Ohio's Families and Children Rule Review Site

5101:2-1-01 Children services definitions of terms.

Posted: September 28th, 2020

This form is no longer open for comment. However, here you can view an archived, read-only version of the form and any associated comments.

Note: if the PDF document does not appear below, you can either download and install Adobe Reader or download the PDF directly.

Click here to download and view the PDF directly to your device.

1I Agree0I Disagree
Katie Congrove
10-23-2020 (7:30pm)
On behalf of Franklin County Children Services: prevention plans must include at least one EBP. What if a family otherwise meets the “prevention services” parameters and a prevention plan is drafted and the support they need is not an EBP yet it’s the right service for the family and is successful in deterring further penetration into the system and/or preventing removal?
1I Agree0I Disagree
Amanda Beach
10-28-2020 (6:24pm)
Regarding (35) “Candidate for foster care” and (36)"Candidate for prevention services" "...serious risk of removal (entering or re-entering foster care)"; I fear this language is confusing given the understanding of Safety and Risk in Ohio. Given that we only consider removal for an active safety threat connecting risk level to removal could complicate decision making. If a low risk case, one that would have been shut down at intake prior to prevention, now qualifies for services could the definition be something like "...without intervention risk level indicates the likely need for further system penetration at a later date.
1I Agree0I Disagree
Shelby Cully
10-29-2020 (3:24pm)
Regarding the definition for “Candidate for prevention services” - the proposed definition the way I read it states that a candidate is someone identified in a prevention plan. This seems circular in that when determining if a child is appropriate for a prevention services they must be a child already named in a prevention plan. Also, in the definition the child is only a candidate for prevention services if approved prevention services are being provided. Both of these requirements are subsequent to determining if a child is a candidate for prevention services rather than a precedent event. How I read this is that a candidate (someone likely to receive or suitable for) for prevention services is someone who is named in a prevention plan and receiving approved prevention services. Is the correct reading of this definition? If so, is this definition merely for the identification of those who qualify for IV-E funding? If so, would it be appropriate to state that at the beginning of the definition.
1I Agree0I Disagree
Shelby Cully
10-29-2020 (3:30pm)
The requirement that a prevention plan must include one approved EBPS when there are so few of those available at this time restricts how prevention plans may be used to assist families. Could the rule exclude this requirement until more capacity is reached for EBPS allowing for more use of prevention plans in Ohio (understanding that reimbursement through IVE would not be available unless an approved EBPS was utilized)?
0I Agree0I Disagree
Ebonie Jackson
10-30-2020 (1:02pm)
(103) The rule is unclear about the process that a county can go through to get an evidence based practice service "approved" by the State. Counties already have partners that have been looking at the FFPSA and the clearing house to help the unique needs of the families in that particular county. There is no clear path to access ALL of the services that appear on the Federal Clearing House to meet the county's unique needs and to be accessed at a county level by the families that need them.