PO27-012 FY27 Safe Model SSJF Question 5b 260420.pdf

Contract Administration and Compliance 406 E. Monroe • Sta. 455 • Springfield, Illinois 62701 • DCFS.Illinois.gov

Safety Assessment Family Evaluation (SAFE) Model

27-418DCFS-PROCU-B-51264

SSJF Response to Question #5b

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:

DCFS Response:

Structured Decision Making (SDM) — Children's Research Center, National Council on Crime and Delinquency

SDM was found unacceptable for four specific reasons.

First, structural incompatibility. SDM uses a different instrument at each decision point — a separate screening tool, safety assessment, risk assessment, and strengths and needs assessment. DCFS has built its child safety workflow, IllinoisConnect system configurations, forms, and supervisory review processes around SAFE's single integrated framework since FY22. SDM's multi-instrument structure cannot be adopted without dismantling and rebuilding all of these components.

Second, checklist approach. The FY20 Chapin Hall evaluation identified that DCFS's prior tool CERAP failed because it functioned as a checklist that did not guide the actual safety determination and was implemented with considerable variation. SDM's structured checklist approach at each decision point replicates the same deficiency Chapin Hall identified in CERAP. Replacing CERAP with SDM would not address the documented failures that drove DCFS to seek an alternative.

Third, tool differentiation by maltreatment type. The ACF Showcase documents that SDM uses different tools depending on maltreatment type. The SAFE Model uses the same tool across all maltreatment types, which is the capability DCFS's current workflow requires.

Fourth, workforce incompatibility. DCFS has trained staff across multiple regions on SAFE's specific instruments and decision-making structure since FY22. SDM training is entirely distinct and would require rebuilding workforce competency from the beginning.

Safety Organized Practice (SOP) — National Council on Crime and Delinquency / University of California Davis

SOP was found unacceptable for three specific reasons.

First, it is not a structured assessment model. The ACF Showcase documents that SOP is "a collection of best practices rather than a copyrighted model." It does not include structured assessment instruments or standardized tools for use at defined case lifecycle decision points. DCFS requires a comprehensive structured framework — SOP does not provide this capability.

Second, no standalone availability. SOP is designed to supplement rather than replace a structured assessment framework and cannot function as a standalone child safety decision-making system.

Third, no compatible infrastructure. SOP has no assessment instruments, intervention manuals, or fidelity review tools compatible with the workflow, IT configurations, and supervisory structures DCFS has built since FY22.

Safe@Home

Safe@Home is not an independent alternative — it is the in-home safety management component of the SAFE Model itself, copyrighted by Action 4 Child Protection. It was not evaluated as an alternative because it is part of the same procurement.