a formal determination of maltreatment, as investigation responses do.
More generally, an alternative response may also be distinguished by using a less adversarial, strengths-based
approach that gives families a role in decision-making, and a primary focus on providing services as opposed to
making the case for removal of the child from the home or punishment for the parent or other perpetrator.”43
Maine’s ARP policy states:

“An Alternative Response includes a timely and time-limited process of gathering critical individual, family, and
environmental information in order to determine: if a child is at Risk of Child Maltreatment; the impact of the Risk
on the child(ren); signs of safety, signs of risk, and signs of danger; how likely it is for a child to experience
maltreatment within the next six months; caregiver strengths and needs related to child safety; and to develop
a plan to assist the family in keeping the children safe."

Maine’s ARP policy focuses on information gathering regarding the presence, or risk, of child maltreatment as
opposed to focusing more on a family-involved approach to help address the child(ren) and family’s immediate

41
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/04/05/news/state/maine-police-officers-now-will-receive-warrants-by-email/
42
IC 31-34-2 Chapter 3. Child Taken into Custody https://www.in.gov/dcs/files/4.28%20Involuntary%20Removals.pdf
43
https://aspe.hhs.gov/system/files/pdf/204981/DifferentialResponse.pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 75
needs and provide the appropriate services. Maine’s policy does align with the national standard in its reference
to identifying caregiver strengths and (not outlined above) in the fact that ARP services do not result in
maltreatment findings.

The table below outlines the less adversarial policy language used in other States to describe their
alternative/differential response programs. The policy examples presented here additionally describe how
alternative/differential responses differ from an investigative pathway; a distinction currently lacking in Maine’s
ARP policy.

State Policy

“Differential Response (DR) is a family engagement approach that allows the Division to respond to
Arkansas reports of specific, low risk allegations of child maltreatment with a Family Assessment (FA) rather than
the traditional investigative response. The goals of Differential Response are to prevent removal from the
home and strengthen the families involved.”44

“Differential Response recognizes that there are variations in the severity of reported maltreatment and
allows for an investigation or family assessment response to reports of child neglect. Both responses
focus on the safety and well-being of the child; promote permanency within the family whenever possible;
Illinois and recognize the authority of child protection to make decisions about protective custody and court
involvement when necessary. An investigation response involves gathering forensic evidence and
requires a formal determination regarding whether there is credible evidence that child maltreatment has
occurred. A family assessment response involves assessing the family's strengths and needs and offering
services to meet the family's needs and support positive parenting.”45

“The Family Assessment response should embody the “Family-Centered Services” approach which is
founded on the principle that the first and greatest investments, time and resources, should be made in
the care and treatment of children in their own homes. This means that resources, which have traditionally
Missouri
been expended on one family member, are more wisely invested in treating and strengthening the entire
family. The family-centered approach places greater responsibility on, and confidence in, families and
local communities. Therefore, our foremost obligation is to provide families with the services and support
necessary to preserve and strengthen the family and prevent out-of-home placement.”46

“MRS [Multiple Response System] in North Carolina was born out of the realization that not all Child
Protective Services reports require the same approach. The implementation of MRS allows county
departments of social services a choice between the traditional investigative track and the family
North assessment track in responding to selected reports of neglect and dependency. The premise behind the
Carolina development of the family assessment track is that families can be better served, and children more
effectively protected, when the focus is on building partnerships with families rather than taking a more
authoritarian approach. The family assessment track identifies family strengths, support systems, and
community services that will assist families in acquiring the resources and developing the skills they need
to safely care for their children and reduce the risk of future maltreatment.”47

44
https://www.sos.arkansas.gov/uploads/rulesRegs/Arkansas%20Register/2014/dec2014/016.15.14-008.pdf
45
https://www2.illinois.gov/dcfs/search/pages/results.aspx?k=differential%20resposne#k=300.45(e)(1)
46
https://dss.mo.gov/cd/info/cwmanual/section2/ch5/sec2ch5sub2.htm
47
https://www2.ncdhhs.gov/dss/mrs/docs/MRS-SOC%20Policy%20Brief.pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 76
 State Policy

“The Prevention Track is to help families access available services to prevent possible abuse and/or
neglect and prevent problems from escalating to a level where assessment or investigative services are
Wyoming required. When preventive services are deemed appropriate by the Department of Family Services (DFS),
they may be provided if the family voluntarily accepts assistance.”48

Table 20: Alternative Response Policy Language from Other States

With approximately seven percent of reports being referred to ARP over the past year, it is clear the service is
utilized as an integral part of Maine’s child welfare system. Current policy for ARP, however, does not clearly
define which cases should be referred to ARP. Maine’s ARP policy lists signs of safety, risk, and danger, but the
policy does not actually state any specific referral criteria for ARP. There is some concern, and anecdotal evidence
to support it, that instead of clear criteria driving the referral process, district, office, and staff workload may
influence whether or not a case is referred to ARP. This is especially concerning since ARP services do not result
in findings, but OCFS investigations for similar referrals do.

Some States are very specific in policy about which cases should or should not be referred to a non-
investigative track. For example, Arkansas’ differential response policy explicitly lists which reports are
appropriate or inappropriate for this response pathway:

48
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6DSpyyE-UESUE5VYWxzTlIzM1k/view

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 77
(ARKANSAS) “DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All of the following factors must be present for a report to be assigned to Differential Response:
A. Identifying information for the family members and their current address or a means to locate them is known at the time
of the report
B. The alleged perpetrators are parents, birth or adoptive, legal guardians, custodians, or any person standing in loco
parentis
C. The family has no pending investigation or open protective services or supportive services case;
D. The alleged victims, siblings or other household members, are not currently in the care and custody of Arkansas
Department of Children and Family Services or wards of the court;
E. Protective custody of the children has not been taken or required in the current investigation; and,
F. The reported allegations shall only include:
1. Inadequate supervision
2. Inadequate food
3. Inadequate clothing
4. Inadequate shelter
5. Educational neglect
6. Environmental neglect
7. Lock out
8. Medical neglect
9. Human bites
10. Sprains/dislocations
11. Striking a child age seven or older on the face
12. Striking a child with a closed fist
13. Throwing a child

The following circumstances involving the allegations prohibit the report from being assigned to a Differential Response
pathway:
A. Inadequate supervision reports involving a child or children under the age of five or a child five years of age and older
with a physical or mental disability which limits his or her skills in the areas of communication, self-care, self-direction, and
safety will be assigned the investigative pathway.
B. Educational neglect reports involving a child that was never enrolled in an educational program.
C. Environmental neglect reports involving a child or children under the age of three; and those situations in which the
hotline assesses an immediate danger to the child’s health or physical well-being based upon the severity.
D. Lock out reports involving a child or children under the age of ten; and those situations in which the hotline assesses an
immediate danger to the child’s health or physical well-being based upon the severity.
E. Medical Neglect reports involving a child or children under the age of 13 or a child with a severe medical condition that
could become serious enough to cause long-term harm to the child if untreated will be assigned the investigative pathway.
F. Reports of human bites, sprains/dislocations, striking a child age seven or older on the face, striking a child with a closed
fist, and throwing a child when these allegations occurred:
1. Less than one year ago; and/or,
2. If the caller to the hotline can verify an injury either through physical signs (e.g., scarring), medical information,
dated photographs, etc.”

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 78
Wyoming similarly includes clear criteria in their policy regarding which cases should be referred to their non-
investigative services program, entitled “The Prevention Track”:

In Wyoming, “A family is eligible for preventive services when a referral has been received where there are no allegations
of abuse and/or neglect, but there are identified risk factors that indicate the need for services to prevent abuse and/or
neglect and the family voluntarily accepts services.

Identified risk factors include, but are not limited to:

• Prior open case(s);
• Parent(s) and/or caretaker(s) inability to hold a job and is showing signs of stress;
• Parent(s) and/or caretaker(s) has a past or current alcohol and/or drug problem that is unresolved;
• Parent(s) and/or caretaker(s) is showing signs of stress or being over-whelmed;
• Child(ren)/youth’s unaddressed behavioral issues are causing increased stress for the parent and/or caretaker;
• Parent(s) and/or caretaker(s) has past or current mental health problem that is not being addressed through
community services;
• Parent(s) and/or caretaker(s) is using ineffective or age inappropriate discipline methods and is showing signs of
increased agitation;
• A pregnant woman is using drugs/alcohol; and/or Domestic violence situation where the child(ren)/youth is not
present, and the child(ren)/youth is not showing behavioral or emotional trauma.”

With ARP impacting a considerable percentage of cases, it is of the utmost importance that policy is clear and
concise, the referral criteria is explicit, and the practice is consistent and implemented with fidelity across provider
agencies. Therefore, we recommend the following:

1. OCFS should clearly align program practice and policy. In its current use, ARP is a mix of privatized
investigative services used to mitigate district workload and alternative/differential response services post-
OCFS investigation. It should be clear what the purpose of ARP is and who qualifies for the service.

2. ARP should be updated to better align with alternative/differential response programs throughout
the US. The “Differential Response Implementation Resource Kit,” developed by Casey Family Programs,
would provide a useful starting point for consideration. 49

Once a clear direction has been set forth, OCFS should:

• Specifically, and clearly define which circumstances should lead to an ARP referral.
• Presently, there are no real consequence and/or action taken when the family repeatedly refuses to
comply or follow-up on any referrals. As part of the new process, OCFS should define the process by
which the agency is notified if a family fails to comply and a case is not closed if closure is dependent
upon compliance.
• Retrain staff as needed and ensure consistent implementation and compliance with practice
standards across provider agencies.

49

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/medicalschool/departments/pediatrics/subs/can/DR/Documents/Differential%20Response%20
%28DR%29%20Implementation%20Resource%20Kit--May%202014%5B1%5D.pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 79
 • Monitor metrics to ensure success. Going forward, as is part of the culture of OCFS, we recommend
continuing to monitor key metrics to evaluate the effectiveness, consistency, and impact of the change to
ARP. Key measures would include:
Metric
• Reports referred to ARP each month
• Subsequent appropriate report within 3 months of the
original ARP report
• 72-hour initiation timelines
• Conduct periodic case record reviews to ensure quality
and fidelity across provider agencies

Table 21: Key ARP Metrics

To begin the 10%

process of measuring these metrics, the first two
8%

Percentage
bullets in Table 21 were measured using data in
6%
MACWIS. Figure 29 displays the percentage of new
4%
reports which were referred to ARP each month. The
percentage of ARP reports steadily lowered from nine 2%
percent in November 2017 to four percent in June 0%
2018 before increasing back to the original nine
percent in the following three months.

Figure 30 investigates the percentage of those new ARP

reports which receive a subsequent appropriate report Figure 29: Percentage of New Reports Referred to
ARP
within three months of the original ARP report. Prior to
January 2018, typically 15 percent of families referred to
ARP received a new appropriate report of abuse or neglect; starting in January 2018 and beyond, roughly
40 percent of families referred to ARP received a subsequent appropriate report. These timeframes
coincide with the updated policy around what qualifies as a new appropriate report. Additionally, there
appears to be no significant correlation between the percentage of new ARP reports and the percentage
of ARP referrals with a subsequent appropriate report.

60%
50%
Percentage

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Figure 30: Percentage of ARP Referrals with a Subsequent

Appropriate Report

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 80
Training
Practice &and Professional
Process Development
Improvements Memo

Training and Professional Development Recommendations

High staff turnover and a large influx of inexperienced staff make this a critical opportunity for Maine to focus on
staff growth and development to promote agency tenure. OCFS provides a fairly robust course of training to new
staff, but there are some areas where additional focus is required. PCG has identified several recommendations
that can help OCFS align these training offerings with national best practices and make the most effective use of
the tools already in place. As part of the Quick Wins memo created during this project, PCG recommended that
OCFS formalize an ongoing training management plan for future implementations, and suggested key
components that should be included in that plan. Those components include multiple methods of communication,
the provision of “learning on demand” trainings, ongoing “refresher” trainings, and a regular schedule for trainings
so that staff can manage their time effectively. Implementation of the recommendations in this section should
include these components, and, whenever possible, should utilize multiple formats, including in-person, classroom
training, and online trainings, to best meet the needs of staff in terms of access and preferred learning style.

# Recommendations
37 Build on supervisory tool to promote growth and professional development of staff
38 Align new caseworker trainings and training techniques with national best practices
39 Ensure that intake supervisors and staff are properly trained to identify high-risk cases
40 Use quality assurance process to support agency policy and practice model and training needs

Table 22: Training and Professional Development Recommendations

37. Build on supervisory tool to promote growth and professional

development of staff
OCFS has developed and implemented a supervisory tool, but it is currently read as and is being used more like
an audit or quality control (QC) tool. The expectation is that supervisors will review cases and complete a checklist
to ensure that all required actions were taken. This tool is useful but can limit dialog and narrow the focus of
supervisory check-ins to a discussion of which actions were taken. There is space provided for comments or
action steps, but no explicit opportunity to explain why or why not something was done, no consolidation of
common issues or errors across multiple cases, no way to document issues that are not case-specific, and no
formal opportunity to use the results to drive professional development activities with staff. The singular focus on
and use of the tool in supervisory meetings may be taking away from other opportunities to build staff capacity to
address agency needs.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 81
OCFS policy II. E., Standards for Supervision in Child Welfare, states,

“Effective supervision is based on a supervisor/caseworker relationship that promotes continuous learning and facilitates
professional growth and development through self-reflection and identification of strengths and challenges.”

In contrast, caseworkers and supervisors alike noted in listening groups and on-site observations that
weekly supervision is not consistently happening. Some supervisors are better able to meet weekly
supervision standards, whereas others admitted to only speaking to their staff every few weeks on a formal basis,
though they had conversations with most staff daily. No supervisors or caseworkers were able to say with any
confidence that professional development was ever part of their supervision time. Results from PCG’s survey of
OCFS staff indicate that 32 percent of caseworkers surveyed felt that they needed more focused time with their
supervisor to talk about cases. Thirty-four (34) percent of supervisors felt that additional focused time was needed
with both peers and supervisors to talk about common issues, pointing to a need for more consistent and focused
supervisory meetings as well as regular discussions between staff at the same level.

The National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement suggests a few best practices to
support administrative roles of staff, and in turn, support agency goals: 50
• Develop tools to help supervisors talk with workers about specific indicators related to outcomes
• Support ongoing professional development of staff, including:
o Offering staff opportunities to participate in trainings and conferences to expand knowledge of
best practices and changing trends
o Implementing consistent, supportive supervision

In addition, the National Association of Social Workers’ Best Practice in Social Work Supervision report states that
regular supervision “decreases job stress that interferes with work performance and provides the supervisee with
nurturing conditions that complement their success and encourage self-efficacy.”51 In other words, people are less
likely to leave jobs where they feel valued and competent and more likely to invest themselves into doing a better
job. Regular supervision that includes time for discussion around skill building and professional
development is crucial for training a strong, knowledgeable, stable workforce.

Along with shifting some of the focus of supervisory meetings to professional development, supervisors should
use the supervisory tool to identify areas of concern. The results of these case reviews can be used to create
opportunities for staff to address any performance shortcomings while also expanding their knowledge of policy
and practice. For example, negative patterns detected in case reviews should lead to recommended activities on
the part of the caseworker, whether it be a formal training or a more informal follow up exercise developed with
the supervisor to help address the issue. OCFS should either modify the current tool or create a companion
tool to compile and analyze the results of the current tool to help supervisors and caseworkers address
bigger picture issues that cut across cases and caseloads. Either way, it is important that supervisors
prioritize coaching and mentoring with caseworkers at least twice a month to make the best use of the data
generated by the supervisory tool and any modifications that are made to it. Coaching and mentoring can take
many forms; OCFS should review national best practices and develop a structure and toolkit for supervisors that
is most appropriate for the organization. Additional information on best practices and trainings for supervisors
themselves can be found in Recommendation 39.

50
http://muskie.usm.maine.edu/helpkids/rcpdfs/cwmatters6.pdf
51
https://www.socialworkers.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=GBrLbl4BuwI%3D&portalid=0

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 82
Case reviews are an important part of supervisory oversight, but supervisory check-ins with staff should not focus
solely on the supervisory tool. Making even a minimal amount of time available to discuss professional
development could make a major difference in the perception of these meetings by staff. One common rule of
thumb for conducting supervisory meetings or “one on ones” is the “10/10/10” guideline – that is, 10 minutes for
the staff member’s issues or concerns, 10 minutes for the supervisor’s issues or concerns, and 10 minutes to
discuss future plans or next steps. These timelines need
not be set in stone, but they do provide an opportunity for
One common rule of thumb for conducting two-way communication on both sides of the meeting,
supervisory meetings or “one on ones” is the rather than a complaint session or a review of everything
“10/10/10” guideline – that is, 10 minutes for the that the employee has done wrong since the last
staff member’s issues or concerns, 10 minutes for meeting. Ensuring that supervisory sessions are more
the supervisor’s issues or concerns, and 10 than a review of the supervisory tool can pay dividends
minutes to discuss future plans or next steps. in terms of employee satisfaction, performance and
productivity.52

The Department must ensure that supervisory meetings are used to develop opportunities for learning and
improvement, and that frequent, routine supervision that allows time for professional growth, and not just
case reviews, is a priority for every manager in a supervisory role.

38. Align new caseworker trainings and training techniques with

national best practices
New OCFS child welfare caseworkers are required to complete the “Foundations” training as soon as possible
after hire. This classroom training is offered by the department five times per year and spans 12 weeks. It covers
the following topics:

Topic Subtopics
Technology • Using the technology provided by OCFS to carry out job tasks and duties
• Introduction to OCFS, Laws, Policy, Practice and dynamics around child abuse and neglect
• Domestic Violence
Introduction • Substance Abuse
• Medical Indicators of Child Abuse and Neglect
• Parents as Partners
• Intake process
Assessment/
• Child protective assessment process
Interviewing
• Forensic Interviewing & Assessment Simulation
• Decision making around child abuse and neglect findings
• Family Team Meetings & mock FTM
• Service cases
• Family Plan
Service • Removing youth from their homes and what they need while in custody
Cases • Maine Coalition Against Sexual Assault (MECASA)
• Human trafficking and the Child Advocacy
• Centers (CACs)
• Youth Panel
• Resource Parent Panel
Permanency
• Family Team Meetings (facilitated)
Cases
• Court process – what is involved during a permanency case when children are in custody
(children in
care) • Working with resource parents
• Reasonable and prudent parenting

52
https://hbr.org/2016/08/how-to-make-your-one-on-ones-with-employees-more-productive

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 83
 • Child plan
• School issues for youth in foster care
• Developing a family plan and continued Family Team Meetings (FTMs)
• Being the guardian for children in care
• Family Reunification and other permanency options

Table 23: Foundations Topics

New hires also work directly with trainers to go over some of the other things that they need to know to do their
jobs, such as the roles of other OCFS staff, how to access additional online trainings, and how to access the policy
website.

In addition to Foundations, the New Worker Checklist includes activities that must be completed prior to assigning
cases to a new caseworker. These include job shadowing for assessments and hearings, review and discussion
of various types of petitions and assessments, review of fact-finding interviews associated with these
assessments, and attendance at a Family Team Meeting (FTM). Another layer of training must be completed
within six months of hire, including legal training and an introduction to the Indian Child Welfare Act; additional
assessment and job shadowing activities and trainings are required over the course of the first year of
employment.

The training included in Foundations and these related activities is substantial and appears to be
appropriately specific to job activities and in alignment with best practices, in terms of content. However,
OCFS staff indicated in discussions that these activities were not particularly helpful, and that new hires didn’t
really learn much until they were able to spend a significant amount of time in their district office. This is partially
due to the differences that exist in in the way practice is implemented in district offices across the state, as different
offices do things differently to address challenges posed by staffing, caseload, and the geography of their region.
Caseworkers and supervisors also felt that in some cases, a classroom environment is not the best preparation
for child welfare fieldwork, where situations change and develop quickly, and a caseworker is often forced to rely
on their experience, or to make decisions on the fly, to address an emergency or other unforeseen circumstance.

ACF’s Children’s Bureau suggests that training for new caseworkers focus on the following areas:
• Family-centered practice • Out-of-home care
• Child abuse prevention • Reunification
• Child protective services • Permanency planning
• Family support and preservation • Adoption
• Kinship care

The Children’s Bureau further recommends that training be “tied to supervision; tailored to worker needs; and
includes opportunities for experiential learning, shadowing, and coaching.” 53 California has recently revamped its
training for child welfare workers, which it calls “Common Core 3.0.” Each element of the list above is addressed
through a combination of online modules, in-person/classroom trainings, and field activities. This reduces the time
that staff need to be away from their offices in a classroom environment, while also providing opportunities to learn
in several different ways.54 In a study conducted by Boston University, it was found that training that was primarily
knowledge-based, without the opportunity to apply what is being taught, causes frustration on the part of learners
and can lead to negative outcomes. On the other hand, interactions with mentors and performing an activity in
situations that are similar to what caseworkers are likely to encounter on the job are among the factors that lead
to transformative learning.55

53
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/management/training/curricula/caseworkers/core/
54
https://calswec.berkeley.edu/common-core-social-workers/100-curricula
55
http://www.bu.edu/ssw/files/pdf/BUSSW_CSReport21.pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 84
PCG reviewed the training practices of 11 jurisdictions that received “strength” ratings for both initial and on-going
staff training in round 3 of the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR). Available information about the activities
of these ten states and Washington, D.C., across the three main categories of staff training are included in the
table below. Of note, a number of these states provide some training in-house, while contracting out other
elements. In most cases, continuing education courses with proper certification are accepted regardless of the
provider or format, except in the case of a training that is specific to a new policy, program, or tool being
implemented by a state.

Training Level Jurisdiction Details

• New hires complete 8 module course offered quarterly
• Expected completion time is 3-6 months
Kansas • Modules include classroom, laboratory, and workshop learning
• Training developed by Institute for Human Services
• Pre-service trainings are provided in-house
• Provides 101 hours of classroom training that can be completed
within 14 days
• Next, new hires complete 4-6 weeks of simulation with monitoring
Washington, D.C. and assessment by training supervisors
• After completing simulation, new hires have another 4-6 weeks of
on the job training, including job shadowing
• Pre-service trainings are provided in-house
• Training formats include classroom, self-paced online courses, live
webinar trainings, field training, computer laboratory training,
Nebraska videotaped practice and simulation, and supervisor mentoring
• Pre-service trainings are provided by the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln under contract
Pre-Service Training • Initial 5-week training requirements include:
o 9 classroom modules
o 5 laboratory courses
o 4 structures field trainings
o A readiness assessment
Florida o Job-specific training, followed by competency exam
administered by a third-party credentialing entity
• Full certification requires 1040 hours of on-the-job experience and
46 hours of direct supervision.
• Pre-service trainings are provided by the University of South
Florida
• 4 weeks of core training is provided 4 consecutive months
• 12 months of field work supervised by a Certified Supervisor or
District Manager is required for certification
• Both of these activities must be completed during a worker’s first
Wyoming
year
• Core training is provided internally, although subject matter
experts both internal and external to state government may
provide training on certain topics
• Total required hours vary from 20-30 per year, depending on the
level of staff (supervisors vs. case-carrying staff)
All
• Some provide training in-house, others utilize
contracted/partnered training providers
Inservice
Training/Continuing • All caseworkers and supervisors must recertify annually with 21
Education hours of continuing education spread across 3 categories covering
Wyoming APS, CPS, and Juvenile Justice
• Trainings may take the formation of in-person sessions, self-study,
or college courses.
• The state also coordinates:

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 85
 o Regular conference calls for caseworkers to share
experiences
o Bi-annual two-day overview trainings
o An annual Children’s Justice Conference
• Training on supervisory functions often uses externally developed
curriculum such as “Mastering the Art of Child Welfare
Supervision” or the “Supervising for Success” curriculum
developed by the Child Welfare League of America
All • Some states allow for enrollment in continuing education courses
• Kansas, Arizona, and Washington, D.C., train supervisors in-
house
Supervisor Training • New Jersey collaborates with Rutgers University and Stockton
University to develop and provide supervisor training
• Additional supervisor learning opportunities are available via
quarterly meetings and an annual themed conference, with
presentations on a wide range of topics
Kansas
• The creator of the “Mastering the Art of Child Welfare Supervision”
curriculum was retained by Kansas to train Department for
Children and Families supervisors

Table 24: Training Practices of 11 Jurisdictions that Received “Strength” Ratings

The Foundations training provided is heavily focused on classroom training. To supplement that classroom training
and achieve further alignment with national best practices, OCFS should implement more experiential training
components into new hire training. This could include additional interactive components such as online
trainings and should also include modules that are conducted in district offices if at all possible. While job
shadowing is a component of training that follows Foundations, staff and supervisors have expressed that it can
be difficult for staff to connect their classroom training to their work until they are able to put it into context. Some
classroom instruction should be retained, but trainings that engage new caseworkers in the work of their district
office as soon as possible should be explored.

39. Ensure that intake supervisors and staff are properly trained to
identify high-risk cases
Cases reviewed by PCG indicated that supervisory leadership and support did not always ensure that the
child/children were best served by the agency’s involvement. In two of the cases the number of referrals to the
hotline about the families — in one case more than 20 referrals and in another more than 30 referrals — should
have resulted in a stronger concern for the safety and well-being of the children and in the development of a
stronger sense of urgency. While no individual referral in and of itself may have caused an immediate concern for
the safety and well-being of the child, the combination of those cases should have – an experienced and well-
trained supervisor should have raised questions about these cases, particularly given their duration and the failure
of the cases to get to permanency.

Intake staff, supervisors and caseworkers need on-going opportunities for skill development through
training, coaching, and over-the-shoulder support. Currently, OCFS doesn’t offer specialized training for
intake staff, though there are now more general trainings offered that are available to them (e.g., writing skills and
how to handle difficult callers). Intake staff participate in the same pre-service training as all other new
caseworkers; most of the additional
training is provided by staff and In Tennessee, for example, screening staff are provided quick-hit
supervisors in the unit. While intake trainings at every team meeting covering a variety of pertinent or
leadership has developed different refresher topics. They are also offered job-specific, brief 30-
training tools to assess phone-readiness minute trainings as part of each unit’s monthly team meeting.
and intake concepts, the agency could

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 86
benefit from more intake-specific new worker and on-going trainings. In Tennessee, for example, screening staff
are provided quick-hit trainings at every team meeting covering a variety of pertinent or refresher topics. They are
also offered job-specific, brief 30-minute trainings as part of each unit’s monthly team meeting.

Perhaps the single most influential element in the case when called into the hotline is a supervisor. Whether that
supervisor is supervising the hotline, the in-home cases such as ARP, or further court/out-of-home contact with
the family, the supervisor’s advice, counsel, mentoring, oversight, and constant engagement with the caseworker
about the status of the case is critical. Supervisors have the authority, experience and training that should give
them critical insight on policy, the practice model, and other aspects of the child protection system within the
agency that they can reinforce the statutory, policy and other considerations that can assist the case to a timely
and appropriate conclusion.

We recommend OCFS adopt the brief, unit-meeting training schedule in addition to its current training
opportunities offered for ongoing professional development. This schedule should include sessions on the
following topics:

1. Determining immediate risk

2. Gathering information efficiently
3. Handling emergency situations and caller stress
4. Coaching
5. SDM refresher
6. Employing frameworks for practice: cultural competence, strengths-based, ecological perspective, and
others

During these sessions, it is important that staff can ask questions and engage in discussion with presenters and
each other. Results from PCG’s staff survey indicate caseworkers and supervisors would both like additional time
to discuss common issues, and an interactive training session could help address that concern while providing an
additional opportunity to refresh skills.

Supervisors across the agency, being so critical to the successful implementation of the mission, vision,
values, policy, practice and outcomes of the agency, must also receive more specialized training so that
they are able meet the needs and challenges of every case, particularly those with multiple referrals and extended
involvement with OCFS. In addition to the need for supervisors to have a strong understanding of policy, process,
and procedure across agency units, they must also receive training that helps them to develop their supervisory
skills, including effective management, supervisory styles, interpersonal skills, and clinical supervision. 56 The
National Child Welfare Workforce Institute has developed a competency framework that includes all levels of a
child welfare organization, including supervisors and managers. The framework includes five domains, each of
which includes several core competencies; indicators of each competency that are appropriate for each level are
included as well. As an example, the first domain, Leading Change, includes the following competencies:57

Competency Indicators for Supervisors

• Reevaluates current procedures and suggests improvements to ensure
an effective, streamlined process
Creativity and Innovation • Creates a quality control system to monitor unit processes
• Encourages and recognizes creativity in work unit
• Considers innovative ideas generated by others

56
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/management/training/curricula/supervisors
57
National Child Welfare Workforce Institute (2010). Leadership competency framework. Albany, NY: McDaniel, Nancy, et al.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 87
 Competency Indicators for Supervisors
• Keeps up to date by attending key meetings hosted by other agencies
or organizations
• Keeps abreast of developments in other parts of the organization
External Awareness • Assesses external environment and helps facilitate improved relationships
• Communicates to outside agencies the agency’s mission and its role in
the child and family service system
• Participates on boards of regional and local agencies

Flexibility • Meets with team to adjust and coordinate schedules to accommodate

all team members
• Adjusts staff assignments based on feedback and workload priorities
• Helps staff manage crisis situations
• Participates in agency strategic planning
• Completes assigned activities and tasks in the strategic plan
Strategic Thinking • Obtains feedback from workers and stakeholders to continuously
assess performance and inform strategic planning
• Conducts unit-level planning to translate agency goals into unit-level
strategic plans
• Meets with staff to address concerns about new organizational
Vision structure
• Develops and generates support for work group vision

Table 25: Child Welfare Competency Framework

These indicators reflect a role that is much more aligned with management than with front-line staff, and the
training and support resources made available to supervisors should reflect this. A Casey Family Programs brief
strengthening quality supervision highlights a number of ways that child welfare agencies can support supervisors,
including making sure that supervisors themselves have regular supervisory meetings with the person that they
report to, providing coaching to supervisors around the implementation of new initiatives, and providing materials
that supervisors can use to support the on-the-job training of their own staff of caseworkers.58 Iowa’s Department
of Human services has done this by creating a “Supervisor Developmental Planning and Support Toolkit” that
includes many of these elements, as well as a supervision manual with forms and templates that supervisors can
use in their meeting with staff. The training resources made available to staff and supervisors in several other
states are included in table 26 below.

State Training Program

A partnership with the University of Wisconsin – Madison develops curriculum and provides
training to all child welfare caseworkers and supervisors. Supervisor training curriculum has topics
including orientation and foundation, safety training, and additional continuing professional
Wisconsin
development trainings. Their curriculum includes job-specific supervision skills training in
Wisconsin’s child welfare units of initial assessment, ongoing services, foster care, youth justice,
American Indian Tribes.
Training is provided for Department of Child Services (DCS) staff and foster and adoptive parents
Indiana primarily through a partnership between DCS and Indiana University, including new supervisor
training and quarterly supervisory workshops
All CPS, Foster Care, and Adoption workers are mandated to complete initial in-service training
Virginia programs. This program is also mandated for all new supervisors and those with less than two
years of experience.

58
https://www.casey.org/what-are-preliminary-building-blocks-to-strengthen-quality-supervision/

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 88
 State Training Program
Each child protective service worker, including supervisors, must pass a basic training program in
New York child protective services within the first three months of his/her employment in the child protective
service.
The University of Pittsburgh provides training for all county child welfare case managers and
Pennsylvania
supervisors and employs all Resource Center employees.

Table 26: Examples of Supervisor and Caseworker Training in Other States

OCFS has offered trainings specifically for child welfare supervisors in the past, including the “Putting the Pieces
Together” course and the Leadership Academy for Supervisors, that include many of these elements. OCFS
should continue to offer these to current supervisors, and look to integrate new supervisors into these,
or similar trainings, as quickly as possible after they are hired or promoted. New supervisory staff are
required to complete the “Managing in State Government” training offered by DHHS but would benefit from child
welfare specific training now. Enhancing the capacity of supervisory staff will enable them to more effectively
manage caseworkers while utilizing their expertise to identify cases that may need additional attention.

40. Use quality assurance process to support agency policy and

practice model and training needs
Quality assurance has been in the child protection dialogue for decades. The issue is not just developing a policy
manual and a practice model but ensuring that the vision, mission, policy and practice are taught, nurtured and
followed. This is known as keeping fidelity with the model.

The current practice of the federal government through its CFSR program is a method of implementing the quality
assurance process that compares jurisdictions throughout the nation. Each agency should develop its own quality
assurance model that identifies the practice of each caseworker, unit, county and district for fidelity to the model
and identification for additional support and resources.

The best way to assure fidelity not only for each case, within each unit, within each county and district, but within
the agency itself is to have a strong quality assurance program. To do that, dedicated staff must be available to
ensure through a rigorous process that the requirements within the practice model that support and reinforce the
vision and mission of the agency are the guiding tenants of the agency’s practice. It is not sufficient that this be
done only internally because quality assurance is not just assuring that the agency itself is in compliance with its
vision, mission and practice but that the service provider community and stakeholders understand, support and
enforce the agency’s model.

OCFS has a number of QA staff, both at the central office and assigned to each district, who have experience
across the array of services that the agency provides. OCFS should ensure that QA staff, and their feedback,
are part of the training development and continuous improvement process. QA staff are uniquely positioned
to understand the way that policy, practice, and process intersect, and collectively can use this understanding to
identify training needs. QA staff can also provide feedback on the effectiveness of trainings, in terms of the issues
that they identify in their reviews over time. Training for caseworkers is not static but dynamic, and must respond
to the needs of caseworkers, clients, and the changing environments within which they both must operate. The
quality assurance process can provide feedback at a high level that can be used to increase the capacity of staff
to serve children and families in a consistent manner.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 89
Court Recommendations

Overview
Since 1937, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) has worked continuously to
develop national best practice standards for child welfare work in the courts.

“Following are some of the practice improvements recommended by the original resource guidelines and
implemented by courts:
• Substantive and thorough child abuse and neglect hearings
• One family-one judge case assignment and calendaring
• Individual and time-certain calendaring
• Implementation of strict no-continuance policies
• Dissemination of copies of orders to all parties at the end of the hearing
• Setting the date and time of the next hearing at the end of the current hearing
• Frequent court review with enforcement of established timeframes
• Judicial leadership both on and off the bench to improve case processing and child welfare outcomes
• Front-loading of the case process – substantive preliminary protective hearings, early appointment of counsel
for parents and children, the use of pre-hearing and pre-trial conferencing, early alternative dispute resolution,
early identification of services to children and families
• Development and use of family group conferencing and child protection mediation
• Strong and effective collaborative relationships and collaborative action among all aspects of the court and child
welfare system
• Monitoring of the effectiveness of the system through the development of data information systems specifically
focused on dependency case processing and performance measurement

Collaboration among State and tribal courts” – “Enhanced Resource Guidelines,” pg. 111

Using data collected via listening sessions and a case record review of a small sample of eight cases, PCG
discovered several themes regarding the court and its partnership with OCFS; across these themes, we identified
opportunities for improvement. It is worth acknowledging that while these recommendations are being made to
OCFS, some of these recommendations are beyond OCFS control alone. They would require support and action
from the courts as well. Much of NCJFCJ’s work, as well as consultation with experts in the field, research on best
practice standards, and practices in other states has informed many of the recommendations in this memo. Each
recommendation is discussed in further detail throughout this memo.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 90
 # Recommendations

41 Offer domestic violence training to judges, attorneys, guardian ad litems, and other court staff

Provide training to judges and other court staff on child welfare, OCFS’ practice model, policy, and additional
42
compliance standards

43 Hire retired judges with extensive child welfare knowledge and experience to mentor Maine judges

44 Promote inclusion in the Model Courts Project for Maine

45 Develop a clear policy regarding continuances and pre-trial hearings

46 Establish time-certain courtrooms

47 Ensure better inclusion of natural/informal supports in the courtroom

48 Set a standard of “one family-one judge”

49 Establish court performance measures

Table 27: Court Recommendations

41. Offer domestic violence training to judges, attorneys, guardian ad

litems, and other court staff
PCG noted instances in several cases during the record reviews where judges would not grant the removal of a
child despite OCFS’ recommendation to do so; this recommendation was additionally supported with strong
evidence to do so. In nearly all of these instances, there was patterned and present evidence of serious domestic
violence, often with long history established. The judges in these cases seemed to dismiss the severity of the
present domestic violence or the patterns of behavior where parents returned to violent partners, putting the
children at great risk. Subsequently, in some of these cases, safety issues later arose due to the domestic violence.
The difficulty in understanding the severity of domestic violence presented a challenge, not only for judges, but for
other court staff such as attorneys and guardian ad litems.

NCJFCJ59 offers a variety of trainings specific to child welfare and domestic violence to a targeted audience of
judges and court staff where workshops directly address the overlap between child maltreatment and domestic
violence. We recommend OCFS encourage judges and court staff attend all applicable trainings. In addition,
NCJFCJ developed a resource titled, “Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment Cases:
Guidelines for Policy and Practice: Recommendations from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges Family Violence Department.” This resource nicknamed “The Greenbook,” is available online for free
download as a PDF60 and should be read by all judges and court staff who work with child welfare.

“Although researchers have known for years that domestic violence and child maltreatment often coexist in families, only
recently have communities and individuals from all professions begun to question the wisdom of responding to these
forms of violence as if they were separate, unrelated issues.” – The Greenbook pg. 4

While ensuring that court staff read The Greenbook is a start to moving court stakeholders in the right direction,
NCJFCJ and the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence (NJIDV) 61 should be consulted to pursue more
in-depth domestic violence training. NJIDV has offered educational programs for judges since 1999 with a

59
http://www.ncjfcj.org
60
file:///C:/Users/saryan/Downloads/effective-intervention-in-domestic-violence-child-maltreatment-cases-guidelines-fo.pdf
61
https://njidv.org

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 91
focus on helping them to develop skills and competencies in handling cases where domestic violence issues are
present. NJIDV offers a foundational course/workshop for judges entitled, “Enhancing Judicial Skills in Domestic
Violence Cases,” as well as several continuing education courses which delve further into specific domestic
violence related topics (e.g., child welfare).

42. Provide training to judges and other court staff on child welfare,
the OCFS practice model, policy, and additional compliance
standards
According to data from the listening sessions and case record reviews, some judges and other court staff seem
to misunderstand the mission, principles, and policies which guide casework practice for OCFS staff and the
nuances of child welfare in general. This is not surprising since formal training on OCFS’ child welfare practice
model and policies is not standard practice in preparing judges or court staff to work with child welfare cases.

It is important to note that while challenges were found in this assessment, Maine has already made efforts to
improve coordination between child welfare and the courts through the State’s participation in the Court
Improvement Program. According to the Administration for Children and Families, “The highest court of each State
and territory participating in the Court Improvement Program (CIP) receives a grant from the Children's Bureau to
complete a detailed self-assessment and develop and implement recommendations to enhance the court's role
in achieving stable, permanent homes for children in foster care.”62

Maine’s Court Improvement Program website 63 provides links to a number of resources on child welfare court
related topics, including prevention, placement stability, and substance-exposed newborns. There are copies of
previous presentations and events sponsored by Maine’s Court Improvement Program available for download as
well. Examples of events include a presentation on commercial exploitation and a two-day session about trauma-
informed practice. However, the website does not appear to be up-to-date as there are no materials more recent
than 2016.

In order to form effective and more meaningful

partnerships between OCFS and the courts, the
two entities need to understand each other and the
Cumberland County (Fayetteville, NC) is creating a
work they do. Other states, particularly those
Steering Committee to meet regularly to steer the
involved in NCJFCJ’s Model Courts initiative,64
discussion of concerns and opportunities going forward
have implemented orientations/trainings for their
as they relate to the path to permanence for children.
judges and court staff to ensure that they are
This long-term Committee will be comprised of the
knowledgeable about the agency’s child welfare
following individuals: Social Services/Child Welfare
practice model and policies. In addition, the
Director, all Family Court Judges, Chief District Court
trainings are used to share the philosophy which
Judge, Department of Juvenile Justice, a parent attorney
guides the agency’s work, as well as the specific
representative, GAL Administrator, GAL attorney(s), DSS
policy and compliance measures that need to be
Assistant Director for Legal Services, Family Court
carried out by its staff. The main focus of the
Administrator, County Manager, and a County
trainings for Model Courts is to work on building
Commissioner/Chair of the County Commission.
better collaboration between systems to help

62
https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/systemwide/courts/reform/cip/#state
63
http://www.mainecourtimprovement.org
64
http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/Model%20Courts%20Brochure_Effect_2.pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 92
eliminate barriers and improve outcomes for children and families. Based on the findings of this assessment,
these trainings would be most beneficial to ensure that OCFS and court staff operate under an aligned
mission and focus, and we recommend judges and court staff engage in these or similar trainings. An
additional resource by NCJFCJ available for online purchase is Building a Better Collaboration: Facilitating
Change in the Court and Child Welfare System65.

In addition to the court’s understanding of child welfare work specific to OCFS’ policies and practice, it would be
beneficial to ensure that all judges have a basic knowledge of general best practices in handling child welfare
cases. This is especially pertinent in Maine where there are no judges who specialize in child welfare, but instead
are responsible for a wide variety of cases where only a small percentage may be child welfare involved. A free
resource which should be read by all judges and court staff, which is available for online download, is the
“Enhanced Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases,” developed by
NCJFCJ. The Enhanced Resource Guidelines outlines best practice standards for courtrooms handling child
abuse and neglect cases which might be considered to establish a baseline training/orientation and ongoing
resource for judges on quality child welfare court practices. The Enhanced Resource Guidelines should be read
by court staff in conjunction with the other trainings recommended throughout this memo.

For those judges and attorneys with strong competencies in child welfare who want to receive recognition for their
hard work and expertise, there is an opportunity to become certified as a Child Welfare Law Specialist 66. This
certification would also help to ensure that there are judges and attorneys who are striving to remain active in
continued education on child welfare best practices and they could advise other judges and attorneys who are still
working to build their own child welfare law knowledge and expertise. In order to be eligible for the certification the
judge or attorney must have:
• Three or more years’ experience practicing law
• Thirty percent (30 percent) or more of the last three years involved in child welfare law
• Thirty-six (36) hours of continuing legal education within the last three year in courses relevant to child
welfare law
• A writing sample drafted within the last three years that demonstrates legal analysis in the field of child
welfare

43. Hire retired judges with extensive child welfare knowledge and
experience to mentor Maine judges
The third recommendation provides another method to help judges build their knowledge and expertise in handling
child welfare work since, as noted earlier, there are no child welfare specialist judges in Maine. Beyond what
training can provide, some States have hired retired judges with expertise in child welfare to come and talk
about their work in the child welfare system with current judges. This option provides judges with an
opportunity to engage with peers and ask pertinent questions where answers are not easily gleaned through
trainings and resource review.

PCG has its own judge who would be willing to provide his extensive subject matter expertise in child welfare.
Judge James Payne (who led the case record review effort for this assessment) has spoken to a variety of
audiences about judicial work in child welfare in 46 States. Prior to joining PCG, Judge Payne served as Presiding
Judge of the Marion Superior Court, Juvenile Division in Indiana for 20 years. He was elected to four terms as
Superior Court Judge, during which time he implemented systemic change through statute revision, merging the

65
http://www.ncjfcj.org/resource-library/publications/building-better-collaboration-facilitating-change-court-and-child
66
https://www.naccchildlaw.org/page/certification

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 93
juvenile court system and detention center, leading to efficiency in the delivery of care, treatment, and
rehabilitation of youth and families. He also helped to construct a state-of-the-art and nationally recognized
detention facility and administration wing. Judge Payne served as President Elect of the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges and President of the Indiana Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Following his 20 years on the bench, Judge Payne served as the Director of Indiana’s Department of Child
Services for seven years, where he implemented a multitude of changes aimed at a complete child welfare system
re-design and overhaul. In addition, PCG has other clients we have reached out to who may be willing to provide
expertise and mentorship as well.

Allowing judges in Maine the opportunity to not only absorb information through training and resources but to
engage with a peer to ask candid questions and learn more about how best to meet the challenges of child welfare
court work, would provide a valuable addition to the recommended training package.

44. Promote inclusion in the Model Courts Project for Maine

Data from the case record reviews revealed that there were many instances where court support would have been
critical at a particular moment in the case and could have made a substantial difference in the case outcome; but
the issues were never brought back to the court by child welfare staff (for example, when parents were caught
violating court orders). In cases where a judge did not agree with OCFS’ recommendations during previous
court proceedings, it was more apparent that child welfare staff were less inclined to return to the court
if the issues persisted.

Caseworkers need to be strong in their convictions when they have credible evidence, even if they fear
being turned down by the judge; and, they need to be able to use the court as an ally when there are major
safety or compliance issues. They also need to be supported by their Supervisors and the agency to do
so. In addition, judges need to set court ground rules and expectations for all parties involved, including parents
(particularly violent ones), regarding appropriate interaction with caseworkers. This exercise will aid in
caseworkers feeling confident that the courts are an ally when needed.

Collaboration between courts and child welfare agencies is critical, and establishing those partnerships has
spawned national effort, specifically through the aforementioned “Model Courts Project” through NCJFCJ where
training, technical assistance, and multi-State court mentorship are offered to those willing to participate. Maine is
currently not a part of the Model Courts initiative, but PCG recommends that this avenue be considered. Data on
Model Courts67 has been able to lend support regarding the tangible difference inter-agency collaboration can
make in positive outcomes for children and families. Some of which includes evidence for a reduction of the
number of children in care, an increase in adoptions, and an increase in the rate of timeliness for hearings.

According to NCJFCJ:

“Congressional leaders, federal agencies, and private foundations have recognized the need for a national effort dedicated
to improving court practice in child abuse and neglect and juvenile delinquency cases. Since 1992, NCJFCJ’s Model Courts
Project, with funding from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and private court contracts,
has partnered with courts across the country to improve outcomes for abused and neglected children, juvenile offenders
and their families.

The Model Courts Project supports juvenile courts in a number of key ways. The acclaimed NCJFCJ bench books the
“Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse & Neglect Cases, the “Adoption and Permanency

67
http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/Model%20Courts%20Brochure_Effect_2.pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 94
 Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases,” and the “Juvenile Delinquency Guidelines:
Improving Court Practice in Juvenile Delinquency Cases” provide a recommended practice approach to improving court
processes. The Model Courts Project works to identify impediments to the timeliness of court events and delivery of services
for families and children and then design and implement court- and agency-based changes to address these barriers. The
NCJFCJ’s work with Model Courts and other jurisdictions seeking assistance to improve outcomes for children and families
is guided by the “Key Principles for Permanency Planning for Children” and “Key Principles for Juvenile Delinquency
Cases.” As part of this effort, judicial leadership and effective collaboration are viewed as essential for project success.

Courts that are active in the Model Courts Project may receive individualized assessment, planning, training, technical
assistance, and evaluation services as they seek to implement the principles and recommendations set forth in
the Guidelines and work toward improved practice and outcomes. With multi-year involvement, Model Courts repeat the
planning and technical assistance process as court improvement goals are attained. As part of this effort, Model Courts are
expected to be “laboratories for change”; meaning they participate in an ongoing critical assessment of their performance
and share their results with other sites in order to inform and sustain a larger system improvement effort.

Model Courts that have experienced significant improvement in practice, have institutionalized training programs, and have
developed a strong, proactive collaborative process of reform can ascend to Mentor, Statewide, or Project ONE Status to
demonstrate leadership in implementing statewide systems change reform efforts and coordinated court systems.”68

45. Develop a clear policy regarding continuances and pre-trial

hearings
Data from both the case record reviews and listening sessions reveal that the required timeframes for court
hearings are not strictly adhered to and there can be extensive time between hearings. The timeliness of court
proceedings has a direct impact on being able to achieve timely permanency for children. Therefore, it is of the
upmost importance that courts meet the timeframes set forth in statute to mitigate harm and further trauma to
children; courts should view child welfare cases with an appropriate sense of urgency.

The courts should develop a firm policy regarding continuances in child welfare cases in order to ensure
that their usage is minimized and that child welfare cases remain prioritized. NCJFCJ advises that:

“Continuances should not be allowed because hearing dates prove inconvenient for attorneys and parties. Continuances
should be granted only when attorneys or parties are ill, essential witnesses cannot be located, or services of process have
not yet been completed. Neither should continuances be granted based upon the stipulation of parties. Administrative
personnel should not be authorized to grant continuances. Good cause for any continuance should be included in the court
record.” – “Enhanced Resource Guidelines,” pg. 39

A clear policy outlining the circumstances under which continuances will or will not be allowed should aid in
increasing the extent to which court proceedings are conducted in a timely fashion and statute timeframes are
met. Additionally, as standard practice, judges need to use the opportunities available when all parties are present
in court to ensure that everyone is understanding of, and in agreement with, the timelines and expectations set
forth.

Another method to increase the timeliness with child welfare cases is to utilize pre-trial hearings, which
we recommend instituting. By conducting pre-trial hearings, some of the legal issues may be resolved prior to

68
https://www.ncjfcj.org/our-work/model-courts

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 95
the official hearing so that the more pressing issues can be focused on during the official hearing. According to
NCJFCJ:

“A key advantage to mandatory pre-adjudication and pre-disposition settlement conferences at which all parties and
attorneys must participate is that attorneys are better informed about the case and better able to perform in court. Mandatory
pre-trial settlement conferences are especially useful in courts where many attorneys habitually delay settlement discussion
until shortly before trial. By compelling attorneys and parties to meet and discuss a case well in advance of trial, settlement
conferences encourage early case preparation by attorneys.” – “Enhanced Resource Guidelines,” pg. 62

46. Establish time-certain courtrooms

Currently, Maine’s courts run on a “cattle call” system for scheduling. This means that everyone is scheduled for
a date in court, but not for a specific time in court. Therefore, it was not surprising to find in listening sessions that
caseworkers were frustrated because they and their clients can spend hours simply waiting to be called before
the judge.

Best practices along with NCJFCJ strongly advises that all child welfare hearings be set for time-certain,
meaning, the caseworker(s) and client(s) are given a specific date and time the hearing is scheduled and are
expected to appear in court. In 2015, NCJFCJ conducted a study of one of their Model Courts (Travis County,
Texas) in order to determine the efficiency and effectiveness of time-certain courts, and overall, the results of
that study were overwhelmingly positive. 69

“Scheduled hearing times for each case were recorded on the court observation, as well the actual hearing start and end
times. Two additional variables were created to assess the time difference between the (1) wait time (i.e., scheduled hearing
time and the actual start time of the hearing) and (2) hearing length (i.e., actual start and end times of the hearings). On
average, parties waited 40 minutes (SD=24) for their hearing to begin. The range in how long parties waited for their hearing
to begin, however, was as little as two minutes to as long as 110 minutes. On average, hearings took approximately 12
minutes in duration (SD=6.8). Hearings were as brief as one minute and as lengthy as 47 minutes.

Two analyses of variances (ANOVAs) were performed to assess whether there was a significant time difference between
the (1) waiting time and (2) hearing length. There was no significant difference in wait time by hearing type. This finding
suggests that parties did not wait any longer or any less for their case to be heard, depending on the type of hearing that
was scheduled. Likewise, there was no significant difference in hearing length by hearing type. This finding suggests that
hearing length did not increase or decrease substantially, depending on the type of hearing that was scheduled.” –
“Research Report: Assessing Time-Certain Calendaring Dockets,” pg. 6-7

Time-certain courts would be an ideal solution for scheduling court proceedings of child welfare cases in
Maine. This method of court-scheduling is considered a best practice standard by NCJFCJ and its
efficiency has been documented in practice; we therefore recommend Maine move in this direction as
permissible by the courts.

69
https://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/Time%20Certain%20Calendaring%20Report_FINAL%20(2).pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 96
47. Ensure better inclusion of natural/informal supports in the
courtroom
It has been demonstrated through social welfare research, that natural/informal supports can often provide the
critical change needed for success in child welfare cases, and their assistance is often sustainable beyond the
involvement of formal systems.70 To provide a couple of examples of informal support, a retired grandparent can
provide childcare or respite while a parent works or takes a break, or a family friend can transport members of the
family to school or appointments. In both these scenarios, costs are reduced for the State and the family uses
their own network and support system to implement the needed changes to keep their children safe. A systematic
review of the research published in the Children and Youth Services Review has documented the importance of
informal/natural supports in the lives of children:

“Due to their histories of caregiver maltreatment, living instability, and potential attachment challenges associated with out-
of-home care, older foster youth represent a particularly vulnerable group of adolescents at increased risk for a number of
poor well-being outcomes. However, research supports the notion that a relationship with a competent, caring adult, such
as a mentor, may serve protectively for vulnerable youth, and a nascent yet growing body of literature suggests that naturally
occurring mentoring relationships from within youth's social networks are associated with improved outcomes among young
people in foster care during adolescence and the transition to adulthood,”71 – “Natural mentoring among older youth in and
aging out of foster care: a systematic review”

Despite the positive case outcomes associated with the utilization of informal supports, there were no instances
found in the case record reviews where these supports were included in any court proceedings, even when natural
supports were involved with the case. Given the important role such resources, i.e., informal supports, can provide,
we are recommending OCFS work to ensure a practice whereby informal supports are included in the
court processes so that their involvement is acknowledged and continued.

48. Set a standard of “one family-one judge”

According to OCFS leadership staff, there is generally one judge assigned to each child welfare case; however,
there are instances where a case may be covered by another judge if necessary or re-assigned to a new judge’s
docket. Many of the cases reviewed involved children and families with extensive history with child welfare and
other non-child welfare legal matters in Maine. Ultimately, there is rarely a single person who has been working
with a family over the life of their broader legal involvement who has a truly holistic picture of the case beyond the
scope of the current child welfare involvement.

A best practice standard set forth by NCJFCJ is the “one family-one judge” assignment for child welfare involved
cases, even in those instances where there is other non-child welfare court involvement (e.g., juvenile, family,
criminal, civil, etc.). The reason being for this practice standard is:

“A one family-one judge system encourages judges to take ownership in and maintain active oversight of their cases. Under
this case assignment system, children and families have the same judge for the life of all cases in which any member of the
family is involved. A single incident may generate numerous cases involving dependency, delinquency, criminal, civil
protection order, and others. Having the same judge preside over all hearings ensures orders related to the child throughout
the case will be informed by a thorough understanding of the history, decisions, challenges, and successes in each case,
as well as enables a full analysis of reasonable efforts based on all available information. Such a system makes certain that

70
https://www.calgaryunitedway.org/images/impact/reports/2017-vulnerable-youth-natural-supports-framework.pdf
71
https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v61y2016icp40-50.html

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 97
 the agency is treating the family holistically and moving forward to achieve permanency for the child. When cases are heard
in multiple courts by multiple judges, conflicting court orders and failure to share information among all involved creates
havoc for families.” – “Enhanced Resource Guidelines,” pg. 34

Child welfare cases typically do not exist in a vacuum; there is often crossover into other court related matters.
Ensuring that one judge is responsible for overseeing all court/legal matters involving child welfare involved
families, including when they are involved in other systems, will help that judge to build a more holistic perspective
on the case and hopefully aid in better decision-making regarding children and families. While this approach is
typically taken for child welfare involved cases in Maine, it needs to be the standard and one which is
strictly upheld.

49. Establish court performance measures

In order to understand the extent to which efforts to improve child welfare court processes have made a difference,
it is essential to establish court performance measures. The court performance measures will track data which
can be used to confirm any progress that has been made and to identify any ongoing challenges.

The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, has extensively outlined
the court performance data which should be tracked for child abuse and neglect cases, detailing how to track the
data, and how to use the data for decision-making, in their Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and
Neglect Cases: Technical Guide72. One particular advantage is that many of the performance measures specified
in the Technical Guide are related to CFSR measures and can be calculated using the same data. Thirty court
performance measures for child abuse and neglect cases are outlined in the Technical Guide, and each measure’s
purpose and goal is described:

List of Performance Measures (Page 259-260 of the Technical Guide)

# Measure Short Definition
Safety Measures
Child Safety While Under Court Percentage of children who are abused or neglected while under court
1A
Jurisdiction jurisdiction
Child Safety After Release from Court Percentage of children who are abused or neglected within 12 months
1B
Jurisdiction after the case is closed following a permanent placement
Permanency Measures
Percentage of children in foster care who reach legal permanency by
2A Achievement of Child Permanency
reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship
Percentage of children in foster care who do not reach legal permanency
2B Children Not Reaching Permanency
by reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship
Children Moved While Under Court Percentage of children who reside in one, two, three, four, or more
2C
Jurisdiction placements while under court jurisdiction
Reentry into Foster Care After Return Percentage of children who return to foster care pursuant to court order
2D
Home within 12 and 24 months of case closure following reunification
Percentage of children who return to foster care pursuant to court order
Reentry into Foster Care After
2E within 12 and 24 months of case closure following adoption or placement
Adoption or Guardianship
with a legal guardian

72
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/223570.pdf

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 98
 List of Performance Measures (Page 259-260 of the Technical Guide)
# Measure Short Definition
Due Process and Fairness Measures
Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which the same judicial
3A Number of Judges Per Case
officer presides over all hearings
Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which all parents receive
3B Service of Process to Parties
written service of process of the original petition
Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which an attorney,
Early Appointment of Advocates for
3C guardian ad litem (GAL), or court-appointed special advocate (CASA)
Children
volunteer is appointed in advance of the emergency removal hearing
Early Appointment of Counsel for Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which attorneys for
3D
Parents parents are appointed in advance of the emergency removal hearing
Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases with documentation that
3E Advance Notice of Hearings to Parties
written notice was given to parties in advance of every hearing
Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases with documentation that
Advance Written Notice of Hearings to
written notice was given to foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and
3F Foster Parents, Pre-adoptive Parents,
relative caregivers in advance of every hearing for which they were
and Relative Caregivers
entitled to notice
Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which legal counsel for
Presence of Advocates During
3G the government or other petitioner and for other parties who have been
Hearings
served is present at every hearing
Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which parties who have
3H Presence of Parties During Hearings
been served are present at every substantive hearing
Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which the same legal
3I Continuity of Advocates for Children
advocate represents the child throughout the case
Percentage of child abuse and neglect cases in which the same legal
3J Continuity of Counsel for Parents
counsel represents the parent throughout the case
Timeliness Measures
Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to legal
4A Time to Permanent Placement
permanency
4B Time to Adjudication Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to adjudication
Percentage of cases that are adjudicated within 30, 60, or 90 days after
4C Timeliness of Adjudication
the filing of the original petition
Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to the disposition
4D Time to Disposition Hearing
hearing
Percentage of cases in which the disposition hearing occurs within 10,
4E Timeliness of Disposition Hearing
30, or 60 days after adjudication
Percentage of cases in which the court holds hearings to review case
4F Timeliness of Case Review Hearings
plans within the time limits set by law
Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to first
4G Time to First Permanency Hearing
permanency hearing
Time to Termination of Parental Rights Average (median) time from filing of the original petition to filing the
4H
Petition petition for termination of parental rights (TPR)
Average (median) time from filing of the original child abuse and neglect
4I Time to Termination of Parental Rights
petition to the termination of parental rights (TPR)
Timeliness of Termination of Parental Percentage of cases for which there is a final order within 90, 120, and
4J
Rights Proceedings 180 days of the filing of the termination of parental rights (TPR) petition

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 99
 List of Performance Measures (Page 259-260 of the Technical Guide)
# Measure Short Definition
Time from Disposition Hearing to Percentage of cases in which the termination of parental rights (TPR)
4K
Termination of Parental Rights Petition petition is filed within 3, 6, 12, and 18 months after the disposition hearing
Percentage of cases in which the adoption petition is filed within 3, 6, and
4L Timeliness of Adoption Petition
12 months after the termination of parental rights (TPR)
Percentage of adoption cases finalized within 3, 6, and 12 months after
4M Timeliness of Adoption Proceedings
the filing of the adoption petition

Table 28: List of Performance Measures

Without tracking court performance measures, OCFS and the courts will continue to experience challenges related
to accurately identifying the problems that exist between them as well as tracking the progress made through their
improvement efforts.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 100
Workload Measures

Overview
A Random Moment Time Study (RMTS) was conducted as part of the organizational assessment of Maine’s Office
of Child and Family Services (OCFS). Results of the RMTS will be used to construct an automated workload
analytic tool to help the agency determine if it has the resources it needs to carry out its mission, providing the
agency with an important element in being able to do so on an ongoing basis, and provide supervisors with a tool
to improve their ability to staff cases. The data from the study can also be used to see where efficiencies might
be improved, in alignment with and beyond those previously recommended.

Recognizing that different types of staff contribute to the services and support OCFS provides to children and
families throughout Maine, caseworkers, supervisors, specialists, support staff and licensing workers were invited
to participate in a RMTS (this RMTS was in addition to one administered for administrative cost-claiming
purposes). Over a six-week period – November 5, 2018 through December 14, 2018 – staff were asked to identify
the activity that they were engaged at random moments of time. Data for a total of 6,554 random moments were
collected, for an overall response rate of 85 percent. The table below provides the response rates for each staff
type.

Supervisors Caseworkers Specialists Support Licensing Overall

83% 84% 82% 85% 92% 85%

Table 29: Response Rates by Staff Type

Recommendations
Not surprisingly, results of the RMTS found that caseworkers and licensing staff spend the greatest proportion of
their time engaged in activities associated with casework, 73 percent and 71 percent, respectively. Compared to
the study conducted in 2016, caseworkers currently spend a greater percentage of time on casework; in fact, the
proportion of time they spend on casework increased by as much as three percentage points, or 4.9 hours over
the average month since the last study. This pattern is not uncommon; PCG’s evaluation team has conducted
several follow-up workload studies in other states, and in each instance the percentage of time caseworkers have
available for casework has increased.

The table below summarizes the proportion of time different types of child welfare staff spend overall on cases,
non-case specific work, and non-work activities (e.g., break or vacation).

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 101
 Staff Type Case Specific Non-Case Specific Non-Work
Supervisors 42% 42% 16%
Caseworkers 73% 14% 13%
Specialists 58% 25% 17%
Support 45% 42% 14%
Licensing 71% 13% 16%

Table 30: Proportion of Time Different Types of Child Welfare Staff Spend Overall on Cases

To help OCFS determine how many staff are needed to handle cases in a quality manner and improve its
efficiency in case practice, the following recommendations are offered.

# Recommendation
50 Update the workload analytic tool so workload can be measured on an ongoing basis

51 Improve efficiencies in practice

Table 31: Workload Analysis Recommendations

50. Update the workload analytic tool so workload can be measured

on an ongoing basis
Two measurements of time are used to calculate workload need.
1. The first is the time needed to handle cases. Time standards were developed for assessment, services,
permanency and licensing cases using the data collected from the workload study conducted in 2016.
Those time standards offer a starting point by which to measure the number of caseworkers needed to
manage the agency’s caseload.
2. The second measure of time needed to measure workload is the time available to work on cases. Staff
do not have a full eight hours each day to work on cases; for example, they attend trainings, assist with
the development of community resources, and take leave. The results from the RMTS are used to
measure the amount of time staff have in the average month to work on cases. When the hours staff have
available to work in the average month (164) is multiplied by the proportion of time staff devote to
casework, the number of hours staff have available to engage in casework can be determined.

Between the first study conducted and the present, for example, the hours caseworkers have available for
casework increased from 114.7 hours to 119.6 hours monthly, increasing by nearly five hours in the average
month. The number of hours each staff type has available for work in the month is displayed below.

Supervisors Caseworkers Specialists Support Licensing

69.1 119.6 95.1 73.3 117.1

Table 32: Number of Hours Each Staff Type Has Available for Work

The data from both studies can be used to create an automated workload analytic tool for ease of use by central
office staff and the District’s Program Administrators and Assistant Program Administrators to measure resource
need. It can also be built to provide a tool for supervisors to use in assigning case. OCFS should:
• Examine the time standards for all case types which are used to measure workload. OCFS has
made changes in practice since the previous workload study was conducted. Results from the prior study,
such as the measurement of time needed to complete specific tasks which are now required in policy,

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 102
 can be used to update the time standards as to how much time is needed to handle different types of
cases.

The results of both studies, along with others PCG’s evaluation team has conducted, can be used to develop time
standards for case types which were not included in the prior study, most notably intake cases. Results of workload
studies conducted for other child welfare agencies suggest that an average of 1.4 hours are needed to handle a
report of alleged maltreatment. One factor that needs to be accounted for in the measure of a time standard for
Maine is the inclusion of the time it takes to complete Structured Decision-Making. The results of the RMTS will
be further examined to quantify the average amount of time Intake workers spend on this task, helping to develop
a time standard of for Intake cases that is specific to Maine.
• Update the time caseworkers time have available for casework. This is a simple step. The
percentage of time caseworkers report spending on casework, based on the results of the RMTS, is
considered the time they have available on average to spend on cases. The results for Maine are
similar to those for other studies the firm has completed. For example, for a workload study recently
completed for the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, an agency which also uses support staff and
specialists to assist with casework, caseworkers were found to spend 71 percent of their time on
casework. The percentage of time caseworkers spend on cases should be applied to the total average
hours staff have available to work to make that calculation. The data collected through the RMTS will be
used to explore the extent to which the length of service staff, especially caseworkers, have working on
child welfare cases impacts the time they need to work on cases. They are likely to need more time and
thus not able to handle as full of a caseload as their seasoned peers.
• Apply results from the RMTS and national best practices to determine how many supervisors,
specialists and support staff are needed. The proportion of time other staff contribute to casework
should also be factored into the equation of workload need. The workload analytic tool will be revised to
take into account the percentage of time each staff type has available for casework, which will be used
in the measure of the count of other staff types that are needed to contribute to casework. For example,
the RMTS found that supervisors spend 19 percent of their time engaged in case-related supervision.
Much of their time is spent consulting with workers (7 percent); approving or authorizing reports,
assessments or other case actions (5 percent); and reviewing cases and reports (4 percent).
Supervisors engage in other case-related activities as well, such as consulting with attorneys, preparing
information for court, and even participating in court hearings (4 percent); consulting with their
supervisors (3 percent); and participating in case meetings, such as Family Team Meetings and Team
Decision Making meetings (4 percent), among others. The time they spend, along with that of support
staff and specialists, are important components of measuring resource need.

51. Improve efficiencies in practice

When a side-by-side analysis is undertaken of the percentages of time staff of different types engage in case-
related activities, limited duplication of effort is observed. For example, visitation is most often carried out by
support staff and specialists, with caseworkers spending only one percent of their time supervising visits with
children and their families. Transportation of the client is another task which is shared by support staff and
specialists, with caseworkers spending five percent of their average time performing this task and specialists three
percent. In comparison, caseworkers spend only one percent of their time in the average month engaged in
providing transportation to clients. There are, however, a couple of key tasks where efficiencies or case practice
in general might be improved.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 103
 • Implement steps to reduce the duplication Proportion of Time Spent on
of preparing documents on paper and Computer Documentation
then inputting data into MACWIS. Evidence
from the RMTS found that caseworkers,
licensing workers and support staff spend a 23%
substantial portion of their time documenting 19%
cases in the computer, a concern that was 17% 16%
noted during our onsite observations and 11% 12%
process mapping, much of the time spent on 8%
1% 2%
the computer involves inputting data directly
into MACWIS. Very limited, if any time, was CASEWORKERS SUPPORT LICENSING
noted for other key case management Computer Documentation Overall
activities, e.g., creating or updating a case or Record in MACWIS
safety plan. Paper Documentation

It appears staff are inputting information Figure 31: Proportion of Time Spent on Computer Documentation
directly into MACWIS to complete those
plans. Licensing staff, however, spend the greatest proportion of time first completing documents on
paper and then entering that data into MACWIS. Steps should be taken to shadow licensing workers to
better understand the extent to which there is duplication of effort and to identify what strategies might
be taken to minimize that duplication, thereby improving their case practice efficiency.
• Increase the percentage of time staff have available to engage with clients. Caseworkers spend an
equal percentage of time (19 percent) documenting their casework as they do in contact with families,
children, providers, collaterals or others. Caseworkers and licensing staff spend the same, or nearly the
same, percentage of time in face-to-face contact in the home with families as they do in non-face-to-
face contact with families (e.g., on the phone, texting or emailing). To maximize the time caseworkers
have to spend with their clients, steps should be taken to identify how best to reduce the time
caseworkers spend attempting to make contact and in non-face-to-face contact. Support staff, who
spend just one percent of their time in contact with clients, may be able to take on some of the contact-
related tasks caseworkers complete, for example, assist in scheduling appointments or help
caseworkers verify the accuracy of an address. The survey administered to staff also noted that it would
be beneficial to have support staff help with handling client service situations and requesting records. If
support staff could take on some of these added responsibilities, it would free caseworkers to spend
more time with children and their families, and likely increase safety, permanency and well-being for
those served.
Proportion of Time Spent in Contact

5%

3% 6%

4%

2%
7% 1%
2%
1% 5%
1%
2%

CASEWORKERS SPECIALISTS LICENSING

Face-to-face (Home) Other Face-to-face Attempted Contact Non Face-to-face
Figure 32: Proportion of Time Spent in Contact

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 104
Case Reviews: Findings and Opportunities

Overview
Maine’s Office of Child and Family Services (OCFS) has requested that Public Consulting Group (PCG) evaluate
the State’s Child Welfare program to identify and make recommendations to improve business practices.
Involvement of the courts is an important element of child welfare practice.

As part of this effort, PCG reviewed eight case records which were selected by OCFS. Due to the small sample
size, and the nature of the cases, it was difficult to generalize the findings as typical case practice. The cases
selected were some of the most severe and problematic, with issues ranging from child death or serious injury to
chronic neglect. Regardless, the case record reviews were valuable because they provided an opportunity to take
a deep dive into some of OCFS’ most difficult cases to determine what the core issues were and what could be
done differently in the future to support better outcomes for children and families.

Methodology
To help guide a systematic review of the case records, PCG created a case record review tool (see Appendix D).
The tool asked reviewers about the nature and length of the children and families’ involvement in child welfare
and the circumstances and outcomes regarding the most serious events in the case (e.g., child death, serious
injury, etc.). A number of items were listed for reviewers to rate as “Fully Complies,” “Complies,” or “Does Not
Comply.” The items included a combination of measures from the OCFS’ Practice Model (e.g., “In response to
child safety concerns, factually supported conclusions were reached in a timely and thorough manner.”), the Child
and Family Services Review (CFSR) (“Any changes in placement that occurred were in the best interests of the
child and consistent with achieving the child’s permanency goals.”), and additional items deemed fit by PCG (e.g.,
“The information available and the subsequent assessment of that information was adequate for the purposes of
removal.”). Following each item reviewed, the reviewer had the opportunity to explain their rating in an open-text
format. Finally, reviewers were asked about the overall strengths, challenges, and opportunities for improvement
with each case.

In order to maintain confidentiality, results are displayed in an aggregated form and are de-identified to the fullest
extent possible. PCG reviewed cases with a view that went beyond OCFS practice, to learn about the strengths,
challenges, and opportunities that exist with all stakeholders who played a role in these cases. When a finding
applied to a stakeholder(s), it was denoted with a checkmark. The findings shared in the matrix below are
representative of themes and/or standout items from the eight cases reviewed. The absence of a finding for
various stakeholders is thus only representative of that finding not being present in the limited sample of cases.

Areas of improvement were derived directly from the findings of the case review, either because recurring themes
were noted in these cases or extraordinary events needed to be addressed. Some of the opportunities for
improvement outline policies that OCFS already has in place but emphasize the need for strict adherence to those
policies in practice. Other suggested improvements are sourced from best practice standards or innovative ideas
as outlined by PCG’s resident experts. It is important to keep in mind the data source when interpreting the

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 105
opportunities for improvement; eight of OCFS’ most challenging cases are not necessarily a direct reflection of
typical practice at the statewide level.

Case Record Review: Findings

Other
The Law
Finding OCFS ARP Service
Courts Enforcement
Providers73
Strengths

Timely initiation of child welfare response ✓ ✓

Prompt referrals to services ✓

Frequent contact with parents and providers ✓

High quality documentation and evidence ✓

available to the courts
Provision of concrete services/tangible supports to ✓
families in need
Challenges
No identified attempt to locate or contact ✓ ✓ ✓
biological fathers
When biological fathers were contacted, they ✓ ✓
were poorly engaged
Inadequate engagement with identified family ✓ ✓ ✓
supports
Poor or disjointed contact with collaterals (e.g., ✓ ✓
school staff, law enforcement, neighbors, etc.)
Dispositions of “no findings” despite thorough ✓
evidence to support the allegations
Lengthy history and patterns of behavior were not
considered as high-priority and pertinent issues in ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
the case
Rushing (or not completing) background checks ✓
and other history checks
Placement with kin prior to identification or ✓
establishment of legal paternity
Placement with kin who the child had limited prior ✓
involvement with
Inappropriate child welfare response chosen (e.g., ✓
ARP instead of an assessment)

Inconsistent usage of family team meetings ✓

Continued work with the family well beyond ✓

reasonable efforts

73
Examples of some of the service providers encountered in the cases reviewed are therapists, residential mental health counselors, and
substance abuse treatment providers.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 106
 Case Record Review: Findings
Other
The Law
Finding OCFS ARP Service
Courts Enforcement
Providers73
Difficulty understanding the differences between ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
issues related to safety, harm, risk, and well-being
A lack of diligent effort in obtaining the child’s ✓ ✓
perspective

Not reporting new signs of abuse to OCFS ✓

Overweighing the parental perspective when there ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

is contradictory evidence about their stories
No real consequences or actions taken when ✓ ✓ ✓
parents refuse to comply

Lack of goals and focus with the case ✓

Preliminary Protection Orders (PPOs) not granted

despite OCFS evidence and strong indications of ✓
risk (e.g., history, domestic violence, substance
use, parental non-compliance, etc.)
Statutory timeframes not being followed (e.g., too
much time between hearings, issuing of ✓
continuances, etc.)
New information about persistent issues not being ✓
provided to the court
An overall lack of urgency to resolve issues and ✓ ✓ ✓
move to permanency
Missed opportunities to concretely confirm
✓
substance abuse
Lack of appropriate responses in cases with ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
domestic violence

Table 33: Case Record Review: Findings

Case Record Review: Opportunities for Improvement

• Ensure that quality assurance measures (particularly in the form of case reviews) obtain the perspectives of a
wide variety of stakeholders (e.g., police, families, etc.). In order to complete case reviews which are truly
holistic, the perspectives of each individual involved with the case should be obtained. High quality reviews will
be especially pertinent to ensure that no perspectives are missing which may challenge the overall conclusions
made.
• Re-evaluate Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) and Reasonable Efforts policies. A multitude of referrals to
similar services over the course of time is not likely to be successful and ultimately delays permanency for
children.
• Uphold the statutes when it is in OCFS’ rights to do so, and appropriate, given the level of risk involved in the
case. For example, filing automatic TPRs for parents who have TPRs on previous children is part of Maine’s
statute, but despite strong evidence to invoke this statute in a couple of cases, it did not happen. TPRs should
be filed once reasonable efforts have been met by OCFS and no/limited progress has been made; cases should
not remain open for multiple years with no real progress.
• Ensure that all stakeholders are well-trained regarding cases where domestic violence is present and that
domestic violence issues are prioritized when present in a case.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 107
 Case Record Review: Opportunities for Improvement
• Stakeholders working on child welfare cases need to ask the difficult, uncomfortable, but pertinent questions of
parents. This is especially important when there is evidence which contradicts parental perspectives. While it
can be difficult to challenge aggressive caregivers, the important issues still need to be discussed and better
training on how to handle those situations, may be useful for front-line staff.
• There needs to be confirmation of legal paternity and increased engagement of fathers.
• When a case is being transferred, there must be a strong hand off between caseworkers. This is especially
important for the new caseworker’s ability to build rapport with the family and for the family to feel like they are
not constantly having to re-tell their story or explain the same topics over and over again.
• Work with the courts early in the case to set up and enforce parental participation with the case plan. It is not
useful to wait until a substantial length of time has passed to finally get serious about compliance.
• The child’s perspective needs to be diligently sought and prioritized, especially when that perspective is
contradictory of the parents’. While parental perspectives are important, they should not be taken as the ultimate
truth. While it may be hard to obtain a child’s perspective, it is of the utmost importance that diligent effort is
made to do so, and that the child’s perspective is made priority.
• History needs to be strongly considered in decision-making with current cases; this issue was especially present
in chronic neglect cases where the family would be re-referred for the same issue(s) over a period of many
years. Previous cases need to be taken into consideration when dealing with the current case.
• All stakeholders involved should maintain a sense of urgency in working with child welfare cases. This is
important so that trauma to children is reduced and permanency is achieved as soon as reasonably possible.
• Clearly articulate the expectations for supervisors and ensure that they are involved during critical decision-
making moments in a case. The decisions caseworkers need to make are truly difficult at certain junctures (e.g.,
making assessment findings, removing a child, etc.) and they need the assistance of strong supervision to make
those decisions
• Hire retired police to better support caseworkers working with aggressive clients or clients with guns in the home
or aggressive dogs, and to locate absent relatives. To fund these positions, work collaboratively with local law
enforcement. Law enforcement would likely be in support of this initiative since these positions would provide an
opportunity for their retired officers to continue working.
• Don’t close cases prior to the legal settlement of permanency.
• Have caseworkers review difficult cases, such as those reviewed herein, as part of a training. There is a lot
caseworkers could learn about what should be done in order to handle the most complex cases.
• Contact with collaterals who have critical case-knowledge needs to be increased.
• ARP should be used only in instances where the family has had one or two referrals to the agency; this is
inclusive of instances where there has been extended periods of time with no agency involvement.
• Ensure that ARP workers are well-trained to understand when a report needs to be filed or the OCFS district
needs to be contacted.
• Ensure that ARP is closely monitored for quality and consistency across service providers.

Table 34: Case Record Reviews: Opportunities for Improvement

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 108
Staff Survey

Overview
In December 2018, over a two-and-a-half-week period, a survey was administered to Office of Child and Family
Services to further engage staff and gain perspective. Of over 500 surveys distributed, 214 were completed, with
respondents from all district offices, intake and central office. Below is a count of staff who participated by job
type.

Number of Percentage of Staff who selected “other” as their job

Job Type
Participants Responses type include Policy and Training staff,
Case Aids, Community Care Workers
Program Administrator 6 3%
and Community Behavioral Health
Assistant Program Administrator 4 2% Services staff, among others.
Supervisor 41 19%
Slightly less than one-third of the staff
Caseworker 120 56% have held their present position for six
Support Staff 21 10% years or more, with another 21 percent
having less than one year of
Other 22 10% experience in their present position.
Total 214 100%

Table 35: Survey Participants by Job Type

When asked what they enjoy most about

their job, 61 percent of the staff answered
helping to improve the lives of children and
families. Another 18 percent of the
respondents noted working with their peers 21% Less than a year
was what they enjoyed most. At the close of the 33%
1 - 2 years
survey,
2 - 4 years
staff were 11%
“Peer support is at an all-time 4 - 6 years
asked to
high.” – Caseworker 6+ years
comment
17% 18%
on what
is helping them to provide support services to
children and families. A common response was
teamwork, with staff at varying levels working
together as well as with outside partners to
provide the services and support families need.
Figure 33: Years in Present Position

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 109
Results
The results of the survey are presented in lieu of recommendations, as the results of the survey further support
many of the recommendations provided in the previous memos of this report.

Q: How would you like to receive communication from leadership about policy, practice, and other
changes that impact your job?

An important issue examined by this project involves policy changes. The survey asked staff how they prefer to
receive communication from leadership about policy, practice and other changes that impact the work they do.
Forty-two (42) percent of the staff noted they would prefer to learn about (policy and practice) changes at
team meetings with their supervisor. Another 29 percent noted that weekly emails or newsletters would be
helpful. Only 11 percent noted that they would prefer to learn about changes through one-on-one meetings with
their supervisor.

This finding correlates to other parts of the evaluation in which staff anecdotally mentioned differing policy
implementation strategies from district to district and policy change to policy change. Streamlining communications
and policy change implementations increases the likelihood that all staff are receiving a consistent message and
instructions in advance and at the same time, which, in turn, limits the possibilities that the information will be
repeated incorrectly or distorted between staff or district communication. In addition, it is important to highlight
that a large percentage of staff prefer the face-to-face element of receiving the information, which can offer a
chance to ask questions and talk through specifics of implementation as a group.

Q: What policy area needs the most clarification? (rank your top 3)

Staff identified the top three policy areas that need the most clarification. The percentage in parentheses is the
percentage of staff who ranked it in their top 3.
1. Documentation (34 percent)
2. Child Protective assessments or investigations (32 percent)
3. Teaming (31 percent)

Clarification was also noted as being needed around after-hours services and non-adoption permanency goals.
The table below displays the frequency in which staff indicated needed clarification for specific policy areas, along
with how many staff ranked each policy area as a 1, 2, or 3 (for example, 28 people ranked “documentation” as
1). The higher the total, the more frequently the policy area was chosen by staff as high for needing clarification.
Rank ordering areas gave staff a chance to indicate a level of priority.

Total
Ranked Ranked Ranked Total
Policy Area Ranking
as 1 as 2 as 3 Percentage
as 1-3
Documentation 28 23 22 73 34%
Child Protective Assessment/Investigation 31 22 16 69 32%
Teaming 34 17 16 67 31%
After Hours Services 23 13 12 48 22%
Non-adoptive Permanency 18 12 11 41 19%
Reasonable Efforts 18 13 8 39 18%
Case Transfers 17 11 7 35 16%
Supervision 13 12 7 32 15%

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 110
 Total
Ranked Ranked Ranked Total
Policy Area Ranking
as 1 as 2 as 3 Percentage
as 1-3
Intake 12 9 6 27 13%
Screening for Domestic Violence/Substance
11 8 6 25 12%
Abuse
Service Provision to Children and Youth 12 6 6 24 11%

Table 36: Policy Area by Priority for Clarification (those falling above a 10% threshold)

Q: How can documentation be streamlined to make a difference?

Documentation, from a practice issue, also seems to be of genuine concern to staff. Common concerns among
caseworkers and supervisors include:
• The required frequency of family and case plan completion
• Lack of training around templates
• Duplication of data entry

With regards to the later, specifically, staff were frustrated that family and case plans are required to be completed
every three months instead of six. Several staff noted having templates to use, but not knowing how to use them
or what information to record. And, staff felt stymied having to input the same data in multiple fields within
MACWIS, such as within a single tool, e.g., an assessment, or from one source, such as the Family Plan to
narrative or the FTM matrix to narrative. All three of these areas offer opportunities for process review and
streamlining.

Q: What one change could be made to MACWIS, today, to make it work better for you?

Staff were asked to write in one change in MACWIS, which if made today, would improve how the system works.
Three primary themes arose across all recommended changes: Eliminating duplication of data entry, improving
navigation, and making the system simpler to use.

Examples of specific recommendations include:

➢ Auto-fill of child demographic information in subsequent child plans

➢ Auto-fill of demographic and other applicable data for a client known to more than one case
➢ Simplify tasks that require multiple steps
➢ Improve navigation to make it easier to go from one screen to the next
➢ Reducing the number of steps to get from one case to the next

It is worth PCG and OCFS following up with staff to understand specifics and investigating further.

Q: What is the one thing that would most improve the overall efficiency of your work?

When asked to respond with suggestions on what could be done to improve the efficiency of the work they do,
staff responded with answers that fell into the categories of:
• Lower caseloads
• More assistance from support staff

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 111
 • Improved communication
• Better ways to document case activity were commonly noted.

Safety planning was also an area in which a number of staff suggested a change in policy or practice
would better align the need for child safety and trauma-informed care by keeping children with known
family members. Caseworkers suggested that being able to place a child temporarily with relatives, e.g., over
the weekend, without having to be forced to file a PPO asking for custody right away or being able to keep children
safe and work with their families without court intervention may be more efficient in meeting child welfare goals.

Q: What areas would you like to receive additional or refresher training? (rank your top 3)

Over a third (35 percent) of staff indicated a need for additional training on Structured Decision-Making (SDM)
and SDM Tools, with another 32 percent requesting refresher training on all aspects of social work for seasoned
caseworkers. Not only were these two training topics most frequently chosen as topics where additional training
was needed, they were also often ranked as having the highest priority in training need.

The next two training topics which were frequently noted as areas of interest were documentation and court
processes for caseworkers, with each selected as an area where additional or refresher training was needed by
25 percent of the respondents. The table that follows identifies the frequency in which the training topics were
ranked in the top 3.

Total
Ranked Ranked Ranked Total
Policy Area Ranking
as 1 as 2 as 3 Percentage
as 1-3
SDM and SDM Tools 43 18 14 75 35%
All aspects of child welfare for seasoned
26 22 20 68 32%
caseworkers
Court processes for caseworkers 22 17 15 54 25%
Documentation 22 21 10 53 25%
Teaming 16 14 13 43 20%
Court filings for caseworkers 19 12 8 39 18%
Navigating / managing cases in MACWIS 19 11 7 37 17%
Other 15 12 6 33 15%
Supervisor training on Supervisory Tool 12 9 8 29 14%
FFTMs 15 9 4 28 13%
Supervisor training on coaching / mentoring 16 7 5 28 13%
TDMs 13 8 3 24 11%
Disclosure and privacy 11 10 3 24 11%
New policy and practices 11 10 3 24 11%

Table 37: Training Topic by Priority (those falling above a 10% threshold)

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 112
Q: What would most improve the supervision process?

Close to half of all staff noted that more focused time with supervisors to discuss specific cases or with
peers and supervisors to discuss common issues is needed. This aligns with anecdotal reports from staff
that even when the supervisory tool is used to go through caseloads, it is time consuming and there is often not
time to talk outside of specific questions asked by the tool. Caseworkers were more apt to note that more time
with supervisors to discuss cases was needed (32 percent) compared to supervisors who thought that more time
was needed for peers and supervisors to meet to discuss common issues (34 percent). Nearly half of the staff
with less than a year of experience noted that more focused time with their supervisors to discuss cases was
needed, while those with more experience generally thought that time to meet with peers and supervisors was a
better option. Six supervisors and seven caseworkers (15 percent overall) noted that more one-on-one training
with supervisors was needed. Staff from the listening sessions confirmed there are limited opportunities for
mentorship and professional growth during supervision. This aligns with the PCG recommendation to develop the
tools and structure to ensure supervisors are providing coaching, mentoring and guidance to staff.

When results of the Random Moment Time Study are examined in relation to the question of what can be done
to improve the supervision process, it is important to look at how supervisors currently spend their time. The RMTS
found that supervisors spend 21 percent of their time performing case-specific supervisory tasks, including
consulting with workers; authorizing, approving or rejecting an assessment or case action; reviewing safety
decisions/safety plans and/or assessment findings; and reviewing cases and reports. They are also involved in
other activities which provide support and guidance to their caseworkers, e.g., they provide five percent of their
time in case consultation, case reviews and transfer meetings; four percent of their time in case-related meetings
such as Family Team Meetings and Team Decision Making. They also spend 14 percent of their time in general
supervisory tasks, such as scheduling worker time and leave, or conducting general information meetings. The
table which follows provides a summary of how supervisors spend their time.

Percentage of Percentage of
Task Task
Time Time
Intake Activities 1% Participate in Court Hearings 2%
Safety Decision/Safety
3% Supervisory Tasks 19%
Planning/Assessment Findings
Assessment Tools 1% Licensing and Monitoring 1%
Family Team Meetings 2% General Administration 7%
Other Meetings 1% Travel 3%
Team Decision Making 1% Clerical, Reception, Telephones 5%
Case Consultation, Case Reviews
5% General Supervisory Tasks 14%
and Transfer Meetings
Service Referral, Coordination or
1% Training and Staff Development 11%
Provision
Computer Documentation 2% Non-work Activities 16%
Prepare for Court Hearings 2% Total 100%74

Table 38: Summary of Supervisors’ Time Spent

74
Percentages may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 113
Q: What support activity, done by non-casework staff, would provide the most assistance to
caseworkers?

Caseworkers stated that requesting records (18 percent) and arranging select client services (e.g.,
scheduling transportation) (14 percent) would help the most. Supervisors and support staff also thought that
handling select client service situations by non-casework staff would be most helpful to caseworkers. In addition,
caseworkers noted that help from non-casework staff in transcribing and discovery would be helpful. Fourteen
(14) percent of the staff selected “other,” specifying “all of the above” as helpful, suggesting caseworkers
appreciate any and all the support they receive from support staff.

Q: What change to outside partnerships would most improve the efficiency of your work or improve
outcomes for children?

Regardless of job type, staff reported that most

importantly, to increase efficiency and improve
“I would love to see the implementation of prevention child welfare outcomes, more licensed foster
services again for each district” homes (32 percent) are needed. Another common
response, especially among caseworkers and
“Prevention is key”
supervisors, was to expand the availability and/or
– Caseworkers types of prevention services (18 percent). Also, staff
suggested increasing and/or improving referral
services for parents (15 percent). Seasoned workers with over two years of experience were more apt to indicate
prevention services needed to be expanded or other types of prevention services offered, while newer staff noted
that more or improved referral services for parents were needed.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 114
Appendices

Appendix A: Staff Survey

Maine Department of Health and Human Services’
Office of Child and Family Services
Child Welfare Staff Survey

Public Consulting Group has been contracted by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, Office of
Child and Family Services to understand what’s working well in practice and process today as well as assist in
the improvement of practices and efficiencies to better address the needs of children and families. It is important
that all staff have a voice, so we are asking you to please take a few minutes to complete this survey. All responses
will be kept confidential and only reported in the aggregate.

We would like to start by learning a little about you.

1. Which role most closely represents your position within OCFS?

○ Program Administrator○ Supervisor○ Support Staff

○ Assistant Program Administrator○ Caseworker○ Other (please specify):

2. Which District do you work in?

○ District 1 York ○ District 6 Penquis
○ District 2 Cumberland/Lincoln/Sagadahoc ○ District 7 Downeast
○ District 3 Western Maine ○ District 8 Aroostook
○ District 4 Midcoast ○ District 9 Centralized Intake
○ District 5 Central Maine ○ Main Office (Administration)

3. How long have you worked at OCFS?

○ less than a year○ 1-2 years○ 2+-4 years○ 4+-6 years○ more than 6 years

4. How long have you held your current position?

○ less than a year○ 1-2 years○ 2+-4 years○ 4+-6 years○ more than 6 years

5. What is your background? (drop down, choose one)

• I have a high school degree
• I have an associate’s degree
• I have a bachelor’s degree in social work/human services
• I have a bachelor’s degree in a field other than social work/human services
• I have a MSW
• I have a master’s degree in another field

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 115
 • I have a doctorate

6. What do you enjoy most about your job? (drop down, choose one)
• My coworkers
• The support I get from my supervisor
• Knowing I am working to improve the lives of children and families
• The challenging nature of the work
• My input on policies and practices is valued
• Other________________________________________________

7. How would you like to receive communication from leadership about policy, practice, and other changes
that impact your job (drop down, choose one)?
• One-on-one from my supervisor
• At team meetings from my supervisor
• At statewide meetings
• Weekly emails
• The intranet
• A weekly electronic newsletter
• A weekly paper newsletter
• Via the Online Policy Manual
• MACWIS ticklers
• Other ________________________

8. What policy area needs the most clarification? (Please rank your top 3 priorities.)
• Intake
• Screening for Domestic Violence/Substance Abuse
• Child Protection Assessment/Investigation
• Teaming
• Substance Exposed Infants
• Non-Adoption Permanency (Kinship Care, Foster Care, or Guardianship)
• Adoption
• Youth Independence
• Child Death and Serious Injury
• Service Provision to Children and Youth
• Service Provision to Caregivers
• Documentation
• Reasonable Efforts
• Preliminary Protection Orders
• Background Checks
• Licensing
• Supervision
• Case Review and Approvals
• Case Transfers
• After Hours Services
• Human Resources
• Other________________________________________________

9. Please rank your top 3 choices for areas in which you would like to receive additional or refresher
training:
• SDM and the SDM tools
• Teaming
• FFTMs
• TDMs
• Navigating and/or managing cases in MACWIS
• Documentation

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 116
 • Court process for caseworkers
• Court filings for caseworkers
• Supervisor training on coaching and mentoring
• Supervisor training on the Supervisor Tool
• Refresher training on all aspects of social work for seasoned caseworkers
• Disclosure and privacy
• New policy and practices
• Other________________________________________________

10. In
what example would streamlining documentation make the biggest difference?

11.
What one change could be made to MACWIS, today, to make it work better for you?

12. What would most improve the supervision process? (drop down, choose one)
• More, focused time with supervisor to discuss cases
• Increased mentoring/training opportunities with supervisor
• More timely response from supervisor
• Debriefing/self-care support from supervisor
• Enhanced feedback from supervisor about job performance
• More one-on-one training from supervisor
• More time with peers and supervisor together to discuss common issues
• Other ________________________

13. What support activity, done by non-casework staff, would provide the most assistance to caseworkers
(drop down, choose one)
• Scanning and uploading paper documents into MACWIS
• Transcription
• Scheduling and arranging meetings
• Setting appointments for client services (e.g., transportation, visitation)
• Handling client service situations (e.g., transportation did not arrive, visitation cancellations)
• Sending notifications
• Requesting records
• Discovery
• Background Checks
• Scheduling fire inspections and water tests
• Processing receipts for billing
• Other ________________________

14.
What is the one thing that would most improve the overall efficiency of your work?

15. What change to outside partnerships would most improve the efficiency of your work or improve
outcomes for children?
• Improve ARP Services
• Provide more prevention-type services
• Improve the efficiency or effectiveness of the court
• Increase the number and frequency of drug testing sites
• Increase the number of licensed foster homes
• Increase and/or improve referral services for parents (e.g. parenting classes)
• Other_________________________

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 117
 16.
What practice or policy should be reconsidered to bring it in line with the best interest of the child?

17.
What is working well to help you provide supportive services to children and families?

Thank you for taking the time to complete the survey.

Your input is valuable to our assessment.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 118
Appendix B: The CCWIS National Landscape and Additional
Opportunities
Given the changes that have been occurring in the child welfare domain in the last two years, and the opportunities
that come with those changes, it is the perfect time for Maine to consider replacement of legacy technologies to
support dramatically transforming business needs. The following addresses the recent changing landscape and
how they impact OCFS’s business processes and technology needs.

Comprehensive Child Welfare Information Systems (CCWIS)

On 8/11/2015 the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(NPRM) for a Comprehensive Child Welfare Information System (CCWIS) in 80 FR 48200-748229. The NRPM
proposed regulations for replacement of the former Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System
(SACWIS) model. These changes accommodate changes in child welfare practice and advancements in
technology architecture and solutions. The new regulations focus on modularity and data sharing, among other
things. ACF is promoting interoperability across programs and enterprise, and leveraging investments in existing
assets. It also intends to realize a reduction in costs for development and maintenance.

The CCWIS Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2016 (81 FR 35449) and went into effect
on August 1, 2016. The primary intention of the final is to promote data sharing with other agencies, require and
ensure quality data, reduce mandatory functional requirements, and allow agencies to build systems tailored to
their needs. The ACF expects this to be achieved through the following requirements (as defined in:
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/ccwis_overview.pdf):
1. PROMOTE DATA SHARING WITH OTHER AGENCIES: The CCWIS final rule requires, if practicable,
title IV-E agencies to exchange data with other health and human service agencies, education systems,
and child welfare courts. Data exchanges will help coordinate services, eliminate redundancies, improve
client outcomes, and improve data quality.
2. REQUIRE QUALITY DATA: Title IV-E agencies implementing a CCWIS must develop and implement
data quality plans and processes to monitor data quality. The final rule also requires agencies to take
corrective action to address identified problems.
3. REDUCE MANDATORY FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS: While the S/TACWIS regulations require that
the system supports a minimum of 51 functional requirements, CCWIS only has 14 requirements. The
final rule allows agencies to build functions in the CCWIS or collect needed data through exchanges with
other systems.
4. ALLOW AGENCIES TO BUILD SYSTEMS TAILORED TO THEIR NEEDS: The CCWIS final rule focuses
federal requirements for this optional system on quality data and exchanges between related information
systems. This will allow agencies to build systems tailored to their unique business needs rather than
systems defined by functions specified by the federal government.

Many states felt constrained by the previous SACWIS requirements, as they were outdated and did not consider
innovations in technology and practice. The CCWIS final rule provides states with the opportunity to reimagine
how technology can support child welfare practice and operations in a way that can positively impact the
organization. It is desired that through the design and implementation of interoperable systems, across the
spectrum of child welfare stakeholder and contributing organizations, the business value will be realized through
process efficiencies, improved data quality, increased employee satisfaction (and therefore, reduction of turnover),
and ultimately improved outcomes for children and families.

The CCWIS Requirements are very different than the highly prescriptive, 51 mandatory SACWIS requirements.
There are only 14 CCWIS requirements [1355.52(a) – (j)] and they are broader (not functional requirements)

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 119
allowing states flexibility in determining and implementing solutions that best meet their business needs.
The requirements fall into the following ten categories:
• Efficient, economical, and effective [1355.25(a)]: As it relates to the effective administration of the title IV-
B and IV-E plans.
• Data Requirements [1355.25(b)]: Requires that data needed to support federal & agency requirements
must be maintained in the CCWIS. This goes beyond reports, to what data is necessary to operate a child
welfare agency.
• Reporting [1355.25(c)]: Indicates that the CCWIS must produce required federal reports such as
NCANDS, AFCARS, and NYTD, as well as required state reports.
• Data Quality [1355.25(d)]: The agency must develop and maintain a comprehensive data quality plan,
actively manage and monitor quality, and perform biennial reviews of data quality.
• Bi-Directional Exchanges [1355.25(e)]:
o Previously (under SACWIS) required exchanges remain. They include: TANF, Child Support,
Medicaid eligibility, Child abuse, Financial systems, and IV-E eligibility.
o New required exchanges include: Courts, Education, Medicaid claims, Child welfare contributing
agencies, and ancillary child welfare systems used by agency staff.
o Data Exchange Standard [1355.25(f)]: Must define and promote a data standard to establish a
common understanding with new data exchanges for child welfare contributing agencies and
ancillary systems. This does not apply to the existing exchanges.
• Automated Eligibility Determination [1355.25(g)]: Must provide a single process for determining eligibility
and cannot be duplicated by other systems. This is not a new requirement, and it is the only functional
requirement defined in the CCWIS final rule.
• Federal Software Library [1355.25(h)]: In an effort to promote sharing and reusability, upon request,
agencies must provide software modules and plain language document to ACF.
• Submission [1355.25(i)]: Requires states to submit a CCWIS plan before claiming funding in accordance
with CCWIS cost allocation rules.
• Applicable Advance Planning Document (APD) Requirements [1355.25(j)]: Specifies that states claiming
Title IV-E FFP for a CCWIS project below the APD submission thresholds (45 CFR 95.611) will be subject
to the APD rules.

In addition to these requirements, there are also design requirements that must be met for CCWIS compliance.
With the complexity of the requirements and the
associated decommissioning of large, antiquated
CCWIS requirements allow states flexibility in systems it is highly encouraged that states perform
determining and implementing solutions that best comprehensive due diligence to define the right
meet their business needs. solution and develop a roadmap that demonstrates a
path toward compliance with the defined
requirements. Through the Planning Advance Planning Document (PAPD) process, many states have been able
to obtain federal match funding for planning activities such as feasibility studies, assessments, business process
redesign and data quality planning (along with the software development activities) associated with the transition
to implementing a CCWIS compliant solution. These states include Kansas, Florida, Illinois, Idaho, Virginia, and
Arizona, among others. Requests for planning funding are submitted via a PAPD are typically funded at 50%
federal match.

The Implementation Advance Planning Document (IAPD) is the vehicle used to request funding for the
implementation or development activities. These activities include design, development and implementation
activities, but can also include project management, business process redesign, requirements, testing, training,

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 120
organizational change management, quality assurance, independent verification and validation (IV&V), and some
operations. Operations may also be covered under Operations Advance Planning Documents (OAPD) which are
a more recent concept. All APDs must be aligned with the agency cost allocation plan as the cost allocation plan
is the process where the actual cost identification and administrative claiming process occurs. Any administrative
cost that is not included in the cost allocation plan and claimed to a federal source is subject to disallowance.

CCWIS is still new. As of this writing, there is no state that has implemented a CCWIS compliant solution.
There are, however, a number of states that have started down the path. For those states that have secured IAPD
funding and have begun to implement their CCWIS roadmap, here are the trends that are emerging nationally:
• Platforms: Software platforms have evolved a lot in recent years, from the days of being a suite of
development environment tools, to an underlying foundation upon which functional components can be
built out quickly and integrated with other solutions more easily. The trend of recent years is the
emergence of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) solutions as relevant and applicable in the
health and human services space. In the last two years we have seen a number of states release CCWIS
RFPs for platform solutions including Louisiana, Idaho, and Arizona. We know of two other states that will
be releasing similar RFPs in the next 3-6 months with the same technical requirement for a platform
solution.
• Commercial-off-the-Shelf Software (COTS): Ready to use software has the advantage of being
implemented quickly, as long as the client is willing to use it largely as designed. COTS products are able
to be configured (not typically customized) to adapt to the client environment. Indiana had the first federally
approved COTS SACWIS solution in 2014. We are now seeing COTS considered in a best-of-breed
modeling that allows states to choose COTS solutions (with or without a platform) to satisfy specific
functional needs, such provider management and financials, as part of a broader CCWIS solution.
• Agile Vendor Pools: California, Mississippi and Connecticut have all gone the path of creating agile vendor
pools (essentially a pre-approved procurement vehicle), from which they can quickly create task orders
for development of smaller code products and/or business integration services (PMO, OCM, QA/Testing,
Training).
• Modularity: The CCWIS requirements specify that in order to be considered modular the solution must
break complex functions into separate, manageable, and independent components. The requirements
further state that there must be open, documented interfaces, and it must separate child welfare
processes from core system administrative processes. Some examples of this would include (but are not
limited to): Intake, Assessments, Case Management, and Financials.
• Mobility: Several states (Arizona and Virginia) have taken PCG’s recommendation to move forward with
a mobility first solution. There are a number of mobility systems of engagement that can sit on top of the
current legacy system to solve immediate issues in the field, while the agency concurrently works to build
the replacement solution on the back-end. The side benefit of this is often efficiency and data quality
improvements.
• Cloud Hosting: Most states are opting to move to cloud hosted solutions for CCWIS, and other enterprise
systems. This reduces the burden on the state for capital investments for infrastructure, and staffing or
contracting for skilled staff to manage and support a hosting environment.

While modularity is a component of the CCWIS Design Requirements, states with enterprise, legacy systems are
struggling with decommissioning of the legacy systems in a modular way. As such, some states are still opting for
a traditional “big bang” implementation out of necessity to address the issues of temporarily integrating with the
legacy system. Still, we are seeing systems built much faster and more economically than what we have seen in
other Health and Human Services domains historically.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 121
Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA)

As if CCWIS were not complicated enough, we now must also consider the Family First Prevention Services Act
(FFPSA), which will have a significant impact on all child welfare agencies, and relatedly, a direct impact on the
technology needed to support these significant changes. States will need to leave room in the implementation
plan for the new necessary technology planning and updates required. For states that were further down the path,
this means they will need to backtrack a bit to rethink business processes and requirements for their CCWIS
solutions. Key Elements of FFSPA include:

• New regulations regarding candidacy

• Prevention plans that authorize prevention services
• Timeline stipulations
• Evidence-based services
• Trauma informed framework
• Maintenance effort requirements
• Coordination with other relevant agencies
• Establishes and defines Qualified Residential Treatment Program (QRTP)

There are a variety of implications of these changes that are key to the design of a new CCWIS solution. They
include:
• Policy analysis and modification
• Eligibility determinations: e.g. documenting candidacy in service plans
• Contracting, Licensing and Claiming for prevention and QRTP services
• Data collection for reporting, but also for supporting new business processes
• Federal reporting: NCANDS, AFCARS, etc.
• Cross-program collaboration
o Defined business processes for practice collaboration
o Supported by data standards and data exchanges
• Federal Reporting
• Business Process Redesign from front line to back-office operations: Intake, Assessments, Service Plans,
Claiming, Reporting
• Technology changes
o RMS modifications for admin claiming
o Data warehouses and analytics
o Replacing antiquated SACWIS Systems with modern architectures that support data exchanges
and interoperability

The challenges related to the convergence of CCWIS and FFSPA include the following:

Timing Competing Priorities

Insufficient Funding Complexity and scale of needed changes
Alignment with CCWIS initiatives already underway Newness/evolution of expectations & guidance
Market competition in vendor community Desire/need to move quickly
Lack of understanding of solutions Vast group of affected stakeholders

To successfully address these challenges a methodological approach must be used to work toward developing a
sound plan and ultimately executing that plan without compromising operations or the safety and well-being of
children.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 122
With a clear approach, OCFS will drive toward the right technology solutions. This does not have to be a lengthy,
linear path. OCFS can define the strategy, but attach the challenge incrementally to allow for incremental benefits
throughout the course of implementing the roadmap. This requires planning and risk management, in advance of
designing a technology solution.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 123
Appendix C: Intake Reporting Process Map
This chart demonstrates the multiple different paths by which a report may be received by Intake.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 124
Appendix D: Case Record Review Tool
M AINE OFFICE OF CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES (OCFS)
CHILD WELFARE ASSESSMENT
CASE RECORD REVIEW TOOL
______________________________________________________________________

Case Number: Family Last Name:

District: County:
Date of Review:

CASE SPECIFICS

1. How long was this child/family involved with OCFS?

2. Provide a brief summation of the reason for the child/family’s involvement with OCFS, as outlined in the
intake narrative:

3. What was the outcome following the assessment period?

4. What were the circumstances regarding the child fatality (if applicable)?

COMPLIANCE WITH BEST PRACTICE STANDARDS

5. To what extent do you believe Maine’s Child and Family Services Practice Model standards and/or
those of the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) 1 were upheld in this particular case?

Fully Does Not

Statement Complies N/A
Complies Comply
Child Safety, First And Foremost
Responses to accepted child maltreatment
reports were initiated, and face-to-face contact
o o o o
with the children was made, within the required
timeframes.2
Please explain or provide additional comments:

1
Statements written in green text are derived from the CFSR, statements with red text are added by the team, and those left in black are from
Maine’s Child and Family Services Practice Model.
2Initial contact within 24 or 72 hours from the time of the report, depending upon the report determination by the intake worker through the use
of the Structured Decision Making Intake Screening and Response Priority Tool (SDM SCRPT).

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 125
 Fully Does Not
Statement Complies N/A
Complies Comply

The chosen type of child welfare response (e.g.,

assessment, Alternative Response,
o o o o
inappropriate/no response, etc.) was appropriate
in this case.

A team was created for the family, consisting of

family, staff, and community members to find o o o o
safe solutions for the children.

In response to child safety concerns, factually

supported conclusions were reached in a timely o o o o
and thorough manner.

The frequency and quality of visits between

caseworkers and children were sufficient to
ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being o o o o
of the children and to promote the achievement
of case goals.

The frequency and quality of visits between

caseworkers and the parents were sufficient to
ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being o o o o
of the children and to promote the achievement
of case goals.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 126
 Fully Does Not
Statement Complies N/A
Complies Comply

Input from parents, children, extended family,

and community stakeholders was a necessary o o o o
component in assuring safety.

Family was engaged with honesty and open

minds. By exploring and listening, families were
o o o o
helped in using their own strengths to meet the
safety needs of children.

Family perspectives, goals, and plans were

valued as critical to creating and maintaining o o o o
child safety.

The information available and the subsequent

assessment of that information was adequate o o o o
for the purposes of removal.

Dangerous caregivers were separated from

o o o o
children in need of protection.

When court action was necessary to make the

child safe, that authority was used with o o o o
sensitivity and respect.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 127
 Fully Does Not
Statement Complies N/A
Complies Comply

The thoroughness of information provided to the

o o o o
court for initial filing was adequate.

The evaluation of information and steps taken

during and after the first court hearing were o o o o
appropriate.

A periodic review occurred for each child no

less frequently than once every six months, o o o o
either by a court or an administrative review.

Concerted efforts were made to assess and

address the risk and safety concerns relating to
o o o o
the children in their own homes or while in
foster care.

The foster care placement was stable. o o o o

When children were placed in foster care,

ongoing safety was ensured through frequent,
o o o o
meaningful contact with children and their
caregivers.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 128
 Fully Does Not
Statement Complies N/A
Complies Comply

Any changes in placement that occurred were in

the best interests of the child and consistent o o o o
with achieving the child’s permanency goals.

Foster parents were welcomed as a vital part of

o o o o
the family team.

In placing the children in adoption, safety was

o o o o
the first priority.

6. Please provide any other additional feedback regarding child safety in this case:

Fully Does Not

Statement Complies N/A
Complies Comply
Parents Have The Right and Responsibility to Raise Their Own Children
It was clearly recognized by staff that family
members know the most about their own o o o o
families.

Staff saw it as their responsibility to understand

children and families within the context of their o o o o
own family rules, traditions, history, and culture.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 129
 Fully Does Not
Statement Complies N/A
Complies Comply

Parents’ voices were valued and considered in

decisions regarding the safety, permanency, and o o o o
well-being of their children and family.

Concerted efforts were made to locate and

involve the father, mother, and other family
o o o o
members when the child became involved with
the agency.

The child had a written case plan that was

o o o o
developed jointly with the parents.

In circumstances which led to removal, the

family’s input was reviewed and used for o o o o
placement considerations.

Family teams developed and implemented

creative, individualized solutions that built on the o o o o
strengths of families to meet their needs.

7. Please provide any other additional feedback regarding parental rights and responsibilities in this case:

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 130
 Fully Does Not
Statement Complies N/A
Complies Comply
Children Are Entitled To Live In A Safe And Nurturing Family
Concerted efforts were made to provide services
to the family to prevent the children’s entry into o o o o
foster care or re-entry after reunification.

Concerted efforts were made to assess the

needs of children (including educational,
physical, and mental/behavioral health needs), o o o o
parents, and foster parents to identify needed
services to achieve case goals.

The appropriately identified services for children,

o o o o
parents, and foster parents were provided.

Services assessed the strengths and needs of

children and families and determined other o o o o
service needs.

Services addressed the needs of families in

addition to individual children, in order to create o o o o
a safe home environment

Services enabled children to remain safely with

o o o o
their parents when reasonable.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 131
 Fully Does Not
Statement Complies N/A
Complies Comply

Services were individualized to meet the unique

o o o o
needs of children and families.

Caregivers were supported in protecting children

o o o o
in their own homes whenever possible.

When children could not live safely with their

families, the first consideration for placement
o o o o
was with kinship connections capable of
providing a safe and nurturing home.

Placements that promoted family, sibling and

community connections, and encouraged o o o o
healthy social development were supported.

Children were listened to. Their voices were

heard, valued, and considered in decisions
o o o o
regarding their safety, well-being, and
permanence.

8. Please provide any other additional feedback regarding the use of the child’s input, services, and the
promotion of a family environment in this case:

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 132
 Fully Does Not
Statement Complies N/A
Complies Comply
All Children Deserve A Permanent Family
Permanency planning for children began at first
contact with Child and Family Services. Staff
o o o o
proceeded with a sense of urgency until
permanency was achieved.

Appropriate permanency goals were established. o o o o

Services helped children in foster and adoptive

o o o o
placements achieve permanency.

All planning for children focused on the goal of

preserving their family, reunifying their family, or
o o o o
achieving permanent placement in another
family.

Each child had a permanency hearing in a

qualified court or administrative body that
occurred no later than 12 months from the date o o o o
the child entered foster care and no less
frequently than every 12 months thereafter.

Foster parents, pre-adoptive parents, and relative

caregivers of children in foster care were notified
o o o o
of, and had a right to be heard in, any review or
hearing held with respect to the child.

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 133
 Fully Does Not
Statement Complies N/A
Complies Comply

Concerted efforts were made to achieve

reunification, guardianship, adoption, or other o o o o
planned permanent living arrangement.

The filing of termination of parental rights

proceedings occurred in accordance with o o o o
required provisions.

Siblings in foster care were placed together

unless a separation was necessary to meet the o o o o
needs of one of the siblings.

Concerted efforts were made to ensure that

visitation between the child in foster care to
his/her parents and siblings was of sufficient
o o o o
frequency and quality to promote continuity in
the child’s relationships with these close family
members.

9. Please provide any other additional feedback regarding permanency in this case:

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 134
 Fully Does Not
Statement Complies N/A
Complies Comply
How We Do Our Work Is As Important As The Work We Do
Staff created and maintained a supportive
working and learning environment and for open o o o o
communication and accountability at all levels.

As staff worked with children, families, and their

teams, they clearly shared their purpose, role, o o o o
concerns, decisions, and responsibility.

Relationships and communication among staff,

children, families, foster parents, and community
o o o o
providers were conducted with genuineness,
empathy, and respect.

10. Please provide any other additional feedback regarding the quality of the work conducted in this case:

OPPORTUNITIES

11. What was done well by OCFS, or other organizations (e.g., the courts, schools, service providers, etc.)
in this case? From the system perspective, what worked well in this case?

12. What was not done well by OCFS, or other organizations (e.g., the courts, schools, service providers,
etc.) in this case? What were the gaps or missed opportunities in this case?

13. What could have been done differently by OCFS, or other organizations (e.g., the courts, schools,
service providers, etc.) in this case to yield a more positive outcome? From the system perspective,
what did not work well in this case?

Maine Office of Child and Family Services

Child Welfare Business Process Redesign | 135