This policy reviews the Structured Decision Making (SDM) system, its component assessment tools, and the WebSDM (SDM Live) application.

This policy was updated from the 6/11/2021 version to address revisions to the Evident Change SDM Policy and Procedures Manual; to integrate guidance from All County Letter (ACL) 23-64 regarding the safety assessment, emergency removal and emergency placement of Indian Children; to cover the WebSDM Version 3.5 updates to the Hotline, Safety and Risk Assessment tools detailed in ACL 23-101; and to incorporate the new Safety Assessment for Congregate Care tool introduced by ACL 23-102. Obsolete references to the Family Strengths and Needs Assessment (FSNA) and Child Strengths and Needs Assessment (CSNA) were removed.

Goals of SDM

Key Practice Points

The Structured Decision Making System is a suite of research-based assessment tools that are designed to assist child welfare staff at critical decision points throughout the life of a child abuse/neglect case. SDM does not make these case-related decisions for social workers, but rather provides a structured framework for information gathering and critical thinking that helps guide them to make better decisions.

The SDM system is built on the foundation of a common set of definitions to support consistency, accuracy and equity in conducting these assessments. Staff are strongly encouraged to carefully read each SDM definition in its entirety when completing assessments. The definitions can be quickly accessed by clicking the question mark icons throughout WebSDM, or by consulting the Evident Change SDM Policy and Procedures Manual or by going to https://ca.sdmdata.org/definitions on a mobile phone or tablet. Social workers are advised of the following practice points:

• Item definitions must be used to determine whether the information about the family matches the SDM item being considered; staff should be careful to read each definition in its entirety, all the way to the period.
• Take special note of the differences between "and," "or," and "and/or" among the definitions.
• Examples provided in SDM are merely examples and are not all-inclusive lists of conditions.
• "Unasked" is different from "unknown;" staff should not list an item as "unknown" if the question was not asked of the family.
• Use common sense when completing items; when unsure, consult with others (colleagues, SCSWs), use critical thinking and professional judgment.
• SDM tools are prompts for practice; while interviewing families and gathering information for the assessments, CSWs should adhere to the practice standards, guiding principles, and values of the Integrated Core Practice Model (ICPM). The ICPM, in conjunction with individual policies and procedures, will provide more detailed guidance about how these assessments may be conducted with families. Refer to Evident Change's "Linking the SDM System to Integrated Core Practice Model Behaviors and Practice Phases" for some examples.
• Since WebSDM is web-based, its tools can be completed by CSWs in the field using a smart phone or tablet with internet access at https://ca.sdmdata.org.

Successful implementation of the SDM system requires that staff understand the difference between Safety Threats and risk; the difference between behavior and underlying needs; the "household" as the unit of analysis; and that assessments are prompts for family engagement.

Understanding Households and Caregivers

With the exception of the Safety Assessment for Congregate Care, Structured Decision Making® (SDM) assessments are completed on “households.” For assessment purposes, a household is not simply a dwelling; it is a group of people living under one (1) roof who have significant in-home contact with the child. In SDM, a “household” includes all persons who have contact with the child, including those who have a familial or intimate relationship with any person in the home.

When a child’s parents do not live together, the child may be a member of two (2) households. When completing a Risk Assessment, staff should always assess the household of the alleged perpetrator. This may be the child’s primary residence if it is also the residence of the alleged perpetrator, or the household of a non-custodial parent if it is the residence of the alleged perpetrator. The most common practice error with the Risk Assessment is completing it on the wrong household. Assessing risk on a household that is not of concern in the current referral often yields a Low or Moderate Risk level, which suggests the referral should be closed. This can mistakenly cause a missed opportunity to intervene in a way that can protect the child.

In SDM, a “caregiver” is defined as an adult, parent, or guardian in the household who provides care and supervision for the child. SDM assessments further distinguish between primary and secondary caregivers. A primary caregiver must have legal responsibility for the child. If two (2) caregivers in the home have legal responsibility, the one (1) providing the most care is the primary caregiver. It is possible that there will not be a secondary caregiver.

Decision Points & Their Corresponding SDM Tools

As of 10/28/2021, Los Angeles County implemented the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) Assessment, which replaced the Mental Health Screening Tool (MHST), Family Strengths and Needs Assessment (FSNA) and Child’s Strengths and Needs Assessment (CSNA).

Evident Change has a Document Library (password: training) containing numerous guides and case reading tools for WebSDM, such as:

• WebSDM User Guide
• California WebSDM Transition Guide
• WebSDM Supervisor Guide

Hotline Tools - Screening and Response Priority Assessment

The purpose of the Hotline Tools is to assess whether or not a referral meets the statutory threshold for an in-person investigatory response, and if so, how quickly (e.g., Immediate Response/Response Within 5-Days) a social worker needs to respond. If a referral does not require an in-person response, the Hotline Tools help screeners determine whether a community response is more appropriate.

Safety Assessment

The purpose of the Safety Assessment is: (1) to help assess whether any child is likely to be in immediate danger of serious harm/maltreatment (which requires a protective intervention) and (2) to determine what interventions should be initiated or maintained to provide appropriate protection. This tool helps staff assess the child's present danger of immediate/serious harm and the interventions currently needed to protect the child. The result of the Safety Assessment is either Safe, Unsafe, or Safe with Plan. If Safe With Plan is the Safety Assessment's determination, a Safety Plan is required.

The process of assessing for child safety during an investigative interview should follow the structure of the SDM Safety Assessment tool. This parallel practice can facilitate the most accurate, consistent and timely completion of the tool.

Substitute Care Provider (SCP) Safety Assessment

The purpose of the Substitute Care Provider (SCP) Safety Assessment is: (1) to help assess whether any child is likely to be in immediate danger of serious harm/maltreatment by a caregiver other than a parent, which may require a replacement, and (2) to determine what interventions should be initiated or maintained to provide appropriate protection if no replacement is deemed necessary. The items on the tool are very similar to the items on the SDM Safety Assessment for child protective services investigations, but the SCP Safety Assessment omits child vulnerabilities.

The SCP Safety Assessment must be used for investigations of alleged abuse/neglect by a substitute care provider (excluding group homes/STRTPs, institutions, and residential treatment facilities), including:

• Approved Resource Family Homes (including placements approved on an emergency basis prior to Resource Family Approval)
• Emergency placements
• Approved relative and nonrelative extended family members (NREFM) homes;
• Certified foster family agencies (FFA);
• Small family homes;
• Adoptive parents if the adoption has not yet been finalized; or
• Legal guardians, when a dependency case is still open (i.e., the department has protective responsibility for the child).

For allegations involving congregate care settings, the Safety Assessment for Congregate Care must be used.

Safety Assessment for Congregate Care

The Safety Assessment for Congregate Care was developed specifically for suspected child abuse and neglect investigations in congregate care settings, which are highly structured, licensed/approved out-of-home care placements that often have 24-hour supervision for children [e.g., group homes (including community treatment facilities, enhanced behavioral support homes and minor-parent programs), Short-Term Residential Therapeutic Programs (STRTPs), Transitional Housing Placement Programs (THPPs), and transitional and temporary shelter care facilities].  Juvenile detention facilities, child/youth homeless prevention centers, psychiatric hospitals or care facilities, and crisis nurseries are not considered congregate care settings for the purposes of this assessment.

The assessment is designed to:

• Help assess whether any child in a congregate care setting is likely to be in immediate danger of serious harm/maltreatment by a caregiver other than a parent or substitute care provider, which may require a replacement, and
• To determine what interventions should be initiated or maintained to provide appropriate protection if no replacement is deemed necessary.

In contrast with the SDM Safety Assessment and Substitute Care Provider (SCP) Safety Assessment, which are both completed on households, the Safety Assessment for Congregate Care:

• Is child-specific (i.e., the assessment is completed on an individual child rather than an entire household),
• Is similar to the original Safety Assessment, in that it includes “factors influencing child/youth vulnerability,” and
• Includes an additional section, “facility factors that may affect child/youth vulnerability.”

Risk Assessment

The SDM Risk Assessment helps child welfare staff identify households with characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of future system involvement to the child in the next eighteen (18) to twenty-four (24) months and supports case promotion/intervention decision making. The tool is based on research of substantiated abuse/neglect cases. The research specifically examined the relationships between family characteristics and outcomes of subsequent substantiated abuse/neglect allegations. Although the tool does not predict recurrence of maltreatment, it assesses whether a family is more or less likely to have future system involvement without agency intervention, and provides recommendations regarding whether or not intervention should be initiated. The Risk Assessment identifies families with either Low, Moderate, High, or Very High probabilities of future abuse or neglect. The difference between risk levels is substantial; families classified as High Risk have significantly higher rates of subsequent referral and substantiation than families classified as Low Risk. The Risk Assessment is completed based on conditions that exist at the time the incident is reported and investigated, as well as the prior history of the family.

Risk Reassessment (For In-Home Cases)

The purpose of the Risk Reassessment is to help assess whether risk has been reduced sufficiently (e.g., Low/Moderate) to allow a case to be closed, or whether the risk level remains High/Very High and services should continue. The tool assists staff in evaluating whether behaviors and actions of the family have changed as a result of the case plan, thereby lowering the risk level. The Risk Reassessment combines items from the original Risk Assessment with additional items that evaluate a family’s progress toward case plan goals.

Reunification Reassessment (for Out-of-Home Cases)

The purpose of the Reunification Reassessment is to help assess whether children in placement who have a reunification goal should be returned home to the removal household (or another household with a legal right to placement); be maintained in placement while reunification services continue; or have a permanency alternative implemented and reunification services terminated. This SDM tool helps staff assess and document a family's progress with their identified case plan objectives, and also provides a useful comparison between the family's initial safety threats and initial risk level with current circumstances. Research indicates that children are less likely to suffer subsequent harm and re-enter care when the recommendations of the Reunification Reassessment are followed.

Time Frames for Assessment and Documentation

Since WebSDM is web-based, its tools can be completed by CSWs in the field using a smart phone or tablet with internet access at https://ca.sdmdata.org. The tools in WebSDM cannot be back-dated, so timely completion is essential. Each tool has different timelines for completion, as summarized in the table below:

Staff will receive "Overdue Alert" emails when the time frame for completing the SDM Safety Assessment and Risk Assessment has been exceeded. For CSW submission/SCSW approval time frames, click here.

¹ The SCP Safety Assessment tool is only used when the child resides in family-based care (such as approved relatives or nonrelative extended family members, licensed foster homes, foster family homes, and/or small family homes) and not for children residing in residential or institutional care.  For investigations involving children in congregate care settings, use the Safety Assessment for Congregate Care.

As of 10/28/2021, Los Angeles County implemented the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) Assessment, which replaced the MHST, FSNA and CSNA tools.

Hotline Tools

Hotline CSW Responsibilities

1. Conduct the screening assessment using the Hotline Tools as an available structure in order to ensure that all relevant questions are asked. Screen calls in accordance with Child Protection Hotline (CPH) procedures.

2. Elicit all pertinent information known to the caller that enables accurate answering of the questions contained in the SDM Hotline Screening and Response Priority tools, including whether there is a  "reason to know" or "reason to believe" that a referred child may be an Indian child.

3. Determine the Screening Decision (Evaluate Out or In Person Response), Response Priority (IR, 5-Day, 5-Day By, etc.) and Path Decision with the support of the SDM Hotline Tools.

4. Determine if any overrides (policy or discretionary) are warranted based on the definitions contained in WebSDM (or accessed via the Evident Change SDM Policy and Procedures Manual). Obtain supervisory approvals as needed. Document any override decisions within the SDM tool and in CWS/CMS' "Determine Response" fields.

5. In cases where a referral for in-person response is not warranted, elicit all information known to caller that is necessary to appropriately document the reported information.

Safety Assessment Tool / Substitute Care Provider (SCP) Safety Assessment Tool and Use of the SDM Safety Plan

CSW Responsibilities

Investigations should include an assessment of all Safety Threats and risk factors present beyond the allegations on the referral, using the structure of the Safety Assessment while in the field. If the child to be assessed resides with a substitute care provider, utilize either the SCP Safety Assessment tool (for family-based care) or Safety Assessment for Congregate Care (for group homes, STRTPs, THPP homes, transitional or temporary shelter care facilities) to support assessment and decision making related to household and facility safety. Refer to Structured Decision Making (SDM) Safety Plans for further information.

1. Before concluding the initial face-to-face contact with the child and family, conduct the Safety Assessment process to determine whether or not detention (or another intervention) may be necessary.
2. Assess whether any child in this household is, or may be, an Indian child. If yes:
   • Indicate whether there is a reason to know or a reason to believe this, and
   • Indicate whether tribal social workers or representative(s) were consulted during the information gathering and safety assessment process, and if not, whether contact with the Tribe(s) was attempted.
3. Assess each Safety Threat from the Safety Assessment/SCP Safety Assessment tool (and listed on page 4 of the Safety Plan form). SDM Safety Assessment items are listed below. Staff should go to the SDM definition website to ensure they are reading definitions and selecting items appropriately:
   1. Caregiver/s caused serious physical harm to the child or made a plausible threat to cause serious harm in the current investigation, as indicated by:
      • Serious injury or abuse to the child other than accidental
      • Caregiver fears they will maltreat the child
      • Threat to cause harm or retaliate against child
      • Excessive discipline or physical force
      • Substance-affected infant
   2. Child sexual abuse or sexual exploitation is suspected, AND circumstances suggest that child/ren’s safety of immediate concern.
   3. Caregiver does not meet the child’s immediate needs, resulting in serious harm or imminent danger of serious harm. [This item should not be selected based on a parent’s economic disadvantage alone, and must reach the threshold of immediate and serious danger (physical harm or illness) to the child].  Select all that apply:
      • Supervision
      • Food, clothing or hygiene
      • Medical or dental care
      • Mental health care
   4. The physical living conditions are hazardous and immediately threatening to the health and/or safety of the children.
   5. Caregiver describes or speaks to the child/ren in negative terms or acts toward or in the presence of the child/ren in negative ways and these actions result in severe psychological/emotional harm resulting in imminent danger (e.g., the child is a danger to self or others or has untoward aggressive behavior, debilitating depression or anxiety, or eating disorders that threaten severe injury or illness).
   6. Caregiver/s does not protect child/ren from serious harm or threatened harm by others. This may include physical abuse, sexual abuse or neglect.
   7. Caregiver/s explanation for the injury to the child is questionable or inconsistent with the type of injury, and the nature of the injury suggests the child’s safety may be of immediate concern.
   8. The family refuses access to child/ren or there is reason to believe that the family is about to flee.
   9. Domestic violence exists in the household and poses an imminent danger of serious harm to the child. Select all that apply:
      • Physical harm
      • Emotional harm
   10. Current circumstances meet the threshold of imminent and severe danger, but are not described within Safety Threats 1 – 9 (specify).
       • Item 10 (“Other”) should only be used to document safety factors that put a child at imminent risk of danger that are not identified by items 1 – 9. It is not to be used to document that there are not safety factors present, risks of future potential harm, or other non-immediate concerns.
       • Supervisor review or consultation should occur whenever Safety Threat 10 is selected to ensure that the circumstances are not described within another Safety Threat and that the description clarifies why the circumstances meet the intended threshold of immediate and severe danger.
4. When at least one (1) Safety Threat is identified, assess whether household strengths, and protective actions can be built upon for safety planning. Before leaving the home, discuss with your SCSW whether the Safety Threat(s) can be mitigated through:
   1. In-home protective actions
   1. Intervention or direct services by CSW (not including the investigation itself or services provided to respond to family needs that do not directly affect safety). For example:
      • Creating a Plan of Safe Care (POSC) for substance-affected infants that addresses immediate danger
      • Providing information about nonviolent disciplinary methods, child development needs, or parenting practices
      • Planning return visits to the home to check on progress
      • Providing information on obtaining restraining orders
      • Providing definitions of child abuse laws and informing involved parties of the consequences of violating these laws
   2. Use of family, neighbors, or other individuals in the community as safety resources. For example:
      • Family’s agreement to use nonviolent means of discipline
      • Engaging a grandparent to assist with child care
      • Agreement by a neighbor to serve as a safety net for an older child
      • Agreement by a support network member or twelve (12)-step sponsor to meet with the caregiver daily and call the CSW if the caregiver’s behavior is placing or has placed the child in imminent danger, or
      • The caregiver’s decision, as part of a Safety Plan, to have the child cared for by a friend or relative for a limited period of time, such as overnight or for a few days.
   3. Use of community agencies or services as safety resources. For example:
      • Involving a community-based or faith-related organization or other agency in activities to address immediate safety threats (e.g., using a local food pantry). This does not include long-term therapy or treatment, or being put on a waiting list for services.
   4. Inclusion of tribal, Indian community service agency, and/or ICWA staff as part of action steps on the Safety Plan.
   5. Have the caregiver appropriately protect the victim from the alleged perpetrator. (e.g., include an agreement that the child will not be alone with the alleged perpetrator)
   6. Have the alleged perpetrator leave the home, either voluntarily or in response to legal action. For example: arrest of alleged perpetrator, non-perpetrating caregiver “kicking out” an alleged perpetrator who has no legal right to the residence, or the alleged perpetrator agrees to leave.
   7. Have the non-offending caregiver move to a safe environment with the child. For example, a domestic violence shelter, home of a friend or relative, or hotel.
   8. Legal action planned or initiated—child remains in the home. This includes family-initiated actions (e.g., restraining orders, mental health commitments, changes in custody/visitation/guardianship), DCFS-initiated actions (filing a non-detained petition and child remains in the home with the intention of initiating Family Maintenance services), and includes actions taken by the child’s tribe and tribal court to intervene or take jurisdiction of the Indian child’s case.
   9. Other: The family or CSW identifies a unique intervention for an identified safety concern that does not fit within items i–viii above.
5. After consulting with the SCSW, engage the family in the process of Safety Planning to help determine if a safety plan can be developed that provides sufficient immediate control and monitoring of the safety threat to leave at least one (1) child in the home or placement. Refer to Structured Decision Making (SDM) Safety Plans for more information.

6. Safety Threats, if left unaddressed, present a type of exigency:

   1. Discuss safety threats with the SCSW before leaving the home to determine the most appropriate course of action (e.g., Safety Planning when possible, requesting parental consent to detain; seeking a warrant consultation, a removal order, filing a non-detained petition, etc. Refer to Obtaining Warrants and/or Removal Orders for more information).
   2. When one (1) or more safety threats are present and the development of a sufficient safety intervention is not possible using safety planning practices (e.g., no available caregiver, absence of adequate safety interventions or monitoring, or the legal caregiver does not agree to participate in safety planning), consult with the SCSW regarding actions needed to place the child protectively.
7. When no Safety Threats are identified, the presumptive safety decision for the household is “Safe” and the assessment is complete.
8. Within two (2) business days of the initial face-to-face contact, complete the Safety Assessment Tool (or SCP Safety Assessment Tool, as applicable) in WebSDM either in the office or on a mobile device.
   1. Indicate the date of the assessment, the household name, and whether or not there are allegations in the household.
   2. Select an Assessment Type -- Initial, Review/Update, or Referral Closing, or Case Closing.
   3. Check all "Factors Influencing Child Vulnerability" that apply to any child in the household:
      • Age zero (0) to five (5) years
      • Significant diagnosed medical or mental disorder
      • Not readily accessible to community oversight
      • Diminished developmental/cognitive capacity (e.g., developmental delay, non-verbal)
      • Diminished physical capacity (e.g., non-ambulatory, limited use of limbs)
   4. In WebSDM's Safety Assessment tool (or, for children in family-based care, the SCP Safety Assessment Tool, as applicable), select all applicable Safety Threats by marking "Yes" for all threats that apply and marking "No" for any threats that do not apply.
   5. If any Safety Threats are marked "Yes," indicate whether any Caregiver Complicating Behaviors are also present by marking all that apply to the household in Section 1A of WebSDM. (These are conditions that make it more difficult or complicated to create safety for a child, but do not by themselves create a safety threat. These behaviors must be considered when assessing for and planning to mitigate safety threats with a safety plan). 
      These Caregiver Complicating Behaviors include:

      • Substance abuse

      • Domestic violence

      • Mental health

      • Developmental/cognitive impairment

      • Physical condition

      • Other (specify)

   6. In Section 2, select any applicable Household Strengths and Protective Actions for the caregiver and child in the following areas:

      1. Caregiver Problem Solving

         • Household Strengths: At least one (1) caregiver identifies and acknowledges the problem/safety threat(s) and suggests possible solutions.

         • Protective Actions: At least one (1) caregiver articulates specific strategies that, in the past, have been at least partially successful in mitigating the identified safety threat(s), and the caregiver has used or could use these strategies in the current situation.

      2. Caregiver Support Network
         • Household Strengths:

           • At least one caregiver has at least one (1) supportive relationship with someone who is willing to be a part of their support network.

           • At least one (1) non-offending caregiver exists and is willing and able to protect the child from future harm.

           • At least one (1) caregiver is willing to work with the agency to mitigate safety threats, including allowing the caseworker(s) access to the child.

         • Protective Actions: At least one (1) caregiver has a stable support network that is aware of the safety threat(s), has been or is responding to the threat(s), and is willing to provide protections for the child.
      3. Child Problem Solving
         • Household Strengths: At least one (1) child is emotionally/intellectually capable of acting to protect him/herself from a safety threat.
         • Protective Actions: At least one (1) child, in the past or currently, acts in ways that protect themselves from a safety threat(s).
      4. Child Support Network
         • Household Strengths: At least one (1) child is aware of their support network members and knows how to contact these individuals when needed.
         • Protective Actions: At least one (1) child has successfully pursued support, in the past or currently, from a member of their support network, and that person(s) was able to help address the safety threat and keep the child safe.

      5. Other Household Strengths and Protective Actions (specify in text field)

9. Complete Section 3, In-Home Protective Interventions as follows:

   1. Review available protective capacities for each identified safety threat.
   2. Consider whether the threat to safety appears related to the caregiver's knowledge, skill, or motivational issue.
   3. Assess whether the available interventions control the threat(s) to safety.

   4. Consider whether any safety interventions will allow the child to remain in the home for the present time. If one (1) or more safety threats are present, mark the item number for all safety interventions that will be implemented, and complete a Safety Plan form documenting the intervention.

      • If there are no available safety interventions that would allow the child to remain in the home, indicate by marking item 10 (voluntarily placement of the child outside the home), 11 (a warrant or detention order will be sought immediately) or 12 (child placed in protective custody), and follow procedures for:
        
        
        • • Initiating a Voluntary Placement Agreement, or
          • Consulting with SCSW to initiate a warrant consult, or
          • Taking the child into protective custody (if exigency exists or consent is given

10. For Section 3, the Safety Decision (safe or safe with plan), and Section 4 (Placement Interventions) will be automatically selected in WebSDM. The decision generated is based on previous responses to the safety threats and safety interventions.

    • For assessments involving Indian children, indicate whether or not the tribe agrees with the final safety decision.
11. Save the Safety Assessment and request SCSW approval.

12. If a Safety Threat was previously identified and has since been resolved, complete an updated or referral closing SDM Safety Assessment to indicate that safety threat(s) no longer exists.

    1. A child must not be left in a home when an active, unresolved Safety Threat exists and no safety intervention has been implemented that mitigates the threat to the child.
    2. If unresolved safety threats remain present at the end of the investigation, consult with SCSW to discuss a non-detained court filing, voluntary services, or initiating a warrant consult.
       • If a removal order is requested but not granted, an updated Safety Assessment is recommended to reassess in-home protective interventions.
13. If completing the Safety Assessment for an Emergency Response (ER) Referral, follow procedural steps outlined in Investigation, Disposition and Closure of Emergency Response Referrals.
    • For ER referrals on open cases, refer to either Emergency Response Referrals Alleging Abuse of Children Who Are Under DCFS Supervision and Residing in the Home of a Parent, or Emergency Response Referrals Alleging Abuse In Out-of-Home Care Regarding Children Who Are Under DCFS Supervision.
14. Whenever closing an open case, complete a case closing SDM Safety Assessment.

DI CSW Responsibilities

1. Before making a jurisdictional recommendation or writing the Jurisdiction/Disposition report, log in to WebSDM and select the desired case from “My Caseload,” “My Alerts” or “My Assessments.”
   • If the case is not listed, click on “Search” from the left panel to search by case name or case ID (19 digits) and open the desired case from the search results.
2. Review the original Safety Assessment and confirm if the previously identified safety threats remain active. If circumstances in the household have changed since the completion of the initial Safety Assessment, complete an updated Safety Assessment.
   1. Locate the New Assessment panel at the upper left and choose the correct tool (if it is not there, check “Other Assessments”). If the case could not be located in a search, open the desired case in CWS/CMS, highlight and copy the case ID number, and paste the case ID number into the ID field of the new blank assessment in WebSDM.
   2. If the updated Safety Assessment results in “safe” or “safe with a plan,” consult with SCSW to discuss:
      • Whether an SDM Safety Plan could sufficiently mitigate the safety factors if the child(ren) returned home, and
      • A possible change in recommendation to Family Maintenance (FM) or Voluntary Family Maintenance (VFM).
   3. If the case changes from Family Reunification (FR) to FM/VFM based on an SDM Safety Plan, monitor and update an SDM Safety Plan as needed.
3. Review the initial Risk Assessment completed by ER CSW.
4. Consult with your SCSW as needed to determine if the Department’s current recommendation remains appropriate.
   • If the case has not reached adjudication and disposition by the ninetieth (90th) day (from either the removal/placement date or the start date of the FM service component), consult with the Continuing Services (CS) CSW to discuss the results of the applicable SDM Reassessment tool, including whether a change in recommendation is needed regarding reunification, continuance of services or a change in permanency goal.

Safety Assessment for Congregate Care

ER CSW Responsibilities

1. In WebSDM, enter any non-populated identifying information.
   • Referral name and referral number
   • Child/youth name, county the child/youth comes from
   • Facility name, type and county
   • County conducting the safety assessment
   • Social Worker
   • Date of assessment
   • Name of tribe (if applicable)
2. List the assessment type -- either “Initial” or “Review/update:”
   • “Review/update” should be used if an initial/prior Safety Assessment for Congregate Care was completed that led to a safety decision of “Safe with Plan.”
3. Document whether there is information indicating that the child/youth is or may be an Indian child/youth. If so, document whether the ICWA representative for the tribe(s) was included in the information-gathering and safety assessment process, or if contact was attempted and how.
4. Indicate the person alleged to be causing harm: 
   • Facility staff (including, but not limited to, administration, volunteers, and temporary staff)
   • Other child/youth at the facility
   • Parent/family
     • Selecting “parent/family” will prompt the question, “Are you sure you need to complete the congregate care assessment and not the caregiver assessment?” and will bring up a link to the Evident Change SDM Policy & Procedures Manual.
   • Other (describe)
   • Unknown
5. Select any applicable factors influencing child/youth vulnerability:
   • Child/youth is younger than most other children/youth at the facility.
   • Child/youth has conditions that impact their ability to protect themself:
     • Child/youth has diminished mental capacity (e.g., developmental delay, nonverbal)
     • Child/youth has a medical condition
     • Child/youth has a mental health or trauma history that currently impairs ability to protect themselves
     • Child/youth has diminished physical capacity (e.g., non-ambulatory, limited use of limbs)
     • Other (describe)
   • Child/youth has a history of being sexually exploited or sexually trafficked
   • Child/youth is new to the facility within the last thirty (30) days
   • Child/youth identifies as LGBTQ+
   • Child/youth wears distinctive cultural or religious attire or expresses themselves in ways that demonstrate their religion or culture
   • Child/youth and facility staff experience a language barrier
   • Other (specify)
6. Select any facility factors that may contribute to child/youth vulnerability that apply:
   
   • Facility combines children/youth of different ages
   • Facility does not appear to provide supervision required to meet child/youth needs
   • Facility combines children/youth of different gender identities
   • Facility combines children/youth who have different degrees of acuity or disruptive behavior
   • Facility has a pattern of Community Care Licensing (CCL) complaints or concerns
   • Facility utilizes physical or hands-on restraints
   • Other (specify)
7. Assess the referred child/youth for each of the following Safety Threats. Indicate whether current information suggests a threat of imminent, serious harm is present. (If no Safety Threats are selected, the safety decision will be “Safe”).
   1. Facility caregiver caused physical harm to the child/youth or made a plausible threat to cause serious physical harm. If “Yes,” select all that apply:
      1. Injury or abuse to the child/youth occurred, other than accidental
      2. Facility caregiver has threatened to harm or retaliate against the child/youth
      3. Facility caregiver fears they will maltreat the child/youth
      4. Facility caregiver has used physical discipline or excessive physical force against the child/youth
   2. Facility caregiver’s explanation for an injury to the child/youth is questionable or inconsistent with the type of injury, and the nature of the injury suggests that the child/youth may be in imminent danger of serious harm.
   3. Child/youth sexual abuse is suspected, and circumstances suggest that the child/youth may be in imminent danger of serious harm.
   4. Child/youth abuse through commercial exploitation is suspected, and circumstances suggest that the child/youth may be in imminent danger of serious harm.
   5. Facility caregiver acts toward the child/youth in negative ways that result in severe psychological/emotional harm.
   6. Facility caregiver does not meet the child/youth’s immediate basic needs, and this results in imminent danger of serious harm. If yes, select all that apply:
      • Food
      • Clothing
      • Medical/dental care
      • Mental health care
      • Other
   7. Facility physical conditions are hazardous to the point of imminent danger of serious harm to the child/youth.
   8. Facility caregiver does not protect the child/youth from serious harm by peers.
   9. Facility caregiver does not protect the child/youth from serious harm by other adults.
   10. Facility caregiver does not respond to and address the following child/youth actions, and this results in imminent danger of serious harm. If yes, select all that apply:
       • Self-harm
       • Leaving care
       • Aggressive/assaultive behavior
       • Substance use
       • Other (describe)
8. Assess for and select all protective capacities that apply to the child/youth:
   • Child/youth acknowledges the Safety Threat.
   • Child/youth is willing and able to participate in a Safety Plan.
   • Child/youth has shown in the past that they can take action to protect themself.
   • Child/youth reports having a trusting relationship with at least one facility staff member.
   • Child/youth reports having a trusting relationship with at least one family member or support network member, and they are willing to share the details of the Safety Threat with them.
   • Other (describe
9. Assess for and select all protective capacities that apply to the facility:
   • Facility staff and leadership acknowledge the Safety Threat.
   • Facility staff shared details of the Safety Threat with all relevant members of the Child and Family Team, including any ICWA representative.
   • Facility leadership and staff are willing and able to participate in a Safety Plan.
   • Other (describe)
10. If Safety Threats have been identified, consider the protective capacities above and determine whether any appropriate protective interventions within a Safety Plan will allow the child/youth to safely remain in the facility. If so, the safety decision is “Safe with Plan.” Identify and select interventions that will be used to immediately address the Safety Threat. For example:
    • Intervention or direct services provided by a CSW (do not include fact-finding actions from the investigation itself).
    • Use of Child and Family Team members, support network, and/or community agencies as participants on the Safety Plan.
    • Use of resources and/or recommendations from ICWA representatives as part of the Safety Plan.
    • Alleged perpetrator has been arrested, fired, or suspended from facility. (This cannot be the only item on the Safety Plan).
    • Facility will change staffing levels to address the Safety Threat.
    • Facility will change behavior plan/response to child/youth.
    • Facility will change location of child/youth within the facility and/or separate them from particular peers.
    • Other (describe)
11. If one (1) or more Safety Threats are present, and an SDM Safety Plan is not possible, the safety decision is Unsafe.
    • All interventions above have been considered, and none of them will address the Safety Threat. A placement change is the only intervention possible to address the Safety Threat for the child/youth. Without the placement change, the child/youth will remain in imminent danger of serious harm. 
      • Indicate whether the county that is responsible for child/youth will transfer the child/youth to a new placement immediately.
12. If the child/youth is or may be an Indian child/youth, complete “Tribal Agreement with Final Safety Decision.”
13. If, during the course of this safety assessment, other children/youth were identified at the facility who may have been abused or neglected, report those allegations to the Child Protection Hotline as needed.
14. Determine whether Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD) is aware of the current investigation and make a report, as needed.
15. Determine whether a cross-report to law enforcement is required based on the allegations, and cross-report as needed.
16. If there are allegations involving multiple children/youth at a single facility, complete a Safety Assessment for Congregate Care for each referred child.
17. Within thirty-six (36) hours of receipt, notify the child(ren)’s attorney(s) that a child(ren) in protective custody is known or suspected to have been the victim of child abuse or neglect, in accordance with Communication with Attorneys, County Counsel, and Non-DCFS Staff.
    
    

Risk Assessment

CSW Responsibilities

1. Using the structure and definitions of the Risk Assessment, gather information from the household during the investigation that will allow for an accurate completion of the tool.
   • A Risk Assessment is not needed for new referrals on open cases, referrals regarding allegations in out-of-home care, sexual exploitation referrals involving only third-party perpetrators, or child fatalities when there are no other child(ren) in the home.
2. Determine which household(s) requires a Risk Assessment, noting the following:
   1. Only one (1) household can be assessed on each Risk Assessment.
   2. Always assess the household in which the child abuse/neglect incident is alleged (i.e., the household of the alleged perpetrator). This may be the child’s primary residence if it is also the residence of the alleged perpetrator, or the household of a non-custodial parent if it is the residence of the alleged perpetrator.
   3. If a child is a member of two (2) households and there are allegations in both households, complete a Risk Assessment on both households. A child may be a member of two (2) households if:
      • They have two (2) legal parents who live separately and the child spends time with each legal parent.
      • They reside with a legal guardian but also spends time with a legal parent.
   4. Complete a Risk Assessment for non-custodial parents who will receive reunification services. If the alleged perpetrator is a non-custodial parent, also assess the custodial parent if there is an allegation of failure to protect.
   5. If more than one (1) Risk Assessment is necessary, complete the tool on the most concerning household in WebSDM and the second risk assessment using a paper form that should be part of investigation documentation.
   • • In a Referral record, WebSDM will only allow one (1) initial Risk Assessment to be generated. A second Risk Assessment may be created and completed manually; or, after a referral is promoted to a case, an additional Risk Assessment can be created in the Case record in WebSDM.
3. In WebSDM, create a new Risk Assessment tool and complete the following items in the Prior Investigations section according to prior intervention history (Note: Click the green “View CWS/CMS History” button) to display prior history information from CWS/CMS):
   1. Prior Neglect investigations
   2. Prior Abuse investigations

   3. Household has previous or current open ongoing CPS case (voluntary/court-ordered)

   4. Prior physical injury to a child resulting from child abuse/neglect or prior substantiated physical abuse of a child

4. Complete the Current Investigations section of the Risk Assessment, consisting of:
   1. Current report maltreatment type
   2. Number of children involved in the child abuse/neglect incident
   3. Primary caregiver assessment of the incident
5. Complete the Family Characteristics section of the Risk Assessment, consisting of the following items:
   1. Age of youngest child in the home
   2. Characteristics of children in the household
   3. Housing
   4. Incidents of domestic violence in the household in the past year
   5. Primary caregiver discipline practices

   6. Primary or secondary caregiver history of abuse or neglect as a child

   7. Primary or secondary caregiver mental health
   8. Primary or secondary caregiver alcohol and/or drug use
   9. Primary or secondary caregiver criminal arrest history
6. Complete the Risk Assessment tool as soon as the information is available or within thirty (30) days of initial face-to-face contact (whichever is sooner) regardless of allegation conclusion.
   1. WebSDM displays the “Recommended Decision" as a table that shows both the Risk Assessment and Safety Assessment findings. WebSDM will recommend to close Low and Moderate Risk referrals (unless there is a current Safety Decision of "safe with plan" or "unsafe"), and to either refer High and Very High Risk referrals to services or promote them to cases.
      • The CSW (in consultation with the SCSW) should determine what level of intervention, if provided to the family, would mitigate the identified risk factors. For example, in some circumstances, an intervention such as Alternative Response Services (ARS) or Partnerships for Families (PFF) (neither of which requires an open case) may appropriately mitigate the risk; in other situations, an ongoing voluntary case (VFM/VFR) or even court intervention (i.e., non-detained petition, removal order, detention, etc.) may be necessary.
   2. Explain/summarize any complicating factors, protective capacities and protective actions in the comments portion of the tool.
7. Complete the Scoring and Overrides Section. Consider whether or not there are valid reasons to override the scored risk level, and if so, document the explanation and obtain SCSW approval:

   1. Policy overrides reflect the seriousness of the incident(s) and/or child vulnerability concerns; when used, the final risk level is increased to Very High Risk regardless of the initial determination of the tool to support increased frequency of monitoring the household. The conditions are summarized as follows (Note: refer to the WebSDM definitions for complete explanations):

      1. Sexual abuse case AND the perpetrator is likely to have access to the child

      2. Non-accidental injury to a child under age two (2)
      3. Severe non-accidental injury

      4. Caregiver action or inaction resulted in the death of a child due to abuse or neglect (previous or current)

   2. Discretionary overrides can be used only to increase the risk level by one (1) when the CSW determines that the scored risk level is too low based upon one (1) or more unique household or caregiver circumstances that place the household at higher risk of future system involvement.

      1. When using a discretionary override, document the rationale for increasing the risk level and obtain supervisory approval.

      2. Documented rationale should include specific details of the circumstances that place the household at higher risk and these circumstances should be distinct from characteristics of the household’s history, current incident or caregiver or child characteristics already included in the Risk Assessment tool.

8. Review the Scored Risk Level, apply any approved overrides to obtain a Final Risk Level, and review the Recommended Decision.

   1. Before promoting a Low or Moderate Risk referral to a case, consult with the SCSW regarding the appropriateness of referring the family to Community-Based Resources as an alternative.

      • If a Low or Moderate Risk referral is being promoted to a case when the most recent SDM Safety Assessment tool resulted in a determination of “Safe," ARA Approval is required.

      1. Before closing a High or Very High Risk referral, engage with the family to strongly consider whether there are interventions or services to address their risk factors.

         • If a High or Very High Risk referral is being submitted for closure when there is no current open case, ARA Approval is required. Consult with the family, the SCSW (and ARA, when required) regarding all possible alternatives, such as the appropriateness of:
           • A Child and Family Team Meeting (CFTM)
           • PFF
           • ARS
           • Prevention and Aftercare (P&A)
           • VFM services or VFR services -- with or without Family Preservation
           • Random drug test(s)
           • Referring a victim to a domestic violence shelter
           • A restraining order
           • Referring a client for housing assistance [e.g., through the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA), the DPSS Linkages program, the CalWORKS Homeless Case Managers (HCM) program]
           • A referral to the Victims of Crime (VOC) program
           • An assessment through the Family Preservation Assessment Services (FPAS) program [formerly Up-Front Assessment (UFA)]
           • Consulting with a Public Health Nurse (PHN)
           • Referring a child to a Medical HUB and/or requesting a forensic exam
           • Consulting the DCFS Regional Center Unit/referring to Regional Center
           • Working with the DPSS Linkages Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Services Workers (LGSW) to expedite the verification and processing of Medi-Cal for potentially eligible families.
           • Consulting with Coordinated Services Action Team (CSAT) leads, Service Linkage Specialists (SLS), or the Multi-Disciplinary Assessment Team (MAT) Coordinator
           • Consulting with co-located Department of Mental Health (DMH) staff and/or referring the family to DMH
           • Consult with County Counsel about the appropriateness of filing a petition or requesting a removal order
9. Enter the Planned Action (i.e., close the referral without any intervention, refer the family to services as the primary intervention, or open a child welfare services case); if the recommended response in WebSDM differs from the actual disposition, provide an explanation and obtain SCSW approval.
10. Complete the Supplemental Risk Items (for data collection only; responses will not impact risk level or recommended decision):

    1. Either caregiver demonstrates difficulty accepting one (1) or more children's gender identity or sexual orientation.

    2. Alleged perpetrator is an unmarried partner of the primary caregiver.

    3. Another non-related adult in the household provides unsupervised child care to a child under the age of three (3) and whether the other non-related adult in the household is employed.

    4. Either caregiver is isolated in the community.

    5. Caregiver has provided safe and stable housing for at least the past twelve (12) months.

11. Enter comments in the Staff Person Comments box, save and click Request Approval to submit for SCSW approval.

Risk Reassessment (For In-Home/FM Cases)

CS CSW Responsibilities

1. 1. During home visits (or other contacts/meetings with the family), engage the family in a discussion about the progress they have made on their case plan goals and document in monthly case contacts using behavioral and family-centered language.
      • Prior to the home visit(s), gather information from key collateral contacts and case records to discuss with the family during the visit.
      • Discuss changes in the household risk classification, case plan progress and current household safety as part of a scheduled client contact.
   2. Based on a review of the initial Risk Assessment, and considering the definitions for each item; prior interviews with household members (child, caregivers, and others) and collaterals; observations; reports and case records; and any other reliable sources detailing the family’s progress in demonstrating behavioral change and meeting case plan objectives; complete the Risk Reassessment tool according to the following timelines:
      1. Complete initial the Risk Reassessment ninety (90) days from the FM start date; thereafter:
      • For Court FM cases, complete the Risk Reassessment prior to writing the court report for each Division 31 required six-month status review hearing
      
      
      • For VFM cases, complete the Risk Reassessment prior to recommending case closure or completing a Case Plan Update and every six (6) months from the FM service component start date
      • Complete the tool sooner if there are new circumstances or new information that would affect risk.
   3. For Risk items R1-R4, score these items the same as the first four (4) items on the initial Risk Assessment, unless new information has become available about conditions that existed at the time of the initial Risk Assessment.
   4. For Risk items R5-R10, score these items based only on observations made since the most recent assessment or reassessment. Complete item R10 based on observed/documented behavioral change during this period.
      • For item R5, identify whether there was at least one (1) new referral investigation involving a household caregiver initiated since the initial Risk Assessment or last Risk Reassessment (including any open or completed investigations, regardless of the investigation’s conclusion). Do not include duplicate referrals.
      • Complete item R10 based on observed/documented behavioral change during this period.
   5. Considering only the most recent review period, assess whether or not overrides are warranted:
      1. Policy overrides (if any condition is applicable within the review period, override final risk level to Very High):
         1. Sexual abuse case and the perpetrator is likely to have access to the child
         2. Non-accidental injury to a child under age two (2)
         3. Severe non-accidental injury
         4. Caregiver action or inaction resulted in death of a child due to abuse or neglect
      4. Discretionary overrides (if a discretionary override is made, mark yes, mark the override risk level, and indicate the reason; the risk level may be overridden one (1) level higher or lower).
   6. Determine the final risk level and obtain SCSW approval.
   7. Note the Recommended Decision and enter the final case disposition (i.e., close the case or provide continued services). If the response recommended by WebSDM differs from the actual final disposition, provide an explanation.
   8. If recommending closure of the case, complete a SDM Safety Assessment tool.

DI CSW Responsibilities

1. If the case has not reached adjudication and disposition by the ninetieth (90th) day from the start date of the Family Maintenance (FM) service component, consult with the Continuing Services (CS) CSW regarding:
   • The family’s case plan progress
   • The Risk Reassessment completed by the CS CSW
   • Whether there is a need for a change of recommendation
2. If recommending dismissal/jurisdiction termination and case closure, complete a case closing Safety Assessment.

Reunification Reassessment (for Out-of-Home Cases)

CS CSW Responsibilities

1. Since the reunification process begins when a case is first opened, discuss the case plan and Reunification Reassessment with the family during initial home visits (and/or at a CFTM) so they are aware of what is expected and what will be used to evaluate potential reunification. In addition:
   • Inform the family of their original risk level and explain its role as a baseline for future assessments (unless a new referral is received, in which case the new risk level will be used)
   • Inform the family that both quality and quantity of visitation/family time will be considered and linked to goals and activities of the Family Visitation/Bonding Plan
   • Inform the family they must demonstrate that the Safety Threats that led to placement have either been resolved or can be controlled by a Safety Plan, and that either no safety threats are currently present or there is a Safety Plan in place to address any identified Safety Threats.
   • Whenever possible, during home visits (or other family meetings), conduct a collaborative assessment with the family (using the structure of the Reunification Reassessment tool) to discuss:
     • Progress on case plan goals
     • Quality, quantity, frequency and progression of visitation
     • Current household safety
   • Document the discussion in monthly case contacts using behavioral and family-centered language
2. Review the case and any new referral investigations that may have occurred, and consider:
   • The definitions for each item
   • Interviews with household members and collaterals during home visits
   • Observations; other assessments, reports and case records
   • Any other reliable sources detailing the family’s progress in demonstrating behavioral change and meeting their case plan objectives
   • Data related to frequency, quantity and quality of participation in visitation and its progression to the review process
3. Consult with your SCSW to formulate a provisional recommendation regarding reunification, continuance of services or change in permanency goal in advance of a collaborative assessment with the family.
4. Complete a Reunification Reassessment for all ongoing cases in which at least one (1) child is residing in placement with a goal of "return home;" if more than one (1) household is receiving reunification services, complete one (1) assessment on each household. Complete the tool as follows:

   1. For Court cases:

      • Complete the initial Reunification Reassessment ninety (90) days from the removal date; and
      • Complete the Reunification Reassessment prior to writing the court report for each Division 31 required six-month status review court hearing;
      • For Permanency Planning (PP) cases in which reunification or a Home of Parent (HOP) order is being considered
      • Complete the tool sooner if there are new circumstances or new information that would affect reunification.  If adequate time has passed to demonstrate progress on the case plan, this assessment may be completed as often as every ninety (90) days. 

   2. For Voluntary cases:

      • Complete the initial Reunification Reassessment ninety (90) days from the VFR placement date; and
      • Complete the Reunification Reassessment prior to recommending reunification, permanency plan change, or case plan completion
        
      • Complete the tool sooner if there are new circumstances or new information that would affect reunification.  If adequate time has passed to demonstrate progress on the case plan, this assessment may be completed as often as every ninety (90) days.
5. Beginning with the household risk level from the most recent Risk Assessment, complete all risk items using the definitions; for item R3, consider all available information that addresses each caregiver’s progress in demonstrating behavioral change. Determine the scored reunification risk level, consider if any overrides are needed (Policy or Discretionary), and then determine the final risk level.
6. Complete the Visitation (family time) Plan evaluation for each child in the household based on the participation of the caregiver demonstrating the least progress, using the definitions and considering overrides for each child (including the Policy override indicating whether visitation/family time is supervised for the safety for each child).
   1. To calculate compliance with the visitation/family time plan, divide the total number of completed visits by the number of planned visits to obtain a percentage. Visits that were appreciably shortened by late arrival/early departure may be considered missed.
   2. Do not count visits that are missed or planned that did not occur for reasons that are not attributable to the parent (e.g., resource parent failed to make the child available, transportation that the agency was required to provide did not occur).
7. Complete the Reunification Safety Assessment section if required by the results of the reunification risk assessment and visitation plan evaluation. Risk must be either Low or Moderate and visitation must be acceptable. Consider how the safety threats that led to removal have been mitigated; whether additional safety threats have been identified since removal and if so, whether those threats have been mitigated; or if current safety threats can be controlled in-home through a Safety Plan.
8. Select the appropriate decision tree based on the child's age at the time of removal (i.e., under/over age 3). Begin at the top of the tree; proceed to the left if the reunification risk level is High or Very High, and to the right if the reunification risk level is Low or Moderate. Continue following the pathway answering all questions until one (1) of the following termination points are reached:

   1. Return Home

   2. Continue Family Reunification (FR) Services

   3. Terminate Family Reunification (FR) Services and implement a permanency alternative

9. Consider whether any overrides are applicable, using the definitions.

   1. If no overrides apply, mark "No overrides applicable" (policy or discretionary)."

   2. If an override will be applied, indicate whether it is a policy or discretionary override and mark the specific reason; provide an explanation where required.

10. Request online SCSW approval in WebSDM.

DI CSW Responsibilities

1. If the case has not reached adjudication and disposition by the ninetieth (90th) day from the date of removal/placement, consult with the Continuing Services (CS) CSW regarding:
   • The family’s case plan progress
   • The quality and quantity of parent-child visitation/family time, including whether liberalizing visits is appropriate
   • The Reunification Reassessment completed by the CS CSW
   • Whether there is a need for a change of recommendation
2. If recommending dismissal/jurisdiction termination and case closure, complete a case closing Safety Assessment.

SCSW Responsibilities (all functions):

1. During monthly case conferences and/or unit meetings, discuss the process and time frames by which WebSDM assessments will be approved (e.g., reviewing contact narratives, comparing tools against court reports and case plans, in individual case conferences, etc.).
   • Evident Change has developed a Case Consultation Framework (password: training) that provides possible questions to ask CSWs during case consultations.
2. Consult the WebSDM Supervisor Guide as needed (password: training).
3. In WebSDM, check My Unit for any pending approval requests. Click to open the Approval Requests list.
4. Click the Open Assessment icon to view an assessment.
5. Review the pending assessment(s). Always:

   1. Review all overrides and use of the "other" Safety Threat category for appropriateness, proper supportive documentation (e.g., Contact Notebook, Investigation Narrative, court report) and consistency.

      • Be sure to carefully review Risk Assessments that contain differences between the Planned Action and the Recommended case promotion Decision

   2. Compare the assessments against your own knowledge of the family, as well as what is documented in contacts/case notes, for overall consistency (e.g., the Safety Assessment shows "safe" but you are aware the child was placed in foster care).

   3. Look for obvious internal and cross-assessment consistency (e.g., a Safety Assessment lists substance abuse as a safety threat but the substance abuse item in the Risk Assessment is not selected).

   4. Look for consistency across recommendations in assessments, court reports and/or case actions (e.g., a Low/Moderate risk case was opened, court report recommends reunification while the Reunification Reassessment recommends termination of reunification).

   5. Conduct random spot checks of SDM assessments (more frequently with less-experienced WebSDM users) for inconsistencies/inaccuracies, such as:

      • Compare one (1) or two (2) item scores against the narrative documentation.
      • Compare prior history items with the CWS/CMS history or the SafeMeasures history page.

6. When satisfied the assessment(s) meet(s) standards, click "Approve." The assessment will now become read-only and can no longer be edited.

7. If errors are located in the assessment, discuss the assessment with the CSW in a case conference. Make the SDM revisions together whenever possible. Document the changes in the Supervisor Comments box. If the CSW is unavailable, there are two (2) options:

   • • Select "Close," and the unmodified/unapproved assessment will remain on your approval list. When the CSW is available, you can open it again and proceed as above. (The unapproved assessment will remain on the approval list so when the CSW is available you can open it and proceed as above), or

     • Make the revision yourself and enter your comments into the supervisor comment box. When done, click "Approved with Modifications." The CSW will also see the assessment on their My Alerts screen in the Assessment Recently Approved w/ Modifications section. Advise the CSW to open the assessment to see your comments.

8. Use the review and approval process as a coaching/mentoring opportunity to discuss individual practice areas, such as:

   1. Using and consulting the SDM definitions

   2. Households and which households to assess

   3. How to address missing, conflicting or incomplete information

   4. Documenting SDM tool findings in court reports (without referencing the tools themselves)

   5. How extensively to pursue missing or conflicting information

   6. Ways to elicit information about uncomfortable topics (e.g., paternity, substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, etc.)

   7. Increasing the CSW’s understanding of complicated topics such as substance abuse, mental health, domestic violence, developmental disability, medical issues such as osteogenesis imperfecta, diabetes management, and the meaning of various sexually transmitted diseases and their relative value as sexual abuse indicators

   8. Creativity in developing Safety Plans and case plans

   9. Knowledge of community resources and how to refer/link to them:

      • For referrals/cases that will be closed despite a family’s High or Very High Risk score on the Risk Assessment, strongly encourage CSWs to make referrals to community resources or alternative services before closing the referral/case.

   10. Critical thinking skills

   11. Following correct policies and procedures rather than workarounds

ARA Responsibilities

1. When appropriate, review the online referral in its entirety, including all prior referrals/cases and when appropriate, hard copy case files.
2. Review the completed SDM tools and compare the tools against the recommendation(s) made.
3. Within five (5) calendar days of the referral being submitted for closure or promotion to a case, approve the decision by:
   1. Signing and dating the Individualized Investigation Narrative
   2. Approving the Client Disposition for each child on CWS/CMS
   3. Returning the referral and supporting reports to the SCSW

4. If necessary, return the referral to the SCSW for corrective action.

SCSW Approval

• Electronic approval (in WebSDM) of all SDM tools
• All SDM Policy and Discretionary Overrides
• All Risk Assessments where the Planned Action differs from the Recommended Decision for case promotion

ARA Approval

• To close a High or Very High Risk referral (as determined by the SDM Risk Assessment tool) when there is no current open case
• To close a Low or Moderate Risk referral when the most recent SDM Safety Assessment results in a determination of “Unsafe” and there is no current open case
• To open any Low or Moderate Risk referral (i.e., promote it to a case) when the most recent SDM Safety Assessment tool results in a determination of “Safe”

Attachments

Background of SDM in Los Angeles County (revised)

Case Consultation Framework Using SDM Tools (Evident Change)

DCFS Integrated Core Practice Model and Structured Decision Making (SDM)

Email Alerts for Overdue SDM Assessments (revised)

Evident Change SDM Case Promotion Guidance (revised)

Evident Change SDM Policy and Procedures Manual (pdf) (revised January 2024)

How to Make Language Family-Centered

Linking the SDM System to Integrated Core Practice Model Behaviors and Practice Phases

SDM Caregivers and Households Guide (revised)

SDM Timeline: Referral to Case (revised)

Submission and Approval Timelines of Structured Decision Making (SDM) Tools (revised)

Forms

LA Kids

SDM Safety Plan (Eastern Armenian) (Chinese - Simplified) (Japanese) (Khmer/Cambodian) (Korean) (Russian) (Spanish) (Tagalog) (Thai) (Vietnamese) (revised 8/2024)

Referenced Policy Guides

0050-502.10, Child Protection Hotline

0050-503.15, Child Protection Hotline (CPH) Referrals: Screening Decision and Response Priority

0070-515.10, Changing Response Times, Evaluating Out, and Re-Mapping Emergency Response Referrals by Regional Staff

0070-516.15, Screening and Assessing Children for Mental Health Services and Referring to the Coordinated Services Action Team (CSAT)

0070-548.00, Community-Based Resources

0070-548.01, Child and Family Teams

0070-548.05, Emergency Response Referrals Alleging Abuse In Out-of-Home Care Regarding Children Who Are Under DCFS Supervision

0070-548.06, Emergency Response Referrals Alleging Abuse of Children Who Are Under DCFS Supervision and Residing in the Home of a Parent

0070-548.10, Investigation, Disposition and Closure of Emergency Response Referrals

0070-548.20, Taking Children into Temporary Custody

0070-548.25, Structured Decision Making (SDM) Safety Plans

0070-548.26, Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) Assessment

0070-570.10, Obtaining Warrants and/or Removal Orders

0080-502.10, Case Plans

0080-502.25, Court Family Maintenance and Voluntary Family Maintenance

0080-506.10, Identifying and Arranging Appropriate Services for Children and Families

0100-502.52, Placement Preservation Strategy, 14-Day Advanced Notice of Placement Changes and the Grievance Review Process

0100-510.21, Voluntary Placement

0100-520.05, Placement Prior to Resource Family Approval

0300-301.05, Filing Petitions

0300-318.05, Obtaining Restraining Orders 

0300-503.10, Writing the Jurisdiction/Disposition Report

0300-503.15, Writing a Status Review Hearing Report for a WIC Section 364, 366.21(e) or (f), 366.22, or 366.25 Hearing

0300-506.05, Communication with Attorneys, County Counsel, and Non-DCFS Staff

0400-504.00, Family Time

0600-500.00, Medical Hubs

0600-500.05, Multidisciplinary Assessment Team (MAT) Assessments and Meetings

0600-530.00, Public Health Nurses: Roles and Responsibilities

1200-500.05, Adopting and Serving Children Under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)

1200-500.30, DCFS Countywide Drug and Alcohol Testing Program

1200-500.80, Services Linkages Between the Department of Public Social Services (DPSS) and DCFS

1200-500.90, Model Case Format (MCF)

Statutes

All County Information Notice (ACIN) I-62-16 – Structured Decision Making: Enhancements to the Safety and Risk Assessment Tools and Integration Into New-System

All County Letter (ACL) 09-31 – Safety and Risk Assessments

ACL 23-64 – Safety Assessment, Emergency Removal and Emergency Placement Of Indian Children

ACL 23-101 – Structured Decision Making (SDM): Enhancements to the Hotline, Safety, and Risk Assessment Tools

ACL 23-102 – Updates to the Structured Decision Making Safety Assessment Tool Regarding Children in Congregate Care Settings

California Department of Social Services (CDSS) Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) Division 31-084.4 – Sets forth the Emergency Response protocol and general intake requirements.

CDSS Manual of Policies and Procedures (MPP) Division 31-125 – Summarizes the protocol for the social worker initially investigating a referral to determine the potential for the existence of any condition(s) which places the child, or any other child in the family or household, at risk and in need of services and which would cause the child to be a person described by WIC Sections 300(a) through 300(j).

California Rules of Court, Rule 5.481 – Mandates that the juvenile court and DCFS inquire whether a child is or may be an Indian child.

Civil Code (CIV) 56.10 (c) – Describes when a provider of health care or a health care service plan may disclose medical information.

CIV 56.103 – Describes the situations in which a health care provider may disclose medical information for the purpose of coordinating health care services and medical treatment provided to a child.

Penal Code Section (PEN) 11165.12 – Provides the definitions of unfounded, substantiated and inconclusive reports.

PEN 11166.1 – Agency notice to licensing officer and attorney; alleged child abuse or death.

PEN 11169 – Provides regulations pertaining to the provisions of a written report to the Department of Justice.

PEN 11170(b)(2) -- States in pertinent part that when a report is made pursuant to subdivision (a) of section 11166 or Section 11166.058, the investigating agency, upon completion of the investigation or after there has been a final disposition in the matter, shall inform the person required to report or authorized to report of the results of the investigation and of any action the agency is taking with regard to the child or family.

Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 224 -- Legislative findings and declarations on the importance of maintaining Indian families together by providing active efforts to prevent the out-of-home placement of the child or to return an Indian child home.

WIC Section 224.3 -- States that child welfare department have a duty to inquire whether a child may be an Indian child.

WIC 16504 – States in part, that any child reported to the county welfare department to be endangered by abuse, neglect, or exploitation shall be eligible for initial intake and evaluation of risk services. Each county welfare department shall maintain and operate 24-hour response system.

WIC 18961.7 – Allows the formation of a child abuse multidisciplinary team for the purpose of investigating reports of child abuse or neglect made pursuant to Section 11160, 11166, or 11166.05 of the Penal Code, or for the purpose of child welfare agencies making a detention determination.