Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cfsr Data Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel reviews federal child‑welfare data, notes declines in relative placement and sibling placement measures
Summary
Division staff presented federal CFSR/CQI results for items 7–10 showing below‑target results on sibling placement and visiting and a roughly 10% decline on relative placements; members asked whether fewer cases reviewed and a cyber outage affected the metrics.
Dylan Hall presented federal and state continuous‑quality‑improvement (CQI) results for CFSR items 7 through 10, reporting that Nevada’s most recent reviews showed mixed performance: item 7 (placement with siblings) registered an 84% strength rating (national target 90%), item 8 (foster‑care visiting) was at about 70%, item 9 (preserving children’s connections) was roughly 80.85%, and item 10 (relative placement) showed a roughly 10% decrease with a March 2025 figure around 70.22%.
"Item 7 results reflect that the state did achieve a strength rating of 84 percent," Dylan said, noting the national target is 90 percent and that Nevada’s earlier CQI reviews had been higher. He cautioned that Round 4 federal reviews were ongoing and that the data presented were slightly outdated; the panel should expect updated figures by the April meeting.
Members asked whether a decline in the number of cases reviewed or a prior cyber outage influenced the results. Jane Saint and Laurie Jackson asked whether increasing the case review sample would change ratings; Laurie recalled that the federal Children’s Bureau had set the sample at 65 for this round, and Dylan confirmed the panel had agreed to keep the 65‑case sample for consistency with federal guidance. Laurie and other members noted that relative placements are a priority locally, where many placements are with relatives and licensing for relative caregivers has been streamlined in some counties.
Dylan said the state’s March CQI review had lower rates on some items compared with past results and recommended further exploration of the decline in item 10 (relative placement) to understand whether it reflects practice changes, data limitations, or sampling differences. Panelists agreed to review updated Round 4 numbers at the next meeting.
Ending: Dylan said more accurate Round 4 data should be available for the panel’s April meeting; the panel will discuss items 11–18 and tentative vice‑chair elections then.
