Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 1 of 55

a resource identified, but were not in that placement. A total of 43.9% had no resource identified. In 15 of the cases (21.1%), the plan had been changed to adoption within the last Administrative Case Review cycle (with the most recent treatment plan approved during the period). Eight of the DCF plans identifying the goal of adoption (11.3%) were not in agreement with the current court approved permanency goal. In 85.9% of the cases, the TPR had been filed prior to our review. Dates of filing ranged from June 1998 to June 2005. Forty-four of the children had TPR granted at the point of review, with dates of TPR ranging from August of 1998 to March of 2005. Of the children with TPR status, during the period, only 30% had evidence that a Life Book was created/initiated for the child as of the date of the review. Of the 71 cases of children with the most recent treatment goal of adoption, the legal status identified on May 15, 2005 was most frequently still TPR (52.1%). This legal status was next followed by: Committed (36.6%), Not Committed (8.5%) and OTC (2.8%). Those children with a status of not committed would include children that were adopted as of May 15, 2005 and for which the worker had changed the legal status. In looking at the supervision of cases with a goal of adoption, the review data indicates that 33.8% of the cases did not reflect a supervisory conference reflective of the risks and issues identified in the workers LINK narratives leading up to the date of the supervisory conference. Of the 71 cases with the goal of adoption, the supervision rating assigned by the reviewer was considered to be good or excellent in 57.7% of the cases, poor in 36.6% of the cases and Negligible in 5.6% of the cases. In looking at the treatment plans of the cases with goal of adoption, the data shows that the social work supervisor approved 94.4% of the plans developed. In 56.3% of the cases, there was evidence that all appropriate parties were invited to participate in the treatment planning conference/administrative case review.

51

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 2 of 55

Of those children in care with a goal of adoption on May 15, 2005 the largest percentage were in care 37 or more months (28.2%) and were most likely to fall into the age of one to three years old (33.8%). 54.9% of the 71 children with the goal of adoption in our sample had already exceeded the 24-month mark. One child was in care less than six months (1.4%). Table 37: Crosstabulation of Age of Children (on 5/15/2005) having a goal of adoption * Length of stay in out of home placement
Count < 1 Year 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19+ All 6 months 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7-12 months 3 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 9 Length of Stay in Placement as of May 15, 2005 13-18 months 19-24 months 25-30 months 31-36 months 0 1 0 0 4 5 4 6 3 3 2 0 1 2 0 5 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 14 6 13 37 months 0 3 4 2 7 3 1 0 20 All 4 24 13 14 11 3 2 0 71

Age of Child on May 15, 2005.

52

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 3 of 55

Table 38 below indicates the level of compliance that the Department had for those children with the goal of adoption for each of the individual elements. Table 38: Department's compliance with identified elements of treatment plans for cases reviewed in the Court Monitor's sample for those cases with a stated goal of adoption (n=71)
Background Information a. A clear description of household members and each identified member's status b. Prior relevant case history c. Reason for most recent case opening Assessment Information d. Presenting issues and problem areas as identified by DCF or provider assessment e. Family issues as perceived by the parent/caretaker/child (if over 12) f. Family or child's strengths g. Family or child's needs (medical, dental, mental health, educational, other service needs ­ housing, childcare, employment, transportation, etc.) Treatment h. Reasonable efforts as determined by the court, to prevent out of home placement and/or reunify documented (where applicable) j. Clearly stated case goal/permanency plan goal m. Proposed services and identified responsible parties o. Parental visitation schedules (where applicable) o. Sibling visitation schedules (where applicable) Progress Toward Case Goals i. Responsibilities of children, parents, caretakers, service providers and DCF for reaching the identified case goals (tasks required during the planning period) k. Identification of the measurement of participants' progress toward and achievement of stated goal (for those adolescents where applicable, this includes the attachment of a completed Independent Living Plan DCF-2091) l. Timelines for completing tasks/expectations related to the case goal j. Legal activity and status during the preceding treatment planning period. Other Plan approved by the SWS Plan written/translated to the primary language of the client24 Plan developed in conjunction with mother (where applicable) Plan developed in conjunction with father (where applicable) Plan developed in conjunction with child over 12 (where applicable) February 15, 2005 to May 15, 2005 63.4% 85.9% 95.8% 85.9% 49.3% 93.0% 85.9%

77.5% 90.1% 67.6% 85.3% 40.5% 73.2% 69.0%

66.2% 90.1% 94.4% 95.2% 37.9% 21.7% 75.0%

Of the 71 cases, 15.5% had a treatment plan inclusive of all of the elements listed above. Of the 70 plans found within LINK documentation, 44 plans (62.0%) required changes or amendments as noted by the ACR Coordinator on the DCF-553 documentation. Of the 44 requiring changes, 18 plans (40.9%) reflected the required changes as of the date of the review.

24

Denominator excludes 8 plans for children with TPR legal status under 12.

53

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 4 of 55

The data also indicates that 8 of the 71 cases (11.3%) had needs that the reviewers felt were clearly documented within the case record but that were not incorporated into the treatment plan. The review was able to capture the identified needs for this population (n=71), and whether those needs were in fact met. Table 39 below provides that information. The final column in the table provides the full population percentage to give perspective of this group to the whole population of DCF cases reviewed (n=569). Table 39: Needs Identified and whether or not those needs were met in the time frame specified on the current treatment plan for those children with a goal of adoption. Service Category
# Met # Not Met # TBD Total Needs % Met in population with adoption goal (n=71) 90.1% 85.7% 90.0% 96.2% 88.0% 100.0% 60.0% 100.0% 100.0% 50.0% 33.3% 0% N/A 87.1% % Met in the full population (n=569)

Out of Home Placement Mental Health Medical Support Services ­ Out of Home Education Support Services ­ In Home Child Care Domestic Violence Treatment Employment Housing Substance Abuse Treatment Dental Training Combined Service Needs

73 48 27 25 22 7 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 209

5 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 14

3 7 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 17

81 56 30 26 25 7 5 1 1 2 3 3 0 240

93.2% 70.6% 84.5% 75.5% 76.4% 71.7% 74.2% 43.8% 37.0% 46.7% 72.2% 28.1% 58.8% 73.5%

54

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 5 of 55

Outcome Measure 9: Transfer of Guardianship Court Monitor's Case Review Findings: 42.9% (Sample Size: 7) DCF LINK Report for the period of April ­ June 2005: 72.8% The Juan F. Exit Plan requires that at least 70% of all children whose custody is legally transferred shall have their guardianship transferred within 24 months of their most recent removal from home. This measure excludes Voluntary Service cases. The Department's quarterly LINK report for the second quarter 2005 indicates that 72.8% of all transfers of guardianship were completed within the 24-month period outlined in the Exit Plan25. However, a review of the LINK data indicates that an additional 31 children with no removal date had a transfer of guardianship during this period. These individuals were excluded from the LINK quarterly reports submitted. Given this missing data, the performance is adjusted to 50% (63 of 126 children with transfer of guardianship during the quarter). The Monitor cannot confirm compliance with this measure. Our sample included only seven cases in which a transfer of guardianship occurred during the period of February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005. Of the seven cases, three (42.9%) occurred within 24 months. The range of length of stay in custody of DCF was less than one month to 75 months. The average length of time in custody of DCF for the sample was 31.3 months. Race and ethnicity of the children for whom guardianship was transferred is shown in crosstabulation table below: Table 40: Crosstabulation: Racial/Ethnic background of children with successful transfer of guardianship
Ethnicity Hispanic Non-Hispanic 0 2 1 2 2 0 3 4

Total 2 3 2 7

Race

Black/African American White UTD Total

Five of the seven transfers of guardianships were subsidized. One of the seven cases had documentation that services were being provided via community collaboratives at the time of the transfer of guardianship. When asked to identify barriers to completion of the transfer within the required 24-month period, the reviewers noted the following barriers within the four cases that were not transferred in the time frame: · Approval Process (2)
25

Department's findings are based on 63 of the 126 children with a transfer of guardianship during the quarter that occurred within 24 months. However, this universe of 126 includes 31 children with no removal date. Therefore the actual number may vary upward if the Department conducts further review on these 31 cases. At this time we are assuming all 31 cases did not meet the measure.

55

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 6 of 55

· · · ·

Court delays (1) Disruption due to abuse/neglect (1) Guardian indecision (1) Identification of the family resource (1)

When looking at the number of placements that the child had prior to placement with the family to which guardianship was transferred, the review found that for four of the children (57.7%), the placement with the guardian was the only placement that the child experienced during the period of DCF custody. One child (14.3%) had one prior placement, and two children (28.6%) had two placements prior to placement with the guardian. Due to the low number of cases of guardianship transfers in the sample during the period of February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005, our review also looked at information related to all children for which transfer of guardianship was the goal on the most recent treatment plan in place during that period. This was the permanency plan for 22 children. Cases involving these 22 children were open from a range of one year three months to eight years three months. Children's length of stay in placement was anywhere from six months to just over five years. Of the 22 cases with a goal of transfer of guardianship, 21 children (95.5%) had an identified resource for transfer of guardianship, and 18 of the children (81.8%) were in placement with that resource as of May 15, 2005 (including the seven children who had successful transfer of guardianship). The range of ages for this group of children was seven months old to 17 years. More details related to age can be found in Table 41 below. Table 41: Age of child on May 15, 2005 with goal of transfer of guardianship
Age of Child <1 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13+ Frequency 1 2 3 4 2 10 Percentage 4.5% 9.0% 13.6% 18.2% 9.0% 45.5%

Racial and ethnic information collected on this sample indicates that 50% of the children in the sample with a goal of transfer of guardianship are Black/Non-Hispanic. This is a slightly higher proportion than for adoption (33.8%) or reunification (15.7%).

56

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 7 of 55

Table 42: Racial/Ethnic background of children in placement with goal of transfer of guardianship
Hispanic Black/African American White Unknown UTD Multi-Racial All 0 1 0 1 0 2 Non-Hispanic 11 7 1 0 1 20 All 11 8 1 1 1 22

While not required by DCF Policy, four of the 22 children had a concurrent plan indicated on the most recent treatment plan during the period. Two plans indicated adoption as the concurrent plan, one indicated reunification and one independent living. All four of these cases had documentation that the Ongoing Service Social Worker was pursuing both plans during the period of review. Three of the 22 children had a change in plan goal at the time of the most recent ACR. All 22 cases had goals that coincided with the court approved treatment goal. None of the child had a legal status of Termination of Parental Rights. Of those children in care with a goal of transfer of guardianship on May 15, 2005 the largest percentage (22.7%) were in care 13 to 18 months, and were most likely to fall into the age of 13-15 years old (36.4%). 50.0% of the 22 children had already surpassed the 24-month mark on May 15, 2005. See the crosstabulation table below for details.

57

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 8 of 55

Table 43: Crosstabulation of Age of Children (on 5/15/2005) having a goal of transfer of guardianship * Length of stay in out of home placement
Count < 1 Year 1-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16-18 19+ All 6 months 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7-12 months 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Length of Stay in Placement as of May 15, 2005 13-18 months 19-24 months 25-30 months 31-36 months 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 3 4 37 months 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 All 1 3 2 4 3 8 1 0 22

Age of Child on May 15, 2005.

58

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 9 of 55

In reviewing the population of 22 children with a primary goal of transfer of guardianship, there were two cases in which the reviewers indicated that a filing of TPR could be appropriate given the stated goal/concurrent goal in the case. In neither of those two cases, was the TPR filed at the point of our review. No child had a legal status of TPR on May 15, 2005. The most frequently occurring legal status of the group of 22 children was Committed (81.8%) followed by Not Committed (18.2%). Those included in the Not Committed category would include children with transfer of guardianship prior to May 15, 2005 and for which legal status had been changed in LINK. In looking at the supervision of cases with a goal of transfer of guardianship, the review data indicates that 68.2% of the 22 cases had supervisory conferences that were reflective of the events documented in LINK in the period leading up to the date of the review. A total of 31.8% of the 22 cases did not reflect a discussion of the risk factors documented. The rank score assigned by the reviewer after reviewing the record was most frequently "good" with 50.0% of the cases having what the reviewer considered to be good or adequate supervision. This was followed by 45.5% being assigned a "poor" ranking, 4.5% having an "excellent" ranking. No supervision was ranked "negligible". In all, 90.9% of the group of 22 children with a goal of transfer of guardianship had an approved treatment plan. In only 27.3% of the cases, however, did the reviewer document that all appropriate parties were invited to participate at the most recent ACR/TPC prior to May 15, 2005. In looking at the individual elements of the Treatment Plan that are detailed in the Exit Plan document, the group of 22 children with a goal of reunification fared as follows:

59

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 10 of 55

Table 44: Department's compliance with identified elements of treatment plans for cases reviewed in the Court Monitor's sample for those cases with a stated goal of Transfer of Guardianship (n=22)
Background Information a. A clear description of household members and each identified member's status b. Prior relevant case history c. Reason for most recent case opening Assessment Information d. Presenting issues and problem areas as identified by DCF or provider assessment e. Family issues as perceived by the parent/caretaker/child (if over 12) f. Family or child's strengths g. Family or child's needs (medical, dental, mental health, educational, other service needs ­ housing, childcare, employment, transportation, etc.) Treatment h. Reasonable efforts as determined by the court, to prevent out of home placement and/or reunify documented (where applicable) j. Clearly stated case goal/permanency plan goal m. Proposed services and identified responsible parties o. Parental visitation schedules (where applicable) o. Sibling visitation schedules (where applicable) Progress Toward Case Goals i. Responsibilities of children, parents, caretakers, service providers and DCF for reaching the identified case goals (tasks required during the planning period) k. Identification of the measurement of participants' progress toward and achievement of stated goal (for those adolescents where applicable, this includes the attachment of a completed Independent Living Plan DCF-2091) l. Timelines for completing tasks/expectations related to the case goal j. Legal activity and status during the preceding treatment planning period. Other Plan approved by the SWS Plan written/translated to the primary language of the client Plan developed in conjunction with mother (where applicable) Plan developed in conjunction with father (where applicable) Plan developed in conjunction with child over 12 (where applicable) February 15, 2005 to May 15, 2005 54.5% 90.9% 95.5% 90.9% 54.5% 90.9% 72.7%

81.8% 86.4% 59.1% 61.9% 50.0% 72.7% 63.6%

40.9% 95.5% 90.9% 90.9% 50.0% 37.5% 22.2%

None of the treatment plans in these 22 cases had all elements listed above (0.0%). Of the 22 cases, 13 (59.0%) required changes or amendments as noted by the ACR Coordinator on the DCF-553 documentation. Of the 13 requiring changes, seven plans (53.9%) reflected the required changes as of the date of the review. The data also shows that reviewers felt there were clearly documented needs not incorporated into the treatment plan in 18.2% of the 102 cases.

60

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 11 of 55

The review was able to capture the identified needs for this population (n=22), and whether those needs were in fact met. Table 45 below provides that information. The final column in the table provides the full population percentage to give perspective of this group to the whole population of DCF cases reviewed (n=569) Table 45: Needs Identified and whether or not those needs were met in the time frame specified on the current treatment plan for those children with a goal of reunification. Service Category
# Met # Not Met # TBD Total Needs % Met in population with reunification goal (n=22) 95.8% 76.5% 78.6% 71.4% 75.0% 66.7% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% N/A N/A N/A 0.0% 77.9% % Met in the full population (n=569)

Out of Home Placement Mental Health Support Services ­ Out of Home Medical Substance Abuse Treatment Education Child Care Dental Housing Domestic Violence Treatment Employment Support Services ­ In Home Training Combined Service Needs

23 13 11 5 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 60

1 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 7

0 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7

24 19 14 7 4 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 1 77

93.2% 70.6% 75.5% 84.5% 72.2% 76.4% 74.2% 28.1% 46.7% 43.8% 37.0% 71.7% 58.8% 73.5%

61

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 12 of 55

Outcome Measure 10: Sibling Placement Court Monitor's Case Review Findings: 65.6% (Sample Size: 61) The Juan F. Exit Plan requires that at least 95% of siblings currently in or entering outof-home placement shall be placed together unless there are documented clinical reasons for separate placements. This measure excludes Voluntary Service cases and children for whom Termination of Parental Rights has been granted. The Department is unable to provide automated data on Outcome Measure 10 at this time. They have indicated that reporting will be available for Outcome Measure 10 beginning November 15, 2005. The last case review conducted on placements of siblings during the second quarter of 2004 by the Quality Improvement Division reported that 53.0% of all siblings were maintained upon initial placement. Our sample included 130 cases in which a child's placement episode occurred on or after January 1, 2004. Sibling groups were present in 98 of the cases requiring placement. Of the 98 cases with the existence of a sibling group, 29 cases involved a placement episode in which only one member of the sibling group was removed from the home. Further, eight of the 69 cases included a separation of siblings based on clinical/therapeutic reasons. Therefore the final pool upon which to base compliance for Outcome Measure 10 is the 61 children entering placement as part of a sibling group on or after January 1, 2004. Of that total, · 40 initial placements (65.6%) maintained the sibling group at the point of entry. · 21 initial placements (34.4%) separated the sibling group at the point of entry. In analyzing the data for the cohort of 21 children that were separated at the time of initial placement the review found that as of May 15, 2005 the Department had reunited five sibling groups (23.8%) or had, in nine others, subsequently documented therapeutic reasons for the continued separation of the siblings (42.9%). On May 15, 2005 this left seven (33.3%) of those 21 children not initially placed together separated for reasons other than allowed by the clinical/therapeutic exception. While the requirement for this measure is based on the initial placement of siblings, our review also examined point-in-time data (the date of the record review) to determine the status of siblings in care regardless of date of entry. The review asked the question, "As of the date of this review, is the sibling group placed together?" See Table 46 below for the details on the 130 children entering care on or after January 1, 2004. Table 46: As of the date of this review, is the child that entered care on or after January 1, 2004 in placement with his sibling group
Frequency 37 25 18 34 16 Percent 28.5% 19.2% 13.8% 26.2% 12.3%

Yes N/A ­clinical/therapeutic reasons documented N/A ­ only one child of the sibling group remains in care N/A ­ no siblings or TPR No

62

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 13 of 55

Fifty-five cases should have had documentation related to sibling visitation during the quarter ending May 15, 2005. Forty of those 55 cases (72.7%) had a sibling visitation plan documented. The data indicates that 37 cases (67.3%) had evidence that sibling visitation was consistently occurring. Our interviews with the 96 Ongoing Service Social Workers captured data related to barriers to sibling and parental visitation. Workers were not limited to one response. Table 47 below provides the frequency with which workers identified a given barrier. Please note that this was a question that focused on all supervised visitation (both sibling and parental). Table 47: Barriers to familial visitation as identified by ongoing services social workers during interview
Barrier to Visitation Parents do not show up for visit Coverage for Supervision Transportation More case aides needed Family's schedule (school/ work/sports/recreation) Other caseload demands Parent/Child does not want the visits as scheduled Inappropriate behaviors displayed Geographical distance or traffic/logistics Foster parents Substance abuse Mental health Availability of cars Illness Therapist recommendation No visiting rooms available for supervised visit Therapy/services Miscommunication or Inability to contact by phone Hours of availability Changes in family situation No barriers Incarceration/police involvement/court orders Weather Resistance to DCF involvement Placement changes Childcare Lack of money Number of Times Identified 55 36 26 24 23 17 16 13 8 7 6 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1

63

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 14 of 55

Outcome Measure 11: Re-Entry into DCF Custody Court Monitor's Case Review Findings: 15.8% (Sample Size: 19) The Juan F. Exit Plan requires that no more than 7% of all children entering DCF custody shall re-enter care within 12 months of a prior out-of-home placement. This measure excludes Voluntary Service cases. The Department has been unable to report on Outcome Measure 11 due to the reliability of legal status, and removal and discharge data. Removal and discharge dates as well as the correct legal status are necessary to calculate re-entry data. Currently approximately 6.0% of the children in placement do not have removal dates entered in LINK. The legal status must also be current to properly determine when a child has been discharged from custody. The Department has recently completed a clean up of legal status data but errors still persist. Re-entry cannot be calculated if the entry date is blank, or prior discharge indicator was not selected as "discharge from all placements". Our review included 19 children with a date of removal between February 15, 2005 and May 15, 2005. Of this total, four of the children had re-entered care during the period. Three of the four had a prior placement episode in the 12 months preceding placement during the period (re-entering care at three, four and seven months from reunification). Therefore, the Department's rate of performance for this measure based on the small sample available is 15.8%. All four of the children placed were involved in an active in-home Ongoing Service case at the time of re-entry, and the reason(s) for re-entry were similar in nature to the prior placement episode. Two were open cases with protective supervision in place at the time of re-entry. In three of the four cases, the reviewer indicated that there were support services involved in the home at the time of the re-entry. Reasons identified by reviewer based on record review of those cases in which re-entry occurred during the period of February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005 are shown by case below: Table 48: Cases in which re-entry occurred during the period of February 15, 2002 through May 15, 2005
Period of time from reunification to reentry to care 4 months 7 months 20 months 3 months Parent's substance abuse No Yes Yes No Child's needs beyond parent's ability Yes No No Yes Other

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

No Parent's Homelessness No No

During interviews with the 96 Ongoing Services Social Workers, the question was posed, "From your own experience in general, what events lead to additional entries into 64

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 15 of 55

care?" Workers were allowed up to five responses. Table 49 below charts the responses in order of frequency of response. Table 49: Social Workers responses to the question, "From your own experience, in general, what events lead to additional entries into care?"
Response Frequency of Workers Identifying Issue 52 26 26 16 15 14 14 13 10 9 8 7 7 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 Percentage of Workers Identifying Issue 54.2% 27.1% 27.1% 16.7% 15.6% 14.6% 14.6% 13.5% 10.4% 9.4% 8.3% 7.3% 7.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 6.3% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 4.2% 4.2% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 2.1% 2.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

Substance abuse relapse Parent overwhelmed and unable to meet/maintain child's needs Repetition of abuse/neglect Domestic violence Mental health issues resurfacing Lack of community supports/services Poor decision making skills of parents Service not meeting the needs/quality of providers Housing Economic factors Services end at close of DCF involvement Child's behaviors Refusal of services Parent's inability to apply training to real life Parents attitude/level of motivation Poor DCF or provider assessment Change in family composition/birth, death or divorce Failure to rehabilitate No aftercare plan/services referred Unsafe adults in the home Lack of family supports Premature reunification Child's delinquent/criminal activity Incarceration Abandonment Unemployment Age of Parents (young) Child does not want to be home Court ordered return against DCF advice Cultural beliefs Don't Know/No Comment Family dysfunction Fear of asking for help after reunification

65

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 16 of 55

Outcome Measure 12: Multiple Placements Court Monitor's Case Review Findings: 96.0% (Sample Size: 332) DCF LINK Report for the period of April ­ June 2005: 95.7% The Juan F. Exit Plan requires that at least 85% of children in DCF custody shall experience no more than three placements during any 12-month period, excluding respite, hospitalizations lasting less than seven days, runaways, home visits, and CJTS. This measure also excludes Voluntary Service cases. The Department's automated LINK reporting26 for the second quarter 2005 found that 95.7% of children did not experience more than three placements in the previous 12month period. 332 children in this sample were in DCF custody in the 12 month period ending May 15, 2005. Of that number, 319 children or 96.0% did not experience more than three placements during the 12- month period. Thirteen children (3.91%) experienced more than three disruptions in placement. Of the 332 children, 202 (60.8%) children remained stable in their placements and did not experience any movements during the 12 month period. 92 (27.7%) children experienced one change in placement, 25 (7.5%) children had two changes in placement, seven (2.1%) children had three changes in placement and six children (1.8%) had four placements during the twelve-month period ending May 15, 2005. Table 50: How many placements has this child experienced in the 12 month period ending May 15, 2005
# Of Placements 1 2 3 4 5 Total # Of Children 202 92 25 7 6 332 % Of Children 60.8% 27.7% 7.5% 2.1% 1.8% 100%

Per the DCF Policy 36-55-20 (Placement Disruption Conferences), when a child experiences two or more foster home disruptions during an 18 month period for reasons related to the child's behavior, a disruption conference shall be convened. Of the 332 children in custody during the 12 month period, 323 (97.3%) did not require a case conference. Of the nine that did, three conferences (33.3%) were held and six conferences (66.7%) were not held.

26

Approximately 6.0% of the placements do not have a removal date and therefore the LINK reported performance is subject to some level of error. This is under review by the Department's IS Division and the Department has been notified by the Court Monitor's office that this reporting issue must be resolved. This issue also impacts the Department's automation of reporting for Outcome Measures 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 20, 21, and 22 to varying degrees, as indicated prior.

66

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 17 of 55

The results of the three disruption conferences held indicated that two children required temporary placement or hospitalization and an evaluation of the child to determine if a higher level of care was necessary. One child required respite and in-home supports. There were a number of additional supports that workers identified to preserve placements. The services identified most frequently are as follows: · Referrals for or an increase in therapeutic sessions. · Partial Hospitalization Program · Medication Management · Home Schooling · Referral to Job Corps · Additional DCF case management · Exploration of Placement Options · Implementation of the IICAPS Program · Implementation of the FAST Program The sample also looked at those children who required one or more placement changes during the eighteen months for reasons other than the child's behavior or condition. The four most often identified reasons for a change in placement were: planned move to a higher or lower level of care: moved from a temporary placement: foster family life circumstances: or placement with a relative. The list in its entirety is outlined in Table 51. Table 51: If moves were not the result of disruption for reasons related to child's behavior or condition, what was the reason for the child's multiple placements: (N/A was selected if there were no moves for causes other than child's behaviors).
Applicable Reasons Planned move to higher/lower level of care Temporary Placement Foster family life circumstances Relative placement Reunited with siblings Moved to pre-adoptive home Placement in closer proximity to home Special study home Overcapacity/Lack of resources Substantiated Abuse/Neglect # Of Yes 32 31 21 17 7 6 4 4 2 2 % Of Yes 9.6% 9.3% 6.3% 5.1% 2.1% 1.8% 1.2% 1.2% 0.6% 0.6% # Of No 54 55 64 68 78 79 81 81 83 83 % Of No 16.3% 16.6% 19.3% 20.5% 23.5% 23.8% 24.4% 24.4% 25.0% 25.0% # Of N/A 246 246 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 247 % Of N/A 74.1% 74.1% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4% 74.4%

Additional reasons for identified placement changes were: · Three children were reunited with their parents. · Child made an allegation towards another child in the home. · Child moved to a different residential placement. · Better placement match found for three children. · Child committed a crime and was placed in detention. · Child removed from home due to inadequate supervision. · Siblings separated for therapeutic reasons. 67

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 18 of 55

Outcome Measure 13: Foster Parent Training Court Monitor's Case Review Findings: 100.0% (Sample Size: 195) DCF LINK Report for the period of April ­ June 2005: 100.0% The Juan F. Exit Plan requires that foster parents shall be offered 45 hours of postlicensing training within 18 months of initial licensure and at least nine hours each subsequent year. Relative, special study and independently licensed foster parents require only nine hours pre-service. The Department indicates that there have been training opportunities available statewide to allow foster parents to meet the training requirements for licensure/relicensure as detailed in the paragraph above, and they are at 100% compliance with the requirement to offer training opportunities. While our review of the Connecticut Association of Foster and Adoptive Parents (CAFAP) documentation submitted to the Department confirms that this measure has been met (100%), our data analysis reveals deficits in relation to the actual foster parent support and training utilized by the DCF foster parents. In all, 195 cases in the sample included DCF foster parent involvement during the period of February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005. The pool includes a range of foster parenting experience from less than one month to 30 years. The mode of experience is nine years (16 foster parents). The average length of experience (mean) is 3.5 years. The review asked, "Has this provider attended ANY foster parent trainings in the year of May 15, 2004 through May 15, 2005?" 76.9% of the sample had no documentation of training in the last year. For the 45 foster parents that did have documented training, the tool asked, " How many hours of training are documented for this foster parent in the period of May 15, 2004 ­ May 15, 2005?" The results are found in Table 52 below: Table 52: Hours of Training27 documented for DCF foster parents in the 12 month period ending May 15, 2005
Hours of Training 0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 All
27

Frequency 153 4 24 3 0 1 5 1 3 1 195

Percent 78.5% 2.1% 12.3% 1.5% 0.0% 0.5% 2.6% 0.5% 1.5% 0.5% 100%

Cumulative Percent 78.5% 80.5% 92.8% 94.4% 94.4% 94.9% 97.4% 97.9% 99.5% 100% --------

This could include both pre and post licensing training activities depending upon the length of time the foster parents had been licensed.

68

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 19 of 55

In reviewing the provider record for documentation of barriers to attendance at training offered, the reviewers found 18 cases in which the Foster and Adoptive Service Unit Support Worker documented a reason for a foster parent's failure to attend training. These were: · Work schedules: 5 · Language (needed Spanish speaking module): 3 · Foster Parent refusing: 3 · Withdrew application/no license: 3 · Relinquishing License: 3 · Daycare: 2 · Transportation/Distance: 2 In response to the question, "Was this provider re-licensed during the period of February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005 without documentation that they completed the required number of foster parent training hours?" The review found that 54 of the 93 foster homes relicensed during the period had been relicensed without having documentation of the required training in their record. This is 58.1% of the homes relicensed. In looking at the Foster and Adoptive Service Unit support documented in the provider records, the review found that 33.8% of the 195 homes had evidence that a support plan was developed with the family during the twelve-month period ending May 15, 2005. In the 96 interviews with the Ongoing Service Social Workers, several questions were posed regarding the Foster and Adoptive Service Unit support in the foster homes. Briefly here are some of the key findings: · · 97.7% of Ongoing Service Social Workers with children in placement felt that the foster homes housing children on their caseloads were of a good or superior level as it relates to safety. 74.7% of Ongoing Service Social Workers with children in placement felt that the Foster and Adoptive Service Unit adequately supported the DCF foster parents. Comments throughout the interview sample did indicate, however, that some foster parents do not know who their support workers are due to changes in staffing and lack of contact. 89.1% of Ongoing Service Social Workers with children in placement felt that the Foster and Adoptive Service Unit workers adequately address concerns raised to them, with the following caveats: o Inconsistency in response depending on support worker assigned o Timeliness of response can be an issue o Ongoing Services Social Workers felt that Foster and Adoptive Service Unit workers "hands are tied" in resolving issues due to shortage of foster parent resources

·

69

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 20 of 55

Outcome Measure 14: Placement Within Licensed Capacity Court Monitor's Case Review Findings: 87.8% (Sample Size: 255) DCF LINK Report for the period of April ­ June 2005: 95.9% The Juan F. Exit Plan requires that at least 96% of all children placed in foster homes shall be in foster homes operating within their licensed capacity, except when necessary to accommodate siblings. The Department's automated LINK reporting indicates that 95.9% of all licensed foster homes were within licensed capacity with the exception of those placements made to accommodate sibling groups. Our review found that 255 of the 569 cases had a placement episode in a foster home during the period of February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005 (both DCF and private provider homes). Of this number, 50 children (19.6%) were at some point of time in an overcapacity placement situation. 19 of the 50-overcapacity situations were a result of sibling placement. Therefore, with the sibling exception factored in, our review found that 87.8% (224 of the 255 children) were in foster homes within licensed capacity throughout the quarter. Table 53: Crosstabulation: During the quarter of February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005 was the identified child in placement in an overcapacity home? *Was this overcapacity the result of sibling placement?
Count During the quarter of February 15, 2005 ­ May 15, 2005 was the identified child in placement in an overcapacity home? Was this overcapacity the result of a sibling group placement? Total Yes No N/A28 19 31 0 50 0 0 205 205 19 31 205 255

Yes No Total

We believe the discrepancy in performance reported between the automated reports and our case review may be due to the case review methodology. The review examined the three-month period of time and asked whether the home was overcapacity at any point over the period. LINK reporting is a point-in-time report. As such, our numbers would be subject to some level of discrepancy. Reviewers did note several homes with zero capacity as a result of a lapsed license or unlicensed placement. The issue of lapsed license/unlicensed placement is a matter that will need to be reviewed by the Department. In 12% of the cases with overcapacity recorded, there was evidence of FASU efforts to reduce the overcapacity in the provider record. Eighteen percent of the provider records for these 50 children in overcapacity situations had documented changes in the support plan related to the overcapacity status in the foster home. In none of the situations of
28

No placements in overcapacity.

70

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 21 of 55

overcapacity did the Ongoing Services Social worker or FASU indicate there was a risk of disruption as a result of the overcapacity situation. The length of time recorded for the overcapacity in the foster home varied, with the majority being greater than 28 days (88.0%). See Table 54 below for full details: Table 54: Length of time recorded for overcapacity in the foster home
Length of placement < 7 days 7-14 days 22-28 days >28 days All Frequency 1 3 2 44 50 Percent 2% 6% 4% 88% 100%

71

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 22 of 55

Outcome Measure 15: Needs Met Court Monitor's Case Review Findings: 55.8% (Sample Size: 569) The Juan F. Exit Plan requires that at least 80% of all families and children shall have their medical, dental, mental health and other service needs provided as specified in the most recently approved, clinically appropriate treatment plan. The Department does not provide LINK data related to the elements of Outcome Measure 15, and has previously conducted case reviews on small samples of treatment plans to determine their compliance with this measure. The latest review in the fourth quarter 2004 indicated 56.0% of children's and families' needs (as specified in the most recent treatment plan) were met. The Monitor's Office conducted the statewide statistically valid review of 569 cases open during the period of February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005. Data has been captured on all of the elements as outlined in the Exit Plan. Of the total number of cases reviewed, 39 plans met the requirement for Outcome Measure 3. Of those 39 plans, 21 cases (53.9%) had all identified needs met. However, early in the Exit Plan implementation, there was agreement between DCF and D. Ray Sirry that until DCF asserts compliance with all 22 outcome measures, the Monitor's Office would review Outcome Measure 15 utilizing the most recent treatment plan (less than seven months old) due to the methodological issues that would require unrealistic oversampling to provide a statistically valid sample of treatment plans meeting the requirements as detailed in Outcome Measure 3. When the Department asserts compliance with all Outcome Measures, the Monitor will use the strict requirements as outlined in the Exit Plan (plan must first meet the requirements of Outcome Measure 3) when calculating performance for this measure. Therefore, in looking at the 539 cases in which there was a current plan present, our review found that in 301 cases (55.8%) children and families had all service needs as identified on that plan met within the time frame specified or six months of approval when no time frame was indicated. The 30 cases in which we were unable to determine needs due to lack of a treatment planning document could impact this performance by plus or minus three percentage points depending on the circumstances within those cases. The record found that 538 cases (94.6%) of the sample had a current treatment plan with clearly indicated needs identified. In 30 cases (5.3%), there was no plan less than seven months old to review. In one case (0.2%), the plan had no identified service needs. In all, 494 cases (86.8%) had a planning process that included an ACR/TPC held from November 15, 2004 through May 15, 2005. Reviewers found that in 79.6% of the plans reviewed (n=539) they concurred with the needs as identified by the Ongoing Service Social Worker on the treatment plan document. In 15.1% of the cases, the reviewers felt that there was a need clearly identifiable within the case record documentation but that was not incorporated into the plan. (This percentage was considerably improved to 2.6% in the 39 cases that met the 72

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 23 of 55

requirement for Outcome Measure 3.) In 5.3% of the cases, there was no plan less than seven months old to review. Further, in 48 instances in which there was a plan and an ACR/TPC documented, the ACR Coordinator documented a service need on the DCF553 that was not incorporated into the plan document (9.8%). While the measure focuses on needs met per family (55.8%), the Monitor's review also examined all identified needs involving all sample cases to determine the Department performance in each of the service categories and across all identified needs. In all, 2,366 needs were identified in the 539 cases with LINK treatment plans. Of that number, 1,739 of the identified needs were met (73.5%) and 157 (6.6%) were "to be determined", as the time frame for provision of service had not expired at the point of our review. The following table provides the frequency with which service needs were identified, and the percentage of time each need was met. Table 55: Needs identified and whether or not those needs were met in the time frame specified on the current treatment plan
Service Category Mental Health Out-of-home Placement Medical Support Services ­ In-home Substance Abuse Treatment Support Services ­ Out-of-home Education Housing Domestic violence treatment Training Child Care Employment Dental Combined Service Needs # Met 475 315 191 175 169 142 133 35 32 30 23 10 9 1739 # Not Met 147 12 23 57 54 35 28 32 34 14 7 14 13 470 # TBD 51 11 12 12 11 11 13 8 7 7 1 3 10 157 Total Needs 673 338 226 244 234 188 174 75 73 51 31 27 32 2366 % Met 70.6% 93.2% 84.5% 71.7% 72.2% 75.5% 76.4% 46.7% 43.8% 58.8% 74.2% 37.0% 28.1% 73.5%

As shown in Table 55 above, the Department is most successful in achieving timely provision of service when providing out-of-home placement (93.2%), medical treatment (84.5%), and education (76.4%). The largest challenges seem to be in the provision of timely dental services (28.1%), employment (37.0%) and domestic violence treatment (43.8%). In looking at the barriers that were identified by the reviewers, the data shows that the most frequently cited barrier is client refusal, followed by the collective category of "other", and then wait lists. See Table 56 below for full breakdown:

73

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 24 of 55

Table 56: Barriers to service provision as noted by the reviewers in the case record review
Barrier Client refusal Other Wait lists UTD Delay in referral by worker No service identified Service deferred pending completion of another No slots available Provider unwilling to accept client Insurance Approval process Hours of operation Transportation No service for age group Language Financing unavailable Provider does not exist for service Child hospitalized Frequency 239 138 78 55 38 32 31 17 17 11 8 4 3 3 3 2 1 1 681 2.5% 2.5% 1.6% 1.2% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 100.0% % of all Barriers 35.1% 20.3% 11.5% 8.1% 5.6% 4.7% 4.6%

In interviews with 96 Ongoing Service Social Workers, the interviewer asked: "Are there adequate services in the area office to address the safety and well being needs of the families and clients that you serve?" 59.4% of the workers responded, "no". 40.6% indicated that "yes" they did feel there were adequate services in the area office community. In looking at the quality of service, the review asked, "Are there service providers that go unused in your area due to poor quality of service?" The majority of Ongoing Service Social Workers (60.4%) responded "no". However, 13 of that 58 who responded "no" followed up with a statement indicating that they refer families to poor quality services due to the immediate needs of the clients. Therefore, 53.1% of Ongoing Service Social Workers did indicate some awareness of lesser quality service providers in their provider community that they would prefer not to use, if other options were available. In response to the question, "Do you ever find that you need to substitute an alternate services for one that you initially determined to be the most appropriate?" Eighty Ongoing Service Social Workers (83.3%) indicated that they have had this happen on at least one occasion. The frequency of this substitution process is detailed below:

74

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 25 of 55

Table 57: Frequency with which Ongoing Services Social Workers use a substitute service for one initially deemed most appropriate.
Substitution Required 0% of my cases < 20% of my cases 21-40% of my cases 41-60% of my cases 61-80% of my cases 81-100% of my cases Frequency 16 43 20 13 3 1 Percent 16.7% 44.8% 20.8% 13.5% 3.1% 1.0%

Twenty-six Ongoing Service Social Workers indicated that substitution was most frequently used when the service need is identified as Intensive Family Preservation (IFP). This was indicated by 26 (32.5%) of the 80 Ongoing Service Social Workers who indicated that substitutions had been made. Individual counseling was indicated next, with 20 of the 80 workers (25.0%) having made a substitution for this service. Workers were asked to identify up to three reasons for failed interventions as they related to the safety and well being of the children and families that they serve. The five most frequently cited reasons for failure of interventions attempted are: · · · · · · 45.8% of Ongoing Service Social Workers interviewed identified resistant/noncompliant clients 24.0% of Ongoing Service Social Workers interviewed identified inconsistency in family/child participation in services. 24.0% of Ongoing Service Social Worker interviewed indicated wait lists for services referred 14.6% of Ongoing Service Social Workers interviewed identified the family or child's ability (or lack thereof) to understand the risk factors that were present 12.5% of Ongoing Service Social Workers interviewed identified the quality of providers 12.5% of Ongoing Service Social Workers identified poor communication.

Specific to the case reviewed, the interviewer asked, "Were there services that you would have preferred to use that were not available?" 66.7% of workers indicated that there were no other services that they would have used. 33.3% indicated that they could identify at least one service that they would have preferred to use, but that was not available. These are in order of frequency of response: residential placement (noted by six workers); housing and substance abuse treatment (each noted three times); individual counseling, Intensive In-home-Child Adolescent Psychiatric Service (IICAPS), evaluations, parent education, therapeutic mentor (each noted two times); and group home, locked psychiatric facility, daycare, Department of Mental Retardation, Headstart, parent support for single fathers, therapeutic foster care, visiting nurse, mediation, maternity home, youth services, adolescent services, and transportation for visitation center (all noted once).

75

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 26 of 55

Social workers were asked, specific to the case we reviewed, "How successful were the identified services and interventions in meeting the clients stated needs?" Workers responses are found in Table 58 below: Table 58: Ongoing Services Social Workers rate the success of interventions provided in the identified cases of the record review (n=96)
Rate of Success Successful Partially Successful Not Successful No Needs Identified Frequency 44 42 9 1 Percent 45.8% 43.8% 9.4% 1.0%

76

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 27 of 55

Outcome Measure 16: Worker-Child Visitation (Out-of-Home) Court Monitor's Case Review Findings: (Sample Size: 319) Quarterly 99.1% Monthly: 89.5% DCF LINK Report for the period of April ­ June 2005: Monthly 86.7% The Juan F. Exit Plan requires that a DCF Social Worker must see all children quarterly. At least 85% of children in out-of-home care shall be visited at least once monthly. Private agency social worker visits may count for monthly visits if the content of the visit is documented in LINK. The Department's automated LINK reports indicate that the Department met the requirement and achieved 86.7% compliance with the monthly visitation requirement. Quarterly visitation was not reported. The Monitor's case review includes 319 children in care during the period of February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005. Of that total, there were five children in placement via Voluntary Services and 19 children placed out-of-state. Of the 319 children, 99.1% were seen on a quarterly basis. To determine compliance with the monthly visitation requirement, the Monitor's review captured all visits documented from February 1, 2005 through May 31, 2005. This was necessary as the designated period of February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005 truncated months and could have resulted in an underreporting of the Department's efforts. Looking at those children placed in-state due to child protection issues, there was a total of 285 children upon which to calculate the monthly visitation requirement. As with Outcome Measure 17, our review looked at the four full months, portion of which are included in the quarter of February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005 to avoid an overrepresentation of negative responses that may fall outside of the range dates, but within the months of February and May. The average rate of documented monthly visitation for the sample during the four months reviewed is 89.5% (Visits were documented by the assigned Ongoing Service Social Worker, Social Work Supervisor or other DCF personnel, or Other Provider29). Looking across the individual months, the Department had the following rate of performance for meeting the monthly standard: · February: 89.5% · March: 90.2% · April: 90.2% · May: 88.1% All 285 children had a least one recorded visit in the period of February 1, 2005 through May 31, 2005. There were, however 89 children that did not have one visit per month during each month reviewed.
Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) excluded as the out of state population is not included in the 285 children subject to this measure.
29

77

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 28 of 55

· · ·

64 children (22.5 %) had one month in which there was no documented visit. 19 children (6.7%) had two months in which there was no documented visit. 6 children (2.1%) had three months in which there was no documented visit

In February there were a total of 513 documented visits. In March there were a total of 634 visits. In April there were a total of 603 visits, and in May a total of 648 visits. The frequency of each type of visit for the full population of 319 children in placement is shown in Tables 59 through 62 below: Table 59: February visits with children in placement
Visits Documented 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 With Assigned DCF social worker 48 183 46 17 10 1 1 1 ---1 ---1 With other DCF personnel ---30 15 3 3 ---------------------With ICPC 3 4 ------------------------------With Private Provider 43 7 1 2 ---------------1 -------

Table 60: March visits with children in placement
Visits Documented 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 22 With Assigned DCF social worker 38 157 64 25 13 7 3 1 1 ---------1 With Other DCF personnel ---35 6 6 3 2 ---1 ---------------With ICPC 6 2 ---------------------------------With Private Provider ---11 ---4 1 ------------1 ----------

78

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 29 of 55

Table 61: April visits with children in placement
Visits Documented 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 16 With Assigned DCF social worker 39 160 61 22 12 5 2 1 ---1 ------1 With Other DCF personnel ---43 10 5 4 2 1 ------------------With ICPC 6 3 ---------------------------------With Private Provider ---10 4 1 1 -------------------------

Table 62: May visits with children in placement
Visits Documented 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 22 With Assigned DCF social worker 47 154 57 22 7 4 4 1 1 ---------1 With Other DCF personnel ---26 57 4 3 ---1 ------1 ---------With ICPC 6 2 ---------------------------------With Private Provider 42 10 ---2 2 -------------------------

In 53 cases, (16.9%) the narratives related to the visit identified a possible risk to the safety or well-being of the child placed. In 37 of the 53 cases (69.8%), the worker raised the issue with the Social Work Supervisor in the subsequent supervisory conference or other informal contact documented in the LINK record. Of the 37 cases documented in the supervisory session, 23 cases (62.2%) went on to further document the worker's follow through on directives that were identified by the Social Work Supervisor. In 82 cases, the child or provider asked the worker for some form of assistance or service to support the placement or provide needed items or services for the child. In 66 of the 82 cases (80.5%) the LINK documentation reflected the workers efforts to follow up on the request.

79

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 30 of 55

Visitation is also required with the parents or guardian to whom the child is to be reunified. Of the 112 children in the custody of the Department and having a goal of reunification, the Department had monthly visitation with that parent or guardian a minimum of once per month in 69 cases (61.6%). Ninety-eight cases (87.5%) had a quarterly contact with the parent or guardian.

80

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 31 of 55

Outcome Measure 17: Worker-Child Visitation (In-Home) Court Monitor's Case Review Findings: 73.2% (Sample Size: 267) DCF LINK Report for the period of April ­ June 2005: 78.0% The Juan F. Exit Plan requires that at least 85% of all in-home cases shall have a DCF Social Worker visit at least twice a month.30 All visits must be documented in LINK. The LINK report for the second calendar quarter of 2005 indicated that the Department had achieved 78.0% compliance for this outcome measure. The Monitor's review looked at the four months of February through May 2005. Using the designated period (February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005) truncated months, and could have resulted in an underreporting of the Department's efforts. The number of cases open for a full month during the period fluctuated, ranging from 197 applicable cases in May to 227 applicable cases in February. The range of visits during the four months was zero to 12 visits. The average number of visits during February through May was 1.99 visits. The resulting score achieved in the cases reviewed during this period is 73.2%. On a monthly basis the Department's percentage of compliance with achieving successful visitation (as newly defined) at least twice per month was: · February: 60.8% · March: 81.0% · April: 77.7% · May: 74.4% The full breakdown per month is shown below in Tables 63 through 65 below. Each month contains only those cases that were open as child protective service cases for the full month so as to avoid underreporting of the visitation efforts.

30

D. Ray Sirry had agreed to a definitional change in what constitutes "successful" which deviates from the definitions within the Exit Plan document. "Successful" is a home visit in which the worker gains entry into the home and meets with at least one family member. Our methodology captured both this definition of "successful" and data regarding whether all child participants (under age 18) in the home were seen twice per month (per the Exit Plan document). The compliance score reported above is based upon the new definition of successful.

81

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 32 of 55

Table 63: Number of successful visits the DCF social worker made with the in-home family31 during February 2005
# Of Visits 5 4 3 2 1 0 Total Frequency 2 6 34 96 70 19 227 Percentage 0.9% 2.6% 15.0% 42.3% 30.8% 8.4% 100.0% Cumulative Percentage 0.9% 3.5% 18.5% 60.8% 91.6% 100.0% 100.0%

During the February visits with the in-home family sample population, the Ongoing Service Social Workers met with each active child participant a minimum of two times in 51.4% of the cases open during the full month. Table 64: Number of visits the DCF Social Worker made with the in-home family32 during March 2005
# Of Visits 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Total Frequency 1 1 1 1 15 46 110 29 12 216 Percentage 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% 6.9% 21.3% 50.9% 13.4% 5.6% 100% Cumulative Percentage 0.5% 0.9% 1.4% 1.9% 8.8% 30.1% 81.0% 94.4% 100.0% 100%

During the March visits with the in-home family sample population, the Ongoing Service Social Workers met with each active child participant a minimum of two times in 66.4% of the cases open during the full month.

There were 255 in-home cases during February. Findings exclude 28 cases open as Voluntary Service cases, which are excluded from the measure. The average number of visits for Voluntary Services cases during the period is 0.5 visits, as 17 cases had no visits during the month, nine cases had one visit during the month and two cases had three visits during the month. 32 There were 244 in-home cases during the month of March. Findings exclude 28 cases open as Voluntary Service Cases, which are outside of the measure. The average number of visits for Voluntary Services cases during the period is 0.9 visits, as eight cases had no visits during the month, 15 cases had one visit during the month and five cases had two visits during the month.

31

82

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 33 of 55

Table 65: Number of visits the DCF Social Worker made with the in-home family33 during April 2005
# Of Visits 12 5 4 3 2 1 0 Total Frequency 1 2 8 32 110 38 6 197 Percentage 0.5% 1.0% 4.1% 16.2% 55.8% 19.3% 3.1% 100% Cumulative Percentage 0.5% 1.5% 5.6% 21.8% 77.7% 97.0% 100.0% 100%

During the April visits with the in-home family sample population, the Ongoing Service Social Workers met with each active child participant a minimum of two times in 63.2% of the cases open during the full month. Table 66: Number of visits the DCF Social Worker made with the in-home family34 during May 2005
# Of Visits 5 4 3 2 1 0 Total Frequency 1 6 21 106 29 17 180 Percentage 0.6% 3.3% 11.7% 58.9% 16.1% 9.4% 100.0% Cumulative Percentage 0.6% 3.9% 15.6% 74.4% 90.6% 100.0% 100.0%

During the May visits with the in-home family sample population, the Ongoing Service Social Workers met with each active child participant a minimum of two times in 59.7% of the cases open during the full month. 239 cases were open as an in-home child protective service case at some point during the period of February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005. Table 67 below provides an accounting of the total number of successful visits to the home35 during this three-month period of February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005.
There were 223 in-home cases during the month of April. Findings exclude 26 cases open as Voluntary Service Cases, which are excluded from the measure. The average number of visits for Voluntary Services cases during the period is 1.0 visits, as six cases had no visits during the month, 16 cases had one visit during the month and three cases had two visits and one case had six visits during the month. There were 206 in-home cases during the month of May. Findings exclude 26 cases open as Voluntary Service Cases, which are excluded from the measure. The average number of visits for Voluntary Services cases during the period is 0.9 visits, as nine cases had no visits during the month, 12 cases had one visit during the month and four cases had two visits, and one case had four visits during the month. 35 Successful indicating the worker actually met face to face with one or more of the identified case participants living in the home.
34 33

83

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 502-3

Filed 11/07/2005

Page 34 of 55

Table 67: How many successful visits were recorded by a DCF Ongoing Services Social Worker or Social Work Supervisor with this in-home family36 during the period of February 15, 2005 through May 15, 2005
# of Visits 12 - 13 10 - 11 8-9 6-7 4-5 2-3 0-1 Total Frequency 7 10 45 76 56 28 17 239 Percent 2.9% 4.2% 18.8% 31.8% 23.4% 11.7% 7.1% 100.0% Cumulative Percent 2.9% 7.1% 25.9% 45.2% 81.2% 92.9% 100.0% 100.0%

In addition to the successful visits reported prior, 134 (56.1%) of the 239 cases had documentation of the social worker unsuccessfully attempting a visit to the home. Unsuccessful attempts ranged from one and fourteen visits for the cases in this sample. The data also provides an option for analysis of successful visits for those identified inhome cases where any of the children were under an Order of Protective Supervisio