Historical Review. Since the formalization of the CCWPP in 2014, city, county, civic organizations, and citizens of the Wimberley Valley have actively collaborated towards conservation and preservation efforts for the Cypress Creek watershed. The community-led, EPA approved Watershed Protection Plan is a valuable tool used to help guide efforts to effectively manage the Cypress Creek Watershed by utilizing Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate nonpoint source pollution, anticipate future water quality impairments, and protect groundwater resources. The partnership has celebrated significant improvements in incorporating stormwater controls into site planning, implementing numerous best management practices, and enthusiastic participation in workshops and meetings. To compile feedback from stakeholders for the sustainability plan, the core team developed an extensive survey soliciting input from each section of the CCWPP in June 2022. There were 36 participants from 10 participating organizations. When polled, stakeholders identified CCWPP accomplishments as important in helping support the mission of their agency or organization (listed in ranked order):
Historical Review. This provides an overview of findings and observations from the previous six SME reports.
Historical Review. The first six SME reports document the following points of consideration and progress. Building the Assessment Pathway. DHHR created the Pathway to Children’s Mental Health Services (Assessment Pathway), which according to the Year 4 Imp Plan, “streamlines access points for assessment of children’s mental or behavioral health service needs and provides assistance in linking children and families to services while the assessment process is being completed”. DHHR has put in place the necessary policies and procedures regarding the Assessment Pathway, and the Assessment Pathway is being rolled out in phases: Phase 1 started with a focus on direct referrals from children, youth and families, PCP referrals, and CMCRS provider referrals; Phase 2 focused on BSS staff. DHHR has determined key performance indicators for the Assessment Pathway such as referral rate and timeliness and has begun reporting and reviewing that data on a quarterly and monthly basis. One of the challenges with the Assessment Pathway is the lack of availability of data aggregated across sources and providers that would show the whole pathway of services. Another challenge is that children need to be assigned an interim WF who provides support while the CSEDW application is being processed, but there is a waitlist for that service and limited information regarding the funding source and the amount/duration of the interim service. XXXX is working on collecting this data and hopes to include it in future reports.
Historical Review. The first six SME reports document the following points of consideration and progress: Wraparound model alignment statewide and implementation. When the SME began its analysis of Wraparound in WV in 2019, there were three distinct Wraparound programs operating in the State. The first few steps recommended by the SME were to align the three programs into one uniform practice, develop a plan to apply fidelity to the model, and monitor pathways and referrals to Wraparound. Additional recommendations focused on aligning Wraparound policies and procedures, setting uniform terminology and language, and developing consistent outreach and education. As alignment continues, the SME has looked for continued statewide streamlining, finalization of the WV Wraparound Manual, an understanding of how the State will continue to work towards fully compliance to the model, increased access, coordination with MDT, and improved clarity of data collected. Recommendations are still being made by the SME to fine tune the mechanics of how WV Wraparound is implemented, and data is collected.
Historical Review. The first six SME reports document the following points of consideration and progress.
Historical Review. A culture of data-driven decision making is clearly implied in nearly every aspect of DHHR’s objectives. Consistent with this vision, the previous SME team provided substantial TA to DHHR on the development of the infrastructure that promotes this culture. DHHR is to be commended for generally following through on these recommendations in a timely manner, involving interested/affected members at numerous points in this process; developing new data sources to improve timeliness; establishing and growing a data store and an internal data dashboard; undertaking evaluation tasks specifically mentioned in the Agreement; improving the documentation and transparency of KPIs; and disaggregating these KPIs on key demographics. The OQA has been established and staffed to help institute roles and responsibilities and to ensure an infrastructure that supports all bureaus and service aims.
Historical Review. Over the course of the SME reports so far, there has been substantial progress in determining and documenting which screening tools are being used by various agencies, as well as in expanding and supporting the use of HealthCheck (WV’s EPSDT1 program) among Medicaid MCO and other primary care providers. As in other agreement areas, there are acknowledgements throughout the reports of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to continuously adjust timelines in terms of goals for assessing gaps in screening and putting new policies and practices into place. The first six SME reports document the following points of consideration and progress. • DHHR policy requires that all children placed in DHHR custody via the child welfare system, including Youth Services and CPS, receive an EPSDT screening, which includes mental health screening, within 30 days of placement (as documented in the Xxxxxx Care Policy Manual, updated June 2023). • BSS uses the FAST (Youth Services) and the Ongoing Assessment (Child Protective Services) as an early screening opportunity in addition to the EPSDT screening. • BJS and Probation Services use the MAYSI-2. This process is in early implementation. Tracking screening. There are two primary avenues for tracking screening rates: 1. assessing EPSDT behavioral health screening rates among primary care doctors for Medicaid-eligible youth via an MOU with the OMCFH, and 2. reviewing policies and data on tracking behavioral health screening performed by BJS and Probation Services. Tracking and monitoring is clearly outlined. In some cases, DHHR is working with relevant entities to address data quality issues. Overall screening rates are included in the data store build out.
1 EPSDT is Medicaid’s comprehensive and preventive child health program for individuals under the age of 21. The goal of 52% of Medicaid eligible children who are not in youth services, child welfare, or juvenile justice will be screened with the mental health screening tool annually had not been met as of the most recent SME report, though there was a question about accuracy of the data2. This data methodology has since been revisited to ensure accuracy and consistency. XXXX is working toward achieving the 52% goal for Medicaid eligible children who are not in youth services, child welfare, or juvenile justice. According to the January 2023 Semi-Annual Quality Outcomes Report, DHHR is reviewing this data and has plans to continue to implement several strategies ...
Historical Review. Over the course of the SME reports so far, the two largest accomplishments have been the creation of the Positive Behavior Support (PBS) Program at WVU CED, along with contracting with CU to provide PBS training, with the former more responsible for direct service and the latter addressing workforce capacity building. Also, while not discussed originally in the agreement, there has been the emergence of a discussion of Behavioral Support Services both as a service to be delivered and as a philosophy. The first six SME reports document the following points of consideration and progress.
Historical Review. Over the course of the SME reports, the greatest accomplishments have been the establishment of the CSEDW program (along with a commitment by BMS that services to be evidence-based); and the rapid expansion of CSEDW in the past year. Specific state efforts that have supported this expansion include: • The State’s CSEDW amendment (approved June 3, 2022). Highlights of this amendment include (but are not limited to) the expansion of CSEDW eligibility and the expansion of the workforce pool to include non-licensed clinicians. • The State’s outreach and engagement efforts (with eligible families and providers), which have led to CSEDW applications increasing. • The State’s efforts to determine CSEDW eligibility prior to youth’s discharge from residential services. In addition, the CSEDW amendment included an extension of the hold timeframe from 180 days to 365 days. This has enabled WV to complete the CSEDW application at admission to residential services and then initiate a hold to ensure there is a more seamless transition to CSEDW services upon residential discharge. Previous SME reports commended the State’s intention to monitor hours of service provision to: 1) inform needed provider recruitment; and 2) compare utilization with child outcomes. The first six SME reports document the following points of consideration and progress. The SME recommendations have included collecting and reporting data about families that decline CSEDW and reporting data by service hour instead of unit, which WV has addressed in their latest reports. recommendations have included increased understanding of delays with 1) time to eligibility determination, and 2) time between eligibility determination and provision of services.
Historical Review. The Contractor must conduct a historical evaluation of the subject property and adjacent sites to identify conditions associated with prior usage which may indicate a potential for contamination, including, but not limited to, the following tasks: • Conduct an examination of publicly available documents in order to ascertain whether the site has been under public ownership since at least 1940, as well as to identify any prior use of the site and adjacent sites; • Examine any aerial photographs of the property that are accessible; • Review of available building and utility permits for the subject property; • Review of County/city directories and other available published information identifying former occupants/tenants of the site; • Conducting interviews with present and former owners and tenants, whenever possible, to obtain information regarding the site’s utilization; • Evaluation of published hydro-geological and geological data for the site and vicinity; • Examination of Arlington County Public Works, Zoning, Building Inspections, Health Department, Fire Department, and other available records for the site.
