ILNews

Indiana first in region to complete child welfare improvement plan

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Department of Child Services announced Thursday it has received word from Region V of the Administration of Child and Families, an affiliate of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, that it has satisfactorily finalized its Program Improvement Plan.

The PIP was required as a result of a 2007 federal review of state child welfare cases. All 50 states are required to complete the three-fold review, comprised of statewide assessments, on-site analysis of a random number of various cases and a review of child welfare practice data. The review indicated the state was not meeting several key compliance steps, including adoption, training and the availability of services necessary to reunify children and families.

DCS developed a proposal which included 11 data goals and 133 compliance steps necessary to meet and exceed the federal assessment benchmarks. In 2009, DCS began implementing its PIP into practice. On Oct.18, the Chicago Region V office of the Administration of Children and Families informed DCS that it had successfully completed the program.

“This is an important milestone for Indiana’s children and families,” said James W. Payne, DCS Director. “The completion of the PIP highlights the continued evolution of the state’s child welfare system but also demonstrates the commitment of the men and women working each day to ensure the safety of Indiana’s abused and neglected children while at the same time changing our culture from a placement system to a permanency system.”

Indiana is the first of six states within Region V to complete its PIP requirements and its successful implementation is being recognized by other states as a guidepost for child welfare practice reform. Region V states are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT