Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 1 of 204

Juan F. v Rell 2006 Comprehensive Targeted Review
Section Introduction Acknowledgements Collective Findings Monitor's Comprehensive Qualitative Report ­ Findings at a Glance Outcome Measure 1: Commencement of Investigations Outcome Measure 2: Completion of Investigations Outcome Measure 3: (Treatment Plans) & Outcome Measure 15 (Needs Met) Outcome Measure 4: Search for Relatives Outcome Measure 5: Repeat Maltreatment of Children Outcome Measure 6: Maltreatment in Out-of-Home Care Outcome Measure 7: Reunification Outcome Measure 8: Adoption Outcome Measure 9: Transfer of Guardianship Outcome Measure 10: Sibling Placement Outcome Measure 11: Re-Entry into DCF Custody Outcome Measure 12: Multiple Placements Outcome Measure 13: Foster Parent Training Outcome Measure 14: Placement within Licensed Capacity Outcome Measure 16: Out-of-Home Visitation Outcome Measure 17: In-Home Visitation Outcome Measure 18: Caseload Standards Outcome Measure 19: Reduction in the Number of Children Placed in Residential Care Outcome Measure 20: Discharge Measures Outcome Measure 21: Discharge of Mentally Ill or Retarded Children Outcome Measure 22: Multi-Disciplinary Examinations (MDE's) Page 8 9 10 13 15 23 27 65 70 78 88 100 113 123 127 149 164 149 149 173 182 186 188 188 203

1

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 2 of 204

Crosstabulations, Graphs and Tables
Item
Crosstabulation 1: Crosstabulation 2: Crosstabulation 3: Crosstabulation 4: Crosstabulation 5: Crosstabulation 6: Crosstabulation 7: Crosstabulation 8: Crosstabulation 9: Crosstabulation 10: Crosstabulation 11: Crosstabulation 12:

Title
Priority Response Designation * Actual Timeframe to Face to Face Contact with Child Victim Priority Response Designation * Actual Timeframe to Face-to-Face Contact with Alleged Perpetrators Were all the Risks Factors Considered within the Course of Investigation (using the list consideration provided)? *Rank the Investigation on Overall Level of Quality Using Scale Provided Were all DCF Policy Requirements Met by the Worker During the Course of the Investigation? * Rank the Investigation on Overall Level of Quality Using Scale Provided What is the Type of Case Assignment Noted in LINK? * Does child in Placement Have Involvement with the Juvenile Justice System? Has Child's Length of Stay Exceeded the 15 of the Last 22 Benchmark Set by ASFA? * For Child in Placement has TPR Been Filed? What is the Type of Case Assignment Noted in LINK ? * Overall Score for OM3 Overall Score for OM 3* What is the Type of Case Assignment Noted in LINK? Overall Score for Outcome Measure 15 * What is the Type of Case Assignment Noted in LINK? What is the Child or Family's Stated Goal on the Most Recent Approved Treatment Plan in Place During the Period? * Overall Score for Outcome Measure 15 What is the Primary Reason Cited * There is Documentation in LINK Indicating that a Search Was Conducted for Possible Placement During the Period of Review? At the Time of the July 2006 Substantiation Identified for this Child, Were Services Offered to the Family to Ameliorate the Stressors or Issues Contributing to the Episode of Abuse/Neglect? * Where There Any Subsequent Substantiation Involving this Child During the Six-Month Period Following the Date of the Incident Substantiated in July 2006? Did DCF Make the Referrals for Services Offered? * Were There Any Subsequent Substantiations Involving this Child During the Six-Month Period Following the Date of the Incident Substantiated in July 2006? Did the Client(s) Participate in the Referred Services? * Were There Any Subsequent Substantiations Involving this Child During the Six-Month Period Following the Date of the Incident Substantiated in July 2006? Were There Any Subsequent Substantiations Involving this Child During the SixMonth Period Following the Date of the Incident Substantiated in July 2006 Area Office Assignment * Were There Any Substantiations Involving this Child in Out-of-Home Placement During the Quarter of October 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006? Child's Race * Where There Any Substantiations Involving this Child in Out-ofHome Placement during the Quarter of October 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006? Does the Child Have any Diagnosed Conditions Documented? * Were There any Substantiations Involving this Child in Out-of-Home Placement During the Quarter of October 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006? Current Residence of this Child on December 31, 2006 * Were There Any Substantiations Involving this Child in Out-of-Home Placement During the Quarter of October 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006? Were these Concerns (OM6.1a) Addressed in Supervision with the Ongoing Services SWS? * Were there Any Substantiations Involving this Child in Out-ofHome Placement During the Quarter of October 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006? Describe the Worker Visitation with the Child in Out-of-Home Placement During the Quarter of October 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006? Reunification within 12-Months * Categorized Time from Case Open to Entry Date (months) Reunification Within 12-Months * Categorized Age at Entry (years)

Page
21 22 25 26 32 34 35 37 40 41 68 75

Crosstabulation 13: Crosstabulation 14: Crosstabulation 15: Crosstabulation 16: Crosstabulation 17: Crosstabulation 18: Crosstabulation 19: Crosstabulation 20:

75 76 77 80 81 82 83 84

Crosstabulation 21: Crosstabulation 22: Crosstabulation 23:

85 90 91

2

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 3 of 204

Item
Crosstabulation 24: Crosstabulation 25: Crosstabulation 26: Crosstabulation 27: Crosstabulation 28: Crosstabulation 29: Crosstabulation 30: Crosstabulation 31: Crosstabulation 32: Crosstabulation 33: Crosstabulation 34: Crosstabulation 35: Crosstabulation 36: Crosstabulation 37: Crosstabulation 38: Crosstabulation 39: Crosstabulation 40: Crosstabulation 41: Crosstabulation 42: Crosstabulation 43: Crosstabulation 44: Crosstabulation 45: Crosstabulation 46: Crosstabulation 47: Crosstabulation 48: Crosstabulation 49: Crosstabulation 50: Crosstabulation 51: Crosstabulation 52 Crosstabulation 53: Crosstabulation 54: Crosstabulation 55: Crosstabulation 56 Crosstabulation 57: Crosstabulation 58: Crosstabulation 59: Crosstabulation 60: Crosstabulation 61:

Title
Reunification Within 12-Months * Child's Gender Reunification Within 12-Months * Child's Ethnicity * Child's Race Reunification Within 12-Months * Reason for Child's Removal from Home Reunification Within 12-Months * Aggregated Reasons for Child Entry Reunification Within 12-Months * Primary Placement Type Reunification Within 12-Months * How Many Placement Settings Did Child Have During the Episode Ending in Fourth Quarter 2006 Reunification? Reunification Within 12-Months * Did SW Manage the Case so that Reunification and a Concurrent Goal were Both Actively Pursued? Reunification within 12-Months * Was Visitation Between Parent/Guardian and Child Increased in Frequency and Duration as Case Progressed Toward Child's Exit from Placement? Reunification within 12-Months * Was Visitation Between Parent/Guardian and Child Progressed so that Supervision was Reduced to Unsupervised, then Overnight Visits Prior to Child's Exit from Placement? Reunification within 12-Months * Were Intensive In-Home Services (IICAPS, IFP, MST, BSF-MST) Implemented to Support Reunification of this Child? Reunification within 12-Months * CM.1 Do SC Notes Indicate that SWS/SW Discussed Risks Factors Relevant to Ensuring Safe/Stable Reunification During 6-Month Period Leading to Fourth Quarter 2006 Reunification? Reunification within 12-Months * Overall Quality of Supervision Reunification within 12-Months * Child's Legal Status Immediately Prior to Discharge Reunification within 12-Months * Area Office Assignment Reunification within 12-Months * In Reviewer's Opinion was Reunification in the Best Interest of the Child at This Time? Reunification within 12-Months * Overall Quality of Case Practice During Episode Ending in 4Q2006 Reunification Time Between Dates of Entry and TPR Filing * Child's Age on Entry Date Time Between Dates of TPR Filing and TPR Granted * Child's Age on Entry Date Child's Length of Stay * Child's Age on Entry Date Adoption Within 24 Months * Child's Age on Entry Date Adoption Within 24 Months * Child's Age on Adoption Date Adoption Within 24-Months? * Child's Gender Adoption Within 24-Months? * Child's Ethnicity * Child's Race Adoption Within 24-Months? * Was this the First Placement Episode Experienced by this Child? Adoption Within 12-Months? * For How Long Had Adoption been the Primary Permanency Goal for this Child as of the Date Child's Fourth Quarter 2006 Adoption was Finalized? Child's Length of Stay * Time from Entry to Date of TPR Filing Adoption Within 24-Months? * Time from TPR Filing to TPR Granted Adoption Within 24-Months * Time from TPR Granted to Adoption Finalized Was this Adoption Resource a Legal Risk Home? * Time from Entry Date to TPR Filing Adoption Within 24-Months? * Was this Adoptive Resource a Legal Risk Home? Adoption Within 24-Months? * Total Placements During Placement Episode? Adoption Within 24-Months? * Did this Home Originally Provide Foster Care for this Child but Ultimately Decided to Adopt? Adoption Within 24-Months? * Overall Quality of Supervision Adoption Within 24-Months? * Area Office Assignment Adoption Within 24-Months? * Overall Quality of Case Practice During Placement Episode Ending in Fourth Quarter 2006 Adoption TOG Within 24-Months? * Time from Case Open to Entry Date? TOG Within 24-Months? * Age at Entry? TOG Within 24-Months? * Age at TOG?

Page
91 91 92 93 93 94 94 95 95 95 96 97 97 98 98 99 102 102 103 103 103 104 105 105 106 106 107 107 108 108 109 109 110 111 111 115 115 115

3

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 4 of 204

Item
Crosstabulation 62: Crosstabulation 63: Crosstabulation 64: Crosstabulation 65: Crosstabulation 66: Crosstabulation 67: Crosstabulation 68: Crosstabulation 69: Crosstabulation 70: Crosstabulation 71: Crosstabulation 72: Crosstabulation 73: Crosstabulation 74: Crosstabulation 75: Crosstabulation 76: Crosstabulation 77:

Title
TOG Within 24-Months? Child's Gender? TOG Within 24-Months? * Child's Ethnicity * Child's Race? TOG Within 24-Months? * Was this the First Removal Episode Experienced by this Child? TOG Within 24-Months? * Reason for Child's Entry into DCF Placement? TOG Within 24-Months? * Time from Entry Date to Identification of Eventual Guardian? TOG Within 24-Months? * Time from Entry Date to Placement with Eventual Guardian? TOG Within 24-Months? * Primary Placement (>50% of the Episode) TOG Within 24 Months? * Is There Evidence that Family Conferencing or Other Engagement Activities Were Attempted by DCF to Successfully Discharge Child from Care? TOG Within 24-Months? * For How Long Had TOG Been the Primary Permanency Goal for this Child as of the Date of Child's TOG Finalization? TOG Within 24-Months? * Area Office Assignment TOG Within 24-Months? * Overall Quality of Case Practice During Placement Episode Ending in Fourth Quarter 2006 TOG Fourth Quarter 2006 Statewide Sibling Status * Placement Outcome Fourth Quarter Age at Entry * Re.1. Did Child Come Back into DCF Custody at any Point in the 12-Month Period Following the Child's 3Q05 Legal Discharge D.7. Child's Race * D.8. Child's Ethnicity Pre.7. How Many Unique Placement Settings Did the Child Experience Within the Timeframe Between the Start Date (Pre.2) and the Last Placement End Date (Pre.6a)? * Re.1. Did Child Come Back into DCF Custody at Any Point in the 12-Month Period Following the Child's 3Q05 Legal Discharge Date? Pre.11. In What Placement Setting did this Child Spend the Majority of the Placement Episode * Re.1. Did Child Come Back into DCF Custody at any Point in the 12-Month Period Following the Child's 3Q05 Legal Discharge Date? Pre.13. Is There Evidence that Family Conferencing or Other Engagement Activities were Attempted by DCF in Working with this Family to Successfully Discharge Child from Care? * Re.1. Did Child Come Back into DCF Custody at any Point in the 12-Month Period Following the Child's 3Q05 Legal Discharge Date? Pre.14. Who Supervised the Majority of Visits between Child and Person to Whom Child was to be Discharged in the 6-Months Leading up to Child's Placement Exit? * Re.1. Did Child Come Back into DCF Custody at any Point in the 12-Month Period Following the Child's 3Q05 Legal Discharge Date? Post.1. How Many Months Did DCF Continue to have an Open Case with the Family Between the Child's 3Q05 Legal Discharge Date and 9/30/06? * Re.1. Did Child Come Back into DCF Custody at any Point in the 12-Month Period Following the Child's 3Q05 Legal Discharge Date? Pre.12. Did the Court Decide to Return the Child Contrary to DCF Recommendations? * Post 4.4 Were There Any Accepted Referrals to Hotline (Identifying This Child as a Victim) in the 12-Month Period Following Child's 3Q05 Legal Discharge? Post.8. Were Continued or New Support Services Identified for the PostDischarge Period to Increase the Likelihood of Successful Permanency? * Post .9. Were Identified Services Implemented? * Re.1. Did Child Come Back into DCF Custody at Any Point in the 12-Month Period Following the Child's 3Q05 Legal Discharge Date? Post.13. Considering All of the Factors and Your Review of the Post-Discharge Planning Work with the Family, How Would You Rate the Quality of DCF's After-Care Planning for this Child/Family? * Re.1. Did Child Come Back into DCF Custody at any Point in the 12-Month Period Following the Child's 3Q05 Legal Discharge Date?

Page
116 116 117 117 118 118 119 119 120 121 122 126 126 131 132 134

Crosstabulation 78: Crosstabulation 79:

135 136

Crosstabulation 80:

137

Crosstabulation 81:

139

Crosstabulation 82:

140

Crosstabulation 83:

142

Crosstabulation 84:

144

4

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 5 of 204

Item
Crosstabulation 85:

Title
D.12. Area Office to Which Child was Assigned During Placement Period Ending with 3Q05 Legal Discharge * Re.1. Did Child Come Back into DCF Custody at any Point in the 12-Month Period Following the Child's 3Q05 Legal Discharge Date? Pre6b. What was the Documented Placement Discharge Reason? * Re.1. Did Child Come Back into DCF Custody at any Point in the 12-Month Period Following the Child's 3Q05 Legal Discharge Date? * Pre.20. Were all Services/Supports Assessed as Necessary Provided to the Child/Family Prior to Legal Discharge? Post.4. Were there any Accepted Referrals to Hotline in the 12 Month Period Following Child's 3Q05 Legal Discharge? * Re.1. Did Child Come Back into DCF Custody at any Point in the 12 Month Period Following the Child's 3Q05 Legal Discharge date? * Post.5. Were Any of these Referrals Substantiated? Race (Child or Family Case Named Individual) * Ethnicity (Child or Family Case Named Individual) For Child in Placement, Has TPR Been Filed? * Has Child's Length of Stay Exceeded the 15 of the Last 22 Month Benchmark Set by ASFA? How Many Consecutive Months has this Child Been in Out-of- Home Placement as of the Date of this Review or Date of Case Closure during the Period? * Has this Child Experienced More than Three Placements in the 12 Months Ending 12/31/06? Was the overcapacity the result of sibling group placement? * For how long was the placement(s) overcapacity during the quarter? Were there Monthly Face-to-Face Visits Documented for this Child in Placement During the Quarter of Review? * During these Visits, Did the SW Meet with the Child in Private? (alone) Did DCF Social Worker Have Documented Private Contact/Conversations with the Foster Parent/Provider During the Quarter * Did the DCF Social Worker Document that the Discussion with the Placement Provider Included Conversation Related to the Child's Well-Being and Any Services in Place at That Time? Did the Child in Placement or Placement Provider Request Assistance with Service Provision, Clothing, or Other Necessary Item? * If Yes, Did the SW Document His/Her Follow Through with Assistance or Information in a Timely Manner? Module Number * Was this class held? What was the location of training offered * Was this class held? Did the FASU Support Worker document any visits to this home during the quarter of Oct 1, 2006 through Dec 1, 2006? * Has this provider attended any foster parent trainings in the year of Jan 1, 2006 through Dec 31, 2006? Does this date (d6) place the foster care provider within the initial post licensure training period requirement or subsequent year training requirement * Has this provider attended any foster parent trainings in the year of January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006? Does the record indicate that a support plan was developed or updated to identify the training needs at any point during the period beginning January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006? * Has this provider attended any foster parent trainings in the year of January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006? Does this date (d6) place the foster care provider within the initial post licensure training period requirement or subsequent year training requirement? * Was this provider licensed/re-licensed during the period of January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 without documentation that they had completed the required number of foster parent training hours? What is the race? * Ethnicity Did the SW document any concerns related to the child(ren) safety or wellbeing during the quarter ending December 31, 2006? * Did the SW raise these concerns to the SWS for case direction? Average ages of Children at Junctures Within the Timeline to Adoption for Children with Episodes that Met/Did Not Meet the Standard for Timely Adoption

Page
145

Crosstabulation 86:

146

Crosstabulation 87:

147

Crosstabulation 88: Crosstabulation 89: Crosstabulation 90:

153 154 155

Crosstabulation 91: Crosstabulation 92: Crosstabulation 93:

158 159 160

Crosstabulation 94:

161

Crosstabulation 95: Crosstabulation 96: Crosstabulation 97: Crosstabulation 98:

167 168 170 171

Crosstabulation 99:

172

Crosstabulation 100:

172

Crosstabulation 101: Crosstabulation 102: Graph 1:

176 179 104

5

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 6 of 204

Item
Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16: Table 17: Table 18: Table 19: Table 20: Table 21: Table 22: Table 23: Table 24: Table 25: Table 26: Table 27: Table 28: Table 29: Table 30: Table 31: Table 32: Table 33: Table 34: Table 35: Table 36: Table 37: Table 38: Table 39: Table 40: Table 41:

Title
Case Sample Assignments for OM1 and OM2 Case Review Allegations Identified within the 100-Case Sample Rank Scores within the 100 Case Sample of Investigations Accepted October 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006 Second Quarter 2007 Sample based on March 1, 2007 Caseload Universe Causes for DCF Involvement on Date of Most Recent Case Opening What is the Primary Reason Cited for Case Opening/Reopening? What is the Child or Family's Stated Permanency Goal on the Most Recent Approved Treatment Plan in Place During the Period Participation and Attendance Rates for Active Case Participants within the Sample Set Measurements of Treatment Plan OM 3 ­ Number of Percent of Rank Scores for All Cases Across All Categories of OM 3 Measurements of Treatment Plan OM 3 ­ Number and Percent of Rank Scores for Out-of-Home (CIP) Cases Across All Measurements of Treatment Plan OM 3 ­ Number and Percent of Rank Scores for In-Home Family Cases Across All Categories Scoring of Categorical Sections of Outcome Measure 15 Measurements of Treatment Plan OM 15 ­ Percentage and Ranks Scores Attained Across All Categories Unmet Service Needs Identified within the Sample Set Cases What was the Primary Barrier that Prevented Families or Children from Having Their Medical, Dental, Mental Health or Other Service Need Met Service Needs Not Incorporated into the Current Treatment Plan Compliance with OM 4 within Each of the Area Office Locations Area Office Assignment Case Practice Issues for Open Cases in the Period Leading Up to the July 2006 Incident Substantiations for the First Incident/Episode Reported Placement Settings of Children Maltreated in Out-of-Home Care Universe (N=327) and Sample Set (n=81) Designation by Area Office Length of Stay Prior to Reunification Universe (N=131) and Sample Set (n=80) Designation by Area Office Children's Length of Stay During Placement Episode Ending with Fourth Quarter 2006 Adoption Universe (N=106 and Sample Set (n=80) Designation by Area Office Categorized Length of Stay for Children Achieving TOG During the Period? Fourth Quarter 2006 Combined Clinical Reasons Distribution of Sample by Area Office Designation Reasons for Entry into DCF Custody for Episode Ending Third Quarter Top 10 Services in Place for the Child during the Period Leading up to the Legal Discharge in the Third Quarter 2005? Conditions or Issues Which Required the Case to Remain Open for All or Part of the 12-Month Period Post-Discharge Included Barriers to Providing Post Discharge Services Post Discharge Service Needs Not Addressed at Point of Discharge Reasons for Child's Re-entry without Substantiation of Abuse or Neglect Area Office Distribution within the Sample Set (n=256) Cause for DCF Involvement at Date of Most Recent Case Opening Prior to December 31, 2006 What is the Child or Family's Stated Permanency Goal on the Most Recent Approved Treatment Plan in Place during the Period? Has this Child Experienced More than Three Placements in the 12-Months Ending 12/31/06? How Many Placements Has this Child Experienced During This 12-Month Period? Statistics Related to Visitation by DCF, ICPC or Identified Private Provider within the 256 Sample Set.

Page
18 19 25 30 32 33 34 36 39 39 39 42 43 44 45 46 65 71 73 74 86 89 97 101 110 114 120 125 130 133 138 141 143 143 147 151 152 153 154 155 159

6

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 7 of 204

Item
Table 42: Table 43: Table 44: Table 45: Table 46: Table 47: Table 48: Table 49: Table 50: Table 51: Table 52: Table 53: Table 54: Table 55: Table 56: Table 57:

Title
Did the DCF Social Worker Advise FASU or the PREU of Any Serious Concerns Arising as a Result of Visits at the Provider Location? Overall Rank Score for the Quality of Visitation Comparison of Quality of Visitation with In-Home and Out of Home Sample Sets Foster Care Providers by Area Office How many hours of training are documented for this foster parent in the period of October 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006? Area Office Distribution of OM 17 Sample Set (n=250) Number of Cases with 2 or More Successful Worker Visitation (In-Home) Visits the SW made with the family Oct 1, 2006 through Oct 31, 2006? Visits the SW made with the Nov 1, 2006 through Nov 30, 2006? Visits the SW made with the family Dec 1, 2006 through Dec 31, 2006? Overall Quality of Visitation Caseload Report on December 31, 2006 Workers Exceeding OM18 Utilization by Area Office and Number of Days in Excess on December 31, 2006 All Children in Placement (excluding Committed Delinquent status CIP) on December 17, 2006 Outcome Measure 20, Discharged Youth who Achieved One or More Achievement Measures, by DCF Office Specific Achievement Measures Met by Discharged Youth, N=44

Page
161 163 163 165 170 175 176 178 178 179 181 183 184 187 192 193

7

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 8 of 204

Juan F. v Rell 2006 Comprehensive Targeted Review
U

Introduction The Revised Juan F. Exit Plan requires that the "Court Monitor will conduct case reviews to produce annual reports documenting the Department of Children and Families' performance and progress toward achieving the Outcome Measures defined within this Exit Plan, except Outcome Measures 3 and 15 for which there will be separate quarterly case record reviews. The annual report concerning 2006 data will include a synopsis of the quantitative data provided by DCF in the third and fourth quarters of the calendar year of 2006 as well as the quantitative and qualitative findings from the research questions documented in the attached addendum document. . . . Subsequent annual reports will include a synopsis of the quantitative data provided by DCF as well as the quantitative and qualitative findings for those subsequent calendar years from the research questions documented in the attached addendum document."
U U

On March 23, 2006 the Court Monitor submitted an overall methodological outline for the Comprehensive Annual Review to the Juan F. parties. Initially, Outcome Measure 5, Outcome Measure 6, Outcome Measure 12, Outcome Measure 16 and Outcome Measure 17 were slated for only quantitative analysis given the verified accuracy of data. However, upon reconsidering the reporting requirements, and to provide the most informative reporting to the parties, the Monitor added these measures to the qualitative reporting schedule. The Court Monitor's Office then began preparations to conduct the reviews with the input of all parties and with the assistance of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The TAC was identified as a component in the Revised Monitoring Order dated October 12, 2005. Each of the measures was approached systematically with the development of protocols and methodologies which were submitted to each party with sufficient opportunity to comment and contribute to the development of the review process.
U U U U

To accommodate fiscal and resource restraints within the allotted timeframes, changes were made to the sampling populations. On December 12, 2006, the Court Monitor proposed changes to the methodology of the 2006-2007 Comprehensive Targeted Case Review. The reductions in sampling methodology were identified as follows: · Outcome Measures 1 and 2 - Change sample size from ~238 to a sample of 100 · Outcome Measure 7 - Change sample size from ~160 to a sample of 80 · Outcome Measure 11 - Change sample size from ~191 to a sample of 68 · Outcome Measure 13 - Change sample size from ~237 to a sample of 70 · Outcome Measure 17 - Change sample size from ~249 to a sample of 100 All parties considered the suggested samples sufficiently robust for evaluating the qualitative aspects of each of the measures. All quantitative data for these identified Outcome Measures was reviewed on numerous occasions, with query logic verified and corrections implemented as required. Those measures that presented with persistent data quality issues over the course of time since the Juan F. Revised Exit Plan was approved on July 11, 2006, were subject to review at more stringent confidence ratios and margin of errors. As the sample size and confidence level to review only qualitative data is not detailed in the Juan F. v Rell Revised Exit Plan and there is no controlling language regarding qualitative reviews, a Court Order was not required related to these methodological changes.
U U U U

8

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 9 of 204

This unprecedented review of approximately 2,500 cases provided a unique opportunity to analyze the Department's progress with respect to the Outcome Measures and consider the expectations that we place on DCF as an organization. This review confirms that tremendous progress has been made and sustained for many of the 22 Outcome Measures, but important work remains to ensure that children permanency, well-being and service needs are effectively addressed. A separate Executive Summary of the 2006 Comprehensive Targeted Review has been prepared due to the lengthy nature of this document. Copies of the protocols utilized for the review are not incorporated via addendum due to the volume of paperwork this would require. These documents are available upon request. Acknowledgements The Court Monitor would like to acknowledge the continued collaborative efforts of the Juan F. parties in developing this review process and the consultations provided by the TAC. Specifically I wish to acknowledge the following individuals who contributed to the development, training, review, data collection, analysis and drafting of this document:
DCF Personnel Kathy Acosta Debra Collins Liz Cyr Janet Gonzalez Juliann Harris Marcy Hogan Doug Howard Allon Kalisher Stanley Kasanowski Wanda Ladson Maxine McIntyre Jorge Martinez Fred North Barbara O'Connell Linda Raitt, RN Kim Somaroo-Rodriguez Sandra Tapia Isabel Turmeque Joan Twiggs Rynep VanEldik Maribel Vazquez Lynette Warner DCF Central Office Administration Lou Ando Rudy Brooks Darlene Dunbar Susan Hamilton Karl Kemper Brian Mattiello Technical Advisory Committee Claire Anderson Linda Arnold Dick Matt Judith Meltzer

Monitor's Staff and Contracted Reviewers Mary Corcoran Charlene Fleming Tom Gallese Mary Ann Hartmann Susan Marks Roberts Melodie Peet Joni Beth Roderick Michelle Turco

Other Stakeholders Mark Horwitz CAFAP Juan F. Attorneys Stephen Frederick, Esq. Marcia Lowry, Esq. Ira Lustbader, Esq. Jessica Polansky, Esq. Ann Rubin, Esq.

9

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 10 of 204

A number of overarching findings emerged from the targeted reviews conducted over the last six months. The findings confirm the sustained improvements in many areas of case practice that have been highlighted during the course of our quarterly reports. The reviews offered insight into areas where progress has not been adequate, or quality of the work requires continued improvement. Each of the targeted reviews presents a series of findings that pertain to the specific focus of that Outcome Measure. These findings are narrated within each corresponding chapter within this document. In addition, there are a number of overarching findings that span many, if not all of the measures. These are presented as collective findings below: Collective Findings · The results from the targeted review of approximately 2,500 cases confirm the tremendous progress and improvement in fundamental areas of case practice that has occurred over the course of the past three years. The Department has elevated its practice in key areas such as: o Visitation contact o Timely permanency outcomes for children o Provision of Multidisciplinary Exams (MDE) for children, o Timeliness of investigations o Increased emphasis on kinship resource searches, o Reduction of residential care placements, particularly those out of state o Improved educational/vocational outcomes for youth discharged after age 18 · Despite impressive improvements referenced above, the Department has not been successful in two significant and fundamental areas of practice: Treatment Planning and Needs Met. · Appropriate treatment planning remains areas of concern. The findings indicate that the Department is performing considerably lower than the benchmarks set within the Juan F. Revised Exit Plan. In spite of increased training, resources and numerous initiatives to focus the work, treatment plans are regularly developed without the full participation of the active case participants and often lack: · Clear focused goals for the child in placement and/or family · Inclusive action steps for the active case participants, providers and DCF, · Identification of progress related to the goals set in place during the prior six months This is not to say that treatment planning has not shown some improvement. Several areas of the treatment plan assessment have made gradual progress since implementation of the format currently in use. Further, progress has been noted due to the statewide implementation of the Family Conference (FC) model which places the focus on appropriate engagement and empowerment of families. While there is evidence that this process now has a foothold within many area offices, much more work is required to achieve system-wide competency and consistent utilization of this practice.
U U

·

System gridlock exists in the treatment and placement service array creating a barrier to meeting children and families' needs. Discharge delays routinely occur at emergency departments (ED), group homes, residential treatment facilities, SAFE homes, and 10

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 11 of 204

STAR/Shelter programs. There is a tremendous need for all levels of foster care and adoptive resources. Wait lists for in-home services and outpatient mental or behavioral health services exist for most area offices. · The permanency outcome measures (OM7, OM8, and OM9) have been maintained at or above the Exit Plan requirement for three consecutive quarters. However, while the Department has greatly improved its performance in achieving timely permanency, these measures are predicated on exit cohorts. Of those children that remain in the system, many have the non-preferred goal "Another Planned Living Arrangement" (APPLA) and are languishing in the system with insufficient focus on development of connections to lifelong resources, and inadequate life skills training and discharge planning. More focused attention and actions must be taken on behalf of these children. Given the success of the Department in achieving fundamental quantitative changes required by the Exit Plan benchmarks, attention must now focus on improving the quality of efforts. The targeted review findings suggest numerous opportunities for continued development and improvement. Continuous quality improvement must be emphasized at all levels of the Department. Each targeted review identified the Social Work Supervisor (SWS) as a critical component to producing positive outcomes for children and families. Competent guidance and support is required to navigate the multiple tasks required on the path to permanency and well-being. In every area measured, reviewers identified accurate assessment, discussion of risk, development of action steps, and follow through within the supervisory process as keys to successful outcomes. Appropriate use of the Area Resource Group (ARG) and external consultants in situations of substance abuse, mental health issues and domestic violence remains inconsistent across the cases sampled. There were many opportunities for ARG consultations that were not utilized - resulting in less robust assessment of risk and safety and less effective treatment planning. The culmination of these review efforts provides confirmation that the automated reports produced by the Department for the Exit Plan Outcome Measures accurately represent the levels of performance. Given the repeated confirmation and verification of the quantitative results for the majority of the measures, attention must now be focused on developing qualitative methodologies for analyzing system strengths and opportunities for development. The Court Monitor's future reviews will focus on targeted areas of concern related to meeting the needs of children and families. The overwhelming expectations and complexities facing DCF staff were noted by reviewers throughout this process. The current workload, especially for the SW and SWS level staff must be analyzed and considered in the context of producing positive outcomes. Increasing expectations to meet multiple, overlapping, focused and unfocused, funded and unfunded mandates are compounded by layers of responsibility and new labor intensive processes. An unmanageable workload will result in inefficient efforts by DCF

·

·

·

·

·

11

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 12 of 204

on behalf of children and families. Left unchecked, this will create a situation that will threaten the progress that has been achieved. The following chart provides an overview of the timeframes and populations from which all samples were drawn, as well as our qualitative findings for that measure. Further, the Monitor's Juan F. v. Rell Exit Plan Quarterly Report: April 1, 2007 ­ June 30, 2007 includes a table which provides the longitudinal data for each of the fourteen quarters that have been reported to date.

12

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 13 of 204

Monitor's Comprehensive Qualitative Report ­ Findings at a Glance
Outcome Measure OM1: Investigation Commencement OM2: Investigation Completion OM3: Treatment Plans OM4: Search for Relatives OM5: Repeat Maltreatment OM6: Maltreatment in Out-ofHome (OOH) Care OM7: Reunification OM8: Adoption OM9: Transfer of Guardianship OM10: Sibling Placement OM11: Re-Entry into DCF Custody OM12: Multiple Placements Requirement 90% 85% 90% 85% 7% 2% 60% 32% 70% 95% Baseline N/A 73.7% N/A 58% 9.3% 1.2% 57.8% 12.5% 60.5% 57.0% Universe All reports accepted at the Hotline during the period of Oct 1, 2006 ­ Oct 31, 2006 (N= 2,387) All reports accepted at the Hotline during the period of Oct 1, 2006 ­ Oct 31, 2006 (N =2,387) 2nd Qtr 2007 ACR schedule
P P

Sample 100 reports 100 reports 76 cases 196 children 134 children: (67 w/ repeat and 67 w/ no repeat) 27 children: (12 w/maltreatment and 15 w/no maltreatment) 71 Children 80 Children 80 Children 604 Children (all identified siblings with change in placement or new entry) 113 Children (55 children w/ re-entry date, and 58 children w/ no re-entry date) 256 Children

Findings 97.0% 95.0% 30.3% 94.4% 7.6% 0.18% 64.8% 27.5% 76.3% 85.5%

7%

6.9%

85%

N/A

All children that entered DCF custody during the period of April 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006. (N=737) All children that experienced substantiated abuse or neglect during the month of July 2006. (N= 876) All children that were in out of home placement during the 3rd Qtr 2006. (N=6,688) All children discharged via adoption from DCF custody during the 4th Qtr 2006 (N=131) All children discharged from care to reunification during the 4th qtr 2007 (N=327) All children that were discharged from DCF custody during the quarter of Oct 1, 2006 through Dec 31, 2006. (N=106) New sibling entries and changes in sibling placement within full population of all siblings in placement during 4th Qtr 2006. (N=2,333 children) All children that were discharged from DCF custody during the quarter of July 1, 2005 through Sept 30, 2005 (excluding Voluntary Service Placements) (N=639) All children in DCF custody for at least 30 days in the 4th Qtr 2006 (excluding voluntary, interstate and probate cases (N=5,808)
P P P P P P P P P P

8.6%

95.3%

13

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 14 of 204

Monitor's Comprehensive Qualitative Report ­ Findings at a Glance
Outcome Measure OM13: Foster Parent Training OM14: Placement within Licensed Capacity OM15: Children and Families' Needs Met OM16: OOH Visitation OM17: In-Home Visitation OM18: Caseload Standards OM19: Residential Reduction OM20: Discharge Measures Requirement 100% 96% Baseline N/A 94.9% Universe All licensed foster homes available to the Department on December 31, 2006. (N=3,723) All children in DCF custody for at least 30 days in the 4th Qtr 2006 (excluding voluntary, interstate and probate cases.) .(N=5,808) 2nd Qtr 2007 ACR schedule
P P P P

Sample 75 Foster Homes 202 Children

Findings Qualitative Findings do not translate to a score. 90.1%

80% 85% (Month) 100% (Qtr) 85%

N/A 72.0% 87.0% N/A

76 cases 256 Children

51.3% 99.4% (Month) 99.2% (Qtr) 89.2%

100% 11% 85%

69.2% 13.5% 61.0%

All children in DCF custody for at least 30 days in the 4th Qtr 2006 (excluding voluntary, interstate and probate cases). (N=5,808) All in-home treatment cases open 30 days or more as of December 31, 2006 (excluding probate, interstate and voluntary cases). (N=737) All open cases during 4th qtr 2006: 17,622 cases distributed among 1,340 workers. (including 170 trainees) All children in placement on Dec 31, 2006.
P P P P

250 Families

N/A N/A 70 Youth

100.0% 11.0% 100.0%

OM21: Discharge to Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS)/Department of Mental Retardation (DMR) OM22: Multi Disciplinary Exams (MDE)

100%

N/A

85%

5.6%

All youth, 18 years of age or older, discharged from care 4th Qtr, 2006. Excluding from Juvenile Justice, Interstate, Probate, and Voluntary cases opened for the sole purpose of making monetary payments on behalf of the youth. (N=70) All youth, 18 years of age or older, discharged from care 4th Qtr, 2006 and who require discharge to DMHAS or DMR. Excludes Juvenile Justice, Interstate, Probate, and Voluntary cases opened for the sole purpose of making monetary payments on behalf of the youth. (N=29) All Juan F. children entering care for the first time and reaching 30 days in placement during the 4th quarter. (N=388)
P P P P P P

29 Youth

97.0%

21 children identified as noncompliant with OM22

96.9%

14

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 15 of 204

Outcome Measure 1: Commencement of Investigations and Outcome Measure 2: Completion of Investigations Overview The Juan F. v Rell Revised Exit Plan requires two performance benchmarks related to child protective service investigations. They are Outcome Measure 1: Commencement of Investigations and Outcome Measure 2: Completion of Investigations. The requirements of these two measures are defined as follows: Outcome Measure 1: Commencement of Investigations requires that, "DCF shall assure that at least 90% of all reports of children alleged to be abused, or neglected, shall be prioritized, assigned and the investigation shall commence within the timeframes specified below. If the report of child abuse or neglect is determined by the DCF Hotline to be... A. A situation in which failure to respond immediately could result in the death of, or serious injury to a child , then the response time for commencing and investigation is the same calendar day Hotline accepts the report. B. A non-life threatening situation that is severe enough to warrant a 24 hour response to secure the safety of the child and to access the appropriate and available witnesses, then the response time for commencing an investigation is 24 hours. C. A non-life threatening situations that, because of the age or condition of the child, the response time for commencing an investigation is 72 hours." In definitions within the Juan F. v Rell Revised Exit Plan document, the "commencement of the investigation" occurs when the DCF investigator attempts to make face-to-face contact with the parent or person responsible for the child's care, and or with the child(ren)". The "attempt at face-to-face contact" is made "when the investigator visit the home, school or other setting in an effort to interview the child(ren) and family members regarding the allegation of abuse or neglect." (See DCF Policy 34-4) The Department has reported achievement of this measure every quarter since the Fourth Quarter 2004. This review found 97.0% of the case sample (n=100) met Outcome Measure 1 as the response time achieved within the investigation was within the priority established for response at Hotline. This is consistent with the Department's reported performance for this measure. Outcome Measure 2: Completion of the Investigation requires that "at least 85% of all reports of alleged child maltreatment accepted by the DCF Hotline shall have their investigations completed within 45 calendar days of acceptance by the Hotline. Guidelines within the Exit Plan document indicate that completion of the investigation occurs only after the DCF SWS verifies the determination of substantiation or nonsubstantiation and enters that in LINK via the SWS approval of the investigation.

15

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 16 of 204

The Department has reported achievement of Outcome Measure 2 consistently since the fourth quarter 2004. Our quantitative findings indicate that 95.0% of the reports accepted for investigation within our sample had investigations completed within 45 days of the date of acceptance at Hotline. Of those four cases not achieving the benchmark performance, the completion was documented at 51, 53, 54 and 55 days from date of acceptance. This is consistent with the Department's LINK reporting for this measure. Review Findings and Trends: The reviewers identified that 69% of the cases within the sample incorporated a majority of the elements of the risk assessment component measured, but that only 43% incorporated all expected policy elements. The latter issue may be one of disparity of standards for documentation which vary slightly office by office rather than poor practice. Overall rankings of the quality of the investigations resulted in 49.0% at a very good or optimal level, 40% at a marginal level, 10% at a poor level and 1.0% scored as adverse. There are data elements of the protocol left blank in many cases. Most frequently this was related to descriptive data elements, services, and notification. In some cases, this deficit was overcome by text within the investigation protocol. In others it was not. While there are variations between area offices, the differences are more apparent when the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) conducts investigations. This unit appears to have different practice guidelines regarding the data elements that are filled out within the investigation protocol document. While 97.0% of the sample commenced investigations within the specified timeframe, actual contact with alleged child victims was 4.6 days. Investigators were most successful with the Same Day priority response, in that 92.9% of those cases had documented contact with the alleged victim on the same date of the acceptance. The 24 hour response and 72 hour response cases achieved contact with the alleged victim within the priority response designation in 54.1% and 47.0% respectively. In 94.0% of the sample there was documented contact with the child victim. In the six cases where there was no contact with the alleged victim, reviewers felt that circumstances preventing contact in all but one case were well documented and reasonable. In 97% of the sample, there was documented contact with the alleged perpetrator(s). In the three situations where there was no contact with the alleged perpetrator, the circumstances preventing contact were well documented and reasonable. Use of the Area Resource Group (ARG) in situations of substance abuse, mental health issues and domestic violence remains inconsistent across the investigations sampled. Reviewers felt that there were many opportunities for ARG consultations that were not

16

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 17 of 204

utilized - resulting in less robust assessment of risk and safety. Specifically, reviewers noted 17 cases for which they felt ARG consultation was required, and not included within the process. As a result, the risk assessments did not appear to be comprehensive and accurate. Key background and collateral contacts were not always documented. Fourteen percent of the cases did not have criminal background checks documented. Twenty percent did not document medical collateral contacts. Fifteen percent of the cases failed to incorporate interviews with other adult residents in the home where the alleged abuse took place. In 31.0% of the sample, service needs were identified by the Investigator but no follow up is documented upon disposition of the case. This potentially leaves a family that is not transferred to Ongoing Services no better informed or connected with resources available in the community then when they came to the Department's attention. In all, 88.7% of the reports with one specific incident date failed to identify that incident date in the appropriate data field. This can be a source of error when reporting on repeat maltreatment as the date of incident and report are often not the same. The majority of reports in this sample came from mandated reporters outside of the Department. In 74.7% of the cases reported by mandated reporters there was no indication of letters of notification to the reporter regarding the determination of abuse/neglect. Notification letters or contact with the alleged perpetrator to advise them of the investigation findings is poorly documented. In all, 42% of the sample lacked this documentation. For more details regarding each of these areas of measurement see the analysis within this chapter. Methodology The Monitor's Office created the tool for measurement of Outcome Measure 1 and Outcome Measure 2 with input of all parties in the fall of 2006. The parties agreed with a randomly selected sample of 100 cases. On October 2, 2006 the Monitor's Office requested the universe of all reports of abuse or neglect accepted at the Hotline during the period of October 1, 2006 through October 31, 2006. This allowed an opportunity to conduct a review verifying LINK data reporting related to Outcome Measure 1 and Outcome Measure 2 as well as to provide a universe from which to sample and review more qualitative practice elements regarding investigative practices. The Department provided data which identified 2,387 accepted, unduplicated reports during the quarter. A sample was selected from that universe comprised of reports assigned for investigation as follows:

17

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 18 of 204

Table 1: Case Sample Assignments for OM1 and OM2 Case Review
Office Bridgeport Danbury Greater New Haven Hartford Hotline (SIU) Manchester Meriden Middletown New Britain New Haven Metro Norwich Norwalk Stamford Torrington Waterbury Willimantic Statewide Frequency 10 5 9 13 4 7 4 4 8 5 3 8 3 4 7 6 100
U U

Percent of Sample 10.0 5.0 9.0 13.0 4.0 7.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 5.0 3.0 8.0 3.0 4.0 7.0 6.0 100.0
U U

The LINK record review was conducted over the first and second quarters of 2007. DCF Court Monitor review staff and DCF personnel assisted in the data collection efforts. A pilot test was conducted and necessary changes resulted to improve validity and reliability of scoring. Descriptive Information The sample of 100 reports provides the opportunity to assess compliance and qualitative elements of the work of 92 Investigation Social Workers (ISW) and 48 Investigation Social Work Supervisors (ISWS). Some sample demographics to note: · Overall, 78.0% of the sample was the result of a report by a mandated reporter. Of the 78 reports, five (5) were made by a DCF Social Worker's report to the Hotline. · Hotline assisted the area office in the initial response in 10 of the 100 cases. In 85 cases the area office made the initial response. In five situations, the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) was assigned and responded to the allegation. · Of the 100 reports, 24.0% resulted in a substantiation of abuse or neglect, with 21.0% transferred to Ongoing Services for case management. · Overall, there is a substantiation rate of 24.0% however this rate varies within each category of alleged abuse or neglect. This review captured the multiple subcategories that may be identified under each possible allegation category. A total of 195 individually identifiable allegations were noted. As shown in the table below the rate of substantiation varies within each category.

18

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 19 of 204

Table 2: Allegations Identified Within the 100-Case Sample
Category Educational Neglect Emotional Neglect Emotional Abuse/Maltreatment Medical Neglect Moral Neglect Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse Physical Neglect # of Subcategory Allegations # Substantiated within the Subcategory % Substantiated within the Subcategory

3 21 4 8 2 35 12 110

3 7 3 1 0 3 4 31

100.0% 33.3% 75.0% 12.5% 0.0% 8.6% 33.3% 28.2%

·

·

· ·

·

The majority of the cases involved reports within a family setting, with 89.0% of the cases being family oriented. Four reports are allegations against an entrusted caretaker, three are alleged to have occurred in a school setting and four were in out of home placement (three in residential and one in a foster home). Within the sample set, 83.0 % were the only report on the identified alleged perpetrator during the quarter. In 17 cases, there were additional accepted reports. Thirteen cases had one additional report during the quarter, three had two additional reports, and one residential facility had 9 additional reports during the quarter [and was subsequently the focus of Program Review and Evaluation Unit (PREU) activity]. All reports were merged or separately investigated in accordance with DCF policy expectations. Open Ongoing Service cases comprised 7.0% of the sample cases. An additional five cases were open in investigations at the point of acceptance of the report at the Hotline. Of the 100 reports accepted, 47 had two alleged perpetrators identified for a total of 147 alleged perpetrators. This includes 90 females and 57 males. The sample of alleged perpetrators is predominately white (86 individuals) and non-Hispanic (102 individuals) but also includes: 33 African Americans, 18 identified as Unable to Determine, 4 Unknown, 3 Asians and 3 cases in which no racial information was entered. Thirty-seven individuals were identified as Hispanic. 185 children were identified as alleged victims within the 100 reports investigated. There were 110 males and 75 females. Children ranged in age from birth to 17 years old. The most frequently reported age is multimodal in that ages 1, 6 and 16 are each represented 15 times. The mean average age is 8.8 years old.

19

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 20 of 204

Quantitative and Quantitative Analysis ­ Outcome Measure 1 The 100 reports were prioritized and assigned response times as follows: · Same Day: 14 Cases · 24 Hour Response: 37 Cases · 72 Hour Response: 49 Cases Only two of the accepted reports were subject to modification of response time designation by the Social Work Supervisor. In one instance the time was downgraded from same day to 24-hour response as the child was in the care of the non-custodial parent who agreed to keep the child safe in their care overnight after the close of the school day. The second case was upgraded from 24 hours to same day, but there was no clear rationale for that change documented. Of the 100 reports accepted at the Hotline, 98.0% had the date of acceptance at Hotline correctly documented in LINK. In two cases, the narrative clearly identifies earlier dates of the report to the Hotline, and investigation efforts prior to the date entered in the data field for acceptance. Time of day of the reporting appears to have little impact on the achievement of the measure. In all, 53.0% of reports accepted had one distinct incident resulting in the report to the Hotline, the remaining 47 cases did not have one incident date or issue reported but rather a culmination of incidents that were reported. Of note, 91.0% of the reports did not correctly identify the incident date (or in absence of one incident, the date of receipt of the report) in the appropriate LINK data field. It could be determined from text within the protocol what situation was reported, however, continued failure to use the appropriate LINK data field will impact the data reporting accuracy for repeat maltreatment outcome measures. Of the 100 reports accepted, 83% were the only report accepted for that alleged perpetrator during the Fourth Quarter. Thirteen cases had one additional report accepted and three cases had two additional reports accepted regarding that same alleged perpetrator during the quarter. In seven cases, the additional report came in within a seven day period of that selected for the sample and were merged into one investigation. The remaining ten cases had multiple investigations in progress during the quarter. One case involving a residential facility had nine reports accepted for investigation during the quarter. This facility was under PREU oversight at the time. The Hotline included LINK history within the CPS report transmitted for investigation in 95.5% of all cases with a documented history. There are no incidences of a "Screen Out" within the sample set. 95.0% of all investigations had a supervisory conference documented in the LINK narrative or within the CPS protocol narrative. Response time is based upon the "attempt" to make face-to-face contact with the alleged victim and perpetrator, and the Department has been consistently successful in these efforts throughout the last two years. This review also looked at the actual face-to-face

20

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 21 of 204

contact with both the alleged perpetrator and victim(s). All but one of the same day assigned cases had face-to-face contact with the alleged child victim on the same date of acceptance; the one case where face-to-face contact did not occur within the same day was achieved within 24 hours. Twenty of the cases assigned as 24 hour response time had documented face-to-face contact with the identified child(ren) within that timeframe. Of those assigned with 72 hour response time, and where contact was made, 23 cases documented actual contact with the identified child(ren) within the 72 hour timeframe. Overall, the Department has made good progress in timely contact as a result of improvements in commencement timeframes. The average time to contact within the sample is 4.6 days from the date of acceptance of the report. See Crosstabulation 1, below for full scope of contact. Crosstabulation 1: Priority Response Designation * Actual Timeframe to Face-toFace Contact with Child Victim
Actual Face-toFace Contact with Alleged Child Victim Same Day <3 Days 3-7 Days 8-14 Days >14 Days No Contact All Priority Response Designation (Incorporating Modifications where present) Same Day 24 Hours 72 Hours All Priority Levels 13 1 0 0 0 0 14 9 12 10 4 1 1 37 5 17 10 5 7 5 49 27 30 20 9 8 6 100

As indicated, six of the cases had no contact with the alleged child victim during the investigation. These included the following scenarios: · Child Age 6 ­ Case not substantiated. Mother and child left the state following domestic violence (DV) incident. They were believed to be in South Carolina. · Adolescent Age 17 ­ Case not substantiated. Prominent family. Child has anger management issues per parents report and is refusing counseling/therapy. According to the mother's report, no one in the home is speaking with child since the incident in which the child received a swollen, cut lip. Parents indicated that neither the alleged victim nor her siblings wished to be interviewed. The ISW did not pursue a direct conversation with the adolescent as mother indicated she was afraid the adolescent would "blow up." · Adolescent Age 16 ­ Case not substantiated. Adolescent ran away from sister's home where she was residing after the sister indicated she could not handle her behaviors in a report to the Hotline. The adolescent returned to the sister's home and was taken back to mother in Virginia against DCF advice (long CPS history.) Virginia Interstate Compact refused to do a home study. The Judge approved revocation back to mother. The mother was provided with Virginia Social Services phone numbers to assist her with the child's acting out behaviors. · Child Age 12 ­ Case substantiated. This was an open DCF case in which educational neglect was alleged by the school. Medical issues were involved.

21

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 22 of 204

·

·

Parents were uncooperative and refused to meet with ISW or allow access to their children. The Ongoing Services SW also did not see child between the November 14, 2006 visit and January 25, 2007 visit as child was always "sick" and out of visual contact. The situation was resolved by February and child was attending school when case was closed. Adolescent Age 17 ­ SIU investigation of foster home was not substantiated. Adolescent chose to return to biological mother following the incident. ISW made one documented unsuccessful attempt to contact the adolescent. There was no follow up. The Court subsequently approved revocation. Child Age 1 ­ Case not substantiated. According to the neighbor interviewed, child and mother left their apartment for a DV shelter. Both "disappeared" into DV shelter system. The ISW attempted through maternal relatives and last known providers to get a location for the mother and child, but to no avail. Concerns were noted in that the grandfather was reporting frequent drug use when he last had contact. He was not aware of the present location of the mother and child.

Ninety-seven cases had documented face-to-face contact with the alleged perpetrator. In one additional case, where two alleged perpetrators were identified, the investigator only interviewed one of the alleged perpetrators. Reasons provided for a failure to interview the alleged perpetrator are: Domestic Violence situation - mother purportedly entered shelter and could not be located for interview; mother moved to South Carolina with child; and legal advisement of attorney. The crosstabulation below provides the approximate time to actual contact reported by the priority response designation. Crosstabulation 2: Priority Response Designation *Actual Timeframe to Face-toFace Contact with Alleged Perpetrators
Actual Face-toFace Contact with Alleged Perpetrator Same Day <3 Days 3-7 Days 8-14 Days >14 Days No Contact All Priority Response Designation (Incorporating Modifications where present) Same Day 24 Hours 72 Hours All Priority Levels 9 4 0 0 1 0 14 10 9 14 1 2 1 37 5 15 13 8 6 2 49 24 28 27 9 9 3 100

22

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 23 of 204

Quantitative and Quantitative Analysis - Outcome Measure 2: Completion of Investigation It is important to note that this review was conducted on practices prior to implementation of Structured Decision Making (SDM). Improvements to risk and safety assessments as a result of these new tools may already address some of the lapses in assessment reflected within our sample cases. In reviewing compliance with DCF policy expectations and practice guidelines, our review found strengths within the investigation practices, however there are also identified areas requiring improvement. Additionally, the ambiguity created by the Lovan C.1 case is reflected in some cases ­ including ISW's quoting pertinent sections of the finding within the determination section of the protocol document. With respect to the appeal process, six of the cases reviewed had requests for appeal regarding substantiation. In three cases, the appeal was upheld. In one case, the appeal resulted in the overturning of the substantiation. In two cases, the appeal process was still ongoing so it could not be determined at the point of review. Our review looked at a series of requirements regarding compliance with policy and assessment during investigations. We will highlight those we feel merit such attention. The full set is provided as an appendix document for your reference. The culmination of these data results in an overall score reflecting the overall quality of the investigation.

Lovan C. v Department of Children and Families is a case ruling from 2004 in which a 5 year old girl whose mother hit her with a belt 3 times, leaving a one inch bruise was reported to Department of Children and Families (DCF). The case was substantiated by DCF and upheld in a substantiation hearing. As a result, the mother's name was placed on the DCF confidential abuse/neglect registry. On appeal, the mother's attorney, challenged the agency's definition of "abuse", The Judge upheld the ruling. The case then moved to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court asked both parties to explain whether Conn. Gen. Stats. §53-18(1) and (2) applied to the circumstances of this case. The Appellate Court found it applied, and that parents maintain a common law right to use reasonable corporal punishment on their child. It further determined that the hearing officer was bound to consider a host of factors to assess the reasonableness of the parent's actions and not merely the fact that the action led to an injury. The court ruled that as minimal injury resulted, occurring in the absence of malice or ill motive, and the fact that the hearing officer found the mother was not a risk to children, it required DCF to remove the mother's name from the registry. The Court found that because parents in Connecticut have the right to use corporal punishment, hearing officers, when determining whether to place someone's name on the registry, must assess a host of factors regarding whether the abuse was reasonable corporal punishment.

1

23

Case 2:89-cv-00859-AHN

Document 538-2

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 24 of 204

The ranking scale used for our scoring set out the following expectations: Optimal Quality ­ 5 The reviewer finds evidence that all essential investigative requirements required by DCF policy are present in addition to a comprehensive assessment of needs conducted with appropriate referrals or information provided regardless of substantiation. Very Good Quality ­ 4 The reviewer finds evidence that all essential investigative requirements required by DCF policy are substantially present in addition to a comprehensive assessment of needs conducted with appropriate referrals or information provided regardless of substan