From Assessment to Action: Case Planning & Service Matching

Assessments don’t change outcomes; plans do. The craft lies in translating risk, needs, and strengths into the right services, for the right duration, with the right follow-up. When dosage fits and goals are specific, recidivism falls and engagement rises.

Key Findings

Risk principle: Reserve intensive services for higher-risk youth; avoid over-treating lower-risk youth.
Dosage & fidelity: Evidence-based programs only work if youth receive adequate hours and models are delivered as designed.
Goal clarity: Plans with 30/60/90-day targets and responsibility by name (youth, caregiver, provider) outperform vague orders like “comply with services.”

State Comparisons

States across the region increasingly standardize case plan templates and require alignment with assessment results. Many tie service referrals to vetted provider directories, with notes on capacity, language access, and tele-options for rural areas.

What Works

EBP menus + local slots: MST, FFT, CBT groups, and mentoring with live capacity feeds.
Team-based planning: Youth, family, counsel, PO, school lead; plans co-authored, not imposed.
Performance checks: Monthly plan reviews, attendance + outcome flags, rapid adjust/step-down.

Future Outlook

Expect more integrated digital plans, automatic referral nudges, and outcomes dashboards that tie completion to improvement metrics (school, health, justice) over 6–18 months.

Sources

Risk-need-responsivity literature; MST/FFT model guides; state case plan standards (2018–2025).