worker that the child has been moved to a different home at the time the move is child’s social occurring or shortly after the move has happened—which does not permit the case manager to assist in problem solving around a potential disruption. Statewide assessment participants also noted that some regions have fewer respite homes, and without that resource, the agency is less able to intercede in disruptions in those areas. Table 9-Round 3 Indicators 2014B-2015A Observed Performance Placement Stability Source: Round 3 Data Profile Nov 2015 4.31% National Standard: 4.12% Round 3 data indicates that the state is doing well regarding placement setting. The state’s observed performance was a +.19% from the national standard. The state rates Permanency Outcome 1 as an overall strength as evidenced by positive observed performance in both timeliness to permanency and placement stability. The state will, however, need to monitor the area of permanency in 12 months for children who have been in care 12-23 months and continue to develop solutions in order to increase this percentage. Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children. The table below shows a snapshot of the CFSR data with case review data. Please note state’s that any reference to case review data throughout the assessment is in reference to the data collected through the CQI CARES review process. detailed description of the case review process is outlined under Item 25. Case review items had been crosswalked to CFSR items following the last state CFSR and PIP. Table 10 Data in a Glance: 2003 2008 Case Review CFSR CFSR December 2014 Permanency 2: 78.6% 71.4% 67.5% The continuity of family relationships and N=413* connections is preserved 80.7% Item 12: Placement with siblings 84% 100% N=122* Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings 72.0% 60% 58% in foster care N=174* 89.7% Item 14: Preserving Connections 75% 84% N=260*
child’s social worker that the child has been moved to a different home at the time the move is occurring or shortly after the move has happened—which does not permit the case manager to assist in problem solving around a potential disruption. Statewide assessment participants also noted that some regions have fewer respite homes, and without that resource, the agency is less able to intercede in disruptions in those areas. Table 9-Round 3 Indicators 2014B-2015A Observed Performance Placement Stability Source: Round 3 Data Profile Nov 2015 National Standard: 4.12% 4.31% Round 3 data indicates that the state is doing well regarding placement setting. The state’s observed performance was a +.19% from the national standard. The state rates Permanency Outcome 1 as an overall strength as evidenced by positive observed performance in both timeliness to permanency and placement stability. The state will, however, need to monitor the area of permanency in 12 months for children who have been in care 12-23 months and continue to develop solutions in order to increase this percentage. Permanency Outcome 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved for children. The table below shows a snapshot of the state’s CFSR data with case review data. Please note that any reference to case review data throughout the assessment is in reference to the data collected through the CQI CARES review process. detailed description of the case review process is outlined under Item 25. Case review items had been crosswalked to CFSR items following the last state CFSR and PIP. Table 10 2003 CFSR 2008 CFSR Data in a Glance: Case Review December 2014 Permanency 2: The continuity of family relationships and connections is preserved 71.4% 67.5% 78.6% N=413* Item 12: Placement with siblings 84% 100% 80.7% N=122* Item 13: Visiting with parents and siblings in foster care 60% 58% 72.0% N=174* Item 14: Preserving Connections 75% 84% 89.7% N=260*