Identify and record the final risk level from the risk assessment completed for the most recent investigation. (This would normally be the assessment just prior to the start of family reunification services.) If an initial risk assessment was not completed on the referral that led to case opening or a subsequent assigned referral, score “c” (high risk) as the initial risk level for the household.

Do not use a prior risk reassessment or reunification assessment risk level.

Identify whether there has been a new substantiated investigation since either the initial risk assessment that led to case opening or, if at least one reunification reassessment has been completed, the most recent reunification reassessment.

1. Choose "a" if there has not been a substantiated investigation in the review period.
2. Choose "b" if there has been at least one substantiated investigation.

(Compliance with/attendance of services is not sufficient to indicate behavioral change.)

Identify whether a caregiver is actively engaged in achieving the case plan objectives specified in the case plan and is demonstrating the skills/behaviors (e.g., ability to manage substance use/abuse; ability to resolve conflict constructively and respectfully; using age-appropriate, nonphysical discipline in conjunction with appropriate boundary setting; developing a mutually supportive relationship with partner) that will enable the caregiver to create and maintain safety for the child.

If there are two caregivers, rate progress for each. If progress differs between caregivers, score based on the caregiver demonstrating the least amount of participation/progress.

a. Demonstrates new skills and behaviors consistent with all family case plan objectives and is actively engaged to maintain objectives. Choose “a” if the caregiver is regularly demonstrating all behavioral changes identified in the case plan objectives and is able to create long-term safety for children in the household. The caregiver is actively engaged in activities to maintain the objectives.

b. Demonstrates some new skills and behaviors consistent with family case plan objectives and is actively engaged in activities to achieve objectives. Choose “b” if the caregiver is demonstrating some new skills and behavioral changes consistent with case plan objectives and is actively engaged in achieving the objectives, but is not regularly demonstrating the behaviors necessary to create long-term safety in all areas.

c. Minimally demonstrates new skills and behaviors consistent with case plan objectives and/or has been inconsistently engaged in obtaining the objectives specified in the case plan. Choose “c” if the caregiver is demonstrating minor behavioral change consistent with family case plan outcomes but has made little progress toward changing their behavior and is not actively engaged in achieving the objectives. Caregiver behavior continues to make it difficult to create safety or may contribute to immediate danger of serious harm.

d. Does not demonstrate new skills and behaviors consistent with case plan objectives and/or refuses engagement. Choose “d” if the caregiver has not demonstrated behavioral change consistent with family service plan objectives. The caregiver refuses services, sporadically follows the case plan, or has not demonstrated the necessary skills/behaviors due to a failure or inability to participate. The caregiver is unable to create or maintain safety, and their behavior is likely to contribute to immediate danger of serious harm.

Indicate whether a policy override condition exists. The presence of one or more mandatory policy override conditions increases the risk level to very high.

Sexual abuse; perpetrator has access to child and has not successfully completed treatment. One or more of the children in this household is or has been a victim of sexual abuse. The perpetrator is likely to have unmanaged access to the victim and the perpetrator has not completed treatment.

Non-accidental injury to an infant, and caregiver has not successfully completed treatment. An infant in the household has a physical injury resulting from the actions or inactions of a caregiver, and the caregiver has been referred to treatment but has not yet completed the treatment.

Serious non-accidental physical injury requiring hospital or medical treatment, and caregiver has not successfully completed treatment. Any child in the household has a serious physical injury resulting from the action or inaction of the caregiver. The caregiver caused serious injury, defined as brain damage, skull or bone fracture, subdural hemorrhage or hematoma, dislocations, sprains, internal injuries, poisoning, burns, scalds, or severe cuts, AND the child requires medical treatment. The caregiver has been referred for treatment but has not yet completed the treatment.

Death of a sibling as a result of abuse or neglect in the household, and caregiver has not successfully completed treatment. Any child in the household has died as a result of actions or inactions by the caregiver. This child fatality may have occurred prior to the current case. The caregiver has been referred for treatment but has not yet completed the treatment.

A discretionary override is used by the assigned worker whenever the worker believes that the risk score does not accurately portray the household’s actual risk level. Unlike the initial risk assessment, in which the worker could only increase the risk level, the reunification assessment permits the worker to increase or decrease the risk level by one level. The reason a worker may now decrease the risk level is that after a minimum of six months, the worker has acquired significant knowledge of the household. If the worker applies a discretionary override, the reason should be specified and the final reunification risk level should be selected.

Divide the total number of completed visits by the number of planned visits. Visits that are appreciably shortened by late arrival/early departure are considered missed. Do not count visits as missed or planned that did not occur for reasons not attributable to the household (e.g., foster parent failed to make the child available, transportation that the agency was required to provide did not occur).

Visitation frequency is calculated by dividing available visits by actual visits.

Actual visits / Available visits = Visitation Frequency

Total: Caregiver regularly attends visits or calls in advance to reschedule (90% to 100% compliance).

Routine: Caregiver misses visits occasionally and rarely requests to reschedule visits (65% to 89% compliance).

Sporadic: Caregiver misses or reschedules many scheduled visits (26% to 64% compliance).

Rare or Never: Caregiver does not visit or attends 25% or fewer of the allowed visits (0% to 25% compliance).

Quality of visit is based on the worker’s direct observation whenever possible, supplemented by observation of child, reports of foster parents, etc.

Strong/Adequate

The caregiver:

• Consistently demonstrates acts of protection and supportive behaviors toward the child that are consistent with case plan objectives.
• Often reinforces appropriate roles and boundaries for child (e.g., caregiver preserves parent-child relationship or takes on adult roles and responsibilities).
• Demonstrates an ability to recognize child’s behaviors and cues; generally responds appropriately to behaviors and cues.
• Identifies the child’s physical and emotional needs; responds adequately to these needs.
• Demonstrates effective limit-setting and discipline strategies.
• Demonstrates a focus on the child during visits; shows empathy to child.
• Demonstrates interest in school, other child activities, medical appointments, etc.
• Demonstrates behaviors that prioritize the child’s needs over their own.

Note: Visitation may have progressed to include unsupervised and/or extended visits, but progression to extended visits is not required in order to score the quality of visits as adequate/strong.

Limited/Destructive

The caregiver:

• May not demonstrate acts of protection and supportive behaviors toward the child that are consistent with case plan objectives.
• May struggle or have severely limited ability to reinforce appropriate roles and boundaries for child (e.g., preserve parent-child relationship, take on adult roles and responsibilities), and requires prompting to do so.
• Demonstrates an ability to recognize child’s cues and behaviors, but needs guidance in establishing an appropriate response to these cues and behaviors or is unable to respond appropriately.
• May demonstrate an ability to identify child’s physical and/or emotional needs, but may need assistance in consistently responding to the child in an appropriate manner.
• Recognizes a need to set limits with child, but enforces limits or behavior management in an inconsistent or detrimental manner, OR may not recognize a need to set limits.
• May have ignored redirection by supervising worker.
• May not be focused on child during parenting time and/or conducts self inappropriately during visit (e.g., arriving for parenting time while substance-impaired, reinforcing “parentification” of child, knowingly making false promises to child, cursing at/violently arguing with worker in presence of child).
• Has not been successful in progressing visitation toward unsupervised and/or extended visits, or has had significant visitation setbacks that have required increasing supervision due to safety concerns for the child.
• Does not demonstrate behaviors that prioritize the child’s needs over their own.

Policy

Visitation is supervised for safety. The agency has determined that reunification will not be considered if there is a requirement that all visits be supervised for the child’s safety. Do not apply this override if supervised visits are still in place solely due to court delays and the child is otherwise safe during visits.

Discretionary

A worker may determine that unusual circumstances exist that warrant changing an “adequate” response to an “inadequate” response, or changing “inadequate” to “adequate.” The reason for this change must be documented and supervisory approval is required (e.g., quality of visits was strong, and 64% of visits were completed; all missed visits were due to documented medical emergencies).

Identify whether the safety threats that resulted in the child’s removal have been resolved. Review the original safety assessment, list the initial safety threats, and describe how the initial safety threats were resolved OR, if not resolved, what the current circumstances are that would pose an immediate threat of harm if the child were to be reunified.

Consider how safe the child would be if they were to be returned home at this time. Consider current conditions in the home, current caregiver characteristics, child characteristics, and interactions between the caregiver and child during visitation.

Identify whether any safety interventions are available and appropriate to mitigate any identified safety threats. Use the definitions provided in WebSDM to review both safety threats and safety interventions.

Identify whether any new safety threats have emerged during the review period. Review the safety threat definitions provided in WebSDM. If any new safety threats are identified that would pose an immediate threat of serious harm to a child if they were reunified, describe the conditions and circumstances.

Identify whether any safety interventions are available and appropriate to mitigate any newly identified safety threats. Use the safety threat and safety intervention definitions provided in WebSDM to determine whether there are any new safety threats.

Consider whether any overrides are applicable. If no overrides apply, select “No overrides applicable (policy or discretionary).” If an override will be applied, indicate whether it is a policy or a discretionary override and select the specific reason.

POLICY

For all children

The tree leads to “Continue FR,” but policy conditions exist to recommend ending reunification services: Change to “Pursue Permanency Alternative.”

• Child has been in placement for 15 of the last 22 months.
• The child was removed under WIC § 300 (g) (abandonment) and whereabouts of the caregiver are still unknown.
• The caregiver has failed to contact and visit the child.
• The caregiver has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness based on WIC § 366.21 (e).

For children under age 3 at time of most recent removal

The tree leads to “Pursue permanency alternative” and it is the six-month hearing or before, BUT there is a probability of reunification within six months (change to “Continue FR”). There is a probability of reunification within six months, based on the requirements of California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) § 366.21 (g) (1) (A–C).

• The caregiver has consistently and regularly contacted and visited the child.
• The caregiver has made substantial progress in resolving problems that led to the child’s removal from home.
• The caregiver has demonstrated the capacity and ability to both complete the objectives of their treatment plan and provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.

For children ages 3 and over at time of most recent removal

The tree leads to “Pursue permanency alternative” and it is the 12-month hearing or before, BUT there is a probability of reunification within six months (change to “Continue FR”). There is a probability of reunification within six months, based on the requirements of California Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) § 366.21 (g) (1) (A–C).

• The caregiver has consistently and regularly contacted and visited the child.
• The caregiver has made substantial progress in resolving problems that led to the child’s removal from home.
• The caregiver has demonstrated the capacity and ability to both complete the objectives of their treatment plan and provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.

DISCRETIONARY

Unique considerations exist that warrant an alternative decision. If yes, indicate the permanency plan goal that is being recommended (return home, continue FR, pursue permanency alternative).

The SDM recommendation summary is designed to record worker decisions. In addition to the SDM reunification reassessment, the worker should consider all relevant Division 31 regulations and Welfare and Institution Code statutes and should consult with his/her supervisor.

For each child being assessed, record the final recommendation.

Safe: No safety threats were identified at this time. Based on currently available information, there are no children likely to be in immediate danger of serious harm.

Safe With Plan: One or more safety threats are present, and protective safety interventions have been planned or taken. Based on safety interventions, the child would be safe with an in-home safety plan upon their return home. SAFETY PLAN REQUIRED.

Unsafe: One or more safety threats are present, and continued placement is the only protective intervention possible for one or more children. Without continued placement, one or more children will likely be in danger of immediate or serious harm.

This section applies only if at least one child under the age of 3 at the time of removal was recommended for pursuing a permanency alternative, and at least one other child has any other recommendation.

Select “yes” if all siblings will be considered as a group. Select “no” if siblings will be assessed individually.

If yes, the recommendation for all children will be “pursue permanency alternative.”

Indicate whether a policy override condition exists. The presence of one or more mandatory policy override conditions increases the risk level to very high.

• Sexual abuse; perpetrator has access to child and has not successfully completed treatment. One or more of the children in this household is or has been a victim of sexual abuse. The perpetrator is likely to have unmanaged access to the victim and the perpetrator has not completed treatment
• Non-accidental injury to an infant, and caregiver has not successfully completed treatment. An infant in the household has a physical injury resulting from the actions or inactions of a caregiver, and the caregiver has been referred to treatment but has not yet completed the treatment.
• Serious non-accidental physical injury requiring hospital or medical treatment, and caregiver has not successfully completed treatment. Any child in the household has a serious physical injury resulting from the action or inaction of the caregiver. The caregiver caused serious injury, defined as brain damage, skull or bone fracture, subdural hemorrhage or hematoma, dislocations, sprains, internal injuries, poisoning, burns, scalds, or severe cuts, AND the child requires medical treatment. The caregiver has been referred for treatment but has not yet completed the treatment.
• Death of a sibling as a result of abuse or neglect in the household, and caregiver has not successfully completed treatment. Any child in the household has died as a result of actions or inactions by the caregiver. This child fatality may have occurred prior to the current case. The caregiver has been referred for treatment but has not yet completed the treatment.

A discretionary override is used by the assigned worker whenever the worker believes that the risk score does not accurately portray the household’s actual risk level. Unlike the initial risk assessment, in which the worker could only increase the risk level, the reunification assessment permits the worker to increase or decrease the risk level by one level. The reason a worker may now decrease the risk level is that after a minimum of six months, the worker has acquired significant knowledge of the household. If the worker applies a discretionary override, the reason should be specified and the final reunification risk level should be selected.