This measure determines in in-home cases, whether the caseworker made a face-to-face contact with the mother, father, and and/or caregiver at least once during each month of the review period. The caseworker must have regular contact with each parent to assess safety, permanency, and well-being of the children and to promote achievement of case goals. The contact must include the following elements: the frequency is monthly, the location of the visit is conducive to open and honest conversations, the duration is sufficient to address key issues, and the quality of the discussion should focus on issues pertinent to case planning, service delivery, and goal achievement. This is captured in the Case Process Review (CPR) and cases are randomly pulled where trained reviewers review the case files. Cases are scored on a "yes" or "no" basis with the option of having an NA based on the question. For this item, the reviewer must locate clear documentation indicating that the caseworker attempted contact face-to-face and met the previously stated elements. This includes parents who refuse to participate or lives out of the county/state.  

The CPR breaks this measure down into three subsets. IH.6 is the caregiver (guardian, step-parent, kinship, etc.), IH.8 is the mother, and IH.9 is the father. 

The percentages are based on a annual August release of state-wide CPR review results from the Office of Service Review. The baseline was 81% for the mother, 58% for the father, and 82% for other caregivers from FY2024. The target measure is 85% or better. 

This is an added measure for FY2025's Strategy 1, Objective 3 which reflects a downward trend currently. The low percentages from teaming, item 15, caseworker visits with parents, as well as item 13, Child & Family Involvement in Case Planning, contributes to lower percentages in contact with parents and caregivers. Currently, the Division is working with each regions to evaluate their teaming efforts, as well as contact with mothers, fathers, and caregivers.  A recent root cause analysis for engaging with fathers was completed in Q2 of FY2025 shows that reasons for the low percentages include the following:  difficulties in locating fathers, family dynamics may be complex to navigate, substance abuse, DV or criminal justice, involvement barriers, lack of awareness about the importance of father engagement, the larger child welfare system on both state and federal levels are more heavily focused towards services for mothers as they tend to be the primary caregiver, differences in legal advice & CFSR guidelines for establishing paternity, many of our child clients are a part of fragmented and complex family system with multiple fathers, paramours, step-parents, and other temporary adult caregivers, and having face-to-face contact with out-of-county parents is a big investment. For FY2026, the Division's statewide and regional RBAs will include possible solutions for consideration.