Bias-Free Child Removal Pilot Program
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
Bias-Free Child Removal Pilot Program Evaluation:
Case Review Meeting Observation Form
1. Case Information
2. Review Meeting Information

Review Team Decision

Unanimous Decision

3. Fidelity

Was there a thorough discussion of each question below?

Was an immediate safety threat present?

If present, explain safety threat.

Was a safety plan considered?

If no, explain why.

Was there a previous history with the Department?

Notes

Were reasonable efforts made to prevent removal?

Explain efforts, or why efforts were not made.

What documentation of outreach or engagement with the non-offending parent was made?

Notes

Were in-home services considered/offered?

List in-home services that were considered/offered, or reasoning if not offered.

What other information is important to consider such as medical or police reports?

List other topics discussed.

Please answer the following questions on the disussion and decision process.

Were other topics discussed that were not on the rubric?

If yes, what were they?

Was there information in the case materials or discussion that could lead a reasonable person to determine the race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, SES, religious affiliation, political affiliate, or disability status of the child and/or parent or the parent’s marital or educational status?

If yes, which one was detectable and how was the information revealed?

In observer’s opinion, was the information discussed sufficient to make a decision about the PC?

If no, what additional information was needed?

Did you agree with the review team decision?

If no, why not?

4. Quality

Overall quality of the discussion

Active member participation

Amount of time spent on discussion questions was adequate

5. Other Impressions

Use the space below to note things like:

  • Did anything unusual happen during the meeting?
  • General impressions about the qualities of the discussion?
  • Did one person do most of the talking or were there equal contributions by all members?
  • Was the discussion rushed or insufficient?
  • Did anyone change their mind during the course of the meeting?
  • Did the review team express misgivings about disagreement with the PC decision or the review process in general? If so, describe what was said.