| Factor |
Specific Example |
Why This Contributes to Success |
| State Support |
Title V (or other state-level organization)
agrees to support the program. |
Although a bottom-up process, agreement to
participate is often top-down. When a state entity makes CDR a priority
to their functioning, the institutionalization can ensure the future of
its existence. |
| Legislation |
Enabling, protecting and/or information-sharing
legislation relating to CDR is passed at the state level. |
Gives legal basis for conducting reviews and
sharing sensitive information; this may legitimize the process for some. |
| Funding Support |
Funds to cover community consultants for
technical assistance and support are appropriated by participating
agency(ies). |
Expertise of CDR consultants facilitates
formation and sustainability of teams, especially in the face of member
turnover. |
| Housing of Program |
State CDR program and staff are housed in a
neutral location, with a committed housing organization. |
More likely to be non-threatening to the other
disciplines. It may help lessen turf issues if they have existed in the
past. |
| Pre-Organizational Seminars |
A state with few or no local teams holds regional
seminars, inviting a range of local human service representatives to
familiarize them with the CDR process. |
Introduces the idea of the CDR process to
multidisciplinary audience at one time; can answer pertinent questions
in open, discussion-style format. Gives reps from rural areas
opportunity to network, possibly forming regional teams. |
| Organizational Meeting |
Team convenes their first meeting as
organizational only; no reviews are done. |
Provides opportunity for team members to get
acquainted and set process parameters before attempting reviews. |
| Interagency Agreement |
Agency directors sign joint agreement to
participate in the CDR process. |
Solidifies multi-agency commitment and idea of
shared ownership in the process. Can ensure participation of field
staff. |
| Confidentiality Statements |
All members sign confidentiality statements on
regular basis, before sharing information. |
Further assures those still wary of liability
associated with CDR. Provides safe environment, encourages members/
agencies to share sensitive information. |
| Training |
Statewide training provided to new local and
state level team members annually. |
Informs members about new research on various
types of death; builds skills for conducting reviews; provides
opportunity for networking, sharing experiences. |
| Retro/Practice Reviews |
Team chooses a number of deaths from recent past
as first batch of reviews. |
Raises comfort level of members with the process,
without the pressure of discussing ongoing investigations, etc. |
| Buy-In of Core Members |
Agency reps required by law to participate are
committed to CDR; attend all meetings. |
Sets tone for other members to follow; raises
perceived importance of process; more likely that relevant info will be
available to be shared. |
| Additional Membership |
Team coordinator invites individuals who were
involved in each of the cases reviewed to those meetings. |
Gives team clearer picture of events, adds to
completeness of information on report form; facilitates prevention
discussions. |
| Access to Records |
Adequate records on each death are made available
to the team for review. |
Increases usefulness of aggregate CDR data. Makes
it easier for teams to identify risk factors, move from findings to
action. |
| Dissemination of Findings |
Findings and recommendations of team are
disseminated to professionals, legislators, state agencies, the general
public, etc. |
Maximizes impact of the review process;
reinforces members’ commitment, feeling of productivity and
accomplishment. |
