Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 1 of 16

LINK EXTRACTION TOOL for the 2005 CASE REVIEW OUTCOME MEASURES 1 & 2 Version updated April 28, 2005 Administrative
A1. Reviewer Name (Last, First) 1. Collins, Debra 2. Corcoran, Mary 3. Gonzalez, Janet 4. Hartmann, MaryAnn 5. 6. 7. 8. Hofferth, Lisa Kolpinski, Kathie LaBelle, Janet Marks-Roberts, Susan 9. 10. 11. 12. Roderick, Joni Beth Rothfarb, Eileen Somaroo-Rodriguez, Kim Other

A2. Date of LINK Extraction (MM/DD/YY) A3. Is this case part of the interview sub-sample? ______________/_____________/______________ 1. Yes 2. No

Demographics
D1. LINK Case ID D2. Case Name (Last, First) D3. Office ________________________________________ ________________________________________ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1. 2. 3. 4. Bridgeport Danbury Greater New Haven Hartford Manchester Meriden Middletown New Britain New Haven Metro Norwalk Norwich Stamford Torrington Waterbury Willimantic American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian Black/African American Native Hawaiian White Unknown Blank (no race selected in LINK) UTD Multiracial Hispanic Non-Hispanic Blank (no ethnicity selected in LINK) Unknown

D4. Race (for Case Named Individual)

D5. Ethnicity (for Case Named Individual):

Case ID _____________________

1 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. ASL Cambodian Chinese English Farsi French Jamaican Polish Spanish Vietnamese Other

Page 2 of 16

D6. Primary Language of Case Named Individual

D.7 If "Other" identify language here: _________________________________

D8. Assigned Investigator for the identified report

_________________________________________ (Last Name, First Name)

D9. Assigned Investigative SWS for the identified report D10. At the point of this review, this case is currently open with DCF? 1. 2. 3.

(Last Name, First Name) Yes ­ In Ongoing Services Yes ­ Investigation Only No

Case ID _____________________

2 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 3 of 16

Fill in the table of case participant information below. Select the appropriate race and ethnicity selection and use it to describe the individuals identified below. Child 2 through 5 should be completed documenting from youngest to oldest. If such an individual does not exist for this case, enter "99" in the space provided for age, race and ethnicity.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Race: American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian Black/African American Native Hawaiian White Unknown Blank (no race selected in LINK) UTD Multiracial Ethnicity 1. Hispanic 2. Non-Hispanic 3. Blank (no ethnicity selected in LINK) 4. Unknown

Case Participant Identification
Alleged Perpetrator 1 D.10 Sex: 1. Male 2. Female D.11 Age: ______________ D.12 Race: ___________ D.13 Ethnicity : _________ Child 1 (Reference Child) D.18 Sex: 1. Male 2. D.19 Age: ____________ D.20 Race: ___________ D.21 Ethnicity : _________ Child 3 D.26 Sex: 1. Male 2. D.27 Age: ____________ D.28 Race: ___________ D.29 Ethnicity : _________ Alleged Perpetrator 2 D.14 Sex: 1. Male 2. D.15 Age: _____________ D.16 Race: ___________ D.17 Ethnicity: __________ Child 2 D.22 Sex: 1. Male 2. D.23 Age: _____________ D.24 Race: ___________ D.25 Ethnicity: __________ Child 4 D.30 Sex: 1. Male 2. D.31 Age: _____________ D.32 Race: ___________ D.23 Ethnicity: __________ Female 3. N/A

Female

Female 3.

N/A

Female 3.

N/A

Female 3.

N/A

Child 5 D. 34 Sex: 1. Male 2. Female D. 35 Age: ______________ D.36 Race: _____________ D.37 Ethnicity: _____________

3.

N/A

Case ID _____________________

3 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 4 of 16

Investigation Data Elements for Outcome Measures 1 & 2
OM1.1 Date the report was called into the Hotline (mm/dd/yyyy) OM1.2 Time report was called into the Hotline (HH: MM- Use Military Time for data entry) OM1.3 Date report accepted at the Hotline. (MM/DD/YYYY) OM1.4 Time report was accepted at hotline (HH: MM- Use Military Time.) OM1.5 Date of the incident(s) referenced in the report (MM/DD/YYYY) OM1.6 What was the setting of the investigation case? ___________/_____________/2005

________________: ________________

___________/_____________/2005

________________: ________________ ___________/_____________/2005

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Daycare facility In-home family Foster home/Non-relative Foster home/Relative DCF Residential facility Non-DCF Residential facility Pre-adoptive home School Other:

OM1.6A (Specify Other) _________________________________ OM1.7a-OM1.7g What was the allegation as designated by the HOTLINE? a. Educational Neglect 1. Yes 2. No b. c. d. e. f. g. Emotional Neglect Emotional Abuse/Maltreatment Medical Neglect Physical Abuse Physical Neglect Sexual Abuse 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. No No No No No No

Case ID _____________________

4 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005
1. 2. 3.

Page 5 of 16
Yes No UTD

OM1.8 Did the area office determine that the case was not appropriate for investigation? OM1.9 If yes, briefly state reason for determination:

___________________________________________________________________________________

OM1.10 If yes, did the area office follow the policy regarding Acceptance Decision (33-6-31)

1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Yes No Not Applicable Yes No Not Applicable Yes No UTD Same Day 24 hours 72 hours Yes No Same Day 24 hours 72 hours N/A - No modification Other

OM1.11 If yes, was there documentation as to why the case was not accepted at the area office level?

OM1.12 Was a supervisory conference documented in LINK at the time of assignment to the Investigations Unit Social Worker? OM1.13 Response Time for report under review:

OM1.14 Was response time modified?

OM1.15 What was the approved modified response time?

OM1.16 If other, what was the modified response time (enter # hours or enter 99 if not applicable) OM1.17 Was the reason for modification of the response time documented in LINK?

_____________ 1. 2. 3. Yes No Not Applicable ­ no modification

OM1.18 What was the stated reason for modification?

_______________________________________ _______________________________________ 1. 2. Yes No

OM1.19 Was the response time met for either a modified response time or the original response time designated by the HOTLINE? OM2.1 Were any other reports accepted on this case during the period under review ( January 1, 2005 ­ March 31, 2005)? OM2.2 If yes, how many reports? (##)

1. 2.

Yes No

_____________

Case ID _____________________

5 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005
1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Page 6 of 16

OM2.3 Were any of these reports accepted within 7 days of the acceptance of the report identified for this review? OM2.4 If yes, were duplicative or similar reports merged into one investigation?

Yes No N/A ­ No Additional Reports Yes No N/A - Incident was not duplicative Investigation Assignment Caseload required assignment to separate worker N/A ­ No Additional Reports

OM2.5 Was this report handled via the differential response pilot?

1. 2. 3.

Yes No N/A ­ Assignment Outside of Hartford Area Office

OM2.6 Was the case receiving DCF Services at the time the report was accepted?

1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Yes No UTD CPS In-home family case CPS Child-in-Placement case FWSN Investigation Only Probate Voluntary Services (In-home) Voluntary Services (CIP) N/A ­ Not an active DCF case at the time of report acceptance

OM2.7 On-Going Services Case Assignment Type

OM2.8 Does the Investigation Protocol/DCF 2074 indicate that a consultation was conducted with the ongoing services worker or supervisor to obtain information related to the family?

1. 2. 3.

Yes No Not Applicable ­ Case not open in Ongoing Services Yes No Not Applicable (first time involved with DCF)

OM2.9 Does the protocol indicate that the investigation worker reviewed the prior DCF case history?

1. 2. 3.

OM2.10 Does the protocol indicate that the investigation worker had consultation with any DCF staff that was involved with this family over the course of the 12-month period preceding the date of acceptance of this report at the Hotline? OM2.11 Does the primary caretaker have any prior substantiated reports in the 12 months preceding the date of acceptance of this report at HOTLINE? OM2.12 Date of initial attempt to make face-to-face contact with the person responsible for the child's care (mm/dd/yyyy):

1. 2. 3.

Yes No Not Applicable

1. 2.

Yes No

________ /_______ / 2005

Case ID _____________________

6 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 7 of 16

OM2.13 Date of initial attempt to make face-to-face contact with the Child(ren) (mm/dd/yyyy): _______ / _______ /2005 OM2.14 Date of initial contact with person responsible for child's care by investigation social worker (mm/dd/yyyy): OM2.15 Was the primary caretaker interviewed?

__________/_________/_______ 1. 2. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. Yes No Yes No N/A ­ No Interview Yes No Not applicable ­No Secondary caretaker

OM2.16 Was this interview conducted in the caretaker's primary language?

OM2.17 Was the secondary caretaker interviewed?

OM2.18 How many verbal children were identified as victims? (##) __________________________ OM2.19 How many verbal victims were interviewed away from the alleged perpetrator (##) OM2.20 Were the interviews conducted in the child(ren)'s primary language? 1. 2. 3.

__________________________ Yes No N/A ­ child Non-verbal or otherwise unable to communicate 1. 2. Yes No

OM2.21 Were any victim's non-verbal?

OM2.22 If yes, how many victims are non-verbal? (Enter number- if N/A enter 99) OM2.22a Were all non-verbal victims included in the number entered in OM2.21 visually assessed by the ISW?

__________________________

1. 2.

Yes No

OM2.23 How many non-victim children were residing in the home? (##) OM2.24 How many non-victim children were interviewed away from the alleged perpetrator? (##)

__________________________

__________________________

OM2.25 How many adults (not identified as an alleged perpetrator) were living in the home? (##)

__________________________

OM2.26 How many adults (not identified as an alleged perpetrator) living in the home were interviewed? (##)

__________________________

Case ID _____________________

7 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 8 of 16

OM2.27 How many alleged perpetrators were indicated in the report? (##)

__________________________

OM2.28 What was the relationship between alleged perpetrator 1 and the referenced child victim?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Caretaker Grandparent Guardian Other adult relative Parent Parent's Paramour School personnel Other

OM2.28A If Other Identify: _______________________________________

OM2.29 What was the relationship between alleged perpetrator 2 and the referenced child victim?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Caretaker Grandparent Guardian Other adult relative Parent Parent's Paramour School personnel Other N/A ­ only one Alleged Perpetrator

OM2.29A If "Other" Identify:

OM2.30 Was this interview conducted in the alleged perpetrator 1's primary language?

1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3.

Yes No N/A ­ No Interview Yes No N/A ­ No Interview N/A ­ only one Alleged Perpetrator Yes No N/A ­ No Interview Yes No Not applicable

OM2.31 Was this interview conducted in the alleged perpetrator 2's primary language?

OM2.32 Were all identified case participants interviewed (or visually assessed if non-verbal)?

OM2.33 Did the protocol document the workers collaboration with law enforcement and/or the state's attorney general's office due to severe physical or sexual abuse allegations?

Case ID _____________________

8 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005
1. 2. 3.

Page 9 of 16

OM2.34 Was the reporter contacted by the investigator to clarify or elaborate upon the information provided to the Hotline?

Yes No Unable to contact ­ Anonymous Reporter Yes No N/A ­Removal Required N/A ­ No Services Needed Yes No N/A ­Removal Required N/A ­ No Services Needed Yes No

OM2.35 Were services offered in an effort to maintain the child(ren) in the home?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. 2.

OM2.35a Were services provided in an effort to maintain the child(ren) in the home?

OM2.36 Was the alleged perpetrator asked to leave the home so as to avoid the removal of the children?

Case ID _____________________

9 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 10 of 16

Date of Initial F2F Interview (or Visual Assessment) between ISW and Child mm/dd/yyyy

How many F2F contacts did the ISW have with child during the investigation?

Was the child removed from the home or facility as a result of the investigation?

Age of child at time of the removal? (Years. months)

OM2.37 Child 1

OM2.38

OM2.39 1. Yes 2. No

OM2.40

How were the child(ren) removed from the home? (enter the appropriate number below) 1. 96 Hour hold 2. Bench OTC 3. OTC 4. Voluntary Placement (VPA) 5. Not applicable ­ no removal OM2.41

At what point was the child(ren) removed from the home? (enter the appropriate number below) 1. Immediately 2. Initial face to face meeting 3. During investigation 4. Other 5. N/A ­ no removal OM2.42

Was child Committed to DCF during the investigation?

Did child have more than one placement during the course of the investigation?

OM2.43 1. Yes 2. No 3. Pending 4. N/A OM2.51 1. Yes 2. No 3. Pending 4. N/A OM2.59 1. Yes 2. No 3. Pending 4. N/A OM2.67 1. Yes 2. No 3. Pending 4. N/A OM2.75 1. Yes 2. No 3. Pending 4. N/A

OM2.44 1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A

OM2.45 Child 2

OM2.46

OM2.47 1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A OM2.55 1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A OM2.63 1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A OM2.71 1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A

OM2.48

OM2.49

OM2.50

OM2.52 1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A OM2.60 1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A OM2.68 1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A OM2.76 1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A

OM2.53 Child 3

OM2.54

OM2.56

OM2.57

OM2.58

OM2.61 Child 4

OM2.62

OM2.64

OM2.65

OM2.66

OM2.69 Child 5

OM2.70

OM2.72

OM2.73

OM2.74

Case ID _____________________

10 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 11 of 16

OM2.77 Have the parental rights of the alleged perpetrator #1 been terminated for any biological or adoptive children? OM2.78 Have the parental rights of the alleged perpetrator #2 been terminated for any biological or adoptive children?

1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Yes No UTD Yes No UTD N/A ­ only one Alleged Perpetrator Yes No Not applicable ­ No Removal UTD Yes No Not applicable ­ no siblings Not applicable ­one child removed Not applicable ­ sibling separation required Not applicable ­ no removal required

OM2.79 Were relatives or special study options explored by the investigation social worker prior to or at the time of the removal?

1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

OM2.80 If more than one child was removed, was the sibling group placed together?

OM2.81 If child(ren) was removed, was the child(ren) returned during the investigation phase?

1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Yes No Voluntary Placement N/A ­ No removal Yes No UTD All created Some created No Yes-all education contacts made No ­ all educational contacts not made N/A - no child(ren) in school or daycare UTD All created Some created No N/A - no child(ren) in school or daycare

OM2.82 Was a medical collateral contact documented for all identified children active in the case?

OM2.83 Was the medical icon created for all identified children active in the case?

OM2.84 Was an educational collateral contact attempted on all children attending a school or daycare?

OM2.85 Was the education icon created for all school age children?

1. 2. 3. 4.

Case ID _____________________

11 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005
1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. 1. 2. Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Page 12 of 16

OM2.86 Was a State criminal record search documented?

OM2.87 Were substance abuse issues explored and documented for all appropriate case participants? OM2.88 Were domestic violence issues explored and documented for all appropriate case participants? OM2.89 Were all allegations addressed in the protocol document? OM2.90 Were all safety factors assessed during the course of investigation? OM2.91 Was the risk assessment completed in LINK at the completion of the investigation? OM2.92 Date that SWS approved investigation? (MM/DD/YYYY)

_______/________/_________ OM2.93 How many days did it take to complete the investigation? ## OM2.94 What was the investigation's disposition? 1. 2. 3. 4.

_______________ Substantiated & cited with regulatory violations Substantiated ­ no regulatory violations Not substantiated but with regulatory violations Not Substantiated and no regulatory violations 1. 2. 3. Yes No UTD

OM2.95 Was there a supervisory conference documented in regards to this disposition?

Case ID _____________________

12 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 13 of 16

OM2.96a-g What allegations were substantiated? a. Educational Neglect b. Emotional Neglect c. Emotional Abuse

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.

No No No No No No No

d. Medical Neglect e. f. g. Physical Abuse Physical Neglect Sexual Abuse

OM2.97 Was the case transferred to ongoing services?

1. 2. 3.

Yes No N/A ­ Case already active in treatment

OM2.98 If yes, how many days elapsed from the transfer of the case from the area office investigation social worker to the ongoing social worker? (Enter 99 if case already opened in Ongoing Services or closed upon completion of investigation.) OM2.99 Was a transfer conference held for this case upon being transferred to ongoing services?

_________________

1. 2. 3. 4.

Yes No N/A ­ no transfer N/A ­ not a "high risk" case

OM2.100 How many days elapsed from the last face-to-face contact with the identified victim(s) by the area office investigation worker to the first face-to-face contact with the identified victim by the ongoing services social worker? (Enter 99 if case already opened in Ongoing Services or closed upon completion of investigation.) OM2.101 If case was not transferred to Ongoing Services, but the investigator identified service needs, was a referral made to another state agency or community providers to provide assistance to the family?

_________________

1. 2. 3. 4.

Yes No N/A transferred to treatment N/A no service needs documented Yes No

OM2.102 Was the Investigation Protocol/DCF 2074 filled out in its entirety?

1. 2.

Case ID _____________________

13 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005
1. 2.

Page 14 of 16
Yes No

OM2.103 Was the alleged perpetrator notified by the Investigation SW or SWS of the investigation results via DCF 2210, or does LINK document that the alleged perpetrator was contacted with the results? OM2.104 Was there an initial assessment (10 day treatment plan) developed?

1. 2. 3.

Yes No N/A- case was closed at investigations level or, case was already open in Ongoing Services

OM2.105a-t What needs did the Investigation Social Worker or SWS identify for the child or family? 1. Yes 2. No a. Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment 1. Yes 2. No b. Day & Extended Day Treatment 1. Yes 2. No c. Domestic Violence Treatment/Counseling 1. Yes 2. No d. Early Childhood Program 1. Yes 2. No e. Emergency Mobile Psychiatric Service 1. Yes 2. No f. Family Support Centers 1. Yes 2. No g. Food, Utilities or other concrete needs 1. Yes 2. No h. Foster and Adoptive Support Team 1. Yes 2. No i. Intensive Family Preservation 1. Yes 2. No j. Mental Health Treatment (Child/Adolescent) 1. Yes 2. No k. Mental Health Treatment (Adult) 1. Yes 2. No l. Out of Home Placement 1. Yes 2. No m. Parent Aide Programs 1. Yes 2. No n. Parent Education and Support Center 1. Yes 2. No o. Respite Care for Biological Parents 1. Yes 2. No p. Shelter 1. Yes 2. No q. Substance Abuse Assessment and/or Treatment 1. Yes 2. No r. Therapeutic Child Care 1. Yes 2. No s. Other 1 OM2.105s.1 Specify Other: _______________________ 1. Yes 2. No OM2.105s.2 Specify Other: _______________________

t.

Other 2

Case ID _____________________

14 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 15 of 16

OM2.106a-r If yes, which of the following services were referred? 1. Yes a. Adolescent Substance Abuse Treatment 1. Yes b. Day & Extended Day Treatment 1. Yes c. Domestic Violence Treatment/Counseling 1. Yes d. Early Childhood Program 1. Yes e. Emergency Mobile Psychiatric Service 1. Yes f. Family Support Centers 1. Yes g. Food, Utilities or other concrete needs 1. Yes h. Foster and Adoptive Support Team 1. Yes i. Intensive Family Preservation 1. Yes j. Mental Health Treatment (Child/Adolescent) 1. Yes k. Mental Health Treatment (Adult) 1. Yes l. Out of Home Placement 1. Yes m. Parent Aide Programs 1. Yes n. Parent Education and Support Center 1. Yes o. Respite Care for Biological Parents 1. Yes p. Substance Abuse Assessment and/or Treatment 1. Yes q. Therapeutic Child Care 1. Yes r. Other 1 (specify below) OM2.107q.1 __________________________ 1. Yes s. Other 2: OM2.107r.2__________________________

2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2.

No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No

3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3.

N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified N/A Need Not Identified

OM2.107 Were any referred services engaged prior to the transfer of the case to ongoing services?

1. 2. 3.

Yes No N/A ­ Not transferred to Treatment

OM2.108 In the opinion of the reviewer, were there service needs that were clearly warranted by the facts of the investigation, but for which there was no documented offer to initiate services? (Document rationale on reverse)

1. 2.

Yes No

OM2.109a-c Name up to three services in order of urgency that you felt the investigation worker should have offered or initiated in this case to reduce the risk level in the home and/or preserve the family: a. b. c.____________________________________________________________________________________________________

OM2.110 Was the investigation worker invited to the first TPC after the case was transferred to ongoing services?

1. 2. 3. 4.

Yes No UTD- no documentation N/A ­ case open in Ongoing Svcs

Case ID _____________________

15 of 16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-8

Filed 11/07/2005
1. 2. 3. 4.

Page 16 of 16

OM2.111 Did the investigator attend the TPC or Family Conference?

Yes No UTD- no documentation N/A ­ case already open in Ongoing Svcs Yes No N/A-not a mandated reporter or attempts were unsuccessful Yes No N/A ­ no substantiation UTD ­ appeal window still open

OM2.112 Did the investigator document that the Mandated Reporter Letter (as can be found in the Investigation Protocol/DCF 2074) was sent?

1. 2. 3.

OM2.113 Did the perpetrator appeal the substantiation?

1. 2. 3. 4.

OM2.114 If substantiation was appealed, was it overturned?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Yes No N/A ­ no substantiation UTD ­ appeal window still open N/A ­ No Appeal

You have completed the review of this investigation. Please ensure all responses are clearly marked, that each page has the LINK Id entered into the space provided, and that there are no missing responses prior to handing in the completed tool.

Case ID _____________________

16 of 16