|
|
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has
conducted a performance audit of several areas related to Child Protective
Services (CPS). CPS is a program within the Department of Economic Security’s
Division of Children, Youth and Families (Division). This performance audit
specifically addresses a legislative request approved by the Joint Legislative
Audit Committee on August 9, 2001, and was conducted under the authority vested
in the Auditor General by A.R.S. §41-1279.03.
The legislative request asked auditors to
assess five issues: 1) the impact of funding provided to bring CPS caseloads
in-line with Child Welfare League of America standards by comparing average CPS
caseloads at June 30, 2001, to average caseloads at June 30, 2003, by type of
worker, office, and district; 2) the amount and type of training that new case
managers received in June 2001 and June 2003; 3) the adequacy of the
Department’s supervisory training and oversight; 4) the extent of concurrent
case planning; and 5) barriers to permanency. Concurrent case planning is a
permanency planning practice that simultaneously pursues both family
reunification and an alternate plan, such as adoption or legal guardianship,
with the intent of moving the foster child to a permanent placement more
quickly.
CPS provides or arranges for a variety of
services to achieve safety, well-being, and permanency for children, youth, and
families. These services include receiving reports about child abuse and neglect
through a state-wide, toll-free, 24-hour child abuse hotline, which anyone who
wants to report suspected abuse may use. CPS also investigates the allegations
and assesses the risk of harm to the children involved in these reports. When an
investigation results in a child being removed from his/her home, CPS places the
child in an approved foster care setting, such as with a relative or in a
licensed foster or group home. Within 72 hours of the removal, CPS must either
return the child to his/her home if it is safe to do so, or file a dependency
petition with the Juvenile Court to place the child in temporary state custody.
For cases in which a child has been removed from home and placed in foster care,
CPS usually develops a case plan with a permanency goal of reunification with
the family; but the goal can also be adoption, independent living, or long-term
foster care, as appropriate. In working with children and their families to
achieve the permanency goal, a case manager provides or arranges for services
such as medical, dental, and behavioral healthcare for the child, and counseling
for the child’s family.
Several changes needed to accurately
project case manager staffing needs
(see pages 9 through 21)
The Division’s average CPS case manager
caseloads were at or below 12 in both 2001 and 2003. However, the Division’s
budget request indicated that excessive caseloads were hindering CPS case
managers’ ability to effectively perform their jobs, and an additional 34 staff
were needed in fiscal year 2002 to bring caseloads in-line with the Child
Welfare League of America’s (CWLA) standards. The request for the additional
staff was funded by the Legislature starting in fiscal year 2002.1 There are
some limitations to making direct comparisons between average caseloads and the CWLA standards for two reasons. First, the Division uses three CWLA
standards—investigations, ongoing in-home, and ongoing out-of-home—to project
its staffing needs, but these standards do not correspond precisely with how
work is conducted in Arizona. Second, on October 6, 2003, subsequent to the
completion of audit work, CWLA changed its interpretation of its investigative
standard from 12 active cases at a point in time to 12 active cases in a month.
Despite these limitations, auditors were still able to compute average caseloads
before and after the additional staffing was added, and to compute the caseloads
by the different types of case managers. Auditors found that on June 30, 2001,
the Division’s average caseloads for the majority of CPS staff managing cases
was 11 or fewer cases. On June 30, 2003, the majority of CPS staff managing
cases had caseloads of 12 or fewer cases. However, the average caseloads for CPS
case managers working in investigative units was 15 cases due to a significant
increase in cases and several unfilled CPS case manager positions. Specifically,
since June 2001, the Division’s total overall caseload had increased by 30
percent, and in June 2003, the Division reported that 37 case manager positions
were unfilled. However, auditors identified 23 case managers working in
investigative units with between 30 and 82 cases, and interviewed several of
these staff and found that most of the cases had been investigated and just
needed to be closed on the system.
To ensure that it can accurately project
its CPS case manager staffing needs, the Division needs to modify its case
management system to allow it to classify cases according to caseload standards,
include in its caseloads only cases that are being actively worked by case
management staff, and include all staff who regularly manage cases. Because the
Division’s case management system does not allow it to classify cases according
to the three CWLA caseload standard types it uses (i.e., investigation, ongoing
in-home, and ongoing out-of-home), the Division must estimate some case types,
such as ongoing in-home cases. Auditors identified some errors in the Division’s
process for determining the number of cases it has. For example, auditors found
that 56 percent of the Division’s ongoing in-home cases in June 2003 were being
managed by case managers working in investigative units, and auditors’ research
suggests that many of these cases could be investigations that were completed
but not closed on the case management system. In addition, auditors found open
cases that were assigned to case managers who had long since left the Division,
and cases that were not assigned to any employee. Finally, auditors found that
the Division does not include some staff who regularly manage cases when
determining case manager staffing needs.
Despite average caseloads being 12 or
fewer, there are several indications that CPS case managers are not able to
effectively perform their jobs. For example, in the Division’s most current
semi-annual report (March 2003), it was noted that CPS case managers were able
to make the required monthly face-to-face visit with only 68 percent of the
children in out-of-home care. Auditors’ interviews with case managers suggested
that case manager turnover could be a contributing factor in some case managers
carrying high caseloads at certain times. As of May 2003, case manager turnover
was 14.6 percent. Therefore, the Division should work to address case manager
retention issues. The Division should also evaluate whether it can streamline
its processes and eliminate some case management tasks, and whether support
staff could handle some tasks currently performed by case managers. For example,
some case managers auditors interviewed characterized the amount of paperwork as
excessive and difficult to complete, and suggested that support staff could do
some of these administrative tasks.
The Division should also assess workload
factors to help determine how many cases Arizona case managers should carry
because CWLA’s standards are intended to be guidelines or starting points only,
which an agency may need to adjust to reflect its actual workload. The Division
used to regularly conduct formal workload analyses and adjust caseloads based on
workload factors, but indicated that this practice was discontinued 3 years ago
because it lacked the resources to maintain the process. Therefore, the Division
may want to consider assessing workload issues through other means. For example,
workload studies have been conducted in two states using methods other than
formal analyses, such as conducting focus groups, reviewing policy and
procedures, and “shadowing,” or observing, a sample of case managers.
Training hours have significantly
increased,
but other improvements needed
(see pages 23 through 28)
The Division’s revised training program
for new case managers has increased the amount and type of training new staff
receive, but it is not yet functioning as envisioned. The Division established
this new program, known as the Child Welfare Training Institute, in January 2002
because it felt its existing program did not provide sufficient training to help
develop skills. In addition, division budget documents indicate that case
managers were often not able to complete training because they were required to
handle cases during training, and that these problems affected its ability to
recruit and retain competent staff. The new training program costs approximately
$1.7 million annually, and allows the Division to maintain 47 trainee positions
that should not have to carry cases during training.1 Further, the Legislature
added a footnote to the General Appropriation Acts for fiscal years 2002 through
2004 that has the effect of law and reinforces the Division’s goal of not
assigning case responsibilities to new case managers before they complete the
training program.
The new training program has enhanced and
expanded the topics covered during the prior program, and it increases classroom
training by about 1 week and adds 25 days of structured field exercises, such as
observing court hearings as well as accompanying an experienced case manager on
an initial investigation and home visit. According to the Division, these
structured activities are designed to help the trainee transfer knowledge gained
from classroom instruction to the field. However, auditor interviews with 23
case managers and review of a letter written by 20 trainees found that the
Division should provide more practical classroom training for tasks such as
operating the Division’s computerized case management system, writing court
reports, making referrals for services, and conducting interviews. Further, even
though the Division envisioned the training program as a way to improve
retention, auditors’ analysis of the first nine training classes held between
January 2002 and October 2002 found that 8 percent of the trainees left before
they completed training, and 24 percent of the trainees left within 9 months of
completing it. Making the classroom training more practical may address some of
the retention problem; however, additional efforts may be needed. The Division
already asks departing employees to complete an exit interview, and it should
continue to use this instrument to identify the reasons new case managers leave
and develop potential solutions.
Finally, despite the legislative mandate
and division goal to not assign trainees caseload duties before they complete
training, the Division has assigned case responsibilities to some trainees.
Auditors’ analysis of several training classes found trainees were being
assigned case responsibilities. Because the practice of assigning caseload
responsibilities during training is a violation of current legislative mandate
and runs counter to the Division’s stated goal, the Division should establish a
written policy that prohibits trainees from being assigned as the primary or
only case manager on a case and clarifies that trainees may be assigned case
tasks only for training purposes. It should also ensure that all appropriate
individuals are informed of this policy, and monitor trainees’ work assignments.
Steps needed to improve case
manager supervisory oversight
(see pages 29 through 35)
Although supervisors provide primary case
manager oversight, several reviews showed insufficient supervision. Supervisors
provide primary oversight of the Division’s case managers through various
oversight and review processes, such as providing regular case consultation on
investigative and ongoing child abuse cases. For example, CPS supervisors must
review and approve every child removal decision. However, recent reviews
conducted by the Division, as well as by the Council on Accreditation (COA),
found inadequate supervisory oversight. As an example, a division internal
review conducted in December 2002 found supervisors had failed to fill out the
proper case record review guide in 42 to 71 percent of the different types of
cases reviewed. Division policy requires the supervisor to use this guide as a
checklist for ensuring that case managers adhere to multiple laws and policies.
Similarly, the COA found in an onsite review of the Division conducted between
August and November 2002 that supervisory oversight needed improvement, such as
monitoring family progress and providing the appropriate level of case
consultation.
The Division should take several steps to
improve supervisory oversight. The Division’s case manager-to-supervisor ratio
exceeds recommended Child Welfare League of America standards in two of the six
districts, although more work is needed to determine how to apply these
standards in Arizona. The Division could accomplish this by conducting focus
groups with supervisors state-wide to determine the current workload issues
impacting effective supervision, such as case manager turnover and experience
levels. If additional supervisors are needed, the Division should also take
steps to determine if existing resources could fund any new positions.
Further, the Division should take steps to
ensure that adequate supervisory training is a high priority because of the
supervisor’s critical role and because 33 percent of its supervisory staff is
relatively new and inexperienced. However, prior to the December 2002
implementation of the Division’s Child Welfare Training Institute revised
supervisor training curriculum, it failed to offer initial supervisor training
for more than 16 months. In addition, the Division has no regular training
program for existing supervisors. Other states, such as New Mexico and
Tennessee, require supervisors or managers to complete yearly
supervisor-specific continuing education classes to improve their competencies.
For example, Tennessee requires supervisors to take 40 hours of continuing
education with 24 hours of supervisor-specific training. Examples of course
offerings include organizational policies and practices for supervisors, and
interviewing techniques.
Efforts needed to further improve
children’s permanency outcomes
(see pages 37 through 43)
Many children nation-wide and in Arizona
remain in foster care for extended periods of time, despite the high costs of
foster care to both children and governments. The Division established
concurrent case planning as one strategy for improving foster care children’s
timely placement to permanent homes. Concurrent case planning is a permanency
planning practice that simultaneously pursues both family reunification and an
alternate plan, such as adoption or legal guardianship. Studies have found that
concurrent case planning can effectively shorten foster care stays. Although the
Division implemented a concurrent case planning policy in April 2001, both
external and internal CPS reviews since then have determined that concurrent
case planning was not being used, which was one factor hindering the children’s
timely placement.
Although the Division has developed a plan
to improve its implementation of concurrent case planning, further efforts are
needed for successful implementation. Specifically, the Division needs to
improve its concurrent case planning curriculum and ensure all appropriate
personnel receive the training. Auditors found that there are no practical
exercises on how to use concurrent case planning, and auditors observed that the
instructors for the training class did not discuss the assessment tool that
should be used to help determine whether this approach is appropriate for a
case.
The Division should also continue its
efforts to present information on concurrent case planning to stakeholders such
as foster home recruitment agencies, juvenile court judges, and the State Foster
Care Review Board (FCRB). According to the National Resource Center for Foster
Care and Permanency Planning, stakeholder support is necessary for the
successful implementation of concurrent case planning, and the agency must
inform the appropriate stakeholders of philosophical and organizational changes
for concurrent case planning. Thus far, the Division has presented information
about concurrent case planning to FCRB and the Committee on Juvenile Courts.
While the Division needs to improve its
implementation of concurrent case planning, it has taken efforts to increase
permanency by applying other best-practice techniques, and it should continue
these efforts. For example, auditors found that the Division has several units
designated solely for placing children in permanent homes, including general
adoption units that find permanent homes and help adoptive families obtain
services, and three specialized permanency units that focus specifically on
finding homes for special-needs children. 1 According to Joint
Legislative Budget Committee staff, the Division received enough monies to fund
these positions for three-quarters of fiscal year 2002, and this amount has
remained the same in subsequent fiscal years.
Read full report in Acrobat PDF format |
|
