DCFS B-35958 PO24-020 Safe Model SPO Signed SSJF 230404~1.pdf

Please wait...

If this message is not eventually replaced by the proper contents of the document, your PDF viewer may not be able to display this type of document.

You can upgrade to the latest version of Adobe Reader for Windows®, Mac, or Linux® by visiting http://www.adobe.com/go/reader_download.

For more assistance with Adobe Reader visit http://www.adobe.com/go/acrreader.

Windows is either a registered trademark or a trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and/or other countries. Mac is a trademark of Apple Inc., registered in the United States and other countries. Linux is the registered trademark of Linus Torvalds in the U.S. and other countries.

Sole Source Justification Form Version 7.01 Page of Sole Source Justification Form - Part I Section I - General Information Will this Sole Source amend a Professional or Artistic Services contract?

If yes, what was the original contract value?

*Sole Source may not be used for amendments for Professional or Artistic Services if the amendment would increase the value by more than 5% of the initial award or extend the term by more than 60 days.

Section II - Proposed Term If a Term Contract, does the term, including renewals, exceed 12 months?

If yes, provide a detailed justification including any economic benefit received for agreeing to a multi-year term:

Section III - Funding Source Select the type of funding to be used (Check all that apply):

Section IV - Sole Source Justification Are there secondary justification(s) for this sole source?

Section V - Purchase History Has the Agency or University Purchased these supplies or services in the past?

Term Term From Term To Value Description Contract Number Type Section VI - Business Rationale

1. Provide a detailed explanation of the need for the supplies or services:

2. Provide a list and describe in detail the specifications required to satisfy the need:

3. Provide detail explaining the justification selected in Section IV to explain why the requested supplies or services are the only ones available that can satisfy the agency or university requirements?

4. What are the unique features of the supplies or services that are not available in any other product or by any other vendor? Provide specific quantifiable factors/qualifications:

5. Has the Agency or University considered alternative supplies or services to satisfy their need?

5a. If yes, name the alternative vendors whose supplies or services were evaluated:

5b. If yes, what were the alternatives for each vendor and why were they unacceptable? Be specific with regard to features, characteristics, requirements, capabilities and compatibility:

5c. Explain how the market evaluation was conducted?

*This evaluation is to determine available options within a market. If the evaluation is to determine quality or best suited option, this is not the appropriate source selection. Under no circumstances shall the evaluation consist of testing alternative options. These activities must be conducted in a competitive transparent environment (i.e. IFB or RFP).

5a. If no, why weren't alternatives evaluated?

6. Are there resellers or distributors?

7. What efforts were made to get the best possible price (i.e. did the agency/university negotiate) and how did you determine the price for this purchase is considered fair and reasonable?

8. Will this purchase obligate the State to this vendor for future purchases such as maintenance, licensing or continuing need?

8a. If yes, please provide details regarding future obligations and/or needs:

9. What will be the financial or other impact to the State if this sole source is not approved and a competitive bid is required?

10. Is there any additional information you would like to add to justify this sole source?

Section VII Requesting Department Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed.

State Agency Bureau/Division Head or University Purchasing Director Approval and Signature Required I know and understand the contents of this Sole Source Justification and attest that all statements are true and correct and the fairness and reasonableness of the price was adequately confirmed. (All prior form fields will lock once this e-signature is completed) SPO Approval and Signature Required Sole Source Justification Form - Part II Section I - General Information Was a Sole Source hearing held per 30 ILCS 500/20-25?

Section II - Sole Source Hearing Details The State posted to the Illinois Procurement Bulletin a description of the State's need, the justification for the sole source decision, and information regarding the opportunity to submit comments and testify at a public hearing. Notice of the hearing was also posted outside of the hearing room 48 hours prior to the hearing.

The public hearing was conducted for the purpose of receiving testimony regarding the sole source determination. The Hearing Officer recommends the following:

The following relevant documents are attached:

Section III - CPO Approval and Signature Required 9.0.0.2.20101008.1.734229 ellen.h.daley@illinois.gov

The Department needs a full implementation model from intake to case closure that can be used throughout the life of the case, along with implementation support, training and technical assistance. This assessment process incorporates gathering information related to family behaviors, conditions, and circumstances across six domains including: the Extent of Maltreatment, the Surrounding Circumstances of the Maltreatment, Child Functioning, Adult Functioning, General Parenting Practices, and Disciplinary Practices. The SAFE Model provides the framework to make a safety determination utilizing the interplay between the threats of danger and the things that might mitigate the threats of danger. The required specifications are for the Tool are to guide the CPSW to gather sufficient and relevant information to make an informed decision about whether a child is safe or unsafe.

It must guide their decision-making process as they click through:

• the 6 domains of family functioning,

• identification of whether there is a threat of danger (well-defined in the tool),

• assessment of each parent/caregiver protective capacity to control any threat of danger

• applies the 5 safety threshold criteria to the identified threat of danger

The model uses a standard tool to assess threats of danger, caregiver protective capacities, and unique vulnerability. The assessment distinguishes between "present" and "impending" danger, providing guidance about a child's risk and safety at first contact and throughout the course of the investigation (Pecora et al., 2013).

The model then determines whether each child in the home is safe or unsafe due to impending danger by automatically generates a safety determination based on the investigator’s selections. The tool provides a concrete and systematic approach to critical thinking and decision making. It does not require long narratives to be written by the investigator, rather it guides the child protection worker’s assessment and decision-making through the same Decision Process Flow every time.

This tool would reduce maltreatment because it would provide clear direction for front line staff in making the correct decision about the Safety of a child. Making the correct safety decision on a case does not alone reduce out‐ofhome care, it does reduce maltreatment.

The current model, CERAP, has been in use since 1996, and came into existence upon the passing of Senate Bill 1357, which became PA 88-614 in response to increased maltreatment of children in Illinois. PA 88-614 required DCFS to form a multi-disciplinary task force to develop and implement a child endangerment risk assessment protocol. The task force wrote CERAP based on another state’s form, and DCFS has modified and maintained it since.

DCFS with our partner, University of Chicago Chapin Hall, determined DCFS' current assessment model, CERAP, is outdated and does not adequately support DCFS' need to uniformly make objective safety decisions when assessing the safety of the children brought to the Department's attention. DCFS requires a model from intake to case closure that can be used throughout the life of the case. Due to the scale of use and users of the safety model, DCFS also requires implementation support, training and technical assistance adopting a new model.

There are a number of decision making approaches, such as consensus-based models, teaming approaches, and more recently predictive analytic approaches. While each approach can enhance decision making processes, and ultimately safety outcomes, risk assessments are limited to identifying correlations, rather than causes and are not evidence based models.

DCFS and Chapin Hall have determined a consensus based model, which uses expert agreement about the characteristics associated with maltreatment is the best model for IL DCFS.

The Capacity Building Center estimates successful implementation of any new model to take 3 to 5 years of practice (Fixsen et al., 2005).

Q2Answer: DCFS requires an model/tool to help staff improve decision making and ultimately safety outcomes for Illinois youth. The tool/model must be able to be used from referral to case closure, used to assess safety for all types of maltreatment, and must be continually updated to reflect current research and field practice. The tool/model must be grounded in research and proven effective by use in other states and jurisdictions, be easy to use, produce practical results, and measure what it is intended to measure. Perhaps most importantly, the tool/model must provide consistent assessments/conclusions across users and work similarly with diverse families throughout Illinois.

Ideally, a new tool will reduce maltreatment because it will provide clear direction for front line staff in making the correct decision about the safety of a child.

The tool must guide the case worker to gather sufficient and relevant information to make an informed decision about whether a child is safe or unsafe. It must guide their decision-making process by:

• assess the need for an urgent response,

• review the 6 domains of family functioning,

• identification of whether there is a threat of danger,

• assessment of each parent/caregiver protective capacity to control any threat of danger,

• assess impending threats to guide staff to establish a in-home or out-of-home safety plan, and

• upon reunification confirm safety threats have been eliminated,

• upon case closure, assess family functioning and support network, to determine safety.

In order to implement the tool/model DCFS will require extensive technical assistance from the developer/purveyor to install the program and move it from initial (pilot) to full implementation. This will include training all staff, creating new forms, training materials for each phase of the model implementation, intervention manuals, integrating all changes into existing DCFS policies and procedures, adapting the model to fit within our IT system.

Q3Answer: The SAFE Model by Action 4 Child Protection is credited as the first comprehensive safety decision-making model. The model is copyrighted and currently implemented in 45 jurisdictions and territories nationwide. The model uses a standard tool to assess threats of danger, caregiver protective capacities, and a child's unique vulnerability. The assessment distinguishes between present and impending danger, providing guidance about a child's risk and safety at first contact and through the course of the investigation.

In the last 30 years, Action 4 Child Protection has been a leader in this sector and has served as the National Resource Center on Child Maltreatment, jointly with the Child Welfare Institute, and then independently as the National Resource Center for Child Protective Services for more than 15 years.

In 2009 Action for Child Protection published “Child Safety A Guide for Judges and Attorneys” in partnership with the American Bar Association. 2010 The SAFE Model was designated as a Promising Practice by the Federal Children’s Bureau. In a 2011 PPI evaluations study conducted by the Children’s Bureau the Safe Model was given level 4 evidence rating based on a systematic review of research evidence. The SAFE Model is used by Center for States as technical assistants, which is funded by federal HHS, ACF Children’s Bureau.

Children’s Bureau just did a study of all state’s safety and risk based on statute – Action 4 Children was asked to be a peer reviewer “Use of Safety and Risk Assessments in Child Protection Cases.”

The SAFE Model provides the framework to make a safety determination utilizing the interplay between the threats of danger and the things that might mitigate the threats of danger.

The SAFE Model determines whether each child in the home is safe or unsafe due to impending danger by automatically generating a safety determination based on the investigator’s selections. It provides a concrete and systematic approach to critical thinking and decision making. It does not require long narratives to be written by the investigator, rather it guides the child protection worker’s assessment and decision-making through the same Decision Process Flow every time.

Q4Answer: The goal of the assessment tool is not to save time for front line staff, or somehow reduce cost, rather the goal is to make the correct safety decision about a youth's safety thereby reducing maltreatment. The CERAP checklist oversimplifies this complex decision. Time, or other non-maltreatment related considerations should not be part of the selection decision. See attachment for more information on non-financial success outcomes of the SAFE Model. Ideally, a new tool will reduce maltreatment because it will provide clear direction for front line staff in making the correct decision about the safety of a child.

No other vendor can write, implement, or provide training for the copy-righted consensus based model that possesses the required characteristics outlined above. Action 4 Child Protection (The Safe Model) has the proven expertise and history of implementation since they have already done this in 45 jurisdictions and territories.

A similar model, the Structure Decision Making Developed (National Council on Crime and Delinquency - Children's Research Center). While one of the most widely used models, it is similar to DCFS current model CERAP, and requires extensive clinical judgement, a mix of other tools, and a different assessment for each decision point throughout a case. This model does not fit DCFS strengths and weaknesses.

This new framework is monumental undertaking for DCFS. This will require current policies and practices to be updated along with forms. The fundamental changes will require all staff to be trained on the new framework, forms, and policy and procedures in order for this framework to work for DCFS. This framework will better assist DCFS to reduce maltreatment and help make the correct decision about the safety of a child or children.

1) It documents the factors that influenced safety determinations but does not provide guidance in making the safety determination.

2) It is implemented with considerable variation with respect to mitigating factors, safety threats, and safety plans.

3) It does not encourage consideration of contextual and environmental factors that are important to a determination based on the total case circumstances.

Chapin Hall recommended that DCFS consider best practice alternatives to the use of CERAP and specifically identified the ACTION 4 Child Protection Safety Assessment Evaluation (SAFE) model as one that would address current deficits and support the field in ensuring the safety of children.