Ohio's Families and Children Rule Review Site

5101:2-40-05 PCSA requirements in providing family first prevention services

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 Agree2I Disagree
Jennifer Hafner
10-13-2020 (9:38am)
One concern that stands out to me is the minimal required contact between the PCSA and family. A child/family who has been identified for this particular track is described as “at serious risk of entering or re-entering foster care”. “Eligible candidates” listed in A 1-13 describe children, for example, as “a child who suffered a near-fatality resulting from child maltreatment with a substantiated or indicated child abuse or neglect disposition”. However, with these serious risks, according to G, the minimum required contact with the family is only one face-to-face contact with each parent, guardian or custodian, and child participating in and being provided services through the "Prevention Plan” at least one time every other calendar month, with at least one contact every two months conducted in the child's home. How can you be assessing the safety of a child when you are only seeing the family every other month? A lot can happen in 8-12 weeks. I feel the minimum requirement for PCSA contact with families should be face to face with all parties at least once a month to be able to assess safety.
0I Agree2I Disagree
Spencer Izor
10-22-2020 (8:47am)
Please please please do not implement Family First Legislation. Children will be put at risk or continued abuse and neglect and reentry rates into foster care will sky rocket.
0I Agree0I Disagree
Katie Congrove
10-23-2020 (6:42pm)
Comments on behalf of Franklin County Children Services: 1. What type of guidance is the Family assessment going to provide to assist in the decision between a family case plan and a prevention plan 2.Page one says cases with COPS can have a prevention plan”does that mean they also have a Family Case plan? or how is the prevention plan documented?
0I Agree0I Disagree
Katie Congrove
10-23-2020 (6:48pm)
On behalf of Franklin County Children Services: D and E read as confusing to staff who reviewed. The signature requirement as written seems stringent for a process meant to be less intrusive, it’s the same language as the caseplan “ which seems like a regular open case.
0I Agree0I Disagree
Katie Congrove
10-23-2020 (6:53pm)
On behalf of Franklin County Children Services: Is it correct that we can have a regular case plan due to safety and risk and still engage in FFPS if a child is not in custody currently in order to utilize funds for EB services?
0I Agree0I Disagree
Katie Congrove
10-23-2020 (7:16pm)
On behalf of Franklin County Children Services: In (E)(2), requesting consideration for verbal agreement and an extension for signatures if needed if unable in seven days. (H): - this is more frequent contact with the service provider than the family - not sure if that is a bad thing but seems a bit odd that we require monthly contact with the service provider but not the family.
2I Agree0I Disagree
Katie Congrove
10-23-2020 (7:21pm)
On behalf of Franklin County Children Services: (J): somewhat confusing because the beginning of the rule lists out all the situations that can be FFPS but these can also be an open ongoing case with a “normal” case plan. Then the rule defines contact requirements that actually would only apply if it is a FFPS plan and not the Family Case Plan because those are monthly contacts requirements. Then the rule spells out that review process of a FFPS plan is pretty much the same as a case plan. Seem to be exchanging Prevention Plan with SAR “ is this intentional? How is this limiting the intrusiveness and put more emphasis on the services?
0I Agree0I Disagree
louis devault
10-24-2020 (1:44am)
https://youtu.be/OLov1493kVw This video tape has been floating around the internet indicating a foster care home from the state of ohio. The purpose is for training the concerned advocates of CPS in every state. especially during national child protection month. There is a rising tide of concern among the public dealing with child protection services because of financial malfeasance. They are spending to much money, all the while delivering questionable services to their clients. I was made very much aware of their poor work ethic many years ago and my family was suffering so I threw a small percentage of my income to track the money and monitor the services they rendered by interviewing many of their clients. This quest lead me to places I normally would not have gone, and it did relieve my family of the CPS dangerous presence over our lives. I know what works and what does not work in dealing with the child protective services and it certainly worked in our family tragedy very well. The first piece of the puzzle many are searching for is [1] Why do the courts not work? Forget about them they are broken start to finish. They have been for years! Court rulings exist only to justify all cases that are prosecuted. The mission there is to create a framework to release tax dollars by the bushel to various governmental agencies from both state and federal services. The courts are absolutely not about right or wrong, they are part of the process of authorization of tax dollars period. If you want morality go to church or read a book, those changes are internal to your families ethics and are taught at home. If you find yourself or your family drug into this corruption and you want to be left out of their games then you have to become a bigger threat to the prosecutors than they are currently being to you. You must conduct a parallel investigation by hiring your own qualified sources and gathering un impeachable evidence to send them on their wicked way. Video taping the truth about what they do and say is the only way that can occur. VTS 01 1 It's not just the Sandusky kids. Everywhere this type of CPS oversight and orchestration has happened! What do we do from here? Are more criminal prosecution... Louis Devault https://youtu.be/hOIUQ3N6qJI VTS 01 1 It's not just the Sandusky kids. Everywhere this type of CPS oversight and orchestration has happened! What…
0I Agree0I Disagree
Stephanie DeLeo
10-27-2020 (9:56am)
On behalf of Summit County Juvenile Court: How is this going to work for IV-E Courts? Currently, we only screen in cases in SACWIS when the court takes care and placement responsibility. Does this mean we will have to screen in all youth who are receiving prevention services as well?
0I Agree0I Disagree
Amanda Beach
10-28-2020 (7:20pm)
C 6 suggests a decision will be made differentiating a Family Case Plan from a Prevention Plan. It seemed in the presentation as if a prevention plan and case plan could be occurring simultaneously and wrapped into or out of each other as the circumstances called for it. Has this been changed? It seems the list under (C) (The PCSA is to complete an assessment of safety and an assessment of risk for eligible candidates to determine the following) should also include safety factors present, the presenting strengths of the family, and the current risk level. Regarding (D) 2 - If reunification occurs the Family Case Plan should remain rather than transitioning into a Prevention Plan? Should (H) 2 include needed or desired “behavior change”? The check-ins seem to be around safety and not risk. If the family is referred based on risk, while safety is always to be assessed, should the risk not be a part of the check-in meeting?
0I Agree0I Disagree
Ebonie Jackson
10-30-2020 (1:48pm)
(F) The rule is unclear about the process that a county can go through to get a provider "approved" by the State to be a IV-E reimbursable provider. Counties already have partners that serve our families and have clearing house approved evidence based services that appear on the FFPSA clearing house. These providers already have relationships with and provide services to the families of each county. There is no clear path in the rule for these providers to be approved to become an IV-E reimbursable provider.