[ Up ] [ Classification of Family Needs ] [ Level of Service ] [ Workload Managment ]

Classification of family needs

Standardized model for identifying and labeling family conditions that contribute to underlying risks to children.  

Deer Creek Consensus - Classification of Family Needs

A.     We all agree there is value in classifying cases (by family needs, by risk, etc) if we can develop and implement a valid and effective methodology. Value includes use as a diagnostic aid and for informing treatment and service decisions.

B.     We all agree that there is limited utility of current “classification of family needs”, and that no one has demonstrated their usefulness in managing day-to-day workload.

C.     We agree that Classification of Family Needs needs to be revised so that it’s value and usefulness is apparent, or else dropped from the model.

D.     We are aware of other methods for classifying cases (by Risk, the Acuity System?, etc) and recognize the need to explore them.

Actual use as reported during this session by Counties:

§         Richland: Not using – Emphasizing history along with caregiver characteristics. Using differential Diagnosis Tool.

§         Medina: Not using – Staff don’t get it – What’s in it for me? Labels mean nothing; we focus on history and current. Even an administrator who is trying hard and using all the materials “can’t do it” in a way that yields meaningful results.

§         Greene: Using it up front. Helpful in identifying multiple needs families sooner, which leads to quicker delivery of services.  In protective, history is more of a driver than classification of needs.

§         Ashtabula: Not using it consistently. Need another training – still feel its valuable.

§         Portage: Not using – In early days it was a super’s tool for leading workers – not a workers tool. The question is how to use it. We already know the direction – so why classify? May be useful for a new super – helps do concurrent planning.

§         Muskingum: Not Using in Intake. We classify every case that goes to ongoing then use it to focus on why it us what it is and then focus on that element. Not used with workers except for special needs.

§         Guernsey: We don’t use it (except we are starting to use it to humor Kelly because she wants to test it). Don’t see it as helpful. It does make it cleaner to describe case loads and cleaner for workload assignment –there may be some benefit but so far don’t see it as worth the time and effort.

§         Athens: We classify cases but by the Risk Assessment Method. There is a difference of opinion in administration. Need more on Carol’s model.

§         Hamilton: We use it in Ongoing – Cleaner way of identifying families but net very useful in driving cases. We already have a plan for the family before we label it. We try to give workers a basic understanding. It may be a useful way of forcing resistant veteran supervisors toward best practice.

Finally, Just to help us focus, we asked a basic question – “What is the Problem we are trying to solve by Classifying cases?”

§         How to allocate services

§         Allocating workload

§         Standardized diagnosis might enable a common language and maybe lead to more standardized treatment.

§         Directs us for more or missing information

Actions Identified:

a.       Explore the origin of the current Classification system (June? Wayne? Etc) to discover differences between Carol Smith’s model and the original.

b.       Write a letter to Wayne, June, etc.

c.       Research other classification systems (the acuity system, managed care model) to determine if there is a method that meets our needs.

d.       Richland County pass out their differential diagnosis tool.