-------------------------------------------------x

KENNY A., by his next friend,

)

Linda Winn; et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

SONNY PERDUE, in his official

)

capacity as Governor of the

)

State of Georgia; et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

-------------------------------------------------x

Civil Action No. 1: 02-CV- 1686-MHS

CONSENT DECREE

Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
2. DEFINITIONS …………………………………………............…................................... 1
3. PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................................... 3
4. PLANNING ....................................................................................................................... 5
A. For Children Entering Placement after the Entry of the Consent Decree .............. 5
B. For Children who have Reached their Sixth Month in Care after the Entry of the Consent Decree, and for the Remaining Period of Time While in DFCS Custody ………………………............………………...………. 7
C. For Children who Reach their Thirteenth Month in Care after the Entry of the Consent Decree, and for the Remaining Period of Time While in DFCS custody ………………...……………..............………...……..... 9
D. For Children who have Already Reached their Thirteenth Month in Care at the Time of the Entry of the Consent Decree.…..……............……….... 10
E. For all Children for whom Adoption has been Identified as the Goal …............. 10
F. For Children who Reach their Eighteenth Month in Care after the Entry of the Consent Decree, and Those who have been in Care for Eighteen Months or More upon Entry of the Consent Decree, and for the Remaining Period in Time while they are in DFCS Custody ……................ 11
5. PLACEMENT .................................................................................................................. 12
A. Identification of Needs and Placement Options ................................................... 12
B. Reimbursement Rates for Placements ..................................................................13
C. Ensuring that the Placement Process Secures the Most Appropriate Placement for All Children .................................................................................. 15
D. Visitation .............................................................................................................. 19
6. HEALTH SERVICES TO CHILDREN .......................................................................... 20
i

7. SINGLE STATEWIDE AUTOMATED CHILD WELFARE INFORMATION SYSTEM ............................................................................................. 22
8. CASELOADS .................................................................................................................. 22 9. SUPERVISION OF CONTRACT AGENCIES .............................................................. 23 10. TRAINING ...................................................................................................................... 25 11. FOSTER PARENT SCREENING, LICENSING, AND TRAINING ............................. 26 12. ABUSE IN CARE INVESTIGATIONS ......................................................................... 28 13. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS .............................................................................................. 30 14. MAXIMIZATION OF FEDERAL FUNDING ............................................................... 31 15. OUTCOME MEASURES ............................................................................................... 31 16. ACCOUNTABILITY ...................................................................................................... 38 17. ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................ 39 18. QUALITY ASSURANCE ............................................................................................... 42 19. DURATION OF DECREE ……………………………............……………………….. 42 20. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ................................................................................ 43 21. RELIEF FOR NAMED PLAINTIFFS ………………………………............………… 46 22. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION ………….............………. 47
ii

1. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs brought this class action lawsuit by the filing of a complaint on June 6, 2002, in the Superior Court of Fulton County, seeking declaratory and prospective injunctive relief against Defendants based upon alleged violations of constitutional and statutory rights arising out of the operation of foster care systems in Fulton and DeKalb Counties. Plaintiffs alleged both federal and state law claims. All Defendants joined in removing the case to this Court, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction and denying that their operation of the Fulton and DeKalb County foster care systems violated any constitutional or statutory guidelines.
In order to resolve all issues pending between these parties without the expense, risks, delays and uncertainties of a trial and any appeals that might follow such a trial, Plaintiffs and State Defendants agree to the terms of this Consent Decree as stated below. By entering into this Consent Decree, State Defendants do not admit to the truth or validity of any claim made against them by Plaintiffs. State Defendants also do not speak for the Georgia General Assembly, which has the power under Georgia law to determine the appropriations for the State’s programs for child welfare. However, State Defendants acting under their existing authority agree that it will be a condition of their conduct of the child welfare program covered by this Consent Decree to comply with the Consent Decree. If Plaintiffs seek a judicial remedy for State Defendants' noncompliance in accordance with Section 17 of this Consent Decree, and at any stage of subsequent enforcement proceedings State Defendants assert insufficient funds as a legal excuse, Plaintiffs may move to rescind their consent to the Consent Decree. State Defendants submit to the enforcement of this Consent Decree to the full extent permitted by law.
All parties acknowledge that the Court has jurisdiction over this case and authority to enter this Consent Decree and to enforce its terms. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree in accordance with its terms.
2. DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSENT DECREE
For purposes of this Consent Decree, the following terms have the meaning indicated below.
A. “Adoptive placement” means the interval during which a child is placed with a prospective adoptive family following the signing of the appropriate adoptive placement agreement form, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court.
B. “Business days” mean every day except Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 1-4-1.
C. “Calendar days” mean every day including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.
1

D. “Child” or “children” or “class member children” or “class members” shall mean a child or children who have been, are, or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of any of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS.
E. “Commissioner” means the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Human Resources.
F. “Corporal punishment” means any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain.
G. “Day” or “days” mean calendar days unless otherwise indicated.
H. “DeKalb DFCS” means the DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services.
I. “DFCS” when used alone means State DFCS.
J. “DHHS” means the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
K. “DHR” means the Georgia Department of Human Resources.
L. “Discipline or Other Serious Foster Care Violation” means and includes those acts or situations by the caregiver that pose an immediate or potential risk to the safety or well-being of the child in care. These may include, but are not limited to, inappropriate disciplinary measures (both physical/corporal and emotional), violations of supervision or other safety requirements that pose serious risk factors to the child.
M. “EPSDT” means the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program for individuals under 21 years of age contained in Title XIX of the Social Security Act, as amended.
N. “Fulton DFCS” means the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services.
O. “Georgia Health Check Program” means Georgia Medicaid’s well-child or preventive health care program adopted pursuant to EPSDT, and shall contain such components as they exist in the Georgia Health Check Program as of February 1, 2005.
P. “Governor” means the Governor of the State of Georgia.
2

Q. “Legal guardianship” means the appointment of an individual as a legal guardian for a child as authorized by either the probate court under O.C.G.A. Title 29 or the juvenile court under O.C.G.A. Chapter 15-11.
R. “One episode of foster care” means the period of time that a child is in foster care from the date of removal from the home until the child is discharged from DFCS custody, except that a runaway does not trigger a new episode of foster care.
S. “Permanent legal custody” means custody granted in accordance with an order of the superior court or the juvenile court which places a child in the custody of an individual or individuals until the child reaches 18 years of age.
T. "Permanent placement with relatives” means placement of a child with a relative who is willing to assume long-term responsibility for the child but has reasons for not adopting the child or obtaining guardianship or permanent legal custody, and it is in the child’s best interests to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship by another person. In such circumstances, there shall be in place an agreement for long-term care signed by DFCS and the relative committing to the permanency and stability of this placement unless it is necessary to disrupt the long-term placement.
U. “State DFCS” means the Division of Family and Children Services of the Georgia Department of Human Resources.
V. “State Defendants” means Defendants Sonny Perdue (in his official capacity as Governor of Georgia), the Georgia Department of Human Resources, B.J. Walker (in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Human Resources), Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services, Debra Keyes (in her official capacity as Administrator of Fulton DFCS), DeKalb County Division of Family and Children Services, and Walker Solomon (in his official capacity as Director of DeKalb DFCS).
W. “Suspected abuse or neglect” means being based on reasonable cause to believe that a child may have been abused or neglected.
X. “Suspected corporal punishment” means being based on reasonable cause to believe that corporal punishment may have been used on a child.
3. PRINCIPLES
The parties to this Consent Decree agree that the following are desired principles that serve as the goals of Georgia’s child welfare system and are not separately enforceable standards
3

or provisions under which State Defendants’ conduct under the terms of this Consent Decree shall be measured.
1. Georgia’s child welfare system must actively promote and support the opportunity for children to grow up within a safe, nurturing family, either their biological family or, if that is not possible, within an adoptive family.
2. When children are in foster care, all non-destructive family ties should be maintained and nurtured. If appropriate, children should be placed with relatives who are able to provide a safe, nurturing home for them. Reasonable efforts should be made to place siblings together, and relationships with relatives and siblings should be facilitated and maintained by the child welfare agency, if it is in the child’s best interest to do so.
3. Foster care should be as temporary an arrangement as possible, with its goal being to provide a permanent home for the child as quickly as possible. In making the determination about what plans and services will best meet this goal, the child's interests must be paramount.
4. The state has primary responsibility for the care and protection of children who enter the foster care system. Insofar as it relies on private contractors to assist in meeting this responsibility, it should only do so according to standards set by and rigorously monitored by the state.
5. All children in need of child welfare services should receive full and equal access to the best available services, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, or disabilities.
6. Children in foster care placement should be in the least restrictive, most family-like setting possible, and the state should make reasonable efforts to avoid the use of non-family settings for children, particularly young children.
7. Children in foster care placement should have stable placements that meet their needs and the services necessary to address both the trauma of foster care placement and the problems surrounding their removal from their family. Children in foster care placement should have placements that meet their needs and the services necessary to promote the stability of their placements.
8. The Department of Human Resources, acting through its Commissioner, has the authority and responsibility to deliver foster care services by the means it deems appropriate consistent with the requirements of law.
4

4. PLANNING
A. For children entering placement after the entry of the Consent Decree
1. Within 24 hours after a child’s 72-hour hearing, DFCS will make a referral to a Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment (“CCFA”) provider to initiate an assessment for the child.
2. An initial Family Team Meeting will be held within 3-9 days after a child comes into foster care.
a. Barring exigent circumstances, the Family Team Meeting participants shall include the DFCS case manager and supervisor and, if applicable, the case manager from the private contract agency which has the child in placement. DFCS will make reasonable efforts to ensure the attendance of the parents and the child (if 12 or older), and other persons significant to the family if appropriate, at the Family Team Meeting. The Family Team Meeting may also include the CCFA provider, relatives, and other persons significant to the family. A Family Team Meeting shall not be cancelled solely because of the absence of any participant as long as the required determinations can be made with the participants who are in attendance. Efforts to ensure the attendance of participants shall be documented in the child’s case file.
b. Participants at the Family Team Meeting will identify:
i. The needs of the children and parents.
ii. Goals for meeting those needs.
iii. Steps for meeting the goals.
iv. Strengths of the family members with regard to meeting the needs of the child, the child’s parents, and possible placements for the child.
c. At the Family Team Meeting, DFCS will make the following determinations and shall identify and ensure the provision of necessary services to achieve such determinations:
i. Whether the child can be safely returned home.
5

ii. Whether any evaluations are necessary of the child and/or parents to ensure the development of an appropriate case plan.
iii. If the child cannot safely be returned home, whether there is an appropriate relative with whom the child can be placed.
iv. If the child has siblings in placement and the siblings are not placed together, the identity of necessary steps to place the siblings together in accordance with Section 5.C.4.d, and necessary steps to ensure sibling visitation.
v. If the child is of school age, the identity of steps that can be taken to ensure that the child remains enrolled in school, does not miss school days extensively, and does not have to change schools if at all possible.
vi. The frequency with which visiting will take place between the child and the child’s parents and significant family members.
d. If DFCS is unable to secure the parents’ attendance at a meeting after the child is placed, the meeting shall nevertheless be held with the other participants, and DFCS shall make reasonable efforts to notify and review with the parents the goals outlined at the meeting, as soon thereafter as possible.
e. The outcomes of the Family Team Meeting will be reported to the Multidisciplinary Team (“MDT”) for use at its meeting.
3. Within 25 days of a child’s placement in foster care, an MDT Meeting will be held. Barring exigent circumstances, the MDT Meeting participants shall include the DFCS case manager and supervisor and, if applicable, the case manager from the private contract agency which has the child in placement. DFCS will make reasonable efforts to ensure the attendance of the parents and the child, if appropriate, at the MDT Meeting. The MDT Meeting may also include relatives, foster parents/placement providers, DFCS representatives, school representatives, therapists, mental health professionals, the CCFA provider, medical professionals, representatives from Public Health, and judicial representatives. An MDT Meeting shall not be cancelled solely because of the absence of any participant as long as the required determinations can be made with the participants who are in attendance. Efforts to ensure attendance of participants in the MDT shall be documented in the child’s case file.
6

a. The MDT will review the CCFA and make recommendations concerning the case plan and the services to be provided to the child and the family, including but not limited to the issues addressed at Family Team Meetings as described in section A.2. above, as well as (i) appropriateness of education (including special education); (ii) the creation and appropriateness of independent living plans and services for children 14 and older; and (iii) an appropriate permanency goal for the child and the services necessary to implement that goal. The case plan will be an outgrowth of the CCFA assessment and shall be developed at the MDT meeting.
b. DFCS shall identify and ensure the provision of necessary services to achieve the determinations made at the MDT meeting, and contained in the child’s case plan, unless and until altered by the Juvenile Court.
4. Within 30 days from the date of placement, a case plan with all required elements will be submitted to the Juvenile Court for approval. Case plans with all required elements and service needs shall be reviewed, updated and revised (with submission to the Juvenile Court for approval) whenever necessary, including after the MDT meeting, and at every six-month review and 12-month permanency review.
5. DFCS will include training on facilitating family team meetings as part of its pre-service training. DFCS shall have family team specialists who will attend and facilitate all family team meetings. The Fulton County Administrator and the DeKalb County Director will designate staff to follow up on the results of all family team meetings.
B. For children who have reached their sixth month in care after the entry of the Consent Decree, and for the remaining period of time while in DFCS custody
1. Plaintiffs and State Defendants intend that within six months of the child’s placement in foster care, and every six months thereafter, the child’s case plan shall be reviewed by the Judicial Citizen Review Panel (JCRP) and/or the Juvenile Court, as long as the child remains in the custody of Fulton or DeKalb DFCS.
2. Plaintiffs and State Defendants desire that the persons who participate at each JCRP or Juvenile Court review shall include the parents, the child, pre-adoptive parents or relatives providing care for the child, foster parents/placement providers, the DFCS case manager, the private provider case manager (if applicable), the case supervisor, other DFCS representatives, the CCFA providers, medical and mental health professionals, representatives from Public Health and the child’s school,
7

and other professionals having specific knowledge or information relative to the child’s case. The parties further desire that a JCRP or Juvenile Court review shall not be cancelled solely because of the absence of any participant as long as the required determinations can be made with the participants who are in attendance.
3. Plaintiffs and State Defendants intend that, at each six month case plan review, the JCRP and/or the Juvenile Court shall evaluate the following:
a. The necessity and appropriateness of the child’s placement;
b. Whether reasonable efforts have been made to obtain permanency for the child;
c. The degree of compliance with the specific goals and action steps set out in the case plan;
d. Whether any progress has been made in improving the conditions that caused the child’s removal from the home; and
e. Whether changes need to be made to the case plan, including a change in the permanency goal and the projected date when permanency for the child is likely to be achieved, or changes or the addition of any services needed by the child.
4. Plaintiffs and State Defendants intend that, if the JCRP conducts the case plan review, the panel will submit a report to the Juvenile Court, which shall include the panel’s findings and recommendations, as well as the findings and recommendations of Fulton or DeKalb DFCS, along with Fulton or DeKalb DFCS’ proposed revised plan for reunification or other permanency plan.
5. If the Juvenile Court conducts a review of the case plan, Fulton or DeKalb DFCS shall submit its recommendations to the court regarding a proposed revised plan for reunification or other permanency plan.
6. Following a JCRP or a Juvenile Court review, the Juvenile Court may adopt a revised case plan, taking into consideration recommendations made by Fulton or DeKalb DFCS, the JCRP, and/or the parents and enter a supplemental order in accordance with Chapter 11 of Title 15 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.
8

7. DFCS shall identify and ensure the provision of necessary services to achieve the determinations made following the actions of the Juvenile Court.
8. If deemed necessary by the case manager or case supervisor, additional meetings involving family members and professionals to discuss the implementation of the case plan may be conducted at any time.
9. If the Juvenile Court does not convene a six-month JCRP or Juvenile Court review within 45 days from the date that is six months after the last review, DHR/DFCS shall cause to be filed with the Juvenile Court a request for an immediate JCRP or Juvenile Court six-month review.
10. If the Juvenile Court does not convene a 12-month JCRP or Juvenile Court permanency review within 45 days from the date that is 12 months after the last permanency review, DHR/DFCS shall cause to be filed with the Juvenile Court a request for an immediate JCRP or Juvenile Court 12month permanency review.
C. For children who reach their thirteenth month in care after the entry of the Consent Decree and for the remaining period in time while in DFCS custody
1. By the end of the 13th month after a child has been in placement, Fulton and DeKalb DFCS will forward a Permanency Report to the State Social Services Director. Prior to the forwarding of the Permanency Report, another Family Team Meeting will be convened in accordance with Paragraph A.2. of this Planning Section. This Family Team Meeting will consider the issues listed in Paragraph A.3.a. of this Section. The results of such Family Team Meeting shall be forwarded to the Social Services Director with the Permanency Report. The Permanency Report will include a profile description of the child, the case plan, a list of impediments for achieving permanency, the CCFA, and a list of steps to be taken by the county to achieve permanency. The State Social Services Director or his designee shall review the Permanency Report within five business days of its receipt, and shall either concur with the report or refer the case for a county/state staffing.
2. A county/state staffing shall be held no later then ten days after the State Social Service Director’s decision.
3. Barring exigent circumstances, the county/state staffing shall include the Fulton or DeKalb County case manager and supervisor, regional adoption coordinator, regional field specialist, county program administrator, and State Social Services Director or his designee. A county/state staffing
9

shall not be cancelled solely because of the absence of any participant as long as the required determinations can be made with the participants who are in attendance.
4. The county/state staffing shall establish a plan to move the child toward permanency, and the State Social Services Director shall monitor the plan. DHR/DFCS shall identify and ensure the provision of necessary services to achieve the determinations made following the county/state staffing.
5. Additional meetings shall be held at any time when deemed necessary by the State Social Services Director or by the county case manager and supervisor, and may include those participants from the initial county/state staffing, provided that at least one additional county/state staffing meeting shall be conducted by the end of the 25th month after a child remains in placement. DHR/DFCS shall identify and ensure the provision of necessary services to achieve the determinations made following any subsequent county/state staffing.
6. If the Juvenile Court orders aftercare supervision, the child’s case manager shall make monthly visits with the child following discharge from foster care for the period of time specified by the Juvenile Court. DFCS will determine whether additional services are necessary to ensure the continued success of the discharge.
D. For children who have already reached their 13th month in care at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree
Within 120 days from the entry of the Consent Decree, Fulton and DeKalb DFCS will submit a Permanency Report for all children who have reached their 13th month in care at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree to the State Social Service Director for a permanency review as provided in Paragraphs 1-4 of Section C, above.
E. For all children for whom adoption has been identified as the goal
1. DHR shall determine whether the foster parent(s) are appropriate potential adoptive parents and if so, determine whether they are interested in adoption, and shall make known to the foster parents the availability of adoption assistance. Foster children who meet the eligibility criteria for the program, and who are special needs children, as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 673 and DFCS policy, shall be eligible to receive an adoption assistance subsidy. If the child is eligible, DHR/DFCS will determine the child’s adoption assistance subsidy based on the needs of the child. Under no circumstance shall the subsidy amount exceed the family foster care
10

maintenance payment that the child would be eligible to receive at the time of the adoptive placement. The amount and term of the adoption assistance subsidy shall be determined prior to the signing of the adoptive placement agreement.
2. For children for whom the foster parent(s) are either inappropriate or uninterested in becoming adoptive parents, and for whom adoptive parents are not otherwise available, DFCS shall undertake child-specific adoption recruitment. DFCS will not use as a documented compelling reason for not filing a petition for termination of parental rights the fact that there is an absence of an adoptive resource for the child.
3. Where appropriate, DFCS shall make available post-adoption services to support and stabilize adoptions for a period of at least 18 months following adoption finalization.
F. For children who reach their 18th month in care after the entry of the Consent Decree, and those who have already been in care for 18 months or more upon the entry of the Consent Decree, and for the remaining period in time while they are in DFCS custody
1. DHR/DFCS will establish a Specialized Case Manager position to focus on and to remove barriers to permanence for children in DFCS custody for 18 months or longer. The maximum caseload for any person serving in the Specialized Case Manager position will be 12.
2. Within 60 days of the entry of this Consent Decree, all children who have already reached their 18th month in care upon the date of entry of this Consent Decree shall be assigned a Specialized Case Manager as described in this Section F. Beginning 60 days after the entry of this Consent Decree and continuing thereafter, all children that reach their 18th month in care shall be assigned a Specialized Case Manager as described in this Section F. The Specialized Case Manager, once assigned to a child, shall be the sole responsible DFCS case manager for the child. To the extent possible, the child’s DFCS assignment to a particular Specialized Case Manager, once made, shall continue for the remaining period of time while the child is in DFCS custody.
3. The Specialized Case Manager provided for in this paragraph shall do the following as appropriate for the children in this Section F:
a. Convene meetings, access funding, and make independent decisions in order:
11

i. To determine the continuing appropriateness and effectiveness of the child’s permanency goal and to seek court approved change of the goal if appropriate;
ii. To determine the continuing appropriateness and effectiveness of the services being provided to the child; whether new or different services are necessary for the child; and, if so, by whom and when they will be provided;
b. Partner with the county Independent Living Coordinator to determine whether adequate independent living services and plans are being provided for all children age 14 and older;
c. Evaluate the continuing appropriateness and effectiveness of services to biological parents and relatives, and determine whether new or different services are necessary to assist the biological parents and relatives in achieving the child’s permanency goal;
d. Consult with public and private professionals and take all steps necessary to ensure the provision of services leading to the child achieving permanency;
e. No sooner than 30 days prior to discharge, regardless of the discharge destination, convene a special discharge planning meeting that shall be held to ensure that appropriate services and plans are in place to ensure a successful discharge.
5. PLACEMENT
A. Identification of Needs and Placement Options
1. DFCS agrees to obtain, by means of a Request for Proposal, a qualified external expert to conduct a needs assessment in Fulton County and DeKalb County. The needs assessment shall be based on the standards for the placement of children identified in Section 5.C. below, as applied to factual data about individual children’s needs obtained in Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments and case plans pursuant to Section 4 of this Consent Decree, and as applied to other factual data relevant to determining the needs of children in the Plaintiff Class. The needs assessment shall identify what new and/or different placements and related services, if any, are needed to provide substantially for the care of the Plaintiff Class.
12

2. Counsel for Plaintiffs and DFCS will jointly review the responses to the Request for Proposal, which shall be drafted to accomplish the purposes of this section of the Consent Decree, and shall jointly agree to the expert. The expert shall be selected within 90 days from the entry of this Consent Decree, and shall be selected in accordance with the procurement laws of the State of Georgia.
3. The needs assessment shall be completed no later than 120 days after the expert has been retained.
4. DFCS shall provide all of the placements and related services identified in the needs assessment, except that the expert will recommend the priority for implementing the findings of the needs assessment, based on the severity of the needs of the children whose needs are currently unmet or inadequately met. DFCS will phase in the implementation of the findings of the needs assessment, with the findings substantially implemented no later than 12 months after the completion of the needs assessment.
B. Reimbursement Rates for Placements
1. Basic foster care maintenance payments:
a. With regard to the provision of basic foster family services, including kinship care (limited to kin who are approved foster parents), effective July 1, 2005, DHR/DFCS shall set and pay the following basic foster care maintenance payments: for each child ages 0-6, $13.78; for each child ages 7-12, $15.50; and for each child age 13 and older, $17.75. DHR/DFCS shall ensure that this rate is paid to all foster parents providing basic foster family services, regardless of whether they are directly supervised by DFCS or directly supervised by private providers. These rates shall be uniform.
b. The Commissioner shall propose a periodic increase in the basic foster care maintenance payments referenced in subparagraph a., above, effective in succeeding fiscal years, based upon discussions with affected foster parent groups and consideration of whether an increase in any amount for any age group is needed to adequately compensate for basic foster care for the relevant age groups. Class counsel shall be notified of the amount of any such increase in the basic foster care maintenance payments within 30 days of the effective date of such change in payment.
c. Beginning July 1, 2007, and continuing until the termination of this Consent Decree as provided in Section 19, if Class Counsel forms a
13

good faith opinion that the amounts paid by DHR for basic foster care maintenance payments are insufficient to adequately compensate for foster family care, then Class Counsel may seek judicial remedies under the provisions set forth in Section 17 of this Consent Decree, and shall have the burden to show that the payment structure set by the Commissioner fails to adequately compensate for basic foster care for a particular age group or groups.
2. Within 60 days after the parties sign the Consent Decree, DHR/DFCS shall establish a Reimbursement Rate Task Force. The Reimbursement Rate Task Force shall accept and shall not revise the base-level rate for the provision of family foster care services (including kinship care) as defined in subsection 1 above. The Reimbursement Rate Task Force shall create a rate structure based on measurable outcomes for all children in foster care (excluding basic, non-therapeutic foster family care) based on the reasonable cost for achieving these outcomes. The Reimbursement Rate Task Force shall examine the Level of Care system and make recommendations for either revising or replacing it, and shall also consider the results of various pilot programs being carried out across the state. The rate structure established by the Reimbursement Rate Task Force must comply with Title IV-E and Medicaid funding guidelines so that DHR/DFCS can draw down such funds.
3. The rate structure established by the Reimbursement Rate Task Force shall serve as the basis for performance-based contracting, and shall be phased in beginning 90 days after the Reimbursement Rate Task Force issues its findings, provided that the rates fixed by the Commissioner must be fully implemented in the contracting cycle beginning July 1, 2007.
4. Beginning in the July 1, 2006 contracting cycle and continuing thereafter, DHR/DFCS shall ensure that all approved foster parents (regardless of whether they are supervised directly by DFCS or by private providers) receive the same reimbursement rate for a given level of service.
5. If DHR/DFCS directly supervises any approved foster homes that provide therapeutic services or operates any specialized group facilities, those approved foster parents or group facilities shall be paid at the same rate. All specialized group facilities shall be paid at the same rate for the same level of services.
6. The Reimbursement Rate Task Force shall be composed of the following members: James L. Kunz, Howard A. Peters III, and Becky Butler. The Task Force may meet when necessary in order to accomplish its duties, and shall work to finalize its recommendations in the most efficient and
14

economical manner possible. The Reimbursement Rate Task Force shall have access to data, documents and information needed, and shall otherwise have the support needed to carry out its duties. DHR shall reimburse the members of the Task Force for approved expenses and fees incurred in performing its duties, in accordance with state regulations.
7. The Task Force shall make every effort to present its findings no later than 120 days after the entry of the Consent Decree, unless the Task Force requests and the parties consent to an extension for the presentation of findings. The Task Force shall include recommendations on the priority for implementing its findings.
C. Ensuring that the placement process secures the most appropriate placement for all children.
1. Children for whom placement has determined to be necessary shall receive an assessment of their placement needs by a qualified professional no later than 30 business days after the child enters placement. The assessment shall include the initial physical health, dental health, and mental health screenings referred to in Section 6, Paragraph A. of this Consent Decree and all other required elements.
2. As soon as the placement assessment is completed, the child’s current placement shall be reevaluated to ensure that it meets the child's needs and if not a new placement shall be obtained as quickly as practicable.
3. DHR shall ensure that each county has a placement process in place, including placement specialists with knowledge of both the resources available to enable the child to remain at home safely to avoid the need for placement if possible and of the placement resources, including the specific placement (foster home or group setting) available in a contract agency and its suitability for the particular child needing placement to reasonably ensure that each child receives the most appropriate placement for his/her individual needs.
4. Children shall be placed according to the following standards:
a. Children shall be placed in accordance with their individual needs, as determined by the needs assessment in paragraph C.1 of this section, taking into account the child's needs to be placed as close to home and community as possible, the need to place siblings together, the DHR/DFCS preference for placement with relative resources, and the need to place children in the least restrictive, most home-like setting.
15

b. Children shall be placed within their own county or within 50 miles of the home from which they were removed. This provision shall not apply if (i) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility within their own county or within 50 miles of the home from which they were removed, (ii) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (iii) the child is appropriately placed with relatives, or (iv) the child is in an adoptive placement.
c. No child shall be placed in an emergency or temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility beds used on a temporary basis, for more than 30 days. Children shall not be placed in more than one emergency or temporary facility within one episode of foster care. No child shall spend more than 23 hours in a county DFCS office, or any facility providing intake functions, including but not limited to the current Children’s Center in DeKalb County and the Fulton Family Resource Center in Fulton County.
d. Siblings who enter placement at or near the same time shall be placed together, unless doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, one of the siblings has such exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, or the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to place the group together. If a sibling group is separated at the initial placement, the case manager shall make immediate efforts to locate or recruit a family in whose home the siblings can be reunited.
e. No child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family's biological and/or adopted children, without the written approval of the Social Services Director based on a reasonable determination that the home is appropriate for and can meet the needs of the additional number of children. No placement will result in more than 3 children under the age of 3 residing in a foster home. The only exception to these limits shall be circumstances in which the placement of a sibling group in a foster home with no other children in the home would exceed one or more of these limits.
f. Group Care Restrictions
The capacity of a group care setting shall include all beds on the entire grounds of the setting, and includes the total number of beds in multiple cottages.
16

i. No child under six years of age shall be placed in a group care setting without the express written approval of the Social Services Director based upon his or her certification that the individual child has exceptional needs which cannot be met in any foster home placement or other facility. The certification shall describe the services which are available in the group care setting to address the child’s exceptional needs. No child under six years of age who shall be certified for a group care setting under the terms in this subparagraph shall be placed in any group care setting which has a total capacity in excess of 12 children. This paragraph shall not apply to a child who is under six years of age and who is also the son or daughter of another child placed in a group care setting either prior to or after the entry of this Consent Decree. This paragraph shall not apply to a child who is under six years of age who is also the sibling of another child who has been placed in a group care setting prior to the entry of this Consent Decree, except that any such sibling under the age of six shall be moved to a foster home placement within 12 months of the entry of this Consent Decree unless doing so would not be in the best interest of the children in question.
ii. No child between the ages of six and 12 years of age shall be placed in a group care setting without the express written approval of the Social Services Director based upon his or her certification and specific findings that the individual child has needs which can be met in the particular group care setting and that the particular group setting is the least restrictive placement that can meet such needs. The certification shall describe the services which are available in the group care setting to address the child’s needs. No child between the ages of six and 12 years of age who shall be certified for a group care setting under the terms in this subparagraph shall be placed in any group care setting which has a total capacity in excess of 12 children. This paragraph shall not apply to a child between the ages of six and 12 years who is also the sibling of another child who has been placed in a group care setting prior to the entry of this Consent Decree, except that any such sibling between the ages of six and 12 years shall be moved to a foster home placement within 12 months of the entry of this Consent Decree unless doing so would not be in the best interest of the children in question. For any other children between the ages of six and 12 who were placed in a group care setting prior to the entry of this Consent Decree, DHR/DFCS shall have 12 months from the entry of this Consent Decree to move such children to a
17

non-group care setting unless doing so would not be in the best interest of the child or children in question.
iii. Children who are at least 12 years of age and older may be placed in a group care setting without any of the restrictions contained in paragraphs i. or ii., above.
g. Children for whom the permanency goal is adoption should, whenever possible, be placed with a family in which adoption is a possibility.
h. Race and/or ethnicity and/or religion shall not be the basis for a delay or denial in the placement of a child, either with regard to matching the child with a foster or adoptive family or with regard to placing a child in a group facility. Race and/or ethnicity shall otherwise be appropriate considerations in evaluating the best interest of an individual child to be matched with a particular family. DHR shall not contract with any program or private agency that gives preference in its placement practices by race, ethnicity, or religion, but may utilize its authority to contract with private providers to ensure that the pool of available foster and adoptive families reflects and meets the needs of children for whom foster and adoptive placements are needed, including placements for children for whom placement resources are scarce or unavailable.
i. DHR shall only contract for placements or services with licensed contractors or subcontractors. No child shall be placed in an unlicensed facility.
j. DFCS will ensure the basic physical needs of food, clothing and shelter for children in foster care. At the time of placement or at any placement move, DFCS will review the child’s clothing needs to assess appropriateness and take necessary steps to ensure that the child has appropriate clothing.
5. DFCS shall take steps to minimize any trauma which may be experienced by a child which is associated with either a change in placement or in case managers.
6. DHR/DFCS shall take appropriate steps to ensure that foster children placed in foster family homes, whether directly supervised by DHR/DFCS or private providers, receive adequate supports, including the following:
18

a. DHR/DFCS shall ensure that before a child is placed in any approved foster family home, the foster parents have received uniform and appropriate pre-service training;
b. DHR/DFCS shall ensure that all approved foster parents with whom foster children are placed shall receive uniform and appropriate ongoing training, and that they are reasonably informed of any changes in laws or DHR/DFCS policies that affect foster parents;
c. DHR/DFCS shall ensure that all foster parents (including kinship providers) with whom foster children are placed can contact DHR/DFCS and receive information 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, so that questions or concerns can be timely and appropriately addressed;
d. DHR/DFCS shall ensure that available information concerning a specific foster child, including family history, medical, dental, mental health and educational information, and any other information that is relevant to the child’s safety and well-being, is provided to approved foster parents, before the child is placed in the home, and that complete and accurate updated information is provided to the approved foster parents after the child is placed as such information becomes available.
D. Visitation
The frequency and intensity of in-placement visits and other visits with a child shall be determined by the individual needs of the child. An in-placement visit refers to a private face-toface visit with the child in the child’s home/placement, in order to monitor and document the child’s adjustment to the placement, the appropriateness of the placement to meet the child’s needs, the receipt of appropriate treatment and services by the child, the child’s safety, and service goals. A visit refers to a face-to-face visit with the child, in order to monitor and document the child’s adjustment to the placement, the appropriateness of the placement to meet the child’s needs, the receipt of appropriate treatment and services by the child, the child’s safety, and service goals. The following minimum in-placement visits and other visits shall apply:
1. For all children in placements other than adoptive placements:
a. For the first eight weeks after an initial placement or upon any change in placement, there shall be at least: (a) one in-placement visit during the first week of the placement; (b) one in-placement visit between the third and the eighth week of the placement; and (c) six additional visits during the eight week period.
19

b. Thereafter, there shall be at least one in-placement visit per month and one additional private visit per month.
2. For all children in adoptive placements, there shall be (a) one in-placement visit the day after the child is placed; and (b) at least one in-placement visit per month after the placement but before the adoption petition is filed; and (c) at least one in-placement visit per quarter after the adoption petition is filed.
6. HEALTH SERVICES TO CHILDREN
A. Initial Screenings and Follow-Up Treatment
1. Physical Health Screening: All children shall receive a medical screening within ten days of placement in compliance with EPSDT standards, including at a minimum, the components identified in the Georgia Health Check Program, and shall receive any and all treatment as directed by the child’s assessing physician.
2. Dental Health Screening: All children shall receive a dental screening within ten days of placement in compliance with EPSDT standards, including at a minimum, the components identified in the Georgia Health Check Program, and shall receive any and all treatment as directed by the child’s assessing dentist.
3. Mental Health: All children four years of age and older shall receive a mental health screening conducted by a licensed mental health professional and completed within 30 days of placement in compliance with EPSDT standards, including at a minimum, the components identified in the Georgia Health Check Program, and shall receive any and all treatment as directed by the child’s assessing professional. The mental health screening shall be commenced prior to the MDT meeting provided in Section 4.A.3. of this Consent Decree. All children under four years of age shall receive a developmental assessment conducted by a licensed professional and completed within 30 days of placement in compliance with EPSDT standards, including at a minimum, the components identified in the Georgia Health Check Program, and shall receive any and all treatment as directed by the child’s assessing professional. The developmental assessment shall be commenced prior to the MDT meeting provided in Section 4.A.3. of this Consent Decree.
20

B. Periodic Health Screenings and Treatment
1. Ages zero through six months: All children between the ages of zero to six months shall receive no less than three periodic EPSDT/Georgia Health Check Program health screenings.
2. Ages six months through 18 months: All children between the ages of six months through 18 months shall receive no less than four periodic EPSDT/Georgia Health Check Program health screenings performed at approximate three month intervals.
3. Ages 18 months through five years: All children between the ages of 18 months through five years shall receive no less than one periodic EPSDT/Georgia Health Check Program health screening performed every six months.
4. Ages six years and over: All children of six years of age and older shall receive no less than one periodic EPSDT/Georgia Health Check Program health screening performed every year.
5. All children shall receive any follow-up treatment or care as directed by the physician who administered the periodic EPSDT/Georgia Health Check Program health screening.
6. Every child shall receive an EPSDT/Georgia Health Check Program health screening within ten days of receiving a final discharge from placement.
7. Children’s health needs, including dental and mental health needs, between periodic screenings shall be met as provided by EPSDT.
8. All children age 3 and over shall receive at least one annual dental screening in compliance with EPSDT standards, including at a minimum, the components identified in the EPSDT/Georgia Health Check Program, and shall receive any and all treatment as directed by the child’s assessing dentist.
C. All medication prescribed for a child will be administered as ordered in such prescription(s). Only designated, authorized, and appropriately trained personnel shall administer the taking of any prescribed medication for children in any nonfoster family care placement.
21

7. SINGLE STATEWIDE AUTOMATED CHILD WELFARE INFORMATION SYSTEM
A. State Defendants shall have a fully implemented, single statewide automated child welfare information system (“SACWIS”) containing at a minimum:
1. The system shall have the functionalities as identified and described in Appendix “A” hereto;
2. The system shall have the data integrity and quality assurance processes as identified and described in Appendix “B” hereto; and
3. The system shall have the security and data recording and recovery elements as identified and described in 45 CFR Part 95, Subpart F, §95.621.
B. The date certain for full implementation shall be set forth in a contract with a selected vendor, with the vendor selected and the contract effective on or before December 31, 2005. The date for full implementation shall be added to this Consent Decree after the contract is executed.
C. Both leading up to and subsequent to the full implementation of a single statewide automated child welfare information system, State Defendants shall at all times satisfy all federal reporting requirements and shall maintain data integrity and accuracy on a continuous basis.
8. CASELOADS
A. DFCS will phase in a reduction in its caseload in Fulton and DeKalb Counties for its CPS investigators, ongoing case managers, placement case managers, and adoption case managers over a two year period as provided below. In the event that a worker has a mixed caseload, the caseload shall be weighted to reflect the standards in this section.
1. By the end of the second reporting period, the following caseloads will exist in Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS:
a. No CPS case manager shall have more than 20 cases. b. No ongoing case manager shall have more than 20 cases. c. No placement case manager shall have more than 25 cases. d. No adoption case manager shall have more than 22 cases.
22

2. By the end of the fourth reporting period and continuing thereafter, the following caseloads will exist in Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS:
a. No CPS case manager shall have more than 12 cases. b. No ongoing case manager shall have more than 17 cases. c. No placement case manager shall have more than 15 cases. d. No adoption case manager shall have more than 16 cases.
B. DFCS will phase in a reduction in the ratio of supervisors to case managers in Fulton and DeKalb County over a two-year period as provided below.
1. By the end of the second reporting period, no supervisor shall supervise more than six case managers at any one time in Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS.
2. By the end of the fourth reporting period and continuing thereafter, no supervisor shall supervise more than five case managers at any one time in Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS.
C. DFCS will phase in elimination in the employment or utilization of temporary personnel (“PRNs”) as case managers in Fulton and DeKalb County over a oneyear period as provided below.
1. From the period beginning six months from the entry of the Consent Decree up through the period ending one year from the entry of the Consent Decree, PRNs shall comprise no more than 11% of the total allocation of social services case managers for Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS, respectively.
2. From the period beginning one year from the entry of the Consent Decree and continuing thereafter, no PRNs shall be employed or utilized as case managers in Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS.
D. The caseloads for Specialized Case Managers shall be governed by Section 4.F. of this Consent Decree.
9. SUPERVISION OF CONTRACT AGENCIES
A. DHR shall require, and shall take appropriate steps to ensure, that all child-caring institutions or child-placing agencies that provide placements and services to class members meet all applicable terms of this Consent Decree.
23

B. This Section 9 applies to any contract for the provision of placements and services to class members into which DHR enters during the contract cycle beginning July 1, 2005, or as soon as practicable following the entry of the Consent Decree. Into any such contract, which shall be annual performance-based contracts, DHR will incorporate all applicable requirements of this Consent Decree, but will do so without reference to the Consent Decree itself. DHR will also specify in any such contract that the suspected abuse or neglect of any class member while receiving such placements or services shall be reported to DHR for investigation, that all placement providers for foster children in DFCS custody are prohibited from using or authorizing the use of corporal punishment, and that any suspected corporal punishment while in that provider’s care shall be reported to DHR for screening, assessment or investigation as necessary. The findings of investigations of suspected abuse or neglect, or of the assessment or investigation of suspected corporal punishment, shall be included in the criteria that DHR uses in determining whether to renew the license of a contract agency. With respect to contract agencies’ contractual violations, DHR may use such contractual remedies as provided by the contract and by applicable Georgia statutes and Rules and Regulations. The failure of a contract agency to report suspected abuse or neglect of a child to DHR/DFCS shall result in appropriate process being issued in accordance with applicable statutes, rules and regulations for immediate termination of the contract or placement of the provider on probation, and a repeated failure within one year shall result in termination of the contract.
C. DHR shall ensure that all child-caring institutions or child-placing agencies that provide placements and services to class members report to DHR accurate data on at least a bi-annual (6 months) basis so that their compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree can be measured.
D. DHR, through its Office of Regulatory Services (“ORS”), shall conduct licensing evaluations of all child-caring institutions and child-placing agencies providing placements and services to class members, to ensure, among other things, the safety and well being of class members and to ensure that the contract agency is complying with the applicable terms of this Consent Decree. As part of such evaluations, ORS shall ensure that each child-caring institution and child-placing agency shall receive at least one unannounced inspection a year to review all relevant aspects of the agency/institution’s operations, and that, in addition, 5% of family foster homes or a total of 10 homes (whichever is greater, or all homes for agencies providing less than 10 homes in total) provided by each child-placing agency shall receive such an unannounced annual inspection to review all relevant aspects of the agency/institution’s operations. ORS shall prepare a written report after each visit detailing its findings, and shall provide follow-up visits or monitoring if deemed necessary. With respect to license-holders’ deficiencies, ORS may use such remedies as are provided by applicable Georgia statutes and Rules and Regulations.
24

10. TRAINING
A. No case manager shall assume responsibility for a CPS, ongoing, foster care or adoption case, until after completing pre-service training as specified below and after passing an appropriate skills-based competency test, as determined by DHR/DFCS. No case manager supervisor shall assume supervisory responsibility until after completing pre-service training as specified below and after passing an appropriate skills-based competency test, as determined by DHR/DFCS.
B. DFCS shall have a full time Education and Training Services Section headed by a manager of Education and Training with appropriate qualifications, as determined by DHR/DFCS.
1. The training unit shall provide comprehensive and appropriate child welfare pre-service training to ensure that all case managers and supervisors responsible for children will have training to permit them to comply with the terms of this Consent Decree, law, DFCS policy and reasonable professional standards, as determined by DHR/DFCS.
2. DHR/DFCS management shall determine, on an annual basis, those DFCS workers in need of re-training, as indicated by workers’ failure to ensure that the cases for which they are responsible comply with the terms of this Consent Decree, law, DFCS policy and reasonable professional standards, as determined by DHR/DFCS, and shall ensure that additional training is provided to them.
3. All new case managers shall have a minimum of 160 hours of pre-service training, including instructional training and supervised field training, unless waived by the Director of Education and Training Services in accordance with the Office of Child Protective Services New Case Manager Training Waiver Guidelines issued April 1, 2005, or comparable guidelines. All case manager supervisors shall receive a minimum of 40 hours of in-service training that is directed specifically at the supervision of child welfare workers, prior to receiving any supervisory duties. All case managers shall receive a minimum of 20 hours of ongoing training each year. All case managers with supervisory responsibility shall receive a minimum of 20 hours of in-service training each year.
4. Private provider agencies with whom DFCS contracts for the provision of placements for children in DFCS custody shall be required, through contract provisions, to certify that employees providing case management or supervisory services for DFCS have met the following criteria:
25

a. Have an undergraduate degree from an accredited college or university;
b. Have completed a training curriculum consisting of at least 160 hours of classroom, internet and/or supervised field instruction, unless waived by the Director of Education and Training Section in accordance with the Office of Child Protective Services New Case Manager Training Waiver Guidelines issued April 1, 2005, or comparable guidelines. The curriculum shall be approved by DHR/DFCS to ensure that the general content areas are appropriate to the work being performed. Where case work activities mirror those of DFCS case managers or supervisors, the curriculum shall be comparable to DHR/DFCS’ pre-service and in-service training;
c. Have a passing score on the case manager and/or supervisor online assessment required for new worker certification as of July 1, 2005; and
d. Have 20 hours of job related ongoing professional development annually.
C. All case manager supervisors employed after the entry of this Consent Decree shall have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in social work, and at least two years of experience as a case manager in social services.
11. FOSTER PARENT SCREENING, LICENSING AND TRAINING
A. All paragraphs in this section shall apply to all class members, whether they are in placements supervised directly by DHR/DFCS, or in placements supervised directly or provided by private contract agencies.
B. DHR/DFCS shall develop and maintain uniform standards for the approval, and re-approval, of all foster and pre-adoptive families with whom class members may be placed. These standards shall comply with federal law.
C. The actual processes for approval and re-approval of all foster and pre-adoptive families/parents with whom class members may be placed, shall be developed and carried out by DFCS in conjunction with ORS.
D. DHR/DFCS shall require uniform training of all foster and pre-adoptive families/parents with whom class members may be placed. Uniform training for all foster parents shall be required prior to the placement of any children with a
26

foster or pre-adoptive family. All foster parents shall also be required to complete annual training, as part of an annual re-approval process.
E. Within 90 days of the entry of this Consent Decree, DHR/DFCS shall have an automated information system that can provide the following:
1. For every foster and pre-adoptive family/parents with whom class members may be placed, the name, address, phone number, and, if supervised directly by a private provider, the name and address of the private provider.
2. For every foster and pre-adoptive family/parents with whom class members may be placed, a list of all foster children in the home, the number and age of any other children in the home, any other adults who are providing direct care or supervision for class members in the home, and the county DFCS office with custody of each foster child.
3. For every foster or pre-adoptive family/parents with whom class members may be placed, the approval or re-approval status of the home.
4. For every foster or pre-adoptive family/parents with whom class members may be placed, a complete history beginning in January 1, 2002 and going forward, of any reports of abuse or neglect and any substantiated reports of abuse or neglect.
5. DHR/DFCS shall consider the information above before a child is placed with any foster or pre-adoptive family/parents, and before any approval, or re-approval is granted.
F. DHR/DFCS shall not allow any foster or pre-adoptive family/parents to be given approval or re-approval, and shall not allow any class members to be placed or to continue to be placed with such foster or pre-adoptive family/parents, if that same foster or pre-adoptive family/parents has been found to be the perpetrator of substantiated abuse or neglect, or has had their home closed as the result of a policy violation that threatened the safety of a child, has had their home closed as a result of two violations of the corporal punishment policy, or has had their home closed as a result of a single violation of the corporal punishment policy where the family was not amenable to change, correction, or DFCS intervention. DHR/DFCS shall be able to identify if (a) foster or pre-adoptive family/parents were the perpetrators of substantiated abuse or neglect, or had their homes closed, while being supervised by a private contract agency, and they subsequently seek to become approved or re-approved with a different private contract agency or directly as a DFCS supervised foster or pre-adoptive family/parents; or (b) foster or pre-adoptive family/parents were the perpetrators of substantiated abuse or
27

neglect, or had their homes closed, while being supervised directly by DFCS, and they subsequently seek to become approved or re-approved with a private contract agency.
G. DHR/DFCS shall also maintain the following information in accessible paper file form:
1. For every foster or pre-adoptive family/parents with whom class members may be placed, the approval or re-approval status of the home, and for any foster or pre-adoptive family/parents not in full approval or re-approval status, the reasons for lack of full approval or re-approval status.
2. For every foster or pre-adoptive family/parents with whom class members may be placed, a complete history for the prior 5 years of any reports of possible abuse or neglect and any substantiated reports of abuse or neglect (and the nature of the report and the nature of the substantiation), home closings (and the reasons therefore) or refusals to place further children in the home (and reasons therefore), or other corrective actions or disciplinary actions ever taken against the foster or pre-adoptive family/parents (and reasons therefore).
3. DHR/DFCS shall consider the information above before a child is placed with any foster or pre-adoptive family/parents, and before any approval, or re-approval is granted.
12. ABUSE IN CARE INVESTIGATIONS
A. All referrals of reports of suspected abuse or neglect of children in foster care shall be investigated by DFCS child protective services staff in the manner and within the time frame provided by law and DFCS policy.
B. All referrals of suspected abuse or neglect of foster children in institutional, group, residential or foster family homes provided or directly supervised by private providers shall also be referred to and reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Services and the Social Services Treatment Services Unit. The purpose of this review is to determine whether a pattern of abuse or neglect exists within the institutional, group, residential, foster family homes or private provider agency that contributed to the abuse or neglect; whether the contract should be terminated; whether particular homes or facilities should be closed; and what other steps are necessary to safeguard the safety and well-being of children.
28

C. Corporal Punishment.
1. DHR/DFCS shall continue to require that foster parents and other placement resources for children in the custody of DHR shall not use corporal punishment of children in their care, nor shall they authorize or permit any other individual or agency to administer corporal punishment.
2. When a report of suspected corporal punishment of a foster child in DHR/DFCS custody is received, the allegations must be immediately screened by the Child Protective Services intake unit or the Regional Field Program Specialist. Such personnel shall have appropriate training in child protective services including the screening of reports of potential corporal punishment and abuse/neglect and in discerning the difference between them. No such personnel shall also have any responsibility for the selection, recruitment, approval or re-approval, retention or matching of foster, adoptive or other placement options for foster children. If there is reasonable cause to believe that abuse or neglect occurred, the report of corporal punishment must be treated as an abuse referral and forwarded immediately to the Child Protective Services Supervisor who will follow policy requirements for abuse or neglect reports. All reports of suspected corporal punishment in child caring institutions shall be treated as an abuse referral and forwarded immediately to the Child Protective Services Supervisor who will follow policy requirements for abuse or neglect reports.
3. If suspected corporal punishment in DHR/DFCS custody does not result in an abuse referral, the following provisions shall apply to assessments of foster homes:
a. Assessment:
i. The assessment of suspected corporal punishment shall be conducted in the manner and within the time frames required by law and DFCS policy.
ii. No additional placements may be made in the foster home until the investigation is complete.
b. Assessment and Conclusions:
i. If the allegation of suspected corporal punishment is supported by the assessment findings, the home must be closed if:
29

a. the violation had direct impact on the safety and well being of the child or posed a serious risk factor for the child in the home;
b. the violation is the second Discipline or Other Serious Foster Care Violation; or
c. the family is not amenable to change, correction or DFCS intervention.
ii. If the allegation that the discipline policy has been violated is supported and none of the conditions listed in i. above is present, then the home may remain open and a corrective action plan must be developed, agreed upon, and signed by all participants. DHR/DFCS shall ensure that the corrective action plan is appropriately monitored and enforced. The county director may close the foster home in his or her discretion. In deciding whether to close the foster home, the county director should consider: the severity of the incident, the pattern of behavior and history of the foster parents, the identified needs of the child, the willingness of the foster parents to look at alternative approaches to discipline, and the quality of the relationship between the child and foster parent.
4. Office of Regulatory Service Regulation 290-2-5.18 prohibits the use of corporal punishment in child caring institutions. Violation of this regulation shall be enforced by the Office of Regulatory Services and shall be punishable by fine, probation, suspension or revocation of license and other sanctions under the Rules and Regulation of the Department of Human Resources.
13. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
A. Within 60 days of the final entry of this Consent Decree, DHR/DFCS shall identify all class member children in custody for 12 months or more who have not had a medical examination within the prior 12 months, and all foster children in custody for more than 30 days and less than 12 months who have not have a medical examination since their most recent entry into custody. The identified children shall be provided with a medical examination and treatment as set forth in Section 6 of this Consent Decree concerning Health Services to Children by the end of the first reporting period.
30

B. Within 60 days of the final entry of this Consent Decree, DHR/DFCS shall identify all foster care placements (foster family homes or non-foster family homes, DFCS-supervised, or private provider-supervised) in which one or more class member children have been placed in the past 6 months, for which placements there have been 2 or more substantiated reports of abuse or neglect in the past 18 months. For each placement identified, by the end of the first reporting period, DHR/DFCS shall conduct an unannounced inspection of the home to determine if there are any risks to the health, safety and well-being of children living in such placements, and shall take all appropriate actions.
14. MAXIMIZATION OF FEDERAL FUNDING
DHR/DFCS shall maximize funds available to it through Title IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act. DHR/DFCS shall establish baselines for present levels of state and federal funding in order to identify increases in federal funding. The parties intend that any increases achieved in federal funding shall not supplant state funds for foster care services. DHR/DFCS shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Accountability Agents that DHR/DFCS has an appropriate mechanism in place for reporting the budgeting of both federal and state dollars. Plaintiffs’ agreement herein is premised upon the good faith representation by DHR and the Governor that that their policy will be to urge the General Assembly that state dollars committed to DHR/DFCS for the provision of services and resources to benefit children in the class shall not be decreased from current levels if efforts to maximize federal dollars result in additional federal funding.
15. OUTCOME MEASURES
State Defendants shall meet the following Outcome Measures in the Reporting Periods specified. Performance percentages required "by the end of" a Reporting Period will be measured during the immediately subsequent Reporting Period. Each Reporting Period shall be six months. State Defendants will comply with each Outcome Measure according to its terms for the duration provided for Outcome Measures in Section 19 of this Consent Decree.
1. Commencement of CPS investigations concerning foster children: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of the report.
2. Completion of CPS investigations concerning foster children: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with
31

Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of the report.
3. Contact with the alleged victim: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely face-to-face, private contact with the alleged victim, including face-to-face, private contact with a child who is non-verbal due to age or for any other reason.
4. Re-entry into care: By the end of the second reporting period, no more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode.
5. Maltreatment in care: By the end of the first reporting period, no more than 1.27% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. By the end of the second reporting period, no more than .94% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. By the end of the fourth reporting period, no more than .57% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care.
6. By the end of the second reporting period, 90% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous six months. By the end of the third reporting period, 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.
7. Search for relatives: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 90 days of entering foster care. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care.
8. (a) Of all children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Performance on this measure shall be taken on the first day after the end of the second reporting period, and shall be taken at the end of subsequent reporting periods, as necessary. For example, to sustain compliance at the end of the third reporting period, of all children who entered custody after the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall
32

have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Performance on this measure shall be taken on the first day after the end of the third reporting period.
(b) Of all children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74%: (1) shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification or permanent placement with relatives; or (2) shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less after entering custody: adoption, permanent legal custody or guardianship. Performance on this measure shall be taken on the first day after the end of the fourth reporting period, and shall be taken at the end of subsequent reporting periods, as necessary. For example, to sustain compliance at the end of the fifth reporting period, of all children who entered custody after the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% shall have had one of the permanency outcomes within the types of permanent placement and time frames as listed in (1) or (2) above. Performance on this measure shall be taken on the first day after the end of the fifth reporting period.
9. Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 month backlog pool”): For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For children in the 24-month backlog pool who remain in custody at the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the third reporting period at least 40% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For children in the 24-month backlog pool who remain in custody at the end of the third reporting period, by the end of the fourth reporting period at least 40% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.
10. Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of Consent Decree (children in the “over 24 month backlog pool”): For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool who remain in custody by the end of the
33

second reporting period, by the end of the third reporting period at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool who remain in custody by the end of the third reporting period, by the end of the fourth reporting period at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.
11. By the end of the second reporting period, for all children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights.
12. For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree.
13. For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the entry of the Consent Decree.
14. Adoption disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period.
15. Permanency efforts (15/22): By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.
By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.
34

16. Sibling Placement: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings.
17. Multiple Placement Moves: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 86.7% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody.
18. Caseworker continuity: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or to a Specialized Case Manager as referenced in Section 4.F.; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave.
19. Placement within county: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii) above. By the end of the third reporting period, at least 80% of all children at a point in time during the reporting period shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii) above. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 90% of all children at a point in time during the reporting period shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii) above.
20. Visitation (worker-child): By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had at least one in-placement visit and one other visit, as defined in Section 5.D, each month by their case manager during the prior 12 months in custody.
35

21. Visitation (parent-child when goal is reunification): By the end of the third reporting period, 75% of the children with a goal of reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. By the end of the fourth reporting period, 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification.
22. Visitation (worker–caregiver): By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had visits between their DFCS placement case manager and their foster parent, group care, institutional or other caretaker at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody.
23. Visitation (between siblings): By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in the Class at a point in time during the reporting period who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have had visits with their siblings at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.
24. Achievement Measures on Discharge: A baseline measure shall be developed that shows the percentage of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older during the 12 months prior to the entry of the consent decree who have graduated from high school or earned a GED. By the end of the second reporting period, that percentage shall increase by 10 percentage points. By the end of the fourth reporting period, that percentage shall increase by an additional 10 percentage points.
25. Placements not in full approval status: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 85% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 98% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status.
26. Case files not containing required court ordered language: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under
36

Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. This outcome shall be measured for court orders entered after the entry of the Consent Decree.
27. By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s sixmonth case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a sixmonth case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review. By the end of the third reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s sixmonth case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a sixmonth case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review.
28. By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for twelve or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.
29. By the end of the third reporting period, no more than 5% of all children in the physical custody of DHR/DFCS for 12 months or more shall have had a lapse in their legal custody within the prior 13 months. For the purposes of this outcome measure, a lapse in legal custody is defined as any period of expired legal custody. This Outcome Measure shall not apply to children who have been placed in the custody of another person and returned to the custody of DFCS during the 13-month period.
37

30. Meeting children’s service needs: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in care at a point in time at the end of the reporting period shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 85% of children in care at a point in time at the end of the reporting period shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.
31. By the end of the second reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than 10% of all children in foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of this Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family's biological and/or adopted children.
16. ACCOUNTABILITY
A. The Court shall appoint James T. Dimas and Sarah Morrison as the Court’s independent Accountability Agents. In the event that either Mr. Dimas or Ms. Morrison is unable to fulfill his or her duties under this agreement, the parties will select a replacement with the advice and consent of the remaining Accountability Agent. The parties agree that data support will be provided to the Accountability Agents by Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago and Georgia State University. The Accountability Agents shall conduct the factual investigation and verification of data and state documentation necessary to compile and to issue public record reports on State Defendants’ performance relative to the terms of the Consent Decree directly to the Court and to the parties. These reports shall be issued for each six month reporting period, commencing approximately 90 days after the close of the first reporting period.
B. DHR, through its employees or agents, will collect data with regard to each element of performance under this Consent Decree, and make it available on a timely basis to the Accountability Agents. DHR shall cooperate with the Accountability Agents in providing access to personnel, documents and other information necessary to perform their duties, as determined by the Accountability Agents, including without limitation interviews with agency staff, contract agency personnel, and interviews with DHR clients. The Accountability Agents shall conduct case record and other reviews as they deem necessary,
38

including recommending or requiring DHR to conduct regular case reviews according to a systematic process.
C. DHR shall provide the Accountability Agents and/or the organizations through which they are employed with the necessary resources to perform their duties, including payment of their approved fees and expenses in accordance with state regulations. The Accountability Agents will prepare an initial budget proposal to the parties and the Court within 30 days of the signing of the consent decree. This budget will be updated and revised annually on or about the anniversary date of entry of the consent decree.
D. All actions required for Plaintiff class members shall be documented within the individual case file of each member of the class on a timely and accurate basis. DFCS shall ensure that all required information concerning all foster parents, whether supervised by DFCS or by private providers, is timely and accurately entered into a foster parent file for each foster parent. DFCS shall ensure that a copy of all required information concerning contract agency providers is timely and accurately entered into a file for each contract agency provider and housed centrally at DFCS.
17. ENFORCEMENT
A. Except for the Principles set forth in Section 3 (“the Principles”), all provisions of this Consent Decree are separately and independently enforceable.
B. All provisions of this Consent Decree shall apply to all class members, regardless of whether they are in custody under the direct supervision of DCFS or of a contract provider.
C. If Class Counsel notify State Defendants that, to the best of Class Counsel’s knowledge, information, and belief (formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances), State Defendants are in violation of this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs may give notice to State Defendants in writing, and if so shall state with specificity the alleged noncompliance.
D. Except when Class Counsel allege, in conformity with subsection E below, the existence of imminent danger of substantial harm to class members, the provisions of this paragraph shall apply.
1. When notice of an alleged violation is given pursuant to subsection C, above, State Defendants shall respond to Class Counsel in writing within 25 days by asserting that Class Counsel has alleged only a violation of the Principles, by denying that any substantial noncompliance has occurred, or
39

by accepting (without necessarily admitting) the allegation of noncompliance and proposing steps that State Defendants shall take, and by when, to cure the alleged noncompliance.
2. If State Defendants (a) fail to respond within 25 days; (b) assert that Class Counsel has alleged only a violation of the Principles; or (c) deny that any substantial noncompliance has occurred, Class Counsel may thereafter seek an appropriate judicial remedy.
3. If State Defendants timely respond by accepting noncompliance and proposing curative action by a specified deadline, Class Counsel may accept State Defendants’ proposal or may offer a counterproposal for a different curative action or deadline and negotiate over the appropriate action and deadline, but in no event shall Class Counsel seek an appropriate judicial remedy for the accepted noncompliance until at least 45 days after State Defendants have responded under subsection D.1 above and until both sides have conferred in good faith to resolve any differences. The parties may, by mutual agreement, extend the time period specified in this subsection.
4. If no agreement on the issue of appropriate curative action or deadline is reached within the timeframe set in subsection D.3 above, Class Counsel may seek an appropriate judicial remedy.
5. If the parties reach agreement on a plan and timetable for curative action, but State Defendants thereafter fail to implement the curative action within the time specified in the agreement, Class Counsel may seek an appropriate judicial remedy upon ten (10) days written notice to State Defendants.
6. If the parties reach agreement on a plan of curative action and State Defendants implement the plan, but the plan fails to correct substantially the alleged violation within the time specified in the agreement, Class Counsel may seek an appropriate judicial remedy upon ten (10) days written notice to State Defendants, unless State Defendants issue a written revised proposal for curative action accepting that the violation alleged in Class Counsel’s initial noncompliance notice is continuing, and specifying: (i) why, in their view, the initial plan of curative action failed to produce compliance by the deadline and (ii) a revised proposal for curative action specifying a deadline for compliance.
7. If State Defendants issue a timely revised proposal for curative action and deadline in conformance with subsection D.6. above, the parties shall engage in good faith negotiations to attempt to reach agreement on a
40

revised plan for curative action and deadline. If the parties fail to reach agreement on a revised plan within 25 days of State Defendants’ issuance of a revised proposal, Class Counsel may seek an appropriate judicial remedy.
8. If the parties reach agreement on a revised plan for curative action but that revised plan fails to correct substantially the noncompliance within the time specified in the agreement, Class Counsel may seek an appropriate judicial remedy within ten (10) days written notice to State Defendants; provided, however, that the parties may, at their option, continue to attempt to reach agreement on further curative action, further extension of the compliance deadline specified in the Consent Decree, or modification of the Consent Decree.
E. The provisions of this paragraph shall apply when Class Counsel allege the existence of imminent danger of substantial harm to class members.
1. If Class Counsel acting in conformity with subsection C above notify State Defendants that, to the best of Class Counsel’s knowledge, information, and belief (formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances), a violation of this Consent Decree has caused or threatens to cause an imminent danger of substantial harm to class members, Class Counsel may give emergency notice of their allegations to State Defendants by electronic mail or facsimile transmission, and if so, shall state with specificity the alleged violation and the alleged imminent danger of substantial harm.
2. Within four business hours of the receipt by the State Defendants of Class Counsel’s emergency notice, State Defendants shall respond with their position by electronic mail or facsimile transmission.
3. If State Defendants fail to respond within 4 business hours, or if State Defendants respond by denying the danger is imminent, the threatened harm is substantial, or there is substantial noncompliance with the Consent Decree, Class Counsel may thereafter seek an appropriate judicial remedy.
4. If State Defendants timely respond to an emergency notice with a proposal for specific investigative or curative steps, the parties shall immediately thereupon engage in good faith efforts to reach agreement on appropriate investigative or curative action, including a time period for implementation.
41

5. If the parties are unable after conferring in good faith to agree on appropriate investigative and curative action and a timetable for implementation, Class Counsel may seek an appropriate judicial remedy.
F. Class Counsel and their clients shall not issue a noncompliance notice or seek a judicial remedy for the first six months after entry of this Consent Decree except with respect to an alleged case of imminent danger of substantial harm to class members, as described in subsection E above. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall authorize or enable the Class or its Counsel to initiate discovery without order of the Court following the filing of a motion by Class Counsel as authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of Court.
18. QUALITY ASSURANCE
DFCS shall maintain an appropriate quality assurance system that will meet the requirements of federal law, and will monitor, through case reviews, Fulton and Dekalb County DFCS' compliance with DFCS policy and the terms of this Consent Decree.
19. DURATION OF DECREE
A. With respect to the State Defendants, this Consent Decree shall remain in effect until (1) State Defendants are in substantial compliance with the final measures on all Outcome Measures in Section 15 of this Consent Decree simultaneously for three consecutive reporting periods; and (2) a motion to terminate jurisdiction over this Consent Decree is approved by the Court. Plaintiffs shall not contest a timely and appropriate motion to terminate unless: (i) Plaintiffs dispute State Defendants’ assertion that they have achieved and sustained substantial compliance on all Outcome Measures for the requisite time period; (ii) an unresolved motion relating to non-compliance with any other provision of this Consent Decree pursuant to Section 17 remains pending; or (iii) any Court Order or Stipulation providing a remedy for a prior allegation of such non-compliance with any other provision of this Decree is in effect or has not been complied with at the time of the motion to terminate.
B. The parties intend and agree that this Consent Decree shall remain in effect and shall be enforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction for the entire duration of this Consent Decree as provided in Section 19.A. above. The parties intend and agree that State Defendants may only request termination of jurisdiction under the terms of Section 19.A.(1) above.
C. The parties acknowledge that this Consent Decree is a final resolution of all claims of any type on behalf of Plaintiff class members, whether known or
42

unknown, that have been brought or could have been brought by or on behalf of the Plaintiffs against the State Defendants up through the date on which the Consent Decree is entered. This paragraph explicitly does not bar claims on behalf of any children in Fulton or DeKalb Counties concerning any programs or services for children prior to a child’s placement into State custody, including, but not limited to, any diversion, differential response, or other programs or services providing an alternative to the investigation and/or substantiation of a report of abuse or neglect and/or the removal of a child from their home and placement into State custody, and any programs or services for investigations of reported abuse or neglect for children not in State custody.
D. In the interest of permitting the parties to focus upon and achieve the objectives of this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs agree that they shall not commence any new action for systemic declaratory, injunctive or other form of equitable relief based on facts, events, actions or omissions by the State Defendants that relate in any way to any claim that was raised or could have been raised in the present case and that occur after the entry of this Consent Decree and prior to the entry of a termination order pursuant to this Section. This paragraph explicitly does not bar claims on behalf of any children in Fulton or DeKalb Counties concerning any programs or services for children prior to a child’s placement into State custody, including, but not limited to, any diversion, differential response, or other programs or services providing an alternative to the investigation and/or substantiation of a report of abuse or neglect and/or the removal of a child from their home and placement into State custody, and any programs or services for investigations of reported abuse or neglect for children not in State custody.
E. This paragraph shall not prevent an action, at any time, by an individual plaintiff for damages or equitable relief tailored solely to the specific circumstances of that individual plaintiff. Further, nothing in this paragraph shall prevent Plaintiffs in any action for systemic declaratory, injunctive or other form of equitable relief brought after the entry of a termination order pursuant to this Section and based on claims arising after the entry of such order, from offering into evidence facts arising prior to such order.
20. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Each party agrees that it will perform its obligations under this Consent Decree in accordance with all applicable laws.
B. Unless otherwise provided in this Consent Decree, all notices under this Consent Decree shall be deemed duly given upon delivery by hand, or three days after posting, if sent by registered mail, return receipt requested. All notices under this Decree shall be provided to the party at the address set forth as follows:
43

As to Plaintiffs:
Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq. Ira Lustbader, Esq. Children’s Rights, Inc. 404 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 683-2210 Facsimile: (212) 683-4015 E-mail: mlowry@childrensrights.org; ilustbader@childrensrights.org
Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Esq. Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, L.L.P. 3900 One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Phone: (404) 881-4100 Facsimile: (404) 881-4111 E-mail: Bramlett@bmelaw.com
As to State Defendants:
Brenda K. Woodard, Esq. Chief Legal Officer Georgia Department of Human Resources 2 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 656-4421 Facsimile: (404) 657-1123 E-mail: bkwoodard@dhr.state.ga.us
Steven E. Love (or his successor) Acting Director, Division of Family and Childrens Services Georgia Department of Human Resources 2 Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 657-5202 Facsimile: (404) 657-5105 E-mail: selove@dhr.state.ga.us
Shalen S. Nelson, Esq. (or her designee) Senior Assistant Attorney General
44

State Law Department 132 State Judicial Building 40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30334 Phone: (404) 656-3377 Facsimile: (404) 463-1062 E-mail: shalen.nelson@law.state.ga.us
C. This Consent Decree constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with regard to the subject matters contained therein, and hereby supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations, and undertakings.
D. All parties to the Consent Decree have participated in its drafting and, consequently, any ambiguity shall not be construed either for or against any party.
E. If, for any reason, the Court fails or refuses to enter this proposed Consent Decree as signed by the authorized signatories, or as altered in accordance with their consent freely given prior to entry, then the proposed Consent Decree itself, and any agreement or statement contained in the proposed Consent Decree, is null and void and may not be enforced.
F. The Department of Human Resources shall bear all costs of notice prescribed by the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in connection with the process for final Court approval of this Consent Decree.
G. DHR agrees to provide data and information concerning children in Fulton and DeKalb Counties to the Accountability Agents sufficient to enable the Accountability Agents to issue reports at the intervals specified in Section 16.A., verifying the items below. For purposes of the following items, “children” is meant to include only those children who were not in foster care custody at the time that the substantiated maltreatment took place, and “cases” is meant to include only those cases involving families with children who were not in foster care custody at the time there was a referral into DHR's diversion program.
1. (a) The number of children in each county who, during the reporting period, experienced substantiated maltreatment, and (b) the number and percentage of children in (a) of this item who also experienced substantiated maltreatment during the preceding 12 month period. For purposes of this item, for the term "percentage," the numerator would be the number of children in (a) who had substantiated maltreatment during the preceding 12 months, and the denominator would be all children who had substantiated maltreatment during the reporting period.
45

2. (a) The number of cases in each county during the reporting period in which there was a referral into DHR’s diversion program, and (b) the number and percentage of the cases in (a) of this item in which there was substantiated maltreatment within 11 – 365 days after the referral. For purposes of this item, for the term "percentage," the numerator would be the number of cases in (a) in which there was substantiated maltreatment within 11-365 days after referral to DHR's diversion program, and the denominator would be all cases referred to DHR's diversion program during the reporting period. In addition, for purposes of this item, "DHR's diversion program" refers to action taken by the Department which provides for an alternative to the opening of a CPS case and/or the removal of children from their home and placement into state custody by providing additional instruction, services, or support to the child's legal custodian either by DFCS or other family and child services agencies and programs.
21. RELIEF FOR NAMED PLAINTIFFS
A. The State Social Services Director shall monitor the individual cases of the named plaintiffs in this action for as long as they are in DHR/DFCS custody, or if they are discharged from and return to DHR/DFCS custody, to ensure that all necessary and appropriate plans are developed and implemented and that all necessary placements and services are provided. As of the date of the signing of this Consent Decree, two named plaintiffs are in DHR/DFCS custody.
B. The parties shall meet and attempt to agree on necessary services and plans for the named plaintiffs that remain in DHR/DFCS custody within 60 days after the parties sign this Consent Decree.
C. The DHR Commissioner, through the State Social Services Director, shall ensure that Plaintiffs’ Counsel receive documents and reports every 90 days concerning the status of the named plaintiffs in this action, services that have been provided, and implementation of plans, for as long as they are in DHR/DFCS custody. Plaintiffs’ Counsel shall receive notification within one calendar day of any significant events or developments concerning the named plaintiffs in this action for as long as they are in DHR/DFCS custody, including but not limited to: any change in placement, services, permanency goal or permanency plans; any reports of any incident of alleged abuse or neglect or violations of disciplinary policy involving any of the named plaintiffs or occurring at the placements where any of the named plaintiffs are placed; any other serious incidents involving any of the named plaintiffs or occurring at the placements where any of the named plaintiffs are placed.
46

D. A staffing shall be held in-person or by conference call every 90 days upon Plaintiffs’ request, within 10 days after Plaintiffs receive updated documents and reports referenced in Paragraph C above, for the purpose of discussing, with Plaintiffs’ Counsel, the status of the named plaintiffs in this action for as long as they are in DHR/DFCS custody, services that have been provided, and implementation of plans. The staffing shall include plaintiffs’ counsel, the State Social Services Director or his designee, the child’s DFCS case manager, the private agency case manager, if any, the child, and such others that may be needed for the discussion. The parties may on consent modify the schedule of any particular staffing under this paragraph.
22. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION
A. For purposes of the Consent Decree, the parties acknowledge that Plaintiff Class is entitled to recover its expenses of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and nontaxable costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h).
B. The parties shall attempt without court intervention to resolve the proper amount of Class Counsel's fees and expenses of litigation. If any agreement is reached by the parties regarding recovery of fees and expenses of litigation, the Court shall determine whether the agreed amount and mode of payment are appropriate in accordance with applicable law and procedure.
C. If the parties cannot reach agreement on the proper amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses of litigation, Class Counsel shall file an application for fees and expenses in accordance with the requirements of applicable law and procedure within twenty-five (25) days following entry of this Consent Decree. Any objection to Class Counsel’s motion seeking a fee award shall be filed within twenty-five (25) days following the docketing of Class Counsel’s motion. The amount of any award shall be determined by the Court in accordance with the requirements of applicable law and procedure.
D. All parties reserve whatever rights each may have to appeal the amount of attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded by the Court.
47

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

--------------"--------------------------------x

KENNY A., by his next friend,

)

Linda Winn; et aI.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

ROY BARNES, in his official

)

capacity as Governor of the

)

State of Georgia; et al.

)

)

Defendants.

)

----------------------------------------------x

Civil Action No.1: 02-CV- 1686-MHS

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Marcia Robinson Lowry (pro hac vice) Ira P. Lustbader (pro hac vice) Jeffrey K. Powell (pro hac vice) Sarah B. Hechtman (pro hac vice) Erik S. Pitchal (pro hac vice) CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 404 Park Avenue South, 11 th Floor New York, NY 10016 (212) 683-2210
Don Keenan Georgia Bar No. 410650 KEENAN'S KIDS LAW CENTER 148 Nassau Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 523-2200

Jeffrey O. Bramlett Georgia Bar No. 075780 Corey F. Hirokawa Georgia Bar No. 357087 Gordon L. Hamrick Georgia Bar No. 322075 BONDURANT, MIXSON &
ELMORE,LLP 3900 One Atlantic Center 1201 W. Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 881-4100 FACSIMILE (404) 881-4111

Exhibit A Page 1

Ie PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1.
The named Plaintiff children, a Class of all Fulton and DeKalb County foster children, and a Subclass of African-American foster children, bring this Complaint against the Governor of Georgia and other state officials, agencies and entities responsible for the foster care system in Fulton and DeKalb Counties. Defendants' consistent failure to meet their legal obligations to foster children in state cl.:stody routinely dooms these foster children to physical, emotional and psychological harm, lost childhoods, and, too often, ruined lives.
2. Foster care is intended to be a temporary measure to provide care, protection, treatment and services to foster children who are removed from their biological families, primarily due to abuse or neglect, and then placed in state custody. These foster children (also called "deprived" children once a Juvenile Court has ruled that they have been abused or neglected), may be placed in either foster family homes or group residential or institutional foster care placements, while they await either reunification with their biological families, or adoption or other permanent homes.
-1Exhibit A Page 2

3.
Vulnerable foster children in Fulton and DeKalb Counties are victims of a
foster care system that is dangerously overburdened, mismanaged and out of
control. Among other things:
a. Caseworkers are responsible for a dangerously large number of foster children. Although national standards limit caseloads of foster care caseworkers to 12-15 cases, DeKalb County caseworkers are consistently expected to handle 35-50 cases, and Fulton caseworkers are assigned as many or even more foster children. Because of these excessive caseloads, it is impossible for caseworkers to adequately monitor the safety and care of the foster children assigned to them, and foster children in these counties regularly go six months or more without a visit from their caseworker.
b. A recent report prepared by the Georgia Department of Human Resources, summarizing a review of foster children's case files, concluded that caseworkers "do not understand how to incorporate or apply policies and procedures into daily practice" and "do not understand basic social work principles."
c. Foster children are consistently placed in unsafe or inappropriate foster homes and residential facilities. Recent state data provided to the federal government reflects that the rate of abuse or neglect of foster children in Georgia is nearly twice the federal standard. Upon information and belief, the maltreatment rates in Fulton and DeKalb Counties are at or above the statewide level.

-2-

Exhibit A

Page 3

d. Foster children are frequently left in dangerous emergency shelters for months and sometimes years at a time. Other foster children are placed in the shelters over and over again. Supervision in the shelters is grossly inadequate, the physical conditions are often overcrowded, unsanitary and in severe disrepair, and foster children are regularly deprived of basic services such as medical, dental and mental health care. Foster children living in the shelters are exposed to, and consistently involved in, dangerous activities, including violence, gang activity, sexual assault, prostitution, and illicit drug activity. The Governor's appointed child welfare monitor, the Georgia Child Advocate, reported in 2001 that the Fulton shelter is "unfit for the children who reside there," and that the DeKalb shelter "is grossly inadequate for use as an 'emergency shelter.' "
e. Foster children are regularly shuffled from one inappropriate placement to another, which prevents them from building an attachment to any family and deprives them of any sense of security and trust in the adults in their lives. Data for fiscal year 2000 indicates that approximately 450 foster children in Fulton and DeKalb Counties had been moved among at least four different foster placements while in state custody.
f. Foster children routinely languish in foster care for years, because Defendants fail to send foster children home promptly when it is safe to do so, and fail to place them for adoption promptly when they cannot safely be returned to their parents. At the end of fiscal year 2000, more than 900 Fulton and DeKalb County foster children - approximately one third of all foster children in custody - had been in state custody for four years or more.
g. African-American foster children are frequently delayed or denied placement in adoptive homes on the basis of their race or
-3Exhibit A Page 4

color, despite the availability of willing and suitable adoptive parents, because their prospective parents are not also AfricanAmerican. As a result, African-American foster children remain in state custody unnecessarily for long periods of time.
h. As reported by the Child Advocate in 2001, "there is little that is more clear than the fact that mental health resources are critically deficient for Georgia's abused and neglected children." This deficiency consistently causes foster children in serious need of mental health services to further deteriorate psychologically and emotionally while in state custody.
1. Foster children are denied adequate legal representation - no more than four attorneys are assigned to represent approximately 2000 deprived children in Fulton County Juvenile Court, and only two attorneys are assigned to represent approximately 1000 deprived children in DeKalb County Juvenile Court.
4.
For years, Georgia officials have been fully aware of pervasive, systemic
problems in Fulton and DeKalb County foster care, but they have failed to take
action to ensure that foster children in state custody are cared for and protected as
required by law. Proposed reforms have failed to lead to any substantial
improvements in the lives of Georgia's foster children, who continue to be harmed
by the very system that is supposed to protect them.

-4-

Exhibit A

Page 5

5.
Defendants' continuing failure to provide foster children with safe care, adequate protection, appropriate treatment and necessary services violates the Constitutions of Georgia and the United States, as well as state and federal statutory law and common law. This suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to stop Defendants' on-going violations of the law and to ensure that Defendants provide proper care, protection, treatment and services to foster children in their custody as required by law.
6. Following additional factual development, Plaintiffs will seek a particularized order of permanent injunctive relief, identifying, among other things, professionally accepted standards that the Defendants must meet in order to satisfy their statutory and constitutionally mandated duties. If appropriate, the requested order also will propose a sunset provision under which the Court's oversight would terminate when the Defendants have remedied their violations.

Exhibit A

-5-

Page 6

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7.
This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to Art. VI, Sec. IV, Para. I of the Georgia Constitution and D.C.G.A. § 23-1-1.
8. Venue in this case is proper under D.C.G.A. § 9-10-30 and § 9-10-31(a).
III. NAMED PLAINTIFFS! .9.
Kenny A. is a minor in state custody as a deprived child and appears by his next friend Linda Winne Defendants' violations of Kenny's rights and his resulting injuries are set forth below in paragraphs 105-115.
10. Kara B. is a minor in state custody as a deprived child and appears by her next friend Rosa Davis. Defendants' violations of Kara's rights and her resulting injuries are set forth below in paragraphs 116-124.
1 All plaintiffs are referred to by pseudonyms to preserve the confidentiality oftheir identity.
-6Exhibit A Page 7

11. Maya C. is a minor in state custody as a deprived child and appears by her next friend Linda Pace. Defendants' violations of Maya's rights and her resulting injuries are set forth below in paragraphs 125-135.
12. Phelicia D. is a minor in state custody as a deprived child and appears by her next friend Alesia Adams. Defendants' "Violations of Phelicia's rights and her resulting injuries are set forth below in paragraphs 136-146.
13. Sabrina E. and Korrina E. are minors in state custody as deprived children and each appears by her next friend Rebecca Silvey. Defendants' violations of Sabrina's and Korrina's rights and their resulting injuries are set forth below in paragraphs 147-151.
14. Tanya F. is a minor in state custody as a deprived child and appears by her next friend Carol Huff. Defendants' violations of Tanya's rights and her resulting injuries are set forth below in paragraphs 152-163.

-7-

Exhibit A

Page 8

15. Priscilla G. is a minor in state custody as a deprived child and appears by her next friend Marilyn Weaver. Defendants' violations of Priscilla's rights and her resulting injuries are set forth below in paragraphs 164-169.
16. Briana H. is a minor in state custody as a deprived child and appears by her next friend Linda Pace. Defendants' violations of Briana's rights and her resulting ~ injuries are set forth below in paragraphs 170-181.
IV. DEFENDANTS 17.
Defendant Roy Barnes is the Governor of the State of Georgia and is sued in his official capacity. His principal place of business is in Fulton County, Georgia. Governor Barnes has the ultimate authority within the executive branch of the government of the State of Georgia to direct and control the operation of the Georgia Department of Human Resources, the Division of Family and Children's Services within DHR, and the Department of Family and Children Services ("DFCS") in Fulton County and DeKalb County.

-8-

Exhibit A

Page 9

18. Defendant Department of Human Resources ("DHR") has its principal place of business in Fulton County, Georgia. DHR has the duty to administer or supervise all categories of public assistance, including foster care and adoption services, within the state; to administer or supervise all county DFCS; to prescribe qualifications of all DHR personnel; to act as the agent of the federal government in the administration of th(,-public child welfare program; and to comply with all requirements for receipt of federal grants-in-aid relating to public child welfare programs.
19. Defendant James Martin is the Commissioner ofDHR and is sued in his official capacity. He has his principal place of business in Fulton County, Georgia. Defendant Martin is the chief administrative officer of DHR and supervises, directs, accounts for, organizes, plans, administers and executes the functions vested in DHR. Defendant Martin is the appointing authority for both the Director of the Division of Family and Children Services within DHR, which has day-to-day operating responsibility for public child welfare services throughout the state, and

-9-

Exhibit A

Page 10

the Directors of county DFCS, including Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS. 20.
Defendant Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services has its principal place of business in Fulton County, Georgia. Fulton County DFCS is part of DHR and is charged with the administration of all fonns of public assistance in Fulton County, including the care and treatment of dependent and neglected children.
21. Defendant Beverly Jones is sued in her official capacity as Director of the Fulton County DFCS. She has her principal place of business in Fulton County, Georgia. Defendant Jones is the executive and administrative officer of Fulton County DFCS and is responsible for its operation and personnel.
22. Defendant DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services has its principal place of business in DeKalb County, Georgia. DeKalb County DFCS is part ofDHR and is charged with the administration of all fonns of public assistance in DeKalb County, including the care and treatment of dependent and
-10Exhibit A Page 11

neglected children. 23.
Defendant Wayne Drummond is sued in his official capacity as Director of the DeKalb County DFCS. He has his principal place of business in DeKalb County, Georgia. Defendant Drummond is the executive and administrative officer of DeKalb County DFCS and is responsible for its operation and personnel.
24. Defendant Fulton County is a body corporate, can be sued, and is subject to the jurisdiction of this court. Reasonable compensation for the services and related expenses of counsel appointed by the Juvenile Court of Fulton County to represent a foster child in deprivation or termination-of-parental-rights proceedings are a charge upon the funds of Fulton County. Fulton County also provides funding in an amount set by the County for the operation of the Fulton County emergency shelter which houses foster children.
25. Defendant DeKalb County is a body corporate, can be sued, and is subject to the jurisdiction of this court. Reasonable compensation for the services and related
-11Exhibit A Page 12

expenses of counsel appointed by the Juvenile Court ofDeKalb County to represent a foster child in deprivation or tennination-of-parental-rights proceedings are a charge upon the funds of DeKalb County. DeKalb County also provides funding in an amount set by the County for the operation of the DeKalb County emergency shelter which houses foster children.2
v. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
26. This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to D.C.G.A. § 9-l1-23(a)(1) (the character of the rights sought to be enforced for the class are common).
27. The Class consists of all children who have been, are or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of any of the DFCS Defendants; and (2) have or will have an opencase in Fulton County DFCS or
2 Hereinafter "DFCS Defendants" includes Defendants Roy Barnes, DHR, James Martin, Fulton County DFCS, Beverly Jones, DeKalb County DFCS, and Wayne Drummond; "Fulton DFCS Defendants" includes Defendants Roy Barnes, DHR, James Martin, Fulton County DFCS and Beverly Jones; and "DeKalb DFCS Defendants" includes Defendants Roy Barnes, DHR, James Martin, DeKalb County DFCS and Wayne Drummond.
-12Exhibit A Page 13

DeKalb County DFCS.3 The Subclass consists of all children in the Class who are African-American and who have had, or are subject to the risk of having, their adoption delayed or denied on the basis of their race or color.
28. The Class and Subclass are sufficiently numerous so that it is impracticable to bring all Plaintiffs before the Court. The Class includes approximately 2000 fOJter children who currently have an open case in Fulton County DFCS and approximately lOOO foster children who currently have an open case in DeKalb County DFCS. The vast majority of Class members are African-American, and the Subclass includes at least hundreds of Class members who are African-American and who are or will be awaiting adoption.
29. The named Plaintiffs will fairly ensure the adequate representation of the interests of the members of the Class and Subclass. The interests of the named Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to each other or to those of the Class members, as the named Plaintiffs and the Class members all seek declarative and injunctive relief to
3 Hereinafter, children in "foster care" and "foster children" refer solely to children who meet the definition ofthe Class.
-13Exhibit A Page 14

stop the same systemic patterns, customs and/or practices and legal violations alleged on their behalf. The interests of Plaintiffs Sabrina E., Korrina E. and Priscilla G. are not antagonistic to each other or to those of Subclass members, as these named Plaintiffs and the Subclass members all seek declarative and injunctive relief to stop the same systemic policies, patterns, customs and/or practices and legal violations alleged on their behalf.
30. Each named Plaintiff child appears by a next friend, and each next friend is sufficiently familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding the child's situation to fairly and adequately represent the child's interests in this litigation.
31. Plaintiffs and Class members are represented by attorneys employed by Children's Rights, Inc., a privately funded, non-profit organization with extensive national experience in complex class action litigation involving child welfare systems. They are also represented by Atlanta attorneys Don Keenan and Jane Okrasinski, who have extensive experience litigating the rights of children, including Georgia foster children. Attorneys Keenan and Okrasinski are associated
-14Exhibit A Page 15

with the Keenan's Kids Law Center, a privately funded, non-profit organization created to represent children who suffer due to systemic deficiencies in Georgia's child welfare system. Plaintiffs' counsel have the resources, expertise, and experience to prosecute this action.
32. The character of the Plaintiffs' rights sought to be enforced on behalf of themselves and the Class and Subclass is common. The questions of law and fact raised by the claims of the named Plaintiffs are common and typical of those raised by the claims of the Class, and the questions of law and fact raised by the racebased claims of Plaintiffs Sabrina E., Korrina E. and Priscilla G. are common and typical of those raised by the members of the Subclass. Questions of law and fact common to Plaintiffs, the Class and Subclass predominate over any individual issues of law or fact.
33. All of the named Plaintiffs and Class members are in need of adequate child welfare services, must rely on DPCS Defendants for those services, and are harmed by these Defendants' systemic failure to fulfill their legal obligations to provide
-15Exhibit A Page 16

safe care, adequate treatment, and necessary services. 34.
All of the named Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to effective representation in their deprivation and termination-of-parental rights proceedings in Juvenile Court and are harmed by the failure of Defendants Fulton County and DeKalb County to provide adequate and effective representation by failing to fund a sufficient number of attorneys to provide such representation.
.35. Plaintiffs Sabrina E., Korrina E. and Priscilla G. and members of the Subclass are further harmed by DFCS Defendants' practice of delaying and denying African-American foster children's adoption on the basis of their race or color because the suitable families who want to adopt these foster children are not African-American.
36. The harms suffered by all of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the harms suffered by the Class members, and the harms suffered by Plaintiffs Priscilla G., Sabrina E. and Korrina E. are typical of those suffered by the Subclass members.
-16Exhibit A Page 17

37. Common questions of fact include, but are not limited to:
a. whether, contrary to law and reasonable professional standards, DFCS Defendants fail to provide Plaintiffs and Class members with safe, stable, and appropriate foster care placements; services that are necessary to prevent them from deteriorating physically, psychologically or emotionally while in govemr~lent custody; and timely and appropriate services necessary to ensure that they are either safely reunited with their families or promptly placed in permanent homes;
b. whether DFCS Defendants delay or deny the adoption of Plaintiffs Sabrina E., Korrina E., Priscilla G. and Subclass members on the basis of their race or color; and
c. whether Defendants Fulton County and DeKalb County fail to ensure that Plaintiffs and Class members receive adequate and effective legal representation in Juvenile Court.
-17Exhibit A Page 18

38. Common questions of law include, but are not limited to:
a. whether the actions and inactions ofDFCS Defendants violate the rights of the Plaintiffs and Class members under the Due Process Clause of the Georgia State Constitution; the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States COJ.lstitution; D.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-13, 15-11-58,20-2-690.1,495-12; the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997,42 U.S.C. §§ 620-628, 670-679a (collectively the "Adoption and Assistance Act") and regulations promulgated thereunder; and the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program of the federal Medicaid Act ("EPSDT");
b. whether under D.C.G.A. § 9-2-20(b) and Georgia common law the actions and inactions of DFCS Defendants violate the rights of and breach the obligations owed to the Plaintiffs and Class members as third party beneficiaries to the "State Plan"
-18Exhibit A Page 19

contracts between Georgia and the federal government executed pursuant to Titles IV-B, IV-E and XIX of the Social Security
Act·,
c. whether under Georgia common law the manner in which Defendants operate and provide for the operation of the shelters in Fulton and DeKalb Counties has created and continues to create a nuisance;
d. whether DFCS Defendants' actions and inactions violate the rights of Sabrina E., Korrina E., Priscilla G. and the Subclass members, under the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, as amended by the Inter-Ethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996,42 u.S.C. §§ 671(a)(18), 674, 1996b, and under the Equal Protection Clause of the Georgia State Constitution; and
e. whether the actions and inactions of Fulton County and DeKalb County violate the rights of Plaintiffs and Class members to adequate and effective representation before the Juvenile Courts under the Due Process Clause of the Georgia State Constitution
-19Exhibit A Page 20

and O.C.G.A. § lS-11-98(a). VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING DEFENDANTS' SYSTEMIC LEGAL VIOLATIONS A. DANGEROUS AND INAPPROPRIATE OUT OF HOME PLACEMENTS
39. DFCS Defendants have engaged in a policy, pattern, custom and/or practice of placing foster children in inappropriate and dangerous placements, including emergency shelters, that fail to provide them appropriate protection, care, treatment and services. These Defendants' policies, patterns, customs and/or practices, alleged in paragraphs 40-69, injure and create a risk of imminent harm to Plaintiffs and Class members. DFCS Defendants have been and are fully aware of these policies, patterns, customs and/or practices, but have failed to act to prevent, correct or alter them, and the harm and risk of harm to children in the Class is foreseeable. Through these actions and inactions, DFCS Defendants have failed to exercise professional judgment and have acted with deliberate indifference to the welfare, care and protection of these foster children and to these foster children's legal rights.

-20-

Exhibit A

Page 21

1. Shelters 40.
DFCS Defendants routinely place foster children in dangerous and inappropriate "emergency" shelters, which harms them or places them at imminent risk of harm. In Fulton County, Fulton DFCS operates the Dulaney House, as well as Lipscomb Hall and Darnell Hall on the Oak Hill campus (collectively the "Fulton Shelter"). In DeKalb County, DeKalb DFCS ('perates the Victoria Simmons Emergency Center (the "DeKalb Shelter.") (The Fulton Shelter and the DeKalb Shelter are collectively referred to as the "Shelters"). The Shelters are funded in whole or in part by Defendants Fulton County and DeKalb County. As a result of the failure of Defendants Fulton and DeKalb Counties to adequately fund the Shelters and DFCS Defendants' failure to ensure that they are safe and appropriate settings for children, the operations of the Shelters create a continuous condition that hurts, inconveniences or damages the Plaintiffs and Class members who reside there.
41. DFCS Defendants frequently place foster children for months and sometimes
-21Exhibit A Page 22

years at a time in the Shelters, which are intended for emergency short-term care only. These Defendants also regularly place foster children in the Shelters on multiple occasions.
42. The Shelters are consistently overcrowded. While the Fulton Shelter was designed and/or approved to house approximately 85 children, it has housed as many as 118 children. The DeKalb Shelter, which was designed and/or approved to house approximately 35 children, has housed as many as 55 or more children. Foster children have had to sleep on the floor because beds were not available.
43. The physical conditions in the shelters are often unsanitary and in serious disrepair, and have recently included vermin, holes in the walls and broken beds.
44. Contrary to accepted professional standards, Fulton DFCS Defendants routinely place infants and toddlers at the Fulton Shelter, sometimes for extended periods of time, without appropriate staffing and care. This institutional placement of infants and toddlers without a consistent caretaker causes foreseeable and too

-22-

Exhibit A

Page 23

often permanent damage to foster children's ability to form emotional attachments. 45.
The Shelters are located in dangerous neighborhoods where drug trafficking, gang activity, prostitution and other criminal activities are pervasive. DFCS Defendants' control over access into and out of the shelters is grossly inadequate. Shelter staff consistently leave foster children unsupervised both inside the facilities and on the surrounding grounds. Residents can leave the shelter buildings and grounds at will, and strangers, including drug dealers and pimps, have had virtually open access to the shelter grounds and, in some instances, to the resident foster children themselves.
46. Within the Shelters, DFCS Defendants regularly mix violent or aggressive children, including children with histories of sexual or assaultive offenses, with non-violent and particularly vulnerable foster children, including those who have been sexually abused or have significant developmental disabilities, resulting routinely in victimization of the more vulnerable foster children.

-23-

Exhibit A

Page 24

47. As a result of inadequate supervision and security, foster children frequently buy and use drugs on or near the Shelter grounds, with the knowledge of Shelter staff. Foster children residing in the Shelters also have been and continue to be beaten-up, raped and sexually exploited, and involved in gang activity, both inside the Shelter facilities and in the adjacent neighborhoods.
48. As a result of inadequate supervision and security, sexual activity regularly occurs among foster children placed at the Shelters, and sexually transmitted infections are a virtual epidemic among Shelter residents.
49. As a result of the inadequate supervision and security, and the dangerous conditions inside the Shelters, many foster children, including younger foster children, repeatedly run away from the Shelters. The absence of these foster children is not promptly noticed by Shelter staff and mayor may not be reported to police, because such decisions are made by the Shelter staff, who frequently fail to exercise reasonable professional judgment.

-24-

Exhibit A

Page 25

50. Many of the foster children in the Shelters have serious mental or behavioral health care needs that DPCS Defendants consistently fail to meet. This failure directly injures these foster children and leads to their emotional and psychological deterioration while in government custody. This failure also adds to the combustible environment in the Shelters and too often leads to increased violence in these facilities.
51. DPCS Defendants routinely fail to enroll Shelter residents who are of compulsory school age in public school and ensure that Shelter residents attend school even when they remain in the Shelters for months at a time. As a result, foster children living in the Shelters regularly fall behind in school and lose opportunities for educational development. What little schoolwork is provided by Shelter staff "in-house" is frequently not grade-appropriate for many of the residents. Shelter residents entitled to special education services are consistently denied access to such services.

-25-

Exhibit A

Page 26

52. DFCS Defendants consistently fail to provide appropriate structured activities for the Shelter residents. As a result, foster children "hang out" most of the day with few or no constructive programs available to them. The foster children's idleness, coupled with the lack of staff supervision and security, foreseeably leads to violence among residents, depression and frustration, drug use and other misconduct, injuring or creating a risk of immediate injury for e-;ery child in the Shelters.
53. DFCS Defendants frequently fail to adequately screen the staff at the Shelters for references, prior experience and criminal backgrounds.
54. DFCS Defendants too often fail to provide adequate training or supervision of the Shelter staff, who regularly fail to exercise appropriate, professional judgment in their care and protection of the foster children placed in the Shelters. Shelter staff frequently push, grab and physically interfere with residents, as well as verbally provoke the youngsters by making disparaging remarks about the foster

-26-

Exhibit A

Page 27

children themselves or their families. 55.
As a result of the failure to adequately screen and train Shelter staff, instead of directing, controlling or supervising the foster children in their care, Shelter staff consistently call the police when foster children commit minor infractions of Shelter rules, such as cursing and failing to follow staff directions. Residents charged with such offenses are often then removed from the Shelter and detained by the juvenile authorities in locked detention facilities, sometimes for extended periods of time. As a result, foster children routinely cycle in and out of the Shelters and locked detention facilities for many months and sometimes years, without receiving necessary services and treatment, injuring them and causing them to deteriorate emotionally and psychologically while in government custody.
56. Routinely, foster children with no history of criminal, delinquent or unruly behavior end up engaging in such conduct while residing in one of the Shelters, because of the failure ofDFCS Defendants, as the foster children's custodian, to provide them with adequate safety, care and services.

-27-

Exhibit A

Page 28

2. Other Out-Of-Home Placements 57.
DFCS Defendants regularly place foster children in other dangerous and inappropriate placements, in addition to the Shelters, where they are harmed or subject to the risk of imminent harm.
58. DFCS Defendants endanger foster children in their custody by failing to ensure that, before any child is placed in a foster home, the foster home and foster parents are adequately investigated and found to meet minimum standards that are consistent with those recommended by national organizations that set such standards.
59. DFCS Defendants consistently apply different standards to foster homes managed directly by DFCS and foster homes managed by private agencies with whom DFCS contracts. Among other things, DFCS Defendants regularly waive licensing requirements governing the maximum number of foster children allowed in their own directly managed foster homes and facilities, but do not typically

-28-

Exhibit A

Page 29

permit contract agencies to grant such waivers. 60.
DFCS Defendants routinely fail to adequately monitor foster children, foster homes and foster parents on an on-going basis for their safety and quality of care. Too often, Fulton and DeKalb County foster children and families go months-often six or more months -- without a caseworker visiting their homes, leaving the foster children totally unprotected from abuse or neglect in the foster placement, and allowing their service needs to go unmet. DFCS Defendants also regularly fail to promptly close foster homes where foster children have been subjected to abuse or neglect while living with foster families.
61. As a result of DFCS Defendants' failure to appropriately screen, approve, monitor and close foster homes, Fulton and DeKalb County foster children have regularly been, and continue to be at imminent risk of being placed in dangerous foster homes and facilities where they are abused and neglected. The rate of abuse or neglect of foster children while in state custody is nearly twice the federal government standard, and on information and belief, the rate of maltreatment of

-29-

Exhibit A

Page 30

foster children in Fulton and DeKalb Counties is at least as high as the statewide figure.
62. DFCS Defendants have failed to develop the number and types of placements necessary to allow them to place each foster child in a safe environment that is capable of meeting the child's individual needs. This drastic shortage of appropriate foster placements is particularly egreE,ious for adolescents; children with significant medical, mental health or behavioral needs; teenage mothers and their children; and sibling groups.
63. DFCS Defendants routinely leave foster children who need a therapeutic placement in Shelters, locked detention facilities or other placements that are unable to provide the foster children with necessary therapy and services. These foster children who are denied a needed therapeutic placement regularly suffer deterioration of their mental and emotional health and consequently in their behavior. This deterioration too often leads to the disruption of placements and to foster children being shuffled from one inappropriate placement to another, and

-30-

Exhibit A

Page 31

frequently the placement of foster children in restrictive settings, such as psychiatric institutions and detention facilities, that unnecessarily deprive them of their liberty.
64. DFCS Defendants frequently separate teen mothers in foster care from their children, without exercising reasonable professional judgment concerning the best - interests of the mother or child, and without taking reasonable steps when appropriate to allow the mother to live with and care for the child in an appropriately supportive placement. These Defendants routinely fail to provide the mother and child frequent and meaningful visitation. This separation deprives the teen mothers of their legal right to make child-rearing decisions, deprives the teen mothers and their children of the opportunity to develop and nurture an emotional attachment, and causes them both severe psychological and emotional InJury.
65. DFCS Defendants too often separate siblings who are in foster care. DFCS Defendants regularly fail to provide frequent and meaningful visitation between the

-31-

Exhibit A

Page 32

separated siblings. The separation of the siblings and denial of visitation between them deprive foster children of their right to associate with their family members and causes them serious psychological and emotional harm.
66. DFCS Defendants routinely fail to ensure that caseworkers and other DFCS staff have adequate information about foster children's individual needs and about the characteristics of foster placements necessary to ensure that placements are appropriate for the individual child. As a result of this failure and the systemic shortage of appropriate placements for foster children, DFCS Defendants employ a slot-driven placement system, in which foster children are regularly assigned foster placements based on the availability of a bed or slot, and not based on the capacity of the placement to provide for the foster child's needs.
67. DFCS Defendants consistently mix violent or aggressive children, including children with histories of sexual or assaultive offenses, in the same foster homes with non-violent and particularly vulnerable foster children, including those who have been sexually abused or have significant developmental disabilities,

-32-

Exhibit A

Page 33

frequently resulting in or creating an imminent risk of victimization, harm or even death of the more vulnerable foster children.
68. DFCS Defendants routinely fail to ensure that foster care providers, including foster parents, are provided relevant information concerning a foster child in their care, such as health and education records, at the time of placement. As a result, foster parents are frequently unaware of and unequipped to meet the child's serious needs. In addition, DFCS caseworkers are frequently inaccessible to foster parents, and regularly fail to promptly respond to requests by foster parents for services necessary to allow them to adequately care for Class members. DFCS Defendants consistently fail to ensure that foster parents are provided with supportive services that would help prevent placements from disrupting and prevent foster children from being unnecessarily transferred from one placement to another.
69. As a direct result of DFCS Defendants' failure to provide relevant information and supportive services to foster parents, and their failure to place

-33-

Exhibit A

Page 34

foster children in placements that can meet their needs, placements disrupt and foster children are frequently moved from one inappropriate placement to another. DFCS Defendants regularly move foster children to new placements abruptly and without needed supportive transition services, exacerbating the injury caused by the move itself. These disruptions and multiple moves often deprive foster children of the emotional security and stability they need, which often impairs their ability to form attachments, increaJes their behavioral problems and causes them significant psychological and emotional pain and injury.
B. INADEQUATE SERVICES TO CHILDREN 70.
DFCS Defendants have engaged in a policy, pattern, custom and/or practice of denying foster children needed health, education and independent living services, as well as services necessary to ensure placement in a permanent home, which deprives these foster children of appropriate protection, care and treatment. These Defendants' policies, patterns, customs and/or practices, alleged in paragraphs 71-85, injure and create a risk of imminent harm to Plaintiffs and Class members. DFCS Defendants have been and are fully aware of these policies,

-34-

Exhibit A

Page 35

patterns, customs and/or practices, have failed to act to prevent, correct, or alter them, and the harm or risk of harm to Plaintiffs and members of the Class is foreseeable. Through these actions and inactions, DFCS Defendants have failed to exercise professional judgment in providing services needed by the foster children in their custody and have acted with deliberate indifference to the foster children's welfare, care, and protection and to the foster children's legal rights.
1. Health Services 71.
DFCS Defendants routinely fail to provide necessary and adequate health services to children in foster care, including but not limited to appropriate and timely professional assessment of and needed treatment for medical, mental health, behavioral health, dental, vision and hearing conditions.
72. The denial of timely and appropriate mental and behavioral health services by DFCS Defendants too often results in disruptions of foster placements when a foster child's untreated condition causes the child's behavior to deteriorate, and also results in the placement of some foster children in restrictive facilities that

-35-

Exhibit A

Page 36

unnecessarily deprive them of their liberty. 73.
DFCS Defendants' denial of health services to foster children has caused and creates the imminent risk of causing Plaintiffs and Class members pain and injury, and deterioration in their physical, emotional or psychological well-being while in state custody.
2. Educational Services .74.
When children enter foster care or a new foster placement that requires a change in school, DFCS Defendants regularly delay enrolling or sending foster children of compulsory school age to school. As a result, many foster children, especially foster children placed in the Shelters, have gone extended periods of time without being enrolled in or attending school.
75. DFCS Defendants routinely fail to provide foster children with necessary education-related casework services, including monitoring a child's educational progress, obtaining needed educational assessments, and taking necessary steps

-36-

Exhibit A

Page 37

within their authority to ensure that each foster child is in an appropriate educational program. DFCS Defendants regularly fail to ensure that foster children in need of special education services get access to and receive such services.
76. DFCS Defendants' failure to provide education-related services has caused or creates the imminent risk of causing Plaintiffs and Class members of compulsory school age to be absent from school and to bcdeprived of educational opportunities and development.
3. Permanency Planning Services 77.
DFCS Defendants routinely fail to meet statutory timetables and mandates for providing foster children in their custody with services necessary to ensure their prompt placement in a permanent home, referred to as "permanency planning" services, which include the continuing process of determining whether a child can be safely returned home, identifying and providing appropriate services to facilitate the child's return home when safe and appropriate, and, if reunification is inappropriate, taking the steps needed to place the child with an alternative

-37-

Exhibit A

Page 38

permanent family, usually through adoption. 78.
DFCS Defendants consistently fail to involve foster children and their families adequately in the development and revision of the "case plan" for each foster child, which plan is required to document permanency planning activities and goals.
79. DFCS Defendants frequently fail to provide foster children and their biological parents with the services they need to make prompt, safe reunification possible, and to arrange and facilitate regular, meaningful visitation between foster children and their parents, when reunification remains the goal.
80. DFCS Defendants consistently fail to exercise reasonable professional judgment to determine when a foster child's permanency goal needs to be changed, and instead retain reunification as the child's plan beyond statutorily mandated time periods. DFCS Defendants routinely fail to file petitions to terminate parental rights within statutorily mandated time limits. DFCS Defendants regularly fail to

-38-

Exhibit A

Page 39

provide necessary documentation setting forth the compelling reasons why an otherwise statutorily mandated petition to terminate parental rights should not be filed. These failures cause many children to remain in foster care for years without being legally free to be adopted, depriving these foster children of the opportunity to be placed with a permanent adoptive family.
81.
For those foster children who cannot te returned safely to their parents,
DFCS Defendants too often fail to take and document reasonable and appropriate steps to identify, recruit, process, approve and place foster children with adoptive families. As a result, far too many children remain in foster care for years and often for the remainder of their childhoods.
82. DFCS Defendants regularly fail to conduct a timely search for relatives and to recruit them as long term placements when children first enter foster care. Instead DFCS Defendants frequently rip foster children away from stable, loving foster families who are willing to adopt them and with whom they have lived for extended periods of time, often years, in order to place them with relatives with

-39-

Exhibit A

Page 40

whom the child has no significant relationship. This practice unnecessarily and traumatically severs the strong emotional bonds and attachments foster children form with their caretakers.
83. DFCS Defendants have a policy, pattern, custom and/or practice of delaying or denying the adoption of African-American foster children - Subclass members by willing and suitable, non-African-American, prospective adoptive parents, even if the prospective parents are already caring for the child, because the race of the foster child is not the same as the race of the prospective adoptive parents. As a result, African-American foster children are delayed and/or denied adoptive placements with non-African-American families that are or would be provided to similarly situated non-African-American foster children. This practice limits and often denies African-American foster children the opportunity to be adopted into permanent homes.
84. The failure of DFCS Defendants to fulfill their permanency planning obligations, including their obligation not to delay or deny an adoption on the basis

-40- '

Exhibit A Page 41

ofa child's race or color, causes children to remain in foster care for unnecessarily long periods of time in contravention of the purpose of temporary state custody, and has caused, or creates a risk of causing, Plaintiffs and Class members unnecessary emotional, psychological and psychiatric harm and deprivation of their liberty.
4. Independent Living and Transitional Services 85.
DFCS Defendants consistently fail to provide foster children age 16 and older who cannot return home or be adopted, with legally mandated independent living and transitional services to enable them to live on their own when they are discharged from state custody at age eighteen. As a result, foster children are routinely discharged from state custody, or are at risk of being discharged from state custody, without the training and life skills needed to live on their own, which harms or creates an imminent risk of harm to these foster children.

-41-

Exhibit A Page 42

C. INADEQUATE REIMBURSEMENT PAYMENTS TO FOSTER PARENTS 86.
Despite the lack of adequate foster homes and other kinds of appropriate foster care placements for children, the DFCS Defendants fail to fund foster care placements through required "foster care maintenance payments" at levels sufficient to provide essential and appropriate services for foster children. It was not until October, 2002, that the DFCS Defendants announced an increase in the foster care reimbursement rates that are paid to private contract agencies responsible for operating child-care institutional and other group facilities and some individual foster family homes, and that increase is a time-limited one, in effect by its terms for only twelve months. Foster family homes operated directly under the auspices of the DFCS Defendants continue to be paid at a rate too low to attract and retain qualified foster parents or to provide them with adequate resources to provide foster children with basic necessities, such as food, clothing and other essentials.

-42-

Exhibit A

Page 43

D. INADEQUATE SELECTION, TRAINING AND SUPERVISION OF CASEWORKERS 87.
DFCS Defendants have engaged in a policy, pattern, custom and/or practice of failing to train caseworkers concerning the adequate care and treatment of foster children, of failing to provide appropriate supervision of caseworkers, and of failing to hold DFCS staff accountable for their failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment in making decisions concerning the care and treatment of foster children. These Defendants' policies, patterns, customs and/or practices, alleged in paragraphs 87-89, injure and create a risk of imminent harm to Plaintiffs and Class members. DFCS Defendants have been and are fully aware of these policies, patterns, customs and/or practices, have failed to act to prevent or correct or alter them, and the harm and risk of harm to Plaintiffs and children in the Class is foreseeable. Through these actions and inactions, DFCS Defendants have failed to exercise professional judgment in providing the training, supervision and management needed to ensure foster children's safety and well-being and have acted with deliberate indifference to the welfare, care and safety of these foster children and to these foster children's legal rights.

-43-

Exhibit A

Page 44

88. DFCS caseworkers and supervisors in Fulton and DeKalb Counties too often do not have the educational background, social work experience or other skills needed to provide appropriate care and treatment to foster children, many of whom have significant emotional, behavioral, medical, and educational needs.
89. DFCS Defendants consistently assign caseworkers to fostu children's cases before they receive adequate training. Once assigned to cases, caseworkers do not receive the additional training, supervision and support necessary for them to adequately monitor foster placements, ensure that foster children and their foster and biological families receive needed services, and engage in case planning and case management consistent with the law and reasonable professional standards.
90. DFCS Defendants also consistently fail to ensure adequate supervision of foster care casework; fail to appropriately discipline incompetent caseworkers; and fail to hold caseworkers accountable for casework practice that is inconsistent with the law and reasonable professional judgment.

-44-

Exhibit A

Page 45

E. EXCESSIVE CASEWORKER CASELOADS , TURNOVER AND LACK OF CONTINUITY 91.
DFCS Defendants routinely fail to employ a sufficient number of caseworkers to handle foster children's cases. In DeKalb County, DFCS caseworkers frequently have caseloads of 35-50 cases each, and in Fulton County, caseworkers are commonly assigned even higher caseloads, more than two or three times higher than the range of 12-15 cases recommended under accepted national standards.
92. As a result of these excessive caseloads, caseworkers regularly fail to see some foster children for months at a time and fail to arrange for the services needed by these foster children and their biological and foster families.
93. Foster children are consistently shuffled from one caseworker to another, in part because DFCS Defendants have not acted to correct circumstances when there is excessive caseworker turnover, and because they have implemented and maintained a system that mandates the transfer of foster children's cases to
-45Exhibit A Page 46

different caseworkers at several points in their cases. 94.
DFCS Defendants routinely allow foster children's cases to remain unassigned for significant periods of time, and fail to ensure that there is an appropriate transition when cases are transferred and that receiving caseworkers have complete information.
95. As a result ofDFCS Defendants'.practice offailing to act to remedy circumstances in which there are excessive caseloads and turnover, and their failure to ensure continuity of planning and casework activities, caseworkers consistently fail to adequately monitor foster children's safety and well-being and to meet their known needs.
F. INADEQUATE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM 96.
DFCS Defendants have engaged in a policy, pattern, custom and/or practice of failing to maintain information systems that contain and provide the information necessary for them to reach informed decisions concerning foster children's best
-46Exhibit A Page 47

interests and to plan for foster children's needs consistent with reasonable professional judgment. As a result, these Defendants deny adequate protection, care, treatment, and services to Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
97. Information systems maintained by DFCS Defendants concerning foster children frequently fail to contain accurate or timely information and fail to provide - . adequate security to protect the integrity of the data contained therein. These information systems too often fail to adequately and reliably track individual foster children; identify a child's actual physical placement; permit DFCS Defendants to reliably match foster children with appropriate, available placements and services; and provide sufficient information necessary to plan for foster children's needs. As a result, foster children are harmed and are continually at risk of suffering harm while in foster care because government employees responsible for their care cannot determine where they are or what services they require.
98. Information systems maintained by DFCS Defendants concerning foster children are insufficient to properly assess whether these Defendants are fulfilling
-47Exhibit A Page 48

their legal obligations to Plaintiffs and the Class members. Among other things, these Defendants cannot accurately ascertain caseworker caseloads, caseworker turnover, numbers of placements for individual foster children, or numbers of maltreatment reports for particular foster homes or facilities.
G. DENIAL OF ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION 99.
Fulton and DeKalb County Juvenile Courts appoint child advocate attorneys to represent the vast majority of foster children who are the subject of petitions alleging they have been abused or neglected (called "deprivation petitions"). This attorney/client relationship continues after the child is determined to be abused or neglected ("deprived") until the child is placed out of foster care and out of state custody, or until a petition for termination of parental rights is filed which frees the child to be adopted. When a petition to terminate the parental rights of a child is filed, a child advocate attorney is appointed pursuant to O.C.G.A. § Section 15-1198 (a).
100. In Fulton County, there are no more than four child advocate attorneys who
-48Exhibit A Page 49

are assigned to represent approximately 2,000 foster children, including foster children who are the subject of a petition to terminate parental rights. In DeKalb County, there are two child advocate attorneys appointed to represent approximately 1,000 such children.
101. On information and belief, the number of child advocate attorneys, and consequently their workloads, are determined by the budgets established by Defendants Fulton County and DeKalb County, which provide the funds for the child advocate attorneys. The funding provided by Defendants Fulton and DeKalb County is wholly inadequate to financially provide for the number of attorneys actually needed to effectively represent Plaintiffs and members of the Class.
102. As a result of the workloads of the child advocate attorneys assigned to represent Plaintiffs and members of the Class, these lawyers are routinely unable to consult with their clients prior to court appearances and are unable to provide effective and adequate counselor zealous representation.
-49Exhibit A Page 50

103. As a direct result of the inadequate funds Defendants Fulton County and DeKalb County make available to cover the cost of providing attorneys to foster children in Juvenile Court, Plaintiffs and members of the Class are denied adequate and effective legal representation and a meaningful opportunity to be heard in the Juvenile Court. H. BREACH OF GEORGIA'S CONTRACT WITH THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT 104.
The federal government has approved the State Plans submitted by the State of Georgia to receive federal financial assistance under Titles IV-B, IV-E and XIX of the Social Security Act to help fund the State's child welfare, foster care and adoption, and Medicaid programs respectively. These State Plans are contracts into which the State of Georgia enters for the express benefit of Plaintiffs and Class members, who are third party beneficiaries of these contracts. DFCS Defendants are directly responsible for fulfilling the obligations undertaken by the State of Georgia when it entered into these State Plan contracts, including but not limited to the obligation to administer the programs in accordance with specific relevant state
-50Exhibit A Page 51

statutes, policies and all applicable federal statutes, regulations and other official issuances of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Defendants have breached their obligations under these State Plan contracts.
VII. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING NAMED PLAINTIFFS 105.
As a result of the actions and omissions alleged in paragraphs 105-181, Defendants have failed to exercise professional judgment in providing services and placements needed by the Named Plaintiff children in foster care and have acted . with deliberate indifference to these foster children's welfare, care, and protection and to these foster children's legal rights. Defendants' actions and omissions have injured and continue to injure and create a risk of imminent harm to these Named Plaintiff children.
A. KENNYA. 106.
Kenny A. is a two-year-old boy who is in foster care, has been adjudicated deprived, and has an open case in Fulton County DFCS. Kenny and his older sister, Mary, came into foster care when Kenny was nine months old. They were
-51Exhibit A Page 52

removed from their mother's custody because of neglect. Kenny currently lives in a family foster home.
107. Fulton DFCS Defendants have failed to develop and implement a viable case plan that will allow Kenny A. to leave foster care and secure a safe and appropriate permanent home in accordance with reasonable professional standards and the law. Fulton DFCS Deiendants have denied Kenny a permanent family home by failing to provide him with adequate permanency planning services in a manner consistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgement and law. In June 2001, Kenny's former foster family, the W.'s, informed Fulton County DFCS Defendants they were moving out of state and asked Fulton DFCS Defendants to identify a new placement for Kenny. Mrs. W. even offered to stay in Georgia after her family moved in order to care for Kenny until a new placement was located and until Kenny had undergone an appropriate transition to the new home.
108. For months, Fulton DFCS Defendants failed to take the steps needed to recruit and identify an appropriate adoptive or foster family home for Kenny,

-52-

Exhibit A

Page 53

although Mrs. W. repeatedly informed Defendant Beverly Jones and other employees or agents of Fulton DFCS Defendants that she would be leaving Georgia.
109. At Mrs. W.'s request, an agency that contracts with Fulton DFCS Defendants identified a suitable couple that was willing and eager to adopt Kenny and his sister. Fulton DFCS Defendants initially agreed to this adopCve placement for both children.
110. Subsequently, in December 2001, Fulton DFCS Defendants reversed their position and informed Kenny's prospective adoptive parents that they would not be permitted to adopt Kenny and Mary, because a distant relative in another state, who had never met Kenny, had expressed an interest in adopting him. In making this decision, Fulton DFCS Defendants failed to exercise professional judgment in assessing how realistic the relative placement was and how Kenny would be affected by the simultaneous loss of his relationship with the W. 's and his loss of an opportunity for an adoptive home. The decision further harmed Kenny by
-53Exhibit A Page 54

depriving him of an opportunity to be adopted with his sister into a loving home at a young age.
111. In February 2002, approximately eight months after the W. 's had initially informed Fulton County DFCS that Kenny needed to be placed in a new home, Fulton DFCS Defendants finally placed him in the home of an unrelated, elderly, single foster mother. Fulton DFCS Defendants failed to provide Kenny with adequate services to facilitate his transition to this new home, notwithstanding that a significant transitional period was necessary because of his strong attachment to the W.'s.
112. Kenny's attachment to the W. 's, and the trauma caused by his removal from their home, were intensified by Fulton DFCS Defendants' delay in identifying a new placement for him.
113. Recently, Fulton DFCS Defendants moved Kenny to a third foster family home, where his sister Mary is placed, who herself has been shuffled through
-54Exhibit A Page 55

approximately seven foster placements. Fulton DFCS Defendants once again failed to provide Kenny with necessary services to facilitate his transition to this new home.
114. Kenny and Mary have been separated from each other for most of the time that they have been in foster care. While they were separated, Fulton DFCS Defendants failed to arrange for them to have re6ular and consistent visitation with each other.
115. Upon information and belief, Fulton DFCS Defendants currently plan again to move Kenny to place him with a distant relative, thereby once again disrupting any bond or attachment he has formed with his caregiver. As a result of his many moves and Fulton DFCS Defendants' failure to provide him with permanency planning services, he is at risk of having significant difficulties forming attachments in the future.
116. Fulton DFCS Defendants failed to provide the W. 's with any medical
-55Exhibit A Page 56

records concerning Kenny when he was initially placed with them. In addition, from the date of his first placement with the W.'s in November 2000, until the date he was removed from their care in February 2002, Kenny's child advocate attorney had no contact with Kenny or the W. 's except one telephone call. Kenny has been and continues to be denied adequate and effective legal representation in the Fulton County Juvenile Court.
B. KARAB. 117.
Kara B. is a 14-year-old girl who is in foster care, has been adjudicated deprived, is legally free for adoption, and has an open case in DeKalb County DFCS. She initially came into care when she was approximately five years old because her mother left her alone in a hotel room. She is currently living in a residential treatment facility.
118. Kara suffers from Conduct Disorder, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Depression. For years, DeKalb DFCS Defendants failed to provide Kara with necessary treatment to address her severe emotional and behavioral problems,
-56Exhibit A Page 57

many of which developed or worsened while she has been in foster care. 119.
DeKalb DFCS Defendants have shuffled Kara through approximately 10-15 placements since she entered foster care, most of which have disrupted because the foster parents were not trained or equipped to address Kara's serious emotional, psychiatric, and psychological needs.
120. While Kara was placed in foster family homes, her caseworkers failed to visit her regularly. As a result, DeKalb DFCS Defendants failed to remove her promptly from foster homes where she was maltreated, including several homes in which her foster parents discriminated between her and their biological children, such as by serving Kara different food on different dishes than the other children received.
121. When she was approximately eleven years old, Kara spent almost a year on the run from a foster placement that was unsafe and unable to meet Kara's need for treatment and supervision. During this period, Kara did not attend school and was
-57Exhibit A Page 58

a victim of child prostitution. 122.
Between her disrupted foster family home placements, DeKalb DFCS Defendants have placed Kara many times in the DeKalb Shelter, although she repeatedly has run from this facility because of inadequate security and staff supervIsIon.
123. Kara is currently placed in a residential treatment facility for severely disturbed children. While placed at this facility, Kara was sexually abused by a staff member. DeKalb DFCS Defendants placed Kara in this facility only after she had been in foster care for several years, despite her !mown need for this level of care. The delay was due to DeKalb DFCS Defendants' failure to complete the paperwork needed to establish Kara's eligibility for residential therapeutic services.
124. Kara will probably be released from her current residential treatment facility shortly and is at imminent risk of being placed in yet another inappropriate setting as a result of the shortage of less restrictive therapeutic placements and DeKalb
-58Exhibit A Page 59

DFCS Defendants' demonstrated failure to secure a placement that can meet her needs. Kara is also at risk of being returned to the DeKalb Shelter, from which she is likely to run again, because at the shelter her safety will be in jeopardy and she will not have access to necessary mental health services or the structured and supervised environment she needs.
125. Kara recognizes h~r need for a structured, therapeutic setting, which she has communicated to DeKalb DFCS Defendants. Kara has deteriorated psychologically and emotionally while in foster care, and is at imminent risk of further deteriorating upon her release from her current placement if she is not placed in an appropriate, therapeutic setting.
C. MAYAC. 126.
Maya C. is a sixteen-year-old girl who is in foster care, has been adjudicated deprived, and has an open case in DeKalb County DFCS. She came into foster because of physical abuse. Maya has been in foster care for approximately nine months, and her current foster placement is the DeKalb Shelter, where she has
-59Exhibit A Page 60

stayed for most of her time in foster care. 127.
Maya's "room" at the shelter consists of a dimly-lit cubicle, containing a bed, a small cabinet and several shelves. Maya's cubicle provides inadequate light, space and privacy for her to study or read. These poor living conditions have impeded and continue to impede her emotional well-being and development. For many months, Maya had no place to secure her property and as a result many of her possessions have been stolen, including a number of clothing items that were supposedly in the care of shelter staff.
128. Maya is regularly exposed to dangerous, unsanitary and unhealthy conditions in the shelter facilities and on the shelter grounds, and often sees roaches in the shelter.
129. Maya has been routinely placed at risk of harm by the failure of the shelter staff to appropriately supervise shelter residents and by the staffs abusive tactics. Maya has been placed at risk of harm due to the numerous fights among other

-60-

Exhibit A

Page 61

residents that have occurred in her presence and that have not been appropriately handled by staff, including one altercation where a resident hurled a hot iron at another, barely missing Maya's head. On another occasion, a staffmember unnecessarily used physical force to compel Maya to get out of her bed.
130. As a result of the inadequate supervision and security measures in place at the shelter, ~vfaya has left the facility at will without the permission or knowledge of shelter staff, subjecting her to the dangerous conditions and criminal activity prevalent in the surrounding neighborhood.
131. Since entering care, Maya has been denied appropriate educational services. Despite her repeated requests, DeKalb DFCS Defendants failed to enroll Maya in school for several weeks after she initially came into care. Although Maya has been an honor student, DeKalb DFCS Defendants have enrolled her in an "alternative school" that fails to provide her with an adequately challenging curriculum.

-61-

Exhibit A Page 62

132. Instead of taking the necessary steps to identify an appropriate foster family placement for Maya, her caseworker has recommended that Maya be placed in a residential drug treatment program, despite the fact that she has passed repeated drug screens. Maya's caseworker has failed to visit her on a regular basis and has failed to ensure her safety or discern her needs.
133. DeKalb DFCS Defendants have failed to develop and implement a viable case plan that will allow Maya to leave foster care and secure a safe and appropriate permanent home in accordance with reasonable professional standards and law. Although the plan is to reunify Maya with her mother, DeKalb DFCS Defendants have failed to arrange regular visits between Maya and her mother.
134. Maya does not believe she has ever met her child advocate attorney, does not recall any person claiming to represent her at her deprivation hearings, and has been denied adequate and effective assistance of counsel in her foster care proceedings in the Juvenile Court.

-62-

Exhibit A

Page 63

135. DeKalb DFCS Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide Maya with independent living or transitional services that will help prepare her to live on her own when she is discharged from state custody. Recently, as a result of shelter staff s failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment, Maya was placed in a locked juvenile detention facility for an extended period of time because she . allegedly committed minor infractions of shelter rules.
136. While at the shelter, Maya has been offered very few structured or enriching activities so that she has little to do much of the time. As a result of her placement in the DeKalb Shelter, Maya has deteriorated emotionally and psychologically. She has become very depressed and is in constant fear for her own safety which has led to substantial anxiety.
D. PHELICIA D. 137.
Phelicia D. is a twelve-year-old girl who is in foster care, has been adjudicated deprived, and has an open case in Fulton County DFCS. Phelicia came

-63-

Exhibit A

Page 64

into foster care in 2000 at age 10 because she had been abused and neglected and was a victim of child prostitution. She currently resides in a residential treatment facility.
138. Phelicia has been diagnosed as suffering from Depression with Psychotic Features, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from the sexual abuse she suffered as a young child and her subseque.nt sexual exploitation. Phelicia has a history of violent behavior and has stated she wants to kill herself.
139. Because Fulton DFCS Defendants had no appropriate placement available for Phelicia when she initially came into care, she was left in a locked, juvenile detention facility for an unreasonable period of time.
140. Fulton DFCS Defendants failed to provide Phelicia with a prompt professional psychiatric and psychological assessment when she came into foster care. While in care, she has reported that little green men were hiding under her bed and has had delusions that she was pregnant and gave birth to a child.

-64-

Exhibit A

Page 65

141. Fulton DFCS Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide Phelicia with adequate mental health services to meet her severe mental health needs. Fulton DFCS Defendants have failed to consistently provide her with her prescribed medications, by failing to re-fill her prescriptions or failing to transfer her medicine when she has been moved between foster placements.
142. Fulton DFCS Defendants have shuffled Phelicia through numerous inappropriate placements, including repeated lengthy stays at the Fulton Shelter, several group homes, and a residential treatment facility that treats and houses children who are sexually aggressive in close proximity to those who have been victimized by sexual abuse and exploitation - a dangerous setting for a girl with Phelicia's history.
143. Phelicia is currently placed in an inappropriate residential facility housing much older children, despite the fact that Fulton DFCS Defendants have been made aware by an advocate for Phelicia that a facility is available for her that treats
-65Exhibit A Page 66

children with her serious mental health needs who have been subject to sexual abuse.
144. Fulton DFCS Defendants have failed to ensure that Phelicia is consistently enrolled in and attending school. She has experienced numerous disruptions in her schooling since she came into foster care, because Fulton DFCS Defendants have failed to promptly enroll her in t'ublic school when she moved from one placement to another, and failed to ensure that she. was attending school for much of the time that she was living in the Fulton Shelter. Although Fulton DFCS Defendants have knowledge that Phelicia functions significantly below grade level, they have failed to obtain a complete assessment of her educational needs or to ensure that she is enrolled in an appropriate educational program.
145. Fulton DFCS Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide any regular visits between Phelicia and her mother, and to provide family support services to allow Phe1icia to maintain critical family ties with her mother.

-66-

Exhibit A

Page 67

146. Fulton DFCS Defendants have failed to develop and implement a viable case plan that will allow Phelicia to leave foster care and secure a safe and appropriate permanent home in accordance with reasonable professional standards and law. Fulton DFCS Defendants have failed and continue to fail to take reasonable steps and to provide services to timely and safely reunite Phelicia with her mother, or, if that is not possible, to take reasonable steps to place her in a permanent adojJtive home, as required by law and reasonable professional standards.
147. Phelicia does not see her caseworker on a regular basis and she has gone as long as several months without a caseworker visit.
E. SABRINA E. AND KORRINA E. 148.
Sabrina E. and Korrina E. are siblings who are currently ages three and one, respectively. They are in foster care, have been adjudicated deprived, are legally free for adoption, and have an open case in DeKalb County DFCS. Sabrina came

-67-

Exhibit A

Page 68

into care shortly after she was born, and Korrina has been in foster care since birth, because of neglect. They currently live together in a family foster home.
149. DeKalb DFCS Defendants have denied and delayed and continue to deny and delay the placement of Sabrina and Korrina, who are African-American., because of their race and/or color.
150. In January 2002, Mr. and Mrs. S., who are Caucasian and Hispanic respectively, initially expressed interest in adopting Sabrina and Korrina, who were available for adoption at that time. DeKalb DFCS Defendants refused to take the necessary steps to place Sabrina and Korrina with Mr. and Mrs. S. because the prospective couple was not African-American.
151. Sabrina and Korrina remain in foster care, and there is no family whom DeKalb DFCS Defendants have approved to adopt them. Sabrina and Korrina have been and continue to be harmed emotionally and psychologically because DeKalb DFCS Defendants have failed to provide them with adequate permanency

-68-

Exhibit A

Page 69

planning services in a manner consistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment and law, and have deprived them of a permanent family home as a result of their refusal to place them with appropriate and willing nonAfrican-American adoptive parents.
152. DeKalb DFCS Defendants have failed to develop and implement a viable case plan that will allow Sabrina and Korrina to leave foster carJ and secure a safe and appropriate permanent home in accordance with reasonable professional standards and law.
F. TANYAF. 153.
Tanya F. is a fifteen-year-old girl who is in foster care, has been adjudicated deprived, is legally free for adoption, and has an open case in Fulton County DFCS. Tanya was removed from her home over eight years ago because of neglect. Tanya currently lives in a family foster home.
-69Exhibit A Page 70

154. As a result of her history of sexual abuse and neglect, Tanya has serious emotional, psychiatric, and psychological problems. She suffers from Oppositional Defiant Disorder and from depression. She is also developmentally delayed with an IQ in the 50s.
155. A professional assessment conducted while Tanya was in foster care determined that she was in need of a specialized therapeutic placement to address her history of sexual abuse. Fulton DFCS Defendants have failed to secure such a placement for her. Instead, Fulton DFCS Defendants have shuffled Tanya through at least seven placements, most of which have disrupted because they could not meet her special needs. As a result of her multiple placements, Tanya now has difficulty forming positive relationships with others.
156. Tanya has been placed several times in an overcrowded residential facility for adolescents, which is directly operated by Fulton DFCS Defendants. This
-70Exhibit A Page 71

facility failed to provide Tanya necessary services to address her mental health problems and developmental delays.
157. For much of her time at this residential facility, Fulton DFCS Defendants failed to ensure that Tanya was enrolled in and attending school or receiving the special education and related services to which she is entitled. Tanya is currently not enrolled in school and has thus missed the great0r part of this school year.
.158. Because of a lack of adequate supervision and security measures at this residential facility, on numerous occasions Tanya left the facility's grounds and remained absent for extended periods of time without staff knowing her whereabouts. On one of these occasions, Tanya was a victim of child prostitution.
159. Despite recommendations from health care professionals that Tanya requires long-term therapy and intensive case management, Fulton DFCS Defendants have failed and continue to fail to provide her with regular therapy and counseling to

-71-

Exhibit A

Page 72

address her emotional needs and help her cope with her history of sexual abuse. As a result, Tanya continues to deteriorate psychologically while in foster care.
160. During her more than eight years in foster care, Fulton DFCS Defendants have failed to develop and implement a viable case plan that will allow Tanya to leave foster care and secure a safe and appropriate permanent home in accordance with reasonable professional standards and law. Fulton DFCS Defendants delayed any attempt to free Tanya for adoption until 1998 and have since failed to take necessary steps to find an adoptive home for her. Fulton DFCS Defendants have determined Tanya to be "unadoptable," and plan to have her remain in foster care until she is an adult. Fulton DFCS Defendants' failure to place Tanya in a permanent family setting has caused her emotional and psychiatric harm.
161. While in foster care, Tanya became pregnant, and in December 2001, she gave birth to a baby girl. On information and belief, Fulton DFCS Defendants took custody of Tanya's child at birth and placed the child at the Fulton Shelter for several months, placing the baby in a grossly inappropriate and harmful setting and
-72Exhibit A Page 73

denying Tanya the right to care for her baby and make basic child-rearing decisions on a daily basis. The separation was not necessary to protect the health, safety or welfare of Tanya or her child.
162. Fulton DFCS Defendants recently placed Tanya and her baby in a foster home, but, because Fulton DFCS Defendants have failed to provide a therapeutic placement equipped to address Tanya's serious mental health needs, there is a significant risk that this placement will disrupt and that Tanya will again be separated from her baby.
163. In addition, Fulton DFCS Defendants have failed to provide Tanya with regular and complete dental examinations since she came into care.
164. Inconsistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, since 1998 Fulton DFCS Defendants have separated Tanya from her sisters, who have also been in foster care. Fulton DFCS Defendants have failed to facilitate regular
-73Exhibit A Page 74

visits between Tanya and her sisters, and Tanya has not seen her sisters for at least a year. Consequently, Tanya has been deprived of familial ties with her sisters.
G. PRISCILLAG. 165.
Priscilla G. is an eleven-month-old girl who is in foster care, has been adjudicated deprived, and has an open case in DeKalb County DFCS. Priscilla has been in foster care since birth because of her mother's violent and criminal history. Upon information and belief, she currently resides with a relative.
166. Priscilla has had at least four different DFCS caseworkers in the eleven months since she has been in foster care. As a result, there has been a lack of continuity and coordination in her casework services. DeKalb DFCS Defendants have delayed taking necessary actions on her behalf, such as filing a petition to terminate the parental rights of her mother, who was convicted of attempted murder of two of her other children and has had no contact with Priscilla since birth.

-74-

Exhibit A

Page 75

167. DeKalb DFCS Defendants have delayed and denied and continue to delay and deny the adoption of Priscilla, on the basis of her race and/or color. Priscilla, who is African-American, was placed with Caucasian foster parents for approximately ten months. Priscilla's foster parents first informed DeKalb DFCS Defendants that they wished to adopt Priscilla several months ago, but DeKalb DFCS Defendants refused to take the necessary steps to allow this adoption to proceed.
168. Priscilla formed a strong emotional bond with these foster parents, who have been certified as foster-adoptive parents, and she has been and continues to be harmed emotionally and psychologically by DeKalb DFCS Defendants' delay and denial of her adoptive placement with them.
169. Recently, DeKalb DFCS Defendants began arranging short visits between Priscilla and a distant relative, with whom Priscilla has had no previous contact. The distant relative frequently canceled these scheduled visits. Only a few visits
-75Exhibit A Page 76

took place until very recently, when DeKalb DFCS Defendants removed Priscilla from her foster home and placed her with this distant relative. Upon infonnation and belief, there is no plan for this relative to adopt Priscilla.
170. DeKalb DFCS Defendants' continued delay and denial of Priscilla's adoption on the basis of her race has harmed her and continues to expose her to an imminent risk of trauma and significant emotional and psychiatric harrri:
H. BRIANAH. 17l.
Briana H. is a fourteen-year-old girl who is in foster care, has been adjudicated deprived, and has an open case in DeKalb County DFCS. She came into foster care because of physical abuse. She has been in foster care for approximately one year, and currently lives in the DeKalb Shelter.
172. Briana is developmentally delayed, with an IQ in the 50s, and has been diagnosed as suffering from Adjustment Disorder, With Depressed Mood. She often does not want to get out of bed in the morning, appears to be depressed much
-76Exhibit A Page 77

of the time, and has threatened to commit suicide. DeKalb DFCS Defendants have failed to provide Briana with appropriate mental health services, despite their knowledge of her serious emotional, psychological, and psychiatric problems.
173. Notwithstanding a June 2001 psychological evaluation recommending that Briana be placed in a structured, therapeutic setting for children with special needs, DeKalb DFCS 3efendants have placed her in the DeKalb Shelter for the majority of the time that she has been in foster care.
174. While placed at the DeKalb Shelter, Briana was sexually assaulted by an older male shelter resident. This was a direct result of the absence of adequate supervision by the shelter staff.
175. While living at the DeKalb Shelter, Briana also has been in numerous fights with other residents, including one altercation when she was injured and sustained multiple abrasions. Shelter staff have failed to adequately prevent these altercations or to intervene appropriately when necessary.
-77Exhibit A Page 78

176. Briana has repeatedly left the DeKalb Shelter without the knowledge of shelter staff as a result of inadequate security and supervision at the facility. On one occasion, Briana and other shelter residents left the facility and got into a fight with other children in the neighborhood.
177. Shelter staff members have repeatedly reported Brirura to the police, often for minor infractions of shelter rules. As a result, DeKalb DFCS Defendants have shuffled Briana back and forth between the shelter and locked juvenile detention facilities.
178. At the shelter, Briana is denied the opportunity to engage in meaningful and constructive activities or programs, impeding her development and exacerbating her depression. She has also been denied appropriate dental services while living in the shelter.
-78Exhibit A Page 79

179. DeKalb DFCS Defendants failed to enroll Briana in public school for several months, and the so-called in-house educational program at the shelter failed to provide any program to meet her special educational needs.
180. For a short time, DeKalb DFCS Defendants placed Briana in an inappropriate family foster home, where she was solicited to engage in prostitution by another child in the home. As a result, Briana refused to stay with this family and was returned again to the shelter.
181. While in the custody of DeKalb DFCS Defendants, Briana has been physically injured and has deteriorated emotionally and psychologically. Her behavioral problems have increased, and her depression has become more severe.
182. DeKalb DFCS Defendants have failed to develop and implement a viable case plan that will allow Briana to leave foster care and secure a safe and
-79Exhibit A Page 80

appropriate permanent home in accordance with reasonable professional standards and law.
VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION 183.
Counts IV, V, VIII, XV, XVI, and XVII are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT I (Pennanent Injunctive Relief) (Asserted by all Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass members against all Defendants)
184. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
185. Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass members seek pennanent injunctive relief under O.C.G.A. § 9-5-1 and § 9-5-8 .
186. Defendants' actions and inactions have caused and continue to cause, or create the risk of imminently causing, each named Plaintiff, Class and Subclass

-80-

Exhibit A

Page 81

member irreparable harm. Plaintiffs and the members of the Class and Subclass have no adequate remedy at law.
187. As stated herein, the Defendants' customs, policies, and practices have deprived and threaten to deprive Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass members of their fundamental right to physical and emotional safety and other fundamental rights while in government custody. The well-being of these foster children remains in imminent danger as a result of Defendants' actions and inactions.
188. Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass members therefore request that the Court enjoin the Defendants from violating their statutory and constitutional rights as alleged herein.
189. Following additional factual development, Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass members will seek a particularized order of permanent injunctive relief, identifying, among other things, professionally accepted standards that the Defendants must meet in order to satisfy their statutory and constitutionally

-81-

Exhibit A

Page 82

mandated duties. If appropriate, the requested order also will propose a sunset provision under which the Court's oversight would terminate when the Defendants have remedied their violations.
COUNT II (Declaratory Judgment) (Asserted by all Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass members against all Defendants)
190. Each and every allegation oftIle Complaint is incorporated herein as iffully set forth.
191. Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members seek a declaratory judgment under O.C.G.A. § 9-4-1 et seq. to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity regarding their rights, status, and legal relations as foster children in government custody.
192. A real and actual controversy exists in that the Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members have suffered from or face the imminent risk of suffering from
-82Exhibit A Page 83

the loss of their fundamental rights as stated herein. Moreover, the scope of their statutory and constitutional rights is uncertain.
193. The Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass Members therefore request that the Court declare that:
a. Foster children have a constitutional and statutory right to live in safe and appropriate housing while in government custodj, consistent with the exercise ofreasonable professional judgment;
b. Foster children have a constitutional and statutory right to have plans timely created and implemented to find them permanent homes in order to be promptly removed from government custody, consistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment;
c. Foster children have a constitutional and statutory right not be have their adoptions delayed or denied on the basis of their race or color;

-83-

Exhibit A

Page 84

d. Foster children have a constitutional and statutory right to appropriate health care services while in government custody, consistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment;
e. Foster children have a constitutional and statutory right to receive appropriate educational services while in government cus~ody, consistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment;
f. Foster children have a constitutional right to adequate and effective counsel when Fulton County or DeKalb County undertakes to provide legal representation for them and a constitutional and statutory right to adequate and effective counsel upon filing of a petition to tenninate parental rights;
g. Foster children have a constitutional and statutory right to maintain family relationships absent compelling reason, consistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment;

-84-

Exhibit A

Page 85

h. Foster children have a constitutional and statutory right to enjoy the protections afforded them under the federal and state statutes set forth herein, consistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment; and
1. The Defendants have deprived the Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass members of the foregoing rights in the manner stated herein, resulting in harm, grave danger and the continuing threat of grave danger to these foster children. COUNT III
(Substantive Due Process Under The Georgia State Constitution) (Asserted by all Plaintiffs and Class members against DFCS Defendants)
194. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
195. The foregoing actions and inactions of DFCS Defendants constitute a failure to exercise an affirmative duty to protect the welfare of all Plaintiffs and Class members, which is a substantial factor leading to, and proximate cause of, the
-85Exhibit A Page 86

violation of the constitutionally protected liberty and privacy interests of all of the Plaintiffs and Class members. The forgoing actions and inactions of DFCS Defendants constitute a policy, pattern, practice and/or custom that is inconsistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment and amounts to deliberate indifference to the serious and constitutionally protected rights and liberty and privacy interests of all Plaintiffs and Class members. As a result, all Plaintiffs and Class members have been and are being deprived of the substantive due process rights conferred upon them by Article I, Section I, Paragraph I of the Georgia State Constitution. Defendants have arbitrarily and capriciously deprived Plaintiffs and Class members of their due process rights in the absence of any countervailing state interest.
196. These substantive due process rights include, but are not limited to: the right to protection of their person and from unnecessary harm while in government custody; the right to a living environment that protects foster children's physical, mental and emotional safety and well-being; the right to services necessary to prevent foster children from deteriorating or being harmed physically,
-86Exhibit A Page 87

psychologically, or otherwise while in government custody, including but not limited to the right to safe and secure foster care placements, appropriate monitoring and supervision, appropriate planning and services directed toward ensuring that the child can leave foster care and grow up in a pennanent family, and adequate medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological, and educational services; the right not to be deprived of liberty by retention in government custody or locked detention facilities beyond necessity; the right to treatnient and care consistent with the purpose of the assumption of custody by DFCS Defendants; the right not to be retained in custody longer than is necessary to accomplish the purposes to be served by taking the child into custody; and the right to receive care, treatment and services detennined and provided through the exercise of accepted, reasonable professional judgment.
COUNT IV (Substantive Due Process Under The United States Constitution) (Asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by all Plaintiffs and Class members against Defendants Roy Barnes, James Martin, Beverly Jones and Wayne
Drummond)
-87Exhibit A Page 88

197. Each and every allegation ofthe Complaint is incorporated herein as iffully set forth.
198. The foregoing actions and inactions of Defendants Roy Barnes, James Martin, Beverly Jones and Wayne Drummond in their official capacities constitute a failure to exercise an affirmative duty to protect the welfare of all Plaintiffs and Class members, which is a substantial factor leading to, and proximate cause of, violation of the constitutionally protected liberty and privacy interests of all of the Plaintiffs and Class members. The forgoing actions and inactions of Defendants Roy Barnes, James Martin, Beverly Jones and Wayne Drummond in their official capacities constitute a policy, pattern, practice and/or custom that is inconsistent with the exercise ofreasonable professional judgment and amounts to deliberate indifference to the serious and constitutionally protected rights and liberty and privacy interests of all Plaintiffs and Class members. As a result, all Plaintiffs and Class members have been and are being deprived of the substantive due process rights conferred upon them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
-88Exhibit A Page 89

Constitution. Defendants have arbitrarily and capriciously deprived Plaintiffs and Class members of their due process rights in the absence of any countervailing state interest.
199. These substantive due process rights include, but are not limited to: the right to protection from unnecessary harm while in government custody; the right to a living environment that protects foster chi:dren's physical, mental and emotional safety and well-being; the right to services necessary to prevent foster children from deteriorating or being harmed physically, psychologically, or otherwise while in government custody, including but not limited to the right to safe and secure foster care placements, appropriate monitoring and supervision, appropriate planning and services directed toward ensuring that the child can leave foster care and grow up in a permanent family, and adequate medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological, and educational services; the right not to be deprived of liberty by retention in government custody or locked detention facilities beyond necessity; the right to treatment and care consistent with the purpose of the assumption of custody by DFCS Defendants; the right not to be retained in custody longer than is
-89Exhibit A Page 90

necessary to accomplish the purposes to be served by taking the child into custody; and the right to receive care, treatment and services determined and provided through the exercise of accepted, reasonable professional judgment.
COUNT V (First Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution) (Asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by all Plaintiffs and Class members against Defendants Roy Barnes, James Martin, Beverly Jones and Wayne
Drummond) 200.
Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
201. The foregoing actions and inactions of Defendants Roy Barnes, James Martin, Beverly Jones and Wayne Drummond in their official capacities constitute a failure to exercise an affirmative duty to protect the welfare of all Plaintiffs and Class members, which failure is a substantial factor leading to, and proximate cause of, violation of the constitutionally protected liberty interests, privacy interests and associational rights of all of the Plaintiffs and Class members. The foregoing actions and inactions of Defendants Roy Barnes, James Martin, Beverly
-90Exhibit A Page 91

Jones and Wayne Drummond in their official capacities constitute a policy, pattern, practice and/or custom that is inconsistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment and also amounts to deliberate indifference to the serious and constitutionally protected rights and needs of the Plaintiffs and Class members. As a result, Plaintiffs and Class members are being deprived of their liberty interest, privacy interests and associational rights conferred on them by the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendlflents to the United States Constitution not to be deprived of a child-parent or a child-sibling family relationship absent compelling reasons.
COUNT VI (Right to a Properly Screened and Supervised Home: O.C.G.A. § 49-5-12) (Asserted by all Plaintiffs and Class Members against DFCS Defendants)
202. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
203. As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of DFCS Defendants, Plaintiffs and Class members who have been, are or will be in family foster homes
-91Exhibit A Page 92

have been deprived, or are at imminent risk of being deprived, of the right to have their welfare safeguarded while in a foster home as a result of such Defendants' failure to thoroughly investigate the home in which they are placed and the character of the persons residing there and to supervise the home during the placement, in violation ofO.C.G.A. § 49-5-120).
COUNT VII (Right to Case Plans and Their Implementation and Permanent Placement:
O.C.G.A. § 15-11-58) (Asserted by all Plaintiffs and Class Members against DFCS Defendants)
204. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
205, As a result of the foregoing actions and omissions of DFCS Defendants, Plaintiffs and Class members are being deprived of rights conferred on them by O.C.G.A. § 15-11-58(c), 0) and (m). These rights include, but are not limited to: the right to a timely written case plan containing mandated elements, and to the implementation of these plans; the right to have a petition to terminate parental rights filed, or have a compelling reason documented why such a petition has not

-92-

Exhibit A

Page 93

been filed, in accordance with specified, statutory standards and time frames; and the right to planning and services to obtain a permanent placement at the earliest possible time, including documentation of the steps taken to secure permanency.
COUNT VIII (The Federal Adoption Assistance Act) (Asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by all Plaintiffs and Class members against Defendants Roy Barnes, James Martin, Beverly Jones and Wayne
Drummond) 206.
Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
207. As a result of the foregoing actions and omissions of Defendants Roy Barnes, James Martin, Beverly Jones and Wayne Drummond in their official capacities, these Defendants are engaging in a policy, pattern, practice, and/or practice of depriving all Plaintiffs and Class members of rights conferred on them by the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (collectively the "Adoption Assistance Act") and the regulations promulgated under the Act, 45 C.F.R. Parts 1355-1357.
-93Exhibit A Page 94

These rights include, but are not limited to: the right to timely written case plans containing mandated elements, and to the implementation of these plans; the right to placement in foster homes or other settings that conform to national professional standards and are subject to a uniformly applied set of standards; the right to live in foster care placements that have the capacity to provide for the essential needs and services of children in their care by receiving adequate foster care maintenance payments; the right to have a petition to terminate parental rig~1ts filed, or have a compelling reason documented why such a petition has not been filed, in accordance with specified, statutory standards and time frames; the right of foster children whose permanency goal is adoption to planning and services to obtain a permanent placement, including documentation of the steps taken to secure permanency; the right to services to facilitate the child's return to his family home or the permanent placement of the child; the right to services that protect foster children's safety and health; the right to have health and educational records reviewed, updated, and supplied to foster parents or foster care providers with whom the child is placed at the time of placement; the right to receive services in a child welfare system that has an information system adequate to permit the state to

-94-

Exhibit A

Page 95

make fully informed decisions concerning each foster child's best interests; and, in the case of a child who has reached 16 years of age, the right to services needed to help the child prepare for the transition from foster care to independent living. 42 U.S.C.§§ 671(a)(1); 671(a)(10); 671(a)(16); 671(a)(22); 672(a), (b) and (c); 675(1); 675(4)(A) and (B); 675(5)(D); 675(5)(E); 622(b)(lO)(B); 45 C.F.R. § 1355.20.
COUNT IX (Right to Care, Protection, Training, Education and Physical, Mental and Moral
Welfare: O.C.G.A. § 15-11-13) (Asserted by all Plaintiffs and Class members against DFCS Defendants)
208. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
209. As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of DFCS Defendants, these Defendants have failed to provide for the care, protection, training, education, and physical, mental and moral welfare of all Plaintiffs and Class members, all of whom the Juvenile Court has placed in the custody of such Defendants pursuant to O.C.G.A. § Title 15, Chapter 11, Article 1. This failure violates the legal duty
-95Exhibit A Page 96

these Defendants owe to Plaintiffs and Class members pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 1511-13, and the violation of this duty harms such children, or places them at imminent risk of harm.
COUNT X (Right to Schooling: O.C.G.A. § 20-2-690.1) (Asserted by all Plaintiffs and Class Members against DFCS Defendants)
210. Each and every allegation of the Complaint ~s incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
211. As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of DFCS Defendants, which have control or charge of Plaintiffs and the Class members of school age, these Defendants have failed to enroll and send the Plaintiffs and Class members to a school, or provide home-schooling, that meets statutory standards, or have placed the Plaintiffs and Class members at risk of such failure. Through this failure, these Defendants violate the legal duty they owe to these foster children pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 20-2-690.1, and the violation of this duty harms such children or places them at imminent risk of harm.

-96-

Exhibit A

Page 97

COUNT XI (Nuisance: Georgia Common Law) (Asserted by all Plaintiffs and Class members against all Defendants)
212. Each and every allegation ofthe Complaint is incorporated herein as iffully set forth.
213. Defendants have been given notice and an ample opportunity to rectify their manner of operation of the Fulton and DeKalb Shelters. Defendants have been more than negligent in their operation of these facilities, which is creating a continuous condition that hurts, inconveniences or damages the Plaintiffs and Class members who reside there. The injury the shelter operation causes these residents is different from any harm the Fulton and DeKalb Shelters may cause the general public, and the conditions in the shelters impair the health and safety of these residents. By failing to rectify the manner of operation of the Fulton and DeKalb Shelters that has injured Plaintiffs and Class members who reside there, Defendants have violated legal duties they owe these foster children.

-97-

Exhibit A

Page 98

214. As a result of Defendants' foregoing actions and inactions, the manner in which the Fulton and DeKalb Shelters have been operated have created and maintained and continue to create and maintain a public nuisance or, in the alternative, a private nuisance that harms Plaintiffs and Class members who reside in those facilities, and poses a risk of harm to Plaintiffs and Class Members who are at imminent risk of being placed i:"l the Shelters.
COUNT XII (Breach of Contract: O.C.G.A. § 9-2-20(b) and Georgia Common Law) (Asserted by all Plaintiffs and Class members against DFCS Defendants)
215. Each and every allegation ofthe Complaint is incorporated herein as iffully set forth.
216. Under Titles IV-B, IV-E and XIX of the Social Security Act, states receive certain federal reimbursements so long as they enter into plans approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services and comply with their terms. The State of Georgia receives federal funding under Titles IV-B, IV-E and
-98Exhibit A Page 99

XIX of the Social Security Act and has submitted such plans, which are legal contracts between the federal government and the state (a Georgia "State Plan"). In the State Plan contracts, the state agrees to provide child welfare, foster care, adoption and health services to Plaintiffs and Class members in accordance with specific statutes and policies and all applicable federal regulations and other official issuances of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
217. As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions ofDFCS Defendants, these Defendants have breached and continue to breach their obligations under the State Plan contracts, and all Plaintiffs and Class members, as the intended third party beneficiaries to the Georgia "State Plan" contracts, are being denied their rights to the services and benefits that the State of Georgia is obligated to provide to them under such contracts, and are harmed thereby.
COUNT XIII (Inadequate and Ineffective Legal Representation: Due Process Under Georgia State Constitution and O.C.G.A. § 15-11-98(A) (Asserted by all Plaintiffs and Class members against Defendants Fulton County
and DeKalb County)
-99Exhibit A Page 100

218. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully
set forth. 219.
As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of Defendants Fulton County and DeKalb County, all Plaintiffs and Class members have been deprived of their right to adequate ~nd effective representation in their deprivation and termination-of-parental-rights proceedings before the Juvenile Courts of Fulton and DeKalb Counties in violation of Georgia Constitution, Art. I, § 1, Par. 1, and, with respect to foster children who are the subjects of a petition to terminate parental rights, in violation O.C.G.A. § IS-II-98(a), causing each child serious injury and harm.
COUNT XIV (Equal Protection Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Georgia Constitution) (Asserted by Plaintiffs Sabrina E., Korrina E., Priscilla G. and Subclass Members
against DFCS Defendants) 220.
Each and every allegation ofthe Complaint is incorporated herein as iffully set forth.

-100-

Exhibit A Page 101

221. The foregoing actions and inactions ofDFCS Defendants constitute a policy, pattern, practice and/or custom that is inconsistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment and amounts to deliberate indifference to the serious and constitutionallyprotected fundamental right ofthe Plaintiffs who assert this claim and Subclass members to not have their adoptive placements delayed or denied on the basis of their race or color.
222. DFCSDefendantsintentionallydiscriminateagainstthePlaintiffsassertingthis claim and Subclass members on the basis oftheir race or color by delaying or denying them adoptive placements that are or would be provided to similarly situated nonAfrican-American foster children. As a result, Plaintiffs asserting this claim and Class members have been and are being deprived of their rights to equal protection conferred upon them by Article I, Section I, Paragraph II of the Georgia State Constitution. Defendants have arbitrarily and capriciously deprived these Plaintiffs and Subclass members oftheir right to not have their adoptive placements delayed or

-101-

Exhibit A Page 102

denied on the basis of their race or color in the absence of any countervailing state
interest.
COUNT XV (The Multiethnic Placement Act and the Inter-ethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996)
(Asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiffs Sabrina E. and Korrina E., and Priscilla G., and Subclass Members against Defendants Roy Barnes, James
Martin, Beverly Jones and Wayne Drummond)

223. Each and every allegation ofthe Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth.
224. As a result ofthe foregoing actions and inactions ofthe Defendants Roy Barnes, James Martin, Beverly Jones and Wayne Drummond in their official capacities, these Defendants are engaging in a policy, pattern, practice, and/or custom of depriving the Plaintiffs asserting this claim and other Subclass members ofthe rights conferred upon them by the federal Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, as amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996, 42 U.S.C. §§ 67 1(a)(l 8), 674, 1996b. These rights include, but are not limited to, the right not to have their adoptive placements delayed or denied on the basis of their race or color.

-102-

Exhibit A Page 103

COUNT XVI (Federal Early Periodic Screening. Diagnosis and Treatment Program ("EPSDT")
of the Medicaid Act) (Asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by all Plaintiffs and Class members against Defendants Roy Barnes, James Martin, Beverly Jones and Wayne
Drummond)
225.
Each and every allegation ofthe Complaint is incorporated herein as iffully set
forth.
226.
As a result of the foregoing actions and omissions of Defendants Roy Barnes,
James Martin, Beverly Jones and Wayne Drummond in their official capacities, these
Defendants are engaging in a policy, pattern, practice, and/or custom of denying
Plaintiffs and Class members of the rights conferred upon them by the Early and
Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment ("EPSDT") program of the federal
Medicaid Act. These rights include but are not limited to the right to receive any and
all treatments deemed necessary by a qualified medical professional conducting any
of the periodic health examinations required by EPSDT.

-103-

Exhibit A Page 104

COUNT XVII (Procedural Due Process Under the United States Constitution) (Asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by all Plaintiffs and Class members against Defendants Roy Barnes, James Martin, Beverly Jones and Wayne
Drummond)

227. Each and every allegation ofthe Complaint is incorporated herein as iffully set forth.
228. The foregoing actions and inactions ofDefendants Roy Barnes, James Martin, Beverly Jones and Wayne Drummond in their official capacities, constitute a failure to exercise an affirmative duty to protect the welfare of all Plaintiffs and Class members, which is a substantial factor leading to, and proximate cause of, the violation of the constitutionally protected liberty and privacy interests of all of the Plaintiffs and Class members. The forgoing actions and inactions ofthese Defendants constitute a policy, pattern, practice and/or custom that is inconsistent with the exercise ofreasonable professional judgment and amounts to deliberate indifference to the serious and constitutionallyprotected rights and liberty and privacy interests of all Plaintiffs and Class members. As a result, children in the Class are being deprived

-104-

Exhibit A Page 105

offederally-created and state-created liberty or property rights without due process of law. The federal law entitlements to which children have a constitutionally protected interest arise from the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620-27,670679a, and regulations promulgated thereunder, the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, as amended by the Interethnic Placement Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. §§ 67 1(a)(l 8), 674, 1996b, and the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment ("EPSDT") program of the federal Medicaid Act. The state law entitlement to which Plaintiff children have a protected interest arise from the right to have their welfare safeguarded while in a foster home pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 49-5-120).
COUNT XVIII (Litigation Expenses) (Asserted by All Plaintiffs and Class members against all Defendants)
229. Each and every allegation ofthe Complaint is incorporated herein as iffully set forth.

-105-

Exhibit A Page 106

230. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their expenses of litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1988, and their costs pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-4-9.
IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff children respectfully requestthat this Honorable Court: A. Assert jurisdiction over this action; B. Order that Plaintiffs may maintain this action as a class action pursuant
to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-23(a)(1).; C. Declare unconstitutional and unlawful pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-4-2(a):

1. DFCS Defendants' violation ofall Plaintiffs' and Class members' rights under the Due Process Clause of the Georgia State Constitution;
2. Defendant Roy Barnes', James Martin's, Beverly Jones' and Wayne Drummond's violation of all Plaintiffs' and Class

-106-

Exhibit A Page 107

members' rights under the Due Process Clause ofthe United State Constitution; 3. Defendant Roy Barnes, James Martin, Beverly Jones and Wayne Drummond's violation ofall Plaintiffs' and Class members' rights under the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution; 4. DCFS Defendallts' violation ofall Plaintiffs' and Class members' rights under O.C.G.A. § 49-5-12; 5. DCFS Defendants' violation ofall Plaintiffs' and Class members' rights under O.C.G.A. § 15-11-58; 6. Defendant Roy Barnes', James Martin's, Beverly Jones' and Wayne Drummond's violation of all Plaintiffs' and Class members' rights under the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, and regulations promulgated thereunder; 7. DCFS Defendants' violation ofall Plaintiffs' and Class members' rights under O.C.G.A. § 15-11-13;

-107-

Exhibit A Page 108

8. DCFS Defendants' violation ofall Plaintiffs' and Class members' rights under O.C.G.A. § 20-2-690.1;
9. All Defendants' creation ofa public or, in the alternative, a private nuisance through the operation of the Shelters, in violation of all Plaintiffs' and Class members' rights under Georgia common law;
10. DCFS Defendants' breach of all Plaintiffs' and Class members' rights under the State Plan contracts, pursuant to Georgia cor..rrnon law and O.C.G.A. § 9-2-20(b);
11. Defendant Fulton County's and DeKalb County's violation of all Plaintiffs' and Class members' rights to adequate and effective representation under the Georgia State Constitutionand O.C.G.A. § lS-11-98(A);
12. Defendant Roy Barnes', James Martin's, Beverly Jones' and Wayne Drummond's violation of the rights of Plaintiffs Sabrina E., Korrina E. and Priscilla G. and Subclass members under the Equal Protection Clause of the Georgia State Constitution;

-108-

Exhibit A Page 109

13. Defendant Roy Barnes', James Martin's, Beverly Jones' and Wayne Drummond's violation of the rights of Plaintiffs Sabrina E., Korrina E. and Priscilla G. and Subclass members under the federal Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 and the Inter-ethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996;
14. Defendant Roy Barnes', James Martin's, Beverly Jones' and Wdyne Drummond's violation of the rights of all Plaintiffs' and Class members under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment ("EPSDT") program ofthe federal Medicaid Act; and
15. Defendant Roy Barnes', James Martin's, Beverly Jones' and Wayne Drummond's violation of all Plaintiffs' and Class members' procedural due process rights under the United States Constitution.
D. Permanently enj oin Defendants from subjectingmembers ofthe Plaintiff Class and Subclass to practices that violate their rights, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-5-1 and § 9-5-8;

-109-

Exhibit A Page 110

E. Order appropriate remedial relief to ensure Defendants' future compliance with their legal obligations to Plaintiffs;
F. Award to the Plaintiffs the reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution ofthis action, inc1udingreasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1988, and O.C.G.A. § 9-4-9;
G. Grant such other and further equitable relief as the court deems just, necessary and proper to protect the Plaintiffs, Cl&ss members and Subclass members from further harm by Defendants.

-110-

Exhibit A Page 111

!7l4~ /!J~ t7;, ~ ; # Respectfully submitted, this.?...) day of January, 2003. etpeJl/VAo"';' Marcia Robinson ~owry (pro hac vice) Ira P. Lustbader (pro hac vice) Jeffrey K. Powell (pro hac vice) Sarah B. Hechtman (pro hac vice) Erik S. Pitchal (pro hac vice)
CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 404 Park Avenue South, 11 th Floor New York, NY 10016 (212) 683-2210

e ey O. Bramlett Georgia Bar No. 075780 Corey F. Hirokawa Georgia Bar No. 357087 Gordon L. Hamrick Georgia Bar No. 322075 BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 3900 One Atlantic Center 1201 W. Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 (404) 881-4100 FACSIMILE (404) 881-4112

KEENAN'S KIDS LAW CENTER 148 Nassau Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 523-2200

Don Keenan Georgia Bar No. 410650

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

-111-

Exhibit A Page 112

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 1 of 135
Embargoed for Release until 3:00 P.M. EST, November 3, 2006
PERIOD I MONITORING REPORT
Kenny A. v Perdue
October 27, 2005 to June 30, 2006
Accountability Agents: James T. Dimas and Sarah A. Morrison
November 3, 2006

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 2 of 135
Embargoed for Release until 3:00 P.M. EST, November 3, 2006

PART I PART II PART III
PART IV PART V PART VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION………………………………………….…………………. 1
Background, Purpose, Scope and Organization for this Report A. The Kenny A. v. Perdue Consent Decree……………….……………...... 1 B. Approach to Monitoring……………………………….……………..…... 3 C. Report Scope and Organization………….…………….……………….... 3 D. Note About Timing……………………….…………….……………......... 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………………………… 6 A. Keeping Children Safe………………………………….…………....……. 7 B. Helping Children Achieve Permanency……………….…………...…… 8 C. Providing for the Well‐Being of Children in Care ……………….....….. 9 D. Strengthening the Infrastructure…………………………………………. 10 SAFETY…………………………………………………..…………………...… 15
Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment A. Immediate Action: Follow‐up with Placement Settings with Past
Multiple Substantiated Maltreatment……………………...……….….... 15 B. Outcome Achievement: Outcomes 1, 2, 3, and 5……………….......….. 20 C. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding Maltreatment in
Care Investigations………………………………………………….....….. 26 PERMANENCY………………………………………………………………... 32
Children in Care Maintain Family Connections and Achieve Permanency A. Efforts to help Children Maintain Family Connections………..…..….. 32 B. Efforts to Assure Children Achieve Permanency…………..…..…..….. 34 WELL‐BEING……………….…………………………………..………….…... 54
Children in Care Experience Stable Placements, Worker Continuity, and Receive the Services They Need
A. The Placement Experience………………………………………..………. 54 B. Meeting the Needs of Children, Youth, and Families………..…............ 63 STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE………... 81
A. Specialized Staff and Lower Caseloads….………………......................... 81 B. Building Workforce Skills……………………….……………..…..…....... 84 C. Assuring Needed Services Are Available………….................................. 91 D. Placement Support…………………………………………........................ 93 E. Supervision of Contract Agencies……………………............................... 106 F. Improving Automated Support…………………………....…...……....... 108 G. Quality Assurance…………………………………..……....…………....... 108 H. Maximizing Federal Funding……………………………..….....……....... 109

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 3 of 135
Embargoed for Release until 3:00 P.M. EST, November 3, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART VII
APPENDI X A APPENDIX B

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS………….………..……..…………….... 114 Child Protective Services Data
A. Repeat Maltreatment Data………………………………………………... 114 B. Diversion Data……………………………………………………………... 115 Kenny A. v. Sonny Perdue Consent Decree Outcomes……………………. 116
Methodology……………………..…………………………………………….. 122

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 4 of 135
Part I INTRODUCTION
Background, Purpose, Scope, and Organization of this Report
This is the first report prepared by the Accountability Agents for the Kenny A. v Purdue Consent Decree to review the State Defendant’s progress between October 27, 2005 and June 30, 2006 in achieving improved child welfare outcomes and meeting its other obligations under the Consent Decree. The Kenny A. v Perdue Consent Decree established James T. Dimas and Sarah A. Morrison as independent Accountability Agents with responsibility to produce public reports every six months. This introduction is intended to provide a brief overview of the Kenny A. Consent Decree and the Accountability Agent’s approach being employed to assess the State’s performance, as well as the scope and organization of this report.
A. The Kenny A. v Perdue Consent Decree
Consent Decrees are legal agreements between the parties to a court case that are used to avoid the expense, time‐consuming nature, and uncertainties of bench trials. The Kenny A. Consent Decree requires the State Defendants – the Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR) and its Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) – to provide certain services and interventions to, and to achieve certain outcomes on behalf of children in the plaintiff class – defined as “…children who have been, are, or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of any of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS.” 1
Consent Decrees typically specify a set of conditions that must be met in order for the Consent Decree to terminate. Termination of the Kenny A. Consent Decree is primarily outcome driven. That is, to exit federal court oversight, the State Defendants have agreed to achieve and sustain a series of 31 outcomes related to the safety, permanency, and well‐being of the DeKalb and Fulton County children served by DFCS. The plaintiffs reserve the right to contest a motion to terminate the Consent Decree if there are no pending noncompliance notices or motions before the Court concerning any other provision of the Consent Decree. For purposes of analysis and communication, the outcomes have been organized in this report into seven thematic groupings. Exhibit I‐1 displays these groupings. Appendix A includes the actual wording of each outcome from the Consent Decree.
In addition to achieving and sustaining these 31 outcomes, State Defendants also agreed to implement or strengthen certain policies and practices, follow certain processes, and enhance certain aspects of DFCS infrastructure to better serve children and families. The intent of these interventions is to enable the State to achieve the desired outcomes. The mandated policies and
1 Throughout this report, the use of the term “children,” unless otherwise specified, refers to children in the plaintiff class.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 5 of 135
practices include such things as child and family assessments and family team meetings. The required processes include foster parent licensing and support and conducting case reviews to assure quality. Infrastructure items include specialized staff, training, reducing caseloads, and implementing a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS). Some are new requirements and others are existing agency policy and practice requirements receiving heightened attention.
EXHIBIT I‐1: Thematic Grouping of Kenny A Outcomes
Safety 1. Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment • Consent Decree Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 related to investigations of maltreatment in care. • Consent Decree Outcomes 5 and 6 related to the incidents of substantiated maltreatment in care and corporal punishment.
Permanency 2. Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections • Consent Decree Outcomes 7, 16, and 19 related to keeping children connected to family and community at the time of placement. • Consent Decree Outcomes 21 and 23 related to visitation among family members. 3. Children Achieve Permanency • Consent Decree Outcomes 4 and 14 related to re‐entry into care. • Consent Decree Outcomes 8a & b, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 related to positive permanency exits. • Consent Decree Outcomes 27 and 28 related to timely and complete court review of permanency efforts.
Well Being 4. Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity • Consent Decree Outcome 17 relates to placement stability. • Consent Decree Outcomes 18, 20, and 22 relate to worker continuity and contacts children and caregivers. 5. Children and Youth Receive the Services they Need • Consent Decree Outcome 24 relates to the educational achievement of those youth who “age out” of foster care. • Consent Decree Outcome 30 relates to meeting children’s service needs.
Strengthened Infrastructure 6. Effective Oversight of Placement Settings • Consent Decree Outcomes 25 and 31 related to placement setting conditions. 7. Timely and Complete Court Orders • Consent Decree Outcomes 26 and 29 related to DFCS authority to assume and continue custody.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 6 of 135
B. Approach to Monitoring
According to the Consent Decree, the court‐appointed accountability agents are responsible for conducting “… the factual investigation and verification of data and state documentation necessary to compile and to issue public record reports on State Defendants’ performance relative to the terms of the Consent Decree….” 2 The approach to fulfilling this responsibility emphasizes achievement, objectivity, engagement, and continuous improvement.
First, we are committed to helping the State achieve and sustain improved outcomes for the children served by DeKalb and Fulton County DFCS. Second, we are employing methods that allow constant, objective measurement of progress using verified data and information. Third, we seek to engage State and County leadership to work collaboratively in discovery and analysis rather than remaining distant from them. This means that, while maintaining the objectivity necessary for monitoring, we are working with the State and County leadership to verify data, explore information, consider strategies and arrive at recommendations for change. Finally we seek to use all of the foregoing to support organizational learning about what actually works to produce the desired outcomes, and to galvanize organization‐wide commitment to continuously improving those outcomes.
This approach takes advantage of the measurement tools traditionally available to monitors – interviews, system document and data analysis, and case record reviews.3 But, in addition, we have leveraged our access to the people doing the work and the operational data describing it into a learning process focused on continuous improvement known as the “G2.” The G2 process is driven by twice‐monthly meetings with the management and field staff of the Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS offices and members of the central office leadership team. These three‐hour meetings employ an iterative process of data‐based hypothesis development, testing, and refinement.
C. Report Scope and Organization
This report describes the State’s performance relative to 1) the immediate and short‐term actions required in the first 60 days to six months of the Consent Decree; 2) the outcome measures that are to be achieved by the end of the first reporting period; and 3) progress implementing required policies, practices, and infrastructure. The immediate and short‐term actions include two “Corrective Actions” required by the end of the first reporting period related to child safety and well‐being.4 The outcomes reported consist of four child safety outcomes (outcomes numbered 1, 2, 3, and 5); and two permanency outcomes (outcomes numbered 12 and 13.) The first threshold of one infrastructure outcome (outcome numbered 25,) was required by the end of the first reporting period. However, as discussed in Parts II and VI, this outcome could not
2 See p. 38, paragraph 16 A of the Consent Decree 3 See Appendix B for a full description of the methodology used to produce the reported information.
4 See pp. 30-31 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 7 of 135
be satisfactorily measured at this time. No child well‐being outcomes were due in the first reporting period of the Consent Decree, October 27, 2005 to June 30, 2006.5 Where pertinent, the report includes a discussion of the interpretation and measurement issues encountered in assessing progress toward the required outcomes.
The remaining requirements in the Consent Decree generally represent practice standards to be implemented or administrative capacities or capabilities that must exist, without reference to specific numerical targets or time frames. In the absence of a firm “yardstick” to use in measuring State progress on these items, this first report frequently refers to data from the Department’s Internal Data System (IDS) and a case record review in October and November 2005, immediately preceding and following the Consent Decree developed by the DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Section (E&R) as frames of reference. However, there are limitations to the comparisons, especially with the record review. The E&R case record review used a different sampling approach with a slightly larger margin of error than the sampling approach used in the case record reviews to collect much of the data used in this report. In addition, the data collection questions varied. Future reports will assess progress against the new baseline established by this and subsequent reports. More information about the E&R baseline record review is provided in Appendix B.
Finally, this report verifies the integrity of data reported by the State on the number of children in Fulton or DeKalb Counties that experienced repeat maltreatment during the reporting period.6
Appendix B details the data collection methods used to inform all of the conclusions in this report. It is important to note here that the sampling approach for 3 of the 4 case record reviews were designed to have a margin of error of no more than a plus/minus 7 percent. The fourth record review did not use a sample, but, instead reviewed the entire universe of investigations of maltreatment in care. The margin of error means that for any frequencies reported for the entire randomly drawn samples from the children in foster care placements population, children with the goal of adoption, or foster homes, the actual proportion in the populations from which those samples are drawn could be 7 percent lower or 7 percent higher. In addition, reported frequencies for subsets of the populations, for example children who entered care after the Consent Decree or children whose parental rights have been terminated, are subject to a larger margin of error, making them less representative of the population as a whole.
5 The entire list of outcome measures, grouped as in Exhibit A, appears in Appendix A. The entire list of outcomes appears in numerical order in pages 31-38 of the Consent Decree. 6 Required in the Miscellaneous Provisions of the Consent Decree (pp. 45-46). A second item in these provisions relates to children who may experience substantiated maltreatment after being referred to DHR’s Diversion program. This measure requires a 365 day “look-back” and, therefore, will be covered in the Accountability Agent’s report for the period ending June 30, 2007.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 8 of 135

The remainder of the report is organized into the following parts:
Part II, Conclusions and Recommendations summarizes the accomplishments and status of State and County actions taken during the first reporting period. It offers several recommendations which we believe are necessary for the State and Counties to make further progress.
Part III, Safety of Children in Care includes an assessment of the State’s performance on the immediate actions and outcomes due by the end of the first reporting period related to keeping children in its care safe from maltreatment.
Part IV, Children Achieving Permanency includes an assessment of the State’s performance on the immediate actions and outcomes due by the end of the first reporting period related to achieving permanent family connections for children in its care.
Part V, Children’s Well Being in Care includes an assessment of the State’s performance on the immediate actions due by then end of this first reporting period related to providing for the well‐being of children in its care.
Part VI, Strengthening the Infrastructure includes an assessment of the State’s progress in achieving Outcome 25 and implementing required infrastructure components related to providing services to families and children.
Part VII, Miscellaneous Provisions provides verified data regarding the re‐maltreatment rate of children in DeKalb and Fulton Counties.
Two appendixes provide the full wording for all 31 outcomes and, as noted above, a description of the data collection and analysis methods employed to produce this report.
D. Note about Report Timing
The Kenny A. Consent Decree became effective October 27, 2005. Regarding the Accountability Agents’ reports, it specifies: “These reports shall be issued for each six month reporting period, commencing approximately 90 days after the close of the first reporting period.”7 This report, however, covers the period October 27, 2005 to June 30, 2006, slightly more than eight months. This irregular first reporting period was proposed by the Accountability Agents and agreed to by all parties to enable all subsequent reports to cover a period (January to June or July to December) that could be more efficiently supported by the State’s data systems and would make greater sense to the public. We appreciate the parties’ willingness to accommodate this change.

7 See p. 38, paragraph 16A of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 9 of 135
Part II CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
During the eight‐month period covered by this report, the Georgia Department of Human Resources and the Division Family and Children Services have demonstrated progress toward achieving what was expected for this first period. Four of the seven outcomes to be achieved by June 30, 2006 were achieved. State performance in the remaining three outcome areas, although falling short of the desired targets, reflects significant and, we believe, sustainable improvement. Most of the immediate short‐term actions required for this period were satisfactorily completed.
Over the course of this first period, the following four areas for priority attention by the State and Counties emerged:
 First, the State’s management and accountability for the performance of provider‐ supervised foster homes needs to be strengthened. This includes improving collaboration among all parties responsible for the licensing, approval, and management of private foster care providers, and the completeness of the information in the State’s information systems about the placements they supervise.
 Second, the State needs to build on the newly created permanency report required for children entering their 13th month of care and make it increasingly a practice focused on an active problem solving and direction setting activity for all those with responsibility for helping children achieve lasting permanence.
 Third, the State should continue working to institutionalize better systems for ensuring and documenting that children in care are receiving routine health screening and medical treatment as indicated.
 Fourth, the State should continue its effective use of the G2 process. This process has proven effective in coordinating state and local action on priority issues, building problem solving and accountability capacity among State and field office staff, showcasing local effective practices, and learning what works and what does not to keep children in care safe and well.
We have conveyed these and other recommendations to the State and steps are already being taken to implement them.
The remainder of this section highlights the State’s major accomplishments and opportunities for improvement in four distinct areas of responsibility: Keeping Children Safe, Helping Children Achieve Permanency, Providing for the Well‐Being of Children in Care, and Creating a Supportive Infrastructure.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 10 of 135
A. Keeping Children Safe
1. Required Immediate Actions
 Corrective Action 13B: Identify and Revisit Placement Settings with Recent History of Two or More Substantiated Reports of Maltreatment.
This action was completed within the timeframes specified. Six separate Child Caring Institutions (CCIs) were identified as having had two or more substantiated reports of maltreatment in the 18 months preceding the entry of the Consent Decree. No foster homes had multiple substantiated reports. The identified CCIs had unannounced visits by June 30, 2006. No new concerns were identified. However, DFCS decided to remove all of the children in its custody from one facility based on the pattern of concerns raised by the re‐investigation of the past issues.
Recommendation: Four separate organizational components within the Department of Human Resources and the counties are responsible for oversight of private placement settings. The Office of Regulatory Services (ORS) is responsible for licensing and investigating possible licensure violations. The Treatment Services Unit (TSU) is responsible for approving and revoking DFCS contracts with private foster care providers, semi‐annual utilization reviews, and responding to concerns raised about the placement settings. Each county has a special investigations unit that responds to reports of maltreatment in private and DFCS‐supervised placement settings. The DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Section and TSU both track various aspects of the foster care process. The implementation of Corrective Action 13B revealed multiple opportunities to strengthen communication, management and accountability regarding the performance of private providers. The collaboration among these entities needs to be strengthened to assure timely and effective identification and sharing of performance concerns. The State is currently restructuring TSU which should afford an excellent opportunity to address these concerns.
2. Expected Outcomes
 Outcome 5: By the end of the first reporting period, no more than 1.27% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. First period performance: Outcome achieved, the rate of substantiated maltreatment of children in foster care during the reporting period was 0.54 percent.
 Outcome 1: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report. First period performance: 91 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 11 of 135
 Outcome 3: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face‐to‐face, private contact with alleged victim, including face‐to‐face contact with a child who is non‐verbal due to age or for any other reason. First period performance: 85 percent.
 Outcome 2: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report. First period performance: 83 percent.
These outcomes were not achieved, but clear progress was demonstrated. On each of these Outcomes, the creation of a Special Investigations Unit in DeKalb County (Fulton County already had such a unit) propelled improvement over the course of the reporting period. The rate of improvement and the levels achieved by the end of the reporting period suggest that Outcomes 1 and 2 can be achieved by December 31, 2006.
Caseload demographics make attaining and sustaining the performance target for Outcome 3 uncertain. In the first reporting period, there were 104 foster children that were alleged to be victims of maltreatment in care (maltreatment was substantiated for 18 of these children.) The 99 percent standard stipulated in Outcome 3 would fail to be achieved if even two of those children were not seen face‐to‐face within 24 hours. During this reporting period, one DeKalb County case in which educational neglect was alleged involved three teens aged 16‐18 who had been leaving school after first period. The investigator arrived at their foster home within 24 hours and spoke to the teens in question, but they denied their identities and fled before the investigator could interview them about the allegations. Therefore this case did not meet the 24 hour contact standard and by itself precluded the State from meeting Outcome 3. At this time, we do not know if this example was a unique occurrence or whether teens willfully avoiding face‐to‐face contact could perpetually frustrate the State’s best efforts to meet this standard. Given the fact that 11% of the children currently in care in Fulton and DeKalb are aged 16‐18, this is an issue for the State to monitor.
B. Helping Children Achieve Permanency
1. Required Immediate Action
 Generate Individual Permanency Reports For Children Who Had Reached their 13th Month in Care by October 27, 2005.
This action was completed within the timeframes specified. By February 27, 2006 the Counties prepared Permanency Reports for nearly 1200 children who had reached their 13th month in care before or on October 27, 2005. Thus, the letter of the Consent Decree was met. However, the quality of the work appears to have been inconsistent and the effectiveness of this initial process limited. As required in the Consent Decree, this has become an on‐going practice
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 12 of 135
at the 13th month and 25th month of care and DFCS is taking steps to refine the practice and improve the quality.
Recommendation: We support the State’s efforts to refine the practice and have made suggestions for streamlining forms, improving quality, and making the practice more meaningful and useful to all involved. This practice can be further strengthened through focused supervision and a collaborative effort between the counties and DFCS’ central office that steps away from a literal compliance with the Consent Decree and focuses on the desired results the practice can achieve: shared decision making around strategies and actions that help children achieve positive permanency outcomes more quickly.
2. Expected Outcomes
 Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. First period performance: Outcome achieved, 135 children, 94 percent of 144 awaiting adoption with an identified resource on October 27, 2005 were adopted by April 27, 2006.
 Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. First period performance: Outcome achieved, 100 percent of the 40 children who did not have an identified or potential adoptive resource on October 27, 2005 were registered on adoption exchanges and had individual recruitment plans.
C. Providing for the Well‐Being of Children in Care
1. Required Immediate Actions
 Corrective Action 13A: Obtain Updated Medical Examinations for Children in Care Prior to the Consent Decree.
This action was not completed. The Consent Decree required the State to obtain updated medical exams for two cohorts of children: 1) those who had been in care 12 months or more prior to the Consent Decree who had not had a medical exam in the previous 12 months and 2) those children who had been in care less than 12 months but more than 30 days prior to the Consent Decree but who had not received an initial medical exam since entering care. Despite extensive efforts to identify the children and youth who required this corrective action and arranging for accessible medical personnel to complete the needed medical examinations in a
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 13 of 135
timely way, not all identified children received the appropriate examinations. By June 30, 2006, county tracking data indicated that 533 children, 79 percent of the identified group from the combined cohorts, had received the required medical exams. Of the 140 children who had not, 77 exited foster care before receiving updated medicals and 15 children received medical examinations between July 1 and mid‐August 2006. The remaining 48 children still needed them as of mid‐August. The case record review of a sample of 165 children in foster care during the review period also indicated gaps in routine medical examinations.
Recommendation: When this performance was raised with State and county leadership, they immediately sought a means to improve their tracking efforts to better assure children are receiving routine medical attention as dictated by the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT)/Georgia Check program schedule. They have enlisted the assistance of the Division of Public Health to track the routine health care obtained for children in foster care and alert case managers to the need to schedule an examination. We support this activity. This is an excellent step for assuring children receive routine care in the future, but the State should also ensure through supervision that any children currently in care who have not received routine examinations receive them now.
D. Strengthening the Infrastructure
1. Required Immediate Actions
 Establish Specialized Caseloads for Children Who Reach Their 18th Month in Care and Cap them at 12 Children per Case Manager.
This action was completed, but not within the expected timeframe and not in strict conformance with the Consent Decree in an effort to better address the needs of children with the goal of adoption who would otherwise be assigned to a Specialized Case Manager. The Consent Decree stipulated that children who had reached their 18th month in care as of the Consent Decree were to be assigned to specialized case managers with capped caseloads of no more than 12 children per case manager within two months. This action was completed, but it took five rather than the two months. Most of these caseloads were established by the beginning of February 2006, but many children from the original cohort were still being assigned in March. As children reach their 18th month in care, they are transferred to a specialized case manager or, if the child’s goal is adoption, they have been transferred to “specialized adoption case managers.” Caseload caps for both the specialized case managers and specialized adoption case managers are being tracked by the counties and have reportedly been, with a few exceptions, maintained at 12 children per worker. The exceptions have ranged from 13 to 16 children per worker. The counties report that these exceptions have been primarily caused by sibling groups being assigned as a group to one case manager and transitioning cases from one case manager to another. We have reviewed county caseload
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 14 of 135
assignments, internal‐county tracking system data, and written communication from county directors information that indicates program administrators are constantly continually tracking these caseloads and making reassignments as quickly as possible should the cap be exceeded.
Our concerns regarding implementation of this new practice stem not only from the exceptions that exceed the caseload cap, but also from the potential for an unintended consequence to occur. As the counties have implemented and stabilized these new caseloads, initial reassignments to specialized case managers and subsequent reassignments among the caseloads has come at the expense of caseworker continuity. This, in turn, has reportedly affected the timeliness of visits between case managers and children and effectiveness of the permanency efforts with some youth. If the number of children reaching their 18th month in care continues to exceed the number exiting care after their 18th month, specialized caseloads will continue to be formed and worker continuity will continue to be upset not only for those children being assigned to a specialized case manager but also for those who lose a case manager who is given a specialized caseload.
In the next several months, we intend to learn more about the Specialized Caseloads directly from the assigned case mangers. We will be conducting focus groups and administering surveys to better understand the achievements and barriers in their work.
Recommendation: The State and Counties should use existing and new case practices to minimize the number of children who reach their 18th month in care. These practices include diligent search for relatives and frequent contact with extended birth families and social networks early in the child’s time in care. By the time a child reaches his or her 18th month in care, many family and community connections may have been lost. Also, the previous recommendation to strengthen the 13th month permanency review process applies here as well. This process can be used to establish steps that can effectively lead to permanency exits before children reach their 18th month in care.
In addition, the stipulation in the Consent Decree that the specialized case manager be the sole case manager and, “to the extent possible” remain the child’s case manager for the remaining period of time the child is in care even if adoption is sought for the child’s permanency suggests that the State needs to identify the critical knowledge, skills and supports for the Specialized Case Managers to have or obtain for them to successfully execute their responsibilities.
Several other immediate actions were stipulated for the first reporting period. The status of these activities is summarized in Table II‐1.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 15 of 135

Table II‐1 Immediate First‐Period Activities to Strengthen the Foster Care System Infrastructure.

Activity Establish Basic Foster Care Maintenance Payments for All Foster Homes

First‐Period Status This action was completed. All foster homes received the stipulated maintenance payment rates.

Establish a Rate

This action was completed. However, the original scope of

Reimbursement Task Force work for the Task Force has been modified by new mandates

the State received from the federal government requiring

changes to the Level of Care reimbursement program. DHR

and Counsel for Plaintiffs met with the Task Force to agreed to

an amended scope of work.

Performance‐Based

This action was not completed. The state was unable to

Contracting

complete this action while the above mentioned changes to the

Level of Care reimbursement program were being finalized. We

hope to see significant progress on this action during the second

reporting period.

Contract with External Expert This action was completed but not within the designated time

to Conduct a Needs

frame. Problems in recruiting qualified bidders and delays in

Assessment

the selection process stemming from the time required for the

State and Plaintiff’s Counsel to reach agreement on the vendor

has delayed implementation of the needs assessment study. A

contractor has been selected, but a contract has not been

executed.

Statewide Automated Child This action was completed. The contract with the selected

Welfare Information System SACWIS vendor was awarded within the required timeframe,

(SACWIS)

although a protest from one of the unsuccessful bidders delayed

implementation of the contract. The date by which the

completed SACWIS is to be implemented statewide is January

2008.

Automated Information

This action was completed. Modifications to the Placement

System for Foster Care

Central system to capture the required data elements were

Resources

developed and demonstrated to the accountability agents within

the required time frame.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 16 of 135
2. Outcome Expected
 Outcome 25: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 85% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. First period performance: For the first reporting period, the Accountability Agents were unable to rigorously assess the extent to which this requirement was met.
Outcome 25 presented the most difficult measurement challenge of any of the Outcomes due in the first reporting period. Outcome 25 could not be satisfactorily measured for the first reporting period for two reasons. First, the definition of the measure contained in the Consent Decree is a mismatch with the available data sources. To operationalize the measure as specified in the Consent Decree, data on the current approval status of individual foster placements on a particular date must be linked to data about the number of class member children in those individual homes on that same date. Doing this with the appropriate degree of rigor proved to be an insurmountable challenge, although much was learned from trying to overcome it.
Second, there is a difference between the parties on whether the term “full approval and/or licensure status” was a designation that referred specifically to the regulatory process through which foster homes and group homes are approved to receive foster children and DFCS funding, or was intended as a generic description that referred also to the approval of other types of placements.
Recommendations:
 The parties should agree to the use of the percentage of placements in approved status at a point in time as a proxy for the percentage of children in placements in approved status at a point in time. In the process of testing various measurement approaches, we learned that for DFCS‐supervised homes there was no significant difference between the proportion of homes in full approval status at a point‐in‐time, and the proportion of children placed in homes in full approval status at that same point‐in‐time. This recommended alternative not only increases the likelihood that the Accountability Agents would be able to produce a satisfactory measurement for Outcome 25, it would also enable the State more readily to track its own performance and make mid‐course corrections as necessary.
 The parties must come to an agreement about the applicability of Outcome 25 to placements outside the regulatory environment. The Accountability Agents hope such an agreement can be reached promptly so any needed modifications to the data collection methodology can be made in time for our second period report.
 DFCS should immediately assess the adequacy of documentation in provider‐supervised foster home records. In attempting to find a viable measurement methodology for Outcome 25, it became clear that the files of provider‐supervised foster homes provided inadequate
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 13

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 17 of 135
evidence of compliance with DFCS approval standards. It is presently unknown whether the apparent lower conformance with DFCS approval standards is reflective of inadequate compliance with such standards, inadequate documentation of such compliance, the unfamiliarity of the file review team with the CPA file structure, or some combination of the three.  Efforts currently underway within DFCS to populate Placement Central and TSU’s LORE system with data on all provider‐supervised foster homes need to be continued and adequately supported. The Accountability Agents regard completing the automation of data on provider‐supervised foster homes as critical to DFCS’ ability to effectively manage the performance of such homes.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 14

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 18 of 135
Part III SAFETY
Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment
Principle four of the Consent Decree asserts, “the state has primary responsibility for the care and protection of the children who enter the foster care system.”8 As a result of this responsibility, several Consent Decree requirements and outcomes focus attention on the safety of children in the custody of DHR/DFCS. The first part of this chapter reports on DFCS’ fulfillment of Corrective Action 13 B, inspection of placement settings with two or more substantiated reports of maltreatment of children in their care. The second part reports on the State’s progress in achieving several outcomes focused on the rate of maltreatment in care and the investigatory process. Finally, this chapter concludes with a discussion of the practices and process employed to address reports and concerns of maltreatment in care.
A. Immediate Action: Follow‐up with Placement Settings with Past Multiple Substantiated Maltreatment
One of two immediate corrective actions specified in the Consent Decree required DFCS to identify and follow‐up with “…all foster care placements (foster family homes or non‐foster family homes, DFCS‐supervised, or private provider‐supervised) in which one or more class member children have been placed in the past six months, for which placements there have been 2 or more substantiated reports of abuse or neglect in the past 18 months.”9 By the end of the first reporting period, DFCS was to make unannounced inspections of these placement settings and take appropriate actions based on what the inspections revealed.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Measurement of this corrective action is fairly straight forward; however an interpretation issue concerns the application of this requirement in the private provider setting.
In Georgia, privately operated placement settings generally fall into one of three categories: Child Caring Institutions (CCI) – commonly referred to as facilities and group homes; Outdoor Therapeutic Programs (OTP) – wilderness, camp‐like settings serving young people with serious emotional disturbances ‐‐ and Child Placing Agencies (CPA) – private agencies that recruit, support, and supervise networks of foster or adoptive homes. In interpreting the requirements of this corrective action, we believe they apply somewhat differently to these three private provider types.

8 See p. 4, Principle 4, of the Consent Decree 9 See p. 30, Corrective Action 13B of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 15

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 19 of 135
Specifically, we believe the “non‐foster family homes” language pertains to the CCIs and OTPs because these agencies or programs are the actual placement settings for children. Unannounced inspections of the CCIs and OTPs that meet the criteria specified in Corrective Action 13 B would allow for the assessment of current placement conditions. Resulting corrective actions, as appropriate, would be applied to these physical locations.
With regard to foster homes, both DFCS supervised and privately supervised, we concluded that the unannounced inspections and appropriate corrective actions were to be applied to every individual foster home that had had two or more maltreatment substantiations. In the case of CPAs, the homes themselves, not the supervising agency, are the physical placement settings. Unannounced visits to CPAs or DFCS offices alone would not enable these placement settings to be assessed.
b. Findings
 DFCS Conducted Unannounced Visits of Six Placement Settings with Past Multiple Maltreatment Substantiations
By the end of December 2005, DFCS identified five separate Child Caring Institutions and no foster homes that met the criteria established in the Consent Decree. A sixth facility was added as a result of a substantiated report in January 2006. These programs were identified through investigation summaries submitted by all counties to the Treatment Services Unit and through the State’s Internal Data System (IDS). Table III‐1 summarizes the original incidents and the results of the past corrective actions and current inspection findings. Not all of the initial incidents involved children in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton County DFCS. In addition, because many of the locations were outside of DeKalb or Fulton counties, they were initially investigated by the county with jurisdiction.
All six facilities had unannounced visits in May and June 2006 by teams of two staff from the Treatment Services Unit (TSU). These visits were in addition to the routine twice‐yearly on‐site utilization reviews conducted by TSU.
 No current risks to the health, safety, and well‐being of the resident children were identified in the visits.
During the unannounced visits, the teams reviewed the original issues with agency authorities as well as conducted inspections of the facilities, reviewed records, and interviewed currently children placed currently. The teams learned what actions the agencies have taken as a result of the original substantiations. No current risks to health, safety, and well‐being of the children living in these settings were uncovered in the inspections.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 16

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 20 of 135
The recommendations and actions of the CPS investigations staff, the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS), and/or the Treatment Services Unit (TSU) at the time maltreatment were as substantiated included licensing citations, removal of children from the placement setting, revoking approval for DFCS placements, and additional staff training. As summarized in Table II‐1, the CCI’s response to ORS and DFCS findings included a variety of actions depending on the circumstances. Staff members received more training. Procedures were revised and re‐ emphasized. Surveillance equipment was installed. Staffing ratios were increased. Some staff had their employment terminated.
Although no health, safety, or well‐being issues were identified in these inspections, we did express concern about one of the facilities receiving an extended license to serve children aged 10 and 11 as well as children aged 12 to 18 following one of the substantiations. At the time of the incident, the agency‘s request for such an extension was pending, but they had admitted children under the age of 12. In fact, the substantiated incident involved a child as young as 8. In addition to the substantiation, the Office of Regulatory Services cited the facility for a number of licensing violations, including having children for whom they were not licensed. Subsequently, ORS approved the application for the extended age range. Once identified, the Commissioner and DFCS Director acted quickly to review this concern and decided to remove all children in DFCS custody from the facility. Furthermore, as a result of departmental discussions with the facility, we understand the facility has resigned its contract with the Department.
While these steps resolved our immediate concerns regarding the provider, we regard the incident itself as an indication that TSU and ORS need to strengthen their collaboration with each other and the Counties, and improve the rigor with which they seek out and address patterns of inadequate performance among placement providers. This recommendation is reiterated in our discussion of State compliance with certain process requirements pertaining to maltreatment in care investigations discussed later in this chapter under Section C.
All County DFCS directors have received copies of the inspection reports generated as a consequence of these unannounced visits.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 17

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 21 of 135

Table III‐1 Summary Description of Unannounced Visits as Required by Corrective Action 13B

Type of Facility and

Description of

Actions Taken and Unannounced Visit Findings

Substantiations

1 Child Caring Institution: Group Response to Substantiations:

Homes – 2 locations

Incident 1: reprimanded staff and transferred to other facility;

training, and increased staff coverage.

2 incidents of inadequate

Incident 2: staff terminated.

supervision (February and

Overall: Agency complied with DFCS recommendations.

April 2005,) one at each of the

agency’s locations

Unannounced Visit Results: children safe; minor maintenance

required in staff bathroom; child in need of a phone card.

2 Child Caring Institution: Cottage setting

Response to Substantiations: Incident 1 (July 2004): child moved to a more suitable placement;

staff coaching and training around proper supervision, detailed

2 incidents of inadequate

program guidelines; independent living program cottage where

supervision (July 2004 and

incident took place is now closed and there are no residents in the

April 2005)

cottage.

2 incidents of physical abuse (April and June 2005)

Incident 2 (April 2005): staff received additional monitoring and coaching; agency completed Corrective Action plan for ORS.

Incident 3 (April 2005): child moved to another bedroom to avoid future physical confrontations with another resident, retrained staff on proper crisis intervention techniques; completed corrective action plan for ORS.

Incident 4 (June 2005): one worker was terminated for inappropriate restraint; another was demoted for not reporting incident.

Overall: Cameras have been added in hall, additional staff have been hired, and additional training has been conducted.

3 Child Caring Institution:
3 incidents of inadequate supervision (April 2004, January and August 2005)

Unannounced Visit Results: Changes made appear to have been effective, no safety or well being issues raised. Response to Substantiations: Incident 1: child was moved to another placement setting, agency increased supervision.
Incident 2: documentation insufficient to determine what happened.

Incident 3: staff member was terminated.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 18

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 22 of 135

Type of Facility and Description of Substantiations
4 Child Caring Institution: Specialty Hospital
1 incident of physical abuse (February 2005)
1 incident of inadequate supervision (July 2005)

Actions Taken and Unannounced Visit Findings
Unannounced Visit Results: No risks to health, safety, or well being of the children were identified. Response to Substantiations: Incident 1: staff member was terminated, all staff received increased training, additional screening of job applicants was established and increased supervision of new staff.
Incident 2: training, new policy and process for room assignments; a door separates younger and older children’s units; more use of cameras to document and monitor staff performance and use as learning tools; annual recertification.
Overall: Agency completed corrective action plans for DFCS and ORS.

5 Child Caring Institution:
2 incidents of inadequate supervision (November 2005 and January 2006)

Unannounced Visit Results: No risks to health, safety, or well being of the children were identified. Response to Substantiations: Incident 1: employee was terminated before DFCS received report.
Incident 2: cameras installed, staff training.
Overall: Agency completed corrective action plans for DFCS and ORS.

Unannounced Visit Results: No risks to health, safety, or well

being of the children were identified.

In August 2006, this institution resigned its contract with DFCS;

all children in DFCS custody have been removed and placed

elsewhere.

6 Child Caring Institution: Group Response to Substantiations:

Home

Staff terminated; locks on most doors, increased supervision of

residents, stricter house rules.

1 incident of sexual misconduct

that was reported 5 times, once Unannounced Visit Results:

for each child involved (June No risks to health, safety, or well being of the children were

2004)

identified.

Source: Compiled from the Treatment Services Unit reports of unannounced visits in 2006.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 19

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 23 of 135
 No Current Foster Homes have a History of Multiple Substantiations.
Within DFCS, the policy is to close a DFCS supervised home when one report of maltreatment has been substantiated. We found no evidence that this policy is not being carried out. Therefore, there were no DFCS supervised homes with two or more substantiated reports of maltreatment in the designated time period. Among the foster homes supervised by Child Placing Agencies, three agencies had a total of eight separate foster homes and/or pre‐adoptive homes that had one substantiated report each. None of the individual foster homes had more than one substantiated report and did not receive unannounced visits. However, the DFCS visits to the supervising CPAs found that five of the eight foster homes had been closed by the CPAs after the original investigations were completed; a sixth one was reportedly closed in June. Two homes remain open but are not serving children in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton DFCS.
B. Outcome Achievement: Outcomes 1, 2, 3, and 5
As previously noted, five of the Consent Decree outcomes are clustered around keeping children safe while they are in care and quickly addressing safety issues as they occur. Four of these outcomes were to be achieved in the first reporting period. The fifth is to be achieved in the second reporting period which ends December 31, 2006. Table III‐2 presents the state’s performance on the four outcomes due in the first reporting period. The following discussion provides a summary of State performance as well as the interpretation and measurement issues associated with the outcomes, and information about issues surrounding the work that provide a context for understanding the State’s performance.
1. Maltreatment in Care: Occurrence and Investigation of Reports
Outcome 5 – Maltreatment in Foster Care
Outcome 5 lies at the very heart of the Consent Decree. It is about keeping children in foster care safe from maltreatment. Child welfare systems have no higher obligation. By definition, children in foster care have already experienced some form of maltreatment in the home from which they were removed. The prospect of them experiencing maltreatment again in the foster care setting is deeply disturbing.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 20

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 24 of 135

Table III‐2 Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment: Progress as of June 30, 2006

Consent Decree Outcome
Outcome 5: By the end of the first reporting period, no more than 1.27% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care.

1st Period Performance
0.54% Achieved

Outcome 1: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report.

91% Not Achieved

Outcome 2: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report.

83% Not Achieved

Outcome 3: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face‐to‐face, private contact with alleged victim, including face‐to‐face contact with a child who is non‐verbal due to age or for any other reason.

85% Not Achieved

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
After careful consideration, Outcome 5 was operationally defined as the percentage of children in care during the reporting period that experience maltreatment in care during the reporting period. Performance was measured by a cumulative look across the entire reporting period, not just at one point in time during the reporting period. The interpretation and measurement issues are described below.
The interpretation issue centers on the meaning attributed to the words “…shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care.” This could be interpreted to mean that any child who had ever experienced maltreatment while in foster care (even if it was years ago) should be counted in this percentage. Although this is perhaps the most obvious and literal interpretation of these words, such an interpretation would be unhelpful to the cause of improving Georgia’s child welfare system.
First, a central precept of the Consent Decree is that it will bring about improvements in Georgia’s child welfare system. Interpreting this measure in a way that places it beyond the influence of the State’s current and future efforts to improve would be incongruous with this precept. We believe that when the Consent Decree language is less than definitive, it should be construed to avoid establishing incentives that are inconsistent with spirit of improving Georgia’s child welfare system.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 21

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 25 of 135
The measurement issue inherent in Outcome 5 derives from the words “By the end of the first reporting period…” Taken literally, these words seem to suggest that this is a point‐in‐time measure to be taken on the last day of the first reporting period. In other words, what percentage of the children in care on June 30, 2006 had experienced maltreatment while in care? In the child welfare field, such a point‐in‐time approach is a common method of obtaining a census of children in care but it is not the best way to gauge real system performance.
b. State Performance
 The State Exceeded First Period and All Subsequent Period Outcome 5 Thresholds
As noted in Table III‐2 for Outcome 5, about one‐half of one percent (0.54%) of all children in foster care between October 27, 2005 and June 30, 2006 had been victims of substantiated maltreatment during that time period. Our review found 18 instances of substantiated maltreatment among the 3,349 children in care at any point during the reporting period. That places the State not only well below the first period standard of 1.27 percent, but below the second and third period standards as well (0.94% and 0.57%, respectively). This indicates that DFCS is doing an excellent job of protecting the Fulton and DeKalb children in Georgia’s foster care system from maltreatment. These data are based on our review of all of the investigations of maltreatment in care completed during the reporting period.
c. Operational Context
As indicated in the Introduction, a by‐product of the G2 process has been significant improvement in the quality of some of the data produced by DFCS primary administrative data system, “IDS.” Nowhere is this more evident than with data related to maltreatment in care.
Baseline data runs for Outcome 5 taken in November 2005 indicated that DeKalb and Fulton Counties together were at 1.8 percent on this measure. As a result, initial G2 discussions focused on why maltreatment in care was occurring and what the counties could do to reduce the incidence of it. One of the hypotheses offered was that maltreatment in care was not occurring as frequently as the data suggested, but rather, field staff were incorrectly coding data describing reported maltreatment before it was entered into IDS. To investigate this hypothesis, the Evaluation and Reporting (E&R) unit began producing detailed listings of the data in IDS related to each incident identified as maltreatment in foster care. As the counties reviewed and investigated these listings, it was learned that a few common coding errors were significantly inflating this percentage. The most common coding error made it appear that a significant number of children had been maltreated in foster care when, in reality, they had been maltreated in their homes and then removed to foster care. After this pattern was reported in the G2, policy guidance was updated, hard copy forms and data fields in IDS were revised, and additional staff training was provided to address the problem. As a result of these changes, the accuracy of the IDS data on maltreatment in care is improving.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 22

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 26 of 135
The existence of such coding errors was further validated during the case record review of investigations of maltreatment in care. The record review was designed to include all investigations, not a sample as in the other record reviews. From an initial listing of 145 records of cases believed to reflect child maltreatment while in foster care based on IDS designation, 93 cases (64%) were eliminated because the investigative record indicated the maltreatment actually occurred prior to the child’s removal and placement in care.
Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 – Maltreatment Investigation Process Measures
While Outcome 5 focuses on the result of reduced maltreatment in care, Outcomes 1, 3, and 2 measure important aspects of the process through which allegations of maltreatment in foster care settings are investigated. Outcome 1 relates to the timeframe in which an investigation of suspected maltreatment of a foster child is commenced. Outcome 3 relates to the frequency with which such investigations include timely, face‐to‐face contact with the alleged victim. Because DFCS policy defines the point at which face‐to‐face contact with the alleged victim is made as the point at which an investigation “commences,” they are very similar measures; the primary difference between them is the unit of analysis. For Outcome 1, the unit of analysis is the investigation itself (which may involve multiple alleged victims). For Outcome 3, the unit of analysis is the individual child who is an alleged victim. Outcome 2 relates to the length of time it takes to complete such investigations.
Over the course of the reporting period, the Counties made significant improvement in their performance on these three areas although they did not achieve the outcome levels.
a. Interpretation and Measurement
Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 use the same “By the end of the first reporting period…” language used in Outcome 5. Again, this might be construed to grant the state the entire reporting period in which to improve these measures. However, unlike Outcome 5, there is no standard practice in the child welfare field of operationalizing measures such as these with a point‐in‐time measurement approach (which, taken literally, would apply these percentages and timeframes only to investigations completed on the final day of the reporting period). Rather, it is standard practice in the child welfare field to calculate statistics such as these on a monthly or quarterly basis, as a percentage for all investigations completed during a given month or fiscal quarter. Therefore we have elected to report these as percentages covering the entire reporting period. As such, it should be understood that they reflect the level of performance at the beginning of the reporting period (when it might be expected to be poorer) as well as at the end (by which it may have improved).
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 23

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 27 of 135
b. State Performance
 91 percent of Investigations of Maltreatment in Care were commenced within 24 hours.
Case record review data from all investigations completed during the reporting period indicate that 91 percent of maltreatment in care investigations were commenced within 24 hours. Outcome 1 requires that by the end of the first reporting period, 95 percent of such investigations be commenced within 24 hours. Although this outcome was not achieved, the State’s performance reflects significant improvement since 2005, when fewer than approximately two‐thirds of the completed investigations met this standard
 83 percent of Investigations of Maltreatment in Care are Completed Within 30 days in Accordance with State Standards
Case record review data from all investigations completed during the reporting period indicate that 83 percent of maltreatment investigations involving foster children were completed within 30 days. (Another 8 percent of such cases were investigated within 36 days.) Outcome 2 requires that by the end of the first reporting period, 95 percent of such investigations be completed, in accordance with DFCS policy, within 30 days. Although this outcome was not achieved, the State’s performance reflects significant improvement since 2005, when fewer than half of the completed investigations met this standard.
The case record review explored the extent to which these investigations were conducted “…in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual.” Section 2106 contains guidance on the many aspects of properly conducting special investigations, such as separately interviewing the parties involved, making two collateral contacts, evaluating the likelihood of continued safety, etc. Each of those requirements was assessed in the case record review. Compliance with the particular aspects of Section 2106 varied somewhat, but for most of the requirements substantively related to child safety (e.g., separate interviews, collateral contacts, continued safety evaluations) compliance was found to be in the 80‐94 percent range, which we regard as acceptable for the first reporting period.
For some of the more process‐oriented requirements (e.g., foster parent notification of the right to have an advocate present, review of the child’s placement history for patterns of child behavior or additional information) documentation of compliance was much weaker – in the 40‐ 50% range for some items. Our concern about these process‐related requirements is tempered by the knowledge that the State is doing quite well in producing the desired outcomes related to maltreatment in care. However, we strongly encourage the State to continue working to improve compliance with all requirements of Section 2106 and intend to focus some future G2 activities on this issue. Compliance with the requirements of Section 2106 in future reporting periods will continue to be monitored.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 24

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 28 of 135
 85 percent of Investigations of Maltreatment have Face‐to‐Face, Private Contact With the Alleged Child Victim Within 24 Hours
Case record review data from all investigations completed during the reporting period indicate that face‐to‐face, private contact with the alleged victim of maltreatment in care occurred within 24 hours in 85 percent of the investigations. Outcome 3 requires that by the end of the first reporting period, such contacts be made in 99 percent of such investigations. As with Outcomes 1 and 2, the State’s performance on this outcome has improved since the 2005, when the E&R baseline data indicated that 68 percent of the investigations had face‐to‐face contact within 24 hours.
Caseload demographics make the State’s prospects for attaining and sustaining the performance target for Outcome 3 uncertain. In the first reporting period, there were 104 foster children that were alleged to be victims of maltreatment in care (maltreatment was substantiated for 18 of these children). The 99 percent standard stipulated in Outcome 3 would fail to be achieved if even two of those children were not seen face‐to‐face within 24 hours. During this reporting period, one DeKalb County case in which educational neglect was alleged involved three teens aged 16‐18 who had been leaving school after first period. The investigator arrived at their foster home within 24 hours and spoke to the teens in question, but they denied their identities and fled before the investigator could interview them about the allegations. Therefore this case did not meet the 24 hour contact standard and by itself precluded the State from meeting Outcome 3. At this time, it is not known if this example was an unusual occurrence or whether teens willfully avoiding face‐to‐face contact could perpetually frustrate the State’s best efforts to meet this standard. Given the fact that teens aged 16‐18 comprise 11.3 percent of the children currently in care in Fulton and DeKalb; this is an issue the State needs to monitor closely.
c. Operational Context
The shortfalls in the three outcomes related to the investigations process reflect weaker performance at the beginning of the reporting period that appears to have improved over the course of the reporting period. This weaker performance was likely the result of a learning curve during the first few months of the Consent Decree associated with a major change in the way investigations of maltreatment in care were organized and conducted in DeKalb County.
At an early G2 meeting, data were examined from the period preceding the Consent Decree that showed Fulton County was performing better than DeKalb on several measures related to maltreatment in care investigations. In the ensuing discussion, the hypothesis was offered that the primary reason for the difference was that all maltreatment in care investigations in Fulton County were handled by a Special Investigations Unit, consisting chiefly of highly experienced investigators. In DeKalb, investigations of maltreatment in care during the period in question were handled by the regular Child Protective Services (CPS) Investigations Unit, where they had to compete for time and attention with any other report of suspected maltreatment. In
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 25

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 29 of 135
November 2005 DeKalb County formed its own Special Investigations Unit. DeKalb’s performance on the entire range of indicators related to maltreatment in care has steadily improved since then.
The Accountability Agents met separately with the Special Investigations Units in Fulton and DeKalb and were impressed with their professionalism and the sense of urgency they displayed about keeping children in care safe. With these units in place in both counties and the improved performance that occurred during the reporting period, we anticipate continued high performance on these outcomes can be achieved.
C. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding Maltreatment in Care Investigations
Section 12 of the Consent Decree contains other requirements pertaining to the process of investigating and responding to reports of maltreatment in care.10 The following discussion summarizes the State’s implementation of these requirements.
1. Investigations of Reports of Maltreatment in Care
Section 12 A requires all reports of suspected maltreatment of children in foster care to be investigated by child protective services staff (rather than foster care staff) in the manner and time frame provided by law and DFCS policy. Based on interviews with Fulton and DeKalb County staff, with staff of the Social Services Treatment Services Unit and the Office of Regulatory Services, and the review of 100 percent of the reports of maltreatment in care completed during the reporting period, the State has successfully implemented the requirement that all reports of maltreatment in foster care be investigated by CPS staff. The extent to which these investigations comport to the required timeframes and other aspects of the policy guidance governing the proper conduct of special investigations is addressed in the previous discussion of Outcomes 1 and 2.
2. Referrals of Reports of Maltreatment in Care in Private Provider Settings to the Office of Regulatory Services and the Treatment Services Unit
Section 12 B requires all reports of suspected abuse or neglect of foster children in institutional, group, residential, or private provider‐supervised foster family home settings to be referred to and reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS) and the Social Services Treatment Services Unit (TSU).11 The purpose of the review specified in the Consent Decree is “…to
10 See pp.28-30 of the Consent Decree 11 ORS licenses child placing agencies (CPA), child caring institutions (CCI), and outdoor therapeutic programs (OTP). TSU approves CPAs, CCIs, and OTPs wishing to serve DFCS children once they have been licensed by ORS.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 26

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 30 of 135
determine whether a pattern of abuse or neglect exists within… [the provider agency]…. that contributed to the abuse or neglect; whether the contract should be terminated; whether particular homes or facilities should be closed….”12
The assessment of State compliance with Section 12 B is based on extensive review of the cases covered by Section 13 B (previously described,) data from the review of 100 percent of the maltreatment in care reports, and interviews with staff of DeKalb and Fulton Counties as well as ORS, TSU, and other Central Office staff. DFCS policy requires counties, at the conclusion of maltreatment in care investigations, to send an “Administrative Packet” detailing the incident and findings through the Social Services Director to TSU and ORS within ten days. Historically, this process could best be described as a “passive surveillance,” approach. That is, TSU and ORS have relied on the counties, of their own volition, to send in the required reports in a timely manner. No mechanism existed at the time of our interviews to ensure that all required reports had been received from the Counties (such a mechanism would represent an “active surveillance” system).
Information compiled from the record review of maltreatment in care investigations indicates that county compliance with this requirement needs significant improvement. Of the 45 reports of maltreatment in provider‐supervised settings reviewed: 5 (11%) contained administrative packets and documentation that those packets were timely submitted to the State office; 16 (36%) contained administrative packets and documentation that they were submitted to the State office but not within the required ten days; 13 (29%) contained administrative packets but no documentation that they were submitted to the State office; and 11 (24%) contained no administrative packet. During this reporting period State office files were not reviewed to reconcile the administrative packets received against the list of maltreatment in care investigation files that were reviewed. Such reconciliation will be performed during the next reporting period to ascertain whether these data are indicative of a reporting problem, a documentation problem, or both.
Relying on passive surveillance cannot help but compromise the ability of ORS and TSU “…to determine whether a pattern of abuse or neglect exists….” in foster care placements. In addition, the rigor with which ORS and TSU search for patterns in the required reports needs to be strengthened.
The review of DFCS activity related to Corrective Action 13 B, as previously described revealed one situation (out of six fitting the Section 13 B definition13) in which ORS and TSU failed to identify (or at least to respond appropriately to) a situation in which such a pattern appeared evident to the Accountability Agents. (See the previous discussion regarding Corrective Action 13B).
12 Kenny A Consent Decree, Section 12 B, p. 28. 13 Foster care placements in which one or more class member children had been placed within the past 6 months, and for which placements there had been two or more substantiated reports of maltreatment within the previous 18 months, Kenny A. Consent Decree, Section 13 B, p.31.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 27

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 31 of 135

When this situation was raised to their attention, the Commissioner and DFCS Director took immediate action to safeguard the children that had been in that placement setting, to sanction the provider, and to hold the DFCS staff involved accountable. Further, the DFCS Director has ordered that an active surveillance system be created to ensure all administrative packets describing investigations of maltreatment in care are timely received by the Social Services Director, ORS, and TSU.
We strongly support this development and recommend that steps be taken by DFCS to further strengthen communication between ORS, TSU and the Counties and to ensure that the Counties timely submit completed administrative packets to the State office; and that ORS and TSU rigorously review reports of maltreatment in care to quickly identify and respond to patterns that may be evident in the reports. We will continue to closely monitor the implementation of the active surveillance system and any steps taken to implement these other recommendations.
3. Safeguarding Against and Investigating Incidents of Corporal Punishment
Section 12 C14 contains process and practice requirements related to the prohibition of corporal punishment in foster care settings and investigations of reports of corporal punishment. The following discussion summarizes the requirements and how DFCS is meeting them.
 Awareness of Corporal Punishment Prohibition
All placement settings are to prohibit the use of corporal punishment. In 99 percent of 166 foster home records sampled, there was a signed written statement or other evidence that foster parents understood and agreed to comply with DFCS’ prohibition on the use of corporal punishment.
 Enforcement of Corporal Punishment Prohibition
Enforcement of this provision in DFCS supervised homes is carried out by the County DFCS offices. Enforcement in private provider placements is carried out by the CPA, ORS and TSU. ORS requires CPAs CCIs and OTPs to have written policies prohibiting corporal punishment as a condition of licensure. ORS monitors compliance with this requirement by means of a pre‐ licensure review of all provider policies. They also review the files of CPAs to confirm that they have reviewed the DFCS disciplinary policy with the private foster homes they supervise. TSU conducts utilization reviews every six months for every child placed in a CCI or a CPA‐ supervised foster home. As part of each utilization review, TSU staff meet with the facility treatment teams to discuss individual needs of the children in care and conducts face‐to‐face, private interviews with 10 percent of the children in each group home supervised by each CPA. In addition, prior to contract approval or re‐approval, TSU checks for any prior ORS citations and visits three randomly selected foster homes of each CPA.

14 See pp 29-30, paragraph 12C in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 28

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 32 of 135
 Compliance with Corporal Punishment Prohibition
Actual compliance with the corporal punishment prohibition appears to be extremely good. Our review of 165 randomly selected placement records of children in foster care during the reporting period identified only one confirmed instance of corporal punishment used against a foster child (0.6% of the records reviewed). Response to this one incident was exemplary. The allegation was investigated by both the county CPS unit and the state TSU, the child was moved and the foster home was closed. The review of all maltreatment in care investigations completed during the reporting period found a total of 15 allegations of suspected corporal punishment that resulted in CPS investigations. Four of these were from DFCS supervised foster homes, eight were from provider supervised foster homes, and three were from group home/residential care facilities. Interestingly, nine of these 15 investigations involved children in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton counties that were placed in other counties. Three of these investigations produced substantiations of maltreatment. In 11 of the 12 unsubstantiated cases the file reviewers offered the judgment that the case documentation (interviews, physical evidence, etc.) validated the conclusion that maltreatment had not occurred.
However, while all corporal punishment in foster care settings is prohibited, not all corporal punishment meets the criteria that trigger a maltreatment investigation. Our foster home record review looked for any evidence in the record that foster parents or other placement resources may have used corporal punishment or permitted it to be used on any foster child. Such evidence was found in only 2 percent (4 of 165) records reviewed.
 Screening and Investigation Allegations of Corporal Punishment
Allegations of corporal punishment must be screened by qualified CPS (rather than foster care) staff. Depending on the screening conclusions, the allegations may be responded to differently. Where reasonable cause exists to believe abuse or neglect occurred, or if the allegations arose in a group care setting, the allegations must be treated as an abuse referral and investigated accordingly. If the screener concludes that reasonable cause does not exist, the Consent Decree requires a timely assessment of the allegations and placing “holds” on any further placements until the assessment is complete. It also stipulates conditions under which homes must be closed, and conditions under which homes may remain open under a corrective action plan.
Interviews with the Special Investigations units in DeKalb and Fulton indicate that both counties are handling allegations of corporal punishment consistent with these provisions. Both counties use experienced CPS supervisors to assess incoming corporal punishment allegations. In DeKalb, all complaints of any kind of physical discipline of foster children are automatically referred to the CPS Special Investigations unit with a 24 hour response time. In Fulton County, incoming complaints are screened by the Special Investigations Supervisor: those showing reasonable cause are investigated by the Special Investigations unit with a 24 hour response time; those lacking reasonable cause are referred to the Resource Development unit (for a DFCS supervised foster home) or the Child Placing Agency and ORS (for a private
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 29

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 33 of 135
provider supervised foster home) for response. In both counties, any complaint of corporal punishment of children in group homes automatically receives a CPS investigation.
The review of all maltreatment in care investigations found that of the 15 CPS investigations prompted by an allegation of corporal punishment:
• 14 were assigned 24 hour response times; • 14 had face‐to‐face contact with the alleged victim within 24 hours; • 15 showed evidence that the continued safety of the child was evaluated; and, • 10 were completed within the 30 days required by DFCS policy (four of the five that did
not meet the 30 day time frame were in counties other than Dekalb and Fulton).
However, for the 11 investigations that occurred in private settings, in only five instances was there documentation in the case record indicating ORS had been notified, and there was documentation indicating TSU had been notified in only two cases. As previously mentioned, we are our concerned that collaboration, communication, and joint problem‐solving among ORS, TSU, and the counties needs to be strengthened in order for private provider performance to be better managed. Enabling this will require the counties to be more conscientious about timely sharing of investigative information with ORS and TSU.
In both Counties, corporal punishment allegations against DFCS supervised homes that do not meet the criteria for a CPS investigation receive an “assessment.” The Resource Development staffs in each county conduct the assessment in the home and decide if the home should be closed, placed under a corrective action plan, or if counseling or other support services are needed. While the assessment is being conducted, the home is to be placed on “hold” (barred from receiving additional placements). Both counties indicated that if the allegation revealed a policy violation that had a direct impact on safety or represented a serious risk, they would send the case to CPS and a special investigation would be opened. Both counties also indicated that if a policy violation was a home’s second violation, or the family was not amenable to change, the home would be closed. The foster home record review identified only one DFCS supervised foster home with an allegation of corporal punishment that did not meet the criteria for a CPS investigation. That case appears to have been handled consistent with the representations made by the DeKalb and Fulton County staff, except that the assessment report contained no indication that the home had been placed on hold during the assessment process. That home remained open under a corrective action plan that was signed by the foster parent and was implemented.
The interviews revealed that DeKalb and Fulton County each has a different method for responding to corporal punishment allegations against private provider supervised foster homes that fail to meet the criteria for a CPS investigation. In DeKalb County, all allegations of corporal punishment in provider supervised foster homes are handled by the special investigations unit. Cases that fail to meet the criteria for a CPS investigation receive an “assessment” from the special investigations unit. The results of those assessments are
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 30

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 34 of 135
reportedly shared with TSU and ORS. In Fulton County, we were told allegations of corporal punishment in provider supervised foster homes that fail to meet the criteria for a CPS investigation are referred to the supervising CPA and to ORS for response. The foster home record review identified two CPA supervised foster homes with an allegation of corporal punishment that did not meet the criteria for a CPS investigation. Based on the data available from the foster home record review, these cases appear to have been handled consistent with the representations made by DeKalb and Fulton staff.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 31

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 35 of 135
Part IV PERMANENCY
Children in Care Maintain Family Connections and Achieve Permanency
As described in the Introduction, 19 separate outcomes are clustered in the category of “Permanency.” Of these 19, Outcomes 12 and 13 were to be achieved in this first reporting period. Most of the remaining 17 outcomes are expected to be achieved by December 31, 2006. In addition, there are numerous practice requirements in the Consent Decree and DFCS policy guidance related to the permanency.
The first part of this chapter provides results from the case record review regarding the implementation of the requirements that are to intended to assure children in care maintain family and community connections. The second part discusses Outcomes 12 and 13 as well as the practices being implemented by DeKalb and Fulton DFCS to help children achieve permanency. This includes the new practice of generating permanency reports for children who reach their 13th month in care.
A. Efforts to help Children Maintain Family Connections
One of the Consent Decree principles is “all non‐destructive family ties should be maintained and nurtured.”15 Preserving connections between a child and her family, friends, and community can be an essential strategy for achieving permanency when those relationships are not destructive. Preservation starts with placing the children with family resources when ever possible and also includes placing children as close to home as possible and with their siblings. Once in care, visitation among family members – children with their birth parents and children with their siblings – continues the connection.
As part of the Consent Decree, the State agreed to follow several placement standards, including placing children in their own county or within 50 miles of the home from which they were removed,16 and placing children with their siblings who enter care at the same time. Once placed, the Family Team Meeting is one of the vehicles to be used to establish the necessary steps to ensure sibling visitation17 and the frequency of visits between the child and the child’s parents and significant family members.18 Beginning with the period July 1 to December 31, 2006, some of these standards become outcomes to be achieved. Listed below are key findings from the case record review regarding placements for the children in the sample of all children in foster care.

15 See p. 4, principle 2 in the Consent Decree 16 See p 16, paragraph 5C.4, subparagraph b in the Consent Decree 17 See p. 6, paragraph 4A, subparagraph 2c.iv in the Consent Decree 18 See p. 6, paragraph 4A, subparagraph 2c.vi in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 32

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 36 of 135
 20 percent of the 123 children in the sample who were still in care on June 30, 2006 were placed with relatives. Their placement settings included relative homes, relative homes approved and reimbursed as foster care, and with parents themselves as custody was being returned. This is lower than the 2005 E&R baseline that found about 44 percent of the children were placed with relatives.
 83 percent of the 123 children in the sample who were still in care on June 30, 2006 were placed in the county or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This is lower than the proportion found in the 2005 E&R baseline.19 In the case record review, the reviewers were asked to consider whether the child was placed in a county bordering either DeKalb or Fulton counties as a proxy measure for the 50 mile radius. Given the geography of the area, it is possible for a child to be placed closer to home by being placed in a bordering county than being placed in his or her own county. For the children who were not living in the defined proximity, the reasons for not placing them closer to home included 1) needs of the child being better met by a family or facility further away, or 2) child being placed with relatives that are at a greater distance. In one instance, the reviewer could not find documentation of the placement address.
 45 percent (41) of the 92 children in the sample with siblings in care were placed with all of their siblings. This is slightly higher than the 2005 E&R baseline. Another 14 percent were placed with some of their siblings and the remaining 41 percent (38) who were not placed with any of their siblings. Reasons documented for separating siblings included:
o At least one of the siblings has exceptional needs that require a specialized family or facility (39 percent.)
o Large sibling group (6 percent.) o Relatives taking different siblings (8 percent) o Other reasons including not coming into care together and one sibling being
on runaway status (22 percent).
Among the remaining children who were not placed with any of their siblings there was no documentation to indicate why they were not placed together in 26 percent of records. Immediate efforts by the case manager to locate a placement setting where the children separated at entry could be reunited were documented in 25 percent of the cases.
19 E&R used a different approach to measuring proximity in its baseline. For each child not placed in his or her home county, the reviewers used an on-line mapping service to calculate the driving distance between the home and the placement setting.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 33

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 37 of 135
 62 percent of the 26 children who entered care since October 27, 2005 and were in care at least 60 days had a documented diligent search for relatives who could be a resource to the children and families. This is similar to the 2005 E & R baseline.
 45 percent of the 56 cases reviewed where visits with birth mothers were applicable 20 did not have documentation that visits occurred between October 27, 2005 and June 30, 2006 despite documentation in 73 percent of the files that indicated birth mothers would be visiting with their children at least monthly. Twenty‐three percent of the children had documented regular visitation with their birth mothers. In 32 percent of the cases, there was documentation of some visits, but no pattern was discernable to our file reviewers. Visitation with birth fathers appears to be hampered by the father’s lack of involvement with their children or the agency’s lack of knowledge of the father’s residence. As a result, the number of fathers for whom visits were applicable was very small and the documentation of actual visits indicated few fathers had frequent visits.
 For 25 percent of the 51 children in the sample who were separated from some or all of their siblings, monthly or more frequent visits with their siblings were documented in the file. Half had documented visits but not in any typical pattern. However, readers found no documentation of any visits with siblings for 25 percent of the children.
B. Efforts to Assure Children Achieve Permanency
The first principle of the consent decree refers to the responsibility of Georgia’s child welfare system to “actively promote and support the opportunity for children to grow up within a safe, nurturing family, either their own biological family or, if that is not possible, within an adoptive family.” Toward that end, there are several outcomes focused on moving children in care into permanent families. Furthermore, there are several practices, both new and existing, that DHR/DFCS agreed to implement or maintain to assess a child’s available permanency options and the actions required to achieve permanency.
As context for this discussion, Table IV‐1 displays the distribution of permanency goals for the 155 children in the sample who had been in care at least 30 days. For 90 percent of the cases in which a permanency goal had been assigned, the reviewers saw documentation that supported the appropriateness of the goal. Over half (54%) of the children had a judicially determined or presumed goal of reunification. 21 All 21 children with the presumed goal of reunification had been in care less than 12 months. Eleven percent of the 155 children had a goal of adoption. Seven percent had the goal of placement with a fit and willing relative. In Georgia, “another
20 These are cases where – the goal is reunification, mother’s location is known, visits are allowed, visits are feasible, and child is not placed with mother. 21 See Georgia Social Services Manual Chapter 1006.4 and Josylyn-Gaul, D., Georgia’s Responsibilities Toward Children in Foster Care: A Reference Manual, Karen Worthington, editor, the Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic of Emory University (1st ed. Dec. 2004). P 43.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 34

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 38 of 135

planned permanent living arrangement” (APPLA) refers to either emancipation when a youth reaches the age of 18 or long term foster care and 18 percent of the children had this goal. Seven of those children were age 18 or older. For five percent, a permanency goal was not documented.

Table IV‐1 Permanency Goals of Children in Care Over 30 Days
N= 155

Permanency Goal

Number Percent

Judicially Determined/ Presumed Reunification*

84

54%

Adoption

17

11%

Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative (1 child was over the age of 18)

10

7%

Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (7 children were over

28

18%

the age of 18)

Two goals indicated (reunification and adoption, reunification and

8

5%

living with a relative, APPLA and living with a relative, etc)

No goal documented

8

5%

Total

155 100%

Source: Case Record Review, July 2006. * Presumed re‐unification goal for 21 children in care

for less than 12 months.

When children exit care, it is everyone’s hope that they have achieved permanency. Unfortunately, circumstances sometimes require children to reenter care to assure their safety. Fourteen percent of 43 children in the foster care sample who entered care between October 27, 2005 and June 30, 2006, re‐entered DFCS custody within 12 months of a prior discharge. Given the margin of error, this proportion is similar to the 11 percent reported from IDS for the same period but considerably lower than 2005 E&R baseline of 23 percent.
The remainder of this section reports on the State’s performance on both the immediate action items and outcomes to be achieved in the first reporting period. In addition, it reports on the State’s implementation of existing policy and practice for external review of permanency planning. Finally, it provides some insight about the adoption process gathered from the case record review.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 35

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 39 of 135

1.

Immediate Action: Permanency Reports for Children Who Had Reached 13th month in

care at October 27, 2005

The Consent Decree added a new DFCS internal review process requirement to assure agency‐ shared decision making about permanency plans for children at critical milestones in care. These reviews are to take place once a child reaches his/her 13th month in care and again if the 25th month is reached. When a child reaches one of these milestones, Fulton and DeKalb DFCS are to prepare and forward a Permanency Report to the State Social Services Director. The permanency report reflects the County’s decisions and plans to move the child toward permanency given the identified barriers that have prevented permanency from being achieved. The report is to be supported by the results of a Family Team Meeting covering multiple issues and it is to include five specific elements: 1) the Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment, 2) a profile description of each child, 3) the case plan, 4) list of impediments for achieving permanency, and 5) a list of steps to be taken by county to achieve permanency. The report is to be reviewed by the State Social Services Director or a designee. The Director is either to concur with the conclusions and steps in the report or to refer the case to a county/state staffing which is to be held within 10 days. In this way, the plans for the child can become shared by agency leadership as well as the county case management team.
 Initial implementation time frames required by the Consent Decree were met by the Counties and State.

This new practice was to be immediately implemented with all those children who had already reached their 13th month in care at the entry of the Consent Decree and these reports were to be completed by the counties within the first 120 days. This deadline was met. The state reviews also occurred within the stipulated timeframe.

A report from DFCS indicates permanency reports were developed for nearly 1200 children between October 27, 2005 and the end of February 2006. Table IV‐2 summarizes the review findings. Approximately two‐thirds of the children were from Fulton County DFCS caseloads with the remaining third from DeKalb County DFCS.

The review team authorized by the State DFCS Director under the direction of the State Risk Director22 included Field Program Specialists, Regional Adoption Coordinators, and Risk Consultants. Going beyond the minimum requirements of the Consent Decree, this team reviewed the reports onsite at each county. They not only reviewed the reports and the required supporting documentation, they also did a structured case reading of the case files to gather additional insights and clarifications.

22 The position of Social Services Director became vacant in January 2006. The State Risk Director was designated to oversee the permanency report reviews.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 36

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 40 of 135
The review team concurred with the permanency reports in 83 percent of the cases. County‐ state staffings were held immediately for 27 percent or 317 cases where there was a lack of concurrence or another reason. These staffings occurred between February 1 and 24, 2006 and included a Regional Adoption Coordinator, a field program specialist, county supervisor and/or case manager as well as the reviewer. Other reasons for holding a county staffing included the lack of essential documentation such as a current case plan, or a comprehensive child and family assessment, or for need to discuss additional action items to assure permanency outcomes.
As noted in Table IV‐2, nearly one‐third of the children reviewed had the goal of adoption. Nearly another third had the permanency goal of “another planned permanent living arrangement” (APPLA). These findings are not surprising given the length of stay these children had already had in foster care as of the end of October 2005. The degree to which state reviewers concurred with the permanency report actions varied by type of permanency goal. They concurred with 90 percent of the permanency reports in cases with a permanency goal of adoption. In cases with a permanency goal of another planned permanent living arrangement, the reviewers concurred with 86 percent of the permanency reports. In cases with a permanency goal of reunification (representing less than a quarter of all the permanency reports reviewed), reviewers concurred with the reports in two thirds of the cases. This means that a larger proportion of cases with APPLA or reunification goals received additional review and discussion in county staffings. In terms of desired practice, about 90 percent of the permanency reports were supported with “Family Team Meetings,” but when they occurred, one third actually had family members present. The state reviewers found that the majority of reports included specific child/family member needs despite the lack of family involvement in the process.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 37

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 41 of 135

Table IV‐2 Initial Permanency Report Implementation in the first 120 days of the Kenny A Consent Decree

Total Cases Reviewer Concurrence

DeKalb

No.

%

398

33.6

329 82.7%

Fulton

No

%

788 66.4%

650 82.5%

Both

No

%

1186

979 82.5%

Permanency Goal Reunification Permanent Placement with relative Adoption Guardianship Another planned permanent arrangement Totals

158 20.1% 95 12.1%
279 35.4% 8 1.0%
248 31.5%
788 100.%

105 26.4% 58 14.6%
97 24.4% 6 1.5%
132 33.2%
398 100.%

263 22.2% 153 12.9%
376 31.7% 14 1.2% 380 32.0%
1186 100.%

Practice Findings Cases with “Family Team Meetings” within the last 90 days Cases with relatives involved in FTM Cases with recommendations specific to Family/Child Needs

331 83.7% 161 40.5% 308 77.4%

773 98.1% 243 30.8% 663 81.9%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Risk Director.

1064 89.7% 404 34.1% 971 81.9%

 Quality of initial implementation appears to have been inconsistent.

The Accountability Agents’ initial conversations with the County directors surfaced mutual concerns about the quality of the work to be completed with so many cases in such a short period of time. A subsequent qualitative review of a small, randomly drawn sample of 65 permanency reports with their supporting documentation maintained at the State’s Central office confirmed the validity of these initial concerns.
The qualitative review suggests that the required pace to meet the letter of the Consent Decree time frame had some negative unintended consequences. Family team meetings were hastily convened. Forms quickly designed to meet the perceived requirements of the Consent Decree appear to be duplicative requiring the same or similar information in different formats. The quality of the documentation was erratic making the information contained in the reports less meaningful.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 38

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 42 of 135
Although the percent of relative involvement in the Family Team Meetings (FTMs) was low, it is similar to the total percentage of cases with the goals of reunification, permanent placement with a relative, and guardianship. Approximately 36 percent of the cases reviewed had one of these three goals and 34 percent of the FTMs had relatives present. The State report does not indicate whether there was a relationship between these two percentages. In other words, it may have been more likely that families and relatives were present if the goal was one that families or relatives were directly involved in achieving. This would be an important relationship for the State to track in the future to effectively measure progress in this aspect of the permanency report.
State reviewers often identified inconsistencies and, in some instances, the inconsistencies or lack of adequate documentation prompted them to request a county staffing even if they concurred with the permanency goal itself. However, the qualitative sample review suggests that the State reviewers themselves were inconsistent in identifying and raising issues. The issues they were able to identify in the compressed timeframe appear largely to be superficial. Multiple levels of review provided some quality check to the review process. Inconsistencies at one level of reviews were often caught by a more senior reviewer and a staffing was requested. Further, pressure to complete the task did not allow the review team to give direct feedback to case managers and supervisors unless there was a subsequent staffing.
 The Impact of the Initial Permanency Reports May Have Been Limited
It became apparent, while preparing for the Accountability Agents’ case record reviews, that the permanency reports were not systematically included in each child’s actual case file. In fact, during the record review, permanency reports were not found in one‐third of the applicable foster care files.23 A small number of these files did contain pieces, such as the review sheet, or the permanency report package transmittal letter indicating that a report and review likely were completed.
In the review of 65 permanency report packages filed in DFCS central offices, we did see many Permanency Reports with specific steps to address impediments to permanency. The quality of this work varied. For example, in some reports, the steps included helping clients to apply for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or referring youths to the Independent Living Program coordinator. Others included steps for achieving court action – getting orders to extend custody before a petition to terminate parental rights could be filed. In a few others, however, the steps were vague or not actionable, such as “continue to provide services to child until the age of 18” or “diligent search has not revealed any viable resources.”
The case record review of 165 records of all children in foster care and of 115 children in care with the goal of adoption were designed to capture information about what effect these Permanency Reports had on case practice. In the foster care sample, 68 children had reached
23 Applicable foster care files were those of children who had reached their 13th month in care by October 27, 2005.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 39

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 43 of 135

their 13th month in care by the entry of the Consent Degree and the reviewers collected information from 57 records.24 Of these 57 records, 68 percent or 39 contained permanency reports. Table IV‐3 lists the components found in the 39 reports.

Table IV‐3 Initial Permanency Reports for Children: Components in Reports
N=39

Components Results of Family Team Meeting Profile description of child Case plan Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment Impediments to achieving permanency Steps to be taken by county to achieve permanency for child

Number 21 34 2 26 31 35

Percent 54% 87% 5% 67% 79% 90%

Among the 39 cases with reports, 62 percent had evidence that some or all of the recommendations were implemented. In the adoption case record sample, 98 children had reached their 13th month by the entry of the Consent Decree. Of the 98 children, 67 percent had permanency reports and documentation indicated that some or all of the recommendations from the permanency reports had or were being implemented in 83 percent of cases.
 Implementation of Permanency Report Requirement Continues to be Refined
The state continues to generate and review approximately 50 permanency reports each month. They are divided among those children who have reached or are about to reach their 13th or 25th month in care. The case record review of children in foster care included 19 children who had reached their 13th month in care between October 27, 2005 and June 30, 2006. Among these 19 children, 16 should have had permanency reports in their case files.25 The case record review found 13 (81%) with permanency reports.
According to the State Risk Director, DFCS has made changes to the Permanency Reporting and Review process since the end of February. From their learning, they reportedly have:
 Drafted a procedure review manual;  Established regular monthly review and subsequent staffing schedules with the
counties;  Created a core group of trained reviewers who are doing the monthly reviews, thus
improving consistency among reviewers.
24 Four of the 68 children exited care in the first 60 days after the Consent Decree and did not have a permanency review before discharge. Coding error inadvertently omitted collecting information from 7 records. 25 Three of the 19 children exited care in their 13th month.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 40

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 44 of 135
 Divided the reviewers into review teams of two: one reviewer reads the report, supporting documentation, and pertinent segments of the case file; the other reviewer reads just the report and summary documentation and the reviewers confer on their decision;
 Added “debriefing” sessions with county representatives at the end of each review period to share findings
DFCS plans to create a data base that will allow them to track issues identified and recommendations made. This will better enable them to follow‐up with counties and to identify trends to be referred to training or policy. A report regarding the more recent permanency reports and review process indicate that Family Team Meetings that involve family members are still limited. During May through August, about 37 percent of the FTMs convened for this purpose had family members involved. While this is a slight improvement from the initial implementation and suggests that practice is headed in the right direction, continued attention to this effort is needed.
 Additional refinements recommended.
To refine the process even further, we have suggested streamlining the forms used, collecting more qualitative information, and working with the county directors to assure the reviews are effectively promoting changed practice and strategic decision making about cases. Specifically, the 13th month review could be used to better assess and plan for the necessary actions that might enable a child to have a positive permanency exit before reaching the 18th month in care. For example, the county directors have suggested that the effort should include greater emphasis on risk assessment to enable better decisions about the supports needed to make reunification successful. We have encouraged the incorporation of this idea into the process.
2. Outcome Achievement
The State achieved both Outcomes 12 and 13 by April 27, 2006. Table IV‐4 provides the language of the Consent Decree and the degree of achievement. The narrative following the table describes the interpretation and measurement issues encountered with these outcomes and provides more detail on the outcome achievement.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 41

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 45 of 135

Table IV‐4

Outcomes 12 and 13 Performance

Consent Decree Outcome
Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree.

Achievement at June 30, 2006
94% Achieved
100% Achieved

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues

Outcome 12 presented no measurement issue, but did pose an issue of interpretation. Specifically, at what point in the permanency process is a potential adoptive or legal guardian family deemed to be an “…identified adoptive or legal guardian resource?” Both foster families and relatives may express interest in adopting a child, but they can, and do, change their minds. This means that the State may believe it has an adoptive resource for a child only to determine, as the adoption process moves along, that the actual commitment of the resource is less than their expressed interest.
In studying the adoption process in the State of Georgia, we came to the preliminary conclusion that the clearest test of an “identified adoptive resource” was whether a potential adoptive parent had signed a “Placement Agreement (Form 33).” By signing this instrument the potential adoptive parent declares their intention to “receive into our (my) home [and] make the child permanently ours (mine) through legal adoption.” After the Placement Agreement is executed, DFCS supervises the placement for a period of six months to assure the child is adjusting and the new family is successfully forming. This supervision period may be shorter if the child already resides with the adopting family as a foster child. Although signing this agreement does not prevent a potential adoptive family from later changing its mind, it is a clear indication of their willingness to be party to the transaction.
However, as the result of a G2 meeting discussion about strategies for improving adoption outcomes, a workgroup was convened to work on adoption‐related issues. This work group recommended that the definition of an “identified adoptive resource” should set the bar higher than a signed Form 33. Their reasoning was that once the Form 33 is signed, virtually all adoptions are completed within the six‐month time frame specified in Outcome 12. The
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 42

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 46 of 135
workgroup felt that although the signed Form 33 was a logical and legitimate definition of an “identified adoptive resource,” it would do too little to prompt improvement. Another definitive but earlier step in the process is the Agency’s placement approval. Therefore the work group recommended that an “identified adoptive resource” should be defined as “a family unit whose family evaluation is approved for the placement of a child or children into the home for the purpose of adoption.” This recommended higher standard was accepted.
Outcome 13 requires a definition of when a child has no identified adoptive resource. The same family decision making issues that affect pinpointing a reasonable definition for Outcome 12 affect defining when a child has a resource with whom DFCS can engage in the adoption process. One day the child may have a viable resource and the next day they may not. In addition to the group of children who are living in homes that are approved placements for the purpose of adoption, there are two other segments in the population of children for whom the permanency goal is adoption. One segment includes children who are currently living in foster homes or with relatives who may be viable resources for the children and are being pursued as such. However, these families have not yet expressed a definitive desire to move forward with the adoption process. The second segment of this population are the children who do not have any viable adoptive or guardian resource because their extended family and/or foster family are not available, are unable, or are unwilling to adopt. These are children for whom recruitment efforts are most needed. Therefore, the children who met the criteria for Outcome 13 are those children in this third segment of the population – those children who did not have any viable adoptive or guardian resource on October 27, 2005.
b. State Performance
 135 Children (94 percent of 144) Achieved Permanent Homes in Six Months (Outcome 12)
On October 27, 2005, 144 children were legally free, had identified, approved adoptive or guardian resources and were not adopted. Six months later, by April 27, 2006, 135 (94 percent) of these children had achieved permanency through adoption or guardianship. The Consent Decree required the State to have 90 percent of children in these circumstances adopted within six months of the final Consent Decree. This outcome was achieved.
 40 Children Moved Closer to Permanency With Individualized Adoption Recruitment Plans and Enrollment in Local, Regional and National Adoption Registries. (Outcome 13)
On October 27, 2005, 40 children did not have an identified adoptive or guardian resource (see definition above.) Of the 40 children, 33 (83 percent) were age 10 or older; 18 (45 percent) were age 12 or older. All of these children had individualized adoption plans and were registered with state and national photo listings of children awaiting adoption by the end of December 2005.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 43

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 47 of 135
To validate this accomplishment, the Accountability Agents found all the children registered with state and regional programs and reviewed a sample of the recruitment plans. Exhibit IV‐1 summarizes the outlets DHR/DFCS uses to help loving families become aware of these children. In addition, in June, the Office of Adoptions initiated a series of statewide opportunities for staff of DFCS and private Adoption Agencies to meet and attempt a “paper match” of children and families. From all of the recruitment efforts to date, DFCS reports that a few of the children are about to or have recently been placed with newly identified resources. For a few others, they have received inquiries and meetings are being arranged for the selected children to meet the interested families.
The review of a sample of the recruitment plans, highlighted both characteristics about the children that make recruitment challenging and characteristics about the recruitment efforts:
Child Characteristics
 Children with difficult behaviors and medication requirements that require an adoptive family willing and able to receive special training on how to manage the behaviors.
 Children who have had past potential adoptive situations disrupt in the past.  Children whose therapists and psychiatrists recommend putting a “hold” on
recruitment while a child is in treatment or until the child is comfortable with the prospect of adoption.  Children who want to be adopted with one or more siblings.  Children who are content with stable foster home placements and do not want to be adopted.
Recruitment efforts
 The recruitment plan format encourages exploration of a wide variety of resources including relatives, friends, neighbors, teachers, mentors, past foster parents, etc.
 Case managers are contacting former foster and adoptive families to revisit their decisions not to pursue adoption of the children.
 Most recruitment plans specify the strategies listed in Exhibit IV‐1.  Some case managers are contacting private agencies and making inquiries on behalf of
the children.  Some case managers keep the registries up to date.  Recruitment plans are inconsistent regarding detail on the actions taken to be taken or
on behalf of the children; more complete resource identification appears to be associated with more successfully recruitment.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 44

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 48 of 135

Exhibit IV‐1 DFCS uses multiple outlets to generate awareness of children available for adoption National Programs o AdoptUSKids.org, a national photo listing service for children awaiting adoption across the United States sponsored by the US Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau
o Children Awaiting Parents, Inc. (CAP), a national, not‐for‐profit organization dedicated to finding adoptive homes for America’s waiting children.
State and Local Programs o Office of Adoptions web site features a regularly changing photo listing of children available for
adoption.
o My Turn Now, Inc, a not‐for‐profit advocacy organization that publicizes the availability for adoption of children with special needs. My Turn Now, in a public‐private partnership with the Georgia Department of Human Resources publishes and updates bi‐monthly a listing book containing photographs and descriptions of Georgia children with special needs who are eligible for adoption. My Turn Now also places this photo listing on its website, www.myturnnow.com.
o Wednesdayʹs Child ‐ Georgia is a partnership of the Freddie Mac Foundation, WAGA Fox 5 Atlanta and the Georgia Department of Human Resources, Office of Adoptions, formed to help find families for children in foster care with special needs. Airing since November 2000, this is a weekly news feature on Fox 5‐TV channel.
o Heart Gallery May‐June 2006. The Heart Gallery, sponsored by “A Gift for A Child” is a concept that has been used in many states. It is a professional gallery format photo exhibit, of children available for adoption. It was created to raise interest and awareness about children in need of an adoptive family. Over 50 children were featured in the exhibit.
o Quarterly Office of Adoptions Adoption Video Conference. This is an opportunity for potential adoptive families and available children to observe and talk with one another through video conferencing.
Source: Compiled from material provided by the DFCS Office of Adoption websites of identified organizations.
3. Existing Policy Implementation
The new Permanency Report process previously described adds to several existing practices required by both federal and state policy that are designed to have outside authorities – the Juvenile Court or a designated panel – review permanency plans every six months. DFCS is responsible for scheduling these reviews and completing them in a timely fashion.26 The case record review of 165 children in foster care yielded the following findings.

26 See pp. 7-9, paragraph 4B and its subparagraphs in the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 45

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 49 of 135
 36 percent of the records of children in care six months or more had documentation of timely six‐month reviews. This represents 45 of 126 plans. This is similar to the E & R 2005 baseline finding of 34 percent. The Consent Decree requires a child’s case plan to be reviewed within six months of the child’s placement and every six months thereafter by either a Judicial Citizen Review Panel (JCRP) or the Juvenile Court.27 The Consent Decree requires DFCS to follow‐up within 45 days if a six month review is not held when it is due.28 File documentation indicated that this happened very infrequently. Table IV‐5 provides the information captured from the case files regarding 45 documented six‐month reviews.

27 See p. 7, paragraph 4B, subparagraph 1 28 See p. 9, paragraph 4B, sub paragraph 9 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 46

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 50 of 135

Table IV‐5 Characteristics of Six‐month Case Reviews
N=45 Characteristic Participants Birth Mother Birth Father Child Pre‐adoptive parents Relative care givers Foster parents/placement providers DFCS case manager DFCS supervisor Other DFCS representative CCFA provider Private agency case manager Medical and mental health professionals Public Health representatives

School representatives

Elements Evaluated/Considered

Necessity and appropriateness of child’s placement

Reasonable efforts made to obtain permanency

Degree of compliance with specific goals and action steps

Progress made in improving conditions that caused removal

Changes that need to be made to plan

County recommendations

Parent recommendations

JCRP conducted review

Total JCRP reports submitted

22

Number of reports with Panel findings

20

Number of reports with Panel recommendations 21

Number of reports with County findings

14

Number of reports with County

13

recommendations

Number of reports with County proposed plan 21

for permanency

Court conducted review

Number of Court reviews where County submitted 2

plan

Plan adopted by Juvenile Court

Source: Case Record Review, July 2006

Number Percent

14

31%

3

7%

16

36%

0

0%

8

19%

18

40%

44

98%

5

11%

4

9%

3

7%

6

13%

0

0%

0

0%

3

7%

42

93%

42

93%

34

76%

25

56%

17

38%

17

38%

4

9%

38

84%

5

11%

21

47%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 47

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 51 of 135
 67 percent (60) of the 89 children in the foster care sample in care for 12 months or more had Permanency Hearings convened at 12 months and there was a subsequent order regarding the child’s permanency plan. This is similar to the 70 percent E&R 2005 baseline findings. There was little documentation regarding DFCS action to prompt a convening of a permanency hearing when it did not occur. In five of the 29 cases where there was no documentation of the hearing, there was documentation that DFCS requested one within 45 days of when the hearing should have been held.
4. Insight into Current Practice with Children who have the Goal of Adoption
The Consent Decree has few requirements for adoption practice that are separate from the requirements for permanency practice for all children. These few requirements include determining the appropriateness of foster parents to adopt and making known to them the availability of adoption assistance. The adoption assistance is to be based on the child’s need, not to exceed the family foster care maintenance payments and is to be determined before the signing of the adoption placement agreement. When there is no adoptive resource for a child, DFCS is to undertake child‐specific recruitment. In line with Federal policy, DFCS is also required to consider terminating parental rights if the child has been in care 15 of the previous 22 months, unless there are “compelling reasons” not to take such action. Finally, DFCS is to make available post adoption services to support and stabilize adoptions, where appropriate, for at least 18 months after finalization.29 There also are specific requirements regarding the frequency of case manager visitation with children in adoptive placements. The findings from the case record review for these requirements are covered later in this report, in Part V, Section A. Before reviewing the State’s progress in implementing these specific requirements, the report provides some information about the Adoption caseload as revealed in the case record review.
 Adoption Caseload Characteristics
The case record review of 115 records of children with the goal of Adoption indicated the following critical characteristics about the children, all of which can influence achievement of the permanency goal:
 Age: The children ranged from infants to teenagers as old as 17. Over half of the children were age 8 or older as of June 30, 2006.
 Length of time in care: On average, children had been in care about 54 months, or just over 4 years as of June 30, 2006. Some of the children had recently entered care and at least one child had been in care 14 years.

29 See pp.10-11, paragraph 4E and its subparagraphs in the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 48

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 52 of 135

 Placement setting: 97 percent of the children in the sample were in family placement settings: adoptive homes, family foster homes, relative foster homes, relative homes, therapeutic and emergency foster homes. The remaining children were in residential settings. The large proportion of children in family settings is encouraging.30 Almost two‐thirds of the foster parents of children who are legally free for adoption are interested in adopting the children.
 Status of parental rights: 69 percent (79) of the children in the sample are legally free to be adopted. For another four percent, at least one of the parent’s rights had been relinquished or terminated.
 Case management assignment: 84 percent are assigned to either a specialized case manager or a case manager specializing in adoptions. Under some circumstances, a child may have had both types of case managers in the last 8 months. The adoption process involves a series of legal as well as case management steps that are generally not part of the everyday routine for case managers responsible for children in foster care. Many child welfare agencies have designated separate case managers to handle caseloads of only those children for whom adoption is the goal with the intent that specialization will facilitate more timely adoption. The newly designated specialized case managers31 offers the opportunity for increased attention to permanency goals and what can be done to achieve them. However, they may not be as familiar with the adoption process as the adoption specialists and a child may be transferred to an adoption specialist if the specialized case manager is successful in identifying a viable adoptive resource. This issue is further discussed later in this report in section 6A.
 Goal clarity and currency: Although the sample was drawn based on the permanency goal identified in IDS, there were two records where it appeared that Adoption is not, in fact, the goal and is not what is driving case planning. For example, one reviewer wrote, “CPRS and IDS show adoption as childʹs plan. However, Court Order of 4/25/05 changed permanency plan to Another Planned Living Arrangement.” And, another reviewer noted, “Foster Parents have signed Long Term Foster Care (LTFC) Agreement and Court Order of 4/28/05 changed permanency plan to LTFC. CPRS and IDS still identify this as adoptive case.”
 Barriers to Achieving a Timely Adoption
There are two major milestones in the adoption process. The first is the point at which the child is legally free to be adopted – when parental rights have been terminated or relinquished. The second point is when the adoption is finalized and the child is not only emotionally, but legally part of a new family. There are several circumstances that can delay these milestones from occurring, thus delaying the whole process.

30 See p. 18, paragraph 5C4 subparagraph g in the Consent Decree 31 See pp. 11, paragraph 4F in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 49

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 53 of 135
Before seeking to terminate parental rights, DFCS must work with the parents to resolve the safety and risk issues that brought the children into care in the first place. Federal and state policy have established time frames for this effort to allow all parties, but particularly the parents, an opportunity to complete the required steps but prevent the children from being left to “drift” in foster care. From the information found in the reviewed case records, the primary barrier to terminating parental rights for the 36 children in the sample who were not legally free for adoption is court continuances. Reviewers found court continuances a barrier in 15 of the 36 cases. Reviewer comments about this barrier provide additional insight:
o There is documentation to indicate the agency has allowed custody to expire. Another petition has been filed as of 03/06 but there is no order for that hearing. Due to the aforementioned, TPR had to be continued.
o Petition was filed 4‐12‐05. The TPR hearing has been continued approximately 6 times. o Documentation indicated court dismissed TPR due to failure of DFCS to complete a diligent
search for relatives and home evaluations. The agency documented intent to continue seeking TPR. o Non reunification order 7‐11‐05, TPR pending o TPR petition was filed but the court did not grant the departmentʹs motion… The Court ordered the department to continue to work with the parents.
To a lesser extent, other related barriers include the following:
 Delayed submission of material to the State Assistant Attorney General (SAAG) for preparation of the termination of parental rights filing (6 cases);
 Delays by the SAAG in completing and filing petitions (3 cases);  Goal is not adoption (2 cases); and.  Parents who can not be located in order to be properly notified and given the chance
to be in court (2 cases).
After parental rights are relinquished or terminated, DFCS can proceed with finding an appropriate adoptive family for the child, if one has not already been identified, and arranging for on‐going support for the family as dictated by the child’s needs and eligibility. Within the sample of 115 children with the goal of adoption, 79 were legally free for adoption. These 79 children had been waiting an average of 28 months, for adoption since their parents’ rights were terminated. The range is wide, however. Half had been waiting about 17 months while the extremes included children who had been waiting less than a month (9%), while others had been waiting over 70 months (8%.)
From the information found in the case records of the 79 children in the sample who are legally free for adoption, the barriers to finalization by the end of 2006 include:
o The lack of an adoptive resource or recent disruptions in planned adoptions (14 cases.) For example, one reviewer noted, “Identified resource disrupted on 6/2/06. child had been
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 50

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 54 of 135

placed there since 12/01/02. Family has proceeded with adopting his sister;” o The child’s behavioral or health issues (5 cases.) For example, two reviewers
commented, “…child has special needs, violent behavior, and extremely poor impulse control. Also has a history of sexually inappropriate behavior with younger children….” and “Child had mental health issues that needed to be addressed in the past. This delayed the search for a resource for a time. The department is actively seeking a resource at this time;” o Children that are parts of a sibling group to be adopted together (2); o Foster parents have not completed the appropriate documents or home study not complete (2); o Parents appealing the decision to terminate their rights(1); o Child does not want to be adopted (1); and, o Foster parents divorcing (1.)
 Parental rights status of those children in care 15 of the previous 22 months.
To prevent children from long‐term foster care stays, Federal law and the Consent Decree require DFCS to file for termination of parental rights when a child has been in care for 15 of the previous 22 months or to document “compelling reasons” why such action is not in the best interest of the child. Within the sample of foster care records reviewed, there were 69 children who had been in DFCS custody for 15 of the prior 22 months and still had open cases on June 30, 2006. Among these 69 children, DFCS had filed to terminate parental rights or had documented reasons not to for 56 children, or 81 percent. In the remaining 13 cases, documentation was insufficient to determine the actions being taken or there were no documented reasons for not filing for termination of parental rights. Federal regulations state that compelling reasons must be based on individual case circumstances but guided by what is in the best interest of the child. Examples of the reasons found in the records included 1) children living with relatives, 2) emotional and delinquent behaviors, 3) children do not want to be adopted, and 4) mothers completing case goals. In one instance, the reviewer noted that court did not grant TPR because there was no adoptive resource for the child.
5. Assuring Permanency after Case Closure With Supportive Services
The Consent Decree requires DFCS to make monthly visits to children who are discharged when the Juvenile Court orders aftercare visitation, and to determine if additional services are necessary.32 In addition, DFCS is to make available post‐adoption services to support and stabilize adoptions for at least 19 months following adoption finalization.33 Finally, the newly created specialized case manager position is responsible for convening a discharge planning meeting 30 days before discharge.34

32 See p.10, paragraph 4C.6 in the Consent Decree 33 See p. 11, paragraph 4D.2 in the Consent Decree. 34 See p. 12, paragraph 4F.3e in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 51

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 55 of 135
 Aftercare planning appears to be limited. Through the G2 process, the counties explored the hypothesis that effective case closure and the use of after care services can reduce the number of children who re‐enter care. Although there was general agreement that this is a reasonable hypothesis and case managers and supervisors noted referring families to private agencies and conducting visits, actual recording of after care services in IDS proved unreliable and prevented hypothesis testing. The case record review attempted to gather some basic information about case closure that would shed light on this practice. About one quarter (41) of the 165 children in the foster care sample were discharged between October 27, 2005 and June 30, 2006. Among those that were discharged, 32 children had achieved their permanency goal, most of the goals being reunification. Either the permanency goal was not achieved or there was no documentation in 9 cases. Three children had documented aftercare plans and all three plans appear to have been implemented based on the documentation. In addition to these three, 5 children continued to receive services without being in custody. Their cases were transferred to Child Protective Services or kept open in placement to receive on‐going services. Two youth who had reached age 18 received services either through returning to care or through the Independent Living Program. In addition, one relative care giver received a relative subsidy and there was documentation of aftercare referrals. In at least two cases where aftercare services were not provided, the children were returned to their families shortly after entering care because the petition to deprive the children was dismissed or the allegations of maltreatment were not substantiated. Aftercare visits were ordered in 5 cases but documentation indicates the visits were implemented in 3 cases. Nine discharged children had been assigned a specialized case manager and two had discharge planning meetings prior to discharge.
 32 percent (25) of the 79 children who are legally free for adoption, had documentation that their eligibility for adoption assistance had been determined. Among the 25, 3 children are not eligible because they are under age one. However, over 90 percent the 54 children for whom there was not documentation about eligibility determination are potentially eligible for some form of Adoption Assistance due to their age or race. According to DFCS policy, eligibility is formally determined prior to families signing an “Adoption Placement Agreement” (Form 33.) When a family is prepared to make the commitment the agreement represents, the child’s eligibility is confirmed and the amount and form of assistance is discussed with the family which is then included in an application submitted to the State Adoption Office with the Placement Agreement. The exact timing of this process with regard to the Consent Decree requirement that the “amount and term of the adoption assistance subsidy will be determined prior to signing of the adoptive placement agreement” will be confirmed in subsequent reporting periods. What is understood now is that the case manager’s work leading up to the Adoption Placement Agreement does focus on removing barriers and facilitating the adoption if it is in the best interest of the child.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 52

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 56 of 135
Among the 22 children with documented eligibility for adoption assistance, 16 had documentation of the type of assistance the family would be receiving. All 16 are to receive Medicaid, 12 are to receive a monthly assistance payment, 4 are to receive payment for non recurring adoption expenses; 1 is to receive deferred adoption assistance; and 1 will receive a specialized per diem rate. For the few for whom monthly adoption assistance payments had been calculated, the amounts ranged from about $390 to $760 per month. The case record review readers agreed that these amounts were appropriate based on the needs of the child from documentation in the file.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 53

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 57 of 135

Part V WELL‐BEING
Children in Care Experience Stable Placements, Worker Continuity, and Receive the Services They Need
One of the Consent Decree principles is “Children in foster care should have stable placements that meet their needs and services necessary to address both the trauma of foster care and the problems surrounding their removal from their family.” 35 In addition, six of the Consent Decree outcomes focus on the well‐being of children while they are in care. None of these outcomes were expected to be achieved in the first reporting period. However, there were immediate actions regarding medical care and numerous practice requirements in the Consent Decree and DFCS policy guidance designed to assure children have stable placements and get the services they need. This chapter reports on these actions and requirements.
A. The Placement Experience
This section describes the DFCS placement process and the stability of placements. This includes county placement activities, the use of temporary placement settings, most frequently used placement settings, efforts to minimize trauma and placement moves. In addition, worker continuity and the frequency of worker contacts with children and their caregivers are discussed.
1. Placement Process
The placement process works somewhat differently in Fulton and DeKalb counties. In DeKalb County a Placement Expediter Unit handles intake for any child who is adjudicated deprived and removed from their home; whether the child is to be placed with relatives, a DFCS‐ supervised or provider‐supervised foster home. Each child served by the Placement Expediters receives an assessment of their immediate needs. Children that are going to remain in care are referred to a handful of providers for more complete or specific assessments. The Placement Expediter Unit is staffed until 2:00 a.m. every day to deal with emergency removals. They are responsible for getting children placed within the 23 hour limit specified in the Consent Decree.
Based on the child’s needs and family situation, they may be placed with relatives, in a DFCS‐ supervised foster home, a provider‐supervised foster home, or a group home. Typically, children without suitable and willing relatives who are placed with DFCS‐supervised homes if they are relatively low‐needs cases; and with private provider‐supervised homes if they have higher needs. However, with appropriate wrap around services which are identified and approved by the placement expediter, higher needs children may be placed in DFCS‐supervised homes that are in closer proximity to the home from which they were removed.

35 See p. 4, paragraph 7 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 54

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 58 of 135

If a child is to be placed with a DFCS‐supervised home, the Placement Expediters work with the Resource and Development (R&D) unit. Case managers in the R&D unit are responsible for maintaining and monitoring individual DFCS‐supervised homes. This includes being the principal DFCS liaison with each home, providing consultation and technical assistance, checking each home’s census against their approved capacity and updating Placement Central accordingly, developing any needed corrective action plans and monitoring progress toward their completion, and performing the initial approval and annual re‐evaluation of each home.
If a child is to be placed in a private provider‐supervised foster home, the Placement Expediter works with the selected Child Placing Agency to have a child placed in one of the homes they supervise. CPAs have their own monitors that perform functions similar to those of the R&D unit for the homes they directly supervise. The DFCS Treatment Services Unit (TSU) is responsible for overseeing the CPA compliance with all DFCS policies and mandates.
If a child is to be placed in a group home, the Placement Expediter works with the individual Child Caring Institution. DFCS TSU directly oversees these institutions and is responsible for monitoring each institution’s census against their approved capacity, developing needed corrective action plans and monitoring progress toward their completion, and performing the initial approval and annual re‐evaluation of each institution.
The placement process in Fulton County operates similar to DeKalb’s with a somewhat different division of labor and assessment process. Fulton does not have a “placement expediter” role that handles intake for any child removed from the home. In Fulton County, most of the functions performed by Placement Expediters in DeKalb are performed by the Fulton R&D Unit with one important exception. In Fulton, CPS case managers are responsible for starting a diligent search for a suitable, fit and willing relative (this search may be handed off to a placement case manager) or other “immediate safety resource” (who may be a neighbor, family friend, etc.) to take a child who must be removed from the home. Fulton County’s practice has been employing a form of Family Team Meetings referred to as a “removal Team Decision Making” meeting. This meeting provides an opportunity for assessing the child and family’s needs and identifying an immediate safety resource. If a suitable relative or safety resource cannot be identified, or if children are emergency removals that come in overnight, they come to the Fulton R&D Unit and are assessed and placed in DFCS‐supervised or provider‐supervised foster homes, or in group care.
The Consent Decree has several requirements addressing placement appropriateness. It requires that “no child shall be placed in an emergency or temporary facility....for more than 30 days.” It stipulates that no child shall spend more than 23 hours in a County DFCS office or any facility providing intake functions.36 It also requires a child’s initial placement to be re‐

36 See p. 16, paragraph 5C4.c in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 55

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 59 of 135

evaluated within 30 days of entering care. 37 The child is to be moved if recommended by the evaluation.38 With regard to current practice in meeting these requirements, the case record review of a sample of children in foster care revealed the following:

 21 percent of the 76 children in the foster care sample who entered care or changed placement after October 27, 200539 experienced some time in an emergency or temporary setting. Of the 16 children represented by the 21 percent, four children were placed in more than one such facility. Nearly all (14) of the children spent 30 days or less in such facilities.40 File documentation indicated that only one child spent more than 23 hours in a County DFCS office or a facility providing an intake function before being appropriately placed in a foster home.41

 51 percent (39) of the substitute care givers for the 76 children who entered care or changed placements who had a placement during the period appear to have received some essential information at time of placement. Table V‐1 arrays the information provided.

Table V‐1

Information Given to Substitute Care Providers at Time of Placement between October

27, 2005 and June 30, 2006

N=76

Information provided 24 hour/7 days a week contact information Family history Medical information Dental information Educational/Developmental information Mental health information Other (placement forms, Medicaid card, WIC voucher, child’s criminal history)

Number 19 5 12 3 9 6 7

Percent 25% 7% 16% 4% 12% 8% 9%

No information provided/documented

37

49%

Source: Case Record Review, July 2006

 63 percent, (27), of the 43 children entering care on or after October 27, 2005 had a completed Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment (CCFA) in their files. The

37 See p. 15, paragraph C1 in the Consent Decree 38 See p. 15, paragraph C2 in the Consent Decree 39 Forty-three children in the sample entered care on or after October 27, 2005 and thirty-three children who had entered care before that date were placed in their most recent placement setting between October 27, 2005 and June 30, 2006. 40 One of the two children who appear to have spent more than 30 days was hospitalized. 41 Documentation indicated the child spent approximately 48 hours in a resource center.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 56

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 60 of 135
CCFA is the primary vehicle for evaluating the initial placement within 30 days of a child’s entry into care and making recommendations for change if necessary. A placement assessment was included in 19 of the 27 CCFAs. The two children, for whom placement changes were recommended as a result of the CCFAs, were moved. By June 30, 38 percent of the children remained in the initial placement and 62 percent experienced a placement move. These moves included returning home and moving from an initial placement in an Emergency Shelter/assessment center to another placement setting, generally a foster home.  80 percent of the 124 children in the sample who were still in care on June 30, 200642 were in family placement settings at that time. These settings included family foster homes, relative foster homes, relative homes, therapeutic and emergency foster homes. The remaining children were in residential or hospital settings. Table V‐2 provides detail of children’s placement settings.  94 percent (116) of the 124 children remaining in care on June 30 2006 were in appropriate placements in accordance with their individual needs as determined by the case record reviewers based on the documentation in the case records.43 For 5 children, there was insufficient documentation in the records for the reviewers to make an assessment. Available documentation indicated that two children were on a waitlist for a particular placement. One child is waiting for an adoptive home placement and another is waiting for a foster home placement in a home that had not yet been approved.
42 The children still in care are those children in the sample of 165 children in care at any time between October 27, 2005 and June 30, 2006 for whom there was no documentation that the case had been closed before June 30, 2006. 43 Documentation used to determine appropriateness of placement included the current Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments, its predecessor the “First Placement Best Placement” process, case plans and other material related to child needs.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 57

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 61 of 135

Table V‐12

Placement Settings of Children in Care on June 30, 2006

(N= 1243)

Placement Type

Number

Percent

Emergency Shelter/Assessment Center

0

0

Emergency Foster Home

1

1%

Foster Home (DFCS or Private Agency Supervised)

68

55%

Relative Home (Foster and non Foster Home)

23

19%

Therapeutic Foster Home

6

5%

Returned to Parents

1

1%

Group Home

12

10%

Residential Treatment Facility/ Child Caring Institution

6

5%

Hospital

4

3%

Runaway status

1

1%

Unable to Determine Current Placement Setting

12

12%

Total

124

101%

Source: July 2006 Case Record Review; percentages greater than 100 due to rounding.

2. Placement Stability, Worker Continuity, Efforts to Minimize Trauma, and Worker Contacts with Children and Caregivers
Once placed in an appropriate setting, a casework goal is to maintain the stability of the placement and avoid the trauma of disruption and placement in another setting. This can be accomplished, in part, by initially placing children in homes that can meet their needs, supporting the caregiver and the child, and assuring the child has the same case manager over the course of his placement and frequent contacts with the case manager. Although the Consent Decree suggests the frequency and intensity of in‐placement visits and other visits with a child “shall be determined by the individual needs of the child,” it does stipulate minimum requirements for the first eight weeks of a new placement and subsequent months in care. 44 The Consent Decree also establishes several outcomes designed to minimize placement moves for most children,45 maintain worker continuity,46 and promote frequent contact between case managers and children in care47 and the substitute caregivers.48

44 See p. 19, section D in the Consent Decree 45 See p. 35, Outcome 17 in the Consent Decree 46 See p. 35, Outcome 18, in the Consent Decree 47 See p. 37, Outcome 20 in the Consent Decree 48 See p. 36, Outcome 22 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 58

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 62 of 135
 Placement Stability: 69 percent of the 165 children in the foster care sample experienced two or fewer moves during the previous 12 months in custody. This is substantially different from both the 2005 E&R baseline which indicated that 84 percent of the children had 2 or fewer moves and the 97 percent reported from the Internal Data System (IDS) as of May 31, 2006. Part of the discrepancy between the case records and IDS may result from private agencies moving children among its supervised foster homes without informing or belatedly informing DFCS case managers. This hypothesis has been posed in G2 meetings and there was evidence in the case files that suggest this does occur. The information about the child’s move, therefore, does not get appropriately entered into the data system. This is an area for further review as DFCS moves to completely populate Placement Central within IDS and keep it current. It is also another aspect of improving overnight of contract providers.
 Worker Continuity: 81 (49%) percent of the 165 children in the foster care sample experienced one case manger in two or fewer case managers in the previous the 12 months in custody. or since entering care after the Consent Decree. Another 49 (30%) had two case managers and 25 (15%) had three. A few children (5) are known to have experienced up to four case managers in a year as indicated in Table V‐3. The reassignment of case managers for some children in the past eight months is not surprising given the new requirement to establish specialized caseloads for children in care 18 months or more.49 In addition, the counties continue to experience turnover among all case managers, even those with lower caseloads. In fact, 29 of the 49 children who had two case managers in the previous 12 months had been transferred to new workers for just these reasons. Although the Consent Decree exempts case manager changes dictated by transfers to special caseloads and natural personnel attrition, these events do cause disruptions for children. The reasons for case manager changes were not always sufficiently documented in the records; however 41 percent of the 82 children who experienced at least one documented change in case managers had been transferred to a specialized case manager. In addition, reasons for case manager changes in the remaining 20 cases were not documented. About 10 percent had experienced a transfer to an adoption specialist and 6 percent were transferred as the result of a worker’s termination or transfer. In the 25 cases where children experienced 3 case managers, at least one of the moves in 12 cases was attributed to a transfer to a specialized case manager or the result of personnel attrition but reasons for the many of the reassignments was not documented.

49 See p. 11, paragraph 4F.1, in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 59

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 63 of 135

Table V‐3 Number of Case Managers Experienced by All Children in Care
N=165

Number of Case Managers Experienced in the Previous 12 Months in Care
One Case Manager Two Case Managers Three Case Managers Four Case Managers Unable to determine from the documentation
Source: Case Record Review, July 2006.

Number Percent

Total

81

49%

49

30%

25

15%

5

3%

5

3%

165

100%

 Minimizing the Trauma of Change: For 25 percent of the 76 children in the sample who entered care or experienced a placement change during the review period, the case record documented the efforts made by the case manager to minimize the potential trauma of the experience.50 This is a smaller proportion than the 70 percent in the 2005 E&R baseline review. “Minimizing trauma” was defined as any steps the case manager took to ease the fears and concerns of the child and or to keep the child as connected to family and community as possible. As previously indicated, 31 percent of the 165 children in care experienced more than two placement moves in their previous 12 months in care. Therefore, some of the children in this subset may have experienced more than one placement change during the 8‐month review period. However, the case record review did not collect information about the practice around each change. Examples of the efforts that were found in the Accountability Agent’s file review include:
 Child in therapy and case manager was in the process of allowing the therapist help deal with informing the child of his new placement.
 Child had transitional visits prior to relative placement  Placed with relative. DFCS scheduled visits prior to placement and custody transfer.  Child was placed in a relative foster home, and there was communication between the
case manager and the relative prior to the placement.  Child was in hospital at the time of placement. Per documentation, foster parent visited
child in hospital several times prior to his discharge. No documentation that the agency arranged this or provided other services.

50 See p. 18, paragraph 5C.5 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 60

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 64 of 135

 Case manager visitation with the children they are supervising. There are several different visitation requirements. The requirement depends on the child’s permanency goal and if they experience a new placement. The discussion below highlights the findings regarding these different requirements.
 Documented case manager visits with children in the first 8 weeks of a new foster care placement.
The Consent Decree stipulates a nearly weekly visitation schedule for the first eight weeks of a new placement. 51 Of the 76 children in the sample of all foster children who entered or changed placements during the reporting period, 22 were in care less than 8 weeks between placement and June 30, 2006. Table V‐4 displays the number of children each week and summarizes the number of documented visits found. As indicated, 20 percent received placement visit from their case managers in the first week of the placement. Between the third and eighth week in care, 37 children received at least one visit with a case manager. Using the percentage of children for descriptive purposes is imprecise because of the declining number of children in care each week. Seven children had six or more additional visits during the eight‐week period while 29 children had less than six additional visits. For 33 of the children, there was insufficient documentation to determine the number or timing of visits in the first 8 weeks. Among the 52 children who were in care after 8 weeks, 7, or 13 percent received twice monthly visits in the time remaining in the review period.

Table V‐4

Case Manager Visits with Children in the First 8 Weeks of a New Foster Care Placement

N=Varies by week

Timeframe

Number of children

Number of children

in new placement

during timeframe

Week 1

76

15 children received one visit

(20% of 76)

Week 3 Week 4

69

37 children

65

received one 7 children received 29 children had

Week 5

visit

an additional 6

fewer than 6

64

sometime

visits or more additional visits

Week 6 Week 7 Week 8

59

between the during the 8-week during the 8-

56

3rd and 8th

period.

week period

week

54

Source: Case Record Review, July 2006

51 See p. 19, paragraph 5D.1 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 61

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 65 of 135
 Documented case manager visits for those who did not experience a new placement during the time period.
Among those in care without a placement change (89 children,) 3 percent received twice‐monthly visits. This is similar to the 2005 E&R baseline. Prior to the Consent Decree, case managers had been expected to make monthly visits and this was the more typical pattern found through out much of the first reporting period. In a few records, there were indicators of improvement toward the end of the reporting period with more frequent visits taking place since April.
 Documented case manager visits with children in new adoptive placements
Similar to the special visitation requirements for a new foster care placement, children placed in a new adoptive home are also required to receive case manager visits according to a minimum schedule.52 In the sample of 115 children with the goal of adoption, five children experienced at least one adoptive home placement during the reporting period. Four of these five children had documented case manager in‐ placement visits on the day they were placed. One of the five had at least one in‐ placement visit per month after being placed but before the adoption petition was filed.
 Documented case manager visits with children with the goal of adoption.
Twenty‐six children in the adoption sample experienced a new placement during the reporting period that was not an adoptive placement. These children should receive visits according to the schedule applied for all new foster care placements as previously discussed. Among the 26 children, 1 had a case manager visit in the first week of placement. Five of the 26 children or 19% had a case manager visit between the 3rd and 8th week of the placement and 3 children experienced an additional 6 visits over the 8 week period. Eight children had less than an additional six visits.
Seventy‐nine children had been in non‐adoptive placements since before the Consent Decree. Six (8%) of these 79 children had 2 visits per month with their case managers
 Case manager visitation with placement providers and birth parents: Almost 32 percent of 150 records in the foster care sample53 and 41 percent of the 115 in the adoption sample indicated that case managers had monthly visits with foster parents or other placement providers. This is higher than the 2005 E&R baseline which indicated monthly visits with caregivers was were occurring in 7 percent of the cases. Although not a target outcome of
52 See p. 19 Section 5D, paragraph 1a of the Consent Decree. 53 Fifteen records were not applicable for the analysis because 1) the child’s case was open less than a month during the reporting period, 2) the child was on runaway status, 3) child was placed with parents, or 4) child placed with relatives out of state.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 62

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 66 of 135
the Consent Decree, another topic of discussion in the G2 and a practice of demonstrated effectiveness is frequent contact with birth families when reunification is the goal. In the reunification cases in the foster care sample, documentation indicated that 30 percent of the birth families had monthly contact with their case managers.
Concern about the level of visitation between case managers and children as reflected in the 2005 E&R baseline has made this an on‐going topic of discussion in the G2 meetings since April. The frequency of visits by worker and supervisory units is being tracked manually and reported by the counties and the quality of visits is being explored by showcasing the efforts of high‐ performing case managers. Available data from the county and IDS has been used to demonstrate to the G2 participants the relationship between worker visits with children and positive permanency outcomes for the children. Similar to the national data reviewed in the G2, the local data does support that more frequent visits with children contribute to their exiting care to positive permanency outcomes. The twice‐monthly county reporting of case manager visitation leads us to expect significant improvement in this area by the end of the year.
B. Meeting the Needs of Children, Youth, and Families
In addition to safe, appropriate, and stable placement settings, DFCS is required to provide for the physical, developmental, and emotional needs of children in its custody. It is responsible for providing services to birth and foster parents as well to enable families to be effectively reunited or foster parents to more effectively address the needs of the children in their care, This section of the report summarizes the State’s performance in meeting the identified needs of children, youth, and families beginning with its performance in meeting an immediate action requirement of the Consent Decree regarding medical examinations for children who did not have current exams at the entry of the Consent Decree. It also presents the baseline for Outcome 24, the proportion of older youth – age 18 or older who are discharged from foster care with a high school diploma or GED certificate. A final discussion in this section focuses on key findings from the case record review regarding DFCS’ efforts to meet critical child and family service needs.
1. Basic Needs
Within the foster care sample of 165 records, 158 cases were applicable54 for assessing whether children’s basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing were being met55. The seven cases that were not assessed included children whose time in care was too brief or they were on run away status. Among the 158 children, the case record information indicated that 97 percent of the children were getting basic needs met. In 3 percent of the records, the documentation was insufficient to determine if these needs were being met. In the adoption sample 100 percent of
54 Seven cases were not applicable because the children were on run away status and there was no means to determine if basic needs were being met or the children had been returned to parents after a short stay in care. 55 See p. 18, paragraph 5C.5j in the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 63

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 67 of 135
the children were getting their basic needs met according to the documentation.
2. Identifying and Addressing Physical Health Needs
The Consent Decree requires both an immediate, corrective action with regard to children’s health screenings56 as well as on‐going regular screening and treatment. 57 DFCS’ performance in these areas as well as newly formulated plans for improving performance are discussed in the following section.
 Immediate Action: Children needing a medical exam were identified by the end of December 2005.
DFCS Program Field Specialists conducted a case record review of all children in care in each county in November and December 2005 to identify the children who needed medical exams. According to the reviewers, it was clear in some of the records a medical exam was needed. In others, however, they saw information in case notes, court reports, and other case documentation that the child had received more recent medical attention than was officially documented in the file. Therefore, at the end of the case review, the reviewers were able to identify those children whose medical exams were current and those children who needed a medical exam or their files needed to be brought up‐to‐date with the information from their most recent medical examinations.
Table V‐5 summarizes the results of the Program Field Specialists’ review. Of the records, 167 were children that did not meet the criteria for this corrective action for several reasons. Their cases had been closed, they were receiving after care services only, or they were young adults who had voluntarily returned to the care but not the custody of DFCS. Of the 2177 children for whom the criteria did apply, just over two‐thirds of the children (69 percent) had current examinations. The remaining 673, or 31 percent, needed exams, or they needed their records brought up to date with the appropriate documentation to assure the medical examinations were current.
56 See p. 30, paragraph 13A in the Consent Decree. 57 See p. 20, paragraphs 6A 1 and 2, and p.21, 6B, paragraphs 1-8 in the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 64

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 68 of 135

Table V‐5 Status of Medical Exams for Children in Custody as of December 2005
(Corrective Action 13A)

Category Children in care 12 months or more on 10/27/2005 Children in care less than 12 months but more than 30 days on 10/27/2005
Total Number of records read Cases that were not applicable for action (closed before the consent decree or during the 60 day identification period, children not in DFCS custody, youth older than 18 in care voluntarily) Total applicable cases

Number Percentage 1429 915 2344 167
2177

Children with current medical examinations

1504

69%

Children in care 12 months or more on 10/27/2005

755

Children in care less than 12 months but more than 30 days on

749

10/27/2005

Children needing medical examinations or updated documentation in the file

673

31%

as of December 27, 2005

Children in care 12 months or more without an annual exam

555

Children in care less than 12 months but more than 30 days who

118

did not receive a medical evaluation after entering care

Total

2177

100%

Source: County data compiled from state conducted record review and county tracking

systems.

 Immediate Action: Not all children needing a medical exam received one by June 30, 2006.

Both the county tracking systems and the case record review indicate that some number of children in the identified pool did not have updated medical examinations when their cases were closed or at June 30, 2006, as applicable. County tracking data indicated that 140 children, (21 percent of the 673 in need of examinations) had not received the required medical exams. Of the 140 children, 77 exited care prior to receiving updated medicals and 15 children received medical examinations between July 1 and mid‐August 2006. Of the children originally identified in need of medical exams that still had open DFCS cases as of mid‐August, 48 had not received these exams. The Accountability Agents received copies of the electronic spreadsheets the counties used to compile and update the results of the

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 65

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 69 of 135
previously cited file review of all children in the two segments of the pre‐Consent Decree population in care. Because this tracking system was not operational from the very beginning of the activity, the Accountability Agents worked with county personnel to identify gaps and questions that needed to be answered about the status of the children. This lack of an effective tracking system from the start is likely one of the reasons children did exit care without the required follow‐up medical examinations. As another means of validating this action, a segment of the record review of the sample of children in foster care was designed to capture information about this Corrective Action effort. Reviewers were asked specifically to look for medical gaps and follow up examinations for children in the sample who met the criteria for Corrective Action 13A.
The case record review revealed a similar gap in successful completion of this action by June 30, 2006. There were 107 children in the sample of all children in foster care who had been in care at least 30 days prior to the Consent Decree. Of these 107, 75 children or 70 percent had received medical examinations in the previous 12 months or, if in care less than 12 months, since entering care. Among the remaining 32 case files, there was documentation to indicate that 4 children had updated medical exams. In 28 (26 percent) case files, there was insufficient documentation to determine if medical exams had been completed.
 Assuring regular health and dental screening and timely assessment
While the corrective action targeted children in care at a specific point in time, the separate case record review of all children in foster care and those with the goal of adoption indicated that a portion of children had not been receiving regular health screening and were not current with their exams at the end of June 2006. When children did not appear to be receiving routine examinations, reviewers were asked to provide additional information from the case records. The findings include:
 60 percent (99) of the children in the foster care sample of a total of 165 children were current with their health screenings per the schedule set forth in the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (ESDT)/ Georgia Check program and 48 percent were current with their dental screenings per EPSDT/Georgia Check. Among the children in the separate review of children with the goal of adoption, a higher proportion ‐ 69 percent ‐ was current with necessary physical health screens per EPSDT/Georgia Check.
 55 percent of the 43 children entering foster care on or after October 27, 2005 had health screens within 10 days of entering or entered directly from the hospital. Another 12 percent (5) had their health screens within 30 days of entering care. Twenty‐one percent of the children (8) who entered care on or after October 27, 2005 had dental screens within 10 days of entering or entered directly from the hospital. Another 8 had them but not within the 10 days and 55 percent (23) did not have them per the lack of documentation in the files.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 66

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 70 of 135
 Needed medical treatment.
Of the 165 children in the foster care sample, 99 were current with their health screens. Of these 99 children, 58 percent (57) did not have any identified health needs. Forty‐two percent (42) of the children did have treatment needs identified in the health screenings. Of the 42 children with identified health needs, 36 children (85%) received documented treatment for the identified needs. This is slightly higher than the 57 percent in the 2005 E&R baseline. Less is known among those 66 children who did not have current health screenings, but there was some other file documentation for four children indicating they were getting their acute health needs met. From the files, reviewers noted:
Treatment needed and received:  There was no evidence of screening, but child had treatment for a fractured clavicle and received
needed immunizations.  Child received medication and treatment for eye injury and eyeglasses.  Child has had minor infections and ailments and has been treated for them.  Child received treatment for asthma while in care.  Although there is evidence that this child is seeing a physician by reports of her diabetic blood
levels, there was no evidence of a physical exam. The childʹs diabetes is being treated.  Cleft anomaly received treatment  Received 4 Fillings.  Child’s sickle cell anemia is receiving on‐going treatment.
Treatment needed:  No documentation found of how childʹs asthma is being treated.  The dental screening indicated the child needed treatment for damaged teeth. No documentation
that this has been completed.  Screening indicated need for cavities to be filled, no documentation that this has occurred.  The physical health examination indicated that the child had poor dental hygiene. There is no
indication that a follow up or conversation about the childʹs dental needs occurred.
Medical service needs are not always identified and recorded properly in case plans. While this does not necessarily mean children have not received needed medical services, this information should be reflected in case plans. Reviewers found at least some medical service needs addressed in 32 plans. In reviewing the comments made by reviewers regarding the limited number of plans with medical needs identified and addressed, the primary reasons why there were no health needs identified included: 1) the child had no specific health needs, 2) the record contained no current health screenings that would have indicated needs, or 3) case plans were out of date or there was no case plan because the children had been in care less than 30 days. Findings in the sample of children with the goal of adoption were similar. Reviewer comments about their findings included:
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 67

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 71 of 135
Case plans addressing health needs  See referrals only  Child referred for speech.  According to the case plan dated 05/05/06 the child has asthma and uses his pump as needed.  Plan indicates on‐going treatment for sickle cell anemia.
Case plans not addressing health needs  The case plan does not specifically list the medical needs as identified in the CCFA, FTM or during the babyʹs discharge from the hospital.  Case plan does not include an explanation of medical needs.  The case plan doesnʹt list any medical needs; however, other documentation indicates child suffers from seizure disorder.  Not documented on the case plan. Found in the assessment documentation for Group Home. Child requires periodic MRI to screen for genetic disorder. No documentation of MRI.  No current documentation of health screening. Health information on the case plan was not updated. Medical needs identified by placement provider notes and treatment plan.  Child has many ongoing needs that are being met, but not documented in CPRS [case plan]  The doctor recommended that the child see an optometrist. There is no indication that the child has seen an optometrist to date. This was the only need identified.  Dental needs are not specified in the case plan but documentation identifies the dental needs and indicate the childʹs dental needs are being met.  Although no needs are identified in case plan, child does need treatment and per documentation is receiving this.
 Health Status of Foster Children.
Despite the gaps in health screenings and medical issues identified in case planning, among the 165 children in the foster care sample file documentation including health screenings, case notes reflecting conversations with foster parents, and Comprehensive Child and Family Service Assessments suggested to the reviewers that the overall health of the majority (59%) of children was good, with no health concerns at this time. Table V‐6 provides the summary of the reviewer judgments.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 68

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 72 of 135

Table V‐6 Health (Physical and Dental) Status of Children in Foster Care
October 27, 2005‐June 30, 2006 N=165

Description of Child’s Overall Health

Number Percent

Good health, no concerns at this time

97

59%

Generally good, but requires some medication and monitoring

32

19%

Medically fragile

9

6%

Needs unaddressed

2

1%

Other (examples: respiratory problems, eye glasses, treatment for pre‐

3

2%

custody injury)

No documentation to determine (includes children on runaway status,

22

13%

child in care only 7 days, no dental health information to get complete

picture)

Total

165

100%

Source: Case Record Review, July 2006.

Of the two cases with unaddressed needs, one child has a genetic disorder that requires periodic screening and the other had a physical with no documented follow‐up on findings. Similarly, in the sample of 115 children with the goal of adoption, file documentation indicated that 65 percent of the children were in good health, with another 22 percent requiring some medication and monitoring. Ten percent appeared to be medically fragile.
 DFCS/ Division of Public Health collaboration on health screenings and treatment.

Seeking to strengthen its tracking and oversight of child health (medical and dental) screening and treatment, DFCS has enlisted the assistance of the Public Health Division, within the Department of Human Resources. According to DFCS staff, a kick‐off meeting held in early September 2006 resulted in some key agreements about roles and responsibilities for the improvements. Although still in the planning stage, DFCS anticipates referring children in its custody to the Division of Community Health (DCH) for appropriate tracking of routine care. DCH will track the required screenings based on the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) schedule and alert DFCS and foster families when screenings are due. DCH will also be able to alert DFCS when an appointment is not kept. DFCS and DCH have identified local county contacts to address barriers as they arise. After this system is established for DeKalb and Fulton DFCS the State plans to take it statewide.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 69

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 73 of 135

This appears to be a sound plan to address a critical need. It has the potential for greatly improving the timeliness of child health screenings and case record documentation regarding the screenings. Assuring that health needs are adequately captured in case plans will require active supervision.
3. Identifying and Addressing Mental Health Needs
The Consent Decree requires that all children four years of age or older receive a mental health screening within 30 days of placement in compliance with EPSDT standards.58 The case record review yielded limited information about this practice because it is new and applies to children aged 4 and older. A small number (28) of the children in the foster care sample who entered care on or after October 27, 2005 met the criteria. Among these children, information was collected from 27 cases.59 Of these 27 children, 15 had a documented initial mental health screening and 11 of those were completed within 30 days. This is much too small a sample from which to make generalizations, but it does suggest an area for closer review with supervisors and case managers.
Among the 165 children in the foster care sample, documentation in 97 files indicated the children had mental health needs and 71 percent (69) of the 97 children were receiving treatment for their needs. As with the identified health needs, this information was not always included in the case plans. Similarly, in the adoption sample, mental health needs were referenced in 33 case plans. From the foster care sample, reviewers noted the following:
Treatment: Needed and Received  Wraparound services provide.  Child is currently in family counseling, addressing anger and anxiety issues.  No documentation in case plan, however child is receiving therapeutic counseling for sexual
acting out/ behavioral problems.  Counseling through Group home.  Child is receiving counseling to address issues around his anger and anxiety.  The case plan doesnʹt document any mental health needs, however, child was being followed
by a psychologist and psychiatrist. She was diagnosed with w/ADHD and prescribed medication.
 Child received mental health counseling and medication management before leaving foster care.
 Counseling and medication for ADHD.  Based on documentation child was receiving services from a provider prior to custody and
will continue with this provider.

58 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 in the Consent Decree. 59 Coding error inadvertently omitted one record.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 70

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 74 of 135
 Child is diagnosed with depression and is receiving counseling services.
Treatment Needed  Child’s psychological recommended that he participate in Allateen to address his issues
around his mother’s drug use and the extent of his involvement. There is no indication that he has begun this process or been referred.  There is no evidence that this childʹs current fragile mental health needs are being met  Child has mental health needs. A referral for wrap around to assist with childʹs behavior in foster home was made 6/13, but there is no documentation that child received any services during review period.  No mental service needs documented in case plan, however, Child is experiencing symptoms of depression and anxiety related to unresolved grief over the loss of her mother.
Case plan documentation  Needs clearly identified, Service Plan also addressed the needs but no documentation to
support results.  Case plan just indicates that there are ongoing medical/psychological needs but it does not
identify what the needs are.  Date of Psychological and medication recorded on the Case Plan. Other source included
documentation, health records and copy of Psychological.  Counseling was recommended in psychological evaluation but no record that this was
received. Not mentioned in case plan.  The identified needs are not noted in the case plan but are noted in other areas of the case file
ie. Psychological and CCFA.  Recommendation for individual counseling and evaluation for psycho pharmaceutical
treatment.
Among the 165 children still in care on June 30, 2006, 125 were old age 4 or older. The case record review asked reviewers to consider all file documentation to determine the overall mental health status of the children. They were told to look for mental health assessments, case notes, and the Comprehensive Child and Family Services Assessments to make a judgment among a set of descriptions. Table V‐7 provides a summary of these judgments. Among the children in the sample of children with the goal of adoption, 75 percent appeared to have good or generally good mental health. About 21 percent were considered fragile.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 71

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 75 of 135

Table V‐7 Mental Health Status of Children Ages 4 and Older in Foster Care
October 27, 2005‐June 30, 2006 N=125

Description of Child’s Overall Mental Health Good mental health, no concerns at this time Generally good, but requires some medication and monitoring and/or counseling Mental health is fragile and requires on‐going therapeutic treatment Needs unaddressed Other (examples: child receives support and guidance from group home staff, anger management and counseling, special education and foster home stability) No documentation to determine (includes child in care less than 7 days)
Total Source: Case Record Review, July 2006.

Number 33 52
16 9 4
11
125

Percent 26% 42%
13% 7% 3%
9%
100%

As noted in the table, of 125, 68 percent children appeared to have good or generally good mental health. In the 9 cases that appeared to have unaddressed needs, these needs included counseling, behavioral problems, participation in therapeutic activities, and coping skills. Among the children in the sample of children with the goal of adoption, 75 percent appeared to have good or generally good mental health. About 21 percent were considered fragile.

4. Identifying and Addressing Education and Developmental Needs

a. Educational achievement for youth “aging out” of foster care.

Outcome 24 in the Consent Decree focuses on the educational attainment of youth leaving DFCS care at age 18 or later. Specifically, it sets increasing targets for the percentage of youth who are “discharged from foster care at age 18 or older … who have graduated from high school or earned a GED.”60 The State is not required to meet the first threshold for this outcome until December 31, 2006. However, the first threshold is set as 10 percentage points higher than where the state was in the 12 months prior to the entry of the consent decree. In the following discussion, we describe the interpretation issues surrounding this outcome and preliminary baseline information.

60 See p. 36, paragraph 24 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 72

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 76 of 135
Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The interpretation issue centers on the definition of “discharged from foster care at age 18 or older.” In Georgia, youth who are in the custody of DHR/DFCS are discharged from custody and are no longer reported in the federal Adoption and Foster Care Reporting System (AFCARS) when they reach the age of 18. Youth who wish to remain in foster care and with whom DFCS mutually agrees that the continued foster care placement is consistent with the goals of a Written Transitional Living Plan (WTLP) must sign a consent form.61 This means that after the age of 18, youth may continue to live in a foster placement setting, or some other transitional living arrangement, and can continue to pursue their educational goals with State support through the age of 21, or, in some instances, age 23.62 These youth who “sign themselves” back into care continue to be reported in the State’s Internal Data System (IDS.) For purposes of Outcome 24, therefore, we have chosen to define “discharged from foster care” as the point when youth are no longer in care and no longer reported in AFCARS and IDS. There is no measurement issue.
Preliminary Baseline for Discharge Outcome
The State is in the process of compiling the baseline for the period October 27, 2004 to October 26, 2005. However, information collected by E&R for the period September 1, 2004 and August 31, 2005, indicates that 60 youth age 18 or older were discharged from care. Seven, or approximately 12 percent, had high school diplomas or GEDs at the time of discharge. This would suggest that to meet Outcome 24’s first threshold, about 22 percent of youth aged 18 or older discharged between October 27, 2005 and October 26, 2006 will need to have a high school diploma or GED. To validate the achievement of this outcome we will supporting documentation such as academic transcripts, copies of certificates, etc.
b. Meeting Educational and Developmental Needs
Educational and developmental needs assessments were applicable in 154 of the 165 cases of children in foster care. The remaining records were of children who were in care too briefly (less than 30 days) or were too young (younger than 1 year) for an appropriate assessment. The case record review asked reviewers to consider all file documentation to determine how the child’s educational or developmental needs were assessed. This documentation included case notes, the Comprehensive Child and Family Services Assessments, school records, Individual Educational Plans, and formal assessments to make a judgment. Accordingly, documentation in the case records indicated that 109 of these 154 children (71%) had been adequately assessed. Other findings from the case record review include:
61 Barton Child Law & Policy Clinic, Georgia’s Responsibilities Toward Children in Foster Care: A Reference Manual, undated, p. 90. 62 National Child Welfare Resource Center for Youth Development, Georgia Fact Sheet, last updated October 21, 2004. See www.nrcys.ou.edu/nrycd/state_pages/state/ga.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 73

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 77 of 135
 Three of 10 children ages one to four who entered care on or after October 27, 2005 had assessments upon entry from Babies Can Wait and one recently‐ entered child was awaiting an assessment as of June 30, 2006. Two children were in care 45 days or less and four children had no documented assessment.
 90 percent of the 111 children age 6 or older and in care longer than 10 days enough were enrolled in school. The remaining 10 percent were not enrolled or there was insufficient documentation of school status in the files to determine.
 Among the 109 children that appeared to have adequate assessments of their educational or developmental needs, 71 children had identified educational or developmental needs documented in the case files. Among the 71 children, 80 percent received services to meet these needs. The remaining 20 percent (14) either did not have their needs met, or there was insufficient documentation to make a determination. Reviewer comments about addressing needs included the following:
Needs being met  Childʹs educational needs are currently being addressed through WRAP services being
provided by Family Ties.  Child in pre K for developmental delays.  Child was provided services (Academic Success Program) to help her advance to the 10th
grade.  Child is receiving therapy for developmental speech and language delay.  Child receiving speech and occupational therapy per 452, there is no case plan.  child has developmental delays and receives many services, not in case plan.  Child receiving educational and developmental services through special education services as
well as her therapist.
Needs not being met  The child is struggling in school at this time. Child has not began a plan of intervention per
documentation to date (06/30/06).There was a recommendation from the MDT and his psychological that he be referred to participate in the SST program (for monitoring and intervention) as well as have an educational assessment. Child failed 6th & 7th grade but passed after attending summer school. There is no indication that the child has been referred or is participating.  It was recommended at FTM that child be enrolled in tutorial program. There is no indication that this occurred. Childʹs case plan doesnʹt list any.  Documentation notes that the foster parent had concerns regarding the childʹs education, this went on for several months and was not addressed, the child had to attend summer school.  According to documentation from ʺBabies Canʹt Waitʺ the childʹs case was closed because two appointments for an evaluation were cancelled.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 74

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 78 of 135

As reflected in Table V‐8, among the 154 children from the foster care sample who were candidates for assessment, 57 children (37%) were at or exceeding targeted educational and developmental level for their ages and 31 percent were below. For another third, there was there was insufficient documentation to judge the educational/developmental progress. The case record review asked reviewers to arrive at these judgments of progress by considering all file documentation including, school records, case notes, and the Comprehensive Child and Family Services Assessments.

Table V‐8 Overall Educational/Developmental Progress of Children Age 1 and Older in Foster Care
October 27, 2005‐June 30, 2006 N=154

Description of Child’s Overall Educational/Developmental Progress
Exceeds educational/developmental target At developmental/educational target Below educational/developmental target No documentation to determine
Total Source: Case Record Review, July 2006.

Number
4 53 48 49 154

Percent
3% 34% 31% 32% 100%

5. Other Needs and Services

Children and youth often have other needs in addition to health, mental health, educational/developmental needs. These needs are often unique to the child and his or her circumstances. The case record review of a sample of 165 foster care children found the following:
 93 percent (147) of the applicable case files had documentation that other, unique needs of children are being adequately assessed. Not all, however, were documented in case plans. Examples of these other needs included:
 Citizenship.  Independent Living Services.  Family counseling and play therapy.  Assessments of relatives.  Aftercare/ongoing services.  Therapy may be needed to address some unresolved issues. Therapist visits twice a month.  Adoption resources.  Child care, relative subsidy.  Child is now pregnant and is now receiving prenatal services.  Housing and child care.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 75

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 79 of 135
6. Needs of Birth and Foster Families
Within the sample of children in foster care, 30 percent had the documented goal of reunification. This represented 49 cases. This is too small a subsample to allow for generalizations, but information from these 49 cases does provide some insight about meeting the needs of birth families. Among these 49 families, 35 mothers and 8 fathers had had their needs adequately assessed. Thirty‐three of the mothers and all of the fathers were getting some or all of their needs met. Reviewers provided the following comments about these needs:
Needs  Housing, financial support, and medical service.  Substance abuse, rehabilitation.  Birth mother continues to depend on others for financial support and housing. All other issues appear to be dealt with on an ongoing basis at this time, based on documentation.  The mother is receiving wrap around services for therapy  Substance abuse and stable housing
Foster families often need services and supports to provide nurturing care for the children in their homes. About 69 percent (76) of the foster parents had had their needs adequately assessed. Of these 76, about 84 percent were getting some or all of their needs met. About 98 percent of the foster parents in the sample of the children with the goal of adoption appear to be getting their needs met.
7. Foster Care Entry Assessment and Teaming for Identifying Needs
The Consent Decree establishes standards for several casework practices intended to assure effective assessment of and planning for children when they first enter care.63 In the case record review of all children in foster care, 43 entered during the reporting period. This is too small a sample to make generalizations to the entire population of children who entered care during this time period, but the following highlights provide insights into the implementation of these practices during the first 8 months.
 62 percent64 of the children entering care had completed Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments (CCFA). These assessments are completed by private providers and they are to provide a range of information about the child and his family. Among the 26 completed CCFAs, the most frequently included information concerned the parent’s marital status, the child’s living arrangement, and the child/parent relationship. The least frequent information concerned the child’s educational status and the child’s strengths.
63 See pp 5-7, section 4A in the Consent Decree. 64 Percentages are based on an “N” of 42 because coding error inadvertently skipped several questions about assessment and teaming,
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 76

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 80 of 135

 42 percent of the 26 completed CCFAs had been referred to providers to initiate within 24 hours after the child’s 72‐hour hearing.65 This is an improvement from the 20 percent found in the 2005 E&R baseline.
 31 percent (8) of the 26 CCFAs were completed within 30 days.
 62 percent (26) of the children entering had an initial Family Team Meeting. Fifteen of the 26 meetings occurred within 3‐9 days after the child entered care. This is considerably higher than the 19 percent in the 2005 E&R baseline. Not all meetings appear to have discussed all of the topics specified in the Consent Decree. The most frequently discussed topic was child and family needs, found in 22 of the 26 meetings. Goals for meeting the needs and steps for meeting the goals were discussed in 17 meetings. Possible placement options were discussed in 19 meetings The least frequently discussed topic was family and child strengths. This occurred in 14 meetings. File documentation indicated limited efforts were made to ensure participant attendance or to inform parents who did not attend of the goals and results of the meeting.
 77 percent (20) of the meetings were attended by the birth mother, birth father, or relative care giver. In 10 of these meetings, the attending care giver also had another relative or informal support with them. Children were included in 8 of the meetings. DFCS case managers or supervisors attended 25 meetings and private agency case managers were at 9 meetings.
 62 percent (16) of the meetings made determinations about service needs and 12 determined that further evaluations were needed. None of the meetings had documentation about what was needed to assure child remains in school he or she had been attending or enrolling the child in a school near his foster placement. Six meetings did determine that the child could be safely returned home and 4 of the children were returned home. Two were returned home within 30 days, one within 40 days and one after about six months. Two children who had entered in March and April remained in care on June 30, 2006. In 6 meetings it was determined that the child could not be safely returned home. An appropriate relative was identified in all six instances. Steps to keep siblings together were made in 2 meetings. Visitation frequency was determined in 6 meetings.
 50 percent of the 32 children who were in care 25 days or more had a Multi‐ Disciplinary Meeting (MDT). This is an improvement from the 2005 E&R baseline of 13%. According to the Consent Decree, these meetings are to “review the CCFA and

65 See p. 5 paragraph 4A.1 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 77

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 81 of 135

make recommendations concerning the case plan and the service to be provided to the child and the family.”66 The case plan is to be developed at the MDT. Two of the 16 MDT meetings were held within 25 days. Documentation in the files about the MDT meetings indicated that the CCFA was reviewed in 10 MDT meetings. Varying numbers of meetings included recommendations concerning different aspects of a child’s case plan. Table V‐9 displays the frequency different recommendations occurred.

Table V‐9 Recommendations Made by Multidisciplinary Team Meetings between
October 27, 2005 and June 30, 2006 N=16

Recommendation Subject
Appropriateness of child’s permanency goal Services needed Implementing Assessment recommendations Issues identified in Family Team Meetings Appropriateness of the child’s education Appropriateness of the child’s independent living plan No recommendations
Source: Case Record Review, July 2006

Number of Meetings Recommendation 13 13 9 3 3 1
3

Three of the MDT meetings were attended by a birth parent or another relative. DFCS case managers or supervisors and the CCFA providers were the most frequent meeting participants. None of the meetings included school representatives, therapists, or mental health professionals. Again, case record documentation about efforts made to ensure attendance of any participants was limited. The most frequent recommendations that emerged from the MDTs focused on the permanency goal and the services needed.

Although generalizations are limited, it is encouraging that half to almost two thirds of the cases reflect implementation of key assessment and teaming practices when children first enter care. Opportunities for improvement are also suggested by this snapshot. It appears that the content and timing of the assessment and teaming efforts need to be better integrated. As noted, CCFAs, Family Team Meetings, and MDTs were all missing important pieces of information such as family and child strengths and educational issues, and in the case of the MDTs, they were often missing the results of the Family Team Meetings. In addition, they were missing important participants, especially the MDTs. Efforts to ensure the participation of families, in particular, may be enhanced by regularly meeting with the family before hand and

66See p. 7, paragraph 4A.3a. in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 78

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 82 of 135

preparing them for the meeting as established by the DFCS Family Team Meeting training. Efforts to ensure the participation of school representatives, mental health professionals and others who will be working with the child is equally important for developing a supportive team for the child and family. Further more, the MDTs cannot make effective use of the CCFAs or Family Team Meeting results if these previous steps are not held in a timely manner. The expectation that families attend both Family Team Meetings and MDTs reflects the importance of family involvement in every step of the planning process. However, thought should be given to integrating the meetings, making it easier for families and social networks to attend one meeting rather than two, and assuring the information about strengths as well as needs is incorporated into the planning process.
8. Casework Practice for Planning To Meet Needs
Standard case work practice is to prepare an initial plan when a child enters care and update it at least every 6 months and this is what the Consent Decree requires.67 These plans are to be submitted to the Juvenile Court for approval. The review process for those cases that were open 6 months or more at June 30, 2006 has been previously described in Part IV. The following discussion highlights the case record review findings regarding the initial, 30 day plans for children entering care since the Consent Decree as well as the completeness of all plans for children who had been in care longer. As with the discussion of assessment and teaming, the findings regarding the initial 30 day plans are limited to a small number of children that may not be representative of all those who entered.
Initial, 30‐day plans  80 percent of the 36 children entering care on or after October 27, 2005 and in care 30 days or more had case plans in their records.
 Four of the 29 plans created were submitted to the Juvenile Court within 30 days of placement. This is slightly lower than the performance t E&R found in its baseline.
 76 percent of the case plans had nine key elements of a comprehensive plan. Plan elements looked for included, treatment or service objectives, client tasks, case manager and service provider information, progress status, timeframes for actions, visitation, caregiver signature, and barriers to reaching case goals. All 29 plans had the time frames for completing all listed actions. Client tasks and complete permanency plans were in 26 plans. Treatment objectives and treatment services were in 24 plans. Visitation was discussed in 22 plans, but fewer than half had been signed by the primary care giver (13); had identified service providers (12); or had barriers to reaching the goals identified (9.)

67 See p. 7, paragraph 4A.4 in the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 79

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 83 of 135
Subsequent, 6‐month case plans  66 percent of the records of children who had been in care 6 months or more (drawn from the entire sample) had case plans that could be considered “current,” meaning they had been prepared within six months of case closure or of June 30, 2006 for open cases. Another 20 percent appeared to be overdue for updating any where from a few weeks to nearly 4 months. A very small number of files, six, had not been updated in over 4 months.  Plan elements were missing from all plans. Nearly 90 percent had complete permanency plan information and timeframes for all actions listed. Almost 80 percent had the status for all actions listed. Three‐quarters of the plans had tasks identified for clients, but just 17 percent were signed by the primary caregiver.
Case plan development is not a new requirement. As noted, it has been a standard practice. Therefore, the proportion of plans that are not timely is concerning. In addition, the earlier discussion about service needs raises questions about the usefulness of the case plans as comprehensive mechanisms for providing a means of meeting the needs of children and families. Fortunately, as indicated, the reviewers found information in the case records outside of the case plans to demonstrate case managers are making efforts to meet identified needs. As with the assessment and teaming process, there is an opportunity for improvement. DFCS should consider taking actions that will make the plans more timely and relevant.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 80

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 84 of 135

Part VI STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE
Several of the Consent decree requirements focus on DHR/DFCS organizational capabilities, with the intent of enhancing or creating capacity thought to be instrumental to the achievement of desired outcomes. This includes caseload sizes and specialized staff, workforce skill development, having the resources and services to meet needs and quality assurance. This part reports on the State’s progress in meeting these requirements.
A. Specialized Staff and Lower Caseloads
During the first reporting period, DHR/DFCS agreed to create specialized case manager positions with caseloads limited to 12 for children reaching their 18th month in care.68 The counties were also to have family team meeting specialists to attend and facilitate family team meetings (FTMs) and designated staff to follow‐up on the results of FTMS.69 The State is to reduce its use of temporary personnel starting in the first period.70 Finally, smaller caseload sizes for all case managers and supervisors in both Child Protective Services and Foster Care Services are to be phased in over a period of time.71
1. Immediate Action: Establish Specialized Caseloads
a. Interpretation and measurement issues
The Consent Decree requires DHR/DFCS to “establish a Specialized Case Manager position to focus on and to remove barriers to permanence for children in DFCS custody for 18 months or longer. The maximum caseload for any person serving in the Specialized Case Manager position will be 12.”72 In addition, once assigned, they are to remain on these caseloads” for the remaining period in time while they are in DFCS custody.” 73 The Consent Decree is silent as to how a child’s permanency goal should be considered in these caseload assignments. The interpretation issue arises for those children with the goal of Adoption. Typically, once the parental rights of a child with a goal of adoption have been relinquished or terminated, a child is typically moved to the caseload of a case manager specializing in the adoption process. This may occur at any time in a child’s time in care – very early, in the first few months, or at a much later time. In either case, the adoption process may proceed quickly and the child exits care to a finalized adoptive family before reaching the 18th month in care. However, the longer a child is in care before parental rights are relinquished or terminated and the goal becomes Adoption, the greater is the likelihood the child will be in care 18 months or more before an adoption is finalized.

68 See p.11 and 12, paragraph 4F and p.23, paragraph 8D in the Consent Decree 69 See p. 7, paragraph 4A.5 in the Consent Decree 70 See p. 23, paragraph 8C in the Consent Decree 71 See p. 22-23, paragraphs 8A and 8B in the consent decree 72 See p. 11, paragraph 4F1 in the Consent Decree 73 See p. 11, introduction to 4F in the consent decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 81

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 85 of 135

While the Consent Decree requires the specialized case manager to coordinate with the Independent Living Coordinator for children who are age 14 or older, it does not specifically discuss the specialized case manager’s responsibilities as they relate to the adoption process. 74 Nor does the Consent Decree identify the range of knowledge and skills a specialized case manager is to have. The language is clear that the specialized case manager is to be the child’s sole case manager and remain with the child in that capacity from initial transfer until the child is discharged. Therefore, a strict interpretation of this Consent Decree requirement would have the child transferred from the adoption specialist to a specialized case manager during the adoption process. Additionally, if the child is transferred to a specialized case manager in the 18th month of care but before the goal may become Adoption and parental rights are terminated, this interpretation would also require the child to remain on the caseload of the specialized case manager. In both instances, the specialized case manager would need to be well versed in the adoption process to assure that the goal of adoption is achieved in a timely way.
The Accountability Agents became aware of this issue as we observed the State’s implementation of the specialized case manager requirement and validated implementation of the caseload caps. As discussed further in the following sections, children have been transferred to adoption case managers from the specialized case managers because they are, at this time, better able to navigate the adoption process. This issue raises many questions about how the Specialized Case Manager strategy can be implemented in conformance with the Consent Decree but still assure children who have the goal of adoption benefit from the knowledge and skills of the adoption case managers to effectively help them exit to permanency of an adoptive family. We will continue to monitor and seek guidance from both parties. The second reporting period report will include more analysis of the Specialized Case Manager implementation.
 Specialized Case Managers were designated in January, but caseloads were not fully operational until March 2006.
The State did not meet the required December 27, 2005 deadline for forming all of the specialized caseloads. According to the counties, slightly more about 1100 children had been in care 18 months or more at October 27, 2005, creating the need for 94 specialized caseloads. A portion of these children had the goal of adoption and were already on the case loads of adoption case managers. The counties reported that they needed more than 60 days to re‐align the caseloads in such a way as to minimize disruption to the relationships between children and their case managers and assure the caseload cap was met. This included reducing some of the adoption caseloads to 12 in order to avoid disrupting child‐caseworker relationships for children with the goal of adoption. About one third of the caseloads were operational in mid‐ January. The remainder were operational in March 2006. As indicated by the case record

74 See pp. 11-12, paragraph 4.F.3 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 82

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 86 of 135
reviews of the samples drawn from all children in foster care and just those with the goal of adoption, children are being assigned to specialized case managers.
 Counties continue to adjust specialized caseloads but have not always been able to adhere strictly to the caseload cap of 12.
The counties acknowledge that it took them some additional time to stabilize the specialized case management caseloads. There has been a certain amount of upheaval as the counties experienced case manager turnover and attempted to balance the child’s need for caseworker continuity with the operational need to keep the caseloads limited to 12. Counties have been able to assist some of the children in the initial cohort to permanency exits. However, currently each month, some number of children need to be assigned to these caseloads because they have reached their 18th month. Quickly reassigning a child’s case to a specialized case manager and keeping the caseloads to 12 has not been easy and maintaining coverage for cases when workers leave has been challenging. By the end of June, both counties had organized the specialized case managers into specialized supervisory units and developed tracking systems to help them manage caseload assignment.
County data indicate that the number of specialized case loads at June 30 was 95 with about 1000 children. In both counties, there were designated specialized case management caseloads for children with the goal of adoption in addition to caseloads of children with other goals. All of these caseloads are capped at 12 children per case manager. In Fulton County, there were 20 caseloads of children with the goal of adoption and 41 caseloads of children with another permanency goal. DeKalb had 27 caseloads of children with a goal other than adoption and 7 caseloads of children with the adoption goal.
This number of case managers should enable the counties to maintain caseloads no larger than 12. In fact, according to caseload data tracked by the counties and compiled by program administrators, 82 of the 95 specialized case managers (86%) had caseloads of 12 or fewer at the end of June 2006. Of the 13 who exceeded the cap, 9 had caseloads of 13 and the remaining three had caseloads of 14, 15, and 16 respectively. These latter two caseloads were specifically for children with the goal of adoption. County personnel attributed these larger caseloads to assigning larger sibling groups to more experienced staff. This information was validated through review of data from the county tracking systems and in‐depth discussions with program administrators in each county to better understand the case assignment process, the turnover issues, capping some adoption worker caseloads at 12 to work with children in this cohort who have the goal of adoption, and the work of the specialized case managers.
Through the G2 meetings, we began to review with the counties case manager‐child visitation patterns based on the hypothesis that frequent, quality visits made the most difference to achieving positive permanency outcomes. Because of the lower caseload caps, the initial focus was on the activity of the specialized case managers. As a result, we became concerned that, despite their lower caseloads, some specialized case managers were not meeting the visitation
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 83

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 87 of 135
requirements of the Consent Decree. County supervisors suggested that part of this performance was a result of the personnel reassignments and caseload stabilization efforts to make the specialized units fully functioning. Over time, with an intense management focus on getting quality visits made, the rate of worker‐child visitation has improved for specialized caseloads and for all caseloads. However, this is an area that we will continue to monitor with the counties. Accountability Agent focus on other specialized case manager duties has been limited. As previously indicated in Part IV, the case record review was able to collect very limited information on whether discharge planning was occurring. To obtain more in‐depth knowledge about caseload size and case management activities among the specialized case managers from their perspectives, Georgia State University will soon be conducting a focus group of with 10‐15 case managers and a follow‐up survey to all specialized case managers.
2. Family Team Meeting Facilitators
The Consent Decree requires DFCS to have family team specialists who attend and facilitate family team meetings.75 Each county reports having a unit of a core set of Family Team Meeting (FTM) Facilitators representing a total of eleven facilitators and two supervisors for both counties. These individuals have completed their case management or supervisor certification and 24 hours of FTM facilitation training. The extent to which these individuals are facilitating Family Team Meetings and the scope and nature of follow‐up activities that result from family team meetings will be reviewed in future reporting periods.
3. Elimination of Temporary Personnel
According to the Consent Decree, DFCS is to eliminate the use of temporary personnel, commonly referred to as “PRNS.” Over a one‐year period beginning six months from the entry of the Consent Decree through the period ending one year after the Consent Decree, PRNs shall comprise no more than 11 percent of the total allocation of social service case managers for Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS, respectively.76 After one year, no PRNs are to be employed. DFCS appears to be ahead of schedule with this effort. The counties report that they had discontinued the use of temporary personnel early in 2006 and financial records indicate that there have been no payments to the vendors who supply the temporary staffing. Furthermore, all requests for obtaining temporary personnel must now be authorized by the DFCS Deputy Director.
B. Building Workforce Skills
The Consent Decree has several training requirements.77 From an initial review of the material
75 See p. 7, Paragraph 4A, 5 in the Consent Decree 76 See p. 23, paragraph 8C 77 See pages 25 and 26 of the consent decree for the complete description of the requirements.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 84

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 88 of 135
supplied by the Department, it appears that they have implemented most of the requirements. DHR/DFCS reports employing several training and professional development strategies intended to build and retain a workforce that has the knowledge and skills necessary to work effectively with families and children. These strategies are discussed below. DHR/DFCS has not yet implemented an approach to assuring private providers are implementing the same work force standards as DFCS.
1. Education and Training Services Section
The Education and Training Services (ETS) section reported having 66 full time staff assigned to it as of June 30, 2006. It is headed by a Director who has 27 years of experience in DFCS, ranging from frontline case manager to Regional Adoption Coordinator. She has also worked as a school social worker and a rehabilitation social worker. She holds a Master’s Decree in Social Work and is a licensed master social worker. She has been director of this section since 2004. Among a range of activities, ETS is responsible for delivering or arranging training for a number of DFCS functions including new county directors and new and veteran worker training in Social Services and the Office of Family Independence, and new county director program.
In addition to this central office resource, both DeKalb and Fulton have training coordinators who develop in‐house training. They also arrange for outside providers to offer training on pertinent issues such as family violence, substance abuse, case planning, and mental health.
2. Pre‐service Training and Ongoing Professional Development Requirements
a. Required Training for New Case Managers and New Supervisors
DFCS has developed a core curriculum for newly hired case managers and case managers recently promoted to supervisor. Both curriculums follow a sequenced combination of online training, supervised field practice activities and classroom instruction. Both culminate with a certification process as described below. This certification process complies with the Consent Decree’s requirement for a skills‐based competency testing process. Table VI‐1 summarizes the curriculum components that are required for individuals to meet certification and are provided by ETS. Although we have reviewed the curriculum, we have not yet had an opportunity to attend training sessions to observe how the training is delivered and the classroom response to the material. We have also not reviewed it against all of the detailed requirements of the Consent Decree or the findings from the case record reviews that have implications for training.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 85

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 89 of 135
 New Case Manager Curriculum and Certification
New Social Services Case Managers are required to begin their DFCS careers with a six‐week training program called “Keys to Child Welfare Practice Series.”78 This series is intended to give new workers the fundamental knowledge and practice exposure necessary to perform any case management assignment. It is presented in three weeks of classroom training and three weeks of field practice. After completing the “Keys” program, new case managers take the specific training for the program track to which they may be assigned: child protective services or foster care services. These tracks involve another 3‐4 weeks of classroom instruction, field practice and on‐line training. Pre‐service training for new workers extends until they have been certified in at least one of these two program tracts. The Keys training and the program track training together amount to assuming adoption caseload responsibilities must first be certified in foster care services. Within the first year following certification, there is a further series of required courses for new case managers. A new worker typically receives nearly 200 hours of training in the first 18 months of employment.79
 Case Manager Certification is a pre‐requisite for Family Team Meeting Facilitation training and approval as a facilitator.
The Consent Decree requires DFCS to include “training on facilitating family team meetings as part of its pre‐service training.”80 According to staff of ETS and the pre‐certification curriculum material reviewed, the practice concepts employed in family team meetings (FTM) are introduced in both the “Keys” training and the program training. In addition, before being certified as a Foster Care Services case manager, the individual must attend a FTM and record “the negotiated Case Plan in CPRS.”81 Although a required course within the first 12‐18 months after certification, Family Team Meeting Facilitation is not considered a “pre‐service” course because of its certification pre‐requisite. It is delivered in two separate courses, a two‐day overview followed by a two‐day skill building course. Successful completion of both courses along with FTM participation/ observation are required to become an “approved DFCS FTM Facilitator.”82
 New Supervisors
Newly promoted supervisors also receive core training over a period of ten weeks according to
78 New worker training requirements are described in the “New Social Services Case Manager Training and Certification Manual.” 79 Some training requirements can be waived under certain circumstances. However, all workers must take the knowledge tests. 80 Page 7, paragraph 4.A.5 81 New Social Services Case Manager Training and Certification Manual and the Training and Field Practice Guide for new case managers. 82 Course descriptions for OCP 312 Family Team Meeting Overview and OCP 313 Family Team Meeting Skill Development
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 86

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 90 of 135
the Division’s “Social Services Supervisor Training and Certification Manual.” The substance of the training is under revision, but it currently consists of initial on‐line training, followed by five days (32.5 hours) in class with additional assignments. All participants are tested at the end of the five days. Classroom training is followed by 15 days of field practice experience guided by an “e‐mentor.”83 The field practice is followed by two courses provided by the Office of Human Resource Management and Development. Theses courses are “Georgia Fundamentals of the Performance Management Process” and “Skills for Successful Supervision.” As with new case managers, new supervisors are required to take a further series of courses after they are certified. Furthermore, supervisors “must obtain 20 hours of ongoing professional development annually.”
b. Ongoing Professional Development
After a worker or supervisor is certified, there are a number of classes available for on‐going Professional Development offered through the Education and Training Services section or through its partnership with Georgia State University. The offerings include the following:
• Family Team Meeting • Family Centered Practice • Systemic Impact of Meth • Impact of Maternal Substance Abuse • Child Development • Emotional Survival and Stress Management • Empowering the Manager • IV‐E training • Family Violence
Staff members may also receive professional development by attending approved national and local conferences and workshops.
83 This is “a mentor who communicates primarily through electronic means with the new supervisor.” This individual “provides the new supervisor with support, coaching, encouragement, and guidance necessary for successful completion of the 15-day period. At the end of each week, the E-mentor sends a status report to the county director.” New Social Services Supervisor Training and Certification Manual, June 2006 revision.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 87

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 91 of 135

Table VI‐1 Training and Professional Development Requirements

Level Case manager

Requirement

Provided

160 hours pre‐service 20 hours/year on‐going

A total of 140 hours of classroom training in addition to approximately 150 hours of field practice  97.5 classroom hours in “Keys to Child
Welfare”  32.5 hours of program track (Child Protective
Services or Foster Care Services) Hours for self‐paced on‐line training varies Culminates with a three‐part certification process that tests case manager knowledge and skills 36‐48 required hours in the first six months after certification, depending on program track

16‐48 required hours in the 6‐12 months after certification, depending on program track

Approved professional development classes, conferences, work shops, etc. 18 to 36 required hours in the 12‐18 months after certification, depending on program track

Supervisor

40 hours pre‐service

Approved professional development classes, conferences, work shops, etc. 40 required hours of classroom and additional assignments

This curriculum is being revised.

20 hours/year on‐going

Culminates with a three‐part certification process that tests supervisor knowledge and skills 36 required hours, subject matter depends on what they received as case managers

Approved professional development classes, conferences, work shops, etc
Source: Compiled from the Education and Training Services Certification Manuals

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 88

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 92 of 135
3. Case Manager and Supervisor Certification
With the assistance of a nationally‐recognized child welfare training expert, the Education and Training Services Section developed a skills‐based competency assessment as a component of the certification84 process for all social service case managers and supervisors. The certification process has three parts, 1) classroom knowledge test, 2) field observation, and 3) case record review. Through this process, not only is “book learning” assessed, but the candidates must demonstrate the appropriate abilities and knowledge in the field and in their case documentation. Case managers and supervisors must complete and pass each part of the process to be certified. According to State policy, new case managers cannot carry a full caseload until they are certified.85 The entire process usually takes three to four months. Case manager and new supervisor pre‐service training is considered complete when they have achieved certification. However, once a new case manager has successfully passed the classroom knowledge test, county directors may provisionally certify them and allow them to carry no more than seven cases under the supervision of a fully certified case manager.
The certification process began in the spring of 2005 and has been implemented in two phases. The first phase addressed certification for all case managers and supervisors hired before April 1, 2004.86 The second phase of certification implementation is ongoing. For all those hired after April 1, 2004, certification is acquired through the new worker and supervisor training process. Table VI‐2 summarizes the certification status available at the end of July 2006 for social service case managers and supervisors in Fulton and DeKalb County.
84 Certification is defined by the Education and Training Services section as “the successful demonstration, at a given point in time, that the employee possess the foundational competencies needed to perform the job.” 85 County Directors can provisionally certify new workers after six weeks if they pass the knowledge test. Provisionally certified workers can carry up to seven low risk cases under the oversight of another case manager. Full case responsibility, however, remains with the overseeing case manager. 86 Among these individuals a distinction was made. The requirement for incumbent certification applied to case managers hired before April 1, 2004, who had less than 5 years experience, and to supervisors hired before December 1, 2005, who also had less than 5 years experience. “Fast track” certification was awarded to staff persons who had 5 years of satisfactory social services case management or supervisor practice in DFCS as of October 1, 2004. Resource Development staff and CPS Intake only case managers and supervisors were exempted from the certification requirement.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 89

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 93 of 135

Table VI‐2 Certification Status of Case Managers and Supervisors in
DeKalb and Fulton County DFCS as of July 2006

Title

Certified Results Pending Needing Retakes Total

Case Manager

302 (88%)

16 (5%)

24 (7%)

342

Supervisor

46 (62%)

21 (28%)

7 (10%)

74

417 Source: Compiled from Education and Training Services Section and County Kenny A. staff. Three non‐ case ‐supervising supervisors DeKalb have been included.

 Case Manager and Supervisor certification

As noted in Table VI‐2, 88 percent of case managers and 62 percent of supervisors had achieved full certification as of July 2006. Staff who have failed to achieve certification on the first attempt are required to engage in remediation and retesting. As indicated in the Table, some were awaiting results of their first attempt or retakes as of the end of July. According to state training personnel, all staff awaiting results or needing to retake some portion of the certification assessment will have certification results by the end of October 2006.

a. Tracking Training and Professional Development Requirements

Table VI‐1 summarizes the training requirements in the consent decree and what DFCS has in place to meet these requirements. Tracking training hours is a split responsibility between the education and training unit and the counties. There is currently no standard, shared data base for county use. Currently, each employee has a “training transcript” in which the training hours provided directly by Education and Training and Georgia State University are recorded. The counties have developed their own in‐house training log to track the hours provided in the county. A state data base is being developed for counties to keep track of training hours in addition to those received from Education and Training and Georgia State University. It will help the counties keep up with yearly training. Training hours will be verified in subsequent reports.

4. Regular Assessment of Worker Training Needs

The consent decree requires DHR/DFCS to annually determine workers in need of re‐training.87 DHR/DFCS has implemented strategies for on‐going evaluation of training needs for individuals and entire offices beginning with the certification process. According to the certification process, case management trainees who fail their first attempt on any of the

87 This requirement is found in section 10.B.2

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 90

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 94 of 135

classroom knowledge tests must complete self study in the areas of concern and retake the knowledge tests. Should they fail the knowledge test a second time, there are three options. One option is a third attempt to pass. The other two options are placing employee in a position that does not require certification, or termination of their employment. After certification, the counties report that they currently identify individual and office‐wide training needs on an on‐ going basis through case staffings, case reviews, and data analysis of data trends, individual requests, and annual performance reviews. In addition, training is arranged as policies and regulations are changed. Future monitoring reports will provide more assessment of the annual evaluation process to meet the Consent Decree requirement.
5. New Supervisor Qualifications
As stipulated in the Consent Decree, supervisors employed by the counties after October 27, 2005 must have, at a minimum, a Bachelor’s degree in Social Work (BSW) and two years of experience. Since October 27, 2005, 14 individuals have been promoted to the position of supervisor or transferred into the counties as a supervisor. According to documentation supplied by the state, 13 of these individuals meet or exceed the minimum educational and experience requirements established in the Consent Decree. The remaining individual does not have a BSW but significantly exceeds the experience requirement, having a total of 10 years in the field with nearly four of them as a supervisor in another DFCS county office. In addition, the individual passed the supervisory certification requirements.
6. Private providers required to meet same standards
The Consent Decree requires that “private provider agencies with whom DFCS contracts for the provision of placements for children in DFCS custody shall be required, through contract provisions, to certify that employees providing management or supervisory services for DFCS” essentially meet similar qualification, training, and certification as required for DFCS case managers and supervisors.88 According to the state, plans for implementing this provision are still being developed.
C. Assuring Needed Services Are Available
DFCS agreed to engage in a needs assessment to “identify what new and/or different placements and related services, if any, are needed to provide substantially for the care of the Plaintiff Class.”89 The Consent Decree laid out several steps to be completed in this process starting with the issuance of a Request for a Proposal (RFP) as a means of retaining a qualified external expert to conduct the needs assessment. The RFP response review was to be a joint effort between the Counsel for the Plaintiffs and DFCS with the final selection of the external expert being a joint decision, all in accordance with Georgia’s procurement laws. The time

88 See pp. 35 and 36, paragraph 10.B.4 in the Consent Decree 89 See pp 12 – 13, paragraphs 4A,1-4 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 91

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 95 of 135
frame set out in the Consent Decree, had the external expert being selected within 90 days of the entry of the Consent Decree (by January 27, 2006) with the Needs Assessment being completed no later than 120 days after the expert was retained. Subsequent to the assessment findings, DFCS is to phase‐in the identified needed services over a period of twelve months.
 External Needs Assessment Had Not Been Initiated by June 30, 2006.
If all had proceeded according to timeframes established in the Consent Decree, the external needs assessment would likely have been completed, or nearing completion by June 30, 2006. However, a series of circumstances delayed the award of the contract and initiation of the work. First, obtaining responses to a Request for Proposal was delayed. Second, evaluation and agreement on a final external expert by Counsel for the Plaintiffs and DHR/DFCS took several months. Agreement was reached in August, but as of the writing of this report, DHR/DFCS did not yet have a signed contract with the selected expert.
DHR/DFCS attempted to meet the consent timeframes, but was not able to issue a Request for Proposal until January 9, 2006. Potential bidders were given until January 24, a very short time period, to respond as a means of still staying close to the original schedule. However, no bidders responded and DHR/DFCS had to withdraw the RFP. It was reissued on February 16, 2006. The budgeted amount for the work was significantly increased and potential bidders were given 45 days to respond.
Five qualified responses were received to the second RFP attempt on March 30, 2006. Evaluation and scoring of the proposals began April 3, 2006. Over the course of April and the following months, DHR/DFCS and Counsel for the Plaintiffs met several times in person and by teleconference to discuss and score the proposals. Unable to reach agreement on one expert, the scoring was turned over to the Department of Administrative Services in July to determine the winning proposal based on scores and proposal budgets. This process yielded a selected bidder.
 Fulton and DeKalb Counties are Part of Community‐Based Foster Family Initiative
The need for family foster homes in Georgia is well established and Georgia has embarked on several strategies to improve foster family recruitment, retention and support. One of these strategies is a Community‐Based Foster Family Initiative under the supervision of The Children and Youth Coordinating Council, in cooperation with DHR and DFCS. DeKalb and Fulton, along with three other counties will be the sites for a demonstration grant that is intended to support the development of “innovative strategies …that result in an increase number of foster families for sibling groups of 3 or more and/or teenagers.”90 DHR has reserved up to $400,000
90 See p 2 of Community-Based Foster Family Initiative, Request for Proposals, Summer 2006, Children and Youth Coordinating Council
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 92

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 96 of 135

for this initiative. Responses to the Request for Proposals were to be submitted to the Council by August 14, 2006.

D. Placement Support

This section of the report describes the State’s performance on a number of issues related to the regulation and support of foster homes. These issues are described in the Consent Decree in Outcome 2591, and in Section 5C4e‐i, 5C692 and Section 1193. The State is performing well relative to the placement issues we were able to assess for this reporting period.

1. Outcome Achievement: Outcome 25

Outcome 25 seeks to reduce the risk that children may be placed in harmful situations by requiring foster care placements to be evaluated and to be in full approval and/or licensure status. Outcome 25 stipulates that “…by the end of the first reporting period, at least 85% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status.”

For the first reporting period, the Accountability Agents were unable to rigorously assess the extent to which this requirement was met. The reasons for this are discussed below under interpretation and measurement issues.

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues

Outcome 25 presented the most difficult measurement challenge of any of the Outcomes due in the first reporting period. Outcome 25 could not be satisfactorily measured for the first reporting period for two reasons.

The first reason is that the definition of the measure contained in the Consent Decree is a mismatch with the available data sources. The description of the measure contains the phrase “By the end of the first reporting period…” and adds the phrase “….children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status…” This makes it quite clear that it is intended as a point‐in‐time measure to be taken at the end of the reporting period, and that the intended unit of analysis is the child rather than the foster placement.

To operationalize the measure as specified in the Consent Decree, data on the current approval status of individual foster placements on a particular date must be linked to data about the number of class member children in those individual homes on that same date. Doing this with the appropriate degree of rigor proved to be an insurmountable challenge, although much was

91 See Kenny A. Consent Decree, p. 36. 92 Ibid, pp. 16-19. 93 Ibid, pp. 26-28.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 93

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 97 of 135
learned in the process of trying to overcome it.
• The DFCS Placement Central system has data on the placement setting of each child in
foster care, including whether the placement is in full approval status at the time a child was placed, but it has complete data on approval status only for DFCS‐supervised homes and cannot generate data on the approval status of any home at a particular point‐in‐ time. Moreover, Placement Central is a very large data base that the Accountability Agents have not yet had the opportunity to validate.
• The DFCS Treatment Services Unit “LORE” system (Level of Care Reporting
Environment) has data on the point‐in‐time approval status of every Child Caring Institution (CCI) and Child Placing Agency (CPA), but it has point‐in‐time approval status information for only a subset of the individual foster homes supervised by CPAs. In addition, the Accountability Agents have not yet validated data from the LORE system, and translating its data on the approval status of CCIs, CPAs, and CPA‐ supervised foster homes into data on children would require a cross‐match against the un‐validated Placement Central System.
• The file review conducted by the Accountability Agents on a sample of foster home files
captured approval status on June 30, 2006, but not the number of class members in residence on that date. Also, the sample was based on the universe of foster homes with a class member in placement at any point during the reporting period, not on a particular date. This sampling frame helped assure that long‐stay foster care cases would not be over‐represented in the sample.94 However, exploratory analysis revealed that only 54 percent of the homes sampled had a class member in care on June 30, 2006, effectively halving the sample size (and increasing the margin of error to over 10%) for purposes of the point‐in‐time analysis specified in Outcome 25. Moreover, translating these data on the approval status of foster homes into data on children in approved placements would require a cross‐match against the un‐validated Placement Central System.
Several attempts were made to patch together a coherent and reliable approximation of Outcome measure 25 from the data sources described above, but none proved satisfactory. Recommendations informed by the experience of attempting to measure Outcome 25 are included at the end of this section.
The second reason Outcome 25 could not be satisfactorily measured relates to a difference among the parties on the intended applicability of the measure. After the file review protocols
94 Point-in-time samples of foster children tend to over-represent long-stay foster care cases because they have a higher statistical probability of being selected on any given date than shorter stay cases. For a more complete discussion of this phenomenon, see Usher, C.L. (1995). From social experiments to reform initiatives: Implications for designing and conducting evaluations. Presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Vancouver, British Columbia, November 3, 1995.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 94

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 98 of 135

had been reviewed by both parties and the file review completed, a question arose as to whether the term “full approval and/or licensure status” was a designation that referred specifically to the regulatory process through which foster homes, CPAs, and CCIs are approved to receive foster children and DFCS funding, or was intended as a generic description that referred also to the approval of other types of placements. Foster Homes, Relative Foster Homes, Child Placing Agencies, and Child Caring Institutions are legally subject to a regulatory annual approval process that may culminate in “full approval” and/or “full licensure” status.95 Children removed from their homes may also be placed with relatives that do not receive foster care payments. Such relatives are not subject to the annual regulatory process but are subject to a one‐time approval by casework staff which includes some elements (e.g., home evaluation, criminal background check) common to the regulatory approval process.96 However, the file review protocols for this reporting period contained no questions about the relative placement approval process. Although the appropriate approval of relative homes is certainly important, the Accountability Agents regard the applicability of the stated standard to relative placements to be more a question of law than of interpretation or measurement. We will seek resolution of this matter before the next file review starts.
b. Recommendations
• The Accountability Agents recommend that the parties agree to the use of the
percentage of placements in approved status at a point in time as a proxy for the percentage of children in placements in approved status at a point in time. As indicated above, the Consent Decree’s requirement to link children to the point‐in‐time approval status of their placement frustrated our best efforts to measure this outcome. However, in the process of testing various measurement approaches, we learned that for DFCS‐ supervised homes there was no significant difference between the proportion of homes in full approval status at a point‐in‐time, and the proportion of children placed in homes in full approval status at that same point‐in‐time. Sixty‐six of the 120 DFCS‐supervised foster homes sampled had one or more class members in care on June 30, 2006. Of those 66 homes, 64 (97%) were in full approval status on that date. A cross‐match between Placement Central and the list of those 66 homes showed that 114 of 116 class members (98%) in care in those homes on June 30 were in placements that were in full approval status. Such a cross‐match was not performed for provider‐supervised foster homes because neither the documentation in the reviewed files nor the data in Placement Central on the approval status of these homes was sufficiently complete. These issues are addressed separately below. However, the Accountability Agents have no reason to believe such a cross‐match would show a significantly greater discrepancy than was found with DFCS‐supervised homes between the “child view” and the “placement view” of full approval status at a point‐in‐time, and an accurate appraisal of the “placement view” can be attained much more readily and with greater reliability. This

95 See Georgia Social Services Manual, Chapters 1000 and 1015. 96 See Georgia Social Services Manual, Chapter 1004.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 95

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 99 of 135
recommended alternative not only increases the likelihood that the Accountability Agents would be able to produce a satisfactory measurement for Outcome 25, it would also enable the State more readily to track its own performance and make mid‐course corrections as necessary.
• The parties must come to an agreement about the applicability of Outcome 25 to
placements outside the regulatory environment. The Accountability Agents hope such an agreement can be reached promptly so any needed modifications to the data collection methodology can be made in time for our second period report.
• DFCS needs to immediately assess the adequacy of documentation in provider‐
supervised foster home records. In attempting to find a viable measurement methodology for Outcome 25, it became clear that the records of DFCS‐supervised foster homes evidenced substantially greater conformance with DFCS approval standards than did the files of CPA‐supervised foster homes. (The limitations of attempting to assess point‐in‐time compliance with regulatory standards using an “open” case file are discussed below.) However, this file review represented the first time DFCS quality assessment staff had reviewed the foster home files of CPAs. These files were structured differently for each CPA, and quite differently from the standard file structure of DFCS‐ supervised homes. At this point, it is unknown whether the apparent lower conformance with DFCS approval standards among CPA‐supervised foster homes is reflective of inadequate compliance with applicable approval standards, inadequate documentation of such compliance, the unfamiliarity of the file review team with the CPA file structure, or some combination of the three. However, for any home to be credited with having met consent decree requirements that rely on a file review as the source, appropriate documentation must be present in the file and readily located by the file reviewer.
• Efforts currently underway within DFCS to populate Placement Central and TSU’s
LORE system with data on all provider‐supervised foster homes need to be continued and adequately supported. In attempting to find a viable measurement methodology for Outcome 25, it was possible to cross match data on the sample of DFCS‐supervised homes in the file review with data from Placement Central on the number of children in each placement setting on June 30, 2006; and to cross match data from TSU’s LORE system on the number of CCI’s in full approval status on June 30 with data from Placement Central on the number of children in CCI placements on that date. However, it was not possible to perform such a cross‐match for CPA‐supervised foster homes because not all of them were yet represented in Placement Central or LORE. As indicated in the Conclusions and Recommendations and in Chapter Three of this report, the Accountability Agents regard completing the automation of data on provider‐ supervised foster homes as critical to DFCS’ effective management of the performance of such homes.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 96

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 100 of 135

c. Evidence of Foster Home Policy Application
Section 11 of the Consent Decree contains a variety of requirements with respect to the screening, licensing, and training of foster parents. Paragraph B of Section 11 requires a set of uniform standards to be in place for the approval or re‐approval of all foster and pre‐adoptive families. Paragraph F stipulates that perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment will not be allowed to become or to remain foster parents.
The file review of 165 foster homes sought evidence in each file that the home was in compliance with applicable standards on the date of the review. Data from the file review are presented below. These data can be said to fairly represent the status of the sampled foster homes at the end of the reporting period, but may not be an accurate reflection of the quality of the regulatory approval process. The reasons for this include changes that may occur in family circumstances or characteristics between the approval date and date the home’s file was reviewed, and certain nuances of the regulatory process such as “grace periods” that were transparent to the file reviewers. Common examples of the first phenomenon included birth or foster children residing in the home for which certain required documents (e.g., criminal records check for other adults in the home, appropriate heath statements) were missing. It is not known whether the child moved back home or attained the age of majority at some point between the previous approval and the review date. Examples of the latter phenomenon are the “grace” periods that attend certain changes in family structure such as a change in foster parent marital status or a new adult moving into the home. DFCS policy stipulates that the home is to remain in full approval status for up to 120 days while the required processes are completed for the new household member.97 The file review only sought evidence that the requirement had been met as of the review date.
 Regular and timely evaluations to assure placement settings meet standards
Successfully preventing maltreatment in care is abetted by the effective evaluation and reevaluation of care settings. In addition, foster care givers need to be supported and well‐ trained to effectively care for and, when necessary, appropriately discipline the children in their care.
To ensure that foster homes are equipped to provide safe and appropriate care, DFCS has promulgated a uniform set of approval standards that apply to DFCS‐supervised and provider‐ supervised foster homes alike. In addition, the Office of Regulatory Services has promulgated licensing rules that apply to the Child Placing Agencies that supervise private foster homes and Child Caring Institutions (how these separate approval functions relate to each other is discussed further in section d. operational context, below).

97 See Georgia Social Services Manual, Chapter 1015.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 97

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 101 of 135

However, the existence of uniform standards by itself cannot assure children in care are safe and well. Therefore, the review of foster home files sought evidence that the reviewed foster homes met applicable DFCS approval standards.

Among DFCS-supervised foster homes with a class member in care on June 30, 2006, evidence
of compliance with approval and licensing standards was found to be good, although it varied somewhat by requirement. Table VI‐5 summarizes the extent to which documentation related to approval and licensing standards was found in the DFCS‐supervised foster home records reviewed. Following the table is a narrative that offers some explanation and analysis of these data.

Table VI‐5

Foster Care Approval and Licensing Standards

Percent of Placements with Documentation Indicating

Applicable Requirement Met as of File Review Date

N=165

Foster Care Screening, Licensing, Training,

and Investigative Requirements

Family assessment completed

99%

Pre‐service foster parent training requirements met

96%

Gender of children in home never varied from that approved

92%

Timely annual re‐evaluation (no lapses)

90%

Comprehensive medical report for each foster parent

90%

No violations of agency discipline or other foster care policies

87%

Number of children in home never exceeded approved capacity

84%

Timely Criminal Record Checks for foster parents

83%

CPS history has been checked

81%

Age of children in home never varied from that approved

80%

Sexual Offender Registry has been checked

80%

Appropriate health statements for household members

79%

Ongoing foster parent training requirements met

76%

Timely Criminal Record Checks for other adults in the home

75%

Source: Case Record Review, July 2006

The file review found completed initial/re‐evaluation reports in 94 percent of the files in which they should have appeared. The initial/re‐evaluation report was missing for nine foster homes (although several of these did contain a completed initial/re‐evaluation form – but not the full report). Our file reviewers concluded that 91 percent of the homes reviewed were in correct approval status on June 30, 2006. When homes were found not to be in correct approval status, it was usually because the re‐evaluation had not been timely completed.

The file review found evidence that over 80 percent of the homes reviewed were in compliance with most of the approval standards as of the file review date. For some of the requirements

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 98

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 102 of 135
with 80 percent or greater compliance, (e.g., the number and gender of children in the home never varying from the approved specification) the primary reason for variances was to keep sibling groups together.
However, for five requirements, evidence of compliance was found in 80 percent or fewer of the files reviewed. Two of these items (evidence that the sexual offender registry was checked and timely criminal record checks for other adults in the home) are particularly germane to ensuring the safety of the foster care environment. File reviewers were asked to provide comments to explain each of their “No” responses. The reviewer’s comments for the items for which evidence of compliance was found in 80 percent or fewer of the files reviewed are summarized below:
• Age of children in home never varied from that approved o Age group was exceeded o Sibling group caused age range to be exceeded o Completed form 0-18 to change age range
• Sexual Offender Registry has been checked o No verification that registry was checked o No verification that registry was checked for adult child o Home study indicates registry was checked but no verifying document in record
• Appropriate health statements for other household members o One or more required element(s) missing for former foster, adoptive, or birth child
in the home
o Health statement out of date for birth child o One required element missing on other adult caregiver
• Ongoing foster parent training requirements met o Training hours not met o Training log missing o One foster parent met requirement but not both
• Timely Criminal Record Checks (Every 5 Years) for Other Adults in the Home o Missing one or more required elements for former foster or birth child living in the home o Missing one or more required elements for other adult caretaker living in the home
We urge the State, the Counties, and Child Placing Agencies to make improving the completeness of foster home files a priority and hope to see improvement in this in the second reporting period.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 99

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 103 of 135
 Prohibition of perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment to be foster parents
Section 11F specifies that DFCS will not allow perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment, those with policy violations that threaten child safety, or those that repeatedly or unrepentantly use of corporal punishment to become or to remain foster parents. The State’s performance on this requirement was found to be quite good, and is considered in greater detail below.
The state’s performance in preventing foster parents from using corporal punishment was found to be very good. Of the 165 foster home file reviewed, 161 (98%) showed no evidence that corporal punishment had been used, or was allowed to be used, by foster parents. In the four foster home records in which such evidence did exist, the infractions appeared to be dealt with in accordance with established DFCS policy. More detail on the State’s performance in preventing the use of corporal punishment is contained in Section III of this report.
To assess the State’s performance in not allowing perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment to become or to remain foster parents, we examined any file in our foster home sample that indicated any history of substantiated maltreatment, and cross‐referenced these cases with the Data in IDS, and in some instances, had our file reviewers re‐examine the case records on the homes involved and the children in them.
We found six homes in our sample (4%) that had a previous substantiation of maltreatment but were open during the reporting period. The disposition of these homes is detailed below.
• One of these was a pre‐adoptive home in which the adoption dissolved. The foster
mother voluntarily closed the home in December 2005. The CPS investigation substantiated abandonment.
• Two homes were substantiated for lack of supervision associated with failed child care
arrangements. They were allowed to remain open under corrective action plans and regular, unannounced caseworker visits.
• One home involved substantiated sexual abuse by a visiting uncle in 1994. A corrective
action plan was put in place that forbade future visits by the uncle, and the home has remained open since then without further incident.
• One home was substantiated for neglect for taking a child with a dirty diaper to a
Doctor’s visit. Prior to the Doctor’s visit; the child was in the DFCS office with caseworkers for much of the day which the local Resource and Development staff felt contributed to the problem. A corrective action plan was put in place and a waiver was requested from central office to keep the home open. No response to that waiver request was in the file.
• One home had a substantiation of physical abuse in 2004. A waiver to keep it open
under a corrective action plan was requested from Central Office because the child, who is non‐verbal, had bruising of an uncertain origin, the Resource Development and CPS staff differed on whether or not it was indicative of abuse, and the foster home previously had been regarded as a good one. The waiver was granted with the proviso
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 100

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 104 of 135
that the home be placed on “hold” for additional placements. The subject of the maltreatment report was subsequently moved to another placement for unrelated reasons. The home currently is limited to one placement, a medically fragile 10 year old that has been in the home since age four without incident.
Given the importance of preventing perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment from becoming or remaining foster parents, the Accountability Agents vetted each of these six cases very carefully. The first case is moot because the home was closed early in the reporting period. In the second, third, and fourth cases it appears to us that reasonable efforts were made to assure the safety of the children remaining in the home while, in their best interest, preserving the continuity of their placement arrangements.
We were concerned enough about the fifth and sixth cases to recommend the county and state staff conduct a joint staffing of them. Such a staffing was held, which helped to clarify the circumstances surrounding each case and assured us that appropriate safeguards are in place, and that a consensus exists that keeping these homes open is in the best interest of the children remaining in their care.
Section 11F also stipulates that DFCS shall be able to identify DFCS‐supervised or provider‐ supervised foster parents that have perpetrated substantiated maltreatment or had their home closed, and subsequently seek foster home approval from a CPA or a different CPA. TSU uses a provider registry to identify and to prevent such foster parents from attempting to do this, but we were not able to evaluate its effectiveness in this reporting period.
c. Operational Context
Section 11 C of the Consent Decree requires the process of licensing and approving foster homes to be carried out jointly by DFCS and the Office of Rehabilitative Services. This section describes our understanding of how DFCS and ORS collaborate in this process. It is based on interviews with staff of both these units as well as interviews with other central office and county staff.
The Office of Regulatory Services (ORS) licenses Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) and other institutional providers. A CPA must be licensed by ORS before DFCS will execute a contract with them to provide foster care. Section 5C4i of the consent decree stipulates that DFCS will contract only with licensed placement contractors. We triangulated our file results against the CPA licensing information available in Placement Central and found that 100 percent of provider‐supervised homes we sampled were overseen by CPAs that had a valid license on August 31, 2006 (the closest date available to June 30).
ORS licenses the CPAs themselves, not the foster homes they supervise. ORS only gets involved with individual provider‐supervised foster homes if they receive a complaint about a particular home. To receive a license, a CPA must allow ORS to review their policies and
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 101

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 105 of 135
procedures for compliance with the ORS rules regarding such things as home studies, visitation, non‐discrimination, etc. In deciding whether to renew a CPA’s license, ORS reviews the files of individual children against the provider record to ensure the placement was an appropriate match for the child and conducts unannounced inspections of a sample of the foster homes supervised by each CPA. If rule violations are found, the CPA can be cited for licensure violations. This process is discussed further in Part E of this Section Contract Agencies Focused on Same Outcomes.
CPAs wishing to serve children in DFCS custody must, in addition to licensure by ORS, be approved by the DFCS Treatment Services Unit (TSU). The DFCS policy manual specifies a set of uniform standards that foster care settings must meet to be approved by DFCS – in the case of DFCS supervised homes – or by CPAs – in the case of provider supervised homes. (The State’s performance in documenting foster home compliance with these approval standards was discussed in the previous section.) Before arriving at an initial approval decision, TSU reviews ORS licensing decision and follows up with ORS on any questions they have; performs a desk review and staffing of each application; and visits three of the CPAs foster homes to review physical plant and other issues not covered by the ORS licensing process. TSU also conducts utilization reviews every six months after approval in which they visit three homes of each CPA, meet with the staff, tour the cottages, and interview the children.
2. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding Placement Support
The Consent Decree contains a number of other requirements related to placement. These include restrictions on the capacity of foster and group homes; requirements that race/ethnicity will not be used inappropriately; payment, training and support requirements pertaining to foster parents; automating placement data; and accessible paper file information.
 Foster Home Capacity Restrictions
Section 5C4e of the Consent Decree limits the capacity of foster homes to three foster children or a total of six children (including the family’s biological children) absent the written approval of the Social Services Director. It also prohibits any placement that would result in more than three children under the age of three residing in a foster home, unless the children in question are a sibling group. Data from our foster home file review indicate that the state performed quite well in meeting these requirements.
Of the foster home files we reviewed, 84 percent never exceeded the three foster child limit at any time during the reporting period, and another four percent exceeded the limit with the written permission of the Social Services Director. Of the 20 homes (12%) that did exceed the limit, many exceeded it for only brief periods of time while providing respite care for another foster family.
With respect to the limit of six total children, 94 percent of the foster homes we reviewed never
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 102

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 106 of 135
exceeded that limit at any time during the reporting period and another six (4%) only exceeded it with the written permission of the Social Services Director.
As regards the limit on children under the age of three, 97 percent of the homes never exceeded this limit, and another 4 (3%) exceeded it only due to the sibling group exception. Our file review found only one instance (0.6%) in which more than three children of this age were placed in a single foster home.
 Group Care Restrictions
Section 5C4f of the Consent Decree establishes limits on the ages of children that may be placed in group care settings. Briefly, it prohibits the placement of children under the age of 6, or between the ages of 6 and 12 in group care except under certain exceptional, age group‐specific circumstances. The State performed extremely well on this requirement.
The file review on children in foster care identified 24 children (out of 165) that were placed in group care. Of these, two were under the age of 6. They were infants that were placed with their mothers (for which the Consent Decree makes an exception to all the other requirements of this Section).
The file review also found one child aged 11 who was in a group home setting prior to the entry of the Consent Decree. Section 5C4f specifies that such children are to be moved to a non‐group care setting by October 26, 2006 unless that would not be in the child’s best interest. We will report on whether the State met this requirement in our second period report.
 Race/Ethnicity/Religion Restrictions
Section 5C4h of the Consent Decree establishes that considerations of race, ethnicity, or religion shall not be the basis for delaying or denying the placement of a child with a foster family or in a group facility. Beyond that, it does allow that these may be appropriate considerations in evaluating the best interest of the child when matching a child with a particular family. This Section also reaffirms DHR’s existing prohibition against contracting with any provider that gives preference in its placement practices on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion.
With respect to the first requirement, the file review of 165 children in foster care during the reporting period identified 73 children placed in foster care between October 27, 2005 and June 30, 2006. For none of these children did the case record suggest their placements had been delayed or denied on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion.
With respect to the second requirement, interviews with ORS confirmed that one of the things they look for in assessing CPA compliance with DHR rules is a CPA policy prohibiting discrimination or preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 103

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 107 of 135
 Foster Care Maintenance Payments
Section 5B1 of the Consent Decree establishes specific Basic Foster Care Maintenance payments that are to be effective July 1, 2005. These rates are: for children aged 0‐6, $13.78; for children aged 7‐12, $15.50; and for each child aged 13 and older, $17.75. DFCS is to ensure that these rates are paid to all foster parents providing basic services whether they are DFCS‐supervised or provider‐supervised. In addition, the DHR Commissioner is to propose a periodic increase in these rates in succeeding fiscal years.
Through interviewing the DFCS Deputy Director and reviewing DFCS budget documents and contract language, we determined the State to have met its obligations under this provision. All DFCS foster homes were paid the required per diem rates, all new provider contracts contained language mandating the new rates, and the Commissioner proposed the following higher rates to be effective July 1, 2006: for children aged 0‐6, $14.18; for children aged 7‐12, $16.00; and for each child aged 13 and older, $18.25.
 Foster Parent Training and Support
Sections 5C6 and 11D of the Consent Decree stipulate that foster and pre‐adoptive parents will receive uniform pre‐service training prior to being approved or having a child placed in their home; and that they will be required to complete ongoing, annual training as part of the annual re‐approval process. Section 5C6 further stipulates that foster parents will be able to contact DFCS 24 hour a day, seven days a week with their questions or concerns. We found DFCS’ performance to be good on the first and last of these requirements, but found substantial room for improvement on the second.
The foster home case record review found evidence in the files of 97 percent of the foster homes reviewed that the pre‐service training requirements had been met. However, in the case of ongoing annual training, documentation supporting that the requirements had been met was found in only 76 percent of the files of the 144 foster homes sampled to which the requirement applied. Evidence of compliance with ongoing training requirements was substantially higher among the DFCS‐supervised foster homes in the sample (86%) than among the provider‐ supervised foster homes (51%). Care should be exercised in interpreting these data because the sample was not stratified by foster home type and the number of provider‐supervised foster homes sampled was too small to be generalized to the entire universe of provider‐supervised homes. Moreover, it is unknown to what extent these data reflect shortcomings in the actual ongoing training received by foster parents, or in the case file documentation of that training. Nevertheless, the Accountability Agents encourage DFCS to delve more deeply into the issue of foster parent ongoing training and its documentation in case files and to take appropriate remedial action.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 104

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 108 of 135
With respect to the 24/7 phone support requirement, Resource Development staff in the Counties report that they provide foster parents with a phone number they can call night or day with their questions and concerns. The record review of children in foster care did not always find this documented in the case files.
 Automated Placement Data
Section 11E of the Consent Decree stipulates that, within 90 days of the entry of the Consent Decree, DFCS will have an automated information system that can provide: demographic characteristics and information on every foster or pre‐adoptive family; a list of all foster children in the home and the DFCS office in whose custody they have been placed; information about the other children or adults in the home; the approval or re‐approval status of the home and, for provider‐supervised homes, the name and address of the supervising CPA; and a complete history back to January 2002 of any reports of maltreatment and substantiations of maltreatment.
On December 14, 2005 (48 days after the entry of the Consent Decree), staff of the Evaluation and Reporting Unit (E&R) demonstrated for the Accountability Agents modifications to the Placement Central subsystem of IDS. These modifications enable Placement Central to provide every data element specified in Section 11 E for DFCS and provider supervised foster homes alike, and as such appear to meet the letter of the Consent Decree.
Of course, an information system is only as good as the quality and completeness of the data it contains. We are aware that the State has not yet completed populating the enhanced Placement Central with provider‐supervised foster home data. In our Conclusions and Recommendations, in Part II Safety of Children in Care, and earlier in this Section, we urge the State to strengthen DFCS’ ability to manage and be accountable for provider‐supervised foster homes. Completely populating Placement Central with provider‐supervised foster home data should be regarded as an essential component of this strategy.
Section 11E further stipulates that DFCS shall consider the information described above before a child is placed or a foster home is approved or re‐approved. In our review of compliance with foster home approval and licensing standards (discussed above) and our review of the completeness of paper files (discussed below,) we found evidence that DFCS staff routinely consider the required information before placing children or approving or re‐approving foster homes. However, this process presently involves a combination of “look‐ups” in Placement Central and the Protective Services Data System components of IDS, and evaluating the contents of paper files. We believe this process could be significantly streamlined and made less error prone if Placement Central is completely populated and its data integrity assured.
 Accessible Paper File Information
Section 11G of the Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS will maintain certain information in
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 105

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 109 of 135

accessible paper file form. The particular type of information and the proportion of the foster home files we reviewed that contained it are listed below.

• Approval or re‐approval status of foster homes • Complete 5 year history of CPS reports • Complete 5 year history of CPS substantiations • Complete 5 year history of refusals to place further children • Corrective action plans or disciplinary actions

100% 43% 52% 47%
100%

The apparent disparity in the extent to which paper files contained the required documentation is probably a function of two things. First, documentation on approval status, corrective action plans and disciplinary actions has been required by DFCS policy for many years and has been the subject of training and field exercises. In contrast, the requirement for complete five year histories is very new. Second, our reviewers seemed to exhibit some confusion, as evidenced in the review notes, about how to interpret each of these requirements.

Before the next review cycle, we will ensure that we have clarity in our review team about what each of these data elements means and the standard of evidence appropriate to each. In the meantime, we urge the State to provide training and technical assistance to the counties and to providers on how to interpret and satisfy the complete five year history requirements.

E. Supervision of Contract Agencies

Sections 5B, 9, and 10B of the Consent Decree contain various provisions regarding provider reimbursement rates and contracts, specific language to be included in contracts, and the licensing and inspection of provider‐supervised placement settings. With the exception of the last of these, recent developments related to DHR’s federal funding have caused many activities related to these provisions to be scaled back or placed on “hold” pending resolution of the federal reimbursement issue. That issue is briefly described below.

In May, the Accountability Agents learned that the Federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) had informed DHR that it was no longer willing to provide Medicaid funding for “bundled” services, as it had for years under Georgia’s per diem system of reimbursement. CMS announced it was withholding approximately $70 million in reimbursement until DHR restructured its method of reimbursement.

In response, DHR submitted a proposal to CMS that would significantly change the way providers are reimbursed for services provided. As we understand it, the proposed changes include:
 Eliminating the current bundled Therapeutic Residential Intervention Services (TRIS) per diem rate;
 Eliminating the Level of Care system currently used to determine the per‐diem rate;

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 106

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 110 of 135
 Moving Behavioral Health Services to a fee‐for‐service basis; and  If Behavioral Health Services are determined to be medically necessary, providing and
billing for them through the State’s outpatient Rehabilitation Options Services Program.
As of the date of this report, CMS has not yet approved DHR’s proposed “unbundling” plan. We were informed by the DFCS Deputy Director that DFCS is reluctant to move forward with some of the other contract changes required by the Consent Decree (such as moving to performance‐based provider contracts) until CMS approves the new reimbursement structure. Since the new structure will affect approximately half the contracts awarded by DHR each year, delaying these changes until it is finalized is reasonable and prudent.
1. Rate Reimbursement Task Force
Section 5B2‐7 of the Consent Decree stipulates that a Rate Reimbursement Task Force (RRTF) be established within 60 days of the entry of the Consent Decree to recommend changes to the Level of Care system and to design a rate structure based on measurable outcomes for children.98 The RRTF was established within the required timeframe and held at least three face‐to‐face meetings, ten teleconferences, and three video conferences.
When the RRTF learned that CMS was requiring reimbursement rates to be unbundled, they sought counsel of the Accountability Agents as to how this would affect their charge. We referred them to DHR and Plaintiff’s counsel as their authorizing entities. They held a face‐to‐ face meeting with the parties and our understanding is they have received a revised charge that takes stock of the recent development with CMS. We also understand that the membership of the RRTF is being revised as one member has resigned.
2. New Contract Provisions
Section 5B1, 9A‐C and 10B4 of the Consent Decree stipulate specific language and concepts that are to be incorporated into provider contracts.99 Some of these (e.g. requiring providers to pass through to their foster homes the full basic maintenance payment) were incorporated into new contracts the start of fiscal year 2006 (July 1, 2005.) However, other provisions (e.g. establishing performance‐based provider contracts and mandating detailed reporting requirements) have been placed on hold pending the resolution of the CMS rate restructuring and the fulfillment of the revised charge to the Rate Reimbursement Task Force. We expect DHR will make full implementation of these requirements a priority once the CMS issue is settled and the RRTF has completed its work.

98 See pp. 14-15, paragraphs 2-7 in the Consent Decree 99 See pp. 13 and 23-26, Sections 5B.1, 9A-C and 10B.4 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 107

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 111 of 135

3. Licensing and Inspections

Section 9 D of the Consent Decree stipulates that the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS) will conduct licensing evaluations of child caring institutions (CCI) and child placing agencies (CPA) to, among other things, ensure their compliance with applicable terms of the Consent Decree; conduct at least one unannounced inspection per year of each CCI and CPA, and of a sample of the foster homes supervised by each CPA; and prepare a written reports detailing the findings of such visits.100 Through interviews with ORS staff and examination of written documentation we are able to confirm that ORS is fulfilling these mandates as described below:
 Licensing evaluations: The ORS licensure rules were amended to reflect applicable requirements of the Consent Decree. ORS licensure re‐evaluations examine CCI and CPA polices to ensure they conform to these requirements.
 Unannounced inspections: In conjunction with re‐licensure visits, ORS is conducting the specified unannounced inspections of CCIs and CPAs, and a sample of foster homes supervised by CPAs. We have examined a schedule for such visits that calls for each CCI or CPA serving class members to be visited at least once within the first year of the entry of the Consent Decree.
 Written reports detailing the findings of each unannounced inspections are being prepared. We have examined a number of them.

F. Improving Automated Support

Georgia is currently designing a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) in conformance with federal requirements and the Consent Decree.101 This system will replace several of the State’s existing systems used for collecting and reporting data to the federal government as well as to DFCS management and staff. The Consent Degree required Georgia to select and contract with a vendor by December 31, 2005. Accenture LLP was selected in November 2005 and the State signed a contract with the firm to begin the work immediately. However, the State was not able to execute the contract with the firm until February 2006 due to another bidder’s protest of the selection and the time required to resolve the protest. The expected date for full implementation is January 2008.

G. Quality Assurance

The Consent Decree requires DFCS to maintain an appropriate quality assurance system.102 The Evaluation and Reporting (E&R) Section is the primary vehicle for internal quality assurance. Since the entry of the Consent Decree, it has increased its capacity for case record reviews and other quality assurance activities in Fulton and DeKalb Counties. It has created a specific

100 See p. 24, Section 9D in the Consent Decree 101 See p. 22, Section 7 in the Consent Decree 102 See p. 42, Section 18 in the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 108

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 112 of 135

“Metro Unit” with a staff of 12 selected from among experienced DFCS personnel around the state for the quality assurance activities.
This newly established unit formed the core group of reviewers used in the case record reviews conducted under the oversight of the Accountability Agents in the summer of 2006. Senior leadership from E&R and this group were involved in the design of the record review instruments. They will continue to conduct case reviews using a variety of data collection instruments including the instruments designed for the Accountability Agents as well as those designed for the federal Child and Family Service Reviews.
In addition to this dedicated unit, E&R has also provided staff support for the G2 process. Data analysts from E&R extract requested information from IDS and other available state automated systems and conduct targeted analyses to test the hypotheses generated at G2 meetings.
H. Maximizing Federal Funding
The Consent Decree contains requirements for DHR/DFCS to 1) maximize available federal funding, and 2) not supplant state dollars with any federal increase that results from the maximization efforts. To evaluate this requirement, the State is to establish a baseline of “present” levels of state and federal funding. 103 Since the Consent Decree was entered in State Fiscal Year 2006 (July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2006,) the state was asked to provide the funding information for State Fiscal Year 2006 as the baseline year.
The two primary sources of federal funding for child welfare of specific concern in the Consent Decree are the Title IV‐B and Title IV‐E programs established in the Social Security Act. Title IV‐B is a capped allocation of federal funds to the states for child welfare services. Title IV‐E is an open‐ended entitlement providing matching funds to states for foster care maintenance payments and administrative and training costs based on the portion of children in foster care who are considered eligible.
The following discussion provides background on Title IV‐E eligibility requirements and limitations and examines the baseline year funding distribution. In addition, we examine a key lever for maximizing federal funding: the file documentation and procedures to allow all eligible children to be properly claimed. Finally, we describe DHR/DFCS preparation for the Federal Title IV‐E audit this year.
1. Background: Basic Eligibility Requirements for Claiming Title IV‐E Funding
Several eligibility requirements must be met to justify, in part, claiming Title IV‐E matching funds on a child’s behalf. Exhibit VI‐1 provides an over view of the requirements as defined by the federal Department of Health and Human Services. All six requirements listed are affected

103 See p. 31, Section 14 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 109

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 113 of 135
by State efforts to properly 1) document the reasons for children coming into care, 2) finalize permanency plans, 3) retain custodial authority, 4) place children in approved homes with substitute care givers who pass certain safety checks, and 5) document the family’s income at the time of removal and annually thereafter while the child remains in care. Some of these apply at the time a child enters foster care and others must be documented on an on‐going basis. The income documentation is required for the “means testing” portion of eligibility determination and requires the state to assess whether the child’s family would have been eligible in 1996 for the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. This program was replaced with the current Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) in 1997. This requirement is referred to as the “look back” provision because it looks back to 1996 to assess current circumstances. In other words, if a family’s 2006 income is more than what would have been allowed in 1996 to receive assistance through the AFDC program, the child is not eligible for Title IV‐E assistance while in foster care. Federal analysts have concluded that “fewer children will be eligible for Title IV‐E in the future as income limits for the program remain static while inflation raises both incomes and the poverty line.”104 State efforts to increase federal IV‐E dollars therefore, may be frustrated to an extent by this “look back” provision.
104 “Federal Foster Care Financing: How and Why Current Funding Structure Fails to Meet the Needs of the Child Welfare Field,” ASPE Policy Brief, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Office of Human Services Policy, US. Department of Health and Human Services, updated August 2005, p.6.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 110

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 114 of 135
Exhibit VI‐1 Eligibility Requirements for Title IV‐E Foster Care
Contrary to the welfare determination. A child’s removal from the home must be the result of a judicial determination to the effect that continuation in the home would be contrary to the child’s welfare, or that placement in foster care would be in the best interest of the child. Children in foster care as a result of a voluntary placement agreement are not subject to this requirement.
Reasonable efforts determination. The State agency must obtain a judicial determination within 60 days of a child’s removal from the home that it has made reasonable efforts to maintain the family unit and prevent the unnecessary removal of a child from home, as long as the child’s safety is ensured. In addition, there must be ongoing documentation that the State is making reasonable efforts to establish and finalize a permanency plan in a timely manner (every 12 months).
State agency placement and care responsibility. The State child welfare agency must have responsibility for placement and care of the child. Usually this means the child is in the State’s custody. A tribal agency or other public agency may have responsibility for the child’s placement and care if there is a written agreement to that effect with the child welfare agency.
Licensed Foster Family Home or Child Care Institution. The child must be placed in a home or facility that meets the standards for full licensure or approval that are established by the State.
Criminal background checks or safety checks. The State must provide documentation that criminal records checks have been conducted with respect to prospective foster and adoptive parents and safety checks have been made regarding staff of child care institutions.
Pre‐welfare reform AFDC eligibility. The State must document that the child was financially needy and deprived of parental support at the time of the child’s removal from home, using criteria in effect in its July 16, 1996 State plan for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program. Income eligibility and deprivation must be re‐determined annually. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. August 2005 Issue Brief
2. Georgia Baseline: Federal and State Funding Distribution for State Fiscal Year 2006
Georgia submits quarterly and year‐end cost reports for Title IV‐B and Title IV‐E. As the final cost report for SFY 2006 was not yet available at the time of this report, the numbers provided in Table VI‐6 represent a preliminary baseline. The final baseline will include Title IV‐E administration and training dollars as well as foster care maintenance payments.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 111

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 115 of 135

Table IV‐6 Preliminary Baseline for Title IV‐E Maximization Efforts

Total of

SFY

Federal IV‐B, IV‐E, and

State dollars

State

Federal Total

Funds from Title IV‐B

2006

$241,166,021

$120,383,196

$120,782,825

$9,397,209

Source: DHR/DFCS * Reimbursement for Foster Care Maintenance Payments only

Funds from Title IV‐E*
$111,385,616

3. Case Record Review Findings Related to the Documentation Required for Eligibility Determination

Despite the potential limitation imposed by the previously described “look back” provision, the case record review findings identify opportunities for improving the documentation that will better enable the State to increase its claims. Performance regarding the 12‐month permanency hearings was previously discussed in Section IV.
 55 percent of the 143 applicable case records105 had all the applicable language in the court orders necessary within the required time frames to assess eligibility for federal funding under Title IV‐E. If a child entered care on or after March 27, 2000, there must be a court order from the 72 hour hearing that contains child specific language that explains why leaving the child in his/her home would be “contrary to the welfare of” or “not in the best interest of” the child. In addition, there must be documentation of a judicial determination within 60 days from the child’s removal that addresses the child specific “reasonable efforts” made to prevent the child from being removed from his/her home.

A larger proportion of the files had one or the other documentation requirement in the necessary timeframes. For example, 68 percent had the child specific language in the emergency placement order and about 69 percent had child specific reasonable efforts language in the 60 day judicial determination.
 85 percent of the 124 cases that were still open on June 30, 2006 had valid court orders or other authority for current placement. Another 7 percent had documentation that court action regarding placement authority had occurred within the previous six weeks, but the file did not yet contain the court order. This performance is slightly lower than the results of the E&R baseline where about 95 percent of the files had a valid court order or other authority for placement such as voluntary consents to place a child, or voluntary surrender of parental rights.

105 Children who entered care through an emergency placement on or after March 27, 2000.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 112

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 116 of 135
 64 percent of the 76 children in care for 12 months and still in care on June 30, 2006 had a timely extension of DFCS’ custodial authority. Although 85 percent of the records indicated that DFCS current placement and custodial authority was valid, DFCS did have a legal lapse in its custody of about one third of the children in the 13 months proceeding June 30, 2006. There is still a need to significantly improve this performance; however, this result is higher than the baseline case record review conducted by E&R which showed approximately half of the cases had timely extension of custody.
These findings are similar to the findings of the pre‐work done in preparation for the September 2006 Federal Title IV‐E Eligibility Reviews.
4. Periodic federal audit and review results Compliance with eligibility rules is monitored through Federal Title IV‐E Eligibility Reviews that have been conducted since 2000. The results of these reviews can affect the process states use to claim eligibility. The August 2003 review found Georgia to be in substantial compliance. Georgia was scheduled for another Title IV‐E Eligibility Review in September 2006. The final results of the audit were pending at the time of this report. However, DFCS took a number of steps to prepare for the audit and minimize potential errors. Starting in January 2006, the State held orientation and training sessions around the state to prepare for the audit. These sessions reviewed the lessons learned from the August 2003 audit which also found a need for child specific court orders among other things.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 113

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 117 of 135

Part VII MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Child Protective Services Data
Section 20 of the Consent Decree contains the Agreement’s miscellaneous provisions. Two provisions, contained in Section 20G, have substantive data reporting requirements106 are covered in this part of the report.
A. Repeat Maltreatment Data
Section 20 G 1 of the Consent Decree requires DHR to provide the Accountability Agents data and information sufficient to enable them to verify data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experienced repeat maltreatment. This is operationalized in the Consent Decree as follows:
• The number of children in each county who, during the reporting period, experienced
substantiated maltreatment;
• The number and percentage of children in the first item who also experienced
maltreatment during the preceding 12 month period.
These data, as reported by the State, are reproduced in Table VII‐1, below. The approach taken by the Accountability Agents to verify it is discussed in Appendix B.
Table VII‐ 1 Maltreatment Re‐occurrence Data by County

Components of Maltreatment Re‐occurrence Data a) Number of children during the reporting period (October 27, 2005 – June 30, 2006) who experience substantiated maltreatment in care. b) the number of children in a) of this item who also experienced substantiated maltreatment during the preceding 12 month period b) the percentage of children who had substantiated maltreatment during the preceding 12 months
Source: DFCS Internal Data System

DeKalb 888
63 7.1

Fulton 2152
210 9.8

106 See Kenny A. Consent Decree, pp. 45-46.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 114

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 118 of 135
B. Diversion Data Section 20 G 2 of the Consent Decree requires DHR to provide the Accountability Agents data and information sufficient to enable them to verify data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experienced substantiated maltreatment within 11‐365 days after being referred to DHR’s diversion program. Due to the 11‐365 day follow up period for the diversion statistics, diversion data will not be reported until our third report, covering the period through June 30, 2007.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 115

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 119 of 135
Appendix A Kenny A. v. Sonny Perdue Consent Decree Outcomes
Section 15 of the Consent Decree requires 31 outcomes. These outcomes are grouped in the categories of Safety, Permanency, Well‐Being, and Strengthened Infrastructure
SAFETY 1. Children in Foster Care are Safe From Maltreatment
• Outcome 1: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report.
• Outcome 3: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face‐to‐face, private contact with alleged victim, including face‐to‐face contact with a child who is non‐verbal due to age or for any other reason.
• Outcome 2: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report.
• Outcome 5: By the end of the first reporting period, no more than 1.27% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. By the end of the second reporting period, no more than .94% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. By the end of the fourth reporting period, no more than .57% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care.
• Outcome 6: By the end of the second reporting period, 90% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous six months. By the end of the third reporting period, 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.
PERMANENCY 2. Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
• Outcome 7: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 90 days of entering foster care. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care.
• Outcome 16: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings.
• Outcome 19: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all children in
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 116

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 120 of 135
care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii). By the end of the third reporting period, at least 80% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii). By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii). • Outcome 21: By the end of the third reporting period, 75% of all the children with the goal reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. By the end of the fourth reporting period, 85% of all the children with the goal reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. • Outcome 23: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in the Class at a point in time during the reporting period who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have had visits with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.
3. Children Achieve Permanency (permanency= reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.)
Children in care at the time of the consent decree: • Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and
the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. • Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. • Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children who reached
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 117

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 121 of 135
the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.. • Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 backlog pool”): For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the third period at least 40% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the third reporting period, by the end of the fourth reporting period at least 40% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. • Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “over 24 backlog pool”): For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the third reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the third reporting period, by the end of the fourth reporting period at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.
Children entering custody after consent decree: • Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent
Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. • Outcome 8b: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% (1) shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification or permanent placement with relatives; or (2) shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less of entering custody: adoption,, permanent legal custody, or guardianship.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 118

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 122 of 135
Permanency actions after consent decree: • Outcome 11: By the end of the second reporting period, for all children whose parental
rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights. • Outcome 4: By the end of the second reporting period, no more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re‐entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. • Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period.
Court reviews of permanency actions • Outcome 27: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of foster children in
custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐month period following the last review. By the end of the third reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐month period following the last review. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐ month period following the last review. • Outcome 28: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12‐month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.
WELL BEING 4. Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity.
• Outcome 17: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 86.7% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 119

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 123 of 135
fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. • Outcome 18: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in
care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave. • Outcome 20: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had at least one in‐placement visit and one other visit, as defined in Section 5.D, each month by their case manager. During the prior 12 months in custody. • Outcome 22: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had visits between their DFCS placement case manager and their foster parent, group care, institutional or other caretaker at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody.
5. Children and Youth Receive the Services they Need • Outcome 24: By the end of the second reporting period, the percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 10 percentage points. By the end of the fourth reporting period, that percentage shall increase by an additional 10 percentage points. • Outcome 30: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.
STRENGTHENED INFRASTRUCTURE 6. Capacity to Support Placement Process
• Outcome 25: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 85% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 98% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status.
• Outcome 31: By the end of the second reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than 10% of all children in foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 120

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 124 of 135
placement will result in more than three(3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children. 7. Timely and Complete Court Orders • Outcome 26: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody at a point in lime during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in lime during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act • Outcome 29: By the end of the third reporting, no more than 5% of all children in custody of DHR/DFCS for 12 months or more shall have lapse of legal custody within the prior 13 months.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 121

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 125 of 135
Appendix B Methodology
The Accountability Agents used several methodologies to make the judgments, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report: (i) review of written materials and data supplied by the State and Counties; (ii) interviews; (iii) extensive case record reviews; and (iv) strategic engagement of State and county personnel for pro‐active, hands‐on monitoring through biweekly meetings known as the “G2.” This appendix describes the data sources and each of these methods.
A. Data Sources and Methodology for Measuring State Performance
Five primary sources of information were used to assess the State of Georgia’s progress.
1. State Data Systems
The first source of information is the DFCS administrative data systems that the Department currently employs to hold case‐related information and prepare reports for the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, the citizens of Georgia and other interested parties. This is system is known as “IDS.”
There is general agreement that IDS is not sufficiently robust to support the kind of case management and data analysis desired by the State of Georgia. Over the next few years it will be replaced by a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) that the state is currently developing. However, IDS currently is sufficient to provide reports on a number, but not all of the outcomes.
a. Addressing Data Integrity Issues
Like all information systems, the accuracy of IDS’ data is function of the accuracy with which data are coded and input into the system. Previous external evaluations and a baseline case record review conducted in November and December of 2005 by the DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Section (E&R) have noted some significant discrepancies between the information contained in case records and data produced by IDS. It is important to understand that these discrepancies appear to be caused by human error (typically, mistakes in interpretation and coding of the facts contained in the case record that result in erroneous data being entered into the system) not any malfunction of the computer system itself that we were able to detect. Data fields that are less complex or qualitative (e.g., whether or not an allegation was substantiated) are less prone to coding errors and produce data with a higher degree of reliability. Data fields that are more complex, qualitative, or ambiguous are more error prone and demonstrate greater problems of reliability.
As a result of such issues, we have been very selective about which IDS data we rely on for
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 122

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 126 of 135
assessing compliance with the Consent Decree’s provisions. Most of the data in this report was generated by our own case record reviews. We have also made a major effort to identify important data fields that are error prone and to work with the Counties and the E&R and DFCS training staff to get the errors corrected and to revise guidance and training in the hope of preventing the errors from occurring in the future. These activities are described in more detail below:
 Data accuracy discussions in the G2 and subsequent data “clean‐up”
Starting with our second G2 meeting, data integrity and improving data accuracy has been an on‐going agenda item. The DFCS Evaluation & Reporting Section has been supplying the counties with case listings for the outcome data they report out of IDS. The counties are using these lists to review the cases and verify the information in IDS or identify information that needs to be corrected in IDS to agree with the actual case file. The most striking example of this effort is the work that has been done to enable IDS to produce a more accurate picture of the rate of maltreatment in care. In the course of the G2 discussions and counties reviewing files, they discovered that there was a misunderstanding around the child’s location at the time of the maltreatment. Many caseworkers mistakenly believed that a question on the maltreatment investigation data entry form asking for the child’s location referred to the child’s CURRENT location, rather than to the setting in which maltreatment occurred. This misunderstanding caused the location of the maltreatment to be entered into IDS as the foster placement, when, in fact, the maltreatment occurred in the child’s home. As a result of this finding, the counties provided greater instruction to the case managers regarding the form and DFCS made changes to the form to add greater clarity about the desired information. The counties continue to review the lists from E&R and correct discrepancies as they are identified. Over time, we believe this will produce a much higher degree of consistency between IDS and case records.
 Case record reviews collected comparative information
In several instances, the case record readers were asked to collect the exact piece of information directly from the sampled case files and from IDS by going “on‐line” and looking at the IDS data base. These instances included information about a child’s date of entry into foster care, current placement type and date, and permanency goal.
2. Evaluation and Reporting 2005 Baseline Case Record Review
During October and November 2005, the DFCS Evaluation and Reporting unit conducted four case record reviews of key aspects of the Consent Decree to provide the State and Counties with a baseline of their performance against the Consent Decree requirements. This effort included reviews of 1) Maltreatment in care investigations, 2) records of children in care, 3) records of children with the goal of adoption and partial termination of parental rights, and 4) DFCS
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 123

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 127 of 135

Foster home records. This information was used throughout the reporting period as discussion points in G2 meetings and informed the development of the case record review conducted for this report. For three of the reviews, samples were separately drawn for each county from active records in the period of September 2004 through August 2005. All of the investigations of maltreatment in care were reviewed.

3. Document Review and Interviews

During the monitoring period, the Accountability Agents collected written reports and materials regarding foster care and adoption policy, budgets, findings from the Child Advocate, licensing, treatment services, worker training and certification, and preparation for the upcoming Federal IV‐E audit. At the state level, we interviewed the leadership of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Treatment Services Unit, Statewide Risk Assessment, Education and Training Services Section, and other administrative offices. At the local county level, we interviewed supervisors and case managers responsible for 1) investigating reports of maltreatment in care, 2) placement, and 3) foster parent training and support. We worked directly with State and County Quality Assurance staff to analyze data collected and tracked at the local level such as specialized case management caseloads, medical exams, and adoption recruitment plans.

4. Structured Case Record Reviews

A second source of information is systematic case record reviews (CRRs.) Four case record reviews were conducted: 1) investigations of maltreatment in care; 2) foster home approval status and capacity; 3) children in foster care placements; and 4) children with the goal of adoption. Table B‐4 summarizes sample characteristics of each review. The following discussion provides more detail on the sampling approach, the review instruments development, review logistics, reviewer qualifications and quality assurance, and analytical process.

a.

Sampling Approach

As indicated in Table B‐4, 100 percent of the investigations of maltreatment in care between October 27, 2005 and June 30, 2006 were read. Therefore, the margin of error in these results is extremely small and would reflect case record reviewer differences rather than differences within the universe.

For the three other case record reviews, random samples were drawn from three different universes:
 All foster homes located in DeKalb and Fulton counties that had a DeKalb or Fulton child placed in the home at anytime between October 27, 2005 to May 31, 2006. This included private agency supervised homes as well as DFCS supervised homes. This timeframe was

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 124

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 128 of 135

selected to enable the case record review to begin in the first part of July. It was presumed that the difference in the number and type of homes in the population between this time frame and one that extended to the end of June 2006 would be immaterial to the results.  All foster care cases (children) active in DeKalb and Fulton counties any time between October 27, 2005 to June 30, 2006.  All children with the goal of adoption with active cases in DeKalb and Fulton counties any time between October 27, 2005 to June 30, 2006, excluding finalized adoptions.

For each of these reviews, samples were drawn such that the findings would have a +/‐ 7% error rate at a 95% confidence level. As described later in this appendix, a certain number of records included in the original samples of Foster Homes, Foster Care, and Adoptions could not be read and were rejected based on pre‐determined criteria. This level of precision is for frequencies reported for the sample as a whole. Data provided on subsets of the sample are less precise; however, we have not calculated separate margins of error for the different subsets used in this first report. To achieve the minimum number of records for each review, small additional, random replacement samples were drawn. In the case of the Foster Homes, however, the replacement sample was drawn solely from the pool of DFCS supervised homes.

Table B‐1 Case Record Review Sample Size and Associated Margin of Error

Target of Review Foster Home Investigations
Foster Homes Children in Foster Care
Children with the goal of adoption

Universe of cases
74

Desired Maximum Sample Size 74

808

160

3,3351 children 185

with active cases

any time October

27, 2005 and June

30, 2006

322

130

Actual Number Reviewed

Margin of Error

52 completed by DeKalb and Fulton 22 completed by other counties involving DeKalb and Fulton children 165 165

+/‐ 0.0 percent
+/‐ 7 percent +/‐ 7 percent

115

+/‐7 percent

b. Instrument Design

Four separate data collection Instruments were developed, one for each sample. They were developed in conjunction with the DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Section (E&R) and

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 125

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 129 of 135

consultants from Georgia State University (GSU) schools of public administration and social work. The instruments were field tested and Counsel for the Plaintiffs reviewed and recommended changes, many of which were incorporated into the final instruments. However this work occurred in a very compressed time period. The final products would have benefited from more time for consideration and refinements. Learning from this first effort will be incorporated into the next case record review.

c.

Data Collection Schedule and Logistics

Planning for the data collection effort began in March 2006 with discussions with E&R and GSU regarding formatting data instruments for efficient data capture and analysis. To achieve the greatest level of accuracy and to meet reporting deadlines, it was determined that DFCS data collectors would input their case record review responses directly into an Excel database. GSU research assistants prepared these databases from the instruments provided by the Accountability Agents. These spreadsheets were altered as the guides were prepared and modified. One spreadsheet was used for each data collection instrument. Each instrument had at least one page and up to four pages in the spreadsheet. Each question described the possible answers to that question. A majority of the questions requested numerical, coded responses (i.e. 1 for yes or 2 for no). Some of the questions allowed for a Not Applicable response generically coded as 8888 or an Unable to Determine generically coded as 7777. A few responses provided for the next several questions to be skipped as being not applicable if that response was chosen. Skipped questions were coded as 6666. Answers that were not chosen or questions that were not responded to were coded 9999. A majority of the questions also offered a section for unlimited comments. If no comments were necessary, as determined by the reviewer, then 9999 was entered into the comment column. If a reviewer felt comments were necessary and no comment column was provided, a general comment column was also made available at the end of each spreadsheet.

Field testing of the instruments using paper versions was conducted in June 2006. Changes were made to the instruments based on these reviews. Original files were reviewed between July 10 and August 15, 2006. Data analysis began in August as GSU began compiling the collected data into four data bases.

Data collection began in July with the foster home records selected from private agencies. Reviewers went to the private agencies and reviewed the records on‐site. They also photocopied the complete records to bring back to E&R. The remaining records for investigations, foster care, adoptions, and DFCS supervised foster homes were reviewed at the county offices where the active cases are maintained. Closed records were brought to these sites for review.

Because this was the first time reviewers had reviewed private agency foster home files, the on‐ site review of these records proved to be an additional testing period for the instruments. After reading these records, numerous suggestions for revising the instrument were made to reflect

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 126

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 130 of 135

differences between DFCS and private provider records. As a result, these records were re‐read in August using a revised instrument and the photocopied records. Reviewers were assigned different records so that no reviewer read the same record they previously had reviewed.

d. Review Team Qualifications and Training

Twelve E&R staff were the primary case readers. These staff members average 25 years of experience in DFCS and are very familiar with the DFCS’s policies and practices. They were selected for this task based on their skills, experience, and knowledge.

There was a brief training before commencing each record review. The training consisted of reviewing and discussing the wording and meaning of each question on the data collection instruments. Additional changes were made to the guides and spreadsheets as a result of these discussions. The GSU project coordinator and research assistants also provided a one half day training session in the use of the Excel spreadsheets. DFCS reviewers were able to practice with the spreadsheets on their computers, ask questions, and offer feedback. Training is another area that would have benefited from more time. Reviewing practice records would have been helpful to work out the questions that arose. More time will be devoted to this aspect in the next review round.

DFCS reviewers and GSU researcher staff were provided with a digital file containing a “Handbook” and a copy of the consent decree for reference. In addition, reviewers had personal copies of the instruments in hard copy on which they had made notations regarding the discussions about definitions, responses, and where within the case records to locate certain pieces of information.

e.

Quality Assurance

Reading accuracy and inter‐reader reliability was assured by an extensive quality assurance process that included constant “calibration” and a “second read” of the records. Two senior E&R reviewers were designated team leaders. They were responsible for responding to reviewer questions regarding clarification or how to interpret information contained in the record. These team leaders shared with one another the questions being asked and the responses they were giving to reviewers so as to assure consistency. In this way, patterns among questions were monitored and instructions were clarified for all reviewers as necessary. Team leaders reviewed each reviewers work at the completion of each review. The Accountability Agents were also on‐site several days a week during the review and provided another resource for questions and clarification. Finally, reviewers were encouraged to provide explanatory comments for there responses if they felt the situation they found did not adequately fit the question being asked or additional detail for some critical questions was desired. These comments were invaluable to the Accountability Agents as they reviewed the data collected and made judgments about response recodes when necessary.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 127

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 131 of 135

The Georgia State University (GSU) project coordinator and three research assistants with backgrounds in social service and/or case record review provided an additional level of Quality Analysis. They read 30 percent each of Foster Care, Adoptions and Foster Home and CPS investigations samples. The records were randomly selected from each reviewers completed set. In some instances, they read more records done by particular reviewers who seemed to have the most difficulty with the technology and some of the elements of the review. In the future, the QA reviewers will read a larger portion of the files particularly when a new instrument is being introduced.

To calculate inter rater reliability GSU selected variables from all four files (Adoptions, CPS Investigations, Foster Homes and Foster Care) where both the reviewers and the QA reviewers had access to the same information in the case file. Each response was not tested for inter‐rater reliability. Correlations between the reviewer results and the QA reviewer results were correlated using SPSS and a Cronbach’s Alpha statistic was calculated for each. Cronbachʹs Alpha measures how well a set of items, in this case the reviewer responses and the QA reviewer responses, correlate or match. Cronbachʹs Alpha is not a statistical test ‐ it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). Note that a reliability coefficient of .70 or higher is considered ʺacceptableʺ in most Social Science research situations like the Kenny A case review.

The Cronbach’s Alpha measure for each of the data sets are provided in Table B‐2, below. All measures are well above the threshold of .70.

Table B‐2 Cronbach’s Alpha Measure of Inter‐Rater Reliability for Each Case Record Review Sample

Sample

Cronbach’s Alpha Measure

CPS Investigations Foster Homes Foster Care Adoptions

.94792 .85259 .94792 .93018

A final check on quality came during the analysis. When the analysis identified a discrepancy that could not be explained by the reviewer comments, the Accountability Agents requested a reviewer to go back to the file in question and collect more specific information on which to make a judgment. During the analysis, it became clear to the Accountability Agents that the majority of reviewer errors resulted from the 1) electronic technology, “paperless” process used or 2) poorly worded questions that still caused confusion among some reviewers. Both these errors can be addressed with different data collection software with built‐in data edits and more careful attention to the instrument design and testing.

f.

Data analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used for analyzing the collected data.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 128

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 132 of 135

GSU staff assisted in creating descriptive statistics for the Accountability Agents.

g. Records in Sample that Were not Read

Not all records included in the original samples were reviewed. Because of the data integrity challenges previously discussed, we anticipated that some number of records in each sample would not meet the criteria for the record review. Before the reviews began, we established a set of reasons for why a case record may not be read. Table B‐3 provides a summary distribution of the cases that were not read with the reasons for not reading them. Need to add about reporting records that could not be located.

Target of Review Foster Home Investigations
Foster Homes
Children in Foster Care
Children with the goal of adoption

Table B‐3

Case Records Drawn for Original Sample, Not Reviewed

Number of cases sampled but not read as part of the review and reason why

they were not read

Files could not be located (investigations by counties other than DeKalb or 2

Fulton)

Children not in DFCS custody

14

Children were not in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton County DFCS

25

Coded incorrectly as maltreatment in care

42

Investigations initiated on reports occurring before the review period

7

Reports on relative homes that were not foster homes

3

Investigated in another county

1

Allegation occurred while on visitation with relative

1

Total

95

Home did not have a child in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton Counties

13

during the review period

Records could not be located

7

Homes closed before the review period

2

Home not a foster home

1

Oversight transferred to another county

1

Total

24

Adoptions had been finalized, records were unavailable

14

Child was in care less than 5 days

9

Child reached age of 18 before the review period

2

Custody transferred to a relative before review period

2

Child never in care

1

Cases not located

3

Cases provided too late for review

6

Other reasons

3

Total

40

Adoption was not the permanency goal

16

Cases not available because they had been pulled for the Federal IV‐E

2

review

Total

18

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 129

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 133 of 135
5. Biweekly meetings with the management teams of Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS (G2)
The Accountability Agents met twice each month with Fulton and DeKalb directors, senior management, supervisors and case managers, and senior central office staff. These meetings allowed for hands‐on monitoring and data verification. Specifically, the purpose of the G2 has been fourfold:
o Engage Fulton and DeKalb County senior management teams in tracking their own progress in achieving the Consent Degree outcomes;
o Have “real‐time” communication about successes and areas of concern regarding the progress of reform;
o Establish a clear understanding of the relationship between practice, process, and infrastructure enhancements and outcome achievements; and,
o Integrate the settlement outcomes and required practice and process into other initiatives the counties are engaged in, such as Family to Family and the Program Improvement Plan (PIP) to help develop and articulate the “big picture” of reform.
The process during the G2 starts with using administrative data to prompt the group to develop hypotheses about underlying problems that threaten the achievement of critical outcomes, and about potential solutions. Fresh data that shed light on the validity of those hypotheses are then brought back to a subsequent meeting. Based on the group’s examination and discussion of the fresh data, a given hypothesis may then be rejected, accepted, or refined and retested. For hypotheses that are accepted, in‐depth “So What?” conversations take place during which best practices among field staff may be highlighted, operational strategies that leverage the learning that has transpired are devised, resource allocation decisions may be made, and parties responsible for implementation identified. In addition to developing, identifying resources for, and implementing data‐based strategies for improving child and family outcomes, a significant by‐product of the G2 process has been a fairly dramatic improvement in the quality of some of the automated data for DeKalb and Fulton counties.
B. Methodology for Verifying State Repeat Maltreatment Data
Section 20 G of the Consent Decree requires DHR to provide the Accountability Agents data and information sufficient to enable us to verify data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experience repeat maltreatment or substantiated maltreatment within 11‐365 days after being referred to DHR’s diversion program. Due to the 11‐365 day follow up period for the diversion statistics, diversion will not be reported on until our third report, covering the period through June 30, 2007. The DHR data on repeat maltreatment in DeKalb and Fulton Counties are presented in Section VII of this report. Following is a discussion of the approach we took to verify it.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 130

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 134 of 135
The validity of the State statistics on repeat maltreatment rest on the accuracy of the data coding and data input associated with maltreatment investigations, and the validity and rigor of the file matching algorithm. These are considered separately below.
1. Data Coding and Input
Data fields that are less complex or qualitative (e.g., whether or not an allegation was substantiated) are less prone to coding errors and produce data with a higher degree of reliability. Data fields that are more complex, qualitative, or ambiguous are more error prone and demonstrate greater problems of reliability. Data on the results of maltreatment investigations fall into the former category. When a report of maltreatment is received, it is reviewed by CPS intake staff, logged into the county’s tracking system, and if it meets the criteria to be investigated, an investigator initiates an investigation. Pertinent data about the report and subsequent investigation, including whether or not the investigation substantiated the allegation, are entered on Form 453. A casework supervisor reviews the completed form 453 and when they are satisfied as to its quality, they sign off in it. The completed form is then input into IDS.
Interviews with county investigations staff and review of 100 percent of the investigations of maltreatment in care give us confidence that IDS captures virtually 100 percent of the investigations that are conducted. We did find one case in which the case notes indicated that a maltreatment investigation was initiated and face‐to‐face contact made within the required time frames, but the results of the investigation were not transferred from the case notes form (Form 452) to the CPS report form (Form 453) and therefore the case had not been entered into IDS. The investigator on this case was an experienced social worker from New York who had been a Georgia DFCS employee for about three months. This case is being re‐investigated by DeKalb County staff and a Form 453 will be completed for it and entered into IDS. We are satisfied that this was an isolated and anomalous incident. We did not find any instances in which substantiated cases were miscoded as unsubstantiated, or vice versa.
The file review of CPS investigations of alleged maltreatment in foster care also found one instance in which an alleged victim documented in the file and recorded on the form 453 did not appear in IDS. Conversely, we found one instance in which there was an alleged victim listed in IDS that was not identified by our file review.
The problem of disagreement between the file review and IDS on maltreatment data appears to be very limited. The single child involved in the case that was not reflected in IDS represents less than one percent of the population covered by our file review of maltreatment in care investigations, and did not involve a case of substantiated maltreatment. Still, it illustrates that while underreporting of substantiated maltreatment is quite unlikely, theoretically, it could happen. Obviously, if it did happen and that same child was to experience repeat maltreatment, it too would be under‐reported.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 131

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 548 Filed 11/03/2006 Page 135 of 135
2. File Matching Algorithm
To produce the data on repeat maltreatment required by the Consent Decree, E&R used the following algorithm:
• Data for Fulton and Dekalb are extracted from the state Protective Services Data System
(PSDS), a component of IDS;
• Children with substantiated maltreated are selected from two timeframes ‐‐ the
reporting period and the preceding 12 months;
• Foster children are deleted from the files; • Children from the reporting period are matched with children from the preceding 12
months; and
• Resulting matches are deemed to be children that experienced repeat maltreatment.
The record matching algorithm used by E&R is based on the way the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) historically recommended states conduct such matches. That is, a computer is programmed to match two case record listings on a set of consistently available demographic descriptors. In Georgia’s case, the fields are first name, last name, date of birth, and gender. A significant limitation of this approach is that only exact matches are counted. In other words a child who had experienced repeat maltreatment might be missed by the match if the first referral listed him as John O’Connor, and the second listed him as John O’Conner; or if his birth date on either referral was transposed as the 13th instead of the 31st.
However, the DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Section, working with a computer services vendor, recently undertook the development of a unique child identifier to enable it to produce and send to the federal Department of Health and Human Services an NCANDS Child File. Such an identifier will soon enhance the accuracy of such computer matches as those required to calculate the incidence of repeat maltreatment. Georgia’s new unique child identifier will also become a feature of the new SACWIS system. A recent beta test of Georgia’s unique identifier by DHHS showed that it increased the “hit” rate on Georgia’s statewide repeat maltreatment match by about 0.4 percentage points.107 As indicated in Section VII, the repeat maltreatment rates reported there for DeKalb and Fulton counties likely understate the true incidence of repeat maltreatment by a similar margin of error. E&R hopes to have the new unique identifier fully tested and ready for use in time for our second report, which should improve the reliability of this measure.

107 Georgia Child and Family services Review Data Profile: August 24, 2006.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page 132

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 2 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

-------------------------------------------------x

KENNY A., by his next friend, )

Linda Winn; et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

vs.

) Civil Action No. 1: 02-CV- 1686-MHS

)

SONNY PERDUE, in his official )

capacity as Governor of the

)

State of Georgia; et al.

)

)

Defendants. )

-------------------------------------------------x

CONSENT DECREE

1. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs brought this class action lawsuit by the filing of a complaint on June 6, 2002, in the Superior Court of Fulton County, seeking declaratory and prospective injunctive relief against Defendants based upon alleged violations of constitutional and statutory rights arising out of the operation of foster care systems in Fulton and DeKalb Counties. Plaintiffs alleged both federal and state law claims. As relates to Fulton County, plaintiffs alleged that the County failed to provide adequate and effective legal counsel to plaintiffs in all deprivation and termination of parental rights proceedings, and that this failure violated plaintiffs’ rights under the Georgia Juvenile Code and the Georgia Constitution. All Defendants joined in removing the case to this Court, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction and denying that they violated any constitutional or statutory obligations.
1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 3 of 20
In order to resolve all issues pending between these parties without the expense, risks, delays and uncertainties of a trial and any appeals that might follow such a trial, Plaintiffs and Defendant Fulton County agree to the terms of this Consent Decree as stated below. By entering into this Consent Decree, Defendant Fulton County does not admit to the truth or validity of any claim made against them by Plaintiffs.
All parties acknowledge that the Court has jurisdiction over this case and authority to enter this Consent Decree and to enforce its terms. The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce this Decree in accordance with its terms.
2. DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO CONSENT DECREE
For purposes of this Consent Decree, the following terms have the meaning indicated below.
A. “Business days” mean every day except Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 1-4-1.
B. “Calendar days” mean every day including Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays.
C. “Child” or “children” or “class member children” or “class members” shall mean a child or children who have been, are, or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of any of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS.
D. “Child Advocate Attorney” means any attorney employed, contracted, subcontracted, or engaged by Fulton County to provide legal representation to class member children.
E. “Day” or “days” mean calendar days unless otherwise indicated.
F. “Fulton” or “the County” means defendant Fulton County.
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 4 of 20
G. “Fulton DFCS” means the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services. Fulton DFCS is a division of the State of Georgia Division of Family and Child Services, which in turn is a division of the State of Georgia Department of Human Resources, and is not a division of the Fulton County government.
H. “State Defendants” means Defendants Sonny Perdue (in his official capacity as Governor of Georgia), the Georgia Department of Human Resources, B.J. Walker (in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Human Resources), Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services, Debra Keyes (in her official capacity as Administrator of Fulton DFCS), DeKalb County Division of Family and Children Services, and Walker Solomon (in his official capacity as Director of DeKalb DFCS).
3. PRINCIPLES
The parties to this Consent Decree agree that the following principles guide the provision of adequate, effective and zealous legal representation to children in deprivation and termination of parental rights cases. These principles are not separately and independently enforceable under the terms of this Consent Decree.
1. Class member children are entitled to receive adequate, effective, and zealous legal representation at all stages of deprivation and termination of parental rights proceedings throughout the time they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Fulton County Juvenile Court.
2. Child advocate attorneys should perform the basic tasks any trial lawyer would, including obtaining all court filings, attending all court appearances, filing motions, and being an active participant in all hearings and settlement discussions.
3. Child advocate attorneys should establish an attorney-client relationship and maintain that relationship throughout the duration of the representation.
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 5 of 20
4. Child advocate attorneys should investigate all cases through formal and informal discovery and other means, including updated investigations before all review hearings and other stages of a deprivation case.
5. Child advocate attorneys should be aware of all staffings, administrative reviews, family team meetings, special education conferences, and all other non-deprivation proceedings involving the child and should attend such meetings to the extent that the child advocate attorney, in the exercise of considered professional judgment, deems necessary or desirable.
6. Child advocate attorneys should advocate for the service needs of their clients and their client’s families to further their client’s safety, permanency, and well-being.
7. Child advocate attorneys should monitor their clients’ status between court appearances, including the implementation of Juvenile Court orders benefiting their clients, the case plan, and issues relating to clients’ foster care placement.
8. Child advocate attorneys should raise issues of DFCS’s non-compliance with court orders, or other issues of concern, with appropriate decisionmakers, including if necessary the Juvenile Court through appropriate motion practice.
9. Child advocate attorneys should file appeals when necessary and participate in appeals filed by DFCS or parents.
10.Child advocate attorneys should attend to the possibility of conflicts and resolve them.
4. FULTON COUNTY CHILD ADVOCATE’S OFFICE
No later than January 31, 2006, Fulton County will establish a Fulton County Child Advocate’s Office, which will employ Fulton County’s Child Advocate Attorneys and their support staff. The Fulton County Child Advocate’s Office will be a division of the Fulton County government and its substantive
4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 6 of 20
operations will be independent from the Fulton County Juvenile Court. The Accountability Agent shall verify and report on Fulton County's compliance with this provision no later than March 1, 2006.
5. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
A. In order to ensure that all class member children are provided adequate and effective legal representation, Fulton County will adopt, and will ensure that all Child Advocate Attorneys employed or engaged to represent children in deprivation and termination of parental rights cases in Fulton County abide by, the principles, standards, policies, and procedures set forth in the “Guidelines for Fulton County Child Advocate Attorneys,” attached hereto as Appendix A, which the parties agree reflect the principles listed in § 3.
B. If the ability of Fulton County child advocates to perform their responsibilities under the Guidelines set forth in Appendix A is impaired by any ongoing failure on the part of State Defendants, DHR or DFCS to provide child advocates with information necessary and appropriate to the performance of their responsibilities, Fulton County shall give prompt notice of the specifics of the informational problem to Class Counsel.
6. MEASURING AND ENSURING MANAGEABLE WORKLOADS
A. The parties agree that Child Advocate Attorneys cannot provide adequate and effective legal representation to children if they have unmanageable workloads. The parties further agree that the workloads of Child Advocate Attorneys in Fulton County should be measured so as to ensure adequate and effective legal representation, and that the County should adopt appropriate standards for ensuring that the Child Advocate Attorneys’ workloads remain manageable.
B. By January 31, 2006, Fulton County will employ at least twelve fulltime Child Advocate Attorneys to represent children in deprivation
5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 7 of 20
and termination of parental rights proceedings in Fulton Juvenile Court. Also by that date, Fulton will employ at least 2 full-time investigators and 3 full-time support staff members to assist the Child Advocate Attorneys. The Accountability Agent shall verify and report on Fulton County's compliance with this provision no later than March 1, 2006.
C. A comprehensive review of the workloads of Fulton County Child Advocate Attorneys (the “Fulton Workload Study”) will be performed by the Carl Vinson Institute of Government (“CVIG”) at the University of Georgia, under the direction of Karen Baynes. The Accountability Agent shall be involved in the design and methodology of the Fulton Workload Study at his discretion and in cooperation with CVIG. CVIG will keep the Accountability Agent informed of the ongoing process of the Fulton Workload Study. The Fulton Workload Study shall make recommendations to the Court and the parties concerning the appropriate standard(s) by which the workloads of Fulton Child Advocate Attorneys should be measured, whether by caseload counts or by another mechanism. The Fulton County Workload Study will review case volume, types of cases and their levels of difficulty, the use of volunteer lawyers, attorney experience level, support staff, equipment, technology and other factors which will substantially affect the workload of Fulton County Child Advocate Attorneys. Fulton County will cooperate fully with those performing the Fulton Workload Study in providing access to all documents and information those performing the Fulton Workload Study request in connection with the workload study, and will pay the fees and expenses incurred in connection with the study. The Fulton Workload Study will be completed, and a final report issued, no later than 120 days after commencement of the Fulton Workload Study. If additional time is needed to complete the Fulton Workload Study, Karen Baynes will notify the parties and the Court in a timely manner.
D. If any party objects to the findings of the Fulton Workload Study, that party will notify the other party and the Court in writing within 15 days after the report is issued. If no party objects to the findings of the Fulton Workload Study, the workload standards recommended therein will be incorporated into this Consent Decree, and Fulton
6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 8 of 20
County will comply with those workload standards no later than 180 days after the Fulton Workload Study is issued.
E. If any party objects to the findings of the Fulton Workload Study pursuant to paragraph D, the parties will promptly engage in goodfaith negotiations concerning the appropriate workload standards to be adopted by the County. If the parties reach an agreement concerning workload standards, they will jointly file a motion to amend this Consent Decree to incorporate those standards. If no agreement has been reached within thirty (30) days after the issuance of the Fulton Workload Study, either party may file a motion asking the Court to set appropriate workload standards. If such a motion is filed, the burden will be on the party objecting to the Fulton Workload Study to demonstrate that the workload standards recommended therein do not reflect reasonable workload standards and should not be incorporated into this Consent Decree. Fulton County will comply with the Court’s ruling on workload standards within 120 days of said ruling, unless the Court specifies an alternative date for compliance.
7. ACCOUNTABILITY
A. The Court hereby appoints Judge William Jones of Charlotte, North Carolina, as the Court’s independent Accountability Agent. In addition to his involvement in the Fulton Workload Study as described in § 6(C) above, and in addition to conducting the independent verifications called for in § 4 and § 6(B) above, the Accountability Agent shall conduct the factual investigation and verification of data and documentation necessary to compile and to issue public record reports on Fulton County’s performance under the terms of this Consent Decree. These reports will be filed with the Court and provided to the parties. These reports will be issued at sixmonth intervals after the completion of the Fulton County Workload Study.
B. Fulton County shall ensure that all actions required under this Consent Decree for Plaintiff class members are documented within the
7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 9 of 20
individual child advocate attorney case file of each class member on a timely and accurate basis.
C. Fulton County will provide the Accountability Agent with access to information the Accountability Agent deems necessary to evaluate Fulton’s performance, including without limitation case files and other records kept by the Child Advocate Attorneys or the County, data compiled or maintained by the Child Advocate Attorneys or the County, and interviews with Fulton Child Advocate Attorneys and their investigators and staff. The Accountability Agent will conduct case record and other reviews to fulfill his duties under this Consent Decree.
D. Fulton County will cooperate in seeking access for the Accountability Agent to Juvenile Court proceedings, records, and transcripts, and interviews with Juvenile Court personnel, to the extent that the Accountability Agent requests. Fulton County will assist the Accountability Agent in arranging interviews with the Fulton Child Advocate Attorneys’ clients, with the permission of the client and of the Department of Family and Children’s Services, to the extent the Accountability Agent requests.
E. Fulton County will provide the Accountability Agent with the necessary resources to perform his duties, including payment of his reasonable fees and expenses.
8. ENFORCEMENT
A. If Class Counsel form a reasonable belief that Fulton County is in violation of this Consent Decree, Plaintiffs may give notice to Fulton County in writing, and if so shall state with specificity the alleged noncompliance. Upon Fulton County’s receipt of such notice, the parties will promptly engage in good-faith negotiations concerning the alleged noncompliance and appropriate measures to cure the alleged noncompliance. If the parties reach an agreement on curative measures, the parties will jointly notify the Court of such curative measures. If the parties have not reached an agreement on curative
8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 10 of 20
measures within thirty (30) days after Plaintiffs’ notice to Fulton County, Plaintiffs may seek an appropriate judicial remedy with respect to the alleged non-compliance. The parties may extend this time period by agreement.
B. Class Counsel and their clients shall not issue a noncompliance notice or seek a judicial remedy for the first eight months after entry of this Consent Decree, except with respect to sections 4 and 6.B. of this Consent Decree. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall authorize or enable Class or its Counsel to initiate discovery without order of the Court following the filing of a motion by Class Counsel as authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the local rules of the Court.
9. DURATION OF DECREE
A. This Consent Decree shall remain in effect until Fulton County has remained in substantial compliance with all of the provisions of this Consent Decree including the workload standards that are incorporated into this Consent Decree pursuant to § 6 for a continuous period of eighteen (18) months beginning with the date on which Fulton County successfully complies with the workload standards incorporated into this Consent Decree pursuant to § 6.
B. For the purposes of paragraph A., Fulton County may make a motion to terminate jurisdiction at any time beginning eighteen (18) months after the date on which Fulton County comes into compliance with the workload standards incorporated into this Consent Decree pursuant to § 6. Plaintiffs will not oppose such a motion unless (1) Plaintiffs have issued a noncompliance notice pursuant to § 8 within the past eighteen months; (2) negotiations or agreed curative actions pursuant to § 8 have been ongoing during the past eighteen months; (3) the Court has ordered curative action in response to an enforcement proceeding within the last eighteen (18) months; or (4) any noncompliance motion is pending before the Court.
9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 11 of 20
C. The parties intend that Fulton County will not request termination of jurisdiction prior to the time all conditions in this section have been satisfied, and further intend that Fulton County may only request termination of jurisdiction under the terms of § 9 of this Consent Decree.
10. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Each party agrees that it will perform its obligations under this Consent Decree in accordance with all applicable laws.
B. Unless otherwise provided in this Consent Decree, all notices under this Consent Decree shall be deemed duly given upon delivery by hand, or three days after posting, if sent by registered mail, return receipt requested. All notices under this Decree shall be provided to the party at the address set forth as follows:
As to Plaintiffs:
Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq. Ira Lustbader, Esq. Children’s Rights, Inc. 404 Park Avenue South, 11th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 683-2210 Facsimile: (212) 683-4015 E-mail: mlowry@childrensrights.org; ilustbader@childrensrights.org
Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Esq. Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, L.L.P. 3900 One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Phone: (404) 881-4100 Facsimile: (404) 881-4111 E-mail: bramlett@bmelaw.com
10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 12 of 20
As to Defendant Fulton County:
Overtis Hicks Brantley Fulton County Attorney 141 Pryor Street, N.W. Suite 4038 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Phone: (404) 730-7750 Facsimile: (404) 730-6324 E-mail: overtis.brantley@co.fulton.ga.us
For information purposes only:
Chief Judge Fulton County Juvenile Court Judge Romae T. Powell Juvenile Justice Center 395 Pryor Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30312
C. This Consent Decree constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with regard to the subject matters contained therein, and hereby supersedes all prior agreements, representations, statements, negotiations, and undertakings.
D. All parties to the Consent Decree have participated in its drafting and, consequently, any ambiguity shall not be construed either for or against any party.
E. If, for any reason, the Court fails or refuses to enter this proposed Consent Decree as signed by the authorized signatories, or as altered in accordance with their consent freely given prior to entry, then the proposed Consent Decree itself, and any agreement or statement contained in the proposed Consent Decree, is null and void and may not be enforced.
F. Fulton County shall bear all costs of notice prescribed by the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in connection with the process for final Court approval of this Consent Decree.
11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 13 of 20
11. RELIEF FOR NAMED PLAINTIFFS The parties agree that Class Counsel may contact the Fulton County Child
Advocate’s Office as necessary concerning any of the named plaintiffs in this action who are in the custody of Fulton County DFCS. Class Counsel and the Fulton County Child Advocate’s Office will cooperate in advocating for the best interests of those named plaintiffs. 12. ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION
The parties agree that, in the event that the Court grants final approval to this Consent Decree, Fulton County shall pay Class Counsel the sum of $153,000 in attorneys’ fees for work performed and to be performed through the date of anticipated final approval of settlement, and expenses of litigation, including a reserve for anticipated expenses, in an amount not to exceed $21,000, for a total payment not to exceed $174,000, solely as those fees, expenses and costs relate to work done in class counsel’s prosecution of the claims against Fulton County. All fees and expenses shall be paid on or before the fifth (5th) business day following the Court’s final approval of this settlement on behalf of the Plaintiff Class.
12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 14 of 20

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 15 of 20
Appendix A
GUIDELINES FOR FULTON COUNTY CHILD ADVOCATE ATTORNEYS
The Fulton County Juvenile Court recognizes the important role child advocate attorneys play in ensuring that the child’s best interests are protected in court proceedings involving child abuse and neglect. Children lack the capacity to speak for themselves in court proceedings and need someone else to speak and act on their behalf. For that reason, the Court is committed to ensuring that children have access to adequate and effective child advocate attorneys. The Court is dedicated to ensuring that child advocate attorneys are diligent and knowledgeable professionals and that they have adequate resources to carry out their responsibilities.
Currently, there are no uniform standards for attorneys representing children in Georgia. Georgia law has no special requirements regarding quality, training or qualifications for child advocate attorneys. These guidelines were developed by the Court with three goals in mind. First, to outline the role of Fulton County child advocate attorneys. Second, to promote guidelines for the adequate and effective representation of children. Third, to ensure that child advocate attorneys are sufficiently trained and educated in the field of child representation.
The Court recognizes that every case is unique and will present its own difficulties and challenges. In addition, each child will have different needs and require different levels of advocacy. As a result, these guidelines are by no means an exhaustive listing of the responsibilities of child advocate attorneys. Instead, they provide a framework that will assure adequate and effective legal representation for children involved in child abuse and neglect proceedings in Fulton County Juvenile Court.
1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 16 of 20
I. QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING
All Fulton County child advocate attorneys shall be an active member and in good standing with the State Bar of Georgia. In addition, all Fulton County child advocate attorneys shall have sufficient training. Training is especially important for child advocates due to the unique needs of children. Child advocate attorneys shall receive a minimum of four (4) hours of training each year in one or more of the following areas: • role and responsibilities of the child advocate • applicable laws governing child abuse, neglect, deprivation, foster care and termination of parental rights • child development • child abuse and neglect • foster care • domestic violence • mental health • ethical considerations which are unique to child law practice • school law • substance abuse • custody-visitation • adoption • cultural and ethnic awareness • social services programs and availability of community resources • any other topic which the child advocate may select as helpful to a given caseload
The training need not be Georgia Continuing Legal Education (CLE) training, and may instead include formal or informal training from organizations such as Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), local public schools systems, mental health programs, DFCS, youth centers, and other community based agencies.
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 17 of 20
A certification of attendance or some other form of evidence of attendance at training shall be placed in the child advocate attorney’s personnel file.
All Child Advocate Attorneys will also receive and be familiar with the Fulton County Child Advocate Attorney Trial Notebook.
In addition to the training listed above, attorneys for children are encouraged to join and participate in at least one professional group or organization that will be a resource for needed information about child advocacy. Such groups may include, National Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), the National Association of Counsel for Children (NACC), the Georgia Association of Counsel for Children, and State Bar committees focusing on child law issues.
II. THE ROLE OF THE FULTON COUNTY CHILD ADVOCATE ATTORNEY Georgia state law does not fully define the role of attorneys who represent
children. In Fulton County, child advocate attorneys represent the best interests of the child, while at the same time representing the child’s expressed preferences. This model allows the child to explain what he or she believes is in his or her best interests. If the child advocate determines that the child’s expressed preference would be seriously injurious to the child (as opposed to merely being contrary to the lawyer’s opinion of what would be in the child’s interests), the child advocate attorney may request appointment of a separate guardian ad litem and continue to represent the child’s expressed preference as the child’s attorney, unless the child’s position is prohibited by law or without any factual foundation.
III. DUTIES OF THE CHILD ADVOCATE Child advocate attorneys are expected to provide adequate and effective
legal representation. The work performance of each child advocate attorney will be evaluated annually pursuant to Fulton County’s Personnel Regulations.
A. Initial Responsibilities 1. Determine the facts of the case by interviewing the child, family members, caseworker, CASA volunteers, and others as necessary and appropriate.
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 18 of 20
2. Where appropriate and necessary to the case, obtain and review the court files and agency records of the child and any siblings; school records; medical records; social services records; psychiatric, psychological, and drug and alcohol records; law enforcement records; photographs; audio/videotapes and other physical evidence.
3. Where appropriate and necessary to the case, contact the attorney(s) for the biological parents, and other persons who are respondents to the case.
4. Where appropriate and necessary to the case, contact other individuals involved with the child such as school personnel, foster parents, neighbors, relatives, medical and mental health providers, family friends and any other potential witnesses or sources of information.
5. Meet with, observe, and establish and maintain a relationship with the child. Assess the child’s needs and wishes with regard to the representation and the issues in the case, and explain the proceedings to the child according to the child’s ability to understand.
6. Maintain available information concerning the child’s location and contact information for the child and other necessary parties or witnesses readily accessible in the child’s file. Take reasonable steps to ensure that the placement and contact information in the child advocate attorney’s file is current.
7. Conduct additional investigation as determined to be necessary and appropriate to the case, in the exercise of the child advocate attorney’s professional judgment.
B. Preparation for and Representation at Hearings 1. Participate as an attorney at all hearings concerning the child. 2. Make informed recommendations for specific and clear orders for evaluation, services, and treatment for the child and the child’s family. 3. File all necessary pleadings and papers.
4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 19 of 20
4. Ensure that relevant testimony and documentary and physical evidence is introduced to the court and, when necessary, subpoena witnesses.
5. Monitor the implementation of court orders and determine whether services ordered by the court for the child or the child’s family are being provided in a timely manner and are accomplishing their purpose. Where necessary and appropriate, take steps to ensure compliance.
6. Promote a cooperative resolution of the matter. 7. Consult with other persons knowledgeable about the child and the
child’s family to identify the child’s interests, current and future placements that would be best for the child, and necessary services for the child. 8. Where necessary and appropriate for legal representation, attend all meetings involving the child. 9. When appropriate, collaborate with the CASA to provide the best possible representation for the child. 10. Inform the court of the child’s wishes. 11. Adequately maintain case file. 12. Explain to the child the disposition of his or her case.
C. Post Dispositional Representation 1. Inform the child of his or her right to appeal. 2. Exercise child’s right to appeal, if under the reasonable judgment of the attorney, an appeal is necessary. 3. Where necessary and appropriate, represent the child’s interests in an appeal filed by another party. 4. Discuss the end of the legal representation with the child and determine what contacts, if any, the attorney and child will continue to have.
5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 519 Filed 02/13/2006 Page 20 of 20
IV. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Child advocate attorneys should decline to represent children in conflict of
interest situations, including in the following circumstances: i. The attorney, or other child advocate attorneys on staff in the Fulton Juvenile court, represents, or has represented, the biological parent in a deprivation proceeding. ii. Children in a sibling group have conflicting accounts of facts material to the deprivation or TPR determination.
iii. Positions to be taken on behalf of children in a sibling group are mutually exclusive and conflict in a material way.
6

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

KENNY A., by his next friend, Linda :

Winn, et al.,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

SONNY PERDUE, in his official :

capacity as Governor of the State of :

Georgia, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

-----------------------------------------------:

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO. 1:02-CV-1686-MHS

CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS AND DEKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA

1. INTRODUCTION.

This class action lawsuit began with the filing of a complaint on June 6, 2002, in the Superior Court of Fulton County. This case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Generally, Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendants DeKalb County, Fulton County, and the State of Georgia are violating various constitutional and statutory rights of children in the custody of the respective Juvenile Courts of DeKalb and Fulton Counties and in the custody of the State of Georgia’s foster care system. With respect to DeKalb County, specifically, Plaintiffs have alleged that DeKalb County is depriving such children of adequate and effective legal representation in violation of the Georgia Juvenile Code and the Georgia Constitution.

Defendant DeKalb County denies that it has violated the statutory or constitutional rights of any Class Member. Defendant DeKalb County does not admit liability under any theory by the execution of this Consent Decree, which is being entered in this case in order to compromise and resolve all issues pending between

1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 2 of 14
Plaintiffs and Defendant DeKalb County and in order to avoid the time, expense, risks, delays and uncertainties of a trial.
2. JURISDICTION.
The Parties acknowledge and agree that the Court has jurisdiction in this case and the authority to enter this Consent Decree. The Court shall retain jurisdiction in this case to enforce this Consent Decree in accordance with its terms.
3. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Consent Decree, the following terms shall have the meaning indicated below:
A. “Case” means, for caseload purposes, in accordance with Section 5, the open file of each Class Member.
B. “Class Member” means, in accordance with the Court’s Order, dated August 18, 2003, any child who has been, is, or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (i) is or will be in the custody of the State of Georgia, and (ii) has or will have an open case with the DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services.
C. “Child Advocate Attorney” means any licensed member of the State Bar of Georgia who is employed by, contracted with, or otherwise engaged, whether for pay or on a volunteer basis, by DeKalb County to provide legal representation to one or more Class Members.
D. “Compliance Report” means the factual findings and report of the Compliance Agent.
E. “Day” means a calendar day, including weekend days and legal holidays; provided, however, that any deadline created in accordance with this Consent Decree shall not end on a weekend day or legal holiday, but shall be extended to the next following day.
F. “DeKalb County” means Defendant DeKalb County, Georgia, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia.
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 3 of 14
G. “Reporting Period” means the first six (6) months beginning 120 days after the date on which this Consent Decree is entered by the Court, and each six (6) month period thereafter until its termination in accordance with Section 11.
4. BEST PRACTICES.
The Parties acknowledge that Class Members are entitled to adequate and effective legal representation at all stages of deprivation and termination of parental rights proceedings, as such proceedings are defined in accordance with the Georgia Juvenile Code, and throughout the time they are Class Members and subject to the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court of DeKalb County. In order to provide Class Members with such representation, DeKalb County will adopt and implement the principles, standards, policies and procedures set forth in the following Best Practices documents:
1) Core Principles for Providing Quality Deprivation Representation Through DCCAC Advocacy Delivery Systems, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix A;
2) DeKalb County Child Advocacy Center Performance Standards for Juvenile Advocacy Representation, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix B; and
3) DeKalb County Child Advocacy Center Policies and Procedures, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix C.
The Parties acknowledge and agree that the adoption and implementation of these Best Practices, along with the caseload standards to be implemented pursuant to Section 5, will provide the means for achieving Substantial Compliance with this Consent Decree. The Parties further acknowledge and agree, however, that DeKalb County shall be in Substantial Compliance with this Consent Decree when substantially in compliance with the obligations described at Sections 5 and 7.
5. CASELOAD OBLIGATION.
A. Within 120 days after the entry of this Consent Decree, DeKalb County shall ensure that no full-time Child Advocate Attorney is responsible for more than 130 cases at any given time. To the extent that DeKalb County engages less than full-
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 4 of 14
time attorneys, whether paid or on a volunteer basis, to provide representation to Class Members, the number of cases that such attorneys will be responsible for shall not exceed, on a proportionate basis, the maximum number of cases being handled by a full-time attorney. By way of example, a Child Advocate Attorney engaged to represent Class Members on a half-time basis will be responsible for no more than 65 cases at any given time.
B. Within 120 days after the entry of this Consent Decree, DeKalb County will hire five (5) additional full-time Child Advocate Attorneys, so that the number of such full-time Child Advocate Attorneys, not including the Director, shall be nine (9). No later than March 31, 2007, DeKalb County will hire two (2) additional full-time Child Advocate Attorneys, so that the number of such full-time Child Advocate Attorneys, not including the Director, shall be eleven (11).
C. The obligations contained in paragraphs A and B of this Section are separate and distinct obligations.
6. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
DeKalb County shall provide to the Compliance Agent the following documents and information on the timetable set out below:
A. A report showing (i) the number of Class Members then being represented by DeKalb County Child Advocate Attorneys, (ii) the number of Child Advocate Attorneys engaged full-time in such representation, (iii) the number of Child Advocate Attorneys engaged part-time in such representation, and (iv) the caseload of each Child Advocate Attorney. In addition, for each part-time Child Advocate Attorney, the report shall indicate whether the attorney is less than half-time, halftime, or more than half-time.
B. Copies of all Child Advocate Attorney training and CLE records completed during the Reporting Period;
C. Copies of all Child Advocate Attorney performance reviews and evaluations completed during the Reporting Period;
D. Copies of any complaints alleging or appearing to allege inadequate and ineffective legal representation by a Child Advocate Attorney and documents
4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 5 of 14
relating to any such complaint; and
E. Copies of any updates or revisions to any of the documents attached hereto as Appendix A, B, or C adopted during the Reporting Period.
DeKalb County shall provide the Compliance Agent with the information in 6.A. above within 135 days after the entry of this Consent Decree. Thereafter, DeKalb County shall provide the Compliance Agent with the above information for each Reporting Period not later than fifteen (15) days following the end of the Reporting Period.
In addition to the above reporting requirements, DeKalb County shall make additional documents and information available, at the Compliance Agent’s request, in accordance with the terms of Section 8 of this Decree.
7. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHILD ADVOCATE ATTORNEYS.
Child Advocate Attorneys, in each instance of representing a Class Member, shall have the following responsibilities:
1) To prepare for, attend and participate in all court-ordered, judicial hearings and proceedings; to stay as reasonably aware and informed as possible of the existence and outcome of non-judicial reviews, meetings and conferences; and to attend such non-judicial reviews, meetings, and conferences when necessary in the reasonable exercise of professional judgment.
2) To prepare, make and/or file oral and/or written motions, and responses to same, when necessary in the reasonable exercise of professional judgment.
3) To attend to the possibility and/or existence of professional conflicts of interest and the resolution of same.
4) To investigate matters relevant to judicial proceedings affecting the legal interests of Class Member clients, including the formal process of propounding and responding to discovery, as well as informal investigation and discovery, and to conduct such investigation and discovery as is necessary in the reasonable exercise of professional judgment to adequately and effectively represent Class Member clients.
5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 6 of 14
5) To establish and maintain an attorney-client relationship with each Class Member client and to maintain such contacts with the client as are necessary in the reasonable exercise of professional judgment to ensure adequate and effective legal representation.
6) To maintain contacts with social workers, service providers and family members, as reasonably possible, and as necessary to adequately and effectively represent Class Member clients.
7) To monitor the implementation of Juvenile Court orders relating to the child, to raise issues of non-compliance, and to advocate the child’s best interests with the Court and other judicial decision-makers, as necessary in the reasonable exercise of professional judgment.
8) To participate in settlement negotiations as necessary in the reasonable exercise of professional judgment.
9) To prepare, file and participate in appeals affecting the legal interests of Class Member clients as necessary in the reasonable exercise of professional judgment.
8. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMPLIANCE AGENT.
Karen Baynes shall serve as the Compliance Agent for this Consent Decree. The Compliance Agent shall have the duties described in this Section 8.
A. It shall be the responsibility of the Compliance Agent to (i) conduct an independent fact-finding review of the obligations described at Sections 5, 6 and 7, (ii) issue a Compliance Report of such factual findings, and (iii) review and report on curative plans as may be required in accordance with Section 9.
B. Each Compliance Report shall be based on the contents of the Reporting Requirements described in Section 6, as well as whatever information and documents are otherwise obtained by the Compliance Agent in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Section.
6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 7 of 14
C. Each Compliance Report shall be issued simultaneously to counsel for the Class Members and counsel for DeKalb County. Within 150 days after the entry of this Consent Decree, the Compliance Agent shall issue a Compliance Report addressing solely the caseload and staffing requirements of Section 5. Thereafter, the Compliance Agent shall issue a Compliance Report not later than 90 days following the end of the immediately preceding Reporting Period. DeKalb County and Class Counsel shall be jointly responsible for filing each Compliance Report with the Court within seven days of the Parties’ receipt of the report.
D. At all times during the Duration of this Consent Decree, DeKalb County shall ensure that the Compliance Agent is afforded the reasonable opportunity to review and obtain copies of such documents, including case file documents, as the Compliance Agent deems necessary to issue a Compliance Report in accordance with this Section 8.
E. Notwithstanding other provisions of this Section 8, DeKalb County will cooperate with the Compliance Agent, but shall not be responsible for ensuring the Compliance Agent’s access to any Juvenile Court proceedings, transcripts, or other documents, and the County Attorney of DeKalb County shall not be prohibited from representing the Juvenile Court and any officials and employees thereof in any matter pertaining to the Compliance Agent's access to such proceedings, transcripts, or other documents.
F. DeKalb County will cooperate with the Compliance Agent, but shall not be responsible for ensuring the Compliance Agent’s interview of any person, including any Class Member. In this regard, and as may be necessary on a caseby-case basis, DeKalb County will cooperate with the Compliance Agent to develop a protocol for the interview of Class Members, Child Advocate Attorneys and other officials and employees of DeKalb County; provided, however, that any and all such protocols shall ensure, at a minimum, (i) that the subject may refuse to be interviewed, and (ii) that the interview shall be only for the specific purpose of assessing DeKalb County’s compliance with Sections 5 and 7 of this Consent Decree; provided, further, that in the case of any interview of any Child Advocate Attorney or other employee or official of DeKalb County, the Parties understand and agree than no such person may speak on behalf of DeKalb County.
G. In addition to the responsibilities above, if the Compliance Agent forms a belief that the ability of DeKalb County Child Advocate Attorneys to perform their
7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 8 of 14
responsibilities is being impaired by any ongoing failure of the State Defendants, DHR, or DFCS to provide child advocates with information necessary and appropriate to the performance of their responsibilities, the Compliance Agent shall describe the particulars of the perceived problem in her Compliance Report. Any such information in a Compliance Report shall be for information purposes only and shall not affect the measurement of DeKalb County’s compliance with this Consent Decree.
9. ENFORCEMENT.
A. In the event that Class Counsel forms a reasonable belief that DeKalb County is not in Substantial Compliance with this Consent Decree, within ten (10) days thereafter, Class Counsel may give notice of an alleged violation to DeKalb County, in writing, to the DeKalb County Attorney, with copies to the Compliance Agent and the Director of the DeKalb County Child Advocacy Center, and shall state with specificity the acts and/or omissions involved in the alleged violation.
B. When notice of an alleged violation is received, DeKalb County shall respond to Class Counsel, in writing, as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 days thereafter. In its response, DeKalb County may (i) propose, without admitting the substance of the alleged violation, a curative plan to address and remedy the violation, or (ii) deny the existence of the alleged violation.
C. If DeKalb County does not propose a curative plan, or if, after negotiation pursuant to paragraph D below, the Parties are unable to agree to a curative plan, Class Counsel may thereafter seek an appropriate judicial remedy; provided, however, that the County Attorney of DeKalb County and Class Counsel shall first meet, in person, and attempt to resolve the dispute and Class Counsel shall not seek a judicial remedy until (i) after such a meeting, or (ii) the 45th day following notice of the alleged violation. In all cases where there is a dispute as to whether or not DeKalb County is in violation of this Consent Decree, the determinative measurement shall be Substantial Compliance with respect to the obligations described at Sections 5 and 7.
D. If DeKalb County proposes a curative plan, Class Counsel shall either accept DeKalb County’s proposal, or offer a counterproposal for a different or modified curative plan. Any curative plan proposed or agreed to by the Parties must include a definite date by which the Compliance Agent will issue a Compliance Report of
8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 9 of 14
factual findings relevant to showing the curative plan's effectiveness in curing the alleged violation; provided, further, that the term of the curative plan shall expire ten (10) days thereafter, unless Class Counsel shall have first notified DeKalb County, in writing, that the curative plan has not cured the violation, in which case the County Attorney of DeKalb County and Class Counsel shall meet, in person, and attempt to resolve the dispute regarding the effectiveness of the curative plan and Class Counsel shall not seek a judicial remedy until (i) after such a meeting, or (ii) the 15th day following the definite date for review of the curative plan. In all cases where there is a dispute as to whether or not a curative plan has succeeded in curing an alleged violation, the measurement shall be whether the curative plan has brought DeKalb County into Substantial Compliance with the obligations described at Sections 5 and 7.
E. Unless the Parties explicitly agree otherwise, whenever the Parties may agree to the implementation of a curative plan, for purposes of the termination of this Consent Decree pursuant to Section 11, there shall be no presumption that DeKalb County was not in Substantial Compliance with Sections 5 and 7 at the time the curative plan was implemented; provided, further, with the implementation of any curative plan, the Parties may agree that the curative plan is not being implemented as a result of DeKalb County’s failure to be in Substantial Compliance with Sections 5 and 7.
10. RELIEF FOR NAMED PLAINTIFFS.
The Parties acknowledge and agree that Class Counsel may contact the Director of the DeKalb County Child Advocacy Center whenever Class Counsel deems necessary regarding any of the named Plaintiffs in this action, who are then in the custody of the DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services. Class Counsel and DeKalb County will cooperate in advocating for the best interests of such named Plaintiffs.
11. DURATION OF CONSENT DECREE.
A. This Consent Decree shall terminate, and Class Counsel will not oppose its termination, when DeKalb County has been in Substantial Compliance with Sections 5 and 7 for three (3) consecutive Reporting Periods.
9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 10 of 14
B. At any time after the issuance of the Compliance Report for the third (3rd) Reporting Period, DeKalb County may move for the termination of this Consent Decree with respect to any or all of the obligations in Sections 5 and 7, even if DeKalb County has not been in Substantial Compliance with all provisions of Sections 5 and 7 for three (3) consecutive reporting periods. In considering whether to grant DeKalb County’s request, the Parties agree that the following factors shall be considered by the Court:
1) The degree to which DeKalb County has achieved and sustained the delivery of adequate and effective legal representation to Class Members since the issuance of the Consent Decree;
2) The potential impact of a partial termination on the delivery of legal services to Class Members;
3) The demonstrated good faith of the Parties throughout the duration of the Consent Decree;
4) Whether Class Counsel has complied with the notice requirement in Subsection 9(A);
5) Whether any curative plan has been in effect during the previous eighteen (18) months, as well as the terms of any such plan and the efficacy of any such plan; and
6) The Compliance Reports.
C. In fashioning an order pursuant to a request under Subsection B, if the Court decides to continue the Consent Decree with respect to any or all of the obligations in Sections 5 and 7, the Parties agree that the Court may continue the Consent Decree for any specified period; provided, however, that nothing in this Subsection shall prevent an earlier termination of the Consent Decree pursuant to Subsection A or B.
12. SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE.
For purposes of any judicial proceeding to enforce or terminate this Consent Decree, the Parties recognize that the standards governing whether DeKalb County
10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 11 of 14
has substantially complied with this Consent Decree are set out in United States v. City of Miami, 2 F.3d 1497 (11th Cir. 1993). Applying that case, DeKalb County shall be considered to be in Substantial Compliance with this Consent Decree if (1) it has complied in good faith with the terms of the Consent Decree and (2) the basic purpose of the Consent Decree has been met. For purposes of applying this standard, the Parties agree that the basic purpose of this Consent Decree is to ensure provision of adequate and effective legal representation to Class Member children throughout the time they have open cases before the DeKalb County Juvenile Court. Furthermore, in determining whether DeKalb County has complied in "good faith" with the terms of this Consent Decree, whether the "basic purpose" of the Consent Decree has been met, and whether "adequate and effective legal representation" has been provided to Class Member Children, the Parties agree that the Court shall be guided by the reports and findings of fact of the Compliance Agent, Karen Baynes.
13. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
A. This Consent Decree constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes and replaces in their entirety all prior agreements, statements, representations, discussions and negotiations.
B. Unless otherwise noted, all notices required or permitted under the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree shall be deemed given and received upon handdelivery, confirmation of the receipt of a facsimile, or three (3) days after posting, if by U.S. Mail, return-receipt requested. All notices shall be to the persons and addresses noted below:
Class Counsel:
Marcia Robinson Lowry, Esq. Ira Lustbader, Esq. Children’s Rights, Inc. 330 Seventh Avenue 4th Floor New York, New York 10001 212-683-2210 212-683-4015 (Facsimile)
11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 12 of 14
Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Esq. Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP 3900 One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309 404-881-4100 404-881-4111 (Facsimile)
Erik S. Pitchal, Esq. Lincoln Square Legal Services 33 W. 60th St., 3rd Floor New York, NY 10023 646-312-8763 212-636-7349 (Facsimile)
DeKalb County:
County Attorney DeKalb County Government 1300 Commerce Drive, 5th Floor Decatur, Georgia 30030 404-371-3011 404-371-3024 (Facsimile)
Director DeKalb County Child Advocacy Center 120 West Trinity Place Decatur, Ga 30030 404-687-3705
Compliance Agent:
Karen Baynes Carl Vinson Institute of Government University of Georgia 201 North Milledge Ave. Athens, GA 30602-5482
12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 13 of 14
706-542-2736 706-542-9301 (facsimile)
C. The Parties acknowledge and agree that all have participated in the drafting of this Consent Decree. Accordingly, any ambiguity herein shall not be construed either for or against any Party.
D. If, for any reason, the Court fails or refuses to enter this Consent Decree as signed by the Parties, or as altered by the Parties with their consent, then the Parties agree that this Consent Decree is null and void and shall not be enforced or used as evidence in any proceeding.
14. COMPLIANCE AGENT COSTS AND EXPENSES.
DeKalb County shall pay the Compliance Agent $725.00 per day of work performed, up to a maximum charge of $37,500.00 per Reporting Period, for the services provided by the Compliance Agent.
15. ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES OF LITIGATION.
A. The Parties agree that, in the event that the Court grants final approval to this Consent Decree, DeKalb County shall pay Class Counsel the sum of $175,000 in attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses for work performed and to be performed through the date of anticipated final approval of settlement. All fees and expenses shall be paid on or before the fifth (5th) business day following the Court’s entry of this Consent Decree.
B. DeKalb County will pay the costs of notice prescribed by the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 in connection with the process for final Court approval of this Consent Decree.
C. DeKalb County will pay the mediator’s fees and expenses associated with the mediation of this Consent Decree.
13

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-4 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 14 of 14

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-5 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 1 of 5
Appendix A
CORE PRINCIPLES FOR PROVIDING QUALITY DEPRIVATION REPRESENTATION THROUGH DCCAC ADVOCACY DELIVERY
SYSTEMS
1. The DCCAC Advocacy Delivery System Upholds a Juvenile’s Right to Counsel Throughout the Deprivation Process and Recognizes the Need For Zealous Representation to Protect Children’s Best Interest.
A. The DCCAC advocacy delivery system should ensure that child advocate attorneys are assigned at the earliest possible stage of deprivation proceedings.
B. The DCCAC advocacy delivery system recognizes that the deprivation process is adversarial and should provide children with continuous legal representation throughout the deprivation process including, but not limited to, adjudicatory hearing, pretrial motions or hearings, disposition, post-disposition, review hearings, non-reunification hearings, termination of parental rights hearings, appeal, and sealing of records.
C. The DCCAC advocacy delivery system should include the active participation of the private bar or conflict office whenever a conflict of interest arises for the primary service provider.
2. The DCCAC Advocacy Delivery System Recognizes that Legal Representation of Children in Deprivation Matters is a Specialized Area of the Law
A. The DCCAC advocacy delivery system recognizes that representing children in deprivation proceedings is a complex specialty in the law and that it is different from, but equally as important as, the legal representation of adults.
B. The DCCAC advocacy delivery system model demonstrates that it respects its juvenile advocacy team members and that it values
1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-5 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 2 of 5
the provision of quality, zealous and comprehensive deprivation representation services.
C. The DCCAC advocacy delivery system recognizes that deprivation representation is not a training assignment for new attorneys or future adult court advocates, and it requires effective attorneys to provide deprivation representation.
3. The DCCAC Advocacy Delivery System Supports Quality Juvenile Deprivation Representation Through Personnel and Resource Parity
A. The DCCAC advocacy delivery system encourages juvenile representation specialization without limiting attorney and support staff access to promotional progression, financial advancement, or personnel benefits.
B. The DCCAC advocacy delivery system provides a professional work environment and adequate operational resources such as office space, furnishings, support staff, technology, confidential client interview areas, and current legal research tools. The system includes juvenile representation resources in budgetary planning to ensure parity in the allocation of equipment and resources.
4. The DCCAC Advocacy Delivery System Supervises Attorneys and Staff and Monitors Work and Caseloads
A. The leadership of the DCCAC advocacy delivery system monitors advocacy counsel caseloads to permit the rendering of quality representation. The workload of DCCAC child advocate attorneys and support staff should never be so large as to interfere with the rendering of zealous advocacy or continuing client contact, nor should it lead to the breach of ethical obligations.
B. Whenever it is deemed appropriate, the leadership of the DCCAC advocacy delivery system, in consultation with staff, may adjust attorney case assignments and resources to guarantee the continued delivery of quality child advocacy services in
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-5 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 3 of 5
deprivation matters.
5. The DCCAC Advocacy Delivery System Supervises and Systematically Reviews Juvenile Advocacy Team Staff for Quality According to Appropriate Guidelines or Standards
A. The DCCAC advocacy delivery system provides supervision and management direction for attorneys and all team members who provide deprivation representation services to children.
B. The leadership of the DCCAC advocacy delivery system adopts guidelines and clearly defines the organization’s vision as well as expectations for the delivery of quality legal representation. These guidelines should be consistent with performance standards, measures or rules.
C. The DCCAC advocacy delivery system provides administrative monitoring, coaching and systematic reviews for all attorneys and staff representing juveniles, whether contract advocates, assigned counsel or employees of advocacy offices.
6. The DCCAC Advocacy System Provides and Supports Comprehensive, Ongoing Training and Education for All Attorneys and Support Staff involved in the Representation of Children.
A. The DCCAC advocacy delivery system supports and encourages child advocacy team members through internal and external comprehensive training on topics, including, but not limited to, deprivation advocacy, litigation and trial skills, dispositional planning, post-dispositional practice, educational rights, appellate advocacy and administrative hearing representation.
B. The DCCAC advocacy delivery system recognizes juvenile deprivation advocacy as a specialty that requires continuous training in unique areas of the law. In addition to understanding the juvenile court process and systems and the laws and rules governing the deprivation process in Georgia, juvenile team members should be competent in the following areas:
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-5 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 4 of 5
1. State and federal child welfare laws, regulations, and entitlements
2. The Kenny A. Consent Decree between Plaintiffs and the State Defendants
3. Child and adolescent development 4. Communicating and building attorney-client relationships with
children and adolescents 5. Community-based treatment resources and programs 6. Competency and capacity 7. Counsel’s role in treatment and problem solving courts 8. Deprivation court/abuse and neglect court process, working
knowledge of the Juvenile Justice system and the criminal justice system as applied to persons under the age of 21 9. Community-based services 10.DFCS’s diversion or differential response system to CPS cases 11.Drug addiction and substance abuse 12.Ethical issues and considerations 13.Gender-specific programming 14. Immigration 15.Mental health, physical health and treatment 16.Racial, ethnic and cultural understanding 17.Role of parents/guardians 18.Sexual orientation and gender identity awareness 19.Special education 20.Zero tolerance, school suspension and expulsion policies
7. The DCCAC Advocacy Delivery System Must Promote Fairness and Equity For Children.
A. The DCCAC advocacy delivery system should demonstrate strong support for the right to counsel and due process in court.
B. The leadership of the DCCAC advocacy delivery system should advocate for positive change through legal advocacy, legislative improvements and systems reform on behalf of the children whom they serve.
4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-5 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 5 of 5
C. The leadership and staff of the DCCAC advocacy delivery system are active participants in the community to improve school, mental health and other treatment services and opportunities available to children and families involved in the child welfare system.
5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-6 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 1 of 11
Appendix B
DEKALB COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR JUVENILE ADVOCACY REPRESENTATION
Practice in deprivation cases is unique and challenging, requiring specialized skills and knowledge to assure the best legal representation of clients.
The purpose of these standards is to provide child advocate attorneys with a general guide to appropriate and zealous advocacy on behalf of clients in juvenile court deprivation and termination of parental rights proceedings.
Performance Standard 1: Obligations of the Child Advocate Attorney
The primary and most fundamental obligation of a child advocate attorney is to provide zealous and effective representation for his or her client’s best interest at all stages of juvenile court deprivation proceedings. The advocate attorney's duty and responsibility is to promote and protect the child's best interest. If personal matters or conflicts in the dual role as Advocate and GAL make it impossible for the Advocate counsel to fulfill the duty of zealous representation, he or she has a duty to refrain from representing the client or to request that a separate Guardian ad Litem be appointed to represent the child’s best interests.
Attorneys also have an obligation to uphold the ethical standards of the State Bar of Georgia and to act in accordance with applicable Court Rules.
Basic obligations of child advocate attorneys include:
a. Obtain copies of all pleadings, reports, motion papers, and other court filings.
b. Inform other parties and their counsel that you represent the child and expect reasonable notice before case conferences, changes of placement, and other changes of circumstances affecting the child and the child’s family. The child’s lawyer should be aware at all times of the placement location and contact information for the client, which should be displayed prominently and be easily accessible in the file.
1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-6 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 2 of 11
c. Attend all court appearances.
d. Participate in settlement negotiations and otherwise attempt to expedite the court process so as to be sensitive to the child’s sense of time and paramount goal of expediting permanency.
Performance Standard 2: Training and Experience of Child Advocate Attorneys
Commentary:
Child Advocate Attorney cases should not be taken on without the adequate experience and knowledge necessary to represent the client zealously.
2.1 Before practicing in juvenile court, child advocate attorneys (hereafter "counsel") should be proficient in applicable substantive and procedural Georgia juvenile law and should have appropriate experience, skills and training necessary to represent children.
a. At a minimum counsel should observe at least twenty hours of juvenile court, including every stage of a deprivation proceeding (including termination of parental rights proceedings) when such matters are available, and some observation of delinquency proceedings. Counsel should obtain appropriate formal and informal training in relevant areas of practice.
b. It is highly recommended that counsel work with a mentor before taking a case or have a mentor available to consult on a case.
2.2 Counsel should have a working knowledge of and seek ongoing training in the following areas:
a. pre-dispositional and dispositional services and programs available through the court, DFCS, and community-based social service agencies;
b. facilities available to serve children: on-site visits may be appropriate;
c. child and adolescent development; d. the juvenile justice system;
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-6 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 3 of 11
e. the child welfare system; f. the Department of Juvenile Justice policies and procedures (to
the extent that such information is made available by that agency); g. the Division of Family and Children's Services policies and procedures (to the extent that such information is made available by that agency); h. substance abuse issues; i. mental health issues and common childhood diagnoses; j. special education laws, rights and remedies; k. competency and immaturity laws, issues and defenses; l. post dispositional advocacy; m. pathways to delinquency; n. cultural, racial, gender, and sexual orientation diversity; o. interviewing techniques for children; p. working with children and building rapport with the child or adolescent client; q. school related issues including school disciplinary procedures and zero tolerance policies; r. areas of abuse, its effects and treatments.
2.3 Counsel should note that various court practices and procedures may differ.
2.4 Counsel has a continuing obligation to stay abreast of changes and development in the law.
2.5 Before agreeing to act as counselor accepting appointment by a court, counsel has an obligation to make sure that counsel has available sufficient time, resources, knowledge and experience to offer effective representation to a child in a particular matter. If it later appears that counsel is unable to offer effective representation in the case, counsel should move to withdraw.
2.6 When a child advocate attorney’s caseload is so large that he or she is unable to satisfactorily meet these performance standards, counsel shall inform the Director of the Child Advocacy Center and then, if necessary, the court or courts before whom counsel's cases are pending. If the Director of the Child Advocacy Center determines that the caseloads for her entire office are so large that an individual child advocate attorney is unable to satisfactorily meet these performance standards, the Director of the Child Advocate Office shall inform the court or courts before whom cases are pending.
Performance Standard 3: The Role of the Child Advocate Attorney
3.1 Counsel's principal duty is to zealously advocate for the client's best interests. The lawyer’s duty is to form a principled position of the child’s best interests and advocate for that position. Nevertheless, the
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-6 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 4 of 11
child advocate attorney also has an obligation to inform the court of the child’s desires, even when the child’s wishes diverge from the attorney’s determination of the child’s best interests. The determination of a child’s best interests must be formed by an explicit analysis of the actual available options.
3.2 In order to effectively advocate for the best interests of the client and to provide suggestions for appropriate dispositional options, counsel should take a holistic approach to juvenile advocacy, evaluating all factors which may have contributed to the existing circumstances.
Performance Standard 4: Definition of the Client
4.1 The Attorney’s client is the child. Counsel’s principal duty is to represent the child’s best interest.
4.2 Counsel should remember that, even though the client is a child, all attorney client privileges and obligations attach, except with regard to issues of confidentiality that may arise due to the dual role of attorney and Guardian ad Litem described in standards 1 and 3.1. In cases in which such issues may arise, counsel should keep the child client fully informed of the extent to which communications will be kept confidential.
Performance Standard 5: Counsel’s Relationship With Client
5.1 The initial interview and investigation should occur as soon after appointment as possible. In preparation for the interview, counsel should: a. schedule the interview to allow for ample time to speak with the client; b. collect any relevant information to bring.
5.2 At the interview, counsel should, in a developmentally appropriate manner:
a. explain to the client the role of counsel. It is important to clarify that counsel represents the legal and best interests of the child;
b. explain the allegations against the parents or guardian and possible disposition;
c. explain the juvenile court process, timelines and the role of all the parties involved, such as judge, counsel, client and parent;
d. obtain signed releases by the client and guardian, where appropriate, for medical and mental health records, school records, social service records, employment records, etc. Counsel should advise the client of the potential use of this information and the privileges that attach to this information;
e. counsel should obtain information from the client concerning
4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-6 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 5 of 11
the facts of the matter, and any other relevant information, except where a forensic specialist is necessary so as not to retraumatize the child. f. one focus of the initial interview and investigation will be to obtain information. Such information should generally include: i. client's residence and length of time at that residence; ii. client's legal custody (parent, relative or other guardian)
and physical custody (person responsible to supervise client): names, addresses and phone numbers; iii. health (mental and physical) and employment background; iv. client's school placement, status, attendance and special education designation; v. whether the client or his or her family has had previous contact with the juvenile court system, and/or child welfare system and the nature and status of that contact; vi. possible adults willing to assume responsibility for the child; vii. general circumstances of abuse and neglect, as well as specific information relating to the allegations in the deprivation petition. Such inquiry should be made of the child only so long as it is within the appropriate parameters of interviewing standards as it relates to victim interviews; and viii. to observe the physical and mental well being of client and possible need for intervention.
5.3 The child advocate attorney should maintain a relationship with the child throughout the representation. Irrespective of age, the attorney should meet with the child-client prior to court hearings. The attorney or a designee appropriate in the circumstances in the attorney’s reasonable professional judgment, should meet with the child-client when apprised of emergencies or significant events impacting on the child.
Performance Standard 6: Investigation and Discovery
Child advocate attorneys have a duty to obtain all relevant information to deprivation cases, through formal and informal discovery mechanisms and through an independent investigation.
6.1 Counsel has a duty to conduct a prompt investigation and prompt discovery of each case. Counsel has a duty to continue to conduct an ongoing investigation, and serve new discovery requests as needed, prior to review hearings, termination of parental rights proceedings, non-reunification hearings, or any other hearing involving a child who has previously been adjudicated as deprived.
6.2 When conducting the investigation counsel should:
5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-6 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 6 of 11
a. If not done previously, conduct an in-depth interview of the client as described in Performance Standard Five, supra.
b. Attempt to interview witnesses, favorable or adverse, obtain any relevant history of the witnesses, for example, as appropriate: school personnel, case workers (with the consent of counsel for the agency, if required), biological parents (with the consent of counsel), foster parents, neighbors, relatives, family friends/mentors/coaches/clergy, medical and mental health providers, law enforcement officers, and any other potential witnesses or sources of information.
c. Examine the police reports and any other records, documents and statements, including the court files as needed.
d. Counsel should ascertain whether any physical or photographic evidence exists and should make a prompt request to examine such evidence.
e. Counsel should ascertain whether the assistance of an expert is needed in preparation of the child advocate’s case (whether case-in-chief or rebuttal) or to understand or rebut DFCS’s or the parents’ case.
f. Counsel should when available and appropriate, obtain and review:
1. Records from private foster care agencies or other private agencies providing services to the child or the child’s family, including mental health and substance abuse treatment records.
2. School records. 3. Medical records.
Performance Standard 7: Preparation for Adjudicatory Hearing
7.1 Counsel should develop a theory of the case.
7.2 Pretrial Motions: .
a. Counsel should review all statements, reports and other evidence to determine whether a motion is appropriate.
b. Counsel should make oral or written motions as soon as possible due to the time constraints of juvenile court.
c. Counsel should be aware of the burdens of proof, evidentiary principles and court procedures applying to the motions hearing.
d. Counsel has the continuing duty to file pretrial motions as issues arise or new evidence is discovered.
7.3 Counsel should be fully informed as to the rules of evidence, court
6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-6 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 7 of 11
rules, and the law relating to all stages of the hearing process, and should be familiar with legal and evidentiary issues that can reasonably be anticipated to arise in the adjudicatory hearing.
7.4 Counsel should be familiar with the substantive and procedural law regarding the preservation of legal error for appellate review.
7.5 Counsel should advise the client as to suitable courtroom dress and demeanor and circumstances under which he may be examined by the Court.
Performance Standard 8: Attorney’s Duty at Adjudicatory Hearing
8.1 Counsel should be aware that except for certain circumstances, juvenile proceedings are confidential. (See O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-78 and -79).
8.2 Counsel should use the opening statement as an opportunity to educate the judge as to counsel's theory of the case. Counsel should consider the advantages and disadvantages of the disclosure of information during the opening statement.
8.3 Counsel should make motions and objections, on the record or in writing as necessary and in accordance with local court rules.
8.4 Counsel should participate in the litigation process, including direct examination of witnesses (lay and expert), documentary, and physical evidence. (However, where counsel is not petitioner, presentation need not be cumulative.)
8.5 Counsel should consider whether the child-client should testify, and if so:
1. Be prepared to meet any challenges to the child’s competency as a witness.
2. Ensure that the child is adequately prepared by, among other things, familiarizing the child with the courtroom and court procedures.
3. Request that the court put in place appropriate protections, if necessary, such as excluding non-parties from the courtroom; excluding non-lawyers from the courtroom; or conducting the examination in camera.
8.6 Counsel should cross-examine witnesses of other parties, including voir dire regarding documentary or physical evidence and
7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-6 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 8 of 11
qualifications of experts.
8.7 Counsel should use the closing argument to summarize the evidence and testimony as it applies to the theory of the case. Counsel should also make recommendations as to disposition of the case.
8.8 Counsel should review any written order entered on any matter of importance to the child’s interests to verify that it matches the court’s directive on the record and, when necessary, should take appropriate steps to ensure that the order accurately reflects the court’s findings and directives.
Performance Standard 9: Duty at the Disposition Hearing
Commentary:
The active participation of counsel at disposition is essential. In many cases, counsel's most valuable service to clients will be rendered at this stage of the proceeding. An important part of representation in a deprivation case is planning for disposition.
9.1 Preparation for Hearing:
a. Based on the child advocate attorney’s investigation and knowledge of the case and the client’s needs, the attorney should prepare a theory of disposition that will best meet the client’s needs. In consultation with the client and collateral contacts, the attorney should formulate a recommendation as to types of placement and service resources necessary to ensure the child’s safety, permanency, and well-being. Counsel should explain to the client the nature of the disposition hearing, the issues involved and the alternatives open to the court.
9.2 During the hearing:
a. Counsel should insist that proper procedure be followed throughout the disposition stage and that orders entered be based on adequate reliable evidence.
b. Counsel should subpoena witnesses and present evidence to support counsel’s proposed disposition plan.
c. Counsel should fully cross examine adverse witnesses, and challenge the accuracy, credibility and weight of any reports, written statements or other evidence before the court.
d. Counsel should consider whether the client should make a statement to the court.
e. Counsel should advocate for a comprehensive dispositional order
8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-6 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 9 of 11
that, at a minimum, includes provisions regarding placement (including adequate consideration of available relative resources); services for the child; services for the parents; and a visitation plan as appropriate.
Performance Standard 10: Child Advocate Attorney’s Continuing Duty to Client
10.1 The child’s attorney should ensure that the child understands the court’s order after the hearing is concluded.
10.2 The child’s attorney should attempt to resolve any non-compliance with the court’s order as appropriate under the circumstances and the rules of professional responsibility, and, if necessary, by requesting court intervention through a motion to compel or for contempt of court.
10.3 The Child Advocate Attorney continues to represent the child so long as the Juvenile Court retains jurisdiction in the case. In periods between court hearings, if the child advocate attorney becomes aware that the client or the client’s family needs community or other medical, psychiatric, psychological, social or legal services, he or she should render all possible assistance in arranging for such services by advocating with DFCS or by bringing an appropriate request or motion to the Court. The Advocate Attorney should review placement orders granting legal custody to DFCS of any client in the physical custody of DFCS and upon discovery that an order has lapsed, take appropriate steps to ensure the continued protection of the child’s interests.
10.4 The child’s lawyer should make all reasonable efforts to be aware at all times of the placement location and contact information for the client, which should be displayed prominently and be easily accessible in the file. Whenever there is a move the Child Advocate Attorney should monitor whether necessary services should continue. The child advocate attorney should always advocate that the child be placed in the most appropriate, least restrictive environment consistent with the child’s needs. If the child is placed in a placement which the child advocate attorney deems inappropriate, this should be brought to
9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-6 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 10 of 11
the attention of appropriate DFCS officials and, if necessary, the Juvenile Court. Performance Standard 11: Conflicts of Interest
11.1 At a minimum, child advocate attorneys should decline to represent children in the following circumstances:
i. The attorney, or another attorney in the Child Advocate Office, represents, or has represented, the Defendant parent or guardian.
ii. Children in a sibling group have conflicting accounts of facts material to the deprivation or TPR determination.
iii. Positions to be taken on behalf of children in a sibling group are mutually exclusive and conflict in a material way.
11.2 Counsel must be alert to all potential and actual conflicts of interest that would impair counsel's ability to represent a client. When appropriate, counsel may be obliged to seek an advisory opinion on any potential conflicts.
11.3 If a conflict develops during the course of representation, counsel has a duty to notify the client and the court in accordance with the Uniform Rules of Court and in accordance with the Disciplinary Rules of the State Bar of Georgia.
11.4 When a conflict between or among siblings develops after representation has begun, in general, the attorney should withdraw from representing all siblings.
Performance Standard 12: Child’s Right to an Appeal
Commentary:
Appeals from judgments in juvenile court are handled in the same manner as appeals from superior court.
12.1 Counsel should inform the client, in a developmentally appropriate manner, of his or her right to an appeal, the steps necessary to appeal
10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-6 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 11 of 11
and the likelihood of success. If after such consultation, the child wishes to appeal the order, and the appeal has merit, the lawyer should take all steps necessary to perfect the appeal and seek appropriate temporary orders or extraordinary writs necessary to protect the interests of the child during the pendency of the appeal.
12.2 The child’s attorney should participate in an appeal filed by another party.
12.3 When the appeal decision is received, the child’s attorney should explain the outcome of the case to the child.
12.4 Counsel should know the rules of both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals concerning the filing of appeals.
Performance Standard 13: Special Considerations
13.1 Time Limits: Counsel should be aware of the time limits applicable in juvenile court and the unique circumstances of a deprivation case. The child advocate attorney should be sensitive to a child’s sense of time and endeavor at all stages of a case to expedite the matter and urge the court to do so as well.
13.2 Confidentiality of Proceedings and Records: Counsel should be aware that, except in certain circumstances, the general public is excluded from all juvenile court proceedings and that juvenile records are not available to the public.
13.3 Immigration Counsel should be aware of the collateral effects of a juvenile court proceeding on the client or client’s family’s immigration status and consult with an expert if necessary.
13.4 Special Education: Counsel should be aware of any rights the client may have under special education laws.
13.5 Cessation of representation: The child’s attorney should discuss the end of the legal representation with the child, and determine what contacts, if any, they will continue to have.
11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-7 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 1 of 13
Appendix C
DEKALB COUNTY CHILD ADVOCACY CENTER POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Knowledge and Experience
Child Advocate Attorneys of the DCCAC must demonstrate the following experience and knowledge: A minimum of two (2) years of litigation experience; a strong commitment to children’s issues and involvement in the juvenile justice, child welfare systems or related areas preferred; demonstrate a working knowledge of O.C.G.A. chapter 15 section 11, Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 2003 (CAPTA), and the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997.
Role of Child Advocate Attorney
The Child Advocate Attorney shall represent the best interest of children within DeKalb County, alleged to be abused and/or neglected so long as they are subject to the jurisdiction of the DeKalb County Juvenile Court System with regard to deprivation matters.
Representation
Advocate-attorneys shall represent the best interest of child-clients in all deprivation hearings as long as child remains under the jurisdiction of the Court. Hearings shall include: 72 hours or Detentional hearings, Adjudicatory hearings, Dispositional hearings, Review hearings, Termination of Parental Rights hearings, 12 month post-TPR review hearings, Non-Reunification hearings, Parental Notification hearings and all other proceedings where the best-interest of the child-client is at issue.
1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-7 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 2 of 13
Advocate-attorneys shall actively participate in the litigation process by filing all relevant pleadings, motion papers and responses. The Advocateattorneys should take all necessary action to ensure the protection of a child alleged to be deprived under the law, including making referrals to the Child Protective Services unit of the Department of Family and Children Services for investigation as well as the filing of Complaints alleging deprivation to bring the matter under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court.
Advocate-attorneys shall refer and adhere to the 2005 Juvenile Court Deprivation Process and Procedure Training Manual in the representation of child-clients throughout the deprivation process.
Training
Child Advocate Attorneys must obtain no less than six (6) hours annually of coursework focused specifically in the area of child advocacy, child welfare and/or deprivation law (related subject-matter). Advocateattorneys must specifically complete the six (6) hour “Guardian ad Litem Representation in Juvenile Court” course sponsored by the Institute of Continuing Legal Education within one year of employment by the DCCAC. Additionally, Child Advocate Attorneys must participate in monthly DCCAC sponsored interagency child-welfare in-service trainings to increase knowledge of available services and resources. Child advocate attorneys must also be aware of the requirements of the Kenny A. Consent Decree between the Plaintiffs and the State Defendants.
Attorney-Client Relationship
Client Contact: • Advocate-attorneys shall maintain regular contact with clients, caretaker and providers. • Child-clients should be seen and interviewed, if of verbal age, no more than 30 days prior to the first setting of all scheduled formal hearings; • Child advocate attorneys (or investigators or social workers acting as the attorney’s agent and under the supervision of the child advocate
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-7 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 3 of 13
attorney) should see (and interview, if of a verbal age) their child clients in their living environments at least once per year, whether they are in a foster home, residential placement, or on a trial discharge to their home of origin. • Child-clients should be seen, interviewed if of a verbal age, and case status updated regularly, but no less than quarterly so long as the child remains in care, and any time there is an emergency or other circumstance when, in the professional discretion of counsel, it is deemed necessary to ensure the safety and well being of the child. • Advocate-attorneys shall establish and maintain a rapport with childclients by participating in age and developmentally appropriate communication. • Advocate-attorneys shall explain to child-clients the status of the case and potential outcomes to ensure that the child-client is well informed; and to allow the child-client to assist in the representation his/her best interest. • Advocate-attorneys shall explain the role of the guardian-attorney to the child-client.
Case Management Case Assignment: Cases shall be assigned at the discretion of the DCCAC Director. Generally, staff attorneys will be assigned to represent cases according to courtroom calendars.
Case Preparation: Discovery- Staff attorneys shall follow the Juvenile Code Rules of
Discovery. Exchange of documents may be sought informally through written request or by formal subpoena authorized through the court. Upon request, the advocate-attorney representing the interests of a child subject to an action in deprivation shall have access to the Court file for inspection, copying, or photographing including: a copy of the complaint, the petition, contact information of complaining party, relevant witnesses, transcription of hearings, reports, physical evidence and police and supplemental reports.
Investigations -
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-7 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 4 of 13
• Investigative Cover Sheets: Immediately following assignment, the advocate-attorney shall prepare an ICS. The purpose of the ICS is to provide direction to the assisting investigative support staff. The ICS shall include a synopsis of the case, status of the case, and assignment of duties including witnesses to be interviewed, purpose of interviews, documents to be secured.
• Contact lawyers for other parties and the CASA on the case (if any) for background information.
• If consented to by their attorney, contact and meet with the biological parents or other persons who are defendants to the deprivation case.
• Interview and subpoena witnesses: All relevant and potential witnesses should be interviewed prior to formal hearings, including persons who have relevant information about the child’s safety, permanency, well-being, and needs. If information is found to be relevant to the determination of deprivation, said witnesses should be subpoenaed to testify before the court.
• Subpoena and review all relevant reports & documents including but not limited to: medical records and reports, psychological/psychiatric evaluations, Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments (CCFAs), safety plans, witness statements, police reports, court records regarding prior histories of defendant-parents and families, education records, and records of other public or private social service agencies that have provided services to the family, etc. • Review photographs, audio/videotapes, and any other physical evidence.
• Advocate-attorneys shall conference with investigative support no more than 48 hours prior to related hearing. The purpose of said conference is to determine results of investigations, to clarify and identify remaining issues, provide direction in investigative process. The 48 conference shall not preclude ongoing direction and monitoring of investigative process by advocate-attorneys. • Advocate-attorneys shall review investigative reports prepared by investigative support and include or incorporate said information into Child Advocate Attorney Investigative Report.
4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-7 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 5 of 13
Witnesses- Advocate-attorneys shall interview and, when necessary, subpoena all persons possessing information necessary for the determination of deprivation and/or disposition.
Child Advocate Attorney Investigation Reports: Advocate-attorneys shall prepare Investigation Reports to be submitted to the Court for consideration during the disposition phase of the case. Supplemental Investigation Reports shall be submitted where additional information is necessary to assist the Court so long as the child remains under the jurisdiction of the Court. The CAA Investigation Report shall contain information regarding the case status, case summary, contact information of relevant parties, medical and psychological information of parents and children, educational, placement, status of related criminal or civil actions, identification of persons interviewed and documents reviewed during case investigation and report preparation, and summary of child-client interviews and attorney-advocate recommendations. Case Staffings: Whenever possible, attorney-advocates shall staff cases with DFCS case managers and the representing SAAG prior to hearings. Attorney-advocates shall regularly staff cases with Director or designee as to case status and strategies.
Client Representation / Juvenile Court and Deprivation Process and Procedure: Advocate-attorneys shall refer to the 2005 Juvenile Court Deprivation Process and Procedure Training Manual in the representation of child-clients in deprivation matters. Advocate-attorneys shall fully participate in the litigation process by filing all necessary pleadings, motions and court papers, subpoena documentary evidence and witnesses, examining witnesses and submitting evidence required to ensure the protection of the child. The Child advocate attorney must consider whether the child-client should testify, and if so, should prepare to meet any competency challenges; ensure that the child is adequately prepared, by among other things, familiarizing the child with the courtroom and court procedures; and request that the court put in place appropriate protections. Child advocate attorneys should make and/or file oral or written motions or other pleadings necessary to obtain relief.
5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-7 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 6 of 13
Child advocate attorneys should review any written order entered on any matter of importance to the child’s interests to verify that it matches the court’s directive on the record. Any discrepancies should be brought to the court’s and parties’ attention immediately through motion or informal mechanism, as governed by local practice. Consent Agreements and Dismissals: Attorney-advocates shall thoroughly review all relevant materials and independently investigate allegations prior to consenting to any consent agreement. Attorney-advocates shall not consent to any case dismissal without having interviewed the child-client, if of verbal age; nor without having recommended and reviewed a safety plan consented to by DFCS and the defendant-parent/guardian, sufficient to ensure the protection of the child.
Case Plans Advocate-attorneys shall participate in the preparation of case plans prior to their submission to the Court. Child advocate attorneys should advocate with DFCS to include in the case plans the provision of all services to the child and the child’s family necessary to ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being of the child. The advocate-attorney shall ensure that case plans are prepared and submitted to the Court within the requisite time constraints according to the Georgia Code. If the case plan does not include services that the child advocate attorney deems necessary to ensure the safety, permanency, and well-being of the child-client, the child advocate attorney should advocate with the Juvenile Court for an order directing the inclusion of such services in the case plan.
If an identified service need is not being provided to the child or the child’s family, then the child advocate attorney should notify the Court and recommend the Court seek to enforce its order.
Case plans should provide accurate information as to the parties, case status, placement and all relevant facts. Case plans must also identify reasonable process to adequately address all of the identified needs of the child in care. Finally the case plan must clearly articulate goals to be addressed by the defendant-parent/guardian to promote reunification and must set out a visitation plan that provides adequate time for parent-child bonding. In the
6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-7 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 7 of 13
alternative, the case plan must address legal justifiable reasons why reunification goals are not to be pursued.
Additional Advocacy: Advocate-Attorneys shall represent and promote the best interest of child-clients, as needed, in non-judicial processes to ensure the protection, proper care and supervision so long as the child remains in care. These matters may include but are not limited to: Family Team Meetings, permanency reviews, or other staffings; educational administrative and disciplinary proceedings and the securing of individualized educational plans; psychological and therapeutic advocacy; protection of the child-clients interest in the prosecution of defendantparent/guardians in related acts against the child; medical, disability, health, reproductive rights and resources; substance abuse intervention; promotion of Independent Living resources to ensure that children who age out of the system have adequate support systems. Should a child-client be arrested, upon request by defense counsel, the Child Advocate attorney will provide relevant information to the child’s delinquency or defense attorney to assist in the criminal defense and/or disposition/sentencing so long as the attorneyclient privilege or the protection of the child’s best interest is not compromised.
Case Monitoring: Advocate-attorneys shall continue to monitor assigned cases to ensure the protection of the child’s best interest and that the child receives appropriate services, so long as the child-client remains under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile Court. The child’s attorney should attempt to resolve any non-compliance with the court’s order as appropriate under the circumstances and the rules of professional responsibility, and, if necessary, by requesting court intervention through a motion to compel or for contempt of court.
Case File Maintenance: All relevant documents should be maintained in following categories:
• Complaints and Pleadings • Orders
7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-7 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 8 of 13
• Case Notes: CAA should promptly update case files providing detailed case notes of all hearings, party and witness interaction, attorneys’ interaction and case communications. • Reports: Including home evaluations and assessments; provider progress reports; psychological, psychiatric and medical reports; police initial and supplemental reports; reports and paperwork from related criminal and civil proceedings; GAL/CASA and CAA Investigation Reports.
Case Reviews – Advocate Attorneys shall schedule all case reviews as required by the Georgia code, shall review placement orders granting legal custody to DFCS of any client in the physical custody of DFCS, and, upon discovery that an order has lapsed, shall take appropriate steps to ensure the continued protection of the child’s interests.
Other Responsibilities: • Serve as DCCAC representative on at least one (1) inter-agency stakeholders committee annually. • Assist with the continued development of the DCCAC. • Participate in DCCAC sponsored projects as requested by Director. • Make at least one (1) outreach presentation annually to promote public information with regard to deprivation and child welfare issues.
8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-7 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 9 of 13
Home Assessments
It is the policy of the DCCAC that this office does not have the resources, training, duty or mandate sufficient to conduct independent home evaluations upon which the Juvenile Court can make determinations for placement of a child outside of a DFCS approved placement. (This refers to placement with relatives, non-relatives, or return to the home). However, if the individual attorney-advocate finds that an assessment of proposed placement is necessary in order to adequately formulate a recommendation on disposition then the attorney-advocate or the investigator, as directed by the attorney- advocate, may conduct a home assessment. However, this office should not submit a recommendation evaluating the appropriateness of a placement, but may only report as to the generally observed circumstances of the household. This policy should be strictly adhered to. Additionally, in these circumstances, the child advocate attorney should urge DFCS to conduct a full evaluation, or should request that the Juvenile Court direct DFCS to do so.
It is the position of the DCCAC that DFCS has the mandate and sufficient resources, including access to state and federal databases regarding financial, resource assistance, criminal and social service histories that are necessary to formulate adequate and complete evaluations of the appropriateness of a non-agency monitored or maintained placement.
The distinction between an assessment and an evaluation is that while the DCCAC can assess what resources or deficiencies that a home has and report that to the court, this office CANNOT evaluate a home for appropriateness of placement, safety, custody transfers or recommendations. Home evaluations should be under the purview of DFCS. One exception, if specifically ordered by the court, home evaluations must be conducted. These exceptions must be staffed with the Director and approved.
DCCAC Operational Policies
The DCCAC is a department structured under the Chief Executive division of the DeKalb County Government. As such, the administrative, operation and human resources policies and procedures of DeKalb County Government apply. All staff members of the DCCAC are employees of
9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-7 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 10 of 13
DeKalb County Government and are subject to comply with the policies and procedures of DeKalb County.
10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-7 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 11 of 13

DEPARTMENTAL PROCEDURES AND OPERATIONS Client Database Instructions

In order to maintain comprehensive information regarding the CAC caseloads, a database has been created. Each attorney and investigator will be required to input, update and maintain relevant information regarding all cases handled. Please review the following instructions regarding database maintenance.

1.
2.
3. year.
4.

A comprehensive client database (CAC Client Database) will be available for “read-only” access on the shared CA drive. This excel document will be edited and updated monthly by the Sr. Legal Secretary (SLS). The SLS will edit and merge “subdatabases” submitted each month by each attorney- investigator into the CAC Client Database.
The “sub-database” forms, available on the shared drive are titled “Nash- Client Database.(Attorney Initials).2004 and “Adams-Client Database.(Attorney Initials).2004”. These forms have the same fields as the CAC Client Database. Each attorney and investigator is responsible for inputting information from all cases handled each month. These monthly “sub-databases”, are to be emailed to the SLS no later than the second Monday of the following month so that they can be edited and merged into the CAC Client Database.
Each “sub-database” form will have tabs labeled by Month and
Information should be provided beginning August 13, 2004.

COMPLETING CLIENT DATABASE FORMS

a. Attorneys: For new cases input client information for each of the following fields: Client last, first names; file “@“number; Initials of child advocate; Original date of detentional hearing (do not include continuance dates); Original date of TPR hearings.

11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-7 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 12 of 13
b. For the “Formal Date and Type” field you will need to create a “Comments” box by going into the “Insert” list on your tool bar and clicking on “Comments”. You will then add the initial for the type hearing and date of that hearing in “( )“. (ie — CX (9/2).
c. Any additional hearing for a child will be added to the comments section. (ie — CX(9/2); CMOD(10/3); etc.)
Investigators: It is the responsibility of the investigators to input the initials of the investigators that are assigned to each case.
12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 525-7 Filed 03/23/2006 Page 13 of 13
Procedural steps for Detentional Hearing Preparation
1 — Administrative Coordinator (AO) receives a copy of Intake’s “Deprived Detentional Complaint Listing from Judicial Clerks. This is the list of deprivation complaints that Intake has processed within the last 24 hours. 2 — AO will post the copy of the “Deprived Detentional Complaint Listing in the Office Reception Area. This listing should be reviewed by all attorneys and reconciled with the attorney’s detentional files received. 3 — The Record Room will provide all necessary paperwork for Detentional Hearings, via DCCAC mailbox. 4— Duty Attorney must check our mailbox and return court documents to DCCAC. 5 — Investigators will be responsible for determining whether there are detentional files needed for the 11:00 addendum calendars. The Investigator will be responsible for securing and providing a copy of the addendum calendar along with accompanying complaints and paperwork to the child advocate. The Investigator will be responsible for creating a temporary file for use during detentional hearing, which will be kept in department’s remote office. 6 — After court, please submit all new add-on files to AO for preparation (form insertion, labeling, etc.). AO will return the completed file to the attorney within 24 hours.
13

 
 Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
218 F.R.D. 277 United States District Court,
N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.
KENNY A., by his next friend Linda WINN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Sonny PERDUE, et al., Defendants.
No. CIV.A.1:02–CV1686MHS. | Aug. 18, 2003.
Nine foster children in custody of state department of human resources, individually and on behalf of proposed class of all foster children in two counties, and subclass of African–American foster children, sued governor, department and its commissioner, and counties in state court, alleging violations of their constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process, liberty, privacy, and association, violations of statutory rights under Adoption Act, Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program (EPSDT) of Medicaid Act, and violations of Georgia law. Defendants removed action to federal court. Children moved to amend complaint and for certification of class, and defendants moved for dismissal and for protective order. The District Court, Shoob, Senior District Judge, held that: (1) governor, department, and commissioner waived their right to seek abstention under Younger; (2) abstention would not have been appropriate; (3) Rooker–Feldman doctrine did not deprive district court of subject matter jurisdiction; (4) Adoption Act created individual rights in foster children, enforceable under § 1983; (5) EPSDT created individual rights in foster children; (6) Georgia statutes created individual rights in foster children; (7) plans submitted by state to Secretary of Health and Human Services for funding under Social Security Act constituted binding contracts which foster children could enforce as third-party beneficiaries; (8) proposed class satisfied commonality requirement; and (9) proposed class satisfied typicality requirement.
Ordered accordingly.
Attorneys and Law Firms
*283 Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Corey Fleming Hirokawa, Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, Jane Garrett Okrasinski, Don C. Kennan, Keenan’s Kids Law Center, Atlanta, GA, Ira P. Lustbader, phv, Marcia Robinson Lowry, phv, Jeffrey K. Powell, phv, Stacy F. Antonucci, phv, Sarah Hechtman, phv, Erik S. Pitchal, phv, Children’s Rights, Inc., Douglas C. Gray, phv, Children’s Rights, New York City, for plaintiffs.
John C. Jones, Kathleen Mary Pacious, Eddie Snelling, Jr., Thurbert E. Baker, Office of State Attorney General, Mark Howard Cohen, Troutman Sanders, Atlanta, GA, Elizabeth B. Taylor, Winston A. Denmark, Vivica Mitchell Brown, Office of DeKalb County Attorney, Jefferson James Davis, Davis & Davis, Decatur, GA, Willie Jake Lovett, Jr., Rolesia Butler Dancy, Patricia A. Chandler, Office of Fulton County Attorney, Atlanta, GA, Sarah Hechtman, phv, Children’s Rights, Inc., New York City, Charles George Hicks, William J. Linkous, III, Decatur, GA, for defendants.
Opinion
ORDER
SHOOB, Senior District Judge.
This action is before the Court on defendants’ motions to dismiss and for protective order and on plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and for leave to file their first amended complaint. For the following reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part defendants’ motions to dismiss, denies the motion for protective order, and grants plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and for leave to amend their complaint.

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
Procedural Background
On June 6, 2002, nine foster children in the custody of the Georgia Department of Human Resources filed this action in the Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of a class of Fulton and DeKalb County foster children and a subclass of African–American foster children. The complaint seeks to address alleged systemic deficiencies in foster care in Fulton and DeKalb Counties.
Plaintiffs assert fifteen causes of action under federal and state law.1 The federal law claims are brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of plaintiffs’ federal constitutional rights to substantive and procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment (Counts IV and XVII) and to liberty, privacy, and association under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments (Count V); and for alleged violations of plaintiffs’ federal statutory rights under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Count VIII); the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, as amended by the Inter-ethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996 (Count XV); and the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program of the Medicaid Act (Count XVI).
The state law claims allege violations of plaintiffs’ rights to substantive due process and equal protection under the Georgia Constitution (Counts III and XIV); violations of O.C.G.A. §§ 49–5–12, 15–11–58, 15–11–13, and 20–2–690.1 (Counts VI, VII, IX, and X); nuisance (Count XI); breach of contract(Count XII); and inadequate and ineffective legal representation (Count XIII).
*284 Plaintiffs sued the Governor of Georgia, initially Roy Barnes and now Sonny Perdue; the Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR)and its Commissioner, Jim Martin; the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services (Fulton DFCS) and its Director, Beverly Jones; and the DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services (DeKalb DFCS) and its Director, Wayne Drummond (State Defendants); as well as Fulton and DeKalb Counties (County Defendants). Contemporaneous with the filing of their complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On June 19, 2002, defendants removed the case to this Court.
On July 1, 2002, the Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for expedited discovery as to one aspect of this action: the safety and well-being of foster children in Fulton and DeKalb Counties’ emergency shelters. On September 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin defendants from continuing to manage and operate the shelters in a manner that allegedly violated the legal rights of foster children. The Court conducted a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction on November 14–15 and 18–19, 2002. On December 12, 2002, the Court issued an Order denying the motion without prejudice.2 Since then, the parties have proceeded with discovery on plaintiffs’ other claims. Meanwhile, State Defendants and DeKalb County filed motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint in whole or in part, defendant Fulton County filed a motion for a protective order prohibiting plaintiffs’ counsel from communicating with Fulton County juvenile court judges, and plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion for class certification and moved for leave to amend their complaint.
Discussion
I. State Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss State Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety on two grounds. First, they argue that Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), requires the Court to abstain from hearing all of plaintiffs’ claims because the proceedings would impermissibly interfere with ongoing state judicial proceedings. Second, they contend that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine.
Alternatively, State Defendants seek dismissal of many of plaintiffs’ federal and state law claims on the grounds that they fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted.3 Specifically, as to the federal claims, State Defendants contend that plaintiffs have no private right of action to enforce provisions of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (Count VIII) or the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program of the Medicaid Act (Count XVI); that plaintiffs fail to state a procedural due process claim because the statutes they seek to enforce create no rights (Count XVII); and that

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
plaintiffs fail to state a claim for familial association under the First, Ninth, or Fourteenth Amendments (Count V).4 As to the state law claims, State Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ claims under O.C.G.A. §§ 49–5–12, 15–11–13, and 15–11–58 are not cognizable under Georgia law (Counts VI, VII, and IX); that O.C.G.A. § 20–2–690.1 is a criminal statute *285 that does not create a private cause of action (Count X); that plaintiffs cannot maintain an action for private or public nuisance (Count XI); and that plaintiffs fail to state a claim for breach of contract (Count XII).
A. Younger Abstention [1] State Defendants argue that the Court should abstain from hearing this case because the broad injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs would interfere with ongoing juvenile court proceedings. Plaintiffs respond that State Defendants waived their right to seek abstention by removing the case to federal court. Plaintiffs also argue that abstention is inappropriate in any event because the relief they request will not interfere with state court proceedings, and because the state proceedings do not provide them an adequate opportunity to remedy violations of their federal rights. The Court concludes that State Defendants have waived their right to seek abstention, and that even absent waiver, abstention would not be appropriate.
Younger abstention is a doctrine of federal-state comity that limits the extent to which state defendants may be sued in federal court. See Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 431, 102 S.Ct. 2515, 73 L.Ed.2d 116 (1982). In this case, however, State Defendants are in federal court only because of their own decision to remove the case from state court. It would be fundamentally unfair to permit State Defendants to argue that this Court must abstain from hearing the case after they voluntarily brought the case before this Court. To do so would permit defendants effectively to prevent plaintiffs from pursuing their federal claims in any forum.
[2] The Supreme Court foreclosed such tactics in Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613, 122 S.Ct. 1640, 152 L.Ed.2d 806 (2002). In Lapides, the Supreme Court held that a state waives its Eleventh Amendment immunity when it removes a case from state court to federal court. Although Lapides involved Eleventh Amendment immunity rather than abstention, the rule stated in that case is directly applicable here: “[R]emoval is a form of voluntary invocation of a federal court’s jurisdiction sufficient to waive the State’s otherwise valid objection to litigation of a matter ... in a federal forum.” Lapides, 535 U.S. at 624, 122 S.Ct. 1640; see also Ohio Bureau of Employment Serv’s v. Hodory, 431 U.S. 471, 480, 97 S.Ct. 1898, 52 L.Ed.2d 513 (“If the State voluntarily chooses to submit to a federal forum, principles of comity do not demand that the federal court force the case back into the State’s own system”). Thus, having exercised their right to remove this action to federal court, State Defendants may not now seek to avoid the federal jurisdiction they themselves have invoked by asking the Court to abstain.
[3] [4] Furthermore, even if defendants had not waived their right to seek abstention, the Younger abstention doctrine would not apply in this case. At the outset, it is important to note that “[t]he doctrine of abstention ... is an extraordinary and narrow exception to the duty of a District Court to adjudicate a controversy properly before it.” Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 813, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976)(quoting County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U.S. 185, 188–89, 79 S.Ct. 1060, 3 L.Ed.2d 1163 (1959)). Accordingly, this Court will not lightly shirk its “virtually unflagging obligation to exercise the jurisdiction given [to it].” Id. at 818, 96 S.Ct. 1236.
[5] Younger requires abstention when federal proceedings would (1) interfere with ongoing state judicial proceedings that (2) implicate important state interests and (3) afford an adequate opportunity to raise the federal claims. Middlesex, 457 U.S. at 432, 102 S.Ct. 2515; 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255, 1276 (11th Cir.2003). In this case, there is no dispute that the named plaintiffs and the members of the class they seek to represent are all involved in ongoing deprivation proceedings in the juvenile court. Nor is there any dispute that these proceedings implicate important state interests in the care, disposition, and welfare of deprived children. Therefore, to determine whether to abstain, the Court must consider whether these proceedings will interfere with the ongoing *286 state proceedings and whether the state proceedings afford plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to raise their federal claims.
The Court concludes that the relief requested by plaintiffs would not interfere with ongoing juvenile court proceedings.5 Although plaintiffs all have periodic reviews before the state juvenile courts, the declaratory and injunctive relief plaintiffs seek is not directed at their review hearings, or at Georgia’s juvenile courts, juvenile court judges, or juvenile court personnel. Rather, plaintiffs seek relief directed solely at executive branch defendants to remedy their alleged failures as plaintiffs’ custodians.

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
As set out in the complaint, these alleged failures include (1) assigning excessive numbers of cases to inadequately trained and poorly supervised caseworkers; (2) not developing a sufficient number of foster homes properly screened to ensure the plaintiff children’s safety; (3) not identifying adult relatives who could care for the plaintiff children as an alternative to strangers or impersonal institutions; (4) failing to provide relevant information and support services to foster parents in order to prevent foster placements from being disrupted; (5) failing to develop administrative controls such as an information management system that ensures plaintiff children are expeditiously placed in a foster home matched to meet the children’s specific needs; (6) failing to provide timely and appropriate permanency planning, including failing to provide services that would enable plaintiffs to achieve their permanency planning goals; (7) placing plaintiffs in dangerous, unsanitary, inappropriate shelters and other placements; (8) failing to provide appropriate and necessary mental health, medical, and education services to children in their custody; and (9) separating teenage mothers in foster care from their own children and separating siblings in foster care from each other without providing visitation. (Compl.¶¶ 39–97.)
If these claims are proven, an order by this Court remedying such failures would not interfere in any way with ongoing juvenile court proceedings. To the contrary, the relief sought by plaintiffs would at most simply support and further the juvenile court’s own mission of ensuring that children removed from their parents’ custody because of abuse or neglect are not further harmed when the juvenile court orders them into the custody of the state.6
Thus, for example, plaintiffs seek relief to ensure that caseloads are reduced to a reasonable level. The only conceivable effect on state court proceedings that could flow from such relief would be caseworkers appearing in juvenile court who are better prepared because they have reasonable caseloads. *287 Likewise, plaintiffs seek to ensure that State Defendants develop an adequate and reliable computer database. Far from interfering with juvenile court proceedings, such relief would actually enable the juvenile court to do its job better by providing it with more accurate and complete information about the children whose lives may be profoundly affected by its decisions.
The Court also concludes that the ongoing juvenile court proceedings do not afford plaintiffs an adequate opportunity to raise their federal claims. Plaintiffs seek prospective injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and others to remedy ongoing violations of their rights. The juvenile court, however, as a court of limited jurisdiction, lacks the power to grant such relief. Georgia juvenile courts have no equitable powers and thus cannot grant injunctive relief. See H.C.S. v. Grebel, 253 Ga. 404, 406–07, 321 S.E.2d 321 (1984) (Hill, C.J., concurring). Nor can that court order class-based relief. Even in individual cases, the juvenile court cannot order DFCS to provide a particular placement for a child, develop new placements, or enter orders regarding staff training, caseloads, the creation of new resources or other issues affecting what happens to children who come before it. See note 6 supra.
[6] Furthermore, even if the juvenile court could afford plaintiffs the relief they seek, plaintiffs do not have full access to such relief because they are dependent upon an allegedly overburdened and inadequate system of legal representation, which prevents them from raising their claims in the juvenile court. Although plaintiffs receive representation through a child advocate attorney, they have alleged that each such advocate has a caseload of approximately 500 children7 (Compl.¶ 99), which makes it impossible for the children to have their voices heard and their claims raised in juvenile court. Furthermore, since they are children, plaintiffs must rely on adult advocates to speak for them. They cannot, however, rely on defendants to represent them if it is defendants who are violating their rights. Thus, plaintiffs’ very status as children combines with their lack of adequate adult representation to create insurmountable procedural obstacles that preclude them from using the juvenile courts to protect their rights.
The Court’s conclusions are not altered by the Eleventh Circuit’s recent decision in 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir.2003). In that case, the plaintiff children filed suit on behalf of themselves and all children in Florida’s foster care system alleging, inter alia, that the state officials administering the system were violating plaintiffs’ rights to safe care, prompt permanent placements, and services extended after their eighteenth birthdays, as guaranteed by substantive due process; procedural due process in determining the services they would receive; and family association with siblings as guaranteed by the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed these claims on Younger abstention grounds, Bonnie L. ex rel. Hadsock v. Bush, 180 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1331–38 (S.D.Fla.2001), and the court of appeals affirmed. 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1274–82. This case, however, is distinguishable from 31 Foster Children.
First and foremost, as discussed above, unlike 31 Foster Children, defendants voluntarily submitted this case to federal court jurisdiction by removing it from state court. Under such circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that Younger principles of equity and comity simply do not apply. Lapides, 535 U.S. at 624, 122 S.Ct. 1640; Hodory, 431 U.S. at 480, 97 S.Ct. 1898.

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
Second, the relief requested in 31 Foster Children went far beyond what is sought here. As described by the court of appeals, plaintiffs in 31 Foster Children sought “to have the district court appoint a panel and give it authority to implement a systemwide plan to revamp and reform dependency proceedings in Florida, as well as the appointment of a permanent children’s advocate to oversee that plan.” 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1279. No such relief is requested by plaintiffs in this case. Also, in 31 Foster Children, the court of appeals noted that *288 “[t]he federal and state courts could well differ, issuing conflicting orders about what is best for a particular plaintiff, such as whether a particular placement is safe or appropriate or whether sufficient efforts are being made to find an adoptive family.” Id. at 1278. In this case, however, plaintiffs do not ask the Court to make individualized determinations with respect to particular foster children. Instead, they seek relief mandating, on a system-wide basis, that State Defendants institute reforms to ensure that deprived children’s constitutional and statutory rights are not violated.
The differences between this case and 31 Foster Children are further illustrated by the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Joseph A. ex rel. Wolfe v. Ingram, 275 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir.2002), on which the Eleventh Circuit relied, and the district court’s decision following remand in that case. Joseph A. ex rel. Wolfe v. New Mexico Dep’t of Human Serv’s, No. CIV 80–623 JC/DJS (Jan. 16, 2003)(unpublished). In Joseph A., the plaintiff children, who were in New Mexico’s custody because of abuse or neglect, entered into a federal court consent decree with the New Mexico Department of Human Services. When the plaintiffs sought to have the Department held in contempt for violating the decree, the Department moved to dismiss based on Younger abstention. The district court granted the motion, but the Tenth Circuit vacated and remanded with directions to consider separately each provision of the consent decree. Joseph A., 275 F.3d at 1273.
The Eleventh Circuit in 31 Foster Children relied on the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Joseph A. to support the proposition that Younger abstention is warranted even if the requested relief does not directly target an ongoing state proceeding. 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1278. However, the Tenth Circuit did not explicitly rule that any of the provisions of the consent decree at issue required abstention. In fact, the court observed that enforcement of several provisions similar to the relief sought by plaintiffs in this case, governing training of social workers, development of a computerized management information system, and qualifications for social workers, “do not appear to risk interference with state court proceedings.” Joseph A., 275 F.3d at 1273. Furthermore, following remand, the district court carefully analyzed each of the consent decree’s provisions and found that none of the disputed provisions interfered with state court proceedings in such a way as to warrant federal court abstention.8 Joseph A., No. CIV 80–623 JC/DJS (Jan. 16, 2003).
With respect to the adequacy of available remedies, in 31 Foster Children, the Eleventh Circuit found it significant that Florida’s juvenile courts enjoy extensive authority to control a child’s placement. 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1279–81. Specifically, among other things, the court observed that under Florida law, the juvenile court “can determine whether a facility in which a child is located is safe, either by appointing a child’s representative to make an inquiry or itself investigating conditions at the facility. If the investigation reveals that a child ... is in a dangerous facility, the court can take action, including finding the Department in contempt for failing to comply with the child’s case plan.” Id. at 1280 (citations omitted). Under Georgia law, on the other hand, once the juvenile court has transferred temporary legal custody to DFCS, its authority is much more limited. The court conducts periodic reviews of the child’s placement plan and may order DFCS to comply with the plan or to devise a new plan “within available division resources.” O.C.G.A. § 15–11–55(c). However, the court’s only other alternative is to remove the child from DFCS custody. Id. Any other directions from the court regarding a child’s placement “are merely exhortatory and not binding on the department.” In the *289 Interest of J.N.T., 212 Ga.App. 498, 499, 441 S.E.2d 918 (1994)(quoting In the Interest of A.S., 185 Ga.App. 11, 12, 363 S.E.2d 325 (1987)).
Furthermore, even if the Georgia juvenile courts had the same authority as Florida’s courts, this case would still be distinguishable because plaintiffs claim that they do not have adequate representation to raise their claims in the state courts. In 31 Foster Children, the Eleventh Circuit found it significant that “each of these plaintiffs is represented by counsel” who could present the plaintiffs’ claims to the state courts in their dependency proceedings. 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1281. By contrast, as discussed above, plaintiffs in this case allege that their appointed attorneys provide ineffective legal representation because they have caseloads of approximately 500 children each. Thus, even if the Georgia juvenile court had the power to direct State Defendants to undertake specific reforms to remedy violations of plaintiffs’ rights, plaintiffs do not have adequate representation to raise those claims in that forum.
B. Rooker–Feldman Doctrine [7] [8] [9] [10] Under the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, federal courts other than the United States Supreme Court lack subject

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
matter jurisdiction to review the final judgments of state courts. See District of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415–16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). “The doctrine extends not only to constitutional claims presented or adjudicated by a state court, but also to claims that are ‘inextricably intertwined’ with a state court judgment.” Siegel v. Lepore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1172 (11th Cir.2000). “A federal claim is inextricably intertwined with a state court judgment ‘if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it.’ ” Id. (quoting Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1, 25, 107 S.Ct. 1519, 95 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987)(Marshall, J., concurring)). The doctrine applies even if the plaintiff failed to raise the federal issue in the state court, so long as he had a reasonable opportunity to do so. Liedel v. Juv. Ct. of Madison County, Ala., 891 F.2d 1542, 1545 & n. 4 (11th Cir.1990).
[11] State Defendants argue that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine applies here because plaintiffs’ claims are inextricably intertwined with their juvenile court proceedings, and plaintiffs had a reasonable opportunity to raise those claims in the juvenile court but failed to do so. Plaintiffs argue that their claims are not inextricably intertwined with the state court proceedings because they are not attacking any decisions of the juvenile court. Plaintiffs also argue that, for the reasons already discussed above, they did not have a reasonable opportunity to present their claims in the state court. The Court concludes that the Rooker–Feldman doctrine does not apply.
To apply the Rooker–Feldman doctrine on the basis that plaintiffs’ federal claims are inextricably intertwined with their juvenile court proceedings, the Court must find that the federal claims can succeed only to the extent that the juvenile court’s orders are erroneous. Pennzoil, 481 U.S. at 25, 107 S.Ct. 1519. It is clear, however, that the success or failure of plaintiffs’ federal claims is completely independent of whether the juvenile courts correctly decided any individual plaintiff’s case. Plaintiffs do not challenge any juvenile court order, and the success of their claims does not depend upon a finding that any juvenile court order was wrongly decided.
The cases on which State Defendants rely are inapposite. In two of those cases, the primary relief sought was an injunction preventing enforcement of the state court’s child custody order and returning custody to the aggrieved parent. See Liedel, 891 F.2d at 1545; Staley v. Ledbetter, 837 F.2d 1016, 1017 (11th Cir.1988). In the third, a child’s mother sought damages from DFCS employees for actions that supported the juvenile court’s custody orders. See Goodman ex rel. Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1334 (11th Cir.2001). No such claims are asserted, and no such relief is sought, by plaintiffs in this case. Thus, the granting of all the relief sought by plaintiffs would not call into question the correctness of any juvenile court order. Therefore, the Rooker–Feldman doctrine *290 does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ claims.
C. Federal Statutory Claims In Counts VIII and XVI of their complaint, plaintiffs seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of certain provisions of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (Adoption Act), comprising Parts B and E of Title IV of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620–628 and 670–679a; and the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a and 1396d. State Defendants argue that these federal funding statutes do not confer enforceable rights upon plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend to the contrary. The Court concludes that the statutes do create rights enforceable under § 1983.
[12] The Supreme Court has traditionally applied a three-part test to determine whether a federal statute confers a right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983:
First, Congress must have intended that the provision in question benefit the plaintiff. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the right assertedly protected by the statute is not so “vague and amorphous” that its enforcement would strain judicial competence. Third, the statute must unambiguously impose a binding obligation on the States. In other words, the provision giving rise to the asserted right must be couched in mandatory, rather than precatory, terms.
Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340–41, 117 S.Ct. 1353, 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997); see also Wilder v. Virginia Hosp. Ass’n, 496 U.S. 498, 509, 110 S.Ct. 2510, 110 L.Ed.2d 455 (1990). In Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 283, 122 S.Ct. 2268, 153 L.Ed.2d 309 (2002), the Court clarified the first requirement, stating that only an “unambiguously conferred right,” as distinguished from mere benefits or interests, would support a cause of action under § 1983.

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
[13] In addressing the first Blessing requirement, courts consider “whether the statute: (1) contains ‘rights-creating’ language that is individually focused; (2) addresses the needs of individual persons being satisfied instead of having a systemwide or aggregate focus; and (3) lacks an enforcement mechanism through which an aggrieved individual can obtain review.” 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1270. Taken together, these considerations must clearly indicate that Congress intended to create new individual rights. “Ambiguity precludes enforceable rights.” Id.
Both the Adoption Act and the EPSDT program are federal funding laws that provide money to the states to fund child welfare, foster care and adoption assistance, and medical assistance programs. To receive the federal funding, the states must submit plans to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that satisfy specified requirements. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 622 (state plans for child welfare services), 671 (state plans for foster care and adoption assistance), and 1396a (state plans for medical assistance). It is these plan requirements that plaintiffs contend confer upon them rights that are privately enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
1. Adoption Act [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] Plaintiffs claim that the Adoption Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. §§ 622(b)(10)(B)(i)-(iii), 671(a)(10), 671(a)(16), 671(a)(22), 675(1), and 675(5)(D) and (E),9 confers upon them the following privately enforceable rights:
(1) To placement in foster homes or other settings that conform to national professional standards and are subject to a uniformly applied set of standards, 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(10);10 *291 (2) To have an individual case plan developed for them that contains specific mandated elements and to have that case plan implemented, 42 U.S.C. §§ 671(a)(16)11 and 675(1);12 (3) To have services to facilitate the child’s permanency plan, 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(iii),13 including services to facilitate the child’s return to his or her family home or to another permanent placement, 42 U.S.C. § 675(1)(B),14 or adoption planning and services for those children whose permanency goal is adoption, 42 U.S.C. § 675(1)(E);15 (4) To have quality foster care services that protect their health and safety, 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(22);16 (5) In the case of a child who has reached 16 years of age, to have services needed to help the child prepare for the transition from foster care to independent living, 42 U.S.C. § 675(1)(D);17 (6) To have a systemic review of their case plans so that with respect to each child certain rights are protected, 42 U.S.C. §§ 671(a)(16)18 and 622(b)(10)(B)(ii);19 *292 (7) To have health and educational records reviewed, updated, and supplied to foster parents or foster care providers with whom the child is placed at the time of the placement, 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(D);20
(8) To have a petition to terminate parental rights filed, or have a compelling reason documented why such a petition has not been filed, in accordance with specified statutory standards and time frames, 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(E);21 and (9) To receive services in a child welfare system that has an information system adequate to permit the state to make fully informed decisions concerning each foster child’s best interests, 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(i).22 (Compl. ¶ 206; Pls.’ Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 34–37.)
The Court finds that the foregoing statutory provisions satisfy the standards established in Blessing and Wilder and clarified in Gonzaga for the creation of federal rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. First, foster children are the clearly intended beneficiaries of the provisions on which plaintiffs rely. Brian A. v. Sundquist, 149 F.Supp.2d 941, 947 (M.D.Tenn.2000). Second, the language throughout these provisions focuses on the needs of individual foster children, rather than having a systemwide or aggregate focus. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 622(b)(10)(B)(i)(requiring information system with data regarding “every child” in foster care), 622(b)(10)(B)(ii)(requiring case review system for “each child receiving foster care”), 622(b)(10)(B)(iii)(requiring service program designed to help “children”), 671(a)(16)(requiring case plan for “each child” in foster care and a case review system with respect to “each such child”), 671(a)(22)(requiring standards to protect health and safety of “children in foster care”), 675(1)(defining “case plan” in terms of documents regarding each “child”), and 675(5)(defining “case review system” in terms of procedures regarding each “child”). Third, the statute lacks an enforcement mechanism through which an aggrieved individual can obtain review. 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1272. Finally, the provisions are not too “vague and amorphous” to be enforced by the judiciary, Blessing, 520 U.S. at 340–41, 117 S.Ct. 1353; and they clearly impose a binding obligation on the States. Brian A., 149 F.Supp.2d at 947.
The Eleventh Circuit’s decision in 31 Foster Children v. Bush is not to the contrary. In that case, the court of appeals held

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
that 42 U.S.C. §§ 675(5)(D) and (E), construed together with 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(16), did not alone create privately enforceable rights. 31 Foster Children, 329 F.3d at 1268–74. In this case, however, plaintiffs rely on additional statutory provisions which, as noted above, contain the requisite rights-creating language. Also, in 31 Foster Children, the court of appeals relied in part on the fact that plaintiffs had not sued under *293 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(ii). Id. at 1271 n. 8. Here, on the other hand, plaintiffs have sued under that provision, which has been held by at least one court to create enforceable federal rights. Brian A., 149 F.Supp.2d at 947.23
2. Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment Program [23] [24] [25] Plaintiffs claim that the EPSDT program of the Medicaid Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(10)(a), 1396a(a)(43), 1396d(a)(i) & (4)(B), and 1396d(r)(1)-(5), confers upon them the following privately enforceable rights:
(1) To medical assistance for all or part of the cost of the care and services to which they have a right under the Medicaid statute, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(43),24 1396d(a)(i) & (4)(B);25
(2) To screening services at intervals that meet standards of medical and dental practice and when medically necessary, including the development of a comprehensive health and developmental history, 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(r)(1);26 and (3) To early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services, as defined in the Medicaid statute to include the right to vision, dental, and hearing services at intervals that meet the standards of medical and dental practice and when medically necessary; and the right to such other necessary health care, diagnostic services, treatment, and other measures needed to correct or ameliorate defects and physical and mental illnesses and conditions discovered by the screening services. 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(r)(2)-(5).27 (Compl. ¶ 225; Pls.’ Mem. of Law in Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 51.)
The Court finds that these statutory provisions satisfy the standards for creation of enforceable rights. First, eligible children under 21, including foster children, are the *294 clearly intended beneficiaries of the provisions. See Bonnie L., 180 F.Supp.2d at 1345, aff’d in part and vacated in part on other grounds sub nom. 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255. Second, the language of these provisions focuses on the needs of individual foster children. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(A)(state plan must provide for making medical assistance available to “all individuals” who qualify); 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(43)(state must inform “all persons” under 21 who are eligible of the availability of services and provide or arrange for provision of such services where requested and for corrective treatment as needed); and 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a)(i) & (4)(B)(“medical assistance” means payment of cost of services for “individuals” under 21 “whose income and resources are insufficient” to pay for “early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services”). Third, there is no enforcement mechanism through which an aggrieved individual can obtain review. Bonnie L., 180 F.Supp.2d at 1346–47. Finally, the provisions are not too “vague and amorphous” to be enforced by the judiciary, Blessing, 520 U.S. at 340–41, 117 S.Ct. 1353; and they clearly impose a binding obligation on the States. Bonnie L., 180 F.Supp.2d at 1346.
D. State Statutory Claims [26] [27] [28] In Counts VI, VII, and IX, respectively, of their complaint, plaintiffs assert claims based on implied private rights of action allegedly arising under O.C.G.A. §§ 49–5–12(j)(right to a properly screened and supervised home); 15–11–58(c), (j),28 and (m)(right to case plans and their implementation and permanent placement); and 15–11–13 (right to care, protection, training, education, and physical, mental, and moral welfare). State Defendants contend that none of these claims are cognizable under Georgia law because the statutes neither provide a basis for plaintiffs’ claims nor a private right of action in general. The Court concludes that each of these counts states viable claims under Georgia law.
[29] [30] There is little Georgia authority on this subject. Generally, Georgia courts look to the statute as a whole to determine whether the legislature impliedly intended to allow a private right of action. Cellular One, Inc. v. Emanuel County, 227 Ga.App. 197, 199, 489 S.E.2d 50 (1997). In Cellular One, the court also relied on federal authority regarding implied private rights of action. Specifically, the court followed Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. Nat. Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1, 101 S.Ct. 2615, 69 L.Ed.2d 435 (1981), in concluding that where the statute in question is part of a comprehensive administrative scheme that includes enforcement provisions and remedies for statutory violations, a private right of action will not be implied. Cellular One, 227 Ga.App. at 199–200, 489 S.E.2d 50. In light of the Georgia courts’ reliance on federal law in this area, this Court will look to federal authority for guidance.

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
[31] In Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975), the Supreme Court identified the following factors as relevant in determining whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly providing one: “First, is the plaintiff ‘one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted,’ ...? Second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? Third, is it consistent with the underlying purpose of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff?” Cort, 422 U.S. at 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080 (quoting Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33, 39, 36 S.Ct. 482, 60 L.Ed. 874 (1916)) (citations omitted)(emphasis in original). Applying these factors to the statutes at issue here, the Court finds that a private right of action is implied.
First, each of these statutes imposes specific duties on State Defendants that are clearly intended for the especial benefit of the deprived children in their custody. Thus, Georgia Code § 49–5–12(j) requires DFCS, “in placing children in foster family homes, ... [to] safeguard the welfare of such children by thoroughly investigating each such home and the character and reputation of the *295 persons residing therein and ... [to] adequately supervise each home during the period of care.” Code § 15–11–58(c) requires DFCS, where the goal for a child is reunification with his or her family, to prepare a case plan containing certain specified elements, including specific time frames in which the goals of the plan are to be accomplished. Code § 15–11–58(m) requires DFCS to file a petition to terminate parental rights and to seek a qualified family for adoption, if a child has been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months, unless specific reasons for not doing so are documented. Code § 15–11–58(o)(1) requires DFCS to submit a permanency plan to the juvenile court containing certain specified elements, including documentation of steps to be taken by DFCS to finalize a child’s permanent placement. Finally, Code § 15–11–13 requires DFCS “to provide for the care, protection, training, and education and the physical, mental, and moral welfare of the child[ren]” in its custody.
[32] [33] [34] Second, although there is no clear indication of legislative intent, it is completely consistent with the underlying purpose of the legislative scheme to imply a private right of action for plaintiffs. The express purpose of the statutes is the protection of children. See O.C.G.A. §§ 15–11–1 (“This chapter shall be liberally construed to the end ... [t]hat children whose well-being is threatened shall be assisted and protected...”); 49–5–2 (“The purpose of this article is to promote, safeguard, and protect the well-being and general welfare of children and youth of this state...”). Thus, the clear public policy underlying Georgia Code § 49–5–12(j) is to ensure that children who are taken into the state’s legal custody because they have been abused or neglected are not abused or neglected again by inappropriate caretakers chosen by the state. Likewise, the public policy underlying Code § 15–11–58 is that foster children either be returned to their homes or placed for adoption as soon as possible, and Code § 15–11–13 reflects a policy that all children in state custody be provided appropriate care, training, protection, and education. It is fully consistent with these clearly expressed public policies for the children who are intended to benefit to be able to sue to compel the state to comply with its legal obligations.29
[35] In Count X of their complaint, plaintiffs assert a claim under O.C.G.A. § 20–2–690.1 arising from State Defendants’ alleged failure to enroll and send plaintiffs to a school or provide home schooling that meets statutory standards. State Defendants contend that this is a criminal statute that does not give rise to a private civil cause of action. The Court concludes that a civil cause of action should be implied.
Georgia Code § 20–2–690.1 requires that “[e]very parent, guardian, or other person ... having control or charge of” a child must enroll the child in school or provide suitable home schooling. O.C.G.A. § 20–2–690.1(a). Violation of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $100.00 or imprisonment not to exceed 30 days, or both. O.C.G.A. § 20–2–690.1(b).
[36] [37] “Violation of a criminal statute does not always give rise to civil liability, but, civil liability may be authorized where the legislature has indicated a strong public policy for imposing a civil as well as criminal penalty for violation of a penal statute.” Key v. Grant, 238 Ga.App. 818, 818, 520 S.E.2d 277 (1999) (citations omitted). The courts have implied a civil cause of action from a criminal statute where it was consistent with the public policy underlying the statute and the victim of the crime was within the class of persons the statute was intended to protect. Id. at 819, 520 S.E.2d 277.
Here, school-age children such as plaintiffs are clearly the persons intended to benefit from Code § 20–2–690.1, and considerations of public policy strongly favor the conclusion that such children may sue to compel compliance with the law. The fact that children ordinarily cannot sue their parents is irrelevant, because State Defendants are not plaintiffs’ parents. By mandating that “every” *296 guardian must enroll and send their children to school, the legislature clearly intended that the state and its officials, when appointed as guardian to a child, would comply with this mandate. The ability of children in plaintiffs’ position to sue state officials to force such compliance is essential to their realizing the benefit the statute was

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
intended to confer.
E. Procedural Due Process Claim In Count XVII of their complaint, plaintiffs allege that they have been deprived of their rights under the Adoption Act; the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 (MEPA), as amended by the Inter-ethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996; the EPSDT program of the Medicaid Act; and O.C.G.A. § 49–5–12(j) in violation of federal procedural due process guarantees. State Defendants contend that these claims must fail because, for the reasons discussed above, these statutes do not create privately enforceable rights or interests.30 The Court has concluded, however, that these statutes do create privately enforceable rights. Therefore, plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim survives.
F. Familial Association Claim In Count V of their complaint, plaintiffs allege that they are being deprived of their liberty interests, privacy interests, and associational rights, conferred upon them by the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, not to be deprived of a child-parent or a child-sibling family relationship absent compelling reasons. (Compl.¶ 200.) Specifically, plaintiffs allege that their rights to family integrity are violated by State Defendants’ systemic denial of meaningful visitation with parents and siblings, failure to place children with relatives when they first enter foster care, and failure to facilitate plaintiffs’ prompt reunification with their families whenever safe and appropriate. (Compl.¶¶ 65, 77–79, 82, 113, 132, 144, 163.)
State Defendants argue that these allegations fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted, because “there ... is no constitutional right for plaintiffs ‘to rely on an agency to strengthen and reunite their families even if that agency has a statutory duty to do so.’ ” (Br. in Supp. of State Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 24)(quoting Dixey v. Jewish Child Care Ass’n, 522 F.Supp. 913, 916 (S.D.N.Y.1981)). Plaintiffs argue that this claim is not based upon an alleged right to have defendants strengthen their familial bonds but upon a right to have defendants not destroy such bonds. Plaintiffs also argue that once the state interferes with the intimate child-parent relationship by removing a child from his or her home, it assumes an affirmative responsibility to take appropriate steps, in accordance with reasonable professional judgment, to reunify the child with his or her parents when reunification would be safe and appropriate. The Court concludes that plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim based on alleged violation of their right to family integrity.
[38] The Supreme Court has recognized a right to family integrity derived from the First Amendment’s broad right of association, the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process protections. See Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 617–20, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 82 L.Ed.2d 462 (1984); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972). The constitutional right to family integrity encompasses the right of children in foster care to have meaningful contact with their siblings and parents. See Aristotle P. v. Johnson, 721 F.Supp. 1002, 1006 (N.D.Ill.1989). Therefore, plaintiffs state a viable claim when they allege that State Defendants have systematically denied them meaningful visitation with their parents and siblings.
[39] [40] Courts have also held that once the state has removed a child from the custody of her parents, it assumes certain affirmative responsibilities for her safety and *297 welfare and cannot deliberately and without justification place her in a position of danger without violating her rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Camp v. Gregory, 67 F.3d 1286, 1292–93 (7th Cir.1995). Similarly, this Court finds that once the state has removed a child from his or her family, it cannot deliberately and without justification deny that child the services necessary to facilitate reunification with his or her family, when safe and appropriate, without violating the child’s right to family integrity. Therefore, plaintiffs also state a viable claim by alleging that State Defendants have systematically failed to facilitate their prompt reunification with their families whenever safe and appropriate.
G. Nuisance Claim In Count XI of their complaint, plaintiffs contend that the operation of the DeKalb County and Fulton County emergency shelters constitutes either a public or a private nuisance.31 Since the shelters have been closed, see note 2 supra, this claim is

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
now moot and will therefore be dismissed.
H. Breach of Contract [41] In Count XII of their complaint, plaintiffs allege that the plans submitted by the state to the Secretary of Health and Human Services in order to receive funding under Titles IV–B, IV–E, and XIX of the Social Security Act (the State Plans) constitute binding contracts between the state and the federal government, which require the state to provide child welfare, foster care, adoption, and health services to plaintiffs in accordance with applicable federal laws and regulations. Plaintiffs allege that State Defendants have breached their obligations under these contracts and that, as intended third-party beneficiaries, they may assert a claim for such breach pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9–2–20(b)32 and Georgia common law. State Defendants contend that the State Plans are not contracts, and even if they were, plaintiffs are not third-party beneficiaries who may enforce such contracts. The Court concludes that the State Plans are contracts enforceable by plaintiffs as intended third-party beneficiaries.33
First, the Supreme Court has recognized that “legislation enacted pursuant to the spending power is much in the nature of a contract: in return for federal funds, the States agree to comply with federally imposed conditions.” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 17, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981). Indeed, the State Plans embody all the requisite elements of a contract. The federal government has offered to provide funding to the state for its use in providing child welfare, foster care, adoption, and health services to children in its custody. The state has accepted that offer by creating the required State Plans, accepting funding, and at least partially performing services thereunder. Consideration is found in the state’s promise to abide by specific obligations in the delivery of services as set out in the State Plans and in the federal government’s promise to provide funding so long as the state meets its obligations. See O.C.G.A. § 13–3–1;34 Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 24, 50, 71 (1981) (defining “offer,” “acceptance,” and “consideration”).
The cases relied on by defendants are inapposite. In Pa. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. United States, 48 Fed.Cl. 785 (2001), the court held that a State Plan prepared pursuant *298 to a funding grant under Title IV–B of the Social Security Act was not a contract for purposes of a suit against the United States under the Tucker Act,35 because the plaintiff had failed to allege facts sufficient to prove that a government representative with actual authority to bind the government had approved the State Plan. However, since plaintiffs are suing state officials, and not the United States, approval of the State Plans by a government official with authority to bind the United States is not an element of plaintiffs’ contract claim in this case.
In Charlie H. v. Whitman, 83 F.Supp.2d at 503, the court held that the plaintiffs could not circumvent the court’s holding that the Adoption Act and another federal statute did not create rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by asserting a third-party beneficiary claim. In this case, however, the Court has held that the federal statutes at issue do create rights enforceable under § 1983; therefore, plaintiffs’ third-party beneficiary claim in no way circumvents this Court’s ruling.
Furthermore, the State Plans at issue were clearly intended for the direct, as opposed to incidental, benefit of foster children. See Beverly v. Macy, 702 F.2d 931, 940 (11th Cir.1983) (“The crucial inquiry involves a determination of intent, and third parties may sue on the contract only if it may be said to have been intended for their direct, as opposed to incidental, benefit”) (quoting Ross v. Imperial Constr. Co., 572 F.2d 518, 520 (5th Cir.1978)). The Plan requirements, as set out in the governing federal statutes, specify in detail required Plan provisions that are entirely and directly for the benefit of such foster children.
Once again, the cases cited by defendants are inapposite. In Miree v. United States, 242 Ga. 126, 249 S.E.2d 573 (1978), the Georgia Supreme Court held that survivors of passengers killed in an air crash at DeKalb Peachtree Airport could not maintain an action as third-party beneficiaries based upon alleged breach of contracts between DeKalb County and the Federal Aviation Administration that provided funding to the airport in return for DeKalb County’s agreement “to maintain the airport in an adequate and safe condition for the benefit of aeronautical users thereof and for the benefit of the public.” Id. at 129, 249 S.E.2d 573. The court’s ruling, however, was based on its finding that the contract was meant to benefit the general public and not any particular individuals. “Each plaintiff in these cases had no more standing than any other member of the public, and we cannot conclude that the contract was intended for the individual benefit of any claimant.” Id. at 136, 249 S.E.2d 573. In this case, on the other hand, the State Plans are clearly for the especial benefit of foster children in State custody and not merely for the benefit of the general public.
In Stephens v. Roadway Express Co., No. C82–367A, 1982 WL 358 (N.D.Ga. July 14, 1982), the court held that the plaintiff employee, who was handicapped, was not a third-party beneficiary of contracts between the defendant employer and the

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
United States under the Rehabilitation Act, which required the employer to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified handicapped individuals. The Stephens court’s analysis, however, followed its related holding that the Rehabilitation Act did not “create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff,” id. at *4 (quoting Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975)), while this Court, as noted above, has found that the federal statutes at issue in this case do create privately enforceable federal rights. In addition, the court found the contracts at issue in Stephens “substantively no different” than those involved in Miree. Id. at *5. As noted above, the State Plans at issue in this case, unlike the contracts in Miree, are not merely for the benefit of the general public but are clearly intended for the direct benefit of foster children.
II. DeKalb County’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant DeKalb County moves to dismiss all claims asserted against it insofar as *299 such claims are based on allegations concerning the funding of and conditions at its emergency shelter. Since, as noted above, see note 2 supra, the DeKalb shelter has now been closed, all such claims have been rendered moot and will therefore be dismissed.
III. Motion for Class Certification Plaintiffs seek an order certifying this case as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) and (b)(2) with the class defined as
All children who have been, are, or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of any of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS.
Plaintiffs also seek certification of a subclass defined as
All children in the Class who are African–American and who have had, or are subject to the risk of having, their adoption delayed or denied on the basis of their race or color.
State Defendants oppose class certification on the grounds that plaintiffs fail to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a).36 County Defendants oppose class certification as to plaintiffs’ claims regarding the emergency shelters on the grounds that plaintiffs lack standing and/or their claims are moot. The Court need not address these arguments because, as noted above, the closing of the shelters has mooted these claims. The only claims remaining against the County Defendants relate to their alleged denial of adequate and effective legal representation in juvenile court proceedings. With respect to these claims, County Defendants oppose class certification on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims lack the requisite commonality and typicality. The Court concludes that plaintiffs satisfy all the requirements for class action status under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2), and that class certification is therefore appropriate.
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for certification of a lawsuit as a class action if the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) and one of the prerequisites of Rule 23(b) are satisfied. Griffin v. Dugger, 823 F.2d 1476, 1482 (11th Cir.1987). The four prerequisites for maintenance of a class action under Rule 23(a) are:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a). In turn, Rule 23(b)(2) permits certification when all the Rule 23(a) prerequisites are satisfied and “the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2).
In this case, defendants do not dispute that plaintiffs satisfy the numerosity and fair and adequate representation requirements of Rule 23(a)(1) and (4), as well as the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2). The Court concurs that these requirements are satisfied. Defendants, however, contend that plaintiffs fail to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a)(2) and (3). Therefore, the Court will turn its attention to those requirements.

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
[42] [43] [44] Rule 23(a)(2) requires that there be questions of law or fact common to the class. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2). “The threshold for commonality is not high.” Hernandez v. Medows, 209 F.R.D. 665, 669 (S.D.Fla.2002). “It is only necessary to find at least one issue common to all class members.” Pottinger v. City of Miami, 720 F.Supp. 955, 958 (S.D.Fla.1989). “Moreover, factual differences between class members do not preclude a finding of commonality, as long as common questions of law exist.” Hernandez, 209 F.R.D. at 669. Also, because plaintiffs seek class certification under Rule 23(b)(2), there is no requirement that common issues of law or fact predominate. Murray v. Auslander, *300 244 F.3d 807, 811 (11th Cir.2001). Indeed, Rule 23(b)(2) “[c]lass actions seeking injunctive or declaratory relief ... by their very nature present common questions of law or fact.” Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Nelson, 694 F.Supp. 864, 877 (S.D.Fla.1988), aff’d, 872 F.2d 1555 (11th Cir.1989).
[45] Despite this low threshold for establishing commonality, State Defendants assert that there are no common questions of law or fact. Specifically, State Defendants allege that there are no common questions of fact because of differences in the ways that foster children come into foster care; where foster children are placed while in foster care; and the type and quality of services, treatment, and care provided to each child. Additionally, State Defendants claim that there are no common questions of law because there are allegedly no common statutory and constitutional claims among putative class members. Finally, State Defendants argue that J.B. ex rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir.1999), supports their position that the commonality requirement is not met. (State Defs.’ Br. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Class Certification at 10–13.) The Court finds all of these arguments without merit.
This case is on all fours with the case of Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48 (3d Cir.1994), in which the Third Circuit held that the district court’s denial of class certification was an abuse of discretion. In Baby Neal, plaintiffs alleged a pattern and practice of systemic deficiencies in the provision of care and services to abused and neglected children in the custody of the Philadelphia Department of Human Services in violation of their federal constitutional and statutory rights. Id. at 53. In rejecting the district court’s finding of no commonality, the court characterized the plaintiffs’ complaint as “challenging common conditions and practices under a unitary regime.” Id. at 60. The court held that “the district court committed the error of overly fragmenting the plaintiffs’ claims,” emphasizing factual and legal differences that were “largely irrelevant” in light of the nature of the injunctive relief sought. Id. at 61. The court concluded that “plaintiffs’ attack on the DHS’s systemic deficiencies in providing legally mandated child care services” was a sufficiently common legal basis to support class certification. Id.
State Defendants’ lack of commonality argument in this case is without merit for the same reasons. The factual distinctions between foster children alleged by State Defendants are irrelevant to class certification. Differences in how each child came into state custody are irrelevant because this case deals only with the “common conditions and practices under a unitary regime” that all foster children face once they are already in state custody. Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 60. Differences in individual placements of foster children are also irrelevant because plaintiffs allege a unified course of conduct at the system level toward children in all placements. Similarly, it is irrelevant that each foster child does not receive the same services, care, and treatment because plaintiffs challenge systemic deficiencies in the organization and implementation of support programs and services for all foster children in State Defendants’ custody. Finally, as in Baby Neal, plaintiffs and all putative class members claim entitlement to the same legally mandated rights and services under state and federal law, and all seek the same system-wide declaratory and injunctive relief requiring State Defendants to address and remedy their violations of foster children’s common legal rights and to provide legally mandated care, protection, services, and treatment. This is plainly sufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement.
The Court is not persuaded to the contrary by the Tenth Circuit’s decision in J.B. ex rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280. In that case, plaintiffs sought “structural reform of New Mexico’s system for evaluating and treating children with mental and developmental disabilities in its custody.” Id. at 1283. In a 2–1 decision, the Tenth Circuit panel affirmed the district court’s denial of class certification due to the lack of any common issue of fact or law. Id. at 1287–90. With regard to factual commonality, the court noted “[t]he diverse situations of the named plaintiffs” and concluded that “[o]ther than all being disabled in some way and having had some sort of contact with New Mexico’s child welfare *301 system, no common factual link joins these plaintiffs.” Id. at 1288, 1289. The court also concluded that plaintiffs’ allegation that “systemic failures in the defendants’ child welfare delivery system deny all members of the class access to legally-mandated services which plaintiffs need because of their disabilities” failed to create a common question of law. Id. at 1289.
[46] In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Mary Beck Briscoe rejected the majority’s reasoning on the class certification issue. J.B., 186 F.3d at 1297–1301 (Briscoe, J., concurring and dissenting). Emphasizing the systemic nature of the complaint, she

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
concluded that plaintiffs had satisfied Rule 23’s commonality requirement:
As previously stated, plaintiffs do not seek redress for individual deprivations, but seek systemic relief that, if obtained, will remedy every violation suffered by any child in state custody. Hence, the dominant common legal theme asserted by every plaintiff is that the systemic deficiencies in the defendant’s treatment service system deprive all children in state custody who suffer from mental and developmental disorders of rights guaranteed them by statute or the Constitution. This satisfies Rule 23(a)(2)’s commonality requirement.
Id. at 1299 (citation omitted). Judge Briscoe also found “troubling the majority’s unexplained rejection” of both Baby Neal and the Second Circuit’s decision in Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372 (2d Cir.1997), which upheld class certification in another child welfare case. Id. at 1300. She specifically found that “[t]he facts in this case are as compelling as those in Baby Neal” and concluded that “[t]he district court here denied class certification by citing factual differences that are largely irrelevant to the class issue and misconstruing the unitary systemic claim on which plaintiffs’ proposed class rests.” Id. at 1301. This Court agrees with Judge Briscoe.37
[47] [48] Turning to the typicality requirement, Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the claims or defenses of the proposed class representatives be typical of the claims or defenses of the putative class. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(3). State Defendants argue that the named plaintiffs fail to satisfy the typicality requirement because each named plaintiff does not allege that he or she has been deprived of the same services, treatment, and care as the other named plaintiffs and members of the putative class. Rule 23(a)(3), however, does not require that “the proposed class representatives each personally experience every difficulty outlined in the complaint. Rather, it is sufficient that the claims of the proposed class representatives are substantially similar to the claims of the class.” Dyer v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., No. 97–2706–CIV–T25E, 2000 WL 33339613 at *6 (M.D.Fla. March 22, 2000). Furthermore, “[w]here an action challenges a policy or practice, the named plaintiffs suffering one specific injury from the practice can represent a class suffering other injuries, so long as all the injuries are shown to result from the practice.” Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 58.
In this case, the named plaintiffs challenge the same policies and practices of the State Defendants that give rise to the legal claims of the putative class members. The central allegation of the named plaintiffs and the putative class members is the same-that State Defendants have failed to put into place a system that delivers appropriate services, care, and treatment in accordance with statutory and constitutional mandates. Moreover, the named plaintiffs and putative class members all claim injuries arising from the systemic deficiencies in the child welfare system, and all request the same system-wide declaratory and injunctive relief. Thus, *302 plaintiffs clearly satisfy the typicality requirement.
Finally, the County Defendants argue that plaintiffs’ claim against them based upon allegedly inadequate and ineffective assistance of legal counsel fails to satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23. Plaintiffs’ claim is based upon the County Defendants’ statutory duty to provide funding for compensation and expenses of counsel appointed to represent children in deprivation and termination of parental rights proceedings in the juvenile court. See O.C.G.A. § 15–11–8(a)(3). Plaintiffs alleged that due to insufficient funding provided by County Defendants, there are only four child advocate attorneys to represent the vast majority of the approximately 2,000 foster children in Fulton County, and only 2 child advocate attorneys to represent the vast majority of the approximately 1,000 foster children in DeKalb County. (Compl.¶ 99.) Plaintiffs assert that caseloads of approximately 500 children per attorney make it impossible for these attorneys to provide effective and adequate legal representation, thus depriving plaintiffs and members of the putative class of their right to such representation.
[49] County Defendants argue that class certification with respect to this claim is inappropriate because resolution of the claim would require individualized, fact-intensive inquiries that are not susceptible to class treatment. In making this argument, however, County Defendants improperly rely on the ineffective assistance of counsel test applied in direct criminal appeals and habeas corpus proceedings. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). In Strickland, the Supreme Court held that in order to prove ineffective assistance of counsel, a prisoner must show (1) that his counsel’s performance was deficient, and (2) that the deficiency prejudiced the outcome of the criminal proceeding. Id. at 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052. The Eleventh Circuit, however, has held that “[t]his standard is inappropriate for a civil suit seeking prospective relief.” Luckey v. Harris, 860 F.2d 1012, 1017 (11th Cir.1988).
In Luckey, a class of indigent criminal defendants and criminal defense attorneys sought prospective relief for alleged systemic deficiencies in Georgia’s indigent criminal defense system. Luckey, 860 F.2d at 1013. The court held that in class

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
actions seeking prospective relief to redress institutional deficiencies in the provision of counsel, class members need not “establish that ineffective assistance was inevitable for each class member.” Id. at 1017. Rather, class members need only meet the traditional standard for the application of equitable relief, which requires a showing of a substantial likelihood that members of the class will receive ineffective assistance from their counsel. Id. at 1017–18. The court went on to point out that “systemic” evidence, such as evidence of inadequate resources for appointed counsel, are sufficient to state a claim for injunctive relief. Id. at 1018.
As to the showing of “prejudice” required under the Strickland test, the Luckey court noted that “[w]hether an accused has been prejudiced by the denial of a right is an issue that relates to relief-whether the defendant is entitled to have his or her conviction overturned-rather than the question of whether such a right exists and can be protected prospectively.” Id. at 1017. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit held that the prejudice prong of Strickland does not apply in cases seeking prospective, rather than postconviction, relief. Id.
Thus, County Defendants’ reliance on Strickland is misplaced. Because plaintiffs’ ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based on allegations of systematically high caseloads and inadequate funding, and because the Eleventh Circuit has ruled that case-by-case determinations of individualized prejudice are unnecessary in similar class actions seeking injunctive relief, certification of plaintiffs’ claim against County Defendants is proper.
IV. Motion to Amend Complaint [50] Plaintiffs seek to add an additional claim to their cause of action under the federal Adoption Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 670 et seq., alleging that State Defendants systematically fail to provide foster care maintenance payments that are sufficient to cover the costs of *303 caring for foster children in Fulton and DeKalb Counties. Specifically, plaintiffs seek to amend Count VIII of the original complaint to plead State Defendants’ alleged violation of plaintiffs’ and class members right to live in foster care placements that have the capacity to provide for the essential needs and services of children in their care by receiving adequate foster care maintenance payments under 42 U.S.C. §§ 671(a)(1), 672(a) and (b), 675(4)(A) and (B), and 45 C.F.R. § 1355.20.
State Defendants oppose the amendment on the grounds that it would be subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and is therefore futile. The basis for this argument is the same as that advanced with respect to plaintiffs’ other claims under the Adoption Act, namely, that the Adoption Act does not create rights that are privately enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court concludes that the Adoption Act provisions underlying plaintiffs’ proposed amendment do create privately enforceable rights; therefore, the amendment should be allowed.
As discussed above, the Court applies a three-part test to determine whether a federal statute creates a right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The statutory provision (1) must have been intended by Congress to benefit the plaintiffs; (2) must not be so “ ‘vague and amorphous’ that its enforcement would strain judicial competence;” and (3) “must unambiguously impose a binding obligation on the States.” Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. at 340–41, 117 S.Ct. 1353. The Adoption Act provisions at issue here satisfy all of these requirements.
First, the mandated payments are intended to benefit foster children by covering the costs of their care and required services while in state custody. Furthermore, the language of the statute is focused on individual children, rather than having an aggregate focus. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 672(a) (payments required “with respect to a child” meeting specified requirements), 672(b) (payments may be made “only on behalf of a child” who is either in a foster family home or a child-institution), 675(4)(A) (defining “foster care maintenance payments” to mean payments to cover costs of food, clothing, etc., “with respect to a child”).
Second, the statutory provisions are not so “vague and amorphous” as to render judicial enforcement impossible. Blessing, 520 U.S. at 340, 117 S.Ct. 1353. The categories of costs to be covered by the payments are defined with sufficient particularity to enable a court to assess the sufficiency of the rates paid by the state. See 42 U.S.C. § 675(4)(A) and 45 C.F.R. § 1355.20. Although the actual costs of certain basic child care necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter may vary, the Court is equipped to determine whether the current foster care maintenance rates fall outside the range of reasonable payments necessary to provide adequate care for children in Fulton and DeKalb Counties.
Third, the statutory provisions indisputably “impose a binding obligation” on the State to provide sufficient foster care

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)
maintenance payments for each plaintiff foster child. Blessing, 520 U.S. at 341, 117 S.Ct. 1353. The Adoption Act explicitly states that each state receiving federal funding under Title IV–E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 670 et seq., “shall make foster care maintenance payments” with respect to foster children. 42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(emphasis added); see also 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(1)(To be eligible for federal funding, state “shall have a plan approved by the Secretary which ... provides for foster care maintenance payments”)(emphasis added).
Finally, there is no evidence of congressional intent to foreclose private causes of action. Not only is there no express exclusion of such remedies, but there is also no “comprehensive enforcement scheme that is incompatible with individual enforcement under § 1983.” Blessing, 520 U.S. at 341, 117 S.Ct. 1353. The Adoption Act merely sets forth an administrative scheme for providing federal funds to child welfare programs, for overseeing these programs, and for withholding funding for noncompliance with federal mandates. There is no mechanism for foster children to seek redress for violations of their rights under the statute. Therefore, the remedies available under the Adoption Act do not preclude a private enforcement action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Mo. *304 Child Care Ass’n v. Cross, 294 F.3d 1034, 1039–40 (8th Cir.2002).
Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file their first amended complaint. The first amended complaint shall be deemed filed as of the date of entry of this order.
V. Fulton County’s Motion for Protective Order [51] Fulton County moves for a protective order prohibiting plaintiffs’ counsel from communicating with Fulton County Juvenile Court Judge Sanford Jones or any other Fulton County juvenile court judge regarding the subject matter of this litigation.38 Fulton County contends that plaintiffs’ counsel’s communications with Judge Jones violate Rule 4.2(a) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits a lawyer from communicating directly with a represented person about the subject matter of the representation. Plaintiffs argue that Rule 4.2 does not apply to Judge Jones in this case. The Court concludes that Judge Jones is not a represented person with respect to any of the claims in this lawsuit. Therefore, the Court denies the motion for a protective order.
Rule 4.2(a) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct states:
A lawyer who is representing a client in a matter shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by constitutional law or statute.
When the opposing party is an organization such as Fulton County, the rule prohibits communications only with those employees or agents “having a managerial responsibility on behalf of the organization ... [or] whose act or omission in connection with ... [the] matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability or whose statement may constitute an admission on the part of the organization.” Rule 4.2(a), Comment [4A]. Judge Jones does not meet these criteria with respect to any of the claims in this case.
The vast majority of plaintiffs’ claims are asserted only against the State Defendants, and not against Fulton County. Although Judge Jones, by virtue of his regular contact with children in DFCS custody, may be an important fact witness regarding many of plaintiffs’ claims against the State Defendants, he can in no way be considered to have any “managerial responsibility” with respect to claims against state officials, the state Department of Human Resources, or the two state Departments of Family and Children Services. In addition, his actions cannot be imputed to Fulton County for purposes of establishing liability on these claims, and he cannot make binding admissions on the part of the County with respect to these claims, for the obvious reason that plaintiffs have alleged no liability on the part of the County with respect to these claims.
Plaintiffs’ sole claim against Fulton County regards the adequacy of representation provided by the County to children in juvenile court proceedings.39 This claim relates to the alleged systemic failure of Fulton County, at the executive level, to ensure that there are a sufficient number of child advocate attorneys to provide adequate and effective representation to children in deprivation proceedings. Although juvenile court judges have some statutory authority to appoint child advocate attorneys in individual cases, they have no authority to affect the number of child advocate attorneys available or to ensure that the number of child advocate attorneys employed by the County is adequate to meet the needs of the children requiring representation. Judge Jones has no managerial authority with respect to the systemic staffing and budgetary decisions that

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)

plaintiffs challenge. These decisions are made by the County’s executive officers. *305 Similarly, because the decisions plaintiffs challenge rest with executive officials, and not with individual juvenile court judges, Judge Jones’s acts and omissions with respect to these decisions could not be imputed to the County, and his statements regarding these issues could not be considered binding admissions.

Summary
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART State Defendants’ motion to dismiss [# 70–1] and defendant DeKalb County’s motion to dismiss [# 78–1]. The motions to dismiss are GRANTED with respect to Count XI of the complaint and all other claims relating to the operation of the Fulton County and DeKalb County emergency shelters, which have now been closed; therefore, these claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. The motions to dismiss are DENIED in all other respects. The Court GRANTS State Defendants’ motion to exceed page limitation for brief in support of motion to dismiss [# 71–1]; DENIES AS MOOT defendant Fulton County’s motion to quash subpoena [# 90–1]; DENIES defendant Fulton County’s motion for protective order [# 90–2]; GRANTS plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to extend page limit [# 100–1]; DENIES AS MOOT State Defendants’ motion to compel [# 103–1]; GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion for leave to supplement motion for class certification [# 129–1]; GRANTS plaintiffs’ supplemental motion for class certification [# 129–1] and CERTIFIES the following class:
All children who have been, are, or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of any of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS;
and the following subclass:
All children in the Class who are African–American and who have had, or are subject to the risk of having, their adoption delayed or denied on the basis of their race or color;
GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file their first amended complaint [# 141–1], which shall be deemed filed as of the date of entry of this order; GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to extend page limit [# 153–1]; and GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to file supplemental brief in further opposition to State Defendants’ motion to dismiss [# 166–1].

Footnotes

1

The complaint contains eighteen counts, but three of the counts do not assert independent causes of action. Counts I and II seek

permanent injunctive and declaratory relief, respectively, and Count XVIII seeks recovery of plaintiffs’ litigation expenses, based

on the statutory and constitutional violations alleged in the other counts.

2

The State Defendants subsequently reported to the Court that, in accordance with their previous assurances, the Fulton County

shelter was closed on December 27, 2002; the DeKalb County shelter was closed on February 14, 2003; and the new DeKalb

Children’s Center was scheduled to open in March 2003. Therefore, plaintiffs’ claims relating to the emergency shelters are now

moot.

3

State Defendants do not seek dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims for permanent injunctive and declaratory relief (Counts I–II), for

alleged substantive due process violations of the Georgia and U.S. Constitutions (Counts III–IV), for alleged inadequate and

ineffective legal representation (Count XIII)(asserted only against County Defendants), for alleged equal protection violations

under the Georgia Constitution (Count XIV), for alleged violations of the Multiethnic Placement Act and Inter-ethnic Adoption

Provisions of 1996 (Count XV), and for plaintiffs’ litigation expenses (Count XVIII).

4

State Defendants also argue that plaintiffs fail to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Human Resources

and the two Departments of Family and Children Services because they are not “persons” subject to suit. This argument is

irrelevant because all of plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims are asserted only against individual state officials.

5

The precise relief sought by plaintiffs remains somewhat unclear. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and a permanent

injunction enforcing a long list of alleged constitutional and statutory rights. However, they have not specified the precise contours

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)

of such relief. Instead, they indicate their intention, following discovery, to “seek a particularized order of permanent injunctive relief, identifying, among other things, professionally accepted standards that the Defendants must meet in order to satisfy their statutory and constitutionally mandated duties.” (Compl.¶ 188.) Similarly, in their request for abstention, State Defendants do not attempt to identify specific remedies that would interfere with state court proceedings. Instead, they broadly contend that “any injunctive relief that addresses Plaintiffs’ claims would necessarily interfere with these deprivation proceedings.” (State Defs.’ Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 7.)(Emphasis added.) Given the lack of specificity in both plaintiffs’ prayer for relief and State Defendants’ request for abstention, the Court’s analysis is necessarily limited to the general nature of the relief sought. Nevertheless, the Court is confident that, if plaintiffs prevail on their claims, specific relief can be crafted that will not interfere with state court proceedings. Cf. Henry v. First Nat. Bank of Clarksdale, 595 F.2d 291, 301–02 (5th Cir.1979)(district court narrowly crafted relief to avoid interference with state court proceedings).

6

In this connection, it is important to note that under Georgia law, once the juvenile court grants legal custody of a child to DFCS,

the court is powerless to order DFCS to give physical custody of the child to any particular foster parent or otherwise restrict the

actual placement of the child. O.C.G.A. § 49–5–3(12) (defining “legal custody” as including the “right to determine where and

with whom” the child will live); In the Interest of J.N.T., 212 Ga.App. 498, 499, 441 S.E.2d 918 (1994) (“any portions of a court’s

order purporting to control disposition of the child are merely exhortatory and not binding on the department”) (quoting In the

Interest of A.S., 185 Ga.App. 11, 12, 363 S.E.2d 325 (1987)).

7

The Court must accept these allegations as true on a motion to dismiss that raises Younger abstention arguments. Pompey v.

Broward County, 95 F.3d 1543, 1551 (11th Cir.1996).

8

The parties agreed with the Tenth Circuit’s preliminary view that one of the provisions, which categorically prohibited the

Department from establishing emancipation as a planning goal for foster children under 13, violated Younger by prohibiting the

Department from recommending or advocating a specific planning option to the state court. State Defendants have not pointed to

any relief requested by plaintiffs in this case that would similarly interfere with state court proceedings.

9

Plaintiffs also cite 42 U.S.C. §§ 672(b) and (c), which limit foster care maintenance payments and define “foster family home” and

“child-care institution,” respectively, but they have not articulated any claim explicitly based on these provisions.

10

Section 671(a)(10) provides: “In order for a State to be eligible for payments under this part, it shall have a plan approved by the

Secretary which ... provides for the establishment or designation of a State authority or authorities which shall be responsible for

establishing and maintaining standards for foster family homes and child care institutions which are reasonably in accord with

recommended standards of national organizations concerned with standards for such institutions or homes, including standards

related to admission policies, safety, sanitation, and protection of civil rights, and provides that the standards so established shall be

applied by the State to any foster family home or child care institution receiving funds under this part [42 U.S.C. §§ 670 et seq.] or

part B of this title [42 U.S.C. §§ 620 et seq.].”

11

Section 671(a)(16) states: “In order for a State to be eligible for payments under this part, it shall have a plan approved by the

Secretary which ... provides for the development of a case plan (as defined in ... [42 U.S.C. § 675(1)]) for each child receiving

foster care maintenance payments under the State plan and provides for a case review system which meets the requirements

described in ... [42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(B)] with respect to each such child.”

12

Section 675(1) defines “case plan” as a written document including at least certain specified elements. See notes 14, 15, & 17 infra.

13

Section 622(b)(10)(B)(iii) provides: “Each plan for child welfare services under this subpart shall ... provide assurances that the

State ... is operating, to the satisfaction of the Secretary ...

(iii) a service program designed to help children-

(I) where safe and appropriate, return to families from which they have been removed; or

(II) be placed for adoption, with a legal guardian, or, if adoption or legal guardianship is determined not to be appropriate

for a child, in some other planned, permanent living arrangement....”

14

Section 675(1)(B) defines “case plan” to include: “A plan for assuring that the child receives safe and proper care and that services

are provided to the parents, child, and foster parents in order to improve the conditions in the parents’ home, facilitate return of the

child to his own safe home or the permanent placement of the child, and address the needs of the child while in foster care,

including a discussion of the appropriateness of the services that have been provided to the child under the plan.”

15

Section 675(1)(E) defines “case plan” to include: “In the case of a child with respect to whom the permanency plan is adoption or

placement in another permanent home, documentation of the steps the agency is taking to find an adoptive family or other

permanent living arrangement for the child, to place the child with an adoptive family, a fit and willing relative, a legal guardian, or

in another planned permanent living arrangement, and to finalize the adoption or legal guardianship. At a minimum, such

documentation shall include child specific recruitment efforts such as the use of State, regional, and national adoption exchanges

including electronic exchange systems.”

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)

16

Section 671(a)(22) provides: “In order for a State to be eligible for payments under this part, it shall have a plan approved by the

Secretary which ... provides that, not later than January 1, 1999, the State shall develop and implement standards to ensure that

children in foster care placements in public or private agencies are provided quality services that protect the safety and health of

the children.”

17

Section 675(1)(D) defines “case plan” to include: “Where appropriate, for a child age 16 or over, a written description of the

programs and services which will help such child prepare for the transition from foster care to independent living.”

18

See note 11 supra.

19

Section 622(b)(10)(B)(ii) provides: “Each plan for child welfare services under this subpart shall ... provide assurances that the

State ... is operating, to the satisfaction of the Secretary ...

(ii) a case review system (as defined in section 475(5) [42 U.S.C. § 675(5) ] for each child receiving foster care under the

supervision of the State....)”

20

Section 675(5)(D) defines “case review system” to mean in part “a procedure for assuring that ... a child’s health and education

record (as described in paragraph 1(A)) is reviewed and updated, and supplied to the foster parent or foster care provider with

whom the child is placed, at the time of each placement of the child in foster care.”

21

Section 675(5)(E) defines “case review system” to mean in part “a procedure for assuring that ... in the case of a child who has

been in foster care under the responsibility of the State for 15 of the most recent 22 months, ... the State shall file a petition to

terminate the parental rights of the child’s parents ... and, concurrently, to identify, recruit, process, and approve a qualified family

for an adoption, unless–

(i) at the option of the State, the child is being cared for by a relative;

(ii) a State agency has documented in the case plan (which shall be available for court review) a compelling reason for

determining that filing such a petition would not be in the best interests of the child; or

(iii) the State has not provided to the family of the child, consistent with the time period in the State case plan, such services

as the State deems necessary for the safe return of the child to the child’s home, if reasonable efforts of the type described

in ... [42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)(B)(ii)] are required to be made with respect to the child.”

22

Section 622(b)(10)(B)(i) provides: “Each plan for child welfare services under this subpart shall ... provide assurances that the

State ... is operating, to the satisfaction of the Secretary ...

(i) a statewide information system from which can be readily determined the status, demographic characteristics, location, and

goals for the placement of every child who is (or, within the immediately preceding 12 months, has been) in foster care....”

23

But see Charlie H. v. Whitman, 83 F.Supp.2d 476, 489 (D.N.J.2000)(holding that 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(ii) does not create

enforceable rights). This Court is not persuaded by the Charlie H. court’s analysis and chooses to follow the reasoning of the Brian

A. court.

24

Section 1396a(a)(43) provides in relevant part: “A State plan for medical assistance must... provide for-

(A) informing all persons in the State who are under the age of 21 and who have been determined to be eligible for medical

assistance including services described in section 1905r [42 U.S.C. § 1396d(r)], of the availability of early and periodic

screening, diagnostic, and treatment services as described in section 1905(r) [42 U.S.C. § 1396d(r)] and the need for

age-appropriate immunizations against vaccine-preventable diseases,

(B) providing or arranging for the provision of such screening services in all cases where they are requested,

(C) arranging for (directly or through referral to appropriate agencies, organizations, or individuals) corrective treatment the

need for which is disclosed by such child health screening services....”

25

Section 1396d(a)(i) & (4)(B) defines “medical assistance” as “payment of part or all of the cost of the following care and

services ... for individuals ... who are... under the age of 21 ... but whose income and resources are insufficient to meet all of such

cost... early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services (as defined in subsection (r)) for individuals who are eligible

under the plan and are under the age of 21....”

26

Section 1396d(r)(1) defines “early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services” to include

“Screening services-

(A) which are provided-

(i) at intervals which meet reasonable standards of medical and dental practice, as determined by the State after consultation

with recognized medical and dental organization involved in child health care and, with respect to immunizations under

subparagraph (B)(iii), in accordance with the schedule referred to in section 1928(c)(2)(B)(i) [42 U.S.C. §

1396s(c)(2)(B)(i)] for pediatric vaccines, and

(ii) at such other intervals, indicated as medically necessary, to determine the existence of certain physical or mental

Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (2003)

illnesses or conditions....”

27

Section 1396d(r)(2)-(5) defines “early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services” to include vision services, dental

services, and hearing services “which are provided ... at intervals which meet reasonable standards of medical practice..., and ... at

such other intervals, indicated as medically necessary, to determine the existence of a suspected illness or condition...”; and “[s]uch

other necessary health care, diagnostic services, treatment, and other measures ... to correct or ameliorate defects and physical and

mental illnesses and conditions discovered by the screening services....”

28

In 2002, the General Assembly amended Code § 15–11–58, so that the provisions formerly found in subsection (j) are now located,

with some changes, in subsection (o)(1).

29

The Court notes that although the statutes at issue are part of a comprehensive child welfare program, they do not include any

enforcement mechanism by which the state and its officials, when granted legal custody of a child, can be compelled to comply

with the mandates of the law.

30

Defendants have not contended that MEPA does not create privately enforceable rights. Thus, they have offered no basis for

dismissing plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim based on that statute.

31

Plaintiffs subsequently abandoned their private nuisance claim. (Pls.’ Reply Mem. in Further Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at

12 n.10.)

32

Georgia Code § 9–2–20(b) states: “The beneficiary of a contract made between other parties for his benefit may maintain an action

against the promisor on the contract.”

33

The State Plans themselves are not in the record before the Court. This alone would justify denial of State Defendants’ motion to

dismiss this claim. See Brian A. v. Sundquist, 149 F.Supp.2d at 952. In lieu of the Plans themselves, however, the Court has based

its analysis on the statutory requisites for the State Plans set out in Title IV–B, IV–E, and XIX of the Social Security Act. See 42

U.S.C. §§ 622(b), 671(a), and 1396a(a).

34

Georgia Code § 13–3–1 reads: “To constitute a valid contract, there must be parties able to contract, a consideration moving to the

contract, the assent of the parties to the terms of the contract, and a subject matter upon which the contract can operate.”

35

The Tucker Act provides the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over claims against the United States founded either upon the

Constitution, an Act of Congress, a regulation of an executive department, or upon an express or implied contract with the United

States. 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a).

36

State Defendants also reiterate their argument that the Court should abstain from hearing this case, but the Court has already

rejected this argument.

37

State Defendants also cite Judge Carnes’s recent decision denying class certification in Fluellen v. Wetherington, No.

1:02–CV–479–JEC (N.D.Ga. March 21, 2003) (unpublished). In that case, plaintiffs sought to certify a class of mentally ill and

mentally retarded prisoners at Phillips State Prison, alleging that they were being systematically mistreated and abused by prison

staff. Relying on J.B. v. Valdez, Judge Carnes found that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule

23(a)(2). Slip op. at 28–36. For the reasons outlined in the text and discussed in detail in Baby Neal and in Judge Briscoe’s dissent

in J.B., this Court respectfully disagrees with Judge Carnes’ analysis.

38

Fulton County also moved to quash a subpoena served by plaintiffs’ counsel on Judge Jones to testify at the preliminary injunction

hearing. Plaintiffs did not call Judge Jones to testify at the hearing, so that motion is now moot.

39

The only other claim asserted against Fulton County was with regard to conditions at its emergency shelter, which has now been

closed.

 
 356 F.Supp.2d 1353 (2005)
KENNY A., by his next friend Linda WINN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Sonny PERDUE, et al., Defendants.
No. CIV.A. 1.02-CV-1686-MHS.
United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.
February 8, 2005.
1355*1355 Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Corey Fleming Hirokawa, Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, Jane Garrett Okrasinski, Don C. Keenan, Keenan's Kids Law Center, Atlanta, GA, Ira P. Lustbader, PHV, Jeffrey K. Powell, PHV, Stacy F. Antonucci, PHV, Sarah Hechtman, PHV, Erik S. Pitchal, PHV, New York City, for Plaintiff.
John C. Jones, Kathleen Mary Pacious, Eddie Snelling, Jr., Thurbert E. Baker, Office of State Attorney General, Mark Howard Cohen, Troutman Sanders, Willie Jake Lovett, Jr., Rolesia Butler Dancy, Patricia A. Chandler, Overtis Hicks Brantley, Office of Fulton County Attorney, Atlanta, GA, Elizabeth B. Taylor, Winston A. Denmark, Vivica Mitchell Brown, Charles George Hicks, William J. Linkous, III, Office of Dekalb County Attorney, Jefferson James Davis, Davis & Davis, Decatur, GA, Sarah Hechtman, PHV, Children's Rights, Inc., New York City, for Defendant.
ORDER
SHOOB, Senior District Judge.
This action is before the Court on motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Fulton County and DeKalb County. For the following reasons, the Court denies both motions.
Background
This is a class action brought on behalf of foster children in Fulton and DeKalb Counties. In addition to plaintiffs' claims against the state agencies and state officials responsible for operating Georgia's foster care system, plaintiffs also assert a claim against Fulton County and DeKalb County (County Defendants) for their alleged failure to provide foster children with adequate and effective legal representation in deprivation[1] and termination-ofparentalrights (TPR) proceedings.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the inadequate number of child advocate attorney positions funded by County Defendants results in extremely high caseloads for the attorneys, making effective representation of the class of plaintiff foster children structurally impossible in all proceedings before the juvenile courts where deprivation is alleged. First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 99103. In Count XIII of their First Amended Complaint, plaintiffs allege that this failure to

provide adequate and effective legal representation violates plaintiffs' due process rights under the Georgia Constitution and, with respect to TPR proceedings, their statutory rights under O.C.G.A. § 15-11-98(a).[2] Id. ¶¶ 218-19. To correct these alleged deficiencies, plaintiffs pray for class-wide prospective injunctive and declaratory relief. Id. MI 185-89, 193(f); Prayer for Relief ¶¶ C(11) and D.
1356*1356 Deprivation cases consist of a series of hearings and review proceedings that take place over the course of a child's stay in the Georgia foster care system. These include (1) the initial 72-hour detention hearing, where the judge must determine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child is deprived and whether the child should be returned to his or her parents or retained in the custody of the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) until the adjudicatory hearing occurs; (2) the adjudicatory hearing, where the juvenile court hears evidence and makes a determination on the merits of whether a child is deprived; (3) the dispositional hearing, where the juvenile court must determine what is to be done with the deprived child, including where and with whom the child is to be placed at that time; and (4) periodic review proceedings conducted either by the court or a citizen review panel. See O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-39, 15-11-54 through 15-11-56, and 15-11-58(k). In addition, some deprivation cases also include TPR proceedings. See O.C.G.A. §§ 15-11-94 through XX-XX-XXX.
In both Fulton and DeKalb Counties, child advocate attorneys are responsible for representing allegedly deprived children in all of these proceedings. Fulton County employs four child advocate attorneys, while DeKalb County employs five.[3] As of March 2004, there were 1,757 plaintiff foster children in custody in Fulton County and 914 in DeKalb County. This equates to a caseload of 439.2 child clients per attorney in Fulton County, and 182.8 child clients per attorney in DeKalb County. The American Bar Association, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and the National Association of Counsel for Children (NACC) have each established standards of practice for lawyers who represent children in abuse and neglect cases. In light of the minimum requirements for effective advocacy set forth in these standards, the NACC recommends that no child advocate attorney should maintain a caseload of over 100 individual child clients at a time.
Summary Judgment Standard,
Under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate when there is "no genuine issue as to any material fact ... and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." In Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986), the Supreme Court held that this burden could be met if the moving party demonstrates that there is "an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party's case." Id. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548. At that point, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to go beyond the pleadings and present specific evidence giving rise to a triable issue. Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548.
The Court, however, must construe the evidence and all inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. WSB-TV v. Lee, 842 F.2d 1266, 1270 (11th Cir.1988). Moreover, because the summary judgment standard mirrors that required for a judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment is not appropriate unless "under the governing law, there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict."

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (citation omitted).
Discussion
I. Summary of the Parties' Contentions and the Court's Conclusions
Notwithstanding the large caseloads carried by child advocate attorneys, County 1357*1357 Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim that they fail to provide adequate and effective legal representation to plaintiff foster children. First, County Defendants argue that, although they voluntarily provide representation to children in all deprivation proceedings, Georgia law requires provision of counsel to children only in TPR proceedings, and that plaintiff foster children therefore have no right to effective legal representation in general deprivation proceedings. Second, County Defendants contend that plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief because (1) they have failed to show any irreparable injury arising from the Counties' alleged failure to provide effective assistance of counsel, and (2) they have an adequate legal remedy for any ineffective assistance in the form of either State Bar disciplinary proceedings or private actions for damages against the child advocate attorneys. Third, County Defendants argue that declaratory relief is inappropriate because state law clearly affords plaintiff foster children a right to counsel only in TPR proceedings, so there is no uncertainty as to their legal rights. Finally, County Defendants argue that the appropriate level of funding for child advocate attorneys is a legislative function that should not be interfered with by the Court.
In response, plaintiffs argue that they have both a statutory and a constitutional right to counsel in all deprivation cases, not just TPR proceedings, and that this right includes the right to effective assistance of counsel. Plaintiffs also contend that they have satisfied the irreparable harm requirement for injunctive relief because there is sufficient evidence in the record to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether they are receiving, or face a substantial risk of receiving, ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, plaintiffs cite evidence that child advocate attorneys' caseloads in both Fulton and DeKalb Counties are substantially above the 100 individual clients at a time recommended by the NACC, and that these excessive caseloads prevent them from carrying out their basic professional responsibilities. Plaintiffs also cite testimonial and documentary evidence, including child advocate attorney files for the named plaintiffs, showing that child advocates are providing ineffective assistance of counsel. Plaintiffs also argue that, contrary to County Defendants' argument, the filing of a Bar complaint is not an adequate legal remedy because the Georgia Bar Association has no authority to award class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief aimed at structural reform. Moreover, plaintiffs argue, it is not the incompetence of individual attorneys that is the problem, but rather systemic problems in the Fulton and DeKalb systems, specifically underfunding and the resultant excessive caseloads. Finally, plaintiffs contend that they have established the need for declaratory relief in order to clarify whether they have the statutory and constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel that they claim.

The Court concludes that plaintiff foster children have both a statutory and a constitutional right to counsel in all deprivation proceedings, including but not limited to TPR proceedings. The Court further concludes that plaintiffs have presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue for trial as to whether they are threatened with irreparable harm because they are receiving, or face a substantial risk of receiving, ineffective assistance of counsel in such proceedings. The Court rejects County Defendants' argument that plaintiffs have an adequate legal remedy in the form of State Bar complaints or lawsuits filed against individual child advocate attorneys because such actions cannot remedy the systemic deficiencies cited by plaintiffs. The Court concludes that the parties' sharp dispute over whether plaintiffs 1358*1358 have a right to counsel in deprivation proceedings, and whether that right is being violated, clearly presents a live controversy for which declaratory relief is appropriate. Finally, the Court rejects County Defendants' argument that only the legislature has the authority to correct this problem. If plaintiffs prove their case at trial, then this Court has not only the authority but the obligation to grant appropriate injunctive relief.
II. Statutory Right to Counsel
The parties agree that plaintiff foster children have a statutory right to counsel in TPR proceedings, as set out in O.C.G.A. § 15-11-98(a).[4] The parties, however, dispute whether there is a statutory right to counsel in general deprivation proceedings. Plaintiffs contend that such a right arises under O.C.G.A. § 15-11— 6(b). The Court agrees.
Georgia Code section 15-11-6(b) provides in pertinent part as follows:
Right to Legal Representation. Except as otherwise provided under this article, a party is entitled to representation by legal counsel at all stages of any proceedings alleging delinquency, unruliness, incorrigibility, or deprivation and if, as an indigent person, a party is unable to employ counsel, he or she is entitled to have the court provide counsel for him or her.... Counsel must be provided for a child not represented by the child's parent, guardian, or custodian. If the interests of two or more parties conflict, separate counsel shall be provided for each of them.
O.C.G.A. § 15-11-6(b). This statute makes clear, at the very least, that a child in a deprivation proceeding is entitled to counsel if his or her parent, guardian, or custodian does not attend. In addition, because a child in a deprivation proceeding is a "party" to the proceeding,[5] the final sentence of the statute means that, even if the child's parent, guardian, or custodian does attend the proceeding, if there is a conflict between the child and the parent, guardian, or custodian, then the child is entitled to separate counsel.
The only question, then, is under what circumstances such a conflict exists. In answering this question, the Court is guided by the Georgia Code's direction that statutory provisions governing juvenile proceedings "shall be liberally construed to the end ... [t]hat children whose wellbeing is threatened shall be assisted and protected O.C.G.A. §15-11-1(1). Applying this principle, the Attorney General of Georgia has found that there is an "inherent conflict of interests" between a child and his parent or caretaker in a deprivation proceeding. 1976 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 76-131 at 237. Given the fact that it is the parent or caretaker who is alleged to have abused or neglected the child, the Court finds the Attorney General's opinion persuasive. See Campbell v. Poythress, 216 Ga.App. 834, 836, 456 S.E.2d 110

(1995)(recognizing Georgia Attorney General opinion as persuasive authority). 1359*1359 Accordingly, the Court concludes that in a deprivation proceeding there is an inherent conflict of interests between the child and his or her parent, guardian, or custodian, which requires appointment of separate counsel for the child pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-11-6(b).[6]
County Defendants' argument that this interpretation of O.C.GA. § 15-11-6(b) conflicts with O.C.G.A. § 15-11-9(b) is without merit. The latter statute provides in part that the juvenile court "shall appoint a guardian ad litem for a child who is a party to the [deprivation] proceeding if the child has no parent, guardian, or custodian appearing on the child's behalf or if the interests of the parent, guardian, or custodian appearing on the child's behalf conflict with the child's interests or in any other case in which the interests of the child require a guardian." O.C.G.A. § 1511-9(b). There is no conflict, however, in requiring the appointment of both an attorney and a guardian ad litem for the child. Indeed, the two Code sections expressly require the appointment of both an attorney and a guardian ad litem in cases where the child is not represented by his or her parent, guardian, or custodian. Compare O.C.GA. § 15-11-6(b)("Counsel must be provided for a child not represented by the child's parent, guardian, or custodian")(emphasis added); and O.C.GA. § 15-119(b)("The court ... shall appoint a guardian ad litem for a child who is a party to the proceeding if the child has no parent, guardian, or custodian appearing on the child's behalf... .") (emphasis added).
Clearly, therefore, the legislature did not intend the appointment of a guardian ad litem as a substitute for the appointment of counsel. See also O.C.GA. § 1511-98(a)(providing for appointment of both an attorney and a guardian ad litem for child in TPR proceeding). Thus, there is no conflict created by construing Section 15-11-6(b) to require the appointment of separate counsel for the child in conflict of interest situations simply because Section 15-119(b) requires appointment of a guardian ad litem in the same situations.
III. Constitutional Right to Counsel
Even if there were not a statutory right to counsel for children in deprivation cases and TPR proceedings, the Court concludes that such a right is guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the Georgia Constitution, Art. I, § 1, ¶ 1. It is well settled that children are afforded protection under the Due Process Clauses of both the United States and Georgia Constitutions and are entitled to constitutionally adequate procedural due process when their liberty or property rights are at stake. See, e.g., Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975)(lack of adequate procedures used by school in suspending students violated due process); In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428, 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967) (holding that minors have due process right to counsel in delinquency proceedings); K.E.S. v. 1360*1360 Georgia, 134 Ga.App. 843, 847, 216 S.E.2d 670 (1975)(recognizing minors' right to counsel established in In re Gault). The question, therefore, is whether plaintiff foster children have liberty or property interests at stake in deprivation and TPR proceedings, and, if so, what process is due when those interests are threatened.
The Court finds that children have fundamental liberty interests at stake in deprivation and TPR proceedings. These include a child's interest in his or her own safety, health, and wellbeing, as well as an interest in maintaining the integrity of the family unit and in having a relationship with his or her biological parents. On the one hand, an erroneous decision that

a child is not deprived or that parental rights should not be terminated can have a devastating effect on a child, leading to chronic abuse or even death. On the other hand, an erroneous decision that a child is deprived or that parental rights should be terminated can lead to the unnecessary destruction of the child's most important family relationships.
Furthermore, a child's liberty interests continue to be at stake even after the child is placed in state custody. At that point, a "special relationship" is created that gives rise to rights to reasonably safe living conditions and services necessary to ensure protection from physical, psychological, and emotional harm. See Taylor v. Ledbetter, 818 F.2d 791, 795 (11th Cir. 1987); LaShawn A. v. Dixon, 762 F.Supp. 959, 993 (D.D.C.1991). Thus, a child's fundamental liberty interests are at stake not only in the initial deprivation hearing but also in the series of hearings and review proceedings that occur as part of a deprivation case once a child comes into state custody.
Given the liberty interests at stake, the question becomes what process is constitutionally required to safeguard those interests. To determine what process is due under the Due Process Clause of the Georgia Constitution, Georgia courts apply the three-part federal test enunciated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976):
[O]ur prior decisions indicate that identification of the specific dictates of due process generally requires consideration of three distinct factors: First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.
See Hood v. Carsten, 267 Ga. 579, 580-81, 481 S.E.2d 525 (1997). Applying the Mathews test to this case, the Court concludes that plaintiff foster children have a right to counsel in deprivation and TPR proceedings under the Due Process Clause of the Georgia Constitution.
First, the Court rejects County Defendants' contention that in deprivation and TPR proceedings, "a child's liberty interest is not at stake because no matter the result, they are not at risk of losing any liberty." Br. in Supp. of Fulton County's Mot. for Summ. J. at 21. This argument completely ignores the child's fundamental liberty interests in health, safety, and family integrity which, as discussed above, are clearly at stake in such proceedings. The Court also rejects County Defendants' argument that deprivation and TPR proceedings present no threat to children's physical liberty. To the contrary, the evidence shows that foster children in state custody are subject to placement in a wide array of different types of foster care placements, including institutional facilities where their 1361*1361 physical liberty is greatly restricted. Indeed, plaintiffs have pointed to evidence that foster children are often forced to live in such institutional settings because suitable family foster homes are not available. The Court concludes that the private liberty interests at stake support a due process right to counsel in deprivation and TPR proceedings.

Second, the Court finds that there is a significant risk that erroneous decisions will be made during the course of deprivation and TPR proceedings. As an initial matter, the standards employed by juvenile courts in deprivation and TPR proceedings allow wide room for judicial discretion and thus for subjective determinations. See In the Interest of Z.B., 252 GaApp. 335, 339, 556 S.E.2d 234 (2001)("In determining how the interest of the child is best served, the juvenile court is vested with a broad discretion which will not be controlled in the absence of manifest abuse"). Such "imprecise substantive standards that leave determinations unusually open to the subjective values of the judge" serve "to magnify the risk of erroneous factfinding." Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 762, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982). In addition, plaintiffs have pointed to strong empirical evidence that DFCS makes erroneous decisions on a routine basis that affect the safety and welfare of foster children.
Contrary to County Defendants' argument, juvenile court judges, court appointed special advocates (CASAs), and citizen review panels do not adequately mitigate the risk of such errors. Judges, unlike child advocate attorneys, cannot conduct their own investigations and are entirely dependent on others to provide them information about the child's circumstances. Similarly, citizen review panels must rely on facts presented to them by state and county personnel, including local DFCS offices. As a result, their reviews are only as good as the information provided to them by DFCS and other state and local agencies. CASAs are also volunteers who do not provide legal representation to a child. Moreover, CASAs are appointed in only a small number of cases. The Court concludes that only the appointment of counsel can effectively mitigate the risk of significant errors in deprivation and TPR proceedings.
Finally, the Court must consider the government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that^ right to counsel would entail. In this case, the function involved is that of the state as parens patriae, which refers to "the state in its capacity as provider of protection to those unable to care for themselves." Black's Law Dictionary 1144 (8th ed.2004); see Blackburn v. Blackburn, 249 Ga. 689, 692 n. 5, 292 S.E.2d 821 (1982)(The basis of this doctrine [of parens patriae] is that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting those individuals unable to protect themselves). As parens patriae, the government's overriding interest is to ensure that a child's safety and well-being are protected. See Williams v. Crosby, 118 Ga. 296, 298, 45 S.E. 282 (1903)("[T]he parens patriae must protect the helpless and the innocent"). As discussed above, such protection can be adequately ensured only if the child is represented by legal counsel throughout the course of deprivation and TPR proceedings. Therefore, it is in the state's interest, as well as the child's, to require the appointment of a child advocate attorney. This fundamental interest far outweighs any fiscal or administrative burden that a right to appointed counsel may entail.
IV. Injunctive Relief
The right to counsel, of course, means the right to effective counsel. See 1362*1362 Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 395, 105 S.Ct. 830, 83 L.Ed.2d 821 (1985)(quoting McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970))("It has long been recognized that the right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel"); Nicholson v. Williams, 203 F.Supp.2d 153, 239 (E.D.N.Y.2002)("The right to appointed

counsel when necessary for due process is a right to effective counsel"). County Defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel to support issuance of an injunction. The Court disagrees.
First, it is important to note that in a class action like this one, which seeks only prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to redress institutional deficiencies in the provision of counsel, class members need not "establish that ineffective assistance was inevitable for each of the class members." Luckey v. Harris, 860 F.2d 1012, 1017 (11th Cir.1988). Instead, class members need only meet the traditional standard for the application of equitable relief, namely, a "likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury" if relief is not granted, and "the inadequacy of remedies at law." Id. Evidence of "systemic" deficiencies, such as inadequate resources for appointed counsel, is sufficient to meet this standard. Id. at 1018; see also Nicholson, 203 F.Supp.2d at 240 ("[W]here the state imposes systemic barriers to effective representation, prospective injunctive relief without individualized proof of injury is necessary and appropriate"). In this case, plaintiffs have presented evidence that meets the Luckey standard, thus creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they are receiving, or face a substantial risk of receiving, ineffective assistance of counsel.
Plaintiffs cite deposition testimony and documentary evidence showing that effective assistance of counsel by a child advocate attorney requires that he or she carry out certain minimum legal tasks as part of the representation. These tasks include meeting with the child prior to court hearings and when apprised of emergencies or significant events impacting the child; conducting investigations and discovery, including interviewing individuals involved with the child, such as caseworkers and foster parents, and reviewing all judicial, medical, social services, educational, and other records pertaining to the child; evaluating the child's need for particular services; monitoring the implementation of all court orders; participating in all hearings; and filing all relevant motions and appeals.
Plaintiffs also cite the NACC recommendation that, in order to perform these essential tasks, a child advocate attorney should represent no more than 100 individual clients at a time. The evidence shows that this recommendation is based on the assumption that a child advocate attorney will spend an average of 20 hours representing each child and will work 2000 hours in a year. The recommended caseload limit is meant to apply regardless of how many support staff an attorney might have and assumes that child advocate attorneys are not required to perform nonlegal, administrative tasks. Based on his extensive experience in the child welfare area and his participation in the development of the NACC caseload limit, NACC Executive Director Marvin Ventrell testified that a child advocate attorney could not possibly provide effective representation if the attorney had a number of clients significantly above 100, and certainly not if the attorney had a caseload of 200 clients. The evidence shows that each of the four child advocate attorneys in Fulton County represent almost 450 clients, while the five child advocate attorneys in DeKalb County each represent approximately 200 clients.
1363*1363 In addition, plaintiffs have presented testimonial and documentary evidence showing that Fulton and DeKalb Counties' child advocate attorneys are overwhelmed by their caseloads and cannot provide effective representation to their child clients. Mary Hermann, a Fulton County child advocate attorney, testified that the only thing she does in

every case is read the initial deprivation petition, that she does not meet with all of her clients, that meeting with a child client is purely "aspirational," and that she does not know how many children she currently represents or how many children her office currently represents. (Hermann Dep. at 39, 58, 47, 128.) Dorothy Murphy, a DeKalb County child advocate attorney, testified that DeKalb's child advocates office has been providing inadequate representation since "the year it was formed" and admitted that she provided inadequate assistance to the plaintiffs in this case. (Murphy Dep. at 154, 255, 258.) She further testified that she had "failed to personally meet or speak with 90 percent of [her] own clients" (id. at 258), and that there are cases where no one ever reviewed the medical, social service, education, or other records for a child, met with the foster care provider, or even met with the child. (Id. at 88, 91-93.) She also testified that because of her caseload, she often does not have time to investigate whether her child client is receiving appropriate medical or social services or to monitor whether her child client is in a safe foster care placement. (Id. at 91, 94.) In fact, she admitted, "I don't know where a lot of the children that I represent are." (Id. at 261.)
Plaintiffs also point to evidence from the named plaintiffs' own child advocate attorney files. This evidence shows that the child advocate attorneys often failed to meet with their clients, failed to monitor compliance with court orders, and failed to ensure that their clients' foster care placements were safe and appropriate. All of this evidence is more than sufficient to create a genuine issue for trial as to whether plaintiff foster children, including the named plaintiffs, are receiving, or face a substantial risk of receiving, ineffective assistance of counsel.
Plaintiffs have also shown that they have no adequate remedy at law. Contrary to County Defendants' argument, filing a complaint with the State Bar is not an adequate legal remedy. The State Bar has authority only to discipline individual attorneys, not to award the type of classwide relief that plaintiffs seek. Given the evidence showing that the ineffective assistance problem arises not from personal deficiencies in individual attorneys but from systemic problems in the Fulton and DeKalb County child welfare systems, such a limited remedy is totally inadequate. For the same reason, malpractice lawsuits filed against individual attorneys also provide an inadequate remedy for the harm alleged.
V. Declaratory Relief
Contrary to County Defendants' contention, the Court concludes that declaratory relief is clearly appropriate in this case because there is an "actual controversy" regarding plaintiffs' right to legal counsel in deprivation cases. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201 ("In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, ... any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought"). Although both sides agree that there is a statutory right to counsel in TPR proceedings, County Defendants deny that there is any right to counsel in general deprivation cases, while plaintiffs insist that they have both statutory and constitutional rights to counsel in such cases. Furthermore, County Defendants 1364*1364 and plaintiffs vigorously dispute whether plaintiffs have been denied effective assistance of counsel in either general deprivation cases or TPR proceedings. Clearly, therefore, there is a controversy between

the parties regarding plaintiffs' rights that is sufficient to invoke the Court's jurisdiction to render declaratory relief.
VI. Public Policy
County Defendants argue that public policy considerations mandate that plaintiffs not be allowed to circumvent the Georgia legislature, which has sole authority to determine the appropriate amount of funding for child advocate attorneys. This argument is without merit. If this Court finds that plaintiff foster children's right to counsel is being violated, then it is the obligation of the Court to order an appropriate remedy even if such an order requires the state to appropriate additional funds to hire more child advocate attorneys. County Defendants cite no authority to the contrary.
Summary
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendant Fulton County's motion for summary judgment [# 240-1] and DENIES defendant DeKalb County's motion for summary judgment [# 248-1].
[1] Under Georgia law, a "deprived child" is one who:
(A) Is without proper parental care or control, subsistence, education as required by law, or other care or control necessary for the child's physical, mental, or emotional health or morals;
(B) Has been placed for care or adoption in violation of law;
(C) Has been abandoned by his or her parents or other legal custodian; or
(D) Is without a parent, guardian, or custodian.
O.C.G.A. § 15-11-2(8).
[2] In response to County Defendants' motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs also allege violation of a statutory right to counsel in deprivation proceedings under O.C.G.A. § 15-11-6(b).
[3] When this suit was filed, DeKalb County employed only two child advocate attorneys.
[4] Section 15-1 l-98(a) provides: "In any proceeding for terminating parental rights or any rehearing or appeal thereon, the court shall appoint an attorney to represent the child as the child's counsel and may appoint a separate guardian ad litem or a guardian ad litem who may be the same person as the child's counsel."
[5] See McBurrough v. Dep't of Human Res., 150 Ga.App. 130, 131, 257 S.E.2d 35 (1979)("Under our juvenile code, all parties, including the child, should be represented by an attorney"); see also O.C.G.A. § 15-11-9(b)(referring to child as a "party" to a deprivation proceeding). In light of this authority, the Court rejects County Defendants' argument that the statute's separate references to the "child" mean that the child should not be deemed a party to the proceeding.
[6] Even after the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) has assumed custody of the child, there continues to be a conflict of interests between the child and DFCS, which precludes the attorneys who represent DFCS from also representing the child. This is true because the institutional concerns of DFCS may conflict with the needs of the deprived child. For example, there is evidence that a shortage of family foster homes in Fulton and DeKalb Counties

has lead DFCS to place children in inappropriate and overcrowded homes, to shuffle children from one placement to another, and to overuse institutional placements. Because such conflicts between the broad programmatic needs of DFCS and the specific needs of the individual child may arise in every case, children are entitled to representation by separate counsel throughout the course of the deprivation proceedings.

 
 454 F.Supp.2d 1260 (2006)
KENNY A., by his next friend Linda WINN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Sonny PERDUE, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action 1:02-CV-1686-MHS.
United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.
October 3, 2006.
1261*1261 1262*1262 1263*1263 1264*1264 1265*1265 Corey Fleming Hirokawa, Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, Atlanta, GA, Douglas C. Gray, Ira P. Lustbader, Jeffrey K. Powell, Marcia Robinson Lowry, Stacy F. Antonucci, Michael K. Bartosz, Children's Rights Inc., Erik S. Pitchal, New York City, for Plaintiffs.
Sarah Hechtman, Children's Rights, Inc., New York City, for Plaintiffs and Defendant.
Carmen R. Alexander, Eddie Snelling, Jr., John C. Jones, Kathleen Mary Pacious, Thurbert E. Baker, Office of State Attorney General, Mark Howard Cohen, J. Timothy Mast, Troutman Sanders, Rolesia Butler Dancy, Willie Jake Lovett, Jr., Andrew George MacKenzie, Overtis Hicks Brantley, Charissa Ann Ruel, Social Security Administration, Atlanta, GA, Elizabeth B. Taylor, Vivica Mitchell Brown, Jefferson James Davis, Davis & Davis, Stephen E. Whitted, William J. Linkous, III, Decatur, GA, Winston A. Denmark, Fincher Denmark & Williams LLC, Jonesboro, GA, for Defendants.
ORDER
SHOOB, Senior District Judge.
Before the Court are plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation; State Defendants' 1266*1266 motion for review of taxation of costs by the Clerk of Court; and plaintiffs' motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses. The Court's rulings are set out below.[1]
Introduction
This class action brought on behalf of foster children in Fulton and DeKalb Counties has been one of the most complex and difficult cases that the undersigned has handled in more than 27 years on the bench. Now that the matter has been successfully concluded through entry of a Consent Decree, one difficult issue remains: what is a reasonable amount of attorneys' fees and expenses to be awarded to plaintiffs' counsel? The parties do not dispute that plaintiffs' counsel are entitled to an award, but they differ widely on the appropriate amount of the award.

Plaintiffs, applying both lodestar and percentage-of-the-benefit approaches, seek a fee award of $14,342,868. This amount represents an enhancement of plaintiffs' claimed lodestar figure by a multiplier of two, as well as approximately 8.5% of the $168,688,220 common benefit that plaintiffs claim they generated for the plaintiff class. Plaintiffs also seek an award of $1,658,341.38 in expenses, almost half of which was expended on experts. Included in this figure are costs already taxed by the Clerk pursuant to a bill of costs in the total amount of $549,808.43, most of which ($467,323.32) was spent for exemplification and copies of documents.
State Defendants contend that all of these amounts are unreasonable and grossly excessive. Arguing that a percentage-of-the-benefit approach is not appropriate, State Defendants contend that a reasonable lodestar figure would be $2,971,754.52 and that no enhancement of the lodestar is warranted in this case. State Defendants also contend that none of plaintiffs' expert expenses are recoverable, and that an appropriate award for nontaxable expenses is $189,326.08. Finally, State Defendants object to a large portion of plaintiffs' claimed copying costs and argue that the costs taxed by the Clerk should be reduced to $95,485.08.
Procedural History
As essential background to evaluating plaintiffs' request for fees and expenses, it is important first of all to appreciate the enormous time and effort involved in litigating this complex matter. Therefore, before turning to the specifics of plaintiffs' request, the Court will briefly review the procedural history of the case. As this history demonstrates, State Defendants vigorously fought plaintiffs' claims for almost three years, Ming both motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, as well as seeking repeatedly to limit plaintiffs' discovery efforts. This strategy of resistance undoubtedly prolonged this litigation and substantially increased the amount of fees and expenses that plaintiffs were required to incur.
The complaint in this action was filed on June 6, 2002, in the Superior Court of Fulton County. There were nine named plaintiffs, all foster children in the custody of the Georgia Department of Human Resources, who sought to represent a class of all foster children in Fulton and DeKalb Counties and a subclass of African-American foster children. Plaintiffs were represented by attorneys from Children's Rights, Inc. (CRI), a New York-based advocacy organization for children, and the Atlanta-based Keenan's Kids Law Center. Shortly thereafter, the Atlanta law firm of Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore (BME) joined the case as co-counsel for plaintiffs.[2]
1267*1267 The 75-page complaint asserted fifteen causes of action under both federal and state law based on alleged systemic deficiencies in foster care in both Fulton and DeKalb Counties. The alleged deficiencies included (1) assigning excessive numbers of cases to inadequately trained and poorly supervised caseworkers; (2) not developing a sufficient number of foster homes properly screened to ensure the plaintiff children's safety; (3) not identifying adult relatives who could care for the plaintiff children as an alternative to strangers or impersonal institutions; (4) failing to provide relevant information and support services to foster parents in order to prevent foster placements from being disrupted; (5) failing to develop administrative controls such as an information management system that

ensures plaintiff children are expeditiously placed in a foster home matched to meet the children's specific needs; (6) failing to provide timely and appropriate permanency planning, including failing to provide services that would enable plaintiffs to achieve their permanency planning goals; (7) placing plaintiffs in dangerous, unsanitary, inappropriate shelters and other placements; (8) failing to provide appropriate and necessary mental health, medical, and education services to children in their custody; and (9) separating teenage mothers in foster care from their own children and separating siblings in foster care from each other without providing visitation. (Compl.¶¶ 39-97.) Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to correct these alleged deficiencies.
The named defendants were the Governor of Georgia, the Georgia Department of Human Resources and its Commissioner, the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services and its Director, and the DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services and its Director (State Defendants). Plaintiffs also sued Fulton and DeKalb Counties for their alleged failure to provide foster children with adequate and effective legal representation. Those claims were resolved in separate settlements reached between plaintiffs and each county. Since the pending motions involve only fees and expenses related to plaintiffs' claims against State Defendants, this procedural history omits any reference to matters involving only the claims against Fulton and DeKalb Counties.
On June 19, 2002, defendants removed the case to this Court. On July 1, 2002, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery regarding one aspect of the case: the safety and well-being of foster children housed in Fulton and DeKalb Counties' two emergency children's shelters. On September 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an 80-page motion and brief seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting defendants from continuing to operate the shelters in a manner that allegedly violated plaintiffs' legal rights. State Defendants filed a 57-page response, and plaintiffs filed a 19-page reply. In November 2002, the Court held four days of hearings on the motion, during which the parties presented voluminous documentary evidence as well as both fact and expert witnesses. The parties then submitted more than 203 pages of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
On December 12, 2002, the Court entered an Order finding that plaintiffs had established numerous major deficiencies in the foster care system in general and in the emergency shelters in particular. Nevertheless, in reliance on State Defendants' assurances that they planned to close the shelters and provide safe alternative emergency placements for children as well as address other deficiencies in the foster care system, and based largely on 1268*1268 the Court's confidence in the integrity and competence of then-Commissioner of Human Resources Jim Martin, the Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice to its being renewed by plaintiffs if State Defendants failed to fulfill their promise. State Defendants subsequently reported to the Court that the Fulton and DeKalb shelters had both been closed, thus mooting plaintiffs' claims relating to the shelters.
Meanwhile, on November 4, 2002, State Defendants filed a 44-page motion to dismiss, which argued that the Court was required to abstain from hearing plaintiffs' claims under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), because the proceedings would impermissibly interfere with ongoing juvenile court proceedings. State Defendants also argued that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See District of Columbia Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75

L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923). Alternatively, State Defendants contended that most of plaintiffs' federal and state law claims failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted. State Defendants also filed a brief opposing class certification on the grounds that Younger abstention was required and that plaintiffs could not satisfy the commonality and typicality requirements.
While the Court took plaintiffs' motion for class certification and State Defendants' motion to dismiss under advisement, the parties proceeded with discovery, though not without resistance from State Defendants. At one point, the Court was forced to admonish State Defendants for "relying on technical legal objections to discovery requests in order to delay and hinder the discovery process." Order of January 7, 2003, at 4.
On July 7, 2003, the Court issued an Order extending fact discovery through October 31, 2003, and expert discovery through January 30, 2004. On August 18, 2003, the Court entered an Order denying State Defendants' motion to dismiss (except with regard to plaintiffs' shelter claims, which were dismissed as moot) and granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Kenny A. v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277 (N.D.Ga.2003).
On February 20, 2004, following the close of discovery, State Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion was supported by a 74-page memorandum and a 126-page Statement of Undisputed Material Facts consisting of 612 separately number paragraphs, as well as a 48-page Statement of Legislative Facts consisting of 74 separately numbered paragraphs. In addition, State Defendants' motion was supported by six affidavits comprising more than 30 pages and by three volumes of appendices consisting of three expert reports and voluminous additional documents.
On April 5, 2004, plaintiffs filed a 96-page memorandum in opposition to State Defendants' motion for summary judgment together with a Statement of Disputed Material Facts that included a paragraph-by-paragraph response to State Defendants' Statement of Undisputed Material Facts. Plaintiffs' response was supported by four volumes of appendices comprising 178 exhibits. Plaintiffs also filed some 36 depositions together with voluminous deposition exhibits.
On May 7, 2004, State Defendants filed a 46-page reply brief. Then, on May 19, 2004, State Defendants filed a 38-page Daubert motion seeking to exclude the reports and testimony of all four of plaintiffs' experts. On June 7, 2004, plaintiffs filed a 25-page response together with copies of each of the experts' reports, totaling over 1269*1269 400 pages. Depositions of each of the experts were also filed with the Court. On June 21, 2004, State Defendants filed a 16-page reply brief.
Meanwhile, on May 27, 2004, the Court held a case management conference and set a trial date of early January 2005. In an effort to encourage settlement discussions, the Court directed plaintiffs to make a settlement offer within 30 days. On July 30, 2004, the Court entered an Order establishing a schedule for the parties to update discovery previously obtained, for plaintiffs to conduct updated case record and investigative file reviews, and for production of supplemental expert reports and related discovery. The Court also directed the parties to report on the progress of settlement discussions. Finally, the Court pushed the

trial date back to February 14, 2005, and directed the parties to file their proposed consolidated pretrial order by January 31, 2005.
On August 13, 2004, reports from the parties indicated that settlement discussions were at an impasse. Therefore, the Court decided to refer the case to mediation and directed the parties to attempt to agree upon a qualified mediator or else submit separate lists of proposed mediators. The parties were unable to agree on a mediator and each side objected to all of the mediators proposed by the other side. Consequently, the Court decided to appoint a mediator of its own choosing and on October 25, 2004, entered an Order appointing retired Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Dorothy Toth Beasley to serve as mediator.
On December 13, 2004, the Court entered an Order denying State Defendants' motion for summary judgment and motion to exclude the reports and testimony of plaintiffs' experts. State Defendants promptly filed a motion to amend the Order to permit an immediate interlocutory appeal. While that motion was pending, efforts at mediation began in earnest. According to Judge Beasley, over the next four months the parties attended eighteen separate mediation sessions where they spent more than 110 hours trying to hammer out a settlement agreement.
On January 13, 2005, in order to facilitate mediation efforts and at the joint request of the parties, the Court entered an Order postponing the due date of the pretrial order until February 18, 2005, and postponing the trial date indefinitely. As mediation proceeded, the parties requested and the Court granted another extension of the due date of the pretrial order until March 25, 2005. No further extensions were formally granted but as the parties continued to make progress in their settlement efforts, the Court suspended the deadline for filing the pretrial order indefinitely so that they could concentrate on mediation.
Finally, the parties reached agreement on all issues (except attorneys' fees). On July 5, 2005, they filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement. The Court granted the motion and scheduled a fairness hearing for September 21, 2005. After considering the comments and objections of all interested parties, on October 27, 2005, the Court entered an Order approving the proposed Consent Decree.
As part of the Consent Decree, the parties agreed that plaintiffs were entitled to recover their expenses of litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and nontaxable expenses, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(h). Consent Decree § 22. However, the parties were unable to reach agreement as to the appropriate amount of fees and expenses to be awarded.
On November 28, 2005, plaintiffs filed a bill of costs totaling $549,808.43, including $467,323.32 for "exemplification and copies 1270*1270 of papers necessarily obtained for use in the case." On January 18, 2006, the Clerk formally taxed these costs.
On December 9, 2005, plaintiffs moved for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $14,342,860 and nontaxable costs in the amount of $1,679,115.46.[3] In support of their motion plaintiffs submitted the declarations of CRI lead attorney Marcia Robinson Lowry, CRI staff attorney Sara M. Bartosz, BME lead attorney Jeffrey O. Bramlett, and Atlanta

attorneys Ralph Knowles, Ralph Goldberg, John A. Chandler, Henry A. Fellows, Jr., and James C. Rawls. Attached to Ms. Lowry's and Mr. Bramlett's declarations were nearly 2,500 pages of time and expense records. According to their summary of those records, plaintiffs' counsel expended 29,908.73 hours on this case. Based on claimed hourly rates for attorneys ranging from $215 to $495 and for paralegals and interns ranging from $75 to $150, this time results in a lodestar fee of $7,171,434.30. Plaintiffs seek an award of twice this amount, both as an enhancement of the lodestar and as a percentage of the common benefit plaintiffs claim they generated for the plaintiff class.
In their response, filed January 4, 2006, and a separate motion for review of taxation of costs filed on January 19, 2006, State Defendants contend that all of these amounts are excessive. They argue that a reasonable award in this case would be $2,971,754.52 in attorneys' fees plus $189,326.08 in nontaxable expenses and $95,485.08 in taxable costs.
On January 27, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses in the amounts acknowledged by State Defendants to be reasonable. Initially, plaintiffs sought an immediate interim award before the Court determined the appropriate amount of a final award. In their reply brief, however, plaintiffs clarified that they sought an interim award only in the event that State Defendants chose to appeal the Court's final award. State Defendants oppose any interim award.
Discussion
The Court will first address plaintiffs' argument that they are entitled to an award of fees under the common fund/common benefit approach. Next the Court considers the lodestar analysis. The Court then considers an appropriate award of expenses. Finally, the Court addresses plaintiffs' request for an interim award of fees and expenses.
I. The Common Fund/Common Benefit Approach
There are two principal exceptions to the general rule that each party to litigation must bear its own legal costs. First, there are fee-shifting statutes. Congress has enacted a number of statutes providing for the shifting of fees from one party to the other in certain circumstances. For example, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is a fee-shifting statute which provides that a plaintiff who prevails in an action brought pursuant to certain civil rights laws, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is entitled to recover his or her reasonable attorneys' fees from the defendant. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). The parties in this case agree that plaintiffs are entitled to an award of attorneys' fees under this statute.
Second, there are the closely related common fund and common benefit doctrines. Under the common fund doctrine, attorneys in a class action in which a common fund is created are entitled to receive a reasonable percentage of the common fund as compensation for their services. Camden I Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. 1271*1271 Dunkle, 946 F.2d 768, 711 (11th Cir.1991). The common benefit doctrine extends the common fund doctrine to lawsuits that produce nonmonetary benefits. Id.
In this case, plaintiffs contend that under the common fund and common benefit doctrines they are entitled to a percentage of the value of the benefit conferred upon the plaintiff class

by their efforts. By their calculation, the value of this benefit totals more than $168 million. (Bartosz Decl. ¶ 9.) This figure represents the sum of (1) enhancements to the budget of the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services occurring during the pendency of this action, and (2) fiscal obligations undertaken by the State Defendants to implement the Consent Decree. (Id. ¶¶ 6-8 & Ex. A.) For the following reasons, the Court concludes that neither the common fund doctrine nor the common benefit doctrine is applicable to this case.
First, the common fund doctrine is inapplicable because no fund was created by the parties' settlement. Instead, the settlement is one in which State Defendants have agreed to undertake certain actions to benefit foster children. Although it may be possible to place a dollar value on the benefit these actions will confer on the plaintiff class, this does not result in the creation of a common fund. The Sixth Circuit's analysis in a recent desegregation case is equally applicable to this case:
[T]he [common fund] doctrine is inappropriate here because there is simply no fund. The benefit provided to the plaintiff class — the desegregation of Tennessee's system of higher education — is not pecuniary in any conventional way and did not result in the creation of a fund to be divided up among the plaintiffs, as is the case in common fund cases. Although . . . the benefits attained could perhaps be measured as pecuniary — in the sense that a dollar value could be assigned to the cost of the remedial measures-transposing the action's social value into monetary value is imprecise, and more importantly, still leaves us without a fund. The money designated by Tennessee for the remedial programs goes to fund the programs, not to pay plaintiffs.
Geier v. Sundquist, 372 F.3d 784, 790 (6th Cir.2004)(emphasis in original).
Second, an award of fees under the common fund doctrine would be contrary to the doctrine's rationale. The common fund doctrine "rests on the perception that persons who obtain the benefit of a lawsuit without contributing to its cost are unjustly enriched at the successful litigant's expense." Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert, 444 U.S. 472, 478, 100 S.Ct. 745, 62 L.Ed.2d 676 (1980). Consistent with this perception, "a key element of the common fund case is that fees are not assessed against the unsuccessful litigant (fee shifting), but rather, are taken from the fund or damage recovery (fee spreading)." Camden I, 946 F.2d at 774. Here, however, plaintiffs acknowledge that "the fees requested must be paid by the state without cost or compromise to the benefit achieved for the Plaintiff Class." (Pls.' Br. at 28.) Thus, counsel do not seek to spread their fees among the members of the plaintiff class by obtaining a percentage of a common fund generated for their benefit. Instead, they seek to shift their fees to State Defendants by way of a calculation based on a purely hypothetical common fund.
Third, this case does not fall within the special subset of cases to which the common benefit doctrine applies. Common benefit recovery is appropriate only where the defendant and the beneficiaries share an identity of interests. See generally Alan Hirsch & Diane Sheehey, Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Managing 1272*1272 Fee Litigation 88-91 (Fed. Judicial Ctr.2d ed.2005). Such a recovery has generally been permitted in only two types of cases: suits by shareholders against their corporations and suits by union members against their union. See Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1943, 36 L.Ed.2d 702 (1973); Mills v. Elec.

Auto-Lite Co., 396 U.S. 375, 90 S.Ct. 616, 24 L.Ed.2d 593 (1970). In such cases, "[f]ees are paid by the defendant, because it is the alter ego of the beneficiaries who would otherwise be unjustly enriched by the suit." Hirsch & Sheehey, supra, at 88. However, "[i]f the defendant and the beneficiaries have no such identity of interests, an award against the defendant is improper because it would shift the costs unfairly." Id. at 88-89. Here, there is no identity of interests between State Defendants and members of the plaintiff class; therefore, a common benefit recovery would not serve to spread the costs among all the beneficiaries but would merely shift the costs to State Defendants, contrary to the purpose of the common benefit doctrine.
The fact that plaintiffs have asserted claims under Georgia law as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not change the foregoing analysis. As applied by the Georgia courts in the cases cited by plaintiffs, the common fund/common benefit doctrine is the same as that followed by the federal courts in the cases discussed above and is thus subject to the same restrictions. See State of Georgia v. Private Truck Council of Am., 258 Ga. 531, 534-35, 371 S.E.2d 378 (1988); Friedrich v. Fidelity Nat'l Bank, 247 Ga.App. 704, 705-07, 545 S.E.2d 107 (2001).
Likewise, the Court's conclusion is not altered by the parties' acknowledgment that plaintiffs are entitled to recover their fees and expenses pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 23(h), as well as 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Consent Decree § 22.A. Rule 23(h) provides in pertinent part that "[i]n an action certified as a class action, the court may award reasonable attorney fees and nontaxable costs authorized by law or by agreement of the parties." Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(h). "This subdivision," however, "does not undertake to create new grounds for an award of attorney fees or nontaxable costs," but "applies only when such awards are authorized by law or by agreement of the parties." Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(h), Advisory Committee Notes to 2003 Amendments. For the reasons discussed above, a recovery under the common fund/common benefit doctrine is not authorized by law in this case. Nor did the parties agree to such a recovery. Therefore, Rule 23(h) does not provide a basis for the Court to apply the common fund/common benefit approach.
II. The Lodestar Analysis
Since the common fund/common benefit approach is not applicable to this case, the determination of an appropriate award of attorneys' fees is governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The starting point for calculating reasonable attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 is "the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate" for the attorneys' services. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983); Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). The product of these two numbers is commonly referred to as the "lodestar." Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council 478 U.S. 546, 563, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986). After calculating the lodestar, the court may adjust the amount upwards or downwards based on a number of factors, such as the quality of the results obtained and the legal representation provided. Blum, 465 U.S. at 897, 104 S.Ct. 1541; Duckworth v. Whisenant, 97 F.3d 1393, 1396 (11th Cir.1996). In accordance with this methodology, the Court will calculate the lodestar by first determining the number of hours reasonably 1273*1273 expended by plaintiffs' counsel on this litigation and then the hourly rates at which such work should reasonably be compensated. The Court will then consider whether any adjustment to the lodestar is appropriate in this case.

A. Reasonable Hours
The Eleventh Circuit's decisions regarding attorneys' fees generally "contemplate a task-bytask examination of the hours billed." ACLU of Georgia v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 429 (11th Cir.1999). However, the Eleventh Circuit has also stated that "[w]here fee documentation is voluminous, . . . an hour-by-hour review is both impractical and a waste of judicial resources," and therefore is not required. Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 783 (11th Cir.1994). In such cases, it is sufficient for the court to make "across-the-board percentage cuts either in the number of hours claimed or in the final lodestar figure," so long as it provides "a concise but clear explanation of its reasons for the reduction." Id.
This case clearly meets the requirements for a voluminous fee request. In Loranger itself, the motion, time sheets, and time summaries exceeded some 400 pages and sought recovery for approximately 3,000 hours billed by a single attorney. Id. at 779. In this case, the time records alone exceed two thousand pages and represent nearly 30,000 hours billed by 38 timekeepers. Clearly, the Court cannot "feasibly and expeditiously" engage in an hour-by-hour review of such a fee application. Id. at 783. Therefore, in accordance with Loranger, the Court will determine the total number of hours devoted to the litigation and then reduce that figure in gross with an across-the-board percentage reduction if such a reduction is warranted.
In determining a reasonable number of hours, the Court must exclude hours that were not "reasonably expended" due to, for example, overstaffing. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933. "Work performed by multiple attorneys, however, is not subject to reduction where the attorneys were not unreasonably doing the same work." Webster Greenthumb Co. v. Fulton County, 112 F.Supp.2d 1339, 1350 (N.D.Ga.2000) (citations omitted). "Counsel for the prevailing party should make a good-faith effort to exclude from a fee request hours that are excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary." Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933. If counsel fails to do so, the Court must do it for them. Barnes, 168 F.3d at 428.
The Court also must give due weight to the sworn declarations of co-lead counsel for plaintiffs, Marcia Robinson Lowry and Jeffrey O. Bramlett, who state that they have reviewed the entries in each compilation of time records submitted and have written off charges which, in the exercise of their billing judgment, they deemed excessive; and that the compilations and the summaries attached to their declarations are an accurate and reliable account of the work performed in this case. (Lowry Decl. ¶ 8; Bramlett Decl. ¶ 6.) Ms. Lowry and Mr. Bramlett each attest that all of the hours submitted were reasonable and necessary in order to furnish adequate representation to the plaintiff class. (Lowry Decl. ¶ 9; Bramlett Decl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs have also submitted the declarations of five experienced Atlanta attorneys, each of whom attests that, in light of the nature and complexity of this case, the amount of time devoted to the case by class counsel was fair and reasonable and deserving of full compensation. (Knowles Decl. ¶ 7; Goldberg Decl. ¶ 8; Chandler Decl. ¶ 6; Fellows Decl. ¶ 6; Rawls Decl. ¶ 6.)[4]
1274*1274 Tasks for which fees are recoverable "include pre-litigation services in preparation of filing the lawsuit, background research and reading in complex cases, productive attorney discussions and strategy sessions, negotiations, routine activities such

as making telephone calls and reading mail related to the case, monitoring and enforcing the favorable judgment, and even preparing and litigating the request for attorneys' fees." Webster Greenthumb, 112 F.Supp.2d at 1350 (citations omitted). "Reasonable travel time of the prevailing party's attorneys ordinarily is compensated on an hourly basis, although the rate may be reduced if no legal work was performed during travel. As with attorneys' work, the hours expended by paralegals, law clerks, and other paraprofessionals are also compensable to the extent these individuals are engaged in work traditionally performed by an attorney." Id. (citations omitted).
The time records submitted in support of plaintiffs' fee application show that plaintiffs' attorneys, paralegals, and legal interns devoted a total of 29,908.73 hours to this litigation. (Lowry Decl. Ex. 2; Bramlett Decl. Ex. 1.) State Defendants have presented a number of specific objections to the hours billed. They contend, first of all, that the billing records reflect a lack of billing judgment generally insofar as the time entries are "riddled with many vague and noncompensable narratives." (State Defs.' Br. at 27.) State Defendants also contend that the number of hours spent by plaintiffs' counsel on certain tasks was excessive. Specifically, State Defendants object to the number of hours spent on the following tasks: complaint and mandatory disclosures (1,648.41 hours), motion for preliminary injunction (1,770.33 hours), document production and analysis (7,195.86 hours), depositions and witness preparation (3,800.37 hours), discovery motions (777.13 hours), other investigation and background research (18.5 hours), intra- and inter-office conferences and correspondence(2,428 hours), expert witnesses and reports (1,819.76 hours), motion for summary judgment (1,720.99 hours), mediation and settlement (2,155.70 hours), pretrial motions (1,151.06), trial preparation (2,124.55 hours), attorneys' fees application (86.70 hours), and miscellaneous matters (1,050.08).[5]
After carefully considering each of State Defendants' objections and conducting its own review of plaintiffs' counsel's time records, the Court agrees that some reduction in hours is appropriate because of vague and noncompensable time entries and because an excessive number of hours was spent on certain tasks. The Court will address each of State Defendants' objections in turn below and then determine what overall percentage reduction in hours is appropriate.
1. Billing Judgment
State Defendants seek at least a 5% reduction in the total lodestar to account for vague and noncompensable time entries in plaintiffs' counsel's billing records. Plaintiffs have not responded to this objection. The Court has reviewed the entries cited by State Defendants and agrees that many of the entries are too vague to permit the Court to determine whether the time was reasonably expended. Many of the entries also reflect purely administrative tasks that are noncompensable. 1275*1275 Therefore, the Court will take these matters into account in determining an appropriate reduction in hours.
2. Complaint and Mandatory Disclosures
State Defendants contend that the 1,648.41 hours billed for pre-suit investigation and researching and drafting the complaint and mandatory disclosures is excessive. Relying on a decision in an earlier case brought by CRI in Washington, D.C., State Defendants contend

that no more than 450 hours is reasonable for this work. See LaShawn A. v. Barry, No. 891754, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2137 at *18 (D.D.C. Feb. 17, 1998). State Defendants also argue that time spent researching a nuisance claim that was ultimately dismissed should not be allowed.
Plaintiffs respond that the hours spent were reasonable given the broad scope of the tasks included in this category, including factual investigation and legal research, evaluation of proper defendants, evaluation of the optimum scope for the case, evaluation of alternatives for achieving relief in state as well as federal courts, efforts to resolve the case prior to filing suit, as well as preparation of the initial complaint and mandatory disclosures. Plaintiffs point out that the pre-suit investigation in this case was an immense undertaking involving four state governmental hierarchies (DHR, State DFCS, Fulton DFCS, and DeKalb DFCS) and requiring extensive on-site witness interviews and follow-up factual investigations with foster children, foster parents, child advocates, members of the care provider community, adoption agency personnel, caseworkers, emergency shelter workers, law enforcement personnel, and various other stakeholders in Georgia's child welfare system, in addition to researching the parameters of plaintiffs' legal claims under seventeen causes of action covering state and federal law.
The Court recognizes that the preparation of this case for filing required a substantial amount of work, much more than even the average class action. The Court rejects State Defendants suggestion that the Court should apply an arbitrary 450-hour cap based on another case from another jurisdiction which State Defendants have not shown is comparable to this case. The Court also rejects State Defendants' claim that work on the dismissed nuisance claim should not be compensated. The nuisance claim was dismissed as moot following the closure of Fulton and DeKalb Counties' emergency shelters. See Kenny A. v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277, 297 (N.D.Ga. 2003). As discussed below in connection with plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, such closure came in part due to plaintiffs' efforts to close the shelters, which included the assertion of the nuisance claim. Therefore, time spent researching this claim is compensable.
Nevertheless, while the Court cannot say precisely how much time this work should have taken, based on its experience in other complex class actions, 1,648.41 hours is excessive for pre-suit investigation and drafting the complaint and mandatory disclosures. The Court will take this into account in determining an appropriate percentage reduction in hours.
3. Motion for Preliminary Injunction
State Defendants contend that 1,770 hours to file pleadings, prepare for, and attend the preliminary injunction hearing is excessive. They note substantial billing entries by numerous timekeepers in the two months prior to the hearing and object to the fact that seven attorneys and two paralegals billed for their attendance at the hearing. State Defendants also contend that all time in this category should be excluded because the Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction.
1276*1276 In response, plaintiffs point out that at the time this work was performed, the Fulton and DeKalb shelters were operating and overpopulated with children, and there was no reliable assurance that these dangerous conditions would abate without injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs note that the work included numerous depositions, document productions, expert site inspections, and child interviews. They argue that even though the Court ultimately denied the injunction, State Defendants' commitment to close the shelters was due in large part to their efforts. Finally, plaintiffs contend they did not overstaff the preliminary injunction hearing and invite the Court to compare State Defendants' level of staffing."
The Court concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the work on the motion for preliminary injunction, except for an appropriate reduction for the unnecessary number of attorneys who attended the hearing. The fact that the Court ultimately denied the motion does not require exclusion of this time. The Court found that plaintiffs had "made a compelling case" but opted to deny plaintiffs' motion (without prejudice, it should be noted) based on State Defendants' assurances that the shelters would be closed. Order of December 12, 2002, at 3. The fact that the Court chose to rely on the State Defendants' assurances rather than issuing an injunction does not change the fact that, prior to plaintiffs' lawsuit, "few concrete steps were taken to close the shelters." Id. Plaintiffs' actions in filing this lawsuit and in seeking an injunction against the continued operation of the shelters were clearly major factors in the closure of these two dangerous shelters. Plaintiffs' efforts also resulted in the inclusion in the Consent Decree of significant protection against the risk of future peril from improper use of emergency shelters. See Consent Decree § 5.C.4.c. Accordingly, all the time reasonably spent on the preliminary injunction motion is compensable.
As far as overstaffing is concerned, the Court agrees with State Defendants that having seven attorneys and two paralegals at the preliminary injunction hearing and billing time for each of those individuals was unreasonable. (According to the Court's records, State Defendants had four attorneys and an unknown number of paralegals present at the hearing.) The Court will take this overstaffing at the hearing into account in reducing the total number of hours to be compensated.
4. Document Production and Analysis
State Defendants purport to be "dumbfounded" by the 7,195.86 hours that plaintiffs' counsel spent on document production and analysis, notwithstanding their acknowledgment that "this was a document intensive case." (State Defs.' Br. at 38, 39.) They point to another recent case in this district, which was also a document intensive case and included evidence that the defendants had made the plaintiffs' task even more difficult, but where only 2,440 hours were required for document production and analysis. See Webster Greenthumb, 112 F.Supp.2d at 1358. State Defendants also express astonishment that the time billed does not include an additional 13,500 hours expended by outside case readers for whose time and expense plaintiffs seek recovery in the nontaxable expense category. State Defendants argue that a 50% reduction in the number of hours would be appropriate.
In response, plaintiffs note that over the course of this litigation, nearly half a million pages of documents were produced, which counsel had to organize, review, copy, and scan into a document management system. Plaintiffs then had to retrieve from this document database and review those documents pertinent or potentially 1277*1277 pertinent to each of more than 60 deposition witnesses and to the work of each of plaintiffs' experts. In addition, plaintiffs argue, even more comprehensive document retrieval and review were necessary

to prepare various pre-trial filings, including the response to State Defendants' massive summary judgment motion and the pretrial order. As for the separate billings for case record review, plaintiffs argue that this was a completely separate task, which could have been done for half the price had State Defendants cooperated with plaintiffs' cost-saving proposal to conduct a joint record review. As it was, plaintiffs were forced to undertake an exhaustive and time consuming process that had to be updated twice due to delays in discovery caused by State Defendants in which the original files of hundreds of children in DFCS custody were produced for review by a team of case readers under the direction of one of plaintiffs' experts, and a similar review of abuse investigation files was conducted by readers under the supervision of another of plaintiffs' experts. Finally, plaintiffs argue that State Defendants have failed to explain how or why the tasks in Webster Greenthumb were in any way comparable to those in this facially dissimilar case.
The Court concludes that the hours spent on document production and analysis are somewhat excessive, but that State Defendants greatly underestimate the number of hours reasonably expended on this task. The sheer volume of documents produced in this case was overwhelming. The Court can personally attest to this fact based on the massive number of documents submitted by the parties just in connection with State Defendants' motion for summary judgment, a number that was undoubtedly only a very small percentage of the total number of documents produced in this case. It would be hard to overestimate the amount of time reasonably devoted to organizing, reviewing, and managing such a huge number of documents. State Defendants' attempted comparison to the Webster Greenthumb case is clearly inapposite. The two cases are simply not comparable. In Webster Greenthumb, no class was ever certified. Thus, in responding to summary judgment issues and preparing for trial, the plaintiffs counsel in Webster Greenthumb faced a far less burdensome task than plaintiffs' counsel here had to undertake in connection with documents produced regarding two distinct child welfare offices and child populations in Fulton and DeKalb Counties.
At the same time, based on its experience in other complex, document intensive cases, the Court finds that more than 7,100 hours expended on document review and analysis over the two-and-one-half years between the filing of the complaint and the commencement of mediation is unreasonable. That is the equivalent of more than one full-time employee reviewing and analyzing documents continuously for that entire time period. Accordingly, some reduction in the number of hours expended in this category is appropriate, and the Court will take this into account in arriving at an overall reduction percentage.
5. Depositions and Witness Preparation
State Defendants object on two grounds to the 3,800.37 hours that plaintiffs' counsel spent taking depositions and preparing witnesses. First, they contend that many of the depositions were overstaffed, citing seven instances where three plaintiffs' attorneys attended a deposition. Second, they argue that gross overbilling occurred in preparing for the depositions. In support of this argument, State Defendants cite a single example where three plaintiffs' attorneys spent a combined 205.12 hours preparing for two purportedly similar depositions, those of Aisha Caul 1278*1278 and Jane Cooper, the senior operational managers in the area of foster care for Fulton DFCS and DeKalb DFCS, respectively. State

Defendants seek a 33% reduction of the hours in this category based on this alleged overstaffing and overbilling.
In response, plaintiffs point to the fact that State Defendants themselves chose to staff depositions with three and sometimes even four attorneys. They cite five examples, four where State Defendants had four attorneys in attendance at a deposition, and one where they had three. At all of these depositions, plaintiffs had only two counsel present. As for the single example of alleged overbilling, plaintiffs contend that the time spent preparing for the Caul and Cooper depositions was not unreasonable in light of the fact that these were among the most significant depositions taken in the case and that the Fulton and DeKalb DFCS offices had different organizational structures, different manifestations of systemic problems, different data and reporting systems, and sometimes different local policies in the field. Plaintiffs also note that each of the depositions spanned two days and produced transcripts running to 530 pages and over 400 pages, respectively.
The Court concludes that the number of hours expended in this category was reasonable. Plaintiffs prepared for and took or defended more than 60 depositions in this case, which works out to an average of approximately 63 hours per deposition. In light of the document review and other preparation needed for each deposition and the time spent in the depositions themselves, some of which spanned two days, this is not an unreasonable amount of time. State Defendants do not question the need for any of the depositions taken by plaintiffs. Their objection to plaintiffs' alleged overstaffing of depositions is not well-taken, since the record shows that State Defendants often had more attorneys in attendance at depositions than did plaintiffs. Finally, State Defendants' objection to alleged overbilling is also without merit, since the single example cited does not support their claim. Caul and Cooper were both critical witnesses whose depositions were difficult to prepare for because of their respective positions near the top of two related but dissimilar bureaucracies. Therefore, the Court cannot say that the time spent preparing for these depositions was unreasonable.
6. Discovery Motions
State Defendants contend that the 777.13 hours plaintiffs' counsel spent on discovery motions should be reduced by half for two reasons. First, they argue that an excessive number of attorneys attended the status conferences and other discovery-related conferences conducted by the Court. They cite two examples, one a discovery conference attended by three plaintiffs' attorneys and the other a status conference attended by five plaintiffs' attorneys. Second, State Defendants contend that counsel spent an excessive amount of time drafting discovery motions and responses and preparing for conferences. Specifically, they cite 99.61 hours spent preparing for a discovery conference before Judge Goger in Fulton Superior Court before this case was removed, 60.03 hours spent responding to a motion to compel filed by State Defendants, and 217.87 hours spent in connection with a request for authorization to inspect the WestCare facilities and interview foster children there, including 121.08 hours spent filing the initial motion.
Plaintiffs respond that the hours spent on all these tasks were reasonable. According to plaintiffs, the conference before Judge Goger involved an emergency motion for expedited discovery related to dangerous conditions at the Fulton and 1279*1279 DeKalb County

shelters and required a substantial amount of time to conduct an independent investigation and compile a sufficient factual record to support the request. Similarly, plaintiffs contend that the time spent securing adequate discovery regarding the WestCare facilities was reasonable and necessary in light of State Defendants' resistance to allowing such discovery and the dangerous conditions at the facilities, which threatened the safety and well-being of children in the plaintiff class. Plaintiffs also argue that State Defendants should not be heard to complain about the time spent responding to their motion to compel, because the motion was baseless, was improperly filed without consulting with plaintiffs' counsel, and was filed in an effort to harass rather than to further a legitimate discovery need. As for alleged overstaffing, plaintiffs contend that State Defendants have offered no evidence to rebut counsel's declarations that the time billed was reasonable and necessary.
The Court concludes that the time spent preparing for the Goger discovery conference and in connection with the WestCare motion was reasonable. As plaintiffs correctly point out, the discovery conference before Judge Goger related to a motion for expedited discovery regarding dangerous conditions at the Fulton and DeKalb shelters. After removal, plaintiffs renewed the motion and this Court granted it following a hearing. See Order of July 3, 2002. The original 100-page motion, memorandum, and attached exhibits filed by plaintiffs in the superior court amply attest to the fact that this request for expedited discovery required substantial factual investigation and research by plaintiffs' counsel. Given the terrible conditions at the shelters that were ultimately revealed as a result of plaintiffs' efforts, it can hardly be argued that this time was not fully justified. Likewise, given the evidence of dangerous conditions existing at the WestCare facilities, which replaced the DeKalb shelter, the time spent by plaintiffs' counsel to obtain access to those facilities was also fully justified, especially given that State Defendants unreasonably resisted such access notwithstanding the Court's prior admonition that "the rules of discovery were to be liberally construed to allow plaintiffs `free and broad access to the shelters, their staff, and residents.'" Order of December 3, 2004, at 4 (quoting Order of July 23, 2002, at 6).
The Court agrees with State Defendants, however, that time spent responding to their motion to compel was excessive. Plaintiffs' essential response to the motion was that it was moot because the documents sought had already been produced. It was clearly unnecessary to have spent in excess of 60 hours preparing this response. The Court also agrees with State Defendants that an unreasonable number of plaintiffs' attorneys attended many of the discovery and status conferences conducted by the Court. The Court believes it would have been reasonable for one attorney from CRI and one from BME to have attended such conferences, but often there were two or more attorneys from both CRI and BME present. Having this many attorneys present at Court conferences and billing time for each of them is unreasonable. Therefore, in arriving at an overall percentage reduction in hours, the Court will take into consideration both the. overstaffing at these conferences and the excessive hours spent responding to State Defendants' motion to compel.
7. Other Investigation and Background Research
State Defendants challenge only the following two items in this category on the grounds that the time was spent on matters not necessarily related to this 1280*1280 case: (1) 1.3 hours spent by a BME attorney researching CRI, and (2) 17.2 hours spent by BME attorneys researching this Court's Fulton County Jail case, including talking with plaintiffs' counsel in

that case. Plaintiffs contend that all of this time was reasonably necessary and useful to the prosecution of this case and therefore compensable. The Court agrees. First, it was clearly of benefit to the plaintiff class for BME to inform itself about its potential co-counsel in this case, and less than an hour-and-a-half of research in this regard was certainly reasonable. Second, 17.2 hours of research regarding the course and outcome of similar civil rights litigation in this Court was reasonable and appropriate to inform counsel's strategic planning in this case. See New York State Assoc. For Retarded Children v. Carey, 711 F.2d 1136, 1146 & n. 5 (2d Cir.1983)(allowing compensation for background research and reading in complex cases).
8. Intra- and Inter-Office Conferences and Correspondence
State Defendants seek a 50% reduction in the 2,428.04 hours spent by plaintiffs' counsel in conferences, meetings, and correspondence with other timekeepers. They note that this constitutes 8% of all time expended in the case and contend that this reflects a duplication of effort arising from the large number of plaintiffs' attorneys and paralegals who worked on the case, as well as the high rate of turnover among plaintiffs' counsel.
In response, plaintiffs argue that the hours spent on these tasks reflect the practical realities of large-scale litigation conducted by two different law offices, one in New York and one in Atlanta. They point out that the hours presented to the Court have already been reduced by plaintiffs' counsel by excluding time billed by more than three CRI attorneys for any particular meeting or conference. Finally, plaintiffs deny that attorney turnover had any significant impact on the hours billed in this category, noting that the vast majority of time was spent by attorneys who worked on the case throughout all or most of the course of the litigation.
The Court rejects State Defendants' suggestion that a 50% reduction of the time in this category would be appropriate. Plaintiffs correctly point out that in order to conduct class action litigation efficiently and effectively, there must be careful planning, coordinated team execution, and open communication and sharing of information among team members, all of which are best achieved through period conferences to set strategy and assign resources. Plaintiffs are also correct in their contention that the amount of turnover experienced within counsel's respective offices would not have significantly impacted the number of hours billed in this category. Nevertheless, the Court believes that the very large number of attorneys and paralegals who worked on this case inevitably resulted in some duplication of effort. This is reflected by the fact that more than 8% of all the time expended on the case was devoted to communications among counsel. While some of this time was undoubtedly reasonable and necessary, the Court finds this percentage somewhat high even for a complex class action such as this. Accordingly, the Court believes that some reduction in these hours is appropriate and will consider this in arriving at an overall percentage reduction in hours.
9. Expert Witnesses and Reports
State Defendants argue that the 1,819.76 hours spent by plaintiffs' counsel preparing and consulting with experts and drafting and revising expert reports is excessive and unnecessary. They contend that the attorneys' time should be reduced by 60% because

plaintiffs' counsel should not be compensated for helping to prepare 1281*1281 or revise expert reports that were supposedly written by the experts themselves. In addition, State Defendants ask that the paralegals' time be reduced by 90% because the vast majority of the work they performed was administrative and secretarial in nature.
In response, plaintiffs contend that the substantial time devoted to the presentation of their four expert witnesses-three of whom prepared multiple reports to reflect developments within DHR and DFCS as the case proceeded through discovery-was entirely appropriate and reasonable given the sheer volume of systemic evidence to be considered. They argue that the experts took complete responsibility for forming their opinions and identifying the issues to be reviewed, but that a significant amount of attorney and paralegal time was required to pull together and supply pertinent information from depositions, documents, or other evidentiary sources as the experts directed during the course of their reviews.
The Court concludes that the hours expended in this category are excessive, although not to the extent suggested by State Defendants. Undoubtedly, a large amount of attorney and paralegal time was reasonably and necessarily devoted to aiding plaintiffs' experts in their review of the voluminous depositions, documents, and other evidentiary materials produced in this case. Nevertheless, some time entries by attorneys reflect time spent drafting and revising expert reports, work which should have been done by the experts themselves. Likewise, many of the paralegals' time entries reflect that the work performed was administrative and secretarial in nature. Such nonlegal work by paralegals is not compensable. Accordingly, the Court will take this into account when it considers a reasonable percentage reduction in the total hours expended on this case.
10. Motion for Summary Judgment
State Defendants seek a 75% reduction in the 1,720.99 hours expended by plaintiffs' counsel in responding to their motion for summary judgment. They argue that this large amount of time expended in just a little over a month preparing a single brief and response to a statement of undisputed material facts is grossly excessive.
Plaintiffs contend that the hours were justified because of the sheer size of State Defendants' motion, which included a 74-page memorandum and a 126-page statement of undisputed material facts consisting of 612 separately number paragraphs, as well as a 48page statement of legislative facts consisting of 74 separately numbered paragraphs, six affidavits comprising more than 30 pages, and three volumes of appendices consisting of three expert reports and voluminous additional documents. Plaintiffs also contend that the motion never should have been filed at all because the vast evidentiary record compiled in this litigation raised myriad factual disputes in relation to a broad range of material issues.
Regardless of whether State Defendants acted in bad faith by filing a motion for summary judgment, the Court concludes that the time expended by plaintiffs' counsel in responding to the motion was clearly excessive. Even taking into consideration the voluminous nature of the motion and the time-consuming task of responding to each paragraph of State Defendants' statement of undisputed material facts, the number of hours expended was unreasonable. One need only consider the fact that 1,720 hours is the equivalent of one attorney working full time for nearly an entire year to conclude that no response to a motion

for summary judgment justifies such an expenditure of time. The Court will take this into consideration in arriving 1282*1282 at an appropriate overall percentage reduction in plaintiffs' counsel's hours.
11. Mediation and Settlement
State Defendants object to the 2,155.70 hours plaintiffs' counsel spent working on mediation and settlement. Specifically, they contend that Mr. Lustbader's and Mr. Bramlett's time should be reduced because they billed substantially more hours than Ms. Lowry, who was plaintiffs' principal negotiator. State Defendants also contend that Ms. Hirokawa's hours should be reduced because her primary role was to type notes on a laptop during the meetings, a task that could have been performed by a paralegal billing at a much lower rate.
Plaintiffs contend that State Defendants' argument fails to take into account the substantial legal analysis, professional judgment, research, document review, preparation, drafting, and consultations among counsel, clients, and with Georgia child welfare stakeholders that were necessary both between mediation sessions and during break-out sessions outside the presence of State Defendants' counsel. Specifically, plaintiffs note that Mr. Lustbader spent substantial time and effort preparing, formulating, and drafting plaintiffs' mediation proposals, and that Ms. Hirokawa participated substantially in formulating, drafting, and revising plaintiffs' proposals and in consulting with co-counsel concerning these proposals during the course of the mediation.
The Court concludes that the time expended in this category is reasonable. The mediation effort in this case went far beyond anything that this Court has seen in any previous case. Not only were there nearly twenty mediation sessions conducted over a period of months, but this intensive negotiation effort clearly required, in addition to the mediation sessions themselves, substantially more time outside the sessions to research, discuss, formulate, and draft different settlement proposals. The final result of all this effort was a detailed, 47page Consent Decree that provided extraordinary benefits to the plaintiff class and avoided the costs and risks of a lengthy trial. State Defendants offer nothing but their unsupported "belief' to challenge the number of hours spent by some of plaintiffs' attorneys in this effort. This is clearly insufficient to overcome the sworn testimony presented by plaintiffs that the time spent was reasonable and necessary.
12. Pretrial motions
Of the 2,124.55 hours expended in this category, State Defendants seek to exclude entirely 705.62 hours expended after December 1, 2004, on preparation of the pre-trial order. State Defendants argue that this time should be excluded because it came after the Court had ordered the parties to mediation, and it was clear that adequate time would be allowed for preparing the pre-trial order if no settlement were reached.
In response, plaintiffs point to their frequently voiced insistence on the earliest trial date possible in order to assure that plaintiff class members did not continue to be denied basic child welfare services for any longer than necessary. Plaintiffs also note their legitimate concern that the delay occasioned by an unsuccessful mediation would require a further case record review to update systemic performance data, resulting in even greater cost and

even further delay. Accordingly, plaintiffs' counsel believed that timely preparation of the final pretrial order represented the prudent and, most likely, the least expensive litigation approach under the uncertain circumstances.
The Court concludes that counsel's time spent preparing the pretrial order is fully 1283*1283 compensable. Even though the pretrial order was never filed because the parties ultimately reached a settlement, the issue "is not whether hindsight vindicates an attorney's time expenditures, but whether at the time the work was performed, a reasonable attorney would have engaged in similar time expenditures." Grant v. Martinez, 973 F.2d 96, 99 (2d Cir.1992). Here, faced with the uncertain prospect of successful mediation and the need to be ready for trial promptly if mediation should fail, plaintiffs' counsel reasonably exercised their professional judgment to suspend trial preparation only when it became evident that mediation might actually bear fruit. Therefore, the hours they reasonably spent preparing the pretrial order, even after mediation was under way, are fully compensable.
13. Trial Preparation
State Defendants seek a 90% reduction in the 2,124.55 hours expended by plaintiffs' counsel for trial preparation, almost all of which was spent drafting findings of fact and conclusions of law, arguing that this amount of time was grossly excessive and largely unnecessary. Plaintiffs respond that, without the benefit of hindsight, they were required to prepare this case as if it was going to trial until it became reasonably clear that the case would settle. Plaintiffs argue that the large amount of time spent preparing detailed and comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law was reasonable and necessary because the child welfare systems that were the target of this action evolved and changed while the suit was pending, thus requiring plaintiffs to continuously revise and update their draft findings and conclusions.
As noted above with respect to time spent on the pretrial order, the Court appreciates that plaintiffs could not suspend all trial preparation efforts once mediation was under way in the mere hope that a settlement would be reached. Consequently, some amount of time spent drafting proposed findings and conclusions is clearly reasonable. Nevertheless, the Court cannot agree that it was reasonable to spend more than 2,000 hours on this task. While the Court does not believe that the 90% reduction sought by State Defendants is reasonable, the Court finds that some reduction in this category is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court will take this into consideration in determining the overall percentage reduction figure.
14. Attorneys' Fees Application
State Defendants seek to exclude all 86.70 hours expended by plaintiffs' counsel on their fee application. They argue that none of the time claimed in this category is compensable because the billing records and the fee submission itself show that counsel spent all time in this category on their baseless common fund argument and no time seeking to assist the Court in addressing the lodestar analysis. Plaintiffs respond that the law is well settled that time spent on a fee application is compensable, and they dispute State Defendants' characterization of their common fund argument.

The Court concludes that the time spent preparing the fee application is fully compensable. The courts are unanimous that time spent working on a fee petition and litigating a fee dispute is compensable. Hirsch & Sheehey, supra, at 28 & n. 149. Although the Court found the common fund/common benefit doctrine to be inapplicable, plaintiffs' argument in this regard was not frivolous. Also, although plaintiffs' counsel did not organize their time records by task, they did prepare extensive declarations describing the work done in this case and they responded in detail to each of State Defendants' objections to the 1284*1284 fee petition. They are entitled to be compensated for this time.
15. Miscellaneous
State Defendants challenge two items in this category. First, they object to 58.75 hours expended in connection with the removal of Keenan's Kids Law Center as co-counsel for plaintiffs, arguing that State Defendants should not be required to compensate plaintiffs' counsel for their "internecine squabbles." (State Defs.' Br. at 65-66.) Plaintiffs argue that these hours were reasonably expended for the benefit of the plaintiff class and in furtherance of the efficient conduct of this litigation and are therefore compensable. Plaintiffs also note that they have not sought compensation for any time spent on the case by Keenan's Kids Law Center before its removal, resulting in a net decrease in State Defendants' liability for fees and expenses. The Court concludes that this time is compensable because it was reasonably and necessarily expended for the benefit of the plaintiff class.
Second, State Defendants seek a 10% reduction of the 767.27 hours spent by plaintiffs' counsel on travel on the grounds that it is excessive. State Defendants also contend that all travel time should be compensated at only one-half the normal hourly rate. The Court concludes that no reduction in travel time is justified. State Defendants contend that travel by multiple persons for the same deposition or mediation session was excessive. However, the Court has rejected the contention that plaintiffs overstaffed depositions, and State Defendants made no claim that mediation sessions were overstaffed. The Court finds that such travel was therefore reasonable. The Court, however, agrees with State Defendants that all travel time should be compensated at one-half the normal hourly rate. See, e.g., Wilder v. Bernstein, 975 F.Supp. 276, 284 (S.D.N.Y.1997)(compensating CRI attorneys at 50% of determined hourly rate).
B. Hourly Rates
The next step in the lodestar calculation is the determination of "a reasonable hourly rate" for the attorneys' services. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933. A reasonable hourly rate is "the prevailing market rate in the relevant legal community for similar services by lawyers of reasonably comparable skills, experience, and reputation." Barnes, 168 F.3d at 436 (quoting Norman v. Housing Auth. of City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir.1988)). The applicant attorney's customary billing rate for fee-paying clients ordinarily is the best evidence of his market rate, although that information is not necessarily conclusive. Dillard v. City of Greensboro, 213 F.3d 1347, 1354-55 (11th Cir.2000). A fee applicant may also provide opinion evidence of reasonable rates, which is usually done by submitting affidavits of other attorneys in the relevant legal community. Duckworth, 97 F.3d at 1396-97.

Finally, the Court may use its own personal experience and expertise to assess the lawyering skills exhibited in the case. Id. at 1397.

Plaintiffs' counsel have requested reimbursement at the following hourly rates for the attorneys who worked on this case:

CRI
Marcia Lowry Ira Lustbader Sara Bartosz Rose Firestein Sarah Hechtman Douglas Gray Jeff Powell Erik Pitchal Stacy Antonucci Margaret Ross

$495 $320 $360 $380 $305 $280 $255 $245 $220 $215

BME
Jeff Bramlett Corey Hirokawa Gordon Hamrick Lynn Adam Jennifer Jordan Nicole Iannarone Alison Prout

$450 $240 $225 $290 $225 $225 $215

In addition, plaintiffs' counsel seek reimbursement for time spent by paralegals, legal interns, and legal assistants at rates 1285*1285 ranging from $75 to $150 per hour. (Lowry Decl. Ex. 2; Bramlett Decl. Ex. 1.)

In support of these rates, plaintiffs have submitted the sworn declarations of co-lead counsel Marcia Robinson Lowry and Jeffrey O. Bramlett, who state that the rates are fair, reasonable, and consistent with hourly rates in the Atlanta market for the price of legal services of comparable quality rendered in cases demanding similar skill, judgment, and performance. (Lowry Decl. ¶ 25; Bramlett Decl. ¶ 10.) Mr. Bramlett further states that the rates requested for BME attorneys and legal assistants reflect the rates his law firm currently charges and collects from clients who hire the firm to perform services on a Standard Hourly Rate basis. (Bramlett Decl. ¶ 6.) In addition, plaintiffs have submitted the sworn declarations of several highly experienced and well-respected members of the Atlanta bar, each of whom states that the rates requested are "reasonable and solidly within the range of hourly rates currently prevailing in the Atlanta market and customarily charged to and collected from clients for legal services requiring comparable skill, judgment, professional reputation and experience." (Chandler Decl. ¶ 5; Fellows Decl. ¶ 5; Rawls Decl. ¶ 5.)

State Defendants offer no evidence to rebut the prima facie proof of prevailing market rates submitted in connection with plaintiffs' fee application. Nevertheless, State Defendants argue that the Court should reduce Ms. Lowry's rate from $495 to $450 per hour, and the respective hourly rates for Ms. Firestein ($380) and Ms. Bartosz ($360) to $320 per hour. With regard to Ms. Lowry, State Defendants question whether the requested rate is truly an Atlanta rate, as claimed, rather than a New York rate, citing a 2004 New Jersey case in which Ms. Lowry sought only $400 per hour. State Defendants argue that there is no reason to value her time at a higher rate than Mr. Bramlett's, especially in the absence of any evidence explaining why her Atlanta rate should be higher than almost all other attorneys in the market, and given the fact that Mr. Bramlett himself is compensated near the very high end of the market. As for Ms. Firestein and Ms. Bartosz, State Defendants argue that there

is no reason their rates should be any higher than Mr. Lustbader's, who is CRI's associate director and acted as plaintiffs'"field marshal" in this litigation. (State Defs.' Br. at 72.)
In response, plaintiffs point out that the 8400 per hour New Jersey rate for Ms. Lowry was part of a negotiated settlement of a disputed fee claim. With regard to Ms. Firestein and Ms. Bartosz, plaintiffs note that they both have significantly more experience than Mr. Lustbader (32 years and 19 years, respectively, as opposed to 13 years). Plaintiffs argue that in the absence of any evidence rebutting the reasonableness of their requested rates and in light of the advanced responsibilities shouldered by Mr. Lustbader, State Defendants' argument would appear to support an upward adjustment in Mr. Lustbader's rate rather than a downward adjustment in Ms. Firestein's and Ms. Bartosz's rates.
The Court concludes that the requested hourly rates are fair and reasonable. First, plaintiffs have carried their burden of presenting prima facie proof that the requested rates are consistent with the prevailing market rates in Atlanta for comparable work. State Defendants have presented no contrary evidence. Under these circumstances, it would arguably be an abuse of discretion for the Court to reduce the hourly rates requested. See Washington v. Philadelphia County Ct. of Common Pleas, 89 F.3d 1031, 1036 (3rd Cir. 1996)(where plaintiff met his prima facie burden under the "community market rate" lodestar test, and opposing party 1286*1286 produced no contradictory evidence, the district court could not exercise its discretion to adjust the requested rate downward). In any event, based upon the Court's own substantial experience and familiarity with the prevailing rates in Atlanta, and the Court's observation of the stellar performance of plaintiffs' counsel throughout this long and difficult case, it finds the requested hourly rates eminently fair and reasonable. If anything, they are too low.
Second, the rate that Ms. Lowry agreed to as part of a negotiated settlement of a fee dispute in another case has no relevance to the reasonable rate in this case. Given Ms. Lowry's more than 35 years' experience and her reputation as one of the preeminent child welfare rights attorneys in the country, it is certainly fair and reasonable that her time in this case should be compensated near the high end of the Atlanta market.
Finally, as plaintiffs correctly observe, the differential between Ms. Firestein's and Ms. Bartosz's rates and Mr. Lustbader's rate, when viewed in light of Mr. Lustbader's substantial responsibilities in the case, suggests that Mr. Lustbader's rate may be too low, not that Ms. Firestein's and Ms. Bartosz's rates are too high.
C. Calculation of the Lodestar
Pursuant to the foregoing discussion of the reasonable number of hours expended on this case and reasonable hourly rates, the Court calculates plaintiffs' lodestar fee to be $6,012,802.90. In arriving at this amount, the Court made an across-the-board 15% reduction in the number of non-travel related hours claimed by plaintiffs' counsel. This percentage was determined by considering (1) the vague and noncompensable entries in counsel's billing records, supra section II. A.1; (2) the excessive number of hours spent on pre-suit investigation and drafting the complaint and mandatory disclosures, supra section II.A.2; (3) overstaffing at the preliminary injunction hearing, supra section II.A.3; (4) the excessive number of hours spent on document production and analysis, supra section

II.A.4; (5) the excessive number of hours spent responding to a motion to compel and overstaffing of discovery and status conferences, supra section II.A.6; (6) the excessive number of hours spent in intra- and inter-officer conferences and correspondence, supra section II.A.8; (7) noncompensable time spent on expert witnesses and reports, supra section II.A.9; (8) the excessive number of hours spent responding to the motion for summary judgment, supra section II.A.10; and (9) the excessive number of hours spent on trial preparation, supra section II.A.13.

In determining the appropriate percentage reduction in hours to apply, the Court also considered other cases where similar reductions have been made. See, e.g., Hensley, 461 U.S. at 438 n. 13, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (approving 30% reduction to account for attorney's inexperience and failure to keep contemporaneous time records); Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 111 F.Supp.2d 381, 401 (S.D.N.Y.2000)(reducing hours by 15% to account for time spent on certain noncompensable matters, excessive time spent on certain other matters, and overstaffing); T.M. Park Ave. Assocs. v. Pataki, 44 F.Supp.2d 158, 169 (N.D.N.Y.1999), vacated on other grounds, 214 F.3d 344 (2d Cir.2000)(reducing hours by 10% to account for insufficiently detailed records and 10% to account for excessive hours); Wilder, 975 F.Supp. at 286 (reducing lodestar by 10% to account for vague time entries); Walker v. Coughlin, 909 F.Supp. 872, 881 (W.D.N.Y.1995)(reducing hours by 15% to account for inadequate documentation and lower rate of compensation); Ragin v. Harry Macklowe Real Estate Co., 1287*1287 870 F.Supp. 52C-21 (S.D.N.Y.1994)(reducing fee request by 30% to account for vagueness, duplicative claims, and failure to provide contemporaneous time records); Meriwether v. Coughlin, 727 F.Supp. 823, 827 (S.D.N.Y.1989)(reducing fee request by 15% to account for vague entries).

The Court first calculated non-travel related fees by deducting any travel related time from the timekeeper's total, multiplying the resulting number by 0.85, and then multiplying that number by the appropriate hourly rate. The Court then calculated travel related fees by multiplying travel related hours by one-half of the appropriate hourly rate for each timekeeper who claimed travel time. The sum of the resulting calculations equals the lodestar, as set out below:

CRI non-travel related fees

M. Lowry I. Lustbader S. Bartosz R. Firestein S. Hechtman D. Gray J. Powell E. Pitchal S. Antonucci M. Ross Legal Interns Paralegals Total

Hourly Rate
-----$495 $320 $360 $380 $305 $280 $255 $245 $220 $215 $150 $ 90

Hours Claimed
× 0.85 -------
766.01 3227.16 1393.63
394.75 823.44 1462.54 2248.10 1295.05 1206.19 241.61 616.39 5260.96

Total ----$ 379,174.95 $1,032,691.20 $ 501,706.80 $ 150,005.00 $ 251,149.20 $ 409,511.20 $ 573,265.50 $ 317,287.25 $ 265,361.80 $ 51,946.15 $ 92,458.50 $ 473,486.40 $4,498,043.95

BME non-travel related fees

J. Bramlett C. Hirokawa G. Hamrick L. Adam J. Jordan N. Iannarone A. Prout T. Reed J. Hogan J. Taylor T. Longshore L. Amato S. Fuselier J. Clark E. Young Total

Hourly Rate
-----$450 $240 $225 $290 $225 $225 $215 $150 $115 $ 80 $ 95 $ 80 $135 $150. $ 75

Hours Claimed
× 0.85 ------1472.20
930.16 621.01 175.70
33.49 15.56 15.56 1057.23 469.80 548.0 258.15 128.27 73.78 22.36 12.75

Travel related fees

M. Lowry I. Lustbader R. Firestein S. Hechtman D. Gray J. Powell E. Pitchal S. Antonucci J. Einbond Total Grand Total

Hourly Rate
-----$247.50 $160 $190 $152.50 $140 $127.50 $122.50 $110 $ 45

Hours Expended -------
148.58 176.0
28.0 23.50 29.82 150.14
79.64 86.59 45.0

Total

-----

$ 662,490.00

$ 223,238.40

$ 139,727.25

$ 50,953.00

$ 7,535.25

$ 3,501.00

$ 3,345.40

$ 158,584.50

$ 54,027.00

$ 43,840.00

$ 24,524.25

$ 10,261.60

$ 9,960.30

$ 3,354.00

$

956.25

$1,396,298.20

Total ----$ 36,773.55 $ 28,160.00 $ 5,320.00 $ 3,583.75 $ 4,174.80 $ 19,142.85 $ 9,755.90 $ 9,524.90 $ 2,025.00 $ 118,460.75 $6,012,802.90

The Court notes that this lodestar figure is commensurate with the attorneys' fees expended by State Defendants in this case. Evidence submitted by plaintiffs shows that through June 30, 2005, the State paid its two outside counsel in this case, Mark Cohen of Troutman Sanders and Jeff Davis of Davis & Davis, a total of approximately $2.4 million. (Pls.' Reply Br. Ex. 4.) This figure does not take into account the fact that outside counsel working for the State are paid at significantly lower hourly rates than they would charge private clients.[6] Nor does it include 5,237.12 hours that attorneys within the State Law Department spent on this case. (Id.) Adjusting outside counsel's fees upward to account for their reduced hourly rates, and 1288*1288 applying a modest $250 blended hourly rate to the hours spent on this case by Law Department professionals, indicates that State Defendants would have incurred legal fees in excess of $6 million if they had been required to pay for their legal services in this case at standard hourly rates in the private marketplace.[7]

D. Adjustment to the Lodestar

The calculation of the lodestar does not end the Court's inquiry. "There remain other considerations that may lead the district court to adjust the fee upward or downward, including the important factor of the `results obtained.'" Hensley, 461 U.S. at 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (footnote omitted); see also Blum, 465 U.S. at 897, 104 S.Ct. 1541 ("there may be circumstances in which the basic standard of reasonable rates multiplied by reasonably expended hours results in a fee that is either unreasonably low or unreasonably high"). "Where a plaintiff has olotained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee . . ., and indeed in some cases of exceptional success an enhanced award may be justified." Hensley, 431 U.S. at 435, 103 S.Ct. 1933.
The Court recognizes that most of the factors relevant to calculating a reasonable fee award are already reflected in the lodestar amount and "thus cannot serve as independent bases for increasing the basic fee award." Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986). Nevertheless, upward adjustments of the lodestar figure are still permissible "in the rare case where the fee applicant offers specific evidence to show that the quality of service rendered was superior to that one reasonably should expect in light of the hourly rates charged and that the success was `exceptional.'" Blum, 465 U.S. at 899, 104 S.Ct. 1541 (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S.Ct. 1933); see also Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302. The Court finds that plaintiffs have submitted such specific evidence in this case.
First, the evidence establishes that the quality of service rendered by class counsel, including their extraordinary commitment of capital resources, was far superior to what consumers of legal services in the legal marketplace in Atlanta could reasonably expect to receive for the rates used in the lodestar calculation. Specifically, the evidence shows that the hourly rates used in the lodestar calculation do not take into account (1) the fact that class counsel were required to advance case expenses of $1.7 million over a three-year period with no ongoing reimbursement, (2) the fact that class counsel were not paid on an on-going basis as the work was being performed, and (3) the fact that class counsel's ability to recover a fee and expense reimbursement were completely contingent on the outcome of the case.[8] (Chandler Decl. ¶¶ 5-8; Fellows Decl. ¶¶ 5-8; Knowles Decl. ¶¶ 7-12; Rawls Decl. ¶¶ 5-8; Lowry Decl. ¶ 25; Bramlett Decl. ¶¶ 7(a) & (g), 10, 13-14.)
In addition, based on its personal observation of plaintiffs' counsel's performance throughout this litigation, the Court finds that the superb quality of their representation 1289*1289 far exceeded what could reasonably be expected for the standard hourly rates used to calculate the lodestar. Quite simply, plaintiffs' counsel brought a higher degree of skill, commitment, dedication, and professionalism to this litigation than the Court has seen displayed by the attorneys in any other case during its 27 years on the bench. The foster children of Fulton and DeKalb Counties were indeed fortunate to have such unparalleled legal representation, and the Court would be remiss if it failed to compensate counsel for this extraordinary level of service to their clients.
Finally, the evidence establishes that plaintiffs' success in this case was truly exceptional. (Knowles Decl. ¶ 8; Goldberg Decl. ¶ 5; Lowry Decl. ¶ 22-24.) The Consent Decree provides sweeping relief to the plaintiff class, the scope of which can only be fully appreciated by summarizing its provisions. Its centerpiece is a series of thirty-one outcome

measures that State Defendants have agreed to meet and sustain for at least three consecutive six-month reporting periods.
The outcome measures, many of them requiring phased-in results over a two-year period, seek to improve performance in the following areas: timely commencement and thorough completion of investigations of reported abuse or neglect; regular visits of foster children by case workers; approval and licensure of foster homes and other placements; the percentage of children who are the victims of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care; the percentage of children in foster homes that exceed their licensed capacity; the percentage of children who have experienced multiple moves while in foster care; and periodic judicial reviews of the safety and status of foster children.
In addition, the Consent Decree requires comprehensive and periodic delivery of medical, dental, and mental health services to foster children; a detailed process for improved goalsetting, case planning and periodic reviews of children's status while in foster care; limits on the placement of children in emergency shelters and group homes and institutions, and protections against overcrowding in foster homes; and the establishment of reimbursement rates to adequately compensate providers for caring for foster children.
Moreover, State Defendants commit to reduced caseloads for all case managers and supervisors; a fully implemented single statewide automated child welfare information system; and maintaining or establishing placements and related services identified in a "needs assessment" to be conducted by a neutral expert. The settlement also includes processes for the supervision of private contract agencies that provide homes and services for foster children; improvements in foster parent screening, licensing and training, as well as foster parent support and communication; improvements in case manager training; improvements in processes for addressing suspected abuse or neglect and suspected corporal punishment of children in foster care; and improvements in efforts to maximize available federal funding.
Finally, the settlement provides that two child welfare specialists will serve as the Court's independent accountability agents charged with the responsibility of measuring and reporting publicly on the State Defendants' compliance with these and other undertakings as specified in the Consent Decree.
As the foregoing summary amply demonstrates, the settlement achieved by plaintiffs' counsel is comprehensive in its scope and detailed in its coverage. Indeed, the Court has previously recognized that even if plaintiffs had prevailed in a trial of this case, it is doubtful that they would have obtained relief as "intricately 1290*1290 detailed and comprehensive" as that contained in the Consent Decree. Order for Final Approval of Consent Decree at 14 (Oct. 27, 2005). In the same Order, the Court observed that, "[c]onsidering the scope and detail of the comprehensive settlement reached by the parties in this case, particularly in light of the contentiousness of the litigation, complexity of the issues and the uncertainties and delays of further litigation, the Court finds the result achieved by the parties to be extraordinary." Id. The Court's assessment of the result achieved by plaintiffs' counsel in this case has not changed. After 58 years as a practicing attorney and federal judge, the Court is unaware of any other case in which a plaintiff class has achieved such a favorable result on such a comprehensive scale.

Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court concludes that the lodestar should be adjusted upward by a multiplier of 1.75, resulting in a total fee award of $10,522,405.08. In determining the appropriate multiplier, the Court has relied on the foregoing evidence supporting an enhancement of the lodestar, the Court's own experience and expertise in this area, and on the declarations of four disinterested Atlanta attorneys submitted by plaintiffs. Each of these attorneys — Ralph Knowles, John Chandler, Hank Fellows, and Jim Rawls — is well known to the Court and well respected in the Atlanta legal community, and each has extensive experience in complex class action litigation. Based on their review of this case, three of these attorneys state that "a multiplier of no less than 1.5-2 times the lodestar" would be necessary to "yield a reasonable fee consistent with prevailing prices in the Atlanta legal market for legal services of comparable value." (Chandler Decl. ¶ 8; Fellows Decl. ¶ 8; Rawls Decl. ¶ 8.) The fourth states that successful class counsel in similar cases have received multiples of 1.5-5 times the lodestar and recommends a multiplier of 5 in this case. (Knowles Decl. ¶ 12.) Considering all the evidence presented, the Court believes that it has selected the minimum enhancement of the lodestar necessary to reasonably compensate plaintiffs' counsel for their exceptional work and the exceptional result they achieved in this case.
III. Expenses
Plaintiffs seek to recover $1,658,341.38 in total expenses, including $549,808.43 already taxed by the Clerk pursuant to a bill of costs. In addition, plaintiffs seek prejudgment interest on each item of expense, and they also ask the Court to require State Defendants to bear all the costs of mediation. State Defendants challenge portions of both the nontaxable expenses and the taxable costs. They also contend that plaintiffs are not entitled to prejudgment interest, and they object to being required to pay all mediation costs. The Court will address each of these matters in turn and then calculate an appropriate expense award.[9]
A. Nontaxable Expenses
"[W]ith the exception of routine office overhead normally absorbed by the practicing attorney, all reasonable expenses incurred in case preparation, during the course of litigation, or as an aspect of settlement of the case may be taxed as costs under § 1988. As is true in other applications of section 1988, the standard of reasonableness is to be given a liberal interpretation." Barnes, 168 F.3d at 438 (quoting Dowdell v. City of Apopka, 698 1291*1291 F.2d 1181, 1192 (11th Cir.1983)). As discussed below, State Defendants object to plaintiffs' recovery of all or a portion of the claimed expenses in the following categories.
1. Expert and Case Record Reviewer Fees and Expenses
State Defendants contend that plaintiffs are precluded from recovering $801,864.40[10] in claimed expert fees and expenses because 42 U.S.C. § 1988 does not explicitly allow recovery of expert fees in § 1983 cases. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to recover these fees and expenses for two reasons. First, they contend that such fees and expenses are recoverable in "hybrid" cases like this one, which involve claims under both § 1983 and other laws. Second, plaintiffs argue that the Court may award these costs because State Defendants' own conduct in litigiously refusing to participate in a joint case record review

unreasonably and unnecessarily compounded these expenses. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that these expenses are not recoverable.
The Supreme Court has held that expert witness fees cannot be awarded to prevailing parties in cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because 42 U.S.C. § 1988, which governs fee awards in such cases, does not explicitly allow recovery of expert fees in § 1983 actions. West Virginia Univ. Hosp., Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 102, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.E.2d 68 (1991). Plaintiffs argue that Casey does not preclude recovery here because they asserted claims under other laws in addition to § 1983. However, the Webster Greenthumb decision on which plaintiffs rely does not support this argument. In Webster Greenthumb, Judge Thrash found that expert expenses were recoverable only because that case involved a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Congress had amended § 1988 following Casey to explicitly authorize expert fee recovery in § 1981 cases. Webster Greenthumb, 112 F.Supp.2d at 1380-81. Thus, Webster Greenthumb does not stand for the proposition that expert fees are recoverable in § 1983 cases that also assert claims under any other laws.
In this case, plaintiffs asserted fifteen causes of action under both federal and state law. The federal law claims were brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of certain of plaintiffs' federal constitutional and statutory rights, while the state law claims were based on alleged violations of certain rights secured under the Georgia Constitution and several Georgia statutes. See Kenny A., 218 F.R.D. at 283. Plaintiffs have cited no authority to support their contention that the mere existence of these state law claims somehow gives rise to a right to recover expert fees and expenses when no such right is provided in § 1988 with respect to the § 1983 claims.
Plaintiffs also contend that these fees and expenses are recoverable under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 due to State Defendants' refusal to participate in a joint case record review. Section 1927 authorizes the Court to require "[a]ny attorney . . . who so multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously . . . to satisfy personally the excess costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees reasonably incurred because of such conduct." 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Plaintiffs, however, have submitted no evidence to support their claim that counsel for State Defendants acted "unreasonably and vexatiously" in refusing 1292*1292 to agree to a joint case record review. Even if this were shown, it would not entitle plaintiffs to recover all of their expert fees and expenses, but only the excess costs that were incurred due to State Defendants' unreasonable and vexatious conduct. Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence of what this amount might be. Thus, there is no evidence in the record on the basis of which the Court could make an award of expert fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
2. Meals and Meeting Expenses
State Defendants object to BME's claim of a total of $1,324.08 for "business meals" and CRI's claims of $16,647.52 for "travel/meals" and $2,706.63 listed as "meeting expenses" (which, upon review, are charges for lunches and dinners for attorneys in the case) on the grounds that the cost of meals is a common overhead expense that is not recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Plaintiffs contend that meals are a type of expense for which the Court may allow reimbursement because they would be charged to a paying client in the

relevant market, relying on the unrebutted attorney declarations stating that plaintiffs' overall expenses were reasonable.
The Court agrees with State Defendants that the cost of meals is a common overhead expense and therefore not recoverable. See Waters v. Int'l Precious Metals Corp., 190 F.3d 1291, 1299 n. 13 (11th Cir.1999)(noting district court's elimination of costs of meals for class counsel); Brother v. Miami Hotel Inv., Ltd., 341 F.Supp.2d 1230, 1240 (S.D.Fla.2004)(costs of meals disallowed since they should be absorbed as general overhead); Rau v. Apple-Rio Mgmt. Co., 1:97-cv-2345-GGB, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20375 at *22 (N.D.Ga. Mar. 29, 2000)(excluding costs of meals during trial "as meals are normal expenses of everyday life"); Eastland v. Tenn. Valley Auth., No. 73-G-0487-NW, 1987 U.S, Dist. LEXIS 9085 at *20 (N.D.Ala. Sept. 30, 1987)("Meals are unrecoverable as common overhead expense.").
3. Federal Express Charges
State Defendants seek a 90% reduction in the $56,859.45 sought by plaintiffs for Federal Express delivery charges. State Defendants argue that they should not be assessed this unusually large Federal Express expense because plaintiffs' counsel elected to forgo using regular mail delivery service and instead chose the luxury and convenience of an overnight delivery service.
In response, plaintiffs have submitted the declaration of Tanya C. Reed, a paralegal who was the primary case manager for this litigation at BME. Ms. Reed states that the bulk of the Federal Express expenses were necessitated by State Defendants' frequent eleventhhour document productions shortly before critical depositions or series of depositions. (Reed Decl. ¶ 8.) Because of these last-minute productions, plaintiffs' counsel were required to make substantial use of Federal Express deliveries in order to send copies of documents between Atlanta and New York counsel, so that counsel could adequately prepare for the pending depositions. Id.
Based on Ms. Reed's declaration, as well as the attorney declarations submitted by plaintiffs, the Court concludes that the Federal Express expenses were reasonably and necessarily incurred and are therefore recoverable.
4. CRI Phone Charges
State Defendants seek a 50% reduction in the claim by CRI for $15,053.77 in telephone charges. State Defendants contend that these charges are unreasonable in light of many of the descriptions of the charges and the fact that they are nearly five times higher than the long 1293*1293 distance charges submitted by BME. They specifically challenge two entries that appear to be personal and unrelated to this case and question over $800 in charges incurred before the complaint was filed.
Plaintiffs contend that the amount is entirely reasonable considering over four years of fact and witness development and the obvious need for regular communications among plaintiffs' counsel and between plaintiffs' counsel and State Defendants' counsel. Plaintiffs note that it is hardly surprising that CRI's phone charges are significantly higher than BME's

since this action was filed and litigated in Atlanta. Plaintiffs also contend that $800 of phone charges over six months of pre-filing investigation is entirely reasonable. Finally, plaintiffs agree to withdraw the two apparently personal entries, totaling $354.60.
For the reasons given by plaintiffs, the Court concludes that the amount claimed for telephone charges is reasonable and therefore recoverable, with the exception of the $354.60 in charges that plaintiffs have withdrawn.
5. Travel and Hotel Expenses
State Defendants seek a 25% across-the-board reduction in the $162,181.17 requested by plaintiffs for airfare and hotels. They raise four objections. First, State Defendants argue that the amount is excessive insofar as much of the travel resulted from plaintiffs' overstaffing various hearings, depositions, and conferences. Second, State Defendants contend that travel of out-of-town counsel could have been reduced because local counsel could have ably handled many matters in the case. Third, State Defendants object to reimbursement of a "travel agent fee" for airline flights booked by CRI. Finally, State Defendants argue that expenses for seven trips to New York by Mr. Bramlett are excessive.
The Court concludes that these charges are entirely reasonable given that this case was litigated over a period of more than three years and included over 60 depositions and six months of face-to-face settlement negotiations. The Court has found that the claim of overstaffing is unfounded except for the preliminary injunction hearing, and it is the Court's recollection that New York counsel did the lion's share of the work at that hearing so their travel was not unnecessary. While local counsel in this case was certainly quite able, it was not unreasonable for CRI and especially Ms. Lowry to serve as co-lead counsel given the extent of their experience and expertise in the area of child welfare litigation. The objection to the travel agent charge is unfounded, since this is an ordinary expense of travel and presumably resulted in a net cost savings by obtaining the most direct flight and the least expensive fare available. Finally, the Court fords that Mr. Bramlett's expenditure of $7,151.76 in travel expenses to meet with New York co-counsel and expert witnesses over the course of this four-year litigation is reasonable, especially considering that the alternative was for New York legal team members to travel to Atlanta, likely resulting in the equivalent or even greater expense.
6. Public Transportation
State Defendants seek a 50% reduction in CRI's claim for $36,384.49 for "public transportation." State Defendants argue that a review of the entries in this category reveals that many are for the cost of CRI attorneys and paralegals to take taxis home from the office. State Defendants contend that plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement for reasonable out-of-town travel but not for the convenience CRI offers its staff in taking taxis home from its office.
1294*1294 Based on the unrebutted attorney declarations submitted by plaintiffs, which establish that these charges are fair and reasonable in light of the declarants' experience with the types of expenses typically charged to paying clients in the Atlanta market, the Court concludes that these expenses are recoverable.

B. Taxable Costs
In their motion for review of taxation of costs, State Defendants object to all of the $467,323.32 claimed by plaintiffs' counsel for photocopying costs, except for $12,999.97 listed as paid to third-party contractors as reimbursement for copies made of those contractors' files. Relying on a line of cases dealing with the extent to which copying costs can be recovered as taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, State Defendants argue that these costs should not be allowed because plaintiffs failed to submit any documentation to establish that the copies made were necessary for use in this case rather than merely for counsel's own convenience.
In response, plaintiffs note that State Defendants themselves admit that this was an extremely document intensive case. Therefore, in order to streamline the process of document review and analysis and to limit the number of paper copies that needed to be made, plaintiffs' counsel determined that the most cost-effective method of document management was to develop an electronic document database accessible by plaintiffs' counsel in both Atlanta and New York. (Reed Decl. ¶ 4.) Once documents were produced and loaded into this database, additional paper copies for use at depositions or as court exhibits could be printed as "blowbacks" from this system. (Id.) The vast majority of BME's outside copying expenses — which, at $315,253.44, make up the lion's share of the total copying costs — were payments to a third-party vendor for imaging the more than 400,000 pages of documents produced by State Defendants and third parties so they could placed into this database. (Id. ¶ 5.) Although this was a significant expense, had plaintiffs not used this database system, overall copying costs would have been substantially greater. (Id.) Plaintiffs also note that they incurred substantial costs related to imaging and producing to State Defendants documents relating to plaintiffs' experts, and that substantial additional copying of documents was required in preparing for over 60 depositions and filing and serving over 40 briefs, including the necessarily voluminous opposition to State Defendants' massive summary judgment motion. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.)
Finally, plaintiffs argue that whether their copying costs are fully taxable is ultimately academic, since they are entitled to compensation for both their taxable costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and their reasonable nontaxable expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. According to plaintiffs, the evidence establishes that all of these expenditures were reasonable and necessary, so even if they are not recoverable as taxable costs, they are recoverable as nontaxable expenses. In either event, the net amount owed is the same.
The Court agrees with State Defendants that the documentation submitted by plaintiffs' counsel is insufficient to permit recovery of the disputed amount as taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. See Breitenbach v. Neiman Marcus Group, 181 F.R.D. 544, 546 (N.D.Ga.1998)("The party seeking to recover photocopy costs must come forward with evidence showing the nature of the documents copied including how they were used or intended to be used in the case."). However, the Court agrees with plaintiffs that the disputed amount is nevertheless recoverable as nontaxable expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Based on the evidence submitted by plaintiffs, the Court finds that plaintiffs' counsel exercised 1295*1295 reasonable professional judgment in electing to set up an electronic document database to handle the voluminous documents in this case and that the costs incurred in doing so, although significant, were less than would have otherwise been

reasonably required to maintain these extensive documents in paper format. The Court further finds that the copying costs incurred were fully justified in light of the large number of depositions taken and briefs filed in this case, and especially in light of the voluminous response by plaintiffs necessitated by State Defendants' massive motion for summary judgment.
Accordingly, the Court grants State Defendants' motion for review of taxation of costs and reduces the costs taxed by the Clerk for exemplification and copies of documents from $467,323.32 to $12,999.97, which reduces the total costs taxed to $95,485.08. The balance of plaintiffs' copying costs will be allowed as nontaxable expenses recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
C. Interest
Plaintiffs seek to recover interest on each item of expenses at the Georgia legal rate of 7% from the date the expense was incurred until the date of payment. State Defendants contend that, as a matter of law, interest on expenses runs only from the date of judgment, in this case the date the Court entered the Consent Decree, which was October 27, 2005. Plaintiffs, however, argue that pre-judgment interest is a necessary equitable component in calculating an expense award that fully and fairly compensates plaintiffs' counsel for the significant risk they incurred in undertaking this costly litigation.
Case law in this circuit is clear that interest on nontaxable expenses, as well as taxable costs, runs from the date of entry of judgment. See BankAtlantic v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 12 F.3d 1045, 1052-53 (11th Cir.1994); Ga. Ass'n of Retarded Citizens v. McDaniel, 855 F.2d 794, 799 (11th Cir.1988); Lambert v. Fulton County, Ga., 151 F.Supp.2d 1364, 1380 (N.D.Ga.2000); Webster Greenthumb, 112 F.Supp.2d at 1384. Plaintiffs have cited no authority authorizing an award of pre-judgment interest. Accordingly, the Court concludes that interest on expenses shall run from October 27, 2005.
D. Mediation Expenses
In its Order appointing Judge Beasley as mediator in this case, the Court directed that plaintiffs and defendants each bear one-half of the costs of mediation. Order of October 25, 2004. Plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to recover all mediation costs as part of nontaxable expenses recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and ask the Court to order State Defendants to pay these costs once Judge Beasley presents her bill. State Defendants argue that plaintiffs should still bear one-half of the mediation costs in accordance with the Court's previous Order.
The costs of mediation are clearly recoverable expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. See Dowdell v. City of Apopka, 698 F.2d 1181, 1192 (11th Cir.1983)("all reasonable expenses incurred . . . as an aspect of settlement of the case may be taxed as costs under section 1988"). The fact that the Court originally ordered the parties to share the costs of mediation is irrelevant. The costs were shared (or would have been shared had the mediator presented a bill) before this case was settled. Now that the case has been settled and the parties have agreed that plaintiffs are entitled to recover their nontaxable expenses, plaintiffs' portion of the mediation costs is one of the items recoverable. Therefore, when the

mediator presents her statement of account, State Defendants shall be responsible 1296*1296 for paying the total amount owed in connection with the mediation between plaintiffs and State Defendants.

E. Calculation of Expense Award

In accordance with the foregoing discussion, the Court calculates the expense award as follows:

Total Expenses Claimed
Reduction for Items included in Bill of Costs
Reductions for Nonrecoverable Items Experts & Case Record Reviewers Meals & Meeting Expenses CRI Phone Charges
Total

-$1,658,341.38

-$ 95,485.08

-$ 801,864.80

-$ 20,678.23

-$

354.60

-$ 739,958.67

IV. Interim Award

In the event that State Defendants choose to appeal the Court's fee award in this case, plaintiffs' seek an interim award in the amount that State Defendants have conceded is reasonable: $2,971,754.52 in attorneys' fees, $189,326.08 in nontaxable expenses, and $95,485.08 in taxable costs, for a total interim award of $3,356,565.68. Plaintiffs contend that since State Defendants have conceded that plaintiffs are entitled to these amounts, they will not be prejudiced by such an interim award. On the other hand, plaintiffs argue that since they have already invested very substantial time and money in this protracted litigation, failure to make an interim award during the pendency of any appeal will prejudice them and reward the State Defendants for alleged dilatory tactics.

The Court concludes that such an interim award would be inconsistent with the stay of monetary judgments available under Fed.R.Civ.P. 62(d). Rule 62(d) allows for a stay pending appeal as "a matter of right" if the appellant files a supersedeas bond. United States v. Wylie, 730 F.2d 1401, 1402 n. 2 (11th Cir.1984). Therefore, if State Defendants choose to exercise their right of appeal from this order, and if they post the required supersedeas bond, they are entitled to a stay as a matter of right. This Court has no discretion to require State Defendants to pay a portion of the amount awarded pending the completion of any such appeal. The Court notes, however, that plaintiffs will be compensated for any delay in payment occasioned by an appeal, because interest will run on the full amount of the fee and expense award from October 27, 2005, the date of entry of the Consent Decree. See Ga. Ass'n of Retarded Citizens, 855 F.2d at 799; Webster Greenthumb, 112 F.Supp.2d at 1384.

Conclusion

As discussed above, this has been a long, complex, and difficult case. The award of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses is necessarily a large one. To a great extent, the

size of the award reflects State Defendants' strategy of resistance against efforts to reform a foster care system that even they ultimately admitted was badly in need of reform. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the parties' motions to exceed page limitations [# 509, # 513]; GRANTS plaintiffs' application for award of attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation [# 495], as modified by the Court; GRANTS State Defendants' motion for review of taxation of costs by Clerk of Court [# 512]; and DENIES plaintiffs' motion for an interim award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses [# 516]. The Court AWARDS plaintiffs attorneys' fees in the amount of $10,522,405.08 and nontaxable expenses in the amount of $739,958.67 for a total award of $11,262,363.75. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter a judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against State Defendants in this amount and for postjudgment interest at the legal rate from October 27, 2005 (the date of entry of the Consent Decree). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to modify the costs taxed on January 18, 2006 [# 518], and to tax costs in favor of plaintiffs and against State Defendants in the 1297*1297 amount $95,485.08. Finally, the Court ORDERS State Defendants to pay the entire cost of mediation.
[1] The Court grants the parties' motions for leave to exceed page limitations.
[2] Later, at the request of CRI and BME, the Court removed Keenan's Kids Law Center as co-counsel for plaintiffs. See Order of September 5, 2003.
[3] Plaintiffs subsequently corrected this figure to $1,658,341.38. (Pls.' Reply Br. at 49.)
[4] Mr. Rawls notes a single exception for time charged by New York counsel for travel to and from and within Atlanta if, during that time, actual legal work was not taking place. (Rawls Decl. ¶ 6.)
[5] Plaintiffs' counsel failed to provide any task-by-task breakdown of their billing records, so State Defendants undertook to categorize the entries by task and state their objections by task. Plaintiffs have not stated any objection to State Defendants' categorizations, so the Court accepts them as accurate.
[6] The evidence submitted by plaintiffs shows that in 2002 the State paid Mr. Cohen $175 per hour for work on a suit challenging the State's redistricting plans, and that he was hired earlier this year, at a rate of $225 per hour, to defend the State's new law requiring voters to present a photo ID at polls. (Pls.' Reply Br. Ex. 5.) Based on the Court's own knowledge of prevailing market rates for legal services in Atlanta, these rates are approximately one-half of what an attorney of Mr. Cohen's experience and ability would generally charge a private client. Thus, the Court notes that State Defendants did not object to a $450 standard hourly rate for Mr. Bramlett, an attorney of comparable experience to Mr. Cohen.
[7] Doubling outside counsel's fees to approximately $4.8 million to account for their reduced hourly rates, see note 6 supra, and adding $1.3 million as the approximate value of professionals' time in the State Law Department (5,237.12 hours × $250 per hour) produces an overall adjusted fee of $6.1 million.
[8] A lodestar enhancement cannot be based on contingency alone. City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992). in this case, however, the risk of nonrecovery is only one of several factors which, taken together, establish a level of service well beyond what could reasonably be expected for the rates claimed.
[9] Plaintiffs acknowledge that in order to avoid a double recovery, the costs ultimately taxed pursuant to the bill of costs should be deducted from the total expense award. (Pls.' Reply Br. at 50 n. 39.)
[10] Plaintiffs' initial brief states that they expended $820,854.47 on experts (Pls.' Br. at 35), but State Defendants seek a reduction of only $801,864.40 based on their own calculation of the actual expense records. (State Defs.' Br. at 87 n. 28.)

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 724 Filed 04/21/14 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

KENNY A., by his next friend,

)

Linda Winn, et aI.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

CIVIL ACTION

)

NO.l:02-CV-1686-MHS

v.

)

)

NATHAN DEAL, et ai.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER

Class counsel has requested from State Defendants a complete copy of the

file and the investigative materials surrounding the case of the death of a child,

L.R., who was a member of Plaintiff class. Because L.R. meets the definition of a

"child" under O.C.G.A. § 15-11-741, a portion of the requested records are subject

to the Georgia Open Records Act; however, that Act may keep confidential certain

personal and privileged information contained in those records. Class counsel has

a legitimate interest in reviewing the unredacted file and the investigative materials

relating to L.R.

Balancing the immediate interest in full disclosure to Class counsel with the

potential need to redact or otherwise protect re-disclosure of some information in

the file and investigative materials, and consistent with O.C.G.A. § 49-5-41(a)(2),

21971421v3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 724 Filed 04/21/14 Page 2 of 3

the Court finds that access to the information by Class counsel is necessary for a determination of potential issues arising from the Consent Decree and that the documents are otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
(1) The Georgia Department of Human Services shall produce to Class counsel the complete unredacted file and the investigative materials relating to the death of L.R. as soon as practicable, and no later than ten days from the date of this Order.
(2) Class counsel shall not disclose the contents of the unredacted file and the investigative materials to any persons other than Class counselor any of their employees, experts, or other agents who are needed to assist in Class counsels' review ofthe file. Class counsel, their experts, or other agents, and their employees shall maintain and honor the confidential information contained in the file.
(3) Ifany of the produced records is to be filed for any purpose with the Court, information requiring redaction shall be redacted in accordance with Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and consistent with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 49-5-41 (e).

21971421v3

2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 724 Filed 04/21/14 Page 3 of 3

-l\- SO ORDERED this

day of April, 2014.

CONSENTED TO:

Senior United States District Judge

lsi Jetfrey 0. Bramlett
JEFFREY O. BRAMLETT Georgia Bar No. 075780 Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore LLP 1201 W. Peachtree St., N.W. Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 881-4100 Fax: (404) 881-4111 Email: bramlett@bmelaw.com
MARCIA ROBINSON LOWRY pro hac vice IRA P. LUSTBADER pro hac vice
Children'S Rights 330 7th Ave., Fl. 4 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 Fax: (212) 683-4015 Email: ilustbader@childrensrights.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

lsi Mark H. Cohen
MARK H. COHEN Georgia Bar No. 174567 Troutman Sanders LLP 5200 Bank of America Plaza 600 Peachtree St., N .E. Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 885-3597 Fax: (404) 962-6753 Email: mark.cohen@troutmansanders.com
SAMUEL S. OLENS Attorney General Georgia Bar No. 551540
DENNIS R. DUNN Deputy Attorney General Georgia Bar No. 234098
SHALEN S. NELSON Senior Assistant Attorney General Georgia Bar No. 636575
Attorneys for State Defendants

21971421v3

3

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 740 Filed 11/02/15 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

KENNY A., by his next friend Linda Winn, et al.,
Plaintiffs, vs.
NATHAN DEAL, et al., Defendants

CIVIL ACTION 1:02-cv-1686-MHS

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY THE CONSENT DECREE REGARDING ACCOUNTABILITY AND MONITORING
WHEREAS, on October 28, 2005, the Court approved and entered a Consent Decree between Plaintiffs and Defendants to resolve Plaintiffs' claims against the State concerning, among other things, the care, treatment, placements, services, and protection provided to the Plaintiff Class of foster children in state custody in Fulton and DeKalb Counties (the "Consent Decree"). (Dkt. No. 488).
WHEREAS, the Court has approved the parties' previous modifications to the Consent Decree. (Dkt. Nos. 607, 608, 612, 687).
WHEREAS, Section 16 of the Consent Decree specifies that there shall be two independent Accountability Agents.

1370015.1
1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 740 Filed 11/02/15 Page 2 of 5
WHEREAS, Jim Dimas and Karen Baynes-Dunning were appointed as the
two independent Accountability Agents.
WHEREAS, Mr. Dimas resigned on May 18, 2015.
WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to move forward with one
independent Accountability Agent who will be supported by a technical
assistance team.
WHEREAS, after much reasoned consideration and discussion, the
parties agree, and request Court approval, to modify the Consent Decree as
follows: Section 16 of the Consent Decree shall be replaced and superseded in
its entirety by the following:
A. The Court shall appoint Karen Baynes-Dunning as the Court's independent Accountability Agent. In the event that Ms. HaynesDunning is unable to fulfill her duties under this agreement, the parties will select a replacement with the advice of the Accountability Agent. The parties agree that technical assistance will be provided to the Accountability Agent by the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team ( M 11 TAT") comprised of Steve Baynes, Elizabeth Black (Center for the Support of Families), and Jennifer Haight (Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago). The Accountability Agent, with the assistance of the MTAT, shall conduct the factual investigation and verification of data and state documentation necessary to compile and to issue public record reports on State Defendants' performance relative to the terms of the Consent Decree, as modified, directly to the Court and to the parties. These reports shall be issued, at a minimum, for each six month reporting period, approximately 90 days after the close of the each reporting period.
1370015.1
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 740 Filed 11/02/15 Page 3 of 5
B. In addition to their monitoring duties outlined herein, the parties intend and agree that the Accountability Agent and the MTAT will also advise and provide technical assistance to the State Defendants toward the goal of capacity building to meet and sustain the State Defendants' obligations under the Consent Decree.
C. DHS, through its employees or agents, will collect data with regard to each element of performance under the Consent Decree, and make it available on a timely basis to the Accountability Agent and the MTAT. DHS shall cooperate with the Accountability Agent and the MTAT in providing access to personnel, documents and other information necessary to perform their duties, as determined by the Accountability Agent and the MTAT, including without limitation interviews with agency staff, contract agency personnel, and interviews with DHS clients. The Accountability Agent with the assistance of the MTAT shall conduct case record and other reviews as she deems necessary, including recommending or requiring DHS to conduct regular case reviews according to a systematic process.
D. DHS shall provide the Accountability Agent and the MTAT with the necessary resources to perform their duties, including payment of their approved fees and expenses in accordance with state regulations. The Accountability Agent will prepare an initial budget proposal for submission to the parties and the Court within 30 days of entry of the Order modifying Section 16 of the Consent Decree. This budget will be updated and revised annually.
E. All actions required for Plaintiff class members shall be documented within the individual case file of each member of the class on a timely and accurate basis. DFCS shall ensure that all required information concerning all foster parents, whether supervised by DFCS or by private providers, is timely and accurately entered into a foster parent file for each foster parent. DFCS shall ensure that a copy of all required information concerning contract agency providers is timely and accurately entered into a file for each contract agency provider and housed centrally at DFCS.
1370015.1
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 740 Filed 11/02/15 Page 4 of 5

The parties agree to, and request the Court's approval and entry of, this Joint

Stipulation and Order to Modify the Consent Decree Regarding Accountability

and Monitoring. Except as modified herein, all other provisions of the Consent

Decree entered by this Court on October 28, 2005, and as subsequently modified,

or further Orders ofthis Court, shall remain in full force and effect.

SO STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES, October 26,2015, by:

s/ Jeffrey 0. Bramlett JEFFREY 0. BRAMLETT Georgia Bar No. 075780 SAMIKA N. BOYD Georgia Bar No. 194093 BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 W. Peachtree St. N.W. Ste. 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 881-4100 Fax: (404) 881-4111

s/ Ira P. Lustbader IRA P. LUSTBADER pro hac vice CHRISTINA W. REMLIN pro hac vice ELISSA GLUCKSMAN HYNE pro hac vice CHILDREN'S RIGHTS 330 7th Ave., Fl. 4 New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 683-2210 Fax: (212) 683-4015

1370015.1

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 740 Filed 11/02/15 Page 5 of 5

s/ Jaime L. Theriot JAIME L. THERIOT Georgia Bar No. 497652 TROUTMANSANDERSLLP 5200 Bank ofAmerica Plaza 600 Peachtree St., N .E. Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: (404) 885-3534 Fax: (404) 962-6748
SAMUEL S. OLENS Attorney General Georgia Bar No. 033887 DENNIS R. DUNN Deputy Attorney General Georgia Bar No. 234098 SHALEN S. NELSON Senior Assistant Attorney General Georgia Bar No. 636575 STATE LAW DEPARTMENT 40 Capitol Sq., S.W. Atlanta, GA 30334-1300 Phone:(404)656-3377 Fax: (404) 463-1062

ATTORNEYS FOR STATE DEFENDANTS

..., ~ 1.::\ 0"..t ..._I ~./

IT IS SO ORDERED, this V day of

p , 2015.

--M-&0Ji)k£02Judge

United States District Court Northern District ofGeorgia

137001 5.1
5

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 1 of 216 ff133311120
PERIOD 18 MONITORING REPORT
Kenny A. v Perdue July 1 to December 31, 2014
Accountability Agents: James T. Dimas and Karen Baynes-Dunning,
August 10, 2015

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 2 of 216

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I PART II PART III PART IV PART V

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 Background, Purpose, Scope and Organization for this Report
A. The Kenny A. v. Perdue Consent Decree .................................................... 1 B. Methodology .................................................................................................. 1 C. Report Scope and Organization ................................................................... 3
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 4
A. Major Accomplishments ............................................................................... 5 B. Program and Performance Trends............................................................... .5 C. Recommended Priorities for State Attention ............................................. 11
SAFETY ................................................................................................................. 18 Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment
A. Outcome Performance: ................................................................................. 18 B. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding
Maltreatment in Care Investigations and Corporal Punishment...... 31
PERMANENCY ................................................................................................... 47 Children in Care Maintain Family Connections and Achieve Permanency
A. Outcome Performance .................................................................................. 47 B. Other Practice/Process Requirements for Helping Children
Achieve Permanency ............................................................................... 81 C. Post Adoption Assistance ............................................................................. 86
WELL-BEING ....................................................................................................... 87 Children in Care Experience Stable Placements, Worker Continuity, and Receive the Services They Need
A. Outcome Performance ................................................................................... .87 B. Placement Experience .................................................................................... .101 C. Meeting the Needs of Children, Youth, and Families ............................... .108 D. Curative Actions to Address Concerns About State Performance:
Discharge Planning and Discharge Medicals for All Children................ .117

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 3 of 216

PART VI

STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE .... .120 A. Outcome Performance ................................................................................... .120 B. Caseloads ......................................................................................................... .129 C. Building Workforce Skills ............................................................................. .138 D. Assuring Placement Resources Are Available ........................................... .143 E. Placement Support ......................................................................................... .149 F. Supervision of Contract Agencies ................................................................ .159 G. Improving Automated Support ................................................................... .165 H. Quality Assurance .......................................................................................... .165 I. Maximizing Federal Funding ....................................................................... .166

PART VII

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS .................................................................. .174 Child Protective Services Data

APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C

Kenny A. v. Sonny Perdue Consent Decree Outcomes............................176 Methodology ....................................................................................................183 Selected Characteristics of the Children in the Custody of DeKalb and Fulton Counties ........................................................................210

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 4 of 216

ACRONYMS USED IN THE REPORT

ACF AFCARS BSW CAP CCFA CCI
CFSR
CICC CMS CPA CPRS CPS CRR
DAARE
DFCS DHR DHS DOE EPSDT ETS FTM GED GSU HIPAA ICPC IDS IEP ILP JCRP MDT MSW OFI OPM RCC PEAS PCM PIP QA RBWO RRTF

Administration for Children and Families (U.S. Department of Human Services) Adoption and Foster Care Reporting System Bachelor of Social Work Corrective Action Plan Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment Child Caring Institution
Child and Family Service Review
CPS Intake Communications Center Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Child Placing Agency Case Plan Reporting System Child Protective Services Case Record Review
DFCS Data Analysis, Accountability, Research & Evaluation Division Department of Family and Children Services Department of Human Resources Department of Human Services Department of Education Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program Education and Training Services Family Team Meeting Graduate Equivalency Diploma Georgia State University Health Information Portability and Accountability Act Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children Internal Data System Individualized Education Plans Independent Living Program Juvenile Court Review Panel Multi-Disciplinary Team Master of Social Work Office of Family Independence Office of Provider Management Office of the Inspector General Residential Child Care unit Program Evaluation and Analysis Section Permanency Case Manager Program Improvement Plan Quality Assurance Room, Board, and Watchful Oversight Reimbursement Rate Task Force

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 5 of 216

RYDC SAAG SACWIS SAS SPSS SSI TPR WTLP

Regional Youth Detention Center Special Assistant Attorney General Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (Georgia SHINES) Statistical Analysis Software Statistical Package for Social Sciences Supplemental Security Income Termination of Parental Rights Written Transitional Living Plans

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 6 of 216
Part I INTRODUCTION
Background, Purpose, Scope, and Organization of Report
This is the eighteenth report prepared by the Accountability Agents for the Kenny A. v Perdue Consent Decree. This report reviews the State Defendants’ progress from July 1 through December 31, 2014 in achieving improved child welfare outcomes and in meeting its other obligations under the Consent Decree. The Kenny A. v Perdue Consent Decree established James T. Dimas and Karen Baynes-Dunning as independent Accountability Agents with responsibility to produce public reports every six months. This introduction provides a brief overview of the Kenny A. Consent Decree and the Accountability Agents’ methods of assessing the State’s performance as well as the scope and organization of this report.
A. The Kenny A. v Perdue Consent Decree
Under the terms and conditions of the Kenny A. Consent Decree, the State is to achieve and sustain 31 outcomes as well as maintain certain practice standards with respect to the children in the custody of the DeKalb and Fulton County Departments of Family and Children Services (DFCS). These practice standards relate to needs assessment, service planning, placement experience, health care, investigation of maltreatment allegations concerning children in foster care, and court reviews and reporting. In addition, the Consent Decree stipulates various infrastructure requirements for the State and Counties. These stipulations relate to data automation; caseload sizes; regulation, supervision and training of private providers; foster parent licensing and support; and financing.
For purposes of analysis and reporting, the 31 outcomes have been organized into seven thematic groupings. Exhibit I-1 displays these groupings.
B. Methodology
The methodology and quality assurance protocols applied to data collection and analyses in Period 18 are similar to those employed in previous reporting periods. Several sources of information and data collection methods have been used to produce the analyses presented in this report, including record reviews based on randomly drawn samples of case files and licensed foster home records; all maltreatment in care investigations completed between July 1 and December 31, 2014; and the State’s data base of record known as SHINES. Appendix B has a full description of the methodology for Period 18. The Accountability Agents verified State and County reported data except where otherwise noted in the report. In all data collection efforts the State and the Counties have been very cooperative.
A key component of the methodology continues to be the monthly meetings with State and County leadership and field staff that are referred to as “G2.” These meetings employ a recursive learning process that uses operational data to support the development and testing of hypotheses about the potential causes of observed performance problems and the framing of
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 7 of 216
strategies for improvement. This iterative process helps participants identify what works to produce the desired outcomes, and to hold themselves and each other accountable for doing that which works. These meetings are designed to foster self-evaluation and have led the counties to create systems to track, monitor, and share with one another useful information that previously was unavailable or difficult to access.
EXHIBIT I-1: Thematic Grouping of Kenny A. Outcomes
Safety  Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment  Consent Decree Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 related to investigations of maltreatment in care.  Consent Decree Outcomes 5 and 6 related to the incidents of substantiated maltreatment in care and corporal punishment.
Permanency  Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections  Consent Decree Outcomes 7, 16, and 19 related to keeping children connected to family and community at the time of placement.  Consent Decree Outcomes 21 and 23 related to visitation among family members.  Children Achieve Permanency  Consent Decree Outcomes 4 and 14 related to re-entry into care.  Consent Decree Outcomes 8a & b, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 related to positive permanency exits.  Consent Decree Outcomes 27 and 28 related to timely and complete court review of permanency efforts.
Well Being  Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity  Consent Decree Outcome 17 related to placement stability.  Consent Decree Outcomes 18, 20, and 22 relate to worker continuity and contacts with children and caregivers.  Children and Youth Receive the Services they Need  Consent Decree Outcome 24 related to the educational achievement of youth who “age out” of foster care.  Consent Decree Outcome 30 related to meeting children’s service needs.
Strengthened Infrastructure  Effective Oversight of Placement Settings  Consent Decree Outcomes 25 and 31 related to placement setting conditions.  Timely and Complete Court Orders  Consent Decree Outcomes 26 and 29 related to DFCS authority to assume and maintain custody.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 8 of 216
C. Report Scope and Organization This report describes the State’s performance relative to the outcome measures that were to be achieved by the end of Period 18 and progress implementing required policies, practices, and infrastructure. Where the information is illuminating, comparisons are made to previous reporting periods. The remainder of the report is organized into the following parts: Part II, Conclusions and Recommendations summarizes the accomplishments and status of State and County actions taken during Period 18. It offers recommendations believed important to the State and Counties’ continued progress. Part III, Safety of Children in Care is the assessment of the State’s performance related to Outcomes 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6, focused on keeping children in its care safe from maltreatment and responding to reports of alleged maltreatment. Part IV, Children Achieving Permanency is the assessment of the State’s performance related to Outcomes 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23, 27 and 28, focused on maintaining and achieving permanent family connections for children in State custody. Part V, Children’s Well Being in Care is the assessment of the State’s performance related to Outcomes 17, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 30, focused on providing for the well-being of children in custody. This part also includes a summary of the Curative Action for Discharge services. Part VI, Strengthening the Infrastructure is the assessment of the State’s progress in achieving Outcomes 25, 26, 29, and 31 and implementing required infrastructure components related to providing services to families and children. Part VII, Miscellaneous Provisions provides verified data regarding the re-maltreatment rate of children in DeKalb and Fulton counties during the reporting period and the number and percentage of “diversion” cases in those counties between July 1 and December 31, 2013 that experienced substantiated maltreatment within the subsequent 12 months. Appendix A provides the full wording for all 31 outcomes. Appendix B has a detailed description of the data collection and analysis methods employed to produce this report. Appendix C provides selected information about all children in the custody of DeKalb and Fulton Counties on December 31, 2014.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 9 of 216
Part II CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
During the July 1 to December 31, 2014 period covered by this report, the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services continued working through two major system changes: the implementation of a centralized, statewide child protective services intake system – the CPS Intake Communications Center (CICC) – and the movement of children in the State’s custody to a managed care network administered by AmeriGroup. In addition, the continuing high turnover rate of case managers and the lack of foster homes in the region all led to a decline in performance across most of the outcome measures. Acknowledging the overall decline in performance, the parties modified its existing Curative Action Plan at the end of Period 18 to address timely initiation and completion of CPS investigations; hiring, training and certification of new investigators; a caseload reduction plan; retention and recruitment of case managers; and more frequent reporting of outcomes.
While the Period 18 report reflects this decline in performance, the state improved in some key areas. At the end of Period 17, Governor Deal appointed Bobby Cagle as the new State Director for the Department of Family and Children Services and changed the reporting structure of the agency. Although administratively connected to the Department of Human Services, Director Cagle now reports directly to the Governor. In addition, the Governor appointed and charged a Child Welfare Reform Council to conduct a comprehensive review of the Department of Family and Children Services in order to advise the Governor regarding recommended agency reforms and legislative solutions. The Council completed its work and issued a report in January 2015 prior to the legislative session. Thus, while the agency continued to have challenges during Period 18, leadership at the state, regional and local levels gained a great deal of support and hopeful stability. This was further evidenced by the approval of the Governor’s budget for fiscal year 2016 that includes $37.4 million new funding for the Department of Family and Children Services beginning in July 2015.
Based on their assessment of the State’s Period 18 performance, the modified Curative Action Plan and the recommendations of the Child Welfare Reform Council, the Accountability Agents encourage the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS) to implement their newly developed “Blueprint for Change” which addresses three key areas:
 Continue developing and implementing a comprehensive practice model which will guide the agency in achieving overall improved outcomes for children and families;
 Increase and strengthen the workforce through enhanced recruitment and retention strategies, creation of a career ladder, as well as the reimplementation of the IV-E educational program;
 Improve and enhance constituent engagement including increasing the number of foster homes in Region 14 and enhancing support services for foster parents and birth families.
The remainder of this chapter highlights program and performance trends during Period 18. Table II-1 at the end of this chapter provides the performance standard for each outcome,
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 10 of 216
summarizes the State’s actual performance by outcome, and offers a comparison to Period 17 performance.
A. Major Accomplishments
Although this section is typically used to highlight performance on certain outcome measures, as discussed above, the major accomplishments during Period 18 involved leadership development and stability, legislative advocacy and securing new state level funding for the agency.
B. Program and Performance Trends
Safety Trends
 Improvement in Some Child Safety Indicators
During Period 18, the state improved in three of the five child safety indicators. For Outcome 6 (incidents of corporal punishment), the state surpassed the threshold and improved its performance from 96 percent in Period 17 to 99 percent in Period 18. However, the process for assessing those incidents changed and the Accountability Agents discovered that allegations of corporal punishment in private provider homes and CCI’s were being assessed by the private provider/CCI and not by the agency. This new policy is discussed further in the report.
Although not meeting the required threshold of 95 percent, the state significantly improved its performance for Outcome 1 (timely initiation of investigations) from 85 percent in Period 17 to 90 percent in Period 18. Likewise, for Outcome 3 (measuring timely contact with alleged maltreatment victims) the state significantly improved its performance from 80 percent in Period 17 to 90 percent in Period 18. However, this performance still fell short of the 99 percent threshold.
The state failed to meet the required threshold and declined in its performance for Outcome 5 (maltreatment in care), continuing a downward trend from 0.57 percent in Period 16, to 0.63 percent in Period 17, to 0.72 percent in Period 18. For Outcome 2 (Timely completion of maltreatment in care investigations) the decline was substantial (from 91% to 88%) and also continued a downward trend from Period 16 (93%).
 High Number of Screen-outs May Put Children at Risk
Section 12 of the Consent Decree permits CPS referrals involving foster homes to be screenedout rather than investigated if the alleged offense is deemed to be a policy violation (such as corporal punishment) rather than an infraction that rises to the level of maltreatment, and certain procedures and safeguards are observed. Two of the safeguards to protect the safety and
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 11 of 216
well-being of children in care are the conduct of an “assessment” of the alleged offense to determine if it threatened child safety, and a limit of one disciplinary or other serious policy violation that will be tolerated before a foster home must be closed.
A total of 28 foster homes in the sample of 160 (18%) were the subject of 38 maltreatment referrals during Period 18; in Period 17, 30 foster homes (19% of 160) had 38 CPS referrals. In Period 18, 71 percent of such referrals were screened out; the Period 17 screen-out rate for such referrals was 63 percent. The continuing high number and proportion of screen-outs places children at risk if the mandated safeguards are not followed.1
Eight of the 160 sampled foster homes in Period 18 had corporal punishment allegations that did not rise to the level of maltreatment and were screened out. In seven of the eight foster homes, there was insufficient evidence to confirm the use of corporal punishment or that the disciplinary policy was violated. In the eighth home, the preponderance of evidence supported that corporal punishment had occurred, but no policy violation was found in the record, nor was a Corrective Action Plan developed. This case highlights the concern noted by the Accountability Agents concerning CPAs assuming responsibility for assessing themselves when allegations of corporal punishment have been made.2
 Mixed Results in Conducting Investigations in Accordance with State Standards
DFCS policy on maltreatment-in-care investigations includes guidance on the many aspects of properly conducting Special Investigations. In Period 17, the Accountability Agents noted that compliance with the requirement that investigators conduct CPS history checks as part of the investigative process was poor. In Period 18, compliance with this very important investigative requirement improved considerably, increasing from 77 percent in Period 17 to 87 percent in Period 18.
At the same time, the State’s performance declined on the requirement to collect and archive physical evidence that helps support the final disposition of the case. In Period 18, case records contained physical evidence supporting the case documentation in 68 percent of the cases in which the nature of the allegations warranted the collection of physical evidence. This was the only investigative requirement for which compliance was less than 80 percent.
Permanency Trends
 The Number of Children Entering Care Slightly Decreased.
1 At the end of Period 17, the State changed its criteria for screening out referrals. Now, all policy violations, including corporal punishment, are screened in and assessed. For Region 14 children in foster care, all assessements are approved by the County Directors or their designees. According to the State, changes to SHINES implementing this change were put in place midway through Period 18. The changes are not reflected in this report, but data reported in future periods will reflect this change.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 12 of 216
The number of children entering foster care in Period 18 was slightly less (about 3%) than that observed in Period 17. In Period 18, 710 children entered care compared to 733 in Period 17. However, the total number of children in care at any time during Period 18 (1811) increased from the 1746 in care during Period 17.
 Diligent Search Efforts Remain Strong, But Fathers and Paternal Family Members Remain Underrepresented in the Process (Outcome 7)
In Period 18 the state exceeded the performance standard for diligent search efforts. Efforts were documented in 54 (97%) out of the 56 cases in which children had been in care for more than 60 days. Engagement of fathers and paternal relatives still remains an area for needed focus.
 Children Placed Near Home, But Separated from Siblings (Outcomes 16 and 19)
While 93 percent of children were placed within the same county from which they were removed or within a 50 mile radius (the standard is 90%), only 59 percent of children who entered in a sibling group were placed with all of their siblings. This is a decline from the Period 17 performance in which 97 percent of children were placed in close proximity to their homes, , and marks the fifth consecutive review period in which the state has not met the standard of 80 percent of siblings placed together. The state is in the process of recruiting more foster homes within Region 14 and developing strategies for targeted recruitment of foster homes that can care for large sibling groups and teens with special needs.
 Visitation with Parents and Separated Siblings Exceeding and Meeting Thresholds, but Trending Down, (Outcomes 21, 23).
In Period 18, the State surpassed the threshold performance standard for visitation with parents (Outcome 21) and visitation with siblings (Outcome 23) with performance of 85 percent and 92percent respectively. This is the first time since Period 12 that the state has nearly missed the threshold for parent visits. The recruitment and retention of case managers will enable the state to improve in these areas.
 A Majority of Children Continued to Achieve Permanency with Their Families or New Families (Outcomes 8, 9, and 10).
Period 18 performance in achieving permanency for children entering care within the last two years was similar to that of previous periods. By the end of Period 18, 11 percent of the children entering foster care in the last nine years remained in care on December 31, 2014. Half of the children remaining in care had been in custody 10 months or less.
Performance specifics include the following: o 58 percent of the children entering custody since the Consent Decree’s advent exited
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 13 of 216
to permanency within 12 months (Outcome 8a). The standard is 40 percent. o 65 percent of the children entering custody since the Consent Decree’s advent exited
to permanency within 24 months (Outcome 8b). The standard is 74 percent. o 72 percent of the children who entered custody between July 1 and December 31,
2012 exited custody to permanent families within the Consent Decree’s designated 12 month or 24 month time frames. (This is derived from a special study supplementing the Outcome 8b analysis.) o Nearly 17 percent (16.7%) of the children in custody up to 24 months prior to the Consent Decree exited to permanency (Outcome 9). The standard is 40 percent. (At the end of Period 18, five children remained in this cohort.) o Zero percent of the children in custody for more than 24 months prior to the Consent Decree exited to permanency (Outcome 10). The standard is 35 percent. (At the end of Period 17, two children remained in this cohort.)
 The State Surpassed the Threshold for Finalizing Adoptions or Legal Guardianships within Twelve Months of Termination of Parental Rights. Moreover, No Adoption Disruptions within Twelve Months of Finalization (Outcomes 11 and 14)
During Period 18, 81 percent of children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period had adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights. The Consent Decree standard requires a minimum of 80 percent. This is the first time since Period 13 that the state has surpassed this threshold. During Period 14, changes to the structure of the adoption unit caused a significant drop in performance. The counties corrected this ineffective change and have been working on improving their performance since that time. During Period 18, no adoption disruptions occurred within 12 months.
 High Rate of re-entry within 12 months Continues (Outcome 4)
During Period 18, 10.6 percent of children had exited foster care at least once in the 12 months prior to their most recent entry. This is similar to the 10.5 percent who re-entered care during Period 17.
 Permanency Options for Children in Custody 15 of the Last 22 Months Continued to be Timely Evaluated (Outcome 15).
For the thirteenth consecutive reporting period (since July 2008), the State met or surpassed the Outcome 15 threshold.3 Among the 553 children who, during Period 18, reached or had
3 Outcome 15 achievement requires at least 95% of all children in care who have been in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months to have had either: (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 14 of 216
surpassed their 15th month in custody out of the last 22 months and were not living with relatives, 96 percent were either legally free to be adopted or the State had filed to terminate parental rights or documented compelling reasons why it had not taken such action. The standard stipulated for this outcome is 95 percent.
 The State Continued Holding Timely Judicial and Citizen Panel Reviews and Timely Permanency Reviews (Outcomes 27 and 28).
Outcomes 27 and 28 require that 95 percent of children are to have timely semi-annual case plan reviews and timely permanency reviews at least every 12 months they are in custody. For Outcome 27, 100 percent of the children in the foster care sample received sixth-month case plan reviews or petitions for one during Period 18, of which 95 percent were conducted timely. This is similar to the 97 percent of children in Period 17. In Period 18, performance on Outcome 28 (timely permanency reviews) was 97 percent – similar to the Period 17 performance of 99 percent.
Well-Being Trends
 Case Manager Continuity Continues to Surpass the Consent Decree Threshold (Outcome 18).
Ninety-three percent of the children in custody on December 31, 2014 had two or fewer case managers in the previous 12 months, once the allowable exceptions are taken into account. This is the fourth consecutive reporting period that the state has surpassed the consent decree standard of 90 percent. The Period 18 performance was similar to the Period 17 performance of 94 percent.
There continues to be a substantial increase in the number of children who experienced case manager changes due to their case managers leaving the agency (83% in Period 18 vs. 68% in Period 17 vs. 42% in Period 16).
 Case Managers Continued Frequently Visiting Children and Substitute Caregivers (Outcomes 20 and 22).
Case managers are expected to visit children in foster care twice a month with at least one private visit each month and they are expected to visit substitute caregivers monthly. In Period 18, case managers made 97 percent of the required twice monthly visits with children and 98 percent of the required monthly private visits with children. Furthermore, they made 95 percent of the required monthly visits to substitute caregivers. In all instances, this performance exceeded or met the revised Consent Decree standards for the sixth consecutive period.
 The State Fell Short of the Consent Decree Requirement for the Proportion of Children Experiencing Stability in Their Living Arrangements (Outcome 17).
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 15 of 216
In the sample of 175 foster care cases reviewed, 90 percent of the children experienced two or fewer placement moves in the 12 months prior to December 31, 2014 or their last date in custody. This is the third consecutive Period in which the state has fallen short of the consent decree requirement of 95 percent.
 Children Continue to Have Unmet Needs (Outcome 30), and the timeliness of identifying those needs has declined substantially.
In Period 18, 69 percent of children with identified health, dental, mental health, education, and developmental needs had all of their needs met. This marks a significant decrease from the Period 17 performance of 80 percent. The State continues to work through the challenges associated with the transition to managed care that occurred during Period 17. During Period 18 only 21 percent of children had timely dental screens, compared to 27 percent during Period 17 and 61 percent during Period 16. Likewise, during Period 18, only 33 percent of children received timely initial health screens compared to 42 percent during Period 17 and 70 percent during Period 16. Moreover, during Period 18, 13 percent of children received no initial health screen and 40 percent of children received no initial dental screen.
Infrastructure Strengthening Trends
 The State Met the Threshold Standard for Placing Children in Fully Approved Placements (Outcome 25).
Outcome 25 requires at least 98 percent of all foster placements serving class member children to be in “full approval and/or licensure status.” The State met this standard in Period 18 with 98 percent of foster placements serving class member children in “full approval and/or licensure status.”
 Foster Homes are Not Overcrowded (Outcome 31). Outcome 31 stipulates that no more than 10 percent of all foster family home placements serving class member children will have more than three foster children, or six total children in the home, unless they are part of a sibling group and there are no other children in the home. For Period 18, only three percent of all foster family home placements serving class member children exceeded these standards. This marks the 17th consecutive reporting period in which the Outcome 31 threshold was met or exceeded.
 The State Maintained Legal Custodial Authority with Few Lapse (Outcome 29).
For the fourteenth consecutive reporting period (since December 2007), the State met or surpassed the Outcome 29 threshold. Outcome 29 stipulates that no more than five percent of all children in custody of DHS/DFCS for 12 months or more shall have a lapse of legal custody within the prior 13 months. In Period 18, two children (3.5%) in the foster care sample appear
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 16 of 216
to have had a lapse of legal custody within the prior 13 months. Period 18 marked the last cohort of children under the old juvenile court code who required new extended court orders every 12 months. Under the new juvenile court code, which went into effect on January 1, 2014, court orders will no longer expire.
 Required Court Order Documentation to Support Federal Reimbursement Claims Continued to Improve (Outcome 26)
Outcome 26 relates to the proper legal documentation in a child’s file to support a claim for Federal reimbursement under the Title IV-E program.4 For Outcome 26, 100 percent of the children in the Period 18 foster care sample had the required court orders with all the required language necessary to assess current eligibility for federal funding under Title IV-E. The threshold for this outcome is 95 percent. This is the first time since the inception of the consent decree that the state has surpassed the threshold standard.
 The State Continues Exceeding Caseload Caps, Especially for Child Protective Services Investigations
In December 2014, 59 percent of the case managers in DeKalb and Fulton Counties had caseloads that were at or under designated caps. Seventy-nine case managers exceeded the caps set by the Consent Decree. During Period 18, the counties continued experiencing an increased number of referrals and CPS investigations. In order to keep the caseload at or near the cap, the state temporarily reassigned workers from other regions to assist Region 14. In December 2014 the state entered into a modified corrective action plan and now reports on caseloads weekly and monthly.
C. Recommended Priorities for State Attention
The Accountability Agents wish to recognize the State’s accomplishments under challenging circumstances, especially its improved performance in finalizing adoptions or legal guardianships within 12 months of a termination of parental rights and ensuring that proper legal documentation was in every court order to allow for federal reimbursement under the Title IV(e) program. Additionally, as stated previously, the State has made major strides in Period 18 including leadership development and stability, legislative advocacy and securing new state level funding for the agency. These major accomplishments provide the agency with an excellent opportunity to achieve the goal of developing a comprehensive practice model that is in the best interest of children and families. The development of the Agency’s “Blueprint for Change” is a step in the right direction to achieve this goal. The “Blueprint for Change” highlights three focus areas:
 Continue developing and implementing a comprehensive practice model which will
4 See pp 36-37, Outcome 26 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 17 of 216 guide the agency in achieving overall improved outcomes for children and families;  Increase and strengthen the workforce through enhanced recruitment and retention strategies, creation of a career ladder, and full reimplementation of the Title IV( e ) educational program; and  Improve and enhance constituent engagement including increasing the number of foster homes in Region 14 and enhancing support services for foster parents and birth families; The Accountability Agents are very encouraged with this direction and are looking forward to working with the State as it fully implements the “Blueprint for Change” and working with the parties to develop a Kenny A exit plan that will evaluate the state’s overall strategy for achieving better outcomes for children and families.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 18 of 216

Table II-1 Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2014

Safety Outcomes Children in Foster Care are Safe From Maltreatment in Care
Outcome 1: At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report. Outcome 2: At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report. Outcome 3: At least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face-to-face, private contact with the alleged victim, including face-to-face contact with a child who is non-verbal due to age or for any other reason. Outcome 5: No more than 0.57% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. Outcome 6: 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.
Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
Outcome 7: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care. Outcome 16: At least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. Outcome 19: 90% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b (ii) and (iii). Outcome 21: At least 85% of all children with the goal of reunification shall have appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification

Period 18 Performance
90%
88%
90% 0.72% 99%
97% 59% 97% 85%

Comparison to Period 175 Improved
Declined
Improved Declined Improved
Declined Similar Similar Declined

5The characterization of differences between Period 18 and Period 17 is based on the following criteria for Outcomes measured using the entire population (numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8a, 8b, 9,10,11,14,15,16,18, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 31): similar = change up to +/- 2%; improved/declined = change +/- 3% or more; Outcomes measured using a sample each period (numbered 6,7,17,19,21,26,27,28,29, and 30) employed a statistical test that measured the differences between the results for the two periods, accounting for the margin of error of each sample. For these outcomes, similar = change up to +/- 2%; improved/declined = change greater than the margin of error; improved/declined within margin of error = change +/- 3% or more but still within the margin of error.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 13

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 19 of 216

Table II-1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2014

Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
Outcome 23: At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling-group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.6
Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 4: No more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 8b: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entry: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, or shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less after entering: adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship. Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 month backlog pool”): For all children remaining in the 24 month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 40% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.

Period 18 Performance
92%
10.6 % 58% 65%
16.7%

Comparison to Period 17 Similar
Similar Similar Similar
Improved

6 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 23 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 14

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 20 of 216

Table II-1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2014

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree: For all children remaining in the over 24 month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 35% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 11: For all children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.

Period 18 Performance
0%
81%
94% One Time Measure Taken in Period I
30% One Time Measure Taken in Period I7
0%
96%

Comparison to Period 17 Similar
Improved N/A
N/A Similar Similar

7 The children to whom this outcome applied have recruitment plans. Those who have been discharged since Period I have been included in the Outcome 9 and 10 results.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 15

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 21 of 216

Table II-1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2014

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 27: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s sixmonth case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review. Outcome 28: At least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.
Well-Being Outcomes Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity
Outcome 17: At least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 18: At least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave. Outcome 20a: At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of twice monthly face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur. 8 Outcome 20b: At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur 9

Period 18 Performance
95%
97%
90% 93% 97% 98 %

Comparison to Period 17 Similar
Similar
Similar Similar Similar Similar

8As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 20 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 9 Ibid.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 16

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 22 of 216

Table II-1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2014

Well-Being Outcomes Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity Outcome 22: At least 95% of the total minimum required monthly
visits by case managers to caregivers during the reporting period occur.10
Well-Being Outcomes Children and Youth Receive Services They Need
Outcome 24: The percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 20 percentage points (baseline is 36%). Outcome 30: At least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.
Strengthened Infrastructure Outcomes Effective Oversight of Placement Settings
Outcome 25: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status.11 Outcome 26: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Outcome 29: No more than 5% of all children in custody of DHS/DFCS for 12 months or more shall have a lapse of legal custody within the prior 13 months. Outcome 31: No more than 10% of all foster family home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.12

Period 18 Performance
95%
40% 69%
98% 100% 3.5%
3%

Comparison to Period 17
Declined
Declined Declined
Similar Improved Declined
Similar

10 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 22 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 11 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the methodology for Outcome 25 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 12 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the methodology for Outcome 31 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 17

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 23 of 216

Part III SAFETY
Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment

Principle four of the Consent Decree asserts, “the state has primary responsibility for the care and protection of the children who enter the foster care system.”13 As a consequence of this responsibility, several Consent Decree outcomes and requirements focus attention on the safety of children in the custody of the State (DHS/DFCS). This part reports on the State’s progress in the areas related to the maltreatment of children in foster care and the process by which such allegations are investigated and concludes with a more detailed discussion of the practices and processes employed to address reports and concerns of maltreatment in care.

A. Outcome Performance: Outcomes 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6

Five of the Consent Decree outcomes are clustered around keeping children safe while they are in custody and quickly addressing safety issues as they occur. All five of these outcomes had performance thresholds that were to be achieved before Period 4 (December 2007). Table III-1 below provides the Period 18 measured performance summary for each outcome. The discussion following the table provides a more detailed description of State performance as well as the interpretation and measurement issues associated with the outcomes, charts that display the State’s performance trends over applicable reporting periods, and information about issues surrounding the work that provide a context for understanding the State’s performance.

Table III-1 Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment: Progress as of December 31, 2014

Consent Decree Outcome
Outcome 5: No more than .57% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. Outcome 1: At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report. Outcome 2: At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report. Outcome 3: At least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face-to-face, private contact with the alleged victim, including face-to-face contact with a child who is non-verbal due to age or for any other reason. Outcome 6: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.

Period 18 Performance 0.72% 90%
88%
90%
99%

13 See p. 4, Principle 4, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 18

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 24 of 216
1. Maltreatment in Care: Occurrence and Investigation of Reports
Outcome 5 – Maltreatment in Foster Care
Outcome 5 lies at the very heart of the Consent Decree. It is about keeping children in foster care safe from maltreatment. Child welfare systems have no higher obligation. It is unacceptable that any child in the State’s protective custody should experience maltreatment in their out-of-home placement.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The Consent Decree standard for maltreatment in care (Outcome 5) is 0.57 percent. This represented the federal standard for maltreatment in care that was in effect at the time the Consent Decree was finalized.14 Outcome 5 is measured using the federal definition as it existed in 2005: “Of all children in foster care in the State during the period under review, 0.57 percent or fewer were the subject of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member."15 The data used to measure the outcome performance are derived from a review of all 81 investigations of alleged maltreatment concerning class member children in foster care completed during Period 18 (July-December, 2014).
b. State Performance
 The State Failed to Achieve the Outcome 5 Threshold
The review of all maltreatment-in-care investigations completed between July 1 and December 31, 2014 found that 0.72 percent of the children in foster care had been victims of substantiated maltreatment during that time period (Outcome 5). The Consent Decree performance threshold for Outcome 5 is not more than 0.57 percent. The Period 18 performance failed to achieve the Consent Decree standard and was 0.09 percentage points worse than the Period 17 rate of 0.63 percent. Figure III-1 displays the State’s performance over the last 12 reporting periods.
14 The federal standard has since been reduced to 0.32 percent. 15 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families: Updated National Standards for the Child and Family Service Reviews and Guidance on Program Improvement Plans. Information Memorandum ACYF-CB-IM-01-07, August 16, 2003.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 19

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 25 of 216
Figure III-1 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 5:
Maltreatment in Care
Source: File Review of All Completed Maltreatment-in-care Investigations, January 2009 – December 2014.
In Period 18, the review of all maltreatment-in-care investigations found 13 instances of substantiated maltreatment fitting the federal definition among the 1811 children in custody at any point during the reporting period. This was an increase of two substantiated victims of maltreatment in care (18%) compared to Period 17; the total number of children in care increased by 65 (4%) from the 1746 in care during Period 17. The type of maltreatment substantiated for these 13 children consisted of: inadequate supervision (6 children), inadequate food, clothing, and shelter (2 children), emotional abuse (2 children), inadequate supervision and physical abuse (2 children), and physical abuse (one child). During the reporting period, seven other class-member children were the victims of substantiated maltreatment that did not fit the federal definition of maltreatment in care since the maltreatment was not perpetrated by a foster parent or a facility staff member. Two children were maltreated by their biological parent during a supervised visit, two children were maltreated while on runaway, one child was maltreated by relatives in whose care the child had been placed, one child was maltreated by a family member who was not an approved caregiver, and one child was maltreated by fictive kin. Private provider-supervised foster homes accounted for a disproportionate share of the
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 20

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 26 of 216
substantiated victims of maltreatment in care in Period 18.16 Private provider-supervised foster homes accounted for eight of 13 substantiated victims (62%) even though only 43 percent of the children in care at the end of Period 18 were in such homes. Of the remaining five substantiated victims, two were in DFCS-supervised homes (accounting for 15% of substantiated victims while 19% of all children were placed in such homes) and three were in congregate care facilities (Group Homes and Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities) (representing 23% of substantiated maltreatment victims while 21% of all children in care were in such placements).
Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 – Maltreatment Investigation Process Measures
While Outcome 5 focuses on maltreatment in care, Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 measure important aspects of the process through which allegations of maltreatment in foster care settings are investigated. Outcome 1 relates to the timeframe in which an investigation of suspected maltreatment of a foster child is commenced. Outcome 3 relates to the frequency with which such investigations include face-to-face contact with each alleged victim within 24 hours. Because DFCS policy defines the “commencement” of an investigation as the point at which face-to-face contact with the alleged victim is made, they are very similar measures; the primary difference between them is the unit of analysis. For Outcome 1, the unit of analysis is the investigation itself (which may involve multiple alleged victims). For Outcome 3, the unit of analysis is the individual child who is an alleged victim. Outcome 2 relates to the length of time it takes to complete such investigations.
Data for these outcomes are based on the universe of 81 maltreatment investigations completed during the reporting period that involved a child in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton County. This represented a three percent increase compared to the 79 such investigations completed during Period 17.
The Consent Decree covers maltreatment-in-care investigations that involve any child in the adjudicated custody of DeKalb or Fulton counties, regardless of where in the state of Georgia the child’s foster care placement is located. DFCS policy stipulates that allegations of maltreatment are to be investigated by the DFCS local office in the child’s county of residence.17 For ease of reference, counties outside DeKalb and Fulton are referred to throughout this report as “perimeter counties.” For Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 and the CPS notification data described later in this chapter, the performance of the State Special Investigations Unit (SSIU) is displayed separately from county performance.
16 To improve comparability, the denominator for this analysis is adjusted to include only children in placement types captured by the federal definition of maltreatment in care. 17 Effective December 1, 2010, allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit (SSIU), in lieu of, or in conjunction with, the local DFCS office.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 21

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 27 of 216
a. Interpretation and Measurement The data used to measure State performance on Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 are derived from a review of all 81 investigations of alleged maltreatment of class member children in foster care completed during Period 18 (July-December, 2014).
b. State Performance  The State Fell Short of the Outcome 1 Threshold As noted in Table III-1 for Outcome 1, 90 percent of maltreatment-in-care investigations were commenced within 24 hours according to file review data from the universe of investigations completed during Period 18. This is an improvement compared to the Period 17 performance of 85 percent. Outcome 1 requires that 95 percent of such investigations be commenced within 24 hours. The State had surpassed that standard for five consecutive periods prior to Period 11 but has now failed to achieve the standard for eight consecutive periods (i.e., four years). Figure III2 displays the State’s performance on Outcome 1 over the last 12 reporting periods.
Figure III-2 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 1: Maltreatment-in-care Investigations Commenced Within 24 Hours of Receipt of Report
Source: File Review of All Completed Maltreatment-in-care Investigations, January 2009 – December 2014.
This measure counts only investigations in which an alleged victim is seen face-to-face by a trained CPS investigator or by police within 24 hours. As displayed in Table III-2, the perimeter counties commenced 95 percent of the investigations they completed within 24 hours, an improvement from the 81 percent timely commenced in Period 17. DeKalb and Fulton counties
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 22

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 28 of 216

timely commenced 88 percent of the investigations they completed, similar to the 87 percent rate in Period 17. The timely commencement rate for SSIU was 75 percent, a decline from the 100 percent rate in Period 17.

Table III-2 Outcome 1 – Commencement of Maltreatment-in-care Investigations
N=81

Investigating

Commenced Within 24 Hours

Not Commenced Within 24 Hours

Total

County

Number of Percent Number of Percent Number of Percent

Investigations of Total Investigations of Total Investigations of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

35

88%

5

13%

40 100%

Perimeter Counties

35

95%

2

5%

37 100%

State Special

Investigations

3

75%

1

25%

4 100%

Unita

Total

73

90%

8

10%

81 100%

Source: File Review of All Completed Investigations, July - December, 2014. a Allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit rather than a local DFCS office.

 The State Fell Short of the Outcome 2 Threshold
For Outcome 2, 88 percent of maltreatment-in-care investigations (71 of 81) were completed within 30 days according to record review data from all investigations completed during the reporting period. This was a three percentage point decline from the Period 17 rate of 91 percent and remains below the Outcome 2 standard. Outcome 2 requires that 95 percent of maltreatment-in-care investigations be completed, in accordance with DFCS policy, within 30 days. In Period 18, 93 percent of investigations (75 of 81) were completed within 45 days, a decrease from the Period 17 rate of 95 percent. Figure III-3 displays the State’s performance on Outcome 2 over the last 12 reporting periods.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 23

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 29 of 216 Figure III-3
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 2: Maltreatment-in-care Investigations Completed Within 30 Days of Report Receipt
Source: File Review of All Completed Maltreatment-in-care Investigations, January 2009 – December 2014.
Compared to Period 17, Period 18 performance in timely investigation completion for DeKalb and Fulton counties declined, dropping from 98 to 93 percent. For SSIU, performance declined substantially, dropping from 100 to 75 percent. The Period 18 performance of the perimeter counties (84%) improved slightly compared to their Period 17 performance (81%). The Period 18 performances of DeKalb and Fulton counties (98%) and the perimeter counties (89%) in completing investigations within 30 days were similar to those of Period 17 (98% and 90%, respectively). The Period 18 performance of DeKalb and Fulton counties, the perimeter counties, and SSIU is displayed in Table III-3.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 24

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 30 of 216

Table III-3 Outcome 2 – Timely Investigations
N=81

Investigating County

Completed in ≤ 30 Days Completed in ≤ 45 Days

Total

Number % of Total Number % of Total Number % of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

37

93%

39

98%

40

100%

Perimeter Counties

31

84%

33

89%

37

100%

State Special Investigations

3

75%

3

75%

4

100%

Unita

Total

71

88%

75

93%

81

100%

Source: File Review of All Completed Maltreatment-in-care Investigations, July -December, 2014. a Allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit rather than a local DFCS office.

 The State Fell Short of the Outcome 3 Threshold
According to record review data from all investigations completed during Period 18, 90 percent of the alleged victims of maltreatment in care (86 of 96) had face-to-face private contact with a CPS investigator within 24 hours. This was a substantial improvement from the Period 17 performance of 80 percent but remained well below the Outcome 3 performance standard of 99 percent. The 96 alleged victims of maltreatment in care was about the same as the 97 alleged victims reported for Period 17. Figure III-4 illustrates the State’s performance on Outcome 3 for the last 12 reporting periods.
In the cases investigated by perimeter counties, face-to-face contact was made within 24 hours with 93 percent of the alleged victims, a substantial improvement from the Period 17 performance of 71 percent. DeKalb and Fulton Counties’ Outcome 3 performance of 86% was similar to their Period 17 performance of 87 percent. However, timely contact with all alleged victims declined for investigations conducted by SSIU, from 100 percent in Period 17 to 86 percent in Period 18. The 86 percent represents one alleged victim with whom timely contact was not made out of seven alleged victims investigated by SSIU. Period 18 data for Outcome 3 is displayed in Table III-4.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 25

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 31 of 216
In measuring Outcome 3 performance, only alleged victims having face-to-face, private contact with a certified CPS investigator within 24 hours of the report’s receipt are considered to have met the standard. There were 10 alleged victims who were not seen within this time frame. Six of these alleged victims were in cases investigated by DeKalb and Fulton counties, and four were in cases investigated by perimeter counties or SSIU. Of the 10 alleged victims for whom response time was missed, one was removed from the placement setting in which the maltreatment was alleged to have occurred within 24 hours, but the child was not interviewed by a CPS investigator within that timeframe.
Figure III-4 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 3: Maltreatment-in-care Investigations with Timely Face-to-Face Private Contact
with All Alleged Victims
Source: File Review of All Completed Maltreatment-in-care Investigations, January 2009 – December 2014.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 26

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 32 of 216

Table III-4
Outcome 3 – Face-to-Face Contact with Alleged Maltreatment Victims within 24 Hours N=96

Investigating County

CPS Contact Within 24 Hours
Alleged Percent Victims of Total

Removed Prior To or Within 24 Hours of Report Alleged Percent Victims of Total

No CPS Contact Within 24 Hours
Alleged Percent Victims of Total

Total
Alleged Percent Victims of Total

DeKalb/Fulton
Perimeter Counties State Special Investigations Unitb

38

86%

42

93%

6

86%

1

2%

0

0%

0

0%

5a

11%

3

7%

1

14%

44 100% 45 100% 7 100%

Total

86

90%

1

1%

9

9%

96 100%

Source: File Review of All Completed Maltreatment-in-care Investigations, July -December, 2014.

aFor three, the delay resulted from the failure of DeKalb or Fulton placement staff to timely refer allegations to the

CICC.
b Allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit rather than a local DFCS office.

Outcome 6 – Corporal Punishment
Outcome 6 seeks to protect children in foster care from experiencing corporal punishment, which the Consent Decree defines as “…any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain.”18 Outcome 6 stipulates that by the end of Period 4, 98 percent of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.
Interpretation and Measurement
The Consent Decree’s use of the phrase “…all foster homes….”19 is operationalized as all foster homes with a class member in custody during the reporting period for measurement purposes. The data used to measure Outcome 6 performance is based on a sample of 160 foster homes that had a class member in care at any point during the reporting period.

18 See p. 2 of the Consent Decree. 19 See p. 32 of the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 27

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 33 of 216
a. State Performance  The State Exceeded the Outcome 6 Threshold The standard for Outcome 6 requires that 98 percent of foster homes be without an incident of corporal punishment in the previous 12 months. As noted in Table III-1, 158 of 160 foster homes sampled (99%) had no confirmed incidents of corporal punishment in the previous 12 months, thus surpassing the Consent Decree standard. This was an improvement from the Period 17 rate of 96 percent, which represented the first and only time since the Consent Decree’s advent that the standard was not met. The State also improved its performance in conducting “assessments” following the receipt of an allegation of corporal punishment. Altogether, ten allegations were received among the 160 foster homes sampled. Two of the cases were investigated by CPS. Each of the remaining eight cases was screened out and received an assessment. This represents improvement over Period 17, when reviewers were unable to locate any documentation in three cases that an assessment of the allegation had been completed. Figure III-5 illustrates the State’s performance on Outcome 6 over the last 12 reporting periods to which the Consent Decree standards applied.
Figure III-5 Twelve Periods of State Performance on Outcome 6: Absence of Corporal Punishment in Foster Homes
Source: Foster Home Record Reviews, January 2009 – December 2014. KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 28

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 34 of 216
Operational Context
In Period 18, the State attained only one of the Consent Decree’s five child safety outcome measures. That was for Outcome 6, which concerns the use of corporal punishment on children in care. In Period 17, the State failed to attain any of the safety outcome measures.
Performance on the child safety measure related to timely initiation of investigations (Outcome 1) and having face-to-face contact with alleged victims (Outcome 3) improved (from 85% to 90%, and from 80% to 90%, respectively), but fell short of the standards. Performance on the outcomes related to timely completion of investigations (Outcome 2) and maltreatment in care (Outcome 5) declined (from 91% to 88%, and from 0.63% to 0.72%, respectively).
Two factors, first identified in Period 15, comprised 50 percent of the State’s Period 18 performance problems on Outcomes 1 and 3. The first is that placement case managers sometimes fail to report maltreatment concerns to CPS intake in a timely manner. This problem has usually been associated with inexperienced case managers.
The second factor concerns delays in assigning CPS referrals to investigators. This is likely related to the introduction of new procedures and practices associated with the implementation of the CPS Intake Communications Center (CICC), which was rolled out in DeKalb and Fulton counties on September 16, 2013. The Accountability Agents expected a systems-level change of the CICC’s significance to have many unintended consequences. One of those appears to be the delay in assigning CPS referrals to investigators. This and any other consequences of transitioning to CCIC will need to be identified and addressed to successfully complete the transition process.
Factors Influencing Outcomes 1 and 3 Performance Although the State fell short of achieving the Outcome 1 and Outcome 3 measures, significant progress was made over the Period 17 performance. Outcome 1 (commencement of investigations within 24 hours) improved from 85 percent to 90 percent, and Outcome 3 (timely, face-to-face contact with alleged victims) improved from 80 percent to 90 percent.
In Period 18, there was no single, overriding factor that led to delaying the commencement of investigations and to delaying initial contacts with alleged victims. The State performed better on several of the factors that significantly contributed to delays in Periods 16 and 17, including delayed reversals of screen-out decisions and delayed referrals by placement managers. Ongoing problems, although ameliorated somewhat, may reflect the relative inexperience of the many case managers recently hired in DeKalb and Fulton counties and the ongoing learning process associated with receiving investigatory workloads from the CICC.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 29

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 35 of 216

Table III-5 Documented Factors Contributing to Delayed Initial Contact with Alleged Victims*

Factors Contributing to Delayed Initial
Contact
Delayed Reversal of Screen-out Decision Delayed Referral by Placement Case Manager Delayed Assignment to Investigator Worker Making Contact Not CPS Certified CICC Failed to Properly Record and Disposition Intake No Documented Reason

Period 16

7/1/13 – 9/15/13 9/16/13 – 12/31/13

County Intake

Centralized

Intake (CICC)

OM 1 OM 3 OM 1 OM 3

5

7

0

0

1

2

1

1

1

1

3

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

0

0

Period 17 1/1/2014 – 6/30/2014 Centralized Intake (CICC) OM 1 OM 3

Period 18 7/1/2014 – 12/31/2014 Centralized Intake
(CICC) OM 1 OM 3

1

5

0

0

6**

6**

2

3

4**

4**

3

3

3

5

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

2

Total

9

12

4

4

13

19

8

10

* The differing counts for Outcomes 1 and 3 reflect the different units of analysis for these outcomes; for

Outcome 1 it is the investigation, for Outcome 3 it is the alleged victim.

** In one investigation there was a delayed referral by the placement case manager followed by a delayed

assignment to an investigator. That case is reflected in the tabulation for each of those categories, but is

counted only once in the Totals.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 30

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 36 of 216
Factors Influencing Outcome 6 Performance
Two foster homes in the Period 18 sample of 160 had confirmed incidents of corporal punishment involving children in their care during the preceding 12 months although a total of ten homes had allegations of corporal punishment. As mentioned in the discussion above, all allegations of corporal punishment were either investigated or screened out and assessed. This was an improvement over Period 17, during which three cases among the 160 foster homes sampled were screened out but not assessed.
One concern noted by the Accountability Agents in at least four of the cases of alleged corporal punishment is that primary responsibility for the assessment appears to have been given to the CPA, not CPS staff. Having the CPA conduct the assessment raises the specter of potential conflict of interest. In addition, CPAs may not be trained to conduct thorough assessments. While having the CPAs conduct self-assessments may be a function of DFCS having limited resources, the State needs to carefully assess this practice, especially the challenges of ensuring that CPAs are able to conduct objective, high quality assessments.
B. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding Maltreatment in Care Investigations and Corporal Punishment
1. Maltreatment-in-care Referrals
Section 12 of the Consent Decree contains other requirements pertaining to the process of investigating and responding to reports of maltreatment in care.20 The following discussion summarizes findings from the Period 18 review regarding the State’s compliance with these requirements.

20 See pp.28-30 of the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 31

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 37 of 216
a. Assessment of Maltreatment-in-Care Referrals Section 12.A. of the Consent Decree requires all referrals of suspected maltreatment of children in foster care to be investigated by Child Protective Services staff (rather than permanency staff) “…in the manner and within the timeframe provided by law and DFCS policy.”21 DFCS policy vests in “Social Services Case Managers” and their supervisors responsibility for evaluating CPS referrals and deciding whether they meet the threshold requirements that mandate a full investigation, or fail to attain that threshold and may be “screened-out.”22 With the implementation of the CICC in September of 2013, these decisions now are made by certified CPS staff assigned to the CICC.
Interviews with county and central office staff and the results of record reviews conducted each period indicate that it is DFCS’ policy and practice that all reports of maltreatment in foster care are evaluated by CPS staff who decide whether the report rises to the level of suspected maltreatment and will be investigated, or whether the report fails to rise to that standard and will be screened out. When referrals receive full investigations those are conducted by certified, county or Central Office CPS investigators. The Period 18 placement, foster home, and maltreatment-in-care file reviews identified no instance in which a maltreatment-in-care referral was screened-out or investigated by someone who did not have CPS certification.
b. Maltreatment Referral Timeliness, Documentation, and Assessment Quality
 Timely Referral of Allegations As indicated in Table III-5, the review of maltreatment-in-care investigations identified three cases in which the making of the referral was delayed by inaction of the placement case manager. This represents an improvement over Period 17, when six such cases were identified.
 Proper Documentation of Referrals
In previous periods, the State faced challenges in ensuring that every referral was properly documented. In Period 18, the State’s performance in documenting referrals was excellent. Every attempted referral was properly documented in SHINES.
21 See p. 28 of the Consent Decree. 22 Social Services Manual, Chapters 2.6 and 2.2, Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, June and Sept. 2009.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 32

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 38 of 216
 Quality of Screen-out Decisions
A related operational issue impacting child safety is the quality and documentation of the decision to “screen out” CPS referrals involving children in care when that disposition is selected by CPS intake staff. In Periods 11 and 12 the Accountability Agents found that DFCS policy standards addressing the “screening-out” of CPS referrals involving children in care were too frequently being improperly applied, resulting in referrals that appeared to contain allegations of maltreatment being screened out.23 Substantial progress on this issue was noted since Period 12. In Periods 13—17, out of the 875 placement records and 801 foster home records sampled during the 30 months covered by those Periods, only three appeared to the Accountability Agents to contain evidence of an allegation of maltreatment-in-care that was inappropriately screened out rather than investigated.
In Period 18, the Accountability Agents again scrutinized the 175 placement records and 160 foster home records sampled to see whether allegations of maltreatment-in-care were inappropriately screened out. A total of 23 screen-outs were identified among the CPS referrals associated with the child placement and foster home records sampled (4 from the placement sample; 19 from the foster home sample). This was a substantial decrease from the 46 screenouts identified in the Period 17 samples of the same size. None of the screen-outs in Period 18 appeared to be inappropriate. In Period 17, one of the screen-outs (from the foster home sample) appeared to the Accountability Agents to contain an allegation of maltreatment that should have been investigated rather than screened-out.
c. Investigations Conducted in Accordance with State Standards
DFCS policy on maltreatment-in-care investigations (which are considered “Special Investigations”) is contained in Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual.24 Section 2106 contains guidance on the many aspects of properly conducting Special Investigations, such as separately interviewing the parties involved, contacting DFCS case managers required to visit the placement setting, evaluating the continued safety of any children remaining in the home, etc. In all, Section 2106 contains more than 150 discrete requirements pertaining to Special Investigations. The particular requirements vary depending on the type of placement setting being investigated.
To assess the State’s compliance with the Section 12.A. requirement that all reports of suspected maltreatment of children in foster care are to be investigated in the manner and within the time frames provided by law and DFCS policy, the file review of maltreatment-in-care investigations explored the extent to which the investigations completed during Period 18 were conducted in
23 See Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S.A. Period 11 Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue, December 2011, pp.155-156 and Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S.A. Period 12 Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue, June 2012, pp.36-37 for a discussion of this issue. 24 Social Services Manual, Chapter 2100, Section VI, Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, July 2005.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 33

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 39 of 216
accordance with the investigative standards contained in Section 2106. (The extent to which such investigations comport with the required timeframes is addressed in the discussion of Outcomes 1 and 2, above.) The results are presented in Table III-6 for the 11 investigative standards common to most placement types. The percentages reported in Table III-6 represent the number of instances for which the investigative record was adequate to provide a conclusive, affirmative response.
As reflected in Table III-6, documented compliance with each of the 11 investigative policy requirements applicable to most investigations showed evidence of:
 Improved performance compared to Period 17 for two requirements o Investigator reviewed previous CPS reports for foster parents/caregivers); and o Alleged maltreator was interviewed separately.
 Three requirements remained similar (± one percentage point) o Investigator reviewed the DFCS history of the foster parent/caregiver; o All approved foster parents/caregivers interviewed separately; and o All other adults frequently in the home interviewed separately.
 Poorer performance for six requirements o Case record contains physical evidence to support case documentation; o Investigator saw/interviewed each of the other children (non-alleged victims) separately; o At least two relevant collateral sources contacted during the investigation; o Investigator saw/interviewed every alleged maltreated child separately; o Continued safety of the children placed in the home was adequately evaluated and assessed; and o DFCS case managers required to visit in the foster care setting were contacted.
Documented compliance was found to be 90 percent or greater for seven of the 11 investigative policy requirements evaluated. State performance on the one requirement (case record contains physical evidence to support case documentation) for which compliance was found to be 80 percent or lower is considered in greater detail below.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 34

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 40 of 216

Table III-6 Proportion of Investigations Meeting Policy Requirements
(N shown is for Period 18 cases and varies based on placement setting and other case characteristics)

Investigation Policy Requirement Alleged maltreator was interviewed separately (N=80)

Percent of Applicable Files with Documentation of Compliance

Period 17

Period 18

95%

98%

Investigator saw/interviewed every alleged maltreated child separately (N=81)

100%

95%

Continued safety of the child(ren) placed in the home was

adequately evaluated and assessed (N=39)

100%

95%

Investigator reviewed the DFCS history of the foster parent/caregiver (N=55)

95%

95%

All approved foster parents/caregivers interviewed separately (N=81)

96%

95%

DFCS case managers required to visit in this foster care

setting were contacted (N=81)

96%

93%

All other adults frequently in the home interviewed separately (N=21)

89%

90%

Investigator reviewed previous CPS reports for foster parents/caregivers (N=55)

77%

87%

At least two relevant collateral sources contacted during the investigation (N=63)

94%

86%

Investigator saw/interviewed each of the other children (non-alleged victims) separately (N=56)

94%

84%

Case record contains physical evidence to support case documentation (N=41)

84%

68%

Source: Case file review of all maltreatment-in-care investigations completed July 1, 2014 – December 31, 2014.

The improvement from 77 to 87 percent in the percentage of cases in which investigators reviewed previous CPS reports regarding parents/caregivers, suggests that State efforts to focus increased attention on this important investigative policy requirement are succeeding. In Period 17, this was the only investigative requirement with a compliance rate of less than 80 percent.

Compliance with this requirement is extremely important. According to the DFCS Social Services Manual, “…the past has great influence on how to assign and respond to a new report. A report…will often take on a new severity when history is reviewed.”25

Collecting and archiving physical evidence is also an important part of investigative practice that helps support the final disposition of the case. In Period 18, case records contained

25 Social Services Manual, Chapter 2100, Section III, Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, July 2008.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 35

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 41 of 216
physical evidence supporting the case documentation in 28 of 41 cases (68%) in which the nature of the allegations warranted the collection of physical evidence. This was the only investigative requirement for which compliance was less than 80 percent.
In at least six of the thirteen cases in which the reviewer concluded that physical evidence should have been collected but no such evidence was found in SHINES, the case record indicated that such evidence actually had been collected. The evidence, however, was either then not uploaded to SHINES, or the reviewer was unable to open the relevant files. In a seventh case, the record indicated that photographs should have been taken, but it could not be determined if they were taken. In an eighth case, photographs were not taken even though the record indicated they should have been. Finally, in five of the thirteen cases, a forensic interview was conducted. The interview record was not uploaded to SHINES, however, and there was no evidence that the investigator had attempted to obtain the interview record.
d. Referrals of Reports of Maltreatment in Care to the DFCS Policy Unit, Residential Child Care (RCC), and the Office of Provider Management (OPM)
DFCS policy requires counties, at the conclusion of maltreatment-in-care investigations, to send an “Administrative Packet” detailing the incident and findings to the Social Services Director within 10 days. If the incident occurred in a provider-supervised foster care setting, an investigative summary is also to be sent to RCC and OPM.
Section 12.B. of the Consent Decree requires all reports of suspected abuse or neglect of foster children in institutional, group, residential, or private provider-supervised foster family home settings to be referred to and reviewed by Residential Child Care (RCC) and the Office of Provider Management (OPM).26 The purpose of the review specified in the Consent Decree is “…to determine whether a pattern of abuse or neglect exists within… [the provider agency]…. that contributed to the abuse or neglect; whether the contract should be terminated; whether particular homes or facilities should be closed….”27
To assess compliance with these provisions, the Accountability Agents collect data directly from RCC, OPM, and the DFCS Policy Unit to ascertain which maltreatment investigations involving foster children had been reported to each office, and interview RCC and OPM leadership and staff to confirm that the required reviews are taking place and to understand what actions are being taken as a consequence of them. The reporting of maltreatment-in-care investigations to each of these three offices and the review of those reports are considered separately below.
26 RCC licenses child placing agencies (CPA), child caring institutions (CCI), and outdoor therapeutic programs (OTP). OPM approves CPAs, CCIs, and OTPs wishing to serve DFCS children once they have been licensed by RCC. 27 See Section 12 B, p. 28 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 36

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 42 of 216
 Notification to the Policy Unit, RCC and OPM of Maltreatment-in-care Investigations The completeness of maltreatment-in-care reporting to the DFCS Policy Unit in Period 18 was unchanged from the Period 17 level of 100 percent. The completeness of maltreatment-in-care reporting to RCC (92%) was similar to Period 17 (93%). However, the completeness of maltreatment-in-care reporting to OPM improved substantially, to 98% in Period 18 from 88% in Period 17. Complete maltreatment-in-care reporting to the three statewide offices responsible for identifying patterns in such reports remains critical to the State’s ability to successfully prevent maltreatment in care. For Period 18, data collected directly from the DFCS Policy Unit indicate that administrative packets were received for 81 (100%) of the 81 maltreatment-in-care investigations completed during Period 18. This was similar to Period 17 when the Policy Unit was notified of 79 of 79 investigations (100%). Forty-two (52%) of the 81 reports the Policy Unit received for Period 18 were received within the 10-day window specified by DFCS policy.28 This rate remains low but represents an 8 percentage point increase from the 44 percent of maltreatment-in-care reports received within the 10 day window in Period 17.29 Table III-7 displays data on reporting of maltreatment-in-care investigations to the DFCS Policy Unit.
28 Social Services Manual, Section 2106.11, Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, July 2005. 29 The 10-day Policy Office notification requirement eventually may be rendered obsolete by the release during Period 13 of a SHINES enhancement intended to automate reporting of maltreatment in care investigations. However, the report is triggered by completion of the “Special Investigations” tab in SHINES. In Period 17 the Special Investigation tab was completed for only 54 of 79 investigations (68%).
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 37

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 43 of 216

Table III-7 Policy Unit Notification of Period 18 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations N=79

Investigating

Total Investigations

Notified

Not Notified

County

Number

Number % of Total Number % of Total

DeKalb

26

26

100%

Fulton

14

14

100%

Bibb

1

1

100%

Cherokee

1

1

100%

Clayton

6

6

100%

Cobb

4

4

100%

Douglas

5

5

100%

Greene

1

1

100%

Gwinnett

7

7

100%

Henry

1

1

100%

Lamar

1

1

100%

Muscogee

3

3

100%

Newton

2

2

100%

Rockdale

2

2

100%

Troup

2

2

100%

Walton

1

1

100%

State SIU

4

4

100%

Total

81

81

100%

Source: Survey of Notification of CPS Investigations in Foster Care Settings, July 1 – December 31, 2014.

The Period 18 file review of maltreatment-in-care investigations included 52 investigations of maltreatment that occurred in provider-supervised settings and therefore might have been reported to RCC and OPM.30 Data collected directly from RCC indicate that RCC was notified of 44 (92%) of the 48 investigations of which it should have been notified, similar to the 93 percent in Period 17. Table III-8 displays data on county reporting of maltreatment-in-care investigations to RCC.

DeKalb County completed the largest number of maltreatment-in-care investigations in provider-supervised settings at 9, with all 9 (100%) being reported to RCC. Fulton County

30 There were 52 investigations that involved children placed in provider-supervised settings, but four of these fell outside the jurisdiction of RCC and thus were excluded from the RCC tabulations presented in Table III-8. In three cases, the alleged maltreatment occurred in a Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) which operates under contract to the Department of Behavioral Health and Development Disabilities and is regulated by the Department of Community Health, Healthcare Facility Regulation Division. In one case, the maltreatment occurred outside the placement setting and as such, the investigation was not required to be reported to RCC (the maltreatment occurred at a school/daycare). The total of 44 investigations includes three cases of which RCC was notified even though such notification was not required since the alleged maltreatment occurred in a PRTF or outside the placement setting.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 38

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 44 of 216

completed 6 investigations in such settings, with all 6 (100%) being reported to RCC. Thirteen perimeter counties and SSIU accounted for the remaining 33 such investigations. Of these, ten perimeter counties reported all 21 of the investigations they conducted to RCC. SSIU and Douglas, Newton, and Troup counties failed to notify RCC of one investigation each.

Table III-8 Residential Child Care Notification of Period 18 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations
N=48

Investigating Total Investigations

Notified

Not Notified

County

Number

Number

% of Total Number

% of Total

DeKalb

9

9

100%

Fulton

6

6

100%

Bibb

1

1

100%

Cherokee

1

1

100%

Clayton

5

5

100%

Cobb

1

1

100%

Douglas

4

3

75%

1

25%

Gwinnett

6

6

100%

Henry

1

1

100%

Lamar

1

1

100%

Muscogee

3

3

100%

Newton

2

1

50%

1

50%

Rockdale

1

1

100%

Troup

2

1

50%

1

50%

Walton

1

1

100%

State SIU

4

3

75%

1

25%

Total

48

44

92%

4

8%

Source: Survey of Notification of CPS Investigations in Foster Care Settings, July 1 – December 31, 2014.

The Period 18 notification data illustrate that county incident reporting enables prudent, collaborative action by RCC and DFCS. Among the 44 maltreatment-in-care investigations of which RCC was informed, RCC elected to conduct a joint investigation with DFCS for 34 (77%) of them. Notifying RCC of maltreatment reports in the care settings they license is essential to the ability of RCC to effectively use that licensing authority to help prevent maltreatment in care.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 39

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 45 of 216

Investigating County DeKalb Fulton Bibb Cherokee Clayton Cobb Douglas Gwinnett Henry Lamar Muscogee Newton Rockdale Troup Walton State SIU Total

Table III-9

Office of Provider Management

Notification of Period 18 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations

N=47

Total Investigations Notified

Not Notified

Number

Number % of Total Number % of Total

9

9

100%

5

5

100%

1

1

100%

1

1

100%

5

5

100%

4

4

100%

4

4

100%

6

6

100%

1

1

100%

1

1

100%

1

1

100%

2

1

50%

1

50%

1

1

100%

2

2

100%

1

1

100%

3

3

100%

47

46

98%

1

2%

Source: Survey of Notification of CPS Investigations in Foster Care Settings, July 1 – December 31, 2014.
Complete reporting of maltreatment-in-care investigations in provider-supervised settings to the Office of Provider Management (OPM), the statewide organizational entity charged with supervising DFCS’ provider contracts, enhances OPM’s ability to be a prudent purchaser of care. The Period 18 file review of maltreatment-in-care investigations included 47 investigations of maltreatment that occurred in provider-supervised settings and should have been reported to OPM.31 OPM appears to have been notified of 46 (98%) of the 47 investigations of which it should have been notified. This is an improvement from the Period 17 rate of 89 percent. Table III-9 displays data on county reporting of maltreatment-in-care investigations to OPM.

31 There were a total of 52 investigations that involved children placed in provider-supervised settings, but five of these fell outside the jurisdiction of OPM and thus were excluded from the OPM tabulations presented in Table III9. In one case the maltreatment occurred outside the placement setting and as such, the investigation was not required to be reported to OPM (the maltreatment occurred at a school/daycare). In four cases, OPM did not have a contract with the agency.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 40

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 46 of 216
 Review by RCC and OPM of Maltreatment-in-care Reports in Provider-supervised Settings
Interviews with RCC and OPM leadership and staff indicate that every report of maltreatment in care originating in provider-supervised settings is reviewed upon receipt by designated staff in each office. Reports received and reviewed by RCC survey staff are assigned for investigation if appropriate and shared with members of the RCC leadership team and with OPM and other DFCS staff. The OPM Contracts and Risk Manager leads the review process for OPM. RCC and OPM staff meet individually or jointly, by conference call or in office conferences, with provider agencies as needed to review incident reports and provider compliance with rules and regulations.
The results of these meetings have included:
 Where appropriate, RCC has issued Enforcement Actions (civil penalties, restricted license and revocation of license) on some licensed facilities.
 Where patterns of repeat maltreatment have been identified, OPM follows up with the provider by addressing the outcome of the CPS investigation via phone conference, office conference, or a visit to the facility. Corrective action plans are implemented to correct areas of deficiency. Pending agreement on a corrective action plan or, in some instances, completion of it, intake may be suspended for that provider.
 After a corrective action plan is implemented to address any identified areas of deficiency, the provider’s compliance with it is monitored via a higher frequency of announced and unannounced visits. On a case-by-case basis, review and approval by OPM of all prospective placements prior to admission may be required throughout the following quarter.
 OPM, DJJ and RCC are coordinating to conduct joint on-site investigations for more serious significant events.
Some of the specific patterns identified by RCC in Period 18 included:
 A small CCI seeking its initial license showed a pattern of poor responsiveness to RCC’s survey citations and unacceptable Plans of Correction. An office conference was held in Period 18 to discuss RCC’s concerns and the components of an acceptable Plan of Correction and corrections that were needed in order to obtain sufficient compliance for issuance of an initial license. RCC received an acceptable Plan of Correction and the facility received its initial license shortly thereafter.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 41

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 47 of 216
 A small CCI seeking its initial license continued to have difficulty providing policies and procedures that were acceptable to RCC. A second office conference was held in Period 18 after which the CCI’s license application was withdrawn.
 A small CCI that operated out of several locations demonstrated a pattern of inadequate supervision and failure to ensure that children were cared for in a safe and healthful environment. Its license was revoked during Period 18.
 Two small, related CCIs both triggered supervision concerns. One was placed under close monitoring by both RCC and OPM; investigation of the second resulted in a supervision citation, but the facility burned down before an acceptable plan of correction was received. It is now closed.
 A large CPA appeared to be operating a satellite office in a manner that would require the satellite office to have its own license. An investigation was completed in Period 17 that resulted in the provider receiving several Adverse Actions and citations for poor supervision, failure to ensure that children were cared for in a safe and healthful environment, and poor service planning. An interagency staffing with the CPA was conducted early in Period 18 after which OPM rescinded the CPA’s contract.
 A large CCI demonstrated repeated use of inappropriate discipline, including corporal punishment. A category III adverse action was imposed.
OPM’s efforts to identify maltreatment-in-care patterns have dovetailed with their ongoing development of a robust risk management approach to monitoring the contracts and performance of CPAs and CCIs. OPM meets approximately twice a month with the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ), the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities (DBHDD), DFCS Systems of Care (SOC), RCC and SSIU to review providers and compare notes of concern. This collaboration has provided an opportunity for the participants to keep each other informed, and when necessary, to coordinate their efforts on trends of concern. It has also provided a forum to share strategies and observations with respect to significant events that require a more in depth review, corrective action or investigation.
General trends identified by OPM during Period 18 include:  Inadequate supervision leading to more CPS investigations;  Poor staff hiring decisions;  Poor physical plants;  Increases in: 1. Significant Events reporting for child on child physical confrontations; 2. Involvement of police for drug related issues; 3. Psychiatric emergencies, and;
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 42

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 48 of 216
4. Reported suicidal threats.
2. Corporal Punishment in Foster Homes
Section 12C of the Consent Decree contains process and practice requirements related to the prohibition of corporal punishment in foster care settings and investigations/assessments of reports of corporal punishment. 32 The following discussion summarizes the requirements, DFCS’ approach to meeting them, and the extent of documented compliance in Period 18.
a. Awareness of Corporal Punishment Prohibition
All placement settings are to prohibit the use of corporal punishment. In 160 of160 foster home records sampled (100%), there was a signed written statement or other evidence that foster parents understood and agreed to comply with DFCS’ prohibition on the use of corporal punishment. This is unchanged from the Period 17 performance of 100 percent.
b. Enforcement of Corporal Punishment Prohibition
Enforcement of the corporal punishment prohibition in DFCS-supervised foster homes is carried out by the County DFCS offices. Enforcement in private provider placements is carried out by child placing agencies (CPAs), Residential Child Care (RCC), and the Office of Provider Management (OPM). RCC requires CPAs, Child Caring Institutions, and Outdoor Child Caring Programs to have written policies prohibiting corporal punishment as a condition of licensure. RCC monitors compliance with this requirement by means of a pre-licensure review of all provider policies. When RCC receives a confirmed or substantiated report of corporal punishment in a provider supervised foster home RCC reviews the file to determine if the foster parent signed the CPA’s discipline policy.
OPM requires providers to refrain from using corporal punishment as part of the Room, Board, and Watchful Oversight (RBWO) Provider Contract, the Foster Home Minimum Standards, and the Prospective Provider Application. OPM enforces this prohibition through site visits to CCIs, CPAs and a sample of the foster homes they supervise, and through reviewing a sample of the foster home files the CPAs maintain.
c. Compliance with Corporal Punishment Prohibition Compliance with the corporal punishment prohibition appeared to improve in Period 18. The foster home record review of 160 randomly selected foster homes looked for evidence in the foster home record that foster parents or other placement resources used corporal punishment or permitted it to be used on any foster child, whether or not a subsequent investigation or assessment confirmed the allegation. Such evidence was found in ten of the 160 foster home records reviewed (6%). This was similar to Period 17, during which such evidence was found in
32 See pp 29-30, paragraph 12.C of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 43

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 49 of 216
the records of eight of the sampled foster homes (5%). Nevertheless, as indicated in the discussion above of Outcome 6, the use of corporal punishment was confirmed in only two of the ten foster homes.
In addition, the review of child records of 175 randomly selected children in foster care during Period 18 identified two alleged instances of corporal punishment (2%), both in relative placements, but no confirmed instances. This is an improvement over Period 17, when there were three confirmed instances of corporal punishment discovered in the sample of children in foster care.
The review of the 81 maltreatment-in-care reports investigated during the reporting period identified seven reports (9%) that began as an allegation of corporal punishment. This compares to four of the 79 maltreatment-in-care reports (5%) during Period 17 that began with corporal punishment allegations. One of the seven investigations (14%) completed during Period 18 that began with an allegation of corporal punishment found maltreatment to be substantiated.
d. Screening and Assessment of Corporal Punishment Allegations
Section 12 C. of the Consent Decree requires any screened-out allegation of corporal punishment to receive an “assessment” and contains certain mandatory safeguards and requirements applicable to all foster homes while screened-out reports of corporal punishment are being assessed.33 Allegations of corporal punishment must be screened by qualified CPS (rather than foster care) staff. Depending on the screening conclusions, the allegations may be responded to differently. Where reasonable cause exists to believe abuse or neglect occurred, or if the allegations arose in a group care setting, the allegations must be treated as an abuse referral and investigated accordingly. If the screener concludes that reasonable cause does not exist, the Consent Decree requires a timely assessment of the allegations and that a “hold” be placed on any further placements until the assessment is complete.
In DeKalb and Fulton counties, incoming complaints are screened by the centralized intake unit known as the CPS Intake Communications Center (CICC).34 Those showing reasonable cause are assigned to the Special Investigations unit with a 24 hour response time; those lacking reasonable cause are recommended to be screened out. In both counties, referrals for alleged maltreatment in care may be screened out only with the approval of the county director or his/her designee. The county director, deputy, and Safety Response System (SRS) expert are copied on all CICC emails in which the recommendation is screen out. In both counties, any complaint alleging corporal punishment of children in Child Caring Institutions (CCIs) must be reported to CICC for disposition. Such referrals are always assigned as Special Investigations. According to the state, a new policy, implemented at the end of Period 17, allows OPM staff to conduct assessments of corporal punishment allegations that occur within CCI’s. This appears
33 See Consent Decree, pp. 29-30. 34 The CICC assumed all CPS intake responsibilities for DeKalb and Fulton counties effective September 16, 2013.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 44

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 50 of 216
to be in direct violation of the Consent Decree, which requires that corporal punishment allegations in CCI’s be conducted as investigations.35 This will be further discussed with the state and clarified during the Period 19 report.
In both counties, corporal punishment allegations against DFCS-supervised foster homes that do not meet the criteria for a CPS investigation are to receive an “assessment.” The Region 14 Resource Development team conducts the assessment and decides if the home should be closed, placed under a corrective action plan, or if counseling or other support services are needed. While the assessment is being conducted, the home is to be placed on “hold” (barred from receiving additional placements).
In both counties, corporal punishment allegations against provider-supervised foster homes are referred to CICC for disposition. Cases that fail to meet the criteria for a CPS investigation are to receive an “assessment” from the Special Investigations unit, are to be referred to OPM and RCC, and the DFCS placement worker is to follow up with the supervising CPA in regard to their corrective action plan and its monitoring. However, unbeknownst to the Accountability Agents, the State changed its practice during Period 18 and officially changed its policy in January 2015. According to the state, under its revised policy, corporal punishment allegations against CPA foster homes are referred to CICC for disposition. Cases that fail to meet the criteria for a CPS investigation are referred to The Office of Provider Management (OPM). The CPA is notified that a corporal punishment allegation was made and will need to be assessed. The CPA is then responsible for completing the assessment, which includes going out within 24 hours to initiate the assessment and having the full assessment completed in 15 days, The CPA then submits its findings and plan of action to OPM, including if a curative action plan (CAP) is warranted. The assessment is reviewed by OPM for concurrence/approval to ensure all pertinent issues were adequately addressed, and any proposed CAP is adequate to remedy the identified policy violation prior to granting final approval. OPM makes the final decision whether a CAP is warranted, and works through the issues with the agency if they are not in agreement. The home is placed on hold in Georgia SHINES to prevent additional placements from occurring during the policy violation assessment process. If deemed appropriate, the home may also be placed on hold during the period of an applicable CAP. OPM serves as the final approval authority for any corporal punishment assessment and CAP related to a CPA family foster home. The Accountability Agents were not informed about this change, discovered the discrepancy during the file review and will report more about the impact of this change during the Period 19 report.
As noted above, ten of the 160 foster homes in the Period 18 sample had an allegation in the previous 12 months that corporal punishment was used. For eight of these homes the allegation was screened-out by the CICC as a policy violation. In each of these cases, the allegation received a formal assessment after being screened out.
35 Consent Decree Section 12 C. 2., “All reports of suspected corporal punishment in child caring institutions shall be treated as an abuse referral and forwarded immediately to the Child Protective Services Supervisor who will follow policy requirements for abuse or neglect reports.”
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 45

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 51 of 216
e. Follow-up of Screen-out Decisions One of the two homes in which the State’s assessment confirmed that corporal punishment was used was closed on March 31, 2015 since this was the home’s second violation. This is in conformance with the Consent Decree, which requires that a home be closed if the policy violation represents the home’s second Discipline or Other Serious Foster Care violation. Another incident was screened out and received an assessment that confirmed the allegation of corporal punishment. Despite this, no policy violation was entered into the record, and no Corrective Action Plan was developed after the allegation was confirmed. This is a serious problem, not only because unaddressed policy violations represent tolerance of prohibited corporal punishment, but because many of the requirements and safeguards defined in Section 12 C are contingent upon the existence of an accurate record of each foster home’s policy violations. In addition to requiring that corporal punishment referrals screened out as policy violations receive an assessment, Section 12 C stipulates certain mandatory actions to address such policy violations:
 The home is to be closed if the policy violation had a direct impact on safety, wellbeing, or posed a serious risk to the child;
 The home is to be closed if the policy violation represents the home’s second Discipline or Other Serious Foster Care violation;
 The home is to be closed if the family is not amenable to change or intervention;  The home may remain open if none of the above conditions are present and the
home is placed under a Corrective Action Plan that is agreed upon and signed by all parties and appropriately monitored and enforced.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 46

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 52 of 216
Part IV PERMANENCY
Children in Care Maintain Family Connections and Achieve Permanency Several of the Consent Decree outcomes and practice requirements focus on various components of achieving permanency for children. This part reports on the State’s progress in the areas related to children in DFCS custody maintaining their family connections and safely returning home or achieving permanency with new families. A. Outcome Performance Table IV-1 on the next two pages provides the most recent measured performance summary for each of the permanency outcomes. The discussion following Table IV-1 provides a more detailed description of State performance. This discussion includes a summary of the Consent Decree requirements, interpretation and measurement issues associated with the outcomes, and contextual information as necessary for better understanding the State’s performance at the end of Period 18. This part also includes charts that display the State’s permanency performance trends over the 12 most recent reporting periods or the applicable reporting periods to date.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 47

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 53 of 216

Table IV-1 Permanency Outcomes

Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
Outcome 7: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care. Outcome 16: At least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. Outcome 19: At least 90% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b (ii) and (iii). Outcome 21: At least 85% of all children with the goal of reunification shall have appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. Outcome 23: At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling-group visits shall occur during the reporting period. Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.36
Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 4: No more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have reentered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 8b: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entry: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, or shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less after entering: adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship. Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 month backlog pool”): For all children remaining in the 24 month backlog pool after the fourth reporting period at least 40% by the end of the fifth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.

Period 18 Performance
97% 59% 93% 85%
92%
Period 18 Performance
10.6% 58%
65%
16.7%

36 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 23 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 48

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 54 of 216

Table IV-1, continued Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “over 24 month backlog pool”): For all children remaining in the over 24 month backlog pool after the fourth reporting period at least 35% by the end of the fifth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 11: For all children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights. Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Outcome 15: At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Outcome 27: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s sixmonth case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review. Outcome 28: At least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.

0%
81% First Period
94% One Time Measure First period
30% One time measure
0%
96%
95%
97%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 49

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 55 of 216
1. Children in Placement Maintain Family Connections: Outcomes 7, 16, 19, 21, and 23
One of the Consent Decree principles is “all non-destructive family ties should be maintained and nurtured.”37 Preserving connections between children and their families, friends, and community is an important strategy for achieving permanency when those relationships are not destructive. Preservation of these connections starts with placing children close to the home and community from which they were removed, with family resources whenever possible and with their siblings who may also be removed. Regular visits between children and parents and among separated siblings are also critical to maintaining family ties and achieving permanency.
Outcome 7 – Diligent Search
A “reasonably diligent search is required by law (O.C.G.A. Section 15-11-211) to identify those individuals who may be considered a resource for placement or custody of the child.”38 The Consent Decree, in Outcome 7, requires the diligent search for parents and relatives be undertaken and documented within 60 days of entry for at least 95 percent of the children entering care.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The performance of Outcome 7 was measured based on the placement records of the 56 children who entered custody between July-December 2014 and remained in care at least 60 days out of the sample of 175 randomly selected placement case records. The review of these cases was conducted between February and May, 2015. The outcome requirement for undertaking a diligent search within 60 days was deemed to have been satisfied if one of the following conditions was met:39
 The child was placed with a family resource within 60 days after entering custody; or,  A court order stated that the diligent search had been properly and timely submitted to
the court; or,  There were documented search efforts that included: interviewing children40 about
adults in their lives or someone with whom they would want to live and interviewing one or more family members or family friends within 60 days and, when resources were identified, contacting or attempting to contact them.
37 See p. 4, principle 2 in the Consent Decree. 38 Social Services Manual, Chapter 1000, Section 1002.3.1, Georgia Department of Social Services 39 See Dimas, J. T and Morrison, S. A. Period VIII Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue, July 2010 Appendix B for a fuller description of the interpretation and measurement issues associated with Outcome 7. 40 If the child was aged 3 or younger, the record review did not seek to determine if the child was interviewed.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 50

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 56 of 216

b. State Performance

 The State Surpassed the Outcome 7 Threshold.

The file documentation indicated that a diligent search was undertaken and documented for 54 (97%) of the 56 children in the subsample. The Consent Decree requires at least 95 percent of children entering care in the reporting period to have a diligent search undertaken and documented within 60 days. This performance is a decrease from the Period 17 performance of 100 percent, but still surpasses the required threshold.

Although the overall performance surpassed the Consent Decree standard, engaging fathers and paternal relatives in the process still seems to be a challenge for the department. In Period 18, out of the 56 cases reviewed for diligent search efforts, 10 fathers were interviewed (18% compared to 22% in Period 17), fourteen participated in the family team meetings (25% compared to 37% in Period 17), and 34 paternal relatives were identified as potential resources (61% compared to 73% in Period 17).

Table IV-2 provides the number and frequency of different types of diligent search actions undertaken on behalf of the 56 sampled children. The State’s performance over the nine reporting periods for which the outcome has been measured is displayed in Figure IV-1.

Table IV-2 Diligent Search Actions Undertaken
N=56

Actions Children placed with a family resource within 60 days of entering custody
Court order documented that the diligent search was “properly and timely” submitted Evidence of interviews with child and child’s family and others within first 60 days and contact made with one or more possible resource, as applicable Subtotal for Outcome Measurement Insufficient search activities in first 60 days: no documented interviews of children to gather information about relatives and significant others (children ranged in age from 5 to 17)

Number
10 19
25 54
2

Percent
18% 34%
45% 97%
3%

Total
Source: Case Record Review, September - October 2014.

56

100%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 51

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 57 of 216
Figure IV-1 Nine Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 7:
Diligent Searches Undertaken Within 60 Days
Source: Case Record Reviews
Outcome 19 – Placement Proximity Outcome 19 requires that children in foster care must be placed within the same county from which they were removed or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed.41
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues The measurement of Outcome 19 performance is based on the sample of 175 children in foster care at any time between July 1 and December 31, 2014.
b. State Performance  The State Surpassed the Outcome 19 Threshold The State placed 162 children (93%) within the designated proximity to the homes from which they were removed or according to the accepted reason for a more distant placement. The outcome performance threshold is 90 percent.
41 See p. 35, Outcome 19, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 52

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 58 of 216
One hundred and fifty-six children (89%) were placed within the same county or within a 50 mile radius from the home from which they were removed. Six additional children were not placed within the designated proximity but were considered to be appropriately placed because they met the following exceptions allowed under the consent decree:
 Three children had needs so exceptional that they cannot be met by family  One child was placed with relatives through ICPC  One child was is in an adoptive placement, and  One child was placed with parent/guardian According to the documentation in their files, a total of 13 children (7%) did not meet the requirements or the allowable exceptions. This is more than double the amount that did not meet the requirements in Period 17 (6 children). The state has consistently surpassed this Outcome Measure since Period 2 when it was first measured. However, the decreased performance during Period 18, indicates a need to recruit more foster homes within and in close proximity to Region 14. During Period 19, the lack of foster homes resulted in youth being placed in hotels. The state has since instituted a more robust recruitment campaign that will be discussed in the Period 19 report. The distribution of all children in the sample among placement locations is displayed in Figure IV-2. The State’s performance over the 12 most recent reporting periods is displayed in Figure IV-3 and reflects the State’s consistent achievement of this outcome.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 53

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 59 of 216 Figure IV-2
Child Placement Proximity to Home of Removal N=175
Source: Case Record Review February – May 2015.
Figure IV-3 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 19:
Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews of a sample of 175 children, February – May 2015.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 54

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 60 of 216
Outcome 21 – Parent-Child Visitation National studies have found that children who have frequent, regular contact with their birth parents are more likely to be successfully reunified with them. Outcome 21 seeks to ensure that appropriate visitation takes place between children and their parent(s)/guardian(s) by setting a target for the proportion of children who visit with their parents/guardian(s), but there are no stipulations as to timing or visit content.
State Performance  The State Met the Outcome 21 Threshold According to the state data, during Period 18, 3381 visits between parents and children (or children and other individuals with whom they were to be reunified) were required to progress toward reunification and 2871 (85%) of those visits occurred.42 The performance threshold for this outcome is 85 percent. This performance is a decrease from the Period 17 performance of 94 percent, but marks the twelfth straight review period in which the state has met or exceeded the required threshold. It is important to note that there were 15.5 percent more visits required during Period 18 than in Period 17. The increase was especially high in DeKalb County during the months of September and October. At the same time, the turn-over rate of case managers increased, leaving fewer case managers to facilitate the visits. Figure IV-4 displays the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.
Figure IV-4 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 21: Children are Appropriately Visiting with their Parent(s) to Progress Toward Reunification
Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, sample size varies, January 2009– December 2014.
42 See Appendix B for a discussion of how “appropriate visitation” was determined.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 55

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 61 of 216
Outcome 16 – Sibling Placement and Outcome 23 - Sibling Visitation
The Consent Decree stipulates a sibling placement standard43 that intends to keep siblings connected and establishes two performance outcomes related to maintaining sibling bonds. Outcome 16 requires at least 80 percent of all foster children entering care with one or more siblings to be placed with all of their siblings. Outcome 23 requires at least 90 percent of the sample to have monthly visits between siblings in care that are not placed together, unless specific circumstances preclude such visits.44
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
A total of 365 children entered custody in a sibling group of two or more during Period 18. Among the 365 children, 10 children were separated from siblings due to their special medical, developmental or behavioral needs or the special needs of their sibling. Eighteen additional children were not placed with all of their siblings because they have different fathers and they were placed with their paternal relatives. Removing these 28 children from the analysis (which conforms to the standard for exceptions established in previous reporting periods) leaves 337 children with which to measure Outcome 18 performance. This number compares to the 363 children in applicable sibling groups in Period 17, and 251 children in applicable sibling groups in Period 16. It also affirms the state’s explanation that with the increased number of children who entered care, many of them entered in sibling groups.
b. State Performance – Outcome 16
 The State Fell Short of the Outcome 16 Threshold
Of the 337 children who entered custody with one or more siblings in Period 18 and did not have a special placement need or an exception as discussed above, 198 children (59%) were placed with all of their siblings.45 Outcome 16 requires at least 80 percent of children entering care with siblings to be placed with all their siblings. This is similar to the performance of 57 percent of children who were placed with all of their siblings during Period 17. Figure IV-5 illustrates the sibling placement pattern in Period 18 and Figure IV-6 displays the State’s performance over the 12 most recent reporting periods.
According to the counties, 78 children (in 17 total sibling groups) from the group of 139 that were not placed with all siblings were separated because they were part of large sibling groups of 4 or more. The remaining 61 children were in smaller sibling groups that were not all placed together upon entering care.
43 See p. 16, paragraph 5C.4.d of the Consent Decree. 44 See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 45 All of their siblings that did not themselves require a separate setting because of special needs.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 56

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 62 of 216 Figure IV-5
Sibling Group Placement for Period 18 Foster Care Entries N=337
Source: SHINES report, verified.
Figure IV-6 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 16:
Sibling Groups are Together in Placements
Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews and SHINES reports, February - May 2015.
As indicated in Table IV-3, the State’s performance on Outcome 16 since Period 7 appears to be influenced by the number of larger sibling groups entering care. In the periods in which the
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 57

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 63 of 216

State achieved compliance (Periods 10 and 15) fewer than 25 sibling groups of three or more entered care. In six out of the seven periods in which the State failed to achieve the standard (Periods 11, 12, 14, 16, 17 and 18) the number of sibling groups of three or more entering care exceeded 43. The need to increase the number of foster home placements that are able to accommodate larger sibling groups and examine its current practices and policies regarding the placement of siblings has been highlighted consistently in several of the most recent monitoring reports. The state has instituted more targeted recruitment efforts and the state has allotted over five million additional dollars toward recruitment, retention and support of foster parents. The accountability agents will report on the state’s efforts in future reports. Table IV-3 displays sibling group sizes and Outcome 16 performance for each of the last nine reporting periods.

Sibling Group Size
2 children 3 children 4 children 5 children 6 children 7 children 8 children 9 children 10 children 11 children

Table IV-3

Sibling Group Sizes in Period 10 through Period 18

(July 2010- December 2014)

Number of Sibling Groups by Size of Group

Period Period Period Period Period Period Period

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

42

56

47

61

39

51

52

13

26

27

25

29

8

25

3

12

11

5

8

11

8

4

4

4

5

6

2

10

2

2

2

3

3

2

3

1

2

1

Period 17 56 33 18 11 2
1

Period 18 55 33 26 7 1 1 1

1

Total Number

of Sibling

Groups with 3

20

46

47

37

44

24

49

66

69

or more

children

Outcome

Performance

94%

74%

74%

81%

66%

76%

71% 57% 59%

Source: SHINES reports for designated reporting periods.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 58

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 64 of 216
c. State Performance – Outcome 23  The State Surpassed the Outcome 23 Threshold For Outcome 23, 92 percent of the required monthly visits among siblings in custody but in separate placements occurred, surpassing the Consent Decree’s sibling visitation requirement of 90 percent.46 Figure IV-7 displays the State’s performance over the last seven reporting periods.
Figure IV-7 Seven Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 23:
Sibling Visits
Source: County databases
2. Children Achieve Permanency: Outcomes 8, 9, 10, 11, 4, 14, 15, 27, and 28 Permanency for a child can be achieved in many ways. Subject to the absolute constraint represented by child safety, the initial focus of child welfare work is always on reunification with the birth parents or other reunification resource. Should that result be unattainable, the state may pursue guardianship to a relative or adoption by a relative, another family member, or a family specifically recruited for the child. Legal guardianship is also a means of securing permanency for a child. Table IV-4, provides the distribution of permanency goals across the sample of 175 children.
46 See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 59

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 65 of 216

Table IV-4 Permanency Goals of Children
N=175

Permanency Goal

Number Percent

Judicially Determined/Presumed Reunification*

36

21%

Concurrent Goal (Reunification and another goal; or, in some cases, Adoption and another goal)

97

55%

Adoption

29

17%

Guardianship

8

5%

Custody to a Fit and Willing Relative

1

1%

Long Term Foster Care

1

1%

Emancipation

3

2%

No permanency goal established

0

0%

Total

175

100%

Source: Case Record Review, –February – May 2015. *Presumed re-unification goal for children in care for less than

12 months.

In the case record review of a sample of 175 children in foster care, 114 (65%) did not have any documented barriers to permanency. As of December 31, 2014, 129 children in the sample remained in care. Of those remaining in care, 75 children (58%) had no documented barriers to permanency. Among the 54 other children remaining in care, the following barriers were documented in their files:
 Parent behavior/circumstances including: o Parents not participating in services; not visiting with child; o Parents whereabouts unknown; o Substance abuse/mental health issues impeded resource’s ability to effectively participate; o Limited housing and economic opportunities: parents cannot obtain the necessary housing and employment or income support to adequately provide for their children; o Parent moved out of the state; o Parent incarcerated and escaped; o Criminal allegations still pending or no contact bonds in place in Superior Court.
 Child behavior/ circumstances including: o Child wishes to remain in care; o Child is on frequent runaway; o Child has behavioral or medical issues; and o Child’s immigration status.
 Adoption finalization roadblocks including: o DFCS unable to identify an adoptive resource; and o Termination of parental rights (TPR) is pending but not complete.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 60

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 66 of 216

Outcome 8a and 8b – Permanency Exits for Those Children Who Entered DeKalb or Fulton Custody on or After October 27, 2005

Outcome 8 (parts [a] and [b]) relates to children that enter custody after the effective date of the Consent Decree (October 27, 2005). The difference between Outcome 8a and Outcome 8b lies in how they treat three permanency outcomes: adoption, permanent legal custody (live with other relatives) and guardianship. In January 2014, the state changed its policy and no longer seeks to transfer permanent legal custody without a guardianship or adoption. Table IV-5 below summarizes the differences between Outcome 8a and Outcome 8b.

Table IV-5 Requirements for Outcome 8(a) and (8b)

Permanency Exit Reunification Permanent Placement with Relatives Permanent Legal Custody Adoption Guardianship

Outcome 8(a) Timeframe Within 12 months of Entry Within 12 months of Entry Within 12 months of Entry Within 12 months of Entry Within 12 months of Entry

Outcome 8(b) Timeframe
Within 24 months of Entry Within 24 months of Entry Within 24 months of Entry

To meet the requirements of 8(a), the indicated permanency outcomes must be achieved within 12 months of a child’s entering State custody; to meet the requirements of 8(b), the indicated permanency outcomes must be achieved within 24 months of entry. With respect to two other permanency outcomes – reunification and permanent placement with relatives (i.e. living with relatives but remaining in the State’s legal custody)47 – the requirements of 8(a) and 8(b) are identical: to be “counted” toward the outcome performance requirements, each must be achieved within 12 months of a child’s entering State custody.

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The data for this outcome is for the universe of children entering care since the inception of the Consent Decree, as reported by the State from the SHINES system. The Accountability Agents worked with the State to reconcile and validate the data.

47 The Consent Decree stipulates for a relative who is “willing to assume long-term responsibility for the child but has reasons for not adopting the child or obtaining guardianship or permanent legal custody, and it is in the child’s best interest to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship by another person.” In these circumstances, the child remains in the custody of the state with the relative committing to the “permanency and stability” of the placement. This is called “permanent placement with relatives”.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 61

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 67 of 216
b. State Performance
 The State Surpassed the Threshold for Outcome 8a and Fell Short of the Threshold for Outcome 8b
Through December 2014, 11,366 children had entered DFCS custody since October 27, 2005. From this cohort of children, 6619 children (58%) exited by December 31, 2014 to live with their parents, other relatives, guardians or were adopted by new families within 12 months of entering State custody (Outcome 8a). The performance threshold for 8a is 40 percent. The State’s performance on Outcome 8a in Period 18 is similar to the performance in Period 17 (58 %). The State has surpassed the Outcome 8a standard in every reporting period to which it applied.
Another 812 children were adopted or exited to the custody of relatives or to legal guardians between 12 and 24 months of entering foster care (Outcome 8b), bringing the total that exited to the designated permanency arrangements within the time frames specified in the Consent Decree to 7431 or 65 percent of the total cohort. The Period 18 performance was similar to the Period 17 performance (65%) and does not meet the threshold of 74 percent required by the Consent Decree.
Table IV-6 provides the distribution of all the children in the Outcome 8 cohort who exited custody by the end of December 2014. An additional 1655 children (15% of the cohort) exited to one of the designated permanency arrangements but these exits occurred outside the designated time frames for the outcomes. Although these children cannot be “counted” toward either Outcome 8a or 8b, the Accountability Agents recognize the achievement of permanency for these children. The proportion of children who have entered State custody since the advent of the Consent Decree and are still in care decreased from 13 percent at the end Period 14 to 11 percent in Period 18. However, in Period 18, more children entered care (710) compared to the number that exited care (643). This is the second consecutive period in which this pattern exists. However, the Governor’s new budget includes funding to hire additional case managers who will begin as soon as July 1, 2015. Beginning in March 2015, the state began implementing a new Child Welfare Employee Selection Protocol. The protocol is a research based guide that provides tasks designed to provide new job applicants with comprehensive information about social services positions in order to make informed decisions about being employed by the agency. Moreover, under a revised Curative Action Plan that commenced in December 2014, the state agreed to hold bi-monthly hiring panels to mitigate any gaps in the hiring and training process.
Figure IV-8 displays the State’s performance over the 12 most recent reporting periods. Figure IV-9 illustrates the exit outcomes for all children who have entered State custody since the start of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 62

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 68 of 216

Table IV-6

Outcome 8

Children Entering DFCS Custody on or after October 27, 2005

Who Exited to Permanency by December 31, 2014

Children who entered custody

on or since October 27, 2005

Number of children in cohort

11366

Exits as of December 31, 2014

8(a)

8(b)

Reunification within 12 months

5206

5206

Permanent Placement with Relatives within 12 months (still in state custody)

0

0

Permanent Legal Custody within 12 months (custody transferred from DFCS)

866

866

Permanent Legal Custody between 12 and 24 months (custody transferred from DFCS)

363

Adoption within 12 months

28

28

Adoptions between 12 and 24 months

216

Guardianship within 12 months

519

519

Guardianships between 12 and 24 months

233

Total Exits for Outcome Measurement

6619

7431

Percentage Exiting for Outcome Measurement

58%

65%

Number Exited to Permanency but not in required time frame

1655 (15%)

Other exits (transfer to other counties, emancipation, etc.)

1082(10 %)

Total number exiting

10168 (89%)

Remaining number in cohort on December 31, 2014

1198 (11 %)

Average length of stay:

Demographics of those still in DFCS custody at December 31, 2014 16 months

Median length of stay:

10 months

Average Age: 8 years

47% female, 53% male

Source: SHINES, and county tracking systems.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 63

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 69 of 216 Figure IV-8
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 8: Permanency for Children Entering Foster Care since October 27, 2005
Source: State data systems, IDS and SHINES
Figure IV-9 Foster Care Outcomes of 11366 Children Entering Custody since October 27, 2005*
Source: SHINES, and county tracking systems *Positive Permanency exits include reunification, adoption, guardianship, permanent legal custody, and permanent placement with relatives. Other exits include emancipation and transfer to other counties or states.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 64

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 70 of 216

c. Operational Context
As a result of ongoing discussions between the parties about the Outcome 8b performance and a request by Plaintiffs' Counsel in February 201248, the State began providing a special “entry cohort” analysis of the State’s 8b performance to shed more light on the state’s progress. To date, this analysis has considered the permanency results over 24 months for eight separate cohorts of children. The cohorts are as follows:
 Cohort 1: All children who entered care in Period 6 – July 1 through December 31, 2008;  Cohort 2: All children who entered care in Period 7 – January 1 through June 30, 2009;  Cohort 3: All children who entered care in Period 8 – July 1 through December 31, 2009;  Cohort 4: All children who entered care in Period 9 – January 1 through June 30, 2010;  Cohort 5: All children who entered care in Period 10 – July 1 through December 31, 2010.  Cohort 6: All children who entered care in Period 11 – January 1 through June 30, 2011.  Cohort 7: All children who entered care in Period 12 – July 1 through December 31, 2011.  Cohort 8: All children who entered care in Period 13 – January 1 through June 30, 2012.  Cohort 9: All children who entered care in Period 14 – July 1 through December 31, 2012.
Specifically, this entry cohort analysis measures the proportion of children entering care in each of the designated reporting periods that achieved one of the stipulated permanency outcomes within 12 or 24 months of entry, as applicable. The result is displayed in Table IV-7.

Table IV-7 Children Achieving Timely Permanency within 24 Months of Entering Foster Care:
Results for Cohorts of Children Entering Periods 6 - 14

Cohort 1 Period 6 July to December
2008
66%

Cohort 2 Period 7 January to
June 2009
70%

Cohort 3 Period 8 July to December
2009
75%

Cohort 4 Period 9 January to
June 2010
73%

Cohort 5 Period 10 July to December
2010
73%

Cohort 6 Period 11 January to
June 2011
72%

Cohort 7 Period 12
July to December
2011
70%

Cohort 8 Period 13 January to
June 2012
68%

Cohort 9 Period 14
July to December
2012
72%

48 Email correspondence from Laurence D. Borten, Children’s Rights to Mark Cohen, Special Counsel to The Department of Human Services, February 17, 2012.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 65

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 71 of 216
Outcome 9 – Permanency Exits Among Children Who Had Been In the Custody of DeKalb or Fulton County Up To 24 Months as Of October 27, 2005
Outcome 10 - Permanency Exits Among Children Who Had Been In the Custody of DeKalb or Fulton County More Than 24 Months as Of October 27, 2005
Since Period 4 the threshold for Outcome 9 has been 40 percent and the threshold for Outcome 10 has been 35 percent. At that time 420 children remained in custody in the Outcome 9 cohort and 349 children remained in custody in the Outcome 10 cohort. At the beginning of Period 18, only 6 children remained in the cohort for Outcome 9 and only 5 remained in the cohort for Outcome 10. While permanency for every child is paramount, the numbers are so low that the state will never achieve the required thresholds and the overall percentages of children achieving positive permanency will no longer change. However, the Accountability Agents will continue reporting the permanency efforts for the children who remain in care, until no children remain in either cohort.
State Performance
 The State Fell Short of the Outcome 9 Threshold
Of the six children remaining in custody on June 30, 2014 who were in the cohort of children that had been in State custody up to 24 months as of October 27, 2005, one (16.7%) had a positive permanency exit during the period July 1 and December 31, 2014.49 One of the children remaining in care is under the age of 12. However, this child was part of a large sibling group for which the permanent plan was originally reunification. This child has also had significant mental health and behavioral issues that interfered with later permanency plans such as guardianship. He has now been stepped down in his treatment and the state continues to work towards permanency. A termination of parental rights was granted during Period 18.
 The State Fell Short of the Outcome 10 Threshold
Of the five children remaining in custody on June 30, 2014 who were in the cohort of children that had been in State custody for over 24 months as of October 27, 2005, none (0%) exited to positive permanency during the period July 1 and December 31, 2014. Three of these children exited Region 14 custody for reasons other than positive permanency during Period 18, leaving two children from the Outcome 10 cohort still in custody on December 31, 2014.
Table IV-8 depicts this information and provides additional characteristics about the children remaining in each cohort.
49 “Positive permanency exits” refers to reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption or guardianship.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 66

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 72 of 216

Table IV-8 Outcomes 9 and 10 Remaining Children Who Entered DFCS Custody before October 27 2005 and Who Exited to Permanency July 1 and December 31, 2014
Cohorts of Children

Children in custody for up Children in custody for more

to 24 months and still in

than 24 months and still in

custody on October 27, 2005 custody on October 27, 2005

(Outcome 9)

(Outcome 10)

Total

Number of children in cohort

6

5

11

Permanency Exits

Reunification

1

0

1

Adoption

0

0

0

Guardianship

0

0

0

Live with other relative

0

0

0

Permanent Placement with relatives

0

0

0

Total for Outcome Measurement

0

0

0

Percentage exiting for Outcome Measurement

16.7%

0%

Other exits (transfer to other counties, emancipation, etc.)

0

3

3

Total number exits

1

3

4

Number remaining in cohort December 31, 2014

5

2

7

Characteristics of children remaining in custody on December 31, 2014

Proportion under the age of 12

9%

0%

Average length of stay

114 months (9.5 years)

153 months (12.75 years)

Median length of stay

110 months (9.2 years)

153 months(12.75 years)

Average age

15

15

Percent female

40%

50%

Percent male

60%

50%

Source: SHINES, and county tracking systems.

Outcome 11 – Adoptions within 12 Months of Termination of Parental Rights
Outcome 11 applies to all children for whom termination of parental rights was final between July 1 and December 31, 2013. Outcome 11 stipulates that 80 percent of these children should have their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or relinquishment of parental rights.50
50 See p. 34. Outcome 11 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 67

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 73 of 216
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues The measurement uses a report from SHINES supplied by the State and verified by the Accountability Agents. In the 12 months leading up to December 31, 2014, the parents of two children appealed the judicial decision to terminate their parental rights. While the termination is under appeal, the termination of parental rights is not final. Therefore, the Accountability Agents determined that these children should be excluded from the analysis of Outcome 11 in Period 18 but included as appropriate in future reporting periods based on the timing of the appeal’s conclusion.
b. State Performance  The State Surpassed the Outcome 11 Threshold Between July 1 and December 31, 2013, the parental rights of the parents of 54 children were terminated or relinquished. Of these 54 children, 44 children (81%) were adopted/had their legal guardianships finalized within 12 months. This is the first time since Period 13 that the state has surpassed the 80 percent requirement under the Consent Decree. Consistent monitoring of and focus on these cases by case managers, supervisors, administrators and state personnel has enabled the state to recover from the policy changes within their adoption units that caused the significant decline in performance during Period 14. Table IV-9 displays the status of Children with Parental Rights Terminated between July 1 and December 31, 2013. Figure IV-12 displays the State’s Outcome 11 performance over the 12 most recent reporting periods.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 68

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 74 of 216

Table IV-9 Status as of December 31, 2014 of Children with Parental Rights Terminated between
July 1 and December 31, 2013 N=54

Adoption finalized within 12 months Guardianship Adoption or Guardianship finalized within 13 months Adoption or Guardianship finalized within 14 - 17 months Custody to relatives/other for purposes of adoption (granted within 12 months of TPR) Custody to relatives within 12 months of TPR Awaiting adoption as of December 2014 Total
Source: State reporting from SHINES.

Number
44 0 0 0

Percent
81% 0% 0% 0%

Cumulative Percent 81% 81% 81% 81%

0

0%

81%

0

0%

81%

10

19%

100%

54

100%

Figure IV-12 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 11: Children are Adopted within 12 Months of Parental Rights Termination

Source: State reporting from IDS and SHINES, January 2008 – December 2014.
When children exit foster care, it is an expectation of Georgia’s child welfare system that the children will have exited to a stable, family care arrangement. In particular, exits to reunification and adoption are intended to be life-long arrangements. The casework done while
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 69

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 75 of 216
a child is in custody and the planned aftercare can help these exits remain successful. Unfortunately, circumstances sometimes require children to re-enter care to ensure their safety or well-being. Two outcomes, Outcome 4 and Outcome 14, focus on the State’s performance in ensuring successful permanency without subsequent re-entry within one year.
Outcome 4 – Re-Entry into Custody
Outcome 4 seeks to answer the question, “Of the children entering foster care during the reporting period, what proportion had previously left custody within the 12 months prior to their entry in the reporting period?”51 That is, it is trying to identify the children who have quick successions of foster care episodes. Outcome 4 sets the same numerical standard as the national standard established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as part of its child welfare monitoring responsibility.52 However, the federal standard has generally applied to children who returned to custody after being reunified and the Consent Decree standard applies to all children, regardless of their previous discharge reason. In addition, the Federal methodology for assessing the permanency of reunification has evolved over time and now calculates permanency stability as a percentage of the children exiting care in a given period, rather than as a percentage of the children entering care. That is, the federal analysis of the permanency of reunification now asks, of all children discharged from foster care to reunification in the 12-month period prior to the current year, what percentage reentered care in less than 12 months from the date of discharge? The federal rationale for the methodological change is that a longitudinal measure of re-entry into foster is a more direct measure of how permanent an exit is than the original reentry measure.53 However, as the Outcome 4 standard is still expressed as a percentage of the children entering care, the measurement methodology upon which this report is based remains unchanged.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The measurement of Outcome 4 is based on the entire population of 710 children who entered foster care through adjudication at any time between July 1 and December 30, 2014. The State used SHINES to produce a report of the children experiencing a re-entry into foster care in Period 18. This list was verified by the Accountability Agents.
b. State Performance
 The State Fell Short of the Outcome 4 Threshold.
Of the 710 children who entered foster care between July 1 and December 31, 2014, 75 children
51 See p 32, Outcome 4, of the Consent Decree. 52See the Information Memorandum at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/policy/im/2001/im0107.htm. 53See the Child Welfare Outcomes 2004-2007: Report to Congress at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cwo0407/index.htm.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 70

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 76 of 216
(10.6%) had exited foster care at least once in the 12 months prior to their most recent entry. The outcome performance threshold is no more than 8.6 percent. This is similar to the Period 17 performance of 10.5 percent. Figure IV-13 displays the State’s Outcome 4 performance over the 12 most recent reporting periods.
Figure IV-13 Twelve Reporting Periods State Performance on Outcome 4:
Foster Care Re-entry within 12 Months of Previous Exits
Source: IDS and SHINES reports, January 2009 –December 2014.
c. Operational Context Table IV-10 displays the number of children who had multiple entries, the total number of children who entered care, and the proportion of all entries represented by those re-entering each period. The State has not met the threshold since Period 11 and the number of children reentering care has been extremely high during the last two periods, Periods 17 and 18 (77 and 75 respectively). Even though the total number of children entering care has increased during the last two periods, the rate of children re-entering remains very high which is a cause for concern. During G2 meetings the counties and accountability agents are examining the re-entry data more closely to determine some of the practice areas that may be impacting performance. There appears to be a correlation between quality discharge staffings (meetings to review the case and ensure that appropriate transitional services are put in place) and prevention of re-entry. Thus, during Period 19, the counties have been working toward increasing the rate and quality of discharge staffings. In addition, the number of teens that originally entered care due to
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 71

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 77 of 216

behavior issues are disproportionately represented in the group of children and youth who subsequently re-enter. The counties are examining the effectiveness of services offered while these youth are in foster care as well as when they transition home. More information and the results of these interventions will be discussed during the next reporting period.

Table IV-10 Number of Children Re-entering Foster Care and Total Number of Children Entering Foster Care, Periods 2-18

Number of

Total Number of Percent of

Reporting Period

Children Re-

Children

entering Foster Entering Foster

Entering Children Who Were Re-

Care

Care

Entering

Period 2: July-December 2006

71

768

9.2%

Period 3: January-June 2007

84

875

9.6%

Period 4: July-December 2007

54

590

9.2%

Period 5: January-June 2008*

44

486

9.1%

Period 6: July-December 2008

41

619

6.6%

Period 7: January-June 2009

27

561

4.8%

Period 8: July-December 2009

40

413

9.7%

Period 9: January-June 2010

53

479

11.1%

Period 10: July-December 2010

36

375

9.6%

Period 11: January-June 2011

50

584

8.6%

Period 12: July-December 2011

49

561

8.7%

Period 13: January-June 2012

55

570

9.7%

Period 14: July-December 2012

55

588

9.4%

Period 15: January 1 – June 2013

43

488

8.8%

Period 16: July 1 – December 2013

52

556

9.4%

Period 17: January 1 – June 2014

77

733

10.5%

Period 18: July 1 - December 2014

75

710

10.6%

Source: State systems, IDS and SHINES. *Measurement is actually based on entries January – May 2008 because of

the conversion to SHINES in June 2008.

Outcome 14 – Adoption Disruptions within 12 Months of Finalizations
Outcome 14 focuses on adoptions that fail or are at the brink of failure. Adoption disruptions occur when adoptive parents no longer can or no longer wish to parent the children to whom they made a lifetime commitment or when children are found to be at risk of harm and must be removed from the adoptive home. When a disruption occurs, DFCS works with these families to achieve reunification and prevent dissolution, but the effort is not always successful. The Consent Decree establishes a performance threshold that no more than five percent of adoptions finalized during a reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to finalization.54

54 See p. 34, Outcome 14, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 72

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 78 of 216
State Performance
 The State Surpassed the Outcome 14 Threshold.
Within the group of 44 children adopted between July 1 and December 31, 2013, none (0%) are known to have re-entered the State’s custody by December 31, 2014. The outcome performance threshold is no more than five percent. The State has surpassed this outcome measure in every reporting period.
Outcome 15 – Permanency Actions for Children Reaching Their 15th Month in Custody of Most Recent 22 Months
To reduce the number of children who experience long foster care stays, Federal law requires states to file for termination of parental rights when a child has been in care for 15 cumulative months of the previous 22 months. There are three exceptions to this requirement. They are:
 The child is being cared for by a relative;  The state has documented a “compelling reason” that filing a petition to terminate
parental rights would not serve the child's best interests; or  The state has not made “reasonable efforts” to reunify the family.55
Federal regulations state and DFCS policy advises that a “compelling reason” must be based on the individual case circumstances guided by what is in the best interest of the child.56
The Consent Decree Outcome 15 stipulates that 95 percent of children who reach their 15th month in care will have had either: 1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed against both parents or legal caregivers, as applicable; or 2) a compelling reason documented in the case record as to why such action is not in the best interest of the child.57
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The measurement of Outcome 15 is based on the entire population of children who, in Period 18, reached or exceeded their 15th month in custody out of the previous 22 months. As in previous periods, the Accountability Agents reviewed the compelling reason provided for each child and compared it to past information. Information provided by the counties was also verified using data from the Period 18 review of 175 randomly-selected foster care case records.
During Period 18, there were 612 children who had reached or surpassed their 15th month in custody out of the previous 22 months. A group of 59 children (10% of 612), was excluded from the Outcome 15 performance measurement based on the placement of these children with
55Adoption and Safe Families Act, see also Social Services Manual Chapter 1000, Section 1002.7, Georgia Department of Human Services. 56 See Social Services Manual, Section 1002.12.3, 1002.17, and 1013.11, Georgia Department of Human Services. 57 See p. 34, Outcome 15, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 73

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 79 of 216 relatives, as allowed under Federal law.
b. State Performance  The State Surpassed the Outcome 15 Threshold By December 31, 2014, 96 percent of the children in care 15 of the previous 22 months were legally free to be adopted or the State had filed petitions to terminate parental rights or documented compelling reasons why it had not taken such action. This is similar to the Period 17 performance of 96 percent. Table IV-11 summarizes the different components of the counties’ Period 18 performance, drawn from the data in their tracking systems. Figure IV-14 displays the State’s performance on Outcome 15 for the 12 most recent reporting periods.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 74

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 80 of 216

Table IV-11 Status of Children Who Had Been in DFCS Custody 15 of the previous 22 months
As of December 31, 2014

Category

Children who reached or surpassed their 15th month in custody of

the last 22 months between January and June 2014.*

Excepted subpopulation (s):

Children placed with relatives

The State has not made reasonable efforts to reunify the family

Number of Children for Outcome 15 Measurement

Parental Rights of Both Parents have been terminated or

relinquished.

DFCS has filed a petition to complete the termination of the

parental rights of both parents where applicable.

There is a documented compelling reason for not terminating

parental rights.

Reasons cited for not terminating parental rights Number

There is a permanency goal of return home, approved

by the Court and the child is expected to be reunited

81

with parents within 6 months.

The child is a specified age (14) or older and objects to being adopted.

107

The child has severe emotional or behavioral problems

or a serious medical condition and reunification

16

remains an appropriate goal.

The child has a permanency goal other than adoption

and is expected to achieve that goal within 12 months of

57

establishing the goal.

Parents are deceased, or have voluntarily relinquished rights.

0

The child is an unaccompanied refugee minor as defined in 45 Code of Federal Regulations 400.11.

0

The child is a child of a teen mother who is also in the State’s custody.

2

Other circumstances.

1

There is no documented Compelling Reason not to file a petition

to terminate parental rights.

There are plans to terminate parental rights, but a petition had not

yet been filed as of December 31, 2014 or date of discharge.

Source: SHINES and County tracking systems.

Number 612 59 0 553 172 93 264
0 24

Total Percent Cumulative

31%

31%

17%

48%

48%

96%

0%

96%

4%

100%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 75

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 81 of 216
Figure IV-14 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 15: Children in Care 15 of the Previous 22 Months have Petitions for Terminating Parental Rights or a Compelling Reason Not to Terminate Parental Rights
Source: County data, verified January 2009 – December 2014.
Outcome 27 – Timely Semi-annual Judicial or Administrative Case Plan Reviews Children are expected to have case plans developed within 30 days of entering State custody. According to Federal and State policy and the Consent Decree, case plans are to be reviewed by the court or designated panel within six months of entering foster care and every six months thereafter the child is in custody.58 Outcome 27 stipulates that at least 95 percent of the children are to have timely semi-annual reviews of their case plans.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues The measurement of Outcome 27 is based on the sample of 175 children in foster care at any time between July 1 and December 31, 2014. The Outcome 27 analysis was applicable to 107 children who had been in custody six months or more. This represents 61 percent of the sample of 175 children in foster care. Conclusions drawn from the subsample of 107 are subject to a margin of error of +9 percent.
58 See p. 7, paragraphs 4A.4 and pp. 7-8, paragraphs 4B.1-6, and p. 37, Outcome 27, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 76

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 82 of 216
b. State Performance  The State Exceeded the Outcome 27 Threshold Of the 107 children in the foster care sample that were in custody for six months or more by the end of the reporting period, case file documentation indicates that 102 (95%) children had documented timely plan reviews completed by the Juvenile Court or Judicial Citizen Review Panel (JCRP), or a timely request for such a review. The Outcome 27 performance threshold is 95 percent.
Figure IV-15 Twelve Reporting Periods State Performance on Outcome 27:
Timely Semi-Annual Judicial/Citizen Panel Case Reviews
Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, July 2008 – June 2014.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 77

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 83 of 216
c. Operational Context The Counties have continued implementing additional monitoring efforts to track and influence timely case plan reviews. These monitoring efforts include monthly conferences with supervisors and administrators to review SHINES data. Only 3 of the 107 children in the subsample of foster care children who had been in custody at least six months had not had their case plans reviewed by either the Juvenile Court or the JCRP in the most recent 12-month period (sometime between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014). These included the reviews considered timely for Outcome 27 as well as those that were not timely. Among the 104 reviews, DFCS sought plan changes for 21 children (20%). There were court orders documenting court approval for 70 (67%) of the 104 plans reviewed. The case files of the remaining 13 children (13%) did not contain court orders specifically indicating approval or rejection of the plans by the court. Table IV-12 provides additional information documented in the case files for these 104 case plan reviews.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 78

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 84 of 216

Table IV-12 Characteristics of Six-month Case Reviews
N= 104 (Most recent plans reviewed between July 1 and December 31, 2014)

Characteristic
Participants Birth Mother Birth Father Child Relative caregivers/ Extended Family Members/ Informal Supports Foster parents/placement providers DFCS case manager DFCS supervisor Other DFCS representative CCFA provider Private agency social worker Medical and mental health professionals Parents’ attorney(s) SAAG (Special Assistant Attorney General) Child’s advocates (attorney, Guardian Ad Litem, CASA volunteer, Child Advocate) – at least one per child
Elements Evaluated/Considered Necessity and appropriateness of child’s placement Reasonable efforts made to obtain permanency Degree of compliance with specific goals and action steps Progress made in improving conditions that caused removal Changes that need to be made to plan County recommendations Parent recommendations

Number
33 12 17 28 27 83 16 2 0 19 7 32 39 96
72 81 68 49 10 33 1

JCRP conducted review (percentage based on n=104)

61

Total JCRP reports submitted (percentage based on n=61)

46 75%

Number of reports with Panel findings (percentage based 46 75%

on n=60)

Number of reports with Panel recommendations

45 74%

(percentage based on n=60)

Number of reports with County findings (percentage

40 66%

based on n=60)

Number of reports with County recommendations

38 62%

(percentage based on n=60)

Court conducted review (percentage based on n=104)

43

Plan adopted by Juvenile Court (percentage based on n=104)

75

Source: Case Record Review, –– February – May 2015.

Percent
32% 12% 16% 26% 26% 80% 15% 2% 0% 9% 7% 30% 38% 92%
69% 78% 65% 47% 10% 32% 1% 59%
41% 72%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 79

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 85 of 216
Outcome 28 – Timely Annual Judicial Permanency Reviews According to Federal and State policy and the Consent Decree, children are expected to have a judicial permanency hearing at least every 12 months they are in custody.59 These hearings are held to determine whether the State is making reasonable efforts to help children achieve permanency.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues The measurement of Outcome 28 performance is drawn from the sample of 175 children in foster care at any time between July 1 and December 31, 2014. The outcome 28 analysis was applicable to 61 children (35%) who had been in custody 12 months or more. Conclusions drawn from the subsample of 61 children are subject to a margin of error of +11 percent.
b. State Performance  The State Surpassed the Outcome 28 Threshold Among the 61 children in the foster care sample who had been in custody for 12 months or more, 59 (97%) had timely permanency hearings held by the Juvenile Court upon reaching their 12th month in care, or a timely request for such a hearing. The performance threshold for Outcome 28 is 95 percent. The Period 18 performance is similar to the Period 17 level of 99 percent. During Period 18, 58 children had at least one permanency hearing within 12 months of entry or the previous twelve-month permanency hearing. One other child had a timely petition for a permanency hearing but continuances delayed the hearing. Figure IV-16 illustrates the State’s performance for this Outcome over the 12 most recent reporting periods.
59 See p. 9, paragraph 4B.10, and p.37, Outcome 28, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 80

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 86 of 216
Figure IV-16 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 28:
Timely Permanency Hearings
Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, January 2009 – December 2014.
B. Other Practice and Process Requirements for Helping Children Achieve Permanency
Placement with relatives has been demonstrated to help children have placement stability60 and placement stability contributes to children achieving permanency. In addition, DFCS policy and the Consent Decree requirements establish several guidelines for practice to help children achieve permanency. These requirements include regular parental visitation with children who have the permanency goal of reunification;61 internal DFCS permanency reviews for children who reach their 13th month in custody; and county-state staffings for children who reach their 25th month in custody.62 1. Placement with Relatives Within the sample of 175 children in foster care in Period 18, 30 children (17%) were placed with relatives on December 31, 2014 or the last date the children were in custody. This is a slight decrease from the number of children placed with relatives during Period 17 (22%).
60Zinn, Andrew, DeCoursey, Jan, Goerge, Robert M., Courtney, Mark E. A Study of Placement Stability in Illinois, Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2006. 61 See p 6, paragraph 4A.6vi, of the Consent Decree for visitation planning in Family Team Meetings. Visitation schedules are also an element of DFCS case planning. 62 See p. 9-10, paragraphs 4C.1-5, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 81

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 87 of 216

2. DFCS Permanency Reviews at the 13th or 25th Month in Custody.

13th Month Permanency Reviews

The State reports that regularly scheduled reviews of progress toward permanency take place in each county for children who reach their 13th month in care. According to State reported data, 140 children reached their 13th month in care in Period 18. Of these 140 children, 139 had their cases reviewed by the State permanency review team. Tables IV-13 and IV-14 summarize some of the characteristics of the 13th month permanency review practice as reported by the State for Period 18.63 Highlights from the tables include the following:

 A total of 139 cases were reviewed in Period 18. The permanency review team concurred with the goals and plans for slightly less than half, 59 (42%), of the 139 plans.
 124 case plans (89%) had the most recent court-ordered permanency plan identified as the case plan goal.
 Twenty fathers (65 %) were involved in the Family Team Meetings during Period 18.

Table IV-13 13th Month Permanency Review Implementation
July 1 through December 31, 2014 N=139

Total Cases Reviewed by State Permanency Reviewers Reviewer Concurrence with goal and plan

Number 139 59

Percent 99% 42%

Permanency Goal Reunification Permanent placement with relative Adoption Guardianship Another planned permanent living arrangement
Totals

85

61%

6

4%

24

17%

17

12%

7

5%

139

99%*

Cases with current case plans (court sanctioned/approved)

124

89%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2014 Third and Fourth

Quarterly Reports on 13th month Permanency Reviews. * 99% due to rounding.

63 The information was not independently verified by the Accountability Agents in Period 17. Period 8 reported information was verified as described in Dimas, J. T. and Morrison, S. A., Period VIII Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v Perdue, July 2010. The Accountability Agents will continue to periodically verify 13th and 25th Month Permanency Review Activity.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 82

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 88 of 216

Table IV-14 Family Team Meetings Convened for 13th Month Permanency Reviews
July 1 through December, 2014 N= varies

Number Percent

Cases with “Family Team Meetings” (FTM) within the last 90 days

74

22%

(percentages based on the number of applicable cases =114)

FTMs with mothers involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs

39

83%

held—excludes cases for which there was a TPR, a non-reunification order,

the mother’s whereabouts were unknown throughout the life of the case,

or the mother was deceased—N=47)

FTMs with fathers involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs

20

65%

held—excludes cases for which there was a TPR, a non-reunification order,

the father’s whereabouts were unknown throughout the life of the case, or

the father was deceased—N=31)

FTMs with relatives involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs

44

88%

held and potential relatives to invite — N=50)

FTMs with foster parents involved (percentages based on the number of

30

73%

FTMs held and number of children with foster parents — N= 41)

FTMs with service providers involved (percentages based on the number

27

73%

of FTMs held and number of children with service providers – N=37)

FTMs had recommendations specific to Child/Family needs (percentages

72

97%

based on N=74)

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2014. Third and

Fourth Quarterly Reports on 13th month Permanency Reviews.

Table IV-15 summarizes family and caretaker involvement in case planning as identified in the 13th month permanency review and reported by the State. The information provided by the State about involvement is different from that which it reports about Family Team Meetings. The family involvement information is a qualitative judgment by the permanency review team. It considers whether DFCS actively involved the child, family and caretaker over the period under review, not just the single event of the FTM required for the 13th month permanency review. The assessment by permanency reviewers was based on all documentation in the case file that indicated parental and/or youth involvement. Although a total of 139 cases were reviewed during Period 18, the applicable number of cases varies for each category based on several factors. Excluded are cases in which parental rights were terminated, the parents’ whereabouts were unknown, or the parent was deceased. In addition, cases with children too young to participate in case planning were excluded. Key findings from state-tabulated data include the following:

 DFCS actively involved 100 percent of substitute caretakers in case planning.  DFCS actively involved 99 percent of children old enough to participate in case
planning.  DFCS actively involved 96 percent of mothers in case planning. This is a significant

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 83

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 89 of 216

improvement from the 77 percent of mothers actively involved in case planning during Period 17.  DFCS actively involved 74 percent of fathers in case planning. This too is a significant improvement from the 60 percent of fathers actively involved in case planning during Period 17.

Table IV-15 13th Month Permanency Review: Engagement in Case Planning
July 1 through December 31, 2014 N=varies

Number

Percent

Active involvement in the case planning process

Child (n=76)

75

99%

Mother (n=106)

102

96%

Father (n=50)

37

74%

Caretaker (n=139)

139

100%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2014. Third and Fourth Quarterly Reports on 13th month Permanency Reviews.

25th Month County-State Staffings
In addition to the 13th month permanency reviews, the State reported 104 children reached their 25th month in care in Period 18. This is a 26 percent increase from the 77 children who reached their 25th month in care during Period 17. In spite of this increase, staffings were convened with the Counties for 95 children (97%). Table IV-16 provides a summary of the data related to these staffings. Reported findings include:
 In Period 18, 37 percent of plans had a goal of reunification.  In Period 18, 44 percent of plans had a goal of adoption. This is a significant increase
from the 36 percent of plans with goals of adoption during Period 17.  The proportion of children with current case plans was 97 percent (92 children). This is
an increase from the 93 percent of children with current case plans during Period 17.  The permanency review team concurred with the County’s permanency plan in 64
percent of the cases (61 children).

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 84

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 90 of 216

Table IV-16 25th Month Permanency Review Implementation
July through December, 2014 N=104

Total Cases Staffed Reviewer Concurrence with County Plan

Number 95 61

Percent 91% 64%

Permanency Goal Reunification Permanent Placement with Relative Adoption Guardianship Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement
Totals

35

37%

2

2%

42

44%

9

9%

7

7%

95

99%*

Cases with current case plans (Court sanctioned/approved)

92

97%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2014. First and Second Quarterly

Reports on 25thmonth Permanency Reviews. *99% due to rounding.

Table IV-17 summarizes family and caretaker involvement in case planning at the 25th month permanency review, as reported by the State. Although a total of 104 cases were reviewed during Period 18, the number of cases assessed for family involvement varied by type of family member. Cases excluded were those in which parental rights were terminated, the parent’s whereabouts were unknown, or the parent was deceased. In addition, cases in which children were too young to participate in case planning were excluded. Key findings from statetabulated data include the following:

 DFCS actively involved 107 applicable caretakers (100%) in case planning.  DFCS actively involved 61 children (95% of 64) old enough to participate in case
planning.  DFCS actively involved 96 percent of 56 mothers in case planning.  DFCS actively involved 71 percent of 31 fathers in case planning.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 85

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 91 of 216

Table IV-17 25th Month Permanency Review: Engagement in Case Planning
July 1 through December 31, 2014 N=varies

Number

Percent

Active involvement in the case planning process

Child (n=64)

61

95%

Mother (n=56)

54

96%

Father (n=31)

22

71%

Caretaker (n=107)

107

100%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2014. Third and Fourth Quarterly

Reports on 25thmonth Permanency Reviews.

C. Post Adoption Assistance
The State reported that 40 children were adopted between July 1 and December 31, 2014. This is an increase from the 32 children adopted during Period 17. However, still significantly less than the 88 children adopted during Period 16.
According to data obtained from the state Office of Adoptions, 37 (93%) of those children were receiving or were scheduled to receive monthly Adoption Assistance benefits and Medicaid. This proportion is similar to the proportion in Period 17. All families receiving monthly adoption assistance are also eligible to receive additional benefits to cover one-time, nonrecurring expenses. They may apply for reimbursement of non-recurring expenses of up to $1500 once the adoption is finalized. Timely reimbursement is somewhat dependent on how quickly families are able to obtain the signed adoption decree and submit the application to DFCS. Once submitted, all the appropriate data must be entered into SHINES to move the case into a post-adoption category. Sometimes, this occurs after the review period. Among the 40 families eligible for non-recurring adoption assistance, 93 percent (37 families) had received these benefits by December 31, 2014. This is significantly more than the proportion of families receiving reimbursement by the end of the Period 17 (66%).

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 86

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 92 of 216
Part V WELL-BEING
Children in Care Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity and Receive the Services They Need
Foster care is intended to be a temporary arrangement for children. During the time a child is in care, not only does he or she deserve to be safe, but the child also needs to be nurtured. The Consent Decree establishes six outcomes that are related to children’s well-being. This part reports on the State’s performance on these outcomes and the practice in assessing and meeting the needs of children in care. Corrective State actions regarding discharge planning (which were initiated in Period 6 under a negotiated agreement between the State and the Plaintiffs’ Counsel) are summarized at the end of this part. A. Outcome Performance Table V-1 provides the summary of measured performance for each of the six Well-Being Outcomes. The discussion following the table provides a more detailed description of State performance. This discussion includes a summary of the Consent Decree requirements, interpretation and measurement issues associated with the outcomes, and contextual information necessary for better understanding the State’s performance at the end of Period 18. This part also includes charts which display the State’s performance trends over the applicable reporting periods to date.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 87

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 93 of 216

Table V-1 Well-Being Outcomes

Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity
Outcome 17: At least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer placement moves during the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 18: At least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave. Outcome 20a: At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of twice monthly face-toface visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur. 64 Outcome 20b: At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, faceto-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur. 65 Outcome 22: At least 95% of the total minimum number of monthly case managercaregiver visits required during the reporting period occurs.66 Outcome 24: The percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 20 percentage points (baseline is 36%). Outcome 30: At least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.

Period 18 Performance
90%
93%
97% 98% 95% 40% 69%

1. Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity: Outcomes 17, 18, 20 and 22
The Consent Decree stipulated four Outcomes (17, 18, 20, and 22) related to children experiencing a stable placement, case manager continuity, and regular case manager visitation that have performance thresholds to be achieved and sustained.

64See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 65 Ibid. 66Ibid.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 88

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 94 of 216
Outcome 17 – Placement Stability
Once placed in an appropriate setting, a casework goal is to maintain the stability of the placement and avoid the trauma of disruption and placement into another setting. With Outcome 17, the Consent Decree establishes a threshold for placement stability by requiring that at least 95 percent of children in custody have two or fewer placement moves during the most recent 12 months in custody.67
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The federal definition of “placement” is used. As a result, runaway episodes, hospitalizations for medical treatment or psychiatric diagnosis or crisis intervention, trial home visits, respite care, and detention in locked facilities are not considered placements. The measurement of Outcome 17 performance is based on the sample of 175 children in foster care at any time between July 1 and December 31, 2014.
b. State Performance
 The State Fell Short of the Outcome 17 Threshold
For Outcome 17, 157 children (90%) of the 175 children in the foster care sample experienced two or fewer placement moves during the previous 12 months in custody. The performance threshold is 95 percent for this outcome. The Period 18 performance is similar to the performance in Period 17 (89%). Table V-2 provides a breakdown of the number of placement moves experienced by the children in the foster care sample. Figure V-1 illustrates the State’s performance over the last 12 reporting periods.
Among the 18 children in the sample who had three or more placement moves, 61 percent were aged 15 or older and the median age was 16. During Period 17, the median age was 12, indicating that older children experienced more placement moves this report period. The stated reasons for the moves varied by child (and the reasons were not the same for each move). Examples included:
 Foster parent/caregivers unable to meet the child’s behavioral or mental health needs/a different level of care was needed;
 Placement with relatives;  Frequent episodes of running away from one or more placements;  Placed with sibling (typically considered a positive step for a child); and  Behavioral improvements allowed for a “step down” placement.
67 See p. 35, Outcome 17 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 89

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 95 of 216

Table V-2 Number of Placement Moves Experienced by Children in the 12 months prior to
November 30, 2014 or the Last Date of Custody

Number of Moves
No Moves One Move Two Moves
Subtotal Three Moves Four Moves Five Moves Six Moves or more
Total
Source: Case Record Review, – –February - May 2015.

Number
82 58 17 157 5 7 3 3 175

Percent
47% 33% 10%

Cumulative Percent
80% 90%

3% 4% 1.5% 1.5%

93% 97% 98.5% 100%

Figure V-1 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 17: Children with Two or Fewer Placement Moves in Prior 12 Months

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, February -May 2015.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 90

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 96 of 216
Outcome 18 – Worker Continuity Worker continuity also contributes to a child achieving permanency more quickly and to a child’s well-being while in care. Worker transition can often lead to a delay in service delivery and court reporting while the new worker is “coming up to speed” on the child’s case and getting to know the child and family. Outcome 18 requires that at least 90 percent of children in custody have no more than two workers during their most recent 12 months in custody. There are exceptions that allow for case manager terminations, death, transfers, and temporary assignments to cover another case manager’s cases while he/she is out on sick leave. The Consent Decree also allows for each child’s one-time transfer to a Specialized or Adoptions case manager.68
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues The measurement of Outcome 18 performance is based on the entire population of children in Region 14 custody on December 31, 2014. From ongoing discussions with case managers and supervisors, the Accountability Agents have found SHINES to be very accurate in reporting caseloads and case assignments and, as a result, have a high degree of confidence in the State reported data for Outcome 18. Nevertheless, the Accountability Agents verified the State reported data by reviewing a randomly selected three percent of the records.
b. State Performance  The State Surpassed the Outcome 18 Threshold For Outcome 18, 1116 (93%) of the 1205 children in custody on December 31, 2014 had two or fewer placement case managers since January 1, 2014, once the allowable exceptions were taken into account. The performance threshold for this outcome is 90 percent. The Period 18 performance is similar to the Period 17 performance of 94 percent. Figure V-2 illustrates the State’s performance on this outcome over the last 12 reporting periods.
68 See p. 35, Outcome 18, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 91

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 97 of 216
Figure V-2 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 18: Children with Two or Fewer Placement Case Managers in Prior 12 Months
Source: State systems: SHINES and county records, January 2009 – December 2014.
Eighty-three percent (72 out of 87) of the children who had more than two case managers experienced these changes because at least one of their case managers left the agency. This is a substantial increase from Period 17 in which 63 percent of children and from Period 16 in which 42 percent of children who had more than two case managers experienced these changes because staff left the agency. Although a previous retention plan was presented by the state in conjunction with a corrective action plan, many of the strategies still had not been fully implemented during Period 18. As a result, the state negotiated a modified Curative Action Plan in December 2014. As part of that plan, the state has agreed to revise its retention plan with the assistance of Dr. Alberta Ellett, a professor at the University of Georgia, School of Social work. Dr. Ellett has conducted nationally recognized research on issues related to retention of the child welfare work force. The new plan was scheduled to be completed by January 30, 2015, with implementation to begin March 15, 2015. The state has provided the Accountability Agents with a copy of a new Employee Selection Protocol Guide that was developed in coordination with Dr. Ellett. The written plan provides a very detailed process for identifying the best candidates for employment and for providing candidates with realistic expectations regarding the job as well as the work environment. While this protocol has the potential of recruiting employees who have a higher probability of remaining with the agency, the state has also indicated that they are exploring additional retention strategies. The Accountability Agents will work with the state to test those strategies utilizing the G2 meetings as well as focus groups moving forward.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 92

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 98 of 216
Outcome 20 – Case Manager Visits with Children
Case management visits are an opportunity to engage children, assess their safety and wellbeing and address the trauma they are experiencing. Frequent quality visits can increase case managers’ knowledge about the children they serve and inform how best to pursue permanency for them. As stipulated in the Consent Decree, visits should be used to monitor and document the “child’s adjustment to placement, the appropriateness of placement to meet the child’s needs, the receipt of appropriate treatment and services by the child, the child’s safety, and service goals.”69
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Outcome 20 has two parts. Outcome 20a requires at least 96.25 percent of the total twicemonthly case manager visits to children in custody required during the period to occur. Outcome 20b requires at least 96.25 percent of the total monthly private visits to children in custody required during the period to occur.70
Using the visit data base maintained by County Quality Assurance staff previously described in Outcome 23, the State generated a performance report for the period. The Accountability Agents verified the State report and are satisfied that the State report on case manager visits with children is accurate.
b. State Performance
 The State Surpassed the Outcome 20a Threshold  The State Surpassed the Outcome 20b Threshold
Case managers completed 97 percent of the required twice monthly visits (Outcome 20a) and 98 percent of the required private monthly visits (Outcome 20b) in Period 18. The threshold for each outcome is 96.25 percent. The Period 18 performance is similar to that of prior reporting periods. The state continues to surpass the outcome thresholds for Outcomes 20a and 20b. Figures V-3 and V-4 illustrate the State’s performance over the past six reporting periods.
69See p. 19, Section 5D of the Consent Decree. 70See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 93

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 99 of 216
Figure V-3 Six Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 20a: Required Twice Monthly Case Manager Visits with Children

Figure V-4 Six Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 20b: Required Private Monthly Case Manager Visits with Children

Percent of Private Visits

100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

99.4% 99.1% 99.20% 99.5% 99.4% 98%
Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25%

Period 1P3erJiuonde1240D1e2cPeemriobder1P25e0rJ1iuo2nde1260D1e3cPeemriobder1P27e0rJ1iuo3nde1280D1e4cember 2014

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 94

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 100 of 216
Outcome 22 – Case Manager Visitation with Substitute Caregivers The Consent Decree requires case managers to visit once a month with placement caregivers.71 This includes foster parents, group home and institutional staff and others charged with the responsibility of caring for children in DFCS custody. In situations where the child has been returned home but remains in DFCS custody, “caregivers” refers to the birth parents or other reunification resources.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues Outcome 22 requires that at least 95 percent of the total minimum number of monthly case manager visits to substitute caregivers required during the period occur.72 Using the visit data base maintained by County Quality Assurance staff previously described in Outcome 23, the State generated a performance report for the period. The Accountability Agents verified the State report and are satisfied that the State report on case manager visits with caregivers is accurate.
b. State Performance  The State Met the Outcome 22 Threshold For Outcome 22, 95 percent of the required monthly case manager visits to substitute caregivers in Period 18 occurred. The performance threshold for this outcome is 95 percent. The Period 18 performance is similar to prior reporting periods. Figure V-5 illustrates the State’s performance over the past six reporting periods.
71 See p. 36, Outcome 22 of the Consent Decree. 72 See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 95

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 101 of 216
Figure V-5 Six Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 22:
Required Case Manager Visits with Caregivers
Source: County Quality Assurance data bases.
2. Children and Youth Receive the Services They Need: Outcome 24 and 30 Outcome 24 – Educational Achievement of Youth Leaving Foster Care at age 18 or Older
 The State Fell Short of the Outcome 24 Threshold Outcome 24 sets increasing targets over a baseline year for the percentage of youth who are “discharged from foster care at age 18 or older … who have graduated from high school or earned a GED.”73 This Outcome called for the State to increase by 20 percentage points the proportion of youth who attain a high school diploma or a graduate equivalency diploma (GED) over a preConsent Decree baseline year. The baseline used for this calculation is 36 percent. The threshold requirement calls for State performance to improve by 20 percentage points over the baseline, yielding a threshold of 56 percent.
73 See p. 36, paragraph 24 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 96

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 102 of 216
During Period 18, 40 percent (25 out of 62) of the youth who were discharged from care at age 18 or older received a GED or High School Diploma. Although this performance remains below the targeted goal of 56 percent, it is important to note that some of the children who did not achieve their diplomas or complete their GED programs before exiting care are still enrolled in school. The counties provided documentation to support that 10 children who “aged” out of care are still enrolled in school or their GED programs. These children are not being considered exceptions, because they were not considered exceptions during the baseline analysis. In addition, although not considered exemptions under the Consent Decree, the following circumstances made it difficult for the state to achieve Outcome 24:
 Six children were on runaway status when they exited care;  Five children were incarcerated in adult facilities; and  Four children were in foster care for less than 4 months. The performance in Period 18 is less than the performance in Period 17 (47%). The region continues to employ educational liaisons who focus on identifying any educational support services that students may need and removing any barriers to graduation. The Accountability Agents will continue to monitor the viability of these efforts toward meeting and exceeding the Outcome 24 requirements.
Figure V-6 Ten Years of State Performance on Outcome Measure 24, Educational Achievement
Source: County Quality Assurance data bases.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 97

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 103 of 216
Outcome 30 – Meeting the Needs of Children as Identified in their Case Plans The Consent Decree specifies that the needs to be considered for achieving Outcome 30 are those medical, dental, mental health, educational and other needs identified in the child’s most recent case plan.74 As noted in Part IV of this report, case plans are to be developed within 30 days of a child’s entry into foster care and updated every six months thereafter.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues The measurement of Outcome 30 performance is based on the sample of 175 children in foster care at any time between July 1 and December 31, 2014. Among the 175 children in the sample, 152 children had one or more case plans in their records. Seventeen of the 23 children who did not have case plans in their records had been in custody fewer than 30 days during the review period and a completed plan was not yet required. Of the 158 children who should have had case plans, 140 (89% of 158) were current – they had been developed within seven months of November 30, 2014 or the child’s discharge date. Another seven (4% of 158) were seven to 12 months old and one (1% of 158) was over 12 months old. The outcome performance is based on 152 children who had complete plans, even if they were not up-to-date. One hundred and forty-nine of these case plans identified needs of the children.
b. State Performance
 The State Fell Short of the Outcome 30 Threshold
Based on case file documentation and reviewer judgment, 103 children (69%) of 149 children with needs identified in their case plans had all the plan-identified needs met. The performance threshold for this outcome is 85 percent, and requires that all identified needs are met. Thus, partial compliance does not count toward meeting the threshold standard. The Period 18 performance is a significant decrease to the performance in Period 17 (80%). Figure V-7 displays the State’s performance over the last 12 reporting periods. Table V-3 provides a breakdown of the needs identified and the percentage of needs met in each category. As in Period 17, all or nearly all children had routine medical, dental, and educational/developmental needs cited in their plans.
74 See p 38, Outcome 30 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 98

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 104 of 216

Table V-3

Proportion of Children with Needs Identified in Most Recent Case Plans and the Proportion with Needs Met, as of December 31, 2014 or last Date of Custody

Children with Case Plans

Children Received/Receiving Services

n=152

n varies depending on need identified

Number Percent

Number

Percent of identified need

One or More Need Identified (routine or child-specific)

149

98%

All Identified Needs Met (n=149)

103

69%

Frequency of different identified needs

Frequency of different needs being met

Medical

149

98%

130

87%

Dental

149

98%

123

83%

Mental Health

107

70%

97

91%

Educational/ Developmental

148

97%

135

91%

Source: Case Record Review, February – May 2015.

Figure V-7 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 30:
Children with All Plan Identified Needs Met

Source: Reporting Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, January 2009 – December 2014.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 99

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 105 of 216
c. Operational Context
Complete DFCS case plans contain a series of standard goals. One such standard goal is “DFCS will ensure that the medical, dental, educational, and psychological needs of the child are met.” Part of ensuring that this goal is achieved requires a child to have timely, routine health examinations, including physical, dental, and psychological assessments. It also means that if a child is known to have an Individualized Education Program75 (IEP), it should be current. The schedule for health and dental exams is indicated in Section 6 of the Consent Decree76 and DFCS policy77. Another part of achieving this goal requires the needs identified in the examinations and IEPs to be addressed. For example, if a health exam identifies a potential vision problem and followup with an ophthalmologist is recommended, it is the State’s responsibility to see that the child is examined by an ophthalmologist. Likewise, if a dental examination identifies cavities, it is the State’s responsibility to see that the child receives the appropriate follow-up dental care.
In assessing whether the standard case plan needs are being met, the Accountability Agents, through the case record review, look for timely examinations and appropriate follow-up where indicated. The case records of the children who appeared to have unmet needs for Outcome 30 reflected the following circumstances;
 Unmet Health/Dental needs: o Overdue medical or dental screenings; o Dental treatment follow-up; o Consultation/treatment as recommended; o Missing immunization; o Vision screening/treatment; and o Hearing screening/treatment.
 Unmet educational/developmental needs: o Out of date Individualized Education Program; o Follow-up evaluations; and o Tutoring needed.
 Unmet mental health needs: o Therapy; and o Assessments.
Over the past year, the counties have continued focusing their efforts toward improving performance on Outcome Measure 30. During G2 meetings, the counties continue to developed
75 For a description of the policies and rules applying to the Georgia Individualized Education Program, see http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/_documents/doe/legalservices/160-4-7-.06.pdf. 76 Per Section 6, physical health examinations are to be completed in accordance with the requirements of the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) Health Check Program and dental exams are to be annual. 77 DFCS policy regarding meeting the service needs of children is in Section 1011, Chapter 1000 of the Social Services Manual.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 100

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 106 of 216
strategies and test implementation between meetings. In addition, personnel have been assigned to track the identified needs to ensure that case managers and their supervisors are addressing those needs in a timely manner. Up to date data on performance is presented each month, as the counties continue working through the transition to managed care.
B. Placement Experience
This section describes the placement process used by the counties and the characteristics and placement practices identified in the case record review of 175 children in foster care during the period July 1 and December 31, 2014. This includes the placement environment, the use of temporary placement settings, and case manager visits to children in new placements. Data on children under the age of 12 in congregate care placements is based on all such children.
1. Placement Process
The processes used by both counties to find appropriate placement settings for children is described in the Period 12 monitoring report.78 Both counties have designated a small number of foster family homes as “receiving homes” to be temporary placements for children entering foster care. In past reporting periods, it seemed as though children were in these homes less than 24 hours. However, prior to Period 18, the number of children in receiving homes for more than 24 hours has slightly increased over the past three reporting periods. In Period 15, there were 22 children who were placed in receiving homes for more than 24 hours with no children remaining for more than 30 days. In Period 16, there were 25 children in receiving homes for more than 24 hours and one child remained for 37 days. In Period 17, 32 children were placed in receiving homes for more than 24 hours, with two children remaining for 33 and 47 days. Period 18 saw a slight decrease with 28 children in receiving homes more than 24 hours with no children remaining over 30 days. As stated in previous reports, increasing the number of foster homes may assist the counties in limiting the use of and length of stay in receiving homes for children who enter foster care.
2. Placement Setting
a. Distribution of Children Among Placement Settings
Most of the children in the sample of 175 were placed in family settings. Table V-4 provides the distribution of children among placement settings found in the case record review. When the different family settings are combined, 135 children (77%) in the sample were in family settings on December 31, 2014 or the last day of DFCS custody. These settings include family foster homes, relative foster homes, relative homes, and the homes of birth parents and guardians. Thirty-nine children (22%) were in congregate care settings including child caring institutions (CCIs) (19%) and special psychiatric/medical hospitals (3%). In August 2014 the State policy was released tightening the guardianship requirements and requiring a waiver for children
78 See Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S. A. Period 12 Monitoring Report, Kenny A. V Perdue, June 2012; pp. 110-111.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 101

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 107 of 216

under 14 to have guardianship rather than adoption as the permanency option with relatives. According to the counties, this change in policy led to the decrease in relative placements during Period 18, while the case managers were learning the waiver process. In addition, there was a severe shortage of family foster homes within Region 14, which also contributed to the increase use of congregate care settings. The state has recently appropriated additional funding for resource development.

Table V-4 Placement Settings of Children in DFCS Custody On December 31, 2014 or the Last Day of Custody (or before running away)
N=175

Placement Type
Family Settings Foster Home (DFCS or Private Agency Supervised) Relative Home (Non Foster Home including Fictive Kin) Parents/Guardian Congregate Care Settings Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility Child Caring Institution Other Job Corps Total Source: Case Record Review, –February – May 2015.

Frequency Percent

102

58%

30

17%

3

2%

6

3%

33

19%

Category Percent
77%
22%

1

1%

175

100%

100%

b. Emergency or Temporary Placements
The Consent Decree has several requirements addressing placement appropriateness. It requires that “no child shall be placed in an emergency or temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility beds used on a temporary basis for more than 30 days.” It also stipulates that no child shall spend more than 23 hours in a County DFCS office or any facility providing intake functions.79
Neither county has an emergency or temporary facility providing intake functions. Both use “receiving homes” as temporary placement settings for children entering care and, in some instances, when a placement disrupts. Temporary placement settings also include foster homes used as “respite homes” when foster parents need to have time off from caring for children. According to DFCS fiscal policy, respite is generally up to five days.80,81 In Period 18, 42
79 See p. 16, paragraph 5C4.c of the Consent Decree. 80 See DFCS Foster Care Manual, Section 1016.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 102

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 108 of 216
children in the sample of 175 experienced at least one placement in a temporary or respite foster home. Among the 42 children, 34 experienced fewer than 30 days in a temporary foster home during the six-month period. One child was in a temporary placement for 47 days. The other child was in a temporary placement for 33 days. The lack of foster homes continued to greatly impact placement during Period 19. This led to the use of hotels as temporary placements. The Accountability Agents will report on this during the next reporting period, as well as the efforts undertaken to prevent what has come to be termed “hoteling”.
c. Young Children in Congregate Care
The Consent Decree has several restrictions related to the use of group care.82 Between July and December 2014, including limiting their use of congregate care for young children. The reported information is for all children under the age of 12; not for a sample of the foster care population. According to State reports, no children under the age of 12 were placed in group homes or child caring institutions except as allowed by the Consent Decree.
During the period, 9 children under the age of six were placed with their mothers in group care settings designed for teen mothers and 3 were still there on 12/31/14.
On December 31, 2014, nine children aged 10 to 11 were in group care facilities with more than 12 beds. All nine of these children were in psychiatric residential treatment facilities (PRTFs) with licensed maximum capacities of 40 or more. The State provided documentation of the appropriate waiver supporting the need for the children to be placed in congregate care settings.
According to the State, the continued need for in-patient treatment in a PRTF is reviewed every 30 days and reauthorized as necessary. All nine of the children in PRTFs had been in these treatment settings for more than 30 days as of December 31, 2014. Although DFCS does not consider psychiatric hospitals to be “placement settings,”83 DFCS supplied documentation to the Accountability Agents that these placements and the progress the children were making in the settings84 have been reviewed and reauthorized every 30 days. Table V-5 summarizes the State’s actions with regard to the Consent Decree stipulations.
81 Note, for purposes of measuring the number of placements and placement moves a child experiences, Federal definitions do not consider stays in respite homes placements when the child returns to the foster home that had requested respite. 82 See p. 16-17, paragraph 5C.5f of the Consent Decree. 83 This assessment appears to be supported by the Federal Child Welfare Policy Manual which considers psychiatric facilities “outside the scope of foster care” for purposes of Title IV-E. See references from the manual at http://www.ach.hhs.gov/cwpm/programs/cb/laws_policies///aws/cwpm. 84 The Accountability Agents did not verify the appropriateness of these arrangements or the certification of need.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 103

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 109 of 216

Table V-5 Children Younger Than Age 12 in Group Care Settings
July 1 and December 31, 2014

Children under the age of 6

Reason for

Number placed as of

placement

June 30, 2014

With mother Service Need Total

Bed Capacity

≤12

>12

1

0

1

Number newly placed between July 1 and December 31, 2014

Bed Capacity

≤12

>12

11

0

11

Number still placed as of December 31, 2014

Bed Capacity

≤12

>12

2

0

2

Children aged 6 to 12

Number placed as of Number newly placed between

Number still placed as of

June 30, 2014

July 1 and December 31, 2014

December 31, 2014

Bed Capacity

Bed Capacity

Bed Capacity

≤12

>12

≤12

>12

≤12

>12

PRTF

7

21

9

Group Care

0

2

Total

7

23

9

Source: State reported data, waivers and documentation of need reviewed by Accountability Agents.

3. Placement Moves During the Period
During Period 18, 94 of the sample of 175 children in foster care (54%) experienced one or more new placement settings. Further analysis indicates that 39 (41%) of the 94 children actually had both an initial placement and at least one other placement during the period. Among the 39 children, 28 were initially placed in receiving homes before being moved to other placement settings which is a significant increase from Period 17 (15).
a. Case Manager Visitation with Children Who Experienced a New Placement
The Consent Decree stipulates a frequent case manager visit schedule for the first eight weeks of a new placement.85 Children are to have at least one in-placement visit in the first week and one in-placement visit between the third and eighth weeks with six additional visits at any time
85 See p. 19, paragraph 5D.1 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 104

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 110 of 216

within the eight week period; essentially, they are to have weekly visits. During past reporting periods, outcomes were measured from the sample of children in care during each period. The counties have been working on improving performance in meeting the required number of visits as well as improving the quality of visitation. During each monthly G2 meeting, the Quality Assurance Unit (QA) conducts a retrospective review of a randomly selected sample of approximately 20 percent of the children who experience new placements each month during the period. This is a larger sample than the overall record review sample of 15 percent. Thus, during Period 18, the files of 236 children with new placements were reviewed and reported.

As shown in Table V-6, the counties report that 204 (86%) of the children had a visit in the first week of placement, which is vital for stabilizing the placement and minimizing trauma associated with the move. For 178 of these children (75%), the visit occurred in their placement settings. A total of 59 children (25%) received all required visits. Overall, 1699 visits were required in the region due to new placements. The counties made 1265 (74%) of the required visits. In addition, they made 86 percent of the first week visits in any location. This is a substantial decrease from the performance in Period 17 when 45 percent of children received the required visits and Period 16 when 29 percent of children received the required visits. In Period 17, overall, 1635 visits were required due to new placement and 1347 (82%) were made. The state’s improved performance during Period 17 was seemingly undermined by the high turnover rate of case managers during Period 18. With fewer case managers, the number of case managers handling caseloads above the required CAPS increased. This was especially true in DeKalb County in which caseloads over cap went from 24 case managers over cap with an average of 15.7 cases each in Period 17 to 24 case managers over cap with an average of 20 cases each during Period 18. As discussed in other parts of this report, as a result of these challenges, the state entered into a modified Curative Action Plan at the end of Period 18 to address declining retention rates and increasing caseload sizes.

Table V-6

Pattern of Case Manager Visits with Children in the First 8 Weeks

of New Foster Care Placements

n=236

Degree of Required Visits

Number of Children

At least one visit in the first week of placement

204

At least one in-placement visit in the first week of placement

178

Percent
86% 75%

All requirements met for period of time child in placement Total Number of Visits Required
1699 Source: G2 County Reports, September - October 2014.

59 Number of
Visits Made
1265

25% Percent
74%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 105

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 111 of 216
b. Efforts to Minimize Emotional Trauma When Children Enter New Placements
Trauma minimizing efforts included placing children with siblings, parents and relatives; conducting transition interviews and transition visits; having explanatory conversations with the children and foster parents; offering comforting words and actions during the move; and placing children with previous foster families. In some cases, therapists were also involved in assisting the children and the case managers with transitions. In other cases, the foster parents took the children home from hospitals and were able to receive the discharge information firsthand. Case managers also accompanied children to out-of state placements.
For 94 children experiencing a placement move, there was evidence in the case record that case managers attempted to minimize the emotional trauma of the most recent move for 51 children (54%).86 This finding compares to 65 of 103 children (63%) in Period 17. Forty-six of the 94 children experienced more than one move in Period 18 and the record review collected information about trauma-minimizing efforts related to the prior placement move in addition to the most recent. Among these 46 children, it appeared that case managers documented attempts to reduce the trauma of the previous move for 12 children (26% of 46). The proportion of Period 17 cases with documented trauma reducing efforts related to children experiencing more than one placement was 20 of 34 (59%). This is a significant decrease and therefore the state should place more focus on documenting their efforts regarding minimizing trauma. Some of the strategies under consideration include increased documentation and SHINES training for new and veteran case managers.
4. Informing Caregivers and Providing Appropriate Clothing
The Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS will ensure available information concerning a specific foster child will be provided to foster parents before the child is placed.87 According to the practice procedures in both counties, during the discussion of a potential placement’s suitability for a child, the placement unit case manager is to provide the prospective substitute caregiver with basic information about that child. This basic information consists of name, date of birth, and any immediate information known that was used to match the child to the caregiver. The child’s case manager or the staff that transports the child to the placement setting is to give the foster parents/ substitute caregivers a packet of information at the time the child is placed. This packet is referred to as a “passport.” Each county has a slightly different format for this packet and content requirements. The type of information that is to be in these packets includes:
 Contact information for the child’s case manager and his/her supervisor;  Medical and dental screening required;
86 The margin of statistical error for a subsample of 89 is +/- 10 percent. 87 See p. 19, paragraph 5C.6d of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 106

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 112 of 216
 Upcoming hearings;  Initial Family Team Meeting Scheduling;  Known medical history, conditions, medical home and medications if necessary;  Known allergies;  Religious preferences;  School or daycare program the child has been attending;  School enrollment form;  Reason child is in foster care;  Child’s family members;  Child’s routine: foods, bed time, bedtime rituals;  Medical consent;  Log for recording medical and dental appointments;  Names and contact information of people important to the child;  Child’s personal property; and  Authorization to receive support from the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
program.
The case manager is to review with the foster parent/substitute caregiver what is in the passport and how they are to maintain the information in it. The packet is to travel with the child throughout his/her foster care episode.
Various pieces of information pertaining to the placement and what is shared with the substitute caregiver can be recorded in SHINES, but there are few mandated fields. Responsibility for entering the information is split between the placement unit and the child’s case manager with the mandatory fields being completed by the placement unit. These fields are the date and time placement began and the placement type, who contacted the placement setting and how the contact was made. The child’s case manager may enter in the record narrative what information was provided to the substitute caregivers, but the practice of doing so is inconsistent. The Accountability Agents have urged County staff to explore how they might be able to use the available SHINES features to more effectively record and track what information is provided to substitute caregivers.
Among the 94 children in the sample of 175 children in foster care who had an initial and/or a new placement during the period, there was evidence in the case file that case managers provided:
 Medical information to the substitute caregivers/reunified parents of 36 children (38% of 94);
 Dental information to the substitute caregivers/reunified parents of 11 children (12% of 94);
 Education/developmental information to the substitute caregivers/reunified parents of 27 children (29% of 94); and
 Mental health information to the substitute caregivers/reunified parents of 14 children (15% of 94).
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 107

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 113 of 216
DFCS policy allows for all children to have an “initial clothing allowance” during the first six months following their placement in foster care. The allowance ranges from $200 to $300, depending on the age of the child. Subsequent to the initial allowance, there is an annual clothing allowance. Foster parents and providers are informed of this allowance and are asked to submit receipts for the clothing purchased.88 In Fulton County, the child’s “passport” contains a Clothing Allowance Form and DeKalb County has been sending letters regarding the clothing allowance policy to DFCS supervised homes annually. In addition, the DFCS personnel who monitor and support DFCS supervised homes may also discuss the children’s needs during visits. Therefore, the degree to which the case records have evidence that the case managers reviewed the clothing needs and took the necessary steps to ensure children had appropriate clothing in their new placements is expected to be limited. However, evidence that case managers took such actions was found in the records of 73 children experiencing new placements during the period (78% of 94). This is a significant increase form the 55 percent in Period 17. Emphasis on documentation seems to be having a positive impact and the Accountability Agents will continue monitoring these efforts during future reporting periods.
C. Meeting the Needs of Children, Youth, and Families
In addition to safe, appropriate, and stable placement settings, DFCS policy and the Consent Decree stipulate that DFCS will provide for the physical, developmental, and emotional needs of children in its custody.89 As a means of “strengthening and rebuilding families to bring about the child’s early return”90DFCS is also responsible for providing services to birth families. Finally, it is responsible for supporting and assisting foster parents to more effectively address the needs of the children in their care. This section of the report considers the State’s practice as reflected in state and county-reported data and the case record review of 175 children in foster care during Period 16.
1. Assessment of Needs at Foster Care Entry
Once a child enters custody, one of the earliest opportunities for assessment of family strengths and needs is a Family Team Meeting (FTM), to be held within three to nine days of entry.91 Other initial activities include health and dental screening and mental health or developmental assessments.92 All of these activities form the basis of the first case plan used to guide the case to permanency.
a. Family Team Meetings
88 See Social Services Manual Chapter 1000, Sections 1016.13 and 1016.14. 89 See p. 4, principle 7; pp. 20-21, section 6; p.38, Outcome 30 of the Consent Decree; See also Social Services Manual Section 3060, Georgia Department of Human Services. 90 See Social Service Manual 3060, Georgia Department of Human Services. 91 See pp 5-7, section 4A of the Consent Decree. 92 See p. 20, Section 6.A. of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 108

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 114 of 216
The State documented in SHINES 710 entries into care during Period 18, but not all of the children who entered remained in care beyond a few days. Among the 573 children who were in custody nine days or more, the county tracking systems indicated that 526 children (92%) received timely Family Team Meetings (FTM). Another 34 children (6%) had FTMs but they were not convened within the first nine days. The late FTMs were held 10-30 days after the child’s entry into county custody. There were thirteen instances (2%) where no FTM’s were held. Figure V-8 illustrates the Period 18 findings.
Figure V-8 Initial Family Team Meetings at Foster Care Entry
July 1 and December 31, 2014 N=573 (all children remaining in custody 9 days or more)
Source: County Data
b. Initial Health and Dental Screenings The State’s overall performance on initial health and dental screenings is measured by the subsample of children who entered care and had been in custody at least 10 days. In the Period 18 sample of 175 children, there was a subsample of 72 children who entered care during the period and remained at least 10 days.93 As in previous reports, caution should be exercised in interpreting these and other results drawn from the subsample of children who entered care because the sample size is very small and they were not randomly selected from the entire population entering custody during the period.
93The margin of statistical error for a subsample of 66 children is approximately +12 percent
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 109

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 115 of 216

As shown in Table V-7, of the children in this subsample of 72, 24 (33%) had documented health screens within 10 days of entering care. This is substantially lower than the 70 percent observed in Period 16 and 42% in Period 17. When the ten-day time frame is relaxed, 63 of the 72 children (87%) received an initial health screen, which is similar to Period 17 (92%) For those children whose health screens fell outside the 10-day window, the elapsed time ranged from 11 to 97 days. Nine children did not receive initial health screens.

Fifteen children (21% of 72) had a documented dental screen within 10 days. This is a slight decrease from the 27 percent of children in Period 17 who had a documented dental screen within 10 days. The total proportion receiving an entry dental screening was 60 percent, which is also a substantial decrease from the proportion in Period 17 (80%). The 28 children who received their initial dental screens late, received those 11 to 117 days after entering care. Twenty-nine children have no documented initial dental screens in their files

Table V-7 Initial Health and Dental Exams at Foster Care Entry:
July 1 - December 31, 2014 N=72

Screen

Number Percent

Initial Health Screen At Foster Care Entry

Received within 10 days

24

Received, but not within 10 days (11 to 97 days)

39

No initial health screen received by December 31, 2014 9

Total

72

Initial Dental Screen At Foster Care Entry (includes infants for

a “gum check”)

Received within 10 days

15

Received, but not within 10 days (11-90 days)

28

No initial dental screen received by November, 2014

29

Total

72

Source: Case record review, February – May 2015.

33% 54% 13% 100%
21% 39% 40% 100%

Cumulative Percent
87% 100%
60% 100%

c. Initial Developmental /Mental Health Assessment
The Consent Decree requires that all children under the age of four years receive a developmental assessment in compliance with EPSDT standards within 30 days of placement.94 Children four years of age or older are expected to receive a mental health screening in compliance with EPSDT standards within 30 days of placement.95 Within the sample of 175

94 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 of the Consent Decree. 95 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 110

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 116 of 216
children in foster care in Period 18, there were 25 children who were younger than age four, were in custody at least 30 days, and entered care on or after July 1, 2014.96 There were 41 children in the foster care sample who were age four or older, remained in care 30 days or more, and entered DFCS custody on or after July 1, 2014. Six children under the age of four did not receive a developmental assessment which is very concerning; only thirteen were completed within 30 days. The six children who did not receive developmental assessments within 30 days had them completed between within 82 days after entering custody. The total percentage of children under four years of age who received their initial developmental assessment increased from 68 percent in Period 17 to 76 percent in Period 18. For children over the age of four, there were twelve children in custody 30 days or more who did not have mental health assessment; only 17 were completed within 30 days, which is 41 percent compared to the 71 percent completed within 30 days during Period 17. This is a significant decrease in performance and the state continues to work with Amerigroup to address these challenges. Twelve children had the assessment completed between 32 to 63 days after entering care. Table V-8 summarizes this information.
96 In order to have a larger pool of children in the sample for whom the responsiveness to identified needs could be measured, the record review was designed to collect information on children who entered custody in June 2013 and, therefore, had sufficient time for identified needs to be addressed in Period 16.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 111

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 117 of 216

Table V-8 Initial Developmental and Mental Health Assessments at Foster Care Entry:
June 1, 2014 – November 30, 2014 N=varies depending on the assessment

Assessment
Initial Developmental Assessment (children younger than age 4) (n=25)
Received within 30 days Received, but not within 30 days (32-82 days) No initial Developmental Assessment received Total
Assessment
Initial Mental Health Assessment (children aged 4 and older) (n=41)
Received within 30 days (includes pre-assessments) Received, but not within 30 days 32 to 63 days)

Number

Percent

Cumulative Percent

13 6 6 25
Number

52% 24% 24% 100%
Percent

76% 100% 100% Cumulative Percent

17

41%

12

29%

70%

No Initial Mental Health Assessment Total Source: Case record review, February – May 2015.
d. Initial Case Plans

12

29%

41

100%

100% 100%

Fifty-Two children (91%) of the 57 children entering custody during the reporting period and remaining more than 30 days had an initial case plan developed by December 31, 2014 or their last date in custody. Thirty-Six of the 52 (69%) were completed within 30 days of entering care, 9 (17%) were completed between 31 and 60 days, and seven (13%) were completed greater than 60 days.

2. Periodic Health and Dental Screening

In addition to requiring health and developmental assessments when a child enters foster care, the Consent Decree requires all children to receive periodic health screenings97 in accordance with the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (EPSDT)/Georgia Health Check Program standards.98 DFCS’ performance with respect to meeting these standards is discussed below. The case record review of 175 children in placement collected information about the timeliness of the required routine health and dental examinations provided (often referred to as “well-child” care) during their time in custody.

97 See p. 30, paragraph 13A in the Consent Decree. 98 See p. 20, paragraphs 6A 1 and 2, and p.21, 6B, paragraphs 1-8 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 112

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 118 of 216

Routine health screening performance was assessed for the sample of 175 children. Overall, 168 of the 175 children (95%) appeared to be current with their “well child” visits as of December 31, 2014 as a result of receiving a required health screen prior to or during reporting Period 17; or receiving a health screen during Period 18 that brought them up-to-date. This is similar to the proportion found in Period 17 (98%). This information is summarized in Table V-9.
Of the 175 children in the review sample, 45 children did not require a health screen during Period 18 because they were already current with their health check-ups. Among the 130 children who should have received at least one routine health exam in Period 18, 123 children (95% of 130) received them. Seven children (5%) did not receive their required health screens during Period 18.

Table V-9

Status of Health Screening for Children* July – December, 2014 N=175

Component and Action

Number Percent

Cumulative Percent

No health screen required during period, children current with

45

26%

health check-ups during entire period

Children receiving timely health screens (according to EPSDT

123

70%

96%

schedule) between July 1 and December 31, 2014

Required well child health screen(s) not received between July 1

7

4%

100%

and December 31, 2014

TOTAL

175

100%

Source: Case record review, February – May, 2015. *Includes initial health screens completed for children entering

foster care in Period 17. EPSDT components are not always documented, see narrative.

As reflected in Table V-10, routine dental screening was assessed for 175 children, with separate analysis for children over and under the age of three as of December 31, 2014.99 Overall, 112 of the 134 children (84%) who required a dental screen were either current or received their dental screens during Period 18. However 32 (29%) of these exams were not done timely. For children under the age of three, 48 out of 49 (98%) were either current or received their oral health screen during Period 16. One child received a late initial oral health screen.

The dental screen documentation consisted of either a dental report from a dental care provider, case manager notes, reference in a CCFA, an entry in the SHINES health log or a combination of these forms.

99 The Consent Decree stipulates that “all children age 3 and over shall receive at least one annual screening in compliance with EPSDT standards…” see Section 6B paragraph 8 on p.21. Children younger than age 3 may have oral exams as part of their regular well-child visits and documentation of this component has improved sufficiently to provide the separate analysis.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 113

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 119 of 216

Table V-10 Status of Dental Screening*
July - November 2014 N=175
Component and Action Children aged 3 and older n=134 No annual dental exam required during period, children current with annual requirement during entire period Children receiving a timely annual dental exam during period Received more than 12 months after previous exam Initial received more than 10 days after entering foster care Required annual (or initial) dental exam not received as of June 30, 2014
TOTAL Component and Action
Children under the age of 3 N=41 No annual oral health screen due during entire period Received a timely initial or annual oral health screen Received a late initial oral health screen No annual oral health screen TOTAL Source: Case record review, February – May, 2015. *Includes initial dentals for children entering foster care in Period 17.

Number

Percent

Cumulative Percent

50

37%

30

22%

59%

10

7%

66%

22

17%

83%

22

17%

100%

134 100%

100%

Number

Percent

Cumulative Percent

11

27%

13

32%

12

29%

5

12%

41 100%

59% 88% 100% 100%

3. Periodic Developmental and Mental Health Assessments

The Consent Decree does not have a requirement that specifically speaks to the frequency of developmental and mental health assessments. The required EPSDT health screenings, by definition, should include some limited assessment of the child’s developmental progress and mental health. In addition, the court may request specific evaluations. During Period 18, 10 children had documented developmental or educational assessments in addition to the 19 children who received an initial assessment. Another 14 children had documented mental health assessments in addition to the 24 children who received an initial assessment.

4. Response to Assessment/Screening Identified Needs
Responsiveness to health needs remains an area for continued State focus. Evidence from the case record review provides the following specific findings for Period 18100:
 Thirty children who received regular (initial or periodic) health screening during Period 18 had health needs identified. Among these 30 children, the documentation in their

100 Conclusions drawn from subsamples of 50 or smaller have margins of error of +15% or more.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 114

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 120 of 216
files indicated that 24 (80%) had received appropriate treatment or treatment was scheduled for all the needs identified during Period 18. Six children (20%) did not have follow-up treatment documented in the case record for any need identified during the reporting period.  Fourteen children who had a dental/oral health screening during Period 18 had dental needs identified. Twelve children (86% of 14) had all their needs met according to documentation found in the records. Two children (14%) did not have follow-up treatment documented in the case record for any need identified during the reporting period.  Sixteen children who had developmental or educational assessments in Period 18 had identified needs. Thirteen children (81%) of the 16 children had their developmental or educational needs met. Three children (19%) did not have follow up treatment documented in the case record for any need identified during the reporting period.  Twenty-eight children who had mental health assessments in Period 18 had identified needs. All needs of 26 of the 28 children (93%) were being addressed.
5. Response to Emerging Needs Between Routine Well-Child Visits or Scheduled Assessments
A small portion of children may have episodes of acute illness or emerging needs between regular assessments. The record review captures information about the response to these needs, but the sample sizes and resulting percentages are too small to generalize to the entire population of children in care. Still, the State continues to do extremely well at meeting the emerging needs of children in the sample.
 Forty-three children (25%) in the sample of 175 experienced emerging physical health needs during the reporting period. All but one of these children had their needs met.
 Two (1%) of the 175 sampled children experienced acute dental needs during the reporting period. One of their needs were not met.
 Thirty-one (18%) of the 175 sampled children experienced acute or emerging mental health needs during the reporting period. All of their needs were met.
6. On-going Attention to Development and Education
Ten children in the sample had one or more developmental and/or educational needs identified between July 1 and November 30, 2014 either through an initial assessment or some other process. The needs identified were as follows (some children had more than one identified need):
 Three children had educational/academic needs;  Two children presented with learning disabilities;  Two children were identified with developmental delays;
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 115

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 121 of 216
 Two children had behavioral concerns; and  Two children were in need of speech therapy.
Other indicators of developmental or educational needs are Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits and Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). Ten children in the sample appear to be receiving SSI benefits. The underlying conditions for these cases included several cases with hearing impairments, moderate intellectual disabilities, and mental health issues. Twenty-six children had IEPs. The case records of 15 (58% of 26) of these children had documentation of current IEPs (less than 12 months since the previous IEP). Although this is small sample, Period 18 performance is a significant decrease from the Period 17 records that documented 70 percent of IEPs as current.
Children aged six to 16 are required to be enrolled in school in Georgia. Within the foster care sample, 104 children (59% of 175) were aged six or older and were in DFCS custody sometime during a portion of the school year. Among the 104 children, 102 (98%) were enrolled in school or a GED program in the first half of 2014. The two children not enrolled was not in custody long enough to be enrolled
Within the foster care sample of 175, 71 children (41%) were younger than age seven. Forty-six of these 71 children (65%) were enrolled in a kindergarten, pre-school, another developmental program, or day care.101
7. Services to Children in Foster Care 18 Months or More
The Consent Decree requires a specific focus on children in care 18 months or more by moving them to “Specialized” caseloads of no more than 12 children per case manager. These Specialized Case Managers are responsible for individualizing services to children and families by convening meetings, accessing funding, and making decisions about the appropriateness of permanency goals and effectiveness of services. In doing so, they are to partner with the county Independent Living Coordinator for those children aged 14 and older, consult with public and private professionals regarding permanency, and to engage in discharge planning ”no sooner than 30 days prior to discharge.”102
The foster care case record review of 175 children collected some limited information on the experience of children who had reached their 18th month in custody before or during Period 18. Within the sample of 175 children, 47 (27%) had been in custody 18 months or more.103 Among the 42 children, 17 (40%) were aged 14 or older and eligible for Independent Living Program
101 According to the Georgia Department of Education website, “Georgia law requires that students attend a public or private school or a home study program from their sixth to their 16th birthdays. Public Kindergarten is available in every school system, but it is not mandatory.” See http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/askdoe.aspx?PageReq=ASKNewcomer 102 See pp 11 and 12, Section 4.F paragraph 3, of the Consent Decree. 103 Conclusions drawn from a subsample of 69 are subject to a statistical margin of error of +/-12%.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 116

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 122 of 216
(ILP) services. Twelve of the 17 children (71%) had documentation in their case records that indicated they were receiving such services (including Life Skills Training and Employment Services). All 17 youth had Written Transitional Living Plans (WTLP).
Out of the 175 children in the sample, 171 children (98%) had meetings between July and December 2014 to review the appropriateness of their permanency goal and effectiveness of services they are receiving. A majority of youth (100) had a case plan review convened by the Judicial Citizen Review Panel (JCRP)/Court review. The meetings had a range of results. Most meetings did not change the case plans or services, but 26 children had permanency goals revised; 26 had services revised; and 18 had revised placements. Twelve of the 42 children who had been in custody 18 months or more (29%) were discharged by December 31, 2014. All but one of the 12 discharges were expected by DFCS and they all had some form of discharge planning. In one case a child was discharged without prior notice to DFCS.
D. Curative Actions to Address Concerns about State Performance: Discharge Planning and Discharge Medicals for All Children
The Consent Decree stipulates that “DFCS will determine whether additional services are necessary to ensure the continued success of the discharge”104 and that all children receive a health screen within 10 days of discharge.105 Discharge planning and discharge medicals continue to be areas needing improvement. Under a curative action plan agreed to by the Parties, the Counties are attempting to improve performance by reinforcing practice steps, more supervisory oversight, and better tracking of previously established activities such as discharge family team meetings.106
Within the sample of 175 children in foster care, 46 children (26%) had been discharged by November 30, 2014. The discharges of 16 children (35% of the 46 discharged) were excluded from the analysis, however, because the presiding judge discharged the children without prior notice to DFCS.
1. Discharge Planning
Among the files of the remaining 30 children, there was documentation of some form of discharge planning for 28 children (93%). In some cases discharge planning occurred through a combination of activities such as some form of meeting (one-on-one meetings between case managers and children, family team meetings or multi-disciplinary team meetings) or multiple
104 See p.10, Section 4.C.6 in the Consent Decree. 105 See p. 21, Section 6.B.6 in the Consent Decree. 106Correspondence from Brenda King Woodard, Georgia Department of Human Services, to Ira P. Lustbader, Children’s Rights, February 15, 2010 and September 22, 2010.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 117

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 123 of 216

conversations with the case manager over a series of visits. This information is displayed in Table V-11.

Table V-11 Discharge Planning in Period 18

Discharge Planning
Discharge planning through one-on-one meeting with case manager Discharge planning in a Family Team Meeting/Facilitated Meeting Discharge planning over a series of visits with children and family Other type of meeting (internal staffing, discharge staffing) No documented discharge planning
Source: Case Record Review February – May 2015. *Children may have more than one type of discharge planning.

Discharges in the case record review sample n=30*

Number

Percent

9

30%

9

30%

5

17%

14

47%

2

7%

2. Discharge Medicals
In the case record review sample of 30 children expected to be discharged, 20 (67%) had a documented medical exam any time from 10 days before discharge to 10 days after discharge. Overall, case documentation for 24 children (80%) indicated that the discharge medical was actually completed. There was no documentation of scheduled or received discharge medicals for six children. Information about discharge medicals is summarized in Table V-12.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 118

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 124 of 216

Discharge Medicals

Table V-12 Discharge Medicals in Period 18
Discharges in the case record review sample n=30

Discharge medicals scheduled during discharge planning

Number 24

Percent 80%

Evidence of medicals received within 10 days of discharge

20

67%

Evidence of medicals received within 11 -32 days of discharge Total number of discharge medicals completed

4

13%

24

80%

No evidence of discharge medicals scheduled or received

6

20%

Source: *Case Record Review, February – May 2015.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 119

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 125 of 216

PART VI STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE

Several of the Consent Decree requirements focus on DHS/DFCS organizational capabilities, with the intent of enhancing or creating capacity thought to be instrumental to the achievement of desired outcomes. This includes specialized staff, caseload sizes, workforce skill development, and having the resources and services to meet needs. This part reports on the progress of the State in meeting Outcomes 25, 26, 29, and 31 as well as capacity requirements.
A. Outcome Performance
The Accountability Agents attributed four outcomes (25, 26, 29, and 31) to creating a stronger infrastructure for caring for the children in DFCS custody. Table V1-1 below provides the measured performance summary for each infrastructure-related outcome. The discussion following the table provides a more detailed description of State performance. This discussion includes a summary of Consent Decree requirements and interpretation and measurement issues associated with the outcomes. Contextual information about issues surrounding the work is provided for understanding the State’s performance in Period 18. Charts are used to illustrate the performance trends emerging over the applicable periods.

Table VI-1 Strengthening Infrastructure Outcomes

Effective Oversight of Placement Settings
Outcome 25: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. Outcome 31: No more than 10% of all foster family home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.

Period 18 Performance
98%
3%

Timely and Complete Court Orders for Placement Authorization

Outcome 26: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. This outcome shall be measured for court orders entered after the entry of the Consent Decree. Outcome 29: No more than 5% of all children in custody of DHS/DFCS for 12 months or more shall have lapse of legal custody within the prior 13 months.

100% 3.5%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 120

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 126 of 216
1. Effective Oversight of Placement Settings: Outcomes 25 and 31
Two Outcomes (numbers 25 and 31) relate to the supervision of placement settings. Data for these outcomes were gathered from SHINES.
Outcome 25 - Approved Placement Settings for Children
Outcome 25 seeks to reduce the risk that children may be placed in harmful living situations by requiring foster care placements to be evaluated and to be in full approval and/or licensure status. To facilitate more timely completion of the Accountability Agents’ reports, the Parties agreed in October 2010 to replace the previous Outcome 25 measure with a revised measure that uses the placement as the unit of analysis and which can be extracted from a single, automated data source – SHINES.107 Outcome 25, as revised, stipulates that “By the end of the tenth reporting period, at least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement.”108
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Measurement of Outcome 25 performance is based on the entire universe of out-of-home care placements subject to a DHS licensure or approval process.
b. State Performance
 The State Met the Outcome 25 Threshold
At the end of Period 18, 627 of the 643 placements subject to a DHS approval or licensure process (98%) were in full approval and/or licensure status. These placements had an approved or licensed capacity of 2762 children, while the approved or licensed capacity of all placements with a child in care on December 31, 2014 was 2805 children; yielding an Outcome 25 measurement of 98 percent. The State met the Outcome 25 threshold of 98% after failing to meet the threshold in Period 17 for the first time since Period 6. In Period 17, the State’s performance on Outcome 25 was 97 percent. Additional detail on this measurement appears in Table VI-2.
107 The original Outcome 25 measure used the child as the unit of analysis, and therefore required the use of multiple data sources (some of which were manual) to link individual children to the approval status of the placements in which they resided. 108 See p. 4, Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 121

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 127 of 216

Ninety-seven percent of the placement capacity of non-foster relative placements was found to be in “full approval status,” that is, to have been fully approved by the relevant licensing and approval processes. This was an improvement over the Period 17 rate of 89 percent. The fullapproval rate of DFCS-supervised foster homes was 98 percent, comparable to the Period 17 rate of 99 percent, while that of provider-supervised foster homes was 97%, a slight improvement over the Period 17 rate of 96%. The placement capacity of 99 percent of childcaring institutions, including group homes, was found to be in full approval status, up from the Period 17 rate of 98 percent. Figure VI-1 displays the State’s performance on this outcome over the last 12 reporting periods.

Table VI-2 Outcome 25 – Placements a in Full Approval Status

Placement Type Relative Placement DFCS supervised Foster Home Provider supervised Foster Home Child Caring Institution

Number of Placements with a Class Member in
Care on 12/31/14

Number of Placements with a Class Member in
Care on 12/31/14 in Full
Approval Status

Overall Capacity of Placement Settings with
a Class Member in
Care on 12/31/14

Capacity of Placements with a Class Member in
Care on 12/31/14 in Full
Approval Status

Percentage of Overall
Placement Capacity in Full Approval Status on
12/31/14

111

106

186

181

97%

98

96

222

218

98%

345

336

972

944

97%

89

87

1425

1419

99%

Total

643

625

2805

2762

98%

a Excludes 71 children in state custody on 12/31/2014 that were in settings with no relevant approval

process (22 were in Psychological Residential Treatment Facilities, 18 were on runaway, 2 in Metro

RYDC, 26 were placed with a birth parent/guardian, and 3 children were hospitalized).

Data source: Georgia SHINES.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 122

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 128 of 216
Figure VI-1 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 25: Children Placed in Settings that are in Full Approval and/or Licensure Status
Sources - Periods 7-9: Placement file reviews, Georgia’s ICPC records, child placing agency records, and SHINES; Periods 10-18: SHINES.
Outcome 31 – Foster Home Capacity Limits Outcome 31 seeks to limit the number of children placed in individual foster homes. To facilitate more timely completion of the Accountability Agents’ reports, the Parties agreed in October 2010 to replace the previous Outcome 31 measure with a revised measure that uses the placement as the unit of analysis and which can be extracted from a single, automated data source – SHINES.109 Outcome 31, as revised, stipulates that “By the end of the tenth reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than ten percent of all foster family home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of this Consent Decree…”110,111
109 The original Outcome 31 measure used the child as the unit of analysis, and therefore required the use of multiple data sources (some of which were manual) to link individual children to the point-in-time census of the foster homes in which they were placed. 110 See p. 4, Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 111 The Section 5.c.4.e capacity limits provide that “No child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family's biological and/or adopted children…. The only exception to these limits shall be circumstances in which the placement of a sibling group in a foster home with no other children in the home would exceed one or more of these limits.” See p. 16 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 123

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 129 of 216
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues The point-in-time used for measurement of Outcome 31 in Period 17 was June 30, 2014. The Outcome 31 measure is based on the entire universe of family foster homes that had a class member child in care on the last day of the reporting period.
b. State Performance  The State Surpassed the Outcome 31 Threshold Of the 923 family foster homes that had a child in care at any point during the period July 1 to December 31, 2014, 443 (48%) continued to have one or more children placed in them on December 31, 2014. Twelve of these 443 foster homes (3%) exceeded the Consent Decree’s capacity limits. Outcome 31 permits up to 10 percent of such homes to exceed the capacity limits specified in Section 5.c.4.e. Although the Outcome 31 measurement methodology changed as described above, Period 18 was the 18th consecutive reporting period in which the Outcome 31 threshold was met or surpassed. In Period 18, there were 12 family foster homes (2 DFCS-supervised; 10 provider-supervised) that exceeded the three-foster-child capacity limit. However, 7 of these homes (1 DFCSsupervised and 6 provider-supervised) qualified for the sibling group exception enumerated in Section 5.c.4.e. since no children other than the sibling groups resided in those homes. Thus, a total of five homes that exceeded the three-foster-child capacity limit were in unapproved status. Seven family foster homes in Period 18 (2 DFCS-supervised; 5 provider-supervised) exceeded the six or more total children capacity limit specified in Section 5.c.4.e. None of these seven homes qualified for the sibling group exception. Additional detail on this measurement appears below in Table VI-3. Figure VI-2 illustrates the proportion of foster children placed in foster homes exceeding the Consent Decree standards over the last 12 reporting periods.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 124

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 130 of 216

Placement Type DFCS Supervised Foster Homes Provider Supervised Foster Homes

Table VI-3

Outcome 31 – Foster Homes Exceeding Capacity Limits

N = 443

Foster

Foster

Homes

Homes

with 1 or

Foster

with > 3

More

Homes

Foster

Foster

Foster

Children in with 1 or

Homes

Homes

Children

Care at Any

More

with > 3

with ≥ 6

and/or ≥ 6

Time

Children in

Foster

Children in Children

During

Care on

Children

Total on

Total on

Period 18

12/31/14 on 12/31/14 12/31/14

12/31/14

157

98

1

2

3

766

345

4

5

9

Total

923

443

5

Data Source: SHINES

7

12

% of Foster Homes with > 3 Foster Children
and/or ≥ 6 Children Total on 12/31/14
3%
3% 3%

Figure VI-2 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 31: Children are Not in Foster Homes Exceeding Specified Capacity Limits

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 125

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 131 of 216
Timely and Complete Court Orders for Placement Authorization: Outcomes 26 and 29
Two Outcomes (numbered 26 and 29) relate to strengthening the infrastructure by establishing benchmarks for practices that help support DFCS claims for federal reimbursement for services to children in custody and ensure DFCS has documented custodial authority for the children in foster care.
Outcome 26 – Required IV-E Language in Court Orders
Outcome 26 relates to DFCS having the proper documentation in a child’s file to support an appropriate claim for Federal reimbursement under the Title IV-E program.112 For children who entered care on or after October 27, 2005, judicial determinations that leaving children in their homes would be “…contrary to the welfare…” of the children must be made in the first order that authorizes the State agency’s action to remove the child from home. In practice, this is often the court order from the 72 hour hearing. In addition, there must be documentation of a judicial determination made no later than 60 days from the date of the child’s removal from the home that “reasonable efforts” were made to prevent the child’s removal from his/her family.113 If either of these requirements is not met the State cannot claim federal Title IV-E reimbursement for the child’s care the entire time the child is in custody even though the child’s family meets the Title IV-E income test.
All children in State custody after the Consent Decree’s effective date should have a permanency hearing at least every 12 months with the appropriate language about the State’s “reasonable efforts” to achieve permanency included in the subsequent court orders. If these determinations do not occur timely or the language is not child specific, there is a gap in the child’s eligibility until the determination is appropriately made. The State cannot claim federal reimbursement for the period of the gap.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Measurement of Outcome 26 performance is based on a record review of a sample of 175 children in foster care.
112 See pp 36-37, Outcome 26 of the Consent Decree. 113 Ibid.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 126

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 132 of 216
b. State Performance  The State Surpassed the Outcome 26 Threshold For Outcome 26, each of the 175 children in the Period 18 placement sample (100%) had court orders with all the required language necessary to assess current eligibility for federal funding under Title IV-E. The performance standard for this outcome is 95 percent. The Period 18 performance is an improvement from the Period 17 performance of 95 percent. This is the second consecutive time that the state has met the Outcome 26 threshold since the inception of the consent decree and the first time that the state has achieved 100 percent. Figure VI-3 displays the State’s performance on Outcome 26 over the last 12 reporting periods.
Figure VI-3 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 26: Court Orders Contain Required Language to Support IV-E Funding Claims
Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, January 2008 – December 2014.
Outcome 29 – Lapses in Legal Custodial Authority The Consent Decree strives to limit the proportion of children for whom DHS/DFCS custodial authority lapses.114 Outcome 29 stipulates that no more than five percent of all children should have a lapse in their legal custody within the most recent 13 months of their placement.
114 See p 37, Outcome 29 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 127

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 133 of 216
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues Measurement of Outcome 29 performance is based on 57 children in the sample of 175 children in foster care. These 57 children had been in custody 12 months or more and were still in the temporary custody of the State. The margin of statistical error for this subsample is +/- 11 percent. The revised Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) title 15, which pertains to Juvenile Court proceedings, became effective at the beginning of Period 17. Under these new provisions, custody orders to the Department will remain in effect until the court determines that the purposes of the court order have been accomplished.
O.C.G.A. 15-11-214. (a) An order of disposition in a dependency proceeding shall continue in force until the purposes of the order have been accomplished. (b) The court may terminate an order of disposition of a child adjudicated as a dependent child on or without an application of a party if it appears to the court that the purposes of the order have been accomplished. Thus, beginning in Period 19, OM 29 will become obsolete as all of the children in care should then have custody orders under these new provisions.
b. State Performance
 The State Met the Outcome 29 Threshold In Period 18, DFCS had 2 lapses in custody in the subsample of 57 (3.5%). The outcome threshold is no more than five percent. This is a decrease from the Period 17 performance of zero percent. As discussed above, this is the last cohort of children who came into custody under the previous 12 month custody law. Thus, case managers may not have realized that their custody orders needed to be updated. Figure VI-4 illustrates the proportion of children in DFCS custody with custody lapses over the last 12 reporting periods.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 128

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 134 of 216 Figure VI-4
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 29: Children in Care with Legal Custody Lapses N = 57
Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, January 2009 – December 2014.
B. Caseloads 1. Caseload Sizes There are six primary types of case managers responsible for direct interventions with children and families. The Consent Decree establishes caseload caps for five types. Table VI-4 displays the five different types of case managers, “case” definition, and the stipulated caseload caps.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 129

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 135 of 216

Table VI-4 Case Manager Types and Respective Caseload Caps

Case Manager Function Child Protective Services Investigators (CPS Investigations) Family Preservation (Child Protective Services OnGoing) Case Managers Permanency Case Managers115
Adoptions Case Managers
Specialized Case Managers

Responsibility Respond to and investigate reports of child maltreatment. These individuals may also respond to reports of families in need who are considered candidates for “diversion” services. Provide services to and supervise the safety of children who are not taken into state custody and remain in their own homes. Provide services to the children and families of children who are in the State’s custody.
Provide services to children whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated and who have the permanency goal of adoption. Provide services to the children and families of children who have been in state custody 18 months or more.

Caseload Cap 12 cases (the equivalent of 12 families)
17 cases (the equivalent of 17 families) 15 cases (the equivalent of 15 children) 16 cases (the equivalent of 16 children) 12 cases (the equivalent of 12 children)

A sixth type of case manager may be referred to as a Family Support Case Manager. These case managers are responsible for assessment and short-term intervention with families who come to the attention of DFCS because they are in need of services that will help them keep their families safe. In child welfare practice this strategy has come to be known as a “differential” or “alternative response” to either a full-blown investigation or the “screening out” of a referral because the circumstances do not meet the criteria that would trigger an investigation. Under two circumstances Family Support case managers may also handle child protective services investigations: 1) upon meeting with the family and determining that the situation does rise to the level of possible abuse or neglect, the case designation is revised from family support to investigation; and, 2) when all other investigative staff are busy Family Support case managers may be called on to initiate the investigation to ensure a timely response. Family Support cases and case managers are not covered by the terms of the Consent Decree. Family Support case managers are only included in the caseload analysis when they have responsibility for investigations or family preservation cases. When they are included, all of their cases are counted in measuring compliance with the caseload caps -- family support cases along with investigations and/or family preservation cases.

115 The State has designated “placement” case managers as “permanency” case managers to emphasize their primary purpose is to promote permanency in the lives of children.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 130

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 136 of 216
State Performance as of December 31, 2014 In December 2014, 59 percent of the case managers in DeKalb and Fulton Counties had caseloads that were at or under designated caps, as reflected in Table VI-5. Seventy-nine case managers (primarily CPS Investigators and Specialized Case Managers) exceeded the caps set by the Consent Decree. Sixty-eight cases were temporarily assigned to supervisors pending assignment to case managers. This is similar to the number of unassigned cases (66) found in Period 17 and significantly less than the 111 cases found in Period 16. Most of the supervisors carrying large numbers of cases pending assignment continue to be in CPS Investigations units, where there has been a significant increase in the number of cases. As foreshadowed in the Period 17 report, during Period 18, the high number of new cases, coupled with the high turn-over rate of case managers leaving the agency has resulted in a significant decline in the number of caseloads meeting the agreed upon caps. As a result, the parties entered into a modified CAP, on December 18, 2014, regarding CPS caseloads and the state now provides weekly and monthly caseload reports, as well as quarterly reports of more detailed information about investigations. Moreover, the state has agreed to revise its recruitment and retention plans and implement them no later than March 15, 2015. The agreement also provides a schedule for improved outcome performance in this area. Progress under this newly modified CAP will be reported in the next monitoring report.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 131

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 137 of 216

Table VI-5 DeKalb and Fulton County Caseload Status December 2014

Case Manager Function

Caseload Cap:
Number of cases (families
and children)

Number of
Active Staff on 05/31/14

Number of
Active, Onleave
Staff on 05/31/14

Actual Performance

Meeting Cap on Assigned
Caseloads

Number

%

Not Meeting Cap on
Assigned Caseloads
Number %

Cases Assigned to Separated/
On leave Workers/ Supervisors
Number

CPS Case Manager3

12 families

65

0

31 48%

33 52%

51

Family Preservation

17 families

32

0

16 50%

16 50%

7

Permanency

15

Case Manager children

21

0

20 95%

1 5%

10

Specialized

12

Case Manager children

76

0

47 62%

29 38%

6

Adoption Case

16

Manager*

children

0

0

N/A N/A

N/A

N/ A

0

Total

194

0

114 59%

79 42%

74

Sources: SHINES; county personnel systems for leave and separation information

Notes:

1Active staff are those staff that were not on a leave of absence on November 30, 2014 that was expected

to be more than 30 days. Includes workers with mixed caseloads of CPS investigations and diversions.

Excludes workers who had diversion cases only. Excludes case managers who have caseloads

exclusively of children placed in Georgia through ICPC and not in DFCS custody.

2Active staff on leave at November 30, 2014 but leave anticipated to be more than 30 days.

*Although there are several adoption units, when the caseloads were pulled for Period 18, the case

managers in that unit had caseloads that reflected specialized cases. The specialized caseloads consisted

of 16 adoptions workers and 60 foster care workers.

Child Protective Services Caseloads
As noted in Table VI-4, case managers traditionally designated as “Child Protective Services” case managers fall into two categories: investigators and family preservation (and as discussed above, family support case managers are included only if they have responsibility for CPS investigations or family preservation cases in order to meet timely response times). Figure VI-5 illustrates the proportion of CPS investigation caseloads meeting the Consent Decree standards over the last 12 reporting periods. As of the end of Period 4 (December 2007), the standard has been 12 or fewer cases.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 132

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 138 of 216
Figure VI-5 Twelve Reporting Periods of CPS Investigation Caseloads
Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standard
Source: State data bases: IDS and SHINES; county personnel systems for leave and separation information, January 2009 – December 2014.
As shown above in Figure VI-5, in December 2014, only 48 percent of the CPS investigation caseloads were at or under the caseload cap of 12 families. This performance is a significant decline from the Period 17 performance of 89 percent and the Period 16 performance of 70 percent. The caseloads of the 33 case managers who exceeded the cap (out of 65 total) ranged from 13 to 31 cases. Fifty-one cases were assigned to supervisors (similar to the 52 cases assigned to supervisors in Period 17) pending assignment to a case manager or because the supervisor was completing the investigation. As a result of this significant decline in performance, the parties entered into a modified curative action plan (CAP) on December 18, 2014 in order to reduce caseloads through the daily monitoring of caseloads, as well as recruitment, training and retention strategies. Since the modified CAP became effective, the
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 133

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 139 of 216
state has provided weekly and monthly caseload reports. While the CPS investigators with caseloads over 12 have decreased, the counties continued to utilize deployed case managers from other regions. While this has been somewhat effective in reducing caseloads in the short term, it is not a long term strategy. Governor Deal’s new budget will provide 37.4 million dollars of new resources to the Department starting July 2015. A majority of these resources will be used to hire more case managers, provide merit raises and to create a career ladder to incentivize case managers to invest in a career with the department. Figure VI-6 illustrates the proportion of case managers who provide family preservation (ongoing, in-home child protective services), meeting the Consent Decree standard over the last 12 reporting periods. As of the end of Period 4 (December 2007), the standard has been 17 or fewer cases.
Figure VI-6 Twelve Reporting Periods of Family Preservation116 Caseloads
Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standard
Source: State data bases: SHINES; county personnel systems for leave and separation information, January 2009 – December 2014.
As displayed above in Figure VI-6, 16 or 32 family preservation case managers (50%) had caseloads of 17 or fewer families. This is the third time over the past seven reporting periods that the performance has dropped below 100 percent and marks a significant decline from the 89 percent during Period 17.
116These cases were formerly referred to as “on-going CPS”.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 134

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 140 of 216
Permanency Caseloads As noted in Table VI-4, the children in County custody are divided among case managers depending on their permanency goals or length of stay in foster care. Traditionally, those children who have a permanency goal of adoption are served by an adoptions case manager as the adoption process requires legal knowledge and skills that exceed that needed for children for whom adoption is not the primary permanency goal. As required by the Consent Decree, children who are in custody 18 months or less and those in custody more than 18 months are assigned to different case managers. These two different caseloads are referred to as “regular” and “specialized.” Figure VI-7 illustrates the proportion of “regular” permanency caseloads meeting the Consent Decree standards over the last 12 reporting periods. As of the end of Period 4 (December 2007), the standard has been 15 or fewer cases.
Figure VI-7 Twelve Reporting Periods of Regular Permanency Caseloads
Percent Meeting Standard
Source: State data bases: IDS and SHINES; county personnel systems for leave and separation information, January 2009 – December 2014.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 135

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 141 of 216
As shown above in Figure VI-7, in Period 18, 95 percent of the “regular” permanency caseloads were at or under the caseload cap of 15 children. A total of 21 case managers were designated “regular” permanency case managers based on the type of cases they were assigned. The one case manager who exceeded the cap had a caseload of 17 children. This performance is similar to the Period 17 performance of 93 percent. It is also noted that both DeKalb and Fulton counties had been working to keep all permanency case manager caseloads to 12 or fewer children to provide case manager continuity for children who remain in custody 18 months or more. Figure VI-8 illustrates the proportion of specialized caseloads meeting the Consent Decree standard over the reporting periods to which the standard applied. The caseload cap for specialized case managers has been 12 since the first reporting period.
Figure VI-8 Thirteen Reporting Periods of Specialized Caseloads
Percent Meeting Standard
Source: State data bases: IDS and SHINES; county personnel systems for leave and separation information, January 2009 – December 2014.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 136

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 142 of 216

As displayed above in Figure VI-8, in Period 17, 75 percent of the specialized caseloads ---those caseloads with children who had reached or exceeded their 18th month in care -- were at or below the caseload cap of 12 children as stipulated in the Consent Decree or as allowed by DFCS case manager certification standards. A total of 76 case managers were considered “specialized” permanency case managers based on the type of cases they were assigned. Twenty-nine case managers who exceeded the cap each had 13 to 25 children assigned to them. A portion of the case managers have a combination of children who have been in custody fewer than 18 months as well as those who have been in custody 18 months and more. Six cases were assigned to supervisors. This is similar to Period 17 in which six cases were assigned to a supervisor.
2. Supervisory Ratios
In addition to caseload caps, the Consent Decree establishes supervisory ratios. Each supervisor should supervise no more than five case managers at any one time.117 As shown in Table VI-6, in December 2014, 96 percent of the supervisory units had a ratio of five workers or fewer to one supervisor. This performance is an improvement from the Period 17 performance of 91%. The two units not meeting the 1 to 5 ratio were in Permanency and Specialized Units.

Table VI-6 DeKalb and Fulton County Supervisory Ratios at December 31, 2014

Program/Service Area
Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation) Permanency Case Managers* (Regular and Specialized caseloads) Adoption

Number of Units

Meeting 1 to 5 ratio
Number %

27

27 100%

21

19 90%

0

n/a n/a

Not Meeting 1 to 5 ratio
Number %
0 0%
2 10%
n/a n/a

Total

48

46 96%

2 4%

Sources: State SHINES, and county personnel systems for leave and separation information.

* The majority of specialized caseloads are in “adoption” units, however, for purposes of the consent

decree and therefore this report, they are being classified as “specialized units”.

117 See p. 23, Section 8.B.2 in the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 137

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 143 of 216

C. Building Workforce Skills
The Consent Decree has several training requirements.118 In this report section, the Accountability Agents describe State efforts to improve its practice curricula, the qualifications of new supervisors and the State’s compliance with pre-service and in-service training requirements.
1. Education and Training Services Section 119
The leadership of the Education and Training Services (ETS) section changed during Period 18. Effective August, 2014, Mr. Lee Biggar, M.A. became the Section Director for Education and Training Services.
2. Staff Preparation and Professional Development
The State reported that the ETS engaged in numerous training and development activities in Period 18. Table VI-7 provides a summary of some of the new curricula and projects during the period.
Table VI-7 Newly Developed Curricula for DFCS Professional Development and Education and
Training Projects During Period 18

Target Audience

Curriculum/Activity
Keys New Case Manager Training Region 14 has fully implemented their training unit and is providing monthly KEYS training to new workers within the region. ETS continues to provide support through materials, scheduling and consultation.

Case Managers

Foster Care Training A joint SHINES training venture with the lead Data Integrity Specialist (DIS) trainer was initiated this reporting period to enhance the new worker training experience with SHINES. The plan is to engage new workers with DIS staff in their region and facilitate an introduction to SHINES (basic navigation and SHINES terminology) prior to the first day of classroom training. The advantages of this pre-meeting are (1) introduce staff to their DIS (2) prepare trainees for classroom SHINES training in a smaller group

118 See pages 25 and 26 of the Consent Decree for the complete description of the requirements. 119 See Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S. A. Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue, November 2006, for a description of the Education and Training Services Section.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 138

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 144 of 216

Target Audience

Curriculum/Activity
atmosphere (3) allow DIS to provide over the shoulder support to ensure that staff fully understand and can demonstrate the concepts learned in SHINES classroom training.

Adoption Training A second revision of the Adoption Curriculum was completed in December 2014. The revision included four new pre-classroom online modules that address History and Laws of Adoption/Adoption Assistance, Introduction to the Child Life History and Recruitment/Retention Reporting. A Train the Trainer session will be scheduled and piloted in DeKalb County in February 2015. CPS Training

Case Managers

The CICC and CPS training modules were updated and edited to reflect the new legal policy (Chapter 3, incorporating HB 242) and new CPS intake policy (Chapter 4.3). The curriculum was revised to reflect the new policies, including a mandate to investigate the following: physical abuse of a child under six years old regardless of presence of injury or lack thereof, CHINS cases, and CSEC cases. The policy and curriculum were also revised to reiterate the importance of reviewing and analyzing history, and reiterate the importance of assessing child safety across all program areas.

Safety Response System Academy One training was completed in July 2014. Further trainings have been put on hold until the new DFCS Director makes a decision about whether DFCS will continue with this practice model or move to a different model.

Supervisors and Administrators

Supervisor Training
Through the Social Services training sequence for supervisors, ETS continued to provide “Putting the Pieces Together” classroom, online, and field based skill building (transfer of learning) training. Updates and revisions to the classroom curriculum began during the last half of the reporting period. After completion of the updates, a new series of half day workshops will be developed to meet the needs of the field as well as the current and future hires in the DFCS workforce.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 139

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 145 of 216

Target Audience

Curriculum/Activity
Supervisor Mentoring During the reporting period ETS continued to provide supervisory mentoring services by two ETS staff members to Fulton County. This included mentoring and oversight of field-based skill building with new supervisors, in addition to consultation/mentoring with identified new and veteran supervisors. Mentoring will continue into 2015 based on the availability of ETS staff and expectations of the County. The Fulton peer mentoring project came to a close in 2014.

Supervisors and Administrators

Field Practice Coach Training This training was provided in Fulton County in August and October 2014. This one-day workshop is for DFCS staff who have been selected to be Field Practice Coaches for new case managers. The Field Practice Coach Program was initiated to support and expedite the training process for new case managers as they progress through Georgia’s Child Welfare System, and this course is required for eligible staff to become certified as a Field Practice Coach.

New County Director Training

This course is offered to new County Directors, Deputy Directors, and new Regional Directors. Subject matter experts provide information on the Safety Response System, Budgeting and Financial Management, Kenny A., Risk Management, and Quality Management in addition to other topics related to leadership.

All Staff

Safety Response System “SRS” The SRS Overview Training continues in Supervisor Training, County Director Training, and now in KEYS training. Two impending danger webinars were developed to help staff understand the SRS model, but they have been put on hold until a decision is made about continuing with the SRS model. Field Practice Guide The Field Practice Guide (FPG) was updated with the most recent practice guidance. The revisions include the updated mandatory case manager safety course “Situational Awareness and Safety Training”, and the “Effects of Abuse and Neglect: A Focus on Typical Development”, and the alignment of Foster Care Training time frames.

The FPG provides guidance to new case managers, Field Practice Coaches,

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 140

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 146 of 216

Target Audience
All Staff

Curriculum/Activity
Veteran Case Managers, Supervisors and County Leadership about training requirements for certification. The FPG activities are monitored by Supervisors, Field Practice Coaches and Classroom trainers.
Case Planning Training At the request of DeKalb County, Education and Training developed and delivered three case planning workshops in November 2014 to a total of 53 Social Services Case Managers and Supervisors. The morning session consisted of refresher training, and the afternoon session applied the concepts through live learning.

As reported previously, during the summer of 2011, the Georgia IV-E training and education program was suspended due to a policy clarification from the regional office of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families. The policy clarification required Georgia to restructure the arrangements it has with the participating universities. With the help of Casey Family Programs, DFCS engaged a consultant to evaluate the curricula and costs of the participating institutions to identify the costs that are eligible for reimbursement, a methodology for cost allocation, and the rate at which they are reimbursable to help support a proposal that will be acceptable to HHS.
The analysis and new funding structure was presented to HHS, ACF, and the Children's Bureau. The Children's Bureau approved of the new funding structure for the program. The Board of Regents designated Georgia State University (GSU) the sole contractor for the Title IVE Child Welfare Education Program with the understanding that GSU will subcontract with the other schools of social work.
During Period 18, DFCS continued to work with Georgia State University (GSU) to reinstate the Title IV-E Child Welfare Education Program. The Program is still slated to re-open in August 2015, but may include only GSU and the University of Georgia schools of social work at the outset due to Federal IV-E funding requirements. Private schools of social work will not be involved in the Program initially due to their inability to demonstrate sufficient certified public expenditures (CPE) to meet IV-E requirements. DFCS hopes to include the schools of social work at the Albany State and Valdosta State public universities, but must see if they are able to document sufficient CPE to qualify. DFCS will continue working with a consultant to complete a budget analysis for the schools of social work to determine whether they will be able to draw down enough Federal funding to sustain the IV-E Program.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 141

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 147 of 216
3. New Supervisor Qualifications
As stipulated in the Consent Decree, case manager supervisors employed by the counties after October 27, 2005 must have, at a minimum, a Bachelor’s degree in Social Work (BSW) and two years of experience.120 Accordingly, all supervisors in Period 18 assigned since the Consent Decree either had a BSW or a Master’s degree in Social Work (MSW) and two or more years of experience.
4. Pre-Service and On-going Training Hours
According to the county training and certification data reviewed by the Accountability Agents, it appears that all new case managers and newly appointed supervisors are receiving the required number of hours of pre-service training. For case managers and supervisors, who are not new to the agency, (and therefore involved in pre-service training), they must complete 20 hours of professional development each fiscal year. The state of Georgia fiscal year is July 1 – June 30. Thus, staff have until June 30, 2015 to complete their annual professional development. This will be reported in the Period 19 monitoring report.
5. Case Manager and Supervisor Certification
Table VI-8 summarizes the certification status available from the State at the end of December 2014 for social service case managers and supervisors in Fulton and DeKalb counties. As shown, 157 case managers (83%) and 26 supervisors (50%) had achieved full certification as of December 31 2014. This is a significant decrease from the 95 percent of case managers and 87 percent of supervisors in Period 17. The high turn-over rates within the workforce discussed throughout this report have impacted the number of fully certified personnel. The counties are expediting the hiring process and holding hiring panels on a regular basis to get new case managers and supervisors hired and certified as soon as possible.

120 See p. 26 of the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 142

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 148 of 216

Table VI-8 Certification Status of Case Managers and Supervisors in DeKalb and Fulton County DFCS as of December 31, 2014

Position Title
Case Managers CPS Investigators CPS On-Going Case Managers Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized Caseloads) Adoption Case Managers

Fully Certified
50 25
66 16

Results Pending

Provisional

11 7

12 2

Not Certified
1

Total*
61 32 79 18

TOTAL

157

32

Supervisors

CPS (Investigations and OnGoing)

10

Permanency (Regular and Specialized Caseloads)

13

Adoption

3

TOTAL

26

Source: Compiled from data supplied by county training coordinators.

1

190

16

26

9

22

1

4

26

52

D. Assuring Placement Resources Are Available
While the foster care population is lower than it was at the outset of the Consent Decree (reducing somewhat the demand for foster homes), the number of children in State custody at any point during the reporting period grew by 65 (4%), from 1746 in Period 17 to 1811 in Period 18. Recruiting enough new foster homes to accommodate the needs of the children entering care and to replace the foster homes discontinuing service remains a challenge.
The Accountability Agents have not verified the recruitment information of the counties or private providers. The sampling frame for the foster home case record review is all foster homes with a class member in care during the reporting period; therefore it does provide some verification that homes identified by the State as being open actually are open.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 143

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 149 of 216
1. DFCS-supervised Foster Homes
Table VI-9 summarizes county progress by December 31, 2014 compared to Period 17 and to the March 31, 2008 baseline. During Period 18, Fulton County reported opening 21 homes but also closing 19 homes. Among the 19 closures, nine (47%) were the result of voluntary decisions by foster parents and four homes (21%) closed as the result of adoptions – foster parents desiring to close their homes after adopting children in their care. Four homes closed as the result of the family moving out of County and two were closed for administrative reasons.
DeKalb County reported opening 25 homes but also closing 21 homes. Twelve of the 21 closures (57%) were the result of voluntary decisions by foster parents. Another seven homes (33%) closed as a result of finalized adoptions. One home closed as the result of the family moving out of County and one for administrative reasons.
Regional plans to enhance the success of foster home recruitment efforts include:
 Continued focus on recruitment for children aged 13-17, as well as sibling groups of all ages;
 Prioritize approvals for families interested in actively fostering;  Improve visibility in the community through using government TV and newspaper
articles as well as a revised Regional website to expedite contact with prospective foster parents;  Initiate follow-up phone calls to improve engagement and support of families that contact the Homes for Georgia’s Kids hotline or the Division directly;  Expedite the processing and screening of families by collecting paperwork at the end of informational sessions whenever possible, rather than having families mail in the forms;  A “Welcome Back Initiative” to reach out to former foster families that closed in good standing to invite them to return to fostering;  Develop tickler systems for the current inquiry logs to prompt call-backs to families that do not proceed further after attending informational sessions, and foster families that close with the intention of returning within a year to invite them to re-open;  Engage current foster families that work at hospitals, government agencies, and corporations to co-facilitate recruitment;  Encourage current or former foster youth to participate in recruitment events to help communicate the need for families willing to care for teens;  Continuing to utilize State contractors to assist in completing home studies;  Continuing to encourage kinship placement through ongoing training of new staff, case reviews, support services to kinship families, and improving the timeliness of evaluations; and,  Ongoing professional development of supervisors to improve program performance.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 144

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 150 of 216
Regional plans to improve retention of existing foster homes include:
 Offering trainings in both counties in response to foster parent requests and staff evaluation of family needs.
 Providing one-on-one training to foster families during quarterly home visits to ensure current and new policy is effectively communicated and to reach families that fail to attend mandatory group trainings. One-on-one training will focus particularly on issues that could lead to closure if unaddressed, such as inappropriate discipline. Specialized training to meet the needs of children with mental health and behavioral issues is also being considered.
 Formal meetings with foster families who do not timely complete required training hours to determine barriers, solutions, and commitment to fostering and partnering with the agency; and with families that repeatedly decline placements to determine causes, solutions, and if the partnership is appropriate.
 Resource Development staff will meet with foster care and CPS staff to discuss ways these program areas can assist with retention of current families through positive partnering and open communication, addressing problems as they arise, and following established policy.
 Resource Development home monitors will continue working with Placement Specialists to appropriately match children and foster parents to reduce the number of disruptions and placement moves.
 Continue conducting quarterly home visits (monthly contacts are made with Receiving Home foster parents) and monthly check-in phone calls to support foster families.
 Continue providing on-going training, support, and appreciation to foster parents, including CPR training, Town Hall Meetings, and semi-annual foster parent appreciation banquets.
 Proactively identifying, engaging, and screening new adult household members.  Continuing to support the County Foster Parent Associations.
2. Provider-supervised Foster Homes
Private Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) experienced a net gain of eight private agency foster homes and 55 foster care beds compared to Period 17. The number of CPA foster homes operating in DeKalb County increased by one percent, from 214 to 217, while the number in Fulton County increased from 145 to 150 (3%).
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 145

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 151 of 216

Table VI-9 DeKalb County and Fulton County Foster Home Capacity Building Progress

County

Baseline March 31, 2008

Period 17 Status December 31, 2013

Period 18 Status December 31, 2014

Progress: Net Gain (Loss)
Period 17-18

Goals for Period 18 (Jun.-Dec., 2014)

DeKalb

Beds Homes Beds Homes Beds Homes Beds Homes Beds Homes

County

Supervised

418

209

179

96

181

100

2

Homes

CPA

Supervised

544

214

576

217

32

Homes

Total

723

310

757

317

34

4

191

102

3 7

Fulton

County

Supervised 504

238

212

110

213

112

1

2

Homes

CPA

Supervised

415

145

438

150

23

5

Homes

Total

627

255

651

262

24

7

224

116

Two-

County

1350 565

1408 579

58

14

Total

Source: Region 14 reporting and the Office of Provider Management.

In response to the continued concern regarding the status of the foster home resources for children in DeKalb and Fulton custody expressed by the Accountability Agents and Plaintiffs’ Counsel, the State agreed to conduct a needs assessment similar to the one completed in 2007 by Hornby Zeller Associates. The Accountability Agents urged the State to consider the characteristics, needs and communities from which children coming into DFCS custody are removed in determining the types, number, and location of foster homes needed. The followup assessment, conducted by the State Office Permanency Section [now known as the Foster Care Services Section (FCSS), was completed in January 2013.

Among the needs assessment’s findings were the following:

 The proportion of prospective foster families that actually complete the training and approval processes needs to be increased, especially in DeKalb County;
 The number of foster homes in the zip codes from which large numbers of children enter care needs to be increased, especially in Fulton County;
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 146

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 152 of 216
 Both counties need to improve collaboration across organizational units;  Both counties need to improve the quality of placement matches; and  The “receiving homes” utilized by both Counties seem to be working well and the
supports extended to these caregivers should be extended on some level to regular foster homes.121
The assessment concluded with five recommendations from the FCSS:
1) FCSS will initiate quarterly recruitment/retention meetings with DeKalb, Fulton, the perimeter counties, CPAs and CCIs to: a. Plan, collaborate and trouble shoot on recruitment, retention and placement issues; b. Review recruitment, retention and home utilization data; c. Resolve specific home-finding challenges for children/youth; and d. Create quarterly action plans regarding targeted recruitment, retention, and placement of children/youth.
Progress:  Four statewide meetings were held during Period 18: o Two meetings on placement resource utilization were held in September, the first attended by Maximum Watchful Oversight (MWO) placement providers, regional and state office staff; the second attended by DFCS staff from all regions including Fulton and DeKalb. The purpose of the first meeting was to discuss the difficulty of making placement matches for high-end youth, identify barriers and brainstorm solutions. At the second meeting the results of the first meeting were shared and best practices regarding placement matching, PRTF/crisis beds, RBWO provider placements and OPM processes and placement matching supports were discussed.
o A Practice Matters meeting focusing on resource development and placement matching was held in October. Through small and large group discussions, RBWO providers, regional, county and state office staff generated ideas for addressing placement capacity and utilization issues.
o In November a Statewide Recruitment and Retention Plan kick-off meeting was held. Data and other information from the Child and Family Services Plan’s 5Year Diligent Recruitment Plan were shared and the 2015 statewide plan reviewed. Participants were also provided instructions on developing regional implementation plans to support the Statewide Plan.
121 “Resource Development Assessment of Region 14,” Georgia Dept. of Human Services, January 2013, p.6.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 147

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 153 of 216
2) A review of the receiving home program model should be conducted by Region 14 to determine if aspects of the model could be replicated with “regular” foster homes and to determine if additional receiving homes are needed. Progress:  A meeting was held in March 2014 with state office and county fiscal and programmatic staff to discuss current usage of receiving homes in Region 14, initial cost estimates associated with expanding the model, and IV-E reimbursement parameters. Although the model appears to be effective in Region 14, replicating it on a larger scale is thought to be cost-prohibitive. No further action on this recommendation is anticipated.
3) DeKalb and Fulton Counties should continue working to regionalize their resource development functions and teams.
Progress:  The regionalization of the Resource Development functions and staff of DeKalb and Fulton counties was completed during Period 16. No further action on this recommendation is anticipated.
4) The State Office Permanency Section will mentor the supervisors in Region 14 responsible for recruitment, retention, training, support, and placement to provide them with training, support, and a quality assurance mechanism.
Progress:  A Caregiver Recruitment and Retention Specialist (CRRS) was brought onboard in Period 18. Although the CRRS met with Region 14 leadership to discuss challenges, this lone individual has been unable to provide any mentoring to staff at the supervisory level. No further action on this recommendation is anticipated.
5) The State Office Permanency Unit will continue developing plans for a state-level resource development unit.
Progress:  FCSS received approval to hire one dedicated staff person to focus on care giver recruitment and retention for the state. This new hire started work May 1, 2014, reports to the FCSS Director, and be responsible for supporting the state's overall effort to increase and maintain foster caregivers including relative caregivers. DFCS’ FY 2016 budget, which has not yet been enacted, calls for an additional $5.8 million to support foster home recruitment efforts. A number of service and organizational changes for Period 19 and beyond are being planned in anticipation of this additional funding.
The Accountability Agents will continue monitoring and reporting on any action steps taken pursuant to these recommendations and on the State’s other efforts to develop and maintain enough high quality foster homes to meet the placement needs of the children in its care.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 148

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 154 of 216

E. Placement Support
This section of the report describes the State’s performance on a number of issues related to the regulation and support of foster care providers. These issues are described in the Consent Decree in Section 5.C.4.e-i, 5.C.6122 and Section 11.123 The State performed well in many areas in Period 18 and maintained many of the significant improvements documented in Periods 5-12 compared to earlier reporting periods. However, the State needs to improve compliance with new requirements for annual Sex Offender Registry, Pardons and Parole, and Department of Corrections checks for all adult residents of foster homes prior to the annual re-approval of those homes.
Section 11 of the Consent Decree contains a variety of requirements with respect to the screening, licensing, and training of foster parents. Paragraph B of Section 11 requires a set of uniform standards to be in place for the approval or re-approval of all foster and pre-adoptive families. In Paragraph F, the State agrees not to allow the perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment to become or to remain foster parents. The State’s performance against each of these requirements is considered below.
The review of 160 foster home records sought evidence in each record that the home was in compliance with applicable standards at the end of the reporting period. Data from the foster home record review are presented below. These data can be said to fairly represent the status of the sampled foster homes at the end of the reporting period, but may not accurately reflect the quality of the regulatory approval process. The reasons for this include changes that may occur in family circumstances or characteristics between the approval date and date the home’s record was reviewed, aspects of the approval process that may have been underway at the end of the reporting period, but had not yet been concluded and documented in the case record, and the practice among some child-placing agencies of keeping certain information such as health records and toxicology reports in separate, locked files rather than in the foster home record due to HIPAA and privacy concerns.

1. Regular and timely evaluations to ensure placement settings meet standards

Successfully preventing maltreatment in care is aided by effective evaluation and re-evaluation of care settings. In addition, foster caregivers need to be supported and well-trained to effectively care for and, when necessary, appropriately discipline the children in their care.
To ensure that foster homes are equipped to provide safe and appropriate care, DFCS has promulgated a uniform set of approval standards that apply to DFCS-supervised and providersupervised foster homes alike. In addition, the Residential Child Care unit (RCC) has promulgated licensing rules that apply to the Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) that supervise private foster homes.

122 Ibid, pp. 16-19. 123 Ibid, pp. 26-28.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 149

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 155 of 216
However, the existence of uniform standards by itself cannot ensure children in care are safe and well. Therefore, the review of foster home records specifically sought evidence that the foster homes reviewed were in compliance with the DFCS approval standards. For all but seven of the standard previously monitored, compliance was found to be 90 percent or greater. For these seven requirements below 90 percent, the decline is likely attributable to a fairly recent change in the standard, described below. As a corrective action pursuant to the Period 11 Report, DFCS issued a Policy Memorandum announcing that foster home safety screens (checks of CPS history, sex offenders registry, pardons and parole, Department of Corrections, and Child Abuse and Neglect Registry in states of previous residence) would henceforth be required prior to each annual re-evaluation (previously these were required prior only to the initial approval of foster homes).124 Table VI-10 summarizes the extent to which documentation was found in the foster home records reviewed indicating that these homes met the approval standards that have been measured since the outset of the Consent Decree, and compares the results for Periods 17 and 18. The foster home record review found completed initial/re-evaluation reports in 158 of 160 records (99%) in which they should have appeared, similar to the 99 percent found in Period 17. The file review found evidence that for most approval standards, 96 percent or more of the homes reviewed were in compliance. This is the same as the Period 17 rate.
124 Social Services County Letter No. 2012-06, Georgia Department of Human Services, October 2012.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 150

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 156 of 216

Table VI-10

Foster Care Approval and Licensing Standards

N = 160

Foster Care Screening, Licensing, Training, and Investigative Requirements

Percent of Sample with Documented Compliance Period 17 Period 18

Pre-service foster parent training requirements met

100%

100%

Child Abuse and Neglect Registry checked for foster parents

a

100%b

Family assessment completed

100%

99%

Gender of children in home never varied from that approved

99%

98%

Timely Criminal Record Checks for foster parents

100%

98%

Number of children in home never exceeded approved capacity

98%

98%

Timely Criminal Record Checks for other adults in the home

96%

98%c

Ongoing foster parent training requirements met

95%

98%

No violations of agency discipline or other foster care policies

96%

96%

Comprehensive medical report for each foster parent

98%

96%

Timely annual re-evaluation (no lapses)

98%

96%

Comprehensive Drug Screen for Foster Parents

98%

96%

CPS history has been checked

97%

94%

Age of children in home never varied from that approved

97%

94%

Appropriate health statements for other adults in the home

89%

90%c

Dept. of Corrections checked for foster parents Sex Offender Registry checked for foster parents

75% 74%

75%

73%

Pardons and Parole checked for foster parents

75%

72%

Sex Offender Registry checked for other adults in the home

60%

66% c

Dept. of Corrections checked for other adults in the home Pardons and Parole checked for other adults in the home Child Abuse and Neglect Registry checked for other adults

58% 60%
a

66% c
63% c 0%d

Source: Foster Home Record Reviews for Periods 17 and 18. a In Period 17 the Child Abuse and Neglect Registry standard measured both the foster parents and other adults together (82%). Period 18 was the first time this standard was measured for foster parents and other adults separately. b As this measures is based on a sub-sample of 5 foster homes it has a margin of statistical error of ±44%. c As these measures are based on a sub-sample of 41 foster homes they have a margin of statistical error of ±15%. d As these measures are based on a sub-sample of 2 foster homes they have a margin of statistical error of ±69%.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 151

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 157 of 216
Compliance appears to have remained about the same (±2 percentage points) for 13 of the 20 requirements that remained the same from Period 17 to Period 18 and to have improved for four requirements (by 8, 6, 3 and 3 percentage points, respectively):
 Department of Corrections has been checked for other adults,  Sexual Offender Registry has been checked for other adults,  Pardons and Parole has been checked for other adults, and  Ongoing foster parent training requirements met. . Compliance declined by 3 percentage points for three requirements:  CPS history on home has been checked,  Age of children in home never varied from that approved, and  Pardons and Parole has been checked for foster parents. Table VI-10 summarizes compliance with the standards which were revised prior to Period 17. Period 18 results for the Sexual Offender Registry, Pardons and Parole, and Dept. of Corrections standards improved for the other adult checks (by 6, 3, and 8 percentage points, respectively), stayed the same (±2 percentage points) for the Sexual Offender and Dept. of Corrections checks for foster parents, but declined for the Pardons and Parole checks for foster parents (by 3 percentage points). As these checks are typically performed together, observed compliance amongst the various types of checks was very similar. The Accountability Agents expect that as the field adjusts to the new annual nature of these checks observed compliance will improve.
Table VI-11 provides additional information about cases in which timely safety screens were not performed. For each type of safety screen, checks were more likely to have been performed late rather than not at all. While the State needs to improve its performance in conducting annual safety checks for all adults in the foster home, it needs to give special attention to conducting checks for adults other than the foster parents themselves.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 152

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 158 of 216

Check Type

Table VI-11 Newly Annualized Foster Care Approval and Licensing Standards
N = 160

Foster Parents

Other Adults

Timely

Untimely

No Check

Timely

Untimely

Total No. %

No. %

No. %

Total No. %

No. %

No Check No. %

Sexual

Offender 159

116 73% 35

22% 8

5% 41

27

66% 11

27% 3

7%

Registry

Check

Pardons &

Parole

159

115 72% 34

21% 10

6% 41

26

63% 11

27% 4

10%

Check

Dept. of

Correction 159

117 74% 33

21% 9

6% 41

27

66% 11

27% 3

7%

s Check

Previous

State of

5

Residence*

5

100%

2

0

0% 2

100%

2. Prohibition of Perpetrators of Substantiated Maltreatment to be Foster Parents
Section 11.F. of the Consent Decree specifies that DFCS will not allow perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment, those with policy violations that threaten child safety, or those who repeatedly or unrepentantly use corporal punishment to become or to remain foster parents. State performance in preventing foster parents from using corporal punishment improved in Period 18. State performance in preventing perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment from becoming or remaining foster parents and in detecting and preventing foster parents with problematic histories from switching supervision environments (e.g., moving from one provider agency to another) was excellent.
a. Corporal Punishment and Maltreatment in Foster Homes
Of the 160 foster home files reviewed for Period 18, one (1%) had confirmed incidents of corporal punishment during the 12 months ending December 31, 2014. In Period 17, six confirmed incidents of corporal punishment in the preceding 12 months were identified among the foster homes sampled.
A total of 28 foster homes in the sample of 160 (18%) were the subject of 38 maltreatment referrals during Period 18; in Period 17, 30 foster homes in the sample of 160 (19%) had 38 CPS referrals. Twenty-two Period 18 homes had one referral each, four homes had two referrals,
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 153

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 159 of 216
and two homes had four referrals; in Period 17, 23 homes each had a single referral, six homes had two referrals each, and one home had three referrals. In Period 18, 27 of the 38 referrals (71%) were screened out (compared to 24 of 38 [63%] in Period 17); 10 (25%) were investigated and unsubstantiated (compared to 11 of 38 [29%] in Period 17); and one had substantiated findings (there were 3 with substantiated findings in Period 17).
The continuing high volume of referrals and number of homes with multiple referrals could be a product of the publicity surrounding the CICC – the State’s relatively new centralized intake operation – and its around-the-clock accessibility.
As discussed in Part III of this report, of the 160 foster home files reviewed for Period 18, two (1%) had confirmed incidents of corporal punishment during the 12 months ending December 31, 2014. In Period 17, six confirmed incidents of corporal punishment in the preceding 12 months were identified among the foster homes sampled.
Eight of the 160 sampled foster homes in Period 18 had corporal punishment allegations that did not rise to the level of maltreatment and were screened out. These screened out referrals were assessed to determine if the foster homes violated policy guidelines. In seven of the eight foster homes, there was insufficient evidence to confirm the use of corporal punishment or that the disciplinary policy was violated.
In the eighth home, the preponderance of evidence supported that corporal punishment had occurred, but no policy violation was found in the record, nor was a Corrective Action Plan developed. This case highlights the concern noted by the Accountability Agents in Part III of this report concerning CPAs assuming responsibility for assessing themselves when allegations of corporal punishment have been made. In this instance, despite there being strong evidence that corporal punishment had occurred, no policy violation was documented in the record, and no Corrective Action Plan was developed.
Documenting policy violations in the record is extremely important, not only because unaddressed policy violations represent tolerance of prohibited corporal punishment, but because many of the requirements and safeguards defined in the Consent Decree are contingent upon the existence of an accurate record of each foster home’s policy violations. As noted in Part III, when policy violations occur, the home is to be closed if:
 The policy violation had a direct impact on safety, well-being, or posed a serious risk to the child;
 The policy violation represents the home’s second Discipline or Other Serious Foster Care violation; or
 The family is not amenable to change or intervention.
The home may remain open if none of the above conditions are present and the home is placed under a Corrective Action Plan that is agreed upon and signed by all parties and appropriately
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 154

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 160 of 216
monitored and enforced.
b. Preventing Substantiated Maltreators from Becoming Foster Parents
Section 11.F. of the Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS shall be able to identify DFCSsupervised or provider-supervised foster parents that have perpetrated substantiated maltreatment or had their home closed, and subsequently seek foster home approval from a CPA or a different CPA. Section 11 G. requires DFCS to maintain for “every foster or preadoptive family/parents with whom class members may be placed, a complete history for the prior 5 years of any reports of possible abuse or neglect and any substantiated reports of abuse or neglect…”125 DFCS Policy requires CPS history checks to be run for prospective foster parents prior to their initial approval;126 any CPS reports occurring after a foster home’s initial approval to be documented in the foster home’s record;127 and CPS reports in DFCS or providersupervised foster homes to be opened in the name of the approved caregiver.128
To assess the State’s performance in not allowing perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment to become or to remain foster parents, file reviewers performed a “look-up” in SHINES and the IDS Master Index for every foster home in the sample of 160 to determine if the home had any history of substantiated maltreatment. In addition, reviewers examined the CPS history of every foster home that had a maltreatment-in-care investigation completed during Period 18. Among the 160 foster home records sampled for Period 18 and the 81 maltreatment-in-care reports that were associated with foster homes, no foster home was found to have a prior substantiation of maltreatment and to be open during the Period. The same was true in Period 17.
Future reports will continue to examine foster homes that have allegations of maltreatment made against them, and the State’s performance in preventing perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment from becoming or remaining foster parents.
c. Operational Context
Section 11.C. of the Consent Decree requires the process of licensing and approving foster homes to be carried out jointly by DFCS and the Residential Child Care (RCC) unit.129 This section describes the Accountability Agents’ understanding of how DFCS and RCC collaborate in this process. It is based on interviews with staff of both these units as well as interviews with other central office and county staff.
125 See p. 28 of the Consent Decree. 126 Social Services Manual, Section 2103.18, Georgia Department of Human Services, February 2008. 127 Social Services Manual, Section 1015.39, Georgia Department of Human Services, April 2007. 128 Social Services Manual, Sections 2106.9 and 2106.18, Georgia Department of Human Services, March 2006. 129 Effective September 1, 2012, supervision of the Office of Residential Child Care (ORCC) was transferred to the Office of the Inspector General and renamed the Residential Child Care unit (RCC).
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 155

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 161 of 216
RCC licenses Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) and other institutional providers. A CPA must be licensed by RCC before DFCS will execute a contract with them to provide foster care. In these private provider arrangements, the CPA conducts the approval process for the foster homes it supervises. For DFCS-supervised foster homes, the approval process is conducted by DFCS.
Section 5.C.4.i of the Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS will contract only with licensed placement contractors and shall place no child in an unlicensed facility.130 To assess compliance with this requirement, data from the foster home file review were compared against the CPA licensing information available in SHINES, and licensing status was reviewed for every CCI with one or more class member child in placement on December 31, 2014. Of the 100 providersupervised foster homes sampled that had a class member in care at any point during the reporting period, 96 (96%) were overseen by CPAs that had a valid license on December 31, 2014. Four homes were overseen by a CPA that did not have a valid license. In fact, each of these homes was overseen by the same CPA. The CPA did have a license by the end of Period 18. The Period 18 performance represents a decline from Period 17, when every providersupervised home was overseen by a CPA that had a valid license at the end of the period.
RCC licenses the CPAs themselves, not the foster homes supervised by the CPAs. RCC only gets involved with individual provider-supervised foster homes if they receive a report about a particular home or when they make unannounced visits to a random sample of providersupervised foster homes. To receive a license, a CPA must allow RCC to review their policies and procedures for compliance with the RCC rules regarding such things as home studies and visitation. In deciding whether to grant, deny, or continue a CPA’s license, RCC reviews a random sample of the files of individual children against the provider record to ensure the placement was an appropriate match for the child and conducts unannounced inspections of a sample of the foster homes supervised by each CPA. If rule violations are found in the course of these inspections the CPA may be cited for non-compliance with the terms of its license.
CPAs wishing to serve children in DFCS custody must, in addition to licensure by RCC, be approved by the DFCS Office of Provider Management (OPM). The DFCS policy manual specifies a set of uniform standards that foster care settings must meet to be approved by DFCS – in the case of DFCS supervised homes – or by CPAs – in the case of provider supervised homes. These uniform standards became fully operational on July 1, 2007 with the implementation of amended provider contract language.
130 Group homes with a capacity of five or fewer residents are allowed to operate as “unlicensed CCIs” in the State of Georgia. The exact number of such facilities in the state is unknown. Georgia’s regulations pertaining to Child Caring Institutions define a CCI as “a child-welfare agency that is any institution, society, agency, or facility [that] provides full-time care for children through 18 years of age outside of their own homes.” The rule further defines these entities as “…any institution, society, agency, or facility that provides such care to six or more children.” (Rules and Regulations for Child Caring Institutions, Chapter 290-2-5, effective August 1, 1994, revised February 13, 2008.)
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 156

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 162 of 216
Before arriving at an initial approval decision, OPM conducts a detailed desk review of the prospective provider’s enrollment application. The provider is required to submit a copy of their current RCC license along with the completed enrollment application to show that the agency is in good standing with RCC. During the site visit conducted by OPM staff, the provider is asked questions about their latest RCC visit(s) and if RCC has issued any citations to the provider. In addition, OPM either accesses the RCC website to gather information about recent RCC citations against the provider and/or contacts the RCC Surveyor to confirm that the provider is in good standing. If there are citations, the provider is required to explain how the citations were resolved before OPM will contract with the provider.
Typically, a prospective CPA will include at least three home studies with their provider enrollment application. The foster home studies are read during the desk review and a site visit is made to each home to evaluate readiness. The foster parents are interviewed and a walk through of the home is conducted. After field visits are completed, each enrollment application is staffed within OPM (this includes the Specialist, Supervisor, Unit manager and Unit Director) to determine if OPM will initiate a DHS contract with the provider.
During Period 18, a total of 79 CPAs (supervising approximately 2000 foster homes) and 189 CCIs were contracted with OPM for the placement of children in DFCS custody. These CPAs and CCIs varied in size:
 27 CPAs and 125 CCIs were “Small Agencies” (6 CPA foster homes or CCI beds);  11 CPAs and 52 CCIs were “Medium Agencies” (7-20 CPA foster homes or CCI beds);  17 CPAs and 7 CCIs were “Large Agencies” (21-30 CPA foster homes or CCI beds); and,  24 CPAs and 5 CCIs were “Extra Large Agencies” (31 CPA foster homes or CCI beds).
OPM conducted “comprehensive reviews” of a portion of these CCIs and CPA administrative offices during Period 18, and visited a sample of the foster homes supervised by the CPAs to interview children, review files for compliance with contract provisions, and to inspect physical plant. OPM conducted comprehensive reviews of 43 (54%) of the 79 contracted CPAs and 114 (60%) of the 189 contracted CCIs during Period 18.
During Period 18, OPM also conducted 4 “Safety Reviews” of CPA foster homes and 193 Safety Reviews of CCIs, in addition to the Comprehensive Reviews discussed above. A Safety Review (which takes about 90 minutes to complete) is a streamlined version of the Comprehensive Review (which typically takes about two days) that specifically focuses on child safety issues. During a typical Safety Review, one or more children are interviewed about how safe they feel in their placement environment; a caretaker is interviewed about how agency policies are implemented; the reviewer conducts a brief assessment of the facility’s overall acuity mix; and a walk-through of the facility is conducted.
All safety reviews are unannounced. All Comprehensive Reviews (and the foster home visits associated with them) are announced; however the files to be reviewed during Comprehensive Reviews are unannounced.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 157

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 163 of 216
3. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding Placement Support
The Consent Decree contains a number of other requirements related to placement. These include restrictions on the capacity of foster and group homes; payment, training and support requirements pertaining to foster parents; and automating placement data.
a. Foster Home Capacity Restrictions
Section 5.C.4.e of the Consent Decree limits the capacity of foster homes to three foster children or a total of six children (including the family’s biological or other children) absent the written approval of the Social Services Director unless these capacity limits are exceeded in order to accommodate the placement of a sibling group and there are no other children in the home. It also prohibits any placement that would result in more than three children under the age of three residing in a foster home, unless the children in question are a sibling group. Data from the foster home file review indicate that the state performed extremely well in meeting these requirements.
Of the 107 foster homes sampled that had a child in care on December 31, 2014, 102 (95%) were within the Consent Decree’s capacity limits at that point in time. Of these 107 foster homes, 102 (95%) had three or fewer foster children in them on December 31, 2014. Four homes (4%) had more than three foster children but met the Consent Decree’s sibling group exception (it had a sibling group of more than three in placement and no other children in the home). With respect to the limit of six total children, 107 of the 107 foster homes that had a child in care on December 31, 2014 (100%) were within that limit. Finally, all of the foster homes (100%) with a child in care on December 31, 2014 had three or fewer children under the age of three in them. These capacity compliance rates are slightly lower or similar to the Period 17 rates of 100 percent within the overall capacity limits, 100 percent for six or fewer total children and 99 percent for three or fewer children under the age of three.
b. Foster Care Maintenance Payments
Section 5.B.1. of the Consent Decree established specific foster care per diem rates to become effective July 1, 2005 (State fiscal year 2006). It also stipulates that the DHS Commissioner is to propose a periodic increase in foster care rates in subsequent fiscal years. For fiscal year 2014, a cost-of-living-type increase of approximately three percent in foster care per diem rates was proposed and implemented. The per diem rates that went into effect July 1, 2013 for fiscal year 2014 were: for children aged 0-5, $15.04; for children aged 6-12, $17.00; and for each child aged 13 and older, $19.36. These foster care rates remain in effect through FY2015. Effective July 1, 2014 DFCS was able to increase the initial clothing allowance available for foster children aged 0-12 to $306 from $206, for children aged 13 and older to $409 from $309, and to increase the annual clothing allowance for all age groups to $409 from $309.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 158

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 164 of 216
3. Foster Parent Training and Support
Sections 5.C.6. and 11.D. of the Consent Decree stipulate that foster and pre-adoptive parents will receive uniform pre-service training prior to being approved or having a child placed in their home; and that they will be required to complete ongoing, annual training as part of the annual re-approval process. Section 5.C.6 further stipulates that foster parents will be able to contact DFCS 24 hour per day, seven days per week with their questions or concerns. The Accountability Agents found DFCS performance on these requirements to be excellent.
The foster home case record review found evidence in the files of 100 percent of the foster homes reviewed that the pre-service training requirements had been met. This is similar to the rate of 100 percent found in Period 17.
With respect to ongoing annual training, documentation supporting that the requirements had been met was found in 97 percent of the files of the 115 foster homes sampled to which the requirement applied. This was slightly higher than the Period 17 rate of 93 percent. With respect to the 24/7 phone support requirement, Resource Development staff in the counties report that they provide foster parents with the phone number of their assigned monitoring worker whom they can call during work hours, and the phone number of an on-call worker they can reach after hours.
F. Supervision of Contract Agencies
Sections 5.B.9, and 10.B. of the Consent Decree contain various provisions regarding provider reimbursement rates and contracts, specific language to be included therein, data submission, training, and the licensing and inspection of provider-supervised placement settings. The Office of Provider Management (OPM) has assumed an oversight role focusing on the quality of provider-delivered services and provider compliance with the terms of their contracts.
1. Reimbursement Rate Task Force
Section 5.B.2-7 of the Consent Decree stipulates that a Reimbursement Rate Task Force (RRTF) be established to recommend changes to the Level of Care system and to design a rate structure based on measurable outcomes for children.131 The Final Report of this Task Force was delivered in January 2010.132
In acting on the RRTF recommendations, the State began testing a set of contract-related performance measures July 1, 2010. FY 2011 was considered a “hold-harmless” year, meaning the performance measures being tested by OPM would not yet be used to affect the placements
131 See pp. 14-15, paragraphs 2-7 of the Consent Decree. 132 See Georgia Department of Human Services, Division of Family and Children Services, Rate Reimbursement Task Force Final Report, January 2010.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 159

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 165 of 216
received by individual providers and, thereby, their reimbursement. Based on the FY 2011 experience with the initial set of contract-related performance measures, changes were made to the contract deliverables and performance measures to improve their utility and practicality. OPM selected the strongest of the FY 2011 measures for enhancement, added new measures and associated outcomes, and continued to refine the data-entry and scoring processes. A revised set of measures and deliverables was included in the FY 2012 contracts that took effect on July 1, 2011, which the State treated as a final “hold harmless” year.
The State issued its first RBWO (Room, Board, and Watchful Oversight) Performance Based Placement Grades (covering the 1st Quarter of SFY 2013) in December 2012. Providers received scorecards that assessed their performance in all areas and assigned them an overall numerical score with a corresponding letter grade from A-F. The minimum satisfactory overall performance grade is 70/C.
Provider performance during Period 18 was reflected in 1st and 2nd Quarter SFY 2015 RBWO Performance-Based Placement Grades. For the 2nd Quarter of SFY 2015, approximately 96 percent of the CCI sites (not including the ILP/TLP specialty providers) and 92 percent of the CPAs under contract earned a grade of A-C; one CCI and two CPAs were not scored because they were not open for the full quarter or had no placements. Across these two provider types, nine providers earned a grade of D or F during the 2nd Quarter of SFY 2015.
A child/placement matching functionality, known as MATCH! was added to the GA+SCORE system in December 2012 to encourage DFCS case managers to consider provider performance information prior to making a placement. The MATCH! tool provides case managers a list of potential placement matches, rank ordered by PBP score. OPM reports that during Period 18, 3,669 placement searches were conducted using the MATCH! tool.”
2. Data Requested from Private Providers
Section 9.C. of the Consent Decree stipulates that DHS must ensure that all private agencies that provide placements or services to children in foster care report accurate data to DHS at least every six months. The Office of Provider Management (OPM) reports that Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) use the GA+SCORE system to update data on the family composition and approval requirements for each foster home they supervise. The data, updated as necessary, includes the following information for each CPA approved foster home:
 Home-by-home family composition;  Status of completing foster parent pre-service training curriculum;  Date of initial approval;  Date of re-evaluation and whether it was completed timely;  Date(s) of satisfactory criminal records check for all adults and whether it was
completed timely;
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 160

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 166 of 216
 Completion of a CPS History check(s);  Completion of comprehensive drug screens;  Completion of comprehensive medical report(s) and whether it was completed timely;
and,  Documentation related to DFCS’ approval requirements for each foster home they
supervise.
OPM indicates that Child Caring Institutions (CCIs) also report updated rosters of the children in their care through the GA+SCORE system. OPM reports that this information is validated by OPM through unannounced Safety Reviews, Annual Comprehensive Reviews and Foster Home Evaluation and Re-Evaluation Reviews. During an unannounced Safety Review, family composition is assessed, one or more children are interviewed about how safe they feel in the placement environment, a caretaker is interviewed about how agency policies are implemented, the reviewer conducts a brief assessment of the facility’s overall acuity mix, and a walk-through of the facility is conducted. Annual Comprehensive Reviews (and the foster home visits associated with them) are announced; however the files to be reviewed during these reviews are unannounced. During an Annual Comprehensive Review staff and foster parent personnel and training files are reviewed as well as all records associated with the staff or foster home. Foster Home Evaluations and Re-Evaluations Reviews are desk reviews that are completed based on a random sample of foster homes that were approved or reapproved during the contract year. During the desk review the home studies as well as all safety verifications are reviewed to determine if applicable DFCS Policies were followed as a part of the approval process.
3. Case Management and Training
Section 10.B.4 stipulates that private providers who provide placements for children in DFCS custody shall be “required, through contract provisions, to certify that employees providing case management or supervisory services for DFCS”133 meet certain criteria including educational credentials, pre-service training, certification, and on-going professional development. State efforts to ensure compliance with this requirement proceeded slowly, culminating in an assertion of non-compliance made by Plaintiff’s Counsel after Period 9.
During Periods 11 and 12, the Parties negotiated appropriate steps to be taken to remedy the situation. As a consequence, a training unit was established in OPM which consists of a manager and two trainers.
In Periods 12 and 13 the Unit developed and pilot tested a 160 hour training curriculum on child welfare practices, policies and processes in Georgia called RBWO Foundations.134 The curriculum, which consists of three weeks of e-learning/field practice experience and one week of classroom instruction, is intended for new CCI and CPA staff in the roles of Case Support
133 See Section 10.B. 4.a.-d. in the Consent Decree, pp 25 and 26. 134 “RBWO” is a contract term referring to Room, Board, and Watchful Oversight. The RBWO Foundations Standards can be found at https://www.gascore.com/documents/RBWOFoundations_October2012.pdf
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 161

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 167 of 216
Supervisor, Case Support Worker and Human Services Professionals. The e-learning/field practice component includes DFCS policy, RBWO Minimum Standards, confidentiality, Performance Based Contract goals and other pertinent topics. Topics are presented as webinars, self-study and other assignments which are conducted at the RBWO agency or in the local community. The classroom component of Foundations culminates with a knowledge-based competency test on the materials covered during the five-day classroom experience. The test must be passed with a score of at least 80 percent in order to earn credit for the classroom component.
During Period 18 the OPM training unit completed six RBWO Foundations E-Learning cohorts and enrolled 117 participants, 59 (50%) successfully completed the E-Learning portion. Among the 58 that did not complete, provided reasons included:
 Participants were no longer employed with the agency;
 Job duties and increased workloads superseded training;
 Family and/or personal emergencies;
 Waited too long and started the training late, not anticipating the time required to get the work done within 90 days; and,
 Started but unable to complete training due to varying priorities.
The training unit also conducted eight classroom trainings in the Georgia communities of Savannah, Atlanta, Marietta, Columbus, Augusta, Macon, College Park and Kennessaw with a total of 125 registered participants. Only 84 of the 125 registered participants actually attended the training, yielding an attendance rate of 67 percent. Of these, 72 (86%) successfully passed the knowledge-based competency test and 12 (14%) did not. Of the 12 that did not pass, three have retaken the test and passed, six were in management positions that are exempt from training requirements, two are no longer employed with the agency and one has rescheduled to attend another training session.
In response to the low E-Learning and Classroom Component completion rate, OPM sent noncompliance letters to all RBWO providers with employees who are in need of being reassigned as a result of being noncompliant with RBWO Foundation Training requirements. The providers were given 30 business days to either have those staff complete the training, or to transfer them to other job duties. Of the 55 RBWO provider staff members that had not completed the RBWO Foundations Training requirements, twenty-five have now completed both components, six were coded inaccurately in GA+SCORE as case managers, four had an approved waiver, three are no longer with the agency, three had an approved appeal, five were reassigned from their case management role, two were granted an extension, and the agencies
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 162

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 168 of 216
of the remaining seven were placed on admissions hold until the identified staff completed the required training.
4. The Office of Residential Child Care Continues to Conduct Unannounced Inspections of Licensed Placement Settings
Section 9.D. of the Consent Decree specifies that RCC will make at least one unannounced inspection per year of all licensed Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) and Child Caring Institutions (CCIs) to review all relevant aspects of their operations, and will also make annual unannounced inspections of five percent of each licensed CPA’s family foster homes or a total of 10 homes (whichever is greater, or to all the foster homes supervised by CPAs with fewer than 10 total foster homes) to review all relevant aspects of their operations.135 The State reports that there were 178 licensed CCIs and 93 licensed CPAs in Georgia at the end of December 2014. This represents a three percent decrease in the number of licensed CCIs and a three percent increase in the number of licensed CPAs compared to Period 17.
During the period July 1 through December 31, 2014, RCC reports that 91 of the 178 CCIs (51%) and 44 of the 93 CPAs (47%) were due for re-licensure. Ninety of the 91 CCIs (99%) and all 44 of the CPAs (100%) received at least one unannounced inspection from RCC during that Period (8 of these inspections were completed up to 37 days late). The one CCI that did not receive an annual inspection during Period 18 received that annual inspection during Period 19 after two failed attempts to reach anyone at the facility during Period 18. There was also one visit made during Period 18 to a facility that was noted as being missed in Period 17. In addition, RCC made a total of 302 unannounced visits (182 of which were unsuccessful) to conduct 120 unannounced inspections of the family foster homes operated by 27 of the 44 CPAs due for relicensure (plus eight CPAs with homes due inspections from Period 17). The remaining 17 CPAs due for re-licensure had either no foster homes or no children in care during Period 18. Detail on these unannounced family foster home inspections appears in Table VI-12.
135 See Section 9.D. of the Consent Decree, p. 24.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 163

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 169 of 216
Table VI-12 RCC Unannounced Annual CPA Family Foster Home Inspections
93 CPAs Licensed in Georgia as of December 31, 2014 44 CPAs Due Re-licensure in Period 18
12 CPAs Adoption or Home Study Only (no family foster homes ; no inspection required) 5 CPAs No Placements During Period 18 (no inspection required) 0 CPAs Either closed during monitoring period or on inactive status 27 CPAs Requiring Annual Unannounced Family Foster Home Inspections 0 CPAs Subject to 5% of Foster Homes Annual Unannounced Inspection Requirement 21 CPAs Subject to 10 Foster Home Annual Unannounced Inspections Requirement
5 CPAs (24%) Received Required Foster Home Inspections During Period 18 16 CPAs (76%) to Have Required Foster Home Inspections Completed During Period 19 6 CPAs With < 10 Foster Homes (Subject to 100% Annual Unannounced Inspection Requirement) 4 CPAs (67%) Received Required Foster Home Inspections During Period 18 2 CPAs (33%) to Have Required Foster Home Inspections Completed During Period 19 8 CPAs Re-licensed in Period 17 were to Have Required Annual Unannounced Family Foster Home Inspections Completed in Period 18 7CPAs Subject to 10 Foster Home Annual Unannounced Inspections Requirement 5CPAs (71%) Received Required Foster Home Inspections During Period 18* 1 CPA With < 10 Foster Homes (Subject to 100% Annual Unannounced Inspection Requirement) 1 CPA (100%) Received Required Foster Home Inspections During Period 18
* The two CPAs that did not receive the required 10 foster home visits between Periods 17 and 18
received the remaining few visits in the first months of Period 19.
According to RCC, the inspections conducted during Period 18, as the inspections conducted during Period 17, suggested a need for:
 Foster parents to be aware of and follow the agencies policies and procedures, particularly around storage of medications, cleaning supplies and sharp items;
 Foster parents and CPAs to provide greater supervision of placements in accordance with the child’s needs and history;
 Training and supervision of staff and foster parents as it relates to the importance of accurate medication administration and monitoring;
 Improved sharing of information at the time of placement between birth parents, foster parents, and other caretakers. RCC is concerned that missing information may lead to poor assessment of child needs; and,
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 164

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 170 of 216
 Improved documentation of the services and supports needed in placements to appropriately meet the needs of children. Provider agencies appear to be receiving more children with increasingly complex needs and need to document that they have in place the services to meet those needs.
G. Improving Automated Support: SACWIS Implementation
The federally supported Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) is known as SHINES in Georgia. SHINES is now the database of record for Georgia child welfare. Data integrity problems appear to be diminishing and work continues to bring the system into full compliance with federal standards. SHINES is one of 35 SACWIS systems the federal government considers to be operational and it is one of nine states in which the U.S. Department of Human Services has initiated a compliance assessment.136
During Period 18, programming enhancements continued to refine SHINES. According to the State, some key activities completed during the period included:
 Adding a number of checks and alerts to SHINES intake fields to draw the attention of intake workers and supervisors to new intakes that have prior CPS history;
 Updating multiple name labels in SHINES and associated reports to refer to “Family Support Services” rather than “Diversion;” and
 A variety of enhancements to enable SHINES to support the processing of Adoption Assistance payments for eligible youth aged 18 to 21.
These enhancements further the functionality and effectiveness of SHINES. To increase awareness among case managers and supervisors of such enhancements the SHINES Team continues to produce brief, eye-catching newsletters. In addition, a “SHINES and Policy Update” discussion featuring presentations by state SHINES training staff and/or Policy Office staff has been made a recurring agenda item for G2 meetings.
H. Quality Assurance
There is no change to the previously described Quality Assurance activities conducted by the State Data Analysis, Accountability, Research and Evaluation (DAARE) Division’s Program Evaluation and Analysis Section (PEAS) and County quality assurance units. The State Unit continues to house a Metro Unit that is dedicated to supporting the Accountability Agents’ efforts to measure performance through record reviews and verifying visit, caseload,
136 Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/systems/sacwis/statestatus_states.htm
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 165

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 171 of 216
certification and training data through case manager interviews. The county quality assurance units continue to measure visit performance and assist the counties with reviewing records to better understand performance.
I. Maximizing Federal Funding 137
The Consent Decree contains requirements for DHS/DFCS to 1) maximize available federal funding through Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act, and 2) not supplant state dollars for foster care services with any federal increase that results from the maximization efforts.138 In terms of revenue maximization, the State reports a significantly increased ability to claim federal reimbursement for a larger proportion of its foster care population over the last few years. In addition, to date the Accountability Agents have not found any evidence that the State is supplanting state dollars with increased federal reimbursement.
Federal Reimbursement Trends
A measure of a State’s ability to claim federal reimbursement of foster care expenditures is known as the “IV-E penetration rate.” According to a definition from Casey Family Programs, “The Title IV-E Foster Care Penetration Rate represents the percentage of children in out-of-home placements for which a state received Title IV-E reimbursement from the federal government for foster care maintenance payments. (E.g., a state with a foster care penetration rate of 52% in SFY 2006 received federal reimbursement for the foster care maintenance payments of 52% of the children in out-ofhome care that year).”139 Thus, the higher the rate, the more federal reimbursement is available to the state for administrative costs it incurs to provide safe and stable placements. As shown in Figure VI-9, the State’s penetration rate was approximately 52 percent in Period 18, similar to the rate for SFY 2014 but a decline from SFYs 2011-2013.
137 See Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S. A. Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue, November 2006 for background on Title IV-E. 138 See p. 31, Section 14 of the Consent Decree. 139 See: http://www.childwelfarepolicy.org/resources?id=0006
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 166

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 172 of 216 Figure VI-9
State IV-E Penetration Rates SFY 2006 through December 2014
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 167

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 173 of 216

Detailed Comparison of State and Federal Funding since 2005

Since the Consent Decree became effective in October 2005, the baseline for future comparison of state expenditures is Federal Fiscal Year 2006 (October 1, 2005-September 30, 2006) for Title IV-B and State Fiscal Year 2006 (July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2006) for Title IV-E. Slightly different time periods are used because of the different reporting requirements for Titles IV-B and IV-E. Georgia submits annual financial reports to the Federal government for Title IV-B and quarterly cost reports for Title IV-E.

 Comparison of Title IV-B Federal and State Funding Distribution

Table VI-12 provides a comparison of the baseline and most recent year of federal and state IV-B expenditures based on the State’s annual federal reports. The comparison reveals a three percent increase in both State and Federal IV-B expenditures between October 2013 and September 2014, and a 6 percent increase in both state and federal funding since October 2005.

Table VI-12 Title IV-B Funding Federal Fiscal Year 2006 – 2014 Financial Reports (October 1, 2005 – September 30, 2014)

State

Federal

Total

Federal Fiscal Year 2006

$ 3,123,871

$ 9,371,613

$ 12,495, 484

Federal Fiscal Year 2007

$ 3,162,131

$ 9,486,392

12,648,523

Percent change

+1%

+1%

+1%

Federal Fiscal Year 2008

$ 3,222,070

$ 9,666,210

$12,888,280

Percent change over 2007

+2%

+2%

+2%

Federal Fiscal Year 2009

$3,265,672

$9,797,015

$13,062,687

Percent change over 2008

+1%

+1%

+1%

Federal Fiscal Year 2010

$3,259,017

$9,777,051

$13,036,068

Percent change over 2009

0%

0%

0%

Federal Fiscal Year 2011

$3,292,171

$9,876,514

$13,168,685

Percent change over 2010

+1%

+1%

+1%

Federal Fiscal Year 2012

$3,426,834

$10,280,502

$13,707,336

Percent change over 2011

+4%

+4%

+4%

Federal Fiscal Year 2013

$3,206,184

$9,618,551

$12,824,735

Percent change over 2012

-6%

-6%

-6%

Federal Fiscal Year 2014

$3,309,514

$9,928,542

$13,238,056

Percent change over 2013

+3%

+3%

+3%

Percent change over 2006

+6%

+6%

+6%

Source: Georgia IV-B Financial Status Reports, submitted December 11, 2006, November 6, 2007, November 4, 2008,

December 29, 2009, November 8, 2010, December 29, 2011, December 20, 2012, December 20, 2013, and December 29,

2014 to the U.S Department of Health and Human Services.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 168

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 174 of 216
 Comparison of Title IV-E Federal and State Funding Distribution
Tables VI-13 (a, b, and c) summarize the most recent years of state, federal and total IV-E expenditures based on the quarterly expenditure reports submitted to the federal government for each State Fiscal Year (SFY), and the changes between SFY 2014 (July 2013-June 2014) and the baseline year of SFY 2006 (July 2005-June 2006). The comparison of IV-E expenditures reveals an overall increase of 14 percent in total expenditures since the baseline year, comprising a 21 percent increase in expenditures from federal funds and a five percent increase in expenditures from state funding during that span. When the change is considered year-toyear, federal and state expenditures both increased in SFY 2014, likely reflecting the recent increase in the number of children entering foster care. This increase reversed several consecutive years of decline, dating to SFY 2009 for federal expenditures and SFY 2011 for State expenditures.
In previous years, the IV-E eligible expenditures for operating the State Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) had been reported as part of total foster care administration costs. Starting with the reporting for the quarter ending December 31, 2010, the SACWIS operational costs are reported separately from the total administrative costs. In State Fiscal Year 2006, the State was just beginning to develop its SACWIS (known as SHINES). The majority of development continued through State Fiscal Year 2008 and began to taper off in subsequent years as less programming was required for the basic system and only enhancements remained to be completed.
State and Federal foster care maintenance payments increased substantially compared to the baseline year. The increase in Federal reimbursement reflects a combination of factors. One factor has been the state’s improved ability to claim federal reimbursement from the IV-E program due to policy clarifications in June 2009140 and 2010141 (however, as noted above, the State’s IV-E “penetration rate,” after showing marked improvement for several years, declined somewhat in SFY 2014). A second factor is the State’s improved ability to accurately determine and record IV-E eligibility of all children.142 A third factor was increased federal funding available for foster care and adoption assistance through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111–5) and the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351). Finally, as noted previously, the number of children entering foster care has been increasing since late 2013.
140 See Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S. A. Period VII Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue, January 2009 for a description of the policy issue related to the removal of a child from a relative. 141 See Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S. A. Period 11 Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue, December 2010 for a description of the policy issue related to the IV-E eligibility of children receiving or deemed eligible for Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI). 142 See Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S. A. Period 11 Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue, December 2010 for a description of the impact of SHINES.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 169

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 175 of 216
The decreased State and Federal expenditures on training continue the most significant decreases since the baseline year. According to the State, the training expenditures claimed for IV-E reimbursement at a federal matching rate of 50 percent in previous years primarily supported qualified individuals seeking undergraduate or graduate degrees in Social Work from a consortium of Georgia colleges and universities. (See previous discussion earlier in this part, Section C, about the IV-E Child Welfare Training Program.) The individuals received financial support for their education in exchange for a commitment to work for DFCS a specified period of time. In 2011, DFCS learned that the financial arrangements with the participating universities and colleges needed revision as a result of a policy clarification from the regional office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). While DFCS worked to restructure the program no new financial commitments were made to students in the 2011-2014 academic years and commitments to continuing students were suspended. Restructuring of the program is underway and the HHS Children’s Bureau has approved the program’s proposed funding formula. DFCS issued a contract with a consultant to review the budgets for the Schools of Social Work interested in participating in the IV-E program to determine the amount of total funding available to support the IV-E Education Program.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 170

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 176 of 216

Table VI-13a
Title IV-E Funding: State Expenditures
State Fiscal Years 2006 – 2014 (In Thousands)
Title IV-E Funding Category
State Fiscal Year (JulyJune)

Adoption Assistance Payments Adoption Administration Adoption Training Adoption Subtota l Foster Care Maintenance Payments Foster Care Administration* Foster Care Trainin g SACWI S Developmen t SACWI S Operations* Foster Care Subtota l Title IV-E State Expenditure Tota l

2006

Baseline 18,796.1

6,522.4 175.2 $25,493.8 12,830.1 32,892.6 97.2 2,006.6

$47,826.6

Year

2007

19,073.8

7,886.3 237.9 $27,197.9 10,804.8 27,845.5 104.7 5,221.5

$43,976.5

2008

18,561.9

6,753.8 139.9 $25,455.6 20,536.4 38,827.7 399.8 8,166.4

$67,930.4

2009

16,685.9

4,852.5

51.3 $21,589.7 22,479.6 39,607.3 639.3

735.2

$63,461.3

2010

14,673.3

6,270.5 42.3 $20,986.0 15,693.1 40,418.5 224.2

1.3

$56,337.1

2011

15,422.6

4,954.1

3.6 $20,380.3 13,865.6 43,602.3

0

0 4,442.6 $61,910.5

2012

16,482.1

6,216.3

0 $20,380.4 16,308.2 35,420.8

0

0 5,211.6 $56,940.6

2013

16,143.3

2,668.1

0 $18,811.4 17,560.6 31,596.8

0

0 5,353.7 $54,511.0

2014

17,774.6

2,614.4

0 $20,389.0 20,236.1 29,303.7

0

0 5,730.2 $56,384.1

Change

(over baseline

-5%

-60% -100%

-20%

+58%

-11% -100% -100%

+18%

year)

Source: DHS/DFCS quarterly expenditure reports submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

*After September 30, 2010, federal reporting changed and “administration” costs did not include SACWIS operational costs.

$73,320.3
$71,174.4 $93,386.0 $85,051.0 $77,323.1 $82,290.8 $79,639.0 $73,322.4 $76,773.1
+5%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 171

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 177 of 216

Table VI-13b Title IV-E Funding: Federal Expenditures* State Fiscal Years 2006 – 2014
(In Thousands)

Adoption Assistance Payments Adoption Administration Adoption Training Adoption Subtota l Foster Care Maintenance Payments Foster Care Administration* Foster Care Training SACWI S Developmen t SACWI S Operations Foster Care Subtota l Title IV-E State Expenditure Tota l

State Fiscal Year (JulyJune)

Title IV-E Funding Category

2006 Baseline Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Change (over baseline year)

28,864.1
30,490.0 31,424.1 34,196.7 36,182.7 35,100.1 29,954.2 30,730.4 34,255.6

6,522.4 525.6 $35,912.2 19,706.8 32,892.6 291.6

7,886.3 6,753.8 4,852.5 6,270.5 4,954.1 6,216.3 2,668.1 2,614.4

713.4 419.7 154.0 126.8
10.8 0 0 0

$39,089.7 $38,597.6 $39,203.2 $42,579.9 $40,065.7 $36,170.5 $33,398.5 $36,869.7

17,284.0 34,840.5 45,947.1 38,703.8 31,403.8 31,201.7 33,447.5 39,006.4

27,845.5 38,827.7 39,607.3 40,418.5 43,602.3 35,420.8 31,596.8 29,303.7

314.0 1,199.5 1,917.8
672.7 0 0 0 0

2,006.6
5,221.5 8,166.4
735.2 1.3 0 0 0 0

+19%

-60% -100%

+3%

+98%

-11% -100% -100%

4,442.6 5,211.6 5,353.7 5,730.2

$54,897.6 $90,809.8

$50,665.1 $83,034.2 $88,207.3 $79,796.3 $79,448.7 $71,834.1 $69,555.9 $72,926.2

$89,754.8 $121,631.8 $127,410.5 $122,376.1 $119,514.5 $108,004.6 $102,954.4 $109,795.9

+33%

+21%

Source: DHS/DFCS quarterly expenditure reports submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services *Federal expenditures displayed here are before adjustments for child support payments received by the State. **After September 30, 2010, federal reporting changed and “administration” costs did not include SACWIS operational costs.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 172

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 178 of 216

Table VI-13c Title IV-E Funding: Total Expenditures
State Fiscal Years 2006 – 2014 (In Thousands)

Adoption Assistance Payments Adoption Administration Adoption Training Adoption Subtota l Foster Care Maintenance Payments Foster Care Administration* Foster Care Training SACWI S Developmen t SACWI S Operations Foster Care Subtota l Title IV-E State Expenditure Tota l

Title IV-E Funding Category
State Fiscal Year (JulyJune)

2006 Baseline

47,660.3 13,044.8

700.9 $61,405.9 32,536.9 65,785.2

388.8 4,013.3

$102,724.2

Year

2007

49,563.9 15,772.5 951.2 $66,287.6 28,088.8 55,691.0 418.7 10,443.1

$94,641.6

2008

49,986.1 13,507.5 559.6 $66,287.2 55,376.9 77,655.5 1,599.4 16,332.8

$150,964.6

2009

50,882.6 9,704.9 205.4 $60,792.9 68,426.6 79,214.7 2,557.0 1,470.3

$151,668.6

2010

50,855.9 12,540.9 169.0 $63,565.9 54,396.9 80,836.9 896.9

2.5

$136,133.4

2011

50,523.5 9,908.1 14.4 $60,431.7 45,269.4 87,204.6

0

0 8,885.3 $141,359.2

2012

46,436.3 12,432.6

0 $58,868.8 47,509.9 70,841.7

0

0 10,423.1 $128,774.7

2013

46,873.7 5,336.2

0 $52,209.9 51,008.1 63,193.5

0

0 10,707.4 $124,067.0

2014

52,029.9 5,228.8

0 $57,258.8 59,242.5 58,607.4

0

0 11,460.4 $129,310.4

Change

(over baseline

+9%

-60% -100%

-7%

+82%

-11% -100% -100%

+26%

year)

Source: DHS/DFCS quarterly expenditure reports submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

*After September 30, 2010, federal reporting changed and “administration” costs did not include SACWIS

operational costs.

$164,130.1
$160,929.1 $215,017.8 $212,461.5 $199,699.2 $201,790.9 $187,643.6 $176,276.8 $186,569.2
+14%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 173

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 179 of 216

PART VII MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Section 20 of the Consent Decree contains the Agreement’s miscellaneous provisions. Two provisions, contained in Section 20G, contain substantive data reporting requirements.143 These are covered in this part of the report.
A. Repeat Maltreatment Data
Section 20.G.1 of the Consent Decree requires DFCS to provide the Accountability Agents data and information sufficient to enable them to verify data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton Counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experienced repeat maltreatment. This is operationalized in the Consent Decree as follows:
 The number of children in each county who, during the reporting period, experienced substantiated maltreatment;
 The number and percentage of children in the first item who also experienced maltreatment during the preceding 12 month period. These data, as reported by the State, are reproduced in Table VII-1, below. The Accountability Agents’ verification approach is discussed in Appendix B.

Table VII-1 Repeat Maltreatment

Reporting Period 18: July 1, 2014 – December 31, 2014

DEKALB

a) Number of children during the reporting period

experiencing substantiated maltreatment

722

b) Number of children in a) of this item who also

experienced maltreatment during the preceding 12

month period

71

Percentage of children who had substantiated maltreatment during the preceding 12 months

9.83%

FULTON 951
72 7.57%

143 See pp. 45-46 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 174

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 180 of 216
Diversion Data
Section 20.G.2 of the Consent Decree requires DFCS to provide the Accountability Agents data and information sufficient to enable them to verify data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experienced substantiated maltreatment within 11-365 days after being referred to DHS’s diversion program.144 These data, as reported by the State for the period July 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013 are reproduced in Table VII-2, below. (Due to the 11-365 day follow up period for the diversion statistics, the diversion data reported here is for Period 16.) The Accountability Agents’ verification approach is discussed in Appendix B.

Table VII-2 Family Support Cases with Subsequent Substantiated Maltreatment

Reporting Period 16: July 1, 2013 – December 31, 2013*

DEKALB

FULTON

a) Number of cases in each county during the reporting period in which there was a referral into DFCS’s Family Support program

557

1113

b) Number of cases in a) in which there was substantiated

maltreatment within 11-365 days after referral to DFCS’s

Family support program

31

107

Percentage of cases in which there was substantiated maltreatment within 11-365 days of referral into DFCS’s Family Support program

5.56%

9.61%

* Due to the 11-365 day follow up period for the diversion statistics, the diversion data reported here is for Period 16.

144 Effective April 1, 2013 DHS’s Diversion program was replaced by the Family Support Program. Although the programs differ, they shared the intent of preventing the removal of children into foster care through the provision of in-home services. The data reported here represent the number of Family Support cases with substantiated maltreatment within 11-365 days of referral into that program.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 175

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 181 of 216
Appendix A
Kenny A. v. Sonny Perdue Consent Decree Outcomes
Section 15 of the Consent Decree requires 31 outcomes. These outcomes are grouped in the categories of Safety, Permanency, Well-Being, and Strengthened Infrastructure.
SAFETY 1. Children in Foster Care are Safe From Maltreatment
 Outcome 1: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report.
 Outcome 3: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face-to-face, private contact with alleged victim, including face-to-face contact with a child who is non-verbal due to age or for any other reason.
 Outcome 2: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report.
 Outcome 5: By the end of the first reporting period, no more than 1.27% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. By the end of the second reporting period, no more than .94% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. By the end of the fifth reporting period, no more than .57% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care.
 Outcome 6: By the end of the second reporting period, 90% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous six months. By the end of the third reporting period, 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.
PERMANENCY 2. Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
 Outcome 7: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 90 days of entering foster care. By the end of the fifth reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care.
 Outcome 16: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 176

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 182 of 216
 Outcome 19: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii). By the end of the third reporting period, at least 80% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii). By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii).
 Outcome 21: By the end of the third reporting period, 75% of all the children with the goal reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. By the end of the fourth reporting period, 85% of all the children with the goal reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification.
 Outcome 23: Initial Stipulation: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in the Class at a point in time during the reporting period who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have had visits with their siblings at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.
Revised Stipulation: Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. By the end of the tenth reporting period, at least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling-group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 177

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 183 of 216
3. Children Achieve Permanency (Permanency = reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.)
Children in care at the time of the Consent Decree:  Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and
the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree.  Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree.  Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed..  Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 backlog pool”): For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the third period at least 40% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the third reporting period, by the end of the fourth reporting period at least 40% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.  Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “over 24 backlog pool”): For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 178

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 184 of 216
children in the over 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the third reporting period, at least 35 percent shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the third reporting period, by the end of the fourth reporting period at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.
Children entering custody after Consent Decree:  Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent
Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.  Outcome 8b: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% (1) shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification or permanent placement with relatives; or (2) shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less of entering custody: adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship.
Permanency actions after Consent Decree:  Outcome 11: By the end of the second reporting period, for all children whose parental
rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights.  Outcome 4: By the end of the second reporting period, no more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode.  Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period.
Court reviews of permanency actions  Outcome 27: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of foster children in
custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review. By the end of the third reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 179

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 185 of 216
within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the sixmonth period following the last review.  Outcome 28: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.
WELL-BEING 4. Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity.
 Outcome 17: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 86.7% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody.
 Outcome 18: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave.
 Outcome 20: Visitation(worker-child) Initial Stipulation
 By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had at least one in-placement visit and one other visit, as defined in Section 5.D, each month by their case manager during the prior 12 months in custody.
Revised Stipulation  By the end of the tenth reporting period:
(a) At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of twice-monthly face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any child in excess of the required minimum number of two visits per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.
(b) At least 96.25% of the total minimum number monthly private, face-to-face visits
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 180

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 186 of 216
between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any child in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.  Outcome 22: Visitation (worker-caregiver) Initial Stipulation:  By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had visits between their DFCS placement case manager and their foster parent, group care, institutional or other caretaker at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody.
Revised Stipulation:  DCFS placement case managers shall visit each child’s foster parent, group care,
institutional or other caretaker at least one time each month. By the end of the tenth reporting period, at least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by case managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any caregiver, with respect to the same child, in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.
5. Children and Youth Receive the Services they Need  Outcome 24: By the end of the second reporting period, the percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 10 percentage points. By the end of the fourth reporting period, that percentage shall increase by an additional 10 percentage points.  Outcome 30: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.
STRENGTHENED INFRASTRUCTURE 6. Capacity to Support Placement Process
 Outcome 25: Placements not in full approval status: Initial Stipulation:
 By the end of the first reporting period, at least 85% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 98% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 181

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 187 of 216
status.
Revised Stipulation:
 By the end of the tenth reporting period, at least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement.
 Outcome 31: Initial Stipulation:
 By the end of the second reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than 10% of all children in foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three(3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.
Revised Stipulation:  By the end of the tenth reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than ten
percent of all foster family home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e of this Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that home, or a total of six(6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.
7. Timely and Complete Court Orders  Outcome 26: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in lime during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act
 Outcome 29: By the end of the third reporting, no more than 5% of all children in custody of DHS/DFCS for 12 months or more shall have lapse of legal custody within the prior 13 month.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 182

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 188 of 216
Appendix B
Methodology
The Accountability Agents used several methods to arrive at the judgments, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report: (i) review of written materials and data supplied by the State and Counties; (ii) interviews; (iii) extensive case record reviews; and (iv) strategic engagement of State and county personnel for pro-active, hands-on monitoring through biweekly meetings known as the “G2.” This appendix describes these data sources and methods and also catalogues and explains interpretation and measurement issues that were addressed and resolved during the first reporting period.
A. Data Sources and Methodology for Measuring State Performance in Reporting Period 18
Four primary sources of information were used to assess the State of Georgia’s progress during Period 18, July-December 2014. The challenge for data collection and analyses in Period 18 was the continued need to use both SHINES, the statewide automated child welfare system and paper files. Fulton and DeKalb Counties implemented SHINES in June 2008 and ended all new data entry into the previous system, IDS, on May 28, 2008. Children who entered custody before the conversion to SHINES may have extensive paper files and even those entering after the switch to SHINES have paper files with external documentation that has not been scanned into SHINES. The timeliness of scanning external documentation into SHINES is improving but record reviews still generally need both the paper documentation and SHINES access to complete all data collection.
1. State Data Systems
The first source of information is the DFCS administrative data that is housed in Georgia SHINES. The Accountability Agents have direct access to SHINES which allows for direct inquiry into cases to validate reported information.
Like all information systems, the accuracy of SHINES data is a function of the accuracy with which data are coded and input into the system. Most identified discrepancies appear to be caused by human error. Typically, mistakes in interpretation and coding of the facts contained in the case record or data entry result in erroneous data being entered into the system.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 183

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 189 of 216
SHINES has more “edit-checks” than its predecessor system. These edit-checks help to limit some errors. However, the Accountability Agents continue to be selective about which data from SHINES to rely on for assessing compliance with the Consent Decree’s provisions but are working on a plan with the State to incrementally expand the number of provisions measured using SHINES data.
2. Document Review and Interviews
During the monitoring period, the Accountability Agents collected written reports and materials regarding foster care and adoption policy, budgets, licensing, provider reporting, worker training and certification. At the local county level, interviews included supervisors and case managers responsible for investigating reports of maltreatment-in-care, placement, and foster parent training and support. The Accountability Agents worked directly with State and County Quality Assurance staff to analyze data collected and tracked at the local level such as visits, determinations for children in care 15 of 22 months, caseloads, and staff certification.
3. Structured Case Record Reviews
A third source of information is systematic case record reviews (CRRs.) Three case record reviews were conducted: 1) investigations of maltreatment-in-care; 2) foster home approval and capacity, and 3) children in foster care placements who entered foster care at any time up to December, 2014. Table B-4 summarizes sample characteristics of each review. The following discussion provides more detail on the sampling approach, review instrument design, review logistics, reviewer qualifications and training, quality assurance, and analytical processes.
a. Sampling Approach
As indicated in Table B-1, 100 percent of the investigations of maltreatment-in-care completed between July 1 and December 31, 2014 were read. Therefore, observed differences in these results do not reflect sampling error.
For the two other case record reviews, random samples were drawn from two different universes:
 All foster homes that had a DeKalb or Fulton child placed in the home at any time between
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 184

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 190 of 216

July 1 and December 31, 2014. This included private agency supervised homes as well as DFCS supervised homes.  All foster care cases (children) active in DeKalb and Fulton counties any time between July 1 and December 31, 2014.
For each of these reviews, samples were drawn such that the findings would have no more than a +/- 7% error rate at a 95% confidence level. This level of precision is for frequencies reported for the sample as a whole. Data provided on subsets of the sample are less precise; where appropriate, separate margins of error for the different subsets have been calculated and noted in the body of the report or in a footnote. As described later in this appendix, a certain number of records included in the original samples could not be read and were rejected based on predetermined criteria. To achieve the minimum number of records for each review, small additional, random replacement samples were drawn.

Table B-1 Case Record Review Sample Size and Associated Margin of Error

Target of Review
Maltreatment-in-care Investigations Foster Homes Children in Foster Care

Universe of Desired Maximum

cases

Sample Size

81 579 1811

Not applicable 160 175

Actual Number Reviewed
81
160 175

Margin of Error
Not applicable +/- 7 percent +/- 7 percent

b. Instrument Design

Three separate data collection instruments were developed, one for each review. They were developed in conjunction with the DFCS Program Evaluation and Analysis Section (PEAS) and consultants from Georgia State University (GSU) schools of public administration and social work. The instruments were field tested and reviewed by Counsel for the Plaintiffs and by the State; many changes recommended by the reviewers were incorporated into the final instruments. As is typical with case record reviews, reviewers encountered some problems with some of the questions. Learning from each iteration is incorporated into the next case record review.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 185

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 191 of 216

c.

Data Collection Schedule and Logistics

Planning for the data collection effort began in January 2015 with discussions with PEAS and GSU regarding formatting data instruments for efficient data capture and analysis. As in previous periods, each of the review guides was set up as a SAS-based form for electronic information entry directly into a data base through a GSU secure web site. This eliminated a separate data entry step. However, it did rely on the ability of the reviewers to be consistently linked to the internet. Occasional connectivity problems interfered with some data entry. This required some work to be repeated. As the reviews progressed, portions of the guides were revised as necessary to accommodate unforeseen circumstances found in the records. In addition, the reviewers had the capability to make extensive comments to explain responses and provide more background on the case.

Data collection for the maltreatment-in-care investigations and foster care reviews began in January 2015, respectively, and the foster home file review in March 2015. Records selected from private agencies were reviewed at the respective private agencies. The remaining records for investigations, foster care, and DFCS supervised foster homes were reviewed at the county offices where the active cases are maintained. Closed records were brought to these sites for review.
d. Review Team Qualifications and Training

Seven PEAS staff were the primary case readers. These staff members average 25 years of experience in DFCS and are very familiar with the DFCS’s policies and practices. They were selected for this task based on their skills, experience, and knowledge.

There were training sessions before commencing each record review. The training consisted of reviewing and discussing the wording and meaning of each question on the data collection instruments. Additional changes were made to the guides as a result of these discussions. Given the pace of the necessary semi-annual reporting schedule, it has been difficult to extend the training time. On-going training between reviews is taking place.

DFCS reviewers were provided with digital files containing a “Handbook” and a copy of the Consent Decree for reference. In addition, reviewers had personal copies of the instruments in hard copy on which they made notations regarding the discussions about definitions, responses, and where within the case records to locate certain pieces of information.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 186

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 192 of 216

e.

Quality Assurance

Reading accuracy and inter-reader reliability was addressed by an extensive quality assurance process that included constant “calibration” and a “second read” of the records. Two senior PEAS reviewers were designated team leaders. They were responsible for responding to reviewer questions regarding clarification or how to interpret information contained in the record and consulting with the Accountability Agents when necessary. These team leaders shared with one another the questions being asked and the responses they were giving to reviewers so as to assure consistency. In this way, patterns among questions were monitored and instructions were clarified for all reviewers as necessary. Team leaders reviewed each reviewer’s work at the completion of each review. Finally, reviewers were encouraged to provide explanatory comments for their responses if they felt the situation they found did not adequately fit the question being asked or additional detail for some critical questions was desired. These comments were invaluable to the Accountability Agents as they reviewed the data collected and made judgments about response recodes when necessary.

An additional level of Quality Assurance (QA) was provided by the Georgia State University (GSU) project coordinator and four research assistants with master’s degrees in social work or a related field and backgrounds in child welfare and case record review. The GSU QA team reviewed the following percentages of case records: 32 percent of Maltreatment-in-care Investigations cases; 33 percent of Placement cases; and 33 percent of foster homes cases. The records were randomly selected from each reviewer’s completed set. Review guides that had different responses from the GSU QA staff and the PEAS reviewers were set aside, investigated and resolved as possible by the GSU project coordinator and PEAS team leaders, often in consultation with the Accountability Agents, and changes were made to the data set as necessary. Time was set aside in the schedule to review the completed review guides in question and do any necessary clean up.

To calculate inter-rater reliability GSU selected variables from all three files (CPS Investigations, Foster Homes, and Foster Care) where both the reviewers and the QA reviewers had access to the same information in the case file. Each response was not tested for inter-rater reliability. Correlations between the reviewer results and the QA reviewer results were calculated using Microsoft Excel and a Cronbach’s Alpha statistic was calculated for each. Cronbach's Alpha measures how well a set of items, in this case the reviewer responses and the QA reviewer responses, correlate or match. Cronbach's Alpha is not a statistical test - it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). Note: when a Cronbach’s Alpha is used in a Social Science research situation, like the Kenny A. case review, a reliability coefficient of .70 or higher indicates that there is an almost zero probability that the reviewer and QA reviewer would achieve these results by chance.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 187

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 193 of 216
The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for each of the data sets are provided in Table B-2, below. All measures are above the threshold of .70.

Table B-2 Cronbach’s Alpha Measure of Inter-Rater Reliability
for Each Case Record Review

Sample CPS Investigations Foster Homes Foster Care

Cronbach’s Alpha Measure .911 .998 .963

A final check on quality came during the analysis. When the analysis identified a discrepancy that could not be explained by the reviewer comments, the Accountability Agents requested a reviewer to go back to the file in question and collect more specific information on which to make a judgment or the Accountability Agents looked directly into the SHINES record.

f.

Data Analysis

Microsoft Excel and SAS software were used for analyzing the collected data and calculating inter-rater reliability. GSU staff assisted in creating descriptive statistics for the Accountability Agents.

g. Records in Sample that Were not Read

Not all records included in the original samples were reviewed. Before the reviews began, we a set of reasons for why a case record may not be read was established. Table B-3 provides a summary distribution of the cases that were not read with the reasons for not reading them. Files that could not be located for the review were reported to county leadership.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 188

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 194 of 216

Table B-3 Case Records Drawn for Original Sample, Not Reviewed

Target of Review

Number of cases sampled but not read as part of the review and reason why they were not read

Investigation not completed between July 1 and

2

December 31, 2014

Coding error, this is not a maltreatment-in-care

0

referral/report

Case was “opened on report” (no maltreatment was

0

alleged)

Maltreatmentin-care

Case record cannot be located

0

Investigations No child in the legal custody of Fulton and DeKalb

1

Counties was involved in this report

Other

5

8

Total

Coding error in SHINES, this home was not open

0

between July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014.

No children were placed in this home between July 1,

0

2014 and December 31, 2014.

No children in the legal custody of DeKalb or Fulton

0

County DFCS were placed in this home between July 1,

Foster Homes 2014 and December 31, 2014.

Private agency did not supply necessary files

0

Case record cannot be located

0

Oversight of foster home transferred to another county

0

Other

2

Total

2

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 189

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 195 of 216

Target of Review
Children in Foster Care

Number of cases sampled but not read as part of the review and reason why they were not read

Child not in foster care anytime July 1, 2014 through

1

December 31, 2014

Child not in the adjudicated legal custody of Fulton or

0

DeKalb counties July 1, 2014 through December 31, 2014

Child’s file has been sealed as result of finalized adoption

0

Child living in another state, file has insufficient

3

information to review adequately.

Child age 18 before July 1, 2014.

0

Case timeframe too short (child in care 8 days or less)

16

Child placed out of state through ICPC the entire review

1

period.

Other

1

Total

22

4. Meetings with the management teams of Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS (G2)
The Accountability Agents met once to twice each month with Fulton and DeKalb directors, senior management, supervisors and case managers, and senior central office staff. These meetings allowed for hands-on monitoring and data verification. Specifically, the purpose of the G2 has been fourfold:
 Engage Fulton and DeKalb County senior management teams in tracking their own progress in achieving the Consent Decree outcomes;
 Have “real-time” communication about successes and areas of concern regarding the progress of reform;
 Establish a clear understanding of the relationship between practice, process, and infrastructure enhancements and outcome achievements; and,
 Integrate the Consent Decree outcomes and required practice and process into other initiatives the Counties are engaged in, such as the Program Improvement Plan (PIP) to help develop and articulate the “big picture” of reform.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 190

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 196 of 216

The process during the G2 starts with using administrative data to prompt the group to develop hypotheses about underlying problems that threaten the achievement of critical outcomes, and about potential solutions. Fresh data that shed light on the validity of those hypotheses are then brought back to a subsequent meeting. Based on the group’s examination and discussion of the fresh data, a given hypothesis may then be rejected, accepted, or refined and retested. For hypotheses that are accepted, in-depth “So What?” conversations take place during which best practices among field staff may be highlighted, operational strategies that leverage the learning that has transpired are devised, resource allocation decisions may be made by DFCS leadership, and parties responsible for implementation identified.

B. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The following discussion highlights the interpretation and measurement issues that arose during the previous reporting periods that were accepted by the parties and also apply to Period 15.

1. Safety Outcomes
Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 use the same “By the end of the first reporting period…” language used in Outcome 5, but the standard remains fixed at the period 1 level for all subsequent reporting periods. These outcomes, therefore, do not raise the same point-in-time vs. cumulative measurement issue raised by Outcome 5.

Section 12.A. of the Consent Decree requires that maltreatment-in-care investigations be conducted by trained child protective services staff.145 DFCS policy regards the commencement of an investigation to be the point at which an alleged victim child is seen by the investigator. For measurement purposes Outcomes 1 was operationalized as the percentage of cases in which any alleged victim had face-to-face contact with a CPS investigator or police within 24 hours. Outcome 3 was operationalized as the percentage of alleged victims that had face-to-face contact with a CPS investigator within 24 hours.

Outcome 5 was operationally defined as the percentage of children in care during the reporting period that experience maltreatment-in-care during the reporting period. Performance was measured by a cumulative look across the entire reporting period, not just at one point in time

145 See p. 28 of the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 191

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 197 of 216
during the reporting period. The interpretation and measurement issues considered are described below.
 The interpretation issue centers on the meaning attributed to the words “…shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care.” This could be interpreted to mean that any child who had ever experienced maltreatment while in foster care (even if it was years ago) should be counted in this percentage. Although this is perhaps the most obvious and literal interpretation of these words, such an interpretation would be unhelpful to the cause of improving Georgia’s child welfare system.
A central precept of the Consent Decree is that it will bring about improvements in Georgia’s child welfare system. Interpreting this measure in a way that places it beyond the influence of the State’s current and future efforts to improve would be incongruous with this precept.
 The measurement issue inherent in Outcome 5 derives from the words “By the end of the [number] reporting period…” Taken literally, these words seem to suggest that this is a pointin-time measure to be taken on the last day of a reporting period. In other words, what percentage of the children in care on December 31/June 30 of a given year after 2005 had experienced maltreatment while in care? In the child welfare field, such a point-in-time approach is a common method of obtaining a census of children in care. The use of the word “By” could be construed to grant the state the entire length of the reporting period to produce improvements in this outcome.
However, operationalizing this as a point-in-time measure might create perverse incentives (i.e., schedule children who had experienced maltreatment-in-care for discharge before the end of the month). Although it is not believed the State would actually use this approach, the Accountability Agents believe that when the Consent Decree language is less than definitive, it should be construed to avoid establishing incentives that are inconsistent with spirit of improving Georgia’s child welfare system.
Outcome 6 operationalizes the Consent Decree’s use of the phrase “…all foster homes….”146 as all foster homes with a class member in custody during the reporting period for measurement purposes.

146 Ibid, p. 32

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 192

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 198 of 216
2. Permanency Outcomes
Outcome 4 is measured using a calculation based on data from the State’s information system Georgia SHINES. The Accountability Agents used several steps, described below, to verify the information from SHINES.
First, the State generated a list from SHINES of all children who entered custody between during the review period. This list included several data elements such as the dates of current removal and previous exit if the child had been in custody previously and an indicator as to whether the current episode represented a re-entry within 12 months of the previous exit. Second, county Quality Assurance staff compared this list to the data they maintain about exits and entries and corrections needed to SHINES. Using this information, the counties identified discrepancies requiring further research or additional children with re-entries in the period. Finally, the Accountability Agents compared county logs of entry Family Team Meetings in Period 15 to the list of re-entries and together with State staff researched discrepancies and adding to the re-entry list as necessary.
Outcome 7 considers the policy requirements and intent, the flexibility allowed in policy to tailor the search to individual circumstances, and the outcome’s language, applies the following standards to determine if a diligent search was “undertaken and documented”:
1. A “minimum full search” included evidence in the reviewed case files of the following minimum activities: a. Children were interviewed, excluding children under the age of four under the presumption that the child would not have sufficient communication skills to provide useable information. b. Family members were interviewed. c. Other relatives and/or significant others involved in the family were contacted, whether it was to obtain more information or to assess placement suitability. d. There was evidence that the minimal information gathering produced identified potential placement resources for the child. e. There was evidence that potential resources were contacted.
2. If some of the above steps were missing or not clearly documented, but the child was placed with relatives or such placement was pending (waiting for ICPC approval, home evaluation approval, etc), it was presumed to be an “abbreviated search.”
3. Documentation included DFCS forms for recording basic family information, case narratives, Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments (CCFAs), Family and Multidisciplinary Team Meeting notes, case plans, county and state forms for documenting diligent searches, and court documentation.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 193

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 199 of 216
According to DFCS policy, “at a minimum,” the case manager is to conduct the diligent search by identifying, the child’s parent(s), relatives, and “other persons who have demonstrated an ongoing commitment to the child.”147 Search steps include:
 Interviewing the child and his/her family about extended family members and other significant individuals in the child’s life;
 Reviewing the basic information worksheet (Form 450) initiated during the investigation of maltreatment allegations;
 Using the Family Team Meeting, case planning meetings, or Multi-disciplinary Team Meetings as an opportunity to identify individuals and collect contact information;
 Reviewing the Family Assessment portion of the Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment (CCFA);
 Checking various DFCS data systems;  Contacting other individuals involved with the family such as day care or school staff,
court appointed special advocates, ministers, etc.  Making direct contact with individuals to determine their interest and suitability as a
placement resource.
In practice, these “steps” are not mutually exclusive, sequential, or, in some circumstances possible. For example, Family Team and other meetings provide an opportunity for interviews and contact with family members and others of significance to the child. In addition, direct contact with individuals to assess placement interest and suitability may lead to information about other potential resources. Not all of these activities are easily documented in case records, such as the act of reviewing documents or checking data systems. Furthermore, DFCS policy also stipulates that the individual circumstances of the case “may dictate how and to what extent the search is conducted.”148 Therefore, these steps may be abbreviated at the caseworker’s discretion if, for example, a child is quickly reunified with the family member from whom he or she was removed or quickly placed with a relative or other family resource.
This outcome is measured using a case record review of a sample of children in foster care during the period.
Outcomes 8, 9, and 10 performance reported for outcomes 8, 9, and 10 is based on SHINES (formerly IDS) data and documentation of relatives who have signed “an agreement for longterm care.”149 The outcome data from SHINES was not independently validated by the Accountability Agents. However, the Accountability Agents have direct access to SHINES and did use this capability to review the status of cases to confirm the State’s reporting. The Accountability Agents also participate with County leadership in monthly review of the data
147Social Services Manual, Chapter 1000, Section 1002.3.1 Georgia Department of Human Services. 148Social Services Manual, Chapter 1000, Section 1002.3.2, Georgia Department of Human Services. 149 See p. 3, Definition T, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 194

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 200 of 216
and the State’s efforts to safely discharge children to permanent families. Furthermore, removal dates and discharge dates were collected for children in the foster care sample and compared to what was in SHINES and any discrepancies were reviewed and discussed with DFCS.
Outcome 11 is similar to the Federal measure150 for expeditious adoption following termination of parental rights and method used to calculate this outcome is consistent with the Federal method. This outcome is measured using a report from SHINES that identifies all children whose parents had their parental rights terminated 12 months prior to the end of the reporting period and their adoption status as of the end of the reporting period. The report has the calculated elapsed time between the final TPR action and adoption finalization.
Outcome 14 includes those children who return to the custody of DFCS/DHS after their adoption has been finalized. This includes children who are in the temporary custody of the Department while reunification is attempted and those children who return to the Department’s permanent custody because the adoption has been dissolved.
Measurement issues include timing and case identification. In terms of timing, the first cohort of children for whom this outcome can could be measured were those children who were adopted during the first reporting period, October 27, 2005 to December 31, 2006. In terms of case identification, it is difficult to link case records of children who are returning to foster care from an adoption to their previous case records because key identifying information has changed and adoption records have been sealed. An adopted child always receives a new last name and social security number. In some cases, the child also receives a new first name. In addition, adoptive parents may live or move out of Georgia after the adoption and the disruption or dissolution may occur in another state. Furthermore, children who are discharged to relatives for the purposes of private adoption will not necessarily be reflected in the case files or data system as an adoption. Case identification, therefore, currently relies on a case manager’s familiarity with the family through on-going post adoption communication, and comparing adoption dissolution actions that occur in the state to the adoptions that occurred in the state. In March 2007, the State established new procedures for collecting information about prior adoption activity as children enter care. This change requires case managers to record in IDS/SHINES, 1) whether the child was ever adopted, 2) type of adoption – public or private, 3) country of adoption, 4) state of adoption, and 5) if a Georgia adoption, the county of adoption.
Outcome 15 is measured using county tracking systems. Each county has a data base for tracking children who have reached or are approaching their 15th month in care within the most
150See the following Federal internet site: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/tools_guide/statewidetwo.htm#Toc140565117.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 195

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 201 of 216
recent 22 months. The counties add to this data base by extracting information regarding length of stay, “TPR status,” and compelling reasons from SHINES. County data, therefore, is used as the primary source of information to evaluate the continued progress on this outcome.
The Accountability Agents review and validate the county data as follows.
 First, independent of the county data, the case record review of children in foster care collects information about permanency plans and barriers. This information is compared to the tracking information.
 Second the Accountability Agents review the compelling reasons cited in the data bases and compared them to Federal and State policy guidance. This effort frequently involves requesting more information about the circumstances of the case that led to the compelling reason.
Final measurement of the State’s performance uses the population of children to whom the Federal regulatory exceptions did not apply. In other words, if a child was placed with a relative or there was a judicial indication in the child’s record that the State had yet to make “reasonable efforts to reunify the family,” the child was removed from the analysis.
The counties have adopted a classification system of compelling reasons or other exemptions from moving to termination of parental rights.151 The classifications used by both counties are as follows:
1. There is a permanency goal of return home, approved by the Court and the child is expected to be reunited with parents within 6 months.
2. The child is a specified age (14) or older and objects to being adopted. 3. The child has severe emotional or behavioral problems or a serious medical condition
and reunification remains an appropriate goal. 4. The child has a permanency goal other than adoption and is expected to achieve that
goal within 12 months of establishing the goal. 5. Parents are deceased, or have voluntarily relinquished rights. 6. A petition for adoption has been filed with the Court. 7. The parent is terminally ill, does not want parental rights terminated and has designated
the child’s present caretaker, with the caretaker’s agreement, as the child’s permanent caretaker. 8. The child is an unaccompanied refugee minor as defined in 45 Code of Federal Regulations 400.11. 9. There are no or insufficient legal grounds for filing a TPR because required reasonable
151 Adapted from Criteria and Procedures for Determining a “Compelling Reason” Not to File a TPR, Discussion Paper and Approved Recommendations prepared for the Child Welfare Leadership Team of the District of Columbia by the Center for the Study of Social Policy, Washington D.C., March 2005.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 196

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 202 of 216
efforts have not been made. 10. There are international legal obligations or compelling foreign policy reasons that would
preclude terminating parental rights. 11. The child is a child of a teen mother who is also in the State’s custody. 12. Other circumstances make termination of parental rights at this time inappropriate.
Outcome 16 uses the definition of, “children who entered foster care … along with one or more siblings” those siblings who entered on the same day. In Periods 2 and 4, a targeted case record review was used to measure the performance on this Outcome. In Period 6 and subsequent periods, the Accountability Agents were able to use data produced for the whole population from SHINES.
The Accountability Agents were able to change the measurement approach in Period 6 because of SHINES implementation. At the request of the Accountability Agents, the State produces a report containing the list of all children who entered foster care in Period 15. This information includes the number of siblings a child had in custody and how many siblings were placed with the child. The Accountability Agents conduct on-line reviews or “look ups” of the SHINES file of children with siblings who had entered care during the period. Through this process, the Accountability Agents are able to confirm the number of siblings and placement settings of sibling group members. This also allowed identification of reasons for separate placements if sibling groups were separated.
Outcome 19 is measured through a record review of approximately 175-180 randomly selected children. When the record does not indicate that the child was placed within the county, either DeKalb or Fulton, from which he or she was removed, the case record review team used the online program “MapQuest” to determine “shortest drive time distance” between the address of the child’s placement and the address of the home from which the child was removed. This is the default option in “MapQuest” and is generally used by the placement facilitators and case managers to determine the placement distance.
Outcome 21 language refers to “appropriate visitation”152 between children and parents “to progress toward reunification”153where the goal is reunification. The issues with this language include 1) who has a permanency goal of reunification; 2) with whom is reunification intended; and 3) what is appropriate visitation to make progress toward reunification.
152 See p. 36, Outcome 21, of the Consent Decree. 153 Ibid.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 197

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 203 of 216
Permanency goals are established by court order with consideration of DFCS recommendation. During the first 12 months, before the first permanency hearing, the presumed goal is reunification or a concurrent goal of reunification and another goal such as adoption or custody to a relative. This outcome is measured using a case record review of a sample of children in foster care during the period and children with a presumed goal of reunification (in care less than 12 months) are included in the analysis. Exceptions would be instances where the Department is clearly not working toward reunification given case circumstances such as abandonment. Children with concurrent goals, presumed or court ordered, are also included in the analysis unless it is clear in the case documentation that the Department is working toward achieving the alternate permanency goal.
In some cases, the child has the goal of reunification, but the parent is not always available to visit regularly or take advantage of the visiting opportunities. Missed visits are often supporting evidence to change the goal from reunification in order to proceed with another permanency plan. Reunification may not be the appropriate goal and the department is working to change it.
Although the Consent Decree specifies visitation between parent(s) and children, in some cases the child was removed from a relative and that relative is the reunification resource. In these cases, the record review considered the reunification resource equivalent to the parent(s).
DFCS policy and practice provides a frame of reference for determining “appropriate” as it establishes several requirements with regard to parental-child visitation. First, “if possible” a child should have a family visit in the first week after removal.154 Second, a plan for parental visitation should be a part of every Case Plan.155 Third, “when agency resources allow, visitation shall be scheduled at two-week intervals unless the court has specified another visitation arrangement.”156 Finally, established practice in the field requires a minimum of monthly visits when “agency resources do not allow” and the court does not dictate otherwise. Given these policy requirements, the case record review was designed to gather information on both the planned schedule for visitation and the actual visitation. In the absence of a schedule dictating otherwise the performance of the state was assessed according to the minimum monthly visitation standard. In addition, the Accountability Agents reviewed the cases to further assess the appropriateness of the visitation given the individual case circumstances. For example, a monthly visit might be missed due to a parent’s incarceration, but the parent reestablishes contact after exiting jail and begins again to work toward reunification.
154Social Services Manual, Section 1009.3 Georgia Department of Human Services. 155Social Services Manual, Section 1009.4 Georgia Department of Human Services. 156Social Services Manual Section 1009.5, Georgia Department of Human Services.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 198

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 204 of 216
Measurement issues included the limitations of case documentation, how to address those children living with relatives and those children who were reunified during the reporting period but whose records contained little or no documentation relating to parent child visits. Case documentation often does not include precise dates of visits because case managers are not always present for the visits. The visits may be supervised by other DFCS staff or private agencies or foster parents. Visits may also be unsupervised as the case progresses toward reunification. However, case managers may record what they learn from foster parents, parents and children about the visits. As a result, in a portion of the cases the reviewers can often determine “regular” visitation is occurring because of the information shared, but cannot match the pattern of visits to the schedule established in the case plan or Family Team Meetings. That is, there may not be a reference to an exact date of the visit, but a reference to the visit occurring within a span of time, such as “last week.” Or, another example of notation may be “children have unsupervised visits every weekend.” Such cases were counted toward the achievement of the outcome.
A portion of children in the sample live with relatives. These circumstances may allow for frequent visitation between parents and children.157 Again, however, the dates and frequency may not always be reported to the case manager and, therefore, documented. These children were included in the denominator for measurement of the outcome, but not the numerator unless there was documentation of a visitation pattern.
Finally, a small number of children achieved reunification without any or with few documented visits with parents or their reunification resource. Again, this does not mean that the children did not have contact with their parents. The contact that they did have was sufficient to “progress toward reunification” as the ultimate goal – reunification -- was achieved. Or, the children were in custody a short period of time before being reunified. These children were included in the analysis.
Outcome 23 was measured in Periods 2 through 9 using information collected directly from the documentation in children’s records through a case record review. In November, 2010 the parties reached agreement on a revised standard for sibling visits. Starting with Period 10, the standard requires at least 90 percent of the total minimum number of required monthly siblinggroup visits occur each reporting period. This requirement applies to children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed. At a minimum, they are to have monthly visits unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. As a result of this modification, the
157 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Elders as Resources Fact Sheet, Basic Data: Kinship Care, 2005, found at http://www.aecf.org/upload/PublicationFiles/FactSheet.pdf.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 199

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 205 of 216
measurement of Outcome 23 is based on all sibling groups in foster care at any time during the reporting period as reported by the State. County Quality Assurance staff review the quality of the documentation and maintain a data base of all required and completed sibling visits. The State report is generated from this data base. The Accountability Agents verified the State report by randomly sampling 10 percent of the children in custody each month during the review period and collected information from the on-line case files in SHINES about all applicable visits (sibling, parental, and case manager.) Information for each of the children sampled was compared with the information in the county system and discussed with the county representatives. The Accountability Agents are satisfied that the State report on sibling visits is accurate.
Outcome 27 is measured using information collected directly from the documentation in a sample of the children’s records. Children in custody less than six months are excluded from the analysis.
Outcome 28 is measured using information collected directly from the documentation in a sample of children’s records. Children in custody less than 12 months are excluded from the analysis.
3. Well- Being
Outcome 17 is similar, but not identical to the federal standard for placement stability. The federal standard is applied to the number of placements, not moves, and suggests that at least 86.7 percent of children should experience no more than two placements in the most recent 12 months in custody. Therefore, for comparison purposes the number of moves is equivalent to the number of placements minus one. This outcome is measured using a case record review of a sample of children in foster care during the period. The definition of a “placement” is one that meets the following federal criteria:
“lasts more than 24 hours while the child is in foster care under the placement,…This includes moves
that may be made on an emergency or unplanned basis, such as shelter care placements, treatment facility placements, and certain placements for juvenile justice purposes. However, there are certain temporary living conditions that are not placements, but rather represent a temporary absence from the child's ongoing foster care placement. As such, the State must exclude the following temporary absences from the calculation of the number of previous placement settings for foster care element 24.
 Visitation with a sibling, relative, or other caretaker (i.e., preplacement visits with a subsequent foster care provider or preadoptive parents)
 Hospitalization for medical treatment, acute psychiatric episodes or diagnosis  Respite care
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 200

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 206 of 216
 Day or summer camps  Trial home visits  Runaway episodes (CWPM)
Must not include return from trial home visit into same placement setting (CWPM). Must not include return from runaway status and entry to same placement setting (CWPM).
In regard to institutions with several cottages on their campus, the State is not to count a move from one cottage to another. Only count if the site is at a different address.”158
In addition for purposes of IV-E Reimbursement, locked-detention facilities and psychiatric hospitals are considered “out of the scope” of foster care and are not placement settings eligible for IV-E reimbursement.159
Outcome 18 performance measurement is based on data drawn from SHINES for children in DeKalb and Fulton Counties’ custody on a point in time during the period and updated by the counties as to the reasons for case manager changes in the previous 12 months. Exemptions noted were case manager changes that resulted from 1) transfers to a Specialized Case Manager or Adoptions Case Manager, 2) case manager deaths, terminations, and transfers to another county or, 3) temporary assignments to cover cases during a maternity or sick leave.160 Resignations and promotions were not exempted because they were not specifically identified as such in the Consent Decree. SHINES requires a child to be assigned to a case manager, supervisor, or administrator at all times. Therefore, when a new case is opened, it will initially be assigned to a supervisor or program administrator who is responsible for assigning the case to a case manager. This “pass through” process may only last a period of minutes or hours, but it might last a period of days. If a case is opened on a Friday, it may not be officially assigned to a case manager until Monday morning. The same process is in effect when a case manager leaves or goes on leave: cases are temporarily assigned to supervisors or program administrators. This is a dynamic process and a report generated at any point in time will reflect a different set of cases assigned to supervisors or administrators. To address this issue, a supervisor or program administrator was not counted as the primary individual responsible for the case if the case was associated with the supervisor or administrator for 5 business days or less. If the period was longer, the supervisor or administrator was counted as one of the case managers a child had in the 12- month period.
State performance on this outcome does not reflect staff turnover rates. Children may still experience more than two case managers in a 12-month period if they are assigned to a series of case managers who leave as a result of terminations or transfers. This Outcome does encourage
158 Adoption and Foster Care Reporting System Element #24, November 2010. 159 Retrieve from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/questDetail.jsp?QAId=526 160 See p. 35, paragraph 18, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 201

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 207 of 216
the counties to minimize reassignment of children among case managers for other reasons. The county data was reviewed by the Accountability Agents for consistency with the appropriate reasons and compared to monthly caseload data to verify resignations, terminations, transfers, and promotions.
Outcome 20 was measured through the case record review in Periods 2 through 9. In November 2010 the parties reached agreement on a revised standard for case manager visits with children. Starting with Period 10, Outcome 20 has two parts. Outcome 20a requires at least 96.25 percent of the total minimum number of twice monthly case manager visits to children in custody required during the period to occur. Outcome 20b requires at least 96.25 percent of the total number of monthly private visits to children in custody required during the period to occur.161
This modification changed several aspects of the original stipulation. Previously, in Periods 2 through 9, the unit of analysis for Outcome 20 was the child and the stipulation required 95 percent of the children have visits by their case managers twice a month, each and every month in the 12 months preceding the end of the reporting period. Furthermore, one of the two visits had to be a private visit in the child’s placement setting. To measure performance in previous periods, the Accountability Agents had to use a case file review of a sample of the children in care. Starting with Period 10, under the new stipulation, the unit of analysis is the case manager visit with the child. Case managers are still required to visit children twice every month and one of the visits is still to be in private, but the private visit does not have to occur in the placement setting. As indicated, the stipulation now has a standard for the percentage of completed twice monthly visits and a standard for monthly private visits.
For several years, County Quality Assurance staff have been assessing the quality of the visit documentation monthly and maintaining a data base of all required and completed case manager–child visits. This tracking system has enabled the counties to calculate the percentage of required visits that were completed by individual case managers, supervisory units, and program administrator. In Period 11, the State generated a report from the county data bases for all children in custody during Period 11. Thus, the Accountability Agents no longer have to rely on a case file review of a sample of children in foster care. The Accountability Agents verified the State report by randomly sampling 10 percent of the children in custody each month during the reporting period and collected information about all applicable visits (sibling, parental, and case manager.) This information was compared with the information in the county system and discussed with county representatives. The Accountability Agents are satisfied that the State report on case manager visits with children is accurate.
161See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 202

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 208 of 216
Outcome 22 was measured using a case record review of a sample of children in foster care during the period in Periods 2 through 9. In November 2010 the parties reached agreement on a revised standard for case manager visits with substitute caregivers. Starting with Period 11, Outcome 22 requires at least 95 percent of the total minimum number of monthly case manager visits to substitute caregivers required during the period occur.162
Similar to the changes made to Outcome 20, the new stipulation changes the unit of analysis for Outcome 22 from the caregiver to visits and the time frame for performance is limited to the required visits in the period. Starting with Period 10, as indicated, the standard is a percentage of completed monthly visits to caregivers in the reporting period.
Using the visit data base maintained by County Quality Assurance staff previously described in Outcome 20, the State generated a performance report for the period. The Accountability Agents verified the State report by randomly sampling 10 percent of the children in custody each month during the reporting period and collected information about all applicable visits (sibling, parental, and case manager.) This information was compared with the information in the county system and discussed with the county representatives. The Accountability Agents are satisfied that the State report on case manager visits with caregivers is accurate.
Outcome 24, educational attainment, uses county records of diplomas and GED certificates as well as the records of the educational attainment of Georgia residents maintained by the Georgia Departments of Education (DOE) and the Technical College System of Georgia (formerly the Department of Technical and Adult Education). The baseline year was October 27, 2004 to October 26, 2005. The first measurement year was October 27, 2005 to December 31, 2006 in order to place subsequent measurement on a calendar-year basis. The second measurement year was January 1 to December 31, 2007. The third measurement year was January 1 to December 31, 2008. The fourth measurement year was January 1 to December 31, 2009. The fifth measurement year was January 1 to December 31, 2010. The sixth measurement year was January 1 to December 31, 2011.
Outcome 30 uses the current case plan format used by DFCS is part of the Case Plan Reporting System (CPRS.) Complete DFCS case plans contain a series of standard goals. One such standard goal is “DFCS will ensure that the medical, dental, educational, and psychological needs of the child are met.” This format allows case managers to include routine goals and responsibilities for DFCS and others for parents when reunification is the goal. Although DFCS pre-service
162 See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 203

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 209 of 216
training provides guidance on tailoring the case plan and the initial case plan should be a product of a Family Team Meeting, multi-disciplinary meeting and the insights from the Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment, the CPRS format does not appear to be conducive to tailored plans without a good deal of modification. Child-specific need and treatment information therefore is often limited in the plans.
This outcome is measured using a case record review of a sample of children in foster care during the period. For purposes of determining whether needs identified in the most recent case plans were being met, children are excluded if they are in custody less than 30 days and would not be expected to have a case plan and if no plan is found in their case records.
To better align the case record review with the CPRS format, for several periods reviewers were asked to categorize the needs found in the plan as being “routine” or “child-specific.” Routine needs included regular medical appointments and indicated follow-up, school enrollment, educational progress or grade completion. These routine needs are likely to be standard for every child. Child-specific needs included information about chronic conditions, placement requirements, and special education or academic assistance. Both types of needs were combined in the analysis for Outcome 30.
Over time, the record review instrument was simplified to combine the “routine” and “child specific” into one category because complete DFCS case plans contain a series of standard goals. One such standard goal is “DFCS will ensure that the medical, dental, educational, and psychological needs of the child are met.” Part of ensuring that this goal is achieved requires a child specific as well as routine care to be delivered.
To measure whether the identified needs were being met the sample of case files were reviewed for evidence that services had been delivered or were being delivered or scheduled to respond to the need. This information was gathered from any and all sources found in the files.
3. Strengthening Infrastructure
Outcome 25 was modified in October 2010 to facilitate more timely completion of the Accountability Agents’ reports. The Parties agreed to replace the previous Outcome 25 measure with a revised measure that uses the placement as the unit of analysis and which can be extracted
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 204

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 210 of 216
from a single, automated data source – SHINES.163 Outcome 25, as revised, stipulates that “By the end of the tenth reporting period, at least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement.”164
The revised Outcome 25 language contains the phrase “By the end of the tenth reporting period…” this makes it clear that it is intended as a point-in-time measure to be taken at the end of the reporting period. The revised measure also states: “In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement.” To operationalize this weighting scheme, the Outcome 25 measure uses as the denominator the licensed or approved capacity of all placement settings with a class member in care on the last day of the reporting period, and as the numerator, the licensed or approved capacity of all such placements that were in full approval or licensure status on the last day of the reporting period.
Outcome 26 data was collected from the case records of the sample of children in foster care. The Outcome 26 analysis is applicable to those children who had entered DFCS custody after the Consent Decree was entered on October 27, 2005. Permanency Court Orders with the appropriate language are counted toward meeting the outcome even if the Permanency Hearings were not timely. The Office of Revenue Maximization made available its paper files of court orders and eligibility determination to supplement what was recorded in SHINES and in the paper files maintained by case managers. The case record review team also made additional efforts to obtain court order documentation to ensure an accurate assessment could be made. For those children in the sample who entered before October 27, 2005, only the annual permanency review orders were included in the analysis.
Outcome 29 data was collected from the case records of the sample of children in foster care. The outcome 29 analysis is applicable to children who had been in custody 12 months or more and were still in the temporary custody of the Department.
Outcome 31 was modified in October 2010 to facilitate more timely completion of the Accountability Agents’ reports. The Parties agreed to replace the previous Outcome 31 measure with a revised measure that uses the placement as the unit of analysis and which can be extracted
163 The original Outcome 25 measure used the child as the unit of analysis, and therefore required the use of multiple data sources (some of which were manual) to link individual children to the approval status of the placements in which they resided. 164 See p. 4, Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 205

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 211 of 216
from a single, automated data source – SHINES.165 Outcome 31, as revised, stipulates that “By the end of the tenth reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than ten percent of all foster family home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of this Consent Decree…”166,167
The revised Outcome 31 language contains the phrase “By the end of the tenth reporting period…” this establishes that it is intended as a point-in-time measure to be taken at the end of the reporting period. The revised measure also states: “….all foster family home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period…” which indicates that the universe of placements to be considered consists of any family foster home in which a class member child resided at any time during the reporting period. To operationalize this language, the Outcome 31 measurement first identifies the universe of family foster homes in which a class member child resided at any point during the reporting period, and then considers for outcome measurement the point-in-time child census of those family foster homes that had a class member child in care on the last day of the reporting period.
C. Methodology for Verifying Caseload Data
SHINES is able to produce reports on individual case manager caseloads and the Accountability Agents started using SHINES-produced reports in Period 6 for assessing State progress in meeting the Consent Decree’s caseload requirement reported in Section VI. As with the previous reports produced by IDS, the Accountability Agents take several steps to ensure the accuracy and completeness of these reports. Training, certification, and leave data are all maintained in separate data systems. All of this data are cross-referenced or reconciled with the SHINES caseload data. This allows the Accountability Agents to determine the caseload sizes of those on leave, separated from the Agency, and provisionally certified. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved with the counties. Finally, a sample of case managers are interviewed at least once a reporting period and asked about their caseload size during the period. In many instances, the case managers are asked to produce supporting documentation. As a result of
165 The original Outcome 31 measure used the child as the unit of analysis, and therefore required the use of multiple data sources (some of which were manual) to link individual children to the point-in-time census of the foster homes in which they were placed. 166 See p. 4, Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 167 The Section 5.c.4.e capacity limits provide that “No child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family's biological and/or adopted children…. The only exception to these limits shall be circumstances in which the placement of a sibling group in a foster home with no other children in the home would exceed one or more of these limits.” See p. 16 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 206

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 212 of 216
gaining direct access to SHINES, the Accountability Agents also have the ability to generate caseload reports at any time for review and follow-up with the State and counties.
D. Methodology for Verifying State Data on Repeat Maltreatment and Maltreatment Subsequent to Diversion
Section 20 G of the Consent Decree requires DHS to provide the Accountability Agents data and information sufficient to enable the verification of data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experience repeat maltreatment or substantiated maltreatment within 11-365 days after being referred to DHS’s diversion program. Following is a discussion of the approach the Accountability Agents used.
The validity of the State statistics on repeat maltreatment and substantiated maltreatment subsequent to diversion rest on the accuracy of the data coding and data input associated with maltreatment investigations and diversion cases, and the validity and rigor of the file matching algorithm. These are considered separately below.
1. Data Capture and Input
Data fields that are quantitative or less complex (e.g., whether or not an allegation was substantiated) are less prone to coding errors and produce data with a higher degree of reliability. Data fields that are more complex, qualitative, or ambiguous are more error prone and demonstrate greater problems of reliability. Data on the results of maltreatment investigations and on whether or not a CPS report is “diverted” fall into the former category.
When a report of maltreatment is received, it is reviewed by CPS intake staff, logged into the County’s tracking system, and if it meets the criteria to be investigated, an investigation is initiated. Pertinent data about the report are entered into the SHINES intake “stage.” A casework supervisor reviews the completed SHINES intake stage and when they are satisfied with the quality of the intake information, they approve it in SHINES and close the intake stage. If the report meets the criteria for an investigation, the investigation “stage” is opened in SHINES and a casework supervisor uses SHINES to assign it to an investigator and to indicate the required response time.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 207

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 213 of 216
If the report does not meet the criteria for a CPS investigation and it manifests issues that are primarily economic in nature, it may be considered for “diversion,” also called Family Support Services. Diversion cases are not opened as CPS investigations, but the family is usually connected with community-based resources that can help meet the family’s economic or other needs with the intent of helping the family keep their children safely in their own home.
Based on interviews with county investigations staff and the experience of reviewing 100 percent of the investigations of maltreatment-in-care, the Accountability Agents have confidence that SHINES captures virtually 100 percent of the investigations that are conducted.168
With respect to diversion cases, the Accountability Agents are satisfied that the “stages” construct in SHINES effectively precludes diversion cases from being miscoded as CPS investigations or screen-outs, and vice versa. Moreover, each county maintains an intake log that captures pertinent information about each report received, and its disposition as: accepted for CPS investigation, diverted, or screened-out. The Kenny A. file review staff begins each maltreatment in foster care file review by reviewing the county’s intake log against the data contained in SHINES to ensure that all CPS investigations and diversions are accurately reflected in SHINES. Any inconsistencies between SHINES and the county intake log are identified, brought to the attention of county management staff, and rectified.
2. File Matching Algorithms
To produce the data on repeat maltreatment required by the Consent Decree, the DFCS Data Analysis and Reporting Unit used the following algorithm:
 Data for DeKalb and Fulton counties were extracted from SHINES and from the state Protective Services Data System (PSDS), a component of IDS, depending on the date the report was logged (reports logged on or after May 28, 2008 were extracted from SHINES; reports prior to May 28, 2008 were extracted from PSDS);
 Children with substantiated maltreated were selected from two timeframes -- the reporting period and the preceding 12 months;
 Foster children were deleted from the files;  Children from the reporting period were matched with children from the preceding 12
168 An issue was identified in Period VII that involved the undercounting of maltreatment in care reports. This problem was a function of the erroneous creation of duplicate person identification numbers for some children in care. This problem did NOT affect the accurate counting of maltreatment reports, only the linking of those reports to foster care records so reports of maltreatment in care can be identified.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 208

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 214 of 216
months using a search routine that cast a “wide net” to capture all potential matches; and  Resulting matches were manually reviewed to affirm correct matches. Children that had a matched substantiation of maltreatment from the two time frames were deemed to have experienced repeat maltreatment.
Similarly, to produce the data on substantiated maltreatment subsequent to diversion, the DFCS Data Analysis and Reporting Unit used the following algorithm:
 Data for DeKalb and Fulton counties were extracted from SHINES and from the state Protective Services Data System (PSDS) and the diverted cases file provided monthly by Systems & Methods, Inc.(SMI), depending on the date the report was logged (reports logged on or after May 28, 2008 were extracted from SHINES; reports prior to May 28, 2008 were extracted from PSDS and the diverted cases file);
 Cases diverted during the reporting period were selected;  Diverted cases from the reporting period were matched with subsequent substantiated
cases of maltreatment from the succeeding 12 months (to reflect the specified 11-365 day follow-up period after the diversion referral) using a search routine that cast a “wide net” to capture all potential matches; and,  Resulting matches were manually reviewed to affirm correct matches that fell within the 11-365 day follow-up window of the diversion referral. Matches within this window of time were deemed to be maltreatment substantiations within 11 - 365 days of the diversion referral.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 209

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 215 of 216

Appendix C

Selected Characteristics of the Children in the Custody of DeKalb and Fulton Counties

This appendix provides some additional information about the 1205 children in the custody of DeKalb and Fulton counties on December 31, 2014. The information is reported by the State and has not been independently verified by the Accountability Agents.

Table C-1 Gender of Children Remaining in Custody on December 31, 2014
N=1205

Gender Male Female Total
Source: Georgia SHINES

Percent of Children 53% 47% 100%

Table C-2 Age of Children Remaining in Custody on December 31, 2014
N=1205

Age Group Ages 0 to age 3 years Ages 3 to 6 years Ages 6 to 10 years Ages 10 to 13 years Ages 13 to16 years Ages 16 to 17 years Total
Source: Georgia SHINES; User Defined Report.

Percent of Children 26% 16% 16% 10% 18% 13% 100%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 210

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 734 Filed 08/12/15 Page 216 of 216 Figure C-1
Number of Children Entering DeKalb and Fulton Custody since July 1, 2006 in Six-Month Increments*
Source: IDS and SHINES: *An additional 294 children entered between October 27, 2005 and December 31, 2005. *Periods prior to Period 11 (January –June 2011) include youth under the age of 18 placed voluntarily in DFCS as well as those adjudicated into custody.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 18 Monitoring Report Page 211

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 1 of 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

KENNY A., by his next friend Linda Winn, et aI.,

Plaintiffs,

CIVIL ACTION

v.

1:02-CV-1686-MHS

NATHAN DEAL, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia, et aI.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiffs' renewed motion for an award of

reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. For the following reasons, the Court

denies the motion.

Background
This class action brought on behalf of foster children in Fulton and DeKalb Counties was settled as to the State Defendantsl in October 2005
1 State Defendants are the QQvernor of Georgia, the Georgia Department of Human Services and its Commissioner, the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services and its Director, and the DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services and its Director.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 2 of 28
with the entry of a Consent Decree. On October 3, 2006, the Court awarded plaintiffs approximately $10.5 million in attorneys' fees, which included a 75% enhancement of the $6 million lodestar amount, or approximately $4.5 million, based on the quality of representation provided by class counsel and the extraordinary results they achieved. Kenny A. ex reI. Winn v. Perdue, 454 F. Supp. 2d 1260, 1288-90 (N.D. Ga. 2006). State Defendants appealed the award, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Kenny A. ex reI. Winn y. Perdue, 532 F.3d 1209 (11th Cir. 2008). After the Eleventh Circuit denied rehearing en bane, State Defendants petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted review limited to the question whether enhancements based on quality of attorney performance and results obtained are ever justified. Perdue v. Kenny A. ex reL Winn, 129 S. Ct. 1907 (2009) (granting certiorari limited to Question 1 of the petition); Pet. for Cert., No. 08-970, 2009 WL 245095, at *i (Jan. 29,2009) (stating question). On April 21, 2010, the Court issued a decision unanimously holding that enhancements may be justified in certain extraordinary circumstances but, by a 5-4 majority, reversing and remanding the enhancement awarded in this case. Perdue v. KennyA. ex reI. Winn, 130 S. Ct. 1662 (2010).
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 3 of 28
Addressing the issue "whether either the quality of an attorney's performance or the results obtained are factors that may properly provide a basis for an enhancement," the Court found that "superior results are relevant only to the extent it can be shown that they are the result ofsuperior attorney performance." Id. at 1674. Therefore, the Court limited its inquiry to "whether there are circumstances in which superior attorney performance is not adequately taken into account in the lodestar calculation." Id. The Court identified three "rare" and "exceptional" circumstances in which an enhancement may be warranted ifthere is "specific evidence that the lodestar fee would not have been 'adequate to attract competent counsel.'" Id. (quoting Blum v. Stenson. 465 U.s. 886, 897 (1984». These circumstances exist where (1) "the method used in determining the hourly rate employed in the lodestar calculation does not adequately measure the attorney's true market value, as demonstrated in part during the litigation"; (2) "the attorney's performance includes an extraordinary outlay of expenses and the litigation is exceptionally protracted"; or (3) "an attorney's performance involves exceptional delay in the payment offees." Id. at 1674-75. An enhancement based on any of these circumstances requires "specific proof' supporting a
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 4 of 28
calculation that is "reasonable, objective, and capable of being reviewed on appeal." Id. at 1674.
Turning to the enhancement granted in this case, the majority found that this Court "did not provide proper justification for the large enhancement that it awarded." Id. at 1675. Specifically, the majority found that the 75% enhancement was "essentially arbitrary" because this Court: (1) did not point to anything in the record to show that the effective hourly rate resulting from the enhancement was "an appropriate figure for the relevant market," (2) did not calculate the amount of the enhancement attributable to the delay in reimbursement of expenses, (3) did not "sufficiently link" the delay in payment of fees to proof that the delay was "outside the normal range expected by attorneys who rely on [42 V.S.C,] § 1988 for the payment of their fees" or quantifY the disparity, (4) did not "provide a calculation of the cost to counsel of any extraordinary and unwarranted delay," (5) improperly relied on the contingency ofthe outcome, and (6) improperly relied on an "impressionistic" assessment of the performance ofcounsel in this case as compared to the performance ofcounsel in other cases. Id. at 1675-76. The Court held that any enhancement must
4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 5 of 28
be supported by "a reasonably specific explanation" so as to permit "adequate
appellate review." IlL at 1676. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment
ofthe Court ofAppeals and remanded for further proceedings consistent with . its opinion. Id. at 1677.
Following the Supreme Court's decision, State Defendants tendered payment to plaintiffs of$8.13 million, representing the lodestar and expense awards set out in this Court's Order of October 3,2006, plus post-judgment interest. After an unsuccessful attempt at mediation, the Eleventh Circuit vacated this Court's Order of October 3, 2006, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision. Kenny A. v. Perdue, 616 F.3d 1230 (11th Cit. 2010). Plaintiffs then filed a renewed motion for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. Since the lodestar amount and expenses have been paid, plaintiffs' motion is limited to the proper amount of enhancement, if any, of the lodestar computation.2
2 Plaintiffs have also moved for an award of fees and expenses incurred on appeal. The Court will address that motion in a separate Order.
5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 6 of 28
Discussion Plaintiffs contend they are entitled to enhancement of the lodestar on
each of the three grounds recognized by the Supreme Court. They have submitted evidence that they claim supports a 50.16% enhancement to compensate plaintiffs' counsel at their true market value, a 21.11% enhancement to compensate for the delay in payment of attorneys' fees, and a 6.56% enhancement to compensate for the delay in payment of reimbursable expenses. Plaintiffs have also submitted evidence that they contend supports an additional 20% enhancement to provide the market incentive necessary to attract competent counsel to undertake this civil rights case in light of the increased overhead and opportunity costs. In sum, plaintiffs claim that the evidence supports a total enhancement of the lodestar of97.83%, or approximately $5.9 million, which is $1.4 million more than the enhancement the Court originally awarded. Based on this evidence, plaintiffs ask the Court to calculate and award an enhancement between 50.16% and 97.83% of the lodestar ($3.02 million - $5.9 million). State Defendants dispute plaintiffs' contentions and argue that no enhancement is justified. The Court addresses the parties' arguments below as they relate to each of the claimed grounds for an enhancement.
6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 7 of 28
A. Attorneys' True Market Value
With respect to this basis for an enhancement, the Supreme Court
stated:
[A]n enhancement may be appropriate where the method used in determining the hourly rate employed in the lodestar calculation does not adequately measure the attorney's true market value, as demonstrated in part during the litigation. This may occur ifthe hourly rate is determined by a formula that takes into account only a single factor (such as years since admission to the bar) or perhaps only a few similar factors. In such a case, an enhancement may be appropriate so that an attorney is compensated at the rate that the attorney would receive in cases not governed by the federal fee'shifting statutes. But in order to provide a calculation that is objective and reviewable, the trial judge should adjust the attorney's hourly rate in accordance with specific proof linking the attorney's ability to a prevailing market rate.
Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1674 (footnotes omitted).
In support of their claim for an enhancement on this basis, plaintiffs
have submitted an economic analysis of prevailing market rates in Atlanta
by economist Dr. Steven P. Feinstein. Expert Report of Prof. Steven P.
Feinstein ("Feinstein Report"), PIs.' Renewed Mot., Ex. 6. Based on this
Court's findings regarding the extraordinary performance of class counsel,
Dr. Feinstein assumed that the value of their legal services was, at a
minimum. equivalent to the lower end of hourly rates charged by the upper
7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 8 of 28

quartile (top 25%) of Atlanta litigation firms. Feinstein Report 34-35.

Relying on survey data of such billing rates compiled by

PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP

Dr. Feinstein calculated an enhanced

billing rate for each of plaintiffs' attorneys and paralegals based on the rates

charged in 2005 by timekeepers with the same position and/or level of

experience employed by the upper quartile ofsurveyed Atlanta law firms. Id.

36-39. Using these quality-enhanced billing rates, total compensation for

hours previously approved by the Court came to $9,029,108.22, or

$3,016,305.32 more than the Court's original lodestar computation. Id. '\140.

As corroboration of Dr. Feinstein's findings, plaintiffs cite the survey published by the Fulton County Daily Report ofhourly rates charged in 2005 by Atlanta law firms, which shows that a number of law firms charged significantly higher hourly rates than the rates used to compute the lodestar in this case. Meredith Hobbs, Behind the Scenes, Behind the Numbers, FULTON CNTY. DAILY REPORT, Apr. 24, 2006, PIs.' Renewed Mot., Ex. 1·A. All told, plaintiffs contend, comparable market hourly rates charged by similarly situated law firm partners in Atlanta were 30-56% higher than the partnerlevel hourly rates used to calculate the lodestar in this case. Similarly,
8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 9 of 28
associate-level hourly rates used to calculate the lodestar in this case were as much as 25% below comparable associate-level rates charged by other Atlanta firms. Plaintiffs argue that these figures serve to corroborate Dr. Feinstein's conclusion that Atlanta partner-level rates were approximately 48% higher, and associate-level rates were approximately 23% higher, than the corresponding rates used to calculate the lodestar in this case.
In response, State Defendants argue that no increase in hourly rates is justified because there is no question that the rates previously sought and awarded in the Court's original lodestar calculation were prevailing market rates that plaintiffs' counsel would receive in cases not governed by federal fee-shifting statutes. State Defendants point out that (1) these are the rates actually requested by plaintiffs, who contended that these were the same rates paying clients would have been charged; (2) affidavits by other Atlanta attorneys submitted by plaintiffs attested that these were prevailing market rates in Atlanta; (3) these rates were requested after conclusion ofthe merits litigation, when counsel knew the results they had achieved, the degree of difficulty involved, and the amount ofresources required; (4) this Court itself found that the rates reflected true market value based on prevailing market
9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 10 of 28
rates; (5) the 2009 hourly rates sought by plaintiffs in their supplemental fee application for post-judgment monitoring were less than the 2005 rates they now seek; (6) the rates plaintiffs now seek far exceed what counsel have received in similar suits elsewhere; and (7) these rates were not determined by a formula limited to years ofexperience or some other limited set offactors like the cases cited by the Supreme Court as supporting a rate enhancement.
State Defendants contend that Dr. Feinstein's report fails to satisfy the requirements for expert testimony set out in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and that, in any event, it does not support an enhancement. First, they argue that Dr. Feinstein is not competent to testify as to the market value of legal services in Atlanta because he has no experience in law firm economics. Second, they argue that Dr. Feinstein's report is unreliable because (1) it does not provide documentation of the principal source for his conclusions, the PWC survey; (2) it simply assumes that plaintiffs' counsel should be placed within the top 25% of Atlanta law firms; and (3) it concludes that an enhancement is warranted based on this Court's subjective assessment of counsel's performance, which the Supreme Court held was not a proper basis for an enhancement. State Defendants
10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 11 of 28
argue further that Dr. Feinstein's analysis is irrelevant because he apparently relies in part on common fund/common benefit cases that do not apply in this case. Finally, State Defendants contend that Dr. Feinstein ignores longstanding authority that fee recovery based on current rates at time of judgment plus post-judgment interest adequately compensates for delay in payment and that certain case expenses are not reimbursable.
State Defendants also argue that the Fulton County Daily Report survey cited by plaintiffs does not support an enhancement. First, they contend that plaintiffs have selectively emphasized only the highest rates in the survey, and that the full range of rates is substantially lower and more reflective of the hourly rates already awarded in this case. Second, State Defendants argue that plaintiffs cite high outlier rates by a few attorneys at certain firms while ignoring more relevant comparators at the same firms who charge lower rates. Finally, State Defendants note that all of the comparator attorneys cited by plaintiffs practice in specialized areas of the law other than litigation, for which it is commonly recognized that rates are higher than for either general litigation or civil rights litigation.
11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 12 of 28
The Court concludes that plaintiffs have failed to show they are entitled to an enhancement on this ground. The Supreme Court recognized but one, very limited basis for an hourly rate enhancement to measure an attorney's true market value. Such enhancements are permitted in cases where an attorney's hourly rate "is determined by a formula that takes into account only a single factor (such as years since admission to the bar) or perhaps only a few similar factors." Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1674 (footnote omitted). In this narrow range of cases, "an enhancement may be appropriate so that an attorney is compensated at the rate that the attorney wouldreceive in cases not governed by the federal fee-shifting statutes." rd. (emphasis added).
This action clearly does not fall into this narrow range of cases. The hourly rates awarded to plaintiffs were not based on only a limited number of factors such that they did not adequately measure the attorneys' true market value. On the contrary, there is no dispute that the rates sought and awarded in the Court's lodestar calculation are the same rates plaintiffs' counsel would have received from paying clients in cases not governed by federal fee-shifting statutes.
12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 13 of 28
Plaintiffs contend that these rates do not take into account the delay in payment of fees, the advancement of expenses, and the fact that any recovery of fees and expenses was contingent on the outcome of the case. Under the Supreme Court's decision, however, these factors are not an appropriate basis for an hourly rate enhancement. The first two factors relate to the second and third grounds for a fee enhancement, which are addressed below, and may not also be used as a basis for an hourly rate enhancement since that would amount to double counting. As for contingency, the Supreme Court has made clear that this may not be taken into account at all. Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1676 ("reliance on the contingency ofthe outcome contravenes our holding in [City of Burlingj;on v.1 Dague, [505 U.S. 557, 565 (1992)]").
Plaintiffs also point out that the Supreme Court left undisturbed this Court's findings regarding the superior quality of counsel's performance. Based on these findings, they argue that they are entitled to an hourly rate enhancement under the law ofthe case doctrine. It is true that the Supreme Court did not question either the sincerity or the accuracy of this Court's assessment of counsel's performance; however, the Supreme Court held that
13

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 14 of 28
such an "impressionistic" assessment was not an appropriate basis for an enhancement. Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1676. The Supreme Court expressly disapproved the award of an enhancement that is influenced, or appears to be influenced, "by a judge's subjective opinion regarding particular attorneys or the importance ofthe case." Id. Therefore, although this Court's factual findings regarding counsel's performance may remain undisturbed, plaintiffs' entitlement to an enhancement based on these findings is clearly not the law ofthe case. See United States v. Escobar-Urrego, 110 F.3d 1556, 1561 (11th Cir. 1997) ("[A] decision of a legal issue or issues ... establishes the 'law of the case' and must be followed in all subsequent proceedings in the same case in the trial court or on a later appeal in the appellate court, unless . .. con trollingauthorityhas since made a contrary decision ofthe la wapplicable to such issues. ...") (quoting White v. Murtha, 377 F.3d 428,431-32 (5th Cir. 1967» (emphasis added).
Plaintiffs' reliance on Dr. Feinstein's report is misplaced for the same reason. Dr. Feinstein assumes that plaintiffs are entitled to an enhancement
based on this Court's finding of superior performance. Feinstein Report -,r 34.
Based on this assumption, Dr. Feinstein proceeds to "true up" plaintiffs'
14

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 15 of 28
counsel's hourly billing rates "to the upper echelon of prevailing billing rates
among Atlanta area attorneys." Id. 35. But the Supreme Court held that
this Court's subjective assessment of counsel's performance is not an
appropriate basis for an enhancement. Therefore, even assuming his
competence as an expert, the reliability of his data, and the validity of his
calculations, the underlying assumption on which Dr. Feinstein bases his
conclusions is erroneous.
B. Delay in Payment of Attorneys' Fees
With respect to this basis for an enhancement, the Supreme Court
stated:
[T]here may be extraordinary circumstances in which an attorney's performance involves exceptional delay in the payment of fees. An attorney who expects to be compensated under § 1988 presumably understands that payment offees will generally not come until the end of the case, if at all. Compensation for this delay is generally made either by basing the award on current rates or by adjusting the fee based on historical rates to reflect its present value. But we do not rule out the possibility that an enhancement may be appropriate where an attorney assumes these costs in the face of unanticipated delay, particularly where the delay is unjustifiably caused by the defense. In such a case, however, the enhancement should be calculated by applying a method similar to that described above in connection with exceptional delay in obtaining reimbursement for expenses.
15

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 16 of 28
Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1675 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Based on this Court's previousfinding that State Defendants' "strategy of resistance undoubtedly prolonged this litigation," Kenny A., 454 F. Supp. 2d at 1266, plaintiffs contend they are entitled to an enhancement due to the delay in payment oftheir attorneys' fees from November 2001, when counsel began work on this case, until October 2005, when the Consent Decree was entered.S Although the Court used 2005 hourly rates in calculating the lodestar, plaintiffs contend that this did not fully compensate them for the delay in payment. They rely on Dr. Feinstein's opinion that the appropriate standard measure of interest, or discount rate, for the advancement of attorneys' fees in this case is at the higher end of corporate borrowing rates, as represented by the Merrill Lynch High Yield CCC and Lower Rated Corporate Bond Index. Feinstein Report "if"if 52-56. Using these rates, as adjusted to take into account the hourly rate increases already included in the Court's use of 2005 hourly rates to calculate the lodestar, Dr. Feinstein
8 Plaintiffs acknowledge that they have been fully compensated for the delay in payment of attorneys' fees from October 2005 until May 2010, when State Defendants paid the lodestar, by receipt of post-judgment interest on the lodestar amount. Pis.' Br. at 50 n.27.
16

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 17 of 28
concluded that plaintiffs incurred an additional $1.27 million in effective financing costs for the delay in payment of their fees, which is equivalent to
on 21.11% of the lodestar. rd. 57·63 & Ex. 5. As corroboration for this
analysis, plaintiffs cite the declarations ofthree Atlanta attorneys who state that a competent law firm with sufficient resources to prosecute this case would require payment of a premium of between 20% and 100% of standard hourly rates to compensate for the delay in payment of attorneys' fees. Supplemental Decl. of John A. Chandler '\112; Supplemental Decl. of Ralph
1. Knowles, Jr. '\I 12; Supplemental Decl. of James C. Rawls '\Ill.
In response, State Defendants argue that no enhancement for pre' judgment delay in payment ofattorneys' fees is appropriate because plaintiffs have already been compensated for this delay by the Court's use of 2005 hourly rates in calculating the lodestar, and that any further enhancement is prohibited by controlling law. State Defendants also argue that this case did not involve the type of "extraordinary circumstances" that the Supreme Court said might support an enhancement. Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1675. State Defendants contend that the delay in payment was neither "exceptional" nor "unanticipated" nor "unjustifiably caused" by State Defendants. Id.
17

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 18 of 28
The Court concludes that plaintiffs are not entitled to an enhancement on this ground. The Court agrees with State Defendants that the "extraordinary circumstances" required by the Supreme Court to support an enhancement due to delay in payment of attorneys' fees are simply not present in this case. There is no evidence that the delay in payment was either exceptional or unanticipated. The Supreme Court requires "proof in the record that the delay here was outside the normal range expected by attorneys who rely on § 1988 for the payment oftheir fees ...." Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1676. Plaintiffs have offered no such proof. From the date suit was filed (June 6,2002) until entry ofthe Consent Decree (October 27,2005) was less than three-and-a-halfyears. In this Court's experience, three-and-a-half years from filing to final judgment is not an exceptional length of time to
resolve a complex civil rights class action like this, and plaintiffs civil rights attorneys would generally anticipate the possibility of such a delay.4
4A review ofsome ofthe other cases brought by Children's Rights shows that the time required to resolve this case was not unusual. See Olivia Y. v. Barbour, No. 3:04-CV-00251 (S.D. Miss.) (filed Mar. 30, 2004; consent decree entered Jan. 4, 2008); Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine, No. 99-3678 (D. N.J.) (filed Aug. 4, 1999; consent decree entered Sept. 2, 2003); Marisoi A. v. Giuliani, No. 1:95CVI0533 (S.D. N.Y.) (filed Dec. 13, 1995; consent decree entered Mar. 31, 1999); Jeanine B. v. Doyle. No. 2:93-cv-00547 (E.D. Wis.) (filed Jun. 1, 1993; consent decree entered Dec. 2, 2002); JosephA. v. New Mexico Dept. ofHuman Servs., No. 80-0623-JB (D. N.M.) (filed July 25, 1980; consent decree entered September 23, 1983); Wilder v.
(continued ... ) 18

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 19 of 28
Plaintiffs rely on this Court's previous fmding that State Defendants prolonged the litigation through a strategy of resistance. This Court's view of State Defendants' litigation strategy has not changed, but this finding alone is not sufficient to meet the standard established by the Supreme Court. There must be a showing of "extraordinary and unwarranteddelay" or "unanticipateddelay, particularly where the delay is unjustifiablycaused by the defense." Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1675-76 (emphasis added). The fact that State Defendants chose to raise every possible defense and to challenge plaintiffs' claims at every turn certainly prolonged this litigation, but the Court cannot say that State Defendants' strategy was legally unwarranted or unjustified. As plaintiffs themselves have acknowledged, this case "presented questions of unsettled and, in some respects, groundbreaking law." PIs.' Hr. in Supp. of Award of Att'ys' Fees and Expenses of Litigation [Doc. 495-1] at 12. State Defendants were entitled to raise non-frivolous arguments opposing plaintiffs' claims, and plaintiffs' counsel could not have reasonably anticipated that they would not do so.
'c..continued) Bernstein, No. 78 Civ. 957 <S.D. N.Y.) (filed Mar. 3, 1978; consent decree entered Apr. 28, 1987).
19

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 20 of 28
Since the extraordinary circumstances necessary to justify an enhancement for delay in payment of attorneys' fees are not present in this case, the Court need not address Dr. Feinstein's method of calculating such an enhancement.
C. Delay in Payment of Expenses
With respect to this basis for an enhancement, the Supreme Court stated:
[A]n enhancement may be appropriate if the attorney's performance includes an extraordinary outlay of expenses and the litigation is exceptionally protracted. As Judge Carnes noted below, when an attorney agrees to represent a civil rights plaintiff who cannot afford to pay the attorney, the attorney presumably understands that no reimbursement is likely to be received until the successful resolution ofthe case, and therefore enhancements to compensate for delay in reimbursement for expenses must be reserved for unusual cases. In such exceptional cases, however, an enhancement may be allowed, but the amount of the enhancement must be calculated using a method that is reasonable, objective, and capable of being reviewed on appeal, such as by applying a standard rate of interest to the qualifying outlays of expenses. Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1674-75 (citation omitted).
Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to an enhancement on this basis because ofthe extraordinary amount ofexpenses in this action combined with
20

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 21 of 28
State Defendants' litigation conduct, which unnecessarily prolonged the litigation and delayed the recovery ofexpenses. Plaintiffs incurred a total of $835,443.75 in reimbursable expenses. Assuming these expenses were incurred continuously over the four-year period from November 2001 through October 2005 and using the same corporate borrowing rates described above in reference to the delay in payment of attorneys' fees, Dr. Feinstein concludes that plaintiffs incurred $394,578.45 in borrowing costs, or 6.56% ofthe lodestar, over the course of the litigation. Feinstein Report 'If'\[ 67-71 & Ex. 6. As corroboration ofDr. Feinstein's analysis and as evidence that his conclusion is conservative, plaintiffs cite the declarations of Mr. Chandler, Mr. Knowles, and Mr. Rawls, who each state that the delayed payment of expenses would have commanded a premium between 7.5% and 50% above standard hourly rates. Supplemental Dec!. of John A. Chandler'\[ 13 (25%); Supplemental Decl. of Ralph I. Knowles, Jr. '\[ 12 (10%-50%); Supplemental Dec!. of James C. Rawls'\[ 12 (7.5%).
In response, State Defendants argue that this case was not exceptionally protracted and thus does not qualify for an enhancement on this ground. Even if an enhancement were warranted, State Defendants
21

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 22 of 28
contend that the rate of interest applied should be the same as for postjudgment interest, and that the calculation should run from the date each expense item was incurred, which would result in a substantially smaller enhancement than that sought by plaintiffs.
The Court concludes that plaintiffs are not entitled to an enhancement on this ground. As discussed above regarding the delay in payment of attorneys' fees, this case does not satisfY the Supreme Court's requirement that the litigation be "exceptionally protracted." Perdue. 130 S. Ct. at 1674. As with attorneys' fees, "when an attorney agrees to represent a civil rights plaintiff who cannot afford to pay the attorney, the attorney presumably understands that no reimbursement is likely to be received until the successful resolution of the case." Id. (citation omitted). Therefore, "enhancements to compensate for delay in reimbursement of expenses must be reserved for unusual cases." An unusual case would be one in which the delay in reimbursement of expenses exceeded what the attorney reasonably would have expected at the outset. As noted above, plaintiffs have offered no evidence that the length of time required to resolve this case - some threeand-a-halfyears from filing to entry ofthe Consent Decree - was unusual, or
22

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 23 of 28
that a reasonable plaintiffs attorney would not have anticipated the possibility of such a delay. Under the Supreme Court's decision in this case, absent such evidence, an enhancement for the delay in reimbursement of expenses is not authorized.
D. Incentive Needed to Attract Competent Counsel Plaintiffs argue that in light ofthe extraordinaryinvestment ofhuman and capital resources required to pursue this class action and the opportunity costs associated with accepting this case in lieu of other, potentially more profitable class-action representations, an additional 20% enhancement ofthe lodestar is minimally necessary "[t]o adequately attract class counsel and provide incentive for the private bar to devote the necessary resources in lieu of other class action matters." PIs: Br. at 35. Plaintiffs cite the supplemental declarations of Mr. Chandler, Mr. Knowles, and Mr. Rawls, who each state that only a relatively small number of law firms in Atlanta are qualified to serve as class counsel under the standards and considerations identified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g); that of that small number, many have chosen to practice almost exclusively on the defense side where they will be paid accrued fees and reimbursed for expenses within 60-90 days; that of the few qualified
23

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 24 of 28
firms that practice on the plaintiffs' side, most devote their efforts and resources to more lucrative securities and antitrust class actions; and that no Atlanta law firm specializes in the complex issues presented in this litigation. As a result, according to these attorneys, qualified lawyers with the experience and resources necessary to prosecute this action would insist on an additional and separate premium of between 20% and 100% above the fee amount generated by an hourly-rate based lodestar calculation. Supplemental Decl. of John A. Chandler '1111; Supplemental Decl. of Ralph I. Knowles, Jr. '11 12; Supplemental Dec!' of James C. Rawls '11 10. As corroboration of the need for at least a 20% premiUm to attract competent counsel, plaintiffs cite Dr. Feinstein's conclusion that a 20.15% enhancement of the lodestar is necessary to compensate counsel for the outlay of some $800,000 in non-reimbursable expert fees. Feinstein Report '11'11 72-76.
In response, State Defendants argue that the lodestar already fully compensates counsel for their investment of human resources and reimbursable expenses, and that the amount of non-reimbursable expenses is not a proper basis for an enhancement. State Defendants also argue that plaintiffs improperly seek to equate this litigation to typical contingency-
24

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 25 of 28
based class actions in which counsel recover fees from their own clients' common fund or common benefit, whereas in this case the fees are paid by the government defendants and, by extension, the taxpayers. Finally, State Defendants argue that the 2005 hourly rates used in the lodestar calculation are sufficient to attract competent counsel to handle civil rights cases, and that any enhancement would be an illicit windfall to plaintiffs' counsel.
The Court concludes that plaintiffs are not entitled to an enhancement on this ground. First, the Supreme Court's decision did not recognize the incentive needed to attract competent counsel as a separate and independent basis for an enhancement of the lodestar. Although a reasonable fee must be "sufficient to induce a capable attorney to undertake the representation of a meritorious civil rights case," there is a "strong" presumption that the lodestar is "sufficient to achieve this objective." Perdue. 130 S. Ct. at 1672-73 (citations omitted). According to the Supreme Court, "that presumption may be overcome in those rare circumstances in which the lodestar does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered in determining a reasonable fee." Id. at 1673. With regard to the one such factor at issue here - superior attorney performance - the Supreme Court
25

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 26 of 28
concluded that there were only three such circumstances. Id. at 1674-75. This Court has already addressed each of these circumstances in the preceding sections of this order and found that the evidence does not support an enhancement. Nowhere in the Supreme Court's opinion is there any indication that, in addition to these three specific circumstances, the district court should also independently assess whether the lodestar is sufficient to attract competent counsel. Thus, under the Supreme Court's decision, absent evidence to support an enhancement based on any of the three specific circumstances recognized by the Court, plaintiffs cannot overcome the presumption that the lodestar is sufficient to attract competent counsel.
Furthermore, even if this were a separate basis for an enhancement, the evidence in the record does not support a finding that the lodestar is not sufficient to attract competent counsel in cases like this. Plaintiffs rely on the declarations ofthree Atlanta attorneys who state that no qualified attorney would agree to take a case like this without insisting on at least a 20% enhancement over and above standard hourly rates to compensate for the increased overhead and lost opportunity costs. But these declarations are contradicted by the historical facts, which show that Children's Rights and
26

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 27 of 28
numerous large andprestigiouslaw firms have brought similar cases inother states without seeking such an enhancement. See State Defs.' Resp. Br. at 58'59 & nn.39-40 (citing cases). Nor is there any evidence that the extreme rarity with which enhancements have been awarded in the past, which the parties do not dispute, has in any way interfered with civil rights plaintiffs' ability to obtain competent counsel either in this district or nationally.
Finally, the fact that plaintiffs incurred substantial non-reimbursable expenses in the form of expert fees cannot support an enhancement. Plaintiffs rely on Dr_ Feinstein's conclusion that a 20.15% enhancement is "necessary to compensate attorneys for case-related expenditures that would not be reimbursed separately." Feinstein Report 76. Recovery of these expenses, however, was precluded by the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia Univ. Hosp.. Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 102 (1991), which held that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 did not authorize recovery of expert fees. See Kenny A., 454 F. Supp. 2d at 1291. To base an enhancement, even in part, on plaintiffs' inability to recover such expenses would effectively allow plaintiffs to recover indirectly expenses that they could not legally recover directly. This the Court cannot do. Cf. Perdue, 130 S. Ct. at 1674-75 {enhancement for delay
27

Case 1:02-cv-01686-MHS Document 710 Filed 07/19/11 Page 28 of 28

in recovery allowed only as to "qualifying outlays of expenses") (emphasis added).

Summary

The guidelines established by the Supreme Court in this case

significantly limit the circumstances under which a district court may

enhance the lodestar based on superior attorney performance.

Notwithstanding the truly outstanding performance ofplaintiffs' counsel in

this case and the resulting benefit to the plaintiff class, the evidence in the

record does not support the award of an enhancement under these newly

established guidelines. Therefore, the Court DENIES plaintiffs' renewed

motion '0' an aw",d 0"ea,onab1 ?=eys' fee, =d

1 IT IS SO ORDERED, this

day of July, 2011.

[#683].

M vin H. Shoob, Senior Judge United States District Court Northern District of Georgia

28

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 745 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

KENNY A., by his next friend Linda :

Winn, et al.,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

vs.

:

:

NATHAN DEAL, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

CIVIL ACTION 1:02-cv-1686-TWT

JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF MODIFIED CONSENT DECREE AND EXIT PLAN
Plaintiffs1 and State Defendants2 (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through
their undersigned counsel, jointly request modification of the Consent Decree [Dkt.
1 Kenny A., by his next friend Linda Winn, Kara B., by her next friend Linda Pace, Maya C., by her next friend Linda Pace, Phelicia D., by her next friend Theresa Roth, Sabrina E., by her next friend Rebecca Silvey, Korrina E., by her next friend Rebecca Silvey, Tanya F., by her next friend Carol Huff, Priscilla G., by her next friend Roslyn M. Satchel, and Briana H., by her next friend Linda Pace, on their own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated.
2 Nathan Deal, in his official capacity as Governor of Georgia, the Georgia Department of Human Resources, Robyn A. Crittenden, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Human Services, Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services, Glenene Lanier, in her official capacity as County Director of Fulton Division of Family and Children Services, the DeKalb County Division of Family and Children Services, and Kimberly Mobley, in her official capacity as Acting County Director of DeKalb Division of Family and Children Services.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 745 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 10
No. 488], as amended by the Joint Stipulation and Order to Modify the Consent Decree Regarding Reimbursement Rates for Placements [Dkt. No. 613], the Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree [Dkt. No. 687], and the Joint Stipulation and Order to Modify the Consent Decree Regarding Accountability and Monitoring [Dkt. No. 740] (hereinafter referred to as the “2015 Consent Decree”). If this motion is granted, the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan (attached hereto as Exhibit A) will replace the 2015 Consent Decree in its entirety.
Background Plaintiffs brought this class action lawsuit seeking declaratory and prospective injunctive relief based upon alleged violations of constitutional and statutory rights arising out of the operation of foster care systems in Fulton and DeKalb counties. On August 13, 2003, the Court certified a class consisting of “[a]ll children who have been, are, or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in custody of any [] State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS.” Dkt. No. 193. Prior to trial, the Parties negotiated a resolution embodied in the terms of the Consent Decree, which requires certain reforms to Fulton and DeKalb counties’ foster care systems and establishes specific benchmarks for progress. The original Consent Decree was entered on October 28, 2005. Since that time, as noted above,
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 745 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 10
the Court has approved modifications agreed to by the Parties. See Dkt. Nos. 612, 687, 740.
Negotiations to Modify the Consent Decree In July 2015, Class counsel initiated discussions with State Defendants’ counsel aimed at modifying the 2015 Consent Decree to streamline obligations in recognition of progress, remaining challenges, and changes in best practice standards in foster care. The Parties discussed improving the outcome measures used to assess State Defendants’ performance and maximizing the technical assistance of the Accountability Agent, Karen Baynes-Dunning, and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (“MTAT”). And a significant part of these discussions was the Parties’ effort to chart a course towards the termination of this Court’s supervision over State Defendants’ administration of foster care in Fulton and DeKalb counties. Over the course of a year, State Defendants and Class counsel negotiated the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan. With the Accountability Agent’s assistance, the Parties exchanged a number of proposals and counterproposals, participated in several telephone conferences and in-person meetings, and called upon the expertise of the Accountability Agent and the MTAT to
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 745 Filed 11/09/16 Page 4 of 10
provide and interpret data. After these extensive, arm’s-length negotiations, the Parties have agreed to the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan.
Proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan The proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan modifies the 2015 Consent Decree in the following areas: (1) placements, (2) visitation, (3) outcome measures, (4) process/infrastructure requirements, (5) terms upon which State Defendants demonstrate compliance with and may move for termination of the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan, and (6) dispute resolution provisions. The modifications in each of these areas are summarized below. First, the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan provides for additional mechanisms for oversight over the placement of children in certain situations. Specifically, State Defendants are required to notify the Accountability Agent if a child is placed in more than one temporary facility within one episode of foster care or remains in a temporary facility for more than 30 days. Similarly, if a child is in a county DFCS office between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., State Defendants are obligated to report that event to the MTAT. In addition, the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan incorporates State Defendants’ commitment to phase out the use of hotels as placements for children in foster care within DeKalb and Fulton counties by June 30, 2017.
4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 745 Filed 11/09/16 Page 5 of 10
Second, the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan clarifies that face-to-face visits for children in all placements, except adoptive placements, must occur earlier in the placement in order to monitor and document the child’s adjustment to the placement, the appropriateness of the placement to meet the child’s needs, the receipt of appropriate treatment and services by the child, the child’s safety, and service goals.
Third, the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan includes revised and improved outcome measures. Specifically, it replaces outdated outcome measures used to assess State Defendants’ performance regarding re-entry, maltreatment in care, discharge to permanency, and multiple placement moves. The new measures contained in the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan will more appropriately reflect State Defendants’ performance in these areas. In addition, the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan adjusts the sibling placement outcome measure to include exceptions based on safety, exceptional needs of a child, size of the sibling group, and placement of siblings with relatives. Moreover, the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan changes the composite structure of an outcome measure tied to meeting children’s service needs to separate and increased requirements for meeting children’s medical, dental, mental health, and education/development needs.
5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 745 Filed 11/09/16 Page 6 of 10
Fourth, the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan recognizes the need for improved process/infrastructure requirements, which are designed to measure the foundational elements of the child welfare system. It establishes a framework for the creation of new standards. Specifically, it requires the Accountability Agent and the MTAT to review current practice and recommend measurement changes, and allows the Parties to negotiate based on those recommendations. If the Parties are unable to agree upon any of the proffered recommendations, the Accountability Agent will issue a binding decision.
Fifth, the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan provides a revised mechanism for State Defendants to qualify for exit from the Court’s supervision. The mechanism is based on classification of each outcome measure as “attained” or “ongoing.”
Under the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan, an outcome measure is initially designated as attained or ongoing depending on the measure of State Defendants’ performance in the reporting periods before entry of the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan (if approved). Those initial designations may change depending on State Defendants’ performance. If State Defendants’ performance on a particular outcome measure designated as attained declines, the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan empowers the
6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 745 Filed 11/09/16 Page 7 of 10
Accountability Agent, with the assistance of the MTAT, to assess the reason(s) and issue findings as to whether that outcome measure will be re-designated as ongoing. Likewise, if the State Defendants’ performance on a particular outcome measure designated as ongoing improves for one reporting period, and then complies with the performance target for the following two consecutive periods, that measure will be designated as attained.
When all of the outcome measures are designated as attained, State Defendants may seek an order from this Court terminating the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan.
Sixth, the proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan contains a revised dispute resolution process that seeks to resolve differences through negotiations by the Parties with the assistance of the Accountability Agent before raising an issue with the Court.
Conclusion The Parties seek to address changes in best practices regarding process/infrastructure requirements and outcome measures in the 2015 Consent Decree, create a streamlined dispute resolution process, and outline the path for State Defendants to terminate this Court’s supervision of foster care in Fulton and DeKalb counties. After a year of negotiation with the assistance of the
7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 745 Filed 11/09/16 Page 8 of 10
Accountability Agent, the Parties agree that the proposed Modified Consent
Decree and Exit Plan will achieve these goals, protect the Class’s interests, and
further the purpose of the 2015 Modified Consent Decree.
Therefore, the Parties respectfully request that the Court grant this Joint
Motion for Entry of the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan. A proposed order
is attached for the Court’s consideration.
Respectfully submitted, this 9th day of November, 2016.
/s/ David G.H. Brackett DAVID G.H. BRACKETT Georgia Bar No. 068353 SAMIKA N. BOYD Georgia Bar No. 194093 BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP 1201 W. Peachtree St. N.W., Suite 3900 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: (404) 881-4100 Fax: (404) 881-4111
IRA P. LUSTBADER pro hac vice CHRISTINA W. REMLIN pro hac vice ELISSA GLUCKSMAN HYNE pro hac vice CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 330 7th Ave., Fl. 4 New York, NY 10001 Phone: (212) 683-2210
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 745 Filed 11/09/16 Page 9 of 10
JAIME L. THERIOT Georgia Bar No. 497652 TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP 5200 Bank of America Plaza 600 Peachtree St., N.E. Atlanta, GA 30308 Phone: (404) 885-3534 SAMUEL S. OLENS Attorney General Georgia Bar No. 033887 DENNIS R. DUNN Deputy Attorney General Georgia Bar No. 234098 SHALEN S. NELSON Senior Assistant Attorney General Georgia Bar No. 636575 STATE LAW DEPARTMENT 40 Capitol Sq., S.W. Atlanta, GA 30334-1300 Phone: (404) 656-3377 ATTORNEYS FOR STATE DEFENDANTS
9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 745 Filed 11/09/16 Page 10 of 10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date, I electronically filed the foregoing JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF MODIFIED CONSENT DECREE AND EXIT PLAN with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send email notification of such filing to all attorneys of record
This 9th day of November, 2016. /s/ David G.H. Brackett DAVID G.H. BRACKETT

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 1 of 52

ff133311120

EMBARGOED for Release Until 5:00 P.M. EST on Tuesday, February 16, 2016

PERIOD 19 FINAL DATA REPORT
Kenny A. v Perdue January 1 – June 30, 2015

Accountability Agent Karen Baynes-Dunning
and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team Steve Baynes, Elizabeth Black and Jennifer Miller Haight

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 2 of 52
PART ONE - INTRODUCTION
The Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (collectively referred to here as MTAT), appointed by the Federal Court to monitor progress under the Kenny A. Consent Decree, published the Period 19 Preliminary Data Report in October 2015. That report contained data produced by the State’s automated data system SHINES and was validated by MTAT for the period of January 1 to June 30, 2015. For the remaining outcome measures during Period 19, four in-depth file reviews took place between September 2015 and November 2015.1 MTAT has now completed the analysis of this data, and the results are included in this Final Period 19 Monitoring Report. Together, these two reports provide a streamlined picture of the State’s progress in meeting the standards set forth in the Consent Decree during Period 19.
MTAT is conducting a comprehensive data review of the state’s performance over the past ten years. This will be shared with the parties as they develop an agreed upon course for sustainable reforms and effect a well-defined implementation strategy.
The context provided in the forthcoming longitudinal view will provide a broader view of system change in the last decade, such as the impact on children and their families, DFCS personnel, private providers, foster parents, relative caregivers and adoptive parents. Even so, a number of major issues that are observable in the current data continue to affect the State’s performance. These include: increased number of children in care; a decrease in the number of children exiting care; a high turn-over rate of case managers; and a lack of appropriate and available placement options resulting in a number of children and youth being housed in hotels in the Atlanta area.
The chart below displays the State’s progress in meeting each outcome measure in the Consent Decree. The outcome measures shaded dark were analyzed using data from SHINES. These outcomes were discussed in the Period 19 Preliminary Data Report published in October 2015. Analysis of the remaining outcome measures is provided in this Period 19 Monitoring Report in the sections that follow.
1 See Appendix for more detail on the data sources and methodology used to determine the State’s performance.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 3 of 52
PART TWO - SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES
The Period 19 performance period (January 1, 2015 – June 30, 2015) was a six-month period characterized by the impact of systemic factors that resulted in persistent challenge to the system as well as the leadership’s clear effort to meet these pressures without compromising safety. While continued increases in the number of children entering care, coupled with on-going highturnover rates, maintained pressure on the process of care, DFCS leaders responded to immediate system concerns by developing and implementing short-term solutions like the Welcome House, temporarily placing children in hotels and the continued redeployment of caseworkers. They also continued to push forward with a focus on the three core elements of the Blueprint for Change: implementation of a case practice model, developing a robust workforce, and improving constituent engagement.
The summary of outcome performance contained in this current report as well as in the Preliminary Period 19 report reflects the challenges of responding expeditiously to short-term pressures. This response is simultaneous to also maintaining steadfast focus on longer term system reform that is essential to generating and maintaining strong safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for children and families Thus, overall Period 19 results show some small declines in performance in the core domains while also maintaining some important momentum towards improvement.
The intensive case reviews elaborated in some important ways on the findings reported in the preliminary report and we note them briefly below.
Safety
Three of the five safety measures related to the process of investigation for children allegedly victimized while in care. For these measures, case review results were largely consistent with performance in prior periods, which was near but not quite to the standards stipulated in the consent decree. However, there was continued decline in the metric that relates to the incidence of abuse in care. The 1.16 percent rate of maltreatment in care represents the highest rate seen since 2009 – and is twice as high as the standard. MTAT will be working with the state’s Knowledge Management Unit to conduct a more thorough analysis to ascertain the factors contributing to this increase. Finally, while the incidence of corporal punishment continued to surpass the required threshold, the Accountability Agent will be closely monitoring the new process for assessing allegations of corporal punishment. More information will be provided in the Period 20 report.
Permanency
As reported in the Preliminary Period19 report, there was continued strength in Outcomes 8a and 8b, indicating that over half of the children entering care during the period achieved
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 4 of 52
permanency within one year of their exit, and an additional seven percent exited with in their second year. This is well above the standard for 8a and consistent with prior performance for both 8a and 8b. However, the case review revealed that there were some setbacks in the process of care associated with maintaining family connections as well as achieving specific case milestones (Outcomes 19, 15, 27, 28). It is likely that the increases in entries and caseworker turnover put pressure on efforts to place children in homes and to maintain the process of care standards. It is likely that those same pressures also affected the well-being measures discussed below.
Well-Being
Placement stability performance (Outcome 17) declined substantially for those cases reviewed for Period 19. This is a concern, and will be an area of focus for the MTAT going forward, as it too is most likely associated with the concerns noted above. For example, placing children/youth in hotels during Period 19 and in hotels and at the Welcome House during Period 20 addresses the immediate need to place a child in a safe environment; however, that temporary measure will also result in at least one more placement move. This may partially explain the dip on this performance measure in Period 19. However, because the use of hotels and the Welcome House is a temporary solution, it is reasonable to expect stability to increase as use of these interventions tapers. Leadership’s focus on expanding their service array to both depend more on relative caregivers and more broadly match child’s needs to the appropriate level of care should also begin to reverse the dip in placement stability observed in this period.
Infrastructure
During Period 19, the approval and/or licensure status (Outcome 25) or relative homes continues to be problematic. One of the state’s key initiatives moving forward is to place children with relatives whenever possible and appropriate. Thus, emphasis on approval/licensing these placements is critical.
Taken together, the Period 19 reports suggest that Fulton and DeKalb county leadership – along with state leaders – contended with mounting system pressures. Both the SHINES data and the case review results indicate that their efforts to maintain progress – or even hold steady – on safety, permanency, well-being, and infrastructure outcomes were mixed, but not without strengths. As the state further clarifies and begins to install the system reforms that will be implemented as part of the Blueprint for Change, there is opportunity to reverse the decline in those areas that dipped, and to continue to build on existing strengths.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 5 of 52

Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of June 30, 20152 Comparison of Period 18 Performance (July 1 – December 31, 2014)
to Period 19 Performance (January 1 – June 30, 2015)

Safety Outcomes Children in Foster Care are Safe From Maltreatment in Care

Period 18 Performance

Outcome 1: At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report. Outcome 2: At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report. Outcome 3: At least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face-toface, private contact with the alleged victim, including face-to-face contact with a child who is non-verbal due to age or for any other reason. Outcome 5: No more than 0.57% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. Outcome 6: 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months. Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections Outcome 7: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care. Outcome 16: At least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. Outcome 19: 90% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b (ii) and (iii). Outcome 21: At least 85% of all children with the goal of reunification shall have appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification

90% 88% 90% 0.72% 99%
97% 59% 97% 85%

Period 19 Performance
90% 93% 89% 1.16% 98%
96% 56% 91% 80%

2 Shaded outcomes were reported in the Period 19 Preliminary Data Report in October 2015. KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 6 of 52

Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of June 30, 2015

Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections Outcome 23: At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling-group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.3 Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 4: No more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 8b: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entry: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, or shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less after entering: adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship. Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 month backlog pool”): For all children remaining in the 24 month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 40% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.

Period 18 Performance
92%
10.6 % 58% 65%
16.7%

Period 19 Performance
84%
8.3% 58% 65%
0%4

3 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 23 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 4 Only three children remain in the Outcome 9 cohort at the end of Period 19.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 7 of 52

Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of June 30, 2015

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree: For all children remaining in the over 24 month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 35% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 11: For all children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.

Period 18 Performance
0%
81%
94% One Time Measure Taken in Period I
30% One Time Measure Taken in Period I6
0%
96%

Period 19 Performance
0%5
56% N/A
N/A 0% 91%

5 Only two children remain in the OM10 cohort at the end of Period 19. 6 The children to whom this outcome applied have recruitment plans. Those who have been discharged since Period I have been included in the Outcome 9 and 10 results.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 8 of 52

Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of June 30, 2015

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 27: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review. Outcome 28: At least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing. Well-Being Outcomes Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity Outcome 17: At least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 18: At least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave. Outcome 20a: At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of twicemonthly face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur. 7 Outcome 20b: At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur 8

Period 18 Performance
95%
97%
90% 93% 97% 98%

Period 19 Performance
89%
92%
77% 91% 96% 97%

7As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 20 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 8 Ibid.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 9 of 52

Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of June 30, 2015

Well-Being Outcomes Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity Outcome 22: At least 95% of the total minimum required monthly visits by case managers to caregivers during the reporting period occur.9 Well-Being Outcomes Children and Youth Receive Services They Need Outcome 24: The percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 20 percentage points (baseline is 36%). Outcome 30: At least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan. Strengthened Infrastructure Outcomes Effective Oversight of Placement Settings Outcome 25: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status.10 Outcome 26: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Outcome 29: No more than 5% of all children in custody of DHS/DFCS for 12 months or more shall have a lapse of legal custody within the prior 13 months. Outcome 31: No more than 10% of all foster family home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.11

Period 18 Performance
95%
40% 69%
98% 100% 3.5%
3%

Period 19 Performance
94%
Only Reported Once a Year 77%
96% 100%
0%*
1.4%

9 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 22 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 10 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the methodology for Outcome 25 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 11 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the methodology for Outcome 31 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 10 of 52
PART THREE - SAFETY
Principle four of the Consent Decree asserts, “the state has primary responsibility for the care and protection of the children who enter the foster care system.”12 As a result, several Consent Decree outcomes and requirements focus attention on the safety of children in the custody of the State (DHS/DFCS). The following sections report on the State’s progress in the areas related to maltreatment of children in foster care and the state’s process for investigating such allegations (Outcomes 5, 1, 2,3, and 6).
Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment
Outcome 5 – Maltreatment in Foster Care
Measurement of Outcome 5 uses the federal definition as it existed in 2005: “Of all children in foster care in the State during the period under review, 0.57 percent or fewer were the subject of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member."13 The data used to measure the outcome performance derive from a review of all 116 investigations of alleged maltreatment concerning class member children in foster care conducted during Period 19 (January-June, 2015).
State Performance
 The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 5 Threshold
The review found that 1.16 percent of the children in foster care had been victims of substantiated maltreatment during that time. This is more than double the percentage allowable under the Consent Decree and represents a drop to a level of performance not seen since Period 8 (July – December 2009). The graph below displays the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods. This represents an increase from 13 to 22 children. The 22 include several placements with 2 or more victims.
12 See p. 4, Principle 4, of the Consent Decree. 13 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families: Updated National Standards for the Child and Family Service Reviews and Guidance on Program Improvement Plans. Information Memorandum ACYF-CB-IM-01-07, August 16, 2003.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 11 of 52

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 5 Maltreatment in Care

Percent of Children

1.20%

1.17%

1.06%

1.00%

1.16%

0.80% 0.60% 0.40%

0.63%

0.74% 0.68%

0.72%

0.58% 0.58%

0.63%

0.42% 0.41%

0.48%

0.20%

0.00%

Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: ≤0.57% ≤0.57% ≤0.57% ≤0.57% ≤0.57% ≤0.57% ≤0.57% ≤0.57% ≤0.57% ≤0.57% ≤0.57%

Goal: ≥95%

Goal: ≥95%

Period 7 Period 8 Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19

June 2009 December June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, July 2009 – June 2015.

In Period 19, the review of all maltreatment-in-care investigations found 22 (1.16%) instances of substantiated maltreatment fitting the federal definition among the 1899 children in custody at any point during the reporting period.
The types of maltreatment substantiated for these 22 children consisted of the following: inadequate supervision (17 children), inadequate health, Medicare (2 children); inadequate supervision and inadequate food, clothing and shelter (2 children); and inadequate supervision and emotional psychological abuse (1 children).
Private provider-supervised foster homes accounted for 10 (45%) of these cases. Out of the remaining 12 cases, four children (18%) were placed in DFCS-supervised homes, six children (27%) were placed in congregate care facilities, and 2 children (9%) were placed in PRTF Treatment facilities.
Among the substantiated cases of maltreatment the following were particularly noteworthy:
 Residents in a Child Caring Institution acknowledged being handcuffed by the security guard for disobeying house rules. Additionally, one of the residents could not be accounted for and another child fractured his foot but there wasn’t any clear indication from the staff or residents on how the child injured his foot. This case accounted for three
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 12 of 52

substantiated cases of maltreatment. All residents were removed from the facility.  Allegations of inadequate health and medical care was substantiated after a child in a CPA
foster home was admitted to the emergency room after ingesting an excessive amount of his medication (Lithium). The child was removed from the home.  An allegation of inadequate supervision against a CPA foster home was substantiated when the agency learned a registered sex offender was residing in the home.

Outcome 1 - Maltreatment-in-care Investigations Commenced Within 24 Hours of Receipt of Report
The Consent Decree states, “at least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report.” Outcome 1 relates to the timeframe in which an investigation of suspected maltreatment of a foster child is commenced. The unit of analysis is the investigation itself (which may involve multiple alleged victims).

State Performance  The State Failed to Meet the Outcome Measure 1 Threshold
During Period 19, 90 percent of maltreatment-in-care investigations commenced within 24 hours according to file review data from the universe of investigations completed. Displayed in the chart below is additional information from Period 19.

Outcome 1 – Commencement of Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations N=11514

Investigating County
DeKalb/Fulton Perimeter Counties State Special Investigations

Commenced

Within 24 Hours

Number of

Percent

Investigations of Total

55

92%

48

87%

Not Commenced

Within 24 Hours

Number of

Percent

Investigations

of Total

5

8%

7

13%

Total
Number of Investigations

Percent of Total

60

100%

55

100%

0

0%

0

0%

0

100%

14 One of the 116 investigations was not completed because the child was deceased.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 13 of 52

Unit15

Total

103

90%

12

10%

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, January to June, 2015.

115

100%

This is similar to the Period 18 performance of 90 percent, and marks the ninth consecutive period in which the state failed to meet the required threshold. The graph below depicts the state’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 1 Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations Commenced Within 24 Hours of Receipt of Report

Percent of Investigations

100% 90%

97%

99% 100% 93%

94% 93%

91%

90%

84%

85%

90%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 8 Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19

December June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-care Investigations, July 2009 – June 2015.

Outcome 2 - Maltreatment-in-care Investigations Completed Within 30 Days of Report Receipt
Outcome 2 relates to the length of time it takes to complete such investigations. The Consent Decree requires that “at least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report.

15 Allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit rather than a local DFCS office. During this period, some SSIU staff persons were deployed to assist other regions. In addition, the unit also experienced terminations and resignations.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 14 of 52

State Performance  The State Failed to Meet the Outcome Measure 2 Threshold

According to the record review data, the state completed 93 percent of maltreatment-in-care investigations (108 of 116) within 30 days during Period 19. This is an improvement from the Period 18 rate of 88 percent, but remains below the Outcome 2 standard. The graph below displays the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 2 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations Completed Within 30 Days of Report Receipt

Perecen1t 0o0f %Investigations

90%

80%

70%

66%

77%

82%

81%

75%

73%

85%

93%

91%

88%

93%

60%

55%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 8 Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19

December June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, July 2009 – June 2015.
During Period 19, performance of the perimeter counties (93%) improved substantially compared to their Period 18 performance (84%). The chart below displays the Period 19 performance of DeKalb and Fulton counties, and the perimeter counties.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
13

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 15 of 52

Outcome 2 – Timely Investigations N=116

Investigating County

Completed in ≤ 30 Days

Number

% of Total

Completed in ≤ 45 Days

Number

% of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

57

93%

60

98%

Perimeter Counties

51

93%

54

98%

State Special

Investigations

0

0%

0

0%

Unit16

Total

108

93%

114

98%

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, January - June 2015.

Total

Number

% of Total

61

100%

55

100%

0

100%

116

100%

Outcome 3 - Maltreatment-in-care Investigations with Timely Face-to-Face Private Contact with All Alleged Victims

Outcome 3 relates to the frequency with which such investigations include face-to-face contact with each alleged victim within 24 hours. The Consent Decree requires that “At least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face-to-face, private contact with the alleged victim, including face-to-face contact with a child who is non-verbal due to age or for any other reason.”

State Performance

 The State Failed to Meet the Outcome Measure 3 Threshold

According to record review data from all investigations completed during Period 19, 89 percent of the alleged victims of maltreatment in care (132 of 149) had face-to-face private contact with a CPS investigator within 24 hours. Even though the number of investigations of maltreatment in care increased during Period 19 (96 in Period 18 to 116 in Period 19), the overall percentage of CPS investigators who had face-to-face private contact with the alleged victim is similar to the Period 18 performance of 90 percent. Performance in both periods remained well below the Outcome 3 performance standard of 99 percent. The graph below illustrates the State’s performance on Outcome 3 for the last 12 reporting periods.

16 Allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit rather than a local DFCS office. During this period, some SSIU staff was deployed to assist other regions. In addition, the unit also experienced terminations and resignations.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
14

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 16 of 52

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 3 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations with Timely Face-to-Face Private Contact
with All Alleged Victims

Percent of Children

100%

97%

99%

99%

93%

93%

90%

91%

88%

88%

84%

90%

89%

80%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 8 Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19

December June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, July 2009 – June 2015.
In the cases investigated by perimeter counties, a CPS case manager made private, face-to-face contact within 24 hours with 58 out of 66 (88%) percent of the alleged victims, a decline from the Period 18 performance of 93 percent. DeKalb and Fulton Counties’ Outcome 3 performance of 74 out of 83 (89%) was an improvement from their Period 18 performance of 86 percent. Displayed in the charts below are additional Outcome 3 data for Period 19.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
15

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 17 of 52

Outcome 3 – Face-to-Face Contact with Alleged Maltreatment Victims within 24 Hours

N=149

Investigating County

CPS Contact Within 24 Hours
Alleged Percent

Removed Prior To or Within 24 Hours of
Report Alleged Percent

No CPS Contact Within 24 Hours
Alleged Percent

Total Alleged Percent

Victims of Total Victims of Total Victims of Total Victims of Total

DeKalb/Fulton
Perimeter Counties
State Special Investigations Unit18

74

89%

58

88%

0

0%

5

6%

4

5%

0

0%

417

6%

4

6%

0

0%

83

100%

66

100%

0

100%

Total

132

89%

9

6%

8

5%

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, January – June, 2015.

149

100%

The factors contributing to delayed initial contact vary from period to period. During Period 19, a lack of documentation affected progress on outcomes 1 and 3, while contact by a non-cps certified worker also greatly affected Outcome 3. The chart below reflects this data.

17 For three of the children, the delay resulted from the failure of DeKalb or Fulton placement staff persons to timely refer allegations to the CICC. 18 Allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit rather than a local DFCS office. During this period, some SSIU staff was deployed to assist other regions. In addition, the unit also experienced terminations and resignations.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
16

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 18 of 52

Documented Factors Contributing to Delayed Initial Contact with Alleged Victims19

Factors Contributing to Delayed Initial
Contact
Delayed Reversal of Screen-out Decision Delayed Referral by Placement Case Manager Delayed Assignment to Investigator Worker Making Contact Not CPS Certified CICC Failed to Properly Record and Disposition Intake No Documented Reason

Period 17 1/1/2014 – 6/30/2014 Centralized Intake (CICC)

Period 18 7/1/2014 – 12/31/2014 Centralized Intake (CICC)

OM 1 1

OM 3 5

OM 1 0

OM 3 0

620

621

2

3

422

423

3

3

3

5

1

1

0

0

1

1

0

0

1

2

Period 19 1/1/2015 – 6/30/2015 Centralized Intake
(CICC)

OM 1

OM 3

1

1

2

2

1

1

5

5

0

0

3

8

Total

13

19

8

10

12

17

19 The differing counts for Outcomes 1 and 3 reflect the different units of analysis for these outcomes; for Outcome 1 it is the investigation, for Outcome 3 it is the alleged victim. 20 In one investigation there was a delayed referral by the placement case manager followed by a delayed assignment to an investigator. That case is reflected in the tabulation for each of those categories, but is counted only once in the Totals. 21 IBID 22 IBID 23 IBID
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
17

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 19 of 52

Proportion of Investigations Meeting Policy Requirements (N shown is for Period 19 cases and varies based on placement setting and other case characteristics)

Investigation Policy Requirement
Alleged maltreator was interviewed separately (N=115)
Investigator saw/interviewed every alleged maltreated child separately (N=81) Continued safety of the child(ren) placed in the home was adequately evaluated and assessed (N=62)

Percent of Applicable Files with

Documentation of Compliance

Period 18

Period 19

98%

95%

95%

99%

95%

95%

Investigator reviewed the DFCS history of the foster

parent/caregiver (N=67)

95%

All approved foster parents/caregivers interviewed separately

(N=116)

95%

DFCS case managers required to visit in this foster care setting

were contacted (N=116)

93%

100% 97% 94%

All other adults frequently in the home interviewed separately

(N=30)

90%

87%

Investigator reviewed previous CPS reports for foster parents/caregivers (N=69)

87%

90%

At least two relevant collateral sources contacted during the

investigation (N=88)

86%

91%

Investigator saw/interviewed each of the other children (nonalleged victims) separately (N=77)

84%

90%

Case record contains physical evidence to support case documentation (N=70)

68%

77%

Source: Case File review of all Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, January – June, 2015

At the conclusion of maltreatment-in-care investigations, DFCS policy requires counties to send an “Administrative Packet” detailing the incident and findings to the Social Services Director within 10 days. If the incident occurred in a provider-supervised foster care setting, an investigative summary must also be sent to Residential Child Care (RCC) and Office of Provider Management (RPM).

Likewise, Section 12.B. of the Consent Decree requires all reports of suspected abuse or neglect of foster children in institutional, group, residential, or private provider-supervised foster family home settings to be referred to and reviewed by Residential Child Care (RCC) and the Office of Provider Management (OPM).24 The purpose of the review specified in the Consent Decree is “…to determine whether a pattern of abuse or neglect exists within… [the provider agency]….

24 RCC licenses child placing agencies (CPA), child caring institutions (CCI), and outdoor therapeutic programs (OTP). OPM approves CPAs, CCIs, and OTPs wishing to serve DFCS children once they have been licensed by RCC.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
18

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 20 of 52

that contributed to the abuse or neglect; whether the contract should be terminated; whether particular homes or facilities should be closed….”25

To assess compliance with these provisions, the Accountability Agent collects data directly from RCC, OPM, and the DFCS Policy Unit to ascertain which maltreatment investigations involving foster children were reported to each office.

The reporting of maltreatment-in-care investigations to each of these three offices is displayed separately in the charts below.

Policy Unit Notification of Period 19 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations N=116

Investigating

Total Investigations

Notified

Not Notified

County

Number

Number

% of Total

Number

% of Total

DeKalb

33

33

100%

Fulton

28

28

100%

Bibb

3

1

100%

Burke

1

1

100%

Carroll

1

1

100%

Chatham

1

1

100%

Clayton

9

9

100%

Cobb

10

10

100%

Coweta

1

1

100%

Douglas

5

5

100%

Fayette

3

3

100%

Glynn

1

1

100%

Greene

1

1

100%

Gwinnett

3

3

100%

Henry

2

2

100%

Jefferson

1

1

100%

Meriwether

1

1

100%

Newton

4

4

100%

Richmond

2

2

100%

Rockdale

2

2

100%

Total

116

116

100%

Source: Survey of Notification of CPS Investigations in Foster Care Settings, January 1 – June 30, 2015.

25 See Section 12 B, p. 28 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
19

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 21 of 52

Residential Child Care Notification of Period 19 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations
N=62

Investigating County

Total Investigations Number

Notified Number

% of Total

Not Notified Number

DeKalb

15

15

100%

Fulton

10

9

90%

1

Bibb

3

3

100%

Burke

1

1

100%

Carroll

1

0

0%

1

Clayton

6

5

83%

1

Cobb

4

4

100%

Coweta

1

1

100%

Douglas

2

2

100%

Fayette

3

2

67%

1

Glynn

1

1

100%

Gwinnett

2

2

100%

Henry

1

1

100%

Jefferson

1

1

100%

Meriwether

1

1

100%

Muscogee

3

3

100%

Newton

4

4

100%

Richmond

1

1

100%

Rockdale

2

0

0%

2

Total

62

56

90

6

Source: Survey of Notification of CPS Investigations in Foster Care Settings, January 1 – June 30, 2015.

% of Total 10% 100% 17%
33%
100% 10%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
20

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 22 of 52

Office of Provider Management Notification of Period 19 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations
N=68
Source: Survey of Notification of CPS Investigations in Foster Care Settings, January 1 – June 30, 2015.

Investigating County
DeKalb Fulton Bibb Burke Carroll Clayton Cobb Coweta Douglas Fayette Glynn Gwinnett Henry Jefferson Meriwether Newton Richmond Rockdale Total

Total Investigations Number
20 11 2 1 1 6 5 1 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 4 2 2 68

Notified Number
20 11 1 1 1 6 5 1 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 4 2 2 67

% of Total 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99%

Not Notified Number
1
1

% of Total 50%
1%

General trends during Period 19 include:  Inadequate supervision leading to more CPS investigations;  Poor staff hiring decisions; and  Staff practices.

Outcome 6 – Corporal Punishment

Outcome 6 seeks to protect children in foster care from experiencing corporal punishment, which the Consent Decree defines as “…any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain.”26 The Consent Decree requires that by the end of Period 4, 98 percent of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.

26 See p. 2 of the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
21

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 23 of 52
State Performance
 The State Met the Outcome Measure 6 Threshold During Period 19, there were seven allegations of corporal punishment of children in foster care. Five of those cases were screened out as unsubstantiated. However, two of the alleged cases did not have documented assessments as required by the Consent Decree. In total, 79 of 81 foster homes sampled (98%) had no confirmed incidents of corporal punishment in the previous 12 months, thus meeting the Consent Decree standard. This was similar to the Period 18 rate of 99 percent. The graph below displays the State’s performance on Outcome 6 for the last 12 reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 6: Absence of Corporal Punishment in Foster Homes

Percent of Foster

Homes 100.0% 100% 100% 100% 99%

98%

99% 100% 100% 100% 96%

99%

98%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 8 Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19

December June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Foster Home Case Record Reviews, July 2009 – June 2015.
As indicated in the Preliminary Period 19 report, the state has changed its practice and processes regarding the assessment of corporal punishment allegations in private provider homes and congregate care settings. The MTAT will closely monitor the implementation of this process and report its findings in the Period 20 report.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
22

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 24 of 52
PART FOUR - PERMANENCY
Several of the Consent Decree outcomes and practice requirements focus on various components of achieving permanency for children. This part reports on the State’s progress in the areas related to children in DFCS custody maintaining their family connections and safely returning home or achieving permanency with new families (Outcomes 7, 19, 15, 27 and 28). Outcome 7 – Diligent Search Outcome Measure 7 in the Consent Decree requires case managers to conduct and document a diligent search for parents and relatives within 60 days of entry for at least 95 percent of the children. The outcome requirement for undertaking a diligent search within 60 days was deemed to have been satisfied if one of the following conditions was met:
 The child was placed with a family resource within 60 days after entering custody; or,  A court order stated that the diligent search had been properly and timely submitted to
the court; or,  There were documented search efforts that included the following: interviewing
children27 about adults in their lives or someone with whom they would want to live and interviewing one or more family members or family friends within 60 days and, when resources were identified, contacting or attempting to contact them. State Performance  The State Surpassed the Outcome 7 Measure Threshold During Period 19, the counties documented diligent search efforts in 26 out of 27 (96 %) of the cases reviewed. The chart below displays additional information about the state’s documented diligent search efforts, followed by a graph displaying the State’s performance over the past eleven reporting periods.
27 If the child was aged 3 or younger, the record review did not seek to determine if the child was interviewed.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
23

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 25 of 52

Diligent Search Actions Undertaken N=27
Actions Children placed with a family resource within 60 days of entering custody Court order documented that the diligent search was “properly and timely” submitted Evidence of interviews with child and child’s family and others within first 60 days and contact made with one or more possible resource, as applicable Subtotal for Outcome Measurement Insufficient search activities in first 60 days: no documented interviews of children to gather information about relatives and significant others (children ranged in age from 5 to 17) Total Source: Case Record Review, January 1– June 30, 2015.

Number 7 10 9 26
1
27

Percent 26% 37% 33% 96%
4%
100%

Eleven Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 7 Diligent Searches Undertaken Within 60 Days

Percent of Children

110% 100%

93%

94% 95% 96% 96% 97% 100% 97% 96%

90% 80%

73%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Goal:≥70% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95%

Period 2 Period 4 Period 6 Period 8 Period 10 Period 12 Period 14 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19

(December (December (December (December (December (December (December (December (June (December (June

2006) 2007) 2008) 2009) 2010) 2011) 2012) 2013) 2014) 2014) 2015)

Source: Case Record Reviews
Outcome 19 – Placement Proximity
Outcome 19 requires the state to place at least 90 percent of children in foster care within the same county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed.28 The Consent Decree allows for the following exceptions:
 Children with needs so exceptional that they cannot be met by family;  Children placed with relatives through ICPC;

28 See p. 35, Outcome 19, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
24

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 26 of 52

 Children is in an adoptive placement; and  Children placed with parent/guardian.
State Performance
 The State Surpassed the Outcome 19 Threshold
During Period 19, out of the 91 children in the sample, the State placed 36 children (40%) within their home county; 44 children (48%) within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed; three children (3%) had exceptional needs that required placement further away; and eight children (9%) were not placed in proximity to their homes of removal. Thus, the State’s performance for Period 19 was 91 percent. This data is displayed in the pie chart below, followed by a graph depicting the state’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.

Exceptional need
placement/ Accepted reason for distance
3%

Child Placement Proximity to Home of Removal N=91
No reason/other reason for not
meeting standard
9%

Within 50 miles 48%
Source: Foster Care Case Record Review for January 1 - June 30, 2015.

In County 40%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
25

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 27 of 52

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 19

Percent of Children

98% 100%

95%

99%

99%

98%

97%

95%

95%

95%

97%

93%

91%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90%

Period 8 Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19

December June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2015.
Outcome 15 – Permanency Actions for Children Reaching Their 15th Month in Custody of Most Recent 22 Months
The Consent Decree Outcome 15 stipulates that 95 percent of children who reach their 15th month in care will have had either: 1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed against both parents or legal caregivers, as applicable; or 2) a compelling reason documented in the case record as to why such action is not in the best interest of the child.29
Under federal regulations and state law, there are three exceptions to the requirement that TPR petitions be filed after the 15th of 22 months in care. . They are:
 The child is being cared for by a relative;  The State has documented a “compelling reason” that filing a petition to terminate
parental rights would not serve the child's best interests; (the allowable exception noted above) or  The State has not made “reasonable efforts” to reunify the family.30
Federal regulations state and DFCS policy advises that a “compelling reason” must be based on the individual case circumstances guided by what is in the best interest of the child.31
29 See p. 34, Outcome 15, of the Consent Decree. 30Adoption and Safe Families Act, see also Social Services Manual Chapter 1000, Section 1002.7, Georgia Department of Human Services. 31 See Social Services Manual, Section 1002.12.3, 1002.17, and 1013.11, Georgia Department of Human Services.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
26

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 28 of 52
The measurement of Outcome 15 is based on the entire population of children who, in Period 19, reached or exceeded their 15th month in custody out of the previous 22 months. As in previous periods, the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) reviewed the compelling reason provided for each child and compared it to past information. Information provided by the counties was also verified using data from the Period 19 review of 91 randomly selected foster care case records. During Period 19, 622 children had reached or surpassed their 15th month in custody out of the previous 22 months. A group of 87 children (14% of 622), was excluded from the Outcome 15 performance measurement based on the placement of these children with relatives, as allowed under Federal law.
State Performance  The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 15 Threshold By June 30, 2015, 91 percent of the children in care 15 of the previous 22 months were legally free to be adopted or the State had filed petitions to terminate parental rights or documented compelling reasons why it had not taken such action. This is a decrease from the Period 18 performance of 96 percent. The chart below summarizes the different components of the counties’ Period 19 performance, drawn from the data in their tracking systems. The graph that follows displays the State’s performance on Outcome 15 for the 12 most recent reporting periods.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
27

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 29 of 52

Status of Children Who Had Been in DFCS Custody 15 of the previous 22 months As of June 30, 2015

REGION 14 P19

Total Number Percent Cumulative

Children who reached or surpassed their 15th month in custody of the past 22 months between January 1 and June 30, 2015.
622
Children placed with relatives 87
The State has not made reasonable efforts to reunify the family

Number of Children for Outcome 15 Measurement

535

Parental Rights of Both Parents have been terminated or relinquished

175

33%

33%

DFCS has filed a petition to complete the termination of the parental rights

of both parents where applicable.

87

16%

49%

There is a documented compelling reason for not terminating parental

rights.

226

42%

91%

Reasons cited for not terminating parental rights

Number

There is a permanency goal of return home, approved by

the Court and the child is expected to be reunited with

A1 parents within 6 months.

78

The child is a specified age (14) or older and objects to

being adopted

A2

87

The child has severe emotional or behavioral problems or a

serious medical conditional and reunification remains an

A3 appropriate goal.

21

The child has a permanency goal other than adoption and

is expected to achieve that goal within 12 months of

A4 establishing the goal.

27

Parents are deceased, or have voluntarily relinquished

rights.

A5

10

The child is an unaccompanied refugee minor as defined in

A8 45 Code of Federal Regulations 400.11.

0

The child is a child of a teen mother who is also in the

A11 State's custody.

3

There are plans to terminate parental rights, but a petition

had not yet been filed as of June 30, 2015 or date of

A12 discharge.

47

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
28

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 30 of 52

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 15: Children in Care 15 of the Previous 22 Months have Petitions for Terminating Parental Rights
or a Compelling Reason Not to Terminate Parental Rights

Percent of Children 100% 96% 90%

100%

98%

100%

98%

96%

96%

98%

99%

96%

96%

91%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 8 Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19

December June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: SHINES
Outcome 27 – Timely Semi-annual Judicial or Administrative Case Plan Reviews
Outcome 27 requires that at least 95 percent of the children have timely semi-annual reviews of their case plans. Children are expected to have case plans developed within 30 days of entering State custody. In accordance with the Consent Decree, the court or a designated panel must review these case plans within six months of entering foster care and every six months thereafter the child is in custody.32
State Performance
 The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 27 Threshold
For 65 of the 91 children in the foster care sample who had been in custody for six months or more by the end of the reporting period, case file documentation indicates that 58 children (89%) had documented timely plan reviews completed by the Juvenile Court or Judicial Citizen Review Panel (JCRP), or a timely request for such a review.
32 See p. 7, paragraphs 4A.4 and pp. 7-8, paragraphs 4B.1-6, and p. 37, Outcome 27, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
29

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 31 of 52

Twelve Reporting Periods State Performance on Outcome 27: Timely Semi-Annual Judicial/Citizen Panel Case Reviews

Percent of Children 100%
90% 77% 80%

71%

92%

87%

88% 87%

95%

96% 94%

97%

95% 89%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 8 Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19

December June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 Dec 2014 Jun 2015

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, July 1 2009– June 30, 2015.
Among the 65 six-month reviews, only 21 (32%) of mothers, 10 (15%) of fathers, eight (12%) of children and 15 (23%) of relatives participated. Participation in these reviews is such an important factor in achieving timely permanency. The lack of participation during the reviews in Period 19 may reflect a lack of engagement between the agency and families. More information regarding these reviews is displayed in the chart below.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
30

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 32 of 52

Characteristics of Six-month Case Reviews N= 65
(Most recent plans reviewed between January and July, 2015)

Characteristic

Participants Birth Mother Birth Father Child Relative caregivers/ Extended Family Members/ Informal Supports Foster parents/placement providers DFCS case manager DFCS supervisor Other DFCS representative CCFA provider Private agency social worker Medical and mental health professionals Parents’ attorney(s) SAAG (Special Assistant Attorney General) Child’s advocates (attorney, Guardian Ad Litem, CASA volunteer, Child Advocate) – at least one per child
Elements Evaluated/Considered Necessity and appropriateness of child’s placement Reasonable efforts made to obtain permanency Degree of compliance with specific goals and action steps Progress made in improving conditions that caused removal Changes that need to be made to plan County recommendations Parent recommendations

JCRP conducted review (percentage based on n=65)

Total JCRP reports submitted (percentage based on

27 77%

n=35)

Number of reports with Panel findings (percentage 27 77%

based on n=35)

Number of reports with Panel recommendations 27 77%

(percentage based on n=35)

Number of reports with County findings

24 69%

(percentage based on n=35)

Number of reports with County recommendations 21 60%

(percentage based on n=35)

Court conducted review (percentage based on n=65)

Plan adopted by Juvenile Court (percentage based on n=65)

Source: Case Record Review for January 1 – June 30, 2015.

Number
21 10 8 15 13 51 12 0 0 5 5 24 25 56
46 48 42 36 6 15 0 35
29 39

Percent
32% 15% 12% 23% 20% 78% 18% 0% 0% 8% 8% 37% 38% 86%
71% 74% 65% 55% 9% 23% 0% 54%
45% 60%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
31

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 33 of 52

Outcome 28 – Timely Annual Judicial Permanency Reviews
According to Federal and State policy and the Consent Decree, children are expected to have a judicial permanency hearing at least every 12 months they are in custody.33 These hearings are held to determine whether the State is making reasonable efforts to help children achieve permanency. The performance threshold for Outcome 28 is 95 percent.
State Performance
 The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 28 Threshold
During Period 19, 36 out of 39 children, 92 percent of children had a judicial permanency hearing in accordance with the Consent Decree. Depicted below is the state’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 28 Timely Permanency Hearings

Percent of Children 100% 90% 87%

89%

99% 93%

95% 94% 94% 92% 98%

99% 97%

92%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 8 Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19

December June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, July 2009 – June 2015.

33 See p. 9, paragraph 4B.10, and p.37, Outcome 28, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
32

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 34 of 52

PART FIVE - WELL-BEING
The Consent Decree establishes six outcomes that are related to children’s well-being. This part reports on the State’s performance on the two outcomes (17 and 30) not discussed in the Period 19 Preliminary Data Report released in October 2015.
Outcome 17 – Placement Stability
With Outcome 17, the Consent Decree establishes a threshold for placement stability by requiring that at least 95 percent of children in custody have two or fewer placement moves during the most recent 12 months in custody.34 For purposes of this measure, runaway episodes, hospitalizations for medical treatment or psychiatric diagnosis or crisis intervention, trial home visits, respite care, and detention in locked facilities are not considered placements. The measurement of Outcome 17 performance is based on the sample of 91 children in foster care at any time between January 1 and June 30, 2015.

State Performance

 The State Failed to Meet the Outcome 17 Threshold

During Period 19, 70 out of 91 children (77%) experienced two or fewer placement moves during the most recent 12 months in custody. Displayed in the chart below are additional data for Period 19.
Number of Placement Moves Experienced by Children in the 12 months prior to May 31, 2015 or the Last Date of Custody

Number of Moves
No Moves One Move Two Moves
Subtotal Three Moves Four Moves Five Moves Six Moves or more
Total Source: Foster Care Case Record Review for January 1 – June 30, 2015.

Number
42 21
7 70 12
1 2 6 91

Percent
46% 23%
8%
13% 1
2% 7%

Cumulative Percent
69% 77%
90% 91% 93% 100%

34 See p. 35, Outcome 17 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
33

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 35 of 52

The Period 19 performance (77%) marks a significant decline from the Period 18 performance (90%) and marks the worst performance in the past 12 reporting periods. This data is depicted in the graph below.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 17 Children with Two or Fewer Placement Moves in Prior 12 Months

Percent of Children
100% 87% 90%

92%

94% 90%

93% 93% 93%

95%

90% 89% 90%

77%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 8 Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19

December June 2010) December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, January 1- June 30, 2015.
Outcome 30 – Meeting the Needs of Children as Identified in their Case Plans
The Consent Decree specifies that the needs to be considered for achieving Outcome 30 are those medical, dental, mental health, educational and other needs identified in the child’s most recent case plan.35 Case plans are to be developed within 30 days of a child’s entry into foster care and updated every six months thereafter. The performance threshold for this outcome is 85 percent, and requires that all identified needs are met. Thus, partial compliance does not count toward meeting the threshold standard. The measurement of Outcome 30 performance is based on the sample of 91 children in foster care at any time between January 1 and June 30, 2015.
Among the 91 children in the sample, 85 children had one or more case plans in their records. Two of the six children who did not have case plans in their records had been in custody fewer than 30 days during the review period and a completed plan was not yet required. Of the 89
35 See p 38, Outcome 30 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
34

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 36 of 52

children who should have had case plans, 81 (91% of 89) were current – they had been developed within seven months of May 30, 2015 or the child’s discharge date. Another four (4% of 89) were seven to 12 months old and none were over 12 months old. The outcome performance is based on 85 children who had complete plans, even if they were not up-to-date. Eighty-three of these case plans identified needs of the children.

State Performance
 The State Fell Short of the Outcome 30 Threshold
Based on case file documentation and reviewer judgment, 64 children (77%) of 83 children with needs identified in their case plans had all the plan-identified needs met. The graph below displays the State’s performance over the last 12 reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 30: Children with All Plan Identified Needs Met

Percent of Children

100% 90% 80% 70%

72% 68%

69%

77%

78%

75%

78%

74%

73%

81%

80% 69% 77%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85%

Period 7 Period 8 Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19

June 2009 December June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Reporting Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, January 2009 – June 2015.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
35

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 37 of 52

The chart below provides a breakdown of the needs identified and the percentage of needs met in each category during Period 19. Only 77 percent of children with identified dental health needs received the needed services.
Proportion of Children with Needs Identified in Most Recent Case Plans and the Proportion with Needs Met, as of June 30, 2015 or last Date of Custody

Children with Case Plans

Children Received/Receiving Services

n=85

n varies depending on need identified

Number Percent

Number

Percent of identified need

One or More Need Identified (routine or child-specific)

83

98%

All Identified Needs Met (n=83)

64

77%

Frequency of different identified needs

Frequency of different needs being met

Medical

83

98%

74

89%

Dental

83

98%

64

77%

Mental Health

60

71%

53

88%

Educational/ Developmental

83

98%

74

89%

Source: Case Record Review, January 1 – June 30, 2015.

1. Initial Screenings For Children Entering Care
a. Initial Health and Dental Screenings
The State’s overall performance on initial health and dental screenings is measured by the subsample of children who entered care and had been in custody at least 10 days. During Period 19, 32 children out of the sample of 91 cases entered care during the period and remained at least 10 days.36 As in previous reports, caution should be exercised in interpreting these and other results drawn from the subsample of children who entered care because the sample size is very small and they were not randomly selected from the entire population entering custody during the period.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
36

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 38 of 52

As shown in the chart below, only five children (16%) had documented health screens within 10 days of entering care. When the ten-day time frame is relaxed, 27 of the 32 children (85%) received an initial health screen. For those children whose health screens fell outside the 10-day window, the elapsed time ranged from 11 to 129 days. Five children did not receive initial health screens.

One child (3%) had a documented dental screen within 10 days. The total proportion receiving an entry dental screening was 67 percent. The 20 children who received their initial dental screens late, received those 11 to 90 days after entering care. Eleven children have no documented initial dental screens in their files.

Initial Health and Dental Exams at Foster Care Entry: January 1 - June 30, 2015 N=32

Screen
Initial Health Screen At Foster Care Entry Received within 10 days Received, but not within 10 days (11 to 129 days) No initial health screen received by June 30, 2015
Total Initial Dental Screen At Foster Care Entry (includes infants for a “gum check”)
Received within 10 days Received, but not within 10 days (11-90 days) No initial dental screen received by June 30, 2015 Total Source: Case record review, January 1 – June 30, 2015.

Number Percent

5

16%

22

69%

5

15%

32

100%

1

3%

20

63%

11

34%

32

100%

Cumulative Percent
85% 100%
67% 100%

Due to the low performance on initial health and dental screens, the counties have collaborated with Amerigroup to offer a mobile health clinic in the parking lot of the agency once a week. Thus, when children enter care, they are taken to the mobile health clinic for their health and dental screenings during their first week in care. MTAT will monitor this intervention and analyze its effectiveness during the Period 20 report.

b. Initial Developmental /Mental Health Assessment

The Consent Decree requires that all children under the age of four years receive a developmental assessment in compliance with EPSDT standards within 30 days of placement.37 Children four years of age or older are expected to receive a mental health screening in

37 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
37

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 39 of 52

compliance with EPSDT standards within 30 days of placement.38 Within the sample of 91 children in foster care in Period 19, 13 children were younger than age four, were in custody at least 30 days, and entered care on or after January 1, 2015.39 Eighteen children in the foster care sample were age four or older, remained in care 30 days or more, and entered DFCS custody on or after January 1, 2015.

Seven children under the age of four did not receive a developmental assessment; only three were completed within 30 days. The 3 children who did not receive developmental assessments within 30 days had them completed between within 97 days after entering custody. The total percentage of children under four years of age who received their initial developmental assessment decreased from 76 percent in Period 18 to 46 percent in Period 19.

For children over the age of four, there were 3 children in custody 30 days or more who did not have mental health assessment; 10 were completed within 30 days, which is 56 percent compared to the 41 percent completed within 30 days during Period 18. Five children had the assessment completed between 31 to 119 days after entering care. The chart below summarizes this information.

Initial Developmental and Mental Health Assessments at Foster Care Entry: November 1, 2014 – May 31, 2015
N=varies depending on the assessment

Assessment
Initial Developmental Assessment (children younger than age 4) (n=13)
Received within 30 days Received, but not within 30 days (31-97 days) No initial Developmental Assessment received Total
Assessment
Initial Mental Health Assessment (children aged 4 and older) (n=18) Received within 30 days (includes pre-assessments) Received, but not within 30 days 31 to 119 days)

Number Percent

3 3 7 13
Number

23% 23% 54% 100%
Percent

10

56%

5

28%

Cumulative Percent
46% 100% 100% Cumulative Percent
84%

No Initial Mental Health Assessment Total Source: Foster Care Case Record Review, January 1 – June 30, 2015.

3

16%

18

100%

100% 100%

38 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 of the Consent Decree. 39 In order to have a larger pool of children in the sample for whom the responsiveness to identified needs could be measured, the record review was designed to collect information on children who entered custody in December 2014 and, therefore, had sufficient time for identified needs to be addressed in Period 19.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
38

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 40 of 52

c.Initial Case Plans
Twenty-Six (93%) of the 28 children entering custody during the reporting period and remaining more than 30 days had an initial case plan developed by June 30, 2015 or their last date in custody. Twenty-One of the 26 (81%) were completed within 30 days of entering care, 4(15%) were completed between 31 and 60 days, and 1 (4%) were completed greater than 60 days.

2. Periodic Health and Dental Screening
In addition to requiring health and developmental assessments when a child enters foster care, the Consent Decree requires all children to receive periodic health screenings40 in accordance with the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (EPSDT)/Georgia Health Check Program standards.41 DFCS’ performance with respect to meeting these standards is discussed below. The case record review of 91 children in placement collected information about the timeliness of the required routine health and dental examinations provided (often referred to as “well-child” care) during their time in custody.
Overall, 88 of the 91 children (96%) appeared to be current with their “well child” visits as of June 30, 2015 because of receiving a required health screen prior to or during reporting Period 18; or receiving a health screen during Period 19 that brought them up-to-date. This is similar to the proportion found in Period 18 (97%). The chart below displays this information.

Status of Health Screening for Children42 January 1 – June 30, 2015 N=91

Component and Action
No health screen required during period, children current with health check-ups during entire period Children receiving timely health screens (according to EPSDT schedule) between January 1 and June 30, 2015 Required well child health screen(s) not received between January 1 and June 30, 2015 TOTAL Source: Foster Care Case Record Review, January 1 – June 30, 2015.

Number 28 60 4 91

Percent 30% 66% 4%
100%

Cumulative Percent
96% 100%

40 See p. 30, paragraph 13A in the Consent Decree. 41 See p. 20, paragraphs 6A 1 and 2, and p.21, 6B, paragraphs 1-8 of the Consent Decree. 42 Includes initial health screens completed for children entering foster care in Period 18. EPSDT components are not always documented, see narrative.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
39

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 41 of 52

As reflected in chart below, routine dental screenings were assessed for 91 children, with separate analysis for children over and under the age of three as of June 30, 2015.43 Overall, 57 of the 73 children (78%) who required a dental screen were either current or received their dental screens during Period 19. This is a significant decline from the performance of 84 percent during Period 18. Twenty-two (30%) of these exams were not done timely. For children under the age of three, 15 out of 18 (93%) were either current or received their oral health screen during Period 18. Six children received a late initial oral health screen.

The dental screen documentation consisted of either a dental report from a dental care provider, case manager notes, a reference in a Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment (CCFA), an entry in the SHINES health log or a combination of these forms.

Status of Dental Screening44 January 1- June 30, 2015 N=91
Component and Action Children aged 3 and older n=73 No annual dental exam required during period, children current with annual requirement during entire period Children receiving a timely annual dental exam during period Received more than 12 months after previous exam Initial received more than 10 days after entering foster care Required annual (or initial) dental exam not received as of June 30, 2015
TOTAL Component and Action
Children under the age of 3 N=18 No annual oral health screen due during entire period Received a timely initial or annual oral health screen Received a late initial oral health screen No annual oral health screen TOTAL Source: Foster Care Case Record Review, January 1 – June 30, 2015.

Number

Percent

Cumulative Percent

18

25%

17

23%

4

5%

18

25%

16

22%

73 100%

Number Percent

1

6%

8

44%

6

33%

3

17%

18 100%

48% 53% 78% 100% 100%
Cumulative Percent
50% 83% 100% 100%

43 The Consent Decree stipulates that “all children age 3 and over shall receive at least one annual screening in compliance with EPSDT standards…” see Section 6B paragraph 8 on p.21. Children younger than age 3 may have oral exams as part of their regular well-child visits and documentation of this component has improved sufficiently to provide the separate analysis. 44 Includes initial dentals for children entering foster care in Period 19.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
40

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 42 of 52
PART SIX – STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE
Several of the Consent Decree requirements focus on DHS/DFCS organizational capabilities, with the intent of enhancing or creating capacity thought to be instrumental to the achievement of desired outcomes. This includes specialized staff, caseload sizes, workforce skill development, and having the resources and services to meet needs. This part reports on the progress of the State in meeting Outcomes 25, 26 and 31 as well as capacity requirements.
Effective Oversight of Placement Settings: Outcomes 25 and 31
Outcome 25 - Approved Placement Settings for Children
Outcome 25 stipulates that, “By the end of the tenth reporting period, at least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. Measurement of performance is based on the entire universe of out-of-home care placements subject to a DHS licensure or approval process. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement.”45
State Performance
 The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 25 Threshold
At the end of Period 19, 676 of 740 placements subject to a DHS approval or licensure process were in full approval and/or licensure status. These placements had an approved or licensed capacity of 3192 children while the capacity of all placements with a child in care on June 30, 2015 was 3321 children; yielding an Outcome 25 measurement of 96.1%. State leadership has set a goal of placing 50 percent of children in fully licensed relative homes. However only 73.9 percent of relative placements were in full approval/licensure status on the last day of the period. Thus, figuring out the barriers to getting relatives approved will be essential. Additional detail on this measurement appears in the chart below, followed by a graph that displays the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting period.
45 See p. 4, Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
41

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 43 of 52

Outcome 25 – Placements in Full Approval Status

Placement Type

Number of Placements with a Class Member in Care on 06/30/2015

Relative

156

Placement

DFCS -

108

supervised

Foster Home

Provider -

375

supervised

Foster Home

Child Caring

101

Institution

Total

740

Number of Placements with a Class Member in Care on 06/30/2015 that were in Full Approval Status
110

Overall Capacity of Placement Settings with a Class Member in Care on 06/30/2015
251

Capacity of Placements with a Class Member in Care on 06/30/2015 that were in Full Approval Status
187

Capacity of Placements in Full Approval Status as a Percentage of Overall Placement Capacity 74.5%

108

255

255

100%

358

1034

975

94.3%

100

1781

1775

99.7%

676

3321

3192

96.1%

Excludes 52 children in State custody on 6.30/2015 that were in settings with no relevant approval process (22 were in Psychological Residential Treatment Facilities, 14 were on runaway, 8 were placed with a birth parent/guardian, 6 in Metro RYDC and 2 children were hospitalized. Data source: SHINES

.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
42

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 44 of 52
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 25 Children Placed in Settings that are in Full Approval and/or Licensure Status
Periods 8-9: Percent of Children in Placements in Full Approval Status/Periods 10-19: Percent of Placements in Full Approval Status Sources - Periods 8-9: Placement file reviews, Georgia’s ICPC records, child placing agency records, and SHINES; Periods 10-19: SHINES.
Outcome 31 – Foster Home Capacity Limits Outcome 31 stipulates, “By the end of the tenth reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than ten percent of all foster family home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of this Consent Decree…”46,47 The measurement is based on the entire universe of family foster homes that had a class member child in care on the last day of the reporting period.
46 See p. 4, Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 47 The Section 5.c.4.e capacity limits provide that “No child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family's biological and/or adopted children…. The only exception to these limits shall be circumstances in which the placement of a sibling group in a foster home with no other children in the home would exceed one or more of these limits.” See p. 16 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
43

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 45 of 52

State Performance
 The State Surpassed the Outcome 31 Threshold
Of the 988 family foster homes that had a child in care at any point during the period January 1 to June 30, 2015, 483 (48%) continued to have one or more children placed in them on June 30, 2015. Seven of these 483 foster homes (1.4%) exceeded the Consent Decree’s capacity limits. The chart below provides additional information regarding these homes, followed by a graph of the state’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods. This is the 19th consecutive period in which the state has surpassed the ten percent threshold.

Outcome 31 – Foster Homes Exceeding Capacity Limits N = 483

DFCS & Relative
FHs
CPA Homes

Placement Type
DFCS Supervised
Foster Homes Provider Supervised Foster Homes Total

Foster Homes
with One or More Children in Care at Any Time During Period
19 169

Foster Homes with One or More Children in Care
on 06/30/15
108

Foster Homes with > 3 Foster Children
on 06/30/15
0

Foster Homes with ≥ 6 Children in Total on 06/30/2015
0

Number of Foster Homes with > 3
Foster Children and/or ≥ 6 Children in Total
on 06/30/15
0

Percent of Foster Homes with > 3 Foster Children and/or ≥ 6 Children
in Total on 06/30/2015
0.0%

819

375

6

1

7

1.9%

988

483

6

1

7

1.4%

Data Source: SHINES

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
44

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 46 of 52
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 31 Children are Not in Foster Homes Exceeding Specified Capacity Limits
Periods 8-9: Percent of Children in Placements in Full Approval Status/Periods 10-19: Percent of Placements in Full Approval Status
Timely and Complete Court Orders for Placement Authorization: Outcome 26 Outcome 26 – Required IV-E Language in Court Orders Outcome 26 requires DFCS to have the proper documentation and language in at least 95 percent of children’s court orders to support an appropriate claim for Federal reimbursement under the Title IV-E program.48 Measurement of performance is based on a record review of a sample of 91 children in foster care.
48 See pp 36-37, Outcome 26 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
45

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 47 of 52

State Performance
 The State Surpassed the Outcome 26 Threshold
For Outcome 26, each of the 91 children in the Period 19 placement sample (100%) had court orders with all the required language necessary to assess current eligibility for federal funding under Title IV-E. This is the second consecutive time that the state has achieved 100 percent. The graph below displays the State’s performance on Outcome 26 over the last 12 reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 26 Court Orders Contain Required Language to Support IV-E Funding Claims

Percent of Children
69% 100%

80% 85% 90% 91% 90% 93% 91%

100% 100% 91% 95%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95%

Period 8 Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19

December June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, July 2009 – June 2015.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
46

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 48 of 52
Appendix
Data Sources and Methodology for Measuring State Performance in Reporting Period 19
The Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) used several methods to arrive at the judgments, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report: (1) review of written materials and data supplied by the State and Counties; (2) interviews; (3) extensive case record reviews; and (4) strategic engagement of State and county personnel for pro-active, hands-on monitoring through bimonthly meetings known as G2 meetings. This appendix describes these data sources and methods.
Four primary sources of information were used to assess the State of Georgia’s progress during Period 19, January-June 2015. The challenge for data collection and analyses in Period 19 was the continued need to use both SHINES, the statewide-automated child welfare system and paper files. Fulton and DeKalb Counties implemented SHINES in June 2008 and ended all new data entry into the previous system, IDS, on May 28, 2008. Children who entered custody before the conversion to SHINES may have extensive paper files and even those entering after the switch to SHINES have paper files with external documentation that has not been scanned into SHINES. The timeliness of scanning external documentation into SHINES is improving but record reviews still generally need both the paper documentation and SHINES access to complete all data collection.
1. State Data System – SHINES
The first source of information is the DFCS administrative data that is housed in Georgia SHINES.
Like all information systems, the accuracy of SHINES data is a function of the accuracy with which data are coded and input into the system. Most identified discrepancies appear to be caused by human error. Typically, mistakes in interpretation and coding of the facts contained in the case record or data entry result in erroneous data being entered into the system.
2. Document Review and Interviews
During the monitoring period, the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team collected written reports and materials including, but not limited to foster care and adoption policy, provider reporting and the use of hotels. At the local county level, interviews were conducted primarily with county leadership. At the state level, interviews were conducted with top leaders, members of the Knowledge Management Team, Kenny A. leads, and persons responsible for training and education, quality assurance and provider management.
3. Structured Case Record Reviews
A third source of information is systematic case record reviews. Four case record reviews were
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
47

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 49 of 52

conducted: 1) all investigations of maltreatment-in-care during the period; 2) foster home approval and capacity, 3) children in foster care placements who entered foster care at any time up to June 30, 2015, and 4) children in foster care placements during the period. The chart below summarizes sample characteristics of each review. The following discussion provides more detail on the sampling approach, review instrument design, review logistics, reviewer qualifications and training, quality assurance, and analytical processes.
a. Sampling Approach
As indicated in the chart below, 100 percent of the investigations of maltreatment-in-care completed between January 1 and June 30, 2015 were read. Therefore, observed differences in these results do not reflect sampling error.
For the three other case record reviews, random samples were drawn from two different universes:
 All foster homes that had a DeKalb or Fulton child placed in the home at any time between January 1 and June 30, 2015. This included private agency supervised homes as well as DFCS supervised homes.
 All foster care cases (children) active in DeKalb and Fulton counties anytime between January 1 and June 30, 2015.  
 All foster care cases (children) active in DeKalb and Fulton counties who entered foster care after January 1, 2015 and remained at least 60 days.
For each of these reviews, samples were drawn such that the findings would have no more than a +/- 10% error rate at a 95% confidence level. This sampling methodology was determined to be a reasonable estimation of performance and agreed upon for this streamlined evaluation period.

Target of Review

Universe of Cases Desired Sample Size

Investigations of Maltreatment in Care
Foster Homes
Children in Foster Care who entered Foster Care any time before June 2015

116 571 1899

100% of maltreatment in care investigations during
period
81
91

Actual Number of Cases Reviewed
116
81 91

Margin of Error
Not Applicable
+/- 10 percent +/- 10 percent

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
48

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 50 of 52
b. Instrument Design
Four separate data collection instruments were used, one for each review. They have been developed over time in conjunction with the DFCS Program Evaluation and Analysis Section and consultants from Georgia State University (GSU) schools of public administration and social work. The instruments were field tested and reviewed by Counsel for the Plaintiffs and by the State; many changes recommended by the reviewers were incorporated into the final instruments. As is typical with case record reviews, reviewers encountered some problems with some of the questions. Learning from each iteration is incorporated into the next case record review.
c. Data Collection Schedule and Logistics
Planning for the data collection effort began with discussions with DFCS and GSU regarding formatting data instruments for efficient data capture and analysis. As in previous periods, each of the review guides was set up as a SAS-based form for electronic information entry directly into a database through a GSU secure web site. This eliminated a separate data entry step.
Records selected from private agencies were reviewed at the respective private agencies. The remaining records for investigations, foster care, and DFCS supervised foster homes were reviewed at the county offices where the active cases are maintained. Closed records were brought to these sites for review.
d. Review Team Qualifications and Training
DFCS staff persons were the primary case readers. These staff members have many years of experience in DFCS and are very familiar with the DFCS’s policies and practices. They have been selected over the years for this task based on their skills, experience, and knowledge.
There were training session before commencing these reviews. The training consisted of reviewing and discussing the wording and meaning of each question on the data collection instruments. Additional changes were made to the guides as a result of these discussions.
e. Quality Assurance
Reading accuracy and inter-reader reliability was addressed by an extensive quality assurance process that included constant “calibration” and a “second read” of the records. Two senior DFCS reviewers were designated team leaders. They were responsible for responding to reviewer questions regarding clarification or how to interpret information contained in the record and consulting with the Accountability Agent and MTAT when necessary. These team leaders shared with one another the questions being asked and the responses they were giving to reviewers to assure consistency. In this way, patterns among questions were monitored and instructions were clarified for all reviewers as necessary. Team leaders reviewed each reviewer’s work at the completion of each review. Finally, reviewers were encouraged to provide explanatory
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
49

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 51 of 52

comments for their responses if they felt the situation they found did not adequately fit the question being asked or additional detail for some critical questions was desired.

The Georgia State University (GSU) project coordinator and several research assistants with master’s degrees in social work or a related field and backgrounds in child welfare and case record review provided an additional level of Quality Assurance (QA). The GSU QA team reviewed 33 percent of the case records reviewed. Review guides that had different responses from the GSU QA staff and the PEAS reviewers were set aside, investigated and resolved as possible by the GSU project coordinator and PEAS team leaders and changes were made to the data set as necessary. Time was set aside in the schedule to review the completed review guides in question and do any necessary clean up.

To calculate inter-rater reliability GSU selected variables from all three files (CPS Investigations, Foster Homes, and Foster Care) where both the reviewers and the QA reviewers had access to the same information in the case file. Each response was not tested for inter-rater reliability. Correlations between the reviewer results and the QA reviewer results were calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha to determine how well a set of items, in this case the reviewer responses and the QA reviewer responses, correlate or match. Cronbach's Alpha is not a statistical test - it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). Note: when a Cronbach’s Alpha is used in a Social Science research situation, like the Kenny A. case review, a reliability coefficient of .70 or higher indicates that there is an almost zero probability that the reviewer and QA reviewer would achieve these results by chance.

The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for each of the data sets were between .91 and .99. All measures were above the threshold of .70.

f. Data Analysis

Microsoft Excel and SAS software were used for analyzing the collected data and calculating interrater reliability. GSU staff assisted in creating descriptive statistics for the Accountability Agent and Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team.

g. Records in Sample that Were not Read

Not all records included in the original samples were reviewed for reasons such as coding errors, identified case not meeting sample criteria, records not located or the case timeframe being too short. The chart below summarizes the reasons for each of the case reviews.

Case Records Drawn from Original Sample, Not Reviewed

Target of Review Number of cases sampled but not read as part of the review and reason why they were not read

Investigation not completed between January 1 and June 30, 2015

1

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
50

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 741 Filed 02/16/16 Page 52 of 52

No child in the legal custody of Fulton and DeKalb Counties was

2

Maltreatment-in- involved in this report

care Investigations

Other

2

Total

5

No children were placed in this home between January 1, 2015 and

1

Foster Homes

June 30, 2015.

Total

1

Case timeframe too short (child in care 8 days or less)

6

Children in Foster Child placed out of state through ICPC the entire review period.

1

Care

Other

2

Total

9

4. Meetings with the management teams of Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS (G2)
The Accountability Agents met once or twice each month with Fulton and DeKalb directors, senior management, supervisors and case managers, and senior central office staff. These meetings allowed for hands-on monitoring and data verification.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period 19 Monitoring Report
51

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 118

ff133311120

EMBARGOED for Release until August 12, 2016

PERIOD 20 FINAL DATA REPORT
Kenny A. v Perdue July 1 – December 31, 2015

Accountability Agent Karen Baynes-Dunning
and the PART ONE – INTRMonitoring and Technical Assistance Team
Steve Baynes, Elizabeth Black, and Jennifer Miller Haight

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 2 of 118
Table of Contents
DEFINITIONS……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 6
The Role of the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team .................. 6 Focus and Structure of this Monitoring Report ........................................................................................ 7 Summary of Progress Since 2005.............................................................................................................. 8 Georgia’s Blueprint for Change and the Kenny A. Class ......................................................................... 23 Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................... 30 SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES......................................................................................................................... 31 Safety ..................................................................................................................................................... 31 Permanency ........................................................................................................................................... 31 Well-Being............................................................................................................................................... 32 Strengthening the Service Delivery Infrastructure ................................................................................. 32 SAFETY ........................................................................................................................................................ 39 Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment ............................................................................. 39 PERMANENCY............................................................................................................................................. 51 Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections ........................................................................... 51 Children Achieve Permanency ................................................................................................................ 56 Other Processes and Practices to Promote Permanency ...................................................................... 62 WELL-BEING................................................................................................................................................ 72 Children Experience Stability and Worker Continuity ............................................................................ 72 Children Receive the Medical, Dental and Mental Health Services They Need ..................................... 78 STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE................................................................... 86 Oversight of Placement Settings ............................................................................................................ 86 Caseloads and Supervisory Ratios........................................................................................................... 91 Building the Skills of the Workforce ...................................................................................................... 97 Maximizing Federal Funding ............................................................................................................... 101 APPENDICES.............................................................................................................................................. 104
1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 3 of 118
Definitions
Adoptive Placement means the interval during which a child is placed with a prospective adoptive family following the signing of the appropriate adoptive placement agreement form, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court. Child or Children or Class Member Children or Class Members mean a child or children who have been, are or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS. Child Caring Institution (CCI) is any child-welfare facility which provides full-time room, board and watchful oversight (RBWO) to six or more children up to 18 years of age. Some CCIs are approved to care for youth up to age 21. The CCI must be approved through the Office of Provider Management (OPM) to serve children in DFCS custody.
Child Placing Agency (CPA) is agency that places children in foster and adoptive homes for individualized care, supervision and oversight. Child placing agencies are responsible for assessing the placement regarding the appropriateness of the room, board and watchful oversight that the prospective foster and adoptive families will provide. The CPA’s employees and their foster and adoptive parents work as a team to provide a stabilizing and nurturing environment that promotes safety, permanency and well-being.
Corporal Punishment means any physical punishment on a child that inflicts pain. CPA Foster Home is a foster home approved by a Child Placing Agency for the temporary placement of children in foster care. DeKalb DFCS means DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services. DFCS when used alone means the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services. DFCS Foster Home is a non-relative foster homes approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of children in foster care.
DFCS or CPA Adoptive Home is an adoptive home approved for the foster care placement of a child for whom the established goal is adoption. Adoptive homes must meet the regular
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 4 of 118
standards of care required for approved family foster homes and any conditions specified in that approval.
DFCS Relative Foster Home is a relative foster home approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of minor relatives. It is DFCS’ preference that all relatives are approved as foster parents and receive a foster care per diem. The goal of relatives becoming foster parents is to ensure that the child has services to address his/her needs.
DHHS means the United States Department of Health and Human Services. DHR means Georgia Department of Human Resources. Discipline or Other Serious Foster Care Violation means and includes those acts or situations by the caregiver that pose an immediate or potential risk to the safety or well-being of the child in care. These may include, but are not limited to, inappropriate disciplinary measures (both physical/corporal and emotional), violations of supervision or other safety requirements that pose serious risk factors to the child.
EPSDT means the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program for individuals under 21 years of age contained in Title XIX of the Social Security Act, as amended.
Fictive Kin means a person who is known to a child as a relative, but is not, in fact, related by blood.
Foster Parent means volunteers who are trained and certified by DFCS or Child Placing Agencies to provide for the temporary care of children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster parents work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster parents are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
Foster Relative means biological kin who are trained and certified by DFCS to provide for the care of relative children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster relatives work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster relatives are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
Fulton DFCS means the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services.
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 5 of 118
Georgia Health Check Program means Georgia Medicaid's well-child or preventive health care program adopted pursuant to EPSDT, and shall contain such components as they exist in the Georgia Health Check Program as of February 1, 2005.
Governor means the Governor of the State of Georgia.
Legal Guardianship means the appointment of an individual as a legal guardian for a child as authorized by either the probate court under O.C.G.A. Title 29 or the juvenile court under O.C.G.A. Chapter15-11-2(36).
One Episode of Foster Care means the period of time that a child is in foster care from the date of removal from the home until the child is discharged from DFCS custody, except that a runaway does not trigger a new episode of foster care.
Permanent Legal Custody means custody granted in accordance with an order of the superior court or the juvenile court, which places a child in the custody of an individual or individuals until the child reaches 18 years of age.
Permanent Placement with Relatives means placing a child with a relative who is willing to assume long-term responsibility for the child, but has reasons for not adopting the child or obtaining guardianship or permanent legal custody, and it is in the child's best interests to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship by another person. In such circumstances, there shall be in place an agreement for long-term care signed by DFCS and the relative committing to the permanency and stability of this placement unless it is necessary to disrupt the long-term placement.
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) is a temporary non-hospital facility with a provider agreement with a State Medicaid Agency to provide intensive therapeutic intervention to a child to ensure safety and stability. PRTFs offer intensive behavioral health services to children in Georgia.
Relatives are persons who are related by blood, marriage or adoption including the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or divorce.
Relative Placement refers to placement in the home of a relative or fictive kin who do not receive a foster care per diem for the care of the child. The relative placement may be a non-paid placement or the relative may receive TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive
4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 6 of 118 kin are not eligible for TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive kin must become foster parents to receive financial assistance. Placement with relatives or fictive kin may occur very quickly if there is a satisfactory CPS history check, safety and home assessment check, and a Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) check through the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on all household members 18 years of age or older. A Relative or Non-Relative Care Assessment must be completed no later than 30 calendar days after the placement of a child. State DFCS means the Division of Family and Children Services of the Georgia Department of Human Resources. Suspected Abuse or Neglect means being based on reasonable cause to believe that a child may have been abused or neglected. Suspected Corporal Punishment means being based on reasonable cause to believe that corporal punishment may have been used on a child.
5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 7 of 118
INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared by the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) pursuant to the orders entered in Kenny A. v. Perdue, Civ. Act. No. 1: 02CV-1686-MHS (Superior Court of Fulton County), a civil rights class action brought on behalf of children in Fulton and DeKalb counties who are in the custody of the State of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS). The Kenny A. class members are children who have been, are or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who: 1) are or will be in the custody of any of the State Defendant’s; and 2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS.
The Kenny A. Consent Decree (Consent Decree) was entered on October 28, 2005 and was modified by agreed orders on December 15, 2008 and November 2, 2015. It requires improvements in the operations of the Division of Family and Children’s Services and establishes the outcomes that are to be achieved by the State of Georgia on behalf of children entering or in custody and their families.
The Role of the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team
The Consent Decree established a process for accountability through the appointment of James T. Dimas and Sarah Morrison as the Court’s independent Accountability Agents. The Consent Decree included a process for replacing these persons should one or both of them no longer be able to fulfill their duties under the agreement. Using this process, the parties first selected Karen Baynes-Dunning to replace Sarah Morrison, and then created a monitoring and technical assistance team through the appointment of Elizabeth Black, Jennifer Haight, and Steve Baynes in October 2015. This resulted in the establishment of the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) with Karen Baynes-Dunning as sole Accountability Agent, to replace Mr. Dimas as co-Accountability Agent upon his resignation from the position.
The Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) are responsible for providing public record reports on State Defendant’s performance relative to the Consent Decree to the Court and to the parties. These reports are to be issued for each six-month reporting period. Parties are in the process of defining and reaching agreement on the scope of responsibility for the Accountability Agent and MTAT going forward.
6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 8 of 118
This past year, the Accountability Agent and the MTAT have:
1) facilitated State G2 meetings every month; 2) shadowed DeKalb and Fulton County leaders; 3) learned about the State’s overall priorities; 4) joined in the State’s effort to improve the overall use of data to improve practice and
outcomes through the Knowledge Management Team; 5) reviewed the State’s performance over the past ten years; 6) met with stakeholders; 7) helped the parties work toward reaching an agreed upon plan for exiting the Consent
Decree; 8) continued to manage case record reviews; and 9) reviewed reports from DFCS and submitted monitoring reports as required by the
Consent Decree.
This is the 20th Monitoring Report issued. The previous monitoring reports are available on-line at http://www.childrensrights.org/class_action/georgia/# or http://cslf.gsu.edu/technicalassistance/.
Focus and Structure of this Monitoring Report
This monitoring report is designed to provide information to assist the parties and the Court in understanding the extent to which the State has met or is meeting specific provisions of the Consent Decree. The primary focus of this monitoring report is on the State’s performance relative to the 31 outcomes in Section 15 of the Consent Decree in order to assess ongoing progress and to help inform negotiations between the parties as they seek to define an agreed upon path to exit from court oversight. This report also gives some historical context about progress over the past decade since parties entered into the Consent Decree. While it is intended to be a more streamlined report, there are also some other key Consent provisions that have been monitored and are included in this report:
x DFCS efforts to ensure that the placement process secures the most appropriate, least restrictive placement for all children, including the use of hotels and congregate care;
x DFCS efforts to meet the physical, dental, mental health, and developmental needs of children and youth;
x caseloads; and x investigations of abuse in foster care.
Some of the other provisions, the ones requiring case managers to be doing certain activities related to case planning and placement, are under reconsideration as DFCS is in the process of
7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 9 of 118
developing and implementing a case practice model; Solution-Based Casework. The parties agreed to revisit the monitoring of these provisions once the case practice model (Solution-Based Casework) has been further defined and agreed upon.
The monitoring report is divided into the following sections:
Part One: Introduction Part Two: Summary of Period 20 Outcomes Part Three: Safety Part Four: Permanency Part Five: Well-Being Part Six: Strengthening the Service Delivery Infrastructure Part Seven: Appendix
Summary of Progress Since 2005
Below we present a high-level overview of the experiences of children and youth who have been in foster care in Fulton and DeKalb County during the last decade. These data are extracted from a longitudinal data file containing data through June 30, 2015.1 In this overview, we present information about all first admissions – regardless of duration. As monitors, we are interested in and obligated to report on the experiences of ALL children. However, for purposes of understanding patterns associated with services provided to children at the first opportunity the State has to successfully work with children, youth, and their families – we focus in this section on that first experience. Not only does this represent the majority of children and youth served in the two counties, but it also represents that critical population of children and youth for whom the proper assessment and provision of services would mean a safe, brief and stable placement experience followed by lasting permanency.
One of the primary goals of DFCS is to meet the needs of abused and neglected children at home without removing them from their families and communities and bringing them into foster care. DFCS seeks to identify those children and youth who can safely remain at home with some additional supports and services.
The number of children and youth in the general population is a factor in the number of children and youth placed in foster care in a given jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with more children and youth in the general population are more likely to have higher numbers of children and youth in foster
1 This longitudinal file was developed by researchers at Chapin Hall, based on data extracts from SHINES and formerly IDS containing placement histories for children placed in state custody. Spells of all durations are reflected in these data.
8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 10 of 118

care simply because there are more children who are subject to abuse or neglect. It is therefore important to examine placement rates (number of children placed in foster care per 1,000 in the general population) in addition to the actual numbers to understand the variation that may exist for reasons other than the size of the general population. The first chart below shows placement rates overall, and for each county for the past ten years.

Placement Rate per 1,000: All First Entries, 2005-2014
6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Total

DeKalb

Fulton

The risk of removal has dropped notably since a high of nearly five (5) placements per 1,000 children in the underlying population. A significant drop in 2010 has been followed by some increases, with 2014 showing the highest rate since 2007. More recent data from Period 19 and Period 20 suggests the increase in admissions has persisted through calendar year 2015. 2The table below shows the number of children/youth entering care for the first time in each of the two counties since 2005, along with the associated placement rates.

2 See Appendix A: The State reports that 1,398 children and youth entered foster care during calendar year 2015, however these data are not yet represented in the longitudinal file and do not exclude children who have previously been in foster care.
9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 11 of 118

Admission Yr 2005
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20153

All First Placements

Placement Rate per 1,000

Total 1,889
1,673 1,545 1,340 1,064 900 1,214 1,218 1,105 1,497 736

DeKalb 799
792 706 619 469 377 552 522 525 744 401

Fulton 1,090
881 839 721 595 523 662 696 580 753 335

Total 4.9
4.3 4.0 3.5 2.8 2.3 3.2 3.2 2.9 3.9

DeKalb 4.8
4.8 4.3 3.7 2.8 2.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 4.5

Fulton 5.0
4.0 3.8 3.3 2.7 2.4 3.0 3.2 2.6 3.4

After removal, an important priority is to place children and youth in family settings, preferably with a family members, relatives, friends and members of the child’s community who already have a connection with the child and commitment to the child. Relative placements help to minimize the trauma of removal, preserve the child’s sense of belonging and attachment, and keep them connected to people and things that bring meaning and purpose. It is for this reason that DFCS has set of goal to place 50 percent of children in foster care in relative placements or relative foster homes. Not only does the Consent Decree stipulate that children under twelve (12) should not be placed in congregate settings, but best practices also dictate that whenever possible such settings should be avoided.

The chart below depicts the extent to which the two counties, together, have been able to increase their reliance on family settings and to decrease reliance on group settings as the initial placement option over the last decade. Since 2007 half or more of the children and youth entering placement for the first time are placed in family settings, DFCS or CPA foster or adoptive homes. This peaked in 2012 at 70 percent when there was a concerted effort on the part of DFCS to decrease the use of congregate care. This marked a point in time when Child Placing Agencies(CPAs) began to close group homes and cottages. The reliance on congregate or group settings had dropped from 20 percent in 2005 to as low as 10 percent in 2011, but shows a slight increase in the more recent years. Children placed in relative placements or relative foster homes

3 As of the date of this report, the longitudinal spell contained data through June 30, 2015, so the first half calendar year 2015 is reported above. No placement rates are generated for the six-month data.
10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 12 of 118

represent a smaller proportion of placements, but is ticking up from 2012 where it declined to about three percent of first placements.

First Placement Type: First Admissions, 2004-2015

80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Foster

Relative Home

Congregate

Other/Unk

The next tables refine the narrative around placement type by displaying the type of placement in which children first entering care spend most of their placement episode. In other words, if the first placement is a short-term placement based on exigent circumstance, it shows the extent to which children and youth transition into a stable family setting for the remainder of their time in care. As the table below indicates, historically, and in recent years, most children and youth placed in the two counties remain in family settings in DFCS or CPA foster or adoptive homes. The proportion who end up in relative placements or relative foster homes has been on the uptick, although it was highest – at just over 20 percent in 2008. The recent year’s uptick has not reached the 20 percent mark. Reliance on congregate care as predominant placement type has hovered at around 20 percent for first entries, returning to 20 percent following a dip in 2010 and 2011.

11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 13 of 118

Predominant Type: First Admissions, 2004-2015

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Foster

Relative Home

Congregate

Other/Unk/Mix

Following placement into foster care, a critical system goal is to minimize placement disruption. Placement moves not only add trauma to an already difficult situation, but also disruptions are associated with longer episodes in care. Too often child welfare systems – in an effort to protect the physical safety of identified children – disconnect and punish children for the normal reactions to the trauma they have experienced in their lives. Children express these normal reactions to trauma in a myriad of ways, sometimes through maladaptive behaviors. Too often, the system’s response or intervention is to remove the child from his or her placement, which exacerbates the problem, instead of providing needed support to preserve relationships and placements. Children can heal from trauma, but this is only possible when they are experiencing safety and stability, and there is commitment and understanding on the part of their caregivers.4
The table below shows movement history through June 2015 for children first entering care over the last ten years. We end our view with the 2013 entry group because, while most movement occurs early in a child’s placement episode, those children who have not exited (from younger entry cohorts) may yet experience a placement disruption. For that reason, we stop our review with the 2013 cohort and note that some children still in care from that group might yet move.
The retrospective data show that, over the last decade, most children who enter placements in the two counties do not experience multiple placement episodes. In fact, many children – about 40 percent -- experience only one placement and do not move at all during the first episode in care. About 25 percent of children first entering care move once. There are early indications (not

4 This idea is from the work of Amelia Franck Meyer, Founder and CEO of Alia.
12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 14 of 118

yet final) that imply that the proportion of one-time movers may be growing slightly. The proportion of children moving three or more times has been steady at 20 percent.
Placement stability over the past decade has been stable – and mostly moderate. However, a closer look at the data will reveal that historically – and currently – among the three-plus movers are group of children and youth who move many times. Closer analysis shows that from 2005 even up to 2013 – nearly ten percent of an initial entry group move five or more times. Thus, placement stability surfaces as a persistent challenge in the two counties for the past decade.5

Placement Moves for Children First Entering Care, 2005-2013
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2005

2006

No Moves

2007

2008

1 Placement Move

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2 Placement Move

3+ Placement Moves

A primary goal of the child welfare system is to ensure that every child has a safe, permanent family, preferably their own. Permanency can be achieved through: 1) children returning to their parents or other family members; 2) family members becoming guardians or adoptive parents; or 3) the formation of a new family through adoption with previously unrelated persons. In addition, exits from foster care to permanency should be timely. Removal from home should be temporary, and should be followed as soon as safely possible by an exit to a home that will provide lasting permanency.
The historical data displayed below show exit patterns for first entrants from 2004-2013, the years for which we can observe a least one full year following the placement year. The data have been consistent for the past nine years. Most children first entering care – over 70 percent of them – return to a family home following removal. An additional ten percent are adopted. It is

5 These more granular data are not presented here, but are available upon request. Even the most recent entry cohorts include a group of youth who have experienced multiple moves (five or more since entry).
13

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 15 of 118

probable that the dip in the most recent years is because later entries have not yet had time to finish the adoption process. Non-permanent exits, which include aging out, running away, and other non-permanent exit types6 have decreased slightly from about 15 percent in the early years to just over 10 percent. The decline in the percent of children exiting to families in the most recent years is likely due to the proportion of children and youth in care who have not yet exited.7

Exits as of June 30, 2015 for All First Admissions, 2004-2013

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
0% 2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Family Exit

Adoption

Non Perm

Still in Care

Finally, an important element of achieving permanency is ensuring its durability. We want children who have returned to a family setting to find and maintain stability in that setting. Measuring reentry for children placed in the two counties – using a longitudinal perspective -allows us to understand what has been typically true for children who entered care for the first time in the last nine years. As the table shows, a large majority of those children and youth return to a family setting. How many then revert to foster care within a year of that return home? The table below provides the answer to that question. As the graph below shows, reentry has been variable, challenging, and recently on the upswing in the two counties. In 2005, ten percent of first admission who exited to family returned to care within one year of that exit. Reentry rates then ticked downward, reaching a low of six percent in 2008. Since then, there has been a fairly steady rise, climbing to over ten percent for children from the 2012 cohort – the most recent group for whom enough time has elapsed to observe entry, exit, and reentry.

6 These include transition to an adult system (e.g. criminal justice, developmental delayed) child death, or unspecified exit types. 7 In addition, in 2014, the State changed its policy so that upon your 18th birthday and beyond, young persons have to opt out of care. This replaced the policy and practice that young persons were dropped from foster care and required to sign themselves back in.
14

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 16 of 118

Percent of All First Admissions (2004-2012) Who Reentered Care w/in 1 yr of Permanent Family Exit
12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0% 2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

All Reentries

This overview shows general patterns – most notably – it shows consistency. Areas of strength have generally stayed steady, but have not shown remarkable improvement. Similarly, many of those areas that presented challenges ten years ago remain challenging. Additionally, this overview is just that – a high-level depiction of dynamics in Fulton and DeKalb. This view leaves opaque important variation between the two counties and even within the two counties (subgroups by age or placement type may have different outcomes). Nevertheless, it serves as useful context, and provides a clear path to the development of baseline performance from which change associated with deliberate innovations practice can be anticipated, targeted, and tracked.
A review of staff turnover and caseloads over the past decade.

As the figures below show, the number of staff leaving DeKalb and Fulton counties in the last three fiscal years has ranged from a low of 25 (DeKalb 2014) to a high of 92 (Fulton 2015). In counties where the number of positions fluctuates but averages around 214, this produces very high turnover rates, as noted in the second figure below. In the most recent fiscal year, both DeKalb and Fulton showed increased turnover rates, (30% and 44%, respectively) even as the number of positions increased.

15

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 17 of 118
Georgia leaders were focused on staff recruitment a decade ago. Prompted in part by a 60 percent turnover rate at DFCS in 20048, leaders at the time engaged the School of Social Work at the University of Georgia to help address concerns that too many newly hired and trained caseworkers were leaving. The researchers and practitioners from the University of Georgia, Dr. Alberta Ellett, and Chad Ellett, found that too often decisions about hiring at DFCS were being made based on applicants who were available and willing to work for DFCS, rather than demonstrated qualifications. This team soon realized that Georgia’s turnover rate was similar to many other jurisdictions: most of the turnover was occurring within the first two years of employment. From May 16, 2005 to September 1, 2011, turnover of newly hired employees was 28 percent. This meant that ‘28 percent of newly hired and trained employees during this period did not report to the first day of work or left DFCS/were terminated by DFCS during the three-month training and certification period. Nineteen percent of these persons reported that they did not know it was going to be like this.’9 One key component of this research was to pinpoint those characteristics that were common among DFCS workers who had chosen to remain in child welfare in Georgia. Employees, for example, with a professional commitment and concern about clients and the profession, who were able to manage in an unpredictable work environment and had a real desire to be selfreflective were found to stay on the job longer.10
8 Ellett, A.J., Ellett, C., Westbrook, T., and Lerner, B., (2006) Toward the Development of a Research-Based Employee Selection Protocol: Implications for Child Welfare Supervision, Administration and Professional Development. The International Journal of Continuing Social Work Education, Vol. 9, No. 2 9 Ibid. Page 118.
10 Here is the full list of characteristics: has a professional commitment to and concern about clients and the Social Services profession, exhibits a personal resilience and strong self-efficacy beliefs about the ability to work with clients to produce positive client outcomes, possesses efficient organizational and time management skills, demonstrates good oral and written communication skills, displays a positive perception of the work and profession, is an open-minded consensus builder who seeks input, objectively examines relevant information and considers a variety of options to resolve problems, has realistic expectations about the difficulty and challenges of the work, is able to handle an often unpredictable work environment, has a high tolerance for frustrating circumstances, balances the stressors in one’s personal and professional lives, desires to be self-reflective about
16

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 18 of 118
Dr. Ellett and her team came to the conclusion that improved staff selection processes, plus strong supervision and mentoring, would result in a more professional and stable DFCS workforce, one that would be better able to serve children and families in need. The result was a two-year partnership (2005 to 2007) between the University of Georgia, School of Social Work and DFCS to develop an Employee Selection Protocol11. The overall goal was to develop an evidence-informed approach to hiring and selecting those applicants best suited for child welfare work at DFCS.
Dr. Ellett and her team noted that it would be important over time to set performance expectations for assessment activities, develop measures of fidelity to assess the extent to which the Protocol is being implemented as designed and evaluate the impact on worker turnover.
Over the course of ten years of monitoring, each six-month report noted the counties’ performance with respect to the caseload requirements. These reports describe periods of improvements followed by declines in the counties’ overall efforts to reach and maintain both the required caseload caps as well as case manager continuity.12 The bi-annual reports also revealed performance regarding case manager certifications, the transition to SHINES, and the on-going development of pre-service and service training opportunities through ETS.
The earliest reports contained generally positive results with transition to specialized case managers (for long-stayer cases) and the elimination of temporary workers. However, at the same time, what would become a recurring theme was that high turnover, as highlighted in the Period 2 report, was impacting caseloads. That report provided a summary of the pre-service training curriculum assessment as well as a lengthy list of recommendations to improve the quality of training.13 The following report continued to reflect on the need to recruit, train, support, and retain quality staff – and to think systematically about what would be required to do so.
Subsequent reports continued to reflect the improvements in performance which showed peaks in Period 7 (Jan-Jun 2009) and Period 10 (Jul-Dec 2010) and Period 11 (Jan-Jun 2011), with intervening dips, and then following Period 11 several years of decline that resulted in the implementation of a Curative Action Plan (CAP) during Period 15 (Jan –Jun 2013). Language in
one’s work and to learn from others, has the physical stamina to perform the essential functions of the job and displays a sense of humor.
11The resulting Employee Selection Protocol describes in some detail seven steps to select and hire the best candidates: 1) recruit and attract potential candidates, 2) offer each candidate the opportunity understand the job and self-assess the extent to which he or she would be a good fit, 3) candidate submits an electronic application that includes a statement of motivation and interest in doing the job, 4) screen the electronic application, 5) conduct a phone interview, 6) conduct an on-site assessment and in-person panel interview, and 7) make a decision to hire or not hire candidate.
12 See Monitoring Reports I – XVIII, retrieved http://www.childrensrights.org/class_action/georgia/# 13 Period II Monitoring Report, 117.
17

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 19 of 118

the Period 11 report re-emphasized the significant challenges high turnover placed on the workforce.
x “High turn-over rates continue to undermine the Department’s ability to achieve and maintain the Consent Decree’s outcome measures by contributing to high caseloads, low morale, errors in practice, and delays in service delivery, court reporting and documentation. More importantly, it likely results in children in care not being as safe, well, or reaching permanency as quickly as possible”
x “During interviews case managers and supervisors cited lack of communication, frequent changes in leadership, unclear processes and procedures and the 8 visits in 8 weeks of new placement requirement as the most prevalent reasons that their co-workers left the agency or transferred to other counties”
Despite this language, and the recommendation that the Department invest in researchinformed system strategies to combat high turnover and low morale, DFCS has not rebounded to the higher levels of retention seen in the earlier periods. To pick one example, the figure below shows the percent of permanency workers assigned to 15 or fewer children and youth for eleven consecutive periods, thereby meeting the caseload standard performance for permanency workers. There is a notable decline in the percent of permanency workers maintaining the mandated level of cases. This drop, along with the higher turnover displayed above, and evidence of increased numbers of entries, suggests that sustained improvement in that measure may be hard to accomplish without combating the retention challenges.

120%

100% 80%

78%

60%

40%

20%

0%

94% 100% 98%

97%

91%

91%

90%

93%

95%

71%

27%

Permanency Caseloads Meeting Standards Periods 9 to 20

18

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 20 of 118
In the spring of 2014, Governor Nathan Deal created the Child Welfare Reform Council, and tasked this body with reviewing the challenges currently facing Georgia’s child welfare system, and making recommendations for system improvements that would result in improved outcomes for Georgia’s most vulnerable children and families. In January 2015, the Council issued its report, which included a focus on caseworker burden, and identified that burden as a significant challenge in the GA child welfare system. The report noted that, “social workers are overburdened, so they cannot give enough time and effort to each family.”14 Rightly, the report noted that overly taxed child welfare workers are not able to dedicate adequate effort on behalf of families. To ameliorate worker burden and the associated stress it produced, the Council report made a series of recommendations, some of which focused directly on workforce management or human resources, and others which focused on system capacities, which directly affect the workers’ ability to do their jobs.15
The human resource recommendations included:
x managing caseloads better – adhering to 15:1 and 5:1 standards; x provide opportunities for increased pay for case workers and supervisors – and make
those increases be based on merit and qualifications; x allow for advancement within positions (not just promotions); x consider offering special skill qualifications for salary increase (program specific or
other credentials); x develop a culture that builds confidence and reduces fear of retribution; and x partner with Georgia Tech to design processes that simplify and minimize
administrative work.
The ancillary system improvement recommendation, which would have direct effect on the ease with which caseworkers could efficiently do their jobs included:
x improve SHINES; x implement an electronic case management system; x consider the use of mobile technology; x leverage information across jurisdictions serving children and families; and x use predictive analytics.16
Our review of the prior monitoring reports along with the more recent Council report shows that both the issues confronting the workforce (high caseloads/high turnover) and the recommendations to develop policies and practices to ameliorate them have been largely the same, but that progress has been less clear.
14 Georgia Child Welfare Reform Council Final Report the Governor, January 9,2015. 15 IBID, 11 16 IBID, 12.
19

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 21 of 118
It is clear that high turnover remains a significant issue and that this turnover may be a connected to a range of system functions-- from training to supervision to compensation to culture – but there has not been a focused examination of the turnover phenomena that is clearly distinguished from the recruitment practices. Such a focused examination would include not only observations about the rate of turnover, but it would also include evidence-based theories regarding the drivers of high turnover, and evidence-based theories of how to combat the drivers of turnover so that workers in the system would be less likely to leave. This effort would then pave the way for the development and implementation of a plan to reduce turnover. The successful implementation of such a plan would not only address consistent recommendations to combat turnover, to promote worker satisfaction, confidence, and comfort in their positions, but in combination with a robust recruitment plan would likely result in observable improvements in worker caseloads.
Preliminary efforts to begin that focused examination began last fall. State G2 meetings in August and September 2015 focused on the Blueprint for Change, specifically the commitment on the part of top leaders to better support Georgia’s child welfare workforce. As a result, leaders at all levels understand and agree on, not only some of the job-related pressures, but also some of the reasons staff are staying and ways they are taking care of each other and themselves.
Support for relatives and fictive kin in recent years.
Monitoring reports over the last decade recommended as a priority for State attention to improve timeliness of relative caregiver assessments as some of them were not being completed within 30 days of a child’s placement.17 Earlier on in 2007, there were concerns that too few relative caregivers had been properly approved for placement.18
The recent statewide Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) assessment noted very low performance on the part of DFCS to make sure children are spending time with their own parents and siblings, being placed with relatives or preserving connections and relationships.19 Contributing factors for not placing children and youth with relatives cited were: 1) staff values regarding relatives; 2) staff’s inability to engage fathers; and 3) denial of relative home evaluations for insufficient reasons. Georgia stakeholders also note the over-reliance on Georgia’s Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) and Child Caring Institutions (CCIs) as a factor that contributes to the lack of concerted efforts to maintain positive relationships between children and their parents when they are in foster care.
There is more support available to relative and fictive kin than a decade ago. Then, many relatives were receiving a very small ($10.00 per day) per diem and were not getting daycare or other
17 Period 15 and 16 Reports 18 Period 3 Report 19 Statewide Child and Family Services Review Assessment, March 2015, Page 44.
20

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 22 of 118
supports that were available to foster parents. DFCS, in most instances, was just giving these relatives custody and not considering the ongoing support that might be needed. In both DeKalb and Fulton counties, children were being removed from their own relative and fictive kin, for some period of time, to ensure basic background checks and home assessments could take place before being returned to them. These practices no longer represent what normally happens.
Now, DFCS staff persons believe that it has helped to have a team focused specifically on relatives and fictive kin. Families have a point of contact to help them access medical insurance for their own children, receive some financial support or get children enrolled in school. All relatives and fictive kin are eligible for an annual clothing allotment of $415. There are support groups available and mini-trainings targeting these relative caregivers, which focus on issues specific to kin families, including helping them build a healthy way of relating to the child’s parents. There is an enhanced relative rate available to children in relative placements that allows DFCS to pay relatives 80 percent of the foster care per diem: $371 per month for young children, $419 for children between the ages of six and twelve; and $478 for teenagers. Requirements to receive this rate are very basic (i.e. home evaluation, criminal background check) compared to what is required to become a fully approved and licensed foster parent. There are more supports now for relatives and fictive kin to become fully licensed and approved foster parents and this is now the preferred option. Monthly financial support for these relative foster homes is the same as the financial support for DFCS foster homes: $461 per month for young children; $510 for children between the ages of six and twelve; and $589 for teenagers. Needed background checks and home studies are happening in one day so that children never have to be removed from family when deprived.
Once fully licensed and approved, when children are not able to reunify with their parents, relative and kin caregivers are encouraged to adopt. Guardianship is available to these families, but must be approved by the state office for children under the age of 14.
It is DFCS policy to inform relative caregivers of the benefits and support that can be made available to them once a related child enters foster care. Even so, DFCS staff persons recognize there is still much to do to better support kinship caregivers with the training and resources they need.20 DFCS staff persons understand that DFCS’ reputation in the community is not very good with birth families and their extended family members.
DeKalb and Fulton County staff have been working to find and engage relative and kin caregivers. Their focus has been on holding kinship awareness events and mini-kinship care trainings, doing e-mail blasts on how to make kinship placements and sitting in on transfer meetings.
Recruitment and retention of foster and adoptive homes in the past decade. DFCS contracted with Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. 21 to conduct an assessment in 2007 to
20 2012 Georgia Family Connections Kinship Care Report 21 Hornby Zeller, Inc. was identified by DFCS as a qualified external expert to conduct this assessment, which was a requirement of the 2005 Consent Decree (Section 5.A.1).
21

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 23 of 118
understand the extent to which available placements in DeKalb and Fulton counties were sufficient to meet the needs of children and youth in foster care in those same counties. Part of the charge was to identify any new or different placements resources and/or services that might be needed to better serve children and youth in foster care. Relying on data gathered before August 200722, these consultants found: 1) a 'relatively serious' problem with the lack of foster home beds in Fulton County - fewer than one for every child in foster care; 2) an adequate number of DeKalb County foster home beds - 2.4 for every child in foster care; 3) lack of available placement resources for certain identified sub-populations in both Fulton and DeKalb countieschildren over the age of six with emotional/behavioral needs and educational needs, AfricanAmerican children and youth of any age, older youth, sibling groups and children with special needs.
June 2008 marked a significant milestone as DFCS began consistently placing children and youth from DeKalb and Fulton counties in fully approved and licensed foster, kinship and adoptive homes.
The DFCS Foster Care Services Section completed an assessment of foster home resources in January 2013. Recommendations include increasing the proportion of foster parents who complete training in DeKalb, increasing the number of homes from certain zip codes in Fulton, making better placement decisions in the first place, improving internal DFCS communication and learning from and replicating the support available for ‘receiving homes’.23
Monitoring reports over the past decade noted – as priorities for State attention in 2010 and 2011 – that both counties were falling short in meeting their own foster home recruitment and retention goals.24
The recent statewide assessment for the federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) noted limited funding and lack of emphasis on diligent and targeted recruitment activities as primary reasons for the insufficient numbers and types of foster and adoptive parents in Georgia. This same assessment highlighted some improvements since 2007 including, but not limited to: 1) a new sibling incentive to promote siblings in foster care staying together; 2) the recent State Fiscal Year 2015 budget increase of $250,000 for foster home development and; 3) support and the hiring of a state level Caregiver Recruitment and Retention Specialist.25
The recruitment of foster and adoptive parents in Georgia is guided by resource development teams on the state and regional levels and documented in statewide and regional recruitment and retention plans. There is clear policy guidance on the expectations for general, targeted and
22 Primary data sources were the Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment (CCFA), interviews with private providers, a written survey, quantitative data from DFCS' Interim Data System (IDS) and a literature review. 23 Period 18, Page 146 24 Period 11, 12 and 13 Reports 25 Statewide CFSR Assessment, Page 141
22

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 24 of 118
child specific recruitment and retention in Georgia.26
In more recent years, DFCS has been focused on a number of general and targeted foster home recruitment efforts: increasing visibility through the media; following up on calls to Homes for Georgia’s Kids; welcoming back homes that were closed at an earlier point in time in good standing; developing a tickler system to track inquiries to full approval/licensure; engaging current foster families who work at hospitals, corporations or other government agencies; targeting people who are willing and able to care for 13 to 17 years olds and/or sibling groups; and engaging the refugee community and Latin American Association for assistance.27
DFCS staff persons understand that advertising must reflect children in foster care and their needs.
There has been a big demographic shift to more women in the workforce. Thus, fewer families have a person who is at home with the perceived flexibility needed to care for children. DFCS staff persons are finding that it is more difficult to identify potential foster and adoptive parents using methods that have historically worked. In DeKalb, for example, they used to be able to stick up signs in the community, which resulted in training classrooms full of potential foster and adoptive parents. This is no longer the case.
DFCS reports that it has been hard to find foster parents, particularly for children over the age of five, who are willing to co-parent with birth parents to care for children and support them to reunification.
Georgia’s Blueprint for Change and the Kenny A. Class
Top leaders in Georgia have a vision for improving outcomes for children and families who come to the attention of the State's child welfare system. Prompted in part by some high profile and concerning child deaths, as mentioned above, Governor Nathan Deal helped make this happen when he created the Child Welfare Reform Council. Appointed by Governor Deal, executive, legislative, and judicial leaders, as well as advocates, in Georgia28 spent the better part of 2014 working together to develop a shared vision for improving Georgia's child welfare system 'in order to better protect the State's most vulnerable citizens.'29 This vision, along with identified
26 Policy 14.6 Recruitment and Retention 27 Period 16 and 17 Report 28 Stephanie Blank, Georgia Early Childhood Alliance for Ready Students; Bob Bruder-Mattson, United Methodist Children's Home; Lamar Burkett, pastor, foster Parent, advocate; Melissa Carter, Barton Law and Policy Center; Hon. Valerie Clark, State Representative; Valerie Condit, Fulton County Schools; Dr. Cheryl Davenport Dozier, Savannah State University; Duaine Hathaway, Georgia CASA; Hon. Carolyn Hugley, State Representative; Donna Hyland, Children's Healthcare Atlanta; Hon. Burt Jones, State Senator; Hon. Fran Miller, State Senator; Meredith Ramaley, Smyrna Policy Department; Hon. Freddie Powell Sims, State Senator; Judge Steve Teske, Juvenile Court Clayton County; Judge Peggy Walker, Juvenile Court of Douglas County; Trya Walker, Chick-fil-a, Inc; Hon. Wendell Willard, State Representative; Ashley Willcott, Office of the Child Advocate; and Crystal Williams, former foster youth, EmpowerMEnt. 29 Page 3, Child Welfare Reform Council Final Report to the Governor (January 2015)
23

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 25 of 118
challenges and recommendations, is spelled out in the Council's January 2015 Final Report to the Governor. Among a number of issues, the Council highlighted the need to: 1) reduce some of the burden on social workers, so they are better able to spend time with children and families in need; 2) reduce the number of times children are uprooted in foster care; and 3) increase the number of children who are exiting foster care to stable families.
The Council made specific, concrete recommendations (re-establish Georgia's Title IV-E Training Program, adopt a standard practice model, restructure DFCS so that the Director reports to the Governor) related to governance, personnel, and policy. There has been considerable effort to date to begin implementing these recommendations, including but not limited to, the creation of a reporting structure directly linking Governor Deal to DFCS Director, Bobby Cagle, and the selection of principal consultant to the Child Welfare Reform Council, Virginia Pryor, for the position of DFCS Deputy Director.
To bring together many of the recommendations from the Child Welfare Reform Council, DFCS created a Blueprint for Change to guide and focus their overall effort to improve outcomes for children and families. The Blueprint for Change is comprised of three core strategies: 1) to implement a solution-based casework practice model; 2) create a robust workforce; and 3) engage local government officials, birth parents, youth, foster parents, members of the faith community, frontline staff, and other constituents. Parties involved in the Kenny A. Consent Decree are working together to align the Blueprint for Change with requirements associated with the protected class of children and youth in DeKalb and Fulton counties. The reason for doing this is to align the requirements placed on DFCS, so that it can focus on effectively implementing its plan for change, and any unnecessary burden resulting from the management of separate initiatives can be minimized.
The Blueprint for Change is a major element of a package of strategies, that if implemented as envisioned, Georgia leaders believe will result in a more capable and stable DFCS workforce and better outcomes for Georgia’s child welfare-involved children and families. Here is the list of priority strategies DFCS has identified to improve the outcomes for Kenny A. class members and children and youth in foster care throughout the State of Georgia:
x increase relative placements to 50 percent; x stop placing children and youth in hotels; x implement solution-based casework; x create a robust workforce; x engage constituents; x reduce caseload sizes; x keep kids safely at home and push for permanency;
24

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 26 of 118
x increase type and number of foster and adoptive homes; and x use data more effectively and more systematically to drive improvement through the
Knowledge Management Team.
If implemented and sustained, these strategies could have substantial impact on the class and replace most – if not all - of the recommended priorities for State attention for the past decade from the Accountability Agents. Past recommendations include, but are not limited to the following: improve partnerships with the courts; reduce and stabilize caseloads; make sure appropriate foster homes are available to children; accelerate the pace of permanency for children who have been in foster care for 12 months; monitor and assess the impact of policy and operational changes in real time; and increase the timeliness of relative care assessments.
In no particular order of importance, outlined below is a brief status update on each of these strategies. These status updates reflect the most recent information that is available and are not limited to Period 20.
Increase Relative Placements to 50 Percent
Director Cagle has set a goal of having 50 percent of children in foster care in Georgia placed in relative placements or relative foster homes.
As noted above in the summary of progress since 2005, the use of relatives in both counties has been up and down over the past couple of years. Between 15 and 25 percent of children in DeKalb County have been placed in relative placements or relative foster homes. Similarly, between 6 and 21 percent of children in Fulton County have been placed in relative placements or relative foster homes.
When taking a closer look at the data for the years 2010, 2011 and2012, specifically at those young persons (teenagers) between the ages of 13 and 17, far fewer have been placed in DFCS or CPA foster homes (between 5% and 32%) and relative placements/relative foster homes (between 0% and 18%). Most of them have been placed in congregate care (between 43% and 82%), which has been on the rise in Fulton County and relatively steady in DeKalb County.
Stop Placing Children and Youth in Hotels
Georgia DFCS continued to place children and youth in hotels during the period.
The practice is that children are accompanied by behavioral aides, employed by CPAs or CCIs, when they stay overnight in hotels. Behavioral aides ensure children are checked into the hotel, sit (awake) in the hotel room with them overnight and are responsible for providing food. Each morning, the behavioral aide checks the child out of the hotel and the counties continue trying
25

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 27 of 118
to find an appropriate placement. During the day, the behavioral aide is responsible for getting the child to school or other appointments. Oftentimes, these responsibilities will fall to more than one behavioral aide due to changes in shifts. At the end of the day, if the county does not secure an appropriate placement, the county approves payment for another night in a hotel and notifies hotel personnel. One behavioral aide noted that the most difficult time of the day is the gap between leaving school and receiving notification about the next placement. Often, that notification does not occur until 9:00 p.m. in the evening.
Out of a belief that this is not an appropriate placement for children, DFCS has made the decision to end the use of hotels as placements for children and youth who enter foster care in DeKalb and Fulton counties no later than June 30, 2017. To do so, DFCS has developed and is in the process of implementing a plan to end the use of hotels as placements for class members. DFCS has already taken the following steps:
x developed Standard Operating Procedures for the use of hotels that went into effect on July 1, 2016, which spell out requirements for additional documentation that efforts were made to search for relatives and seek assistance from the State Placement Resource Operations Unit (State Pro Team) prior to requesting a hotel room for the placement of a child. The procedures require specific approvals, up to the Regional Director, to make hotel placements and expand the placement resources available to include Gwinnett, Cobb, and Clayton counties;
x sought assistance from and began contract negotiations with a number of qualified providers to help solve the problem; and
x began to study the State’s placement operations to seek ways to improve resource development and placement matching processes.
The Accountability Agent and MTAT will continue to report on this comprehensive effort in future monitoring reports until this practice has come to an end.
Implement Solution-Based Casework
Through a well-defined selection process, DFCS identified Solution-Based Casework to be the basis for Georgia’s approach to everyday child welfare practice with children and their families, known as a case practice model.
Undergirding Solution-Based Casework or SBC is a belief that, “human problems can only be accurately understood in light of the context in which they occur. Assessment and case planning processes must take into consideration environmental factors, client competencies, (the research this is available on) family development and relapse prevention strategies. Case plans
26

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 28 of 118
need to be more tied to everyday life events, measureable and accountable, tied to high-risk behaviors and plan for relapse prevention.”30
SBC has a strong evidence base, which includes: Family Centered Practice; Ecological Perspective; Competence Centered Perspective; Family Life Cycle Theory; Postmodern Family Casework; Solution-Focused Family Therapy, and Relapse Prevention Theory.31
SBC is comprised of four milestones for case practice related to building consensus with the family, organizing and writing outcomes, building an action plan and then documenting and celebrating progress.
A Metro District Readiness Team (MDRT) has been chartered to manage implementation in DeKalb and Fulton counties under the guidance of the State Implementation Team. Initial implementation of Solution Based Casework began on July 1, 2016 in DeKalb and Fulton Counties.
Future reports will focus on this initial implementation and the extent to which SBC is being implemented as designed by caseworkers and supervisors in DeKalb and Fulton counties.
Engage Constituents
The Metro District Readiness Team (MDRT) set a goal to engage and educate as many constituents as possible about Solution Based Casework. These "constituent connections" began
30 Christensen, D., Todahl, J, and Barrett.W. Solution-Based Casework: An Introduction to Clinical and Case Management Skills in Casework Practice. (2008)
31 Ibid. Family-Centered Practice: all children are entitled to live in permanent families, preferably his or her own biological family. Ecological Perspective: practitioners are encouraged to understand behavior in the context of the surrounding environment (i.e. job market, inflation, economic downturns, racism, gender discrimination, social policy). Competence Centered Perspective: casework practice has been influenced by physical and mental health treatment models that place primary emphasis on dysfunction (i.e. certain diagnoses lead to certain prescribed, corresponding interventions). Through this perspective, practitioners are encouraged to view individuals and families as active partners in the change process. This model emphasizes collaboration, client competence, individual and environmental change, solutions rather than cures, and mutually engaging relationships between clients and professionals. Family Life Cycle Theory: Based on the notion that families experience fairly predictable life stages and associated tasks. This theory is valuable for child welfare practice because it can help to organize the complexity of cases, normalize the challenges that families experience and develop partnerships based on a shared reality. “Good to anchor case planning in everyday life where danger occurs.” Postmodern Family Casework: These models do not assume that the social workers or therapists have more knowledge than the client about his or her problems. Client view is solicited, central and taken very seriously. What do you think the problem is here? How do you explain it to others? What do you need to overcome the problem? Solution Focused Family Therapy: This approach shifts away from focusing on diagnosing disease and dysfunction to taking pragmatic steps to solve problems. This means vigorously trailing exceptions to ‘bad behavior’ and using the inquiry process to build on those exceptions. Relapse Prevention Theory: This theory has usefulness in preventing relapses. Patterns must be recognized, the details around these patterns must be understood, practice is a part of it and there must be real clear relapse prevention plans developed. Assessments must include exactly how the destructive behavior occurred.
27

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 29 of 118
in December 2015 and have focused on judges, SAAGS, schools, hospitals, courts, frontline staff and various other stakeholders.
Create a Robust Workforce
Work has begun to create a more robust workforce in DeKalb and Fulton counties.
DFCS organized and supported a site visit for identified leaders to Buncombe County, North Carolina to learn about how leaders in that county reduced turnover rates from 39 percent in 2005 to 12 percent in 2015.
DFCS leaders who participated in the site visit in Buncombe County (Asheville), North Carolina found the trip to be illuminating in a number of ways. Salaries did not appear to be the reason that turnover rates went down dramatically. Salaries are higher in this county in North Carolina than in Georgia, but these salaries have been comparatively high all along, during periods of both high and low turnover. DFCS leaders, on the other hand, highlighted staff recruitment and selection, frontline staff engagement, leadership strength and authenticity and a focus on workforce well-being to be critical elements in Buncombe County’s successful effort to reduce worker turnover.
Work has already begun in both Fulton and DeKalb counties to incorporate some of these elements. The County Director in Fulton County, for example, held a fireside chat with staff persons in that county responsible for keeping children safely in their own families to learn from them what they needed in order to feel more supported. These family preservation workers did not hesitate to share their concerns about the pressures of working long hours/after hours, deprivation process, lack of real support for families in need, communication and the sometimes confusing policy parameters that leave them feeling vulnerable. In turn, these workers and leaders in Fulton County are attempting to address some – if not all – of these issues. Both Fulton and DeKalb counties have established workgroups focused on employee retention.
DFCS has identified the beginning elements upon which Georgia will focus for supporting Georgia’s workforce. Drawing from research conducted in 2006 by the Children’s Defense Fund and Children’s Right’s, that identified the components of an effective child welfare workforce, leaders have begun to prioritize and consider those elements that seem the most important in Georgia.
In a recent State G2 meeting, even with some variation by position - state leaders more focused on leadership, training and quality assurance, regional leaders on manageable caseloads and workloads, county staff on employment incentives and pay increases - four key elements were identified overall as the most important for Georgia DFCS.
28

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 30 of 118
1. DFCS must be led by strong, visionary and committed child welfare professionals. 2. Child welfare caseloads and workloads must be kept at manageable levels. 3. Valuable employment incentives, including pay increases, benefits, and promotional
opportunities, are essential for the development of an effective child welfare workforce. 4. The child welfare workforce must have safe and suitable workspace.
DFCS has also been championing the creation of the Metro District Department of Education and Professional Development (MDDEPD) to better equip new hires for child welfare practice. This Education Center provides six additional weeks of education and professional development on top of the already required four weeks of training. This experience includes: an over the shoulder mentor for 6 months after hire, a 3-day SHINES overview, a 2-day documentation overview, Leadership Training, CPR certification, Red Cross training, Customer Service training, Verbal Judo, CSEC training and field shadowing in their respective counties facilitated by a MDDEPD Mentor Specialist. Classes began for new hires on June 16, 2016.
Reduce Caseload Sizes
In Period 20, most (90 percent) supervisors were assigned five case managers and most family preservation workers (90 percent) were assigned 17 families or less. Good news – to be sure – but DeKalb and Fulton County DFCS also experienced some sharp declines in the percentage of caseworkers and supervisors assigned caseloads or supervisory ratios meeting Consent Decree standards during Period 20.
x A little over half (56%) of CPS investigators were assigned to investigate allegations of abuse or neglect for 12 families or less, the remainder exceeded this caseload standard at some point during the period.
x A quarter (27%) of Permanency case managers were assigned to promote permanency for 15 or fewer children and youth in foster care, the remainder exceeded this caseload standard at some point during the period.
x Less than half (43%) of specialized case managers were assigned to promote permanency and provide services to 12 or fewer children and youth who have been in foster care for more than 18 months, the remainder exceeded this caseload standard at some point during the period.
To address burgeoning caseloads, DFCS advocated for and received additional funds to cover the cost of additional positions and help address employee turnover. The Georgia FY 2017 budget includes $14.7 million to address DFCS employee recruitment and retention needs in positions with high turnover. The Accountability Agent and the MTAT will be able to report on the use and impact of this investment in future reports on DeKalb and Fulton counties.
29

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 31 of 118
Safe at Home and Push for Permanency Both Fulton and DeKalb counties, through a joint workgroup, have been examining which children and youth have been coming back into foster care and why they have been returning. Their initial focus has been to study the data before developing a solution that may not be the right fit for the problem(s) identified. They have found that teenagers are often the ones re-entering foster care in DeKalb and Fulton counties, many of whom have been in the juvenile justice system in Georgia and/or have mental health problems. They have developed some hypotheses that: 1) some youth exited foster care prematurely; 2) more supports are needed to preserve families; and 3) aftercare policies may need revisiting. Increase Type and Number of Foster and Adoptive Homes Both DeKalb and Fulton counties are operating under recruitment and retention plans. The Accountability Agent and the MTAT will report on this strategy in more depth in future reporting periods. Use Data More Effectively DFCS has committed to building the habit to make better, data-informed decisions. To do so, five previously distinct units in the state office – data, SACWIS, education and training, policy and quality assurance units – are now operating as the Knowledge Management Unit. This unit is working to create a learning environment throughout the system. The regions need relevant, timely and user-friendly data. Knowledge Management’s job is to make sure regions know what they do and that the unit is available to support them. Knowledge Management made a decision to step back and develop a strategic plan to help create the data system that will support DFCS’ improvement efforts. Through a partnership with Casey Family Programs, the unit is developing a plan to ensure that DFCS is using data effectively to understand and improve practice.
Next Steps
DFCS leaders at all levels are stepping back to define a “way of working together” to best implement these strategies in DeKalb and Fulton counties and improve outcomes for children and families. Part of this is an effort is to define: 1) a methodical and coordinated process for implementing these strategies; 2) the support needed by the leaders who are responsible for outcomes in the counties; and 3) the data that will be used track and measure progress.
30

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 32 of 118
PART TWO - SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES
The Period 20 performance period (July 1, 2015- December 31, 2015) was a six-month period during which system leaders continued to manage system factors that put pressure on the child welfare system. These include dynamics that persisted from the prior period, most notably the continued and sharp increase in the number of children and youth entering in Fulton and DeKalb and continued challenges with worker turnover. DFCS leaders responded to immediate system concerns by continuing to rely on short-term solutions like the Welcome House and, after that closed, temporarily placing children in hotels. DFCS also continued to push forward with a focus on the three core elements of the Blueprint for Change.
The summary of outcome performance contained in this current report continues to reflect the challenges of responding expeditiously to these systems pressures. This response is simultaneous to also maintaining steadfast focus on longer-term system reform that is essential to generating and maintaining strong safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for children and families. Thus, overall Period 20 results show some small declines in performance in the core domains while also maintaining some important momentum towards improvement.
Safety
Three of the five safety measures relate to the process of investigation for children allegedly victimized while in care. Case review results show modest improvement for two of the three measures, and larger increase for Outcome 2 (time to completion of an investigation) such that it exceeded the 95 percent standard, reaching 99 percent. Additionally, the maltreatment in care metric, reversed course from the concerning increase in Period 19 to dip below the current standard during Period 20. Finally, the incidence of corporal punishment continued to meet the required threshold. Taken together – the counties’ performance reflects vigilance and close attention to the safety of children in their care.
Permanency
There was continued strength in Outcomes 8a and 8b, indicating that over half of the children entering care during the period achieved permanency within one year of their exit, and an additional seven percent exited with in their second year. This is well above the standard for 8a and consistent with recent performance on those important measures of permanency for children entering care. The case review revealed some recovery from setbacks in Period 19: Outcomes 19 (placement in county) and Outcome 27 (six-month review) rebounded from a decline, and Outcome 16 (placement with siblings) showed a notable improvement, as did Outcome 11 (adoption finalization). Not all declines from the previous period were reversed, however, and other key permanency measures stayed at a level below the standard or decreased. The reviews indicated that challenges in locating and maintaining family connections
31

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 33 of 118
as well as achieving specific case milestones are persistent. There was a notable drop in the diligent search efforts in the period. (Outcomes 7, 15, 23, 28). And the challenges of responding to caseworker turnover continues to put pressure on efforts to place children in the most optimal first placement, and to maintain the process of care standards over the life of a case. It is equally likely that those same pressures also affected the well-being measures discussed below.
Well-Being
Placement stability performance (Outcome 17) declined substantially for those cases reviewed for Period 19 and rebounded from that decline in Period 20. The rebound is a good sign, however this area remains a concern and will continue to be the subject of a great deal of focus from the MTAT going forward. It is possible that decline in movement in Period 20 may have been associated with the placement of some youth in the “Welcome House” which was an alternative to hotels that opened in the period. While that might have mitigated some movement associated with hotels stays, that option was neither a permanent solution to a pressing placement problem, nor is it still operational. With the removal of that option and in advance of a more effective longterm solution we may see an uptick in instability in the next period. However, the message from leadership is clear -- expanding the service array to depend more on relative caregivers and to better match a child/youth to a placement is top priority. MTAT expects to continue to work with state, regional, and county leadership as they develop and implement strategies that will improve placement options for children and youth and therefore reduce placement disruptions.
Infrastructure
During Period 20, the approval and/or licensure status (Outcome 25) of relative foster homes continues to be problematic. One of the State’s key initiatives moving forward is to place children with relatives whenever possible and appropriate. Thus, emphasis on approval/licensing these placements is critical.
Caseworker caseloads is a second area that poses regular challenges, and showed some notable dips in Period 20. Most significantly, the proportion of permanency workers assigned the appropriate number of cases declined drastically to a new and concerning low of 27 percent. The proportion of CPS caseworkers and adoptions caseworkers with the specified caseload also dropped notably in the period, although permanency worker caseloads moved significantly in the right direction. Taken together, this performance underscores the stress the workforce is under, and more than justifies leadership focus on workforce health as a core reform priority.
Taken together, the Period 20 reports suggest that Fulton and DeKalb county leadership – along with state leaders – continued to contend with mounting system pressures. The results indicate that their efforts to maintain progress – or even hold steady – on safety, permanency, and wellbeing outcomes were mixed. There was continued strength and improvement on measures related to child safety. This shows the appropriate attention to matters requiring urgent and
32

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 34 of 118 immediate attention. However, to develop and maintain whole system functioning, there is a clear need to focus those elements of practice and casework that required sustained effort and attention to see a case through to a safe and permanent conclusion. As the State further clarifies and begins to install the system reforms that will be implemented as part of the Blueprint for Change, there is opportunity to reverse the decline in those areas that dipped, and to continue to build on existing strengths. The chart beginning on the next page summarizes progress over the last three periods on the Kenny A. outcomes.
33

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 35 of 118

Kenny A. Outcomes: Recent Progress as of December 31, 2015

Safety Outcomes Children in Foster Care are Safe From Maltreatment in Care
Outcome 1: At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report. Outcome 2: At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report. Outcome 3: At least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face-toface, private contact with the alleged victim, including face-to-face contact with a child who is non-verbal due to age or for any other reason. Outcome 5: No more than 0.57% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. Outcome 6: 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months. Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections Outcome 7: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care. Outcome 16: At least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. Outcome 19: 90% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b (ii) and (iii). Outcome 21: At least 85% of all children with the goal of reunification shall have appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification

Period 18 Performance
90% 88%
90% 0.72% 99%
97% 59% 97% 85%

Period 19 Performance

Period 20 Performance

90%

92%

93%

99%

89% 1.16% 98%

90% .45% 99%

96%

86%

56%

68%

91%

97%

80%

83%

34

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 36 of 118

Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2015

Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections Outcome 23: At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling-group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.32 Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 4: No more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 8b: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entry: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, or shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less after entering: adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship. Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 month backlog pool”): For all children remaining in the 24 month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 40% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.

Period 18 Performance
92%
10.6 % 58%
65%
16.7%

Period 19 Performance
84%
8.3% 58%
65%
0%33

Period 20 Performance
85%
12.8% 58%
65%
0%34

32 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 23 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 33 Only three children remain in the Outcome 9 cohort at the end of Period 19. 34 Only three children remain in the Outcome 9 cohort at the end of Period 20.
35

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 37 of 118

Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2015

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree: For all children remaining in the over 24 month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 35% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 11: For all children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.

Period 18 Performance
0%
81%
94% One Time Measure Taken in Period I
30% One Time Measure Taken in Period I37
0%
96%

Period 19 Performance
0%35
56% N/A
N/A 0% 91%

Period 20 Performance
0%36
76% N/A
N/A 0% 91%

35 Only two children remain in the OM10 cohort at the end of Period 19. 36 Only two children remain in the OM10 cohort at the end of Period 20. 37 The children to whom this outcome applied have recruitment plans. Those who have been discharged since Period I have been included in the Outcome 9 and 10 results.
36

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 38 of 118

Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2015

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 27: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review. Outcome 28: At least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing. Well-Being Outcomes Children Experience Stability and Worker Continuity Outcome 17: At least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 18: At least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave. Outcome 20a: At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of twice-monthly face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur. 38 Outcome 20b: At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur 39

Period 18 Performance
95%
97%
90% 93% 97% 98%

Period 19 Performance
89%
92%
77% 91% 96% 97%

Period 20 Performance
92%
92%
87% 86% 95% 98%

38As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 20 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 39 Ibid.
37

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 39 of 118

Well-Being Outcomes Children Experience Stability and Worker Continuity Outcome 22: At least 95% of the total minimum required monthly visits by case managers to caregivers during the reporting period occur.40 Well-Being Outcomes Children and Youth Receive Services They Need Outcome 24: The percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 20 percentage points (baseline is 36%). Outcome 30: At least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan. Strengthened Infrastructure Outcomes Effective Oversight of Placement Settings Outcome 25: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status.41 Outcome 26: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Outcome 31: No more than 10% of all foster family home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.42

Period 18 Performance
95%
40% 69%
98% 100%
3%

Period 19 Performance
94%

Period 20 Performance
94%

Only Reported Once a Year

42%

77%

77%

96%

96%

100%

98%

1.4%

.6%

40 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 22 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 41 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the methodology for Outcome 25 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 42 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the methodology for Outcome 31 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
38

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 40 of 118
PART THREE - SAFETY
Principle four of the Consent Decree asserts, “the State has primary responsibility for the care and protection of the children who enter the foster care system.”43 As a result, several Consent Decree outcomes and requirements focus attention on the safety of children in the custody of the State (DHS/DFCS). The following sections report on the State’s progress in the areas related to maltreatment of children in foster care and the State’s process for investigating such allegations (Outcomes 5, 1, 2,3, and 6).
Based on current DFCS policy 5.19, special investigations are required, among several criteria, when a child is in DFCS custody and any person has allegedly maltreated that child, including a DFCS or Child Placing Agency (CPA) foster or adoptive parent, approved relative or non-relative caregiver, Child Caring Institution (CCI) staff and other placement resources for children in DFCS custody.
Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment
Outcome 1 - Maltreatment-in-care Investigations Commenced Within 24 Hours of Receipt of Report.
The Consent Decree states, “at least 95 percent of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report.” For Period 20, the Accountability Agent and Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) have relied on Chapter Five, Investigations, in the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services Child Welfare Policy Manual for current policy expectations related to special investigations of maltreatment in care.
The investigation process must include an interview and observation that is private and alone with each alleged victim child within the immediate, 24-hour response time to assess for child safety.44
Outcome 1 relates to the timeframe in which an investigation of suspected maltreatment of a foster child has commenced. The unit of analysis is the investigation itself, which may involve multiple alleged child victims.
43 See p. 4, Principle 4, of the Consent Decree. 44 DFCS Policy 5.21 Conducting Special Investigations in Relative or Non-Relative Placements, DFCS Policy 5.22 Conducting Special Investigations in Residential and Non-Residential Facilities
39

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 41 of 118
State Performance x The State Failed to Meet the Outcome Measure 1 Threshold.
During Period 20, 92 percent (79 of 86) of applicable investigations of maltreatment in care included face-to-face contacts made with at least one alleged victim within 24 hours.45 Of the seven investigations not commenced within 24 hours, three of them were the responsibility of DeKalb and Fulton counties; the remaining ones fell to the Perimeter counties. In two of these investigations the alleged victim children were seen and removed from the placement setting before or at the time of the allegation. Although these cases did not meet the consent decree standard for Outcome 1, these children were protected from the alleged harm in that particular placement setting.
The reasons for not getting full credit for commencing these investigations varied. Some CPS investigators met the 24-hour response time, but did not interview the alleged victim children privately and separately or did not see them undressed as required for alleged physical abuse or for a possible injury related to a neglect allegation.46 There were delays in sending referrals for investigations on the part of the CPS Intake Communications Center (CICC) in two investigations that did not meet response times. In one investigation, law enforcement did not assess the safety of the child victim and asked DFCS to do it, which did happen, but not by a CPS investigator.
This is according to file review data of all 88 maltreatment investigations completed during the Period. In these investigations, at least one victim child must be seen by a Child Protective Services (CPS) investigator or police to meet this 24-hour requirement. Other case managers do not count unless these persons have been certified as CPS investigators.
Summary data are displayed in the chart below from Period 20.
45 Two investigations were removed from numerator and denominator because the alleged victim children were on runaway status and could not be interviewed. 46 DFCS Policy on conducting investigations requires investigators to see infants under the age of one undressed to see if there are any physical signs of maltreatment. Any child 4 years of age or younger and the subject of physical abuse allegations must be seen undressed or to identify any injuries related to neglect allegations.
40

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 42 of 118

Outcome 1 – Commencement of Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations N=86

Investigating County

Commenced

Within 24 Hours

Number of

Percent

Investigations of Total

Not Commenced

Within 24 Hours

Number of

Percent

Investigations

of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

51

94%

3

6%

Perimeter Counties

27

87%

4

13%

State Special

Investigations

1

100%

0

0%

Unit47

Total

79

92%

7

8%

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, July to December, 2015.

Total
Number of Investigations

Percent of Total

54

100%

31

100%

1

100%

86

100%

This is similar to the Period 19 performance of 90 percent, and marks the ninth consecutive period in which the State failed to meet the required threshold. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 1 Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations Commenced Within 24 Hours of Receipt of Report

Percent of Investigations
100% 99% 100%
90%

93%

94%

93% 91%

90%

84%

85%

90%

90%

92%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥95%Goal: ≥95%Goal: ≥95%Goal: ≥95%Goal: ≥95%Goal: ≥95%Goal: ≥95%Goal: ≥95%Goal: ≥95%Goal: ≥95%Goal: ≥95%Goal: ≥95%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, January 2010 to December 2015.

47 Allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit rather than a local DFCS office. During this period, some SSIU staff persons were deployed to assist other regions. In addition, the unit also experienced terminations and resignations.
41

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 43 of 118
Outcome 2 - Maltreatment-in-care Investigations Completed Within 30 Days of Report Receipt. Outcome 2 relates to the length of time it takes to complete such investigations. The Consent Decree requires that “at least 95 percent of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report. For this Period, the Accountability Agent and MTAT have relied on Chapter Five, Investigations, in the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services Child Welfare Policy Manual for current policy expectations related to special investigations of maltreatment in care. Special investigations must be completed within 30 calendar days of receipt of an intake report to assess the allegations of abuse or neglect, determine if the child is safe, take action to protect a child who is determined to be unsafe and determine if the allegations should be substantiated or unsubstantiated.48 State Performance
x The State Surpassed the Outcome Measure 2 Threshold.
According to the record review data, the State completed 99 percent of maltreatment-in-care investigations (87 of 88) within 30 days during Period 20. This is an improvement from the Period 19 rate of 93 percent, and is the first time since the start of the consent decree that the State met and exceeded this outcome measure threshold. The graph below displays the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.
48 DFCS Policy 5.21 Conducting Special Investigations in Relative or Non-Relative Placements, DFCS Policy 5.22 Conducting Special Investigations in Residential and Non-Residential Facilities
42

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 44 of 118

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 2 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations Completed Within 30 Days of Report Receipt

Perecent of Investigations 100% 90%

82%

81%

99%

85%

93%

91%

88%

93%

80%

77%

75%

73%

70%

60%

55%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, January 2010 to December 2015.

During Period 20, performance demonstrates (99%) continued improvement from Period 18 performance (88%) and Period 19 performance (93%). The number of investigations of maltreatment in care dropped significantly (116 to 88) from Period 19 to 20. The chart below displays the Period 20 performance of DeKalb and Fulton counties, and the perimeter counties.

Outcome 2 – Timely Investigations N=88

Investigating County

Completed in ≤ 30 Days

Number

% of Total

Completed in ≤ 45 Days

Number

% of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

56

100%

56

100%

Perimeter Counties

30

97%

31

100%

State Special

Investigations

1

100%

1

100%

Unit49

Total

87

99%

88

100%

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, July to December, 2015.

Total

Number

% of Total

56

100%

31

100%

1

100%

88

100%

49 Allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit rather than a local DFCS office. During this period, some SSIU staff was deployed to assist other regions. In addition, the unit also experienced terminations and resignations.
43

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 45 of 118
Outcome 3 - Maltreatment-in-care Investigations with Timely Face-to-Face Private Contact All Alleged Victims. Outcome 3 relates to the frequency with which such investigations include face-to-face contact with each alleged victim within 24 hours. The Consent Decree requires that “At least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face-to-face, private contact with the alleged victim, including face-to-face contact with a child who is non-verbal due to age or for any other reason.”
The investigation process must include an interview and observation that is private and alone with each alleged victim child within the immediate 24-hour response time to assess for child safety.50
CPS investigators must see infants under the age of one undressed to see if there are any physical signs of maltreatment. Any child 4 years of age or younger and the subject of physical abuse allegations must be seen undressed or to identify any injuries related to neglect allegations.51 State Performance
x The State Failed to Meet the Outcome Measure 3 Threshold. According to record review data from all investigations completed during Period 20, 90 percent of the alleged victims of maltreatment in care (102 out of 113) had face-to-face, private contact with a CPS investigator within 24 hours.
This performance is the same as Period 19. Performance remains well below the Outcome 3 performance standard of 99 percent. The graph below illustrates the State’s performance on Outcome 3 for the last 12 reporting periods.
50 DFCS Policy 5.21 Conducting Special Investigations in Relative or Non-Relative Placements, DFCS Policy 5.22 Conducting Special Investigations in Residential and Non-Residential Facilities 51 Ibid.
44

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 46 of 118

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 3 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations with Timely Face-to-Face Private Contact
with All Alleged Victims

Percent of Child9r9e%n 100% 90% 80%

99%

93%

93%

91%

88%

88%

84%

80%

90%

89%

90%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, January 2010 – December 2015.
Eleven alleged victim children did not have face-to-face, private contact within 24 hours; seven of them were not seen within 24 hours and four of them were seen but the investigator did not follow policy when interviewing the alleged victim child. Five of these alleged victim children were in cases investigated by DeKalb and Fulton counties, six of them were in cases investigated by perimeter counties or SSIU. It is also important to note that of the 11 alleged victim children for whom the response time was missed, eight were removed from the placement setting in which the maltreatment was alleged to have occurred within 24 hours, but were not interviewed within that timeframe.

In the cases investigated by perimeter counties, a CPS case manager made private, face-to-face contact within 24 hours with 34 out of 40 (85%) percent of the alleged victims, a decline from the Period 19 performance of 88 percent. DeKalb and Fulton Counties’ Outcome 3 performance of 67 out of 72 (93%) was an improvement from their Period 19 performance of 89 percent. Displayed in the charts below are additional Outcome 3 data for Period 20.

45

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 47 of 118

Outcome 3 – Face-to-Face Contact with Alleged Maltreatment Victims within 24 Hours

N=113

Investigating County

CPS Contact Within 24 Hours
Alleged Percent

Removed Prior To or Within 24 Hours of
Report Alleged Percent

No CPS Contact Within 24 Hours
Alleged Percent

Total Alleged Percent

Victims of Total Victims of Total Victims of Total Victims of Total

DeKalb/Fulton
Perimeter Counties
State Special Investigations Unit52

67

93%

34

85%

1

100%

4

4%

4

10%

0

0%

1

1%

2

5%

0

0%

72

100%

40

100%

1

100%

Total

102

90%

8

7%

3

3%

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, July to December 2015.

113

100%

For the seven alleged victim children not seen at all within 24 hours, the factors contributing to delayed initial contact varied. During Period 20, a lack of documentation affected progress on outcomes 1 and 3, while a delayed referral by a placement case manager also greatly affected Outcome 3. The chart below reflects this data.

52 Allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit rather than a local DFCS office. During this period, some SSIU staff was deployed to assist other regions. In addition, the unit also experienced terminations and resignations.
46

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 48 of 118

Documented Factors Contributing to Delayed Initial Contact with Alleged Victims53

Factors Contributing to Delayed Initial
Contact
Delayed Reversal of Screen-out Decision Delayed Referral by Placement Case Manager Delayed Assignment to Investigator Worker Making Contact Not CPS Certified CICC Failed to Properly Record and Disposition Intake No Documented Reason

Period 18 7/1/2014 – 12/31/2014 Centralized Intake (CICC)

Period 19 1/1/2015 – 6/30/2015 Centralized Intake (CICC)

OM 1
0 2

OM 3 0
3

OM 1 1
2

OM 3 1
2

3

3

1

1

1

1

5

5

1

1

0

0

1

2

3

8

Period 20 7/1/2015 – 12/31/2015 Centralized Intake
(CICC)

OM 1

OM 3

1

1

0

3

0

0

1

1

1

1

2

1

Total

8

10

12

17

5

7

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, July 2014 to December 2015.

53 The differing counts for Outcomes 1 and 3 reflect the different units of analysis for these outcomes; for Outcome 1 it is the investigation, for Outcome 3 it is the alleged victim.
47

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 49 of 118

Proportion of Investigations Meeting Policy Requirements (N shown is for Period 20 cases and varies based on placement setting and other case characteristics)

Investigation Policy Requirement
Alleged maltreator was interviewed separately (N=86)
Investigator saw/interviewed every alleged maltreated child separately (N=88) Continued safety of the child(ren) placed in the home was adequately evaluated and assessed (N=43)

Percent of Applicable Files with

Documentation of Compliance

Period 19

Period 20

95%

90%

99%

95%

95%

93%

Investigator reviewed the DFCS history of the foster parent/caregiver (N=59)

100%

95%

All approved foster parents/caregivers interviewed separately

(N=88)

97%

89%

DFCS case managers required to visit in this foster care setting

were contacted (N=88)

91%

91%

All other adults frequently in the home interviewed separately

(N=20)

87%

80%

Investigator reviewed previous CPS reports for foster parents/caregivers (N=59)

90%

81%

At least two relevant collateral sources contacted during the

investigation (N=75)

91%

80%

Investigator saw/interviewed each of the other children (nonalleged victims) separately (N=58)

90%

83%

Case record contains physical evidence to support case documentation (N=57)

77%

81%

Source: Case File review of all Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, January to December, 2015

At the conclusion of maltreatment-in-care investigations, DFCS policy requires counties to send an “Administrative Packet” detailing the incident and findings to the Social Services Director within 10 days. If the incident occurred in a provider-supervised foster care setting, an investigative summary must also be sent to Residential Child Care (RCC) and Office of Provider Management (OPM).

Likewise, Section 12.B. of the Consent Decree requires all reports of suspected abuse or neglect of foster children in institutional, group, residential, or private provider-supervised foster family home settings to be referred to and reviewed by Residential Child Care (RCC) and the Office of Provider Management (OPM).54 The purpose of the review specified in the Consent Decree is “…to determine whether a pattern of abuse or neglect exists within… [the provider agency] ….

54 RCC licenses child placing agencies (CPA), child caring institutions (CCI), and outdoor therapeutic programs (OTP). OPM approves CPAs, CCIs, and OTPs wishing to serve DFCS children once they have been licensed by RCC.
48

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 50 of 118

that contributed to the abuse or neglect; whether the contract should be terminated; whether particular homes or facilities should be closed….”55

To assess compliance with these provisions, the Accountability Agent collects data directly from RCC, OPM, and the DFCS Policy Unit to ascertain which maltreatment investigations involving foster children were reported to each office.

The policy unit was notified of most (98%) but not all of the investigations of maltreatment-incare during Period 20.

Policy Unit Notification of Period 20 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations N=88

Investigating

Total Investigations

Notified

Not Notified

County

Number

Number

% of Total

Number

% of Total

DeKalb

31

31

100%

Fulton

26

26

100%

Bibb

1

0

0%

1

100%

Cherokee

1

1

100%

Clayton

4

4

100%

Cobb

5

4

80%

1

20%

Douglas

2

2

100%

Fayette

2

2

100%

Glynn

1

1

100%

Gwinnett

5

5

100%

Henry

2

2

100%

Newton

1

1

100%

Richmond

2

2

100%

Rockdale

3

3

100%

Taylor

1

1

100%

Total

88

86

98%

2

2%

Source: Survey of Notification of CPS Investigations in Foster Care Settings, July 1 – December 31, 2015.

The Residential Child Care (RCC) Unit must be notified of all investigations of maltreatment-incare in which the child is placed in a provider supervised foster care settings, including private agency supervised foster homes and child caring institutions. The alleged maltreator could have been anyone. DeKalb County completed the largest number of maltreatment-in-care investigations in provider supervised settings at 13 with 11 (85%) being reported to RCC. Fulton County completed nine maltreatment-in-care investigations with six (67%) being reported to RCC. Twelve perimeter counties accounted for the remaining 22 such investigations. These twelve perimeter counties reported all 22 of the investigations conducted to RCC.

55 See Section 12 B, p. 28 of the Consent Decree.
49

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 51 of 118

Residential Child Care Notification of Period 20 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations
N=4456

Investigating County

Total Investigations Number

Notified Number

% of Total

Not Notified Number

DeKalb

13

11

85%

2

Fulton

9

6

67%

3

Cherokee

1

1

100%

Clayton

3

3

100%

Cobb

2

2

100%

Fayette

2

2

100%

Glynn

1

1

100%

Gwinnett

4

4

100%

Henry

2

2

100%

Newton

1

1

100%

Paulding

1

1

100%

Richmond

2

2

100%

Rockdale

2

2

100%

Taylor

1

1

100%

Total

48

39

89%

5

Source: Survey of Notification of CPS Investigations in Foster Care Settings, July 1 – December 31, 2015.

% of Total 15% 33%
11%

The Office of Provider Management (OPM) Unit must be notified of all investigations of maltreatment-in-care in which the child is placed in provider supervised foster care settings operating under DFCS contracts, including private agency supervised foster homes and child caring institutions. The alleged maltreator could have been anyone. DeKalb County completed the largest number of maltreatment-in-care investigations in provider supervised settings at 12 with all 12 (100%) being reported to OPM. Fulton County completed nine maltreatment-in-care investigations with all nine (100%) being reported to OPM. Eleven perimeter counties accounted for the remaining 17 such investigations. These eleven perimeter counties reported all 17 of the investigations conducted to OPM.

56 There was a total of 56 investigations that involved children placed in provider supervised settings, but twelve of them fell outside the jurisdiction of RCC and thus were excluded from the RCC tabulations. In five cases, the alleged maltreatment occurred in a Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) which operate under contract to the Department of Behavioral Health and Disabilities and are regulated by the Department of Community Health, Healthcare Facility Regulation Division. In seven cases, the maltreatment occurred outside the placement setting (during a home visit or a relative visit (3), at a camp (2), and at a school/daycare (2)) and, as such, the investigation was not required to be reported to RCC.
50

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 52 of 118

Office of Provider Management Notification of Period 19 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations
N=38 57

Investigating County

Total Investigations Number

Notified Number

% of Total

Not Notified Number

DeKalb

12

12

100%

Fulton

9

9

100%

Cherokee

1

1

100%

Clayton

1

1

100%

Cobb

2

2

100%

Fayette

2

2

100%

Glynn

1

1

100%

Gwinnett

3

3

100%

Henry

2

2

100%

Newton

1

1

100%

Paulding

1

1

100%

Richmond

1

1

100%

Rockdale

2

2

100%

Total

38

38

100%

Source: Survey of Notification of CPS Investigations in Foster Care Settings, July 1 – December 31, 2015.

% of Total

Outcome 5 – Maltreatment in Foster Care
Measurement of Outcome 5 uses the federal definition as it existed in 2005: “Of all children in foster care in the State during the period under review, 0.57 percent or fewer were the subject of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member."58
The data used to measure the outcome performance derive from a review of all 88 investigations of alleged maltreatment concerning 115 class member children in foster care in DeKalb and Fulton counties conducted during Period 20. There were 2,004 children and youth in foster care

57There was a total of 56 investigations involving children placed in provider supervised settings, but 18 of these fell outside the jurisdiction of OPM and thus were excluded from the OPM tabulations presented in this table. In five cases, the alleged maltreatment occurred in Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities (PRTFs) which operate under contract with the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities and are regulated by the Department of Community Health, Healthcare Facility Regulation Division. In seven cases, the maltreatment occurred outside the placement setting (during a home visit or a relative visit (3), at a camp (2), and at a school/daycare (2)) and, as such, the investigation was not required to be reported to OPM. In six cases, OPM did not monitor or did not have a contract with the agency. 58 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families: Updated National Standards for the Child and Family Service Reviews and Guidance on Program Improvement Plans. Information Memorandum ACYF-CB-IM-01-07, August 16, 2003. That standard was later revised to .32, or 99.68 children should be free from maltreatment while in care.
51

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 53 of 118
in DeKalb and Fulton counties at any time during the Period, which is the denominator for this outcome measure. The numerator for this measure is the number of substantiated victim children who were maltreated by a foster parent or facility staff person, which was the federal definition for this measure in 2005 at the time parties entered into the current Consent Decree. Excluded from this numerator are substantiations of maltreatment when the perpetrator is unknown, a birth parent, or relative caregivers or fictive kin who are not approved foster parents in Georgia, other members of the child’s household and other child caring staff persons such as daycare providers, school teachers. In Period 20, there were 27 substantiated victim children in DeKalb and Fulton counties, nine (9) of them were maltreated by a foster parent or facility staff person.
State Performance in Period 20 x The State Surpassed the Outcome 5 Threshold
Of the 2,004 children and youth in foster care at any point in time during the Period, there were eight (8) investigations that resulted in there being nine (9) victims of substantiated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff person. These nine (9) victims, represent less than one (0.45%) percent of the population of children and youth in foster care during the Period. This is a marked improvement from Period 19 performance of 1.16 percent. This represents a decrease from 22 to nine children. Unlike Period 19 where several of the cases involved placements with two or more victims, only one of these cases involved two victims. The graph below displays the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.
52

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 54 of 118

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 5 Maltreatment in Care
Percent of Children
1.20%

1.16%

1.00%

0.80% 0.60% 0.40%

0.63%

0.41% 0.42%

0.58%

0.58%

0.74%

0.68%

0.48%

0.63%

0.72%

0.45%

0.20%

0.00%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% ≤0.57%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, July to December 2015.

The types of maltreatment substantiated for these nine children consisted of the following: inadequate supervision (4 children); inadequate food, clothing and shelter (2 children); emotional abuse (1); sexual abuse and inadequate supervision (1 child) and physical abuse (1 child). Private provider-supervised foster homes accounted for three (33%) of these cases. There were five (56%) substantiated victims being cared for in Child Caring Institutions (CCIs). The other case involved a Primary Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF).
Among the substantiated cases of maltreatment, the following were particularly noteworthy:
x An allegation of abuse was made against the foster parents after one of the victim children disclosed he and another child in the home were not being properly fed, made to stand for extended periods of time and made to write an extensive number of sentences as a form of punishment. Both of these children in the home were removed.
x Allegations of neglect (N03-inadequate supervision) and abuse (S02-fondling) were made against two Primary Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) staff members after three female residents disclosed they were being touched in sexually inappropriate manners. During the course of the investigation several children (victim and non-victim) and staff members were interviewed and the investigation was substantiated against one of the alleged maltreators. According to a documented interview with the Director, one individual was terminated (the employee the allegation was substantiated against) and

46

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 55 of 118
the other would not have direct contact with the clients and would receive additional training and coaching.
Although not included in the measure’s calculations, there were 18 other children from DeKalb and Fulton counties substantiated for being maltreated in foster care. Some of these children were maltreated by biological parents while visiting them, two of these were supervised and one was not. One was maltreated while visiting family members, another by a staff person at school. Two were maltreated by a biological parent’s paramour when placed at home. The majority (10) of them are children who were maltreated by relatives in whose care they had been placed.
Outcome 6 – Corporal Punishment.
The Consent Decree prohibits the use of corporal punishment for children and youth in foster care and contains certain requirements for assessing allegations of corporal punishment.59 The following section summarizes the extent to which DFCS met these agreed upon standards in Period 20.
Outcome 6 seeks to protect children in foster care from experiencing corporal punishment, which the Consent Decree defines as “…any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain.”60 The Consent Decree requires that by the end of Period 4, 98 percent of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.
State Performance
x The State Exceeded the Outcome Measure 6 Threshold. During Period 20, there were four allegations of corporal punishment of children in foster care and all four allegations were investigated by CPS. Three allegations were unsubstantiated and one was substantiated. In total, 81 of 82 foster homes sampled (99%) had no confirmed incidents of corporal punishment in the previous 12 months, thus meeting the Consent Decree standard. This was similar to the Period 19 rate of 98 percent.
59 See pages 29 and 30, Section 12.C of the Consent Decree 60 See p. 2 of the Consent Decree.
47

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 56 of 118

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 6: Absence of Corporal Punishment in Foster Homes

Percent of Foster

Homes 100.0% 100% 100% 99%

98%

99% 100% 100% 100% 96% 99%

98%

99%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%
Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, January 2010 to December 2015.
a. Awareness of Corporal Punishment Prohibition
All placement settings are to prohibit the use of corporal punishment. In all but one of the 82 (99%) foster homes sampled, there was a signed statement by the foster parents or caregivers or other evidence in the file that: 1) they were told about the DFCS corporal punishment policies, and 2) that they agreed not to use corporal punishment.
b. Enforcement of Corporal Punishment Prohibition
Enforcement of the corporal punishment prohibition in DFCS-supervised foster homes is carried out by the county DFCS offices.
The Residential Child Care (RCC) Licensing section monitors, inspects, and licenses Child Caring Institutions, Child Placing Agencies, Outdoor Child Caring Programs, Children’s Transitional Care Centers, Runway Homeless Youth Program and Maternity Homes. RCC requires Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) and Child Caring Institutions (CCIs) to have written policies prohibiting the use of corporal punishment as a condition of licensure.
The Office of Provider Management (OPM) is responsible for contracting with Child Caring Institutions (CCIs) and Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) for the provision of room, board and watchful oversight services. A CCI provides room, board and watchful oversight to six or more children through 18 years of age (21 if the young person has chosen to remain in foster care). The child or youth is generally placed with six or more in a residential setting, such as a group

48

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 57 of 118
home, on a campus or a self-contained facility. Independent Living (IL) and Transitional Living Programs (TLPs) are managed by CCIs. CPAs are child welfare agencies that place children in foster homes and resource homes for temporary care, supervision and oversight. These agencies are responsible for making sure the foster home is appropriate and able to meet the needs of the individual child or youth. There are 12 types of Room, Board, Watchful Oversight (RWBO) care that can be provided within CCIs or CPAs designed to meet more moderate needs of children and youth to the most acute.
Based on a core belief that children and youth served by these providers should be safe from abuse and neglect, exit to permanency and have their well-being needs met, OPM implemented a performance based placement system in 2010.
Specific to corporal punishment and part of the performance based placement system, CCIs, CPAs, Independent Living and Transitional Living Programs are given credit for:
x maintaining low percentages of children and youth involved in an incident that has been investigated and substantiated by CPS while in their care; and
x managing behavior in ways that do not re-traumatize children and youth.
OPM relies on onsite case record reviews, collateral contacts, and self-reported data from providers that has been validated to some extent to make sure that these providers are meeting contractual obligations.
c. Screening and Assessment of Corporal Punishment Allegations
Parties reached agreement in 2005 on several processes to be used when a report of suspected corporal punishment of a child in DFCS custody is received. 61 Safeguards are in place to ensure that allegations are screened immediately by persons who have been trained in the relevant issues – including child protective services – and do not also have responsibility for the recruitment or selection of foster parents, adoptive parents, relative caregivers or other placement providers. If there is reasonable cause to believe that abuse or neglect has occurred, the report of corporal punishment must be handled as an abuse and neglect referral. All reports of corporal punishment in child caring institutions shall be treated as abuse and neglect referrals. There are also specific provisions for reports of corporal punishment that do not result in abuse or neglect referrals and instead are assessed as policy violations. Based in part on concerns raised in Period 18 about a new Chapter 15 policy allowing CPAs and CCIs to conduct their own policy violation assessment, including when there are allegations of corporal punishment, leaders in DeKalb and Fulton counties and other DFCS state office persons
61 See pages 29 and 30, Section 12.C.1 – 3 of the Consent Decree
49

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 58 of 118 outlined a process for assessing corporal punishment as a policy violation in a manner they believed would: 1) keep children and youth in foster care safe and protected from harm; 2) exceed statewide policy expectations; and 3) occur for every allegation of corporal punishment being assessed as a policy violation and not being investigated as an abuse of neglect referral. The Accountability Agent agreed to monitor the utilization and efficacy of this process. To do so, the Accountability Agent and the MTAT worked with the case review team and GSU to modify the case review instruments to assess the extent to which the new policy violations process met these expectations in Period 20. Here is what was found through the Period 20 review of 82 randomly selected foster homes. There were four referrals of alleged corporal punishment. All of these were made to the Child Protective Services Intake Communications Center (CICC) and all of them were screened in for a CPS investigation. The one substantiation of corporal punishment resulted in a foster home closure.
50

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 59 of 118
PART FOUR - PERMANENCY
Several of the Consent Decree outcomes and practice requirements focus on various components of achieving permanency for children. This part reports on the State’s progress in the areas related to children in DFCS custody maintaining their family connections and safely returning home or achieving permanency with new families.
Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
Outcome 7 – Diligent Search Outcome Measure 7 in the Consent Decree requires case managers to conduct and document a diligent search for parents and relatives within 60 days of entry for at least 95 percent of the children. The outcome requirement for undertaking a diligent search within 60 days was deemed to have been satisfied if one of the following conditions was met:
x The child was placed with a relative within 60 days after entering custody; or, x A court order stated that the diligent search had been properly and timely submitted to
the court; or, x There were documented search efforts that included the following: interviewing
children62 about adults in their lives or someone with whom they would want to live and interviewing one or more family members or family friends within 60 days and, when resources were identified, contacting or attempting to contact them.
State Performance x The State did not meet the Outcome 7 Measure Threshold During Period 20, the counties documented diligent search efforts in 19 out of 22 (86%) of the cases reviewed. Due to the small sample size, performance for this measure is highly variable. The chart below displays additional information about the State’s documented diligent search efforts, followed by a graph displaying the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.
62 If the child was aged 3 or younger, the record review did not seek to determine if the child was interviewed.
51

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 60 of 118

Diligent Search Actions Undertaken N=22
Actions Children placed with a family resource within 60 days of entering custody Court order documented that the diligent search was “properly and timely” submitted Evidence of interviews with child and child’s family and others within first 60 days and contact made with one or more possible resource, as applicable Subtotal for Outcome Measurement Insufficient search activities in first 60 days: no documented interviews of children to gather information about relatives and significant others (children ranged in age from 5 to 17) Total Source: Case Record Review, July 1– December 31, 2015.

Number 8 6 5 19
3
22

Percent 36% 27% 23% 86%
14%
100%

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 7 Diligent Searches Undertaken Within 60 Days

Percent of Children

110% 100%

93%

94% 95% 96% 96% 97% 100% 97% 96% 86%

90% 80% 73%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Goal:≥70%

Goal:≥95%

Goal:≥95%

Goal:≥95%

Goal:≥95%

Goal:≥95%

Period 2 (DecemberPeriod 6 (December Period 10

Period 14

Period 17 (June Period 19 (June

2006)

2008)

(December 2010) (December 2012)

2014)

2015)

Source: Case Record Reviews

Outcome 16 – Sibling Placement.
At least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. State Performance
x The State Failed to Meet the Required Threshold for Outcome 16.

52

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 61 of 118

During Period 20, the State's performance increased to 68 percent but was still below the threshold. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 16 All Siblings Placed Together in Foster Care

Percent of Children

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

84%

94%

74%

74% 81%

76% 66%

71%

57%

59%

56%

68%

40%

30% 20%

10%

0%

Goal: ≥80%

Goal: ≥80%

Goal: ≥80%

Goal: ≥80%

Goal: ≥80%

Goal: ≥80%

Goal: ≥80%

Goal: ≥80%

Goal: ≥80%

Goal: ≥80%

Goal: ≥80%

Goal: ≥80%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data

Outcome 19 – Placement Proximity

Outcome 19 requires the State to place at least 90 percent of children in foster care within the same county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed.63 The Consent Decree allows for the following exceptions:
x Children with needs so exceptional that they cannot be met by family; x Children placed with relatives through ICPC; x Children is in an adoptive placement; and x Children placed with parent/guardian.

State Performance

x The State Surpassed the Outcome 19 Threshold.

During Period 20, out of the 91 children in the sample, the State placed 42 children (46%) within their home county; 42 children (46%) within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were

63 See p. 35, Outcome 19, of the Consent Decree.

53

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 62 of 118

removed; five children (5%) had exceptional needs that required placement further away; and three children (3%) were not placed in proximity to their homes of removal. Thus, the State’s performance for Period 20 was 97 percent. This data is displayed in the pie chart below, followed by a graph depicting the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.

Child Placement Proximity to Home of Removal N=91

Exceptional need
placement/ Accepted reason for distance
5%

No reason/other reason for not
meeting standard
3%

Within 50 miles 46%

In County 46%

Source: Foster Care Case Record Review for July to December, 2015.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 19 Placement Proximity

Percent of Children

100% 95%

99%

99%

98%

97%

95%

95%

95%

97%

93%

91%

97%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews January 2010 – December 2015.

54

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 63 of 118

Outcome 21 – Parent Child Visitation

At least 85% of all children with the goal of reunification shall have appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification.
State Performance
x The State Failed to Meet the Outcome 21 Threshold.
During Period 20, the State's performance increased to 83 percent but is still below the threshold. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 21 Parent Child Visitation

Percent of Children 100% 90% 87%
80%

88%

89%

86%

90%

95%

93%

92%

94%

85%

80%

83%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data
Outcome 23 – Sibling Visitation

At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling-group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.

55

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 64 of 118

State Performance

x The State Failed to Meet the Required Threshold for Outcome 23.

The Period 20 performance of 85% is similar to the P19 performance (84%) and is the second consecutive period that this measure has not been met. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.

Eleven Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 23

Sibling Visitation

Percent of Required Visits

100% 92%

95%

94%

95%

95%

96%

94%

94%

92%

84%

85%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data

Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 4 – Re-Entry into Custody.
No more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. State Performance
x The State Failed to Meet the Threshold Requirement for Outcome 4.
56

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 65 of 118

The State’s performance in Period 20 (12.8%) is the highest rate since the beginning of the consent decree. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 4 Re-entry into Care

Percent of Chidren

14.0%

12.8%

12.0% 10.0%
8.0%

11.1% 9.6%

8.6%

8.7%

9.7% 9.40% 8.8%

10.5% 10.6% 9.4%
8.3%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%
Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data
Outcome 8a and 8b – Permanency Exits for Children Who Entered Care On or After October 21, 2005.
8a - Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.
The State’s Period 20 performance of 58 percent exceeds the required threshold. The State has consistently exceeded this outcome.
8b - Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entry: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, or shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less after entering: adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship.

57

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 66 of 118

The Period 20 performance of 65% percent did not meet the required threshold. The State has never met this Consent Decree requirement but has generally trended in a positive direction.
Outcome 8 Children Entering DFCS Custody on or after October 27, 2005
Who Exited to Permanency by June 30, 2015

Number of children in cohort Exits as of June 30, 2015
Reunification within 12 months Permanent Placement with Relatives within 12 months (still in state custody) Permanent Legal Custody within 12 months (custody transferred from DFCS) Permanent Legal Custody between 12 and 24 months (custody transferred from DFCS) Adoption within 12 months Adoptions between 12 and 24 months Guardianship within 12 months Guardianships between 12 and 24 months Total Exits for Outcome Measurement Percentage Exiting for Outcome Measurement Number Exited to Permanency but not in required time frame Other exits (transfer to other counties, emancipation, etc.) Total number exiting Remaining number in cohort on June 30, 2015
Demographics of those still in DFCS custody at June 30, 2015
Source: SHINES, and county tracking systems.

Children who entered custody

on or since October 27, 2005

12096

8(a)

8(b)

5907

5907

0

0

907

907

364

30

30

233

599

599

265

7443

8305

58%

65%

1845 (14%)

1187 (9%)

11337 (89%)

1427 (11 %)

Average length of stay:

17.61 months

Median length of stay:

12.3 months

Average Age: 8 years

51% female, 49% male

58

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 67 of 118

The following graph displays the State’s performance over the 12 most recent reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 8a and 8b Permanency Exits for Children Who Entered Care On or After October 21, 2005

Percent of Children
70% 60% 50% 40%

OM8b Standard

59% 53%

61% 54%

62% 54%

61% 54%

62% 55%

62% 55%

63% 56%

64% 57%

65% 57%

65% 58%

65% 58%

65% 58%

65% 58%

OM8a Standard

30%

20%

10%

0%
Period 8 December
2009

Period 10 December
2010

Period 12 December
2011

Period 14 December
2012

Period 16 December
2013

Period 18 December
2014

Period 20 December
2015

OM8a

OM8b

Source: SHINES, and county tracking systems.

The pie chart below illustrates the exit outcomes for all children who have entered state custody since the start of the Consent Decree.

Other Exits, 9%

Still in Custody on December 31, 2015,
11%

Positive Permanency Exits, 80%
Source: SHINES, and county tracking systems. *Positive Permanency exits include reunification, adoption, guardianship, permanent legal custody, and permanent placement with relatives. Other exits include emancipation and transfer to other counties or states.
59

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 68 of 118

8b Special Cohort
As a result of ongoing discussions between the parties about the Outcome 8b performance and a request by Plaintiffs' Counsel in February 201264, the State began providing a special “entry cohort” analysis of the State’s 8b performance to shed more light on the State’s progress. To date, this analysis has considered the permanency results over 24 months for nine separate cohorts of children.
Specifically, this entry cohort analysis measures the proportion of children entering care in each of the designated reporting periods that achieved one of the stipulated permanency outcomes within 12 or 24 months of entry, as applicable. The result is displayed in this table.

Children Achieving Timely Permanency within 24 Months of Entering Foster Care: Results for Cohorts of Children Entering Periods 6 - 15

Cohort 1 Cohort 2 Cohort 3 Cohort 4 Cohort 5 Cohort 6 Cohort 7 Cohort 8 Cohort 9 Cohort 10 Cohort 11

Period 6 Period 7 Period 8 Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period15 Period 16

July to January to July to January to July to January to July to January to July to January to July to

December June December June December June December June December June December

2008

2009

2009

2010

2010

2011

2011

2012

2012

2013

2013

66%

70%

75%

73%

73%

72%

70%

68%

72%

69%

72%

Outcome 9 – Permanency Exits Among Children Who Had Been in the Custody of DeKalb or Fulton County Up to 24 Months as of October 27, 2005.
Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24-month backlog pool”): For all children remaining in the 24-month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 40% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.
At the beginning of Period 20, there were 3 children remaining in the Outcome 9 cohort. None of these children achieved positive permanency exits. For the three children remaining in custody at the end of the period, none were under the age of 12. They are 12, 15 and 16 years of age. The primary permanency plan for each child is adoption and they each have mental health issues that impact their behavior.

64 Email correspondence from Laurence D. Borten, Children’s Rights to Mark Cohen, Special Counsel to The Department of Human Services, February 17, 2012.
60

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 69 of 118
Outcome 10 – Permanency Exits Among Children Who Had Been in the Custody of DeKalb or Fulton County More than 24 Months as of October 27, 2005. Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree: For all children remaining in the over 24-month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 35% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. At the beginning of Period 20 there were two children remaining in the Outcome 10 cohort. Neither of these children exited during the period. One child has several health issues requiring 16 hours of nursing per day. Neither child is under the age of 12. They are 14 and 17 years of age. Outcome 11 – Adoptions within 12 Months of Termination of Parental Rights. For all children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights. State Performance
x The State Fell Short of the Outcome 11 Threshold. The State’s performance increased significantly from 56 percent in Period 19 to 76 percent in Period 20. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.
61

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 70 of 118

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 11 Adoptions/Guardianships Finalized within 12 months of TPR

Percent of Children

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

54%

64%

84% 69%

84%

55%

60%

55% 78%

81%

76% 56%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data
Outcome 14 – Adoption Disruptions within 12 Months of Finalizations.

No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period.
Within the group of 44 children adopted between July 1 and December 31, 2014, none (0%) are known to have re-entered the State’s custody by December 31, 2015. The State has surpassed this outcome measure in every reporting period.

Other Practices and Processes to Promote Permanency
The State reports that regularly scheduled reviews of progress toward permanency take place in each county for children who reach their 13th month in care. According to State reported data, 264 children reached their 13th month in care in Period 20. Of these 264 children, 253 had their cases reviewed by the State Permanency Review Team. Reviewer concurrence with the goal and plan are typically low and often result in staffings to discuss appropriate case work. While the circumstances among these cases vary, there is a trend among cases in which the counties

62

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 71 of 118

maintain a goal of reunification, despite having documentation and compelling reasons to transition the case to another plan.

DFCS Permanency Reviews at the 13th and 25th Month in Custody

13th Month Permanency Review Implementation

July 1 through December 31, 2015

N=264

Number

Total Cases Reviewed by State Permanency Reviewers

253

Reviewer Concurrence with goal and plan

121

Percent
96% 48%

Permanency Goal Reunification Permanent placement with relative Adoption Guardianship Another planned permanent living arrangement
Totals

186

74%

0

0%

35

14%

25

10%

7

3%

253

100%

Cases with current case plans (court sanctioned/approved)

190

75%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2015 Third and Fourth Quarterly

Reports on 13th month Permanency Reviews.

Family Team Meetings Convened for 13th Month Permanency Reviews

July 1 through December 31, 2015

N= varies

Number Percent

Cases with “Family Team Meetings” (FTM) within the last 90 days

54

21%

(percentages based on the number of applicable cases =253)

FTMs with mothers involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs

21

42%

held—excludes cases for which there was a TPR, a non-reunification

order, the mother’s whereabouts were unknown throughout the life of

the case, or the mother was deceased—N=50)

FTMs with fathers involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs

4

11%

held—excludes cases for which there was a TPR, a non-reunification

order, the father’s whereabouts were unknown throughout the life of the

case, or the father was deceased—N=38)

FTMs with relatives involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs

15

27%

held and potential relatives to invite — N=54

FTMs with foster parents involved (percentages based on the number of

15

45%

FTMs held and number of children with foster parents — N= 33)

FTMs with service providers involved (percentages based on the number

15

28%

of FTMs held and number of children with service providers – N=53)

FTMs had recommendations specific to Child/Family needs (percentages

49

92%

based on N=53)

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2015. Third and Fourth Quarterly Reports on 13th month Permanency Reviews.

63

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 72 of 118

13th Month Permanency Review: Engagement in Case Planning

July 1 through December 31, 2015

N=varies

Number Percent

Active involvement in the case planning process

Child (n=152)

148

97%

Mother (n=191)

184

96%

Father (n=99)

84

85%

Caretaker (n=253)

253

100%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2015. Third and Fourth Quarterly Reports on 13th month Permanency Reviews.

25th Month Permanency Review Implementation

July 1 through December 31, 2015

N=85

Number

Total Cases Staffed

80

Reviewer Concurrence with County Plan

32

Percent 94% 40%

Permanency Goal Reunification Permanent Placement with Relative Adoption Guardianship Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement
Totals

44

55%

0

0%

27

34%

7

9%

2

2%

88

100%

Cases with current case plans (Court sanctioned/approved)

65

74%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2015. Third and Fourth Quarterly

Reports on 25thmonth Permanency Reviews.

25th Month Permanency Review: Engagement in Case Planning

July 1 through December 31, 2015

N=varies

Number

Percent

Active involvement in the case planning process

Child (n=47)

41

87%

Mother (n=47)

46

98%

Father (n=20)

19

95%

Caretaker (n=80)

80

100%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2015. Third and Fourth Quarterly Reports on 25thmonth Permanency Reviews.

64

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 73 of 118
Post Adoption Assistance
The State reported that 61 children were adopted between July 1 and December 31, 2015. This is the significantly more than the number of children adopted in Period 19 (28) and Period 18 (40).
During Period 20, according to data obtained from the State Office of Adoptions, 61 (100%) of those children adopted were receiving or were scheduled to receive monthly Adoption Assistance benefits and Medicaid. This proportion is an increase from the proportion in Period 19 (96%). All families receiving monthly adoption assistance are also eligible to receive additional benefits to cover one-time, non-recurring expenses. They may apply for reimbursement of nonrecurring expenses of up to $1500 once the adoption is finalized. Timely reimbursement is somewhat dependent on how quickly families are able to obtain the signed adoption decree and submit the application to DFCS. Once submitted, all the appropriate data must be entered into SHINES to move the case into a post-adoption category. Sometimes, this occurs after the review period. Among the 61 families eligible for non-recurring adoption assistance, 100 percent had received these benefits by December 31, 2015. This is significantly more than the proportion of families receiving reimbursement by the end of the Period 19 (54%).
Outcome 15 – Permanency Actions for Children Reaching Their 15th Month in Custody of Most Recent 22 Months.
The Consent Decree Outcome 15 stipulates that 95 percent of children who reach their 15th month in care will have had either: 1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed against both parents or legal caregivers, as applicable; or 2) a compelling reason documented in the case record as to why such action is not in the best interest of the child.65
Under federal regulations and state law, there are three exceptions to the requirement that TPR petitions be filed after the 15th of 22 months in care. They are:
x The child is being cared for by a relative; x The State has documented a “compelling reason” that filing a petition to terminate
parental rights would not serve the child's best interests; (the allowable exception noted above) or
65 See p. 34, Outcome 15, of the Consent Decree.
65

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 74 of 118
x The State has not made “reasonable efforts” to reunify the family.66 Federal regulations state and DFCS policy advises that a “compelling reason” must be based on the individual case circumstances guided by what is in the best interest of the child.67 The measurement of Outcome 15 is based on the entire population of children who, in Period 20, reached or exceeded their 15th month in custody out of the previous 22 months. As in previous periods, the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) reviewed the compelling reason provided for each child and compared it to past information. Information provided by the counties was also verified using data from the Period 20 review of 91 randomly selected foster care case records. During Period 20, 729 children had reached or surpassed their 15th month in custody out of the previous 22 months. A group of 111 children (15% of 729), was excluded from the Outcome 15 performance measurement based on the placement of these children with relatives, as allowed under Federal law.
State Performance x The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 15 Threshold. By December 31, 2015, 91 percent of the children in care 15 of the previous 22 months were legally free to be adopted or the State had filed petitions to terminate parental rights or documented compelling reasons why it had not taken such action. This is the same as the Period 19 performance. The chart below summarizes the different components of the counties’ Period 20 performance, drawn from the data in their tracking systems. The graph that follows displays the State’s performance on Outcome 15 for the 12 most recent reporting periods.
66Adoption and Safe Families Act, see also Social Services Manual Chapter 1000, Section 1002.7, Georgia Department of Human Services. 67 See Social Services Manual, Section 1002.12.3, 1002.17, and 1013.11, Georgia Department of Human Services.
66

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 75 of 118

Status of Children Who Had Been in DFCS Custody 15 of the previous 22 months As of December 31, 2015

REGION 14 OM 15 SUMMARY P20

Total Number Percent Cumulative

Children who reached or surpassed their 15th month in custody of the
past 22 months between July 1 and December, 2015.
729

Excepted Subpopulations
Children placed with relatives 111 The State has not made reasonable efforts to reunify the family

Number of Children for Outcome 15 Measurement

618

Parental Rights of Both Parents have been terminated or relinquished
194

DFCS has filed a petition to complete the termination of the parental

rights of both parents where applicable.

83

There is a documented compelling reason for not terminating parental

rights.

286

Reasons cited for not terminating parental rights

Number

There is a permanency goal of return home, approved

by the Court and the child is expected to be reunited

A1 with parents within 6 months.

139

31.3% 13.4% 46.3%

31.3% 44.7% 91.0%

The child is a specified age (14) or older and objects to

being adopted

A2

71

The child has severe emotional or behavioral problems

or a serious medical conditional and reunification

A3 remains an appropriate goal.

18

The child has a permanency goal other than adoption

and is expected to achieve that goal within 12 months

A4 of establishing the goal.

52

Parents are deceased, or have voluntarily relinquished

rights.

A5

6

The child is an unaccompanied refugee minor as

A8 defined in 45 Code of Federal Regulations 400.11.

0

The child is a child of a teen mother who is also in the

A11 State's custody.

0

Other circumstances.

A12

0

There is no documented Compelling Reason not to file a petition to terminate parental rights

67

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 76 of 118

There are plans to terminate parental rights, but a petition had not yet been filed as of December 31, 2015 or date of discharge.
Source: Verified State Data

55

9% 100%

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 15: Children in Care 15 of the Previous 22 Months have Petitions for Terminating Parental Rights or a
Compelling Reason Not to Terminate Parental Rights

Percent of Children 100%
100%
90%

98%

100%

98%

96%

96%

98%

99%

96%

96%

91%

91%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: SHINES

Outcome 27 – Timely Semi-annual Judicial or Administrative Case Plan Reviews
Outcome 27 requires that at least 95 percent of the children have timely semi-annual reviews of their case plans. Children are expected to have case plans developed within 30 days of entering State custody. In accordance with the Consent Decree, the court or a designated panel must review these case plans within six months of entering foster care and every six months thereafter the child is in custody.68
State Performance
x The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 27 Threshold.

68 See p. 7, paragraphs 4A.4 and pp. 7-8, paragraphs 4B.1-6, and p. 37, Outcome 27, of the Consent Decree.
68

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 77 of 118

For 65 of the 91 children in the foster care sample who had been in custody for six months or more by the end of the reporting period, case file documentation indicates that 60 children (92%) had documented timely plan reviews completed by the Juvenile Court or Judicial Citizen Review Panel (JCRP), or a timely request for such a review.

Twelve Reporting Periods State Performance on Outcome 27: Timely Semi-Annual Judicial/Citizen Panel Case Reviews

Percent of Children 100%
90%

92% 87%

88%

95% 87%

96%

97% 94%

95%

92% 89%

80% 71%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 Dec 2014 Jun 2015 Dec 2015

2010

2011

2012

2013

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, January 1 2010– December 31, 2015.
Among the 60 six-month reviews, only 22 (37%) of mothers, 2 (3%) of fathers, 7 (12%) children and 13 (22%) of relatives participated. Participation in these reviews is such an important factor in achieving timely permanency. The lack of participation during the reviews in Period 20 may reflect a lack of engagement between the agency and families. More information regarding these reviews is displayed in the chart below.

69

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 78 of 118

Characteristics of Six-month Case Reviews N= 60
(Most recent plans reviewed between July and December, 2015)

Characteristic

Participants Birth Mother Birth Father Child Relative caregivers/ Extended Family Members/ Informal Supports Foster parents/placement providers DFCS case manager DFCS supervisor Other DFCS representative CCFA provider Private agency social worker Medical and mental health professionals Parents’ attorney(s) SAAG (Special Assistant Attorney General) Child’s advocates (attorney, Guardian Ad Litem, CASA volunteer, Child Advocate) – at least one per child
Elements Evaluated/Considered Necessity and appropriateness of child’s placement Reasonable efforts made to obtain permanency Degree of compliance with specific goals and action steps Progress made in improving conditions that caused removal Changes that need to be made to plan County recommendations Parent recommendations

JCRP conducted review (percentage based on n=60)

Total JCRP reports submitted (percentage based on

23 66%

n=35)

Number of reports with Panel findings (percentage 23 66%

based on n=35)

Number of reports with Panel recommendations 22 63%

(percentage based on n=35)

Number of reports with County findings

14 40%

(percentage based on n=35)

Number of reports with County recommendations 14 40%

(percentage based on n=35)

Court conducted review (percentage based on n=60)

Plan adopted by Juvenile Court (percentage based on n=65)

Source: Case Record Review for July 1 – December 31, 2015.

Number
22 2 7 13 11 46 10 9 1 5 2 16 15 31
39 40 36 26 10 9 1 35
30 40

Percent
37% 3% 12% 22% 18% 77% 17% 15% 2% 8% 3% 27% 25% 52%
65% 67% 60% 43% 17% 15% 2% 58%
50% 67%

70

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 79 of 118

Outcome 28 – Timely Annual Judicial Permanency Reviews.

According to Federal and State policy and the Consent Decree, children are expected to have a judicial permanency hearing at least every 12 months they are in custody.69 These hearings are held to determine whether the State is making reasonable efforts to help children achieve permanency. The performance threshold for Outcome 28 is 95 percent.

State Performance
x The State Met the Outcome 28 Threshold.
During Period 20, 41 out of 43 children, 95 percent of children had a judicial permanency hearing in accordance with the Consent Decree. Depicted below is the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 28 Timely Permanency Hearings

Percent of Children 100% 90% 89%

99%

95% 93%

94% 94%

92%

98%

99%

97% 92%

95%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, January 2010 – December 2015.

69 See p. 9, paragraph 4B.10, and p.37, Outcome 28, of the Consent Decree.
71

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 80 of 118
PART FIVE - WELL-BEING
The Consent Decree establishes six outcomes that are related to children’s well-being.
Children Experience Stability and Worker Continuity
Outcome 17 – Placement Stability With Outcome 17, the Consent Decree establishes a threshold for placement stability by requiring that at least 95 percent of children in custody have two or fewer placement moves during the most recent 12 months in custody.70 For purposes of this measure, runaway episodes, hospitalizations for medical treatment or psychiatric diagnosis or crisis intervention, trial home visits, respite care, and detention in locked facilities are not considered placements. The measurement of Outcome 17 performance is based on the sample of 91 children in foster care at any time between July 1 and December 31, 2015.
State Performance x The State Failed to Meet the Outcome 17 Threshold
During Period 20, 79 out of 91 children (87%) experienced two or fewer placement moves during the most recent 12 months in custody. Displayed in the chart below are additional data for Period 20. Currently, data evaluated for this outcome are gathered through the case file review process. MTAT is working with the State to develop an effective process for gathering this data directly from SHINES in order to better ascertain the placement stability of all class children.
70 See p. 35, Outcome 17 of the Consent Decree.
72

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 81 of 118

Number of Placement Moves Experienced by Children in the 12 months prior to November 30, 2015 or the Last Date of Custody

Number of Moves
No Moves One Move Two Moves
Subtotal Three Moves Four Moves Five Moves Six Moves or more
Total Source: Foster Care Case Record Review for July 1 – November 30, 2015.

Number
45 22 12 79
7 1 1 3 91

Percent
50% 24% 13%
8% 1% 1% 3%

Cumulative Percent
7% 87%
95% 96% 97% 100%

As the graph below depicts the Period 20 performance (87%) marks a significant increase from the Period 19 performance (77%), however it is still lower than past history.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 17 Children with Two or Fewer Placement Moves in Prior 12 Months

Percent of Children

100% 90% 80%

92%

94%

90% 93%

93% 93%

95%

90%

89% 90%

87%

77%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010) December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, July 1- November 30, 2015.
Outcome 18 – Worker Continuity
At least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager;
73

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 82 of 118

case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave.

State Performance x The State Failed to Meet the Outcome 18 Threshold.

During Period 20, the State's performance decreased to 86 percent, which is below the required threshold. This is the first time since Period 14 that the State did not meet the 90 percent threshold requirement. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 18 Worker Continuity

Percent of Children
100% 84% 90%

88% 84%

92%

89% 87%

92%

97%

94%

93%

91%

86%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90%

Period 9 Period10 Period 11 Period12 Period13 Period14 Period15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data
Outcome 20 – Case Manager Visits with Children
20a - At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of twice- monthly face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children during the period occur. The State achieved 95 percent of these visits during Period 20, which is below the threshold.

74

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 83 of 118

Seven Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 20a

Case Manager Visits with Children

Percent of Visits

100% 98% 98% 99% 98% 97% 96% 95% 90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25%

Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

DecemberJune 2013DecemberJune 2014DecemberJune 2015December

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data
20b - At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur.
The State achieved 98 percent during Period 20 and has consistently exceeded this standard.

75

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 84 of 118

Seven Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 20b

Case Manager Private Face-to-Face Visits with Children

100.0% 99.1% 99.20% 100% 99.5% 99.4%

Percent of Private Visits

90.0% 80.0% 70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: >

96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25%

97%
Goal: > 96.25%

98%
Goal: > 96.25%

Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data
Outcome 22 – Case Manager Visitation with Substitute Caregivers
At least 95% of the total minimum required monthly visits by case managers to caregivers during the reporting period occur. The State performance was 94 percent during Period 20, which is similar to P19. This is the second consecutive period where the State’s performance falls below the threshold.

76

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 85 of 118
Seven Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 22 Case Manager Visitation with Substitute Caregivers
Source: Verified State Data
Children and Youth in Hotels During Period 20, there were 119 children and youth who spent 947 nights in hotels in Metropolitan Atlanta. On average, these children and youth spent close to seven nights in hotels during the Period. During Period 19, MTAT began collecting and reporting data on the number of children placed in hotels. The State began this emergency practice due to a lack of appropriate placement options for children entering foster care in Region 14. Due to the increase usage of hotels, during Period 20, DFCS opened and began operating two emergency placement homes called the “Welcome House”. MTAT visited the Welcome Houses and found the homes to be large, well-appointed homes in a nice family friendly neighborhood environment. The staffing and routines had evolved, however, concerns still remained regarding the sustainability of the model and the frequent visits from law enforcement. While this intervention was less than ideal, it did appear to mitigate the total number of hotel nights. However, the model was not sustainable, the neighbors expressed concerns and the Welcome Houses closed during Period 21. The information below is a quick snapshot of youth who were placed in hotels during Period 20.
77

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 86 of 118
Young Children in Congregate Care
The Consent Decree has several restrictions related to the use of group care,71 including limiting their use of congregate care for young children. The reported information is for all children under the age of 12 in care between January and June 2015; not for a sample of the entire foster care population. According to state reports, no children under the age of 12 were placed in group homes or child caring institutions except as allowed by the Consent Decree.
During Period 20, there was one child under the age of six who was placed with his mother in a group care setting designed for teen mothers. On December 31, 2015, eight children aged 6 to 11 were placed in hotels and eleven children were in group care facilities with more than 12 beds. Ten of these children were in psychiatric residential treatment facilities (PRTFs) with licensed maximum capacities of 40 or more. One child was placed in Georgia Baptist. The State provided documentation of the appropriate waiver supporting the need for the children to be placed in congregate care settings. During Period 20, the State also documented four children under the age of 12 who each spent one night in the South Fulton County DFCS Office.
The need for appropriate placements for all children who enter foster care or have a placement disrupt is paramount. The State has developed a plan of action to address this placement crisis. MTAT will be providing technical assistance as the counties implement these strategies and will continue reporting data that reflects the State’s progress.
Children Receive the Medical, Dental and Mental Health Services They Need
Outcome 30 – Meeting the Needs of Children as Identified in their Case Plans
The Consent Decree specifies that the needs to be considered for achieving Outcome 30 are those medical, dental, mental health, educational and other needs identified in the child’s most recent case plan.72 Case plans are to be developed within 30 days of a child’s entry into foster care and updated every six months thereafter. The performance threshold for this outcome is 85 percent, and requires that all identified needs are met. Thus, partial compliance does not count toward meeting the threshold standard. The measurement of Outcome 30 performance is based on the sample of 91 children in foster care at any time between July 1 and December 31, 2015.
71 See p. 16-17, paragraph 5C.5f of the Consent Decree. 72 See p 38, Outcome 30 of the Consent Decree.
78

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 87 of 118

Among the 91 children in the sample, 84 children had one or more case plans in their records. Three of the seven children who did not have case plans in their records had been in custody fewer than 30 days during the review period and a completed plan was not yet required. Of the 88 children who should have had case plans, 80 (91% of 88) were current – they had been developed within seven months of November 30, 2015 or the child’s discharge date. Another four (5% of 88) were seven to 12 months old and none were over 12 months old. The outcome performance is based on 84 children who had complete plans, even if they were not up-to-date. Eighty-three of these case plans identified needs of the children.
State Performance
x The State Fell Short of the Outcome 30 Threshold
Based on case file documentation and reviewer judgment, 65 children (77%) of 84 children with needs identified in their case plans had all the plan-identified needs met. The graph below displays the State’s performance over the last 12 reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 30: Children with All Plan Identified Needs Met

Percent of Children

100% 90% 80% 70%

77% 69%

78%

75%

78%

74%

73%

81%

80%

69%

77%

77%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Reporting Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, July 2010 – December 2015.

79

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 88 of 118

The chart below provides a breakdown of the needs identified and the percentage of needs met in each category during Period 20.

Proportion of Children with Needs Identified in Most Recent Case Plans and the Proportion with Needs Met, as of December 31, 2015 or last Date of Custody

Children with Case Plans

Children Received/Receiving Services

n=84

n varies depending on need identified

Number Percent

Number

Percent of identified need

One or More Need Identified (routine or child-specific)

84

100%

All Identified Needs Met (n=84)

65

77%

Frequency of different identified needs

Frequency of different needs being met

Medical

84 100%

76

90%

Dental

84 100%

71

85%

Mental Health

61

73%

55

90%

Educational/ Developmental

84 100%

78

93%

Source: Case Record Review, July1 – December 31, 2015.

1. Initial Screenings for Children Entering Care
a. Initial Health and Dental Screenings
The State’s overall performance on initial health and dental screenings is measured by the subsample of children who entered care and had been in custody at least 10 days. During Period 20, 27 children out of the sample of 91 cases entered care during the period and remained at least 10 days.73 As in previous reports, caution should be exercised in interpreting these and other results drawn from the subsample of children who entered care because the sample size is very small and they were not randomly selected from the entire population entering custody during the period.
As shown in the chart below, sixteen children (59%) had documented health screens within 10 days of entering care, which is a significant increase from Period 19 (16%) When the ten-day time

80

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 89 of 118

frame is relaxed, 26 of the 27 children (96%) received an initial health screen. For those children whose health screens fell outside the 10-day window, the elapsed time ranged from 11 to 41 days. One child did not receive an initial health screen.

Eleven children (41%) had a documented dental screen within 10 days. The total proportion receiving an entry dental screening was 78 percent. The 10 children who received their initial dental screens late, received those 11 to 41 days after entering care. Six children have no documented initial dental screens in their files.

Screen

Initial Health and Dental Exams at Foster Care Entry: July 1 - December 31, 2015 N=27
Number Percent

Initial Health Screen at Foster Care Entry

Received within 10 days

16

Received, but not within 10 days (11 to 41 days)

10

No initial health screen received by June 30, 2015

1

Total

27

Initial Dental Screen at Foster Care Entry (includes infants for a

“gum check”)

Received within 10 days

11

Received, but not within 10 days (11-41 days)

10

No initial dental screen received by June 30, 2015

6

Total

27

Source: Case record review, July 1 – December 31, 2015.

59% 37% 4% 100%
41% 37% 22% 100%

Cumulative Percent
96% 100%
78% 100%

Due to the low performance on initial health and dental screens during Period 19, the counties collaborated with Amerigroup to offer a mobile health clinic in the parking lot of the agency once a week. Thus, when children enter care, they are taken to the mobile health clinic for their health and dental screenings during their first week in care. Due to the increase in performance, it appears that this intervention is making a difference in the number of children who receive initial health and dental screens. MTAT will continue monitoring this intervention and analyze its effectiveness during the Period 21 report.

b. Initial Developmental /Mental Health Assessment
The Consent Decree requires that all children under the age of four years receive a developmental assessment in compliance with EPSDT standards within 30 days of placement.74 Children four years of age or older are expected to receive a mental health screening in
74 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 of the Consent Decree.

81

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 90 of 118

compliance with EPSDT standards within 30 days of placement.75 Within the sample of 91 children in foster care in Period 20, 8 children were younger than age four, were in custody at least 30 days, and entered care on or after July 1, 2015.76 Fourteen children in the foster care sample were age four or older, remained in care 30 days or more, and entered DFCS custody on or after July 1, 2015.

Two children under the age of four did not receive a developmental assessment; only three were completed within 30 days. The 3 children who did not receive developmental assessments within 30 days had them completed between within 61 days after entering custody. The total percentage of children under four years of age who received their initial developmental assessment increased from 46 percent in Period 19 to 75 percent in Period 20.

For children over the age of four, there were 4 children in custody 30 days or more who did not have mental health assessment; 9 were completed within 30 days, which is 64 percent compared to the 56 percent completed within 30 days during Period 19. One child had the assessment completed between 31 to 69 days after entering care. The chart below summarizes this information.

Initial Developmental and Mental Health Assessments at Foster Care Entry:

June 1, 2015 – November 30, 2015

N=varies depending on the assessment

Assessment

Number Percent

Cumulative Percent

Initial Developmental Assessment (children younger than age 4) (n=8)

Received within 30 days

3

38%

Received, but not within 30 days (31-61 days)

3

37%

75%

No initial Developmental Assessment received

2

25%

100%

Total

8

100%

100%

Assessment

Number Percent

Cumulative Percent

Initial Mental Health Assessment (children aged 4 and older) (n=14)

Received within 30 days (includes pre-assessments)

9

64%

Received, but not within 30 days (31 to 69 days)

1

7%

71%

No Initial Mental Health Assessment Total Source: Foster Care Case Record Review, July 1 – November 30, 2015.

4

29%

14

100%

100% 100%

75 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 of the Consent Decree. 76 In order to have a larger pool of children in the sample for whom the responsiveness to identified needs could be measured, the record review was designed to collect information on children who entered custody in December 2014 and, therefore, had sufficient time for identified needs to be addressed in Period 20.

82

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 91 of 118

c. Initial Case Plans
Eighteen (78%) of the 23 children entering custody during the reporting period and remaining more than 30 days had an initial case plan developed by December 31, 2015 or their last date in custody. Twelve of the 18 (67%) were completed within 30 days of entering care, 5(28%) were completed between 31 and 60 days, and 1 (6%) were completed greater than 60 days.

2. Periodic Health and Dental Screening
In addition to requiring health and developmental assessments when a child enters foster care, the Consent Decree requires all children to receive periodic health screenings77 in accordance with the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (EPSDT)/Georgia Health Check Program standards.78 DFCS’ performance with respect to meeting these standards is discussed below. The case record review of 91 children in placement collected information about the timeliness of the required routine health and dental examinations provided (often referred to as “well-child” care) during their time in custody.

Overall, 89 of the 91 children (98%) appeared to be current with their “well child” visits as of December 31, 2015 because of receiving a required health screen prior to or during reporting Period 19; or receiving a health screen during Period 20 that brought them up-to-date. This is similar to the proportion found in Period 19 (96%). The chart below displays this information.

Status of Health Screening for Children79 July 1 – December 31, 2015 N=91

Component and Action
No health screen required during period, children current with health check-ups during entire period Children receiving timely health screens (according to EPSDT schedule) between July 1 and December 31, 2015 Required well child health screen(s) not received between July 1 and December 31, 2015 TOTAL Source: Foster Care Case Record Review, July 1 – December 31, 2015.

Number Percent

Cumulative Percent

17

19%

72

79%

98%

2

2%

100%

91

100%

77 See p. 30, paragraph 13A in the Consent Decree. 78 See p. 20, paragraphs 6A 1 and 2, and p.21, 6B, paragraphs 1-8 of the Consent Decree. 79 Includes initial health screens completed for children entering foster care in Period 18. EPSDT components are not always documented, see narrative.
83

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 92 of 118

As reflected in chart below, routine dental screenings were assessed for 91 children, with separate analysis for children over and under the age of three as of December 31, 2015.80 Overall, 67 of the 71 children (94%) who required a dental screen were either current or received their dental screens during Period 20. This is a significant increase from the performance of 78 percent during Period 19. Twenty-seven (38%) of these exams were not done timely. For children under the age of three, 17 out of 20 (85%) were either current or received their oral health screen during Period 19. Six children received a late initial oral health screen.

The dental screen documentation consisted of either a dental report from a dental care provider, case manager notes, a reference in a Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment (CCFA), an entry in the SHINES health log or a combination of these forms.

Status of Dental Screening81 July 1- December 31, 2015
N=91
Component and Action Children aged 3 and older n=73 No annual dental exam required during period, children current with annual requirement during entire period Children receiving a timely annual dental exam during period Received more than 12 months after previous exam Initial received more than 10 days after entering foster care Required annual (or initial) dental exam not received as of December 31, 2015
TOTAL Component and Action
Children under the age of 3 N=20 No annual oral health screen due during entire period Received a timely initial or annual oral health screen Received a late initial oral health screen No annual oral health screen TOTAL Source: Foster Care Case Record Review, July 1 – December 31, 2015.

Number

Percent

Cumulative Percent

15

21%

25

35%

17

24%

10

14%

4

6%

71 100%

Number Percent

3

15%

8

40%

6

30%

3

15%

20 100%

56% 80% 94%
100%
100%
Cumulative Percent
55% 85% 100% 100%

80 The Consent Decree stipulates that “all children age 3 and over shall receive at least one annual screening in compliance with EPSDT standards…” see Section 6B paragraph 8 on p.21. Children younger than age 3 may have oral exams as part of their regular well-child visits and documentation of this component has improved sufficiently to provide the separate analysis. 81 Includes initial dentals for children entering foster care in Period 20.
84

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 93 of 118
PART SIX – STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE
Several of the Consent Decree requirements focus on DHS/DFCS organizational capabilities, with the intent of enhancing or creating capacity thought to be instrumental to the achievement of desired outcomes. This includes specialized staff, caseload sizes, workforce skill development, and having the resources and services to meet needs. This part reports on the progress of the State in meeting Outcomes 25, 26 and 31 as well as capacity requirements.
Oversight of Placement Settings
Outcome 25 - Approved Placement Settings for Children
Outcome 25 stipulates that, “By the end of the tenth reporting period, at least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. Measurement of performance is based on the entire universe of out-of-home care placements subject to a DHS licensure or approval process. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement.”82
State Performance x The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 25 Threshold
At the end of Period 20, 700 of 767 placements subject to a DHS approval or licensure process were in full approval and/or licensure status. These placements had an approved or licensed capacity of 3013 children while the capacity of all placements with a child in care on December 31, 2015 was 3141 children; yielding an Outcome 25 measurement of 95.9%. State leadership has set a goal of placing 50 percent of children in fully approved relative homes. However, the State continues to struggle with getting relative placements fully approved. In Period 20, only 68.9 percent of relative placements were in full approval/licensure status on the last day of the period which was a decline from Period 19 (73.9 percent). Thus, figuring out the barriers to getting relatives approved will be essential. Additional detail on this measurement appears in the chart below, followed by a graph that displays the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting period.
82 See p. 4, Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
85

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 94 of 118

Placement Type

Outcome 25 – Placements in Full Approval Status

Number of

Number of

Overall

Capacity of

Placements Placements with a Capacity of

Placements with

with a Class Class Member in Placement

a Class Member

Member in

Care on

Settings with a in Care on

Care on

12/31/2015 that Class Member 12/31/2015 that

12/31/2015 were in Full

in Care on

were in Full

Approval Status 12/31/2015 Approval Status

Capacity of Placements in Full Approval Status as a Percentage of Overall Placement Capacity

Relative

190

131

Placement

313

217

69.3%

DFCS -

90

89

supervised

Foster Home

214

209

97.7%

Provider -

381

375

supervised

Foster Home

1037

1016

98%

Child Caring

106

105

Institution

1577

1571

99.6%

Total

767

700

3141

3013

95.9%

Data source: SHINES .

86

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 95 of 118
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 25 Children Placed in Settings that are in Full Approval and/or Licensure Status
Periods 8-9: Percent of Children in Placements in Full Approval Status/Periods 10-19: Percent of Placements in Full Approval Status Sources - Periods 8-9: Placement file reviews, Georgia’s ICPC records, child placing agency records, and SHINES; Periods 10-19: SHINES.
Outcome 31 – Foster Home Capacity Limits Outcome 31 stipulates, “By the end of the tenth reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than ten percent of all foster family home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of this Consent Decree…”83,84 The measurement is based on the entire universe of family foster homes that had a class member child in care on the last day of the reporting period.
83 See p. 4, Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 84 The Section 5.c.4.e capacity limits provide that “No child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family's biological and/or adopted children…. The only exception to these limits shall be circumstances in which the placement of a sibling group in a foster home with no other children in the home would exceed one or more of these limits.” See p. 16 of the Consent Decree.
87

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 96 of 118

State Performance x The State Surpassed the Outcome 31 Threshold.

Of the 960 family foster homes that had a child in care at any point during the period July 1 to December 31, 2015, 471 (49%) continued to have one or more children placed in them on December 31, 2015. Three of these 471 foster homes (0.6%) exceeded the Consent Decree’s capacity limits. The chart below provides additional information regarding these homes, followed by a graph of the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods. This is the 20th consecutive period in which the State has surpassed the ten percent threshold.

DFCS & Relative
FHs
CPA Homes

Outcome 31 – Foster Homes Exceeding Capacity Limits

N = 471

Placement Foster Foster Foster

Foster

Number

Type

Homes Homes Homes

Homes of Foster

with with One with > 3 with ≥ 6

Homes

One or or More Foster Children in with > 3

More Children Children Total on

Foster

Children in Care

on 12/31/2015 Children

in Care

on 12/31/15

and/or ≥ 6

at Any 12/31/15

Children

Time

in Total

During

on

Period

12/31/15

20

Percent of Foster Homes with > 3 Foster Children and/or ≥ 6 Children
in Total on 12/31/2015

DFCS -

165

90

1

0

1

1.1%

Supervised

Foster

Homes

Provider

795

381

2

0

2

0.5%

Supervised

Foster

Homes

Total

960

471

3

0

3

0.6%

Data Source: SHINES

88

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 97 of 118 Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 31
Children are Not in Foster Homes Exceeding Specified Capacity Limits
Periods 8-9: Percent of Children in Placements in Full Approval Status/Periods 10-20: Percent of Placements in Full Approval Status
89

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 98 of 118

Caseloads and Supervisory Ratios
The Consent Decree establishes caseload caps for five primary types of case managers responsible for direct interventions with children and families.

Case Manager Types and Respective Caseload Caps

Case Manager Function

Responsibility

Caseload Cap

Child Protective Services Investigators
(CPS Investigations)

Respond to and investigate reports of child maltreatment. These individuals may also respond to reports of families in need who are considered candidates for Family Support services.

12 cases (the equivalent of 12 families)

Family Preservation (Child Protective Services OnGoing) Case Managers

Provide services to and supervise the safety of 17 cases (the

children who are not taken into state custody equivalent of 17

and remain in their own homes.

families)

Permanency Case Managers85

Provide services to the children and families of children who are in the state’s custody.

15 cases (the equivalent of 15 children)

Adoptions Case Managers

Provide services to children whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated and who have the permanency goal of adoption.

16 cases (the equivalent of 16 children)

Provide services to the children and families 12 cases (the

Specialized Case Managers of children who have been in state custody 18 equivalent of 12

months or more.

children)

85 The state has designated “placement” case managers as “permanency” case managers to emphasize their primary purpose is to promote permanency in the lives of children.
90

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 99 of 118

Case Manager Function

Caseload Cap:
Number of cases (families
and children)

CPS Investigations
Family Preservation Permanency Case Manager Specialized Case Manager
Adoption Case Manager
Total Source: Verified State Data

12 families 17 families 15 children 12 children 16 children 12 children

Number of Active Staff on 12/31/15
58 37 67 23
* 185

Number of
Active, Onleave
Staff on 12/31/15
0
0
0
0
0
0

Actual Performance
Meeting Caps on Assigned Caseload

Number
34 33 18 10

%
59% 89% 27% 43%

95

52%

Not Meeting Cap On Assigned Caseload

Number
24 4
49 13

%
41% 11% 73% 57%

90

48%

Cases Assigned to
Workers On Leave/ Supervisors Number
141 6 5 0
152

During Period 18, the high number of new cases, coupled with the high turn-over rate of case managers leaving the agency, resulted in a significant decline in the number of caseloads meeting the agreed upon caps. As a result, the parties entered into a modified CAP requiring the State to provide weekly and monthly caseload reports, as well as quarterly reports of more detailed information about investigations.
For Period 20 the state’s performance in regards to case manager functions was mixed compared to P19. Period 20 CPS Investigations caseload performance drastically decreased from 94% in P19 to 59% in P20. The State’s performance for Family Preservation improved significantly from 43% in P19 to 89% in P20. However, the remaining case manager functions declined in efforts to meet the required caps. Permanency case managers decreased considerably from 71 percent in Period 19 to 27 percent in Period 20 and marks the second consecutive period where there was a sharp decline. P18 performance was as high as 95% so this significant decline is very alarming and should be addressed immediately. Specialized case managers also decreased from 62% in P19 to 43% in P20.

91

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 100 of 118

During Period 20, the State’s performance for CPS Investigations caseloads decreased significantly from 94% in P19 to 59% in P20.

Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standards

100% 90%

98% 98% 85%

89%

94%

80% 76% 70% 60%

76%

77%

68%

70%

59%

50%

48%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard:

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

(June 2010) (December (June 2011) (December (June 2012) (December (June 2013) (December (June 2014) (December (June 2015) (December

2010)

2011)

2012)

2013)

2014)

2015)

CPS Investigations Caseload Standards

92

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 101 of 118

The State greatly improved its performance for Family Preservation Caseloads from 43 percent in Period 19 to 89% in Period 20.

Perecent of Caseloads Meeting Standards

100%

97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

90%

87% 88%

89%

80%

70%

60% 50% 43% 40%

50% 43%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard:

≤17

≤17

≤17

≤17

≤17

≤17

≤17

≤17

≤17

≤17

≤17

≤17

Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

(June 2010) (December (June 2011) (December (June 2012) (December (June 2013) (December (June 2014) (December (June 2015) (December

2010)

2011)

2012)

2013)

2014)

2015)

Family Preservation Caseloads Standards

93

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 102 of 118

During Period 20, the State’s performance significantly dropped from 95 percent in Period19 to 71 percent. This is the lowest performance since the beginning of the Consent Decree.

Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standards
120%

100%

94%

100%

98%

97%

91%

91%

90%

93%

95%

78%

80%

71%

60%

40% 27%
20%

0%

Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard:

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 (June (December (June (December (June (December (June (December (June (December (June (December 2010) 2010) 2011) 2011) 2012) 2012) 2012) 2012) 2014) 2014) 2015) 2015)

Permanency Caseload Standards

94

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 103 of 118

The State’s performance for Specialized Caseloads meeting the required cap declined from 62% in P19 to 43% in P20.

Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standards

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

98% 100%
63%

85%

72%

84% 81%

89%

75%

62%

62%

43%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard:

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

(June 2010) (December (June 2011) (December (June 2012) (December (June 2013) (December (June 2014) (December (June 2015) (December

2010)

2011)

2012)

2013)

2014)

2015)

Specialized Case Managers

95

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 104 of 118

Supervisory Ratios In addition to caseload caps, the Consent Decree establishes supervisory ratios. Each supervisor should supervise no more than five case managers at any one time.

Program/Service Area
Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation) Permanency Case Managers* (Regular and Specialized caseloads) Adoption
Total
Source: Verified State Data

Number of Units

Meeting 1 to 5 ratio
Number %

Not Meeting 1 to 5 ratio
Number %

19

17 89%

2 11%

22

20 91%

2 9%

0

n/a n/a

n/a n/a

41

37 90%

4 10%

Building Workforce Skills

Education and Training Services Section Effective July 1, 2015, Lee Biggar was promoted to Director of the Knowledge Management Unit and Laurence Nelson became ETS Training Director September 16, 2015.

Training System Blueprint The ETS Training System Blueprint was developed to outline a long-term plan to continue to strengthen the training system. It was reorganized this reporting period to help manage the projects. Below is a chart that outlines the goals to be completed.

ETS Blueprint Categories

Projects

Learning Academy

x Competency Based Certification Process (Case Managers)
x Instructional Design Strategy/ Incorporation of GA's Practice Model/SBC
x Individual Training Needs Assessment x Training Evaluation x Transfer of Learning/Integration of
Learning Activities x Sequenced Progressive Training

96

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 105 of 118

Coaching/Mentoring Quality Improvement
Technology/Communication

x IV-E Program x Field Practice Coach Program x Supervisor Mentor Program x Supervisor Development/ Curriculum
Revisions and Implementation x Education and Training QA x Formalize ETS/Stakeholder
Partnerships x CQI Improvement x ETS Staff Development Program x Develop Internal Policy and
Procedures x Enhance Organizational Structure x Funding Sources x Employee Selection Protocol x Expanded and Enhanced Training
Formats x Strengthen Technology Systems x Marketing x Develop Classroom Facilities

Many of the areas listed above are addressed in the report below, and ETS staff continue to work on these projects in addition to their training, writing and special project duties.
New Worker Academy
October 2, 2015, a group of ETS staff along with ETS Director Laurence Nelson, and the unit managers, Betsy Lerner, Jason Sauls, and Amy Mobley toured the facility of the Georgia Public Safety Training, GPSTC, in Forsyth Georgia. The purpose of the meeting was to explore how police and other emergency personnel are trained in Georgia through their Academy. ETS was able to gain insight into GPSTCs challenges and successes with development and maintenance of their professional training organization. A list of "take-aways" from the visit (regarding applicability of creating a similar Academy for DFCS staff) was created/shared with the section for further consideration as to next steps of the project. In December 2015 the Academy project was reassessed and reassigned to be the "end result" of the work of the other blueprint groups.

IV-E Child Welfare Education Program
The Title IV-E Child Welfare Education Program, formerly referred to as the IV-E Program, has been reinstated in Georgia. The participating schools of Social Work: Albany State University,

97

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 106 of 118
Georgia State University, Savannah State University, University of Georgia, and Valdosta State University, conducted selection process sessions for applicants during the summer of 2015. IV-E Program students began classes in August 2015 for the fall semester. There are currently a total of seventy-nine students enrolled among the five participating schools. A total of twenty students are expected to graduate by the end of the 2015-2016 academic year. Communication has begun with Augusta University, Dalton State College and Kennesaw State University about adding them to the Program for fall 2016. Their addition to the Program will be determined by their ability to have enough certified public expenditures to maximize reimbursement to pay their respective school’s Program expenses.
ETS Staff Development and Competency ETS partnered with the Georgia's Better Brains for Babies program and the DFCS Office of Prevention to provide an overview of the new brain research on babies to Education and Training instructional designers, trainers and management, December 2015. The goal was to help the training staff understand the importance of infant and child brain development and incorporate the information into training sessions and content. Two trainers completed the Better Brains for Babies Train the Trainer February 2016 and will be able to provide this classroom training to social services staff by request. Practice Model Integration (Solution-Based Casework) Thirteen Practice Model Coaches and two Practice Model Coach Supervisors for Georgia’s Practice Model were hired between July-December 2015. Two more coaches will be hired in the next reporting period. Thirteen of the coaches along with their two Unit Managers and four trainers from Education and Training Services (ETS) assigned to train and help staff implement the Solution Based Casework process, have received the initial coaches training from Dr. Dana Christensen. This training is designed to prepare the coaches to train staff during the rollout of Georgia's Comprehensive Practice Model that is scheduled to start May 2016 with the Initial Safety Assessment training and with the Solution Based Casework implementation starting July 2016. The Practice Model Coach Unit Managers presented an overview of Georgia's Comprehensive Practice Model at the SAAG Conference November 2015. The goal was to provide an overview of how Georgia's Comprehensive Practice Model will work as well as how the SBC principles will play a major role in how DFCS communicates and works with families.
98

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 107 of 118

Case Manager and Supervisor Certification

Position Title Case Managers

Fully Certified

Results Pending

Provisional

Not Certified

Total*

CPS Investigators

58

0

0

CPS On-Going Case Managers

35

0

2

Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized Caseloads)

66

0

4

Adoption Case Managers

20

0

0

0

58

0

37

0

70

0

20

TOTAL

179

0

6

Supervisors

CPS (Investigations and On-Going)

15

0

NA

Permanency (Regular and Specialized Caseloads)

13

0

NA

Source: Verified State Data

Adoption

5

TOTAL

33

0

NA

0

NA

0

185

3

18

4

17

0

5

7

40

99

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 108 of 118
Maximizing Federal Funding
Outcome 26 – Required IV-E Language in Court Orders
Outcome 26 relates to DFCS having the proper documentation in a child’s file to support an appropriate claim for Federal reimbursement under the Title IV-E program. For children who entered care on or after October 27, 2005, judicial determinations that leaving children in their homes would be “…contrary to the welfare…” of the children must be made in the first order that authorizes the State agency’s action to remove the child from home. In practice, this is often the court order from the 72-hour hearing. In addition, there must be documentation of a judicial determination made no later than 60 days from the date of the child’s removal from the home that “reasonable efforts” were made to prevent the child’s removal from his/her family. If either of these requirements are not met the State cannot claim federal Title IV-E reimbursement for the child’s care the entire time the child is in custody even though the child’s family meets the Title IV-E income test. All children in State custody after the Consent Decree’s effective date should have a permanency hearing at least every 12 months with the appropriate language about the State’s “reasonable efforts” to achieve permanency included in the subsequent court orders. If these determinations do not occur timely or the language is not child specific, there is a gap in the child’s eligibility until the determination is appropriately made. The State cannot claim federal reimbursement for the period of the gap.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Performance for this measure is based on a record review of a sample of 91 children in foster care. 86
Most of the children (87 of 91) in the sample who entered foster care during the period had court orders from a shelter care order or 72-hour hearing containing the required IV-E language that it would have been contrary to their welfare to remain at home with their parents or caregivers.
Of those 91 children, 80 of them remained in foster care for 60 days or more. Almost all of those children (78 of 80) had judicial determinations that reasonable efforts were made to prevent their removal from their parents or caregivers.
State Performance
x The State Surpassed the Outcome 26 Threshold.
86 See pp 36-37, Outcome 26 of the Consent Decree.
100

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 109 of 118

Of the 171 judicial determinations during the period, 168 (98%) of them contained the appropriate IV-E language.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 26 Court Orders Contain Required Language to Support IV-E Funding Claims

Percent of Children
100% 80%

85% 90% 91% 90% 93%

91% 91%

95% 100% 100% 98%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95%

Period 9 Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20

June 2010 December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, January 2010 – December 2015.
State IV-E Penetration Rates The ability of the State to claim federal reimbursement of foster care expenditures is referred to as the “IV-E penetration rate.” The higher the rate, the more reimbursement the State can claim from the federal government to cover the costs associated with providing safe and stable placements.

101

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 110 of 118

The State’s penetration rate in Period 20 was approximately 49 percent, similar to the rate for SFY 2015.

70.0% 60.0% 50.0%

58.1% 57.2% 57.7%
53.3% 49.2% 50.6% 50.5% 50.0% 49.7% 49.3% 49.0%

40.0% 30.0%

32.1% 33.8% 34.9% 27.8%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0% SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15

102

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 111 of 118

Appendix A
Selected Characteristics of the Children in the Custody of DeKalb and Fulton Counties

Presented below is additional information about the 1422 children in the custody of DeKalb and Fulton counties on December 31, 2015. The information is reported by the State and has not been independently verified by the Accountability Agents.

Table C-1

Gender of Children Remaining in Custody on December 31, 2015

N=1422

Gender

Percent of Children

Male

51%

Female

49%

Total

100%

Source: Georgia SHINES

Table C-2

Age of Children Remaining in Custody on December 31, 2015

N=1422

Age Group

Percent of Children

Ages 0 to age 3 years

25%

Ages 3 to 6 years

17%

Ages 6 to 10 years

18%

Ages 10 to 13 years

10%

Ages 13 to16 years

16%

Ages 16 to 17 years

13%

Total

100%

Source: Georgia SHINES; User Defined Report.

103

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 112 of 118

Number of Children Entering and Exiting DeKalb and Fulton Custody since July 1, 2006 in Six-Month Increments*

1400 1200

1312

1000 800 600 400

883 887

778

700

733 710 730

601 583

632 530

642

556913

567

553 486

518

584 482

56516

570 535

660219

459092

665 568

639

643

668 618
551

413 377

200

0

Entries

Edits

Source: IDS and SHINES: *An additional 294 children entered between October 27, 2005 and December 31, 2005. *Periods prior to Period 11 (January –June 2011) include youth under the age of 18 placed voluntarily in DFCS as well as those adjudicated into custody.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 113 of 118

Foster Home Count

DeKalb County and Fulton County Foster Home Capacity Building Progress

The table below indicates that in the six-month period between July and December 2015 there was a net increase in both Fulton and DeKalb counties in the number of foster homes and beds available for children and youth.

County

Baseline March 31, 2008

Period 19 Status June 30, 2015

Period 20 Status Dec 31, 2015

DeKalb

Beds Homes Beds Homes Beds Homes

County

Supervised

418

209

167

95

159

92

Homes

CPA

Supervised

566

217

597

224

Homes

Total

733

312

756

316

Fulton

County

Supervised 504

238

192

104

210

113

Homes

CPA

Supervised

442

155

479

173

Homes

Total

634

259

689

286

Two-

County

1367 571

1445 602

Total

Source: Region 14 reporting and the Office of Provider Management.

Progress: Net Gain (Loss) Period 18-19
Beds Homes

-8

-3

31

7

23

4

18

9

18

37

36

46

59

50

DFCS Goals for Period 21
(Jan-Jun 2016)
Beds Homes

175

100

226 121

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 114 of 118
Appendix B
Data Sources and Methodology for Measuring State Performance in Reporting Period 20
The Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) used several methods to arrive at the judgments, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report: (1) review of written materials and data supplied by the State and counties; (2) interviews; (3) extensive case record reviews; and (4) strategic engagement of State and county personnel for pro-active, hands-on monitoring through bimonthly meetings known as G2 meetings. This appendix describes these data sources and methods.
Four primary sources of information were used to assess the State of Georgia’s progress during Period 12, July to December 2015. The challenge for data collection and analyses in Period 20 was the continued need to use both SHINES, the statewide-automated child welfare system and paper files. Fulton and DeKalb Counties implemented SHINES in June 2008 and ended all new data entry into the previous system, IDS, on May 28, 2008. Children who entered custody before the conversion to SHINES may have extensive paper files and even those entering after the switch to SHINES have paper files with external documentation that has not been scanned into SHINES. The timeliness of scanning external documentation into SHINES is improving but record reviews still generally need both the paper documentation and SHINES access to complete all data collection.
1.State Data System – SHINES
The first source of information is the DFCS administrative data housed in Georgia SHINES.
Like all information systems, the accuracy of SHINES data is a function of the accuracy with which data put into the system. Most of the identified discrepancies were caused by human error. Typically, mistakes in interpretation and coding of the facts contained in the case record or data entry result in erroneous data entered into the system.
2. Document Review and Interviews
During the monitoring period, the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team collected written reports and materials including, but not limited to foster care and adoption policy, provider reporting and the use of hotels. At the local county level, interviews were conducted primarily with county leadership. At the state level, interviews were conducted with top leaders, members of the Knowledge Management Team, Kenny A. leads, and persons responsible for training and education, quality assurance and provider management.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 115 of 118
3. Structured Case Record Reviews
A third source of information are structured case record reviews. Four case record reviews were conducted: 1) all investigations of maltreatment-in-care during the period; 2) foster home approval and capacity, 3) children in foster care placements who entered foster care at any time up to December 31, 2015, and 4) children in foster care placements during the period. The chart below summarizes sample characteristics of each review. The following discussion provides more detail on the sampling approach, review instrument design, review logistics, reviewer qualifications and training, quality assurance, and analytical processes.
a. Sampling Approach
As indicated in the chart below, 100 percent of the investigations of maltreatment-in-care completed between July 1 and December 31, 2015 were read. Therefore, observed differences in these results do not reflect sampling error.
For the three other case record reviews, random samples were drawn from two different universes:
x All foster homes that had a DeKalb or Fulton child placed in the home at any time between July 1 and December 31, 2015. This included private agency supervised homes as well as DFCS supervised homes.
x All foster care cases (children) active in DeKalb and Fulton counties anytime between July 1 and December 31, 2015. ͒
x All foster care cases (children) active in DeKalb and Fulton counties who entered foster care after July 1 1, 2015 and remained at least 60 days.
For each of these reviews, samples were drawn such that the findings would have no more than a +/- 10% error rate at a 95% confidence level. This sampling methodology was determined to be a reasonable estimation of performance and agreed upon for this streamlined evaluation period.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 116 of 118

Target of Review

Universe of Cases Desired Sample Size

Actual Number of Cases Reviewed

100% of

Investigations of Maltreatment in Care

88

maltreatment in care investigations during

88

period

Foster Homes

602

82

82

Children in Foster Care

who entered Foster Care any time before December

2004

91

91

2015

Margin of Error
Not Applicable
+/- 10 percent
+/- 10 percent

b. Instrument Design
Four separate data collection instruments were used, one for each review. They have been developed over time in conjunction with the DFCS Program Evaluation and Analysis Section and consultants from Georgia State University (GSU) schools of public administration and social work. The instruments were field tested and reviewed by Counsel for the Plaintiffs and by the State; many changes recommended by the reviewers were incorporated into the final instruments. As is typical with case record reviews, reviewers encountered some problems with some of the questions. Learning from each iteration is incorporated into the next case record review.
c. Data Collection Schedule and Logistics
Planning for the data collection effort began with discussions with DFCS and GSU regarding formatting data instruments for efficient data capture and analysis. As in previous periods, each of the review guides was set up as a SAS-based form for electronic information entry directly into a database through a GSU secure web site. This eliminated a separate data entry step.
Records selected from private agencies were reviewed at the respective private agencies. The remaining records for investigations, foster care, and DFCS supervised foster homes were reviewed at the county offices where the active cases are maintained. Closed records were brought to these sites for review.
d. Review Team Qualifications and Training
DFCS staff persons were the primary case readers. These staff members have many years of experience in DFCS and are very familiar with the DFCS’s policies and practices. They have been selected over the years for this task based on their skills, experience, and knowledge.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 117 of 118
There were training session before commencing these reviews. The training consisted of reviewing and discussing the wording and meaning of each question on the data collection instruments. Additional changes were made to the guides as a result of these discussions.
e. Quality Assurance
Reading accuracy and inter-reader reliability was addressed by an extensive quality assurance process that included constant “calibration” and a “second read” of the records. Two senior DFCS reviewers were designated team leaders. They were responsible for responding to reviewer questions regarding clarification or how to interpret information contained in the record and consulting with the Accountability Agent and MTAT when necessary. These team leaders shared with one another the questions being asked and the responses they were giving to reviewers to assure consistency. In this way, patterns among questions were monitored and instructions were clarified for all reviewers as necessary. Team leaders reviewed each reviewer’s work at the completion of each review. Finally, reviewers were encouraged to provide explanatory comments for their responses if they felt the situation they found did not adequately fit the question being asked or additional detail for some critical questions was desired.
The Georgia State University (GSU) project coordinator and several research assistants with master’s degrees in social work or a related field and backgrounds in child welfare and case record review provided an additional level of Quality Assurance (QA). The GSU QA team reviewed 33 percent of the case records reviewed. Review guides that had different responses from the GSU QA staff and the PEAS reviewers were set aside, investigated and resolved as possible by the GSU project coordinator and PEAS team leaders and changes were made to the data set as necessary. Time was set aside in the schedule to review the completed review guides in question and do any necessary clean up.
To calculate inter-rater reliability GSU selected variables from all three files (CPS Investigations, Foster Homes, and Foster Care) where both the reviewers and the QA reviewers had access to the same information in the case file. Each response was not tested for inter-rater reliability. Correlations between the reviewer results and the QA reviewer results were calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha to determine how well a set of items, in this case the reviewer responses and the QA reviewer responses, correlate or match. Cronbach's Alpha is not a statistical test - it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). Note: when a Cronbach’s Alpha is used in a Social Science research situation, like the Kenny A. case review, a reliability coefficient of .70 or higher indicates that there is an almost zero probability that the reviewer and QA reviewer would achieve these results by chance.
The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for each of the data sets were between .91 and .99. All measures were above the threshold of .70.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 743 Filed 09/12/16 Page 118 of 118
f. Data Analysis Microsoft Excel and SAS software were used for analyzing the collected data and calculating interrater reliability. GSU staff assisted in creating descriptive statistics for the Accountability Agent and Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team. 4. Meetings with the management teams of Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS (G2) The Accountability Agents met once or twice each month with Fulton and DeKalb directors, senior management, supervisors and case managers, and senior central office staff. These meetings allowed for hands-on monitoring and data verification.

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 1 of 110

ff133311120

EMBARGOED for Release until December 22, 2016

DRAFT PERIOD 21 FINAL DATA REPORT
Kenny A. v Perdue January 1 – June 30, 2016

Accountability Agent Karen Baynes-Dunning
and the PART ONE – INTRMonitoring and Technical Assistance Team
Steve Baynes, Elizabeth Black, and Jennifer Miller Haight

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 2 of 110
Table of Contents
DEFINITIONS…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 6
The Role of the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team .... 6 2016 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan ............................................................................ 7 Summary of Progress Since 2005 .............................................................................................. 10 A New Way of Work ................................................................................................................. 19 SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES .......................................................................................................... 21 Safety ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Permanency .............................................................................................................................. 22 Well-Being ................................................................................................................................. 23 Strengthening the Service Delivery Infrastructure ................................................................... 24 SAFETY .......................................................................................................................................... 31 Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment ............................................................... 31 PERMANENCY............................................................................................................................... 50 Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections.............................................................. 50 Children Achieve Permanency .................................................................................................. 56 Other Processes and Practices to Promote Permanency ......................................................... 62 WELL-BEING.................................................................................................................................. 73 Children Experience Stability and Worker Continuity............................................................... 73 Children Receive the Medical, Dental and Mental Health Services They Need ....................... 79 STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................... 87 Oversight of Placement Settings .............................................................................................. 87 Caseloads and Supervisory Ratios............................................................................................. 92 Maximizing Federal Funding .................................................................................................... 99 APPENDICES
1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 3 of 110
DEFINITIONS
Adoptive Placement means the interval during which a child is placed with a prospective adoptive family following the signing of the appropriate adoptive placement agreement form, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court. Child or Children or Class Member Children or Class Members mean a child or children who have been, are or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS. Child Caring Institution (CCI) is any child-welfare facility which provides full-time room, board and watchful oversight (RBWO) to six or more children up to 18 years of age. Some CCIs are approved to care for youth up to age 21. The CCI must be approved through the Office of Provider Management (OPM) to serve children in DFCS custody.
Child Placing Agency (CPA) is agency that places children in foster and adoptive homes for individualized care, supervision and oversight. Child placing agencies are responsible for assessing the placement regarding the appropriateness of the room, board and watchful oversight that the prospective foster and adoptive families will provide. The CPA’s employees and their foster and adoptive parents work as a team to provide a stabilizing and nurturing environment that promotes safety, permanency and well-being.
Corporal Punishment means any physical punishment on a child that inflicts pain. CPA Foster Home is a foster home approved by a Child Placing Agency for the temporary placement of children in foster care. DeKalb DFCS means DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services. DFCS when used alone means the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services. DFCS Foster Home is a non-relative foster homes approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of children in foster care.
DFCS or CPA Adoptive Home is an adoptive home approved for the foster care placement of a child for whom the established goal is adoption. Adoptive homes must meet the regular standards of care required for approved family foster homes and any conditions specified in that approval.
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 4 of 110
DFCS Relative Foster Home is a relative foster home approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of minor relatives. It is DFCS’ preference that all relatives are approved as foster parents and receive a foster care per diem. The goal of relatives becoming foster parents is to ensure that the child has services to address his/her needs.
DHHS means the United States Department of Health and Human Services. DHR means Georgia Department of Human Resources. Discipline or Other Serious Foster Care Violation means and includes those acts or situations by the caregiver that pose an immediate or potential risk to the safety or well-being of the child in care. These may include, but are not limited to, inappropriate disciplinary measures (both physical/corporal and emotional), violations of supervision or other safety requirements that pose serious risk factors to the child.
EPSDT means the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program for individuals under 21 years of age contained in Title XIX of the Social Security Act, as amended.
Fictive Kin means a person who is known to a child as a relative, but is not, in fact, related by blood.
Foster Parent means volunteers who are trained and certified by DFCS or Child Placing Agencies to provide for the temporary care of children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster parents work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster parents are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
Foster Relative means biological kin who are trained and certified by DFCS to provide for the care of relative children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster relatives work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster relatives are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
Fulton DFCS means the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services.
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 5 of 110
Georgia Health Check Program means Georgia Medicaid's well-child or preventive health care program adopted pursuant to EPSDT, and shall contain such components as they exist in the Georgia Health Check Program as of February 1, 2005.
Governor means the Governor of the State of Georgia.
Legal Guardianship means the appointment of an individual as a legal guardian for a child as authorized by either the probate court under O.C.G.A. Title 29 or the juvenile court under O.C.G.A. Chapter15-11-2(36).
One Episode of Foster Care means the period of time that a child is in foster care from the date of removal from the home until the child is discharged from DFCS custody, except that a runaway does not trigger a new episode of foster care.
Permanent Legal Custody means custody granted in accordance with an order of the superior court or the juvenile court, which places a child in the custody of an individual or individuals until the child reaches 18 years of age.
Permanent Placement with Relatives means placing a child with a relative who is willing to assume long-term responsibility for the child, but has reasons for not adopting the child or obtaining guardianship or permanent legal custody, and it is in the child's best interests to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship by another person. In such circumstances, there shall be in place an agreement for long-term care signed by DFCS and the relative committing to the permanency and stability of this placement unless it is necessary to disrupt the long-term placement.
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) is a temporary non-hospital facility with a provider agreement with a State Medicaid Agency to provide intensive therapeutic intervention to a child to ensure safety and stability. PRTFs offer intensive behavioral health services to children in Georgia.
Relatives are persons who are related by blood, marriage or adoption including the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or divorce.
Relative Placement refers to placement in the home of a relative or fictive kin who do not receive a foster care per diem for the care of the child. The relative placement may be a non-paid placement or the relative may receive TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive
4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 6 of 110 kin are not eligible for TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive kin must become foster parents to receive financial assistance. Placement with relatives or fictive kin may occur very quickly if there is a satisfactory CPS history check, safety and home assessment check, and a Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) check through the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on all household members 18 years of age or older. A Relative or Non-Relative Care Assessment must be completed no later than 30 calendar days after the placement of a child. State DFCS means the Division of Family and Children Services of the Georgia Department of Human Resources. Suspected Abuse or Neglect means being based on reasonable cause to believe that a child may have been abused or neglected. Suspected Corporal Punishment means being based on reasonable cause to believe that corporal punishment may have been used on a child.
5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 7 of 110
INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared by the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) pursuant to the orders entered in the Northern District of Georgia Kenny A. v. Perdue, Civ. Act. No. 1: 02-CV-1686, a civil rights class action brought on behalf of children in Fulton and DeKalb counties who are in the custody of the State of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS). The Kenny A. class members are “all children who have been, are or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of any of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS.”
The Kenny A. Consent Decree (Consent Decree) was entered on October 28, 2005 and was modified by agreed orders (docket numbers 612, 687, 740, 747) on December 15, 2008 and November 2, 2015.1 It requires improvements in the operations of the Division of Family and Children’s Services and establishes the outcomes that are to be achieved by the State of Georgia on behalf of children entering or in custody and their families.
The Role of the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team
The original Consent Decree established a process for accountability through the appointment of James T. Dimas and Sarah Morrison as the Court’s independent Accountability Agents. The Consent Decree included a process for replacing these persons should one or both no longer be able to fulfill their duties under the agreement. Using this process, the parties first selected Karen Baynes-Dunning to replace Sarah Morrison, and then created a monitoring and technical assistance team through the appointment of Elizabeth Black, Jennifer Haight, and Steve Baynes in October 2015. This resulted in the establishment of the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) with Karen Baynes-Dunning as sole Accountability Agent, to replace Mr. Dimas as co-Accountability Agent upon his resignation from the position.
The Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) are responsible for providing public record reports on State Defendants’ performance relative to the Consent Decree to the Court and to the Parties. Reports are issued for each six-month reporting period. As discussed in more detail in the section below, the Parties made the decision this past year to “maximize the technical assistance” of the Accountability Agent and the MTAT going forward. Specifics are included the 2016 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan.
1 A further Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan was entered on December 5, 2016 and is discussed in more detail in the next section.
6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 8 of 110
This past year, the Accountability Agent and the MTAT have:
1) facilitated and revised the monthly State G2 meeting structure and content; 2) shadowed DeKalb and Fulton County leaders; 3) continued learning about the State’s overall priorities and its strategic plan, Blueprint for
Change; 4) joined in the State’s effort to improve the overall use of data to improve practice and
outcomes through a newly developed Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) process; 5) began the review of the State’s longitudinal data file over the past ten years to inform the
CQI process; 6) met with stakeholders; 7) helped the parties work toward reaching an agreed upon plan for modifying and exiting
the Consent Decree; 8) continued to manage case record reviews; 9) reviewed reports from DFCS; and 10) submitted monitoring reports as required by the Consent Decree.
This is the 21th Monitoring Report issued. The previous monitoring reports are available on-line at http://www.childrensrights.org/class_action/georgia/# or http://cslf.gsu.edu/technicalassistance/.
2016 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan
Class counsel initiated discussions with State Defendants’ counsel in July 2015 to “streamline obligations in recognition of progress, remaining challenges and changes in best practices standards in foster care”2. With support from the Accountability Agent and MTAT, Parties have been working together since that time to improve the outcome measures used to measure the State’s performance, maximize the technical assistance available through the Accountability Agent and MTAT and define a clear process for exiting Court oversight for the administration of child welfare in DeKalb and Fulton counties. Parties were able to negotiate and agree upon the 2016 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan. This Exit Plan took effect on December 5, 2016 after Court approval.
In the general principles, the Exit Plan now more fully incorporates DFCS’ commitment to the benefits of kinship care.
2 Joint Motion for Entry of Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan, Filed 11/09/16 in United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Signed 12/05/16.
7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 9 of 110
It alters the approach to monitoring and reporting on progress, specifically related to: 1) placement, 2) outcomes, 3) demonstrating compliance, 4) infrastructure standards, and 5) dispute resolution.
There is some additional oversight related to the placement of children in foster care. DFCS is to report to the Accountability Agent if a child is in: 1) more than one temporary facility during one episode of foster care; 2) a temporary facility for over 30 days; or 3) a DFCS office between 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. The Exit Plan includes DFCS’ commitment to end the use of hotels as placements for children by June 30, 2017. It also requires that visits with children occur soon after (during the first week) an initial placement of a child or change of placement to help the child adjust, assess appropriateness and ensure needed supports and services are available.
The outcome measures have undergone substantial revision to reflect when possible the principles of best practices in measurement.3 There was also effort to set goals deemed to be attainable based on the evidence of actual, demonstrated performance. Using past performance in recent periods as the determinate, the Exit Plan considers outcomes that DFCS consistently met as Attained Outcomes, thus requiring less oversight. There is a mechanism in place to designate outcomes as Attained Outcomes in future periods. Once all the outcomes measures have become Attained Outcomes, there is agreement that Defendants can seek to terminate the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan without contest as long as there are no outstanding Court Orders or Stipulations providing a remedy for a prior allegation of non-compliance.
To align the Exit Plan with DFCS’ overall priorities and expectations for case practice, Parties afforded the Accountability Agent and MTAT nine months to better understand the following areas of practice and recommend acceptable standards. These Infrastructure Standards will address the areas of: 1) case planning, 2) placement; 3) health services to children; 4) SACWIS; 5) supervision of contract agencies; 6) training; 7) foster parent licensing and training; 8) abuse in care investigations; 9) corrective actions; 10) maximization of federal funding; and 11) quality assurance. Before these Infrastructure Standards are final, the Accountability Agent and MTAT
3 Best practices principles include: 1) a clear statement of the analytic question with particular attention to identifying the risk population or the denominator associated with a particular inquiry; 2) use of entry cohorts and prospective measures to characterize systems dynamics and change in outcomes; 3) attention to the sources of variation in system outcomes (e.g. variation over time, among children, or in places), 4) understanding variation is critical to accurately understanding change; 5) assessing expected change in the appropriate period of performance or window of time; 6) matching the analytic question to the appropriate source data; and 7) using well understood and organized data resources that are designed to support asking and answering analytic questions
8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 10 of 110
will report on the DFCS’ implementation of its practice model, Solution Based Casework and any beginning impact of DFCS employees, providers, children and families.
Finally, the Modified Consent Decree and Action Plan contains provisions for a dispute resolution process that seeks to resolve differences between the Parties with the assistance of the Accountability Agent prior to raising an issue with the Court.
To be specific, monitoring and reporting will shift in the following manner over the next couple of reporting periods.
Period 21: This current report is on DFCS’ performance between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016. The focus of this report is on the State’s performance relative to the 31 outcomes in Section 15 of the original Consent Decree. This report also gives some historical context about progress over the past decade since Parties entered the Consent Decree in 2005. While it is a more streamlined report, there are also some other key provisions of the original Consent Decree that are included related to: 1) the use of congregate care, hotels and other temporary placements for children in foster care; 2) caseloads for caseworkers and supervisors; and 3) children who have been in foster care for a long time.
Period 22: A report on performance between July 1, 2016 and December 30, 2016 will be ready for submission in May 2017. The focus of this report will also be on the State’s performance relative to the 31 outcomes in Section 15 of the original Consent Decree. The Accountability Agent and the MTAT will gather and report on: 1) the beginning implementation of Solution Based Casework; 2) the use of congregate care, hotels and other temporary placements for children in foster care; 3) caseloads for caseworkers and supervisors; and 4) children who have been in foster care for a long time.
Period 23: A report on performance between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2017 will be ready for submission in November 2017. During this time, January to June 2017, the Accountability Agent and the MTAT will be working with DFCS to define a methodology for and produce reports on the newly defined outcomes. This will be the first report using the outcomes measures as defined in the 2016 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan. During this same timeframe, the Accountability Agent and the MTAT will be working to understand DFCS expectations and priorities in the areas of infrastructure listed above to be able to propose Infrastructure Standards for the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan no later than September 5, 2017 (nine months from the date Exit Plan went into effect). While reporting will not yet be on the Infrastructure Standards, the Accountability Agent and the MTAT will continue to report on: 1) the beginning implementation of Solution Based Casework; 2) the use of congregate care, hotels
9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 11 of 110
and other temporary placements for children in foster care; and 3) caseloads for caseworkers and supervisors.
Period 24: A report on performance between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 will be ready for submission in May 2018. Reporting on performance during this period will mirror the previous period. The Parties will reach final agreement on the Infrastructure Standards during Period 24 and begin to develop an approach to monitoring these standards.
Period 25: A report on performance between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2018 will be ready for submission in November 2018. This will be the first complete report on all of the provisions in the 2016 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan, including the Infrastructure Standards.
Summary of Progress Since 2005
Below we present a high-level overview of the experiences of children and youth who have been in foster care in Fulton and DeKalb counties during the last decade. These data are extracted from a longitudinal data file containing data through December 31, 2015.4 In this overview, we present information primarily about first admissions – regardless of duration. As monitors, we are interested in and obligated to report on the experiences of ALL children. However, for purposes of understanding patterns associated with services provided to children at the first opportunity the State has to successfully work with children, youth, and their families – we focus in this section on that first experience. As the table below indicates, this represents the majority of children and youth served in the two counties. And it also represents that critical population of children and youth for whom the proper assessment and provision of services would mean a safe, brief and stable placement experience followed by lasting permanency.
4 This longitudinal file was developed by researchers at Chapin Hall, based on data extracts from SHINES and formerly IDS containing placement histories for children placed in state custody. Spells of all durations are reflected in these data.
10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 12 of 110

Foster Care Admissions, DeKalb and Fulton Counties, 2005-2015

Entry Year 2005 2006 2007

All Entries Total DeKalb Fulton 1,889 801 1,088 1,672 796 876 1,542 705 837

Proportion First Entries

Total DeKalb Fulton

80%

78%

81%

79%

75%

82%

76%

77%

75%

2008

1,347 628 719

75%

77%

73%

2009

1,061 468 593

78%

81%

76%

2010

904

380 524

71%

71%

72%

2011

1,207 550 657

77%

83%

72%

2012

1,218 519 699

78%

82%

74%

2013

1,106 525 581

78%

82%

75%

2014

1,507 751 756

74%

77%

71%

2015

1,435 762 673

74%

81%

66%

One of the primary goals of DFCS is to meet the needs of abused and neglected children at home without removing them from their families and communities and bringing them into foster care. DFCS seeks to identify those children and youth who can safely remain at home with some additional supports and services.

The number of children and youth in the general population is a factor in the number of children and youth placed in foster care in a given jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with more children and youth in the general population are more likely to have higher numbers of children and youth in foster care simply because there are more children who are at risk of being subjects of abuse or neglect. It is therefore important to examine placement rates (number of children placed in foster care per 1,000 in the general population) in addition to the actual numbers to understand the variation that may exist for reasons other than the size of the general population. The first chart

11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 13 of 110 below shows placement rates overall, and for each county for the past ten years.5

The risk of first removal has dropped notably since a high of nearly four (4) placements per 1,000 children in the underlying population. A significant drop in 2010 has been followed by some increases, with 2014 showing the highest rate since 2007. More recent data from Period 19 and Period 20 suggests the increase in admissions has persisted into calendar year 2015, but abating by the end of the year. The table below shows the number of children/youth entering care for the first time in each of the two counties since 2005, along with the associated placement rates. It shows an overall decline in the current year, attributable to notably fewer entries from Fulton, but continued (though slighter) increases from DeKalb.

First Placement Rate per 1,000 Children, 2005-2015

Admissi 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

All First Placements

Total DeKalb Fulton

1,507 621 886

1,318 599 719

1,172 543 629

1,010 482 528

827

378

449

645

269

376

927

456

471

945

427

518

864

430

434

1,121 582 539

1,057 615 442

Placement Rate per 1,000

Total DeKalb Fulton

3.9

3.8

4.0

3.4

3.6

3.3

3.0

3.3

2.9

2.6

2.9

2.4

2.1

2.3

2.0

1.7

1.6

1.7

2.4

2.8

2.1

2.5

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.6

2.0

2.9

3.5

2.5

2.7

3.7

2.0

5In the Period 20 report, we mistakenly used a table containing all entries rather than first entries to report placement rates. The patterns were the same, but the overall placement rates reported were higher, reflecting all entries rather than first entries.
12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 14 of 110
After removal, an important priority is to place children and youth in family settings, preferably with a family members, relatives, friends and members of the child’s community who already have a connection with the child and commitment to the child. Relative placements help to minimize the trauma of removal, preserve the child’s sense of belonging and attachment, and keep them connected to people and things that bring meaning and purpose. It is for this reason that DFCS has set a goal to place 50 percent of children in foster care in relative placements or relative foster homes. Not only does the Consent Decree stipulate that children under twelve (12) should not be placed in congregate settings, but best practices also dictate that whenever possible such settings should be avoided.
The chart below depicts the extent to which the two counties, together, have been able to increase their reliance on family settings and to decrease reliance on group settings as the initial placement option over the last decade. Since 2007 half or more of the children and youth entering placement for the first time are placed in family settings, DFCS or CPA foster or adoptive homes. This peaked in 2012 at 70 percent when there was a concerted effort on the part of DFCS to decrease the use of congregate care. This marked a point in time when Child Placing Agencies(CPAs) began to close group homes and cottages. The reliance on congregate or group settings had dropped from 20 percent in 2005 to as low as 11 percent in 2011, after showing a slight increase in more recent years, the proportion of young people first placed in congregate settings has dropped down 10 percent for the 2015 admission group. Children placed in relative placements or relative foster homes represent a smaller proportion of placements, but is ticking up from 2012 where it had declined to about three percent of first placements to reach nearly 25 percent in 2015. Is is important to note there that these are placements in any type of kinship setting including licensed as foster homes, paid kinship homes, and unpaid relative homes. The other placement category, which grew to about 20 percent of placements in 2015, is made primarily of hospital settings (just under half of such settings) and placement settings coded as “other”, with little more detail available to describe those settings.
13

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 15 of 110
The next tables refine the narrative around placement type by displaying the type of placement in which children first entering care spend most of their placement episode. In other words, if the first placement is a short-term placement based on exigent circumstances, this second view shows the extent to which children and youth transition into a stable family setting for the remainder of their time in care. As the table below indicates, historically, and in recent years, most children and youth placed in the two counties remain in family settings in DFCS or CPA foster or adoptive homes. The proportion who end up in relative placements or relative foster homes has been on the uptick, although it was highest – at just over 20 percent in 2008. The most recent entry years show slight increases in the predominant use of relative home. Reliance on congregate care as predominant placement type has hovered at around 20 percent for first entries, returning to 20 percent following a dip in 2010 and 2011. Because youth in the most recent entry cohort (2015) may still experience movement in their foster care episode and placement settings changes as a result, that data should be interpreted as preliminary.
14

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 16 of 110
Following placement into foster care, a critical system goal is to minimize placement disruption. Placement moves not only add trauma to an already difficult situation, but also disruptions are associated with longer episodes in care. Too often child welfare systems – in an effort to protect the physical safety of identified children – disconnect and punish children for the normal reactions to the trauma they have experienced in their lives. Children express these normal reactions to trauma in a myriad of ways, sometimes through maladaptive behaviors. Too often, the system’s response or intervention is to remove the child from his or her placement, which exacerbates the problem, instead of providing needed support to preserve relationships and placements. Children can heal from trauma, but this is only possible when they are experiencing safety and stability, and there is commitment and understanding on the part of their caregivers.6 The table below shows movement history through December 2015 for children first entering care over the last ten years. While we include the movement measures for the more recent entry groups (2014 and 2015) we would note that that many of those children/youth were still in care as of December 31, 2015, and therefore they were still at risk of movement. Although most movement occurs early in a child’s placement episode, those children who have not yet exited may yet experience a placement disruption, and those that have moved may yet move again. The proportion of children with no moves will likely drop slightly for the 2015 group. And the proportion of children with one or more moves is likely to tick up slightly. But notably – already, 11 percent of this 2015 group has already experienced three or more moves. Many of these 113 youth started in foster homes and have several disruptions resulting in placements in other
6 This idea is from the work of Amelia Franck Meyer, Founder and CEO of Alia.
15

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 17 of 110
homes (foster and kinship) as well as other setting types. Another group started in the “other settings and experienced disruptions from that setting as well. These data show that, over the last decade, most children who enter placements in the two counties do not experience multiple placement episodes. In fact, many children – about 40 percent -- experience only one placement and do not move at all during the first episode in care. About 25 percent of children first entering care move once. There are early indications (not yet final) that imply that the proportion of one-time movers may be growing slightly. The proportion of children moving three or more times has been steady at about 20 percent, which represents between 200 to 300 youth, depending on the size of the entry cohort. Placement stability over the past decade has been stable – and mostly moderate – meaning consistently, about two thirds of recent entry cohorts experience one or fewer placement moves. This represents about 600 or more youth, depending on the size of the entry cohort. However, a closer look at the data will reveal that historically – and currently – among the three-plus movers are group of children and youth who move many times. Closer analysis shows for entry cohorts 2005 even up to 2012 – nearly ten percent of an initial entry group move five or more times. Thus, placement stability surfaces as a persistent challenge in the two counties for the past decade.7
A primary goal of the child welfare system is to ensure that every child has a safe, permanent family, preferably their own. Permanency can be achieved through: 1) children returning to their parents or other family members; 2) family members becoming guardians or adoptive parents; or 3) the formation of a new family through adoption with previously unrelated persons. In
7 These more granular data are not presented here, but are available upon request. Even the most recent entry cohorts include a group of youth who have experienced multiple moves (five or more since entry).
16

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 18 of 110
addition, exits from foster care to permanency should be timely. Removal from home should be temporary, and should be followed as soon as safely possible by an exit to a home that will provide lasting permanency. The historical data displayed below show exit patterns for first entrants from 2005-2014, the years for which we can observe a least one full year following the placement year. The data have been consistent for the past nine years. Most children first entering care – over 70 percent of them – return to a family home following removal. An additional ten percent are adopted. It is probable that the dip in the most recent years is because later entries have not yet had time to finish the adoption process. Non-permanent exits, which include aging out, running away, and other non-permanent exit types8 have decreased slightly from about 15 percent in the early years to just over 10 percent. For those more recent entry cohorts, not enough time has passed to observe all children exit. Thus the green line represents children/youth who have entered in recent years and who are in the process of exiting, most likely to family or adoption, given the stable levels of exits in those categories observed in prior years.
Finally, an important element of achieving permanency is ensuring its durability. We want children who have returned to a family setting to find and maintain stability in that setting. Measuring reentry for children placed in the two counties – using a longitudinal perspective -allows us to understand what has been typically true for children who entered care for the first time in the last nine years. As the table shows, a large majority of those children and youth return
8 These include transition to an adult system (e.g. criminal justice, developmental delayed) child death, or unspecified exit types.
17

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 19 of 110
to a family setting. How many then revert to foster care within a year of that return home? The table below provides the answer to that question. As the graph below shows, reentry has been variable, challenging, and recently on the upswing in the two counties. In 2005, ten percent of first admission who exited to family returned to care within one year of that exit. Reentry rates then ticked downward, reaching a low of six percent in 2008. Since then, there has been a fairly steady rise, climbing to over ten percent for children from the 2012 cohort, and staying at about that level.
This overview shows general patterns – most notably – it shows consistency. Areas of strength have generally stayed steady, but have not shown remarkable improvement. Similarly, many of those areas that presented challenges ten years ago remain challenging. Additionally, this overview is just that – a high-level depiction of dynamics in Fulton and DeKalb. This view leaves opaque important variation between the two counties and even within the two counties, (subgroups by age or placement type may have different outcomes). Nevertheless, it serves as useful context, and provides a clear path to the development of baseline performance from which change associated with deliberate innovations practice can be anticipated, targeted, and tracked.
A New Way of Work
18

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 20 of 110
As reported in the Period 20 report, “DFCS leaders at all levels [were] stepping back to define a “way of working together” to best implement specific strategies in DeKalb and Fulton counties designed to improve outcomes for children and families. Part of this is an effort is to define: 1) a methodical and coordinated process for specifying and implementing these strategies; 2) the support needed by the leaders who are responsible for outcomes in the counties; and 3) the data that will be used to track and measure progress. During Period 21, Region 14 (DeKalb and Fulton Counties) along with regional, district and state leaders identified four key priority areas of focus:
1) Creating and supporting a robust workforce; 2) Increasing the percentage of children placed and supported in kinship homes to 50%; 3) Recruiting and sustaining a wide array of appropriate placements for children who enter
foster care and ending the practice of using hotels as placements for children in foster care; and 4) Improving permanency outcomes through the State’s “Safe at Home” initiative.
In addition to these four key pillars, the State continues to monitor the implementation of its new case practice model, Solution Based Casework. The initial phase of the roll out is taking place in Region 14 with significant support from the State’s office Education and Training Unit. The theory of reform is that if Region 14 can focus on these four pillars and successfully implement its new case practice model, it will be successful in enhancing the overall practice, improving outcomes for children and families and, ultimately, exiting the Consent Decree.
To create a culture of continuous quality improvement, Region 14 has developed a leadership team and process entitled Metro District Effectively Aligning Strategic Plans Utilizing Resources Efficiently (MEASURE). The team is comprised of the District Director, the Regional Director, the two County Directors, the Director of the State Kenny A. Unit, and the Director of the State Data Unit. Together, this group has begun to align the work under the Consent Decree, with the Blueprint for Change, the state strategic plan, the Governor’s Child Welfare Reform Council’s recommendations, and the federal requirements under the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR). Through meetings with state and county level staff, they have identified all the strategies and review processes currently in place to continue and enhance effective strategies, eliminated duplication of efforts and established a way of work that will foster greater communication and collaboration throughout the organization.
The MEASURE team has also chartered four work groups, one for each of the key priority areas. The MEASURE team members have been assigned to provide leadership for each work group. The work groups also include county level data staff, Program Managers, state level content area experts, a member of the state Kenny A unit, case managers, supervisors and administrators, and two members of the Kenny A. MTAT. The groups have been charged to meet regularly (at least twice a month), to pose analytic questions and review data evidence to better understand their
19

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 21 of 110 environment and the factors (root causes) impacting progress in their respective priority areas. As the workgroups develop a clearer understanding of the factors contributing to challenges in their issue area, their next step is to reach consensus on the priorities on which to focus. Those priorities are reflected then in the strategies that will be recommended to the MEASURE team and are expected to streamline and focus the work toward improvement of outcomes for children and families. This new continuous quality improvement process will replace the former G2 structure, in which MTAT and state and county leaders met twice a month to review overall data and track progress on all 31 outcomes and the process measures in the Consent Decree. Future monitoring reports will include updates for each of the four pillars as well as the implementation of the new case practice model.
20

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 22 of 110
PART TWO - SUMMARY OF OUTCOMES
The part above is focused on historical DFCS performance in DeKalb and Fulton counties through the end of December 2015. The rest of this report is focused on DFCS’ performance from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016 or Period 21. Certain system dynamics persisted from the prior period, most notably: 1) the use of hotels as placements for children in foster care; 2) a reliance on unapproved and unpaid relative homes for placements, and 3) high caseloads and continued challenges with worker turnover. The overall number of children and youth entering and exiting foster care decreased. The result was a net increase of 53 children in foster care at the end of the period.
The summary of outcome performance contained in this current report continues to reflect the challenges of responding expeditiously to these systems pressures. This response is simultaneous to also maintaining steadfast focus on longer-term system reform that is essential to generating and maintaining strong safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for children and families. Period 21 performance on core outcome measures, like achieving permanency, maintaining placement stability, and protecting children in custody from harm remained largely the same. There was some notable improvement in some key process areas, including visits of all types, but especially those between custodial children and their family members. There were also some declines that merit further attention, signaling the importance of maintaining core system processes even in the midst of system reform. These areas include the timely conclusion of maltreatment investigations for custodial children, diligent search efforts, and the presence of court order language for Title IV-e purposes. Of note, there is a decline in meeting the children’s identified needs for those children who had multiple needs identified.9
Safety
Three of the five safety measures relate to the process of investigation for children allegedly maltreated while in care – initiating investigations, completing investigations and timely contact with all alleged victim children. None of these met agreed upon consent decree standards. Performance on two of the process standards remained about the same as the previous period: initiating timely investigations and making timely face to face contacts with all alleged victim children in foster care. The percentage of investigations being completed in 30 days decreased notably from the previous period. The Period 20 rate of 82 percent is the lowest since Period 14, although almost all of these were completed within 45 days.
9 While over 85 percent or more of single identified needs were met, there was a decline in the proportion of children for whom all of the needs were met. See Outcome 30 for more details on this distinction.
21

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 23 of 110
The percentage of children in foster care who were victims of maltreatment during the previous 12 months (.42%) remained about the same as the previous period and continued to meet the agreed upon consent decree standard.
Finally, the incidence of corporal punishment remained below the limit set by the Consent Decree. Taken together – the counties’ performance reflects vigilance and close attention to the safety of children in their care.
Permanency
There was continued strength in the Consent Decree’s Outcomes 8a and 8b, indicating that over half of the children entering care during the period achieved permanency within one year of their exit, and an additional seven percent exited within their second year. This is well above the standard for 8a and consistent with recent performance on those important measures of permanency for children entering care. These results are tempered by a concerning proportion (17%) of children entering foster care during the period who had been in foster care at some point in the previous 12 months. Because the overall number of first entries did not decrease substantially, the higher proportion of reentries bears further consideration. Data provided to DFCS indicates that there is no evidence that recently finalized adoptions are disrupting following finalization.
Children are more likely to exit foster care to lasting permanency when they remain closely connected to the persons who are important to them. For the second consecutive reporting period, DFCS did not meet the agreed upon standard for searching for family members, dipping to 83 percent during Period 21. Most children were placed within 50 miles of their parents and/or caregivers from whom they were removed. Over 90 percent of children were meeting a minimal standard – once a month - for visiting with their parents by seeing them at least once a month. More children entering foster care with their siblings were placed together and, for the ones who are separated upon entry, most of them are seeing each other at least once a month. The percent of siblings placed together rose notably.
DFCS committed to processes in the original Consent Decree to promote permanency, some of them were and are federal requirements and others were specific to child welfare practice in Georgia in 2005.
One of these processes is a family team meeting process intended as a means of ensuring that family members and other professionals are working together to assess strength and need, develop individualized plans, implement them and track progress over time. Less than 40 percent of children in DeKalb and Fulton counties during the period had family team meetings at least once each quarter. Documentation for these meetings did not indicate much participation from foster parents, fathers or relatives. Mothers did come to 70 percent of them.
22

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 24 of 110
Another process envisioned as an opportunity to engage these same persons in joint planning are court reviews of permanency plans that must occur once a child has been in foster care for six months and 12 months. Timely court reviews of permanency plans once a child has been in foster care for six month did occur. More often than not, children, parents and family members were not participants. DFCS case managers did not attend all of these six-month reviews. Courts are reviewing permanency plans for most (over 90%) children and youth who have been in foster care for one year.
There were 43 children adopted during the period. Some of these were not finalized timely after parental rights were terminated or surrendered. More than one in ten children who remained in foster care for 15 of 22 months had not had their parental rights terminated or a compelling reason documented for not doing so.
Well-Being
Placement stability performance (Outcome 17) declined substantially for those cases reviewed for Period 19, and rebounded from that decline in Periods 20 and 21. The rebound is a good sign; however, this area remains a concern and will continue to be the subject of a great deal of focus from the AA and MTAT going forward. While the average days each individual child spent in a hotel decreased from the previous period, there were more individual children and youth who were placed in hotels and the overall number of hotel days increased in Period 21. At least one child spent the night in one of the Fulton County DFCS offices. The message from DFCS leadership is clear -- expanding the service array to depend more on relative caregivers and to better match children and youth to a placement is top priority. MTAT expects to continue to work with state, regional, and county leadership as they develop and implement strategies that will improve placement options for children and youth and therefore reduce placement disruptions.
Another measure of child well-being is the extent to which he or she is able to continue with the same caseworker while in foster care and spend time with his or her assigned caseworker. DFCS did not meet the agreed upon standard during the period for worker continuity. Conversely, DFCS continued in the period to meet agreed upon standards for caseworker visits with children. DFCS caseworkers continued to consistently visit caregivers for children in foster care.
The last measure of child well-being in the consent decree has to do with the extent to which medical, dental, education and mental health needs are being identified and addressed. Close to 70 percent of children had all their identified needs met during the period, declining from the prior two periods. Dental and mental health needs are reported as being met less often. The decline in recent performance is of concern, particular if there is an emerging pattern in those needs that are left unmet. Rising caseloads may explain some of this performance dip, but understanding its causes, and determining how the implementation of SBC may help address
23

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 25 of 110
these basic well-being remains is a priority for the MTAT in the development of practice and process standards.
Strengthening the Service Delivery Infrastructure
During Period 21, the approval and/or licensure status (Outcome 25) overall was strong at 96 percent. However, that overall performance obscures the fact that a significant proportion of children placed in relative homes that remain unapproved. One of the State’s key initiatives moving forward is to place children with relatives whenever possible and appropriate. Thus, emphasis on approval and licensing these placements is critical and a second key area of concern. These unapproved relatives are not receiving needed financial support from DFCS whether in the form of an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) or foster care per diem.
Caseworker and supervisory caseloads is a third area that poses serious challenges for DFCS. On June 30, 2016, there were 64 CPS investigators assigned to families, 56 (88%) of them were meeting caseload expectations. There were an additional 96 investigations assigned to workers on leave or to supervisors. Some of these 96 investigations were assigned to workers who were on vacation or taking FMLA, some of them could have been appropriately assigned to a supervisor who has five days to assign a case, others could have been related to SHINES, and some could not have been assigned because there was no caseworker available for case assignment. Well over half of the workers responsible for child permanency were exceeding agreed upon caseload limits. On June 30, 2016, the only case manager series meeting caseload standards were the ones responsible for preserving families outside of foster care. More supervisors were exceeding the 5:1 standard for supervision in Period 21 than in the previous period. This performance underscores the stress the workforce is under, and continues to justify the DFCS leadership focus on creating a robust workforce as a core reform priority.
Taken together, the Period 21 reports suggest that Fulton and DeKalb county leadership – along with state leaders – continued to contend with mounting system pressures. The results indicate that their efforts to maintain progress – or even hold steady – on safety, permanency, and wellbeing outcomes were mixed. There was continued strength and improvement on child safety measures that the State already met or exceeded. For two others, performance maintained at recent levels. However, the decline in performance on Outcome 2 merits close attention. While stable performance suggests that there is appropriate attention to matters requiring urgent and immediate attention, it is critical to develop and maintain whole system functioning. There is a clear need to focus those elements of practice and casework that required sustained effort and attention to see a case through to a safe and permanent conclusion.
As the State further clarifies and begins to install the system reforms that will be implemented as part of the Blueprint for Change, there is opportunity to reverse the decline in those areas that
24

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 26 of 110 dipped, and to continue to build on existing strengths. The following chart summarizes progress over the last three periods on the Kenny A. outcomes.
25

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 27 of 110

Kenny A. Outcomes: Recent Progress as of June 30, 2016

Safety Outcomes Children in Foster Care are Safe From Maltreatment in Care
Outcome 1: At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report.
Outcome 2: At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report.
Outcome 3: At least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face-toface, private contact with the alleged victim, including face-to-face contact with a child who is non-verbal due to age or for any other reason.
Outcome 5: No more than 0.57% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care.
Outcome 6: 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months. Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
Outcome 7: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care.
Outcome 16: At least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings.
Outcome 19: 90% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b (ii) and (iii).
Outcome 21: At least 85% of all children with the goal of reunification shall have appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification

Period 19 Performance
90% 93%
89% 1.16% 98%
96% 56% 91% 80%

Period 20 Performance

Period 21 Performance

92%

91%

99%

82%

90%
.45% 99%

89%
.42% 100%

86%

83%

68%

73%

97%

97%

83%

91%

26

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 28 of 110

Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of June 30, 2016

Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
Outcome 23: At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling-group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.10
Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 4: No more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode.
Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.
Outcome 8b: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entry: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, or shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less after entering: adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship.
Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 month backlog pool”): For all children remaining in the 24 month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 40% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal

Period 19 Performance
84%
8.3 % 58%
65%
011%

Period 20 Performance
85%
12.8% 58%
65%
0%12

Period 21 Performance
90%
17.6% 58%
65%
0%13

10 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 23 was modified. See
Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 11 Only three children remain in in the Outcome 9 cohort at the end of Period 19 12 Only three children remain in the Outcome 9 cohort at the end of Period 20. 13 Only three children remain in the Outcome 9 cohort at the end of Period 21.

27

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 29 of 110

Permanency Outcomes

Period 19

Period 20

Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections

Performance

Performance

custody, adoption, or guardianship.

Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of June 30, 2016

Period 21 Performance

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree: For all children remaining in the over 24 month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 35% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.
Outcome 11: For all children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights
Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree.
Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree.
Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period.
Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.

Period 19 Performance
014%
56%
94% One Time Measure Taken in Period I
30% One Time Measure Taken in Period I17
0%
91%

Period 20 Performance
0%15
76% N/A
N/A 0% 91%

Period 21 Performance
0%16
64% N/A
N/A 0% 89%

14 Only two children remain in the oM10 cohort at the end of Period 19 15 Only two children remain in the OM10 cohort at the end of Period 20. 16 Only two children remain in the OM10 cohort at the end of Period 21. 17 The children to whom this outcome applied have recruitment plans. Those who have been discharged since Period I have been included in the Outcome 9 and 10 results.
28

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 30 of 110

Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of June 30, 2016

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 27: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review.
Outcome 28: At least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.
Well-Being Outcomes Children Experience Stability and Worker Continuity
Outcome 17: At least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody.
Outcome 18: At least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave.
Outcome 20a: At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of twice-monthly face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur. 18

Period 19 Performance
89%
92%
77% 91% 96%

Period 20 Performance
92%
92%
87% 86% 95%

Period 21 Performance
100%
91%
85% 87% 97%

18As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 20 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
29

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 31 of 110

Outcome 20b: At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur 19
Well-Being Outcomes Children Experience Stability and Worker Continuity
Outcome 22: At least 95% of the total minimum required monthly visits by case managers to caregivers during the reporting period occur.20
Well-Being Outcomes Children and Youth Receive Services They Need
Outcome 24: The percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 20 percentage points (baseline is 36%).
Outcome 30: At least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.
Strengthened Infrastructure Outcomes Effective Oversight of Placement Settings
Outcome 25: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status.
Outcome 26: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.
Outcome 31: No more than 10% of all foster family home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.21

97% Period 19 Performance
94%
Only Reported Once a Year 77%
96% 100%
1.4%

98%

98%

Period 20 Performance
94%

Period 21 Performance
96%

42%

Only Reported Once a Year

77%

69%

96%

96%

98%

94%

.6%

1%

19 Ibid. 20 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 22 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 21 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the methodology for Outcome 31 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
30

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 32 of 110
PART THREE - SAFETY
Principle four of the Consent Decree asserts, “the State has primary responsibility for the care and protection of the children who enter the foster care system.”22 As a result, several Consent Decree outcomes and requirements focus attention on the safety of children in the custody of the State (DHS/DFCS). The following sections report on the State’s progress in the areas related to maltreatment of children in foster care and the State’s process for investigating such allegations (Outcomes 5, 1, 2,3, and 6).
Based on current DFCS policy 5.19, special investigations are required, among several criteria, when a child is in DFCS custody and any person has allegedly maltreated that child, including a DFCS or Child Placing Agency (CPA) foster or adoptive parent, approved relative or non-relative caregiver, Child Caring Institution (CCI) staff and other placement resources for children in DFCS custody.
Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment
Outcome 1 - Maltreatment-in-care Investigations Commenced Within 24 Hours of Receipt of Report.
The Consent Decree states, “at least 95 percent of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report.” For Period 21, the Accountability Agent and MTAT have relied on Chapter Five, Investigations, in the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services Child Welfare Policy Manual for current policy expectations related to special investigations of maltreatment in care.
The investigation process must include an interview and observation that is private and alone with each alleged victim child within the immediate, 24-hour response time to assess for child safety.23
Outcome 1 relates to the timeframe in which an investigation of suspected maltreatment of a foster child has commenced. The unit of analysis is the investigation itself, which may involve multiple alleged child victims.
22 See p. 4, Principle 4, of the Consent Decree. 23 DFCS Policy 5.21 Conducting Special Investigations in Relative or Non-Relative Placements, DFCS Policy 5.22 Conducting Special Investigations in Residential and Non-Residential Facilities
31

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 33 of 110
State Performance • The State Failed to Meet the Outcome Measure 1 Threshold.
During Period 21, 91 percent (101 of 111) of applicable investigations of maltreatment in care included face-to-face contacts made with at least one alleged victim within 24 hours.24 Of the ten investigations not commenced within 24 hours, three of them were the responsibility of DeKalb and Fulton counties; the remaining ones fell to the perimeter counties or to the State Special Investigations Unit. In two of these investigations, one from DeKalb and the other from Fulton County, at the time the allegation was made, the alleged victim children were no longer in the placement setting where the alleged maltreatment was reported to have happened. The alleged maltreatment for both children occurred while on visits with their birth families. Although these cases did not meet the consent decree standard for Outcome 1, these children were protected from the alleged harm in that particular placement setting. The reasons for not commencing these ten investigations within 24 hours varied. There was no documented reason for the delay in half of them. Documentation indicated delayed assignments to investigators or problems at the CPS Intake Communications Center or CICC for the remainder. This is according to file review data of all 112 maltreatment investigations completed during the Period. In these investigations, at least one victim child must be seen by a Child Protective Services (CPS) investigator or police to meet this 24-hour requirement. Other case managers do not count unless these persons have been certified as CPS investigators. Summary data from Period 21 are displayed in the following chart.
32

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 34 of 110

Outcome 1 – Commencement of Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations N=111

Investigating County

Commenced

Within 24 Hours

Number of

Percent

Investigations of Total

Not Commenced

Within 24 Hours

Number of

Percent

Investigations

of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

6

67%

3

33%

Perimeter Counties

39

98%

1

3%

State Special

Investigations

56

90%

6

10%

Unit26

Total

101

91%

10

9%

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, January - June, 2016.

Total Number of Investigations
9
40

Percent of Total
100%
101%25

62

100%

111

100%

This is similar to performance in the last three periods, and marks the eleventh consecutive period in which the State failed to meet the required threshold. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 1 Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations Commenced Within 24 Hours of Receipt of Report

Percent of Investigations

100% 100% 93%
90%

94% 93%

91% 90%

84%

85%

90%

90%

92%

91%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, July 2010 to June 2016.

25 This is due to rounding percentages. 26 Allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit rather than a local DFCS office. During this period, some SSIU staff persons were deployed to assist other regions. In addition, the unit also experienced terminations and resignations.
33

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 35 of 110
Outcome 2 - Maltreatment-in-care Investigations Completed Within 30 Days of Report Receipt. Outcome 2 relates to the length of time it takes to complete such investigations. The Consent Decree requires that “at least 95 percent of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report.” For this Period, the Accountability Agent and MTAT have relied on Chapter Five, Investigations, in the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services Child Welfare Policy Manual for current policy expectations related to special investigations of maltreatment in care. Special investigations must be completed within 30 calendar days of receipt of an intake report to assess the allegations of abuse or neglect, determine if the child is safe, take action to protect a child who is determined to be unsafe and determine if the allegations should be substantiated or unsubstantiated.27 State Performance
• The State did not meet the Outcome Measure 2 Threshold.
According to the record review data, the State completed 82 percent of maltreatment-in-care investigations (92 of 112) within 30 days during Period 21. This is a decrease from recent periods. The graph on the following page displays the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.
27 DFCS Policy 5.21 Conducting Special Investigations in Relative or Non-Relative Placements, DFCS Policy 5.22 Conducting Special Investigations in Residential and Non-Residential Facilities
34

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 36 of 110

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 2 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations Completed Within 30 Days of Report Receipt

Perecent of Investigations 100%

90%

80%

77%

82%

81%

75%

73%

99%

85%

93%

91%

88%

93%

82%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, July 2010 to June 2016.

During Period 21, performance demonstrates (82%) a decrease from Period 18 performance (88%), Period 19 performance (93%) and Period 20 (99%) performance. The chart below displays the Period 21 performance of DeKalb and Fulton counties, and the perimeter counties.

Outcome 2 – Timely Investigations N=112

Investigating County

Completed in ≤ 30 Days

Number

% of Total

Completed in ≤ 45 Days

Number

% of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

5

56%

6

67%

Perimeter Counties

35

88%

39

98%

State Special

Investigations

52

83%

69

98%

Unit28

Total

92

82%

107

96%

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, January to June 2016.

Total

Number

% of Total

9

100%

40

100%

63

100%

112

100%

28 Allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit rather than a local DFCS office. During this period, some SSIU staff was deployed to assist other regions. In addition, the unit also experienced terminations and resignations.
35

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 37 of 110
Outcome 3 - Maltreatment-in-care Investigations with Timely Face-to-Face Private Contact All Alleged Victims. Outcome 3 relates to the frequency with which such investigations include face-to-face contact with each alleged victim within 24 hours. The Consent Decree requires that “At least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face-to-face, private contact with the alleged victim, including face-to-face contact with a child who is non-verbal due to age or for any other reason.”
The investigation process must include an interview and observation that is private and alone with each alleged victim child within the immediate 24-hour response time to assess for child safety.29
CPS investigators must see infants under the age of one undressed to see if there are any physical signs of maltreatment. Any child four years of age or younger and the subject of physical abuse allegations must be seen undressed or to identify any injuries related to neglect allegations.30 State Performance
• The State Failed to Meet the Outcome Measure 3 Threshold. According to record review data from all investigations completed during Period 21, 89 percent of the alleged victims of maltreatment in care (119 out of 134) had face-to-face, private contact with a CPS investigator within 24 hours.
This performance is the similar to the previous two periods. Performance remains well below the Outcome 3 performance standard of 99 percent. The following graph illustrates the State’s performance on Outcome 3 for the last 12 reporting periods.
29 DFCS Policy 5.21 Conducting Special Investigations in Relative or Non-Relative Placements, DFCS Policy 5.22 Conducting Special Investigations in Residential and Non-Residential Facilities 30 Ibid.
36

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 38 of 110

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 3 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations with Timely Face-to-Face Private Contact
All Alleged Victims

Percent of Children

100%

99%

90%

80%

93%

93%

91%

88%

88%

84%

90% 80%

89%

90%

89%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30% 20% 10% 0%
Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, July 2010 – June 2016.
Fifteen alleged victim children did not have face-to-face, private contact within 24 hours; fourteen of them were not seen within 24 hours and one of them was seen but the investigator did not follow policy when interviewing the alleged victim child. Four of these alleged victim children were in cases investigated by DeKalb and Fulton counties, eleven of them were in cases investigated by perimeter counties or SSIU. It is also important to note that of the 15 alleged victim children for whom the response time was missed, one was removed from the placement setting in which the maltreatment was alleged to have occurred within 24 hours, but not interviewed within that timeframe.
DeKalb and Fulton Counties’ Outcome 3 performance of 10 out of 14 (71%) represents a decline in performance. In the cases investigated by perimeter counties, a CPS case manager made private, face-to-face contact within 24 hours with 43 out of 44 (98%) percent of the alleged victims, a substantial increase from the previous two periods. Displayed in the following charts are additional Outcome 3 data for Period 21.

37

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 39 of 110

Outcome 3 – Face-to-Face Contact with Alleged Maltreatment Victims within 24 Hours

N=134

Investigating County

CPS Contact Within 24 Hours
Alleged Percent

Removed Prior To or Within 24 Hours of
Report
Alleged Percent

No CPS Contact Within 24 Hours
Alleged Percent

Total Alleged Percent

Victims of Total Victims of Total Victims of Total Victims of Total

DeKalb/Fulton
Perimeter Counties
State Special Investigations Unit31

10

71%

43

98%

66

87%

1

7%

%

2

3%

3

21%

1

2%

8

11%

14

100%

44

100%

76 101%32

Total

119

89%

3

2%

3

9%

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, January to June 2016.

134

100%

During Period 21, for most of the alleged victim children who were not seen at all or not properly within 24 hours, there was no documented reason for the delayed initial contact. The following chart reflects this data.

31 Allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit rather than a local DFCS office. During this period, some SSIU staff was deployed to assist other regions. In addition, the unit also experienced terminations and resignations. 32 This is due to rounding percentages.
38

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 40 of 110

Documented Factors Contributing to Delayed Initial Contact with Alleged Victims33

Factors Contributing to Delayed Initial Contact
Delayed Reversal of Screen-out Decision
Delayed Referral by Placement Case Manager Delayed Assignment to Investigator Worker Making Contact Not CPS Certified CPS made contact but did not follow policy when interviewing child CICC Failed to Properly Record and Disposition Intake Attempt made but unsuccessful. No Documented Reason

Period 21

OM 1
0 1 2 0 0
2 0 5

OM 3
0 1 2 0 1
2 3 6

Total

10

15

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, January to June 2016.

DFCS policy details expectations for investigations of maltreatment in care to ensure consistency and quality. DFCS generally met policy expectations related to reviewing the DFCS history of the foster parents or caregivers, adequately evaluating and assessing the safety of children in the home and seeing/interviewing every alleged maltreated child separately in Period 21.

Policy requires all injuries observed during the investigation to be photographed. In Period 21, this occurred in 67 percent (44 of 66) applicable investigations. All foster parents or caregivers should be interviewed regardless of being present during the alleged incident. Reviewers found this to be the case in 87 percent (97 of 112) of applicable investigations.

These and other policy expectations are outlined in the following chart.

33 The differing counts for Outcomes 1 and 3 reflect the different units of analysis for these outcomes; for Outcome 1 it is the investigation, for Outcome 3 it is the alleged victim.
39

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 41 of 110

Proportion of Investigations Meeting Policy Requirements34

Investigation Policy Requirement
Alleged maltreator was interviewed separately (N=86)
Investigator saw/interviewed every alleged maltreated child separately (N=111) Continued safety of the child(ren) placed in the home was adequately evaluated and assessed (N=71)

Percent of Applicable Files with

Documentation of Compliance

Period 20

Period 21

90%

86%

95%

96%

93%

94%

Investigator reviewed the DFCS history of the foster parent/caregiver (N=67)

95%

96%

All approved foster parents/caregivers interviewed separately (N=88)

89%

87%

DFCS case managers required to visit in this foster care setting

were contacted (N=112)

91%

86%

All other adults frequently in the home interviewed separately (N=15)

80%

87%

Investigator reviewed previous CPS reports for foster parents/caregivers (N=68)

81%

81%

At least two relevant collateral sources contacted during the investigation (N=87)

80%

78%

Investigator saw/interviewed each of the other children (nonalleged victims) separately (N=82)

83%

78%

Case record contains physical evidence to support case documentation (N=66)

81%

67%

Source: Case File review of all Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, July, 2015 to June, 2016

At the conclusion of maltreatment-in-care investigations, DFCS policy requires counties to send an “Administrative Packet” detailing the incident and findings to the Social Services Director within 10 days. If the incident occurred in a provider-supervised foster care setting, an investigative summary must also be sent to Residential Child Care (RCC) and Office of Provider Management (OPM).

Likewise, Section 12.B. of the Consent Decree requires all reports of suspected abuse or neglect of foster children in institutional, group, residential, or private provider-supervised foster family home settings to be referred to and reviewed by Residential Child Care (RCC) and the Office of Provider Management (OPM).35 The purpose of the review specified in the Consent Decree is “…to determine whether a pattern of abuse or neglect exists within… [the provider agency] ….

34 The numbers vary based on placement settings and other factors. 35 RCC licenses child placing agencies (CPA), child caring institutions (CCI), and outdoor therapeutic programs (OTP). OPM approves CPAs, CCIs, and OTPs wishing to serve DFCS children once they have been licensed by RCC.
40

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 42 of 110

that contributed to the abuse or neglect; whether the contract should be terminated; whether particular homes or facilities should be closed….”36

To assess compliance with these provisions, the Accountability Agent collects data directly from RCC, OPM, and the DFCS Policy Unit to ascertain which maltreatment investigations involving foster children were reported to each office.

The policy unit was notified of all of the investigations of maltreatment-in-care during Period 21.

Policy Unit Notification of Period 21 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations N=81

Investigating

Total Investigations

Notified

Not Notified

County

Number

Number

% of Total

Number

% of Total

DeKalb

5

5

100%

Fulton

4

4

100%

Barrow

4

4

100%

Bibb

4

4

100%

Camden

4

4

100%

Carroll

4

4

100%

Chatham

4

4

100%

Cherokee

4

4

100%

Clayton

4

4

100%

Douglas

4

4

100%

Gilmer

4

4

100%

Glynn

4

4

100%

Greene

4

4

100%

Gwinnett

4

4

100%

Henry

4

4

100%

Laurens

4

4

100%

Newton

4

4

100%

Richmond

4

4

100%

Rockdale

4

4

100%

State Odffice (SIU)r

4

4

100%

Total

81

81

100%

Source: Survey of Notification of CPS Investigations in Foster Care Settings, January to June 2016. .

The Residential Child Care (RCC) Unit must be notified of all investigations of maltreatment-incare in which the child is placed in a provider supervised foster care settings, including private agency supervised foster homes and child caring institutions. The alleged maltreator could have been anyone. In Period 21, proper notification was given for 89 percent of applicable maltreatment in care investigations.

36 See Section 12 B, p. 28 of the Consent Decree.
41

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 43 of 110

Residential Child Care Notification of Period 21 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations
N=54

Investigating County

Total Investigations Number

Notified Number

% of Total

Not Notified Number

DeKalb

1

1

100%

Barrow

1

0

0%

1

Carroll

2

2

100%

Chatham

1

1

100%

Cherokee

2

2

100%

Clayton

6

5

83%

1

Douglas

2

1

50%

1

Glynn

2

2

100%

Greene

1

1

100%

Gwinnett

2

2

100%

Henry

1

1

100%

Laurens

4

3

75%

1

Richmond

1

1

100%

Rockdale

1

1

100%

State Office

27

25

93%

2

(SIU)

Total

54

48

89%

6

Source: Survey of Notification of CPS Investigations in Foster Care Settings, January to June 2016.

% of Total
100%
17% 50%
25% 7% 11%

42

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 44 of 110

The Office of Provider Management (OPM) Unit must be notified of all investigations of maltreatment-in-care in which the child is placed in provider supervised foster care settings operating under DFCS contracts, including private agency supervised foster homes and child caring institutions. The alleged maltreator could have been anyone. This was done is Period 21.

Office of Provider Management Notification of Period 21 Maltreatment-in-care Investigations
N=47

Investigating County

Total Investigations Number

Notified Number

% of Total

Not Notified Number

DeKalb

1

1

100%

Barrow

1

1

100%

Carroll

2

2

100%

Chatham

1

1

100%

Cherokee

2

2

100%

Clayton

6

6

100%

Douglas

2

2

100%

Glynn

2

2

100%

Greene

1

1

100%

Gwinnett

2

2

100%

Henry

1

1

100%

Newton

1

1

100%

Richmond

1

1

100%

Rockdale

1

1

100%

State Office

23

23

100%

(SIU)

Total

47

47

100%

Source: Survey of Notification of CPS Investigations in Foster Care Settings, January to June 2016.

% of Total

Outcome 5 – Maltreatment in Foster Care

Measurement of Outcome 5 uses the federal definition as it existed in 2005: “Of all children in foster care in the State during the period under review, 0.57 percent or fewer were the subject of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member."37

37 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families: Updated National Standards for the Child and Family Service Reviews and Guidance on Program Improvement Plans. Information Memorandum ACYF-CB-IM-01-07, August 16, 2003. That standard was later revised to .32, or 99.68 children should be free from maltreatment while in care.
43

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 45 of 110
The data used to measure the outcome performance derive from a review of all 112 investigations of alleged maltreatment concerning 135 class member children in foster care in DeKalb and Fulton counties conducted during Period 21. There were 1,910 children and youth in foster care in DeKalb and Fulton counties at any time during the Period, which is the denominator for this outcome measure. The numerator for this measure is the number of substantiated victim children who were maltreated by a foster parent or facility staff person, which was the federal definition for this measure in 2005 at the time parties entered into the current Consent Decree. Excluded from this numerator are substantiations of maltreatment when the perpetrator is unknown, a birth parent, or relative caregivers or fictive kin who are not approved foster parents in Georgia, other members of the child’s household and other child caring staff persons such as daycare providers, school teachers. In Period 21, there were 15 substantiated victim children in placement in DeKalb and Fulton counties, eight (8) of them were maltreated by a foster parent or facility staff person.
State Performance in Period 21
• The State Surpassed the Outcome 5 Threshold Of the 1,910 children and youth in foster care at any point in time during the Period, there were 112 investigations that resulted in there being eight (8) victims of substantiated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff person. These eight (8) victims, represent less than one (0.42%) percent of the population of children and youth in foster care during the Period. This is consistent with the previous period and is a marked improvement from Period 19 performance of 1.16 percent. The following graph displays the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.
44

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 46 of 110

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 5 Maltreatment in Care

Percent of Children 1.20%

1.16%

1.00%

0.80% 0.60% 0.40%

0.42%

0.58% 0.41%

0.58%

0.74%

0.68%

0.48%

0.63%

0.72%

0.45% 0.42%

0.20%

0.00%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: ≤0.57%

Goal: Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% ≤0.57%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, July 2010 to June 2016.

The types of maltreatment substantiated for these eight children consisted of the following: inadequate supervision (3 children); inadequate food, clothing and shelter (1 child); emotional abuse and inadequate supervision (1 child); physical abuse and inadequate supervision (1 child) and physical abuse (2 children). DFCS supervised foster homes accounted for two (25%) of these cases. There were five (63%) substantiated victims being cared for in Child Caring Institutions (CCIs). The other case involved a child in a provider supervised foster home.
Among the substantiated cases of maltreatment, the following were of particular concern:
• Two allegations of inadequate supervision and physical abuse were made against two employees at one of Georgia’s provider agencies. These employees, who were involved in separate incidents, got into physical altercations with two different victim children. One of these employees bit the victim child. One of them was terminated, and the other resigned.
Although not included in the measure’s calculations, there were seven (7) other children from DeKalb and Fulton counties substantiated for being maltreated in foster care. These children were maltreated by biological parents, relatives, school employees and, for one child, another

45

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 47 of 110
household member.
Outcome 6 – Corporal Punishment.
The Consent Decree prohibits the use of corporal punishment for children and youth in foster care and contains certain requirements for assessing allegations of corporal punishment.38 The following section summarizes the extent to which DFCS met these agreed upon standards in Period 21.
Outcome 6 seeks to protect children in foster care from experiencing corporal punishment, which the Consent Decree defines as “…any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain.”39 The Consent Decree requires that by the end of Period 4, 98 percent of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months. State Performance
• The State Exceeded the Outcome Measure 6 Threshold. During Period 21, there were seven allegations of corporal punishment of children in foster care and all of them were referred to the Child Protective Services Intake Communications Center or CICC. The CICC made the following determinations: three of allegations were screened in for a CPS investigation; two were screened in for a policy violation assessment; and two screened out and no further action was taken. The three CPS investigations were not substantiated. No policy violation was found for the alleged incident in the CPA foster home. There is no evidence of a policy violation assessment for the alleged corporal punishment in the DFCS foster home. The result is that there were no confirmed incidents of corporal punishment in the previous 12 months. In total, 82 of 82 foster homes sampled (100%) had no confirmed incidents of corporal punishment in the previous 12 months, thus meeting the Consent Decree standard.
38 See pages 29 and 30, Section 12.C of the Consent Decree 39 See p. 2 of the Consent Decree.
46

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 48 of 110

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 6: Absence of Corporal Punishment in Foster Homes

Percent of Foster

Homes 100.0% 100%

99% 98%

99% 100% 100% 100%

96%

99% 98%

99% 100%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥98% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment-in-Care Investigations, January 2010 to June 2016.
a. Awareness of Corporal Punishment Prohibition
All placement settings are to prohibit the use of corporal punishment. In all but one (98%) of the foster homes sampled, there was a signed statement by the foster parents or caregivers or other evidence in the file that: 1) they were told about the DFCS corporal punishment policies, and 2) that they agreed not to use corporal punishment.
b. Enforcement of Corporal Punishment Prohibition
Enforcement of the corporal punishment prohibition in DFCS-supervised foster homes is carried out by the county DFCS offices.
The Residential Child Care (RCC) Licensing section monitors, inspects, and licenses Child Caring Institutions, Child Placing Agencies, Outdoor Child Caring Programs, Children’s Transitional Care Centers, Runway Homeless Youth Program and Maternity Homes. RCC requires Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) and Child Caring Institutions (CCIs) to have written policies prohibiting the use of corporal punishment as a condition of licensure.
The Office of Provider Management (OPM) is responsible for contracting with Child Caring Institutions (CCIs) and Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) for the provision of room, board and watchful oversight services. A CCI provides room, board and watchful oversight to six or more children through 18 years of age (21 if the young person has chosen to remain in foster care). The child or youth is generally placed with six or more in a residential setting, such as a group

47

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 49 of 110
home, on a campus or a self-contained facility. Independent Living (IL) and Transitional Living Programs (TLPs) are managed by CCIs. CPAs are child welfare agencies that place children in foster homes and resource homes for temporary care, supervision and oversight. These agencies are responsible for making sure the foster home is appropriate and able to meet the needs of the individual child or youth. There are 12 types of Room, Board, Watchful Oversight (RWBO) care that can be provided within CCIs or CPAs designed to meet more moderate needs of children and youth to the most acute.
Based on a core belief that children and youth served by these providers should be safe from abuse and neglect, exit to permanency and have their well-being needs met, OPM implemented a performance based placement system in 2010.
Specific to corporal punishment and part of the performance based placement system, CCIs, CPAs, Independent Living and Transitional Living Programs are given credit for:
• maintaining low percentages of children and youth involved in an incident that has been investigated and substantiated by CPS while in their care; and
• managing behavior in ways that do not re-traumatize children and youth. OPM relies on onsite case record reviews, collateral contacts, and self-reported data from providers that has been validated to some extent to make sure that these providers are meeting contractual obligations.
c. Screening and Assessment of Corporal Punishment Allegations
Parties reached agreement in 2005 on several processes to be used when a report of suspected corporal punishment of a child in DFCS custody is received. 40 Safeguards are in place to ensure that allegations are screened immediately by persons who have been trained in the relevant issues – including child protective services – and do not also have responsibility for the recruitment or selection of foster parents, adoptive parents, relative caregivers or other placement providers. If there is reasonable cause to believe that abuse or neglect has occurred, the report of corporal punishment must be handled as an abuse and neglect referral. All reports of corporal punishment in child caring institutions shall be treated as abuse and neglect referrals.
There are also specific provisions for reports of corporal punishment that do not result in abuse or neglect referrals and instead are assessed as policy violations.
Based in part on concerns raised in Period 18 about a new Chapter 15 policy allowing CPAs and CCIs to conduct their own policy violation assessments, including when there are allegations of corporal punishment, leaders in DeKalb and Fulton counties and other DFCS state office persons
40 See pages 29 and 30, Section 12.C.1 – 3 of the Consent Decree
48

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 50 of 110
outlined a process for assessing corporal punishment as a policy violation in a manner they believed would: 1) keep children and youth in foster care safe and protected from harm; 2) exceed statewide policy expectations; and 3) occur for every allegation of corporal punishment being assessed as a policy violation and not being investigated as an abuse of neglect referral. The Accountability Agent agreed to monitor the utilization and efficacy of this process. To do so, the Accountability Agent and the MTAT worked with the case review team and Georgia State University (GSU) to modify the case review instruments to assess the extent to which the new policy violations process met these expectations. Here is what was found through the Period 21 review of 82 randomly selected foster homes: There were seven referrals of alleged corporal punishment. All of these were made to the Child Protective Services Intake Communications Center (CICC) and three of them were screened for a CPS investigation. Two of them were screened out and no further action was taken. Two of them were screened in for a policy violation assessment; one of these followed the agreed upon process and the other did not. The policy violation assessment was done properly for the alleged corporal punishment in the CPA foster home. The CPA made contact with the child within 24 hours of the allegation referral date. The child was interviewed alone and in private. The foster mother was interviewed alone and in private. The day care staff were interviewed. The CPA submitted the policy violation assessment to OPM on February 23, 2016. OPM reviewed the policy violation assessment and the foster home was cleared on April 4, 2016. The Office of Provider Management also reviewed this policy violation assessment and concurred with the CPA’s assessment. Both the CPA and OPM concluded that there was insufficient evidence to confirm that the alleged corporal punishment occurred or that the disciplinary policy was violated.
The policy violation assessment was not done properly for the alleged corporal punishment in a DFCS foster home so there was no determination as to whether the alleged corporal punishment occurred and the disciplinary policy was violated. There was no evidence in the record that the DFCS Resource Development worker made contact with the child and caretaker. There is no evidence that safety was assessed regarding the corporal punishment allegation. The supervisor indicated that the alleged corporal punishment screened in for a policy violation assessment was not conducted because the worker thought this was a duplicate report. This issue warrants further exploration, particularly to make sure that appropriate checks and balances in place to ensure these assessments are being conducted as agreed upon and that children do not experience corporal punishment while in foster care.
49

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 51 of 110
PART FOUR - PERMANENCY
Several of the Consent Decree outcomes and practice requirements focus on various components of achieving permanency for children. This part reports on the State’s progress in the areas related to children in DFCS custody maintaining their family connections and safely returning home or achieving permanency with new families.
Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
Outcome 7 – Diligent Search
Outcome Measure 7 in the Consent Decree requires case managers to conduct and document a diligent search for parents and relatives within 60 days of entry for at least 95 percent of the children. The outcome requirement for undertaking a diligent search within 60 days was deemed to have been satisfied if one of the following conditions was met:
• The child was placed with a relative within 60 days after entering custody; or, • A court order stated that the diligent search had been properly and timely submitted to
the court; or, • There were documented search efforts that included the following: interviewing
children41 about adults in their lives or someone with whom they would want to live and interviewing one or more family members or family friends within 60 days and, when resources were identified, contacting or attempting to contact them.
State Performance • The State did not meet the Outcome 7 Measure Threshold During Period 21, the counties documented diligent search efforts in 15 out of 18 (83%) of the cases reviewed. Due to the small sample size, performance for this measure is highly variable. The following chart displays additional information about the State’s documented diligent search efforts, followed by a graph displaying the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.
41 If the child was aged 3 or younger, the record review did not seek to determine if the child was interviewed.
50

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 52 of 110

Diligent Search Actions Undertaken N=22
Actions Children placed with a family resource within 60 days of entering custody Court order documented that the diligent search was “properly and timely” submitted Evidence of interviews with child and child’s family and others within first 60 days and contact made with one or more possible resource, as applicable Subtotal for Outcome Measurement Insufficient search activities in first 60 days: no documented interviews of children to gather information about relatives and significant others (children ranged in age from 5 to 17) Total Source: Case Record Review, January 1– June 30, 2016.

Number 4 3 8 15
3
18

Percent 22% 17% 44% 83%
17%
100%

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 7 Diligent Searches Undertaken Within 60 Days

Percent of Children

110% 100%
90% 80%

94% 95% 96%

96% 97% 100% 97% 96% 86% 83%

80% 70%

60%

50% 40%

30% 20%

10%

0%

Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95%

Period 6 Period 8 Period 10 Period 12 Period 14 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

(December (December (December (December (December (December (June (December (June (December (June

2008) 2009) 2010) 2011) 2012) 2013) 2014) 2014) 2015) 2015) 2016)

Source: Case Record Reviews

Outcome 16 – Sibling Placement.
At least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings.

51

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 53 of 110

State Performance • The State Failed to Meet the Required Threshold for Outcome 16.
During Period 21, the State's performance increased to 74 percent but was still below the threshold. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 16 All Siblings Placed Together in Foster Care

Percent of Children

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

94%

74%

74%

81%

66%

76%

71% 57%

59%

56%

68%

74%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data

Outcome 19 – Placement Proximity

Outcome 19 requires the State to place at least 90 percent of children in foster care within the
same county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed.42 The Consent Decree allows for the following exceptions:
• Children with needs so exceptional that they cannot be met by family; • Children placed with relatives through ICPC; • Children is in an adoptive placement; and • Children placed with parent/guardian.

State Performance • The State Surpassed the Outcome 19 Threshold.

42 See p. 35, Outcome 19, of the Consent Decree.
52

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 54 of 110

During Period 21, out of the 92 children in the sample, the State placed 33 children (36%) within their home county; 49 children (53%) within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed; seven children (8%) had exceptional needs that required placement further away; and three children (3%) were not placed in proximity to their homes of removal. Thus, the State’s performance for Period 21 was 97 percent. This data is displayed in the pie chart below, followed by a graph depicting the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.

Exceptional need
placement/ Accepted reason for distance
8%

Child Placement Proximity to Home of Removal N=92
No reason/other reason for not
meeting standard
3%

In County 36%

Within 50 miles 53%
Source: Foster Care Case Record Review for January to June, 2016.
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 19 Placement Proximity

53

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 55 of 110

Percent of Children 99%
100%
90%

99%

98%

97%

95%

95%

95%

97%

93%

91%

97%

97%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews July 2010 – June 2016.
Outcome 21 – Parent Child Visitation
At least 85 percent of all children with the goal of reunification shall have appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. State Performance
• The State Met the Outcome 21 Threshold. During Period 21, the State's performance increased to 91 percent and is above the threshold. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 21 Parent Child Visitation

54

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 56 of 110

Percent of Children
100% 90% 88%
80%

89%

86%

90%

95%

93%

92%

94%

85%

80%

83%

91%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December Juned 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data
Outcome 23 – Sibling Visitation

At least 90 percent of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling-group visits shall

have taken place during the reporting period. Children who have one or more siblings in custody

with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each

month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state

in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles

and

the

child

is

placed

with

a

relative.

State Performance
• The State Met the Required Threshold for Outcome 23.
The Period 21 performance of 90 percent is an increase from the P20 performance (85%) and meets the required threshold. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.
Eleven Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 23 Sibling Visitation
Percent of Required Visits

55

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 57 of 110

Source: Verified State Data

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

95% 94% 95% 95% 96% 94% 94% 92% 84% 85% 90%

Goal: ≥90%

Goal: ≥90%

Goal: ≥90%

Goal: ≥90%

Goal: ≥90%

Goal: ≥90%

Goal: ≥90%

Goal: ≥90%

Goal: ≥90%

Goal: ≥90%

Goal: ≥90%

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 4 – Re-Entry into Custody.
No more than 8.6 percent of all foster children entering custody shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. State Performance
• The State Failed to Meet the Threshold Requirement for Outcome 4.
The State’s performance in Period 21 (17.6%) is the highest rate since the beginning of the consent decree. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 4 Re-entry into Care

56

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 58 of 110

Percent of Chidren

20.0% 18.0%

17.6%

16.0% 14.0%

12.8%

12.0% 10.0%
8.0%

9.6%

8.6%

8.7%

9.7% 9.40% 8.8%

10.5% 10.6% 9.4%
8.3%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%
Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data
Outcome 8a and 8b – Permanency Exits for Children Who Entered Care On or After October 21, 2005.
8a - Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40 percent shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.
The State’s Period 21 performance of 58 percent exceeds the required threshold. The State has consistently exceeded this outcome.
State Performance • The State Met the Threshold Requirement for Outcome 8a.
8b - Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74 percent shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entry: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, or shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less after entering: adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship.
State Performance • The State Failed to Meet the Threshold Requirement for Outcome 8b.

57

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 59 of 110

The Period 21 performance of 65 percent did not meet the required threshold. The State has never met this Consent Decree requirement but has generally trended in a positive direction.
Outcome 8 Children Entering DFCS Custody on or after October 27, 2005
Who Exited to Permanency by June 30, 2016

Number of children in cohort Exits as of June 30, 2016
Reunification within 12 months Permanent Placement with Relatives within 12 months (still in state custody) Permanent Legal Custody within 12 months (custody transferred from DFCS) Permanent Legal Custody between 12 and 24 months (custody transferred from DFCS) Adoption within 12 months Adoptions between 12 and 24 months Guardianship within 12 months Guardianships between 12 and 24 months Total Exits for Outcome Measurement Percentage Exiting for Outcome Measurement Number Exited to Permanency but not in required time frame Other exits (transfer to other counties, emancipation, etc.) Total number exiting Remaining number in cohort on June 30, 2016
Demographics of those still in DFCS custody at June 30, 2016
Source: SHINES, and county tracking systems.

Children who entered custody

on or since October 27, 2005

13297

8(a)

8(b)

6187

6187

0

0

913

913

364

31

31

233

617

599

265

7748

8622

58%

65%

1933 (15%)

1261 (9%)

11817 (89%)

1480 (11 %)

Average length of stay:

19.6 months

Median length of stay:

15 months

Average Age: 8 years

52% female, 48% male

58

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 60 of 110

The following graph displays the State’s performance over the 12 most recent reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 8a and 8b Permanency Exits for Children Who Entered Care On or After October 21, 2005
Percent of Children

70% 60%

61% 54%

62% 54%

61% 54%

62% 55%

62% 55%

63% 56%

64% 57%

65% 57%

65% 58%

65% 58%

65% 58%

65% 58%

65% 58%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Period 9
June 2010

Period 11 June 2011

Period 13 June 2012

Period 15 June 2013

Period 17 June 2014

Period 19 June 2015

Period 21 June 2016

OM8a

OM8b

Source: SHINES, and county tracking systems.

The pie chart below illustrates the exit outcomes for all children who have entered state custody since the start of the Consent Decree.

Other Exits, 9%

Still in Custody on June 30, 2016 11%

Positive Permanency Exits, 80%
Source: SHINES, and county tracking systems. *Positive Permanency exits include reunification, adoption, guardianship, permanent legal custody, and permanent placement with relatives. Other exits include emancipation and transfer to other counties or states.
59

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 61 of 110

8b Special Cohort
As a result of ongoing discussions between the parties about the Outcome 8b performance and a request by Plaintiffs' Counsel in February 201243, the State began providing a special “entry cohort” analysis of the State’s 8b performance to shed more light on the State’s progress. To date, this analysis has considered the permanency results over 24 months for nine separate cohorts of children.
Specifically, this entry cohort analysis measures the proportion of children entering care in each of the designated reporting periods that achieved one of the stipulated permanency outcomes within 12 or 24 months of entry, as applicable. The result is displayed in this table.

Children Achieving Timely Permanency within 24 Months of Entering Foster Care: Results for Cohorts of Children Entering Periods 6 – 15

Cohort 1
Period 6 7/1/08 to 12/31/08

Cohort 2
Period 7 1/1/09 to 6/30/09

Cohort Cohort

3

4

Period Period

8

9

7/1/09 1/1/10

to

to

12/31/09 6/30/10

Cohort 5
Period 10 7/1/10 to 12/31/10

Cohort 6
Period 11 1/1/11 to 6/30/11

Cohort Cohort

7

8

Period Period

12

13

7/1/11 1/1/12

to

to

12/31/11 6/30/12

Cohort 9
Period 14 7/1/12 to 12/31/12

Cohort 10
Period 15 1/1/13 to 6/30/13

Cohort 11
Period 16 7/1/13 to 12/31/13

Cohort 12
Period 17 1/1/14 to 6/30/14

66%

70%

75%

73%

73%

72%

70%

68%

72%

69%

72%

71%

Outcome 9 – Permanency Exits Among Children Who Had Been in the Custody of DeKalb or Fulton County Up to 24 Months as of October 27, 2005.
Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24-month backlog pool”): For all children remaining in the 24-month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 40 percent by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.
At the beginning of Period 21, there were 3 children remaining in the Outcome 9 cohort. None of these children achieved positive permanency exits. For the three children remaining in

43 Email correspondence from Laurence D. Borten, Children’s Rights to Mark Cohen, Special Counsel to The Department of Human Services, February 17, 2012.
60

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 62 of 110
custody at the end of the period, none were under the age of 12. The primary permanency plan for each child is adoption and they each have mental health issues that impact their behavior. Outcome 10 – Permanency Exits Among Children Who Had Been in the Custody of DeKalb or Fulton County More than 24 Months as of October 27, 2005.
Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree: For all children remaining in the over 24-month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 35 percent by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. At the beginning of Period 21 there were two children remaining in the Outcome 10 cohort. Neither of these children exited during the period. One child has several health issues requiring 16 hours of nursing per day. Neither child is under the age of 12. Outcome 11 – Adoptions within 12 Months of Termination of Parental Rights.
For all children, whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80 percent will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Outcome 11 Threshold. The State’s performance decreased from 76 percent in Period 20 to 64 percent in Period 21. Amongst the 42 children whose parents’ rights were terminated between January and June, 2015, only 27 children had their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months. However, among the 15 children who did not achieve permanency within 12 months, seven of them were part of two large sibling groups who did achieve permanency within 15 months. The delay in achieving permanency was due to the foster parents’ appeals regarding the decreased amount in per diem between the enhanced large sibling foster care rate and the specialized adoption rate. The state is now reviewing its policies and per diem rates as well as practice issues which may have led to the delays. The following graph depicts the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.
61

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 63 of 110

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 11 Adoptions/Guardianships Finalized within 12 months of TPR

Percent of Children

100%

90%

84% 84%

80%

78% 81%

76%

70% 64% 69%

60% 60%

64%

60%

55%

56%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data
Outcome 14 – Adoption Disruptions within 12 Months of Finalizations.
No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Within the group of 29 children adopted between January 1 and June 30, 2015, none (0%) are known to have re-entered the State’s custody by June 30, 2016. The State has surpassed this outcome measure in every reporting period.
Other Practices and Processes to Promote Permanency

The State reports that regularly scheduled reviews of progress toward permanency take place in each county for children who reach their 13th month in care. According to State reported data, 257 children reached their 13th month in care in Period 21. Of these 257 children, 189 had their cases reviewed by the State Permanency Review Team. Reviewer concurrence with the goal and plan are typically low and often result in staffings to discuss appropriate casework. While the circumstances among these cases vary, there is a trend among cases in which the counties maintain a goal of reunification, despite having documentation and compelling reasons to transition the case to another plan. The MTAT is working with the counties to determine the cause of decreasing percentages of family involvement with FTM’s and case planning. More information will be reported in the next monitoring report.

62

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 64 of 110

DFCS Permanency Reviews at the 13th and 25th Month in Custody 13th Month Permanency Review Implementation July 1 through December 31, 2015 N=271 Number Percent

Total Cases Reviewed by State Permanency Reviewers

257

95%

Reviewer Concurrence with goal and plan

115

45%

Permanency Goal Reunification Permanent placement with relative Adoption Guardianship Another planned permanent living arrangement Totals

209

81%

0

0%

29

11%

14

6%

5

2%

257

100%

Cases with current case plans (court sanctioned/approved)

205

78%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2016 First and Second Quarterly Reports on 13th month Permanency Reviews.

63

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 65 of 110

Family Team Meetings Convened for 13th Month Permanency Reviews January 1 through June 30, 2016 N= varies Number Percent

Cases with “Family Team Meetings” (FTM) within the last 90 days (percentages based 89

39%

on the number of applicable cases =231)

FTMs with mothers involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs held— 54

71%

excludes cases for which there was a TPR, a non-reunification order, the mother’s

whereabouts were unknown throughout the life of the case, or the mother was

deceased—N=76)

FTMs with fathers involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs held— 19

33%

excludes cases for which there was a TPR, a non-reunification order, the father’s

whereabouts were unknown throughout the life of the case, or the father was

deceased—N=57)

FTMs with relatives involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs held and 28

45%

potential relatives to invite — N=62)

FTMs with foster parents involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs held 19

31%

and number of children with foster parents — N= 61)

FTMs with service providers involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs held 34

41%

and number of children with service providers – N=83)

FTMs had recommendations specific to Child/Family needs (percentages based on 58

67%

N=87)

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2016. First and Second Quarterly Reports on 13th month Permanency Reviews.

64

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 66 of 110

13th Month Permanency Review: Engagement in Case Planning January 1 through June 30, 2016 N=varies Number

Percent

Active involvement in the case planning process

Child (n=152)

149

98%

Mother (n=198)

195

98%

Father (n=90)

79

88%

Caretaker (n=253)

250

99%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2016. First and Second Quarterly Reports on 13th month Permanency Reviews.

25th Month Permanency Review Implementation January 1 through June 30, 2016 N=126
Number

Total Cases Staffed

125

Reviewer Concurrence with County Plan

91

Percent 99% 72%

Permanency Goal Reunification Permanent Placement with Relative Adoption Guardianship Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement Totals

75

60%

0

0%

37

29%

9

7%

5

4%

126

100%

Cases with current case plans (Court sanctioned/approved)

88

70%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2016. First and Second Quarterly Reports on 25thmonth Permanency Reviews.

65

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 67 of 110

25th Month Permanency Review: Engagement in Case Planning January 1 through June 30, 2016 N=varies
Number

Percent

Active involvement in the case planning process

Child (n=86)

85

99%

Mother (n=59)

55

93%

Father (n=40)

32

80%

Caretaker (n=126)

126

100%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2016. First and Second Quarterly Reports on 25thmonth Permanency Reviews.

Post Adoption Assistance
The State reported that 43 children were adopted between January 1 and June 30, 2016. This is significantly less than the number of children adopted in Period 20 (61) and significantly more than Period 19 (28).
During Period 21, according to data obtained from the State Office of Adoptions, 43 (100%) of those children adopted were receiving or were scheduled to receive monthly Adoption Assistance benefits and Medicaid. This proportion is the same as the proportion in Period 20 (100%). All families receiving monthly adoption assistance are also eligible to receive additional benefits to cover one-time, non-recurring expenses. They may apply for reimbursement of nonrecurring expenses of up to $1500 once the adoption is finalized. Timely reimbursement is somewhat dependent on how quickly families are able to obtain the signed adoption decree and submit the application to DFCS. Once submitted, all the appropriate data must be entered into SHINES to move the case into a post-adoption category. Sometimes, this occurs after the review period. Among the 43 families eligible for non-recurring adoption assistance, 84 percent had received these benefits by June 30, 2016. This is significantly less than the proportion of families receiving reimbursement by the end of Period 20 (100%).

Outcome 15 – Permanency Actions for Children Reaching Their 15th Month in Custody of Most Recent 22 Months.

66

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 68 of 110
The Consent Decree Outcome 15 stipulates that 95 percent of children who reach their 15th month in care will have had either: 1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed against both parents or legal caregivers, as applicable; or 2) a compelling reason documented in the case record as to why such action is not in the best interest of the child.44
Under federal regulations and state law, there are three exceptions to the requirement that TPR petitions be filed after the 15th of 22 months in care. They are:
• The child is being cared for by a relative; • The State has documented a “compelling reason” that filing a petition to terminate
parental rights would not serve the child's best interests; (the allowable exception noted above) or • The State has not made “reasonable efforts” to reunify the family.45
Federal regulations state and DFCS policy advises that a “compelling reason” must be based on the individual case circumstances guided by what is in the best interest of the child.46
The measurement of Outcome 15 is based on the entire population of children who, in Period 21, reached or exceeded their 15th month in custody out of the previous 22 months. As in previous periods, the Accountability Agent and the MTAT reviewed the compelling reason provided for each child and compared it to past information. Information provided by the counties was also verified using data from the Period 21 review of 91 randomly selected foster care case records.
During Period 21, 842 children had reached or surpassed their 15th month in custody out of the previous 22 months. A group of 173 children (21% of 842), was excluded from the Outcome 15 performance measurement based on the placement of these children with relatives, as allowed under Federal law.
44 See p. 34, Outcome 15, of the Consent Decree. 45Adoption and Safe Families Act, see also Social Services Manual Chapter 1000, Section 1002.7, Georgia Department of Human Services. 46 See Social Services Manual, Section 1002.12.3, 1002.17, and 1013.11, Georgia Department of Human Services.
67

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 69 of 110

State Performance
• The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 15 Threshold.
By June 30, 2016, 89 percent of the children in care 15 of the previous 22 months were legally free to be adopted or the State had filed petitions to terminate parental rights or documented compelling reasons why it had not taken such action. This is slightly lower than the Period 20 performance (91%). The following graph that displays the State’s performance on Outcome 15 for the 12 most recent reporting periods. The chart that follows summarizes the different components of the counties’ Period 21 performance, drawn from verified data in their tracking systems.
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 15: Children in Care 15 of the Previous 22 Months have Petitions for Terminating Parental Rights or a
Compelling Reason Not to Terminate Parental Rights

Percent of Children 100% 98% 100% 98%

96%

96%

98%

99%

96%

96%

91%

91%

89%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December July 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: SHINES

68

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 70 of 110

Status of Children Who Had Been in DFCS Custody 15 of the previous 22 months As of June 30, 2016

Region 14 OM 15 SUMMARY RP21

Number

Total Percent

Children who reached or surpassed their 15th month in custody of the past 22 months between January 1 and June 30, 2016.

Excepted Subpopulations

Children placed with relatives

The State has not made reasonable efforts to reunify the family

Number of Children for Outcome 15 Measurement

842 173
669

Parental Rights of Both Parents have been terminated or relinquished

169

25.3%

DFCS has filed a petition to complete the termination of the parental rights of

both parents where applicable.

109

16.3%

There is a documented compelling reason for not terminating parental rights. 319

Reasons cited for not terminating parental rights

Number

A1 There is a permanency goal of return home, approved by the 160

Court and the child is expected to be reunited with parents

within 6 months.

47.7%

A2 The child is a specified age (14) or older and objects to being

97

adopted

Cumulative
25.3% 41.6% 89.3%

A3 The child has severe emotional or behavioral problems or a

13

serious medical conditional and reunification remains an

appropriate goal.

A4 The child has a permanency goal other than adoption and is

27

expected to achieve that goal within 12 months of

establishing the goal.

A5 Parents are deceased, or have voluntarily relinquished rights.

3

The child is an unaccompanied refugee minor as defined in

A8 45 Code of Federal Regulations 400.11.

0

The child is a child of a teen mother who is also in the State's

A11 custody.

3

Other circumstances.

A12

0

There are plans to terminate parental rights, but a petition had not yet been filed as of June 30, 2016 or date of discharge.

69

72 10.8%

0%

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 71 of 110

Outcome 27 – Timely Semi-annual Judicial or Administrative Case Plan Reviews
Outcome 27 requires that at least 95 percent of the children have timely semi-annual reviews of their case plans. Children are expected to have case plans developed within 30 days of entering State custody. In accordance with the Consent Decree, the court or a designated panel must review these case plans within six months of entering foster care and every six months thereafter the child is in custody.47
State Performance
• The State Exceeded the Outcome 27 Threshold.
For 67 of the 92 children in the foster care sample who had been in custody for six months or more by the end of the reporting period, case file documentation indicates that all 67 children (100%) had documented timely plan reviews completed by the Juvenile Court or Judicial Citizen Review Panel (JCRP), or a timely request for such a review. This is an increase from performance during Period 20 (92%) and Period 19 (89%).

Twelve Reporting Periods State Performance on Outcome 27: Timely Semi-Annual Judicial/Citizen Panel Case Reviews

Percent of Children 100%

100%

98% 96% 94% 92%

92%

96% 95%

94%

97% 95%

92%

90%

87% 88% 87%

88%

89%

86%

84%

82%

80%

Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 Dec 2014 Jun 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2015

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, July 1, 2010– June 30, 2016.

47 See p. 7, paragraphs 4A.4 and pp. 7-8, paragraphs 4B.1-6, and p. 37, Outcome 27, of the Consent Decree.
70

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 72 of 110

Among the 60 six-month reviews, only 16 (24%) of mothers, 11 (16%) of fathers, 7 (15%) children and 10 (15%) of relatives participated. Participation in these reviews is such an important factor
in achieving timely permanency. The lack of participation during the reviews in Period 21 may reflect a lack of engagement between the agency and families. More information regarding these
reviews is displayed in the chart below. Characteristics of Six-month Case Reviews N= 67
(Most recent plans reviewed between January and June, 2016)

Characteristic

Participants Birth Mother Birth Father Child Relative caregivers/ Extended Family Members/ Informal Supports Foster parents/placement providers DFCS case manager DFCS supervisor Other DFCS representative CCFA provider Private agency social worker Medical and mental health professionals Parents’ attorney(s) SAAG (Special Assistant Attorney General) Child’s advocates (attorney, Guardian Ad Litem, CASA volunteer, Child Advocate) – at least one per child
Elements Evaluated/Considered Necessity and appropriateness of child’s placement Reasonable efforts made to obtain permanency Degree of compliance with specific goals and action steps Progress made in improving conditions that caused removal Changes that need to be made to plan County recommendations Parent recommendations

JCRP conducted review (percentage based on n=67)

Total JCRP reports submitted (percentage based on

25 76%

n=33)

Number of reports with Panel findings (percentage 25 76%

based on n=33)

Number of reports with Panel recommendations 25 76%

(percentage based on n=33)

Number of reports with County findings

9

27%

(percentage based on n=33)

Number of reports with County recommendations 7

21%

(percentage based on n=33)

Court conducted review (percentage based on n=67)

Plan adopted by Juvenile Court (percentage based on n=67)

Source: Case Record Review for January 1 – June 30, 2016.

Number
16 11 7 10 10 43 9 3 0 10 1 20 20 38
40 46 36 28 10 10 1 33
32 42

Percent
24% 16% 15% 15% 15% 64% 13% 4% 0% 15% 2% 29% 30% 57%
60% 69% 54% 42% 15% 15% 2% 49%
48% 63%

71

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 73 of 110

Outcome 28 – Timely Annual Judicial Permanency Reviews.

According to Federal and State policy and the Consent Decree, children are expected to have a judicial permanency hearing at least every 12 months they are in custody.48 These hearings are held to determine whether the State is making reasonable efforts to help children achieve permanency. The performance threshold for Outcome 28 is 95 percent.

State Performance • The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 28 Threshold.

During Period 21, 43 out of 47 children, 91 percent of children had a judicial permanency hearing in accordance with the Consent Decree. Depicted below is the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 28 Timely Permanency Hearings

Percent of Children 100% 99%
90%

93%

95% 94% 94% 92% 98% 99% 97%

95% 92%

91%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, July 2010 – June 2016.

48 See p. 9, paragraph 4B.10, and p.37, Outcome 28, of the Consent Decree.
72

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 74 of 110

PART FIVE - WELL-BEING
The Consent Decree establishes six outcomes that are related to children’s well-being.
Children Experience Stability and Worker Continuity
Outcome 17 – Placement Stability
With Outcome 17, the Consent Decree establishes a threshold for placement stability by requiring that at least 95 percent of children in custody have two or fewer placement moves during the most recent 12 months in custody.49 For purposes of this measure, runaway episodes, hospitalizations for medical treatment or psychiatric diagnosis or crisis intervention, trial home visits, respite care, and detention in locked facilities are not considered placements. The measurement of Outcome 17 performance is based on the sample of 92 children in foster care at any time between January 1 and June 30, 2016.

State Performance

• The State Failed to Meet the Outcome 17 Threshold

During Period 21, 78 out of 92 children (85%) experienced two or fewer placement moves during the most recent 12 months in custody. For the purposes of this measure, each unique hotel episode (which could include more one or more consecutive nights) that a child experienced during the period is considered one placement. Displayed in the chart below are additional data for Period 21. The four youth who had more than 6 placements had between 8 to 19 moves).

Number of Placement Moves Experienced by Children in the 12 months prior to November 30, 2015 or the Last Date of Custody

Number of Moves
No Moves One Move Two Moves
Three Moves Four Moves Five Moves

Subtotal

Number
49 20
9 78
5 5 0

Percent
53% 22% 10%
5.5% 5.5%
0%

Cumulative Percent
75% 85%
90.5% 96% 96%

49 See p. 35, Outcome 17 of the Consent Decree.

73

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 75 of 110

Six Moves or more

4

4%

100%

Total

92

Source: Foster Care Case Record Review for January 1 and June 30, 2016.

As the graph below depicts, the Period 21 performance (85%) is similar to Period 20 performance

(87%).

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 17 Children with Two or Fewer Placement Moves in Prior 12 Months

Percent of Children
100% 94% 90% 80%

90%

93% 93%

93% 95%

90% 89%

90% 77%

87% 85%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30% 20%

10%

0% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, January 1- June 30, 2016
Outcome 18 – Worker Continuity
At least 90 percent of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave.
State Performance • The State Failed to Meet the Outcome 18 Threshold.
During Period 21, the State's performance increased slightly to 87 percent, which is below the required threshold. This is the second consecutive time since Period 14 that the State did not

74

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 76 of 110 meet the 90 percent threshold requirement. The following graph depicts the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.
75

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 77 of 110

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 18 Worker Continuity

Percent of Children
100% 84% 90%

92% 88%

89%

92% 87%

97%

94%

93%

91%

86%

87%

80% 70%

60% 50% 40%

30% 20%

10% 0%

Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90%

Period10 Period 11 Period12 Period13 Period14 Period15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data

76

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 78 of 110

Outcome 20 – Case Manager Visits with Children
20a - At least 96.25 percent of the total minimum number of twice- monthly face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children during the period occur. The State achieved 97 percent of these visits during Period 21, which is above the threshold.

Seven Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 20a Case Manager Visits with Children

Percent of Visits

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

98% 99% 98% 97% 96% 95% 97%
Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25%

Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data

77

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 79 of 110

20b - At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur.
The State achieved 98 percent during Period 21 and has consistently exceeded this standard.

Seven Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 20b Case Manager Private Face-to-Face Visits with Children

Percent of Private Visits

100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%

99.20% 100% 99% 99.5% 99.4% 98%

98%

Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25%

Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data

78

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 80 of 110

Outcome 22 – Case Manager Visitation with Substitute Caregivers
At least 95 percent of the total minimum required monthly visits by case managers to caregivers during the reporting period occur. The State performance was 96 percent during Period 21, which is slightly higher than P20 and above the threshold.

Percent of
Visits With Caregivers

Seven Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 22 Case Manager Visitation with Substitute Caregivers

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

98%

99%

98%

98.5

97.8

94%

96%

Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: >

95%

95%

95%

95%

95%

95%

95%

Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2013

2014

2015

Source: Verified State Data
Children and Youth in Hotels
During Period 21, there were 128 children and youth from DeKalb and Fulton counties who spent 1,324 days in hotels in Metropolitan Atlanta. On average, these children and youth spent between three and four days in hotels during the Period. While the average days each individual child spent in a hotel decreased from the previous period, there were more individual children and youth who were placed in hotels and the overall number of hotel days increased in Period

79

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 81 of 110
21. Finally, among the 128 youth experiencing hotel stays, there were 49 that had more than one in the period, and seven who had more than ten distinct hotel stays. During Period 19, MTAT began collecting and reporting data on the number of children placed in hotels. The State began this emergency practice due to a lack of appropriate placement options for children entering foster care in Region 14. Due to the increase usage of hotels, during Period 20, DFCS opened and began operating two emergency placement homes called the “Welcome House”. MTAT visited the Welcome Houses and found the homes to be large, well-appointed homes in a nice family friendly neighborhood environment. As the staffing and routines had evolved, however, concerns still remained regarding the sustainability of the model and the frequent visits from law enforcement. While this intervention was less than ideal, it did appear to mitigate the total number of hotel nights. However, the model was not sustainable, the neighbors expressed concerns and the Welcome Houses closed during Period 21.
Young Children in Congregate Care
The Consent Decree has several restrictions related to the use of group care,50 including limiting their use of congregate care for young children. The reported information is for all children under the age of 12 in care between January and June 2016; not for a sample of the entire foster care population. According to state reports, no children under the age of 12 were placed in group homes or child caring institutions except as allowed by the Consent Decree.
During Period 21, there was one child under the age of six who was placed with his mother in a group care setting designed for teen mothers. On June 30, 2016, 15 children aged 2 to 11 were placed in hotels, and seventeen children were in group care facilities with more than 12 beds. Sixteen of these children were in psychiatric residential treatment facilities (PRTFs) with licensed maximum capacities of 40 or more. One child was placed in Hillside Hospital. The State provided documentation of the appropriate waiver supporting the need for the children to be placed in congregate care settings. During Period 21, the State also documented one child under the age of 12 (age 10) who spent one night in the Southwest Fulton County DFCS Office.
The need for appropriate placements for all children who enter foster care or have a placement disrupt is paramount. The State is developing a plan of action to address this placement crisis.
Children Receive the Medical, Dental and Mental Health Services They Need
Outcome 30 – Meeting the Needs of Children as Identified in their Case Plans
50 See p. 16-17, paragraph 5C.5f of the Consent Decree.
80

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 82 of 110
The Consent Decree specifies that the needs to be considered for achieving Outcome 30 are those medical, dental, mental health, educational and other needs identified in the child’s most recent case plan.51 Case plans are to be developed within 30 days of a child’s entry into foster care and updated every six months thereafter. The performance threshold for this outcome is 85 percent, and requires that all identified needs are met. Thus, partial compliance does not count toward meeting the threshold standard. The measurement of Outcome 30 performance is based on the sample of 92 children in foster care at any time between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016. Among the 92 children in the sample, 86 children had one or more case plans in their records. All six children who did not have case plans in their records had been in custody fewer than 30 days during the review period and a completed plan was not yet required. Of the 86 children who should have had case plans, 85 (99% of 86) were current – they had been developed within seven months of May 31, 2016 or the child’s discharge date. One (1% of 86) was seven to 12 months old and none were over 12 months old. The outcome performance is based on 86 children who had complete plans, even if they were not up-to-date. Eighty-five of these case plans identified needs of the children.
State Performance • The State Fell Short of the Outcome 30 Threshold Based on case file documentation and reviewer judgment, 59 children (69%) of 85 children with needs identified in their case plans had all the plan-identified needs met. The following graph displays the State’s performance over the last 12 reporting periods.
51 See p 38, Outcome 30 of the Consent Decree.
81

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 83 of 110

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 30: Children with All Plan Identified Needs Met

Percent of Children

100%

90% 80%

77% 78%

75%

78%

74%

73%

81%

80% 69%

77%

77%

70%

69%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Reporting Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, July 2010 – June 2016.

The chart below provides a breakdown of the needs identified and the percentage of needs met in each category during Period 21.

Proportion of Children with Needs Identified in Most Recent Case Plans and the Proportion with Needs Met, as of June 30, 2016 or last Date of Custody

Children with Case Plans

Children Received/Receiving Services

n=86

n varies depending on need identified

Number Percent

Number

Percent of identified need

One or More Need Identified (routine or child-specific)

85

99%

All Identified Needs Met (n=85)

59

69%

Frequency of different identified needs

Frequency of different needs being met

Medical

85

99%

77

91%

Dental

85

99%

73

86%

Mental Health

61

71%

52

85%

Educational/ Developmental

85

99%

82

96%

Source: Case Record Review January 1-June 30, 2016.

82

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 84 of 110

1. Initial Screenings for Children Entering Care
a. Initial Health and Dental Screenings
The State’s overall performance on initial health and dental screenings is measured by the subsample of children who entered care and had been in custody at least 10 days. During Period 21, 22 children out of the sample of 92 cases entered care during the period and remained at least 10 days.52 As in previous reports, caution should be exercised in interpreting these and other results drawn from the subsample of children who entered care because the sample size is very small and they were not randomly selected from the entire population entering custody during the period.

As shown in the chart below, nine children (41%) had documented health screens within 10 days of entering care, which is a significant decrease from Period 20 (59%) When the ten-day time frame is relaxed, 20 out of 22 children (91%) received an initial health screen. For those children whose health screens fell outside the 10-day window, the elapsed time ranged from 12 to 103 days. Two children did not receive an initial health screen.

Eleven children (50%) had a documented dental screen within 10 days. The total proportion

receiving an entry dental screening was 82 percent. The 7 children who received their initial

dental screens late, received those 11 to 41 days after entering care. Four children have no

documented initial dental screens in their files.

Initial Health and Dental Exams at Foster Care Entry:

January 1 – June 30, 2016

N=22

Screen

Number Percent

Cumulative

Initial Health Screen at Foster Care Entry

Percent

Received within 10 days

9

41%

Received, but not within 10 days (12 to 103 days)

11

No initial health screen received by June 30, 2015

2

Total

22

Initial Dental Screen at Foster Care Entry (includes infants for a

“gum check”)

Received within 10 days

11

Received, but not within 10 days (12-41 days)

7

50% 9% 100%
50% 32%

91% 100%
82%

No initial dental screen received by June 30, 2015

4

18%

100%

Total Source: Case record review, January 1 – June 30, 2016.

22

100%

83

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 85 of 110
Due to the low performance on initial health and dental screens during Period 19, the counties collaborated with Amerigroup to offer a mobile health clinic in the parking lot of the Fulton and DeKalb County Offices of the Department of Family and Children Services once a week. Thus, when children enter care, they are taken to the mobile health clinic for their health and dental screenings during their first week in care. Due to the continued increase in performance, it appears that this intervention is making a difference in the number of children who receive initial health and dental screens.
b. Initial Developmental /Mental Health Assessment
The Consent Decree requires that all children under the age of four years receive a developmental assessment in compliance with EPSDT standards within 30 days of placement.53 Children four years of age or older are expected to receive a mental health screening in compliance with EPSDT standards within 30 days of placement.54 Within the sample of 92 children in foster care in Period 21, 8 children were younger than age four, were in custody at least 30 days, and entered care on or after December 1, 2015.55 Thirteen children in the foster care sample were age four or older, remained in care 30 days or more, and entered DFCS custody on or after December 1, 2015.
All 8 children under the age of four received a developmental assessment with only one being completed more than 30 days (41 days). The total percentage of children under four years of age who received their initial developmental assessment increased from 75 percent in Period 20 to 100% in Period 21.
For children over the age of four, there were 2 children in custody 30 days or more who did not have mental health assessment; 8 were completed within 30 days (62%), which is similar to the 64 percent completed within 30 days during Period 20. Three children had the assessment completed between 34 to 103 days after entering care. The following chart summarizes this information.
53 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 of the Consent Decree. 54 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 of the Consent Decree. 55 In order to have a larger pool of children in the sample for whom the responsiveness to identified needs could be measured, the record review was designed to collect information on children who entered custody in June 2016 and, therefore, had sufficient time for identified needs to be addressed in Period 21.
84

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 86 of 110

Initial Developmental and Mental Health Assessments at Foster Care Entry:

December 1, 2015 – May 31, 2016

N=varies depending on the assessment

Assessment

Number Percent

Cumulative Percent

Initial Developmental Assessment (children younger than age 4) (n=8)

Received within 30 days

7

88%

Received, but not within 30 days (41 days)

1

12%

100%

No initial Developmental Assessment received

0

0%

100%

Total

8

100%

100%

Assessment

Number Percent

Cumulative Percent

Initial Mental Health Assessment (children aged 4 and older) (n=13)

Received within 30 days (includes pre-assessments)

8

62%

Received, but not within 30 days (34 to 103 days)

3

23%

85%

No Initial Mental Health Assessment

2

15%

100%

Total

13

100%

100%

Source: Foster Care Case Record Review, January1 – May 31, 2016.
c. Initial Case Plans

All fourteen children entering custody during the reporting period and remaining more than 30 days had an initial case plan developed by June 30, 2016 or their last date in custody. Seven of the 14 (50%) were completed within 30 days of entering care, the other seven were completed between 31 and 60 days.

2. Periodic Health and Dental Screening
In addition to requiring health and developmental assessments when a child enters foster care, the Consent Decree requires all children to receive periodic health screenings56 in accordance with the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (EPSDT)/Georgia Health Check Program standards.57 DFCS’ performance with respect to meeting these standards is discussed below. The case record review of 92 children in placement collected information about the timeliness of the required routine health and dental examinations provided (often referred to as “well-child” care) during their time in custody.
Overall, 89 of the 92 children (97%) appeared to be current with their “well-child” visits as of June 30, 2016 because of receiving a required health screen prior to or during reporting Period 20; or

56 See p. 30, paragraph 13A in the Consent Decree. 57 See p. 20, paragraphs 6A 1 and 2, and p.21, 6B, paragraphs 1-8 of the Consent Decree.

85

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 87 of 110

receiving a health screen during Period 21 that brought them up-to-date. This is similar to the proportion found in Period 20 (98%). The chart below displays this information.

Status of Health Screening for Children58 January 1 – June 30, 2016 N=92

Component and Action
No health screen required during period, children current with health check-ups during entire period Children receiving timely health screens (according to EPSDT schedule) between January 1 and June 30, 2016 Required well child health screen(s) not received between January 1 and June 30, 2016 TOTAL Source: Foster Care Case Record Review, January 1 – June 30, 2016.

Number 33 56 3 92

Percent 36% 61% 3%
100%

Cumulative Percent
97% 100%

As reflected in chart below, routine dental screenings were assessed for 92 children, with separate analysis for children over and under the age of three as of June 30, 2016.59 Overall, 68 of the 76 children (89%) who required a dental screen were either current or received their dental screens during Period 21. Thirty (39%) of these exams were not done timely. For children under the age of three, 13 out of 16 (78%) were either current or received their oral health screen during Period 21. Four children received a late initial oral health screen.

The dental screen documentation consisted of either a dental report from a dental care provider, case manager notes, a reference in a Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment (CCFA), an entry in the SHINES health log or a combination of these forms.

58 Includes initial health screens completed for children entering foster care in Period 20. EPSDT components are not always documented, see narrative. 59 The Consent Decree stipulates that “all children age 3 and over shall receive at least one annual screening in compliance with EPSDT standards…” see Section 6B paragraph 8 on p.21. Children younger than age 3 may have oral exams as part of their regular well-child visits and documentation of this component has improved sufficiently to provide the separate analysis.
86

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 88 of 110

Status of Dental Screening60 January 1 – June 30, 2016 N=92
Component and Action Children aged 3 and older n=76 No annual dental exam required during period, children current with annual requirement during entire period Children receiving a timely annual dental exam during period Received more than 12 months after previous exam Initial received more than 10 days after entering foster care Required annual (or initial) dental exam not received as of June 30, 2016
TOTAL Component and Action
Children under the age of 3 N=15 No annual oral health screen due during entire period Received a timely initial or annual oral health screen Received a late initial oral health screen No annual oral health screen TOTAL Source: Foster Care Case Record Review, January 1 – June 30, 2016.

Number

Percent

Cumulative Percent

16

21%

30

39%

11

14%

11

14%

8

11%

76 100%

Number Percent

2

13%

10

63%

1

6%

3

18%

16 100%

60% 74% 88% 100% 100%
Cumulative Percent
76% 82% 100% 100%

60 Includes initial dentals for children entering foster care in Period 20.
87

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 89 of 110
PART SIX – STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE
Several of the Consent Decree requirements focus on DHS/DFCS organizational capabilities, with the intent of enhancing or creating capacity thought to be instrumental to the achievement of desired outcomes. This includes specialized staff, caseload sizes, workforce skill development, and having the resources and services to meet needs. This part reports on the progress of the State in meeting Outcomes 25, 26 and 31 as well as capacity requirements.
Oversight of Placement Settings
Outcome 25 - Approved Placement Settings for Children
Outcome 25 stipulates that, “By the end of the tenth reporting period, at least 98 percent of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. Measurement of performance is based on the entire universe of out-of-home care placements subject to a DHS licensure or approval process. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement.”61
State Performance • The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 25 Threshold
At the end of Period 21, 748 of 826 placements subject to a DHS approval or licensure process were in full approval and/or licensure status. These placements had an approved or licensed capacity of 3438 children while the capacity of all placements with a child in care on June 30, 2016 was 3588 children; yielding an Outcome 25 measurement of 95.8 percent. State leadership has set a goal of placing 50 percent of children in fully approved relative homes. However, the State continues to struggle with getting relative placements fully approved. In Period 21, only 68.3 percent of relative placements were in full approval/licensure status on the last day of the period which was similar to Period 20. Thus, figuring out the barriers to getting relatives approved will be essential. Additional detail on this measurement appears in the following chart, followed by a graph that displays the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting period.
61 See p. 4, Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
88

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 90 of 110

Outcome 25 – Placements in Full Approval Status

Placement Type

Number of Placements with a Class Member in Care on 6/30/2016

Relative

221

Placement

DFCS -

104

supervised

Foster Home

Provider -

387

supervised

Foster Home

Child Caring

114

Institution

Total

826

Number of Placements with a Class Member in Care on 6/30/2016 that were in Full Approval Status

Overall Capacity of Placement Settings with a Class Member in Care on 6/30/2016

Capacity of Placements with a Class Member in Care on 6/30/2016 that were in Full Approval Status

Capacity of Placements in Full Approval Status as a Percentage of Overall Placement Capacity

154

360

246

68.3%

101

246

235

95.5%

379

1044

1019

97.6%

114

1938

1938

100%

748

3588

3438

95.8%

Data source: SHINES

.

89

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 91 of 110

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 25 Children Placed in Settings that are in Full Approval and/or Licensure Status

99.7% 98% 99%

100.0%

99% 99% 98% 98% 97% 98% 96% 96% 96%

90.0%

80.0%

70.0%

60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Goal:≥98%Goal:≥98%Goal:≥98%Goal:≥98%Goal:≥98%Goal:≥98%Goal:≥98% Goal: ≥98%

Goal: ≥98%

Goal: ≥98%

Goal: ≥98%

Goal: ≥98%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

(December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010)

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Periods 9: Percent of Children in Placements in Full Approval Status/Periods 10-21: Percent of Placements in Full Approval Status Sources - Periods 8-9: Placement file reviews, Georgia’s ICPC records, child placing agency records, and SHINES; Periods 10-19: SHINES.
Outcome 31 – Foster Home Capacity Limits
Outcome 31 stipulates, “By the end of the tenth reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than ten percent of all foster family home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of this Consent Decree…”62,63 The measurement is based on the entire universe of family foster homes that had a class member child in care on the last day of the reporting period.
62 See p. 4, Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 63 The Section 5.c.4.e capacity limits provide that “No child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family's biological and/or adopted children…. The only exception to these limits shall be circumstances in which the placement of a sibling group in a foster home with no other children in the home would exceed one or more of these limits.” See p. 16 of the Consent Decree.
90

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 92 of 110

State Performance • The State Surpassed the Outcome 31 Threshold.

Of the 962 family foster homes that had a child in care at any point during the period January 1 to June 30, 2016, 491 (51%) continued to have one or more children placed in them on June 30, 2016. Five of these 491 foster homes (1.0%) exceeded the Consent Decree’s capacity limits. The chart below provides additional information regarding these homes, followed by a graph of the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods. This is the 21st consecutive period in which the State has surpassed the ten percent threshold.

Placement Type

Outcome 31 – Foster Homes Exceeding Capacity Limits

N = 491

Foster

Foster

Foster

Foster

Number

Homes Homes

Homes

Homes of Foster

with with One with > 3 with ≥ 6

Homes

One or or More

Foster Children in with > 3

More Children Children Total on

Foster

Children in Care on

on

6/30/2015 Children

in Care 6/30/2015 6/30/2015

and/or ≥ 6

at Any

Children

Time

in Total

During

on

Period

6/30/2015

21

Percent of Foster Homes with > 3 Foster Children and/or ≥ 6 Children
in Total on 6/30/2015

DFCS &

DFCS -

168

104

1

0

1

1.0%

Relative Supervised

FHs

Foster

Homes

CPA

Provider

794

387

3

1

4

1.0%

Homes Supervised

Foster

Homes

Total

962

491

4

1

5

1.0%

Data Source: SHINES

91

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 93 of 110

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 31 Children are Not in Foster Homes Exceeding Specified Capacity Limits

10.0% 9.0% 8.0% 7.0% 6.0% 5.0% 4.0% 3.0% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0%

3%

3%

2%

2% 2% 2%

1.4%

1%

2% 1.4% 0.6% 1.0%

Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

(December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010)

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Periods 8-9: Percent of Children in Placements in Full Approval Status/Periods 10-21: Percent of Placements in Full Approval Status

92

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 94 of 110

Caseloads and Supervisory Ratios
The Consent Decree establishes caseload caps for five primary types of case managers responsible for
direct interventions with children and families.

Case Manager Types and Respective Caseload Caps

Case Manager Function

Responsibility

Caseload Cap

Child Protective Services Investigators
(CPS Investigations)

Respond to and investigate reports of child maltreatment. These individuals may also respond to reports of families in need who are considered candidates for Family Support services.

12 cases (the equivalent of 12 families)

Family Preservation (Child Protective Services OnGoing) Case Managers

Provide services to and supervise the safety of 17 cases (the

children who are not taken into state custody equivalent of 17

and remain in their own homes.

families)

Permanency Case Managers64

Provide services to the children and families of children who are in the state’s custody.

15 cases (the equivalent of 15 children)

Adoptions Case Managers

Provide services to children whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated and who have the permanency goal of adoption.

16 cases (the equivalent of 16 children)

Specialized Case Managers

Provide services to the children and families of children who have been in state custody 18 months or more.

12 cases (the equivalent of 12 children)

64 The state has designated “placement” case managers as “permanency” case managers to emphasize their primary purpose is to promote permanency in the lives of children.
93

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 95 of 110

Case Manager Function
CPS Investigations Family Preservation Permanency Case Manager Specialized Case Manager Adoption Case Manager Total

Caseload Cap:
Number of cases (families
and children)
12 families 17 families 15 children 12 children 16 children
0

Number of Active Staff on 6/30/16
64 29 63 30
* 186

Number of
Active, Onleave
Staff on 6/30/16
0
0
0
0
0 0

Actual Performance
Meeting Caps on Assigned Caseload

Number
56 29 22 12

%
88% 100%
35% 40%

119

64%

Not Meeting Cap On Assigned Caseload

Number
8 0 41 18

%
12% 0%
65% 60%

67

36%

Cases Assigned to Workers On
Leave/ Supervisors
Number
96
3
2
0
101

During Period 21 CPS caseloads continued in a volatile pattern. In Period 17, 89 percent of caseloads met the cap. This decreased to 48 percent in Period 18, increased to 94 percent in Period 19, decreased to 59 percent in Period 20 and increased again to 88 percent in Period 21. This pattern may indicate that the strategies currently being implemented are not sustainable. The Robust Workforce work group will need to do further data analysis, as part of its continuous quality improvement process. The Family Preservation caseloads seem to be in a more stable improvement pattern after experiencing all time low performance in Periods 18 and 19. However, Permanency caseloads seem to have an inverse pattern with all-time low performances in Periods 20 and 21. This may indicate that the strategy of “borrowing” workers from other units to cover cases does not net overall improvement.
The State’s performance for CPS Investigations caseloads seemed to increase significantly from 59% in P20 to 88% in P21. However, 96 cases were assigned to on leave workers or supervisors. During the next review period, MTAT will work closely with the state to understand what this means and what work is actually occurring while cases are in this status.

94

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 96 of 110

Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standards

100% 98% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

98%

85%

76%

77%

68%

70%

89%

48%

94%

59%

88%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard:

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

(December (June 2011) (December (June 2012) (December (June 2013) (December (June 2014) (December (June 2015) (December (June 2016)

2010)

2011)

2012)

2013)

2014)

2015)

CPS Investigations Caseload Standards

95

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 97 of 110

The State greatly improved its performance for Family Preservation Caseloads from 89 percent in Period 20 to 100% in Period 21.

Perecent of Caseloads Meeting Standards 100% 97% 100%
90%

100%

100%

100%

100%

87%

88%

89%

100%

80%

70%

60% 50% 40%

50% 43%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: ≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

(December (June 2011) (December (June 2012) (December (June 2013) (December (June 2014) (December (June 2015) (December (June 2016)

2010)

2011)

2012)

2013)

2014)

2015)

Family Preservation Caseloads Standards

96

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 98 of 110

During Period 21, the State’s ability to maintain caps on permanency caseloads increased slightly from 27 percent in Period 20 to 35 percent. This is still significantly lower than the 95 percent performance during Period 18.

Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standards
120%

100%

94%

100%

98%

80%

97%

91%

91%

90%

93%

95%

71%

60%

40% 20%

27%

35%

0%

Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard:

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 (December (June (December (June (December (June (December (June (December (June (December (June
2010) 2011) 2011) 2012) 2012) 2012) 2012) 2014) 2014) 2015) 2015) 2016)

Permanency Caseload Standards

97

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 99 of 110

The State’s performance for Specialized Caseloads meeting the required cap slightly declined from 43 percent in P20 to 40 percent in P21.

Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standards

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

100% 98%

85%

72%

89% 84% 81%

75%

62% 62%

50% 40%

43% 40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard:

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

(December (June 2011) (December (June 2012) (December (June 2013) (December (June 2014) (December (June 2015) (December (June 2016)

2010)

2011)

2012)

2013)

2014)

2015)

Specialized Case Managers

98

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 100 of 110

Supervisory Ratios In addition to caseload caps, the Consent Decree establishes supervisory ratios. Each supervisor should supervise no more than five case managers at any one time. During Period 20, 90 percent of supervisors met the 1 to 5 ratios required under the Consent Decree. The Period 21 performance of 79 percent is a significant decrease. MTAT will work closely with the Robust Workforce work group to understand the reasons for this decrease.

Program/Service Area
Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation) Permanency Case Managers* (Regular and Specialized caseloads) (Includes Adoption)
Total
Source: Verified State Data

Number of Units

Meeting 1 to 5 ratio
Number %

Not Meeting 1 to 5 ratio
Number %

19

16 84%

3 16%

19

14 74%

5 26%

38

30 79%

8 21%

99

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 101 of 110

Maximizing Federal Funding
Outcome 26 – Required IV-E Language in Court Orders

Outcome 26 relates to DFCS having the proper documentation in a child’s file to support an

appropriate claim for Federal reimbursement under the Title IV-E program. For children who

entered care on or after October 27, 2005, judicial determinations that leaving children in their

homes would be “…contrary to the welfare…” of the children must be made in the first order that

authorizes the State agency’s action to remove the child from home. In practice, this is often the

court order from the 72-hour hearing. In addition, there must be documentation of a judicial

determination made no later than 60 days from the date of the child’s removal from the home

that “reasonable efforts” were made to prevent the child’s removal from his/her family. If either

of these requirements are not met the State cannot claim federal Title IV-E reimbursement for

the child’s care the entire time the child is in custody even though the child’s family meets the

Title IV-E income test. All children in State custody after the Consent Decree’s effective date

should have a permanency hearing at least every 12 months with the appropriate language about

the State’s “reasonable efforts” to achieve permanency included in the subsequent court orders.

If these determinations do not occur timely or the language is not child specific, there is a gap in

the child’s eligibility until the determination is appropriately made. The State cannot claim

federal

reimbursement

for

the

period

of

the

gap.

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Performance for this measure is based on a record review of a sample of 92 children in foster care. 65
Most of the children (73 of 85 or 86%) in the sample who entered foster care during the period had court orders from a shelter care order or 72-hour hearing containing the required IV-E language that it would have been contrary to their welfare to remain at home with their parents or caregivers.
Of those 85 children, 61 of them remained in foster care for 60 days or more. Almost all of those children (59 of 61 or 97%) had judicial determinations that reasonable efforts were made to prevent their removal from their parents or caregivers.
State Performance
• The State Surpassed the Outcome 26 Threshold.

65 See pp 36-37, Outcome 26 of the Consent Decree.
100

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 102 of 110

Of the 200 judicial determinations during the period, 188 (94%) of them contained the appropriate IV-E language.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 26 Court Orders Contain Required Language to Support IV-E Funding Claims

Percent of Children
100%

95% 90%

85%

90% 91%

90%

93%

91%

91%

95%

100% 100% 98%

94%

85%

80%

75%

Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95%

Period 10 Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, July 2010 – June 2016.

101

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 103 of 110

State IV-E Penetration Rates
The ability of the State to claim federal reimbursement of foster care expenditures is referred to as the “IV-E penetration rate.” The higher the rate, the more reimbursement the State can claim from the federal government to cover the costs associated with providing safe and stable placements.
The State’s penetration rate in Period 21 was approximately 49 percent, similar to the rate for SFY 2015.

70.0% 60.0% 50.0%

State IV-E Penetration Rates

57.2%

58.1%

57.7%

53.3% 49.2% 47.8% 48.9% 48.5% 48.4% 48.3% 48.1% 48.5%

40.0%

33.8% 34.9% 32.1%

30.0% 27.8%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun-
07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Source: COSTAR through SFY 2010, SHINES SFY 2011 Beginning Jan 2011 SSI Elig Children included in IV-E rate per Federal Policy. (As of 8-9-16)

102

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 104 of 110

Appendix A
Selected Characteristics of the Children in the Custody of DeKalb and Fulton Counties
This appendix provides some additional information about the 1480 children in the custody of DeKalb and Fulton counties on June 30, 2016. The information is reported by the State and has not been independently verified by the Accountability Agents.

Gender of Children Remaining in Custody on June 30, 2016

N=1480

Gender

Percent of Children

Male

52%

Female

48%

Total

100%

Source: Georgia SHINES

Age of Children Remaining in Custody on June 30, 2016

N=1480

Age Group

Percent of Children

Ages 0 to age 3 years

24%

Ages 3 to 6 years

18%

Ages 6 to 10 years

21%

Ages 10 to 13 years

8%

Ages 13 to16 years

17%

Ages 16 to 17 years

13%

Total

100%

Source: Georgia SHINES; User Defined Report.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 105 of 110

Number of Children Entering DeKalb and Fulton Custody since July 1, 2006 in Six-Month Increments*

1400 1200

1312

1000 800 600 400

883 887

778

700

733 710 730

601 583

632 530

642

593 561

567

553 486

518

584 482

55661

570 535

629 601

540929

665 568

639

643

551

668 618

533 480

413 377

200

0

Entries

Exits

Source: IDS and SHINES: *An additional 294 children entered between October 27, 2005 and December 31, 2005.
*Periods prior to Period 11 (January –June 2011) include youth under the age of 18 placed voluntarily in DFCS as well as those adjudicated into custody

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 106 of 110
Appendix B
Data Sources and Methodology for Measuring State Performance in Reporting Period 21
The Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) used several methods to arrive at the judgments, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report: (1) review of written materials and data supplied by the State and counties; (2) interviews; (3) extensive case record reviews; and (4) strategic engagement of State and county personnel for pro-active, hands-on monitoring through bimonthly meetings known as G2 meetings. This appendix describes these data sources and methods.
Four primary sources of information were used to assess the State of Georgia’s progress during Period 21, January to June 2016. The challenge for data collection and analyses in Period 21 was the continued need to use both SHINES, the statewide-automated child welfare system and paper files. Fulton and DeKalb Counties implemented SHINES in June 2008 and ended all new data entry into the previous system, IDS, on May 28, 2008. Children who entered custody before the conversion to SHINES may have extensive paper files and even those entering after the switch to SHINES have paper files with external documentation that has not been scanned into SHINES. The timeliness of scanning external documentation into SHINES is improving but record reviews still generally need both the paper documentation and SHINES access to complete all data collection.
1.State Data System – SHINES
The first source of information is the DFCS administrative data housed in Georgia SHINES.
Like all information systems, the accuracy of SHINES data is a function of the accuracy with which data put into the system. Most of the identified discrepancies were caused by human error. Typically, mistakes in interpretation and coding of the facts contained in the case record or data entry result in erroneous data entered into the system.
2. Document Review and Interviews
During the monitoring period, the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team collected written reports and materials including, but not limited to foster care and adoption policy, provider reporting and the use of hotels. At the local county level, interviews were conducted primarily with county leadership. At the state level, interviews were conducted with top leaders, members of the Knowledge Management Team, Kenny A. leads, and persons responsible for training and education, quality assurance and provider management.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 107 of 110
3. Structured Case Record Reviews
A third source of information are structured case record reviews. Four case record reviews were conducted: 1) all investigations of maltreatment-in-care during the period; 2) foster home approval and capacity, 3) children in foster care placements who entered foster care at any time up to June 30, 2016, and 4) children in foster care placements during the period. The chart below summarizes sample characteristics of each review. The following discussion provides more detail on the sampling approach, review instrument design, review logistics, reviewer qualifications and training, quality assurance, and analytical processes.
a. Sampling Approach
As indicated in the chart below, 100 percent of the investigations of maltreatment-in-care completed between January 1 and June 30, 2016 were read. Therefore, observed differences in these results do not reflect sampling error.
For the three other case record reviews, random samples were drawn from two different universes:
• All foster homes that had a DeKalb or Fulton child placed in the home at any time between January 1 and June 30, 2016. This included private agency supervised homes as well as DFCS supervised homes.
• All foster care cases (children) active in DeKalb and Fulton counties anytime between January 1 and June 30, 2016.
• All foster care cases (children) active in DeKalb and Fulton counties who entered foster care after January 1, 2016 and remained at least 60 days.
For each of these reviews, samples were drawn such that the findings would have no more than a +/- 10% error rate at a 95% confidence level. This sampling methodology was determined to be a reasonable estimation of performance and agreed upon for this streamlined evaluation period.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 108 of 110

Target of Review

Universe of Cases Desired Sample Size

Actual Number of Cases Reviewed

Investigations of Maltreatment in Care
Foster Homes

100% of

112

maltreatment in care investigations during

112

period

730

82

82

Children in Foster Care

who entered Foster Care

any time before June 30,

2016

1910

92

92

Confidence Level and Margin of
Error
Not Applicable
95% Confidence
Level
Margin of Error +/- 10
percent 95%
Confidence Level
Margin of Error +/- 10
percent

b. Instrument Design
Four separate data collection instruments were used, one for each review. They have been developed over time in conjunction with the DFCS Program Evaluation and Analysis Section and consultants from Georgia State University (GSU) schools of public administration and social work. The instruments were field tested and reviewed by Counsel for the Plaintiffs and by the State; many changes recommended by the reviewers were incorporated into the final instruments. As is typical with case record reviews, reviewers encountered some problems with some of the questions. Learning from each iteration is incorporated into the next case record review.
c. Data Collection Schedule and Logistics
Planning for the data collection effort began with discussions with DFCS and GSU regarding formatting data instruments for efficient data capture and analysis. As in previous periods, each of the review guides was set up as a SAS-based form for electronic information entry directly into a database through a GSU secure web site. This eliminated a separate data entry step.
Records selected from private agencies were reviewed at the respective private agencies. The remaining records for investigations, foster care, and DFCS supervised foster homes were reviewed at the county offices where the active cases are maintained. Closed records were

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 109 of 110
brought to these sites for review.
d. Review Team Qualifications and Training
DFCS staff persons were the primary case readers. These staff members have many years of experience in DFCS and are very familiar with the DFCS’s policies and practices. They have been selected over the years for this task based on their skills, experience, and knowledge.
There were training session before commencing these reviews. The training consisted of reviewing and discussing the wording and meaning of each question on the data collection instruments. Additional changes were made to the guides as a result of these discussions.
e. Quality Assurance
Reading accuracy and inter-reader reliability was addressed by an extensive quality assurance process that included constant “calibration” and a “second read” of the records. Two senior DFCS reviewers were designated team leaders. They were responsible for responding to reviewer questions regarding clarification or how to interpret information contained in the record and consulting with the Accountability Agent and MTAT when necessary. These team leaders shared with one another the questions being asked and the responses they were giving to reviewers to assure consistency. In this way, patterns among questions were monitored and instructions were clarified for all reviewers as necessary. Team leaders reviewed each reviewer’s work at the completion of each review. Finally, reviewers were encouraged to provide explanatory comments for their responses if they felt the situation they found did not adequately fit the question being asked or additional detail for some critical questions was desired.
The Georgia State University (GSU) project coordinator and several research assistants with master’s degrees in social work or a related field and backgrounds in child welfare and case record review provided an additional level of Quality Assurance (QA). The GSU QA team reviewed 33 percent of the case records reviewed. Review guides that had different responses from the GSU QA staff and the PEAS reviewers were set aside, investigated and resolved as possible by the GSU project coordinator and PEAS team leaders and changes were made to the data set as necessary. Time was set aside in the schedule to review the completed review guides in question and do any necessary clean up.
To calculate inter-rater reliability GSU selected variables from all three files (CPS Investigations, Foster Homes, and Foster Care) where both the reviewers and the QA reviewers had access to the same information in the case file. Each response was not tested for inter-rater reliability. Correlations between the reviewer results and the QA reviewer results were calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha to determine how well a set of items, in this case the reviewer responses and

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 748 Filed 12/22/16 Page 110 of 110
the QA reviewer responses, correlate or match. Cronbach's Alpha is not a statistical test - it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). Note: when a Cronbach’s Alpha is used in a Social Science research situation, like the Kenny A. case review, a reliability coefficient of .70 or higher indicates that there is an almost zero probability that the reviewer and QA reviewer would achieve these results by chance.
The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for each of the data sets were between .91 and .99. All measures were above the threshold of .70.
f. Data Analysis
Microsoft Excel and SAS software were used for analyzing the collected data and calculating interrater reliability. GSU staff assisted in creating descriptive statistics for the Accountability Agent and Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team.
4. Meetings with the management teams of Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS (G2)
The Accountability Agents met once or twice each month with Fulton and DeKalb directors, senior management, supervisors and case managers, and senior central office staff. These meetings allowed for hands-on monitoring and data verification.

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 1 of 107

ff133311120

EMBARGOED for Release until May 31, 2017 at 12:00pm.

PERIOD 22 FINAL DATA REPORT
Kenny A. v Perdue July 1 – December 31, 2016

Accountability Agent Karen Baynes-Dunning
and the PART ONE – INTRMonitoring and Technical Assistance Team
Steve Baynes, Elizabeth Black, and Jennifer Miller Haight

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 2 of 107
Table of Contents
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 3 The Role of the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team .... 3 2016 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan Reporting ........................................................... 4
PART TWO: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 5 PART THREE: RECENT HISTORICAL DYNAMICS IN DEKALB AND FULTON COUNTIES ................ 10
Safety ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Permanency .............................................................................................................................. 23 Well-Being ................................................................................................................................. 27 Strengthening the Service Delivery Infrastructure ................................................................... 29 PART FOUR: SAFETY ..................................................................................................................... 31 Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment ............................................................... 31 PART FIVE: PERMANENCY ............................................................................................................ 45 Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections.............................................................. 45 Children Achieve Permanency .................................................................................................. 51 Other Processes and Practices to Promote Permanency ......................................................... 57 PART SIX: WELL-BEING ................................................................................................................. 68 Children Experience Stability and Worker Continuity............................................................... 68 Children Receive the Medical, Dental and Mental Health Services They Need ....................... 74 PART SEVEN: STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE .............................. 82 Oversight of Placement Settings .............................................................................................. 82 Caseloads and Supervisory Ratios ............................................................................................. 87 Training and Preparation of the Workforce ............................................................................ 93 Maximizing Federal Funding .................................................................................................... 95 APPENDICES
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 3 of 107
PART ONE - INTRODUCTION
The Accountability Agent prepared this report and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) pursuant to the orders entered in the Northern District of Georgia Kenny A. v. Perdue, Civ. Act. No. 1: 02-CV-1686, a civil rights class action brought on behalf of children in Fulton and DeKalb counties who are in the custody of the State of Georgia’s Division of Family and Children’s Services (DFCS). The Kenny A. class members are “all children who have been, are or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of any of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS.”
The Kenny A. Consent Decree (Consent Decree) was entered on October 28, 2005 and was modified by agreed orders (docket numbers 612, 687, 740, 747) on December 15, 2008 and November 2, 2015. The most recent modification was filed on November 9, 2016 and entered on December 5, 2016. The newly modified order and exit plan is Kenny A. v. Nathan Deal, Civ. Act. No. 1:02-CV-01686-TWT. It requires improvements in the operations of the Division of Family and Children’s Services and establishes the outcomes that are to be achieved by the State of Georgia on behalf of children entering or in custody and their families.
The Role of the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team
The original Consent Decree established a process for accountability through the appointment of James T. Dimas and Sarah Morrison as the Court’s independent Accountability Agents. The Consent Decree included a process for replacing these persons should one or both no longer be able to fulfill their duties under the agreement. Using this process, the parties first selected Karen Baynes-Dunning to replace Sarah Morrison, and then created a monitoring and technical assistance team through the appointment of Elizabeth Black, Jennifer Haight, and Steve Baynes in October 2015. This resulted in the establishment of the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) with Karen Baynes-Dunning as sole Accountability Agent, to replace Mr. Dimas as co-Accountability Agent upon his resignation from the position.
The Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) are responsible for providing public record reports on State Defendants’ performance relative to the Consent Decree to the Court and to the Parties. Reports are issued for each six-month reporting period. As discussed in more detail in the section below, the Parties made the decision this past year to “maximize the technical assistance” of the Accountability Agent and the MTAT going forward. Specifics are included the 2016 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan.
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 4 of 107
This past reporting period, which covers July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016, the Accountability Agent and the MTAT have:
1) helped to develop and provide ongoing support for a new teaming structure (State Roadmap Meetings, MEASURES Process, Quarterly Meetings of the Parties) to guide improvement efforts in the two counties;
2) continued learning about the State’s overall priorities and its strategic plan, Blueprint for Change;
3) joined in the State’s effort to improve the overall use of data to improve practice and outcomes through a newly developed Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) process;
4) continued to review and more effectively use the State’s longitudinal data file to inform improvement efforts;
5) met with stakeholders; 6) helped the parties work toward reaching an agreed upon plan for modifying and exiting
the Consent Decree; 7) continued to manage case record reviews; 8) began weekly monitoring of hotel stays and after-hours’ office use for children; 9) continued staffing child fatalities and serious injuries that have occurred; 10) reviewed reports from DFCS; and 11) submitted monitoring report as required by the Consent Decree.
This is the 22nd Monitoring Report issued. The previous monitoring reports are available on-line at http://www.childrensrights.org/class_action/georgia/# or http://cslf.gsu.edu/technicalassistance/.
2016 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan Reporting
The Accountability Agent and Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) are working in close partnership with the State leadership to develop methods for analyzing the new outcome measures and create Infrastructure Standards that align with Georgia’s Blueprint for Change. The focus of this streamlined report is on the State’s performance relative to the 31 outcomes in Section 15 of the original Consent Decree. This report also includes analysis regarding: 1) the beginning implementation of Solution Based Casework; 2) the use of congregate care, hotels, and other temporary placements for children in foster care; and 3) caseloads for case managers and supervisors.
4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 5 of 107
Outlined below is a summary of the steps towards complete reporting on the 2016 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan. Period 23: A report on performance between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2017 will be ready for submission by November 2017. During this time, January to June 2017, the Accountability Agent and the MTAT will be working with DFCS to define a methodology for and produce reports on the newly defined outcomes. This will be the first report using the outcome measures as defined in the 2016 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan. During this same timeframe, the Accountability Agent and the MTAT will be working to understand DFCS’ expectations and priorities to be able to propose Infrastructure Standards for the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan no later than September 5, 2017 (nine months from the date Exit Plan went into effect). While Infrastructure Standards will not yet be reported, the Accountability Agent and the MTAT will continue to report on: 1) the beginning implementation of Solution Based Casework and the comprehensive case practice model; 2) the use of congregate care, hotels, and other temporary placements for children in foster care; 3) caseloads for case managers and supervisors; 4) reimbursement rates; 5) denial and/or preference in placements for children based on race, ethnicity and/or religion; 6) basic physical needs at the time of placement; and 7) visits within the first month of the initial placements or changes in placements. Period 24: A report on performance between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 will be ready for submission by May 2018. Reporting on performance during this period will mirror the previous period. The Parties will reach final agreement on the Infrastructure Standards during Period 24 and begin to develop an approach to monitoring these standards. Period 25: A report on performance between January 1, 2018 and June 30, 2018 will be ready for submission by November 2018. This will be the first complete report on all the provisions in the 2016 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan, including the Infrastructure Standards.
5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 6 of 107
PART TWO – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report focuses on DFCS’ performance from July 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 or Period 22.
As reported in two previous monitoring reports, “DFCS leaders at all levels [were] stepping back to define a ‘way of working together’ to best implement specific strategies in DeKalb and Fulton counties designed to improve outcomes for children and families”.
Region 14 developed a leadership team and process entitled Metro District Effectively Aligning Strategic Plans Utilizing Resources Efficiently (MEASURE). The team is comprised of the District Director, the Regional Director, County Directors, the Director of the State Kenny A. Unit, the Director of the State Data Unit and other persons responsible for quality assurance and continuous quality improvement. Together, this group has begun to align the work related to the Consent Decree with the Blueprint for Change, the state strategic plan, the Governor’s Child Welfare Reform Council’s recommendations, and the federal requirements under the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR).
These leaders made the decision to create four workgroups to focus on priority areas of practice in order to improve outcomes for children and families who come to the attention of DFCS. Progress has been made to better understand the factors aiding or impeding progress related to: permanency, placement stability, creating a robust workforce and supporting kinship placements. While the four workgroups have established goals and analyzed data, agreement has not yet been reached on the complete set of strategies that will be employed to improve practice in these areas.
In addition to these four priorities, the State made the decision to begin training on Solution Based Casework in DeKalb and Fulton counties in July 2016 followed by implementation in November 2016.
The rest of this part focuses on the opportunities and challenges related to these priorities, which had and will continue to have a direct impact on the State’s ability to meet or exceed the requirements set forth in the Consent Decree in Period 22.
Development of New Case Practice Model and Solution Based Casework Implementation
State leaders are developing a case practice model and Infrastructure Standards that build on Solution Based Casework (SBC) and are inclusive of best practices for ensuring quality care and services, keeping children safe, increasing the use of kinship care, and reducing the impact of trauma. The intent is to define what case managers and supervisors should be saying and doing with children and families every day in Georgia. While Georgia DFCS policy does provide a comprehensive set of expectations for casework and supervisory practice, this is an effort to
6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 7 of 107
extrapolate those practices most closely linked to desired outcomes for children and families. In the meantime, case managers and supervisors are beginning to integrate the tenets of Solution Based Casework into everyday practice.
During Period 22, training began on Solution Based Casework (SBC) in DeKalb and Fulton Counties on July 11, 2016. To date, 36 supervisors and 213 caseworkers in DeKalb and Fulton counties have been trained in SBC. No caseworkers or supervisors in DeKalb County have been certified. In Fulton, there is one (1) supervisor and there are two (2) caseworkers who have been certified. More about this is described later in the report, but the limited numbers of certifications to date indicate the need to revisit readiness for SBC implementation in the region and the support that may be needed going forward.
Moving Toward a Kinship First Organization
DFCS has made a commitment to become a Kinship First organization and engaged the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s Child Welfare Strategy Group (CWSG) to assist in the effort to ensure that at least 50 percent of all children in foster care are placed with relatives. CWSG conducted an initial assessment and has begun working directly with the kinship workgroup as they examine and refine the kinship continuum. This shift to Kin First presents an opportunity to minimize trauma to children, create more stable placements and maintain vital connections as families work toward permanency. It will require a change in culture, policies, and case management practice. This is very promising, and aligns with the values undergirding the development of the new case practice model.
The DeKalb County Director is the leader of the kinship workgroup. Their aim is for 50 percent of all children in foster care to be placed with relatives and for these relatives to be approved in a timely manner and supported thereafter. Decisions are being made now to determine the rates that will be applicable to relatives caring for children in foster care.
Workforce Instability
While this enhanced focus on kinship care and the commitment to priority areas is encouraging, there are still several areas of concern that persisted during Period 22. Perhaps most serious, was the turnover and vacancy rates in DeKalb and Fulton counties. Without a stable and thriving workforce, it is impossible to work consistently toward positive outcomes for children and families. Compared to the end of Period 21, at the end of Period 22 the following dynamics presented: the number of CPS case managers declined by 25 percent; the number of family preservation case managers declined by 38 percent; the number of permanency case managers increased by 5 percent; the number of case managers carrying specialized cases increased by 17 percent (which correlates with children staying in care for longer periods of time). In addition to fewer case managers and case managers with higher caseloads, the supports provided by
7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 8 of 107
supervisors were also compromised with only 60 percent of supervisors meeting the 1 to 5 ratios to case managers, compared to 79 percent in Period 21. Changes in leadership at the administrator and county director levels also persisted.
To address these issues, Governor Deal’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget invests more than $96 million in the Division of Family and Children’s Services to increase pay for caseworkers and supervisors statewide.
Also, as mentioned above, there is a concerted effort to address these and other workforce related challenges. The Metro District Director and Regional Director are leading the effort to create a more robust workforce in DeKalb and Fulton counties. The workgroup reached consensus to focus on: 1) decreasing the vacancy rate and retaining new and veteran staff at all levels within the region; 2) maintaining consistency in case management and sustaining caseload sizes - 1:15 for foster care, 1:5 for supervisors, 1:12 for child protective service - investigators in DeKalb and Fulton counties; and 3) improving the culture and climate for DFCS staff in order to create better outcomes for children and families.
Next steps will be to agree on and operationalize those strategies that members believe will have a positive impact. Children are Spending More Time in Foster Care
The overall number of children and youth entering and exiting foster care decreased, however duration in care increased. The result was that the overall number of children in foster care continued to rise, reaching a high of just under 17001, by the end of 2016.
The DeKalb County Deputy Director and members of the permanency workgroup are focused on addressing this issue of timely, lasting permanency for children. The workgroup intends to:
1. reduce entries into foster care in DeKalb and Fulton counties by serving children in the community when safe and possible;
2. reduce re-entry for children who exited foster care quickly after their initial entry; and 3. promote lasting permanency for children who have been in foster care for a long time.
One of the first issues this workgroup hopes to address is the number of children (short stayers) who enter foster care in the counties only to exit foster care in a short period of time. The Annie E. Casey Foundation has been engaged by the workgroup to examine current case planning
1 This year end caseload counts includes youth who turned 18 while in care in Fulton or DeKalb and who remained in care after that point. While they are no longer members of the class, inclusion of these youth in this analysis more accurately reflects the overall workload of case managers and supervisors. If you remove those youth, the count for the most recent year is 1538.
8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 9 of 107
practice and map out a family-driven case planning process that aligns with Solution Based Casework (SBC). Placement Instability for a Small Group of Children and Youth Certain system dynamics persisted from the prior period, most notably, the use of hotels as placements for children in foster care and multiple placement moves for a small group of children and youth in the Region. Championing the effort to ensure safe and stable placements for children and youth are the Kenny A. State Project Director and the head of resource development for Region 14. The overall aim of the workgroup is to decrease the number of placement moves a child experiences while in custody in Region 14. The first and most immediate work is to end the use of hotels as placements in DeKalb and Fulton counties no later than June 30, 2017. Educational Achievement Launched at the beginning of Period 22, Project Graduate is a targeted effort to ensure young people aging out of foster care in DeKalb and Fulton counties are prepared academically. By the end of the period, more children over the age of 18 were exiting foster care with a high school diploma or GED. These gains are not yet sufficient to meet the terms of the Consent Decree.
9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 10 of 107
PART THREE – RECENT HISTORICAL DYNAMICS IN DEKALB AND FULTON COUNTIES
As in the Period 21 report, we start this report with a high-level overview of the experiences of children and youth who have been placed in foster care in Fulton and DeKalb Counties – Region 14 -- during the last five years. Here, however, our approach differs in a couple of ways: For the prior report, we provided a ten-year overview of the system’s engagement with children in their first placement episode. That approach provided an overview of how core child welfare outcomes for children first interacting with the placement process in DeKalb and Fulton counties had changed over time. That is – the focus was on what transpired when the child welfare system had its earliest opportunity to serve a child new to the system and to provide lasting permanency at the earlier engagement.
In this report, we narrow the focus to look at more recent historical performance, but broaden it to look at the experiences of ALL children entering care so that we are matching more closely the population for whom the State has current responsibilities, and whose current pathways are the consequence of the longer-term system dynamics. Though still a high-level overview, we focus on dynamics that are specifically connected to the state and regional leadership’s stated interests as well as the areas that are the current focus of the MEASURE team and the MEASURE team workgroups. This overview data provides a general starting point; each workgroup’s more targeted process includes a closer look at system data in order to better describe and diagnose some of the higher-level trends we show here.2
The starting point for this overview is the figure below which shows entries, exits, and caseload counts in the two counties over the past six years. The figures show that although both exits and entries have declined since their peak in 2014, the caseloads have continued to rise, reaching a high of just over 17003, by the end of 2016. As the overview below reveals, this increase in caseload is the consequence of performance dynamics, including an increase in duration, that are the current focus of Fulton and DeKalb leadership and the MEASURE team.
2 This longitudinal file was developed by researchers at Chapin Hall, based on data extracts from SHINES and formerly IDS containing placement histories for children placed in state custody. Spells of all durations are reflected in these data. The data are current through December 31, 2016. 3 The year-end caseload totals includes youth who turned 18 while in care and remained in care after their 18th birthday. There were 1538 youth under the age of 18.
10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 11 of 107

Caseload Dyamics

1800 1600 1400 1200 1000
800 600 400 200
0

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Yr End Caseload

Entries

Exits

In the most recent five years, the number of children and youth entering care has shifted considerably. As the table below shows, overall entries peaked (rising nearly 40 percent) in 2014 only to go back down in 2016 to the lowest point in five years. Although over 75 percent of all entries are first entries, that proportion has changed as well. In earlier years, children entering care in a subsequent placement made up less than 20 percent of the entry cohort. However, in 2016, 25 percent of children entering placement were children who at some point in their life had a previous episode in care. 4

Fulton and DeKalb Entries, by First and Non-First Foster

Care Episode

Not

Entry Year

Total First Not First

Total First

First

2012

1155 950

205

100% 82%

18%

2013

1060 869

191

100% 82%

18%

2014

1466 1138

328

100% 78%

22%

2015

1364 1077

287

100% 79%

21%

2016

1018 786

232

100% 77%

23%

The graph below illustrates how the trends noted above are reflected in each county’s most recent entry history. Both counties rose sharply with all entries in 2014, although Fulton’s entries
4 Note – the proportion of children entering care who had a previous episode in care includes those whose prior episode could have started or ended at any time prior to their entry. This distinguishes the re-entry count from Outcome 4 that includes only those that re-entered within in one year of their prior exit.

11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 12 of 107

have since declined more than DeKalb’s. DeKalb’s proportion of first entries has dipped, but remains consistently higher than Fulton’s.

Proportion First All Entires

2012-2016 All Entries, by County & Proportion First Spell

90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60%
DeKalb, Percent First Fulton, Percent First Fulton, All DeKalb, All

84% 81%
2012 84% 81% 652 503

83%81%

80% 75%

82% 75%

2013 83% 81% 546 514

2014 80% 75% 732 734 Entry Year

2015 82% 75% 606 758

800

700

81%

600

500

73%

400

300

200

100

0 2016

81%

73%

467

551

DeKalb, Percent First

Fulton, Percent First

Fulton, All

DeKalb, All

As entries have oscillated, patterns in the age of entry have been somewhat less volatile. The figure below shows that for the both counties, just over 20 percent of each entry cohort are older teens and about 15 percent of each cohort are infants. The age patterns for all children/youth entering have been fairly consistent – or predictable – which can support targeted diagnosis and hypothesis building within the workgroups to strategize for specific changes to the process of care in order to support specific changes in outcomes.

12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 13 of 107

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

2012 -2016 Entrants, by Entry Year and Age of Entry

22%

20%

20%

21%

22%

19%

18%

15%

16%

18%

8%

11%

10%

10%

11%

9%

10%

14%

11%

10%

14%

13%

14%

15%

14%

11%

11%

12%

13%

10%

17%

17%

15%

14%

15%

2012 Under 1

1 t0 3 Yrs

2013 3 to 5 Yrs

2014 6 to 8 Yrs 9 to 11 Yrs

2015 12 to 14 Yrs

2016 15 to 17 Yrs

The next set of data, which display first and predominant placement type, by age at entry, are key examples of how that targeted approach could play out in the continued effort to prioritize kinship settings for children who cannot be served in the community. Increasing reliance on kinship care is not only a state and regional priority; it is also the focus of one of the four MEASURE team workgroups. These next tables provide some context for that group’s work.
The first figure shows the initial placement setting of children/youth who entered care in the two counties in the most recent two years by their age at entry. The top bar shows overall first placement type, in which 45 percent of entrants are placed in a foster home, 22 percent are placed with kin, and 14 percent are placed in a congregate or group setting. 5
When you look at the age at placement, what stands out is the variation: Younger children, especially those between the ages of 1 and 11 are the most likely to be first placed with kin, although most are first placed in a foster home. Infants are often first placed in hospitals (the other category) or in foster homes. Youth 12 and older are the least likely to be in any home setting, and one third or more are placed in congregate settings.

5 Define other placement types
13

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 14 of 107

Total Under 1 1 to 3 Yrs 3 to 5 Yrs 6 to 8 Yrs 9 to 11 Yrs 12 to 14 Yrs 15 to 17 Yrs
0%

2015-2016 First Placement Types, by Age at Placement

45%

49%

55%

58%

60%

54%

31%

14%

26%

11%

22%

14%

18% 0%

33%

30%

28%

30%

33%

39%

20% 33%
0% 12% 0% 12% 0% 12% 0% 16% 21% 25%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Foster Family Relative/Kin Any Group Other

The predominant view refines the lens somewhat – we back up one year so that we can observe more of the placement experience—showing where children who enter care spend MOST of their time.

The figure below shows a notable shift in the pattern although age specific variation remains evident. Clearly, children placed under the age of 12 spend most of their time in placement in a family setting, but most often this is a foster home. About a quarter of the children placed between the ages of 1 and 11 spend most of their time in a kinship home, but that is less likely for infants and much less likely for children placed at the age of 12 or older, which as the earlier data indicates, is between 35 and 40 percent of the children/youth entering care. This age group spends over half of their time in some type of group or congregate setting.

14

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 15 of 107

2014-2015 Admissions, Predominant Placement Type by Age at Placement

Total

Under 1

1 to 3 Yrs

3 to 5 Yrs

6 to 8 Yrs

9 to 11 Yrs

12 to 14 Yrs

20%

15 to 17 Yrs

14%

0%

10%

51%

72%

69%

69%

74%

63%

11%

8%

20%

30%

40%

Foster Family Relative/Kin

18%

21%

7% 3%

19%

1% 7% 1%

24%

0%5% 1%

27%

0%3%1%

22%

0%3%1%

24%

4% 5% 4%

54%

9% 5%

58%

13%

8%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Any Group Other Mixed

90%

100%

Promoting safe and stable placements is an important goal of the system and a specific focus of a second MEASURE workgroup that seeks to understand the system elements that drive placement instability. A better understanding of patterns associated with placement instability and placement stability will support the groups as they develop targeted approaches to decrease the likelihood that a child placed in care will experience multiple disruptions, and the trauma associated with such disruptions.
The first figure shows that for recent years most children do not experience multiple placement changes. In fact, over half of the children placed in the two counties experienced one or fewer placements. However, there are small groups of children who routinely move multiple times. Even the 2016 group, which as of the cutoff date of the file was very early in its placement history, had over 10 percent of its group move 3 or more times in their entry year.

15

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 16 of 107

Moves to Date (12/31/2016), by Entry Year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
0%

40%

26%

12%

22%

42%

27%

13%

18%

41%

25%

13%

21%

40%

28%

13%

20%

53%

26%

10%

11%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

0 Moves 1 Move 2 Moves 3 + Moves

Looking more closely at an earlier group of entries for whom we can observe more placement history reveals that children placed at age 12 and older not only are more likely to experience time in group settings, but also, they are much more likely to move multiple times. As the figure shows, overall, older youth are about as likely to NOT move as the rest of the population, but when they do move, they are more likely to move multiple times. While the 2016 cohort is still likely to move more, there are some very preliminary indications that placement instability early in a foster care episode may be on the decline. Given the recent reduction in hotel use, which is largely associated with disruption in placements for adolescents, it may be the case that placement instability for these older entrants is declining. The MTAT will continue evaluating the reduction in hotel use and its causes and consequences and will report this in the next sixmonth report.

16

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 17 of 107

All Entries, 2014-15, Moves to Date (12/31/2016), by Age at Entry

Total Under 1 1 to 3 Yrs 3 to 5 Yrs 6 to 8 Yrs 9 to 11 Yrs 12 to 14 Yrs 15 to 17 Yrs
0%

40%

26%

13%

20%

35%

38%

15%

11%

46%

29%

13%

12%

45%

25%

14%

16%

43%

24%

15%

18%

38%

27%

14%

21%

39%

23%

10%

28%

38%

21%

11%

29%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 Moves 1 Move 2 Moves 3 + Moves

Finally, the exit patterns of youth recently served in the two counties are consistent with most child welfare systems—most children entering placement will experience permanent family exits. Those likelihoods are most clearly demonstrated by the earlier entry cohorts in which almost 90 percent of the children who entered the system had exited by the December 31, 2016. Between 75 and 80 percent of the 2011-2013 group exited to a family member, and an additional 7-8 percent were adopted. About three percent of an entry group age out, while just over five percent experience some other type of non-permanent exit.
As of December 2016, at least 20 percent or more of cohorts from 2014 to 2016 were still in placement, raising the question not only of what type of exits children placed in DeKalb and Fulton counties experience, but how long does it take for that exit to occur?

17

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 18 of 107

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Exits as of 12/31/2016, by Entry Year, All Entries 2011-2016

4% 6% 3% 7%

5% 6% 3% 8%

10%

25%% 7%

21%

35%

323%%%

61%

022%%

79%

78%

76%

72%

010%%

61%

37%

2011

2012 Family

2013 Adoption Age Out

2014 Other

2015 Still in Care

2016

Duration -- or time to permanency, particularly for those children who have already been in care for at least one year, is one area of focus for the MEASURE workgroup focused on permanency. A closer look at the relationship between age at entry and permanency outcome can help to shape that workgroup’s consideration. The first figure below shows exit outcomes for children entering care in the years 2011-2014, by their age at entry. The image clearly shows that family exits are the most likely exit for children entering at any age. However, children entering as infants are notably more likely to be adopted than children of any other age. While teenagers are still more likely to exit to permanency, that likelihood starts to decline for those who enter at age 13 and older, as the odds of aging out then increase. Children who enter care between the ages of 8-10 may be slightly more at risk of longer lengths of stay as indicated by the 10 percent who remain in care two or more years following their entry.

18

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 19 of 107

Exit Destination by Age at Entry, All Entries 2011-2014, As of

95% 90%

12/31/2016

85%

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%

55%

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Family

Adoption

Age out

Other

Still in Care

Looking specifically at duration for all children entering care in the last five years who stayed for at least one week, the data show that following the bump in admissions in 2014, there has been a decline in the rate of exit. The median duration - the time it takes for 50 percent of an entry cohort to exit care – has increased considerably since 2013, going from just under nine months (264 days) to just under one year (333 days). The median is not yet observable for the 2016 cohort, but the time it takes for the first 25 percent of the group to exit has doubled – going from 75 days to 157 days. The longer stayers, children who entered care from 2011 to 2013 and are still in foster care, represented by the 75 percent quartile show an increase as well. Some increase in duration may be associated with a decrease in entries, as more cases are successfully served in the community, and only more challenging cases result in removal. Understanding that interplay, and isolating it from those areas of practice that could result in a safe decrease in out of home care, are among the areas of focus of the permanency workgroup.

.
Source: Center for State Child Welfare Data, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, 2017.
Following permanent exit, the hope is that children who have reached permanency will not reenter care. The figure below shows the extent to which children in recent exit cohorts have re-
19

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 20 of 107

entered placements following their permanent exit. In recent years, and for both counties, the rate of re-entry has increased, reaching 15 percent for the group exiting care in 2015.6

Re-enter

50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10%
5% 0%
Region 14 Dekalb Fulton

Reentry w/in 1 Yr of Qualifying Exit, by Exit Yr and County

2010 7% 8% 7%

2011 9% 8% 9%

2012 9% 9% 9%

2013 11% 12% 11%

2014 12% 14% 12%

2015 15% 13% 15%

Understanding how best to serve children in their home communities is a final area of focus for the permanency workgroup. That effort will be directed at those children who return home to permanency, with special emphasis on a relatively large proportion of children entering care in the two counties only to stay for a brief period before returning home. The two figures below review that dynamic.
The first figure shows that overall, the proportion of children removed from their home and placed in state custody for a foster care episode that lasts less than one month has dropped from 34 percent of the 2014 entry cohort to just under a quarter of the 2016 group. As the figure shows, there are some differences in the removal patterns between the two counties; the local and specific process of care that contributes to these patterns is being evaluated by the permanency workgroup.

6 This is a different measure than the methodology used in the former Consent Decree, which calculate re-entry by considering the proportion of children entering care in period who had previously exited care within one year of their current entry. The above approach looks at children who recently exited – those who could re-enter, and then looks to see how many re-enter care within 12 months of their exit. The newly modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan requires a new methodology that will more accurately reflect the re-entry phenomenon.
20

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 21 of 107

Percent LT 31 Days

Percent of All Entries who stayed LT 31 Days, by County

45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10%
5% 0%
Region 14 DeKalb Fulton

2012 33% 27% 37%

2013 33% 25% 40%

2014 34% 29% 40%

2015 26% 23% 29%

2016 24% 18% 31%

Although the entry patterns differ, the exit patterns are consistent across the counties. Well over 90 percent of those children whose removal lasted less than one-month return to a family member. Of those for whom re-entry within one year is observable, the re-entry rate hovers around 16 percent. Thus, the vast majority of those short stayers are removed briefly, returned home, and do not return.

Reentry

Percent Family Exit

Reentry within 1 Yr for Short Stayers
100%

95%

90%

85%

80%
Family Exits Reentry w/in 1 Yr

2012 95% 16%

2013 95% 12%

2014 96% 16% Entry Yr

2015 95% 17%

18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 2016 94%

The summary of outcome performance contained in this current report continues to reflect the challenges of responding expeditiously to on-going systems pressures. This response is simultaneous to also maintaining steadfast focus on longer-term system reform that is essential

21

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 22 of 107

to generating and maintaining strong safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for children and families. Period 22 performance on core outcome measures, like achieving permanency and maintaining placement stability, remained largely the same as previous periods. One notable improvement is that more young persons in 2016 graduated high school or got a GED than in previous years. Another measure of well-being that improved in Period 22 was that more children in care had their medical, dental, educational, and developmental needs met. Moreover, the incidence of maltreatment in care remained well below national standards.
There were also some declines that merit further attention, particularly related to preserving connections for and with children, signaling the importance of maintaining core system processes even amid system reform. These areas include diligent search efforts, sibling placement, placement proximity, child and parent visits, family team meetings and sibling visits.
Safety
Three of the five safety measures relate to the process of investigation for children allegedly maltreated while in care – initiating investigations, completing investigations and timely contact with all alleged victim children. None of these met agreed upon consent decree standards. Performance on two of the process standards remained about the same as the previous period: initiating timely investigations and making timely face-to-face contacts with all alleged victim children in foster care.
The percentage of children in foster care who were victims of maltreatment during the previous 12 months (.25%) declined from the previous period and continued to meet the agreed upon consent decree standard.
Finally, the incidence of corporal punishment remained below the limit set by the Consent Decree. Taken together – the counties’ performance reflects vigilance and close attention to the safety of children in their care.

Safety Outcomes Children in Foster Care are Safe From Maltreatment in Care
Outcome 1: At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report. Outcome 2: At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report. Outcome 3: At least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during

Period20 Performance

Period 21 Performance

Period 22 Performance

92%

91%

89%

99%

82%

90%

90%

89%

80%

22

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 23 of 107

Safety Outcomes Children in Foster Care are Safe From Maltreatment in Care
the reporting period shall include timely, face-toface, private contact with the alleged victim, including face-to-face contact with a child who is non-verbal due to age or for any other reason. Outcome 5: No more than 0.57% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. Outcome 6: 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.

Period20 Performance

Period 21 Performance

Period 22 Performance

.45% 99%

.42% 100%

.25% 100%

Permanency
There was continued strength in the Consent Decree’s Outcomes 8a and 8b, indicating that over half of the children entering care during the Period achieved permanency within one year of their exit, and an additional seven percent exited within their second year. This is well above the standard for 8a and consistent with recent performance on those important measures of permanency for children entering care. Data provided to DFCS indicates that there is no evidence that recently finalized adoptions are disrupting following finalization.
Children are more likely to exit foster care to lasting permanency when they remain closely connected to the persons who are important to them. For the third consecutive reporting period, DFCS did not meet the agreed upon standard for searching for family members, dipping to 59 percent during Period 22. Most children continued being placed within 50 miles of their parents and/or caregivers from whom they were removed, however the performance fell from 97 percent to 91 percent, just over the required threshold. The percentage of children meeting the minimal once-a-month visits with their parents fell below the threshold to 84 percent. Significantly fewer siblings who entered care with their siblings were placed together and fewer of those in separate placements received the once a month visits with each other.
As discussed in the Period 21 report, in the original Consent Decree, DFCS committed to the effective use of family team meetings to ensure engagement among family members and professionals working together toward reunification. Unfortunately, during period 22, the counties continued having challenges having family team meetings (less than 20%) at the 13th month mark and when they were able to hold them, participation by family members was also low.
Another outcome measure envisioned as an opportunity to engage these same persons in joint planning are the semi-annual judicial or administrative reviews of family progress toward meeting the goals set forth in the case plan. Unlike in Period 21 when all the cases received timely

23

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 24 of 107

reviews, during Period 22, these reviews occurred in 94 percent of the cases, falling below the 95 percent threshold as required in the Consent Decree. The volatility of performance in this metric over time requires careful examination to determine sustainable strategies to ensure this crucial review of cases. Moreover, for the reviews that were held timely, the participation by parents, children, relatives, and other stakeholders was extremely low (35% of mothers, 10% of fathers and 15% of children). In fact, DFCS case managers attended less than two-thirds of these reviews.
There were 47 children adopted during the Period. Some of these were not finalized timely after parental rights were terminated or surrendered. One in ten children who remained in foster care for 15 of 22 months had not had his or her parental rights terminated or a compelling reason documented for not doing so.

Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections Outcome 7: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care. Outcome 16: At least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. Outcome 19: 90% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b (ii) and (iii). Outcome 21: At least 85% of all children with the goal of reunification shall have appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification
Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections Outcome 23: At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling-group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the

Period 20 Performance
86% 68%
97%
83%
Period 20 Performance
85%

Period 21 Performance

Period 22 Performance

83%

59%

73%

58%

97%

91%

91%

84%

Period 21 Performance

Period 22 Performance

90%

85%

24

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 25 of 107

Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections child is placed with a relative.7 Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 4: No more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.
Outcome 8b: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entry: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, or shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less after entering: adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship. Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 month backlog pool”): For all children remaining in the 24 month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 40% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.

Period 20 Performance
Period 20 Performance
12.8 %
58%
65%
08%

Period 21 Performance

Period 22 Performance

Period 21 Performance

Period 22 Performance

17.6%

10%

58%

58%

65%

65%

0%9

0%10

7 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 23 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 8 Only three children remain in in the Outcome 9 cohort at the end of Period 20 9 Only three children remain in the Outcome 9 cohort at the end of Period 21. 10 Only two children remain in the Outcome 9 cohort at the end of Period 22.
25

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 26 of 107

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree: For all children remaining in the over 24-month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 35% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 11: For all children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.

Period 20 Performance
011%
76%
94% One Time Measure Taken in Period I
30% One Time Measure Taken in Period I14
0%
91%

Period 21 Performance
0%12
64% N/A
N/A 0% 89%

Period 22 Performance
0%13
68% N/A
N/A 0% 90%

11 Only two children remain in the oM10 cohort at the end of Period 20 12 Only two children remain in the OM10 cohort at the end of Period 21. 13 Only one child remained in the OM10 cohort at the end of Period 22. 14 The children to whom this outcome applied have recruitment plans. Those who have been discharged since Period I have been included in the Outcome 9 and 10 results.
26

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 27 of 107

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 27: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review. Outcome 28: At least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.

Period 20 Performance
92%
92%

Period 21 Performance

Period 22 Performance

100%

94%

91%

94%

Well-Being
The well-being of children in foster care is directly impacted by the stability and quality of their placements. Placement stability performance (Outcome 17) declined substantially for those cases reviewed for Period 19, and rebounded from that decline in Periods 20, 21, and 22. However, this rebound seems to have plateaued and performance remains below the required threshold. This is of great concern and the placement stability workgroup is determining effective strategies and indicators to spark and track progress. In the modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan, the state agreed to decrease its use of hotels for youth in care by 50 percent no later than December 31, 2016. They met this goal and weekly reports to MTAT indicate that the use of hotels continued declining during Period 23. The State reports that the establishment of crisis placements in partnership with the Multi-Agency Alliance for Children (MAAC) has enabled the counties to assess and find placements for difficult to place youth. They have also been holding meetings with the private provider community to develop closer working relationships. The placement stability workgroup is evaluating data to determine the factors contributing to this declined utilization of hotels to ensure sustainability.
Another measure of child well-being is the extent to which he or she can continue with the same case manager while in foster care and spend time with his or her assigned case manager. DFCS did not meet the agreed upon standard during the Period for worker continuity. In fact, this is the third consecutive period in which the counties have fallen short of the 90 percent threshold. Conversely, DFCS continued in the Period to meet agreed upon standards for case manager visits

27

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 28 of 107

with children. In addition, DFCS case managers continued to consistently visit caregivers for children in foster care.

The last measure of child well-being in the consent decree involves the extent to which medical, dental, education and mental health needs are being identified and addressed. Close to 80 percent of children had all their identified needs met during the Period, which is a significant improvement from the previous reporting period. Dental and mental health needs are reported as being met less often. The timeliness of initial medical, dental, and mental health assessment continues to present a challenge. Case manager and supervisor turn-over, rising caseloads, and a lack of effective communication with service providers may explain some of this performance dip, but understanding its causes, and determining how the implementation of SBC may help address these basic well-being indicators remain a priority for the State as they work with MTAT in the development of practice and process standards.

Well-Being Outcomes Children Experience Stability and Worker Continuity Outcome 17: At least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 18: At least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave. Outcome 20a: At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of twice-monthly face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur. 15 Outcome 20b: At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur 16 Well-Being Outcomes Children Experience Stability and Worker Continuity Outcome 22: At least 95% of the total minimum required monthly visits by case managers to caregivers during the reporting period occur.

Period 20 Performance
87%
86%
95%
98% Period 20 Performance
94%

Period 21 Performance
85%

Period 22 Performance
88%

87%

86%

97%

96%

98%

98%

Period 21 Performance
96%

Period 22 Performance
95%

15As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the standard for Outcome 20 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 16 Ibid.
28

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 29 of 107

Well-Being Outcomes Children and Youth Receive Services They Need Outcome 24: The percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 20 percentage points (baseline is 36%). Outcome 30: At least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.

Period 20 Performance
42%
77%

Period 21 Performance
Only Reported Once a Year

Period 22 Performance
47%

69%

78%

Strengthening the Service Delivery Infrastructure

During Period 22, the approval and/or licensure status (Outcome 25) overall was strong at 95 percent. However, that overall performance obscures the fact that a significant proportion of children placed were in relative homes that remain unapproved. One of the State’s key initiatives moving forward is to place children with relatives whenever possible and appropriate. Thus, emphasis on approval and licensing these placements is critical and of concern. These unapproved relatives are not receiving needed financial support from DFCS whether in the form of an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) or foster care per diem.
Case manager and supervisory caseloads pose serious challenges for DFCS. On December 31, 2016, there were 48 CPS investigators assigned to families (a 25% decrease from Period 21), and only 40 (83%) of them were meeting caseload expectations. There were an additional 77 investigations assigned to workers on leave or to supervisors. Some of these 77 investigations were assigned to workers who were on vacation or taking FMLA, some of them could have been appropriately assigned to a supervisor who has five days to assign a case, others could have been related to SHINES, and some could not have been assigned because there was no case manager available for case assignment. Nearly two thirds of the workers responsible for child permanency had caseloads that exceeded agreed upon limits. On December 31, 2016, the only case manager series meeting caseload standards were the ones responsible for preserving families outside of foster care. More supervisors were exceeding the 5:1 standard for supervision in Period 22 than in the previous period. This performance underscores the stress the workforce is under, and continues to justify the DFCS leadership focus on creating a robust workforce as a core reform priority.

29

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 30 of 107

Strengthened Infrastructure Outcomes Effective Oversight of Placement Settings Outcome 25: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. Outcome 26: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Outcome 31: No more than 10% of all foster family home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.17

Period 20 Performance
96% 98%
.6%

Period 21 Performance
96%

Period 22 Performance
95%

94%

92%

1%

1.2%

Conclusion
Taken together, the Period 22 reports suggest that Fulton and DeKalb county leadership – along with state leaders – continued to contend with mounting system pressures. The results indicate that their efforts to maintain progress – or even hold steady – on safety, permanency, and wellbeing outcomes continue to yield mixed results. There is a clear need to improve quality engagement with children and their families, and to focus those elements of practice and casework that required sustained effort and attention to see a case through to a safe and permanent conclusion.
As the State further clarifies and begins to install the system reforms that will be implemented as part of the Blueprint for Change, there is an opportunity to reverse the decline in those areas that dipped, and to continue to build on existing strengths.

17 As part of a Stipulated Modification to the Consent Decree, the methodology for Outcome 31 was modified. See Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
30

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 31 of 107
PART FOUR - SAFETY
Principle four of the Consent Decree asserts, “The State has primary responsibility for the care and protection of the children who enter the foster care system.”18 As a result, several Consent Decree outcomes and requirements focus attention on the safety of children in the custody of the State (DHS/DFCS). The following sections report on the State’s progress in the areas related to maltreatment of children in foster care and the State’s process for investigating such allegations (Outcomes 5, 1, 2,3, and 6).
Based on current DFCS policy 5.19, special investigations are required, among several criteria, when a child is in DFCS custody and any person has allegedly maltreated that child, including a DFCS or Child Placing Agency (CPA) foster or adoptive parent, approved relative or non-relative caregiver, Child Caring Institution (CCI) staff and other placement resources for children in DFCS custody.
Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment
Between July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016, there were 1,969 children and youth in foster care in DeKalb and Fulton counties. There were 93 investigations of reported maltreatment in care involving 117 alleged victim children during this period. Maltreatment in care allegations were substantiated for 12 children; five of these substantiations involved a foster parent or facility staff person thus meeting the prior federal definition of maltreatment in care. Outcome 1 - Maltreatment in Care Investigations Commenced Within 24 Hours of Receipt of Report.
The Consent Decree states, “at least 95 percent of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report.” For Period 22, the Accountability Agent and MTAT have relied on Chapter Five, Investigations, in the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services Child Welfare Policy Manual for current policy expectations related to special investigations of maltreatment in care.
The investigation process must include an interview and observation that is private and alone with each alleged victim child within the immediate, 24-hour response time to assess for child
18 See p. 4, Principle 4, of the Consent Decree.
31

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 32 of 107

safety.19
Outcome 1 relates to the timeframe in which an investigation of suspected maltreatment of a foster child has commenced. The unit of analysis is the investigation itself, which may involve multiple alleged child victims.
State Performance  The State Failed to Meet the Outcome Measure 1 Threshold.

During Period 22, 89 percent (82 of 92) of applicable investigations of maltreatment in care included face-to-face contacts made with at least one alleged victim within 24 hours.20 Of the ten investigations not commenced within 24 hours, half of them were the responsibility of DeKalb and Fulton counties, the remaining ones fell to the State Special Investigations Unit. This is depicted in the chart below.

Outcome 1 – Commencement of Maltreatment in Care Investigations N=92

Investigating County

Commenced

Within 24 Hours

Number of

Percent

Investigations of Total

Not Commenced

Within 24 Hours

Number of

Percent

Investigations

of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

25

83%

5

16%

Perimeter Counties

24

100%

0

0%

State Special

Investigations

33

87%

5

13%

Unit

Total

82

89%

10

11%

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment in Care Investigations, July to December 2016.

Total
Number of Investigations

Percent of Total

30

33%

24

26%

38

41%

92

100%

Five alleged victim children were seen and removed from the location of the maltreatment before or at the time of the report of possible maltreatment. Although these cases did not meet the consent decree standard for Outcome 1, these children were protected from the alleged harm in that placement setting.

This is according to file review data of all 93 maltreatment investigations completed during the
19 DFCS Policy 5.21 Conducting Special Investigations in Relative or Non-Relative Placements, DFCS Policy 5.22 Conducting Special Investigations in Residential and Non-Residential Facilities 20 There were 93 investigations of maltreatment in care. One of them was removed from this measure because the alleged victim child was back in Michigan before the report was received.

32

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 33 of 107

Period. In these investigations, at least one victim child must be seen by a Child Protective Services (CPS) investigator or police officer to meet this 24-hour requirement. Other case managers do not count unless these persons have been certified as CPS investigators.
The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past ten reporting periods.
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 1 Maltreatment in Care Investigations Commenced Within 24 Hours of Receipt of Reports

Percent of Investigations

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

94%

93%

91% 90%

90%

90%

92%

91%

89%

84%

85%

Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 12 December
2011

Period 13 June 2012

Period 14 December
2012

Period 15 June 2013

Period 16 December
2013

Period 17 June 2014

Period 18 December
2014

Period 19 June 2015

Period 20 December
2015

Period 21 June 2016

Period 22 December
2016

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment in Care Investigations, July 2010 to June 2016.
Outcome 2 - Maltreatment in Care Investigations Completed Within 30 Days of Report Receipt.
Outcome 2 relates to the length of time it takes to complete such investigations. The Consent Decree requires that “at least 95 percent of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report.” For this Period, the Accountability Agent and MTAT have relied on Chapter Five, Investigations, in the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services Child Welfare Policy Manual for current policy expectations related to special investigations of maltreatment in care.

Special investigations must be completed within 30 calendar days of receipt of an intake report to assess the allegations of abuse or neglect, determine if the child is safe, take action to protect a child who is determined to be unsafe and determine if the allegations should be substantiated

33

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 34 of 107

or unsubstantiated.21
State Performance  The State did not meet the Outcome Measure 2 Threshold.

According to the record review data, the State completed 90 percent of maltreatment in care investigations (84 of 93) within 30 days during Period 22. The graph on the following page displays the State’s performance over the past ten reporting periods.
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 2 Maltreatment in Care Investigations Completed Within 30 Days of Report Receipt

Perecent of Investigations 100%
90% 81%

99%

93% 85%

91%

88%

93%

90% 82%

80%

75%

73%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 12 December
2011

Period 13 June 2012

Period 14 December
2012

Period 15 June 2013

Period 16 December
2013

Period 17 June 2014

Period 18 December
2014

Period 19 June 2015

Period 20 December
2015

Period 21 June 2016

Period 22 December
2016

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment in Care Investigations, July 2011 to December 2016.
The chart below displays the Period 22 performance of DeKalb and Fulton counties, the State Special Investigations Unit, and the perimeter counties. It should be noted that 99 percent of the investigations during the Period were completed in 45 days.

21 DFCS Policy 5.21 Conducting Special Investigations in Relative or Non-Relative Placements, DFCS Policy 5.22 Conducting Special Investigations in Residential and Non-Residential Facilities
34

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 35 of 107

Outcome 2 – Timely Investigations N=93

Investigating County

Completed in ≤ 30 Days

Number

% of Total

Completed in ≤ 45 Days

Number

% of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

27

87%

30

97%

Perimeter Counties

23

96%

24

100%

State Special

Investigations

34

89%

38

100%

Unit22

Total

84

90%

92

99%

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment in Care Investigations, July to December 2016.

Total

Number

% of Total

31

100%

24

100%

38

100%

93

100%

Outcome 3 - Maltreatment in Care Investigations with Timely Face-to-Face Private Contact All Alleged Victims.

Outcome 3 relates to the frequency with which such investigations include face-to-face contact with each alleged victim within 24 hours. The Consent Decree requires that “At least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face-to-face, private contact with the alleged victim, including face-to-face contact with a child who is non-verbal due to age or for any other reason.”

The investigation process must include an interview and observation that is private and alone with each alleged victim child within the immediate 24-hour response time to assess for child safety.23

CPS investigators must see infants under the age of one undressed to see if there are any physical signs of maltreatment. Any child four years of age or younger and the subject of physical abuse allegations must be seen undressed to identify any injuries related to neglect allegations.24

22 Allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit rather than a local DFCS office. 23 DFCS Policy 5.21 Conducting Special Investigations in Relative or Non-Relative Placements, DFCS Policy 5.22 Conducting Special Investigations in Residential and Non-Residential Facilities 24 Ibid.
35

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 36 of 107

State Performance
 The State Failed to Meet the Outcome Measure 3 Threshold.
According to record review data from all investigations completed during Period 22, 80 percent of the alleged victims of maltreatment in care (93 of 116) had face-to-face, private contact with a CPS investigator within 24 hours.25
Performance dropped during Period 22 and remains well below the Outcome 3 performance standard of 99 percent. The following chart illustrates the State’s performance on Outcome 3 for the last ten reporting periods.
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 3 Maltreatment in Care Investigations with Timely Face-to-Face Private Contact
All Alleged Victims

Percent of Children

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

93%

91%

88%

88%

84%

90%

89%

90%

89%

80%

Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥99% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 12 December
2011

Period 13 June 2012

Period 14 December
2012

Period 15 June 2013

Period 16 December
2013

Period 17 June 2014

Period 18 December
2014

Period 19 June 2015

Period 20 December
2015

Period 21 June 2016

80%
Period 22 December
2016

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment in Care Investigations, July to December 2016.
Twenty-three alleged victim children did not have face-to-face, private contact within 24 hours. Twenty-two of them were not seen within 24 hours; one of them was seen by the investigator who did not follow policy when interviewing the alleged victim child. Eight of these alleged victim children were in cases investigated by DeKalb and Fulton counties, fifteen of them were in cases investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit. All the investigations conducted by perimeter counties met the Outcome 3 standard.
25 There were 117 alleged victims of maltreatment in care. One of them was removed from this measure because the alleged victim child was back in Michigan before the report was received.

36

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 37 of 107

It is important to note that that of the 23 alleged victim children for whom the response time was missed; ten were removed from the location in which the maltreatment was alleged to have occurred within 24 hours, but were not interviewed per policy within this timeframe.

Displayed in the following charts are additional Outcome 3 data for Period 22.

Outcome 3 – Face-to-Face Contact with Alleged Maltreatment Victims within 24 Hours

N=116

Investigating County

CPS Contact Within 24 Hours
Alleged Percent

Removed Prior To or Within 24 Hours of
Report Alleged Percent

No CPS Contact Within 24 Hours
Alleged Percent

Total Alleged Percent

Victims of Total Victims of Total Victims of Total Victims of Total

DeKalb/Fulton
Perimeter Counties
State Special Investigations Unit26

31

79%

26

100%

36

71%

4

10%

0 %

6

12%

4

10%

0

0%

9

18%

39

100%

26

100%

51

100%

Total

93

80%

10

9%

13

11%

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment in Care Investigations, July to December 2016.

116

100%

Documented Factors Contributing to Delayed Initial Contact with Alleged Victims27

Period 22

Factors Contributing to Delayed Initial Contact

Delayed Referral by Placement Case Manager Worker Making Contact Not CPS Certified CPS made contact but did not follow policy when interviewing child One or more attempts were made but unsuccessful. Total

OM 1 1 2 0
5 8

OM 3 3 4 1
9 17

26 Allegations arising in congregate care facilities and in certain other circumstances may be investigated by the State Special Investigations Unit rather than a local DFCS office. 27 The differing counts for Outcomes 1 and 3 reflect the different units of analysis for these outcomes; for Outcome 1 it is the
investigation, for Outcome 3 it is the alleged victim.

37

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 38 of 107

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment in Care Investigations, July to December 2016.
DFCS policy details expectations for investigations of maltreatment in care to ensure consistency and quality. DFCS generally met policy expectations related to reviewing the DFCS history of the foster parents or caregivers, adequately evaluating and assessing the safety of children in the home and seeing/interviewing every alleged maltreated child separately in Period 22.
Policy requires all injuries observed during the investigation to be photographed. In Period 22, this occurred in 30 percent (21 of 69) applicable investigations. All foster parents or caregivers should be interviewed regardless of being present during the alleged incident. Reviewers found this to be the case in 82 percent of applicable investigations. Investigators reviewed the CPS history of foster parents in 71 percent of the time.
These and other policy expectations are outlined in the following chart.

Investigations Meeting Policy Requirements28

Investigation Policy Requirement
Alleged maltreator was interviewed separately
Investigator saw/interviewed every alleged maltreated child separately Continued safety of the child(ren) placed in the home was adequately evaluated and assessed
Investigator reviewed the DFCS history of the foster parent/caregiver All approved foster parents/caregivers interviewed separately
DFCS case managers required to visit in this foster care setting were contacted
All other adults frequently in the home interviewed separately
Investigator reviewed previous CPS reports for foster parents/caregivers At least two relevant collateral sources contacted during the investigation Investigator saw/interviewed each of the other children (nonalleged victims) separately Case record contains physical evidence to support case documentation

Percent Meeting Expectations

Period 21

Period 22

86%

83%

96%

99%

94%

90%

96%

83%

87%

82%

86%

80%

87%

88%

81%

71%

78%

76%

78%

88%

67%

48%

28 The numbers vary based on placement settings and other factors.

38

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 39 of 107

Source: Case File review of all Maltreatment in Care Investigations, January to December 2016
At the conclusion of Maltreatment in Care investigations, if the incident occurred in a providersupervised foster care setting, an investigative summary must be sent to Residential Child Care (RCC) and Office of Provider Management (OPM) within 10 days.
Likewise, Section 12.B. of the Consent Decree requires all reports of suspected abuse or neglect of foster children in institutional, group, residential, or private provider-supervised foster family home settings to be referred to and reviewed by Residential Child Care (RCC) and the Office of Provider Management (OPM).29 The purpose of the review specified in the Consent Decree is “…to determine whether a pattern of abuse or neglect exists within… [the provider agency] …. that contributed to the abuse or neglect; whether the contract should be terminated; whether particular homes or facilities should be closed….”30
To assess compliance with these provisions, the MTAT collects data directly from RCC and OPM to ascertain which maltreatment investigations involving foster children were reported to each office.
The Residential Child Care (RCC) Unit must be notified of all investigations of maltreatment in care in which the child is placed in a provider supervised foster care settings, including private agency supervised foster homes and child caring institutions. The alleged maltreator could have been anyone. In Period 22, proper notification was given for 94 percent of applicable maltreatment in care investigations.

Investigating County
DeKalb Carroll Fulton Clayton Newton Paulding Walton Gwinnett

Residential Child Care Notification of Period 22 Maltreatment in Care Investigations
N=35

Total Investigations Number
4 1 3 3 2 1 1 4

Notified Number
3 1 3 3 1 1 1 4

% of Total 75% 1005 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100%

Not Notified Number
1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

% of Total 25% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0%

29 RCC licenses child placing agencies (CPA), child caring institutions (CCI), and outdoor therapeutic programs
(OTP). OPM approves CPAs, CCIs, and OTPs wishing to serve DFCS children once they have been licensed by RCC. 30 See Section 12 B, p. 28 of the Consent Decree.

39

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 40 of 107

Investigating County

Total Investigations Number

Notified Number

Notified Not Notified % of Total Number

Laurens

1

1

100%

0

Richmond

2

2

100%

0

Rockdale

2

2

100%

0

State Office

11

11

100%

0

(SIU)

Total

35

33

94%

2

Source: Survey of Notification of CPS Investigations in Foster Care Settings, July to December 2016.

Not Notified % of Total 0% 0% 0% 0%
6%

The Office of Provider Management (OPM) Unit must be notified of all investigations of Maltreatment in Care in which the child is placed in provider supervised foster care settings operating under DFCS contracts, including private agency supervised foster homes and child caring institutions. The alleged maltreator could have been anyone. This notification happened in 100 percent of the time in Period 22.

Office of Provider Management Notification of Period 22 Maltreatment in Care Investigations
N=27

Investigating

Total Investigations

Notified

Not Notified

County

Number

Number

% of Total Number

DeKalb

3

3

100%

0

Fulton

3

3

100%

0

Paulding

1

1

100%

0

Walton

1

1

100%

0

Clayton

3

3

100%

0

Gwinnett

3

3

100%

0

Newton

2

2

100%

0

Richmond

2

2

100%

0

Rockdale

1

1

100%

0

State Office

8

(SIU)

8

100%

0

Total

27

27

100%

0

Source: Survey of Notification of CPS Investigations in Foster Care Settings, July to December 2016.

% of Total 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
0%

Outcome 5 – Maltreatment in Foster Care Measurement of Outcome 5 uses the federal definition as it existed in 2005: “Of all children in foster care in the State during the period under review, 0.57 percent or fewer were the subject of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member."31
31 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families: Updated National Standards for the Child and Family Service Reviews and Guidance

40

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 41 of 107
The data used to measure the outcome performance derive from a review of all 93 investigations of alleged maltreatment concerning 117 class member children in foster care in DeKalb and Fulton counties conducted during Period 22. There were 1,969 children and youth in foster care in DeKalb and Fulton counties at any time during the period, which is the denominator for this outcome measure. The numerator for this measure is the number of substantiated victim children who were maltreated by a foster parent or facility staff person, which was the federal definition for this measure in 2005 at the time parties entered into the previous Consent Decree. Excluded from this numerator are substantiations of maltreatment when the perpetrator is unknown, a birth parent, or relative caregivers or fictive kin who are not approved foster parents in Georgia, other members of the child’s household and other child caring staff persons such as daycare providers, school teachers. State Performance in Period 22
 The State Surpassed the Outcome 5 Threshold Of the 1,969 children and youth in foster care at any point in time during the period, there were 93 investigations that resulted in there being five (5) victims of substantiated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff person. These five victims represent .25% percent of the population of children and youth in foster care during the Period. This is consistent with the previous period and is a marked improvement from Period 19 performance of 1.16 percent. The following graph displays the State’s performance over the past ten reporting periods.
on Program Improvement Plans. Information Memorandum ACYF-CB-IM-01-07, August 16, 2003. That standard was later revised to .32, or 99.68 children should be free from maltreatment while in care.
41

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 42 of 107

Percent of Children 1.20%

State Performance on Outcome 5 Maltreatment in Care
1.16%

1.00% 0.80% 0.60%

0.58%

0.74% 0.58%

0.68%

0.48%

0.63%

0.72%

0.40%

0.20%

0.45% 0.42% 0.25%

0.00%
Goal: ≤0.57% Goal: ≤0.57% Goal: ≤0.57% Goal: ≤0.57% Goal: ≤0.57% Goal: ≤0.57% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21

December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Period 22 December
2016

Source: Case File Review of All Maltreatment in Care Investigations, January to December 2016.

The type of maltreatment substantiated for these five children was inadequate supervision. There were two substantiated victims being cared for in Child Caring Institutions (CCIs), two of them in provider supervised foster homes, and one of them was in a PRTF. Of particular concern, one of these young persons was shot with a taser by his foster parent.
Although not included in the measure’s calculations, there were seven (7) other children from DeKalb and Fulton counties substantiated for being maltreated in foster care. Six (6) of these children were maltreated by biological parents and one by another household member.
Outcome 6 – Corporal Punishment.
The Consent Decree prohibits the use of corporal punishment for children and youth in foster care and contains certain requirements for assessing allegations of corporal punishment.32 The following section summarizes the extent to which DFCS met these agreed upon standards in Period 22.
32 See pages 29 and 30, Section 12.C of the Consent Decree
42

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 43 of 107
Outcome 6 seeks to protect children in foster care from experiencing corporal punishment, which the Consent Decree defines as “…any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain.”33 The Consent Decree requires that by the end of Period 4, 98 percent of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months. State Performance
 The State Exceeded the Outcome Measure 6 Threshold. During Period 22, there were five (5) allegations of corporal punishment of children in foster care and four of them were referred to the Child Protective Services Intake Communications Center or CICC and then screened in for a CPS investigation. All four of these were investigated by CPS and then unsubstantiated. The remaining allegation was screened out and no further action was taken. In total, 82 of 82 foster homes sampled (100%) had no confirmed incidents of corporal punishment in the previous 12 months, thus exceeding the Consent Decree standard.
33 See p. 2 of the Consent Decree.
43

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 44 of 107
PART FIVE - PERMANENCY
Several of the Consent Decree outcomes and practice requirements focus on various components of achieving permanency for children. This part reports on the State’s progress in the areas related to children in DFCS custody maintaining their family connections and safely returning home or achieving permanency with new families.
Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
Outcome 7 – Diligent Search Outcome Measure 7 in the Consent Decree requires case managers to conduct and document a diligent search for parents and relatives within 60 days of entry for at least 95 percent of the children. The outcome requirement for undertaking a diligent search within 60 days was deemed to have been satisfied if one of the following conditions was met:
 The child was placed with a relative within 60 days after entering custody; or,  A court order stated that the diligent search had been properly and timely submitted to
the court; or,  There were documented search efforts that included the following: interviewing
children34 about adults in their lives or someone with whom they would want to live and interviewing one or more family members or family friends within 60 days and, when resources were identified, contacting or attempting to contact them. State Performance  The State did not meet the Outcome 7 Measure Threshold
During Period 22, the counties documented diligent search efforts in 13 out of 22 (59%) of the cases reviewed. Due to the small sample size, performance for this measure may be highly variable. The primary reason (7 out of 9) that the State did not meet the threshold was due to not interviewing the child about any resources. The following chart displays additional
34 If the child was aged 3 or younger, the record review did not seek to determine if the child was interviewed.
44

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 45 of 107

information about the State’s documented diligent search efforts, followed by a graph displaying

the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.

Diligent Search Actions Undertaken N=22
Actions Children placed with a family resource within 60 days of entering custody Court order documented that the diligent search was “properly and timely” submitted Evidence of interviews with child and child’s family and others within first 60 days and contact made with one or more possible resource, as applicable Subtotal for Outcome Measurement Insufficient search activities in first 60 days: no documented interviews of children to gather information about relatives and significant others (children ranged in age from 5 to 17) Total Source: Case Record Review, July 1 – December 31, 2016.

Number 8 1 4 13
9
22

Percent 36% 5% 18% 59%
41%
100%

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 7 Diligent Searches Undertaken Within 60 Days

Percent of Children

110% 100%

94%

90%

95% 96% 96%

97% 100% 97% 96%

86% 83%

80%

70%

59%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95%

Period 8 Period 10 Period 12 Period 14 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

(December (December (December (December (December(June 2014)(December(June 2015)(December(June 2016)(December

2009) 2010) 2011) 2012) 2013)

2014)

2015)

2016)

Source: Case Record Reviews

Outcome 16 – Sibling Placement.
At least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all their siblings.

45

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 46 of 107
State Performance  The State Failed to Meet the Required Threshold for Outcome 16.
During Period 22, the State's performance decreased sharply to 58 percent. The individual county performance for DeKalb and Fulton was 59 and 56 percent respectively. DeKalb County had five groups of 4-sibling families and two groups of 5-sibling families for which they could not find placements large enough for all siblings to be placed together. Fulton County could not find large enough placement settings for two groups of 4-sibling families and three groups of five sibling families. The county, regional and state leadership are working on increasing the number of approved and available placements for sibling groups – especially large sibling groups. In addition, the State Director has set a goal of placing 50 percent of children with appropriate and approved relative placements. The kinship workgroup is establishing strategies to achieve this goal and measure to track progress. Moreover, the Annie E. Casey Foundation Child Welfare Strategy Group has been asked to provide technical assistance to help the State become a Kin First organization. There are certain aspects of Solution Based Casework that require case managers to develop genograms for each family, which should enhance their efforts to identify and engage relatives. These efforts should have a positive impact on this outcome measure. In addition, under the recently approved Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan, there will be an exception for large sibling groups. This new metric will be presented in the Period 23 report. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.
46

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 47 of 107

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 16 All Siblings Placed Together in Foster Care

Percent of Children

100%

90%

81%

80% 74% 74%

70%

60%

50%

76% 66%

71%

57%

59%

56%

68%

74%

58%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80% ≥80%

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: Verified State Data

Outcome 19 – Placement Proximity

Outcome 19 requires the State to place at least 90 percent of children in foster care within the same county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed.35 The Consent Decree allows for the following exceptions:
 Children with needs so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility in their own county or within 50 mile radius;
 Children placed with relatives through ICPC;  Children in an adoptive placement; and  Children placed with parent/guardian.

State Performance

 The State Surpassed the Outcome 19 Threshold.
During Period 22, out of the 92 children in the sample, the counties placed 40 children (43%) within their home county; 41 children (45%) within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed; three children (3%) had exceptional needs that required placement further away; and 8 children (9%) were not placed in proximity to their homes of removal. Thus, the State’s performance for Period 22 was 91 percent. This data is displayed in the pie chart below, followed by a graph depicting the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.

35 See p. 35, Outcome 19, of the Consent Decree.

47

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 48 of 107

Exceptional need
placement/ Accepted reason for distance
3%

Child Placement Proximity to Home of Removal N=92
No reason/other reason for not
meeting standard
9%

Within 50 miles 45%
Source: Foster Care Case Record Review for July to December 2016.

In County 43%

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 19 Placement Proximity

Percent of Children

99% 100%

98%

97%

95%

95%

95%

97%

93%

91%

97%

97%

91%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90%

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews January 2010 – December 2016.
Outcome 21 – Parent Child Visitation
At least 85 percent of all children with the goal of reunification shall have appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification.

48

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 49 of 107

State Performance
 The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 21 Threshold.
During Period 22, the State's performance decreased from 91 percent to 84 percent, falling below the threshold. During Period 22, the performance in DeKalb County was 76.8 percent and the performance in Fulton County was 93.6 percent. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 21 Parent Child Visitation

Percent of Children
100% 90% 89%
80%

86%

90%

95%

93%

92%

94%

85%

80%

83%

91%

84%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85% Goal: ≥85%

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Pereiod 21 Period 22

June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: Verified State Data
Outcome 23 – Sibling Visitation
At least 90 percent of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.

State Performance  The State Did Not Meet the Required Threshold for Outcome 23.

49

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 50 of 107

The Period 22 performance of 85 percent is a decrease from the Period 21 performance (90%) and falls below the required threshold. During Period 22, the performance in DeKalb County was 80 percent and the performance in Fulton County was 92.2 percent. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.

Eleven Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 23 Sibling Visitation

Percent of Required Visits 100%

94%

95%

95%

96%

94%

94%

92%

91% 85%

90%

84% 85%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Source: Verified State Data

0%
Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: Goal: ≥90% ≥90% ≥90% ≥90% ≥90% ≥90% ≥90% ≥90% ≥90% ≥90% ≥90%

Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

DecemberJune 2012DecemberJune 2013DecemberJune 2014DecemberJune 2015DecemberJune 2016December

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 4 – Re-Entry into Custody.
No more than 8.6 percent of all foster children entering custody shall have re-entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. State Performance
 The State Failed to Meet the Threshold Requirement for Outcome 4.
50

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 51 of 107

Even though the State did not meet the threshold, the State’s performance in Period 22 (10%) is a significant improvement over the Period 21 performance (17.6%). The individual county performance for DeKalb and Fulton was 8.1% and 12.3% respectively. DeKalb County had one sibling group of two re-enter, while Fulton County had three sibling groups of two and one sibling group of three re-enter during the Period. Even though this did not have a significant impact on the overall performance measure, it may account for the different re-entry rates between the two counties. The graph below depicts the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 4 Re-entry into Care

Percent of Chidren

20.0% 18.0%

17.6%

16.0% 14.0%

12.8%

12.0% 10.0%
8.0%

8.6%

8.7%

9.7% 9.40% 8.8%

10.5% 10.6% 9.4%
8.3%

10.0%

6.0%

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%
Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%Goal: ≤8.6%

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: Verified State Data
Outcome 8a and 8b – Permanency Exits for Children Who Entered Care On or After October 21, 2005.
8a - Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40 percent shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. State Performance The State Met the Threshold Requirement for Outcome 8a. The State’s Period 22 performance of 58 percent exceeds the required threshold. The State has consistently exceeded this outcome.
51

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 52 of 107

8b - Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74 percent shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entry: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, or shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less after entering: adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship.
State Performance
 The State Failed to Meet the Threshold Requirement for Outcome 8b.

The Period 22 performance of 65 percent did not meet the required threshold. The State has never met this Consent Decree requirement but has generally trended in a positive direction.
Outcome 8 Children Entering DFCS Custody on or after October 27, 2005
Who Exited to Permanency by December 31, 2016

Number of children in cohort Exits as of December 31, 2016
Reunification within 12 months Permanent Placement with Relatives within 12 months (still in state custody) Permanent Legal Custody within 12 months (custody transferred from DFCS) Permanent Legal Custody between 12 and 24 months (custody transferred from DFCS) Adoption within 12 months Adoptions between 12 and 24 months Guardianship within 12 months Guardianships between 12 and 24 months Total Exits for Outcome Measurement Percentage Exiting for Outcome Measurement Number Exited to Permanency but not in required time frame Other exits (transfer to other counties, emancipation, etc.) Total number exiting Remaining number in cohort on December 31, 2016
Demographics of those still in DFCS custody at December 31, 2016
Source: SHINES, and county tracking systems.

Children who entered custody

on or since October 27, 2005

13815

8(a)

8(b)

6430

6430

0

0

920

920

364

31

31

251

641

641

273

8022

8910

58%

65%

2054 (15%)

1318 (10%)

12282 (89%)

1533 (11 %)

Average length of stay:

20.7 months

Median length of stay:

17 months

Average Age: 8 years

52% female, 48% male

52

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 53 of 107

The following graph displays the State’s performance over the 12 most recent reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 8a and 8b Permanency Exits for Children Who Entered Care on or After October 21, 2005
Percent of Children

70% 60%

61% 54%

62% 54%

61% 54%

62% 55%

62% 55%

63% 56%

64% 57%

65% 57%

65% 58%

65% 58%

65% 58%

65% 58%

65% 58%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Period 9 June 2010

Period 11 June 2011

Period 13 June 2012

Period 15 June 2013

Period 17 June 2014

Period 19 June 2015

Period 21 June 2016

OM8a

OM8b

Source: SHINES, and county tracking systems.

The pie chart below illustrates the exit outcomes for all children who have entered state custody since the start of the Consent Decree.

53

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 54 of 107

Other Exits, 9%

Still in Custody on December 31, 2016
11%

Positive Permanency Exits, 80%
Source: SHINES, and county tracking systems. *Positive Permanency exits include reunification, adoption, guardianship, permanent legal custody, and permanent placement with relatives. Other exits include emancipation and transfer to other counties or states.
Time in Care As the earlier section suggested, recent placement dynamics suggest that duration has been increasing in the two counties. Although most children/youth who enter foster care in the two counties do eventually exit to a permanent exit, the time to achieve exit has been increasing. This is especially observable when considering the time it takes to exit for those children/youth whose removal episode lasts at least one month. That group is represented, by entry year, in the table below. It shows the time (in days) that elapsed as 25, 50 and 75 percent of each entry group exited foster care. The data table shows that duration sharply increased with the 2014 entry cohort. It took 99 more days for half of that group to leave than it did for the 2013 group. The 2015 group exited more slowly, with median duration going up another 67 days to 521. Through the permanency and workforce workgroups, the counties are analyzing data to determine the root causes of this slowdown, and to design strategies to counter it.
Source: Center for State Child Welfare Data, Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, 2017.
54

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 55 of 107
Outcome 9 – Permanency Exits Among Children Who Had Been in the Custody of DeKalb or Fulton County Up to 24 Months as of October 27, 2005.
Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24-month backlog pool”): For all children remaining in the 24-month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 40 percent by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. At the beginning of Period 22, there were 3 children remaining in the Outcome 9 cohort. One child exited due to emancipation (turned 18 during the Period). For the two children remaining in custody at the end of the Period, the average age was 16 and the primary permanency plan for each child is adoption. Each of the remaining young persons have mental health issues that impact their behavior.
Outcome 10 – Permanency Exits Among Children Who Had Been in the Custody of DeKalb or Fulton County More than 24 Months as of October 27, 2005.
Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree: For all children remaining in the over 24-month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 35 percent by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. At the beginning of Period 22 there were two children remaining in the Outcome 10 cohort. One child exited due to emancipation (turned 18 during the Period). The remaining child is 17 years of age and has several health issues requiring 16 hours of nursing per day.
Outcome 11 – Adoptions within 12 Months of Termination of Parental Rights.
For all children, whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80 percent will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights. State Performance
 The State Fell Short of the Outcome 11 Threshold. The State’s performance increased slightly from 64 percent in Period 21 to 68 percent in Period 22. The individual performance for DeKalb and Fulton were 63 percent and 79 percent respectively. Amongst the 41 children whose parents’ rights were terminated between July and
55

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 56 of 107

December 2015, only 28 children had their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months. Out of the 10 children in DeKalb who did not have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months, one child had their case finalized at the 14th month. Although the case was ready for finalization, the Superior Court held the case to include it in the National Adoption Month celebration. The county will work with the court to avoid such a delay in the future. The following graph depicts the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 11 Adoptions/Guardianships Finalized within 12 months of TPR

Percent of Children

100% 90% 80% 70%

69%

84%

84% 55%

60%

60% 55%

66%

56%

76%

68% 64%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%Goal:≥80%

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: Verified State Data
Outcome 14 – Adoption Disruptions within 12 Months of Finalizations.

No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period.
Within the group of 61 children adopted between July 1 and December 31, 2015, none (0%) are known to have re-entered the State’s custody by December 31, 2016. The State has surpassed this outcome measure in every reporting period.
Other Practices and Processes to Promote Permanency

The State reports that regularly scheduled reviews of progress toward permanency take place in each county for children who reach their 13th month in care. According to State reported data, 300 children reached their 13th month in care in Period 22. Of these 300 children, 284 had their

56

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 57 of 107
cases reviewed by the State Permanency Review Team. Reviewer concurrence with the goal and plan are typically low and often result in staffings to discuss appropriate casework. While the circumstances among these cases vary, there is a trend among cases in which the counties maintain a goal of reunification, despite having documentation and compelling reasons to transition the case to another plan. The counties are working to streamline the various reviews and to include family members in each of the reviews to understand their experience and to engage them in evaluating the goals of their own case. The number of Family Team Meetings (FTMs) held within 90 days of the 13th month review continues to decline to an all-time low of 16.5 percent. For several years, there was a focused effort on increasing the timeliness of FTMs. However, the turnover of case managers has affected the numbers of timely FTMs. The FTM staff was reduced in DeKalb County and there was a change of leadership in the FTM unit in Fulton County. While FTMs are occurring, they are not occurring timely and the counties are also working on implementing the authentic engagement framework of solution based casework, as more of the staff receive training and work toward certification. On a positive note, the percentage of timely approved case plans at the 25th month review increased from 70 percent in Period 21 to 87 percent in Period 22. The charts below provide additional information.
57

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 58 of 107

DFCS Permanency Reviews at the 13th and 25th Month in Custody 13th Month Permanency Review Implementation July 1 through December 31, 2016 N=300 Number Percent

Total Cases Reviewed by State Permanency Reviewers

284

95%

Reviewer Concurrence with goal and plan

116

41%

Permanency Goal Reunification Permanent placement with relative Adoption Guardianship Another planned permanent living arrangement Totals

224

79%

0

0%

31

11%

23

8%

6

2%

284

100%

Cases with current case plans (court sanctioned/approved)

222

78%

Source: Division of Family and Children Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2016 Third and Fourth Quarterly Reports on 13th month Permanency Reviews.

58

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 59 of 107

Family Team Meetings Convened for 13th Month Permanency Reviews July 1 through December 31, 2016 N= varies Number Percent

Cases with “Family Team Meetings” (FTM) within the last 90 days (percentages based 45 on the number of applicable cases =273)

16.5%

FTMs with mothers involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs held— 32 excludes cases for which there was a TPR, a non-reunification order, the mother’s whereabouts were unknown throughout the life of the case, or the mother was deceased—N=42)

76.2%

FTMs with fathers involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs held— 12 excludes cases for which there was a TPR, a non-reunification order, the father’s whereabouts were unknown throughout the life of the case, or the father was deceased—N=27)

44.4%

FTMs with relatives involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs held and 27

54%

potential relatives to invite — N=50)

FTMs with foster parents involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs held 7

24%

and number of children with foster parents — N= 29)

FTMs with service providers involved (percentages based on the number of FTMs held 8

19%

and number of children with service providers – N=43)

FTMs had recommendations specific to Child/Family needs (percentages based on 91

82%

N=111)

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2016. Third and Fourth Quarterly Reports on 13th month Permanency Reviews.

59

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 60 of 107

13th Month Permanency Review: Engagement in Case Planning July 1 through December 31, 2016 N=varies Number

Percent

Active involvement in the case planning process

Child (n=188)

184

98%

Mother (n=192)

186

97%

Father (n=100)

72

72%

Caretaker (n=282)

282

100%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2016. Third and Fourth Quarterly Reports on 13th month Permanency Reviews.

25th Month Permanency Review Implementation July 1 through December 31, 2016 N=185
Number

Total Cases Staffed

179

Reviewer Concurrence with County Plan

72

Percent 97% 40%

Permanency Goal Reunification Permanent Placement with Relative Adoption Guardianship Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement Totals

117

65%

0

0%

51

28%

8

5%

3

2%

179

100%

Cases with current case plans (Court sanctioned/approved)

155

87%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2016. Third and Fourth Quarterly Reports on 25thmonth Permanency Reviews.

60

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 61 of 107

25th Month Permanency Review: Engagement in Case Planning July 1 through December 31, 2016 N=varies
Number

Percent

Active involvement in the case planning process

Child (n=113)

111

98%

Mother (n=107)

102

95%

Father (n=65)

55

85%

Caretaker (n=179)

179

100%

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, 2016. Third and Fourth Quarterly Reports on 25thmonth Permanency Reviews.

Post Adoption Assistance
The State reported that 47 children were adopted between July 1 and December 31, 2016. This is a slight increase from the number of children adopted in Period 21 (43).
During Period 22, according to data obtained from the State Office of Adoptions, 45 (96%) of those children adopted were receiving or were scheduled to receive monthly Adoption Assistance benefits and Medicaid. This proportion is less than the proportion in Period 21 (100%). All families receiving monthly adoption assistance are also eligible to receive additional benefits to cover one-time, non-recurring expenses. They may apply for reimbursement of non-recurring expenses of up to $1500 once the adoption is finalized. Timely reimbursement is somewhat dependent on how quickly families can obtain the signed adoption decree and submit the application to DFCS. Once submitted, all appropriate data must be entered into SHINES to move the case into a post-adoption category. Sometimes, this occurs after the review period. Among the 47 families eligible for non-recurring adoption assistance, 96 percent had received these benefits by December 31, 2016. This is a significant increase from the proportion of families receiving reimbursement by the end of Period 21 (84%).
Outcome 15 – Permanency Actions for Children Reaching Their 15th Month in Custody of Most Recent 22 Months.
The Consent Decree Outcome 15 stipulates that 95 percent of children who reach their 15th month in care will have had either: 1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed against

61

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 62 of 107
both parents or legal caregivers, as applicable; or 2) a compelling reason documented in the case record as to why such action is not in the best interest of the child.36
Under federal regulations and state law, there are three exceptions to the requirement that Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) petitions be filed after the 15th of 22 months in care. They are:
 The child is being cared for by a relative;  The State has documented a “compelling reason” that filing a petition to terminate
parental rights would not serve the child's best interests; (the allowable exception noted above) or  The State has not made “reasonable efforts” to reunify the family.37
Federal regulations state and DFCS policy advises that a “compelling reason” must be based on the individual case circumstances guided by what is in the best interest of the child.38
The measurement of Outcome 15 is based on the entire population of children who, in Period 22, reached or exceeded their 15th month in custody out of the previous 22 months. As in previous periods, the Accountability Agent and the MTAT reviewed the compelling reason provided for each child and compared it to past information. Information provided by the counties was also verified using data from the Period 22 review of 92 randomly selected foster care case records.
During Period 22, 954 children had reached or surpassed their 15th month in custody out of the previous 22 months. A group of 257 children (27% of 954), was excluded from the Outcome 15 performance measurement based on the placement of these children with relatives, as allowed under Federal law.
36 See p. 34, Outcome 15, of the Consent Decree. 37Adoption and Safe Families Act, see also Social Services Manual Chapter 1000, Section 1002.7, Georgia Department of Human Services. 38 See Social Services Manual, Section 1002.12.3, 1002.17, and 1013.11, Georgia Department of Human Services.
62

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 63 of 107

State Performance
 The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 15 Threshold.
By December 31, 2016, 90 percent of the children in care 15 of the previous 22 months were legally free to be adopted or the State had filed petitions to terminate parental rights or documented compelling reasons why it had not taken such action. This is slightly higher than the Period 21 performance (89%). The following graph that displays the State’s performance on Outcome 15 for the 12 most recent reporting periods. The chart that follows summarizes the different components of the counties’ Period 22 performance, drawn from verified data in their tracking systems.
Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 15: Children in Care 15 of the Previous 22 Months have Petitions for Terminating Parental Rights or a
Compelling Reason Not to Terminate Parental Rights

Percent of Children 100%
100%
90%

98%

96%

96%

98%

99%

96%

96%

91%

91%

89%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December July 2015 December June 2016 December

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: SHINES

63

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 64 of 107

Status of Children Who Had Been in DFCS Custody 15 of the previous 22 months

As of December 31, 2016

Period 22 DeKalb and Fulton Counties

Total

OM 15 Summary

Number Percent

Children who reached or surpassed their 15th month in custody of the past 22

954

months between July 1 and December 31, 2016.

Excepted Subpopulations Children placed with relatives
The State has not made reasonable efforts to reunify the family Number of Children for Outcome 15 Measurement

Parental Rights of Both Parents have been terminated or relinquished

DFCS has filed a petition to complete the termination of the parental rights of both parents where applicable.

There is a documented compelling reason for not terminating parental rights.

Reasons cited for not terminating parental rights

Number

A1 There is a permanency goal of return home, approved by the 165
Court and the child is expected to be reunited with parents

within 6 months.

A2 The child is a specified age (14) or older and objects to being

98

adopted

257
697 213 88 326

30.6% 12.6% 46.8%

Cumulative
30.6% 43.2% 90%

A3 The child has severe emotional or behavioral problems or a

7

serious medical conditional and reunification remains an

appropriate goal.

A4 The child has a permanency goal other than adoption and is

53

expected to achieve that goal within 12 months of

establishing the goal.

A5 Parents are deceased, or have voluntarily relinquished rights.

2

The child is an unaccompanied refugee minor as defined in

0

A8 45 Code of Federal Regulations 400.11.

The child is a child of a teen mother who is also in the State's

1

A11 custody.

Other circumstances.

A12

0

There are plans to terminate parental rights, but a petition had not yet been filed as of December 31, 2016 or date of discharge.

70 10.0%

100%

64

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 65 of 107

Outcome 27 – Timely Semi-annual Judicial or Administrative Case Plan Reviews
Outcome 27 requires that at least 95 percent of the children have timely semi-annual reviews of their case plans. Children are expected to have case plans developed within 30 days of entering State custody. In accordance with the Consent Decree, the court or a designated panel must review these case plans within six months of entering foster care and every six months thereafter the child is in custody.39
State Performance
 The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 27 Threshold.
For 66 of the 92 children in the foster care sample who had been in custody for six months or more by the end of the reporting period, case file documentation indicates that 61 children (94%) had documented timely plan reviews completed by the Juvenile Court or Judicial Citizen Review Panel (JCRP), or a timely request for such a review. This is a decrease from performance during Period 21 (100%).

Twelve Reporting Periods State Performance on Outcome 27: Timely Semi-Annual Judicial/Citizen Panel Case Reviews

Percent of Children 100% 98% 96%
94%
92% 90% 88% 87%

88% 87%

95%

96% 94%

97%

95% 89%

100%

92%

94%

86%

84%

82%

80%

Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 Dec 2014 Jun 2015 December June 2016 December

2011

2012

2013

2015

2016

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, January 1, 2011– December 31, 2016.

39 See p. 7, paragraphs 4A.4 and pp. 7-8, paragraphs 4B.1-6, and p. 37, Outcome 27, of the Consent Decree.
65

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 66 of 107

Among the 60 six-month reviews, only 21 (35%) mothers, 6 (10%) fathers, 9 (15%) children and 6 (10%) relatives participated. Participation in these reviews is such an important factor in achieving timely permanency. The lack of participation during the reviews in Period 22 may reflect a lack of engagement between the agency and families. This may also directly correlate with data that indicate an increase in the duration of foster care episodes. More information regarding these reviews is displayed in the chart below.

Characteristics of Six-month Case Reviews N= 60
(Most recent plans reviewed between July and December 2016)

Characteristic
Participants Birth Mother Birth Father Child Relative caregivers/ Extended Family Members/ Informal Supports Foster parents/placement providers DFCS case manager DFCS supervisor Other DFCS representative CCFA provider Private agency social worker Medical and mental health professionals Parents’ attorney(s) SAAG (Special Assistant Attorney General) Child’s advocates (attorney, Guardian Ad Litem, CASA volunteer, Child Advocate) – at least one per child
Elements Evaluated/Considered Necessity and appropriateness of child’s placement Reasonable efforts made to obtain permanency Degree of compliance with specific goals and action steps Progress made in improving conditions that caused removal Changes that need to be made to plan County recommendations Parent recommendations
JCRP conducted review (percentage based on n=60)

Number
21 6 9 6 13 38 9 3 0 7 0 12 14 31
34 36 33 28 5 15 1
33

Total JCRP reports submitted (percentage based on

26 79%

n=33)

Number of reports with Panel findings (percentage 26 79%

based on n=33)

Number of reports with Panel recommendations 25 76%

(percentage based on n=33)

Number of reports with County findings

20 61%

(percentage based on n=33)

Number of reports with County recommendations 19 58%

Percent
35% 10% 15% 10% 22% 63% 15% 5% 0% 12% 0% 20% 23% 52%
57% 60% 56% 47% 8% 25% 2%
49%

66

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 67 of 107

(percentage based on n=33) Court conducted review (percentage based on n=60) Plan adopted by Juvenile Court (percentage based on n=60) Source: Case Record Review for July 1 – December 31, 2016.

27

45%

33

56%

Outcome 28 – Timely Annual Judicial Permanency Reviews.

According to Federal and State policy and the Consent Decree, children are expected to have a judicial permanency hearing at least every 12 months they are in custody.40 These hearings are held to determine whether the State is making reasonable efforts to help children achieve permanency. The performance threshold for Outcome 28 is 95 percent.

State Performance

 The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 28 Threshold.
During Period 22, 45 out of 48 children, 94 percent had a judicial permanency hearing in accordance with the Consent Decree. Depicted below is the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 28 Timely Permanency Hearings

Percent of Children
100% 93% 90%

95%

94% 94%

98% 92%

99%

97%

92%

95% 91%

94%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, January 2011 – December 2016.

40 See p. 9, paragraph 4B.10, and p.37, Outcome 28, of the Consent Decree.
67

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 68 of 107
PART SIX - WELL-BEING
The Consent Decree establishes six outcomes that are related to children’s well-being.
Children Experience Stability and Worker Continuity
Outcome 17 – Placement Stability With Outcome 17, the Consent Decree establishes a threshold for placement stability by requiring that at least 95 percent of children in custody have two or fewer placement moves during the most recent 12 months in custody.41 For purposes of this measure, the following are not considered to be placements: runaway episodes, hospitalizations for medical treatment or psychiatric diagnosis or crisis intervention, trial home visits, respite care, and detention in locked facilities. The measurement of Outcome 17 performance is based on the sample of 92 children in foster care at any time between July 1 and December 31, 2016.
State Performance  The State Failed to Meet the Outcome 17 Threshold
During Period 22, 81 out of 92 children (88%) experienced two or fewer placement moves during the most recent 12 months in custody. For the purposes of this measure, each unique hotel episode (which could include one or more consecutive nights) that a child experienced during the Period is considered one placement. Displayed in the chart below are additional data for Period 22. Of the three youth who had more than six placements, two youth had 7 moves and one youth had 8 moves.
41 See p. 35, Outcome 17 of the Consent Decree.
68

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 69 of 107

Number of Placement Moves Experienced by Children in the 12 months prior to May 31, 2016 or the Last Date of Custody

Number of Moves
No Moves One Move Two Moves
Subtotal Three Moves Four Moves Five Moves Six Moves or more
Total Source: Foster Care Case Record Review for July 1 and December 31, 2016.

Number
47 27
7 81
3 4 1 3
92

Percent
51% 29% 8%
3.5% 4% 1%
3.5%

Cumulative Percent
80% 88%
91.5% 95.5% 96.5% 100%

As the graph below depicts, the Period 22 performance (88%) is slightly higher than Period 21 performance (85%).

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 17 Children with Two or Fewer Placement Moves in Prior 12 Months

Percent of Children

100% 90% 80%

90%

93%

93% 93%

95% 90%

89%

90%

87% 85% 77%

88%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95% Goal: ≥95%

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: Review Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, July1-December 31, 2016
Outcome 18 – Worker Continuity
At least 90 percent of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had two or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case
69

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 70 of 107

Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave.
State Performance
 The State Failed to Meet the Outcome 18 Threshold.
During Period 22, the State's performance decreased slightly to 86 percent, which remains below the required threshold. This is the third consecutive period that the State did not meet the 90 percent threshold requirement. The individual performance for DeKalb and Fulton were 85 percent and 88 percent respectively. The following graph depicts the State’s performance over the past twelve reporting periods.
As discussed in the introduction, the turnover rates among case managers and supervisors has a direct impact on worker continuity. The robust workforce work group and the permanency work group are exploring systemic, workload, cultural, and environmental challenges to decrease the vacancy rate and retain new and veteran staff.

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 18 Worker Continuity

97%

Percent of Children

92%

100% 88% 92% 89% 87%

94%

93%

91%

86%

87%

90%

86%

80%

70%

60% 50%

40% 30% 20%

10% 0%

Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90% Goal: ≥90%

Period 11 Period12 Period13 Period14 Period15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: Verified State Data

70

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 71 of 107

Outcome 20 – Case Manager Visits with Children
20a - At least 96.25 percent of the total minimum number of twice- monthly face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children during the Period occur. The counties achieved 96 percent of these visits during Period 22, which is just below the threshold. DeKalb County completed 94.7 percent of these visits and Fulton County completed 97.7 percent of these visits.

Seven Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 20a Case Manager Visits with Children

Percent of Visits

100% 99%

98%

97%

96%

95%

97%

96%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25%

Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: Verified State Data

71

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 72 of 107

20b - At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, face-to-face visits between case managers and all class member children required by Section 5.D.1.b during the reporting period occur.
The counties achieved 98 percent during Period 22 and has consistently exceeded this standard. During Period 22, DeKalb County completed 96.95 percent of these visits and Fulton County completed 98.7 percent.
Seven Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 20b Case Manager Private Face-to-Face Visits with Children

Percent of Private Visits

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

100%
Goal: > 96.25%

99%

98% 99.5% 99.4%

Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > 96.25% 96.25% 96.25% 96.25%

98%

98%

Goal: > Goal: > 96.25% 96.25%

Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: Verified State Data

72

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 73 of 107

Outcome 22 – Case Manager Visitation with Substitute Caregivers
At least 95 percent of the total minimum required monthly visits by case managers to caregivers during the reporting period occur. The counties’ performance was 95 percent during Period 22, which meets the required threshold. During Period 22, DeKalb County completed 93.5 percent of these visits and Fulton County completed 96.7 percent of these visits. Below is a graph depicting the State’s performance over the past seven reporting periods.
Seven Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 22 Case Manager Visitation with Substitute Caregivers

Percent of
Visits With Caregivers

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

98% 99% 98% 98.5 97.8 94% 96% 95%
Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > Goal: > 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95% 95%

Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: Verified State Data
Children and Youth in Hotels During Period 22, there were 32 unique children and youth from DeKalb and Fulton counties who spent 186 days in hotels in Metropolitan Atlanta. This is a drastic reduction from Period 21 where

73

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 74 of 107
there were 4 times as many unique youth (128) spending over seven times as many days (1324 days). On average, these children and youth spent between four and five days in hotels during the Period. This was a little higher than Period 21 where youth stayed on average 3 to 4 days. Finally, among the 32-youth experiencing hotel stays, there were five that had more than one during the Period, and one youth experienced six distinct stays for a total of 68 days. The Placement Stability workgroup is conducting a full analysis on hoteling to determine which interventions were successful in making such a substantial decrease in the use of hotels. The State has agreed to cease all hoteling by June 30, 2017.
Young Children in Congregate Care
The Consent Decree has several restrictions related to the use of group care,42 including limiting their use of congregate care for young children. The reported information is for all children under the age of 12 in care between July and December 2016; not for a sample of the entire foster care population. According to state reports, no children under the age of 12 were placed in group homes or child caring institutions except as allowed by the Consent Decree.
During Period 22, three children under the age of six were placed with their mothers in group care settings designed for teen mothers. On December 31, 2016, one child, one year of age, was placed in a hotel for one night; five children under age 12 spent the night in the DFCS office, and 20 children were in group care facilities with more than 12 beds. Sixteen of these children were in psychiatric residential treatment facilities (PRTFs) with licensed maximum capacities of 40 or more. The State provided documentation of the appropriate waivers supporting the need for the children to be placed in congregate care settings.
The need for appropriate placements for all children who enter foster care or have a placement disruption is paramount. The State is developing a plan of action to address this placement crisis. During Period 23, weekly data provided by the counties to MTAT indicate a significant decrease in the use of hotels for all children. In addition, the state is providing weekly logs regarding time spent in the DFCS office after normal working hours.
42 See p. 16-17, paragraph 5C.5f of the Consent Decree.
74

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 75 of 107
Children Receive the Medical, Dental and Mental Health Services They Need
Outcome 30 – Meeting the Needs of Children as Identified in their Case Plans
The Consent Decree specifies that the needs to be considered for achieving Outcome 30 are those medical, dental, mental health, educational and other needs identified in the child’s most recent case plan.43 Case plans are to be developed within 30 days of a child’s entry into foster care and updated every six months thereafter. The performance threshold for this outcome is 85 percent, and requires that all identified needs are met. Thus, partial compliance does not count toward meeting the threshold standard. This measure has been changed in the 2016 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan. Beginning in the Period 23 report, each category of need will be measured separately. During Period 22, the measurement of Outcome 30 performance is based on the sample of 92 children in foster care at any time between July 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016. Among the 92 children in the sample, 82 children had one or more case plans in their records. Five of the 10 children who did not have case plans in their records had been in custody fewer than 30 days during the review period and a completed plan was not yet required. Of the 87 children who should have had case plans, 82 (94% of 87) were current – they had been developed within seven months of November 30, 2016 or the child’s discharge date. The outcome performance is based on 82 children who had complete plans, even if they were not up-to-date. Eighty of these case plans identified needs of the children.
State Performance  The State Improved but Fell Short of the Outcome 30 Threshold Based on case file documentation and reviewer judgment, 62 children (78%) of 80 children with needs identified in their case plans had all the plan-identified needs met. The following graph displays the State’s performance over the last 12 reporting periods.
43 See p 38, Outcome 30 of the Consent Decree.
75

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 76 of 107

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 30: Children with All Plan Identified Needs Met

Percent of Children

100%

90% 80%

78% 75%

78%

74%

73%

81%

80%

77% 77%

78%

70%

69%

69%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85% Goal:≥85%

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: Reporting Period Foster Care Case Record Reviews, January 2011 – December 2016.

The chart below provides a breakdown of the needs identified and the percentage of needs met in each category during Period 22.

Proportion of Children with Needs Identified in Most Recent Case Plans and the Proportion with Needs Met, as of December 31, 2016 or last Date of Custody

Children with Case Plans

Children Received/Receiving Services

n=82

n varies depending on need identified

Number Percent

Number

Percent of identified need

One or More Need Identified (routine or child-specific)

80

98%

All Identified Needs Met (n=80)

62

78%

Frequency of different identified needs

Frequency of different needs being met

Medical

80

98%

76

95%

Dental

79

96%

72

91%

Mental Health

63

77%

54

86%

Educational/ Developmental

80

98%

76

95%

Source: Case Record Review July 1-December 31, 2016.

76

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 77 of 107
1. Initial Screenings for Children Entering Care a. Initial Health and Dental Screenings
The State’s overall performance on initial health and dental screenings is measured by the subsample of children who entered care and had been in custody at least 10 days. During Period 22, 25 children out of the sample of 92 cases entered care during the Period and remained at least 10 days.44 As in previous reports, caution should be exercised in interpreting these and other results drawn from the subsample of children who entered care because the sample size is very small and they were not randomly selected from the entire population entering custody during the Period. As shown in the chart below, nine children (36%) had documented health screens within 10 days of entering care, which is similar to the low performance in Period 21 (41%). When the ten-day period is relaxed, 23 out of 25 children (92%) received an initial health screen. For those children, whose health screens fell outside the 10-day window, the elapsed time ranged from 12 to 61 days. Two children did not receive an initial health screen. Only 3 children (12%) had a documented dental screen within 10 days. This is a substantial decline from the performance in Period 21 (50%). The total proportion receiving an entry dental screening was 80 percent. The 17 children who received their initial dental screens late, received those 12 to 28 days after entering care. Five children have no documented initial dental screens in their files.
77

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 78 of 107

Screen

Initial Health and Dental Exams at Foster Care Entry: July 1 – December 31, 2016 N=25
Number Percent

Initial Health Screen at Foster Care Entry

Received within 10 days

9

Received, but not within 10 days (12 to 61 days)

14

No initial health screen received by December 31, 2016

2

Total

25

Initial Dental Screen at Foster Care Entry (includes infants for a

“gum check”)

Received within 10 days

3

Received, but not within 10 days (12-28 days)

17

No initial dental screen received by December 31, 2016

5

Total

25

Source: Case record review, July 1 – December 31, 2016.

36% 56% 8% 100%
12% 68% 20% 100%

Cumulative Percent
92% 100%
80% 100%

Due to the low performance on timely initial health and dental screens during Period 19, the counties collaborated with Amerigroup to offer a mobile health clinic in the parking lot of the Fulton and DeKalb County Offices of the Department of Family and Children Services once a week. During Period 21, this service was discontinued in Fulton and reduced to 2 times a month in DeKalb. May 2017 is scheduled to be the final month of service.

b. Initial Developmental /Mental Health Assessment
The Consent Decree requires that all children under the age of four years receive a developmental assessment in compliance with EPSDT standards within 30 days of placement.45 Children four years of age or older are expected to receive a mental health screening in compliance with EPSDT standards within 30 days of placement.46 Within the sample of 92 children in foster care in Period 21, 5 children were younger than age four, were in custody at least 30 days, and entered care on or after June 1, 2016.47 Twenty-two children in the foster care sample were age four or older, remained in care 30 days or more, and entered DFCS custody on or after June 1, 2016.

45 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 of the Consent Decree. 46 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 of the Consent Decree. 47 In order to have a larger pool of children in the sample for whom the responsiveness to identified needs could be measured, the record review was designed to collect information on children who entered custody in June 2016 and, therefore, had sufficient time for identified needs to be addressed in Period 22.
78

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 79 of 107

All 5 children under the age of four received a developmental assessment with only one being completed more than 30 days (41 days). The total percentage of children under four years of age who received their initial developmental assessment remained at 100 percent for the second consecutive review period.

For children over the age of four, there was one child in custody 30 days or more who did not

have a mental health assessment; 13 were completed within 30 days (59%), which is slightly less

than the 62 percent completed within 30 days during Period 21. Eight children had the

assessment completed between 34 to 103 days after entering care. The following chart

summarizes this information.

Initial Developmental and Mental Health Assessments at Foster Care Entry:

June 1, 2016 – November 30, 2016

N=varies depending on the assessment

Assessment

Number Percent

Cumulative Percent

Initial Developmental Assessment (children younger than age 4) (n=5)

Total

Received within 30 days Received, but not within 30 days (41 days) No initial Developmental Assessment received

Assessment

Initial Mental Health Assessment (children aged 4 and older) (n=22)

4 1 0 5
Number

80% 20%
0% 100%
Percent

100%
100%
100% Cumulative
Percent

Received within 30 days (includes pre-assessments) Received, but not within 30 days (34 to 103 days) No Initial Mental Health Assessment Total

13

59%

8

36%

1

5%

22

100%

95% 100% 100%

Source: Foster Care Case Record Review, July 1 – December 31, 2016.

c. Initial Case Plans
Of the 21 children entering custody during the reporting period and remaining more than 30 days 16 had an initial case plan developed by December 31, 2016 or their last date in custody. Nine of the 16 (56%) were completed within 30 days of entering care; the other seven were completed between 31 and 46 days.

79

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 80 of 107

2. Periodic Health and Dental Screening
In addition to requiring health and developmental assessments when a child enters foster care, the Consent Decree requires all children to receive periodic health screenings48 in accordance with the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program (EPSDT)/Georgia Health Check Program standards.49 DFCS’ performance with respect to meeting these standards is discussed below. The case record review of 92 children in placement collected information about the timeliness of the required routine health and dental examinations provided (often referred to as “well-child” care) during their time in custody.

Overall, 89 of the 92 children (97%) appeared to be current with their “well-child” visits as December 31, 2016 because of receiving a required health screen prior to or during reporting Period 21; or receiving a health screen during Period 22 that brought them up-to-date. This is similar to the proportion found in Period 21 (97%). The chart below displays this information.

Status of Health Screening for Children50 July 1 – December 31, 2016 N=92

Component and Action
No health screen required during period, children current with health check-ups during entire period Children receiving timely health screens (according to EPSDT schedule) between January 1 and June 30, 2016 Required well child health screen(s) not received between January 1 and June 30, 2016 TOTAL Source: Foster Care Case Record Review, July 1 – December 31, 2016.

Number 25 64 3 92

Percent 27% 70% 3%
100%

Cumulative Percent
97% 100%

As reflected in chart below, routine dental screenings were assessed for 92 children, with separate analysis for children over and under the age of three as of December 31, 2016.51 Overall, 69 of the 77 children (90%) who required a dental screen were either current or received their dental screens during Period 22. Twenty-One (27%) of these exams were not done timely. For

48 See p. 30, paragraph 13A in the Consent Decree. 49 See p. 20, paragraphs 6A 1 and 2, and p.21, 6B, paragraphs 1-8 of the Consent Decree. 50 Includes initial health screens completed for children entering foster care in Period 20. EPSDT components are not always documented, see narrative. 51 The Consent Decree stipulates that “all children age 3 and over shall receive at least one annual screening in compliance with EPSDT standards…” see Section 6B paragraph 8 on p.21. Children younger than age 3 may have oral exams as part of their regular well-child visits and documentation of this component has improved sufficiently to provide the separate analysis.

80

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 81 of 107

children under the age of three, 14 out of 15 (93%) were either current or received their oral health screen during Period 22. Two children received a late initial oral health screen.
The dental screen documentation consisted of either a dental report from a dental care provider, case manager notes, a reference in a Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment (CCFA), an entry in the SHINES health log or a combination of these forms.

Status of Dental Screening52 July 1 – December 31, 2016
N=92
Component and Action Children aged 3 and older n=77 No annual dental exam required during period, children current with annual requirement during entire period Children receiving a timely annual dental exam during period Received more than 12 months after previous exam Initial received more than 10 days after entering foster care Required annual (or initial) dental exam not received as of December 31, 2016
TOTAL Component and Action
Children under the age of 3 N=15 No annual oral health screen due during entire period Received a timely initial or annual oral health screen Received a late initial oral health screen No annual oral health screen TOTAL Source: Foster Care Case Record Review, July 1 – December 31, 2016.

Number

Percent

Cumulative Percent

22

29%

26

34%

6

8%

15

19%

8

10%

77 100%

Number Percent

3

20%

9

60%

2

13%

1

7%

15 100%

63% 71% 90%
100%
100%
Cumulative Percent
80% 93% 100% 100%

52 Includes initial dentals for children entering foster care in Period 21.
81

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 82 of 107
PART SEVEN – STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE
Several of the Consent Decree requirements focus on DHS/DFCS organizational capabilities, with the intent of enhancing or creating capacity thought to be instrumental to the achievement of desired outcomes. This includes specialized staff, caseload sizes, workforce skill development, and having the resources and services to meet needs. This part reports on the progress of the State in meeting Outcomes 25, 26 and 31 as well as capacity requirements.
Oversight of Placement Settings
Outcome 25 - Approved Placement Settings for Children
Outcome 25 stipulates that, “By the end of the tenth reporting period, at least 98 percent of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. Measurement of performance is based on the entire universe of out-of-home care placements subject to a DHS licensure or approval process. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement.”53
State Performance
 The State Did Not Meet the Outcome 25 Threshold
At the end of Period 22, 752 of 860 placements subject to a DHS approval or licensure process were in full approval and/or licensure status. These placements had an approved or licensed capacity of 3432 children while the capacity of all placements with a child in care on December 31, 2016 was 3607 children; yielding an Outcome 25 measurement of 95.1 percent. State leadership has set a goal of placing 50 percent of children in fully approved relative homes. However, the State continues to struggle with getting relative placements fully approved. In Period 22, only 70.5 percent of relative placements were in full approval/licensure status on the last day of the Period, which was only a slight increase from Period 21. The Kinship work group is establishing baseline data and metrics to decrease the time to approve relative placements and determining indicators with which to track improved service delivery and engagement with these families. During Period 23, the workgroup held a “war room” to triage each of the unapproved
53 See p. 4, Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010.
82

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 83 of 107

relative placements to determine a strategy to get the placements approved. This is an interim step, while the counties develop systems to approve relative placements more quickly. The Annie E. Casey Foundation has invested technical assistance resources to assist the State in developing a Kin First organization. Additional detail on the Outcome 25 measurement appears in the following chart, followed by a graph that displays the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting period.

Outcome 25 – Placements in Full Approval Status

Placement Type

Number of Placements with a Class Member in Care on 12/31/2016

Relative

275

Placement

DFCS -

103

supervised

Foster Home

Provider -

378

supervised

Foster Home

Child Caring 104 Institution

Total

860

Placement Type

Data source: SHINES

Number of Placements with a Class Member in Care on 12/31/2016 that were in Full Approval Status

Overall Capacity of Placement Settings with a Class Member in Care on 12/31/2016

Capacity of Placements with a Class Member in Care on 12/31/2016 that were in Full Approval Status

183

434

306

99

234

227

366

1022

982

104

1917

1917

752

3607

3432

Capacity of Placements in Full Approval Status as a Percentage of Overall Placement Capacity
70.5%
97.0%
96.1%
100.0%
95.1%

.

83

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 84 of 107

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 25 Children Placed in Settings that are in Full Approval and/or Licensure Status

100%

98%

99%

99% 99%

98%

98%

97%

98%

96%

96%

96%

95%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Goal:≥98% Goal:≥98% Goal:≥98% Goal:≥98% Goal:≥98% Goal:≥98% Goal: ≥98%

Goal: ≥98%

Goal: ≥98%

Goal: ≥98%

Goal: ≥98%

Goal: ≥98%

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Periods 9: Percent of Children in Placements in Full Approval Status/Periods 10-21: Percent of Placements in Full Approval Status Sources - Periods 8-9: Placement file reviews, Georgia’s ICPC records, child placing agency records, and SHINES; Periods 10-19: SHINES.
Outcome 31 – Foster Home Capacity Limits
Outcome 31 stipulates, “By the end of the tenth reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than ten percent of all foster family home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of this Consent Decree…”54,55 The measurement is based on the entire universe of family
54 See p. 4, Kenny A. v Perdue, Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree, 1:02-CV-01686-MHS, effective November 22, 2010. 55 The Section 5.c.4.e capacity limits provide that “No child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including
84

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 85 of 107

foster homes that had a class member child in care on the last day of the reporting period.

State Performance

 The State Surpassed the Outcome 31 Threshold.

Of the 987 family foster homes that had a child in care at any point between July 1 and December 31, 2016, 481 (49%) continued to have one or more children placed in them on December 31, 2016. Six of these 491 foster homes (1.2%) exceeded the Consent Decree’s capacity limits. The chart below provides additional information regarding these homes, followed by a graph of the State’s performance over the past 12 reporting periods. This is the 21st consecutive period in which the State has surpassed the ten percent threshold.

Placemen t Type

Outcome 31 – Foster Homes Exceeding Capacity Limits

N = 482

Foster

Foster

Foster

Foster Number of

Homes Homes

Homes

Homes

Foster

with with One with > 3

with ≥ 6

Homes

One or or More

Foster Children in with > 3

More Children in Children Total on

Foster

Childre Care on

on

12/31/201 Children

n in 12/31/201 12/31/201

6

and/or ≥ 6

Care at

6

6

Children in

Any

Total on

Time

12/31/201

During

6

Period

22

Percent of Foster Homes with > 3 Foster Children and/or ≥ 6 Children
in Total on 12/31/2016

DFCS & DFCS -

187

103

2

0

2

Relativ Supervise

e FHs d Foster

Homes

1.9%

CPA Provider 800

378

4

0

4

Homes Supervise

d Foster

Homes

1.1%

Total

987

481

6

0

6

1.2%

Data Source: SHINES

the foster family's biological and/or adopted children…. The only exception to these limits shall be circumstances in which the placement of a sibling group in a foster home with no other children in the home would exceed one or more of these limits.” See p. 16 of the Consent Decree.
85

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 86 of 107

Twelve Reporting Periods of State Performance on Outcome 31 Children are Not in Foster Homes Exceeding Specified Capacity Limits

10% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0%

3%

3%

2%

2% 2% 2%

1%

2% 1.4% 0.6% 1.0% 1.2%

Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10% Goal: ≤10%

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Periods 8-9: Percent of Children in Placements in Full Approval Status/Periods 10-21: Percent of Placements in Full Approval Status

86

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 87 of 107

Caseloads and Supervisory Ratios

The Consent Decree establishes caseload caps for five primary types of case managers responsible for direct interventions with children and families.

Case Manager Types and Respective Caseload Caps

Case Manager Function

Responsibility

Caseload Cap

Child Protective Services Investigators
(CPS Investigations)

Respond to and investigate reports of child maltreatment. These individuals may also respond to reports of families in need who are considered candidates for Family Support services.

12 cases (the equivalent of 12 families)

Family Preservation (Child Protective Services OnGoing) Case Managers

Provide services to and supervise the safety of 17 cases (the

children who are not taken into state custody equivalent of 17

and remain in their own homes.

families)

Permanency Case Managers56

Provide services to the children and families of children who are in the state’s custody.

15 cases (the equivalent of 15 children)

Adoptions Case Managers

Provide services to children whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated and who have the permanency goal of adoption.

16 cases (the equivalent of 16 children)

Provide services to the children and families 12 cases (the

Specialized Case Managers of children who have been in state custody 18 equivalent of 12

months or more.

children)

56 The state has designated “placement” case managers as “permanency” case managers to emphasize their primary purpose is to promote permanency in the lives of children.
87

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 88 of 107

Case Manager Function
CPS Investigations Family Preservation Permanency Case Manager Specialized Case Manager Adoption Case Manager Total

Caseload Cap:
Number of cases (families
and children)
12 families 17 families 15 children 12 children 16 children
0

Number of Active Staff on 12/31/16
48 18 66 36
* 168

Number of
Active, Onleave
Staff on 6/30/16
0
0
0
0
0
0

Actual Performance
Meeting Caps on Assigned Caseload

Number
40 18 25
6

%
83% 100%
38% 17%

89

53%

Not Meeting Cap on Assigned Caseload

Number
8 0 41 30

%
17% 0% 62% 83%

79

47%

Cases Assigned to Workers on
Leave/ Supervisors
Number
77 7 4 0
88

During Period 22 CPS caseloads continued in a volatile pattern; from 59 percent in Period 20 to 88 percent in Period 21 and 83 percent in Period 22. This pattern may indicate that the strategies currently being implemented are not sustainable. The Family Preservation caseloads seem to be in a more stable improvement pattern after experiencing all time low performance in Periods 18 and 19. However, Permanency caseloads are also struggling to meet the cap, with only 38 percent in Period 22. Compared to the end of Period 21, at the end of Period 22 the following staffing dynamics presented: the number of CPS case managers declined by 25 percent; the number of family preservation case managers declined by 38 percent; the number of permanency case managers increased by 5 percent; the number of case managers carrying specialized cases increased by 17 percent (which correlates with children staying in care for longer periods of time). This data does not reflect the vacancy rates in these two counties, which has also risen as a concern for leadership. This may indicate that the turnover and vacancy rates may be disproportionately affecting permanency case managers and specialized case managers. Conversely, 77 CPS investigation cases were assigned to supervisors, which is much higher than the other units.
Another factor that may be impacting the workforce dynamics involve DeKalb and Fulton counties’ participation in a pilot extended training program for newly higher case managers. This added a minimum of six (6) additional weeks after new case managers complete a minimum of four (4) weeks of state training, before they could be assigned any cases. This included 53 new permanency case managers for DeKalb and Fulton counties. The Robust Workforce work group is analyzing data and conducting targeted interviews and climate surveys to understand the

88

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 89 of 107

reasons for the high vacancy and turnover rates. They have developed goals and they are finalizing indicators and metrics to track progress toward meeting those goals.
The following graph depicts the counties’ performance on CPS Investigations caseloads over the past 12 reporting periods.

Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standards

100% 98%

90%

85%

89%

80% 70%

76%

77%

68%

70%

60%

94%

88%

83%

59%

50%

48%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard:

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families Families

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

(June 2011) (December (June 2012) (December (June 2013) (December (June 2014) (December (June 2015) (December (June 2016) (December

2011)

2012)

2013)

2014)

2015)

2016)

CPS Investigations Caseload Standards

89

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 90 of 107

The Counties maintain performance of 100% of Family Preservation Caseloads meeting the required cap during Period 22.

Perecent of Caseloads Meeting Standards
100% 100% 100%
90%

100%

100%

100%

87%

88%

89%

100% 100%

80%

70%

60% 50% 40%

50%

43%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: ≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families≤17 Families

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

(June 2011) (December (June 2012) (December (June 2013) (December (June 2014) (December (June 2015) (December (June 2016) (December

2011)

2012)

2013)

2014)

2015)

2016)

Family Preservation Caseloads Standards

90

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 91 of 107
During Period 22, the State’s ability to maintain caps on permanency caseloads increased slightly from 35 percent in Period 21 to 38 percent. This is still significantly lower than the 95 percent performance during Period 18.

Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standards
120%

100% 98% 100%

97%

91%

91%

90%

93%

95%

80% 71%

60%

40%

35%

38%

27%

20%

0%

Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard:

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

≤15

Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22 (June (December (June (December (June (December (June (December (June (December (June (December 2011) 2011) 2012) 2012) 2012) 2012) 2014) 2014) 2015) 2015) 2016) 2016)

Permanency Caseload Standards

91

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 92 of 107
The State’s performance for Specialized Caseloads meeting the required cap continued declining from 40 percent in P21 to 17 percent in P22. The phenomenon of children staying in care for longer durations of time increases the number of children in care over 18 months and therefore reflected as a “specialized caseload.”

Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standards

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

98%

72% 85%

84%

81%

89% 75%

62%

62%

43%

40%

50% 40%

17%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard: Standard:

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

≤12

Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children Children

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

(June 2011) (December (June 2012) (December (June 2013) (December (June 2014) (December (June 2015) (December (June 2016) (December

2011)

2012)

2013)

2014)

2015)

2016)

Specialized Case Managers

92

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 93 of 107

Supervisory Ratios In addition to caseload caps, the Consent Decree establishes supervisory ratios. Each supervisor should supervise no more than five case managers at any one time. The Counties performance on this metric continues declining. During Period 20, 90 percent of supervisors met the 1 to 5 ratios required under the Consent Decree. The Period 21 performance of 79 percent was a significant decrease. The Period 22 performance of 60 percent indicates a persistent challenge that is greatly effecting the workforce and its ability to engage families and provide high levels of service. The Robust Workforce work group is analyzing data and conducting targeted interviews and climate surveys to understand the reasons for this decline.

Program/Service Area
Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation) Permanency Case Managers* (Regular and Specialized caseloads) (Includes Adoption)
Total
Source: Verified State Data

Number of Units
19
21

Meeting 1 to 5 ratio
Number % 14 74%
10 48%

Not Meeting 1 to 5 ratio
Number %
5 26%
11 52%

40

24 60%

16 40%

Preparation of the Workforce
Through a well-defined selection process, DFCS identified Solution-Based Casework (SBC) to be the cornerstone for Georgia’s approach to everyday child welfare practice with children and their families or case practice model. SBC is comprised of four milestones for case practice related to building consensus with the family, organizing and writing outcomes, building an action plan and then documenting and celebrating progress. These are outlined in an SBC Certification Manual Georgia DHS Edition.
With support and guidance from the State Office Education and Training Unit and identified practice coaches, initial implementation of Solution Based Casework began on July 11, 2016 in DeKalb and Fulton counties.
Implementation began with a training, Solution Based Casework for Case Managers. This was required training for all front-line staff, their supervisors and immediate managers, which focused on the basic concepts of Solution Based Casework and included practice opportunities related to assessment and case planning. In DeKalb County, 122 case managers and 14

93

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 94 of 107
supervisors had completed this training by the end of April 2017. A total of 91 case managers and 22 supervisors have completed this training in Fulton County during that same period.
The next step was for supervisors in DeKalb and Fulton counties to participate in a follow up training, Solution Based Casework for Supervisors, and certification process. The learning session was designed to help supervisors further develop their capacities to mentor and coach caseworkers to use the skills in their work with children and families. Once the training was completed, each supervisor was then required to demonstrate proficiency on an SBC Qualifying Exam. In DeKalb and Fulton counties, a total of 35 supervisors had demonstrated proficiency by the end of April 2017.
Supervisors were then asked to facilitate weekly Case Consultation meetings with their team with a specific focus on each of the SBC concepts over a two-month period. The intent was to build the capabilities of caseworkers to use the skills and prepare them to become certified in SBC. To become certified, caseworkers must work with a family through all four milestones of SBC and submit identified work products, such as a completed Genogram or Functional Family Assessment, for review and discussion. Based on a review of these products, Social Services Associates, LLC, the purveyors of Solution Based Casework are responsible for the final review and certification for each caseworker. No DeKalb County caseworkers or supervisors have been certified in SBC. One (1) Fulton County supervisor has been certified along with two (2) caseworkers. These limited numbers indicate the need to revisit readiness for SBC implementation in the region and the support that may be needed going forward.
Simultaneous to this initial implementation of Solution Based Casework in DeKalb and Fulton counties, the State has been identifying the other core components of Georgia’s comprehensive case practice model and Infrastructure Standards. State leaders want to ensure that Georgia’s model incorporates identified practices to keep children safe, ensure children are placed with relatives as often as possible and reduce trauma.
94

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 95 of 107
Maximizing Federal Funding
Outcome 26 – Required IV-E Language in Court Orders
Outcome 26 relates to DFCS having the proper documentation in a child’s file to support an appropriate claim for Federal reimbursement under the Title IV-E program. For children who entered care on or after October 27, 2005, judicial determinations that leaving children in their homes would be “…contrary to the welfare…” of the children must be made in the first order that authorizes the State agency’s action to remove the child from home. In practice, this is often the court order from the 72-hour hearing. In addition, there must be documentation of a judicial determination made no later than 60 days from the date of the child’s removal from the home that “reasonable efforts” were made to prevent the child’s removal from his/her family. If either of these requirements are not met the State cannot claim federal Title IV-E reimbursement for the child’s care the entire time the child is in custody even though the child’s family meets the Title IV-E income test. All children in State custody after the Consent Decree’s effective date should have a permanency hearing at least every 12 months with the appropriate language about the State’s “reasonable efforts” to achieve permanency included in the subsequent court orders. If these determinations do not occur timely or the language is not child specific, there is a gap in the child’s eligibility until the determination is appropriately made. The State cannot claim federal reimbursement for the period of the gap.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues Performance for this measure is based on a record review of a sample of 92 children in foster care. 57
State Performance  The State did not meet the Outcome 26 Threshold. For Outcome 26, 84 out of 92 children in the Period 22 placement sample (92%) had court orders with all the required language necessary to assess current eligibility for federal funding under Title IV-E and there was documentation of a judicial determination made no later than 60 days from the date of the
57 See pp 36-37, Outcome 26 of the Consent Decree.
95

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 96 of 107

child’s removal from the home that “reasonable efforts” were made to prevent the child’s removal from his/her family. The graph below displays the State’s performance on Outcome 26 over the last 12 reporting periods.

Percent of Children
100%

100% 100% 98%

98% 96% 94% 92%

90%

93%

95%

91% 90%

91% 91%

94% 92%

90%

88%

86%

84% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95% Goal:≥95%

Period 11 Period 12 Period 13 Period 14 Period 15 Period 16 Period 17 Period 18 Period 19 Period 20 Period 21 Period 22

June 2011 December June 2012 December June 2013 December June 2014 December June 2015 December June 2016 December

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

96

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 97 of 107

State IV-E Penetration Rates
The ability of the State to claim federal reimbursement of foster care expenditures is referred to as the “IV-E penetration rate.” The higher the rate, the more reimbursement the State can claim from the federal government to cover the costs associated with providing safe and stable placements.
The State’s penetration rate in Period 22 was approximately 48 percent, similar to the rate for SFY 2015.

70.0% 60.0% 50.0%

State IV-E Penetration Rates
58.1% 57.2% 57.7% 53.3% 49.2% 47.8% 48.1% 48.1% 48.0% 47.8% 47.5% 46.9%

40.0% 33.8% 34.9%
32.1% 30.0% 27.8%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY Jul-16 Aug- Sep-

07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

16 16

Source: COSTAR through SFY 2010, SHINES SFY 2011 Beginning Jan 2011 SSI Elig

Children included in IV-E rate per Federal Policy. (As of 3-23-17)

Oct16

Nov16

Dec16

97

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 98 of 107

70.0% 60.0% 50.0%

State IV-E Penetration Rates

57.2%

58.1%

57.7%

53.3% 49.2% 47.8% 48.9% 48.5% 48.4% 48.3% 48.1% 48.5%

40.0%

33.8% 34.9% 32.1%

30.0% 27.8%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY SFY Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun-
07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16
Source: COSTAR through SFY 2010, SHINES SFY 2011 Beginning Jan 2011 SSI Elig Children included in IV-E rate per Federal Policy. (As of 8-9-16)

98

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 99 of 107
APPENDIX A
Data Sources and Methodology for Measuring State Performance in Reporting Period 22
The Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) used several methods to arrive at the judgments, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report: (1) review of written materials and data supplied by the State and counties; (2) interviews; (3) extensive case record reviews; and (4) strategic engagement of State and county personnel for pro-active, hands-on monitoring through bimonthly meetings known as G2 meetings. This appendix describes these data sources and methods.
Four primary sources of information were used to assess the State of Georgia’s progress during Period 22, July to December 2016. The challenge for data collection and analyses in Period 22 was the continued need to use both SHINES, the statewide-automated child welfare system and paper files. Fulton and DeKalb Counties implemented SHINES in June 2008 and ended all new data entry into the previous system, IDS, on May 28, 2008. Children who entered custody before the conversion to SHINES may have extensive paper files and even those entering after the switch to SHINES have paper files with external documentation that has not been scanned into SHINES. The timeliness of scanning external documentation into SHINES is improving but record reviews still generally need both the paper documentation and SHINES access to complete all data collection.
1.State Data System – SHINES
The first source of information is the DFCS administrative data housed in Georgia SHINES.
Like all information systems, the accuracy of SHINES data is a function of the accuracy with which data put into the system. Most of the identified discrepancies were caused by human error. Typically, mistakes in interpretation and coding of the facts contained in the case record or data entry result in erroneous data entered into the system.
2. Document Review and Interviews
During the monitoring period, the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team collected written reports and materials including, but not limited to foster care and adoption policy, provider reporting and the use of hotels. At the local county level, interviews were conducted primarily with county leadership. At the state level, interviews were conducted with top leaders, members of the Knowledge Management Team, Kenny A. leads, and persons responsible for training and education, quality assurance and provider management.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 100 of 107
3. Structured Case Record Reviews
A third source of information are structured case record reviews. Four case record reviews were conducted: 1) all investigations of Maltreatment in Care during the Period; 2) foster home approval and capacity, 3) children in foster care placements who entered foster care at any time up to December 31, 2016, and 4) children in foster care placements during the Period. The chart below summarizes sample characteristics of each review. The following discussion provides more detail on the sampling approach, review instrument design, review logistics, reviewer qualifications and training, quality assurance, and analytical processes.
a. Sampling Approach
As indicated in the chart below, 100 percent of the investigations of Maltreatment in Care completed between July 1 and December 31, 2016 were read. Therefore, observed differences in these results do not reflect sampling error.
For the three other case record reviews, random samples were drawn from two different universes:
 All foster homes that had a DeKalb or Fulton child placed in the home at any time between July 1 and December 31, 2016. This included private agency supervised homes as well as DFCS supervised homes.
 All foster care cases (children) active in DeKalb and Fulton counties anytime between July 1 and December 31, 2016.
 All foster care cases (children) active in DeKalb and Fulton counties who entered foster care after July 1, 2016 and remained at least 60 days.
For each of these reviews, samples were drawn such that the findings would have no more than a +/- 10% error rate at a 95% confidence level. This sampling methodology was determined to be a reasonable estimation of performance and agreed upon for this streamlined evaluation period.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 101 of 107

Target of Review

Universe of Cases Desired Sample Size

Investigations of Maltreatment in Care

100% of

93

maltreatment in care investigations during

period

Foster Homes

987

82

Children in Foster Care

who entered Foster Care

any time before December

31, 2016

1969

92

Actual Number of Cases Reviewed
93
82
92

Confidence Level and Margin of
Error
Not Applicable
95% Confidence
Level
Margin of Error +/- 10
percent 95%
Confidence Level
Margin of Error +/- 10
percent

b. Instrument Design
Four separate data collection instruments were used, one for each review. They have been developed over time in conjunction with the DFCS Program Evaluation and Analysis Section and consultants from Georgia State University (GSU) schools of public administration and social work. The instruments were field tested and reviewed by Counsel for the Plaintiffs and by the State; many changes recommended by the reviewers were incorporated into the final instruments. As is typical with case record reviews, reviewers encountered some problems with some of the questions. Learning from each iteration is incorporated into the next case record review.
c. Data Collection Schedule and Logistics
Planning for the data collection effort began with discussions with DFCS and GSU regarding formatting data instruments for efficient data capture and analysis. As in previous periods, each of the review guides was set up as a SAS-based form for electronic information entry directly into a database through a GSU secure web site. This eliminated a separate data entry step.
Records selected from private agencies were reviewed at the respective private agencies. The remaining records for investigations, foster care, and DFCS supervised foster homes were reviewed at the county offices where the active cases are maintained. Closed records were

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 102 of 107
brought to these sites for review.
d. Review Team Qualifications and Training
DFCS staff persons were the primary case readers. These staff members have many years of experience in DFCS and are very familiar with the DFCS’s policies and practices. They have been selected over the years for this task based on their skills, experience, and knowledge.
There were training session before commencing these reviews. The training consisted of reviewing and discussing the wording and meaning of each question on the data collection instruments. Additional changes were made to the guides as a result of these discussions.
e. Quality Assurance
Reading accuracy and inter-reader reliability was addressed by an extensive quality assurance process that included constant “calibration” and a “second read” of the records. Two senior DFCS reviewers were designated team leaders. They were responsible for responding to reviewer questions regarding clarification or how to interpret information contained in the record and consulting with the Accountability Agent and MTAT when necessary. These team leaders shared with one another the questions being asked and the responses they were giving to reviewers to assure consistency. In this way, patterns among questions were monitored and instructions were clarified for all reviewers as necessary. Team leaders reviewed each reviewer’s work at the completion of each review. Finally, reviewers were encouraged to provide explanatory comments for their responses if they felt the situation they found did not adequately fit the question being asked or additional detail for some critical questions was desired.
The Georgia State University (GSU) project coordinator and several research assistants with master’s degrees in social work or a related field and backgrounds in child welfare and case record review provided an additional level of Quality Assurance (QA). The GSU QA team reviewed 33 percent of the case records reviewed. Review guides that had different responses from the GSU QA staff and the PEAS reviewers were set aside, investigated and resolved as possible by the GSU project coordinator and PEAS team leaders and changes were made to the data set as necessary. Time was set aside in the schedule to review the completed review guides in question and do any necessary clean up.
To calculate inter-rater reliability GSU selected variables from all three files (CPS Investigations, Foster Homes, and Foster Care) where both the reviewers and the QA reviewers had access to the same information in the case file. Each response was not tested for inter-rater reliability. Correlations between the reviewer results and the QA reviewer results were calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha to determine how well a set of items, in this case the reviewer responses and

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 103 of 107
the QA reviewer responses, correlate or match. Cronbach's Alpha is not a statistical test - it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). Note: when a Cronbach’s Alpha is used in a Social Science research situation, like the Kenny A. case review, a reliability coefficient of .70 or higher indicates that there is an almost zero probability that the reviewer and QA reviewer would achieve these results by chance.
The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for each of the data sets were between .91 and .99. All measures were above the threshold of .70.
f. Data Analysis
Microsoft Excel and SAS software were used for analyzing the collected data and calculating interrater reliability. GSU staff assisted in creating descriptive statistics for the Accountability Agent and Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team.
4. Meetings with the management teams of Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS (G2)
The Accountability Agents met once or twice each month with Fulton and DeKalb directors, senior management, supervisors and case managers, and senior central office staff. These meetings allowed for hands-on monitoring and data verification.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 104 of 107
APPENDIX B
Definitions
Adoptive Placement means the interval during which a child is placed with a prospective adoptive family following the signing of the appropriate adoptive placement agreement form, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court.
Child or Children or Class Member Children or Class Members mean a child or children who have been, are or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS.
Child Caring Institution (CCI) is any child-welfare facility which provides full-time room, board and watchful oversight (RBWO) to six or more children up to 18 years of age. Some CCIs are approved to care for youth up to age 21. The CCI must be approved through the Office of Provider Management (OPM) to serve children in DFCS custody.
Child Placing Agency (CPA) is agency that places children in foster and adoptive homes for individualized care, supervision and oversight. Child placing agencies are responsible for assessing the placement regarding the appropriateness of the room, board and watchful oversight that the prospective foster and adoptive families will provide. The CPA’s employees and their foster and adoptive parents work as a team to provide a stabilizing and nurturing environment that promotes safety, permanency and well-being.
Corporal Punishment means any physical punishment on a child that inflicts pain.
CPA Foster Home is a foster home approved by a Child Placing Agency for the temporary placement of children in foster care.
DeKalb DFCS means DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services.
DFCS when used alone means the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services.
DFCS Foster Home is a non-relative foster homes approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of children in foster care.
DFCS or CPA Adoptive Home is an adoptive home approved for the foster care placement of a child for whom the established goal is adoption. Adoptive homes must meet the regular standards of care required for approved family foster homes and any conditions specified in that approval.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 105 of 107
DFCS Relative Foster Home is a relative foster home approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of minor relatives. It is DFCS’ preference that all relatives are approved as foster parents and receive a foster care per diem. The goal of relatives becoming foster parents is to ensure that the child has services to address his/her needs.
DHHS means the United States Department of Health and Human Services. DHR means Georgia Department of Human Resources. Discipline or Other Serious Foster Care Violation means and includes those acts or situations by the caregiver that pose an immediate or potential risk to the safety or well-being of the child in care. These may include, but are not limited to, inappropriate disciplinary measures (both physical/corporal and emotional), violations of supervision or other safety requirements that pose serious risk factors to the child.
EPSDT means the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program for individuals under 21 years of age contained in Title XIX of the Social Security Act, as amended.
Fictive Kin means a person who is known to a child as a relative, but is not, in fact, related by blood.
Foster Parent means volunteers who are trained and certified by DFCS or Child Placing Agencies to provide for the temporary care of children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster parents work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster parents are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
Foster Relative means biological kin who are trained and certified by DFCS to provide for the care of relative children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster relatives work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster relatives are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
Fulton DFCS means the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services.

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 106 of 107
Georgia Health Check Program means Georgia Medicaid's well-child or preventive health care program adopted pursuant to EPSDT, and shall contain such components as they exist in the Georgia Health Check Program as of February 1, 2005.
Governor means the Governor of the State of Georgia.
Legal Guardianship means the appointment of an individual as a legal guardian for a child as authorized by either the probate court under O.C.G.A. Title 29 or the juvenile court under O.C.G.A. Chapter15-11-2(36).
One Episode of Foster Care means the period of time that a child is in foster care from the date of removal from the home until the child is discharged from DFCS custody, except that a runaway does not trigger a new episode of foster care.
Permanent Legal Custody means custody granted in accordance with an order of the superior court or the juvenile court, which places a child in the custody of an individual or individuals until the child reaches 18 years of age.
Permanent Placement with Relatives means placing a child with a relative who is willing to assume long-term responsibility for the child, but has reasons for not adopting the child or obtaining guardianship or permanent legal custody, and it is in the child's best interests to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship by another person. In such circumstances, there shall be in place an agreement for long-term care signed by DFCS and the relative committing to the permanency and stability of this placement unless it is necessary to disrupt the long-term placement.
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) is a temporary non-hospital facility with a provider agreement with a State Medicaid Agency to provide intensive therapeutic intervention to a child to ensure safety and stability. PRTFs offer intensive behavioral health services to children in Georgia.
Relatives are persons who are related by blood, marriage or adoption including the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or divorce.
Relative Placement refers to placement in the home of a relative or fictive kin who do not receive a foster care per diem for the care of the child. The relative placement may be a non-paid placement or the relative may receive TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 751 Filed 05/31/17 Page 107 of 107
kin are not eligible for TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive kin must become foster parents to receive financial assistance.
Placement with relatives or fictive kin may occur very quickly if there is a satisfactory CPS history check, safety and home assessment check, and a Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) check through the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on all household members 18 years of age or older. A Relative or Non-Relative Care Assessment must be completed no later than 30 calendar days after the placement of a child.
State DFCS means the Division of Family and Children Services of the Georgia Department of Human Resources.
Suspected Abuse or Neglect means being based on reasonable cause to believe that a child may have been abused or neglected.
Suspected Corporal Punishment means being based on reasonable cause to believe that corporal punishment may have been used on a child.

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 66
PERIOD 23 MONITORING REPORT
OF THE ACCOUNTABILTY AGENT AND MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
TEAM IN THE CASE OF
Kenny A. v. Deal
February 2, 2018

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 2 of 66
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENT AND MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TEAM:
Accountability Agent Karen Baynes-Dunning Attorney, Baynes-Dunning Consulting, LLC
Albany, Georgia Steve Baynes
Baynes Consulting LLC Washington, DC Elizabeth Black
Director of Child Welfare Practice Center for the Support of Families
Silver Spring, Maryland Jennifer Miller Haight
Policy Fellow Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 3 of 66
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 Robust Workforce Development………………………………………………………………… 5 State of Children and Families in Metropolitan Atlanta…………………………………………11 Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………29

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 4 of 66
SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION
The Period 23 report is the first monitoring report in which the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) report on the new outcomes delineated in the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan (Modified Exit Plan), filed in December 2016 in Federal District Court. The terms of that Modified Exit Plan require the MTAT to report biannually on 21 ongoing outcomes and seven additional attained outcomes. Additionally, it specified standards related to the placement process, caseloads, and practice that would be subject to continued review. And finally, it stipulated that in the ensuing year, the parties would work together to agree upon Infrastructure Standards, which following filing with the court, would also be subject to bi-annual review by the MTAT.
During the year following the Court’s approval of the Modified Exit Plan, the MTAT worked simultaneously with DFCS leadership, the State Data Unit, Region 14 leadership, and the DFCS Kenny A team to:
 develop a best practices approach to measurement for the ongoing and attained outcome measures;
 support the development of the Infrastructure Standards;  support the MEASURE team and workgroups in their specific areas of focus;  consult and offer technical assistance over transitions in regional leadership;  conduct a special review of the safety/intake assessment process in Region 14; and  develop an ongoing approach to monitoring and technical assistance that would take
effect following the filing of the revised Infrastructure Standards.
In this report, the MTAT’s obligation is to report specifically on the measurable requirements articulated in Sections IV, V, and VI of the Modified Exit Plan that relate to activity in Region 14 from January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017. In addition to the ongoing and attained outcomes measures, in this report we will continue to review the implementation of Solution Based Casework the use of congregate care, and monitor hotels and other temporary placements for children in foster care, and caseloads for caseworkers and supervisors. The next two sections of this report provide that information, reflecting the MTAT’s revised approach to measurement determined over the course of the last year.
In subsequent reports, the MTAT will provide a much broader review of Region 14 child welfare practice, reporting on all of the required elements in the Modified Exit Plan, and following the revised monitoring approach, which we describe briefly below.
Revised Monitoring Approach
The MTAT approach to monitoring serves not only as an accountability mechanism for the Court, the Plaintiffs and the public, but also as an opportunity to assist DFCS in establishing a culture of data driven decision making and continuous quality improvement (“CQI”). The goal
1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 5 of 66
is to establish a strong CQI process that will remain in place after the state satisfies the terms of the Modified Exit Plan and is no longer under court oversight.
The outcome measures have undergone substantial revision to reflect, when possible, the principles of best practices in measurement. Best practices principles include: 1) a clear statement of the analytic question with particular attention to identifying the risk population or the denominator associated with a particular inquiry; 2) use of entry cohorts and prospective measures to characterize systems dynamics and change in outcomes; 3) attention to the sources of variation in system outcomes (e.g. variation over time, among children, or in places), 4) understanding variation to accurately track change; 5) assessing expected change in the appropriate period of performance or window of time; 6) matching the analytic question to the appropriate source data; and 7) using well understood and organized data resources that are designed to support asking and answering analytic questions.
The MTAT will consistently report on the same outcomes and Modified Exit Plan standards in each subsequent period using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data. In addition to this basic and consistent set of metrics to track progress over time as agreed upon in the Modified Exit Plan, the MTAT will also conduct a deep, quality focused analysis on a handful of infrastructure standards in each of the reporting periods. This may include interviews with stakeholders, focus groups, observation at key process points, targeted case reviews, and/or Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSRs).
Our approach to this analysis will enable parties to better understand several key factors associated with each of the agreed upon infrastructure standards: 1) the expectations for practice and the extent to which these expectations are being met; 2) the capacity within the system to meet these expectations; and 3) the extent to which these are occurring with sufficient consistency and quality. Moreover, this will enable the MTAT to focus on emerging issues to mitigate a reactive approach to monitoring.
Leadership Changes
The transition to this new approach to monitoring coincides with some significant changes in leadership at the state and regional levels. Over the past year, in addition to profound changes in leadership at the County Program Administrator, Program Director and Supervisor levels, Fulton and DeKalb also transitioned to new County Directors. Mr. Kwesi Booker became the DeKalb County Director in October of 2016 and Ms. Kristen Toliver became the Fulton County Director in August of 2017. At the beginning of Period 24, Deputy Division Director for Child Welfare, Virginia Pryor became the Chief of Staff for State Director Bobby Cagle; Assistant Division Director Field Operations, Jeff Lukich became the Deputy Division Director for Child Welfare; and Sekema Harmon became the Assistant Division Director Field Operations. Later in Period 24, State Director Bobby Cagle announced his departure and the Governor Deal appointed Virginia Pryor as the Interim State Director; Jeff Lukich became the Chief of Staff to the Director; and Region Three Director, Keith Bostick, was appointed as the new Deputy Division
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 6 of 66
Director for Child Welfare. Sustained, strong leadership is essential for building and maintaining an effective workforce that daily improves its engagement with children, youth, and families. As the state strives to complete the Modified Exit Plan, stabilizing leadership at all levels and articulating a clear theory of change is vital for achieving success.
Regional Priorities and Transition of the MEASURES Process
The DeKalb and Fulton County Directors have articulated five priority reform areas for Region 14 for 2018. These are to: 1) meet staffing levels and shorten the period of time to fill vacancies in supervisor and case manager positions; 2) increase the quality of work through ongoing training, coaching and development of the workforce; 3) decrease the foster care population by taking every measure to keep families together when possible; 4) keep children placed within the region; and 5) rebrand the counties through increased professionalism and responsiveness.
Both directors would like to develop the use of certified trainers to provide training for staff daily. The counties already have begun implementing Back to Basics training in coordination with the CQI unit and the Regional Field Program Specialists (FPSs). Their aim is to allow leadership to identify and address barriers through highly engaging interactive workshops and follow up through coaching and mentoring in the field.
In addition to enhancing engagement with families, relatives, and fictive kin, this effort to keep families together will also include developing closer working relationships with service providers and law enforcement. These directors believe that too many children are placed outside the region, and would therefore, like to bring them closer to through more recruitment and support of kinship families.
Lastly, these directors hope to increase professionalism and responsiveness through enhanced customer service, to responsiveness of returning calls and following up to how staff present in court and the community.
Leadership at the regional, district and state levels have agreed to support the county directors in accomplishing these goals. These leaders will meet regularly as part of the MEASURES team. The workgroups will be restructured to focus on these key priority areas. Previously, there were four workgroups: Workforce; Permanency; Placement Stability; and Kinship. Regional and county leadership has decided to condense these into two workgroups: Workforce and Practice.
This as an opportunity to support new leaders in their efforts to continue progress toward meeting the standards outlined in the Modified Exit Plan and help them create a robust and evidence-reliant problem-solving approach to improvement. This could help address some of the competing demands on leadership related to managing a growing and transitioning workforce, training for and implementing SBC, incorporating changes in practices like a focus on family-driven permanency and trauma reduction, as well as addressing specific system
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 7 of 66 challenges. This process could also help to ensure that the requests made upon case managers and supervisors are focused on those activities most closely linked to better outcomes for children and families. One important aspect of the monitoring approach described above is its intentional focus on supporting the promotion and development of a sustainable state and regional approach to both rapid-cycle problem solving and on-going system CQI, one that will be viable system wide and distinct from the Kenny A lawsuit.
4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 8 of 66
SECTION TWO: ROBUST WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
DFCS is committed to developing a competent and professional workforce. According to leadership, DFCS envisions an agency in which employees are continuously learning about both best practices and their own performance, professional ethics are maintained, and the necessary skills and competencies are developed as needed to support children and families.
The Infrastructure Standards, negotiated and submitted to the court in December 2017, include commitments related to the use of an Employee Selection Protocol, improved coordination with the Department of Human Services’ Office of Human Resources (OHR), case manager and supervisory training and support, as well as better management of caseloads for case managers and supervisors. These were not agreed upon or in effect during Period 23, but upcoming reports will include an assessment of these standards.
The Regional Director and the District Director are leading a workforce development workgroup that has been regularly meeting once a month. The OHR is represented on this workgroup along with regional leaders, one county director and frontline case managers and supervisors. This workgroup is responsible for the implementation of these Infrastructure Standards. Current areas of focus are on:
 professional development and training;  supervision and performance management;  employee recruitment, screening and selection; and  job analysis and position requirements.
Here are the major findings regarding the workforce. Analytic data from which some of these findings were derived can be found in the appendices.
Major Findings
1. There are some inconsistencies in the data being produced related to caseloads, vacancies, new hires and turnover.
Leaders on the county, district and regional levels are hampered by the lack of consistent, accurate data to understand several critical workforce related dynamics. These leaders are expending too much of the limited time available to them seeking consistent, accurate information about the workforce in both counties such as: 1) the number of case managers and supervisors, their years of DFCS experience, program area and number of cases or case managers assigned to them; 2) the number of vacant positions and how long these have been vacant; 3) the length of time it is taking for new hires to complete the onboarding process and where delays are incurred; 4) turnover rates for new hires and existing employees that can be understood over time; and 5) other factors contributing to high caseloads such as timely and quality case closure practices.
5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 9 of 66
There are some encouraging numbers, for example, being produced by data analysts within the county and district that indicate that the new hires are staying on the job longer than in previous years. However, it is difficult to rely on these and other indicators until there is an agreed upon methodology for these reports and there has been some coordination and validation with OHR.
2. Caseloads for too many case managers and supervisors in DeKalb and Fulton counties are too high and exceed agreed upon standards.
The Modified Exit Plan caseload and supervisor standards are intended to help ensure more case manager time with children and families and quality supervision and support for case managers. These standards remained the same as those in the original consent decree. As detailed in previous monitoring reports, there have been longstanding challenges meeting these standards and overall performance in this area of practice dropped in Period 23. There are also some differences between the two counties when examining the more detailed data.
For the 205 CPS, family preservation, permanency, and specialized case managers who were active on June 30, 2017, 121 (59%) of them were meeting caseload expectations. On this same date, there were 40 active CPS and permanency supervisors, 27 (68%) of them were assigned five (5) or fewer case managers. A breakdown of this data is provided below compared to prior periods and between the two counties.
CPS Case Managers
For CPS case managers, 69 percent of them were assigned twelve (12) or fewer families to respond to or investigate reports of maltreatment on June 30, 2017. For the past couple of years, a higher percentage of CPS case managers met this standard except for on December 31, 2014 and December 31, 2015 when the percentage dropped below this mark.1
Family Preservation Case Managers
Family preservation case managers have generally been assigned seventeen (17) or fewer families in order to provide services and help ensure child safety.2 This was also the case on June 30, 2017 when 100 percent of these case managers met the standard.
Permanency Case Managers
For many years, permanency case managers were consistently meeting or exceeding a caseload expectation of fifteen (15) or fewer children, however this began to shift on June 30, 2015 and then had dropped significantly (27%) by December 31, 2015.3 With close to 68 percent of all permanency case managers meeting caseload expectations on June 30, 2017, these caseloads are trending in a positive direction.
1 See Period 22 Final Data Report Kenny A. v. Deal. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.
6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 10 of 66
Case managers with children assigned to them who have been in foster care for 18 months or longer
Previously known as specialized case managers, case managers who are assigned to children who have been in foster care for 18 months or longer are to be assigned no more than twelve (12) children at any given time. Many of these children require extra support to achieve permanency. Percentages of case managers meeting this expectation have been dropping notably in recent years to a low of 17 percent on December 31, 2016.4 Six months later, on June 30, 2017, the percentage of case managers meeting this expectation was 28 percent. 5
Supervisors
No supervisor shall supervise more than five case managers at one time. Close to 68 percent of supervisors in the two counties were meeting this expectation on June 30, 2017. This has varied quite a bit in recent years. Sixty percent were meeting standards on December 31, 2016, 90 percent on December 31, 2015.
DeKalb County on June 30, 2017
Caseloads for nearly half (45%) of the case managers in of DeKalb County on June 30, 2017 were too high and exceeded agreed upon limits. This was especially true for case managers assigned to children in foster care. Ninety (90) percent of CPS supervisors and 75 percent of permanency supervisors were meeting assigned supervisory ratios. However, in DeKalb, there were 27 cases assigned to supervisors on this same date, some of which may be a result of typical stage progression. See Tables A-3 and A-4 in the appendices for more information.
Fulton County on June 30, 2017
Fulton County was having a different experience on this same date compared to DeKalb County. Fewer Fulton County case managers (37%) on June 30, 2017 were exceeding caseload expectations, but not as many supervisors were meeting supervisory ratios: only 70 percent of CPS supervisors and 25 percent of permanency supervisors were meeting agreed upon standards. It is important to note that on this date, unlike DeKalb County, there was only one (1) case assigned to a supervisor or worker on leave. See Tables A-5 and A-6 in the appendices for more information.
Problems with caseload management for CPS staff continued to exacerbate after June 30, 2017 in Fulton County as described in a separate report on safety at the request of the parties.6 For this report, we developed and tested a new case record instrument to understand safety practices and a methodology for it going forward. It did illuminate some workforce related challenges - a high
4 Ibid. 5 The requirement to be assigned no more than twelve (12) children goes into effect when more than half of case manager’s caseload are children who have been in foster care for 18 months or longer. 6 A draft MTAT Review of DFCS Intake and Safety Assessment Processes was submitted to parties on November 28, 2017.
7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 11 of 66
number of investigations on caseloads exceeding capacity limits, four of 13 (31%) of CPS supervisory positions were vacant, and other critical vacancies in top child protective services leadership positions persisted.7
Also, during the period, the Kenny A. requirement that “all case manager supervisors have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in social work and at least two years of experience as a case manager” was in effect and may have impeded efforts to fill some of the supervisory positions. The requirement changed on December 19, 2017 with the filing of the Infrastructure Standards as part of the Modified Exit Plan. The new requirement is that “all case manager supervisors shall have either: (i) a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in social work or a related field and at least two years of experience as a case manager; or (ii) a master’s degree in social work or a related field and at least one year of experience as a case manager in child welfare, or in a lead/supervisory role in a social services program of DFCS or similar human services delivery program”.
3. Comparatively few case managers and supervisors are certified in Solution Based Casework or SBC.
As noted in previous reports, through a well-defined selection process, DFCS identified Solution-Based Casework (SBC) to be the cornerstone for Georgia’s approach to everyday child welfare practice with children and their families or case practice model. SBC is comprised of four milestones for case practice related to building consensus with the family, organizing and writing outcomes, building an action plan and then documenting and celebrating progress. These are outlined in an SBC Certification Manual Georgia DHS Edition.
With support and guidance from the State Office Education and Training Unit and identified practice coaches, initial implementation of Solution Based Casework began on July 11, 2016 in DeKalb and Fulton counties. Implementation began with training, Solution Based Casework for Case Managers. This is required training for all front-line staff, their supervisors and immediate managers, which focused on the basic concepts of Solution Based Casework and included practice opportunities related to assessment and case planning.
The next step is for supervisors in DeKalb and Fulton counties to participate in a follow up training, Solution Based Casework for Supervisors, and the certification process. The learning session has been designed to help supervisors further develop their capabilities to mentor and coach caseworkers to use the skills in their work with children and families. Once this training is complete, each supervisor is then required to demonstrate proficiency on an SBC Qualifying Exam. In DeKalb and Fulton counties, all supervisors have now demonstrated proficiency on this exam by scoring 80 percent or higher.
7 Both the District Director and County Director reported that as of December 20, 2017 all but two case manager positions in Fulton County had been filled. The next step is to focus on filling critical vacancies in supervisory and administrator positions. This will be described in more detail in the Period 24 report.
8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 12 of 66
Supervisors are then asked to facilitate Case Consultation meetings with their team with a specific focus on each of the SBC concepts over a two-month period. The intent is to build the capabilities of caseworkers to use the skills and prepare them to become certified in SBC. To become certified, caseworkers must work with a family through all four milestones of SBC and submit identified work products, such as a completed Genogram or Functional Family Assessment, for review and discussion. The county director in DeKalb County has been engaged also in reviewing some of these work products. Based on a review of these products, Social Services Associates, LLC, the purveyors of Solution Based Casework are responsible for the final review and certification for each caseworker.
While close to 500 staff in the region have completed required training, only 26 case managers and seven (7) supervisors have been certified in SBC as of the end of Period 24 on December 31, 2017.8 Responsible DFCS leaders are meeting soon to revisit readiness for SBC implementation in the region and the leadership support that may be needed going forward for this to become a priority.
4. The comprehensive practice model is still in development.
DFCS is continuing to develop a comprehensive practice model that will serve to strengthen its workforce, promote collaborative partnerships, and help improve outcomes for children and families in Georgia. In addition to SBC, components will include quality caregiving and other practices to ensure safety for children. Our next report will focus on development of the practice model.
5. There is some tension between adequately preparing workers and the need for case managers to be assigned caseloads. Additionally, there are many changes in process related to preparing the workforce.
A new director at OHR has made some specific commitments regarding human resources support for the hiring process and other needed coordination, which are in the Infrastructure Standards and include timelines for posting positions, providing reports, recruitment, sending information about qualified applicants, and clearing background checks. A weekly meeting has been instituted to review pending DFCS requests.
Also regarding the recruiting and hiring new employees, there is some confusion in the region about the current Employee Selection Protocol and, therefore, it is not generally being used to select candidates for employment at DFCS. The Office of Human Resources is willing to train staff on it. And, simultaneously, the state office is leading an effort to make needed changes to the current protocol, and the region is represented on a workgroup focused on this issue.
8 The number of staff trained does not account for turnover that has happened since training began in July 2016.
9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 13 of 66
There are also changes in process related to preparing new case managers. New worker training and certification are required before any new case manager can have primary responsibility for case practice with children and families. Comparable training must be provided to private provider case managers. The Metro District has been offering additional training and support - beyond required statewide pre-service training - for new case managers in DeKalb, Fulton, and other district counties through the Education Center. As mentioned earlier in this section, data collected within the Metro District indicate that newly hired case managers who participated in this Education Center are staying on the job longer than in previous years. The state has simultaneously been developing the Child Welfare Academy Fundamentals and Essentials Training to improve training and certification for new case managers statewide. The objectives are to:
 educate case managers with knowledge, skills, and practice;  ensure case managers know how to identify signs of present and impending danger;  ensure case managers know how to address safety issues in the least restrictive manner;  align training to support SBC; and  ensure a more competency-based certification process for new case managers. This training will begin in the region in April 2018. It is not yet clear how this transition will impact the Education Center and the overall process to prepare new case managers in both counties, and to do so in a timely manner. This will be a focus for monitoring in the upcoming reports along with the other agreed upon Infrastructure Standards.
10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 14 of 66
SECTION THREE: STATE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN METROPOLITAN ATLANTA
A stable, well-prepared, and high functioning workforce has a direct impact on practice and assisting children, youth and families achieve permanency. Thus, the challenges are described in the workforce section above is directly related to the diminished performance on key outcome measures during Period 23. Turnover, vacancies, and a younger more inexperienced staff impact the ability to fully engage families. Moreover, the implementation of the new practice model and new practice expectations may have also directly impacted the region’s performance. As the state continues to create a robust workforce and fully define and implement its new practice model, performance should improve significantly.
Overall, although the number of children and youth entering decreased, the number of children exiting care also continued to decrease in Period 23. There were 452 entries during this period but only 431 exits. Thus, the overall number of children in foster care increased. With more children in care and a less stable workforce, the region’s overall performance declined in a number of key areas as reflected in Table 5 in the section below. While both counties share challenges in certain areas such as diligent search for relatives and completing four visits within a child’s first four weeks in a new placement, other areas of challenge appear to be unique to each county. This section will provide a longitudinal snapshot of placement dynamics, a report on major findings regarding placement prohibitions, and a listing of the performance of each county and the region on the outcomes required under the Modified Exit Plan.
After the Modified Exit Plan was filed in Federal Court (December 2016), the MTAT, members of the DFCS Data Unit (DU) and members of the DFCS Kenny A. team met regularly to develop a set of agreed upon methods for generating the outcome metrics, practice standards, and performance measures required as part of the Modified Consent Decree. In some cases, the measures and metrics remained unchanged from the previous approach. In other cases, the measures stayed largely the same, but the method changed, and for a final set -- both the measures and the methods for producing them were revised. In every case, the workgroup worked together to agree on an approach that both met Modified Exit Plan requirements and relied on best practices in measurement, including relying on SHINES data as much as possible to ensure the most accurate representation of performance in Region 14 for each period under review.
The Period 23 report is the first report containing the new measures. In this report, we endeavor to be streamlined in our presentation while also fully explaining new metrics. We want not only to support sound interpretation of performance in the current period, but we also want to make clear when current performance is – or is not comparable to the performance noted in prior reports. When comparisons are not possible, we have sought to provide a full and easily digestible explanation of the differences.
11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 15 of 66
Context for Understanding Period 23 Outcomes In the next section, we provide an overview of case flow dynamics in Region 14 during the period under review. These data provide useful context for interpreting the January through June outcomes. Shifts in the mix of children entering care (either by age or the proportion that return home quickly) can influence placement stability and permanency outcomes. Initial placement type may also be associated with future outcomes. Thus, to support the outcome analysis, we present some basic information about the flow of children and youth entering placement in Region 14 during the first six months of 2017, and relative to the prior two calendar years. We show the number of children and youth entering care by county, by age at entry, and by first placement type. Additionally, we provide some preliminary information about the short-stayers in the 2017 period, comparing that to the earlier two years. While there some similar trends for the region overall, there are also some patterns distinctive in each county. Data are derived from the DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data. Table 1 below shows that the number of children and youth entering care in Region 14 appears to be diminishing in the most recent years. Overall, entries decreased by over 25 percent – from 1,363 to 1,015 between 2015 and 2016. This decline seems to be ongoing, with six months of 2017 seeing fewer than 500 admissions across the two counties.
12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 16 of 66

Table 1: Children Entering Foster Care in Region 14

Age at Entry
Total Under 1 1 to 5 Years 6 to12 Years 13 to 17 Years

2015
1,363 195 380 333 455

Total
Jan-Jun 2016 2017

1,015 436

152

78

243

95

248

113

372

150

2015
757 100 229 194 234

DeKalb
Jan-Jun 2016 2017

550

213

80

37

138

46

141

47

191

83

2015
606 95 151 139 221

Fulton
Jan-Jun 2016 2017

465

223

72

41

105

49

107

66

181

67

Total

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Under 1

14% 15%

18%

13% 15%

17%

16% 15%

1 to 5 Years

28% 24%

22%

30% 25%

22%

25% 23%

6 to12 Years

24% 24%

26%

26% 26%

22%

23% 23%

13 to 17 Years 33% 37%

34%

31% 35%

39%

36% 39%

Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data

100% 18% 22% 30% 30%

In the region overall, about 15 percent of entrants are infants (children under 1 at removal, although that proportion may be increasing). The first six months of 2017 show a slightly greater proportion of infants entering care, and a continued decrease in the proportion of one to five year olds in both counties – especially in DeKalb. The first six months of entries in Fulton are weighted more toward older children although the proportion of six to 12 years has ticked upward, while teens have ticked downward. Table 2 below provides an additional view of this distribution of the entry groups by single year age, and county, and show how those distributions may have shifted from the prior two years. In both cases, infants are the greatest proportion of each entry cohort, followed by a steep decline with some variation by age, county, and entry year over time.

13

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 17 of 66
Table 2: DeKalb and Fulton Entries by Age
Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data
Because the 2017 entry cohort is still entering care, and some seasonal affects may not be reflected in these numbers – they should be viewed as preliminary.
14

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 18 of 66

The next set of tables show the placement type for children and youth at the time of entry.

Table 3: Placements for Children and Youth Entering Foster Care

First Placement Type
Total Foster Home Relative/Kin Home Congregate Care Detention Other/Unknown

2015 1,363 637 317 156
21 232

Total
2016 1,015 427 261 135
21 171

Jan-Jun 2017 436 194 118 59 9 56

2015 757 372 178 88 13 106

DeKalb

2016

Jan-Jun 2017

550

213

232

104

147

51

68

30

11

4

92

24

2015 606 265 139 68
8 126

Fulton
2016 465 195 114 67 10 79

Jan-Jun 2017 223 90 67 29 5 32

Total

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Foster Home

47% 42%

44%

49% 42%

49%

44% 42%

Relative/Kin Home 23% 26%

27%

24% 27%

24%

23% 25%

Congregate Care

11% 13%

14%

12% 12%

14%

11% 14%

Detention

2% 2%

2%

2% 2%

2%

1% 2%

Other/Unknown

17% 17%

13%

14% 17%

11%

21% 17%

Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data

100% 40% 30% 13% 2% 14%

Over two thirds of children coming into care in Region 14 are first placed in family settings. Typically, about 45 percent are first placed in foster homes, about 25 percent are placed in a kinship setting, and the remainder are placed in other settings – including congregate settings, and “other” settings (which include hotels, hospitals, jails, and unknown settings). This pattern is relatively consistent over time – and between the two counties, although in prior years there
was somewhat less reliance on foster homes in Fulton, with a greater reliance – likely hotels – on other. The two bar graphs look more closely at the first six months of 2017, and show the placement settings by single year of age, in each county.

In DeKalb County, the most frequent first placement type was foster homes (blue bar) for children entering placement between the ages of 0 and 12. Between a quarter and a third of those younger children, excepting nine year olds) were placed with kin or relatives (orange bar). The likelihood

15

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 19 of 66
of initial foster home placement went down sharply for youth placed as teenagers, and the use of kinship declined as well. Reliance on congregate care (red bar) increased with age – peaking at 58 percent of 15 year olds in the January - June 2017 period. For Fulton, the patterns were generally consistent but showed some variation. Between 30 and 50 percent of children entering at age six or younger were first placed in kinship or relative setting; a slightly higher proportion than were observed in DeKalb for the same age group during the same period. Eight and ten
year olds show the similar patterns, although seven and nine years olds do not. Over forty percent of children who enter at teenagers were first placed in a congregate setting, while the reliance on “other” settings increased as well for teenagers, and was greater in Fulton than in DeKalb during the January - June 2017 period.
The final focus over this overview is on the proportion of children entering care in Region 14 who had relatively brief stays –short-stayers – in recent years. Table 4 below indicates that overall, about a quarter of children and youth entering care each year from Region 14 exit within 30 days of their entry. Virtually all of these exits are discharges to a family member, and the vast majority are reunifications. The table shows that short stayers are more common in Fulton, where they have constituted about 30 percent of the annual entries, relative to DeKalb, where they make up less than a quarter. The 2017 data is presented with gradient fill to indicate it is preliminary: First, that cohort is still entering care, and secondly, some children and youth still in care on June 30 had been there for fewer than 30 days (indicated by the gray filled box). Those children may not actually be short-stayers. Even so – this table provides a general sense of the proportion of children and youth deprived in Region 14 who have relative brief episode in placement before returning home.
16

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 20 of 66
Table 4: Children and Youth Entering Foster Care Leaving in Less Than 31 Days
Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data
Period 23 Placement Standards The need for appropriate placements for all children who enter foster care or have a placement disruption is paramount. Mainly, through the Placement Stability MEASURE workgroup, the state continues to focus on specific strategic initiatives that were developed to reduce inappropriate placements including the use of hotels, overnight/excessive stays in a DFCS office and congregate care for younger children. Championing the effort to ensure safe and stable placements for children and youth are the Kenny A. State Project Director and the head of resource development for Region 14. Here are the major findings regarding placements during Period 23. Major Findings 1. The state has virtually ended the use of hotels motels, or similar non-child welfare
overnight commercial enterprises and is on pace to completely eliminate this practice. One of the major areas of concern identified by the parties as they transitioned to the Modified Exit Plan, was the state’s continued and persistent reliance on commercial motels and hotels as placements for children in foster care. Over the past two years, the state has cited a need to diversify, increase its array of foster care placements and enhance diligent search efforts to locate
17

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 21 of 66
and support relatives and fictive kin as temporary placements for children and youth. The parties agreed to cut hotel usage in half by December 2016 and to end all usage by June 30, 2017. During this period, the state met with providers and strengthened the enforcement of contractual requirement for private providers to give a 14-day notice before disrupting placements. DFCS contracted with the Multi-Alliance Alliance for Children (MAAC) to reserve ten emergency placement beds for youth in Fulton and DeKalb counties. In addition, the state discussed with providers the need for targeted recruitment for teenagers who may present behavioral challenges. The usage of hotels steadily declined leading up to the agreed upon deadline. During Period 23 26 children (11 DeKalb children and 15 Fulton children) were placed in hotels for a total of 92 nights (24 nights for DeKalb and 68 nights for Fulton). Minimal use of hotels has been noted after the June 30, 2017. No child in either county has been placed in hotels since the beginning of September 2017.
2. The State has done a commendable job in limiting the amount of time a child spends in a DFCS office, especially during overnight hours.
This is the first report in which the MTAT has tracked the amount of time children spend in the office waiting for placement. The Modified Consent Decree states, “no child shall spend more than 23 hours in a county DFCS office. Any child who spends time in a county DFCS office between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. shall be reported to the MTAT. The intent of this provision is to prevent the use of DFCS offices as an overnight placement for children, as children with urgent placement needs require a safe bed in a home-like environment.”
During the period, there was only one instance where a child spent more than 23 hours in the office. This case involved a sibling pair in Fulton who spent 28 hours in the office. The State indicates that there was a gap in communication between the Placement Resources Operations (PRO) team and the new CPS case managers. The CPS case manager was new at the process and failed to communicate with leadership until late in the evening. The state further indicates that they have made the adjustments with the PRO team to ensure this does not occur again. Please see the appendices for additional information regarding office stays.
3. The state continues to ensure young children are not placed in congregate care placements unless necessary for the child’s welfare.
The Consent Decree has several restrictions related to the use of group care, including limiting their use of congregate care for young children. The reported information is for all children under the age of 12 in care between January and July 2017; not for a sample of the entire foster care population.
According to state reports, no children entering foster care or already in care during the period under the age of 12 were placed in group homes or child caring institutions except as allowed under the Modified Exit Plan. During Period 23, of youth in care or who entered foster care in the period, 20 youth were placed in hospitals, 12 children were in psychiatric residential
18

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 22 of 66
treatment facilities (PRTFs), and five children were hospitalized for mental health issues. In addition, there were two siblings under the age of 12 who stayed overnight in a DFCS office (referenced above) and one ten-year-old child that was placed in a hotel for a night. There was also one child placed with their mother in a group care setting designed for teen mothers.
4. Children are not remaining in temporary facilities longer than 30 days and far fewer are placed in more than one temporary facility while in foster care.
The Modified Consent Decree states:
a. No child shall be placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility beds used on any temporary basis, for more than 30 days and,
b. Children shall not be placed in more than one temporary facility within one episode of foster care (meaning the period of time that a child is in foster care from the date of removal from the home until the child is discharged from DFCS custody, except that a runaway does not trigger a new episode of foster care).
During Period 23, out of the 1,975 children who were in foster care at the beginning of the period or entered during the period, there was no child placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility beds used on any temporary basis for more than 30 days. In addition, for calendar year 2017, only 31 of 915 (3%) of children were placed in two or more temporary facilities within one episode of foster care. This is a major reduction from CY 2015 where there were 162 out of 1403 (11.5%) of children placed in two or more temporary facilities. Period 23 Outcomes Tables 5 and 6 below list each ongoing and attained outcome for Period 23, along with the most current observed performance. The outcomes shaded in gray indicate when the method and the metrics are the same as from prior periods. Finally, the report contains two appendices. The first is a Measures Grid that identifies each measurable outcome, practice standard, or performance measure required in the under the Modified Consent Decree, and then describes the method for producing that metric. The second is a technical document that provides the numerator and denominator for each metric displayed in the Outcome Grid and includes additional explanation and/or data that support interpretation of the outcome metric under the Modified Consent Decree.
19

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 23 of 66

Table 5: Period 23 Ongoing Outcome Measures

Ongoing Outcome Measures
Outcome 1: Commencement of CPS Investigations Concerning Foster Children: At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact with the alleged victim, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of the report. Outcome 2: Completion of CPS Investigations Concerning Foster Children: At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of the report. Outcome 3: Re-entry Into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge. Children who were in foster care for less than eight days are not counted in this measure. Outcome 4: Maltreatment in Care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days. Outcome 5: Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care. Outcome 6: At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months shall be discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period.

Period 23 Performance
DeKalb 100%
100%
-
1.27 73% 28%

Period 23 Performance
Fulton 95%
100%
-
4.31 73% 29%

Period 23 Performance
Region 14 87%9
92%10
17%11
2.56 73% 28%

9 The State Special Investigations Unit and the perimeter counties were responsible for investigating allegations for 76 of the 97 alleged victim children and initiated 84 percent of them on time. This resulted in the overall performance falling below the standard. See Table A-9 in the appendices for more information. 10 The State Special Investigations Unit was responsible for 38 of the 79 investigations. The State Special Investigations Unit completed 84 percent of them on time. This resulted in the overall performance falling below the standard. See Table A-11 in the appendices for more information. 11 The new measure is based on calendar year cohorts. The 2015 cohort is the only one in which enough time has passed to accurately assess performance based on the measure. See Table A-2 in the appendices for more information on this analysis.
20

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 24 of 66

Permanency, for the purposes of this measure

includes discharges from foster care to

reunification with the child’s parents or primary

caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or

adoption.

Outcome 7: At least 30.3% of all children in

foster care on the first day of a 12-month period

who had been in foster care (in that episode) for

24 months or more shall be discharged to

permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of

21%

this measure includes discharges from foster

care to reunification with the child’s parents or

primary caregiver, living with a relative,

guardianship, or adoption.

Outcome 8: Adoption/Guardianship

Finalization: For all children whose parental

rights are terminated or released during the

reporting period (and any appeals completed),

39%

at least 80% will have their adoptions or

guardianships finalized within 12 months of final

termination or release of parental rights.

Outcome 9: Permanency Efforts (15/22): At

least 95% of all foster children who reached the

point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22

months shall have had either (a) a petition for

the termination of parental rights filed as to

94%

both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or

(b) documented compelling reasons in the

child’s case record why termination of parental

rights should not be filed.

Outcome 10: Sibling Placement: At least 80% of

all children who entered foster care during the

reporting period along with one or more siblings

shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject

to the following exceptions:

(a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the

siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has

84%

exceptional needs that can only be met in a

specialized program or facility, (c) the size of the

sibling group makes such placement impractical

notwithstanding diligent efforts to place the

group together; or (d) the siblings are placed

with relatives

Outcome 11: Multiple Placement Moves: The

rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in

2.1

foster care.

Outcome 12: Caseworker Continuity: At least

91%

22 %

22%

75%

48%

95%

94%

97%

92%

3.7

2.812

90%

90%

12 This is a preliminary measure reflecting actual performance through December 31, 2017. See Table A-2 in the appendices for more information.
21

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 25 of 66

90% of all children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave
Outcome 13: Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one inplacement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.
Outcome 14: Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification Outcome 15: Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage Outcome 16: Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.
22

96.4% 76.6% 94.8%
77.9%

98.8%

97.5%

92.7%

83.9%

97.6%

96.0%

94%

85.3%

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 26 of 66

Outcome 17: Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall have graduated from high school or earned a GED. Outcome 18: Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement. (72% of relative placements were in full approval.)
Outcome 19: Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their sixmonth case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review
Outcome 20: Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for twelve or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing Outcome 21: Health and Educational Needs: Of children in care at a point in time at the end of the reporting period, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan: Outcome 21a: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed medical needs Outcome 21b: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed dental needs Outcome 21c: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed mental health needs Outcome 21d: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed education/development needs

n/a
97%
100%
93% 91% 79% 98%

n/a

n/a13

97%

97%

97%

91%

96%

74%

85%

94%

93%

83%

81%

89%

94%

13 This measure is reported each year in December.
23

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 27 of 66

Table 6: Period 23 Attained Outcome Measures

Attained Outcome Measures
Outcome 22: Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months. Outcome 23: Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Outcome 24: Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Outcome 25: Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to the following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with relatives, or (d) the child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective adoptive family pursuant to an appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court. Outcome 26: Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits

Period 23 Performance
DeKalb 100% 38%
0%
96.7%

24

Period 23 Performance
Fulton

Period 23 Performance
Region 14

100%

100%

49%

41%

0%

0%

96.2%

98.1%

97.3%

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 28 of 66

in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Outcome 27: Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Outcome 28: Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following capacity limits: (a) no placement shall result in more than 3 foster children in a foster home, or a total of 6 children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children, without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no placement will result in more than 3 children under the age of 3 in a foster home. The only exception to these capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a foster home with no other children in the home
Other Consent Decree Requirements
4x4 Visitation (VI.G.1) Recurrence of Maltreatment (VI.G.2) Number of children who were victims of a 2nd substantiated investigation w/in 12 months of FSS case

87%
0%
41% 6.2% 6.2 %

100%
0%
51% 7.4% 7.4%

92%
0%
47% 6.8% 7.0%

Major Findings
1. Few children in both counties are experiencing maltreatment in foster care, and the investigations associated with these allegations are timely for most children.
The Modified Exit Plan requires that at least 95 percent of all reports of abuse or neglect of children be initiated within 24 hours of a report, which means face-to-face contact with the alleged victim. To respond to all reports of alleged maltreatment in care received on or after January 1, 2017, there were 79 investigations of maltreatment in care reported that involved 97 alleged victim children during Period 23.14 Of these, 87 percent (84 of 97) of the alleged victim children had investigations that were initiated on time. This means that the investigator made face-to-face contact with these 84 alleged victim children within 24 hours. It should also be noted that all of the alleged victim children were seen within 24 hours of the report except for one (95%) for
14 There were 18 investigations with 20 alleged victim children that excluded from this analysis because the report date was prior to January 1, 2017. Seventeen of 20 (85%) of the alleged victim children had investigations that were initiated on time. This is a change in methodology from previous periods to one that is prospective and focused on all reports of alleged maltreatment of a child in foster care made in each period. See Table A-10 in the appendices for more information on this supplemental review.
25

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 29 of 66
investigations conducted by DeKalb and Fulton counties instead of one of the perimeter counties or the State Special Investigations Unit, which met the Modified Exit Plan standard.
Similarly, the Modified Exit Plan requires that at least 95 percent of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of children in foster care be completed within 30 days of receipt of the report.15 As mentioned above, there were 79 investigations of maltreatment in care during the period, and 73 (92%) of them were completed within 30 days from the report of possible abuse or neglect.16 It should be noted again that all of the investigations conducted by DeKalb and Fulton counties were completed on time. The State Special Investigations Unit was responsible for conducting all of the investigations that were not completed within 30 days, which resulted in the state not meeting the Modified Exit Plan standard.
DeKalb and Fulton county DFCS are doing quite well comparatively at protecting children from abuse or neglect while they are in foster care, although the incidence of maltreatment is higher in Fulton County than in DeKalb County. There were seven substantiated reports of maltreatment in care in the period, five of them were children from Fulton County and two of them were from DeKalb County. Based on the associated number of days all children were in foster care during the period, both counties had a rate of victimization of 2.56 per 100,000 days. The victimization rate was 1.27 for DeKalb County and 4.31 for Fulton County. The national standard and Modified Exit Plan standard are the same: of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims of abuse or neglect in foster care per 100,000 days.
It should be noted in this section that concerns have been identified regarding investigations related to children not in foster care and their families in the MTAT Review of DFCS Intake and Safety Assessment Processes.
2. While the state is completing its monthly visits with children and caretakers, visits between siblings placed separately and visits between parents and children in DeKalb County are not occurring at the required rates.
Authentic engagement and family-centered case planning are the foundation of the state’s new practice model. The small number of staff certified in SBC also indicates that this is an area in which the counties must focus moving forward.
Despite these challenges, case managers in both counties were able to consistently visit children (97.5%) and caretakers (96%). However, visits between parents and children (84%) and siblings in different placements (85.3%) remained significantly below Modified Exit Plan requirements due, primarily, to poor performance in DeKalb County. Helping facilitate family connections for children in care is vital for mitigating trauma and achieving permanency.
3. The permanency rate for children in care at the start of the period who had been in care for 12 months or longer was much lower than the standards set in the Modified Exit Plan. Children in foster care in Fulton County are more likely to exit to permanency than in DeKalb County.
Even so, there was one permanency measure that met the Modified Exit Plan standard, timely discharge to permanency for children newly entering foster care (Attained Outcome 23).
15 DFCS policy changed this to 45 days beginning July 1, 2017, so this will be the time to completion beginning in Period 24. 16 Of the 18 investigations with 20 alleged victim children excluded from this analysis, 14 of them (78%) were completed on time.
26

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 30 of 66
Of the 873 children who entered foster care in calendar year 2016 in the two counties and remained in foster care eight or more days, 359 of them (41%) exited to permanency. This meets the Exit Plan standard for Attained Outcome 23 and Federal CSFR measure of 40.5 percent. Children who entered foster care in Fulton County in calendar year 2016 were more likely to exit to permanency than their counterparts in DeKalb County, 45 percent compared to 38 percent. Taken together, this is a drop from performance in calendar year 2015 when close to 48 percent of all enterers exited to permanency within one year. It should be noted that although stays of less than 8 days are excluded from this measure, the proportion of children staying between 8-31 days in care (short-stayers) will impact this performance. Most short-stayers return to their permanent home. Thus that dynamic, any changes to it, will contribute to the performance reported here.
There were 450 children who were in foster care in the two counties on January 1, 2017 who had been in foster care between 12 and 23 months, and of these, 127 of them (28%) had exited to permanency by the end of the calendar year. This does not meet the Exit Plan standard for Outcome 6 of 43.6 percent. Relative to historical performance calculated using the new methodology, performance has been consistently low for the previous two years; 33 percent of these children had exited to permanency in 2015, 20 percent of these children in 2016.
Similarly, there were 471 children who were in foster care in the two counties on January 1, 2017 who had been in foster care for 24 months or more, and of these, 103 of them (22%) had exited to permanency by the end of the calendar year. This does not meet the Exit Plan standard for Outcome 7 or the Federal CSFR measure of 30.3 percent. Also relative to historical performance using the new methodology, performance in 2017 related to permanency for these children who have been in foster care for a long time fell compared to the two previous years.
For the 1,173 children who entered foster care in 2015 and then exited to permanency within one year, 95 of them (17%) had re-entered foster care within one year. This does not meet the Exit Plan standard for Outcome 3, which stipulates that no more than 8.3 percent of children will re-enter foster care within one year of exit.
For the 65 children whose parental rights were terminated or released during the period, 31 of them (48%) had their adoptions or guardianships finalized within one year. This does not meet the Exit Plan standard for Outcome 8 of 80 percent.
Lastly, 94 percent of children who had been in foster care for 15 of 22 months had either a TPR petition filed or a compelling reason for not doing so documented in the record. The performance fell short of the Exit Plan standard for Outcome 9 of 95 percent.
As part of the newly developed Infrastructure Standards, the District Director and other leaders have outlined some clear steps to promote timely and lasting permanency. These steps rely on: 1) monthly case staffings to ensure key practice activities are occurring, identify permanency barriers and develop action items; 2) coaching support from the Kenny A. Permanency Review Team; and 3) quarterly “SWAT” meetings to promote consistency and clarity, to share information and expertise, and to coordinate recommendations that have been obtained through various permanency reviews.
The MTAT will be working with the Kenny A. Review Team to analyze data and understand factors that may delay or promote timely permanency. Once these steps have been implemented for one year, leadership will assess to determine effectiveness and make changes as needed.
27

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 31 of 66
4. The movement rate per 1,000 days for children served during the period is lower than the standard established in the Modified Exit Plan, indicating a decrease in placement instability, which suggests a notable improvement in practice in the region.
This measure changed considerably from previous periods to align with the Federal CFSR measurement method. However, in doing so, the approach was adapted so that it includes moves children already in foster care as well as moves for those who entered care in during the period – providing a more complete depiction of placement disruptions for all children served during the period. This measure is now derived from administrative data in SHINES rather than from case record review.
To meet the Exit Plan standard for Outcome 11, the rate of placement moves for children in foster care should be no more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 overall days in foster care. In 2017, the preliminary measure indicates that there were 2.78 moves for every 1,000 days in foster care.17 Applying the new methods to prior periods allows for historical comparison, and shows that performance has improved relative to the past two years. In 2016, the rate was 3.89 and, in 2015, the rate was 6.14. The two counties not only met the Exit Plan standard and the Federal CFSR measure, but also demonstrated a considerable reduction in the number of placement moves that children experienced in 2017.
The end of the use of hotels as placements for children and increases in initial relative placements may have helped to contribute to these increases in stability for children in the two counties. It may have also helped that more relatives were fully approved than in previous periods.
5. The state is meeting the educational and dental needs of children, but falling short of meeting identified medical and mental health needs.
Although meeting the identified medical, dental, educational and mental health needs was required prior to the entrance of the Modified Exit Plan, the prior performance was evaluated as one collective measure. Thus, while past reports identified performance in each area, the overall performance evaluation was based on meeting all needs for all children. The new metric separates each of the areas of need and requires the state to meet a minimum of 92 percent for each specific health area.
The state is meeting 94 percent of the identified educational/developmental needs of children in foster care. This may be in part to the focused effort in the region through an initiative called “Project Graduate”. The state continues to struggle with addressing mental health needs identified in the children’s case plans. The state is required to address the needs of 92 percent of these children however they were only able to meet the mental health needs of 81 percent (47 out of 58 children). In addition, the state failed to meet the threshold of 92 percent for those children with identified medical needs. Only 85% (69 out of 81) of children had their medical needs met. Of note, DeKalb did very well in meeting the medical needs of 93 percent (43 out of 46) of their children while Fulton struggled with only meeting the needs of 74 percent (26 out of 35). The state is to be commended in meeting 93 percent of all identified dental needs (75 out of 81 children), which is an area they have struggled with in the past.
17 See Outcome Grid in the Appendix.
28

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 32 of 66 29

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 33 of 66
APPENDIX A
Data Sources and Methodology for Measuring State Performance in Reporting Period 23 This Appendix containing two tables summarizing the metrics under the Modified Exit Plan, and the methods for generating each of them. Table A-1 is a Measures Grid that identifies each measurable outcome, practice standard, or performance measure required in the under the Modified Ext Plan, and then describes the method for producing that metric. Table A-2 is a technical document that provides the numerator and denominator for each metric displayed in the in the Outcome Grid as well as the other items required for measurement under the Modified Consent Decree. It also contains additional technical explanations, and/or historical data that provides context for reviewing and interpreting Period 23 performance data. Tables A-3 through A-8 provide caseload data as reported from the state. Table A-9 through A-12 provide summary analysis from the case reviews on Outcomes 1 and 2, along a supplemental review of excludes cases due to a change in methodology from previous periods.
30

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 34 of 66

Sec IV.B.1a
IV.B.1b
IV.B.1c
IV.B.1d IV.B.2b IV.B.2c IV.B.3
IV.B.4

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

No child shall be placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility bed used on any temporary basis, for more than 30 days.
Children shall not be placed in more than one temporary facility within one episode of foster care.
No child shall spend more than 23 consecutive hours in county DFCS office. Any child who spends time in county DFCS office between 8pm-8am shall be reported to the MTAT. Hotel use for class members to end by June 30, 2017.
No child under six shall be placed in group care setting. No child between ages of 6-12 shall be placed in group care setting. Race/Ethnicity /religion shall not be basis for delay or denial of placement. DFCS shall not contract with private provider that gives preference based on race/eth/religion DFCS to ensure basic physical needs of

Jails, runaways, hospitals, PRTFs, respite care will not be considered temporary. Placement type "other resource" and placement category of hotels, receiving homes, office stays.
Jails, runaways, hospitals, PRTFs, respite care will not be considered temporary. Placement type "other resource" and placement category of hotels, receiving homes, office stays.
Number of distinct children; Number of distinct episodes; Number of nights No Changes
No Changes

Number of in care at the start of the period and number of children deprived during the period: How many were placed in a temporary facility for more than 30 days during the period By calendar year cohorts (year of entry), how many enterers had more than one temporary placement episode EXCLUDING any temporary placement following a runaway episode. Follow cohorts over time. Weekly documentation by county; reported to the MTAT
Region 14 tracks and reports weekly to the MTAT. All data originates from SHINES. Tracked with Congregate Care Report
Tracked with Congregate Care Report
State Data Unit

Data produced by…
State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team
State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team
Kenny A teams
Kenny A Team with verification by State Data Unit State Data Unit
State Data Unit
Kenny A. case

31

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 35 of 66

Sec
IV.B.5
V.A V.B V.C V.D V.E V.F VI.A.118
VI.A.2

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

Measurement Method

food, clothing, and shelter are met. Clothing to be reviewed with every placement / placement change In placement visitation: 4 in 4 for new placements; monthly thereafter. There should be at least one in-placement visit and one private, face to face
CPS caseloads – no more than 12 cases
Family Preservation and Family Support caseloads– no more than 17 Placement caseloads – no more than 15 Adoption caseloads – no more than 16 Specialized caseloads - no more than 12 Supervisor – no more than 5 CM At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact with the alleged victim, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of the report.
At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of the report.

Drop children in care for lt 1 week. -measure 1 in placement visit for all in first week -measure 4 for all the placement for 4 weeks No Change
No change Weights are applied to produce equivalence for caseworkers with mixed caseloads
NOTE: There is a change here b/c old OM 1 and 3 have been combined. Those two outcomes used two different denominators (child/inv). New metric is at the child level
No change Effective 7/1/2017 – the standard became 45 days

Number of new placements with 1 visit in 1 wk; 4 in 4 wks.
Generated weekly as part of CAP reports after getting data from each county Counts of Caseworkers, by program at end of period
Counts of cases assigned to verified case managers
Denominator: Children in foster care who are alleged victims of maltreatment Numerator: Number of childinvestigations that started within 24 hours of referral Numerator: Number of children w/ face to face w/in 24 hours Denominator: Number of MIC investigations referred in the PUR Numerator: Number of MIC investigations completed within 30 (45) days of receipt

Data produced by…
review team
State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team
Kenny A case review team
Kenny A case review team

18 The current VI.A measures are the on-going measures.
32

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 36 of 66

Sec VI.A.3
VI.A.4 VI.A.5 VI.A.6

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Re-entry Into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge.

CFSR 3 measure Children in care for less than 8 days are dropped from outcome measure.
SDU will report CY 2014-2016.
Reporting for period 23 will start with first half of year, and then be completed for Period 24.

Maltreatment in care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days. Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care.

CFSR 3 measure All substantiated of maltreatment in care regardless of perpetrator, are included.
Report at 6 and 12 months No change

At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months shall be discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with

CFSR 3 measure Report at 6 and 12 months SDU will report CY 2014-2016.

Measurement Method
Denominator: CY entries, duration greater than 8 days that exited to permanency within one year of entry. Numerator: Those who reentered w/in yr of exit date
Denominator: all days for every child in care for a least one day in the period. Numerator: every substantiated maltreatment episode in period
Denominator: children in placement sample who are in first 60 days of placement; Numerator: number of children in denominator whose files show clear evidence of diligent search
Denominator: All children in care on first day of CY who had been in care for 12-23 months Numerator: # who achieved permanency w/in calendar year

Data produced by…
State Data Unit
State Data Unit generates list for Kenny A case reviewers to review Kenny A case review team
State Data Unit

33

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 37 of 66

Sec

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

Measurement Method

Data produced by…

VI.A.7 VI.A.8 VI.A.9

At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights. Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had either (a) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both

CFSR 3 measure Report at 6 and 12 months SDU will report CY 2014-2016.
No change
No change

34

Denominator: All children in care on first day of CY who had been in care for 24 + months Numerator: # who achieved permanency w/in calendar year

State Data Unit

Denominator: Children TPR’d during the most recent six month period for whom 12 months can be observed.

Kenny A team

Numerator: Those in the denominator who were adopted/reached guardianship during the period.

Denominator: Eligible children who have been in care 15-22 months in the period Numerator: Those who have had TPR filed OR a documented compelling reason not to

Kenny A Team

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 38 of 66

Sec VI.A.10
VI.A.11 VI.A.12

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or (b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Sibling placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject to the following exceptions: (a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, (c) the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with relative. Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.

No change to method, add large sibling groups of 4 or more to exclusions
CFSR 3 measure Adjusted standard to reflect history of inc are and admits SDU will report CY 2014-2016. Children in care lt 8 days are dropped.

Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of all children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case

No change to method, Promoted caseworkers are now excepted

Measurement Method

Data produced by…

Denominator: children with siblings who were in care or who had exited by end of period Numerator: placed together on last day of period OR if they discharged, were together at discharge

Kenny A Team

Denominator: All days by children who were served during the period. Numerator: All moves excluding DJJ, respite, jail, AWOL, hospitals

State Data Unit

Denominator: All children in care at end of the period Numerator: number of those with LE 2 case managers.

Kenny A Team

35

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 39 of 66

Sec

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

VI.A.13 VI.A.14

managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one in-placement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification

No change No change

Vi.A.15

Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at

No change

36

Measurement Method

Data produced by…

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 40 of 66

Sec

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

Measurement Method

Vi.A.16 VI.A.17

least one time each month. At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall have graduated from high

No change
No change in method; Include in the numerator qualifying youth who have an IEP or 504 plan who achieved a

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period
Denominator: youth 18+ who were discharged during the year Numerator: number who have

37

Data produced by…
State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance
Kenny A Team

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 41 of 66

Sec

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

Measurement Method

VI.A.18 VI.A.19
VI.A.20

school or earned a GED. Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement. Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for twelve or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the

special ed diploma prior to exit No change in method Only include children who have been in unapproved home for 30 days Break out by relative, public, and private foster homes No Change
No Change

graduated or who have GED Denominator: placements with child at end of period Numerator: number of placements fully approved
Denominator: Numerator:
Denominator: Numerator:

Data produced by…
State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure
Kenny A Team, including case review team
Kenny A Team, including case review team

38

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 42 of 66

Sec

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

VI.A.21 VI.B.1922

documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing Health/Educational Needs. Of children in care at a point in time at end of reporting period, 92 percent shall have met each need documented in most recent plan: Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Educational Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months

No change in method Standard changed
No Change

Measurement Method

Data produced by…

Denominator: For each area, number of children from placement case review with identified need Numerator: Number of children in each denominator for whom there is evidence that need was addressed

Kenny A case review team

Denominator: All foster homes in the Kenny A case review

sample

team

Numerator: instances of Corporal Punishment

VI.B.23

Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

CFSR measure; SDU will report CY 2014-2016.
Reporting for period 23 will start with first half of year, and then be completed for Period 24.
Note: numerator is denominator for the reentry measure

Denominator: All children under 18 entering Region 14 during the CY period
Numerator: Number of children in the denominator who exited to permanency w/in 12 months of entry

State Data Unit

19 VI.B metrics are currently attained outcomes
39

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 43 of 66

Sec VI.B.24
VI.B.25

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period

Dissolution means that a child: 1) been adopted; 2) returned to foster care; and 3) has had a subsequent TPR or surrender from his or her adoptive parents within one year of the adoption finalization.

Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to the following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with relatives, or (d) the child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective adoptive family pursuant to an appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court.

Changed to rely on SHINES data and to cover full class.

Measurement Method
Denominator: Adoptions completed during the most recent six-month period for whom 12 months can be observed.

Data produced by…
State Data Unit generates list for Kenny A team to review

Numerator: Dissolutions w/in one year
Denominator: All children in placement on the last day of the period
Numerator: Children in the denominator who were either placed in home court, or who were placed within 50 miles of removal

State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure

40

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 44 of 66

Sec VI.B.26
VI.B.27 VI.B.28

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following capacity limits: (a) no placement shall result in more than 3 foster children in a foster home, or a total of 6 children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children, without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no placement will result in more than 3 children under the age of 3 in a foster home. The only exception to these

No change
No Change
No Change This only includes approved foster homes.

Measurement Method
Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period
Denominator: Case review sample Numerator: All children in denominator who have document court order language
Denominator: Foster homes with one or more children in their home on the last day of the period. Numerator: Number of foster homes that exceed the capacity limit.

Data produced by…
State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance
Case review
State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure

41

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 45 of 66

Sec

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a foster home.

Measurement Method

Data produced by…

VII.G.1 VII.G.2

Of children in each county during prior two reporting periods who experienced substantiated maltreatment, the number who were victims of a second substantiated maltreatment report during the following 12 months.

Use earliest report and first subsequent report following.

Of cases that were referred to FSS, the number and percent for which there was a subsequent substantiated referral w/in 11-365 days of the FSS referral.

FSS can mean any alternative to opening a CPS case or removal.

Denominator: Number of children who had substantiated report during the prior year

State Data Unit

Numerator: Number of children in the denominator who were subjects of a substantiated report within 12months of the first report Denominator: Number of children referred to FSS in a prior 12 month period

State Data Unit

Numerator: Number of those who had substantiated report w/in 11-365 days of the referral

42

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 46 of 66

VI.A.120 VI.A.2
VI.A.3

Table A-2

Outcome

Numerator

Denominator

Metric

At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be

commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact with the alleged victim, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of

84

97

87%

the report.

97 children in care during Period 23 were named as victims in 79 maltreatment investigations; 84 of those children had private contact CPS investigators within 24

hours of the receipt of the report.

At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be

completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days

73

79

92%

of receipt of the report.

73 of the 79 the investigations of maltreatment in which the alleged victims were in care where completed within 30 days of the receipt of the report

Re-entry Into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were

discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living

with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12

95

1,173

17%

months from the date of discharge.

This is new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 Reentry methodology. Because that method requires observing children enter, stay at least 8 days, exit to permanency within 1 yr, and then reenter from that exit within one year – it is necessary to refer to prior entry cohorts in order to generate the metric. The figures above represent entries to Region 14 from CY 2015. Of them, 95 exited to permanency within one year of entry (by 12/2016) and of them, 68 reentered care within one year of exit (by 12/2017). The State Unit Generated historical versions of this metric, as well as what is currently observable for the more recent entry cohorts. That performance is provided below – shaded cells contain incomplete data – not enough time has elapsed to fully observe the performance.

VI.A.4

These data were generated by the State Data Unit December 2017. For this reason the 2015 data are very nearly complete and are used for this measure.

Entry Yr
2013 2014 2015 2016
2017

Perm Exit w/in 1 yr
858 1185 1173 872 751

Reentry w/in 6 Mos
45 76 68 44 21

Reentry win 1 Yr
61 109 95 55 24

6 Months
10% 12% 12% 12% 10%

12 Months
13% 17% 17% 15% 11%

Maltreatment in care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of DeKalb: 2

DeKalb: 157,563

DeKalb: 1.27

victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days.

Fulton: 5

Fulton: 115,981

Fulton: 4.31

Total: 7

Total: 273,544

Total: 2.56

This a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. That methodology controls for “exposure time” for the risk of maltreatment by calculating the total

number of days that children with a least one day of care in the period experienced. It also counts any substantiated investigation associated with a child in care,

regardless of who was the perpetrator of the maltreatment.

20 The current VI.A measures are the on-going measures.
43

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 47 of 66

VI.A.5 VI.A.6

Table A-2

Outcome

Numerator

Denominator

Metric

Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a

DeKalb: 22

DeKalb: 30

DeKalb: 73%

diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of

Fulton: 22

Fulton: 30

Fulton: 73%

entering foster care.

Total: 44

Total: 30

Total: 73%

60 cases were review (30 from each county). Of the 60, 17 were given credit because language was in the court order, and 19 were placed with relatives. Eight had

evidence of diligent search in the file.

Permanency: At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month

DeKalb: 70

DeKalb: 254

DeKalb: 28%

period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months shall be Fulton: 57

Fulton: 196

Fulton: 29%

discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Total: 127

Total: 450

Total: 28%

Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to

reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative,

guardianship, or adoption.

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Because this is a 12 month measure, typically we would report partial performance on permanency

for the group of children in care in Region 14 on the period beginning in January 1, and then provide the full metric in the following period report. However, the

delay in issuance of the P23 report permits us to report on the full period. To understand P23 performance relative to recent years, the State Data Unit prepared

historical data that displays the proportion of children who exited to permanency by the end of a 12 month period for a similar group of children in care on the first

day of the prior two calendar years. See the table below for those data.

In care between 12-23 months

In Care 1/1

Qualifying Children

Exits in 6 Months

Exits in 12 Months

Percent 6 Months Percent 12 Months

2015

143

24

45

17%

31%

DeKalb County

2016

225

19

44

8%

20%

2017

254

46

70

18%

28%

Data prepared by

2015

94

16

State Data Unit

Fulton County

2016

161

17

January 2018.

2017

196

31

34

17%

36%

35

11%

22%

57

16%

29%

2015

237

40

79

17%

33%

Region 14

2016

386

36

79

9%

20%

2017

450

77

127

17%

28%

44

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 48 of 66

VI.A.7
VI.A.8 VI.A.9 VI.A.10

Permanency: At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month

DeKalb: 60

DeKalb: 275

DeKalb: 21%

period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be

Fulton: 43

Fulton: 196

Fulton: 22%

discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, Total: 103

Total: 471

Total: 22%

for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with

the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Because this is a 12 month measure, typically we would report partial performance on permanency

for the group of children in care in Region 14 on the period beginning in January 1, and then provide the full metric in the following period report. However, the

delay in issuance of the P23 report permits us to report on the full period. To understand P23 performance relative to recent years, the State Data Unit prepared

historical data that displays the proportion of children who exited to permanency by the end of a 12 month period for a similar group of children in care on the first

day of the prior two calendar years. See the table below for those data.

In care 24 + months

In Care 1/1

Qualifying Children Exits in 6 Months Exits in 12 Months Percent 6 Months

Percent 12 Months

Data prepared by State

DeKalb

2015

124

6

26

5%

21%

Data Unit January 2018.

County

2016

173

24

51

14%

29%

2017

275

27

60

10%

22%

Fulton

2015

147

22

49

County

2016

136

21

35

15%

33%

15%

26%

2017

196

17

43

9%

22%

Region 14

2015

271

28

75

10%

28%

2016

309

45

86

15%

28%

2017

471

44

103

9%

22%

Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated DeKalb: 19

DeKalb: 37

DeKalb: 51%

or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will

Fulton: 12

Fulton: 15

Fulton: 80%

have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or

Total: 31

Total: 52

Total: 60%

release of parental rights.

Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of DeKalb: 376

DeKalb: 406

DeKalb: 94%

being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had either (a) a petition for the Fulton: 323

Fulton: 339

Fulton: 95%

termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or Total: 699

Total: 745

Total: 94%

(b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental

rights should not be filed.

Sibling placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the

DeKalb: 43

DeKalb: 51

DeKalb: 84%

reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, Fulton: 73

Fulton: 75

Fulton: 97%

subject to the following exceptions:

Total: 116

Total: 126

Total: 92%

(a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings

has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, (c)

the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding

diligent efforts to place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with

relative.

45

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 49 of 66

VI.A.11
VI.A.12 VI.A.13 VI.A.14 Vi.A.15

Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no more DeKalb:

DeKalb:

DeKalb: 2.10

than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.

Fulton:

Fulton:

Fulton: 3.69

Total:

Total:

Total: 2.8

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. It requires observing the total number of moves children with a least one day of care a 12 month

period, and dividing that figure by all of the days children with any days in care used in the same 12 month period. This measure includes both children in care on

the first day of the 12 month period as well has children entering care during the 12 month period. To characterize baseline performance and in order to observe

change over time, the State Data Unit generated historical analysis of this metric, preparing both six month and 12 month rates of movement. That analysis

showed that six month rates notably overstate movement rates relative to full 12 month period. To control for overstated movement rate embedded in the six

month estimate, the State Data Unit, in consultation with the MTAT has developed a method to generate an annualized 12 month rate when reporting on the Jan-

Jun period. That method relies on actual six month data that is then annualized to reflect 12 month performance by applying growth estimates to both the

numerator and denominator based on observed change from six to 12 months in the most recent two calendar years. Because the Period 23 report was delayed,

we are able show both the annualized rate as well as a preliminary annual rates for the 2017 year. Those figures, along with the prior year rates, are displayed

below.

Moves per 1,000 Days

Moves in Period

Days in Period

Calendar Yr

DeKalb

Fulton

Total

DeKalb

Fulton

Total

DeKalb

Fulton

Total

2015

4.60

8.31

6.14

1,310

1,686

2,996

284,869

203,005

487,874

2016

3.10

4.99

3.89

966

1,105

2,071

311,486

221,347

532,833

2017 -Annualized

2.19

3.49

2.74

655

813

1,452

298,584

232,980

529,872

2017-Prelim ( Jan 2018)

2.10

3.69

2.78

2017-Six Month

2.42

3.84

3.02

Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of all children in custody at a point in time during the DeKalb: 794

DeKalb: 875

DeKalb: 91%

reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior Fulton: 582

Fulton: 647

Fulton: 90%

12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an

Total: 1,376

Total: 1,522

Total: 90%

adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or

transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another

case manager’s sick or maternity leave

Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one in-

DeKalb: 9,810

DeKalb:10,173

DeKalb: 96.4%

placement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case

Fulton: 7,618

Fulton: 7,708

Fulton: 98.8%

managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess Total: 17,428

Total: 17,881

Total: 97.5%

of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month shall be

excluded when calculating this percentage.

Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall

DeKalb: 1,710

DeKalb:2,232

DeKalb: 76.6%

have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification

Fulton: 1,743

Fulton: 1,880

Fulton: 92.7%

Total: 3,453

Total: 4,116

Total: 83.9%

Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s

DeKalb: 4,851

DeKalb: 5,119

DeKalb: 94.8%

foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. Fulton: 3,767

Fulton: 3,859

Fulton: 97.6%

At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case Total: 8,618

Total: 8,978

Total: 96.0%

46

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 50 of 66

Vi.A.16 VI.A.17

managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any

caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month shall

be excluded when calculating this percentage

Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with

DeKalb: 626

whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time

Fulton: 640

each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed Total: 1,266

out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is

more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total

minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during

the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month

shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall

n/a

have graduated from high school or earned a GED.

This metric is generated annually in the report covering the period that ends June 30 of each year.

VI.A.18 VI.A.19 VI.A.20

Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement.

Approved: 3,311

Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review

DeKalb: 38 Fulton: 30 Total: 68

Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for twelve or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing

DeKalb: 32 Fulton: 20 Total: 52

DeKalb: 804 Fulton: 681 Total: 1,485
n/a
Total: 3,420
DeKalb: 39 Fulton: 31 Total: 70
DeKalb: 32 Fulton: 22 Total: 54

DeKalb: 77.9% Fulton: 94.0% Total: 85.3%
n/a
Total: 97%
DeKalb: 97% Fulton: 97% Total: 97%
DeKalb: 100% Fulton: 91% Total: 96%

47

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 51 of 66

VI.A.21

Health/Educational Needs. Of children in care at a point in time at end of reporting period, 92 percent shall have met each need documented in most recent plan: Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Educational

See Below

VI.B.212 2

Medical Needs
Dental Needs
Mental Health Needs
Education/Developmental Needs
Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months

DeKalb: 43 Fulton: 26 Total: 69 DeKalb: 42 Fulton: 33 Total: 75 DeKalb: 23 Fulton: 24 Total: 47 DeKalb: 45 Fulton: 31 Total: 76

DeKalb: 46 Fulton: 35 Total: 81 DeKalb: 46 Fulton: 35 Total: 81 DeKalb: 29 Fulton: 29 Total: 58 DeKalb: 46 Fulton: 35 Total: 81

21 VI.B metrics are currently attained outcomes
48

DeKalb: 93% Fulton: 74% Total: 85% DeKalb: 91% Fulton: 94% Total: 93% DeKalb: 79% Fulton: 83% Total: 81% DeKalb: 98% Fulton: 89% Total: 94%
100%
Of the 82 foster homes in the
sample, 6 (7.3%) had referrals or
attempted referrals of suspected abuse or neglect between January 1 and June 30, 2017.
In none of the 6 foster homes did
the record

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 52 of 66

VI.B.23

Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

DeKalb: 194 Fulton: 165 Total: 359

DeKalb: 507 Fulton: 366 Total: 873

substantiate, confirm or support
that corporal punishment was, in fact, used during
the 12 months between July 1, 2016-June 30,
2017.
DeKalb: 38% Fulton: 49% Total: 41%

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Spells lasting less than 8 days are dropped so that the numerator can function as the denominator

for the reentry metric. This both a 12 month measure AND a longitudinal measure; so it take some time to both observe entries in the most recent 12 and also to

report on positive permanency that occurred within 12 months of entry. For that reason – we report the most cohort that is fully observable and additionally, we

provide performance to date on the most recently observed entry group. Additionally, the State Data Unit prepared historical data that displays the historical data

depicting permanency for enters within one year of their entry. See the table below for those data. The highlighted cells contained censored data – that is the full

performance is not observable until 12/31/2018. Gray shaded cells represented the most current data.

Admission

Entries

Perm w/in 12

Perm to Date

% 12 M

% to Date

Yr

Data developed by the

DeKalb County 2015

688

322

441

47%

64%

State Data Unit, reports on

2016

507

194

224

38%

44%

permanency achieved for

2017

418

120

120

29%

29%

the most recent three exit

Fulton County 2015

486

239

313

49%

64%

cohorts. Stays lasting less than 8 days are dropped in these results.

2016

366

165

193

45%

53%

2017

390

110

110

28%

28%

Region 14 2015

1,174

561

754

48%

64%

2016

873

359

417

41%

48%

2017

808

230

230

28%

28%

49

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 53 of 66

VI.B.24

Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period DeKalb: 0

shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period.

Fulton: 0

Total: 0

DeKalb: 25 Fulton: 12 Total: 37

DeKalb: 0% Fulton: 0% Total: 0%

These are adoptions that finalized between January 1, 2016 and June 30, 2016.

VI.B.25

Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the

1,429

1,485

96%

reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a

50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to the

following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a

family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed through the

ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with relatives, or (d) the

child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective adoptive family pursuant to an

appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the

court.

As noted above, the methodology for this metric changed. Rather than being evaluated through case review, the Data Unit generated a metric using the entire class

of children in placement on the last day of the period. To generate the final metric – they considered who placement on 6/20/2017 was placed in the w/in 50 miles

of their removal address, was placed within the same county as their removal county, or qualified for an exception as stipulated in the agreement. The numerator

was adjusted upward to reflected both those that met the standard AND those who were exceptions. The reciprocal of the numerator is the measure. See below

for the adjustments.

Placed

Denominator

Numerator

%

Total in Placement on 6/30/2017

1,485

1,485 % of those placed

1,429

96.2%

Placed in Same County

554

37%

554

Placed in Different County

931

63%

Different county & exception placement

247

17%

247

Different county

684

46%

Diff county & placed w/in 50 miles

601

40%

601

Diff county & place greater than 50 miles

83

6%

Diff county, > than 50 miles & exempt

27

2%

27

Diff county, > than 50 miles & NOT exempt

56

4%

50

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 54 of 66

VI.B.26

Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

DeKalb: 5,013 Fulton: 3,827 Total: 8,840

VI.B.27

Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.

DeKalb: 45 Fulton: 40 Total: 85

DeKalb: 5,186 Fulton: 3,900 Total: 9,086
DeKalb: 52 Fulton: 40 Total: 92

VI.B.28 Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class member

0

477

children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following capacity limits:

(a) no placement shall result in more than 3 foster children in a foster home, or a total of 6

children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children,

without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no placement will result in

more than 3 children under the age of 3 in a foster home. The only exception to these

capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a foster home.

DeKalb: 96.7% Fulton: 98.1% Total: 97.3%
DeKalb: 87% Fulton: 100% Total: 92%
0%

51

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 55 of 66

Other Consent Decree Requirements

VII.G.1

Recurrence of substantiated investigations: Of children in each county during prior two reporting periods who experienced substantiated maltreatment, the number who were victims of a second substantiated maltreatment report during the following 12 months.

DeKalb: 87 Fulton: 120 Total: 207

DeKalb: 1,397 Fulton: 1,626 Total: 3,023

DeKalb: 6.2% Fulton: 7.4% Total: 6.8%

VII.G.2

This measure has been revised to be prospective, and is essentially the Federal CFSR recurrence measure. Like other longitudinal metrics, the full measure cannot

be observed until 12 months following the last base substantiated report in each year. We report here the 2015 recurrence rate, but provide the performance to

date for 2016 and 2017 substantiated reports. The 2016 are nearly complete; we will report on that rate in the P24 report, and provided updated information for

both the 2017 reports and those that are referred in the first half of 2018.

Region/County Report Yr Earliest Subx Report

Recurrence in 12

Percent Recurrence

Months

Data provided by State Data

DeKalb County

2015

1397

87

6.2%

Unit in mid-December 2017. Because of reporting lag time, both the 2016 and the 2017 highlighted figures should be considered censored and incomplete.

2016

563

2017

478

Fulton County

2015

1626

2016

795

2017

385

Region 14

2015

3023

2016

1358

21

3.7%

7

1.5%

120

7.4%

46

5.8%

8

2.1%

207

6.8%

67

4.9%

2017

863

15

17%

Substantiated investigation following FSS case. Of cases that were referred to FSS, the

DeKalb: 95

DeKalb: 1528

DeKalb: 6.2%

number and percent for which there was a subsequent substantiated referral w/in 11-365 Fulton: 195

Fulton: 1901

Fulton: 7.4%

days of the FSS referral.

Total: 290

Total: 4151

Total: 7.0%

This is prospective measure which looks to see what number and percent of cases referred to RSS have a re-referral in the subsequent year. Like other longitudinal

measures, it takes time to observe the original referral and then look forward for future substantiations. For this reason we report on FSS cases from 2015 for

whom the full period following referral to FSS could be observed, and report partial data for the subsequent two calendar years. These data will updated in each

subsequent monitoring report, while preliminary data from 2018 will be added as well.

Region/County Report Yr Earliest FSS Report Sub Report in 12

Percent Sub in 12

Mos

Mos

DeKalb County

2015

1528

95

6.2%

Data provided by State Data Unit in mid-

2016

1901

41

2.2%

December 2017. Because of reporting lag

2017

1229

30

2.4%

time, both the 2016 and the 2017

Fulton County

2015

2623

195

7.4%

(highlighted) figures should be considered

2016

3361

96

2.9%

censored and incomplete.

2017

2083

44

2.1%

Region 14

2015

4151

290

7.0%

2016

5262

137

2.6%

2017

3312

74

2.2%

52

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 56 of 66

IV.B.5

In placement visitation: 4 in 4 for new placements; monthly thereafter. There should be at least one in-placement visit and one private, face to face during the first week and at least three additional visits with the first four weeks.

DeKalb: 25 Fulton: 35 Total: 60

DeKalb: 61 Fulton: 68 Total: 129

DeKalb: 41% Fulton: 51% Total: 47%

53

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 57 of 66

Table A-3

Caseload Caps in DeKalb County on June 30, 2017

Case Manager Function

Caseload Cap: Number of cases
(families and children)

CPS Investigations Family Preservation Permanency Case Manager Specialized Case Manager Adoption Case Manager
Total

12 families 17 families 15 children 12 children 16 children

Number of Active Staff
on 6/30/2017

Number of Active, Onleave Staff
on 6/30/2017

Actual Performance
Meeting Caps on Assigned Caseload

Number

%

Not Meeting Cap On Assigned Caseload

Number

%

Cases Assigned to
Workers On Leave/ Supervisors
Number

33

23

70%

10

30%

8

12

12

100%

0

0%

6

30

15

50%

15

50%

10

30

n/a

n/a

105

8

27%

22

73%

3

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

58

55%

47

45%

27

Table A-4 DeKalb County Supervisory Caseloads on June 30, 2017

Program/Service Area
Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family
Preservation)
Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes
Adoptions)

Number of Units Total
10
12

Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio Number Percent

Not Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio
Number Percent

9

90%

1

10%

9

75%

3

25%

54

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 58 of 66

Table A-5 Caseload Caps in Fulton County on June 30, 2017

Case Manager Function

Caseload Cap: Number of cases
(families and children)

CPS Investigations Family Preservation Permanency Case Manager Specialized Case Manager Adoption Case Manager
Total

12 families 17 families 15 children 12 children 16 children 12 children

Actual Performance

Number of Active Staff
on 6/30/2017

Number of Active, Onleave Staff
on 6/30/2017

Meeting Caps on Assigned Caseload

Number

%

Not Meeting Cap On Assigned Caseload

Number

%

Cases Assigned
to Workers
On Leave/ Supervis
ors
Number

38

25

66%

13

34%

0

10

10

100%

0

0%

1

28

21

75%

7

25%

0

24

7

29%

17

71%

0

n/a

n/a

100

n/a

n/a

63

63%

n/a

n/a

n/a

37

37%

1

Table A-6 Fulton County Supervisory Caseloads on June 30, 2017

Program/Service Area
Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation) Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes Adoptions)

Number of Units Total
10
8

Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio Number Percent

Not Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio
Number Percent

7

70%

3

30%

2

25%

6

75%

55

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 59 of 66

Table A-7 Region 14 Caseload Caps on June 30, 2017

Case Manager Function

Caseload Cap: Number of cases
(families and children)

CPS Investigations Family Preservation Permanency Case Manager Specialized Case Manager Adoption Case Manager

12 families 17 families 15 children 12 children 16 children

Total

Number of Active Staff
on 6/30/2017
71
22
58
54 Not applicable
205

Actual Performance

Number of Active, Onleave Staff
on 6/30/2017
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not applicable

Meeting Caps on Assigned Caseload

Number
49
22
36
15 Not applicable
121

%
69%
100%
63%
28% Not applicable
59%

Not Meeting Cap On Assigned Caseload

Number

%

Cases Assigned to
Workers On Leave/ Supervisors
Number

22

31%

8

0

0%

7

22

37%

10

39 Not applicable
84

72% Not applicable
41%

3 Not applicable
28

56

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 60 of 66

Table A-8 Region 14 Supervisory Caseloads on June 30, 2017

Program/Service Area
Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation) Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes Adoptions)
Total

Number of Units Total 20
20
40

Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio Number Percent

Not Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio
Number Percent

16

80%

4

20%

11

55%

9

45%

27

68%

13

33%

57

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 61 of 66

Table A-9 Outcome 1: Initiation of Maltreatment in Care Investigations

Investigating County
DeKalb/Fulton Perimeter Counties State Special Investigations Unit Total

Commenced within

24 Hours

Number of Alleged Victim
Children

Percent of Total

20

95.2%

27

84.4%

37

84.1%

84

86.6%

Not Commenced within

24 Hours

Number of Alleged Victim
Children

Percent of Total

1

4.8%

5

15.6%

7

15.9%

13

13.4%

Total
Number of Alleged Victim
Children 21 32
44
97

Percent of Total
21.6% 33.0%
45.4%
100%

Table A-10 Outcome 1: Supplemental Review Reports Received Prior to January 1, 2017 for 20 Alleged Victim Children involved in 18 Investigations

Investigating County
DeKalb/Fulton Perimeter Counties State Special Investigations Unit Total

Commenced within

24 Hours

Number of Alleged Victim
Children

Percent of Total

0

0%

6

85.7%

11

91.7%

17

85.0%

Not Commenced within

24 Hours

Number of Alleged Victim
Children

Percent of Total

1

100%

1

14.3%

1

8.3%

3

15.0%

Total
Number of Alleged Victim
Children 1 7
12
20

Percent of Total
5% 35%
60%
100%

58

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 62 of 66

Table A-11 Outcome 2: Completion of Maltreatment in Care Investigations

Investigating County
DeKalb/Fulton Perimeter Counties State Special Investigations Unit
Total

Completed within

30 Days

Number of

Percent of

Investigations

Total

17

100%

24

100%

32

84.2%

73

92.4%

Not Completed within

30 Days

Number of

Percent

Investigations

of Total

0

0%

0

0%

6

15.8%

6

7.6%

Total
Number of Investigations
17 24
38
79

Percent of Total 21.5% 30.4%
48.1%
100%

Table A-12 Outcome 2: Supplemental Review Reports Received Prior to January 1, 2017 for 20 Alleged Victim Children involved in 18 Investigations

Investigating County
DeKalb/Fulton Perimeter Counties State Special Investigations Unit
Total

Completed within

30 Days

Number of

Percent of

Investigations

Total

0

0%

5

83.3%

9

81.8%

14

77.8%

Not Completed within

30 Days

Number of

Percent

Investigations

of Total

1

100%

1

16.7%

2

18.2%

4

22.2%

Total
Number of Investigations
1 6
11
18

Percent of Total
5.6% 33.3%
61.1%
100%

59

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 63 of 66
APPENDIX B
Definitions
Adoptive Placement means the interval during which a child is placed with a prospective adoptive family following the signing of the appropriate adoptive placement agreement form, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court. Child or Children or Class Member Children or Class Members mean a child or children who have been, are or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS. Child Caring Institution (CCI) is any child-welfare facility which provides full-time room, board and watchful oversight (RBWO) to six or more children up to 18 years of age. Some CCIs are approved to care for youth up to age 21. The CCI must be approved through the Office of Provider Management (OPM) to serve children in DFCS custody.
Child Placing Agency (CPA) is agency that places children in foster and adoptive homes for individualized care, supervision and oversight. Child placing agencies are responsible for assessing the placement regarding the appropriateness of the room, board and watchful oversight that the prospective foster and adoptive families will provide. The CPA’s employees and their foster and adoptive parents work as a team to provide a stabilizing and nurturing environment that promotes safety, permanency and well-being.
Corporal Punishment means any physical punishment on a child that inflicts pain. CPA Foster Home is a foster home approved by a Child Placing Agency for the temporary placement of children in foster care. DeKalb DFCS means DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services. DFCS when used alone means the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services. DFCS Foster Home is a non-relative foster homes approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of children in foster care.
60

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 64 of 66
DFCS or CPA Adoptive Home is an adoptive home approved for the foster care placement of a child for whom the established goal is adoption. Adoptive homes must meet the regular standards of care required for approved family foster homes and any conditions specified in that approval.
DFCS Relative Foster Home is a relative foster home approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of minor relatives. It is DFCS’ preference that all relatives are approved as foster parents and receive a foster care per diem. The goal of relatives becoming foster parents is to ensure that the child has services to address his/her needs.
DHHS means the United States Department of Health and Human Services. DHR means Georgia Department of Human Resources. Discipline or Other Serious Foster Care Violation means and includes those acts or situations by the caregiver that pose an immediate or potential risk to the safety or well-being of the child in care. These may include, but are not limited to, inappropriate disciplinary measures (both physical/corporal and emotional), violations of supervision or other safety requirements that pose serious risk factors to the child.
EPSDT means the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program for individuals under 21 years of age contained in Title XIX of the Social Security Act, as amended.
Fictive Kin means a person who is known to a child as a relative, but is not, in fact, related by blood.
Foster Parent means volunteers who are trained and certified by DFCS or Child Placing Agencies to provide for the temporary care of children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster parents work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster parents are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
61

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 65 of 66
Foster Relative means biological kin who are trained and certified by DFCS to provide for the care of relative children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster relatives work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster relatives are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
Fulton DFCS means the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services.
Georgia Health Check Program means Georgia Medicaid's well-child or preventive health care program adopted pursuant to EPSDT, and shall contain such components as they exist in the Georgia Health Check Program as of February 1, 2005.
Governor means the Governor of the State of Georgia.
Legal Guardianship means the appointment of an individual as a legal guardian for a child as authorized by either the probate court under O.C.G.A. Title 29 or the juvenile court under O.C.G.A. Chapter15-11-2(36).
One Episode of Foster Care means the period of time that a child is in foster care from the date of removal from the home until the child is discharged from DFCS custody, except that a runaway does not trigger a new episode of foster care.
Permanent Legal Custody means custody granted in accordance with an order of the superior court or the juvenile court, which places a child in the custody of an individual or individuals until the child reaches 18 years of age.
Permanent Placement with Relatives means placing a child with a relative who is willing to assume long-term responsibility for the child, but has reasons for not adopting the child or obtaining guardianship or permanent legal custody, and it is in the child's best interests to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship by another person. In such circumstances, there shall be in place an agreement for long-term care signed by DFCS and the relative committing to the permanency and stability of this placement unless it is necessary to disrupt the long-term placement.
62

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 759 Filed 02/02/18 Page 66 of 66
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) is a temporary non-hospital facility with a provider agreement with a State Medicaid Agency to provide intensive therapeutic intervention to a child to ensure safety and stability. PRTFs offer intensive behavioral health services to children in Georgia. Relatives are persons who are related by blood, marriage or adoption including the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or divorce. Relative Placement refers to placement in the home of a relative or fictive kin who do not receive a foster care per diem for the care of the child. The relative placement may be a non-paid placement or the relative may receive TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive kin are not eligible for TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive kin must become foster parents to receive financial assistance. Placement with relatives or fictive kin may occur very quickly if there is a satisfactory CPS history check, safety and home assessment check, and a Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) check through the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on all household members 18 years of age or older. A Relative or Non-Relative Care Assessment must be completed no later than 30 calendar days after the placement of a child. State DFCS means the Division of Family and Children Services of the Georgia Department of Human Resources. Suspected Abuse or Neglect means being based on reasonable cause to believe that a child may have been abused or neglected. Suspected Corporal Punishment means being based on reasonable cause to believe that corporal punishment may have been used on a child.
63

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 66
PERIOD 24 MONITORING REPORT
OF THE ACCOUNTABILTY AGENT AND MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
TEAM IN THE CASE OF
Kenny A. v. Deal
June 25, 2018

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 2 of 66
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENT AND MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TEAM:
Accountability Agent Karen Baynes-Dunning Attorney, Baynes-Dunning Consulting, LLC
Albany, Georgia Steve Baynes
Baynes Consulting LLC Washington, DC Elizabeth Black
Director for Child Welfare Practice Center for the Support of Families
Silver Spring, Maryland Jennifer Miller Haight
Policy Fellow Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 3 of 66
Table of Contents
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 Robust Workforce Development………………………………………………………………… 4 State of Children and Families in Metropolitan Atlanta…………………………………………. 9 Appendices……………………………………………………………………………………… 32

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 4 of 66
SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION
The Period 24 report is the second monitoring report in which the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) report on the new outcomes delineated in the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan (Modified Exit Plan), filed in December 2016 in Federal District Court. The terms of that Modified Exit Plan require the MTAT to report biannually on 21 ongoing outcomes and seven additional attained outcomes. Additionally, it specified standards related to the placement process, caseloads, and practice that would be subject to continued review. And finally, it stipulated that in the ensuing year, the parties would work together to agree upon Infrastructure Standards, which following filing with the court, would also be subject to bi-annual review by the MTAT. These infrastructure standards will be reported in the Period 25 Report.
In this report, the MTAT’s obligation is to report specifically on the measurable requirements articulated in Sections IV, V, and VI of the Modified Exit Plan that relate to activity in Region 14 from July 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017. In addition to the ongoing and attained outcomes measures, in this report we will continue to review the implementation of Solution Based Casework the use of congregate care, and monitor hotels and other temporary placements for children in foster care, and caseloads for caseworkers and supervisors. The next two sections of this report provide that information, reflecting the MTAT’s revised approach to measurement determined over the course of the last year.
In subsequent reports, the MTAT will provide a much broader review of Region 14 child welfare practice, reporting on all of the required elements in the Modified Exit Plan, and following the revised monitoring approach, which we describe briefly below.
Revised Monitoring Approach
The MTAT approach to monitoring serves not only as an accountability mechanism for the Court, the Plaintiffs and the public, but also as an opportunity to assist DFCS in establishing a culture of data driven decision making and continuous quality improvement (“CQI”). The goal is to establish a strong CQI process that will remain in place after the state satisfies the terms of the Modified Exit Plan and is no longer under court oversight.
The outcome measures have undergone substantial revision to reflect, when possible, the principles of best practices in measurement. Best practices principles include: 1) a clear statement of the analytic question with particular attention to identifying the risk population or the denominator associated with a particular inquiry; 2) use of entry cohorts and prospective measures to characterize systems dynamics and change in outcomes; 3) attention to the sources of variation in system outcomes (e.g. variation over time, among children, or in places), 4) understanding variation to accurately track change; 5) assessing expected change in the appropriate period of performance or window of time; 6) matching the analytic question to the
1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 5 of 66
appropriate source data; and 7) using well understood and organized data resources that are designed to support asking and answering analytic questions.
The MTAT will consistently report on the same outcomes and Modified Exit Plan standards in each subsequent period using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data. In addition to this basic and consistent set of metrics to track progress over time as agreed upon in the Modified Exit Plan, the MTAT will also conduct a deep, quality focused analysis on a handful of infrastructure standards in each of the reporting periods. This may include interviews with stakeholders, focus groups, observation at key process points, targeted case reviews, and/or Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSRs).
Our approach to this analysis will enable parties to better understand several key factors associated with each of the agreed upon infrastructure standards: 1) the expectations for practice and the extent to which these expectations are being met; 2) the capacity within the system to meet these expectations; and 3) the extent to which these are occurring with sufficient consistency and quality. Moreover, this will enable the MTAT to focus on emerging issues to mitigate a reactive approach to monitoring.
Leadership Changes
The Period 23 Report revealed significant changes in leadership at the state and regional levels. Since the publishing of that report, additional changes have occurred within Region 14 that will directly impact the direction and strategies employed to address reforms under the Consent Decree. Ms. Lynn Barmore, Metro District Director for Regions 13 and 14, retired at the end of March 2018. Mr. James Binnicker, former North District Director for Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, was appointed to provide leadership for the Metro District. Ms. Andrea Tulloch, Regional Director for Region 14 transitioned to a position in the state office. Thus, in addition to his District Director responsibilities, Mr. Binnicker also assumed responsibilities as the Region 14 Director until he is able to fill the position. In DeKalb County, Ms. Erica Barnes was appointed as the Deputy Director. To date, Fulton County is still in the process of hiring a Deputy Director. Sustained, strong leadership is essential for building and maintaining an effective workforce that daily improves its engagement with children, youth, and families. As the state strives to complete the Modified Exit Plan, stabilizing leadership at all levels and articulating a clear theory of change is vital for achieving success. Recognizing the importance of stabilizing leadership, Governor Deal officially appointed State Director Virginia Pryor to the position for which she was serving on an interim basis.
Regional Priorities and Transition of the MEASURES Process
The DeKalb and Fulton County Directors, along with the new District Director continue to prioritize the following reform areas and strategies in Region 14 for 2018.
2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 6 of 66
1. Meet staffing levels and shorten the period to fill vacancies in supervisor and case manager positions.
The counties now begin the process of filling vacancies as soon as an employee exit is known. In addition, candidates are being identified for a Lead Worker program to begin learning supervisory skills. The counties also indicate that these Lead Workers are participating in supervisor training to make the transition into these roles as seamless as possible. 2. Increase the quality of work through ongoing training, coaching and development of the
workforce. Both counties have placed an emphasis on training staff at all levels through the Back to Basics program. In addition to the agency training staff, outside trainers and stakeholders are also conducting workshops for staff at various levels. 3. Decrease the foster care population by taking every measure to keep families together when
possible. The counties have placed more emphasis on Pre-Removal Family Team Meetings (FTM’s) to ensure that efforts are made to address safety and preserve the child in the home. They are also utilizing the genogram throughout the life of the case to identify relatives as permanency options for children in care. 4. Keep children placed within the region. The counties have met with Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) to discuss recruiting more homes in the region. These agencies are working closely with the DFCS to place Region 14 children in these homes. The Resource Development unit is also talking to police officers, churches, and other groups in an effort to recruit more foster homes in region. 5. Rebrand the counties through increased professionalism and responsiveness. Region 14 is communicating with and involving community partners to build a System of Care approach to build a State of Hope for children in foster care. Both counties are also partnering with Human Resources to implement customer service training for all levels of staff. MTAT will continue participating in the Region 14 workgroups and the MEASURE TEAM + Leaders meetings to monitor and provide data analysis to assist leaders in tracking and evaluating the identified priorities and strategies. Success will depend greatly on the development of a sustainable state and regional approach to both rapid-cycle problem solving and on-going system CQI, one that will be viable system wide and distinct from the Kenny A lawsuit.
3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 7 of 66
SECTION TWO: ROBUST WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
DFCS is committed to developing a competent and professional workforce. According to leadership, DFCS envisions an agency in which employees are continuously learning about both best practices and their own performance, professional ethics are maintained, and the necessary skills and competencies are developed as needed to support children and families. The DFCS Strategic Plan has a section devoted to the specific workforce related strategies that have been identified that leaders believe will result in lower turnover in workforce and higher employee satisfaction. Implementation of the Employee Selection Protocol, employee certification in Solution Based Casework and providing training on secondary traumatic stress are among the strategies outlined.
The Infrastructure Standards, negotiated and submitted to the court in December 2017, include commitments related to the use of an Employee Selection Protocol, improved coordination with the Department of Human Services’ Office of Human Resources (OHR), case manager and supervisory training and support, as well as better management of caseloads for case managers and supervisors. These were based on the DFCS Strategic Plan but were not agreed upon or in effect during Period 24.
As noted in the previous section, a significant transition has taken place at the regional and district levels of leadership. A new District Director has taken over the leadership of the Metro District as well as the workforce development workgroup and has reinstituted this as a regular monthly meeting. The OHR is represented on this workgroup along with regional leaders, both county directors and frontline case managers and supervisors. This workgroup is responsible for the implementation of these Infrastructure Standards.
Here are the major findings regarding the workforce. Analytic data from which some of these findings were derived can be found in the appendices.
Major Findings
1. There are some inconsistencies in the data being produced related to caseloads, vacancies, new hires and turnover.
Leaders on the county, district and regional levels are hampered by the lack of consistent, accurate data to understand several critical workforce related dynamics. These leaders are expending too much of the limited time available to them seeking consistent, accurate information about the workforce in both counties such as: 1) the number of case managers and supervisors, their years of DFCS experience, program area and number of cases or case managers assigned to them; 2) the number of vacant positions and how long these have been vacant; 3) the length of time it is taking for new hires to complete the onboarding process and where delays are incurred; 4) turnover rates for new hires and existing employees that can be
4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 8 of 66
understood over time; and 5) other factors contributing to high caseloads such as timely and quality case closure practices. To address the lack of consistently generated workforce data, MTAT has begun to work with the State Data Unit to develop a systematic approach to evaluating workforce dynamics. The Data Unit very recently shared a preliminary report of hiring and turnover in the region. That report is currently being reviewed; but it shows workforce tenure and turnover patterns for existing and new hires, specifying reasons separating including resignation, retirement, promotion, transfer, and release/dismissal. The expectation is that this report will be updated for each period and provide a consistent report of workforce patterns in the region over time.
2. Supervisory ratios were high and the number of case managers exceeding caseload standards was a concern in both DeKalb and Fulton counties on December 31, 2017.
The Modified Exit Plan caseload and supervisor standards are intended to help ensure more case manager time with children and families and quality supervision and support for case managers. These standards remained the same as those in the original consent decree. As detailed in previous monitoring reports, there have been longstanding challenges meeting these standards. For the 205 CPS, family preservation, permanency, and specialized case managers who were active on December 31, 2017, 130 (63%) of them were meeting caseload expectations. Not counted in these numbers were eight cases assigned to supervisors or workers on leave. Also excluded were 32 cases pending case assignment. On this same date, there were 43 active CPS and permanency supervisors, 25 (58%) of them were assigned five (5) or fewer case managers and most of those were CPS supervisors. Very few permanency supervisors in Period 24 were assigned five or fewer case managers. A breakdown of these data are provided below compared to prior periods and between the two counties. CPS Case Managers For CPS case managers, 78 percent of them were assigned twelve (12) or fewer families to respond to or investigate reports of maltreatment on December 31, 2017. Family Preservation Case Managers Family preservation case managers have generally been assigned seventeen (17) or fewer families in order to provide services and help ensure child safety.1 This was also the case on December 31, 2017 when 100 percent of these case managers met the standard.
1 See Period 22 Final Data Report Kenny A. v. Deal.
5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 9 of 66
Permanency Case Managers
For many years, permanency case managers were consistently meeting or exceeding a caseload expectation of fifteen (15) or fewer children, however this began to shift on June 30, 2015 and then had dropped significantly (27%) by December 31, 2015.2 Only 58 percent of all permanency case managers were meeting caseload expectations on December 31, 2017.
Case managers with children assigned to them who have been in foster care for 18 months or longer
Previously known as specialized case managers, case managers who are assigned to children who have been in foster care for 18 months or longer are to be assigned no more than twelve (12) children at any given time. Many of these children require extra support to achieve permanency. Percentages of case managers meeting this expectation have been dropping notably in recent years to a low of 17 percent on December 31, 2016.3 One year later, on December 31, 2017, the percentage of case managers meeting this expectation was 36 percent. 4
Supervisors
All of the DeKalb County supervisors on December 31, 2017 were meeting expectations related to the number of case managers they were assigned. This was true for seven of ten (70%) supervisors in Fulton County on this same date.
The concern in both counties is that far too many supervisors of case managers assigned to children in foster care are exceeding agreed upon ratios.
DeKalb County on December31, 2017
Caseloads for (38%) of the case managers in of DeKalb County on December 31, 2017 were too high and exceeded agreed upon limits. This was especially the case for case managers serving children in foster care. It should be noted that almost all CPS case managers (97%) were assigned caseloads that met agreed upon standards. On this date, there were eight cases assigned to supervisors or workers on leave and eighteen cases pending assignment. See Tables A-3 and A-4 in the appendices for more information.
Fulton County on December 31, 2017
Fulton County was having a similar experience on this same date compared to DeKalb County. About the same percentage of Fulton County case managers (35%) were exceeding caseload expectations on December 31, 2017. There were 14 cases pending case assignment on this date. See Tables A-5 and A-6 in the appendices for more information.
2 See Period 22 Final Data Report Kenny A. v. Deal. 3 Ibid. 4 The requirement to be assigned no more than twelve (12) children goes into effect when more than half of case manager’s caseload are children who have been in foster care for 18 months or longer.
6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 10 of 66
3. While the number of case managers and supervisors certified in Solution Based Casework remained very low during the period, there has been a turnaround in recent months.
While a majority of DFCS case managers and supervisors in both DeKalb and Fulton counties have completed required training, Solution Based Casework for Case Managers and Solution Based Casework for Supervisors, only 26 case managers and six supervisors had completed the certification process as of December 31, 2017.
To address identified concerns about the implementation of SBC in both DeKalb and Fulton counties, DFCS state, regional and county leaders met in January 2018 to review data, discuss progress, barriers to implementation and develop strategies to move forward. Subsequently, there has been some momentum through fidelity reviews, case consultations, leadership support and accountability related to the use of SBC tools and practices with families as well as the number of case managers and supervisors completing certification. As noted in previous reports, to become certified case managers must work with a family through all four milestones of SBC and submit identified work products, such as a completed Genogram or Functional Family Assessment, for review and discussion. Based on a review of these products, Social Services Associates, LLC, the purveyors of Solution Based Casework are responsible for the final review and certification for each case manager.
4. There are many changes in process related to the workforce in DeKalb and Fulton counties – recruitment and selection, preparation, and training for new hires, as well as support for existing employees.
The Office of Human Resources has made some specific commitments regarding human resources support for the hiring process and other needed coordination, which are in the Infrastructure Standards and include timelines for posting positions, providing reports, recruitment, sending information about qualified applicants, and clearing background checks.
Also, regarding the recruiting and hiring new employees, there is some confusion in the region about the current Employee Selection Protocol and, therefore, it is not generally being used to select candidates for employment at DFCS. The Office of Human Resources is willing to train staff on it. And, simultaneously, the state office is leading an effort to make needed changes to the current protocol, and the region is represented on a workgroup focused on this issue.
There are also changes in process related to preparing new case managers. New worker training and certification are required before any new case manager can have primary responsibility for case practice with children and families. Comparable training must be provided to private provider case managers. The state has been developing the Child Welfare Academy Fundamentals and Essentials Training to improve training and certification for new case managers statewide. The objectives are to:
7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 11 of 66
 educate case managers with the knowledge, skills, and practice needed to engage families, assess safety, and make decisions that result in better outcomes for children and families;
 ensure case managers know how to identify signs of present and impending danger;  ensure case managers know how to address safety issues in the least restrictive manner;  align training to support SBC; and  ensure a more competency-based certification process for new case managers. This training will begin in the region in June 2018. The Metro District Department of Education and Professional Development will provide information and support to new hires during the sixteen weeks that has been set aside for pre-service training, however this timeline will not be extended for additional supplemental training. There is also a focus on building the capabilities of mid-level managers in the two counties. These managers oftentimes know policy, protocol and policies, but need support to become better, more effective leaders. There is a five-part training, Performance Excellence in Action that will be provided to these employees. The focus is on supervision, specifically employee engagement, team building, federal laws and compliance, and performance management.
8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 12 of 66
SECTION THREE: STATE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN METROPOLITAN ATLANTA
As Region 14 ushered in new leadership and continued stabilizing the workforce, the counties struggled to meet key engagement outcome measures during Period 24. Overall, the number of children and youth entering foster care continued decreasing, however, the number of children exiting care also continued decreasing during Period 24. There were 465 entries during this period but only 437 exits. Thus, the overall number of children in foster care increased, resulting in high caseloads. Table 5 in the section below reflects the region’s performance on each outcome measure in the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan. While both counties share challenges in certain areas such as completing four visits within a child’s first four weeks in a new placement, other areas of challenge are unique to each county.
This section will provide a longitudinal snapshot of placement dynamics, a report on major findings regarding placement prohibitions, and a listing of the performance of each county and the region on the outcomes required under the Modified Exit Plan.
The Period 24 report is the second report containing the new measures. In this report, we endeavor to be streamlined in our presentation while also fully explaining new metrics. We want not only to support sound interpretation of performance in the current period, but we also want to make clear when current performance is – or is not comparable to the performance noted in prior reports. When comparisons are not possible, we have sought to provide a full and easily digestible explanation of the differences.
Context for Understanding Period 24 Outcomes
In the next section, we provide an overview of case flow dynamics in Region 14 during the most recent three years. These data provide useful context for interpreting outcomes associated with the July through December period under review. Shifts in the mix of children entering care (either by age or the proportion that return home quickly) can influence placement stability and permanency outcomes. Initial placement type may also be associated with future outcomes. Thus, to support the outcome analysis, we present some basic information about the flow of children and youth entering placement in Region 14 during 2017, and relative to the prior two calendar years.
We show the number of children and youth entering care by county, by age at entry, and by first placement type. Additionally, we provide information about the short-stayers in the 2017 period, comparing that to the earlier two years. While there some similar trends for the region overall, there are also some patterns distinctive in each county. Data are derived from the DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data and are current through December 31, 2017.
9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 13 of 66

Table 1 below shows that the number of children and youth entering care in Region 14 continues to decrease relative to the most recent years.
Table 1: Children Entering Foster Care in Region 14

Age at Entry Total Under 1 1 to 5 Years 6 to12 Years 13 to 17 Years

2015 1,362 195 381 333 453

Total 2016 1,014 153 242 248 371

2017 891 157 210 226 298

2015 760 101 230 194 235

DeKalb 2016 549 82 138 140 189

2017 441 76 99 109 157

2015 602 94 151 139 218

Fulton 2016 465 71 104 108 182

2017 450 81 111 117 141

Change from 2016

DeKalb Fulton

-15%

-3%

-13%

14%

-25%

7%

-23%

8%

-4%

-23%

Total

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Under 1

14% 15% 18% 13% 15% 17% 16% 15%

1 to 5 Years

28% 24% 24% 30% 25% 22% 25% 22%

6 to12 Years

24% 24% 25% 26% 26% 25% 23% 23%

13 to 17 Years

33% 37% 33% 31% 34% 36% 36% 39%

Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data

100% 18% 25% 26% 31%

In 2017, for the region overall, about 18 percent of entrants were infants (children under 1 at removal), a slight increase from prior years, and consistent with trends observed in the first six months of 2017. Overall for Region 14, the decline in entries observed in the first half of 2017 persisted through the end of the year. The 891 entries in 2017 was 12 percent fewer entries from the 1,014 entries from 2016. The notable decrease in entries from 2015 persisted for each county, in DeKalb, there continued notable decrease of another 15 percent, while in Fulton County, the decrease leveled with an overall decline of three percent. Fulton substantially decreased entries for children between the ages of 1 and 12 years old. In DeKalb, there were slight increases in entries for the younger age groups, but a nearly 25 percent decrease in teen entries

Figure 1 below provides an additional view of the distribution of the entry groups by single year age, and county, and show how those distribution have shifted from the prior two years. In both cases, infants are the greatest proportion of each entry cohort, followed by a steep decline with some variation by age, county, and entry year over time.

In DeKalb, the 2017 entry group is distinguished by peaks at each end of the age distribution. Infants clearly make up the greatest proportion of the 2017 entrants, the largest proportion observed in the last three years. Similarly, youth 14 and older make up the next greatest proportion of enterers – between 8 and 10 percent in 2017 – higher also than in prior years.

10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 14 of 66

Figure 1: DeKalb and Fulton Entries by Age

DeKalb County Entries, by Age at Entry
20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age at Entry

2015

2016

2017

For Fulton County, the patterns are slightly different: Infants are the largest proportion of the entry group, and at 18 percent, they are at the highest proportion observed in the most recent three years. But there is not similar bump for the older children. In fact, the opposite dynamic is observed – teenagers are entering as a smaller proportion of the entry group –especially 15 through 17 year olds, who represented less than 10 percent of the entry group.

11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 15 of 66

Fulton County Entries, by Age at Entry
20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10%
8% 6% 4% 2% 0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age at Entry

2015

2016

2017

Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data

The next set of tables show the placement type for children and youth at the time of entry. Nearly three quarters of children coming into care in Region 14 are first placed in family settings. Typically, about 45 percent are first placed in foster homes, about 25 percent are placed in a kinship setting, and the remainder are placed in other settings – including congregate settings, and “other” settings (which include hotels, hospitals, jails, AWOL status, and unknown settings).

Table 2: Placements for Children and Youth Entering Foster Care

First Placement Type Total Foster Relative/Kinship Congregate Other

2015 1,362 650 305 175 232

Region 14 2016 1,014 437 250 157 170

2017 891 403 240 155 93

2015 760 376 176 101 107

DeKal b 2016 549 234 144 80 91

2017 441 200 120 73 48

2015 602 274 129 74 125

Ful ton 2016 465 203 106
77 79

2017 450 203 120 82 45

Total Foster Relative/Kinship Congregate Other

100% 48% 22% 13% 17%

100% 43% 25% 15% 17%

100% 45% 27% 17% 10%

100% 49% 23% 13% 14%

100% 43% 26% 15% 17%

100% 45% 27% 17% 11%

100% 46% 21% 12% 21%

100% 44% 23% 17% 17%

100% 45% 27% 18% 10%

Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data

The 2017 dynamics are consistent with recent history, although for the full year over a quarter of children entering care in Region14 – and in each county – were first placed with a relative or kinship home. This is consistent with recent practice in DeKalb, and an increase from recent

12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 16 of 66
performance for Fulton County. The proportion of children first placed in other settings has decreased, while the placement in congregate/group settings has been generally consistent – if not slightly elevated from prior years. This pattern is relatively consistent over time – and between the two counties, although in prior years there was somewhat less reliance on foster homes in Fulton, with a greater reliance – likely hotels – on other placement types. The two bar graphs look more closely at the full 2017 group and show the placement settings by single year of age in each county. This view provides a more nuanced consideration of the experience of children/youth of different at the time of removal.
Figure 2: DeKalb First Placement Type by Age
Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data
In DeKalb County, the most frequent first placement type was foster homes (blue bar) for children entering placement between the ages of 0 and 13. The 22 percent of infants placed in “other” settings are primarily associated with hospital removals. Between a quarter to just under half of those younger children, excepting seven and 11 year olds) were placed with kin or relatives (orange bar). The likelihood of initial foster home placement went down sharply for youth placed as teenagers, and the use of kinship declined as well. Reliance on congregate care (red bar) increased with age – peaking at 53 percent of 15 year olds who entered in 2017. For Fulton, the patterns were generally consistent but showed some variation. Between 26 and 46 percent of children entering at age six or younger were first placed in kinship or relative
13

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 17 of 66

setting. Although the Period 23 report saw Fulton County relying more heavily on kinship/relative care for younger children in the first half of 2017, that balanced out in the second half, with generally well over 50 percent of younger children placed in foster homes. The majority of eight and nine year olds were placed in foster homes, while ten and 11 years were more likely to be placed with kin/relatives. Well over forty percent of children who entered as teenagers were first placed in a congregate setting, while the reliance on “other” settings increased as well for teenagers, and was greater in Fulton than in DeKalb during 2017. “Other” placements for younger children is primarily hospital placements, while the teen-agers associated with were either in hospitals settings, on runaway status, or in an unidentified placement type.
Figure 3: Fulton First Placement Type by Age

Fulton: 2017 First Placement Type, by Age at Entry

10% 15% 6%

11% 5%

5%

8%

20%

5% 13% 6% 17% 11% 3% 16% 14%

19%

26%

18%

28% 38%

26% 38%

37%

33%

36%

46%

27%

50% 28%

61%

50%

58%

46%

6%

59% 47%

80%

76%

66% 63%

68% 63% 58%

45% 49%

43%

58%

11%

38% 44% 50% 16% 17% 6%

11%

29%

16% 19% 19%

16%

Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age of Child at Entry
Foster Kin/Relative Congregate Other

Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data

The final focus of this overview is on the proportion of children entering care in Region 14 who had relatively brief stays –short-stayers – in recent years. Figure 4 below indicates that overall, about a quarter of children and youth entering care each year from Region 14 exit within 30 days of their entry, and in 2017, that crept up very slightly. Virtually all of these short-stayers exits are discharges to a family member, and the vast majority are reunifications. The figure shows that short stayers are more common in Fulton, where they have constituted about 30 percent of the annual entries, relative to DeKalb, where they make up less than a quarter. The full 2017
14

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 18 of 66
data shows relative consistency in the short-stayers patterns in each county. For the full year, the proportion of short-stayers from DeKalb remained lower than from Fulton but increased somewhat from the prior year. In Fulton, the year to year performance was more stable, but showed a very slight decline.
Figure 4: Children and Youth Entering Foster Care Leaving in Less Than 31 Days
Proportion of Short Stayers (LT 31 Days)

74%

75%

73%

77%

81%

76%

70%

68%

70%

26%

25%

27%

23%

19%

24%

Region 14 Region 14 Region 14

2015

2016

2017

DeKalb 2015

Dekalb 2016

DeKalb 2017

LT 31 Days GE 31 Days

30%
Fulton 2015

32%
Fulton 2016

30%
Fulton 2017

Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data
Period 24 Placement Standards
The need for appropriate placements for all children who enter foster care or have a placement disruption is paramount. Mainly, through the Placement Stability MEASURE workgroup, the state continues to focus on specific strategic initiatives that were developed to reduce inappropriate placements including the use of hotels, overnight/excessive stays in a DFCS office and congregate care for younger children. Championing the effort to ensure safe and stable placements for children and youth are the Kenny A. State Project Director, the County Directors, and the head of resource development for Region 14.

15

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 19 of 66
Discriminatory Placement Practices
Section IVB3 of the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan (hereinafter Exit Plan) prohibits discriminatory placement practices. Specifically, this section states:
“Race and/or ethnicity and/or religion shall not be the basis for a delay or denial in the placement of a child, either with regard to matching the child with a foster or adoptive family or with regard to placing a child in a group facility. DHS shall not contract with any program or private agency that gives preference in its placement practices by race, ethnicity, or religion…”
Moreover, the Principles outlined in the Exit Plan include:
“All children in need of child welfare services should receive full and equal access to the best available services, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
The MTAT inquired about the department’s processes and protocols for receiving complaints and investigating discriminatory practices within the agency as well as private agencies with whom the department contracts for services. The current process for youth, caregivers and other stakeholders seems to entail calling the State Director’s office. In addition, stakeholders can lodge complaints with staff within the county offices. There does not appear to be a more detailed process or protocol and no indication that stakeholders are aware of how and where to file grievances.
The Office of Provider Management (OPM) regularly evaluates Congregate Care Institutions (CCI’s), Child Placing Agencies (CPA’s) and Independent Living Programs (ILP’s). The monitoring tools that are utilized include questions about bullying and the comfort of youth within their placements. However, there are no direct questions regarding discriminatory practices.
In future reporting periods, the MTAT will continue exploring the agency’s efforts to prevent and address discriminatory practices. This will include focus groups and interviews with youth, caregivers, the Office of the Child Advocate, staff and other stakeholders.
Reimbursement Rates
The Exit Plan requires uniform reimbursement rates for agency and private provider foster homes. When the Exit Plan was approved, reimbursement rates were $15.27/$17.26/$19.65 for kids age 0-5, 6-12, 13+ respectively, for DFCS foster homes and for private provider foster homes. In fiscal year 18, which covers Period 24, the foster care per diems were increased. DFCS foster homes now receive $25.27/$27.26/$29.65 respectively. Private provider foster homes now receive $20.27/$22.26/$24.65 respectively. The state indicates that increases for private provider foster homes were spread over two year, per agreement with the Plaintiffs. Thus,
16

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 20 of 66
in fiscal year 19, which begins July 1, 2018, the private provider rates will equalize to the current rates reimbursed to DFCS foster homes. MTAT will continue monitoring these rates.
Below are the other major findings regarding placements during Period 24.
Major Findings
1. The state has virtually ended the use of hotels motels, or similar non-child welfare overnight commercial enterprises and is on pace to completely eliminate this practice.
One of the major areas of concern identified by the parties as they transitioned to the Modified Exit Plan, was the state’s continued and persistent reliance on commercial motels and hotels as placements for children in foster care. Over the past two years, the state has cited a need to diversify, increase its array of foster care placements and enhance diligent search efforts to locate and support relatives and fictive kin as temporary placements for children and youth. The parties agreed to cut hotel usage in half by December 2016 and to end all usage by June 30, 2017.
The state met with providers and strengthened the enforcement of contractual requirement for private providers to give a 14-day notice before disrupting placements. The state also continued its partnership with the Multi-Agency Alliance for Children (MAAC) to reserve ten emergency placement beds for youth in Fulton and DeKalb counties. In addition, the state discussed with providers the need for targeted recruitment for teenagers who may present behavioral challenges. The usage of hotels steadily declined leading up to the agreed upon deadline. During Period 23, 26 children were placed in hotels. Since the deadline of June 30, 2017 there have been only 2 instances of children being placed in hotels to date; one in September 2017 (P24) and one in March 2018 (P25). The State should be commended for their efforts in virtually eliminating the practice of housing children in hotels.
2. The State continues its commendable job in limiting the amount of time a child spends in a DFCS office, especially during overnight hours.
The Modified Consent Decree states, “no child shall spend more than 23 hours in a county DFCS office. Any child who spends time in a county DFCS office between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. shall be reported to the MTAT. The intent of this provision is to prevent the use of DFCS offices as an overnight placement for children, as children with urgent placement needs require a safe bed in a home-like environment.”
This is the second report MTAT has tracked the amount of time children spend in the office waiting for placement. During the period, there was no time where a child spent more than 23 hours in the office. The longest a child spent in the office was a little over 17 hours. Additionally, the State should be commended for reducing the number of instances a child spent time in the office overnight from 83 cases in Period 23 to 53 cases in Period 24. The average
17

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 21 of 66
number of hours a child spent in the office overnight decreased as well from 6.7 hours to 4.8 hours. 3. The state continues to ensure young children are not placed in congregate care
placements unless necessary for the child’s welfare.
The Consent Decree has several restrictions related to the use of group care, including limiting their use of congregate care for young children. The reported information is for all children under the age of 12 in care between July and December 2017; not for a sample of the entire foster care population.
According to state reports, no children entering foster care or already in care during the period under the age of 12 were placed in group homes or child caring institutions except as allowed under the Modified Exit Plan. During Period 24, of youth in care or who entered foster care in the period, 19 youth were placed in hospitals to meet their physical health needs, seven children were in psychiatric residential treatment facilities (PRTFs), and seven children were hospitalized for mental health issues. In addition, there were three children placed with their mother in a group care setting designed for teen mothers. All documentation and waivers were reviewed by the MTAT.
4. Children are not remaining in temporary facilities longer than 30 days and far fewer are placed in more than one temporary facility while in foster care.
The Modified Consent Decree states:
a. No child shall be placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility beds used on any temporary basis, for more than 30 days and,
b. Children shall not be placed in more than one temporary facility within one episode of foster care (meaning the period of time that a child is in foster care from the date of removal from the home until the child is discharged from DFCS custody, except that a runaway does not trigger a new episode of foster care).
During Period 24, out of the 1,991 children who were in foster care at the beginning of the period or entered during the period, there was no child placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility beds used on any temporary basis for more than 30 days. In addition, for calendar year 2017, only 33 of 919 (3.6%) of children were placed in two or more temporary facilities within one episode of foster care. This is a major reduction from CY 2015 where there were 162 out of 1403 (11.5%) of children placed in two or more temporary facilities.
18

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 22 of 66
Period 24 Outcomes Tables 5 and 6 below list each ongoing and attained outcome for Period 24, along with the most current observed performance. The outcomes shaded in gray indicate when the method and the metrics are the same as from prior periods. Finally, the report contains two appendices. The first is a Measures Grid that identifies each measurable outcome, practice standard, or performance measure required in the under the Modified Consent Decree, and then describes the method for producing that metric. The second is a technical document that provides the numerator and denominator for each metric displayed in the Outcome Grid and includes additional explanation and/or data that support interpretation of the outcome metric under the Modified Consent Decree.
19

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 23 of 66

Table 5: Period 24 Ongoing Outcome Measures

Ongoing Outcome Measures
Outcome 1: Commencement of CPS Investigations Concerning Foster Children: At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact with the alleged victim, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of the report. Outcome 2: Completion of CPS Investigations Concerning Foster Children: At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of the report. Outcome 3: Re-entry Into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge. Children who were in foster care for less than eight days are not counted in this measure. Outcome 4: Maltreatment in Care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days. Outcome 5: Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care. Outcome 6: At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months shall be discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to

Period 23 Performance
Region 14 87%5
92%6
16.9%7
2.56 73%
28.2%

Period 24 Performance
DeKalb 68%
100%
13.7%
1.28 81%
27.6%

Period 24 Performance
Fulton 52%
100%
21.3%
8.44 86%
29.1%

Period 24 Performance
Region 14 72%
100%
16.9%
4.36 83%
28.2%

5 The State Special Investigations Unit and the perimeter counties were responsible for investigating allegations for 64 of the 116 alleged victim children and initiated 83 percent of them on time. See Table A-9 in the appendices for more information. 6 The State Special Investigations Unit and the perimeter counties were responsible for 52 of the 95 investigations. They completed 100 percent of them on time. See Table A-11 in the appendices for more information. 7 The new measure is based on calendar year cohorts. The 2015 cohort is the only one in which enough time has passed to accurately assess performance based on the measure. See Table A-2 in the appendices for more information on this analysis.
20

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 24 of 66

reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Outcome 7: At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Outcome 8: Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights. Outcome 9: Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had either (a) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or (b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Outcome 10: Sibling Placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject to the following exceptions: (a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, (c) the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with relatives
Outcome 11: Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care. Outcome 12: Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of all children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an
21

22.7% 48% 94%
92% 2.8 90%

22.9%

22.4%

22.7%

38%

50%

43%

96%

95%

96%

89%

94%

92%

2.2

3.8

2.9

95%

99%

97%

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 25 of 66

adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave

Outcome 13: Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one inplacement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.
Outcome 14: Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification Outcome 15: Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage Outcome 16: Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Outcome 17: Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall have graduated from high school or earned a GED.

97.5% 84% 96%
85% n/a8

8 This measure is reported each year in December.
22

96.6%

98.7%

97.5%

77%

93%

85%

95%

98%

96%

79%

96%

88%

46%

54%

50%

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 26 of 66

Outcome 18: Placements Not in Full Approval

Status: At least 98% of all foster placements

serving class member children shall be in full

approval and/or licensure status. In computing

this percentage, each placement shall be

weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement. (72% of relative

97%

placements were in full approval.)

Outcome 19: Six-Month Case Plan Review: At

least 95% of foster children in custody for six

months or more shall have either had their six-

month case plan review completed by the

Juvenile Court within six months of their prior

case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted

97%

the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile

Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month

case plan review within 45 days of the expiration

of the six-month period following the last review

Outcome 20: Permanency Hearing: At least 95%

of foster children in custody for twelve or more

months shall have either had a permanency

hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12

months of the time the child entered foster care

or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents

96%

required by the Juvenile Court for and requested

a permanency hearing within 45 days of the

expiration of the 12-month period following the

time the child entered foster care or had his or

her last permanency hearing

Outcome 21: Health and Educational Needs: Of

children in care at a point in time at the end of

the reporting period, according to the service

needs documented in the child’s most recent

case plan:

Outcome 21a: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed medical needs

85%

Outcome 21b: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed dental needs

93%

Outcome 21c: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed mental health needs

81%

Outcome 21d: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed education/development needs

94%

95%

98%

94%

96%

100%

100%

100%

93% 91% 97% 100%

100% 87% 89% 100%

96% 89% 94% 100%

23

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 27 of 66

Table 6: Period 24 Attained Outcome Measures

Attained Outcome Measures
Outcome 22: Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months. Outcome 23: Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Outcome 24: Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Outcome 25: Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to the following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with relatives, or (d) the child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective adoptive family pursuant to an appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court. Outcome 26: Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Outcome 27: Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.
24

Period 23 Performance
Region 14 100% 41.1% 0%
96%
97.3% 84%

Period 24 Performance
DeKalb 100% 38.3%
0%
94.0% 98%

Period 24 Performance
Fulton 100% 45.1%
0%
96.4% 100%

Period 24 Performance
Region 14 100% 41.1% 0%
95%
95.0% 99%

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 28 of 66

Outcome 28: Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following capacity limits: (a) no placement shall result in more than 3 foster children in a foster home, or a total of 6 children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children, without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no placement will result in more than 3 children under the age of 3 in a foster home. The only exception to these capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a foster home with no other children in the home

1.2%

Other Consent Decree Requirements

4x4 Visitation

47%

(VI.G.1) Recurrence of Maltreatment

6.8%

(VI.G.2) Number of children who were

victims of a 2nd substantiated investigation

7.1%

w/in 12 months of FSS case

35% 3.7%
2.2%

1%

38% 5.8%
2.9%

37% 4.9%
2.7%

Major Findings
1. While the region has met the threshold for maltreatment in care, Fulton County bears watching since more children in Fulton County experienced maltreatment in care than in recent periods and fewer of these investigations were initiated on time. Initiation rates also dropped in DeKalb County.
The incidence of maltreatment in foster care is higher in Fulton County than in DeKalb County. There were 12 children substantiated for maltreatment in care in the period, 10 of them were children from Fulton County and two of them were from DeKalb County. Based on the associated number of days all children were in foster care during the period, both counties had a rate of victimization of 4.4 per 100,000 days. The victimization rate was 1.3 for DeKalb County and 8.4 for Fulton County. The national standard and Modified Exit Plan standard are the same: of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims of abuse or neglect in foster care per 100,000 days.9
The Modified Exit Plan requires that at least 95 percent of all reports of abuse or neglect of children be initiated within 24 hours of a report, which means face-to-face contact with the alleged victim. To respond to all reports of alleged maltreatment in care received on or after July 1, 2017, there were 95 investigations of maltreatment in care reported that involved 120 alleged victim children during Period 24. Of these 72 percent (84 of 11610) of
9 Following review with the Department, the Outcome 2 metrics were revised to remove from the calculation those children who were flagged in the administrative as potentially victims while in care, but for whom case review revealed the investigation was associated with an incident that did not occur during the period under review. 10Four of the alleged victim children were on runaway during the time of the report and were removed from the denominator and numerator.
25

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 29 of 66
the alleged victim children had investigations that were initiated on time. This means that the investigator made face-to-face contact with these 84 alleged victim children within 24 hours.
Similarly, the Modified Exit Plan requires that at least 95 percent of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of children in foster care be completed within 30 days of receipt of the report.11 As mentioned above, there were 95 investigations of maltreatment in care during the period, and 95 (100%) of them were completed within 45 days from the report of possible abuse or neglect.12
2. Visitation is improving in many areas, however, both counties struggled to meet DFCS policy requiring four visits in the first four weeks of a new placement.
Authentic engagement and family-centered case planning are the foundation of the state’s new practice model. Case managers in both counties continue to consistently visit caregivers (96%). This is the third consecutive period that the counties have met or exceeded the required threshold. MTAT recommends that Outcome 15 be moved to the attained category.
Another area of sustained performance is Outcome Measure 13, visitation between case managers and children in foster care. During Period 24, the regional performance was 97.5 percent. This marks that third consecutive period that the counties have met or exceeded the required threshold. MTAT recommends that Outcome 13 be moved to the attained category. Unfortunately, required monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children fell below the threshold to 95 percent, just shy of the 96.25 percent requirement. MTAT will monitor this outcome closely during Period 25 to develop a recommendation as to whether this outcome measure should be moved back to the on-going category.
In addition to agency visitation, the role of facilitating visits between parents and their children and siblings placed in separate placements is vital to maintaining family connections and moving cases to permanency. The counties have struggled with visitation between siblings. During Period 24 the regional performance was 88 percent, an improvement from Period 23 (85%). Fulton County performed above the required threshold ensuring that 96 percent of siblings visited monthly. However, DeKalb County only facilitated 79 percent of visits between separated siblings. The visitation between parents and their children occurred in 85 percent of the cases reviewed. This meets the standards set forth in the Consent Decree. This is also an area for improvement for DeKalb County which only facilitated 77 percent of these visits.
Visitation also assists in stabilizing placements. Under the prior Consent Decree, the counties were required to visit eight times in the first eight weeks of a new placement. After extensive discussions about the difficulty of meeting this requirement, the plaintiffs agreed to change the requirement to the state-wide standard of four visits within the first four weeks of a new placement. Both counties are failing to meet the state-wide policy with a regional performance of only 37 percent. More focus on this required practice is needed. Despite these circumstance, the counties did a commendable job in exceeding the Consent Decree threshold for placement stability.
11 DFCS policy changed this to 45 days beginning July 1, 2017.
26

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 30 of 66
3. The permanency rate for children in care at the start of the period who had been in care for 12 months or longer was much lower than the standards set in the Modified Exit Plan. Children in foster care in Fulton County are more likely to exit to permanency than in DeKalb County.
Even so, there was one permanency measure that met the Modified Exit Plan standard, timely discharge to permanency for children newly entering foster care (Attained Outcome 23).
Of the 873 children who entered foster care in calendar year 2016 in the two counties and remained in foster care eight or more days, 359 of them (41%) exited to permanency. This meets the Exit Plan standard for Attained Outcome 23 and Federal CSFR measure of 40.5 percent. Children who entered foster care in Fulton County in calendar year 2016 were more likely to exit to permanency than their counterparts in DeKalb County, 45 percent compared to 38 percent. Taken together, this is a drop from performance in calendar year 2015 when close to 48 percent of all enterers exited to permanency within one year. It should be noted that although stays of less than 8 days are excluded from this measure, the proportion of children staying between 8-31 days in care (short-stayers) will impact this performance. Most short-stayers return to their permanent home. Thus, that dynamic, and any changes to it, will contribute to the performance reported here.
There were 450 children who were in foster care in the two counties on January 1, 2017 who had been in foster care between 12 and 23 months, and of these, 127 of them (28%) had exited to permanency by the end of the calendar year. This does not meet the Exit Plan standard for Outcome 6 of 43.6 percent. Relative to historical performance calculated using the new methodology, performance has been consistently low for the previous two years; 33 percent of these children had exited to permanency in 2015, 20 percent of these children in 2016.
Similarly, there were 471 children who were in foster care in the two counties on January 1, 2017 who had been in foster care for 24 months or more, and of these, 103 of them (22%) had exited to permanency by the end of the calendar year. This does not meet the Exit Plan standard for Outcome 7 or the Federal CSFR measure of 30.3 percent. Also relative to historical performance using the new methodology, performance in 2017 related to permanency for these children who have been in foster care for a long time fell compared to the two previous years.
For the 562 children who entered foster care in 2015 and then exited to permanency within one year, 95 of them (17%) had re-entered foster care within one year. This does not meet the Exit Plan standard for Outcome 3, which stipulates that no more than 8.3 percent of children will re-enter foster care within one year of exit.
For the 70 children whose parental rights were terminated or released during the period, 30 of them (43%) had their adoptions or guardianships finalized within one year. This does not meet the Exit Plan standard for Outcome 8 of 80 percent.
Lastly, 96 percent of children who had been in foster care for 15 of 22 months had either a TPR petition filed or a compelling reason for not doing so documented in the record. The performance met the Exit Plan standard for Outcome 9 of 95 percent.
We understand the new District Director will be working with his leadership team to outline the approach the counties will use to promote timely and lasting permanency for all children in foster care, including those children who have been in foster care for longer periods of time.
27

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 31 of 66
The MTAT will be working with the Kenny A. Review Team to analyze data and understand factors that may delay or promote timely permanency. Once these steps have been implemented for one year, leadership will assess to determine effectiveness and make changes as needed.
4. The reentry rate of 17 percent, as noted above, is over two times higher than the standard of 8.3 percent. Although the rates for both counties are well above the standard, the reentry rate for Fulton is higher than DeKalb.
Fulton’s most current available reentry rate is 21 percent, and DeKalb’s 14 percent – all told, 95 of the 562 children who entered in 2015 and exited to permanency within one year of their entry, returned to placement within the year following their reunification. Data for the 2016 enterers, while not fully observable yet, suggests the reentry rate will be similar. Of the 359 children who entered that year and exited to permanency within a year of entry, 57 (16%) have already reentered care. Until all of the potential reentries are observed (end of 2018) that figure could still increase.
Full implementation of several of the strategies outlined in Georgia’s 2018 Strategic Plan, in combination with on-going efforts in the region, should promote the stabilization of those children who return home within one year. Specifically, continued focus on the implementation of Solutions Based Casework, in combination with implementation of the Partnership Parenting Models should provide caseworkers with useful strategies to strengthen family relationships both during removal episodes and following reunification.
5. The movement rate per 1,000 days for children served during the period is lower than the standard established in the Modified Exit Plan, indicating a increase in placement stability, which suggests a notable improvement in practice in the region.
This measure changed considerably from previous periods to align with the Federal CFSR measurement method, and is now derived from administrative data in SHINES rather than from case record review. The revised method for generating this measure distinguishes placement stability rates for those children in care at the start of the year from those entering during the year in each county. These details allow a better understanding of the point at which children are more likely to move so that efforts to prevent disruption can be directed to the children most likely to disrupt.
To meet the Exit Plan standard for Outcome 11, the rate of placement moves for children in foster care should be no more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 overall days in foster care. The Period 23 reported a preliminary measure indicating that there were 2.78 moves for every 1,000 days in foster care. For Period 24, the full 2017 performance is reported as 2.89 moves for every 1,000 days in foster care. 13 Applying the new methods to prior periods allows for historical comparison, and shows that performance has improved relative to the past two years. In 2016, the rate was 3.89 and, in 2015, the rate was 6.14. The two counties not only met the Exit Plan standard and the Federal CFSR measure, but also demonstrated a considerable reduction in the number of placement moves that children experienced in 2017.
In each county, the movement rate per 1,000 is higher for children entering care than those already in care at the start of the year. For 2017, the rate for enterers was 5.0 for DeKalb and 6.6 for Fulton. For the in care group,
13 See Outcome Grid in the Appendix.
28

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 32 of 66
the rates were 1.6 and 2.9 for DeKalb and Fulton, respectively. While Fulton remains above DeKalb for both groups, Fulton has also seen the greatest decrease from prior calendar years.14
The end of the use of hotels as placements for children and increases in initial relative placements may have helped to contribute to these increases in stability for children in the two counties. Furthermore, the sustained focus on network development, including efforts to recruit and fully approve relative homes, as well as efforts to work proactively with the private placement partners to forestall and prevention disruption, are practice improvements that may also figure in this sustained reduction in disruption. This increase in placement stability is commendable, and should the counties maintain or continue to show improvement in this measure, it will become a candidate for movement from transferring from the on-going measures to the attained.
6. The counties also mitigated trauma for children in care with greater case manager continuity.
The Child Welfare Training Collaborative (CWTC) is a partnership between the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services and Georgia State University’s School of Social Work Professional Excellence Program. CWTC offers three different workshops on the impact of childhood trauma and building resiliency for Division staff and community partners throughout the state. Through these trainings as well as coaching and supervision, staff gain a deeper understanding of systemic trauma and ways to mitigate harm for children who must enter foster care. Stabilizing good, child specific placements and ensuring continuity of case managers in children’s lives are two vital factors.
Over the past several years, despite the workforce challenges, the counties have done a good job in ensuring that children have few if any case manager changes. In Period 24, after allowable exceptions under the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan, 97 percent of the cases reviewed indicated 2 or fewer case managers. This is an improvement from the 90% of cases reviewed indicating 2 or fewer case managers during Period 23. This marks the second consecutive reporting period that the counties have met or exceeded the standard. Thus, if they continue ensuring case manager stability at this level during Period 25, this Outcome Measure will move into the attained category.
7. Meeting the needs of children in care: the counties did a commendable job meeting identified medical, mental health, and educational/developmental needs of children; fell short in meeting identified dental needs; and increased the percentage of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older who graduated from high school or earned a GED.
Although meeting the identified medical, dental, educational and mental health needs was required prior to the entrance of the Modified Exit Plan, the prior performance was evaluated as one collective measure. Thus, while past reports identified performance in each area, the overall performance evaluation was based on meeting all needs for all children. The new metric separates each of the areas of need and requires the state to meet a minimum of 92 percent for each specific health area.
The state is meeting the medical (96%), mental health (94%) and educational/developmental (100%) needs threshold. These are all substantial increases from Period 23 where medical and mental health needs were
14 See Outcome Grid, where performance for the prior periods was developed and is displayed for comparative purposes.
29

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 33 of 66 below the threshold; 85 percent and 81 percent respectively. Unfortunately, performance in addressing dental needs decreased from 93 percent to 89 percent thus dropping below the required threshold. After implementing a strategy entitled “Project Graduate”, the percentage of children aging out of care who attained a high school diploma or GED increased from 42 percent in Period 22, to 46 percent in Period 23, to 50 percent in Period 24. While this is still shy of the required 56 percent required under the Consent Decree, the counties are to be commended on their efforts and results in this very difficult outcome that is dependent upon multiple factors and external stakeholders.
30

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 34 of 66
APPENDIX A
Data Sources and Methodology for Measuring State Performance in Reporting Period 23 This Appendix contains two tables summarizing the metrics under the Modified Exit Plan, and the methods for generating each of them. Table A-1 is a Measures Grid that identifies each measurable outcome, practice standard, or performance measure required in the under the Modified Ext Plan, and then describes the method for producing that metric. Table A-2 is a technical document that provides the numerator and denominator for each metric displayed in the Outcome Grid as well as the other items required for measurement under the Modified Consent Decree. It also contains additional technical explanations, and/or historical data that provides context for reviewing and interpreting Period 23 performance data. Tables A-3 through A-8 provide caseload data as reported from the state. Table A-9 through A-12 provide summary analysis from the case reviews on Outcomes 1 and 2, along a supplemental review of excluded cases due to a change in methodology from previous periods.
31

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 35 of 66

Sec IV.B.1a
IV.B.1b
IV.B.1c
IV.B.1d IV.B.2b IV.B.2c IV.B.3

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

No child shall be placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility bed used on any temporary basis, for more than 30 days.
Children shall not be placed in more than one temporary facility within one episode of foster care.
No child shall spend more than 23 consecutive hours in county DFCS office. Any child who spends time in county DFCS office between 8pm-8am shall be reported to the MTAT. Hotel use for class members to end by June 30, 2017.

Jails, runaways, hospitals, PRTFs, respite care will not be considered temporary. Placement type "other resource" and placement category of hotels, receiving homes, office stays. Jails, runaways, hospitals, PRTFs, respite care will not be considered temporary. Placement type "other resource" and placement category of hotels, receiving homes, office stays.
Number of distinct children; Number of distinct episodes; Number of nights

No child under six shall be placed in group care setting. No child between ages of 6-12 shall be placed in group care setting. Race/Ethnicity /religion shall not be basis for delay or denial of placement. DFCS shall not contract with private provider that gives preference based on race/eth/religion

No Changes No Changes

Measurement Method
Number of in care at the start of the period and number of children deprived during the period: How many were placed in a temporary facility for more than 30 days during the period By calendar year cohorts (year of entry), how many enterers had more than one temporary placement episode EXCLUDING any temporary placement following a runaway episode. Follow cohorts over time. Weekly documentation by county; reported to the MTAT

Data produced by…
State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team
State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team
Kenny A teams

Region 14 tracks and reports weekly to the MTAT. All data originates from SHINES. Tracked with Congregate Care Report

Kenny A Team with verification by State Data Unit
State Data Unit

Tracked with Congregate Care Report State Data Unit
State Data Unit

32

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 36 of 66

Sec IV.B.4
IV.B.5
V.A V.B V.C V.D V.E V.F VI.A.115
VI.A.2

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

DFCS to ensure basic physical needs of food, clothing, and shelter are met. Clothing to be reviewed with every placement / placement change In placement visitation: 4 in 4 for new placements; monthly thereafter. There should be at least one in-placement visit and one private, face to face
CPS caseloads – no more than 12 cases

Drop children in care for lt 1 week. -measure 1 in placement visit for all in first week -measure 4 for all the placement for 4 weeks No Change

Family Preservation and Family Support caseloads– no more than 17 Placement caseloads – no more than 15 Adoption caseloads – no more than 16 Specialized caseloads - no more than 12 Supervisor – no more than 5 CM At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact with the alleged victim, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of the report.
At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with

No change Weights are applied to produce equivalence for caseworkers with mixed caseloads
NOTE: There is a change here b/c old OM 1 and 3 have been combined. Those two outcomes used two different denominators (child/inv). New metric is at the child level
No change Effective 7/1/2017 – the standard became 45 days

Measurement Method
Number of new placements with 1 visit in 1 wk; 4 in 4 wks.
Generated weekly as part of CAP reports after getting data from each county Counts of Caseworkers, by program at end of period
Counts of cases assigned to verified case managers
Denominator: Children in foster care who are alleged victims of maltreatment Numerator: Number of childinvestigations that started within 24 hours of referral Numerator: Number of children w/ face to face w/in 24 hours Denominator: Number of MIC investigations referred in the PUR

Data produced by…
Kenny A. case review team
State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team
Kenny A case review team
Kenny A case review team

15 The current VI.A measures are the on-going measures.
33

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 37 of 66

Sec VI.A.3
VI.A.4 VI.A.5 VI.A.6

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome
Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of the report.
Re-entry Into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge.
Maltreatment in care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days. Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care.
At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months shall be discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this

Notes
CFSR 3 measure Children in care for less than 8 days are dropped from outcome measure. SDU will report CY 2014-2016. Reporting for period 23 will start with first half of year, and then be completed for Period 24. CFSR 3 measure All substantiated of maltreatment in care regardless of perpetrator, are included. Report at 6 and 12 months No change
CFSR 3 measure Report at 6 and 12 months SDU will report CY 2014-2016.

Measurement Method
Numerator: Number of MIC investigations completed within 30 (45) days of receipt Denominator: CY entries, duration greater than 8 days that exited to permanency within one year of entry. Numerator: Those who reentered w/in yr of exit date
Denominator: all days for every child in care for a least one day in the period. Numerator: every substantiated maltreatment episode in period
Denominator: children in placement sample who are in first 60 days of placement; Numerator: number of children in denominator whose files show clear evidence of diligent search
Denominator: All children in care on first day of CY who had been in care for 12-23 months Numerator: # who achieved permanency w/in calendar year

Data produced by…
State Data Unit
State Data Unit generates list for Kenny A case reviewers to review Kenny A case review team
State Data Unit

34

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 38 of 66

Sec VI.A.7
VI.A.8 VI.A.9 35

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights.

CFSR 3 measure Report at 6 and 12 months SDU will report CY 2014-2016.
No change

Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had

No change

Measurement Method

Data produced by…

Denominator: All children in care on first day of CY who had been in care for 24 + months Numerator: # who achieved permanency w/in calendar year

State Data Unit

Denominator: Children TPR’d during Kenny A team the most recent six month period for whom 12 months can be observed.

Numerator: Those in the denominator who were adopted/reached guardianship during the period.

Denominator: Eligible children who have been in care 15-22 months in the period Numerator: Those who have had TPR filed OR a documented compelling reason not to

Kenny A Team

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 39 of 66

Sec VI.A.10
VI.A.11 VI.A.12

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

either (a) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or (b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Sibling placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject to the following exceptions: (a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, (c) the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with relative. Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.

No change to method, add large sibling groups of 4 or more to exclusions
CFSR 3 measure Adjusted standard to reflect history of inc are and admits SDU will report CY 2014-2016. Children in care lt 8 days are dropped.

Measurement Method

Data produced by…

Denominator: children with siblings who were in care or who had exited by end of period Numerator: placed together on last day of period OR if they discharged, were together at discharge

Kenny A Team

Denominator: All days by children who were served during the period. Numerator: All moves excluding DJJ, respite, jail, AWOL, hospitals

State Data Unit

Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of No change to method, all children in custody at a point in time

Denominator: All children in care at Kenny A Team end of the period

36

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 40 of 66

Sec VI.A.13 VI.A.14

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one in-placement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of this required minimum of one inplacement and one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification

Promoted caseworkers are now excepted
No change
No change

Measurement Method
Numerator: number of those with LE 2 case managers.

Data produced by…

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance

Vi.A.15 Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit

No change

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny

37

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 41 of 66

Sec

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

Vi.A.16

each child’s foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

No change

38

Measurement Method
Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period

Data produced by…
A team reviews performance

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 42 of 66

Sec VI.A.17 VI.A.18
VI.A.19

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

Measurement Method

Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall have graduated from high school or earned a GED.
Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement. Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review

No change in method; Include in the numerator qualifying youth who have an IEP or 504 plan who achieved a special ed diploma prior to exit No change in method Only include children who have been in unapproved home for 30 days
Break out by relative, public, and private foster homes
No Change

Denominator: youth 18+ who were discharged during the year Numerator: number who have graduated or who have GED Denominator: placements with child at end of period
Numerator: number of placements fully approved
Denominator: Numerator:

Data produced by…
Kenny A Team
State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure
Kenny A Team, including case review team

39

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 43 of 66

Sec

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

VI.A.20
VI.A.21 VI.B.1622

Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for twelve or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing Health/Educational Needs. Of children in care at a point in time at end of reporting period, 92 percent shall have met each need documented in most recent plan: Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Educational Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months

No Change
No change in method Standard changed No Change

Measurement Method
Denominator: Numerator:

Data produced by…
Kenny A Team, including case review team

Denominator: For each area, number of children from placement case review with identified need Numerator: Number of children in each denominator for whom there is evidence that need was addressed

Kenny A case review team

Denominator: All foster homes in the Kenny A case review

sample

team

Numerator: instances of Corporal Punishment

16 VI.B metrics are currently attained outcomes
40

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 44 of 66

Sec VI.B.23 VI.B.24 VI.B.25
41

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome
Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period
Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to the following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately

Notes
CFSR measure; SDU will report CY 2014-2016.
Reporting for period 23 will start with first half of year, and then be completed for Period 24.
Note: numerator is denominator for the reentry measure
Dissolution means that a child: 1) been adopted; 2) returned to foster care; and 3) has had a subsequent TPR or surrender from his or her adoptive parents within one year of the adoption finalization.
Changed to rely on SHINES data and to cover full class.

Measurement Method
Denominator: All children under 18 entering Region 14 during the CY period
Numerator: Number of children in the denominator who exited to permanency w/in 12 months of entry
Denominator: Adoptions completed during the most recent six-month period for whom 12 months can be observed.
Numerator: Dissolutions w/in one year
Denominator: All children in placement on the last day of the period
Numerator: Children in the denominator who were either placed in home court, or who were placed within 50 miles of removal

Data produced by…
State Data Unit
State Data Unit generates list for Kenny A team to review
State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 45 of 66

Sec

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

VI.B.26 VI.B.27 VI.B.28

placed with relatives, or (d) the child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective adoptive family pursuant to an appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court. Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following capacity limits: (a) no placement shall result in more than 3 foster children in a foster home, or a total of 6 children in the home,

No change
No Change
No Change This only includes approved foster homes.

Measurement Method

Data produced by…

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance

Denominator: Case review sample Numerator: All children in denominator who have document court order language

Case review

Denominator: Foster homes with one or more children in their home on the last day of the period. Numerator: Number of foster homes that exceed the capacity limit.

State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure

42

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 46 of 66

Sec VII.G.1 VII.G.2

Standard/Outcome

Table A-1 Notes

including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children, without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no placement will result in more than 3 children under the age of 3 in a foster home. The only exception to these capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a foster home. Of children in each county during prior two reporting periods who experienced substantiated maltreatment, the number who were victims of a second substantiated maltreatment report during the following 12 months.

Use earliest report and first subsequent report following.

Of cases that were referred to FSS, the number and percent for which there was a subsequent substantiated referral w/in 11-365 days of the FSS referral.

FSS can mean any alternative to opening a CPS case or removal.

Measurement Method

Data produced by…

Denominator: Number of children State Data Unit who had substantiated report during the prior year

Numerator: Number of children in the denominator who were subjects of a substantiated report within 12months of the first report Denominator: Number of children referred to FSS in a prior 12 month period

State Data Unit

Numerator: Number of those who had substantiated report w/in 11365 days of the referral

43

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 47 of 66

Table A-2

VI.A.117 VI.A.2

Outcome

Numerator

Denominator

Metric

At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be DeKalb:17

DeKalb:25

DeKalb: 68%

commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact with the alleged victim, in

Fulton: 14

Fulton: 27

Fulton: 52%

accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of Perimeter: 21

Perimeter: 23

Perimeter: 91%

the report.

SIU: 32

SIU: 41

SIU: 78%

Total: 84

Total: 116

Total: 72%

120 children in care during Period 24 were named as alleged victims in 95 maltreatment investigations; 84 of those children had private contact CPS investigators

within 24 hours of the receipt of the report.

At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be DeKalb:21

DeKalb:21

DeKalb: 100%

completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 45 days Fulton: 18

Fulton: 18

Fulton: 100%

of receipt of the report.

Perimeter: 22

Perimeter: 22

Perimeter: 100%

SIU: 34

SIU: 34

SIU: 100%

Total: 95

Total: 95

Total: 100%

87 of the 95 the investigations of maltreatment in which the alleged victims were in care where completed within 30 days of the receipt of the report

Re-entry Into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge.

DeKalb: 44 Fulton: 51 Total: 95

DeKalb: 322 Fulton: 240 Total: 562

DeKalb: 13.7% Fulton: 21.3% Total: 16.9%

VI.A.3

This is new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 Reentry methodology. Because that method requires observing children enter, stay at least 8 days, exit to permanency within 1 yr, and then reenter from that exit within one year – it is necessary to refer to prior entry cohorts in order to generate the metric. The figures above represent entries to Region 14 from CY 2015. Of them 562 exited to permanency within one year of entry (by 12/2016) and of them, 95 reentered care within one year of exit (by 12/2017). The State Unit Generated historical versions of this metric, as well as what is currently observable for the more recent entry cohorts. That performance is provided below – highlighted cells contain incomplete data – not enough time has elapsed to fully observe the performance.

VI.A.4

These data were generated by the State Data Unit March 2018. For this reason the 2015 data are the most recent complete cohort and are used for this measure.

Entry Yr
2013 2014 2015 2016
2017

Perm Exit w/in 1 Yr
473 627 562 359 258

Reentry w/in 6 Mos
45 76 68 46 26

Reentry win 1 Yr
61 109 95 57 32

Maltreatment in care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of DeKalb:2

victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days.

Fulton: 10

Total: 12

6 Months
10% 12% 12% 13%
10%
DeKalb: 156,620 Fulton: 118,493 Total: 275,113

12 Months
13% 17% 17% 16%
12%
DeKalb: 1.3 Fulton: 8.4 Total: 4.4

17 The current VI.A measures are the on-going measures.
44

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 48 of 66

VI.A.5 VI.A.6

Outcome

Numerator

Denominator

Metric

This a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. That methodology controls for “exposure time” for the risk of maltreatment by calculating the total

number of days that children with a least one day of care in the period experienced. It also counts any substantiated investigation associated with a child in care,

regardless of who was the perpetrator of the maltreatment.

Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a

DeKalb: 26

DeKalb: 32

DeKalb: 81%

diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of

Fulton: 24

Fulton: 28

Fulton: 86%

entering foster care.

Total: 50

Total: 60

Total: 83%

60 cases were reviewed (32 from Fulton and 28 from DeKalb). Of the 60, 21 were given credit because language was in the court order, and 11 were placed with

relatives. 18 had evidence of diligent search in the file.

Permanency: At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month

DeKalb: 70

DeKalb: 254

DeKalb: 27.6%

period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months shall be Fulton: 57

Fulton: 196

Fulton: 29.1%

discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Total: 127

Total: 450

Total: 28.2%

Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to

reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative,

guardianship, or adoption.

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Because this is a 12 month measure, typically we would partial report performance on permanency

for the group of children in care in Region 14 for the period beginning January 1 and then provide the full metric the following period. However, the delayed

issuance of P23 permitted us to report on the full period in the prior report. Those data are regenerated and updated here. To understand that performance relative

to recent years, the State Data Unit prepared historical data that displays the proportion of children exit to permanency by the end of a 12 month period for a

similar group of children in care on the first day of prior two calendar year. See the table below for those data.

In care between 12-23 months

In Care 1/1

Qualifying Children

Exits in 6 Months

Exits in 12 Months

Percent 6 Months Percent 12 Months

2015

143

24

45

17%

31%

DeKalb County

2016

225

19

44

8%

20%

2017

254

46

70

18%

28%

Data prepared by

2015

94

16

34

17%

36%

State Data Unit

Fulton County

2016

161

17

35

11%

22%

March 2018

2017

196

31

57

16%

29%

2015

237

40

79

17%

33%

Region 14

2016

386

36

79

9%

20%

2017

450

77

127

17%

28%

45

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 49 of 66

VI.A.7 VI.A.8

Permanency: At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month

DeKalb: 63

DeKalb: 275

DeKalb: 22.9%

period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be

Fulton: 44

Fulton: 196

Fulton: 22.4%

discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, Total: 107

Total: 471

Total: 22.7%

for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with

the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Because this as 12 month measure, typically we would partial performance on permanency for the

group of children in care in Region 14 on the periods beginning in January, and then provide the full metric the following period. However, the delay issuance of P23

permits us to report on the full period. To understand that performance relative to recent years, the State Data Unit prepared historical data that displays the

proportion of children exit to permanency by the end of a 12 month period for a similar group of children in care on the first day of prior two calendar year. See the

table below for those data.

In care 24 + months

In Care 1/1

Qualifying Children Exits in 6 Months Exits in 12 Months Percent 6 Months

Percent 12

Months

Data prepared by State

DeKalb

2015

124

6

26

5%

21%

Data Unit March 2018

County

2016

173

24

51

14%

29%

2017

275

27

63

10%

23%

Fulton

2015

147

22

49

15%

33%

County

2016

136

21

35

15%

26%

2017

196

17

44

9%

22%

Region 14

2015

271

28

75

10%

28%

2016

309

45

86

15%

28%

2017

471

44

107

9%

23%

Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated DeKalb: 15

DeKalb: 40

DeKalb: 38%

or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will

Fulton: 15

Fulton: 30

Fulton: 50%

have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or

Total: 30

Total: 70

Total: 43%

release of parental rights.

VI.A.9 VI.A.10

Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had either (a) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or (b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Sibling placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject to the following exceptions:

DeKalb: 418 Fulton: 313 Total: 731
DeKalb: 67 Fulton: 67 Total: 134

46

DeKalb: 435 Fulton: 330 Total: 765
DeKalb: 75 Fulton: 71 Total: 146

DeKalb: 96% Fulton: 95% Total: 96%
DeKalb: 89% Fulton: 94% Total: 92%

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 50 of 66

VI.A.11
VI.A.12 VI.A.13 VI.A.14 Vi.A.15

(a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has

exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, (c) the size of

the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to

place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with relative.

Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no more DeKalb: 688

DeKalb: 313,831

DeKalb: 2.2

than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.

Fulton: 895

Fulton: 234,525

Fulton: 3.8

Total: 1583

Total: 548,356

Total: 2.9

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. It requires observing the total number of moves children with a least one day of care a 12 month

period, and dividing that figure by all of the days children with any days in care used in the same 12 month period. This measure includes both children in care on

the first day of the 12 month period as well has children entering care during the 12 month period. To characterize baseline performance and in order to observe

change over time, the State Data Unit generated historical analysis of this metric, preparing both six month and 12 month rates of movement. That analysis

showed that six month rates notably overstate movement rates relative to full 12 month period. To control for overstated movement rate embedded in the six

month estimate, the State Data Unit, in consultation with MTAT has developed a method to generate an annualized 12 month rate when reporting on the Jan-Jun

period. That method relies on actual six month data that is then annualized to reflect 12 month performance by applying growth estimates to both the numerator

and denominator based on observed change from six to 12 months in the most recent two calendar years. .

Moves per 1,000 Days

Moves in Period

Days in Period

Calendar Yr

DeKalb

Fulton

Total

DeKalb

Fulton

Total

DeKalb

Fulton

Total

2015

4.60

8.31

6.14

1,310

1,686

2,996

284,869

203,005

487,874

2016

3.10

4.99

3.89

966

1,105

2,071

311,486

221,347

532,833

2017 -Annualized

2.19

3.49

2.74

655

813

1,452

298,584

232,980

529,872

2017 - Actual

2.2

3.8

2.89

688

895

1,583

313,831

234,525

548,356

Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of all children in custody at a point in time during the DeKalb: 824

DeKalb: 868

DeKalb: 95%

reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior Fulton: 658

Fulton: 667

Fulton: 99%

12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an

Total: 1,482

Total: 1,535

Total: 97%

adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or

transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another

case manager’s sick or maternity leave

Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one in-

DeKalb: 9,629

DeKalb: 9,965

DeKalb: 96.6%

placement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case

Fulton: 7,684

Fulton: 7,788

Fulton: 98.7%

managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess Total: 17,313

Total: 17,753

Total: 97.5%

of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month shall be

excluded when calculating this percentage.

Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall

DeKalb: 1,535

DeKalb: 2,002

DeKalb: 77%

have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification

Fulton: 1,757

Fulton: 1,882

Fulton: 93%

Total: 3,292

Total: 3,884

Total: 85%

Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s

DeKalb: 4,748

DeKalb: 5,024

DeKalb: 95%

foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. Fulton: 3,841

Fulton: 3,910

Fulton: 98%

At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case Total: 8,589

Total: 8,934

Total: 96%

47

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 51 of 66

Vi.A.16 VI.A.17

managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any

caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month shall

be excluded when calculating this percentage

Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with

DeKalb: 521

whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time

Fulton: 678

each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed Total: 1,199

out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is

more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total

minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during

the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month

shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall

DeKalb: 16

have graduated from high school or earned a GED.

Fulton: 19

Total: 35

This metric is generated annually in the report covering the period that ends June 30 of each year.

VI.A.18 VI.A.19 VI.A.20

Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement.

Total: 3434

Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review

DeKalb: 41 Fulton: 30 Total: 71

Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for twelve or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing

DeKalb: 36 Fulton: 26 Total: 62

DeKalb: 664 Fulton: 705 Total: 1,369
DeKalb: 35 Fulton: 35 Total: 70
Total: 3615
DeKalb: 42 Fulton: 32 Total: 74
DeKalb: 36 Fulton: 26 Total: 62

DeKalb: 79% Fulton: 96% Total: 88%
DeKalb: 46% Fulton: 54% Total: 50%
Total: 95%
DeKalb:98% Fulton: 94% Total: 96%
DeKalb: 100% Fulton: 100% Total: 100%

48

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 52 of 66

VI.A.21

Health/Educational Needs. Of children in care at a point in time at end of reporting period, 92 percent shall have met each need documented in most recent plan: Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Educational

See Below

VI.B.18 22

Medical Needs
Dental Needs
Mental Health Needs
Education/Developmental Needs
Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months

DeKalb: 40 Fulton: 30 Total: 70 DeKalb:39 Fulton: 26 Total: 65 DeKalb: 35 Fulton: 16 Total: 51 DeKalb: 42 Fulton: 29 Total: 71

DeKalb: 43 Fulton: 30 Total: 73 DeKalb: 43 Fulton: 30 Total: 73 DeKalb: 36 Fulton: 18 Total: 54 DeKalb: 42 Fulton: 29 Total: 71

VI.B.23

Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

DeKalb: 194 Fulton: 165 Total: 359

DeKalb: 507 Fulton: 366 Total: 873

DeKalb: 93% Fulton: 100% Total: 96% DeKalb: 91% Fulton: 87% Total: 89% DeKalb: 97% Fulton: 89% Total: 94% DeKalb: 100% Fulton: 100% Total: 100%
100%
DeKalb: 38.3% Fulton: 45.1% Total: 41.1%

18 VI.B metrics are currently attained outcomes
49

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 53 of 66

VI.B.24

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Spells lasting less than 8 days are dropped so that the numerator can function as the denominator

for the reentry metric. This is both a 12 month measure AND a longitudinal measure; so it take some time to both observe entries in the most recent 12 months and

also to report on positive permanency that occurred within 12 months of entry. For that reason – we report the most recent cohort that is fully observable and, we

provide performance to date on the most recently observed entry group. Additionally, the State Data Unit prepared historical data depicting permanency for

enterers within one year of their entry. See the table below for those data. The highlighted cells contained censored data – that is the full performance is not

observable until 12/31/2018. Gray shaded cells represented the most current data.

Admission

Entries

Perm w/in 12

Perm to

% 12 M

% to Date

Yr

Date

Data developed by the

DeKalb County 2015

688

322

444

47%

65%

State Data Unit, reports on

2016

507

194

227

38%

45%

permanency achieved for

2017

417

135

135

32%

32%

the most recent three exit cohorts. Stays lasting less than 8 days are dropped in these results.

Fulton County Region 14

2015 2016 2017 2015

487 366 388 1175

240

315

49%

65%

165

197

45%

54%

123

125

28%

32%

562

759

48%

65%

2016

873

359

424

41%

49%

2017

808

258

260

28%

32%

Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period DeKalb: 0

DeKalb: 0

DeKalb:0

shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period

Fulton: 0

Fulton: 0

Fulton: 0

Total: 0

Total: 0

Total: 0

50

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 54 of 66

VI.B.25 VI.B.26

Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the

reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a

50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to the

following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a

family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed through the

1434

1510

95%

ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with relatives, or (d) the

child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective adoptive family pursuant to an

appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the

court.

As noted above, the methodology for this metric changed. Rather than being evaluated through case review, the Data Unit generated a metric using the entire class

of children in placement on the last day of the period. To generate the final metric – they considered who placement on 12/31/2017 was placed in the w/in 50

miles of their removal address, was placed within the same county as their removal county, or qualified for an exception as stipulated in the agreement. The

numerator was adjusted upward to reflected both those that met the standard AND those who were exceptions. The reciprocal of the numerator is the measure.

See below for the adjustments.

Placed

Denominator

Numerator

%

Total in Placement on 6/30/2017

1510

1510

1434

95%

% of those placed

Placed in Same County

510

34%

510

Placed in Different County

1000

66%

Different county & exception placement

233

15%

233

Different county

767

51%

Diff county & placed w/in 50 miles

672

45%

672

Diff county & place greater than 50 miles

95

6%

Diff county, > than 50 miles & exempt

19

1%

19

Diff county, > than 50 miles & NOT exempt

76

5%

Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

DeKalb: 4767 Fulton: 3800 Total: 8567

DeKalb: 5074 Fulton: 3941 Total: 9015

DeKalb: 94.0 Fulton: 96.4 Total: 95.0

51

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 55 of 66

VI.B.27

Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.

DeKalb: 50 Fulton: 41 Total: 91

DeKalb: 51 Fulton: 41 Total: 92

VI.B.28 Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class member

7

769

children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following capacity limits:

(a) no placement shall result in more than 3 foster children in a foster home, or a total of 6

children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children,

without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no placement will result in

more than 3 children under the age of 3 in a foster home. The only exception to these

capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a foster

DeKalb: 98% Fulton: 100% Total: 99%
1%

52

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 56 of 66

VII.G.1

Recurrence of substantiated investigations: Of children in each county during prior two reporting periods who experienced substantiated maltreatment, the number who were victims of a second substantiated maltreatment report during the following 12 months.

DeKalb: 21 Fulton: 46 Total: 67

DeKalb: 563 Fulton: 796 Total: 1359

DeKalb: 3.73% Fulton: 5.78% Total: 4.93%

VII.G.2

This measure has been revised to be prospective, and is essentially the Federal CFSR recurrence measure. Like other longitudinal metrics, the full measure cannot be observed until 12 months following the last base substantiated report in each year. We report here the 2015 and 2016 recurrence rate, and provide the performance to date for 2017 substantiated reports.

Region/County Report Yr

Data provided by State Data

DeKalb County

2015

Unit in mid-March 2018

2016

Because of reporting lag time the 2017 figures should be considered censored and incomplete.

2017

Fulton County

2015

2016

2017

Region 14

2015

2016

2017

Substantiated investigation following FSS case. Of cases that were referred to FSS, the

number and percent for which there was a subsequent substantiated referral w/in 11-365

days of the FSS referral.

Earliest Subx Report
1397 563 545 1626 796 464 3023 1359 1009 DeKalb:44 Fulton:101 Total: 145

Recurrence in 12 Months 87 21 7 120 46 8 207 67 15
DeKalb: 1,937 Fulton: 3,423 Total: 5,360

Percent Recurrence
6.2% 3.7% 1.5% 7.4% 5.8% 2.1% 6.8% 4.9% 1.8% DeKalb: 2.3% Fulton: 2.% Total: 2.7%

This is prospective measure which looks to see what number and percent of cases referred to RSS have a re-referral in the subsequent year. Like other longitudinal

measures, it takes time to observe the original referral and then look forward for future substantiations. For this reason we report on FSS cases from 2015 and

2016 for whom the full period following referral to FSS could be observed, and report partial data for the subsequent calendar year. These data will updated in

each subsequent monitoring report, while preliminary data from 2018 will be added as well.

Region/County Report Yr Earliest FSS Report Sub Report in 12

Percent Sub in 12

Mos

Mos

DeKalb County

2015

1573

99

6.3%

Data provided by State Data Unit in mid-

2016

1937

44

2.3%

March 2018. Because of reporting lag time,

2017

2404

52

2.2%

both the 2017 figures should be considered censored and incomplete.

Fulton County

2015

2623

2016

3361

2017

2083

195 96 83

7.5% 3.0% 2.1%

Region 14

2015

4242

300

7.0%

2016

5360

145

2.7%

2017

6585

135

2.1%

53

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 57 of 66

4 X 4 visitation

DeKalb: 42 Fulton: 46 Total: 88

DeKalb: 120 Fulton: 120 Total: 240

DeKalb:35% Fulton: 38% Total: 37%

54

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 58 of 66

Table A-3

Caseload Caps in DeKalb County on December 31, 2017

Case Manager Function
CPS Investigations Family Preservation Permanency Case Manager Specialized Case Manager Adoption Case Manager Total

Caseload Cap:
Number of cases (families
and children)
12 families 17 families 15 children 12 children 16 children 12 children

Number of Active Staff on 12/31/17
29 12 34 35 na 110

Number of
Active, Onleave
Staff on 12/31/17
1
1

Actual Performance
Meeting Caps on Assigned Caseload

Number
28 12 15 13

%
97% 100%
44% 37%

68

62%

Not Meeting Cap On Assigned Caseload

Number
1 0 19 22

%
3% 0% 56% 63%

42

38%

Cases Assigned to Workers On
Leave/ Supervisors
Number
15 3 0 0
18

Table A-4 DeKalb County Supervisory Caseloads on December 31, 2017

Program/Service Area
Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family
Preservation)
Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes
Adoptions)

Number of Units Total
12
13

Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio Number Percent

Not Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio
Number Percent

12

100%

0

0%

4

31%

9

69%

55

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 59 of 66

Table A-5 Caseload Caps in Fulton County on December 31, 2017

Case Manager Function
CPS Investigations Family Preservation Permanency Case Manager Specialized Case Manager Adoption Case Manager Total

Caseload Cap:
Number of cases (families
and children)
12 families 17 families 15 children 12 children 16 children 12 children

Number of Active Staff on 12/31/17
35 8
29 23
95

Number of
Active, Onleave
Staff on 12/31/17

Actual Performance
Meeting Caps on Assigned Caseload

Number
23 8
22 9

%
66% 100%
76% 39%

62

65%

Not Meeting Cap On Assigned Caseload

Number
12 0 7
14

%
34% 0%
24% 61%

33

35%

Cases Assigned to Workers On
Leave/ Supervisors
Number
10 4 0 0
14

56

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 60 of 66

Table A-6 Fulton County Supervisory Caseloads on December 31, 2017

Program/Service Area
Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation) Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes Adoptions)

Number of Units Total
10
8

Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio Number Percent

Not Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio
Number Percent

7

70%

3

30%

2

25%

6

75%

Case Manager Function
CPS Investigations Family Preservation Permanency Case Manager Specialized Case Manager Adoption Case Manager Total

Table A-7 Region 14 Caseload Caps on December 31, 2017

Caseload Cap:
Number of cases (families
and children)
12 families 17 families 15 children 12 children 16 children 12 children

Number of Active Staff on 12/31/17

Number of
Active, Onleave
Staff on 12/31/17

Actual Performance
Meeting Caps on Assigned Caseload

Number

%

64

51

78%

20

20

100%

63

37

58%

58

1

22

36%

205

1

130

63%

Not Meeting Cap On Assigned Caseload

Number
13 0
26 36

%
22% 0%
42% 63%

75

37%

Cases Assigned to Workers On
Leave/ Supervisors
Number
25
7
0
0
0
32

57

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 61 of 66

Table A-8 Region 14 Supervisory Caseloads on December 31, 2017

Program/Service Area
Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation) Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes Adoptions)
Total

Number of Units Total 22
21
43

Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio Number Percent

Not Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio
Number Percent

19

86%

3

14%

6

29%

15

71%

25

58%

18

42%

58

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 62 of 66 59

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 63 of 66
APPENDIX B
Definitions
Adoptive Placement means the interval during which a child is placed with a prospective adoptive family following the signing of the appropriate adoptive placement agreement form, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court. Child or Children or Class Member Children or Class Members mean a child or children who have been, are or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS. Child Caring Institution (CCI) is any child-welfare facility which provides full-time room, board and watchful oversight (RBWO) to six or more children up to 18 years of age. Some CCIs are approved to care for youth up to age 21. The CCI must be approved through the Office of Provider Management (OPM) to serve children in DFCS custody.
Child Placing Agency (CPA) is agency that places children in foster and adoptive homes for individualized care, supervision and oversight. Child placing agencies are responsible for assessing the placement regarding the appropriateness of the room, board and watchful oversight that the prospective foster and adoptive families will provide. The CPA’s employees and their foster and adoptive parents work as a team to provide a stabilizing and nurturing environment that promotes safety, permanency and well-being.
Corporal Punishment means any physical punishment on a child that inflicts pain. CPA Foster Home is a foster home approved by a Child Placing Agency for the temporary placement of children in foster care. DeKalb DFCS means DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services. DFCS when used alone means the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services. DFCS Foster Home is a non-relative foster homes approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of children in foster care.
60

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 64 of 66
DFCS or CPA Adoptive Home is an adoptive home approved for the foster care placement of a child for whom the established goal is adoption. Adoptive homes must meet the regular standards of care required for approved family foster homes and any conditions specified in that approval.
DFCS Relative Foster Home is a relative foster home approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of minor relatives. It is DFCS’ preference that all relatives are approved as foster parents and receive a foster care per diem. The goal of relatives becoming foster parents is to ensure that the child has services to address his/her needs.
DHHS means the United States Department of Health and Human Services. DHR means Georgia Department of Human Resources. Discipline or Other Serious Foster Care Violation means and includes those acts or situations by the caregiver that pose an immediate or potential risk to the safety or well-being of the child in care. These may include, but are not limited to, inappropriate disciplinary measures (both physical/corporal and emotional), violations of supervision or other safety requirements that pose serious risk factors to the child.
EPSDT means the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program for individuals under 21 years of age contained in Title XIX of the Social Security Act, as amended.
Fictive Kin means a person who is known to a child as a relative, but is not, in fact, related by blood.
Foster Parent means volunteers who are trained and certified by DFCS or Child Placing Agencies to provide for the temporary care of children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster parents work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster parents are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
Foster Relative means biological kin who are trained and certified by DFCS to provide for the care of relative children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster relatives work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs 61

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 65 of 66
are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster relatives are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home. Fulton DFCS means the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services. Georgia Health Check Program means Georgia Medicaid's well-child or preventive health care program adopted pursuant to EPSDT, and shall contain such components as they exist in the Georgia Health Check Program as of February 1, 2005. Governor means the Governor of the State of Georgia. Legal Guardianship means the appointment of an individual as a legal guardian for a child as authorized by either the probate court under O.C.G.A. Title 29 or the juvenile court under O.C.G.A. Chapter15-11-2(36). One Episode of Foster Care means the period of time that a child is in foster care from the date of removal from the home until the child is discharged from DFCS custody, except that a runaway does not trigger a new episode of foster care. Permanent Legal Custody means custody granted in accordance with an order of the superior court or the juvenile court, which places a child in the custody of an individual or individuals until the child reaches 18 years of age. Permanent Placement with Relatives means placing a child with a relative who is willing to assume long-term responsibility for the child, but has reasons for not adopting the child or obtaining guardianship or permanent legal custody, and it is in the child's best interests to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship by another person. In such circumstances, there shall be in place an agreement for long-term care signed by DFCS and the relative committing to the permanency and stability of this placement unless it is necessary to disrupt the long-term placement.
62

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 760 Filed 06/27/18 Page 66 of 66
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) is a temporary non-hospital facility with a provider agreement with a State Medicaid Agency to provide intensive therapeutic intervention to a child to ensure safety and stability. PRTFs offer intensive behavioral health services to children in Georgia. Relatives are persons who are related by blood, marriage or adoption including the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or divorce. Relative Placement refers to placement in the home of a relative or fictive kin who do not receive a foster care per diem for the care of the child. The relative placement may be a non-paid placement or the relative may receive TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive kin are not eligible for TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive kin must become foster parents to receive financial assistance. Placement with relatives or fictive kin may occur very quickly if there is a satisfactory CPS history check, safety and home assessment check, and a Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) check through the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on all household members 18 years of age or older. A Relative or Non-Relative Care Assessment must be completed no later than 30 calendar days after the placement of a child. State DFCS means the Division of Family and Children Services of the Georgia Department of Human Resources. Suspected Abuse or Neglect means being based on reasonable cause to believe that a child may have been abused or neglected. Suspected Corporal Punishment means being based on reasonable cause to believe that corporal punishment may have been used on a child.
63

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 1 of 61
Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report
of The Accountability Agent and Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team
In the Case of
Kenny A. v. Deal
State of Georgia December 21, 2018
State of Georgia Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM) with
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 2 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENT AND MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TEAM
Accountability Agent Karen Baynes-Dunning Attorney, Baynes-Dunning Consulting, LLC Greenville, South Carolina
Steve Baynes Baynes Consulting LLC
Washington, DC
Elizabeth Black Director for Child Welfare Practice Center for the Support of Families (CSF)
Silver Spring, Maryland
Jennifer Miller Haight Policy Fellow
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

i

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 3 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 REVISED MONITORING APPROACH ....................................................................................................................................1 LEADERSHIP CHANGES ....................................................................................................................................................2 REGIONAL PRIORITIES AND TRANSITION OF THE MEASURES PROCESS ....................................................................................3
II. ROBUST WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................... 4 CPS CASE MANAGERS ....................................................................................................................................................4 FAMILY PRESERVATION CASE MANAGERS ...........................................................................................................................4 PERMANENCY CASE MANAGERS .......................................................................................................................................4 CASE MANAGERS WITH CHILDREN ASSIGNED TO THEM WHO HAVE BEEN IN FOSTER CARE FOR 18 MONTHS OR LONGER .................4 SUPERVISORS ................................................................................................................................................................5 DEKALB COUNTY ON JUNE 30, 2018 ................................................................................................................................5 FULTON COUNTY ON JUNE 30, 2018 ................................................................................................................................5
III. CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................... 8 CONTEXT FOR UNDERSTANDING PERIOD 25 OUTCOMES .......................................................................................................8 PERIOD 25 PLACEMENT STANDARDS ...............................................................................................................................14 Discriminatory Placement Practices...................................................................................................................14 Reimbursement Rates ........................................................................................................................................15 Major Findings ...................................................................................................................................................16 PERIOD 25 OUTCOMES.................................................................................................................................................18 MAJOR OUTCOME MEASURE FINDINGS ...........................................................................................................................26
APPENDIX A – METRICS UNDER THE MODIFIED EXIT PLAN .................................................................................. 30 APPENDIX B – GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................... 56

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

ii

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 4 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
I. INTRODUCTION
T his Period 25 report is the third monitoring document in which the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) report on the new outcomes delineated in the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan (Modified Exit Plan) that was filed in Federal District Court in December 2016. In addition to this monitoring report, in early 2019 MTAT will issue the first Infrastructure Standards brief in accordance with the agreed upon standards filed with the court in December 2017. While these briefs are also required on a biannual basis, they will be filed separately from the monitoring reports.
In this report, the MTAT’s obligation is to report specifically on the measurable requirements articulated in Sections IV, V, and VI of the Modified Exit Plan that relate to activity in Region 14 from January 1 through June 30, 2018. In this report, in addition to discussing the Ongoing and Attained Outcomes Measures, we will continue to review the use of congregate care, monitor the use of hotels and other temporary placements for children in foster care, and report caseloads for case managers and supervisors. The next two sections of this report provide that information. While MTAT usually reports on the implementation of Solution Based Casework (SBC), an indepth analysis can instead be found in the first brief on the Infrastructure Standards. This required the MTAT to augment its monitoring approach to extend beyond administrative data and to develop methods for collecting information and data evidence through a wider range of sources. The methodology included case file reviews, interviews, focus groups with staff and stakeholders, as well as observation of various staffings, case consultations, and meetings intended to move class children to permanency. In order to provide an in-depth assessment, MTAT will evaluate a subset of the Infrastructure Standards during each reporting period. This first brief evaluates the following three sections.
Revised Monitoring Approach
The MTAT approach to monitoring serves not only as an accountability mechanism for the Court, the Plaintiffs and the public, but also as an opportunity to assist DFCS to establish a culture of data-driven decision making and continuous quality improvement (CQI). The goal is to establish a strong CQI process that will remain in place after the state satisfies the terms of the Modified Exit Plan and is no longer under federal court oversight.
Pursuant to the Modified Consent Decree, the outcome measures have undergone substantial revision to reflect, when possible, the principles of best practices in measurement. Best practices principles include: 1) a clear statement of the analytic question with particular attention to identifying the risk population or the denominator associated with a particular inquiry; 2) use of entry cohorts and prospective measures to characterize systems dynamics and change in outcomes; 3) attention to the sources of variation in system outcomes (e.g. variation over time, among children, or in places), 4) understanding variation to track change accurately; 5) assessing expected change in the appropriate period of performance or window of time; 6) matching the analytic question to the appropriate source data; and 7) using well-understood and organized data resources that are designed to support asking and answering analytic questions.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 5 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
The MTAT will consistently report on the same outcomes and Modified Exit Plan standards in each subsequent period using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data. In addition to this basic and consistent set of metrics to track progress over time as agreed upon in the Modified Exit Plan, the MTAT will also conduct a deep, quality-focused analysis on a handful of Infrastructure Standards in each of the reporting periods. This may include interviews with stakeholders, focus groups, surveys, observation at key process points, targeted case reviews, and/or Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSRs).
Our approach to this analysis will enable parties to better understand several key factors associated with each of the agreed-upon Infrastructure Standards: 1) the expectations for practice and the extent to which these processes are occurring; 2) the capacity within the system to meet these expectations; and 3) the extent to which these processes are occurring with sufficient consistency and quality. Moreover, this will enable the MTAT to focus on emerging issues to mitigate a reactive approach to monitoring. We list below the focus areas for each brief and note that each time we will consider the comprehensive practice model or SBC because it is the primary means by which the state engages with children and families.
The first brief on the Infrastructure Standards is focused on the comprehensive practice model (Section I), investigations of possible maltreatment in care (Section II) and the case planning process (Section III). Both Class Counsel and DFCS leaders are currently reviewing it.
The second brief on the Infrastructure Standards will be on the comprehensive practice model (Section I), robust workforce development (Section VIII), quality placement and caregiving (Section IV) and health and education (Section V).
The third brief on the Infrastructure Standards will be on the comprehensive practice model (Section I), federal funding (Section IX) and the child welfare information and quality assurance systems (Section VI), and supervision of contract agencies (Section VII).
Leadership Changes
During Period 25, DFCS continued experiencing significant changes in leadership at the state and regional levels. Virginia Pryor, who had been serving as the Interim DFCS Division Director since October 2017, was appointed as the DFCS Division Director in March 2018. However, she resigned in July 2018. Coinciding with her departure, Mr. Jeff Lukich, Chief of Staff, retired in August 2018. Governor Deal then appointed Mr. Tom Rawlings as the Interim Division Director. Unfortunately, this marks the 8th State Division Director in the 13 years that the state has been working toward exiting the Consent Decree.
Changes also occurred at district, regional, and county levels. As indicated in the Period 24 Report, Ms. Lynn Barmore, Metro District Director for Regions 13 and 14, retired at the end of March 2018. Mr. James Binnicker, North District Director for Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, was appointed to provide leadership for the Metro District in addition to his North Georgia responsibilities. Ms. Andrea Tulloch, Regional Director for Region 14 transitioned to a position in the state office. Thus, in addition to his District Director responsibilities, Mr. Binnicker also assumed responsibilities as the Region 14 Director. To date, he has not filled the Region 14 Director position; however, the state has hired a North Georgia District Director. So currently,

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 6 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
Mr. Binnicker is focused on the Metro District as a whole and Region 14 specifically. In August 2018, Fulton County hired a new Deputy County Director.
Sustained, strong leadership is essential for building and maintaining an effective workforce that daily improves its engagement with children, youth, and families. As the state strives to complete the Modified Exit Plan, stabilizing leadership at all levels and articulating a clear theory of change is vital for achieving success.
Regional Priorities and Transition of the MEASURES Process
As for prior monitoring reports, the MTAT requested an update from Region 14 leadership about key priorities during Period 25, and the areas in which they saw noteworthy development. The DeKalb and Fulton County Directors, along with the Regional/District Director provided the following priority updates for Region 14. None of this information has been independently verified by MTAT.
1. Strengthening the workforce through onboarding, promoting, training, and retaining. We are seeing slight improvements since the inclusion of HR manager into the Kenny A workgroups. Staff are attending an extensive new worker training and then being incorporated into the field work. While this process is lengthy, we are exposing new staff to the field work as soon as possible. We are also incorporating supervisor and administrator training in Region 14 to strengthen their capacities in leading, tracking, monitoring and developing staff at all levels.
2. Strengthening the support to counties through the use of the Regional Support Network team (FPS). FPS are currently assigned and assisting in both counties by providing supervision in DeKalb and working cases in Fulton. The support is twofold, which helps fill the gaps while ensuring contact requirements are met. The FPS team is also finding ways to support the practice in the field by attending and participating in case staffing.
3. Strengthening our ability to provide timely permanency through reunification and adoptions. The effort to reduce the number of children in adoption status, placed in an adoptive resource, is a priority.
4. Strengthening our kinship placement options will allow for children to remain with relatives. This requires a timely safety assessment, home assessment, and services to parents and relatives. We continue to seek ways to support the relatives with emotional, physical and financial support. A request has been made to have OFI representation in the workgroups. This will allow questions and answers to eligibility requirements for relatives.
5. Strengthening our Resource Development team will improve services to kinship and foster care placements. The current length of time to approve a home for a placement can be reduced with a streamlined process of efficiency.
6. Strengthening the Kenny A. workgroup participation by having front-line staff and all relevant parties at the table. Developing clear action steps in each meeting and providing follow-up to ensure action steps are put into place and are actually improving the desired outcomes.
7. Lastly, strengthening the region leadership through accountability, focused attention, collaboration and partnership with all leadership to ensure the expected behavior is being modeled.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 7 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
II. ROBUST WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

The Modified Exit Plan caseload and supervisor standards are intended to help ensure more case manager time with children and families, and quality supervision and support for case managers. These standards remained the same as those in the original consent decree. As detailed in previous monitoring reports, there have been longstanding challenges meeting these standards.
For the 193 CPS, family preservation, permanency, and specialized case managers who were active on June 30, 2018, 112 (58 percent) of them were meeting caseload expectations. Not counted in these numbers were 24 cases assigned to 16 supervisors on this same date pending case assignment.
On this same date, out of 48 active CPS and permanency supervisors, 30 (63 percent) of them were assigned five or fewer case managers and most of those were CPS supervisors.
CPS Case Managers
For CPS case managers, 86 percent were assigned 12 or fewer families to respond to or investigate reports of maltreatment on June 30, 2018.
Family Preservation Case Managers
Family preservation case managers have generally been assigned 17 or fewer families in order to provide services and help ensure child safety.1 This was also the case on June 30, 2018 when 100 percent of these case managers met the standard.
Permanency Case Managers
For many years, permanency case managers were consistently meeting or exceeding a caseload expectation of 15 or fewer cases; however, this began to shift in 2015.2 Only 45 percent of all permanency case managers were meeting caseload expectations on June 30, 2018.
Case Managers with Children Assigned to Them Who Have Been in Foster Care for 18 Months or Longer
Previously known as specialized case managers, case managers who are assigned to children who have been in foster care for 18 months or longer are to be assigned no more than 12 children at any given time. Many of these children require extra support to achieve permanency. Percentages of case managers meeting this expectation have been dropping notably in recent years to a low of 17 percent on December 31, 2016.3 One year later, on December 31, 2017, 36 percent of these case managers were meeting caseload expectations. On June 30, 2018, the percentage of case managers meeting this expectation had declined to 31 percent.4

1 See Period 24 Final Data Report Kenny A. v. Deal. 2 See Period 24 Final Data Report Kenny A. v. Deal. 3 See Period 24 Final Data Report Kenny A. v. Deal. 4 The requirement to be assigned no more than 12 cases goes into effect when more than half of case manager’s
caseload are children who have been in foster care for 18 months or longer.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 8 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Supervisors
On December 31, 2017, all of the DeKalb County supervisors and 70 percent of the Fulton County supervisors were meeting expectations related to the number of case managers they were assigned. However, on June 30, 2018, only 36 percent of DeKalb supervisors and 60 percent of Fulton supervisors had five or fewer case managers to supervise.
This is a great concern for both counties. Without adequate supervisory capacity, the counties are more likely to find cases delayed and case managers are more likely to leave the agency.
DeKalb County on June 30, 2018
Caseloads for 32 percent of the case managers in DeKalb County on June 30, 2018 were too high and exceeded agreed-upon limits. This was especially the case for case managers serving children in foster care. It should be noted that almost all CPS case managers (93 percent) were assigned caseloads that met agreed-upon standards. On this date, there were 16 cases assigned to nine supervisors pending case assignment. See Appendix A, Tables 3 and 4 for more information.
Fulton County on June 30, 2018
On this same date, Fulton County had a higher percentage of case managers exceeding caseload expectations, with 56 percent of the case managers exceeding caseload expectations. See Appendix A, Tables 5 and 6 for more information.
For the first brief on the Infrastructure Standards, the MTAT expanded on these caseload dynamics as of June 30, 2018, to include a calculation of the number of case managers in each program area for each county that would be needed to meet caseload standards compared to the number and percent currently available, in training or being onboarded. Those calculations were based on a “Magic Number” spreadsheet, developed by the Measures Workforce workgroup, and expected to be updated on a monthly basis. In addition to including that workbook in the first Infrastructure Standards brief, the MTAT intends to include that workbook in subsequent monitoring reports to report on caseloads and caseworker vacancy at the end of each period
To better understand the factors that most impact DFCS’ ability to meet caseload expectations and ensure a stable and capable workforce to address the needs of children and families, the MTAT will be conducting a deeper analysis on the workforce in the third brief on the Infrastructure Standards. The Infrastructure Standards, negotiated and submitted to the court in December 2017, include commitments related to the hiring and onboarding process for new employees, improved coordination with the Department of Human Services’ Office of Human Resources (OHR), case manager and supervisory training and support, as well as better management of caseloads for case managers and supervisors.
There are some factors that have already been identified: the need for consistent data to understand workforce dynamics, the need to streamline the hiring and onboarding process, the need to better prepare the workforce through a more efficient and effective approach to training and supporting the existing workforce.
First, leaders continue to expend too much of their limited time seeking consistent, accurate information about the workforce in both counties, such as: 1) the number of case managers and

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 9 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
supervisors, their years of DFCS experience, program area, and number of cases or case managers assigned to them; 2) the number of vacant positions and how long these have been vacant; 3) the length of time it is taking for new hires to complete the onboarding process and where delays are incurred; 4) turnover rates for new hires and existing employees that can be understood over time; and 5) other factors contributing to high caseloads, such as timely and quality case closure practices. Part of the concern here is that there is not a consistent method for tracking progress (or lack thereof) related to these workforce dynamics over time.
A second issue is a simple comparison between the number of new hires during the period, compared to the number of employees who left DFCS through resignations, retirements, and dismissals. In both counties, as depicted in the two tables below, during the target period more employees left than were hired, and for several months no new employees were hired. There are several reasons for this to have occurred. The counties continued to lose employees due to high workloads. Hiring came to a halt for several months during the period. Moreover, this dynamic was exacerbated, as a result of some confusion during initial implementation of a new electronic system designed to streamline and speed up the hiring process, HR Pass. DFCS has made a commitment to partner with the Department of Human Resources to streamline this process.
Figure 1: DeKalb New Hires vs. Departures

Source: Region 14 Combined Human Resources Report.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 10 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
Figure 2: DeKalb New Hires vs. Departures
Source: Region 14 Combined Human Resources Report.
DFCS leaders have identified several specific concerns related to the overall process for onboarding and training newly hired case managers. Too many new hires have been leaving DFCS after completing the 16-week Child Welfare Academy Fundamentals and Essentials Training.5 Changes are already in process to develop a new training process that will be completed in six weeks and will include certification. In addition, the counties are implementing a revised process for onboarding new employees. These issues will be explored in more detail in the second brief on the Infrastructure Standards.

5 The objectives of the Training Academy are to: educate case managers with the knowledge, skills, and practice needed to engage families, assess safety, and make decisions that result in better outcomes for children and families; ensure case managers know how to identify signs of present and impending danger; ensure case managers know how to address safety issues in the least restrictive manner; align training to support SBC; and ensure a more competencybased certification process for new case managers.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 11 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
III. CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

As Region 14 continues to grapple with stabilizing the workforce during another new leadership transition, the counties have struggled to meet key engagement outcome measures during Period 25 and fewer children are achieving timely permanency. Overall, the number of children and youth entering foster care increased slightly; however, the number of children exiting care decreased during Period 25. There were 468 entries during this period, but only 419 exits, thus increasing the overall number of children in foster care, which results in high caseloads. Table 5 in the section below reflects the region’s performance on each outcome measure in the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan. While both counties share challenges in certain areas, such as completing four visits within a child’s first four weeks in a new placement, other areas of challenge are unique to each county.
This section of the report provides a longitudinal snapshot of placement dynamics, a report on major findings regarding placement prohibitions, a listing of the performance of each county and the region on the outcomes required under the Modified Exit Plan, and major findings regarding outcome measures.
Cases that do not close but instead go on to a deeper involvement with DFCS, including removal from the community and placement in foster care, also a have distinct set of processes and timelines for expected completion. Those processes and their timeframes are depicted in Figure 4.
This figure highlights those case management and permanency planning activities that should occur in the first year of placement. The yellow bar across the top displays timeframes in days, and the white circles specify what case management activity should occur within specific timeframes. The bars (tan and red) at the bottom represent ongoing case management activities, with the red bars denoting those items that are somewhat associated with SBC. The white circles highlight the numerous specific tasks associated with the first year of placement, many of which are mandated in policy, and which sit outside of (but can be integrated with) the core tenets of SBC.
Context for Understanding Period 25 Outcomes
In the next section, we provide an overview of case flow dynamics in Region 14 during the most recent three-and-a-half years. These data provide useful context for interpreting outcomes associated with the January through June 2018 period under review. Shifts in the mix of children entering care (either by age or the proportion that return home quickly) can influence placement stability and permanency outcomes. Initial placement type may also be associated with future outcomes. Thus, to support the outcome analysis, we present some basic information about the flow of children and youth entering placement in Region 14 during the first half of 2018, and relative to the prior three calendar years.
We show the number of children and youth entering care by county, by age at entry, and by first placement type. Additionally, we provide information about the short-stayers. We consider the proportion of children and youth who enter care and stay for less than one month, and see how that proportion has been shifting over time, as total entries in the region decline (except for a

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 12 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
slight uptick during Period 25). While there are some similar trends for the region overall, there are also some patterns distinctive in each county. Data, current through June 30, 2018, are derived from the DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data.
Table 1 below shows that the number of children and youth entering care in Region 14 continues to decrease relative to the most recent years. The table displays all children and youth entering care from 2015 through June 30, 2018, and it includes placement spells of any duration.
Table 1: Children Entering Foster Care in Region 14

Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data.
The 2018 numbers are six-month figures that suggest the decline observed since 2015 may have stabilized. The distribution by age at entry for the six-month cohort is similar to that of the prior year for children placed between the ages of one and 12. But there is a decrease in the proportion who enter as infants and an increase in the proportion who enter as teenagers. This shift is driven by the dynamics in DeKalb, which shows a declining proportion of entries for younger children and an increasing proportion of older children and teenagers. The sparkline (trendlines above) shows the steady decrease in counts overall from 2015 to 2017, although within age groups there are some different patterns observable, especially in Fulton County.
Figure 3 below provides an additional view of the distribution of the 2018 six-month entry cohort by single year of age, and county, and shows how those distribution have shifted from the prior three years. In both cases, infants are the greatest proportion of each entry cohort, followed by a steep decline with some variation by age, county, and entry year over time.
In DeKalb, the 2018 entry group is distinguished by peaks at each end of the age distribution. Infants clearly make up the greatest proportion of the 2018 entrants, although it has dropped from just under 18 percent, to under 14 percent for the most recent period. Similarly, youth 14 and older make up the next greatest proportion of enterers – between 7 and 10 percent in the first half of 2018, although these patterns deviate slightly from the prior entry year.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 13 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
Figure 3: DeKalb and Fulton Entries by Age

For Fulton County, the patterns are slightly different: Infants are the largest proportion of the entry group, and at 18 percent, which was the highest proportion observed when compared to the earlier years, they match the 2017 year. But there is not a similar bump for the older children, although the current six-month group shows a slightly higher proportion of teenaged entries, they remain less than 10 percent of each year’s entry cohort.

Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 14 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

The next set of tables show the placement type for children and youth at the time of entry. Just under 75 percent of children coming into care in Region 14 in the first half of 2018 were first placed in family settings. Just over 45 percent were first placed in foster homes, and just over 25 percent were placed in a kinship setting. The remaining 27 percent were placed in other settings – including congregate settings, and “other” settings (which include hotels, ILPs, hospitals, jails, AWOL status, and unknown settings).

Table 2: Placements for Children and Youth Entering Foster Care

First Placement Type Total Foster Relative Congregate^ Other^

2015
1,353 641 305 175 232

Total
2016 2017
1,012 898 436 406 250 241 156 156 170 95

Jan-Jun 2018 465 219 119 90 37

2015
746 364 176 101 105

DeKal b

2016 2017

547 442

233 198

144 121

79

74

91

49

Jan-Jun 2018 246 111 61 55 19

2015
607 277 129 74 127

Ful ton
2016 2017
465 456 203 208 106 120 77 82 79 46

Jan-Jun 2018 219 108 58 35 18

Total

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Foster

47% 43% 45% 47% 49% 43% 45% 45%

Relative

23% 25% 27% 26% 24% 26% 27% 25%

Congregate^

13% 15% 17% 19% 14% 14% 17% 22%

Other

17% 17% 11% 8% 14% 17% 11% 8%

Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data.

100% 46% 21% 12% 21%

100% 44% 23% 17% 17%

100% 46% 26% 18% 10%

100% 49% 26% 16% 8%

These patterns are consistent with prior years, although the data from first half of 2018 implies slightly less reliance on “other” settings, which when known – are generally temporary short-term placements – or hospital placements. Their decline – and the slight uptick in family-based setting is promising. Overall, the first six months saw a slight increase in the proportion of children/youth placed in a congregate setting, and the data evidence suggest that is driven by DeKalb county dynamics.

This pattern is relatively consistent over time – and between the two counties. The two bar graphs look more closely at the six-month 2018 group and show the placement settings by single year of age in each county. This view provides a more nuanced consideration of the experience of children and youth as different at the time of removal – although it is important to keep in mind that the numbers of children and youth represented in each of these bars is fairly low. Generally, there are fewer than 20 (often fewer than 10) children represented in each age group. The table below displays counts by placement type and age at spell start for each county, which adds useful context with which to consider the two figures below.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 15 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table 3: First Placement Type, by Age at Placement, Jan-Jun 2018

Jan - Jun 2018 Entries, First Placement Type by Age at Spell Start

Age at Spell Start

County

Total 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

DeKal b

Total

246 32 12 12 10 11 5

9

8 14 7 13 8

6 15 16 23 25 20

Foster

111 21 7

9

7

7

2

5

4 11 4

6

5

0

4

4

7

3

5

Relative

61 5

4

3

3

4

3

4

3

3

2

6

3

3

2

3

2

4

4

Congregate

55 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

8

8 11 16 10

Other

19 6

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

3

2

1

Fulton County

Total

219 40 12 16 13 8

6

6 10 8

9

3

8

6 14 20 17 16 7

Foster

108 17 8 14 9

4

3

5

8

4

5

3

5

4

1

7

4

4

3

Relative

58 13 4

2

4

3

3

1

2

4

4

0

2

1

3

5

3

3

1

Congregate

35 0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

8

7 10 7

2

Other

18 10 0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

2

1

0

2

1

Figure 4: DeKalb First Placement Type by Age

Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data.
In DeKalb County, the most frequent first placement type was foster homes (blue bar) for most children entering placement between the ages of 0 and 11. The 19 percent of infants placed in “other” settings are primarily associated with hospital removals. About 16 percent of entering infants were placed in a relative home (orange bar). For older children, there was a wide range in the reliance on relative homes for first placement – 60 percent of five year-olds and 50 percent of 12 year-olds were placed with family members or fictive kin. Otherwise the range was from about 21 percent up to 60 percent. The likelihood of initial foster home placement decreased sharply for youth placed as teenagers, and the use of kinship declined as well. Reliance on congregate care (grey bar) increased with age – peaking at over 64 percent for 16-year-olds – and exceeding 50 percent for most other age groups except for 15-year-olds, of whom 48 percent were placed in a congregate setting.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 16 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

For Fulton, the patterns indicate some variation. One-third of infants were placed with a relative or fictive kin, a quarter were first placed in other (likely hospital), and the remainder were placed in foster homes. Children placed between the ages of one and 12 were very likely to have first placement in a foster home. For over 50 percent of children in each age group (one to 12) that was the first setting, and it was the setting for 80 percent or more of children of certain ages (two, six, seven, and 10 years old). Relative placements were common (with some variation) in the younger age group, reaching as high as the first placement for half of five- and eight-year-olds. But for children over 10 at placement, relative care decreased in likelihood as the first placement type.
The proportion placed in “other” – especially for non-infants, declined in the first six months of 2018.

Figure 5: Fulton First Placement Type by Age
Caseload Ratio, Caseload Averages & Current Capacity

Case Type Foster Care Foster Care (Specialized) Post Foster Care Adoption Investigation Family Support Services Family Preservation Intake

Caseload Ratios 15 12 20 15 12 18 17 12

Six Month Avg Caseload

Total DeKalb Fulton

735

397

338

583

327

257

761

355

407

251

178

73

577

270

307

653

271

382

210

127

84

291

164

127

Case Type Total Foster Care Foster Care (Specialized) Post Foster Care Adoption Investigation Family Support Services Family Preservation Intake * All foster care included Foster Care row
Source: Magic Number Calculator, Nov 2018

Required Staff

Total 273 49.0 48.6 38.1 16.7 48.0 36.3 12.4 24.3

DeKalb 142 26.4 27.2 17.7 11.9 22.5 15.1 7.5 13.7

Fulton 131 22.5 21.4 20.3 4.8 25.6 21.2 4.9 10.6

Currently Availalble, In Training & On-boarding

Total 218 90
0 0 21 55 35 17 0

DeKalb 128 52
14 32 18 12

Fulton 90 38
7 23 17 5

Percent

Total De

80%

9

66%

7

126% 11 114% 14 97% 11 137% 16

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

13

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 17 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

The final focus of this overview is on the proportion of children entering care in Region 14 who had relatively brief stays – short-stayers – in recent years. Table 4 below indicates that the proportion of children entering care in Region 14 who stay in care less than 31 days has dropped from about 25 percent to 20 percent in the most recent year that can by fully observed (2017). This decrease has occurred in both counties, with DeKalb dropping from just under a quarter to 15 percent and Fulton from about one-third to 25 percent. These are notable decreases. Table 4 also shows that the large majority of children experiencing these short spells are youth 13 and older. This is especially true in DeKalb, where more than 80 percent of the “short-stayers” are 13+, while in Fulton the figure is closer to 60 percent.
Nearly all of these youth who exited quickly returned to a family member. In both counties, it was 96 percent of the 2017 short-stayers. And of those children and youth who entered, had brief stays and then returned home, about 20 percent of them returned to care in the region within one year of their exit. In DeKalb, the reentry rate was 25 percent for short-stayers who returned home quickly.

Table 4: Children and Youth Entering Foster Care Leaving in Less Than 31 Days

Placement Total Entries GE 31 Days LT 31 Days

2015 1,353 996 357

Total 2016 1,012 759 253

2017 898 718 180

2015 746 572 174

DeKal b 2016 547 442 105

2017 442 374 68

2015 607 424 183

Ful ton 2016 465 317 148

2017 456 344 112

Perm Exit

338

238

173

164

100

65

174

138

108

Rentered w/in Yr

58

43

35

30

17

16

28

26

19

Of children/youth with spells of LT 31 Days . . .

% of Total Entries

26% 25% 20% 23% 19% 15% 30% 32% 25%

% 13 + at entry

70% 71% 69% 73% 76% 82% 67% 68% 61%

% Exiting to Permanency

95% 94% 96% 94% 95% 96% 95% 93% 96%

% Reentering

17% 18% 20% 18% 17% 25% 16% 19% 18%

Source: DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data

Period 25 Placement Standards
The need for appropriate placements for all children who enter foster care or have a placement disruption is paramount. Mainly, through the Placement Stability MEASURE workgroup, the state continues to focus on specific strategic initiatives that were developed to reduce inappropriate placements including the use of hotels, overnight/excessive stays in a DFCS office, and congregate care for younger children. The Kenny A. State Project Director, the County Directors, and the head of resource development for Region 14 are championing the effort to ensure safe and stable placements for children and youth.

Discriminatory Placement Practices

Section IV.B.3 of the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan (hereinafter Exit Plan) prohibits discriminatory placement practices. Specifically, this section states:

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

14

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 18 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
“Race and/or ethnicity and/or religion shall not be the basis for a delay or denial in the placement of a child, either with regard to matching the child with a foster or adoptive family or with regard to placing a child in a group facility. DHS shall not contract with any program or private agency that gives preference in its placement practices by race, ethnicity, or religion…”
Moreover, the Principles outlined in the Exit Plan include:
“All children in need of child welfare services should receive full and equal access to the best available services, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
In DFCS contracts for room board and watchful oversight (RWBO), each provider is responsible for having a policy to address grievances and each provider must have an identified Child Ombudsman, who is responsible for investigating any complaints and/or grievances. This Ombudsman must not have any direct care or oversight responsibility for the child within the agency. The State Office of Provider Management (OPM) has monitoring specialists who are responsible for interviewing children currently placed with private providers. The interviews focus on suitability of the placement and whether the child’s needs are being met.
OPM also uses a monitoring tool to review the provider’s grievance policy. If grievances were filed, OPM monitoring specialists review them to ensure that the process was followed according to the provider’s policy. This includes interviewing the child to verify the information being shared by the provider. In FY2020, OPM will be adding an additional question to its monitoring tool that directly addresses discrimination.
In addition to the grievance process within OPM, the Well-Being Services Section, though the Georgia Resilient, Youth-Centered, Stable and Empowered Program (R.Y.S.E)/ ILP Program, manage a youth grievance process for young people to report issues related to fair and equitable treatment as it relates to all life domains (health, education, housing/placements, etc.). DFCS will be adding additional measures to enhance feedback related to LGBTQ policies and practices.
In future reporting periods, MTAT will analyze state-provided data and trends from these two offices within DFCS.
Reimbursement Rates
The Exit Plan requires uniform reimbursement rates for agency and private provider foster homes. When the Exit Plan was approved, reimbursement rates were $15.27, $17.26, $19.65 for children and youth ages zero to five, six to 12, and 13+ respectively, for DFCS foster homes and for private provider foster homes. In FY2018, which covered Period 24, the foster care per diems were increased. DFCS foster homes now receive $25.27, $27.26, and $29.65 respectively. Private provider foster homes now received $20.27, $22.26, and $24.65 respectively. The state indicated that increases for private provider foster homes were spread over two years, per agreement with the Plaintiffs. Thus, the state committed to equalizing private provider rates with DFCS foster home rates in FY2019, which began July 1, 2018 The Finance Director, Clifford O’Conner confirmed that the rates were indeed equalized on July 1, 2018. MTAT will continue monitoring these rates.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

15

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 19 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
The major findings regarding placements during Period 25 are presented below.

Major Findings
1. The state has eliminated the regular use of hotels, motels, or similar non-child welfare overnight commercial enterprises.
The State continues to do a commendable job eliminating the regular use of hotels as a placement resource. There was only one instance of a child being placed in a hotel during Period 25 in March 2018. Since then, no children have been housed in hotels. During the past two years the state has been working to increase its array of foster care placements and to enhance diligent search efforts to locate and support relatives and fictive kin as temporary placements for children and youth. In addition, the partnership with the Multi-Agency Alliance for Children (MAAC) continues to provide emergency placements for youth in Fulton and DeKalb counties.
2. The State continues its efforts to limit the amount of time a child spends in a DFCS office, especially during overnight hours. However, additional documentation is needed to truly understand the experience of children who come in and out of the office on the same day and on consecutive days.
The Modified Consent Decree states, “no child shall spend more than 23 hours in a county DFCS office. Any child who spends time in a county DFCS office between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. shall be reported to the MTAT. The intent of this provision is to prevent the use of DFCS offices as an overnight placement for children, as children with urgent placement needs require a safe bed in a home-like environment.”
During Period 25, there were two youth who spent more than 23 hours in a county DFCS office. According to the DFCS Office Stay Log, one young man, age 17, entered the DFCS office on March 9, 2018 at 10:30 p.m., after experiencing a disrupted placement. He did not leave the office until 11:59 p.m. on March 11, 2018. These two full days in the office were followed by smaller periods of time in the office on March 12 and March 13, for a total of more than 63 hours. At some point during these hours, DFCS found a placement; however, upon arriving at the placement, the child refused to enter, and returned to the office. At another point, he was placed in a receiving home and was finally placed in a foster home on March 19, 2018. During the time of the youth’s office stay, the region identified multiple placements; however, placement attempts failed due to the youth’s repeated refusal to enter these identified placements. Therefore, the youth had to be returned to the office on several occasions. Staff made arrangements so that the youth spent as little time as possible in the office. He had a job at a pizza restaurant, working five to seven hours per day (this was a weekend). His behavioral aide took him to work and picked him up. After work, they would have meals and then outings such as movies, bowling, or to play sports so that he only returned to the office to sleep, supervised by his behavioral aide. The

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

16

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 20 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
Resource Development team continued working until a foster home was identified and the youth agreed to placement. Upon leaving the office on March 13, 2018, the youth had the following placements:
 March 13, 2018 to March 14, 2018 – Holiday Inn (Hotel).
 March 14, 2018 to April 25, 2018 – (CPA FH).
 April 25, 2018 to April 27, 2018 – (DFCS FH).
 April 27, 2018 to May 30, 2018 – Safe Haven (CCI).
On May 30, 2018, custody was granted to the mother with a protective order for 90 days.
Another youth, age 16, entered the DFCS office on February 25, 2018 at 1:30 a.m. after experiencing a disrupted placement. According to the office log, he left the office at 12 a.m. on February 26, 2018, for a total of 22.5 hours. However, when asked for additional information about this youth, DFCS indicated that he actually left the office at 1:00 p.m. on February 26, 2018, which means he spent a total of 35.5 hours in the DFCS office prior to being placed. MTAT requested additional information and DFCS provided the following regarding his subsequent placements:
 February 26, 2018 to March 2, 2018 – Embracing Arms (CCI).
 March 2, 2018 to March 3, 2018 – Reaching Back (CCI).
 March 3, 2018 to March 5, 2018 – (DFCS FH).
 March 5, 2018 to March 21, 2018 – Iries Community Office (Behavioral Aide agency office).
 Guardianship granted on March 21, 2018. Child no longer in care.
The youth was placed in a set-up bedroom at the Iries Community Office for two weeks with a behavioral aide assigned to him. The aid took him to school during the week and to work on the weekends. They also did other activities to limit the amount of time spent in the actual office. DFCS indicated that the case manager visited the youth three times and the department also provided information regarding their efforts to secure a placement for this youth during those two weeks.
While these are not the only two youth who have unexplained time between entering and exiting the DFCS office between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m., they had the most extensive office stays by far. MTAT has met with DFCS and expressed a deep concern about the accuracy of the office stay log and the lack of information that is currently being provided. A new monitoring tool and process is being devised so that there will be a more accurate depiction and a clearer understanding of the experiences of youth who stay in the office awaiting placements.
3. The state continues to ensure young children are not placed in congregate care placements unless necessary for the child’s welfare.
The Consent Decree has several restrictions related to the use of group care, including limiting the use of congregate care for young children. The reported information is for all children under the

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

17

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 21 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
age of 12 in care between January and June 2018, not for a sample of the entire foster care population.
According to state reports, no children under the age of 12 entering foster care or already in care during the period were placed in group homes or child caring institutions except as allowed under the Modified Exit Plan. During Period 25, of youth in care or who entered foster care in the period, 22 children and youth were placed in hospitals to meet their physical health needs, seven children were in psychiatric residential treatment facilities (PRTFs), and seven children were hospitalized for mental health issues. In addition, there was one child placed with the mother in a group care setting designed for teen mothers. All documentation and waivers were reviewed by the MTAT.
4. The overwhelming number of children are not remaining in temporary facilities longer than 30 days and the region continues to place fewer children in more than one temporary facility while in foster care.
The Modified Consent Decree states:
a. No child shall be placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility beds used on any temporary basis, for more than 30 days; and
b. Children shall not be placed in more than one temporary facility within one episode of foster care (meaning the period of time that a child is in foster care from the date of removal from the home until the child is discharged from DFCS custody, except that a runaway does not trigger a new episode of foster care).
During Period 25, out of the 2,017 children who were in foster care at the beginning of the period or entered during the period, there was one child in Fulton County placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility beds used on a temporary basis for more than 30 days.
In addition, for the first half of calendar year 2018, only three of 661 (.45 percent) of children were placed in two or more temporary facilities within one episode of foster care. The state should be commended for continuing to reduce the number of children experiencing two or more temporary placements. They have reduced this percentage from 11.5 percent in CY2015, to 7.3 percent in CY2016, to 3.6 percent in CY2017.
Period 25 Outcomes
Tables 5 and 6 below list each Ongoing and Attained Outcomes for Period 25, along with the most current observed performance. The outcomes shaded in green indicate measures that are eligible to move to the Attained category. The outcome shaded in red indicates a measure that MTAT is recommending a move from the Attained category back to Ongoing.
Finally, this report contains two appendices. In Appendix A, there is a Measures Grid that identifies each measurable outcome, practice standard, or performance measure required in the under the Modified Consent Decree, and then describes the method for producing that metric. Then there is a technical document that provides the numerator and denominator for each metric displayed in the Outcome Grid and includes additional explanation and/or data that support

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

18

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 22 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
interpretation of the outcome metric under the Modified Consent Decree. Appendix B contains a glossary of common terms that are relevant to Georgia.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

19

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 23 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table 5: Period 25 Ongoing Outcome Measures

(Green denotes an outcome measure that is eligible to move from Ongoing to Attained.)

Ongoing Outcome Measures
Outcome 1: Commencement of CPS Investigations Concerning Foster Children: At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact with the alleged victim, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of the report. Outcome 3: Re-entry into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge. Children who were in foster care for less than eight days are not counted in this measure. Outcome 4: Maltreatment in Care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days. Outcome 5: Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care. Outcome 6: At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months shall be discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Outcome 7: At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be discharged to

Period 24 Performance
Region 14 72%
16.9%
4.36 83%
28.2%
22.7%

Period 25 Performance
DeKalb 100%
13%
3.09 91%
5%
13%

Period 25 Performance
Fulton 92%
12%
3.28 79%
14%
12%

Period 25 Performance
Region 14 95%6
13%7
3.17 85%
9%8
12%9

6 This includes investigations conducted by perimeter counties and the State Investigations Unit. 7 This is the sixth month performance on an annual measure. 8 This is the sixth month performance on an annual measure. 9 This is the sixth month performance on an annual measure.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

20

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 24 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Ongoing Outcome Measures
permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Outcome 8: Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights. Outcome 9: Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had either (a) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or (b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Outcome 10: Sibling Placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject to the following exceptions: (a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, (c) the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with relatives. Outcome 11: Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care. Outcome 12: Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of all children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or

Period 24 Performance
Region 14
43% 96%
92%
2.93 97%

Period 25 Performance
DeKalb
60% 96%
85.9%
2.41 94.6%

Period 25 Performance
Fulton
60% 97%
89.2%
3.53 97.9%

Period 25 Performance
Region 14
60% 97%
87.5%
2.9110 96%

10 This is the sixth month performance on an annual measure.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

21

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 25 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Ongoing Outcome Measures
transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave. Outcome 13: Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one in-placement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Outcome 14: Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. Outcome 16: Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Outcome 17: Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall have graduated from high school or earned a GED. Outcome 18: Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement. (72% of relative placements were in full approval.) Outcome 19: Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-

Period 24 Performance
Region 14
97.5% 85%
88%
50% 95% 96%

Period 25 Performance
DeKalb 96% 82.2%
82%
n/a
93%

Period 25 Performance
Fulton 98.7% 95.4%
96%
n/a
100%

Period 25 Performance
Region 14
97.2% 88.4%11
89%
n/a12 96% 96%

11 If the performance continues to meet or exceed the standard in Period 26, this Outcome Measure can be moved to
the Attained category. 12 This measure is reported on an annual basis.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

22

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 26 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Ongoing Outcome Measures
month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review Outcome 20: Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for twelve or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing Outcome 21: Health and Educational Needs: Of children in care at a point in time at the end of the reporting period, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan: Outcome 21a: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed medical needs Outcome 21b: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed dental needs Outcome 21c: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed mental health needs Outcome 21d: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed education/development needs Outcome 27: Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.

Period 24 Performance
Region 14
100%
96% 89% 94% 100% 99%

Period 25 Performance
DeKalb
100%
98% 90% 93% 96% 98%

Period 25 Performance
Fulton
100%
84% 90% 84% 94% 90%

Period 25 Performance
Region 14
100%
92%13 90% 90% 95% 95%

13 If the performance continues to meet or exceed the standard in Period 26, this Outcome Measure can be moved to the Attained category.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

23

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 27 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table 6: Period 25 Attained Outcome Measures
(Red denotes an outcome measure that MTAT is recommending move from Attained to Ongoing.)

Attained Outcome Measures
Outcome 2: Completion of CPS Investigations Concerning Foster Children: At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of the report. Outcome 15: Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage Outcome 22: Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months. Outcome 23: Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Outcome 24: Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Outcome 25: Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to the following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with relatives, or (d) the child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective

Period 24 Performance
Region 14 100%
96%
100% 41.1%
0%
95%

Period 25 Performance
DeKalb 100%
94.7%
100%
18%
0%

Period 25 Performance
Fulton 100%
98.4%
100%
27%
0%

Period 25 Performance
Region 14 100%
96.3%
100% 22%14
0%
96%

14 This is the sixth month performance on an annual measure.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

24

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 28 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Attained Outcome Measures
adoptive family pursuant to an appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court. Outcome 26: Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Outcome 28: Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following capacity limits: (a) no placement shall result in more than 3 foster children in a foster home, or a total of 6 children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children, without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no placement will result in more than 3 children under the age of 3 in a foster home. The only exception to these capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a foster home with no other children in the home Other Consent Decree Requirements

Period 24 Performance
Region 14
95.0%
1%

Period 25 Performance
DeKalb
93.05%

Period 25 Performance
Fulton
97.4%

Period 25 Performance
Region 14
94.86%
0.2%

4x4 Visitation

37%

47%

32%

39%

(VI.G.1) Recurrence of Maltreatment

4.9%

3.7%

5.8%

4.9%

(VI.G.2) Number of children who were victims of a

2nd substantiated investigation w/in 12 months of

2.1%

1.3%

0.9%

1.1%

FSS case

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

25

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 29 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
Major Outcome Measure Findings
1. The region continues meeting the threshold for maltreatment in care, and Fulton County greatly reduced the number of children who experienced maltreatment in care during Period 25. Moreover, both counties made major improvements in timely initiating and completing investigations.
In previous reporting periods, the incidence of maltreatment in foster care was higher in Fulton County than in DeKalb County. However, during Period 25, Fulton County decreased its rate from 8.44 in Period 24 to 3.28, which was virtually equal to the rate in DeKalb County (3.09). Based on the associated number of days all children were in foster care during the period, both counties had a rate of victimization of 3.17 per 100,000 days. There were nine children substantiated for maltreatment in care in the period, four children from Fulton County and five children from DeKalb County. The national standard and Modified Exit Plan standard are the same: of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims of abuse or neglect in foster care per 100,000 days.15
The Modified Exit Plan requires that at least 95 percent of all reports of abuse or neglect of children be initiated within 24 hours of a report, which means face-to-face contact with the alleged victim. During Period 25, there were 46 investigations of maltreatment in care reported that involved 58 alleged victim children. Of these, 97 percent (56 of 58) of the alleged victim children had investigations that were initiated on time.16 This means that the investigator made face-to-face contact with these 56 alleged victim children within 24 hours of the report of maltreatment. This is the first time that the state has met the requirement for Outcome Measure 1 since the measurement was changed in January 2017. Fulton and DeKalb leadership have assigned a person in their respective county to ensure investigations are closed timely. Completion of these investigations continues to be in the ongoing category of outcome measures.
Similarly, the Modified Exit Plan requires that at least 95 percent of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of children in foster care be completed within 45 days of receipt of the report.17 As mentioned above, there were 46 investigations of maltreatment in care during the period, and all 46 (100 percent) of them were completed within 45 days from the report of possible abuse or neglect. Completion of these investigations continues to be in the ongoing category of outcome measures.
2. Visitation is improving in many areas; however, both the counties continue struggling to meet DFCS policy requiring four visits in the first four weeks of a new placement.
Authentic engagement and family-centered case planning are the foundation of the state’s new practice model. Case managers in both counties continue to visit caregivers consistently (96

15 Following review with the Department, the Outcome 2 metrics were revised to remove from the calculation those children who were flagged as potential victims while in care, but for whom case review revealed the investigation was associated with an incident that did not occur during the period under review. 16 Two of the alleged victim children were on runaway during the time of the report and were removed from the
denominator and numerator. 17 DFCS policy changed this to 45 days beginning July 1, 2017.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

26

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 30 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
percent). This is the fourth consecutive period that the counties have met or exceeded the required threshold, and this outcome has been moved to the Attained category,
Another area of sustained performance is Outcome Measure 13, visitation between case managers and children in foster care. During Period 25, the regional performance was 97.2 percent. This marks that third consecutive period that the counties have met or exceeded the required threshold. MTAT recommends that Outcome 13 be moved to the Attained category. Unfortunately, required monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children (Outcome 26) again fell below the threshold to 94.86 percent, just shy of the 96.25 percent requirement. This is the second consecutive reporting period in which the region did not meet the reporting requirement. Thus, MTAT is recommending that this outcome measure be moved back to an Ongoing Outcome Measure.
In addition to agency visitation, the role of facilitating visits between parents and their children and siblings placed in separate placements is vital to maintaining family connections and moving cases to permanency. The counties have struggled with visitation between siblings. During Period 24 the regional performance was 88 percent, an improvement from Period 23 (85 percent). During Period 25 the regional performance slightly improved to 88.9 percent. Fulton County continues performing above the required threshold ensuring that 96 percent of siblings visited monthly. However, DeKalb County only facilitated 82 percent of visits between separated siblings, which was an improvement from the 79 percent of visits between siblings in Period 24. Visitation between parents and their children occurred in 88 percent of the cases reviewed. This exceeds the standards set forth in the Consent Decree. DeKalb County slightly improved from facilitating 77 percent of these visits in Period 24 to facilitating 82.2 percent of these vital visits during Period 25. As discussed in the workforce section of this reports, both counties are severely understaffed for the number of children in foster care.
Visitation also assists in stabilizing placements. Both counties continue failing to adhere to statewide policy with a regional performance of 39 percent for the four visits in the first four weeks of a new placement.
3. Juvenile court processes continue meeting or exceeding the consent decree requirements. However, there are many systemic challenges with ensuring that court orders are timely drafted, reviewed, signed, filed, and uploaded into SHINES.
The legal requirements for removing a child from a family and granting temporary custody of that child are delineated in state and federal law, as well as DFCS policy and federal regulations. While the court systems in Fulton and DeKalb counties were not parties in the Kenny A class action or resulting consent decree, the courts play a major role in the child welfare system. Thus, while DFCS and its attorneys are responsible for filing necessary complaints, petitions, and motions with the court, attorneys for parents, child attorneys, and judges along with their staff, all must work together to ensure the correct and timely processing of cases. This process has a direct impact on achieving timely permanency for children and families.
This is the third consecutive reporting period in which DFCS, working with the court system, has exceeded the consent decree requirements of 95 percent of children in foster care having sixmonth case reviews and 95 percent of children in foster care having permanency hearing within

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

27

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 31 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
12 months of entering care. MTAT is recommending that these two outcome measures move to the Attained category.
In most of Georgia’s judicial districts, the Special Assistant Attorneys General (SAAGs) are responsible for drafting dependency court orders, circulating them to the parties for comments and ensuring that the draft orders are then provided to the judges for review, approval and filing. This became a statewide practice when DFCS realized it was not getting reimbursed by the federal government for the cost of foster care, because some of the court-produced orders did not contain the requisite language. Both Fulton and DeKalb counties have developed their own protocols regarding the process and timing of completing these court orders. Moreover, as SAAGs are assigned to certain judges, additional practices may vary from courtroom to courtroom.
In order to ascertain whether DFCS is meeting the requirements of Outcome 27, (95 percent of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act), MTAT pulls a sample of cases for a case file review. DFCS policy sets forth an expectation that court orders will be uploaded into SHINES in order for each child to have complete record. Thus, the case file reviewers search for hearing dates and correlating court orders. Then they read those orders to determine if they contain the required language. The challenge for several reporting periods has been that many of these court orders are missing and therefore the required language cannot be verified. They have either not been uploaded into SHINES, or they have not yet been signed by the judge, or they have not ever been produced by the SAAG. For the samples of cases reviewed, MTAT has provided the state with a list of cases and they then track down and in some instances, draft the missing orders. However, no proactive systemic approach was taken by DFCS during Period 25 to prevent missing orders and therefore incomplete files. During Period 26, DFCS has begun working with the entire court system to remedy this challenge.
While the state has been able to meet the requirements of Outcome 27 (95 percent), during Period 25, after receiving a second opportunity to find court orders, MTAT has concerns that the process for evaluating this metric may be flawed and not truly present an accurate picture of how the state is performing. During the next reporting period, in addition to the case file review, MTAT will explore other avenues for understanding the extent to which court orders are timely and contain required language.
4. While each of the permanency measures (Outcome Measures 6, 7, and 23) are annual measures, the first six months of 2018 indicate that children are not achieving timely permanency in Region 14.
Under the Modified Consent Decree and Exit plan, the state has permanency requirements for three cohorts of children: those who entered foster care during the period (Outcome Measure 23); those who have been in care for 12 to 23 months (Outcome Measure 6); and those who have been in care for 24 months or more (Outcome Measure 7). For Outcome Measures 6 and 7, the first six months of data suggest that the region is not on track for meeting the required standards. Because the current performance on Outcome 23 is based on six months of entries, the full population could not be observed, therefore, it is still possible to meet the permanency standard for those

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

28

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 32 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
children who entered foster care in 2018. The state and region’s strategy for improving in its efforts to achieve permanency for children in foster care will be more fully described in first brief on the Infrastructure Standards. MTAT will continue working with the region to analyze permanency patterns of specific sub-population groups in each cohort in order to gain a deeper understanding of these dynamics and develop strategies to remove barriers to permanency.
5. The counties have met or exceeded the Caseworker Continuity Measure (OM 12) for the third consecutive reporting period.
Outcome Measure 12 evaluates caseworker continuity during each six-month reporting period, requiring that at least 90 percent of children in custody shall have had two or fewer DFCS placement managers during the prior 12 months in custody. For three consecutive reporting periods, the counties have now exceeded this requirement, thereby transitioning this outcome measure to the Attained category.
It is important to note that several exceptions were negotiated by the parties that exclude children from the analysis. The exceptions include:
 Cases transferred to an adoption case manager;
 Case managers who have died;
 Case managers who have been terminated
 Case managers who have been promoted;
 Case managers who transferred to another county; or
 Case managers who have covered a case while another case manager is sick, on FMLA, or maternity leave.
Regardless of the negotiated exceptions, children who experience frequent changes in case managers often have delays in achieving permanency. Thus, while measurement for purposes of this Consent Decree indicates that the counties have met the requirement, the experience of children who experience changes in DFCS placement managers, should still be a focus for attention. This is especially important in light of workforce issues described in the section above.
6. Meeting the needs of children in care; the counties did a commendable job meeting identified medical, and educational/developmental needs of children; Fulton County fell short in meeting identified mental health and dental needs.
The required threshold for all health and educational/developmental needs is 92 percent. The state met or exceeded the educational/developmental threshold (95 percent) for three consecutive periods; thus, this measure will be categorized as an Attained Outcome for the Period 26 report. Additionally, for medical needs, if the performance continues to meet or exceed the standard in Period 26, this Outcome Measure will also be moved to the Attained Outcome category. Unfortunately, performance in addressing dental needs (90 percent) and mental health (90 percent) remains below the threshold. This was especially true in Fulton County, whose Director indicates that they will be collaborating with various stakeholders to increase the level of mental health and dental services provided to children and families.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

29

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 33 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
APPENDIX A – METRICS UNDER THE MODIFIED EXIT PLAN
This Appendix contains two tables summarizing the metrics under the Modified Exit Plan, and the methods for generating each of them. Table A-1 is a Measures Grid that identifies each measurable outcome, practice standard, or performance measure required in the under the Modified Ext Plan, and then describes the method for producing that metric. Table A-2 is a technical document that provides the numerator and denominator for each metric displayed in the Outcome Grid as well as the other items required for measurement under the Modified Consent Decree. It also contains additional technical explanations, and/or historical data that provides context for reviewing and interpreting Period 23 performance data. Tables A-3 through A-8 provide caseload data as reported from the state. Table A-9 provides an analysis of the number of staff needed to meet caseload standards.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

30

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 34 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

31

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 35 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec IV.B.1a
IV.B.1b
IV.B.1c
IV.B.1d IV.B.2b IV.B.2c IV.B.3 IV.B.4

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

No child shall be placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility bed used on any temporary basis, for more than 30 days.
Children shall not be placed in more than one temporary facility within one episode of foster care.
No child shall spend more than 23 consecutive hours in county DFCS office. Any child who spends time in county DFCS office between 8pm8am shall be reported to the MTAT.

Jails, runaways, hospitals, PRTFs, respite care will not be considered temporary. Placement type "other resource" and placement category of hotels, receiving homes, office stays. Jails, runaways, hospitals, PRTFs, respite care will not be considered temporary. Placement type "other resource" and placement category of hotels, receiving homes, office stays.

Number of in care at the start of the period and number of children deprived during the period: How many were placed in a temporary facility for more than 30 days during the period

State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team

By calendar year cohorts (year of entry), how many enterers had more than one temporary placement episode EXCLUDING any temporary placement following a runaway episode. Follow cohorts over time.

State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team

Weekly documentation by county; reported Kenny A teams to the MTAT

Hotel use for class members to end by June 30, 2017.
No child under six shall be placed in group care setting. No child between ages of 6-12 shall be placed in group care setting. Race/Ethnicity /religion shall not be basis for delay or denial of placement. DFCS shall not contract with private provider that gives preference based on race/eth/religion DFCS to ensure basic physical needs of food, clothing, and shelter are met. Clothing to be reviewed with every placement / placement change

Number of distinct children; Number of distinct episodes; Number of nights No Changes
No Changes

Region 14 tracks and reports weekly to the MTAT. All data originates from SHINES. Tracked with Congregate Care Report
Tracked with Congregate Care Report State Data Unit

Kenny A Team with verification by State Data Unit State Data Unit State Data Unit
Kenny A. case review team

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

32

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 36 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec IV.B.5
V.A V.B V.C V.D V.E V.F VI.A.118
VI.A.2

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

In placement visitation: 4 in 4 for new placements; monthly thereafter. There should be at least one in-placement visit and one private, face to face
CPS caseloads – no more than 12 cases
Family Preservation and Family Support caseloads– no more than 17 Placement caseloads – no more than 15 Adoption caseloads – no more than 16 Specialized caseloads - no more than 12 Supervisor – no more than 5 CM At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact with the alleged victim, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of the report.
At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of the report.

Drop children in care for lt 1 week. -measure 1 in placement visit for all in first week -measure 4 for all the placement for 4 weeks No Change
No change Weights are applied to produce equivalence for caseworkers with mixed caseloads
NOTE: There is a change here b/c old OM 1 and 3 have been combined. Those two outcomes used two different denominators (child/inv). New metric is at the child level No change Effective 7/1/2017 – the standard became 45 days

Number of new placements with 1 visit in 1 wk; 4 in 4 wks.
Generated weekly as part of CAP reports after getting data from each county Counts of Caseworkers, by program at end of period
Counts of cases assigned to verified case managers
Denominator: Children in foster care who are alleged victims of maltreatment Numerator: Number of child- investigations that started within 24 hours of referral Numerator: Number of children w/ face to face w/in 24 hours
Denominator: Number of MIC investigations referred in the PUR Numerator: Number of MIC investigations completed within 30 (45) days of receipt

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance
State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team
Kenny A case review team
Kenny A case review team

18 The current VI.A measures are the ongoing measures.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

33

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 37 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.A.3
VI.A.4 VI.A.5 VI.A.6

Table A-1 Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

Re-entry Into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge.

CFSR 3 measure Children in care for less than 8 days are dropped from outcome measure.
SDU will report CY 20142016.

Denominator: CY entries, duration greater than 8 days that exited to permanency within one year of entry. Numerator: Those who reentered w/in year of exit date

State Data Unit

Maltreatment in care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days.

Reporting for period 23 will start with first half of year, and then be completed for Period 24. CFSR 3 measure All substantiated of maltreatment in care regardless of perpetrator, are included.

Denominator: all days for every child in care for a least one day in the period. Numerator: every substantiated maltreatment episode in period

State Data Unit generates list for Kenny A case reviewers to review

Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care. At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months shall be discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

Report at 6 and 12 months No change
CFSR 3 measure Report at 6 and 12 months SDU will report CY 20142016.

Denominator: children in placement sample who are in first 60 days of placement; Numerator: number of children in denominator whose files show clear evidence of diligent search Denominator: All children in care on first day of CY who had been in care for 12-23 months Numerator: # who achieved permanency w/in calendar year

Kenny A case review team
State Data Unit

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

34

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 38 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.A.7
VI.A.8 VI.A.9 VI.A.10

Table A-1 Standard/Outcome

Notes

At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights.

CFSR 3 measure Report at 6 and 12 months SDU will report CY 20142016.
No change

Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had either (a) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or (b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Sibling placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject to the following exceptions: (a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a

No change
No change to method, add large sibling groups of 4 or more to exclusions

Measurement Method
Denominator: All children in care on first day of CY who had been in care for 24 + months Numerator: # who achieved permanency w/in calendar year

Data Produced by… State Data Unit

Denominator: Children TPR’d during the most recent six month period for whom 12 months can be observed.

Kenny A team

Numerator: Those in the denominator who were adopted/reached guardianship during the period.

Denominator: Eligible children who have been in care 15-22 months in the period Numerator: Those who have had TPR filed OR a documented compelling reason not to

Kenny A Team

Denominator: children with siblings who were in care or who had exited by end of period Numerator: placed together on last day of period OR if they discharged, were together at discharge

Kenny A Team

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

35

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 39 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-1

Sec

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

VI.A.11

specialized program or facility, (c) the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with relative. Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.

CFSR 3 measure Adjusted standard to reflect history of in care and admits SDU will report CY 20142016.

Denominator: All days by children who were served during the period. Numerator: All moves excluding DJJ, respite, jail, AWOL, hospitals

State Data Unit

VI.A.12 VI.A.13

Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of all children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one in-placement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

Children in care less than 8 days are dropped. No change to method, Promoted caseworkers are now excepted
No change

Denominator: All children in care at end of the period Numerator: number of those with LE 2 case managers.

Kenny A Team

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

36

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 40 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.A.14 Vi.A.15
Vi.A.16
VI.A.17

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification
Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall have graduated from high school or earned a GED.

No change No change
No change
No change in method; Include in the numerator qualifying youth who have an IEP or 504 plan who

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period
Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period
Denominator: youth 18+ who were discharged during the year Numerator: number who have graduated or who have GED

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance
State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance
Kenny A Team

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

37

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 41 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.A.18 VI.A.19
VI.A.20

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement. Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for twelve or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.

achieved a special ed diploma prior to exit No change in method Only include children who have been in unapproved home for 30 days Break out by relative, public, and private foster homes No Change
No Change

Denominator: placements with child at end of period Numerator: number of placements fully approved
Denominator: Numerator:
Denominator: Numerator:

Data Produced by…
State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure
Kenny A Team, including case review team
Kenny A Team, including case review team

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

38

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 42 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-1

Sec

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

VI.A.21

Health/Educational Needs. Of children in care at a point in time at end of reporting period, 92 percent shall have met each need documented in most recent plan: Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Educational.

No change in method Standard changed

VI.B.1922

Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months.

No Change

VI.B.23

Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

CFSR measure; SDU will report CY 20142016.
Reporting for period 23 will start with first half of year, and then be completed for Period 24.

Denominator: For each area, number of children from placement case review with identified need Numerator: Number of children in each denominator for whom there is evidence that need was addressed Denominator: All foster homes in the sample

Kenny A case review team
Kenny A case review team

Numerator: instances of Corporal Punishment Denominator: All children under 18 entering Region 14 during the CY period

State Data Unit

Numerator: Number of children in the denominator who exited to permanency w/in 12 months of entry

VI.B.24

Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period

Note: numerator is denominator for the reentry measure. Dissolution means that a child: 1) been adopted; 2) returned to foster care; and 3) has had a subsequent TPR or surrender from his or her adoptive parents within one year of the adoption finalization.

Denominator: Adoptions completed during the most recent six-month period for whom 12 months can be observed.

State Data Unit generates list for Kenny A team to review

Numerator: Dissolutions w/in one year

19 VI.B metrics are currently Attained Outcomes.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

39

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 43 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.B.25
VI.B.26 VI.B.27 VI.B.28

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to the following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with relatives, or (d) the child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective adoptive family pursuant to an appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court. Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, inplacement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.
Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following capacity limits: (a) no placement shall result in more than 3 foster children in a foster home, or a total of 6 children in

Changed to rely on SHINES data and to cover full class.
No change
No Change No Change This only includes approved foster homes.

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

Denominator: All children in placement on the last day of the period
Numerator: Children in the denominator who were either placed in home court, or who were placed within 50 miles of removal

State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance

Denominator: Case review sample

Case review

Numerator: All children in denominator who

have document court order language

Denominator: Foster homes with one or more children in their home on the last day of the period. Numerator: Number of foster homes that exceed the capacity limit.

State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

40

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 44 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VII.G.1 VII.G.2

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children, without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no placement will result in more than 3 children under the age of 3 in a foster home. The only exception to these capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a foster home. Of children in each county during prior two reporting periods who experienced substantiated maltreatment, the number who were victims of a second substantiated maltreatment report during the following 12 months.

Use earliest report and first subsequent report following.

Of cases that were referred to FSS, the number and percent for which there was a subsequent substantiated referral w/in 11-365 days of the FSS referral.

FSS can mean any alternative to opening a CPS case or removal.

Denominator: Number of children who had substantiated report during the prior year
Numerator: Number of children in the denominator who were subjects of a substantiated report within 12months of the first report Denominator: Number of children referred to FSS in a prior 12 month period
Numerator: Number of those who had substantiated report w/in 11-365 days of the referral

State Data Unit State Data Unit

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

41

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 45 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-2

VI.A.1
20
VI.A.2
VI.A.3

Outcome

Numerator

Denominator

Metric

At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster DeKalb: 30

DeKalb: 30

DeKalb: 100%

children shall be commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact Fulton: 24

Fulton: 26

Fulton: 92%

with the alleged victim, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services SIU: 22

SIU: 22

SIU: 100%

Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of the report.

Perimeter: 48

Perimeter: 52

Perimeter: 92%

Total: 124

Total: 130

Total: 95%

130 children in care during Period 25 were named as victims in 107 maltreatment investigations; 124 of those children had private contact CPS investigators

within 24 hours of the receipt of the report.

At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of the report.

DeKalb: 23 Fulton: 23 SIU: 20

DeKalb: 23 Fulton: 23 SIU: 20

DeKalb: 100% Fulton: 100% SIU: 100%

Perimeter: 42

Perimeter: 42

Perimeter: 100%

Total: 107

Total: 107

Total: 100%

107 of the 107 the investigations of maltreatment in which the alleged victims were in care where completed within 45 days of the receipt of the report

Re-entry Into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge.

DeKalb: 26 Fulton: 20 Total: 46 (six months)

DeKalb: 194 Fulton: 165 Total: 359

DeKalb: 13% Fulton: 12% Total: 13% (six months)

This is new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 Reentry methodology. Because that method requires observing children enter, stay at least 8 days, exit to

permanency within 1 year, and then reenter from that exit within one year – it is necessary to refer to prior entry cohorts in order to generate the metric. The

figures above represent entries to Region 14 from CY 2016. Of them 301 exited to permanency within one year of entry (by 12/2017) and of them, 58 reentered

care within one year of exit so far. This could increase because one full year since exit has not yet been observed. The State Unit Generated historical versions

of this metric, as well as what is currently observable for the more recent entry cohorts. That performance is provided below – shaded cells contain incomplete

data – not enough time has elapsed to fully observe the performance.

These data were generated Entry Year by the State Data Unit Oct 2014

Perm Exit w/in 1 Year Reentry w/in 6 Mos. Reentry win 1 Year

627

76

109

6 Mos. 12%

12 Mos. 17%

20 The current VI.A measures are the on-going measures.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

42

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 46 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.4 VI.A.5
VI.A.6

Outcome

Numerator

Denominator

Metric

2018. For this reason the

2015

562

68

95

12%

17%

2015 data are the most

2016

recent complete cohort and 2017

are used for this measure. 2018

359

46

58

13%

16%

304

42

54

14%

18%

112

9

9

8%

8%

Maltreatment in care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, DeKalb: 5 the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days. Fulton: 4

DeKalb: 161,968 Fulton: 122,016

DeKalb: 3.09 Fulton: 3.28

Total: 9

Total: 283,984

Total: 3.17

This a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. That methodology controls for “exposure time” for the risk of maltreatment by calculating the total

number of days that children with a least one day of care in the period experienced. It also counts any substantiated investigation associated with a child in care,

regardless of who was the perpetrator of the maltreatment.

Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and

DeKalb: 29 Fulton: 22

DeKalb: 32 Fulton: 28

DeKalb: 91% Fulton: 79%

documented within 60 days of entering foster care.

Total: 51

Total: 60

Total: 85%

60 cases were review (32 from DeKalb and 28 from Fulton). Of the 60, 20 were given credit because language was in the court order, and 14 were placed with relatives. 17 had evidence of diligent search in the file.

Permanency: At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a DeKalb: 12 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and Fulton: 21

DeKalb: 228 Fulton: 150

DeKalb: 5% Fulton: 14%

23 months shall be discharged from foster care to permanency within 12

Total: 33

Total: 378

Total: 9%

months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

(six months)

(six months)

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Because this is 12-month measure, typically we would partial performance on permanency for the group of children in care in Region 14 on the periods beginning in January, and then provide the full metric the following period. However, for Period 25, we

are able to report on performance up until Sept 2018, when we received the data. To understand that performance relative to recent years, the State Data Unit

prepared historical data that displays the proportion of children exit to permanency by the end of a 12-month period for a similar group of children in care on the first day of prior two calendar year. See the table below for those data.

In Care between 12-23 Months

In Care 1/1 Qualifying Children

Exits in 6 Mos.

Exits in 12 Mos. % 6 Mos. % 12 Mos.

2016

225

19

44

8%

20%

DeKalb County

2017

254

46

70

18%

28%

2018

228

12

5%

Data prepared by

2016

161

17

35

11%

22%

State Data Unit Fulton County

2017

196

31

57

16%

29%

September 2018.

2018

150

21

14%

2016

386

36

79

9%

20%

Region 14

2017

450

77

127

17%

28%

2018

378

33

9%

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

43

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 47 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

44

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 48 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.7
VI.A.8 VI.A.9 VI.A.10

Permanency: At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month DeKalb: 47

DeKalb: 360

DeKalb: 13%

period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be

Fulton: 28

Fulton: 241

Fulton: 12%

discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, Total: 75

Total: 601

Total: 12%

for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or

(six months)

(six months)

adoption.

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Because this is 12-month measure, typically we would partial performance on permanency for

the group of children in care in Region 14 on the periods beginning in January, and then provide the full metric the following period. However, for Period 25, we

are able to report on performance up until Sept 2018, when we received the data. To understand that performance relative to recent years, the State Data Unit

prepared historical data that displays the proportion of children exit to permanency by the end of a 12-month period for a similar group of children in care on the

first day of prior two calendar year. See the table below for those data.

In Care 24 + Months

In Care 1/1 Qualifying Children Exits in 6 Mos. Exits in 12 Mos.

% 6 Mos.

% 12 Mos.

Data prepared by

DeKalb County 2016

173

24

51

14%

29%

State Data Unit Sept

2017

275

27

60

10%

22%

2018

2018

360

47

13%

Fulton County 2016

136

21

35

15%

26%

2017

196

17

43

9%

22%

2018

241

28

12%

Region 14 2016

309

45

86

15%

28%

2017

471

44

103

9%

22%

2018

601

75

12%

Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights.

DeKalb: 15 Fulton: 15 Total: 30

DeKalb: 25 Fulton: 25 Total: 50

DeKalb: 60% Fulton: 60% Total: 60%

Any exclusions to be noted here.

Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had either (a) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or (b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Sibling placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject to the following exceptions: (a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, (c) the size of

DeKalb: 427 Fulton: 348 Total: 775
DeKalb: 67 Fulton: 66 Total: 133

DeKalb: 446 Fulton: 357 Total: 803
DeKalb: 78 Fulton: 74 Total: 152

DeKalb: 96% Fulton: 97% Total: 97%
DeKalb: 85.9% Fulton: 89.2% Total: 87.5%

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

45

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 49 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.11

the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to

place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with relative.

Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no

DeKalb:

DeKalb:

DeKalb: 2.41

more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.

Fulton:

Fulton:

Fulton: 3.53

Total:

Total:

Total: 2.91

(Annualized)

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. It requires observing the total number of moves children with a least one day of care a 12-

month period, and dividing that figure by all of the days children with any days in care used in the same 12-month period. This measure includes both children in

care on the first day of the 12-month period as well has children entering care during the 12-month period. To characterize baseline performance and in order to

observe change over time, the State Data Unit generated historical analysis of this metric, preparing both six month and 12-month rates of movement. That

analysis showed that six month rates notably overstate movement rates relative to full 12-month period. To control for overstated movement rate embedded in

the six month estimate, the State Data Unit, in consultation with MTAT has developed a method to generate an annualized 12-month rate when reporting on the

Jan-Jun period. That method relies on actual six month data that is then annualized to reflect 12-month performance by applying growth estimates to both the

numerator and denominator based on observed change from six to 12 months in the most recent calendar years. Those figures, along with the prior year rates,

are displayed below.

Moves per 1,000 Days

Moves in Period

Days in Period

Calendar Year

DeKalb

Fulton

Total

DeKalb

Fulto Total

DeKalb

Fulton

Total

n

2015

4.60

8.31

6.14

1,310

1,68 2,996

284,869

203,005

487,874

6

2016

3.10

4.99

3.89

966

1,10 2,071

311,486

221,347

532,833

5

2017 Actual

2.22

3.87

2.93

699

909 1,608

313,649

234,777

548,426

VI.A.12 VI.A.13

2018- Annualized

2.41

3.53

2.91

Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of all children in custody at a point in time during

the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during

the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred

to an adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated,

promoted, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case

during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave.

Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one in-

placement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case

managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in

excess of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month

shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

DeKalb: 833 Fulton: 664 Total: 1,497
DeKalb: 10,115 Fulton: 7,906 Total: 18,021

DeKalb: 881 Fulton: 678 Total: 1,559
DeKalb: 10,533 Fulton: 8,010 Total: 18,543

DeKalb: 94.6% Fulton: 97.9% Total: 96.0%
DeKalb: 96% Fulton: 98.7% Total: 97.2%

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

46

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 50 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.14 Vi.A.15 Vi.A.16
VI.A.17 VI.A.18 VI.A.19 VI.A.20

Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall DeKalb: 1,669

have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification

Fulton: 1,742

Total: 3,411

Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s DeKalb: 5,007

foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. Fulton: 3,942

At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case Total: 8,949

managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any

caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month

shall be excluded when calculating this percentage

Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with DeKalb: 559

whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time Fulton: 662

each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed Total: 1,221

out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements

is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total

minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during

the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month

shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall

have graduated from high school or earned a GED.

This metric is generated annually in the report covering the period that ends December 31 of each year.

Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving Total: 4,014

class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this

percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity

of that placement.

Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months DeKalb: 37

or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Fulton: 30

Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the Total: 67

child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-

month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following

the last review.

Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for twelve or more

DeKalb: 30

months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 Fulton: 22

months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency

Total: 51

hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for

and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month

period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency

hearing.

DeKalb: 2,031 Fulton: 1,826 Total: 3,857 DeKalb: 5,288 Fulton: 4,008 Total: 9,296
DeKalb: 685 Fulton: 690 Total: 1,375
Total: 4,196
DeKalb: 40 Fulton: 30 Total: 70
DeKalb: 30 Fulton: 22 Total: 51

DeKalb 82.2% Fulton: 95.4% Total: 88.4% DeKalb: 94.7% Fulton: 98.4% Total: 96.3%
DeKalb: 81.6% Fulton: 95.9% Total: 88.8%
Total: 96%
DeKalb: 93% Fulton: 100% Total: 96%
DeKalb:100% Fulton: 100% Total: 100%

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

47

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 51 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.21 VI.B.2122

Health/Educational Needs. Of children in care at a point in time at end of reporting period, 92 percent shall have met each need documented in most recent plan: Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Educational.
Medical Needs
Dental Needs
Mental Health Needs
Education/Developmental Needs
Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months

See Below
DeKalb: 46 Fulton: 27 Total: 73 DeKalb: 46 Fulton: 27 Total: 73 DeKalb: 37 Fulton: 16 Total: 53 DeKalb: 46 Fulton: 30 Total: 76 DeKalb: 20 Fulton:20 Total: 40

DeKalb: 47 Fulton: 32 Total: 79 DeKalb: 51 Fulton: 30 Total: 81 DeKalb: 40 Fulton: 19 Total: 59 DeKalb: 48 Fulton:32 Total: 80 DeKalb: 20 Fulton:20 Total: 40

DeKalb: 98% Fulton: 84% Total: 92% DeKalb: 90% Fulton: 90% Total: 90% DeKalb: 93% Fulton: 84% Total: 90% DeKalb: 96% Fulton: 94% Total: 95% DeKalb: 100% Fulton: 100% Total: 100%

VI.B.23

During Period 25, there were 6 cases of alleged corporal punishment, all of which were

screened in for a CPS investigation, and none of the cases were substantiated. There

were 3 homes in DeKalb County, 1 home in Fulton County, 1 home in Cobb County, and

1 home in Muscogee County.

Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month DeKalb: 51

DeKalb: 286

DeKalb: 18%

period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering Fulton: 61

Fulton: 230

Fulton: 27%

foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the Total: 112

Total: 516

Total: 22%

child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

(six months)

(six months)

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Spells lasting less than 8 days are dropped so that the numerator can function as the

denominator for the reentry metric. This both a 12 month measure AND a longitudinal measure; so it take some time to both observe entries in the most recent

12 and also to report on positive permanency that occurred within 12 months of entry. For that reason – we report the most cohort that is fully observable and

additionally, we provide performance to date on the most recently observed entry group. Additionally, the State Data Unit prepared historical data that displays

the historical data depicting permanency for enters within one year of their entry. See the table below for those data. The highlighted cells contained censored

data – that is the full performance is not observable until 12/31/2018. Gray shaded cells represented the most current data.

21 VI.B metrics are currently Attained Outcomes.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

48

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 52 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.B.24 VI.B.25

Admission Entries Year

Perm w/in 12 Perm to Date % 12 Mos.

% to Date

Data developed by

DeKalb County 2016

507

194

224

38%

44%

the State Data Unit, reports on permanency achieved for the most recent three exit cohorts. Stays lasting less than 8 days are dropped in these results.

2017

420

157

168

37%

40%

2018

286

51

51

18%

18%

Fulton County 2016

366

165

193

45%

53%

2017

389

147

163

38%

42%

2018

230

61

61

27%

27%

Region 14 2016

873

359

417

41%

48%

2017

809

304

331

38%

41%

2018

516

112

112

22%

22%

Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting

DeKalb: 0

DeKalb: 54

DeKalb: 0%

period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period

Fulton: 0

Fulton: 42

Fulton: 0%

Total: 0%

Total: 96

Total: 0%

Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to the following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met

by a family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed

1,531

1,601

96%

through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with

relatives, or (d) the child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective adoptive family

pursuant to an appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court.

As noted above, the methodology for this metric changed. Rather than being evaluated through case review, the Data Unit generated a metric using the entire

class of children in placement on the last day of the period. To generate the final metric – they considered who in placement on 6/30/2018 was placed in the w/in

50 miles of their removal address, was placed within the same county as their removal county, or qualified for an exception as stipulated in the agreement. The

numerator was adjusted upward to reflected both those that met the standard AND those who were exceptions. The reciprocal of the numerator is the measure. See below for the adjustments.

Placed

Denominator

Numerator

%

Total in Placement on 6/30/2018

1,601

1,601

1,531

96%

% of those placed

Placed in Same County

571

36%

571

Placed in Different County

1,030

64%

Different county & exception placement

243

15%

243

Different county

787

49%

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

49

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 53 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.B.26 VI.B.27 VI.B.28
VII.G.1

Diff county & placed w/in 50 miles

680

42%

680

Diff county & place greater than 50 miles

107

7%

Diff county, > than 50 miles & exempt

37

2%

Diff county, > than 50 miles & NOT exempt

70

4%

Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly

DeKalb: 4,943 DeKalb: 5,312

DeKalb: 93.05%

private, in-placement visits between case managers and children during the reporting Fulton: 3,640 period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month Total: 8,583 shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

Fulton: 3,736 Total: 9,048

Fulton: 97.4% Total: 94.86%

Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the

DeKalb: 50

DeKalb: 51

DeKalb: 98%

reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess Fulton: 37

Fulton: 41

Fulton: 90%

qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.

Total: 87

Total: 92

Total: 95%

Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following capacity limits: (a) no placement shall result in more than 3 foster children in a foster

home, or a total of 6 children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or

1

642

0.2%

adopted children, without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no placement will result in more than 3 children under the age of 3 in a foster home. The only exception to these capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a foster

Recurrence of substantiated investigations: Of children in each county during prior DeKalb: 21

DeKalb: 564

DeKalb: 3.72%

two reporting periods who experienced substantiated maltreatment, the number who

Fulton: 46

Fulton: 796

Fulton: 5.78%

were victims of a second substantiated maltreatment report during the following 12 months. (For period 25 – partial data are provided)

Total: 67

Total: 1,360

Total: 4.93%

This measure has been revised to be prospective, and is essentially the Federal CFSR recurrence measure. Like other longitudinal metrics, the full measure

cannot be observed until 12 months following the last base substantiated report in each year. We report here the 2015 recurrence rate, but provide the

performance to date for 2016 and 2017 substantiated reports. The 2016 are nearly complete; we will report on that rate in the P26 report, and provide updated information for both the 2017 reports and those that are referred in the first half of 2018.

Region/County Report Year Earliest Subx Recurrence in 12 Mos. Report

% Recurrence

Data provided by State Data

DeKalb County 2016

564

21

3.7%

Unit in early November 2018. Because of reporting lag time, both the 2017 and the 2018 figures should be considered censored and incomplete.

2017

531

13

2.5%

2018

314

2

.64%

Fulton County 2016

796

46

5.8%

2017

453

13

2.9%

2018

250

5

2.0%

Region 14 2016

1,360

67

4.9

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

50

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 54 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

VII.G.2

2018

984

26

2.6%

2018

564

7

1.2%

Substantiated investigation following FSS case. Of cases that were referred to FSS, DeKalb: 42

DeKalb:1,901

DeKalb: 2.2%

the number and percent for which there was a subsequent substantiated referral w/in 11- Fulton: 97

Fulton: 3,361

Fulton: 2.9%

365 days of the FSS referral. For Period 25 – partial data are provided.

Total: 5,262 Total: 139

Total: 2.6%

This is prospective measure which looks to see what number and percent of cases referred to RSS have a re-referral in the subsequent year. Like other longitudinal measures, it takes time to observe the original referral and then look forward for future substantiations. For this reason we report on FSS cases from

2016 for whom the full period following referral to FSS could be observed, and report partial data for the subsequent two calendar years.

Region/County Report Year Earliest FSS Sub Report in 12 Mos. % Sub in 12 Mos.

Report

DeKalb County 2016

1,901

42

2.2%

2017

2,325

89

3.8%

Data provided by State Data Unit in early November 2018. Because of reporting lag time, both the 2017 and the 2018 figures should be considered censored and incomplete.

2018 Fulton County 2016
2017 2018

1,209 3,361 3,999 1,904

16 97 142 17

1.3% 2.9% 3.6% .9%

Region 14 2016

5,262

139

2.6%

2017

6,324

231

3.7%

2018

3,113

33

1.1%

4 X 4 Visitation

DeKalb: 56 Fulton: 38

DeKalb: 120 Fulton: 120

DeKalb: 47% Fulton: 32%

Total: 94

Total: 240

Total: 39%

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

51

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 55 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-3: Case Managers Meeting Caseload Standards in DeKalb County on June 30, 2018

Case Manager Function

Standard

Active Staff

CPS Investigations 12 families

28

Family Preservation 17 families

12

Permanency Case Manager 15 children

35

Specialized Case Manager 12 children

40

Adoption Case Manager 16 children

0

Total 12 children

115

These 16 cases were assigned to nine supervisors.

Staff on Leave
0 0 0 0 0

Meeting Caseload Standards

Not Meeting Caseload Standards

Cases Assigned to Supervisors

Number 26 12 23 17

% Number % 93% 2 7% 100% 0 0% 66% 12 34% 43% 23 57%

Number 9 5 0 2

78

68% 37 32%

16

Table A-4: DeKalb County Supervisory Ratios on June 30, 2018

Program/Service Area
Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family
Preservation) Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes
Adoptions)

Number of Meeting 1 to 5 Not Meeting 1 to 5

Units

Ratio

Ratio

Total Number Percent Number Percent

13

9

69%

4

31%

15

9

60%

6

40%

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

52

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 56 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-5: Case Managers Meeting Caseload Standards in Fulton County on June 30, 2018

Case Manager Function

Standard

Active Staff

CPS Investigations 12 families

29

Family Preservation 17 families

7

Permanency Case Manager 15 children

20

Specialized Case Manager 12 children

22

Adoption Case Manager 16 children

0

Total 12 children

78

These 8 cases were assigned to seven supervisors.

Staff on Leave
0 0 0 0 0

Meeting Caseload Standards

Not Meeting Caseload Standards

Cases Assigned to Supervisors

Number 23 7 2 2

% Number %

80%

6 20%

100% 0

0%

10% 18 90%

9%

20 91%

Number 2 2 1 3

34

44% 44 56%

8

Table A-6: Fulton County Supervisory Ratios on June 30, 2018

Program/Service Area
Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation) Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes Adoptions)

Number of Units Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio Not Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio

Total

Number Percent Number Percent

12

7

58%

5

42%

8

5

63%

3

37%

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

53

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 57 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-7: Region 14 Caseload Managers Meeting Caseload Standards on June 30, 2018

Case Manager Function

Standard

Number Number of Active of Staff
Staff on Leave

CPS Investigations 12 families

57

Family Preservation 17 families

19

Permanency Case

Manager 15 children

55

Specialized Case

Manager 12 children

62

Adoption Case

Manager 16 children

Total 12 children

193

Meeting Caseload Standards

Number 49 19
25
19

% 86% 100%
45%
31%

112

58%

* 24 cases pending assignment with 16 supervisors All adoptions caseloads are included in the other totals and there are 21 adoption workers.

Not Meeting Caseload Standards

Number

%

8

14%

0

0%

30

55%

43

69%

81

42%

Cases Assigned to Supervisors
Number 11 7
1
5
24

Table A-8: Region 14 Supervisory Ratios on June 30, 2018

Program/Service Area
Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation) Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes Adoptions)

Number of Units

Meeting 1 to 5 Not Meeting 1 to 5

Ratio

Ratio

Total Number Percent Number Percent

25

16

64%

9

36%

23

14

61%

9

39%

Total

48

30

63%

18

37%

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

54

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 58 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

55

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 59 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
APPENDIX B – GLOSSARY

Adoptive Placement means the interval during which a child is placed with a prospective adoptive family following the signing of the appropriate adoptive placement agreement form, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court.
Child or Children or Class Member Children or Class Members mean a child or children who have been, are or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS.
Child Caring Institution (CCI) is any child-welfare facility which provides full-time room, board and watchful oversight (RBWO) to six or more children up to 18 years of age. Some CCIs are approved to care for youth up to age 21. The CCI must be approved through the Office of Provider Management (OPM) to serve children in DFCS custody.
Child Placing Agency (CPA) is agency that places children in foster and adoptive homes for individualized care, supervision and oversight. Child placing agencies are responsible for assessing the placement regarding the appropriateness of the room, board and watchful oversight that the prospective foster and adoptive families will provide. The CPA’s employees and their foster and adoptive parents work as a team to provide a stabilizing and nurturing environment that promotes safety, permanency and well-being.
Corporal Punishment means any physical punishment on a child that inflicts pain.
CPA Foster Home is a foster home approved by a Child Placing Agency for the temporary placement of children in foster care.
DeKalb DFCS means DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services.
DFCS when used alone means the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services.
DFCS Foster Home is a non-relative foster homes approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of children in foster care.
DFCS or CPA Adoptive Home is an adoptive home approved for the foster care placement of a child for whom the established goal is adoption. Adoptive homes must meet the regular standards of care required for approved family foster homes and any conditions specified in that approval.
DFCS Relative Foster Home is a relative foster home approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of minor relatives. It is DFCS’ preference that all relatives are approved as foster parents and receive a foster care per diem. The goal of relatives becoming foster parents is to ensure that the child has services to address his/her needs.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

56

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 60 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
DHHS means the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
DHR means Georgia Department of Human Resources.
Discipline or Other Serious Foster Care Violation means and includes those acts or situations by the caregiver that pose an immediate or potential risk to the safety or well-being of the child in care. These may include, but are not limited to, inappropriate disciplinary measures (both physical/corporal and emotional), violations of supervision or other safety requirements that pose serious risk factors to the child.
EPSDT means the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program for individuals under 21 years of age contained in Title XIX of the Social Security Act, as amended.
Fictive Kin means a person who is known to a child as a relative, but is not, in fact, related by blood.
Foster Parent means volunteers who are trained and certified by DFCS or Child Placing Agencies to provide for the temporary care of children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster parents work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster parents are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
Foster Relative means biological kin who are trained and certified by DFCS to provide for the care of relative children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster relatives work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster relatives are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
Fulton DFCS means the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services.
Georgia Health Check Program means Georgia Medicaid's well-child or preventive health care program adopted pursuant to EPSDT, and shall contain such components as they exist in the Georgia Health Check Program as of February 1, 2005.
Governor means the Governor of the State of Georgia.
Legal Guardianship means the appointment of an individual as a legal guardian for a child as authorized by either the probate court under O.C.G.A. Title 29 or the juvenile court under O.C.G.A. Chapter15-11-2(36).
One Episode of Foster Care means the period of time that a child is in foster care from the date of removal from the home until the child is discharged from DFCS custody, except that a runaway does not trigger a new episode of foster care.
Permanent Legal Custody means custody granted in accordance with an order of the superior court or the juvenile court, which places a child in the custody of an individual or individuals until the child reaches 18 years of age.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

57

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 762 Filed 01/07/19 Page 61 of 61
Kenny A. v. Deal
Permanent Placement with Relatives means placing a child with a relative who is willing to assume long-term responsibility for the child, but has reasons for not adopting the child or obtaining guardianship or permanent legal custody, and it is in the child's best interests to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship by another person. In such circumstances, there shall be in place an agreement for long-term care signed by DFCS and the relative committing to the permanency and stability of this placement unless it is necessary to disrupt the long-term placement.
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) is a temporary non-hospital facility with a provider agreement with a State Medicaid Agency to provide intensive therapeutic intervention to a child to ensure safety and stability. PRTFs offer intensive behavioral health services to children in Georgia.
Relatives are persons who are related by blood, marriage or adoption including the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or divorce.
Relative Placement refers to placement in the home of a relative or fictive kin who do not receive a foster care per diem for the care of the child. The relative placement may be a non-paid placement or the relative may receive TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive kin are not eligible for TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive kin must become foster parents to receive financial assistance.
Placement with relatives or fictive kin may occur very quickly if there is a satisfactory CPS history check, safety and home assessment check, and a Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) check through the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on all household members 18 years of age or older. A Relative or Non-Relative Care Assessment must be completed no later than 30 calendar days after the placement of a child.
State DFCS means the Division of Family and Children Services of the Georgia Department of Human Resources.
Suspected Abuse or Neglect means being based on reasonable cause to believe that a child may have been abused or neglected.
Suspected Corporal Punishment means being based on reasonable cause to believe that corporal punishment may have been used on a child.

December 11, 2018

Draft Period 25 Monitoring Report

58

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 1 of 60
Period 26 Monitoring Report
of The Accountability Agent and Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team
In the Case of
Kenny A. v. Deal
State of Georgia June 28, 2019
State of Georgia Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM) with
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 2 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENT AND MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TEAM
Accountability Agent Karen Baynes-Dunning Attorney, Baynes-Dunning Consulting, LLC Greenville, South Carolina
Steve Baynes Baynes Consulting LLC
Washington, DC
Elizabeth Black Director for Child Welfare Practice Center for the Support of Families (CSF)
Silver Spring, Maryland
Jennifer Miller Haight Policy Fellow
Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago Chicago, Illinois
With support and assistance from Eliza Byrne from the Center for the Support of Families, Lily Alpert from Chapin Hall, DFCS’ Knowledge Management Unit, the State Kenny A. team and
Georgia State University.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

i

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 3 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1 II. ROBUST WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT .......................................................................................................... 3
CPS CASE MANAGERS ....................................................................................................................................................3 FAMILY PRESERVATION CASE MANAGERS ...........................................................................................................................3 PERMANENCY CASE MANAGERS .......................................................................................................................................4 CASE MANAGERS WITH CHILDREN ASSIGNED TO THEM WHO HAVE BEEN IN FOSTER CARE FOR 18 MONTHS OR LONGER .................4 SUPERVISORS ................................................................................................................................................................4 DEKALB COUNTY ON DECEMBER 31, 2018 ........................................................................................................................4 FULTON COUNTY ON DECEMBER 31, 2018 ........................................................................................................................4 III. CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND....................................................................................................................... 5 CONTEXT FOR UNDERSTANDING PERIOD 26 OUTCOMES .......................................................................................................5 PERIOD 26 PLACEMENT STANDARDS ...............................................................................................................................12
Discriminatory Placement Practices...................................................................................................................12 Reimbursement Rates ........................................................................................................................................13 Major Findings ...................................................................................................................................................13 PERIOD 26 OUTCOMES.................................................................................................................................................14 MAJOR OUTCOME MEASURE FINDINGS ...........................................................................................................................22 APPENDIX A – METRICS UNDER THE MODIFIED EXIT PLAN .................................................................................. 28 APPENDIX B – GLOSSARY ..................................................................................................................................... 55

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

ii

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 4 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
I. INTRODUCTION
T his Period 26 report is the third monitoring document in which the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) report on the new outcomes delineated in the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan (Modified Exit Plan) that was filed in Federal District Court in December 2016. In addition to this monitoring report, MTAT will issue its second Infrastructure Standards brief later in 2019, in accordance with the agreed-upon standards filed with the court in December 2017. While these briefs are also required on a biannual basis, they will be filed separately from the monitoring reports.
The MTAT consistently reports on the same outcomes and Modified Exit Plan standards in each period using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data. In this report, the MTAT’s obligation is to report specifically on the measurable requirements articulated in Sections IV, V, and VI of the Modified Exit Plan that relate to activity in Region 14 from July 1 through December 31, 2018. In this report, in addition to discussing the Ongoing and Attained Outcomes Measures, MTAT also continues reviewing the use of congregate care, monitoring the use of hotels and other temporary placements for children in foster care, and reporting caseloads for case managers and supervisors.1 The next two sections of this report provide that information.
In addition to this basic and consistent set of metrics to track progress over time as agreed upon in the Modified Exit Plan, the MTAT also conducts a deep, quality-focused analysis on a handful of Infrastructure Standards in each of the reporting periods. This generally includes interviews with stakeholders, focus groups, surveys, observation at key process points, targeted case reviews, and/or Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSRs).
Our approach to this analysis enables parties to better understand several key factors associated with each of the agreed-upon Infrastructure Standards: 1) the expectations for practice and the extent to which these processes are occurring; 2) the capacity within the system to meet these expectations; and 3) the extent to which these processes are occurring with sufficient consistency and quality. Moreover, this enables the MTAT to focus on emerging issues to mitigate a reactive approach to monitoring. We list below the focus areas for each brief and note that each time we will consider the comprehensive practice model or SBC because it is the primary means by which the state engages with children and families.

1 Pursuant to the Modified Consent Decree, the outcome measures have undergone substantial revision to reflect,
when possible, the principles of best practices in measurement. Best practices principles include: 1) a clear statement of the analytic question with particular attention to identifying the risk population or the denominator associated with a particular inquiry; 2) use of entry cohorts and prospective measures to characterize systems dynamics and change in outcomes; 3) attention to the sources of variation in system outcomes (e.g. variation over time, among children, or in places); 4) understanding variation to track change accurately; 5) assessing expected change in the appropriate period of performance or window of time; 6) matching the analytic question to the appropriate source data; and 7) using well-understood and organized data resources that are designed to support asking and answering analytic questions.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 5 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
The first brief on the Infrastructure Standards was focused on the comprehensive practice model (Section I), investigations of possible maltreatment in care (Section II), and the case planning process (Section III). After review and discussion with the parties, the brief was finalized and filed with the court on March 20, 2019.
The second brief on the Infrastructure Standards will be on the comprehensive practice model (Section I), robust workforce development (Section VIII), quality placement and caregiving (Section IV), and health and education (Section V).
The third brief on the Infrastructure Standards will be on the comprehensive practice model (Section I), federal funding (Section IX) and the child welfare information and quality assurance systems (Section VI), and supervision of contract agencies (Section VII).
The MTAT approach to monitoring serves not only as an accountability mechanism for the Court, the Plaintiffs, and the public, but also as an opportunity to assist DFCS to establish a culture of data-driven decision-making and continuous quality improvement (CQI). The goal is to establish a strong CQI process that will remain in place after the state satisfies the terms of the Modified Exit Plan and is no longer under federal court oversight.
DFCS continues experiencing significant changes in leadership at the state, regional, and local levels. In February 2019, Governor Kemp appointed Mr. Tom Rawlings as the Division Director. He had previously been appointed interim in July 2018 by Governor Deal. In May 2019, Keith Bostick, State Division Deputy Director for Child Welfare, announced his resignation. He has been selected to lead the Santa Cruz, California, child welfare system. Mr. Lon Roberts has been appointed as interim. At the regional level, in May 2019, Ms. Kristin Toliver, the Fulton County Director, was promoted to Regional Director for Region 14. This position had previously been held by James Binnicker, who was simultaneously serving as the District Director. Also, in May 2019, Mr. Kwesi Booker left DFCS, having served as the DeKalb County Director. Mr. Lamar Smith has been appointed as interim Director of DeKalb County. Lamar W. Smith has served as the Well-Being Services Section Director for the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) since August 2013.
Sustained, strong leadership is essential for building and maintaining an effective workforce that daily improves its engagement with children, youth, and families. As the state strives to complete the Modified Exit Plan, stabilizing leadership at all levels and articulating a clear theory of change is vital for achieving success.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 6 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
II. ROBUST WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
To better understand the factors that most impact DFCS’ ability to meet caseload expectations and ensure a stable and capable workforce to address the needs of children and families, the MTAT is in the process of conducting a deeper analysis on the workforce for the second brief on the Infrastructure Standards. The Infrastructure Standards, negotiated and submitted to the court in December 2017, include commitments related to the hiring and onboarding process for new employees, improved coordination with the Department of Human Services’ Office of Human Resources (OHR), case manager and supervisory training and support, as well as better management of caseloads for case managers and supervisors.
For the purpose of this report, this chapter is focused solely on caseload standards included in the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan Section V.  No CPS case manager shall have more than 12 cases.  No ongoing case manager shall have more than 17 cases.  No placement case manager shall have more than 15 cases.  No adoption case manager shall have more than 16 cases.  No specialized case manager shall have more than 12 cases.  No supervisor shall supervise more than five (5) case managers at any one time in Fulton or
DeKalb counties.
For the 165 CPS, family preservation, permanency, and specialized case managers who were active on December 31, 2018, 68 (41 percent) of them were meeting caseload expectations.
On this same date, out of 44 active CPS and permanency supervisors, 39 (89 percent) of them were assigned five or fewer case managers and most of those were CPS supervisors.
CPS Case Managers
For CPS case managers, 73 percent were assigned 12 or fewer families to respond to or investigate reports of maltreatment on December 31, 2018.
Family Preservation Case Managers
Family preservation case managers have generally been assigned 17 or fewer families in order to provide services and help ensure child safety.2 This was not the case on December 31, 2018 when only 63 percent of these case managers met the standard.

2 See Period 24 Final Data Report Kenny A. v. Deal.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 7 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
Permanency Case Managers
For many years, permanency case managers were consistently meeting or exceeding a caseload expectation of 15 or fewer cases; however, this began to shift in 2015.3 Only 32 percent of all permanency case managers were meeting caseload expectations on December 31, 2018.
Case Managers with Children Assigned to Them Who Have Been in Foster Care for 18 Months or Longer
Previously known as specialized case managers, case managers who are assigned to children who have been in foster care for 18 months or longer are to be assigned no more than 12 children at any given time. Many of these children require extra support to achieve permanency. Percentages of case managers meeting this expectation have been dropping notably in recent years to a low of 17 percent on December 31, 2016.4 One year later, on December 31, 2017, 36 percent of these case managers were meeting caseload expectations. On June 30, 2018, the percentage of case managers meeting this expectation had declined to 31 percent.5 On December 31, 2018, the percentage of case managers meeting this expectation had declined to 13 percent.
Supervisors
On December 31, 2017, all of the DeKalb County supervisors and 70 percent of the Fulton County supervisors were meeting expectations related to the number of case managers they were assigned. However, on June 30, 2018, only 64 percent of DeKalb supervisors and 60 percent of Fulton supervisors had five or fewer case managers to supervise. Yet on December 31, 2018, 93 percent of DeKalb supervisors and 82 percent of Fulton supervisors had five or fewer case managers to supervise.
The increased number of supervisors who are meeting the supervisory ratios for this period is encouraging. MTAT will continue to monitor supervisory ratios, since maintaining adequate supervisory capacity is critical to establishing a robust workforce.
DeKalb County on December 31, 2018
Caseloads for 52 percent of the case managers in DeKalb County on December 31, 2018 were too high and exceeded agreed-upon limits. This was especially true for case managers serving children in foster care. It should be noted that almost all Family Preservation case managers (91 percent) were assigned caseloads that met agreed-upon standards. See Appendix A, Table 3 and Table 4 for more information.
Fulton County on December 31, 2018
On this same date, Fulton County had a higher percentage of case managers exceeding caseload expectations, with 68 percent of the case managers exceeding caseload expectations. See Appendix A, Table 5 and Table 6 for more information.

3 See Period 24 Final Data Report Kenny A. v. Deal. 4 See Period 24 Final Data Report Kenny A. v. Deal. 5 The requirement to be assigned no more than 12 cases goes into effect when more than half of case manager’s
caseload are children who have been in foster care for 18 months or longer.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 8 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
III. CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND

This section of the report provides a longitudinal snapshot of placement dynamics, a report on major findings regarding placement prohibitions, a listing of the performance of each county and the region on the outcomes required under the Modified Exit Plan, and major findings regarding outcome measures.

Context for Understanding Period 26 Outcomes
The next section provides an overview of case flow dynamics in Region 14 during the most recent four years. These data provide useful context for interpreting outcomes associated with the July through December 2018 period under review. Shifts in the mix of children entering care (either by age or the proportion that return home quickly) can influence placement stability and permanency outcomes. Initial placement type may also be associated with future outcomes. Thus, to support the outcome analysis, details below present some basic information about the flow of children and youth entering placement in Region 14 during 2018, and relative to the prior three calendar years.

The number of children and youth entering care by county, by age at entry, and by first placement type are shown in this section. An analysis is also provided of children who entered care and exited care quickly (short stayers). This analysis includes the proportion of children and youth who enter care and stay for less than one month, and how that proportion has been shifting over time, as total entries in the region decline (except for a slight uptick during Period 25). While there are some similar trends for the region overall, there are also some patterns distinctive in each county. Data, current through the end of 2018, are derived from the DFCS longitudinal data file, developed by Chapin Hall, and based on SHINES data.

Table 1 below shows that the number of children and youth entering care in Region 14 continues to decrease relative to the most recent years. The table displays all children and youth entering care from 2015 through 2018, and it includes placement spells of any duration.

Table 1: Children Entering Foster Care in Region 14

Age at Entry Total Under 1 1 to 5 Years 6 to 12 Years 13 to 17 Years

2015 1350 195 377 326 452

Region 2016 2017 1010 900 152 159 241 213 248 227 369 301

2018 832 130 189 215 298

2015 742 101 223 185 233

DeKalb

2016 2017

546 442

81

77

137 98

140 108

188 159

2018 437 65 93 114 165

2015 608 94 154 141 219

Fulton

2016 2017

464 458

71

82

104 115

108 119

181 142

2018 395 65 96 101 133

Trends 2015-2018 Total DeKalb Fulton

Total Under 1 1 to 5 Years 6 to 12 Years 13 to 17 Years

100% 14% 28% 24% 33%

100% 15% 24% 25% 37%

100% 18% 24% 25% 33%

100% 16% 23% 26% 36%

100% 14% 30% 25% 31%

100% 15% 25% 26% 34%

100% 17% 22% 24% 36%

100% 15% 21% 26% 38%

100% 15% 25% 23% 36%

100% 15% 22% 23% 39%

100% 18% 25% 26% 31%

100% 16% 24% 26% 34%

Source: Data derived from Child Spell File, developed by Chapin Hall with SHINES data transferred to Chapin Hall in February 2019. File censor date is December 31, 2018.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 9 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
As in Period 25, there was a decrease in the proportion of children who entered as infants and an increase in the proportion who entered as teenagers. The sparkline (trendlines above) shows the steady decrease in counts overall from 2015 to 2017 and a stabilization from 2017 to 2018, although within age groups there are some different patterns observable in the separate counties. In Fulton, the proportion of children entering custody aged zero to 12 has stayed relatively constant, with the proportion of older youth increasing, after a decline in earlier years. In DeKalb, the proportion of children entering custody under age one and aged six to 12 years has remained relatively constant, while the proportion of children aged one to five has decreased and aged 13-17 have increased.
Figure 1 below provides an additional view of the distribution of the 2018 entry cohort by single year of age, and county, and shows how those distribution have shifted from the prior three years. In both cases, infants are the greatest proportion of each entry cohort, followed by a downward trend with some variation by age, county, and entry year over time.
In DeKalb, the 2018 entry group is distinguished by peaks at each end of the age distribution. Infants clearly make up the greatest proportion of the 2018 entrants, although it has dropped from just under 18 percent in 2017, to just over 14 percent for 2018. Similarly, youth 14 and older make up the next greatest proportion of enterers – between five and 11 percent in 2018, slightly more from the prior entry year.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 10 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Figure 1: DeKalb and Fulton Entries by Age

Proportion of Entry Cohort

DeKalb County
20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age at Entry

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

For Fulton County, the patterns are slightly different: Infants are the largest proportion of the entry group at just over 16 percent, slightly lower than in 2017 which was 18 percent. However, there is a smaller bump for the older children (14 years of age and older) than in DeKalb County, with this population representing less than 9 percent of each year’s entry cohort.

Proportion of Entry Cohort

Fulton County
20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age at Entry

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Source: Data derived from Child Spell File, developed by Chapin Hall with SHINES data transferred to Chapin Hall in February 2019. File censor date is December 31, 2018.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 11 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

The next set of tables shows the placement type for children and youth at the time of entry. Seventy-three percent of children coming into care in Region 14 in 2018 were first placed in family settings, with 45 percent being first placed in foster homes and just under 28 percent being placed in a kinship setting. The remaining 28 percent were placed in other settings – including congregate settings, and “other” settings (which include hotels, ILPs, hospitals, jails, AWOL status, and unknown settings).

Table 2: Placements for Children and Youth Entering Foster Care6

First Placement Type
Total Foster
Relative Congregate Other

2015
1350 628
314 175 233

Total 2016 2017
1010 900 423 401
261 247 156 156 170 96

2018
832 374
232 155 71

2015
742 361
175 101 105

DeKalb 2016 2017
546 442 229 196
147 122 79 74 91 50

2018
437 180
132 88 37

2015
608 267
139 74 128

Fulton 2016 2017
464 458 194 205
114 125 77 82 79 46

2018
395 194
100 67 34

Total Foster

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 47% 42% 45% 45% 49% 42% 44% 41% 44% 42% 45% 49%

Relative Congregate Other

23% 26% 27% 28% 24% 27% 28% 30% 23% 25% 27% 25% 13% 15% 17% 19% 14% 14% 17% 20% 12% 17% 18% 17% 17% 17% 11% 9% 14% 17% 11% 8% 21% 17% 10% 9%

Source: Data derived from Child Spell File, developed by Chapin Hall with SHINES data transferred to Chapin Hall in February 2019. File censor date is December 31, 2018.

These patterns are by and large consistent with prior years, and between the two counties, with some slight differences. For both counties, there has been a slight decreased reliance on ‘other’ settings, which are generally temporary short-term placements or hospital placements, which is encouraging. In addition, children initially placed in family settings in both counties remains above 70 percent, with more of an increase in Fulton County than DeKalb County over the last four years. DeKalb County has seen a greater increase in the proportion of children initially placed in relative settings over the last four years compared to Fulton County, while Fulton County has seen a greater increase in the proportion of children initially placed in foster family settings. DeKalb County did experience a slight increase in the proportion of children initially placed in congregate care in 2018.

The two bar graphs look more closely at the 2018 group and show the placement settings by single year of age in each county. This view provides a more nuanced consideration of the experience of children and youth as different at the time of removal – although it is important to keep in mind that the numbers of children and youth represented in each of these bars is fairly low, which can impact percentages greatly. Generally, there are fewer than 20 (often fewer than 10) children represented in each age group. The table below displays counts by placement type and age at spell start for each county, which adds useful context with which to consider the two figures below.

6 Please note: these numbers are rounded, so may slightly exceed 100%

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 12 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table 3: First Placement Type, by Age at Placement, CY 2018

County/Plc Type
DeKalb County
Total Foster Relative Congregate Other
Fulton County Total Foster Relative Congregate Other

CY 2018 Entries, First Placement Type by Age at Spell Start
Age at Spell Start Total 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
437 65 22 21 19 19 12 18 13 21 14 18 19 11 21 36 38 48 22 180 36 10 10 12 11 7 8 7 14 8 9 7 1 5 10 10 10 5 132 13 11 10 7 8 5 9 5 7 5 8 11 6 5 4 6 7 5 88 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 9 20 19 26 10 37 16 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 5 2
395 65 24 23 21 18 10 17 18 16 15 6 10 19 28 29 34 31 11 194 28 19 17 15 13 6 13 13 8 9 6 6 7 4 9 8 9 4 100 23 5 5 6 3 4 3 5 8 6 0 3 6 4 7 6 4 2 67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 16 10 17 15 4 34 14 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 3 3 3 1

Figure 2: DeKalb First Placement Type by Age

Percent In Care Type

DeKalb County 2018, First Placement by Age at Placement

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%
0%

5% 5%

6% 8%

7% 6% 5% 9% 10% 6% 8% 10% 9%

25% 20% 50% 48% 37% 42% 42% 50% 38% 33% 36% 44% 58% 27% 43% 56% 50% 54% 45%

55% 45% 48% 63% 58% 58% 44% 54% 67% 57% 50%

55% 24% 11% 16%

23%

15%

37%

24% 28% 26% 21% 23%

9%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age at Spell Start

Foster Relative Congregate Other

Source: Data derived from Child Spell File, developed by Chapin Hall with SHINES data transferred to Chapin Hall in February 2019. File censor date is December 31, 2018.
In DeKalb County, the most frequent first placement type was foster homes (blue bar) for most children entering placement between the ages of zero and 10. The 25 percent of infants placed in “other” settings are primarily associated with hospital removals. About 20 percent of entering infants were placed in a relative home (orange bar). For children aged one year to age 12, there was a wide range in the reliance on relative homes for first placement – 58 percent of 11-yearolds to 33 percent of eight-year-olds were placed with family members or fictive kin. The likelihood of initial foster home placement decreased sharply for youth placed as teenagers, and the use of kinship declined as well. Reliance on congregate care (grey bar) increased with age – peaking at over 56 percent for 14-year-olds – and exceeding 50 percent for most other teenagers

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 13 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

except for 17-year-olds, of whom 45 percent were placed in a congregate setting and 13- yearolds, of whom 43 percent were placed in a congregate setting.
For Fulton, the patterns indicate some variation. Just over one-third of infants were placed with a relative or fictive kin, 22 percent were first placed in other (likely hospital), and the remainder were placed in foster homes. Children placed between the ages of one and 12 were very likely to have first placement in a foster home. For over 50 percent of children in each age group (one to 12) that was the first setting, and it was the setting for 100 percent of ten-year-old’s entering custody. The proportion of relative placements were less common than in DeKalb (with some variation) in the children 12 and younger, reaching as high as the first placement for half of eight-year-olds and as low as none for 10-year-olds. But for children over 12 at placement, relative care decreased in likelihood as the first placement type.
Figure 3: Fulton First Placement Type by Age

Percent In Care Type

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Fulton County, 2018, First Placement Type by Age at Placement

4%

11%

6%

22% 21% 22% 29%

18% 28%

17% 40%

40%

50%

10% 5% 14% 10% 9% 10% 9%

26% 30%

34%

36%

50% 48%

35%

57%

100%

32%

79% 74% 71% 72%

76% 72%

60%

60%

60%

24%

18%

18% 13%

43%

50%

37% 14% 31% 24% 29% 36%

14%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Age at Spell Start
Foster Relative Congregate Other

The final focus of this overview is on the proportion of children entering care in Region 14 who had relatively brief stays – short-stayers – in recent years. It is important to note that the 2018 data is partially censored, as not enough time has passed to observe activity, however, it does give a good indication of where the region may be heading. Table 4 below indicates that the proportion of children entering care in Region 14 who stay in care less than 31 days has increased slightly from about 20 percent in 2017 to 22 percent in 2018, with a greater increase observed in Fulton (24 to 28 percent) than DeKalb (15 to 16 percent). Table 4 also shows that most children experiencing these short spells are school-aged: 72 percent of DeKalb and 64 percent of Fulton “short stayers” are school aged.
Of note is the proportion of “short stayer” children who have re-entered within a year of exiting to permanency, especially in light of the fact that the 2018 data is partially censored, as a year has not passed since some of these short stayers have exited. While in DeKalb, the reentry rate

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 14 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

was only 7 percent for “short-stayers” in 2018, the reentry rate in Fulton is already 16 percent, on par with 2017 data which is not partially censored.

Table 4: Children and Youth Entering Foster Care Leaving in Less Than 31 Days

Placement Total Entries GE 31 Days LT 31 Days
Among those with spells of LT 31 days …
School Aged or older Permanent Exits Reentered within 1 Yr

2015
1350 993 357

Total

2016
1010 757 253

2017
900 722 178

2018
832 652 180

2015
742 568 174

DeKalb
2016 2017 546 442 441 375 105 67

2018
437 368 69

2015
608 425 183

Fulton
2016 2017 464 458 316 347 148 111

2018
395 284 111

249 180 124 121 127 80 56

338 238 171 140 164 100 64

58

43 37 23 30 17 18

50 122 100 68 71 43 174 138 107 97 5 28 26 19 18

% All Entries % School Aged at Entry % Exiting to Permanency % Reentering (of all short stayers) % Reentering (of short stayers w/perm ex)

26% 25% 20% 22% 23% 19% 15% 16% 30% 32% 24% 28% 70% 71% 70% 67% 73% 76% 84% 72% 67% 68% 61% 64% 95% 94% 96% 78% 94% 95% 96% 62% 95% 93% 96% 87% 16% 17% 21% 13% 17% 16% 27% 7% 15% 18% 17% 16% 17% 18% 22% 16% 18% 17% 28% 12% 16% 19% 18% 19%

Source: Data derived from Child Spell File, developed by Chapin Hall with SHINES data transferred to Chapin Hall in February 2019. File censor date is December 31, 2018. Note: Shaded data are partially censored - that at the time the file was developed, not enough time had passed to observe activity for a month (or a year) for all enterers.

On the other end of the spectrum from children who exit custody quickly (less than 31 days), MTAT also analyzes in general at how long it is taking for children in Region 14 to exit custody.

Table 5: Children Exiting to Permanency, inclusive of Short Stayers

Region 14 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
DeKalb

All Entries 1064 1454 1350 1010
900 832 All Entries

In Six Months
52% 53% 45% 42% 39% 32% In Six Months

w/In 1 Year 65% 62% 55% 51% 48% 33% w/In 1 Year

in 18 Months
71% 68% 62% 57% 54%
in 18 Months

in 2 Years 75% 72% 66% 61% 56%
in 2 Years

in 3 Years 82% 77% 76% 66%
in 3 Years

in 4 + Years 87% 83% 80%
in 4 + Years

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Fulton

500 732 742 546 442 437 All Entries

45% 47% 41% 37% 36% 26% In Six Months

59% 57% 54% 46% 46% 29% w/In 1 Year

67% 63% 64% 53% 52%
in 18 Months

71% 68% 67% 56% 54%
in 2 Years

78% 74% 77% 61%
in 3 Years

86% 81% 81%
in 4 + Years

2013

564

2014

722

2015

608

2016

464

2017

458

2018

395

57%

70%

59%

68%

49%

57%

47%

56%

43%

50%

38%

39%

75%

80%

85%

88%

73%

75%

80%

86%

60%

65%

75%

78%

61%

67%

72%

56%

58%

Source: Data derived from Child Spell File, developed by Chapin Hall with SHINES data transferred to Chapin Hall in February 2019. File censor date is December 31, 2018. Note: Shaded data are partially censored - that at the time the file was developed, not enough time had passed to observe activity for all children exiting based on their year of entry
What is clear from this table is that while less children are entering custody in recent years,

particularly in Fulton, achieving permanency timely has also declined. Otherwise stated, it is

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 15 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

now taking longer for children to achieve permanency in Region 14. This has significant implications on outcome requirements delineated in the Modified Exit Plan, and directly impacts staffing and the workforce. It is important to note that this table includes the ‘short stayers,’ or children who achieved permanency within 31 days, which would may drive an increase in the permanency rates.
Some interesting differences can be observed when comparing Fulton and DeKalb counties. Not factoring in the partially censored data, a greater proportion of children are achieving permanency within one year of entry in Fulton County, but then a slightly greater proportion of children are achieving permanency within 18 months and two years in DeKalb County. In the last available non-partially censored year, 43 percent of children who entered in 2017 achieved permanency within six months and 50 percent within 12 months in Fulton compared to 36 percent and 46 percent, respectively in DeKalb. However, for children who entered in 2015, 64 percent achieved permanency in 18 months and 67 percent achieved permanency in two years in DeKalb, compared to 60 percent and 65 percent respectively in Fulton. This suggests Fulton is making a greater push for permanency in the first year, but then efforts may slow or be hampered in subsequent years.
Period 26 Placement Standards
The need for appropriate placements for all children who enter foster care or have a placement disruption is paramount. The state has continued to limit the use of inappropriate placements including the use of hotels, overnight/excessive stays in a DFCS office, and congregate care for younger children. The Kenny A. State Project Director, the County Directors, and the head of resource development for Region 14 are championing the effort to ensure safe and stable placements for children and youth.
Discriminatory Placement Practices
Section IV.B.3 of the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan (hereinafter Exit Plan) prohibits discriminatory placement practices. Specifically, this section states:
“Race and/or ethnicity and/or religion shall not be the basis for a delay or denial in the placement of a child, either with regard to matching the child with a foster or adoptive family or with regard to placing a child in a group facility. DHS shall not contract with any program or private agency that gives preference in its placement practices by race, ethnicity, or religion…”
Moreover, the Principles outlined in the Exit Plan include:
“All children in need of child welfare services should receive full and equal access to the best available services, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”
As reported in the Period 25 Report, the State Office of Provider Management (OPM) and State Well-Being Services Section have agreed to add additional questions to its monitoring tool and additional measures to enhance feedback related to LGBTQ policies and practices. MTAT will be evaluating information that has been gathered from this monitoring tool and other data for the second brief on the Infrastructure Standards.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 16 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
Reimbursement Rates
The Exit Plan requires uniform reimbursement rates for agency and private provider foster homes. When the Exit Plan was approved, reimbursement rates were $15.27, $17.26, $19.65 for children and youth ages zero to five, six to 12, and 13+ respectively, for DFCS foster homes and for private provider foster homes. In July 2018, the foster care per diems for DFCS foster homes and private provider foster homes were equalized at $25.27, $27.26, and $29.65 respectively. MTAT will continue monitoring these rates and report in more detail on these in the third brief on the Infrastructure Standards.
The major findings regarding placements during Period 26 are presented below.
Major Findings
1. The state has eliminated the regular use of hotels, motels, or similar non-child welfare overnight commercial enterprises.
Region 14 has eliminated the regular use of hotels as a placement resource. No child from DeKalb or Fulton counties was placed in a hotel during Period 26. During the past two-and-ahalf years, the state has been working to increase its array of foster care placements and to enhance diligent search efforts to locate and support relatives and fictive kin as temporary placements for children and youth. In addition, the partnership with the Multi-Agency Alliance for Children (MAAC) continues to provide emergency placements for youth in Fulton and DeKalb counties.
2. Region 14 continues its efforts to limit the amount of time a child spends in a DFCS office, especially during overnight hours. The development of a revised office stay log, including documentation that truly depicts a child’s experience with office stays, has improved the state’s ability to monitor this process.
The Modified Consent Decree states, “no child shall spend more than 23 hours in a county DFCS office. Any child who spends time in a county DFCS office between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. shall be reported to the MTAT. The intent of this provision is to prevent the use of DFCS offices as an overnight placement for children, as children with urgent placement needs require a safe bed in a home-like environment.”
During Period 26, there were no youth who had office stays of more than 23 hours in a county DFCS office. Overall there were 45 separate instances of office stays in the Region (Dekalb – 20, Fulton – 25). Of the 45 cases, 20 involved disrupted placements, 18 were children experiencing their first removal, and seven involved children who re-entered care. Documentation for cases with the longest office stays (19.5, 14.5 and 14 hours) during this period indicated that the disruptive behavior of each youth and the lack of behavioral aides contributed greatly to the youths’ extended stays in the offices. The more extensive documentation in the revised office stay logs should assist leadership in identifying root causes for lengthy office stays, thus providing them with the information needed to implement more effective strategies to reduce these occurrences.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

13

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 17 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

3. Region 14 continues to ensure young children are not placed in congregate care placements unless necessary for the child’s welfare.
The Consent Decree has several restrictions related to the use of group care, including limiting the use of congregate care for young children. The reported information is for all children under the age of 12 in care between July 1 and December 31, 2018, not for a sample of the entire foster care population.
According to state reports, no children under the age of 12 entering foster care or already in care during the period were placed in group homes or child caring institutions except as allowed under the Modified Exit Plan. During Period 26, of youth in care or who entered foster care in the period, 30 children and youth were placed in hospitals to meet their physical health needs and eight children were hospitalized for mental health issues. In addition, there was one child placed with the mother in a group care setting designed for teen mothers. All documentation and waivers were reviewed by the MTAT.
4. The overwhelming number of children are not remaining in temporary facilities longer than 30 days and the region continues to place fewer children in more than one temporary facility while in foster care.
The Modified Consent Decree states:
a. No child shall be placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility beds used on any temporary basis, for more than 30 days; and
b. Children shall not be placed in more than one temporary facility within one episode of foster care (meaning the period of time that a child is in foster care from the date of removal from the home until the child is discharged from DFCS custody, except that a runaway does not trigger a new episode of foster care).
During Period 26, out of the 1,950 children who were in foster care at the beginning of the period or entered during the period, there were two children (one each in Dekalb and Fulton) placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility beds used on a temporary basis for more than 30 days.
In addition, for the year 2018, only 15 of 855 (1.75 percent) of children were placed in two or more temporary facilities within one episode of foster care. The State should be commended for continuing to reduce the number of children experiencing two or more temporary placements. They have reduced this percentage from 11.5 percent in CY2015, to 7.3 percent in CY2016, to 3.6 percent in CY2017 and now to 1.75 percent in CY2018.
Period 26 Outcomes
Tables 6 and 7 below list each Ongoing and Attained Outcomes for Period 26, along with the most current observed performance. The outcome shaded in green indicates a measure that is eligible to move to the attained category. Finally, this report contains two appendices. In Appendix A, there is a Measures Grid that identifies each measurable outcome, practice standard, or performance measure required in the Modified Consent Decree, and then describes the method for producing that metric. Then there is a technical document that provides the

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

14

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 18 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

numerator and denominator for each metric displayed in the Outcome Grid and includes additional explanation and/or data that support interpretation of the outcome metric under the Modified Consent Decree. Appendix B contains a glossary of common terms that are relevant to Georgia.

Table 6: Period 26 Ongoing Outcome Measures

Ongoing Outcome Measures

Period 25 Performance

Region 14

Outcome 1: Commencement of CPS Investigations Concerning Foster Children: At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact with the alleged victim, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of the report.
Outcome 3: Re-entry into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge. Children who were in foster care for less than eight days are not counted in this measure.
Outcome 5: Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care.
Outcome 6: At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months shall be discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.
Outcome 7: At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who

95% 13%8 85% 9%9 12%10

Period 26 Performance
DeKalb

Period 26 Performance
Fulton

Period 26 Performance
Region 14

91.7%

100%

96.2%7

17.9%

16.9%

17.4%

97%

96%

97%

17.3%

29.6%

22.3%

31.8%

30.4%

31.27%

7 Three children were excluded from the numerator and denominator for Outcome 1. Two children were on runaway during the response time, and one child was deceased upon the investigator arriving at the hospital. From the first draft that was originally submitted, the following additions were made: One child was determined to have met the requirement for Outcome 1 based on a re-assessment, and two children were removed from the numerator and denominator due to being tied to investigation id’s that were not reviewed by the review team 8 This is the sixth month performance on an annual measure. 9 This is the sixth month performance on an annual measure. 10 This is the sixth month performance on an annual measure.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

15

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 19 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Ongoing Outcome Measures
had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Outcome 8: Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights. Outcome 14: Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. Outcome 16: Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Outcome 17: Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall have graduated from high school or earned a GED. Outcome 18: Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement. (72% of relative placements were in full approval.) Outcome 21: Health and Educational Needs: Of children in care at a point in time at the end of the

Period 25 Performance
Region 14
60% 88.4%
89%
50% (Period 24) 95%

Period 26 Performance
DeKalb
42% 81.3%
79.8%
45%

Period 26 Performance
Fulton
96% 84%
73.7%
43%

Period 26 Performance
Region 14
69% 82.5%
77.3%
44%11 97.8%

11 This measure is reported on an annual basis.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

16

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 20 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Ongoing Outcome Measures
reporting period, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan: Outcome 21a: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed medical needs Outcome 21b: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed dental needs Outcome 21c: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed mental health needs Outcome 26: Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Outcome 27: Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.

Period 25 Performance
Region 14
92% 90% 90%
94.86%
95%

Period 26 Performance
DeKalb

Period 26 Performance
Fulton

Period 26 Performance
Region 14

93%

95%

94%12

86%

89%

88%

79%

96%

87%

93.25%

95.85%

94.37%

96%

90%

93%

12 This marks the third period that the state has exceeded the required threshold. MTAT recommends that it be moved to the attained category.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

17

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 21 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table 7: Period 25 Attained Outcome Measures

Attained Outcome Measures
Outcome 2: Completion of CPS Investigations Concerning Foster Children: At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of the report. Outcome 4: Maltreatment in Care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days. Outcome 9: Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had either (a) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or (b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Outcome 10: Sibling Placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject to the following exceptions: (a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, (c) the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with relatives. Outcome 11: Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care. Outcome 12: Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of all children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption

Period 25 Performance
Region 14 100% 3.17
97%
87.5%
2.91 96%

Period 26 Performance
DeKalb 100% 3.64
95%
95.1%
2.5 92.2%

Period 26 Performance
Fulton

Period 26 Performance
Region 14

95.6%

97.9%13

4.95

4.19

96%

95%

100%

97.6%

3.59

2.97

94.4%

93.1%

13 The two children on runaway that were excluded from Outcome 1 were included in the numerator and denominator for Outcome 2, as well as the two children whose investigations were not reviewed by the review team. In addition, to be consistent with the precedent set in P8, the investigation involving the child death, while excluded from Outcome 1 was included in Outcome 2.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

18

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 22 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Attained Outcome Measures
case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave Outcome 13: Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one in-placement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Outcome 15: Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage Outcome 19: Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the sixmonth period following the last review. Outcome 20: Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.

Period 25 Performance
Region 14
97.2%
96.3%
96%
100%

Period 26 Performance
DeKalb
96.15%
95%
100%
100%

Period 26 Performance
Fulton

Period 26 Performance
Region 14

97.67%

96.8%

97.1%

95.9%

89%

94%

100%

100%

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

19

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 23 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Attained Outcome Measures
Outcome 21d: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed education/development needs. Outcome 22: Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months. Outcome 23: Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Outcome 24: Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Outcome 25: Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to the following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with relatives, or (d) the child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective adoptive family pursuant to an appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court. Outcome 28: Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following capacity limits: (a) no placement shall result in more than three foster children in a foster home, or a total of six children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children, without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no placement will result in more than three children under the age of three in a foster

Period 25 Performance
Region 14 95% 100% 38%14 0%
96%
.2%

Period 26 Performance
DeKalb 98% 100%
36.9%
0%

Period 26 Performance
Fulton
89%

Period 26 Performance
Region 14
94%

100%

100%

36.4%

36.7%

0%

0%

99%

.8%

14 This is the sixth month performance on an annual measure.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

20

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 24 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Attained Outcome Measures
home. The only exception to these capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a foster home with no other children in the home. Other Consent Decree Requirements
4x4 Visitation.
(VI.G.1) Recurrence of Maltreatment.
(VI.G.2) Number of children who were victims of a second substantiated investigation within 12 months of FSS case.

Period 25 Performance
Region 14
37% 4.9% 2.1%

Period 26 Performance
DeKalb
33% 1% 3.9%

Period 26 Performance
Fulton

Period 26 Performance
Region 14

18%

26%

2.7%

1.8%

3.8%

3.8%

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

21

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 25 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Major Outcome Measure Findings
1. The region continues to struggle with children re-entering care. The rate of children reentering care is over twice the required threshold.
The Modified Exit Plan requires that of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3 percent shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge. This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 Reentry methodology. Because that method requires observing children enter, stay at least eight days, exit to permanency within one year, and then re-enter from that exit within one year – it is necessary to refer to prior entry cohorts in order to generate the metric. During Period 26, 17.4 percent of youth that entered care in CY 2016 and were discharged in CY 2017, re-entered care in CY 2018.
Since this is a new and annual measure, the only period to compare it to is Period 24, which had 16.9 percent of the children re-enter. The high re-entry rate results in increased caseloads for caseworkers, thus degrading the quality of services for children and families. Therefore, the State’s permanency initiatives should focus on why children are re-entering and subsequently what strategies can be implemented to reduce this rate.
2. Visitation continues to improve in many areas; however, both the counties continue struggling to meet DFCS policy requiring four visits in the first four weeks of a new placement and engagement between parent and child and siblings.
Case managers in both counties continue to visit children and caregivers consistently (97 percent in DeKalb and 96 percent in Fulton) and these measures were moved to the attained category after Period 25.
Unfortunately, required monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children (Outcome 26) again fell below the threshold to 94.4 percent, just shy of the 96.25 percent requirement. Additionally, the state’s performance regarding visitation between siblings (Outcome 16) decreased drastically from 89 percent in Period 25 to 77.3 percent in Period 26. This is very concerning given that authentic engagement and maintaining family connections is critical to moving cases to permanency.
Visitation also assists in stabilizing placements. Both counties continue failing to adhere to statewide policy with a regional performance of 26 percent for the four visits in the first four weeks of a new placement. This is a decrease from the low performance of 37 percent in Period 25.
3. Juvenile court processes continue meeting or exceeding the consent decree requirements. However, there are many systemic challenges with ensuring that court orders are timely drafted, reviewed, signed, filed, and uploaded into SHINES.
The legal requirements for removing a child from a family and granting temporary custody of that child are delineated in state and federal law, as well as DFCS policy and federal regulations. While the court systems in Fulton and DeKalb counties were not parties in the Kenny A class

May 22, 2019

Draft Period 26 Monitoring Report

22

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 26 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
action or resulting consent decree, the courts play a major role in the child welfare system. Thus, while DFCS and its attorneys are responsible for filing necessary complaints, petitions, and motions with the court, attorneys for parents, child attorneys, and judges along with their staff, all must work together to ensure the correct and timely processing of cases. This process has a direct impact on achieving timely permanency for children and families.
After three consecutive reporting period in which DFCS, working with the court system, has exceeded the consent decree requirements of 95 percent of children in foster care having sixmonth case reviews, the performance during Period 26 fell below the threshold requirement to 94 percent. This outcome measure was moved to the attained category following Period 25. MTAT will monitor this closely during Period 27. Another court process requires at least 95 percent of children in foster care to have permanency hearings within 12 months of entering care. Fulton and DeKalb continue exceeding this requirement for 100 percent of children.
In most of Georgia’s judicial districts, the Special Assistant Attorneys General (SAAGs) are responsible for drafting dependency court orders, circulating them to the parties for comments, and ensuring that the draft orders are then provided to the judges for review, approval, and filing. This became a statewide practice when DFCS realized it was not getting reimbursed by the federal government for the cost of foster care, because some of the court-produced orders did not contain the requisite language. Both Fulton and DeKalb counties have developed their own protocols regarding the process and timing of completing these court orders. Moreover, as SAAGs are assigned to certain judges, additional practices may vary from courtroom to courtroom.
In order to ascertain whether DFCS is meeting the requirements of Outcome 27, (95 percent of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act), MTAT pulls a sample of cases for a case file review. DFCS policy sets forth an expectation that court orders will be uploaded into SHINES for each child to have complete record. Thus, the case file reviewers search for hearing dates and correlating court orders. Then they read those orders to determine if they contain the required language. The challenge for several reporting periods has been that many of these court orders are missing and therefore the required language cannot be verified. They have either not been uploaded into SHINES, or they have not yet been signed by the judge, or they have not ever been produced by the SAAG. For the samples of cases reviewed, MTAT has provided the state with a list of cases and they then track down the missing orders.
While the state has been able to meet the requirements of Outcome 27 (95 percent), during Period 25, after receiving a second opportunity to find court orders, MTAT expressed concerns that the process for evaluating this metric may be flawed and not truly present an accurate picture of how the state is performing. During Period 26, the state was able to locate 93% of the required court orders, however as indicated above, this was after an exhaustive search by state staff.
In addition to the file review, MTAT also requested the state’s penetration rate data. The state provided the following information.

May 22, 2019

Draft Period 26 Monitoring Report

23

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 27 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

100.00% 90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00%

Penetration Rate

57.20%

57.70% 53.30% 49.20% 47.80%

46.60% 43.50%

SFY 12

SFY 13

SFY 14

SFY 15

Penetration Rate

SFY 16

SFY 17

SFY 18

When asked why the state-wide penetration rate for IV-E federal reimbursement has been steadily declining since 2013, there are several reasons cited consistently over this period of time including:
 Lack of deprivation; and
 Earned income and unearned income are AFDC-Relatedness criteria and cannot be addressed or changed by the agency.
However, over the past several years, in addition to these reasons, the state indicated that “Initial Court Order Never Received” has emerged as a possible factor for the steady decline in IV-E reimbursements. In SFY 2009, only 1.43 percent of the denials for IV-E were related to this reason. It stayed below 5 percent until 2014 when it reached 6 percent. 2015 was 7.62 percent, 2016 was 13.62 percent, and 2017 was 20.24 percent.
This downward trend has continued into SFY 2019.

May 22, 2019

Draft Period 26 Monitoring Report

24

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 28 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

44.00% 43.50% 43.00% 42.50% 42.00% 41.50% 41.00%

SFY 19 Penetration Rate (to date)

43.40%

43.20%

42.70%

42.40%

42.20%

42.00%

Jul-18

Aug-18

Sep-18

Oct-18

SFY 19 Penetration Rate

Nov-18

Dec-18

The overall penetration rate thus far during FY 2019 (July through January) is 17.65 percent. While the penetration rate data is for the entire state, it may also be reflected in missing court order challenges in Fulton and DeKalb.
4. Timelines to permanency continued to decline in the period except for those children in who had been in foster care for over two years.
Under the Modified Consent Decree and Exit plan, the region has permanency requirements for three cohorts of children: those who entered foster care during the period (Outcome Measure 23); those who have been in care for 12 to 23 months (Outcome Measure 6); and those who have been in care for 24 months or more (Outcome Measure 7). Since these are annual measures, Period 24 would be the most recent comparison. The region continues to struggle with Outcome Measure 6 (threshold 43.6 percent) with their performance decreasing from 28.2 percent (P24) to 22.3 percent (P26). The region also did not meet the threshold (40.5 percent) for Outcome Measure 23 (37 percent). This measure is an Attained Outcome and the region met this measure during Period 24, so MTAT will monitor this closely over the next two periods to determine if this measure should remain in the attained category. The region, for the first time under the Modified Consent Decree, exceeded the threshold (30.3 percent) for Outcome Measure 7 (31.3 percent). MTAT recommends that the region examine current strategies to promote timely permanency and the extent to which these are having the desired impact.
Recent feedback from supervisors in both counties indicates that changes are needed in the case planning process when children are in foster care. Supervisors believe that there are multiple, redundant staffings that, although intended to promote permanency for children, are disconnected from a family-driven case planning process. Oftentimes, the persons making decisions about families are paid professionals rather than family members and on occasion these decisions are not aligned because of the these are being made by different professionals and

May 22, 2019

Draft Period 26 Monitoring Report

25

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 29 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
varying junctures in the case planning process. Almost all the supervisors believe that the families should to be present so that they can reunify with their family. 15
5. The counties have increased their efforts in initially searching for relatives.
Outcome Measure 5 evaluates the counties’ diligent search efforts for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care. The threshold standard for this measure is 95 percent. The state’s performance drastically increased from 85 percent in Period 25 to 97 percent in Period 26. Of note, 21 out of the 60 children (35 percent) in the sample were initially placed with relatives/kin within the first 60 days in care. The increased focus on placing children with relatives/kin is encouraging and is vital to increasing permanency outcomes. Not only should the state conduct diligent searches within the first 60 days, but DFCS policy requires continued search for relatives/kin throughout the life of the case.
For children who are not immediately placed with relatives, the process to approve relative/fictive kin placements is much slower. To complicate this further, in May 2019, Governor Kemp signed Senate Bill 167 in law. The bill outlines the procedure that DFCS must now follow when searching for a placement home for a foster child. The bill also states that “if the court finds that the child has been living in a stable home environment with his or her current caregivers for the past 12 months and that removal of the child from such caregivers would be detrimental to the child’s emotional well-being, the court may presume that continuation of the child’s placement with his or her current caregivers is in the child’s best interests.” While the implementation of this new law is an unknown factor, the long-term negative implications of severing a child from his/her biological nuclear and extended family are well-researched. MTAT will conduct interviews with Juvenile Court Judges in Fulton and DeKalb about the impact of this new law during future reporting periods.
6. The counties met or exceeded the standard regarding medical, and educational/developmental needs of children. Both counties fell short in meeting identified dental needs; and Dekalb fell well short of meeting mental health needs.
The required threshold for all health and educational/developmental needs is 92 percent. This is the first report in which educational/developmental needs was categorized as an Attained Outcome and the region continued to exceed the threshold (94 percent). Additionally, for medical needs, the region has met or exceeded the threshold for three consecutive periods; thus, MTAT is recommending that this measure be categorized as an Attained Outcome beginning in Period 27. Unfortunately, performance in addressing dental needs (88 percent) and mental health needs (87 percent) remains below the threshold. Dekalb particularly struggled with these two measures, especially with addressing mental health needs (79 percent). With the increased number of children that need mental health services, the region should quickly identify and address the barriers to assessing quality mental health care for youth. MTAT will provide an indepth analysis regarding health and education needs in the second Infrastructure Brief.

15 Kenny A. Practice Workgroup meeting minutes from the Region 13 and 14 Leadership and CPS/Foster Care Supervisors Symposium on April 25, 2019.

May 22, 2019

Draft Period 26 Monitoring Report

26

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 30 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
7. The region declined in the percentage of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older who graduated from high school or earned a GED.
The state has put forth numerous efforts toward meeting the educational needs of youth in foster care. The previous State Director Bobby Cagle developed Project Graduate in connection with his fellowship with the Annie E. Casey Foundation. As a result, a partnership was formed with the Multi-Agency Alliance for Children (MAAC) to provide case management for a cohort of high school students. The program reported a nearly 80 percent success rate in youth graduating from high school or earning a GED. However, in DeKalb and Fulton Counties, the percentage of youth meeting the requirements under the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan decreased from 50 percent reported in Period 24 to 44 percent reported in Period 26. The state and counties are currently developing greater strategy alignment to learn from the MAAC partnership.

May 22, 2019

Draft Period 26 Monitoring Report

27

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 31 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
APPENDIX A – METRICS UNDER THE MODIFIED EXIT PLAN
This Appendix contains two tables summarizing the metrics under the Modified Exit Plan, and the methods for generating each of them. Table A-1 is a Measures Grid that identifies each measurable outcome, practice standard, or performance measure required in the under the Modified Ext Plan, and then describes the method for producing that metric.
Table A-2 is a technical document that provides the numerator and denominator for each metric displayed in the Outcome Grid as well as the other items required for measurement under the Modified Consent Decree. It also contains additional technical explanations, and/or historical data that provides context for reviewing and interpreting Period 26 performance data.
Tables A-3 through A-8 provide caseload data as reported from the state.

May 22, 2019

Draft Period 26 Monitoring Report

28

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 32 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec IV.B.1a
IV.B.1b
IV.B.1c
IV.B.1d IV.B.2b IV.B.2c IV.B.3 IV.B.4

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

No child shall be placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility bed used on any temporary basis, for more than 30 days.
Children shall not be placed in more than one temporary facility within one episode of foster care.
No child shall spend more than 23 consecutive hours in county DFCS office. Any child who spends time in county DFCS office between 8pm8am shall be reported to the MTAT.

Jails, runaways, hospitals, PRTFs, respite care will not be considered temporary. Placement type "other resource" and placement category of hotels, receiving homes, office stays. Jails, runaways, hospitals, PRTFs, respite care will not be considered temporary. Placement type "other resource" and placement category of hotels, receiving homes, office stays.

Number of in care at the start of the period and number of children deprived during the period: How many were placed in a temporary facility for more than 30 days during the period

State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team

By calendar year cohorts (year of entry), how many enterers had more than one temporary placement episode EXCLUDING any temporary placement following a runaway episode. Follow cohorts over time.

State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team

Weekly documentation by county; reported Kenny A teams to the MTAT

Hotel use for class members to end by June 30, 2017.
No child under six shall be placed in group care setting. No child between ages of 6-12 shall be placed in group care setting. Race/Ethnicity /religion shall not be basis for delay or denial of placement. DFCS shall not contract with private provider that gives preference based on race/eth/religion DFCS to ensure basic physical needs of food, clothing, and shelter are met. Clothing to be reviewed with every placement / placement change

Number of distinct children; Number of distinct episodes; Number of nights No Changes
No Changes

Region 14 tracks and reports weekly to the MTAT. All data originates from SHINES. Tracked with Congregate Care Report
Tracked with Congregate Care Report State Data Unit

Kenny A Team with verification by State Data Unit State Data Unit State Data Unit
Kenny A. case review team

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

29

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 33 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec IV.B.5
V.A V.B V.C V.D V.E V.F VI.A.116
VI.A.2

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

In placement visitation: 4 in 4 for new placements; monthly thereafter. There should be at least one in-placement visit and one private, face to face
CPS caseloads – no more than 12 cases
Family Preservation and Family Support caseloads– no more than 17 Placement caseloads – no more than 15 Adoption caseloads – no more than 16 Specialized caseloads - no more than 12 Supervisor – no more than 5 CM At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact with the alleged victim, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of the report.
At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of the report.

Drop children in care for only1 week. -measure 1 in placement visit for all in first week -measure 4 for all the placement for 4 weeks No Change
No change Weights are applied to produce equivalence for caseworkers with mixed caseloads
NOTE: There is a change here b/c old OM 1 and 3 have been combined. Those two outcomes used two different denominators (child/inv). New metric is at the child level No change Effective 7/1/2017 – the standard became 45 days

Number of new placements with 1 visit in 1 wk; 4 in 4 wks.
Generated weekly as part of CAP reports after getting data from each county Counts of Caseworkers, by program at end of period
Counts of cases assigned to verified case managers
Denominator: Children in foster care who are alleged victims of maltreatment Numerator: Number of child- investigations that started within 24 hours of referral Numerator: Number of children w/ face to face w/in 24 hours
Denominator: Number of MIC investigations referred in the PUR Numerator: Number of MIC investigations completed within 30 (45) days of receipt

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance
State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team
Kenny A case review team
Kenny A case review team

16 The current VI.A measures are the ongoing measures.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

30

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 34 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.A.3
VI.A.4 VI.A.5 VI.A.6

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

Re-entry Into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge.

CFSR 3 measure Children in care for less than 8 days are dropped from outcome measure.
SDU will report CY 20142016.

Denominator: CY entries, duration greater than 8 days that exited to permanency within one year of entry. Numerator: Those who reentered w/in year of exit date

State Data Unit

Maltreatment in care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days.

Reporting for period 23 will start with first half of year, and then be completed for Period 24. CFSR 3 measure All substantiated of maltreatment in care regardless of perpetrator, are included.

Denominator: all days for every child in care for a least one day in the period. Numerator: every substantiated maltreatment episode in period

State Data Unit generates list for Kenny A case reviewers to review

Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care. At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months shall be discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

Report at 6 and 12 months No change
CFSR 3 measure Report at 6 and 12 months SDU will report CY 20142016.

Denominator: children in placement sample who are in first 60 days of placement; Numerator: number of children in denominator whose files show clear evidence of diligent search Denominator: All children in care on first day of CY who had been in care for 12-23 months Numerator: # who achieved permanency w/in calendar year

Kenny A case review team
State Data Unit

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

31

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 35 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.A.7
VI.A.8 VI.A.9 VI.A.10

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights.
Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had either (a) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or (b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Sibling placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject to the following exceptions: (a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, (c) the size of the

CFSR 3 measure Report at 6 and 12 months SDU will report CY 20142016.
No change
No change
No change to method, add large sibling groups of 4 or more to exclusions

Measurement Method
Denominator: All children in care on first day of CY who had been in care for 24 + months Numerator: # who achieved permanency w/in calendar year

Data Produced by… State Data Unit

Denominator: Children TPR’d during the most recent six month period for whom 12 months can be observed.

Kenny A team

Numerator: Those in the denominator who were adopted/reached guardianship during the period.
Denominator: Eligible children who have been in care 15-22 months in the period Numerator: Those who have had TPR filed OR a documented compelling reason not to

Kenny A Team

Denominator: children with siblings who were in care or who had exited by end of period Numerator: placed together on last day of period OR if they discharged, were together at discharge

Kenny A Team

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

32

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 36 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.A.11 VI.A.12
VI.A.13

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with relative. Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.

CFSR 3 measure Adjusted standard to reflect history of in care and admits SDU will report CY 20142016.

Denominator: All days by children who were served during the period. Numerator: All moves excluding DJJ, respite, jail, AWOL, hospitals

State Data Unit

Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of all children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had two or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one in-placement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

Children in care less than eight days are dropped. No change to method, Promoted caseworkers are now excepted
No change

Denominator: All children in care at end of the period Numerator: number of those with LE 2 case managers.

Kenny A Team

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

33

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 37 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.A.14 Vi.A.15
Vi.A.16
VI.A.17

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification
Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall have graduated from high school or earned a GED.

No change No change
No change
No change in method; Include in the numerator qualifying youth who have an IEP or 504 plan who

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period
Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period
Denominator: youth 18+ who were discharged during the year Numerator: number who have graduated or who have GED

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance
State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance
Kenny A Team

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

34

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 38 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.A.18 VI.A.19
VI.A.20

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement. Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for twelve or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.

achieved a special ed diploma prior to exit No change in method Only include children who have been in unapproved home for 30 days Break out by relative, public, and private foster homes No Change
No Change

Denominator: placements with child at end of period Numerator: number of placements fully approved
Denominator: Numerator:
Denominator: Numerator:

Data Produced by…
State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure
Kenny A Team, including case review team
Kenny A Team, including case review team

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

35

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 39 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-1

Sec

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

VI.A.21

Health/Educational Needs. Of children in care at a point in time at end of reporting period, 92 percent shall have met each need documented in most recent plan: Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Educational.

No change in method Standard changed

VI.B.1722

Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months.

No Change

VI.B.23

Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

CFSR measure; SDU will report CY 20142016.
Reporting for period 23 will start with first half of year, and then be completed for Period 24.

Denominator: For each area, number of children from placement case review with identified need Numerator: Number of children in each denominator for whom there is evidence that need was addressed Denominator: All foster homes in the sample

Kenny A case review team
Kenny A case review team

Numerator: instances of Corporal Punishment Denominator: All children under 18 entering Region 14 during the CY period

State Data Unit

Numerator: Number of children in the denominator who exited to permanency w/in 12 months of entry

VI.B.24

Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period

Note: numerator is denominator for the reentry measure. Dissolution means that a child: 1) been adopted; 2) returned to foster care; and 3) has had a subsequent TPR or surrender from his or her adoptive parents within one year of the adoption finalization.

Denominator: Adoptions completed during the most recent six-month period for whom 12 months can be observed.

State Data Unit generates list for Kenny A team to review

Numerator: Dissolutions w/in one year

17 VI.B metrics are currently Attained Outcomes.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

36

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 40 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.B.25
VI.B.26 VI.B.27 VI.B.28

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to the following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with relatives, or (d) the child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective adoptive family pursuant to an appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court. Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, inplacement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.
Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following capacity limits: (a) no placement shall result in more than 3 foster children in a foster home, or a total of 6 children in

Changed to rely on SHINES data and to cover full class.
No change
No Change No Change This only includes approved foster homes.

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

Denominator: All children in placement on the last day of the period
Numerator: Children in the denominator who were either placed in home court, or who were placed within 50 miles of removal

State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance

Denominator: Case review sample

Case review

Numerator: All children in denominator who

have document court order language

Denominator: Foster homes with one or more children in their home on the last day of the period. Numerator: Number of foster homes that exceed the capacity limit.

State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

37

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 41 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VII.G.1 VII.G.2

Table A-1

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children, without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no placement will result in more than 3 children under the age of 3 in a foster home. The only exception to these capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a foster home. Of children in each county during prior two reporting periods who experienced substantiated maltreatment, the number who were victims of a second substantiated maltreatment report during the following 12 months.

Use earliest report and first subsequent report following.

Of cases that were referred to FSS, the number and percent for which there was a subsequent substantiated referral w/in 11-365 days of the FSS referral.

FSS can mean any alternative to opening a CPS case or removal.

Denominator: Number of children who had substantiated report during the prior year
Numerator: Number of children in the denominator who were subjects of a substantiated report within 12months of the first report Denominator: Number of children referred to FSS in a prior 12 month period
Numerator: Number of those who had substantiated report w/in 11-365 days of the referral

State Data Unit State Data Unit

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

38

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 42 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-2

VI.A.1
18
VI.A.2

Outcome

Numerator

Denominator

Metric

At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster DeKalb: 22

DeKalb: 24

DeKalb: 91.7%

children shall be commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact Fulton: 32

Fulton: 32

Fulton: 100%

with the alleged victim, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services SIU: 8

SIU: 8

SIU: 100%

Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of the report.

Perimeter: 38

Perimeter: 40

Perimeter: 95%

Total: 100

Total: 104

Total: 96.2%

106 children in care during Period 26 were named as victims in 95 maltreatment investigations; 99 of those children had private contact CPS investigators within

24 hours of the receipt of the report. Three children were removed from numerator and denominator. Two were on runaway during the response time, and one

child was deceased upon arrival at the hospital. From the first draft that was originally submitted, the following additions were made: One child was

determined to have met the requirement for Outcome 1 based on a re-assessment, and two children were removed from the numerator and

denominator due to being tied to investigation id’s that were not reviewed by the review team.

At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 45 days of receipt of the report.

DeKalb: 25 Fulton: 26 SIU: 9

DeKalb: 26 Fulton: 26 SIU: 9

DeKalb: 96.2% Fulton: 100% SIU: 100%

Perimeter: 34

Perimeter: 35

Perimeter: 97.1%

Total: 92

Total: 94

Total: 97.9%

92 of the 94 the investigations of maltreatment in which the alleged victims were in care where completed within 45 days of the receipt of the report.19

Re-entry Into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period DeKalb: 38

DeKalb: 17.9%

who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge.

Fulton: 29 Total: 67

DeKalb: 212 Fulton: 172

Fulton: 16.9% Total: 17.4%

Total: 384

VI.A.3

This is new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 Reentry methodology. Because that method requires observing children enter, stay at least 8 days, exit to permanency within 1 year, and then reenter from that exit within one year – it is necessary to refer to prior entry cohorts in order to generate the metric. The figures above represent entries to Region 14 from CY 2016. Of them 301 exited to permanency within one year of entry (by 12/2017) and of them, 58 reentered care within one year of exit so far. This could increase because one full year since exit has not yet been observed. The State Unit Generated historical versions

18 The current VI.A measures are the ongoing measures. 19 The two children on runaway that were excluded from Outcome 1 were included in the numerator and denominator for Outcome 2. In addition, to be consistent with the precedent set in P8, the investigation involving the child death, while excluded from Outcome 1 was included in Outcome 2. One investigation was excluded, as the labeled victim child in the investigation is not a class child.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

39

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 43 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Outcome

Numerator

Denominator

Metric

of this metric, as well as what is currently observable for the more recent entry cohorts. That performance is provided below – shaded cells contain incomplete

data – not enough time has elapsed to fully observe the performance.

Entry Year

Perm Exit w/in 1 Year Reentry w/in 6 Mos. Reentry win 1 Year 6 Mos.

12 Mos.

These data were generated 2014

by the State Data Unit Oct

2018. For this reason the

2015

2015 data are the most

2016

recent complete cohort and

are used for this measure. 2017

627

76

109

12%

17%

562

68

95

12%

17%

384

47

67

12%

17%

335

44

65

13%

19%

2018

228

19

25

8%

11%

Maltreatment in care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, DeKalb: 6 the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days.
Fulton: 6

VI.A.4

Total: 12

DeKalb: 164,847 Fulton: 121,270 Total: 286,117

DeKalb: 3.64
Fulton: 4.95 Total: 4.19

This a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. That methodology controls for “exposure time” for the risk of maltreatment by calculating the total number of days that children with a least one day of care in the period experienced. It also counts any substantiated investigation associated with a child in care, regardless of who was the perpetrator of the maltreatment.

VI.A.5

Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care.

DeKalb: 33 Fulton: 25 Total: 58

DeKalb: 34 Fulton: 26 Total: 60

DeKalb: 97% Fulton: 96% Total: 97%

60 cases were reviewed (32 from DeKalb and 28 from Fulton). Of the 60, 25 were given credit because language was in the court order, and 21were placed with relatives, 12 had evidence of diligent search in the file.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

40

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 44 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Outcome Permanency: At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months shall be discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

Numerator DeKalb: 39
Fulton: 45
Total: 84

Denominator DeKalb: 225
Fulton: 152
Total: 377

Metric DeKalb: 17.3%
Fulton: 29.6%
Total: 22.3%

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Because this is 12-month measure, typically we would partial performance on permanency for the group of children in care in Region 14 on the periods beginning in January, and then provide the full metric the following period. However, for Period 25, we are able to report on performance up until Sept 2018, when we received the data. To understand that performance relative to recent years, the State Data Unit prepared historical data that displays the proportion of children exit to permanency by the end of a 12-month period for a similar group of children in care on the first day of prior two calendar year. See the table below for those data.

VI.A.6

In Care between 12-23 Months

In Care 1/1 2016

Qualifying Children 225

Exits in 6 Mos. 19

Exits in 12 Mos. % 6 Mos.

44

8%

% 12 Mos. 20%

DeKalb County

2017

254

46

70

18%

28%

2018

225

12

39

5%

Data prepared by

2016

161

State Data Unit Fulton County

2017

196

September 2018.

2018

152

17

35

11%

22%

31

57

16%

29%

21

45

14%

2016

386

36

79

9%

20%

Region 14

2017

450

77

127

17%

28%

2018

377

33

84

9%

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

41

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 45 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.7 VI.A.8

Permanency: At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

DeKalb: 114 Fulton: 73 Total: 187

DeKalb: 358 Fulton: 240 Total: 598

DeKalb: 31.8% Fulton: 30.4% Total: 31.3%

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Because this is 12-month measure, typically we would partial performance on permanency for the group of children in care in Region 14 on the periods beginning in January, and then provide the full metric the following period. However, for Period 25, we are able to report on performance up until Sept 2018, when we received the data. To understand that performance relative to recent years, the State Data Unit prepared historical data that displays the proportion of children exit to permanency by the end of a 12-month period for a similar group of children in care on the first day of prior two calendar year. See the table below for those data.

In Care 24 + Months

In Care 1/1 Qualifying Children Exits in 6 Mos. Exits in 12 Mos.

% 6 Mos.

% 12 Mos.

Data prepared by

DeKalb County 2016

173

24

State Data Unit Sept 2018

2017

275

27

2018

360

47

51

14%

29%

60

10%

22%

13%

Fulton County 2016

136

21

35

15%

26%

2017

196

17

43

9%

22%

2018

241

28

12%

Region 14 2016

309

45

86

15%

28%

2017

471

44

103

9%

22%

2018

601

75

12%

Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights.

DeKalb: 10 Fulton: 23 Total: 33

DeKalb: 24 Fulton: 24 Total: 48

DeKalb: 42% Fulton: 96% Total: 69%

Any exclusions to be noted here.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

42

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 46 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.9

Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had either (a) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or (b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.

DeKalb: 431 Fulton: 334 Total: 765

DeKalb: 455 Fulton: 348 Total: 803

DeKalb: 95% Fulton: 96% Total: 95%

VI.A.10

Sibling placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject to the following exceptions:
(a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, (c) the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with relative.

DeKalb: 78 Fulton: 83 Total: 161

DeKalb: 82 Fulton: 83 Total: 165

DeKalb: 95.1% Fulton100% Total: 97.6%

VI.A.11 Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.

DeKalb: 811 Fulton: 866

DeKalb: 324277 Fulton: 241118

DeKalb: 2.50 Fulton: 3.59

Total: 1677

Total: 565395

Total: 2.97

(Annualized)

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. It requires observing the total number of moves children with a least one day of care a 12month period, and dividing that figure by all of the days children with any days in care used in the same 12-month period. This measure includes both children in care on the first day of the 12-month period as well has children entering care during the 12-month period. To characterize baseline performance and in order to observe change over time, the State Data Unit generated historical analysis of this metric, preparing both six month and 12-month rates of movement. That analysis showed that six month rates notably overstate movement rates relative to full 12-month period. To control for overstated movement rate embedded in the six month estimate, the State Data Unit, in consultation with MTAT has developed a method to generate an annualized 12-month rate when reporting on the Jan-Jun period. That method relies on actual six month data that is then annualized to reflect 12-month performance by applying growth estimates to both the numerator and denominator based on observed change from six to 12 months in the most recent calendar years. Those figures, along with the prior year rates, are displayed below.

Moves per 1,000 Days

Moves in Period

Days in Period

Calendar Year

DeKalb

Fulton

Total

DeKalb

Fulto Total

DeKalb

Fulton

Total

n

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

43

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 47 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

2015 2016 2017 Actual

4.60

8.31

6.14

1,310

1,68 2,996

284,869

6

3.10

4.99

3.89

966

1,10 2,071

311,486

5

2.22

3.87

2.93

699

909 1,608

313,649

203,005 221,347 234,777

487,874 532,833 548,426

VI.A.12 VI.A.13 VI.A.14 Vi.A.15

2018- Annualized

2.41

3.53

2.91

Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of all children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave.

DeKalb: 805 Fulton: 595 Total: 1400

DeKalb: 873 Fulton: 630 Total: 1503

Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one inplacement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

DeKalb: 9,982 Fulton: 7,586 Total: 17,568

DeKalb: 10,382 Fulton: 7,767 Total: 18,149

Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification

DeKalb: 1,519 DeKalb: 1,868 Fulton: 1,342 Fulton: 1,598

Total: 2,861 Total: 3,466

Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage

DeKalb: 4,972 Fulton: 3,780 Total: 8,752

DeKalb: 5,235 Fulton: 3,891 Total: 9,126

DeKalb: 92.2% Fulton: 94.4% Total: 93.1%
DeKalb: 96.2% Fulton: 97.7% Total: 96.8%
DeKalb 81.3% Fulton: 84.0% Total: 82.5% DeKalb: 95.0% Fulton: 97.1% Total: 95.9%

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

44

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 48 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.18 VI.A.19 VI.A.20

Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

DeKalb: 604 Fulton: 396 Total: 1,000

Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall have graduated from high school or earned a GED.

DeKalb: 22 Fulton: 23

Total: 45

This metric is generated annually in the report covering the period that ends December 31 of each year.

Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement.

Total: 4017

Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a sixmonth case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review.

DeKalb: 33 Fulton: 34 Total: 67

Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for twelve or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.

DeKalb: 31 Fulton: 24 Total: 55

DeKalb: 757 Fulton: 537 Total: 1,294
DeKalb: 49 Fulton: 54 Total: 103
Total: 4108
DeKalb: 33 Fulton: 38 Total: 70
DeKalb: 31 Fulton: 24 Total: 55

DeKalb: 79.8% Fulton: 73.7% Total: 77.3%
DeKalb: 45% Fulton: 43% Total: 44%
Total: 97.8%
DeKalb: 100% Fulton: 89% Total: 94%
DeKalb:100% Fulton: 100% Total: 100%

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

45

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 49 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.21

Health/Educational Needs. Of children in care at a point in time at end of reporting period, 92 percent shall have met each need documented in most recent plan: Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Educational.

See Below

Medical Needs DeKalb: 40

Fulton: 35

Total: 75

Dental Needs DeKalb: 37

Fulton: 33

Total: 70

Mental Health Needs DeKalb: 26

Fulton: 26

Total: 52

Education/Developmental DeKalb: 42 Needs Fulton: 33

Total: 75

VI.B.2022

Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months
During Period 26, there were 1 case of alleged corporal punishment (Neighbor to Family) which was screened in for a CPS investigation, however the case was not substantiated.

DeKalb: 20 Fulton:20 Total: 40

VI.B.23 Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering

DeKalb: 153 Fulton: 141

DeKalb: 43 Fulton: 37 Total: 80 DeKalb: 43 Fulton: 37 Total: 80 DeKalb: 33 Fulton: 27 Total: 60 DeKalb: 43 Fulton:37 Total: 80 DeKalb: 20 Fulton:20 Total: 40
DeKalb: 415 Fulton: 387

20 VI.B metrics are currently Attained Outcomes. June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

DeKalb: 93% Fulton: 95% Total: 94% DeKalb: 86% Fulton: 89% Total: 88% DeKalb: 79% Fulton: 96% Total: 87% DeKalb: 98% Fulton: 89% Total: 94% DeKalb: 100% Fulton: 100% Total: 100%
DeKalb: 36.9% Fulton: 36.4%
46

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 50 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the Total: 294 child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

Total: 802

Total: 36.7%

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Spells lasting less than 8 days are dropped so that the numerator can function as the denominator for the reentry metric. This both a 12 month measure AND a longitudinal measure; so it take some time to both observe entries in the most recent 12 and also to report on positive permanency that occurred within 12 months of entry. For that reason – we report the most cohort that is fully observable and additionally, we provide performance to date on the most recently observed entry group. Additionally, the State Data Unit prepared historical data that displays the historical data depicting permanency for enters within one year of their entry. See the table below for those data. The highlighted cells contained censored data – that is the full performance is not observable until 12/31/2018. Gray shaded cells represented the most current data.

VI.B.24

Admission Entries Year

Data developed by the State Data Unit, reports on permanency achieved for the most recent three exit cohorts. Stays lasting less than 8 days are dropped in these results.

DeKalb County 2016

493

2017

415

2018

423

Fulton County 2016

365

2017

387

2018

329

Region 14 2016

858

2017

802

2018

752

Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period

Perm w/in 12 Perm to Date % 12 Mos.

% to Date

179 153 117 146 141 95 325 294 212 DeKalb: 0 Fulton: 0 Total: 0%

253 191 117 222 178 95 475 369 212 DeKalb: 55 Fulton: 36 Total: 91

36.3%

51.3%

36.9%

46.0%

27.7%

27.7%

40.0%

60.8%

36.4%

46.0%

28.9%

28.9%

37.9%

55.4%

36.7%

46.0%

28.2%

28.2%

DeKalb: 0%

Fulton: 0%

Total: 0%

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

47

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 51 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.B.25

Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the

reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a

50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to

the following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met

by a family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed

through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with

relatives, or (d) the child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective adoptive family pursuant to an appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption

1521

1524

decree by the court.

100%

As noted above, the methodology for this metric changed. Rather than being evaluated through case review, the Data Unit generated a metric using the entire class of children in placement on the last day of the period. To generate the final metric – they considered who in placement on 6/30/2018 was placed in the w/in 50 miles of their removal address, was placed within the same county as their removal county, or qualified for an exception as stipulated in the agreement. The numerator was adjusted upward to reflected both those that met the standard AND those who were exceptions. The reciprocal of the numerator is the measure. See below for the adjustments.

Placed

Denominator

Numerator

%

Total in Placement on 6/30/2018

1524

1524

1521

% of those placed

100%

Placed in Same County

566

37%

566

Placed in Different County

958

63%

Different county & exception placement

54

4%

54

Different county

904

59%

Diff county & placed w/in 50 miles

815

53%

815

Diff county & place greater than 50 miles

89

6%

Diff county, > than 50 miles & exempt

86

6%

Diff county, > than 50 miles & NOT exempt

3

0%

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

48

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 52 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.B.26

Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

DeKalb: 4,907 Fulton: 3,785 Total: 8,692

DeKalb: 5,262 Fulton: 3,949 Total: 9,211

DeKalb: 93.3% Fulton: 95.9% Total: 94.4%

VI.B.27

Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.

DeKalb: 50 Fulton: 36 Total: 86

DeKalb: 52 Fulton: 40 Total: 92

DeKalb: 96% Fulton: 90% Total: 93%

VI.B.28 Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class

member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following

capacity limits: (a) no placement shall result in more than 3 foster children in a foster

home, or a total of 6 children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or

adopted children, without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no

placement will result in more than 3 children under the age of 3 in a foster home. The

4

504

0.8%

only exception to these capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a

foster

VII.G.1

Recurrence of substantiated investigations: Of children in each county during prior two reporting periods who experienced substantiated maltreatment, the number who were victims of a second substantiated maltreatment report during the following 12 months.

DeKalb: 3 Fulton: 7 Total: 10

DeKalb: 301 Fulton: 258 Total: 559

DeKalb: 1% Fulton: 2.7% Total: 1.8%

This measure has been revised to be prospective, and is essentially the Federal CFSR recurrence measure. Like other longitudinal metrics, the full measure cannot be observed until 12 months following the last base substantiated report in each year. We report here the 2015 recurrence rate, but provide the performance to date for 2016 and 2017 substantiated reports. The 2016 are nearly complete; we will report on that rate in the P26 report, and provide updated information for both the 2017 reports and those that are referred in the first half of 2018.

Region/County Report Year Earliest Subx Recurrence in 12 Mos. Report

% Recurrence

Data provided by State Data Unit in early November 2018. Because of reporting lag time, both the 2017 and the 2018

DeKalb County 2016

564

21

3.7%

2017

531

13

2.5%

2018

314

2

.64%

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

49

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 53 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VII.G.2

figures should be considered censored and incomplete.

Fulton County 2016

796

46

5.8%

2017

453

13

2.9%

2018

250

5

2.0%

Region 14 2016

1,360

67

4.9

2018

984

26

2.6%

2018

564

7

1.2%

Substantiated investigation following FSS case. Of cases that were referred to FSS, the number and percent for which there was a subsequent substantiated referral w/in 11365 days of the FSS referral. For Period 25 – partial data are provided.

DeKalb: 91 Fulton: 150 Total: 241

DeKalb:2234 Fulton: 3849 Total: 6083

DeKalb: 3.9% Fulton: 3.8% Total: 3.8%

This is prospective measure which looks to see what number and percent of cases referred to RSS have a re-referral in the subsequent year. Like other longitudinal measures, it takes time to observe the original referral and then look forward for future substantiations. For this reason we report on FSS cases from 2016 for whom the full period following referral to FSS could be observed, and report partial data for the subsequent two calendar years.

Region/County Report Year Earliest FSS Sub Report in 12 Mos. Report

% Sub in 12 Mos.

DeKalb County 2016

1,901

42

2.2%

2017

2,325

89

3.8%

Data provided by State Data Unit in early November 2018. Because of reporting lag time,

2018

1,209

16

1.3%

both the 2017 and the 2018 figures should be

Fulton County 2016

3,361

97

2.9%

considered censored and incomplete.

2017

3,999

142

3.6%

2018

1,904

17

.9%

Region 14 2016

5,262

139

2.6%

2017

6,324

231

3.7%

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

50

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 54 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

4 X 4 Visitation

2018

3,113

33

DeKalb: 40

DeKalb: 120

Fulton: 22

Fulton: 120

Total: 62

Total: 240

1.1% DeKalb: 33% Fulton: 18% Total: 26%

Table A-3: Case Managers Meeting Caseload Standards in DeKalb County on December 31, 2018

Case Manager Function
CPS Investigations
Family Preservation Permanency Case Manager Specialized Case Manager Adoption Case Manager
Total

Caseload Cap:
Number of cases (families
and children)
12 families 17 families 15 children 12 children 16 children 12 children

Number of Active Staff on 12/31/18
26 11 23 34 na 94

Actual Performance

Number of Active, Onleave Staff on 12/31/18

Meeting Caps on Assigned Caseload

Number

%

0

20

77%

0

10

91%

0

8

35%

0

7

21%

0

45

48%

Not Meeting Cap On Assigned Caseload

Number %

6

23%

1

9%

15

65%

27

79%

49

52%

Cases Assigned to Workers On
Leave/ Supervisors
Number 38 2 2
11**
53

* includes 24 cases for assignment-on call supervisor. ** Five cases for ADO stage only. FC stage has active worker. Six cases for transfer/closure.

All adoptions caseloads are included in the Specialized and Permanency totals. There are 12 adoptions case managers in DeKalb.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

51

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 55 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-4: DeKalb County Supervisory Ratios on December 31, 2018

Program/Service Area

Number of Meeting 1 to 5 Not Meeting 1 to 5

Units

Ratio

Ratio

Total Number Percent Number Percent

Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation)

11

9

82%

2

18%

Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes Adoptions)

16

16 100%

0

0%

Table A-5: Case Managers Meeting Caseload Standards in Fulton County on December 31, 2018

Case Manager Function

Caseload Cap:
Number of cases (families
and children)

Number of Active Staff on 12/31/18

Number of Active, Onleave Staff on 12/31/18

Actual Performance
Meeting Caps on Assigned Caseload

Number

%

Not Meeting Cap On Assigned Caseload

Cases Assigned to Workers On
Leave/ Supervisors

Number

%

Number

12

CPS Investigations

families

26

17

Family Preservation

families

5

Permanency Case

15

Manager

children

18

Specialized Case

12

Manager

children

22

16

Adoption Case Manager children

12

Total

children

71

18

69%

8

31%

5

0

0%

5 100%

8

5

28%

13

72%

5

0

0%

22 100%

0

23

32%

48

68%

18

18 cases for assignment with 7 supervisors.

All adoptions caseloads are included in the Specialized and Permanency totals. There are 4 adoptions case managers in Fulton.

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

52

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 56 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-6: Fulton County Supervisory Ratios on December 31, 2018

Program/Service Area

Number of Units
Total

Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio

Not Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio

Number Percent Number Percent

Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation)

8

Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes Adoptions)

9

6

75%

2

25%

8

89%

1

11%

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

53

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 57 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-7: Region 14 Caseload Managers Meeting Caseload Standards on December 31, 2018

Case Manager Function
CPS Investigations Family Preservation Permanency Case Manager Specialized Case Manager Adoption Case Manager Total

Caseload Cap:
Number of cases (families
and children)
12 families 17 families 15 children 12 children 16 children 12 children

Number of Active Staff on 12/31/18
52 16 41 56
165

Number of Active, Onleave Staff on 12/31/18

Actual Performance

Meeting Caps on Assigned Caseload

Not Meeting Cap On Assigned Caseload

Number 38 10 13 7

%

Number

73%

14

63%

6

32%

28

13%

49

% 27% 37% 68% 8%

68

41%

97

59%

Cases Assigned to Workers On
Leave/ Supervisors
Number 43 10 7 11
71

All adoptions caseloads are included in the Specialized and Permanency totals. There are 16 workers in adoption units

Table A-8: Region 14 Supervisory Ratios on December 31, 2018

Program/Service Area

Number of Units

Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio

Not Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio

Total Number Percent Number Percent

Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation)

19

15

79%

4

21%

Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes Adoptions)

25

24

96%

1

4%

June 28, 2019

Period 26 Monitoring Report

54

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 58 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
APPENDIX B – GLOSSARY

Adoptive Placement means the interval during which a child is placed with a prospective adoptive family following the signing of the appropriate adoptive placement agreement form, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court.
Child or Children or Class Member Children or Class Members mean a child or children who have been, are or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS.
Child Caring Institution (CCI) is any child-welfare facility which provides full-time room, board and watchful oversight (RBWO) to six or more children up to 18 years of age. Some CCIs are approved to care for youth up to age 21. The CCI must be approved through the Office of Provider Management (OPM) to serve children in DFCS custody.
Child Placing Agency (CPA) is agency that places children in foster and adoptive homes for individualized care, supervision and oversight. Child placing agencies are responsible for assessing the placement regarding the appropriateness of the room, board and watchful oversight that the prospective foster and adoptive families will provide. The CPA’s employees and their foster and adoptive parents work as a team to provide a stabilizing and nurturing environment that promotes safety, permanency and well-being.
Corporal Punishment means any physical punishment on a child that inflicts pain.
CPA Foster Home is a foster home approved by a Child Placing Agency for the temporary placement of children in foster care.
DeKalb DFCS means DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services.
DFCS when used alone means the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services.
DFCS Foster Home is a non-relative foster homes approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of children in foster care.
DFCS or CPA Adoptive Home is an adoptive home approved for the foster care placement of a child for whom the established goal is adoption. Adoptive homes must meet the regular standards of care required for approved family foster homes and any conditions specified in that approval.
DFCS Relative Foster Home is a relative foster home approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of minor relatives. It is DFCS’ preference that all relatives are approved as foster parents and receive a foster care per diem. The goal of relatives becoming foster parents is to ensure that the child has services to address his/her needs.

May 22, 2019

Draft Period 26 Monitoring Report

55

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 59 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
DHHS means the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
DHR means Georgia Department of Human Resources.
Discipline or Other Serious Foster Care Violation means and includes those acts or situations by the caregiver that pose an immediate or potential risk to the safety or well-being of the child in care. These may include, but are not limited to, inappropriate disciplinary measures (both physical/corporal and emotional), violations of supervision or other safety requirements that pose serious risk factors to the child.
EPSDT means the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program for individuals under 21 years of age contained in Title XIX of the Social Security Act, as amended.
Fictive Kin means a person who is known to a child as a relative, but is not, in fact, related by blood.
Foster Parent means volunteers who are trained and certified by DFCS or Child Placing Agencies to provide for the temporary care of children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster parents work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster parents are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
Foster Relative means biological kin who are trained and certified by DFCS to provide for the care of relative children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster relatives work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster relatives are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
Fulton DFCS means the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services.
Georgia Health Check Program means Georgia Medicaid's well-child or preventive health care program adopted pursuant to EPSDT, and shall contain such components as they exist in the Georgia Health Check Program as of February 1, 2005.
Governor means the Governor of the State of Georgia.
Legal Guardianship means the appointment of an individual as a legal guardian for a child as authorized by either the probate court under O.C.G.A. Title 29 or the juvenile court under O.C.G.A. Chapter15-11-2(36).
One Episode of Foster Care means the period of time that a child is in foster care from the date of removal from the home until the child is discharged from DFCS custody, except that a runaway does not trigger a new episode of foster care.
Permanent Legal Custody means custody granted in accordance with an order of the superior court or the juvenile court, which places a child in the custody of an individual or individuals until the child reaches 18 years of age.

May 22, 2019

Draft Period 26 Monitoring Report

56

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 764 Filed 06/28/19 Page 60 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
Permanent Placement with Relatives means placing a child with a relative who is willing to assume long-term responsibility for the child, but has reasons for not adopting the child or obtaining guardianship or permanent legal custody, and it is in the child's best interests to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship by another person. In such circumstances, there shall be in place an agreement for long-term care signed by DFCS and the relative committing to the permanency and stability of this placement unless it is necessary to disrupt the long-term placement.
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) is a temporary non-hospital facility with a provider agreement with a State Medicaid Agency to provide intensive therapeutic intervention to a child to ensure safety and stability. PRTFs offer intensive behavioral health services to children in Georgia.
Relatives are persons who are related by blood, marriage or adoption including the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or divorce.
Relative Placement refers to placement in the home of a relative or fictive kin who do not receive a foster care per diem for the care of the child. The relative placement may be a non-paid placement or the relative may receive TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive kin are not eligible for TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive kin must become foster parents to receive financial assistance.
Placement with relatives or fictive kin may occur very quickly if there is a satisfactory CPS history check, safety and home assessment check, and a Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) check through the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on all household members 18 years of age or older. A Relative or Non-Relative Care Assessment must be completed no later than 30 calendar days after the placement of a child.
State DFCS means the Division of Family and Children Services of the Georgia Department of Human Resources.
Suspected Abuse or Neglect means being based on reasonable cause to believe that a child may have been abused or neglected.
Suspected Corporal Punishment means being based on reasonable cause to believe that corporal punishment may have been used on a child.

May 22, 2019

Draft Period 26 Monitoring Report

57

 
 Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 60
Period 27 Monitoring Report
of The Accountability Agent and Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team
In the Case of
Kenny A. v. Kemp
State of Georgia January 22, 2020
State of Georgia Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM) with
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp
ACCOUNTABILITY AGENT AND MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TEAM
Accountability Agent Karen Baynes-Dunning Attorney, Baynes-Dunning Consulting, LLC Greenville, South Carolina
Steve Baynes Baynes Consulting, LLC
Washington, DC
Elizabeth Black Director for Child Welfare Practice
SLI Government Solutions Center for the Support of Families (CSF) Division
Silver Spring, Maryland
The following person was a significant contributor to this brief.
Eliza Byrne SLI Government Solutions Center for the Support of Families (CSF) Division
Silver Spring, Maryland

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

i

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 LEADERSHIP CHANGES ....................................................................................................................................................2 REGIONAL PRIORITIES .....................................................................................................................................................2
II. CASELOAD STANDARDS .............................................................................................................................................. 4 CPS CASE MANAGERS ....................................................................................................................................................4 FAMILY PRESERVATION CASE MANAGERS ...........................................................................................................................5 PERMANENCY CASE MANAGERS .......................................................................................................................................5 CASE MANAGERS WITH CHILDREN ASSIGNED TO THEM WHO HAVE BEEN IN FOSTER CARE FOR 18 MONTHS OR LONGER .................5 SUPERVISORS ................................................................................................................................................................5 DEKALB COUNTY ON JUNE 30, 2019 ................................................................................................................................5 FULTON COUNTY ON JUNE 30, 2019 ................................................................................................................................5
III. PLACEMENT STANDARDS............................................................................................................................................ 7 DISCRIMINATORY PLACEMENT PRACTICES...........................................................................................................................7 REIMBURSEMENT RATES .................................................................................................................................................7 MAJOR FINDINGS – PLACEMENT STANDARDS......................................................................................................................8
IV. OUTCOME MEASURES .............................................................................................................................................. 10 MAJOR FINDINGS – OUTCOME MEASURES .......................................................................................................................16
APPENDIX A – METRICS UNDER THE MODIFIED EXIT PLAN............................................................................................... 20 APPENDIX B – GLOSSARY .................................................................................................................................................... 55

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

ii

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 4 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp

I. INTRODUCTION
T his Period 27 report is the fourth monitoring report in which the Accountability Agent and the Monitoring and Technical Assistance Team (MTAT) report on the new outcomes delineated in the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan (Modified Exit Plan) that was filed in Federal District Court in December 20161. In addition to this monitoring report, MTAT issued its First Brief on the Infrastructure Standards in March 20192 and will issue its Second Brief on the Infrastructure Standards in the beginning of 2020, in accordance with the Stipulated Order Amending the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan (Stipulated Order) filed with the Federal District Court in December 2017.
In this report, the MTAT’s obligation is to report specifically on the measurable requirements articulated in Sections IV, V, and VI of the Modified Exit Plan that relate to activity in Metropolitan Atlanta from January 1 through June 30, 2019. In this report, in addition to discussing the Ongoing and Attained Outcomes Measures, MTAT also continues reviewing the use of congregate care, monitoring the use of hotels and other temporary placements for children in foster care, and reporting caseloads for case managers and supervisors. The next two sections of this report provide that information.
The MTAT approach to monitoring serves not only as an accountability mechanism for the Court, the Plaintiffs, and the public, but also as an opportunity to assist DFCS to establish a culture of data-driven decision-making and continuous quality improvement (CQI). The goal is to establish a strong CQI process that will remain in place after the state satisfies the terms of the Modified Exit Plan and is no longer under federal court oversight.
The MTAT consistently reports on the same Modified Exit Plan standards and outcome measures every six months using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data.3 In addition to this basic and consistent set of metrics to track progress over time as agreed upon in the Modified Exit Plan, the MTAT conducts a deep, quality-focused analysis on a handful of Infrastructure Standards at regular intervals. Data gathering for these can include; interviews
1 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan, Kenny A. v. Nathan Deal, Civil Action NO. 1:02-CV-1686-TWT. Go to: https://www.childrensrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2016.11.09-745-Exhibit-A-Modified-Consent-Decreeand-Exit-Plan.pdf 2 First Brief on the Infrastructure Standards. Go to: https://www.childrensrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/FirstBrief-on-the-Infrastructure-Standards.pdf
3 Pursuant to the Modified Consent Decree, both the Ongoing Outcome Measures and Attained Outcome Measures have undergone substantial revision to reflect, when possible, the principles of best practices in measurement. Best practices principles include: 1) a clear statement of the analytic question with particular attention to identifying the risk population or the denominator associated with a particular inquiry; 2) use of entry cohorts and prospective measures to characterize systems dynamics and change in outcomes; 3) attention to the sources of variation in system outcomes (e.g. variation over time, among children, or in places); 4) understanding variation to track change accurately; 5) assessing expected change in the appropriate period of performance or window of time; 6) matching the analytic question to the appropriate source data; and 7) using well-understood and organized data resources that are designed to support asking and answering analytic questions.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

1

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 5 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp
with stakeholders, focus groups; surveys, observations of processes, targeted case reviews, and reviews of Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSRs) findings.
The intention is to enable Parties to better understand several key factors associated with each of the Infrastructure Standards: 1) the expectations for practice and the extent to which these processes are occurring; 2) the capacity within the system to meet these expectations; and 3) the extent to which these processes are occurring with sufficient consistency and quality. Moreover, this enables the MTAT to focus on emerging issues to mitigate a reactive approach to monitoring. Here is summary of each brief.
The first brief on the Infrastructure Standards was focused on the comprehensive practice model (Section I), investigations of possible maltreatment in care (Section II), and the case planning process (Section III). This brief was finalized on March 19, 2019.
The second brief on the Infrastructure Standards was focused on the comprehensive practice model (Section I), robust workforce development (Section VIII), quality placement and caregiving (Section IV), and health and education (Section V). This brief was distributed to Parties on October 4, 2019 and comments are being incorporated.
The third brief on the Infrastructure Standards will be on the comprehensive practice model (Section I), federal funding (Section IX) and the child welfare information and quality assurance systems (Section VI), and supervision of contract agencies (Section VII).
Leadership Changes
Changes in leadership continue at every level of DFCS. In the state office, Division Director Tom Rawlings has appointed Mary Havick, Deputy Division Director of Child Welfare and Lon Roberts as the Assistant Deputy Director for Child Welfare. Naima Simon was appointed as the new Data Unit Director. At the county level, Tinaddine Paul-Bazil was appointed as the Fulton County Director.
Regional Priorities
Regional Director Kristen Toliver has set forth several areas in which Region 14 will focus its efforts.
1. Continue to strengthen the workforce through strong hiring, training, coaching, and retention practices and strategies. The region is exploring new ways to ensure that new case managers understand the key elements of the job and that they are fully supported as they continue developing as strong social workers. Continuing to nurture and develop the skills of supervisors is just as important if not more, because supervisors have substantial impact on the experience of frontline case managers.
2. Improve the permanency rate for children who enter care. Although fewer children are entering care, fewer are also exiting care. A core belief is that foster care should be temporary. The counties are continuing to support placements with relatives and are developing more behaviorally specific case plans that delineate which goals are necessary

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

2

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 6 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp
to eliminate safety risk and allow children to return home. In addition, the region has been in discussion with the court system regarding effective use of protective orders.
3. Decrease the rate in which children re-enter foster care. The re-entry rates in the region have steadily remained high for the past several years. This further exacerbates the number of children in care, the high caseloads and the retention rate of case managers. Most importantly, re-entering foster care re-traumatizes the child and his/her family. The region is exploring strategies to improve the quality and frequency of discharge staffings, ensure that service providers continue caring for children and their families, and utilizing protective orders and trial visitations more often when safety is not a risk.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

3

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 7 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp

II. CASELOAD STANDARDS

To better understand the factors that most impact DFCS’ ability to meet caseload expectations and ensure a stable and capable workforce to address the needs of children and families, the MTAT conducted a deeper analysis on the workforce for the Second Brief on the Infrastructure Standards. The Infrastructure Standards, negotiated and submitted to the court in December 2017, include commitments related to the hiring and onboarding process for new employees, improved coordination with the Department of Human Services’ Office of Human Resources (OHR), case manager and supervisory training and support, as well as better management of caseloads for case managers and supervisors.
For the purpose of this report, this section is focused solely on the caseload standards and supervisory ratios included in the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan Section V.4
 No CPS case manager shall have more than 12 cases.
 No ongoing case manager shall have more than 17 cases.
 No placement case manager shall have more than 15 cases.
 No adoption case manager shall have more than 16 cases.
 No specialized case manager shall have more than 12 cases.
 No supervisor shall supervise more than five (5) case managers at any one time in Fulton or DeKalb counties.
Of the 177 CPS, family preservation, permanency, and specialized case managers who were active on June 30, 2019, 102 (58 percent) of them were meeting caseload expectations. Although not assigned caseloads per se, there were fifteen adoption case managers in Metropolitan Atlanta helping to promote permanency for children with the goal of adoption. On this same date, there were 22 children in foster care and another ten families receiving support or under investigation waiting to be assigned to a case manager by a supervisor.
On June 30, 2019, out of 50 supervisors overseeing Child Protective Services investigations, family preservation and permanency for children in foster care, 44 (88 percent) of them were assigned five or fewer case managers.
CPS Case Managers
For CPS case managers, 69 percent (41 of 59) were assigned 12 or fewer families to respond to or investigate reports of maltreatment on June 30, 2019.

4 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan Section V: Caseloads states that these “caseloads will exist in Fulton DFCS and DeKalb DFCS and will apply to all case managers, including deployed case managers, who carry caseloads that include any class member children. In the event that a case manager has a mixed caseload, the caseload shall be weighted to reflect the standards in this section.”

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

4

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 8 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp
Family Preservation Case Managers
Family preservation case managers have generally been assigned 17 or fewer families in order to provide services and help ensure child safety. The same was true on June 30, 2019. Ninety-five (95 percent) of these case managers met the standard.
Permanency Case Managers
For many years, permanency case managers were consistently meeting or exceeding a caseload expectation of 15 or fewer. However, this began to shift in 2015.5 Only half (49 percent) of permanency case managers were meeting caseload expectations on June 30, 2019.

Case Managers with Children Assigned to Them Who Have Been in Foster Care for 18 Months or Longer
Previously known as specialized case managers, case managers who are assigned to children who have been in foster care for 18 months or longer are to be assigned no more than 12 children at any given time. Many of these children require extra support to achieve permanency. Percentages of case managers meeting this expectation have been dropping in recent years. Thirty-eight percent (19 of 50) of these case managers were meeting caseload expectations on June 30, 2019.
Supervisors
On June 30, 2019, 68 percent (13 of 19) of Child Protective Services supervisors in Metropolitan Atlanta were assigned five or fewer case managers. All the 31 permanency supervisors were meeting expectations.
DeKalb County on June 30, 2019
Caseloads for 47 percent of the case managers in DeKalb County on June 30, 2019 were too high. It should be noted that all Family Preservation case managers were assigned caseloads that met agreed upon standards. See Appendix A, Table 3 and Table 4 for more information.
Fulton County on June 30, 2019
On this same date, 37 percent of Fulton County case managers were exceeding caseload expectations, an improvement from December 31, 2018. See Appendix A, Table 5 and Table 6 for more information.
The Region has held several hiring fairs and has developed a process to conduct continuous hiring. While the number of case managers entering the workforce has improved, retention remains a challenge. This directly impacts the Region’s ability to meet caseload expectations. Regional and county leadership have been exploring ways to ensure that new hires have a realistic understanding of what the job entails. In addition, they are exploring teaming, additional coaching and ensuring that monthly staffings with supervisors are conducted in a way to meet the developmental needs of young professionals. MTAT recommends that once

5 See Period 24 Final Data Report Kenny A. v. Deal.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

5

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 9 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp
strategies are determined, the Region should allow for full implementation with fidelity and measure the effectiveness of each strategy before moving on to new or additional strategies.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

6

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 10 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp
III. PLACEMENT STANDARDS
The quality placement and caregiving standards include specific DFCS commitments to ensure that every child in foster care will have a stable, nurturing placement in accordance with the principles outlined in the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan § III. These standards address the specific tasks that will be done so that family ties are maintained and nurtured; children are able to remain with parents and relatives as often as possible; and the screening, training, approval, and support process for all caregivers are operating well. The Second Brief on the Infrastructure Standards included an analysis of these standards.
This section of the report provides an update on agreed upon placement standards in the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan Section IV.
Discriminatory Placement Practices
Section IV.B.3 of the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan prohibits discriminatory placement practices.6 MTAT will be taking a closer look placement practices with contract agencies in the next brief.
Reimbursement Rates
For basic foster care services, the Exit Plan requires uniform reimbursement rates for DFCS and private provider foster homes. When the Exit Plan was approved, the following basic foster care maintenance payments were in effect: for each child age 0-5, $15.27 per diem; for each child age 6-12, $17.26 per diem; and for each child age 13 and older, $19.65 per diem for DFCS foster homes. In July 2018, the foster care per diems for DFCS foster homes and private provider foster homes were equalized at $25.27, $27.26, and $29.65 respectively.
MTAT will be taking a closer look at the rates for higher levels of care for children and youth in foster care as part of the next brief on the Infrastructure Standards, which will include the supervision of contract agencies and maximization of federal funding.7
The major findings regarding the placement standards during Period 27 are presented below.

6 Specifically, this section states: “Race and/or ethnicity and/or religion shall not be the basis for a delay or denial in the placement of a child, either with regard to matching the child with a foster or adoptive family or with regard to placing a child in a group facility. DHS shall not contract with any program or private agency that gives preference in its placement practices by race, ethnicity, or religion…” Moreover, the Principles outlined in the Exit Plan include: “All children in need of child welfare services should receive full and equal access to the best available services, regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, disabilities, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” 7 Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan Section IV.A.2: DFCS shall ensure that all approved foster parents (regardless of whether they are supervised directly by DFCS or by private providers) receive the same reimbursement rate for a given level of service. Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan Section IV.A.3: DFCS directly supervises any approved foster homes that provide therapeutic services or operates any specialized group facilities, those approved foster parents or group facilities shall be paid at the same rate. All specialized group facilities shall be paid at the same rate for the same level of service.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

7

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 11 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp

Major Findings – Placement Standards
1. The state has eliminated the regular use of hotels, motels, or similar non-child welfare overnight commercial enterprises.
The state continues to do a commendable job eliminating the regular use of hotels as a placement resource in Region 14. No child was placed in a hotel during Period 27. During the past three years, the state has been working to increase its array of foster care placements and to enhance diligent search efforts to locate and support relatives and fictive kin as temporary placements for children and youth. In addition, the partnership with the Multi-Agency Alliance for Children (MAAC) continues to provide emergency placements for youth in Fulton and DeKalb counties. At present there are 25 MAAC placements state-wide with 10 of them reserved for Region 14.
2. The state continues its efforts to limit the amount of time youth spend in a DFCS office, especially during overnight hours.
The Modified Consent Decree states, “no child shall spend more than 23 hours in a county DFCS office. Any child who spends time in a county DFCS office between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. shall be reported to the MTAT. The intent of this provision is to prevent the use of DFCS offices as an overnight placement for children, as children with urgent placement needs require a safe bed in a home-like environment.”
During Period 27, there were no youth who had office stays of more than 23 hours in any of the DeKalb or Fulton County DFCS offices. Overall, there were 48 separate instances of office stays in the Region.8 Of the 48 instances, 34 involved children experiencing their first removal, 11 were disrupted placements, two involved children who re-entered care, and one labeled ‘other was a child picked up after running away. There was one youth who spent 21 hours in an office, one spent just over 17 hours and another who spent 13 hours. Documentation regarding these instances of extended office stays indicated that the disruptive behavior of each youth and the lack of behavioral aides were contributing factors. When the Region was using hotels as temporary placements, many private providers employed behavior aides to stay overnight with each child. When the Region ended the use of hotels, behavior aides were no longer utilized on a regular and frequent basis. The lack of demand has directly impacted the supply.
3. The state continues to ensure young children are not placed in congregate care placements unless necessary for the child’s welfare.
The Consent Decree has several restrictions related to the use of group care, including limiting the use of congregate care for young children. The reported information is for all children under the age of 12 in care between January 1 and June 30, 2019, not for a sample of the entire foster care population.
According to verified state reports, no children under the age of 12 entering foster care or already in care during the period were placed in group homes or child caring institutions except as allowed under the Modified Exit Plan. During Period 27, of youth in care or who entered foster
8 There were 12 instances between January 1 and June 30, 2019 in DeKalb County. There were 36 instances in Fulton County between January 1 and June 30, 2019.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

8

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 12 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp
care in the period, 19 children and youth were placed in hospitals to meet their physical health needs and 9 children were hospitalized for mental health issues. All documentation and waivers were reviewed by the MTAT.
4. The overwhelming number of children are not remaining in temporary facilities longer than 30 days and the region continues to place fewer children in more than one temporary facility while in foster care.
The Modified Consent Decree states:
a. No child shall be placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility beds used on any temporary basis, for more than 30 days; and
b. Children shall not be placed in more than one temporary facility within one episode of foster care (meaning the period of time that a child is in foster care from the date of removal from the home until the child is discharged from DFCS custody, except that a runaway does not trigger a new episode of foster care).
During Period 27, out of the 1875 children who were in foster care at the beginning of the period or entered during the period, there were seven children placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility beds used on a temporary basis for more than 30 days (31-45 days).9
In addition, for Period 27, only 4 of 384 (one percent) of children were placed in two or more temporary facilities within one episode of foster care. The state continues to reduce the number of children experiencing two or more temporary placements. They have reduced this percentage from 11.5 percent in CY2015, to one percent in the first 6 months of CY2019.

9 There were three children in foster care in DeKalb County who spent more than 30 days in a temporary facility. There were four in foster care in Fulton County who spent more than 30 days in a temporary facility. Severe mental health challenges, the need for CSEC services or sexually aggressive behavior were noted in these cases.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

9

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 13 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp
IV. OUTCOME MEASURES
This section provides a listing of the performance for each county and the region on the outcomes required under the Modified Exit Plan, and major findings regarding these measures. It includes a status update on the measures, specifically whether the measure has been attained (or not) or at risk of being re-designated as an ongoing outcome measure.
As stated in Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan Section IX.E.1.b., “an ongoing outcome measure can be automatically re-designated as an attained outcome measure in the next reporting period if in the previous three consecutive reporting periods (totaling18 months)…State Defendant’s improved performance in the first period (as compared to performance in the previous period) and then met or exceeded the measure for the next two reporting periods. An attained outcome measure will be re-designated as an ongoing outcome measure only if both of the following conditions occur: (l) the Accountability Agent finds that the decline in performance is notable, meaning that it was caused by a deterioration in State Defendants' practice and process that is expected to impact the safety, permanency, or well-being of class members in subsequent periods, and (2) State Defendants do not meet the required threshold for that outcome measure in the next reporting period.”
The state has met the threshold for three consecutive periods related to addressing identified medical needs for children in foster care (Outcome 21.a.).
There has been a decline in performance regarding permanency for children who recently entered foster care (Outcome 23). Annual performance on this measure will be reviewed after December 31, 2019 to determine whether this measure will be re-designated as an ongoing outcome measure. There has also been a decline in performance regarding caseworker continuity for the first time (Outcome 12) since the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan was filed.
Tables 1 and 2 below list each ongoing and attained outcome measure for Period 27, along with the most current observed performance.
Finally, this report contains two appendices. In Appendix A, there is a Measures Grid that identifies each measurable outcome, practice standard, or performance measure required in the under the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan, and then describes the method for producing that metric. Then there is a technical document, Detailed Outcome Measures for Period 27, that provides the numerator and denominator for each metric displayed in Tables 1 and 2 below and includes additional explanation and/or data that support interpretation of the outcome metric under the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan.
Appendix B contains a glossary of common terms that are relevant to Georgia.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

10

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 14 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp

Table 1: Period 27 Ongoing Outcome Measures

Ongoing Outcome Measures
Outcome 1: Commencement of CPS Investigations Concerning Foster Children: At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact with the alleged victim, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of the report. Outcome 3: Re-entry into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge. Children who were in foster care for less than eight days are not counted in this measure. Outcome 5: Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care. Outcome 6: At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months shall be discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Outcome 7: At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to

Period 26 Performance
Region 14 96.2%
17.4%
97%
22.3%
31.27%

Period 27 Performance
DeKalb

Period 27 Performance
Fulton

Period 27 Performance
Region 14

98.6%

92.3%

96.4%10

19.7%

20%

19.8%11

97%

100%

98%

16.9%

23.1%

22.8%12

31.4%

30.1%

30.8%13

10 Three victim children reviewed by the Kenny A review team were removed from the numerator and denominator in
Outcome 1. In two instances, the victim child was not in the custody of Region 14, and in the other instance, the child was on runaway. In one case, which met the standard, the case manager was on a visit and observed concerning behavior, called in the report to hotline, and then conducted the initiation of the investigation to ensure safety. 11 This is a six month look at an annual measure. Full analysis will be completed in Period 28. 12 This is a six month look at an annual measure. Full analysis will be completed in Period 28. 13 This is a six month look at an annual measure. Full analysis will be completed in Period 28.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

11

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 15 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp

Ongoing Outcome Measures
reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Outcome 8: Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights. Outcome 14: Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. Outcome 16: Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Outcome 17: Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall have graduated from high school or earned a GED. Outcome 18: Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement. Outcome 21: Health and Educational Needs: Of children in care at a point in time at the end of the reporting period, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan: Outcome 21b: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed dental needs Outcome 21c: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed mental health needs

Period 26 Performance
Region 14
64% 82.5%
77.3%
44%14 98%
88% 87%

Period 27 Performance
DeKalb

Period 27 Performance
Fulton

Period 27 Performance
Region 14

79%

91%

81%

83.8%

88.4%

85.8%

85.4%

93.1%

88.9%

n/a

n/a

n/a

98%15

93%

80%

88%

91%

88%

90%

14 This measure is reported on an annual basis. Next reporting will be in Period 28. 15 The percentages are lower for children in foster care placed with relatives.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

12

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 16 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp

Ongoing Outcome Measures
Outcome 26: Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

Period 26 Performance
Region 14

Period 27 Performance
DeKalb

Period 27 Performance
Fulton

Period 27 Performance
Region 14

94.37%

94.91%

95.66%

95.23%

Table 2: Period 27 Attained Outcome Measures

Attained Outcome Measures
Outcome 2: Completion of CPS Investigations Concerning Foster Children: At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of the report. Outcome 4: Maltreatment in Care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days. Outcome 9: Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had either (a) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or (b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Outcome 10: Sibling Placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject to the following exceptions: (a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, (c) the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to

Period 26 Performance
Region 14 97.9% 4.19
95%
97.6%

Period 27 Performance
DeKalb 100% 4.64
94%
100%

Period 27 Performance
Fulton

Period 27 Performance
Region 14

97.2%

98.9%16

1.81

3.45

97%

95%

100%

100%

16 Two investigations were removed from the numerator and denominator for Outcome 2. One of them was the only victim child was on runaway, and the other as the victim child was in the custody of another county.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

13

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 17 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp

Attained Outcome Measures
place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with relatives. Outcome 11: Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care. Outcome 12: Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of all children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave Outcome 13: Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one in-placement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Outcome 15: Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage Outcome 19: Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the sixmonth period following the last review.

Period 26 Performance
Region 14 2.97 93.1%
96.8%
95.9%
94%

Period 27 Performance
DeKalb 2.41 87%
96.29%
95.5%
100%

Period 27 Performance
Fulton

Period 27 Performance
Region 14

3.15

2.73

90%

88%

98.10%

97.1%

96.8%

96.1%

100%

100%

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

14

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 18 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp

Attained Outcome Measures
Outcome 20: Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing. Outcome 21a: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed medical needs Outcome 21d: At least 92% shall not have any unaddressed education/development needs. Outcome 22: Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months. Outcome 23: Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Outcome 24: Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Outcome 25: Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to the following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with relatives, or (d) the child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective

Period 26 Performance
Region 14
100%
94% 94% 100%
36.7%
0%
99%

Period 27 Performance
DeKalb
100%
93% 86%
41.7%
0%

Period 27 Performance
Fulton

Period 27 Performance
Region 14

100%

100%

97%

94%

91%

88%

99%

39.9%

40.9%17

0%

0%

97%

17 This is a six month look at an annual measure. Full analysis will be completed in Period 28.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

15

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 19 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp

Attained Outcome Measures
adoptive family pursuant to an appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court. Outcome 27: Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Outcome 28: Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following capacity limits: (a) no placement shall result in more than three foster children in a foster home, or a total of six children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children, without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no placement will result in more than three children under the age of three in a foster home. The only exception to these capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a foster home with no other children in the home. Other Consent Decree Requirements
4x4 Visitation.
(VI.G.1) Recurrence of Maltreatment.
(VI.G.2) Number of children who were victims of a second substantiated investigation within 12 months of FSS case.

Period 26 Performance
Region 14
96%
.8%
26% 1.8% 3.8%

Period 27 Performance
DeKalb 96%
22% 0.8% 3.9%

Period 27 Performance
Fulton

Period 27 Performance
Region 14

98%

97%

0.2%

27% 2.65%
3.7%

24% 1.73%
3.8%

Major Findings – Outcome Measures
1. The region continues to struggle with children and teenagers re-entering care.
The Modified Exit Plan requires that of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3 percent shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge. This is measure is based on the Round 3 CFSR methodology. Because that method requires observing children enter, stay at least eight days, exit to permanency within one year, and then re-enter from that exit within one year – it is necessary to refer to prior entry cohorts in order to generate the metric.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

16

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 20 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp
For reporting purposes this period, 19.8 percent of youth who entered care in Calendar Year 2017, exited by December 2018 and subsequently re-entered foster care within one year of exit. Of children and youth who entered foster care in 2017, 338 exited to permanency within one year of entry (no later than December 2018), 67 have re-entered foster care within one year so far (as of June 30, 2019). This number and percent could rise before December 31, 2019.
Since this is an annual measure, the only period to compare it to is Period 25, which had 13 percent of the children re-enter. The high re-entry rate results in increased caseloads for caseworkers, thus reducing the quality of services for children and families. The most devastating impact of a rising reentry rate is the re-traumatization of children and their families.
The region has begun to explore several strategies to address this issue. Among them are better quality discharge staffings, ensuring the continuation of needed services and service providers, and more frequent use of trial home visits with parents and relatives. During monthly practice workgroup meetings, the region will more clearly define these strategies and develop a methodology to track implementation and outcomes.
2. Visitation improved in all areas. However, both counties continue struggling to meet DFCS policy requiring four visits in the first four weeks of a new placement and engagement between parent and child and siblings.
Case managers continued visiting children as agreed upon 97 percent of the time and caregivers each month 96 percent of the time during the period. These measures remain in the attained category.
More children were visiting their parents and siblings during the period. Eighty-six percent of children were visiting regularly with their parents and close to 90 percent of eligible siblings were spending time together. Even so, performance in DeKalb County on these measures remained below the required threshold.
Required monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children (Outcome 26) just slightly increased to 95.23 percent from 94.4 percent in Period 26, just shy of the 96.25 percent requirement.
Performance remains below the agreed upon threshold for visits in the first four weeks of a new placement (Modified Consent Decree Section IV.5) Only 24 percent of the required four visits in the first four weeks of a new placement occurred during the period. This performance continues declining from a low of 37 percent in Period 25. There is now some dispute as to whether this is still a requirement in state policy. Beyond the required purposeful face-to-face contact within seven calendar days of an initial placement or subsequent change in placement, the policy manual is silent as to the additional three visits as outlined in the Modified Consent Decree. The parties should discuss whether there is a need to continue monitoring this practice.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

17

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 21 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp
3. Juvenile court processes continue meeting or exceeding the consent decree requirements.
In the Period 26 Report, MTAT reported that the region had fallen below the threshold requirement of 95 percent of children in foster care having six-month case reviews (Outcome 19). This is an attained measure that required additional monitoring during Period 27. The region rebounded to 100 percent, thus keeping this measure in the attained category. Both counties also continued exceeding the requirement for permanency hearings with 100 percent of children in care for 12 or more months having such hearings within the first 12 months (Outcome 20).
During Period 26, MTAT reported that only 93 percent of the court orders for children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period had all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. However, after the report was filed, DFCS brought several cases to the attention of MTAT that either had the required court order or that the order reviewed did not require the applicable language. Thus, the final performance for Period 26, should have been 96 percent.
During Period 27, the region continued working with the Special Assistant Attorneys General (SAAGS) and judges to ensure that court orders were completed with the required language, filed timely, and uploaded into SHINES. After the counties reviewed the records and worked with the courts, they were able to account for valid court orders in 97 percent of the cases reviewed. With the corrected performance from Period 26 this makes the fourth consecutive reporting period in which the region has met or surpassed the required 95 percent for Outcome 27. This measure is being moved to the attained category. However, due to the discrepancies in practice over the past several years, MTAT will continue monitoring this measure closely. This may include interviews and focus groups with court personnel, SAAGS and judges. In addition, MTAT will consider a targeted review outside of the normal case review time frame.
4. The counties continue increasing their efforts to initially search for and place children with relatives.
The Modified Consent Decree requires that diligent search efforts for parents and relatives must be undertaken and documented within 60 days of a child entering foster care (Outcome 5). The threshold standard for this measure is 95 percent. This is the second consecutive reporting period that the region has surpassed the requirement and the third consecutive reporting period of improvement. Of note, 31 out of the 59 children (52%) in the sample were initially placed with relatives and kin caregivers within the first 60 days in care. This is a significant increase from the 35 percent placed with relatives in the first 60 days during the previous period. The increased focus on placing children with relative and kin caregivers continues to be encouraging and is vital to increasing permanency outcomes. Also, of note, only 22 out of 60 (37%) biological fathers were interviewed about possible resources. More focus should be paid to this usually untapped resource. Not only should the state conduct diligent searches within the first 60 days, but DFCS policy requires continued search for relative and kin caregivers throughout the life of a child in foster care.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

18

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 22 of 60
Kenny A. v. Kemp
5. Meeting the needs of children in care; the counties did a commendable job meeting identified medical needs. However, both counties fell short in meeting identified, educational/developmental needs of children; both counties fell short in meeting identified mental health needs; and Fulton County fell well short of meeting identified dental needs.

The health and educational needs of children and youth in foster care were examined in the Second Brief on the Infrastructure Standards filed separately. For a more in-depth analysis, please refer to that publication.
Ninety-four percent of youth in Region 14 continue to have their identified medical needs met, exceeding the threshold requirement of 92 percent.
The required Exit Plan threshold for addressing educational and developmental needs of children in foster care is also 92 percent. This outcome has been re-designated as an attained outcome measure, however neither county met the threshold in Period 27. Of children in foster care in DeKalb County on June 30, 2019, 86 percent of them had identified educational and development needs in their most recent plan met. Similarly, of children in foster care in Fulton County on June 30, 2019, 91 percent of them had identified educational and development needs in their most recent plan met. MTAT will monitor this decline during Period 28 to determine is it should remain the attained category. In addition, the Region is working closely with MAAC to address the educational needs of youth in foster care and increase the rates of graduation / GED attainment.
Performance in addressing dental needs (88 percent) and mental health needs (90 percent) remains below the required thresholds. In previous periods, DeKalb has struggled in these areas. However, during Period 27, Fulton’s performance declined, and DeKalb improved.
Recommendations were made as part of the Second Brief on the Infrastructure Standards related to these standards.
6. The state met the threshold for timelines to adoption and guardianship after parental rights have been terminated or released.
The Modified Consent Decree requires that for all children whose parental rights are terminated or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80 percent will have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights.
As recent as Period 24, the state’s performance on this measure was 43 percent. Since then, the state has been steadily improving, culminating in an improvement in the state’s performance to 81 percent for Period 27. Dekalb’s performance was just below the threshold with 45 out of 57 (79%) adoptions being finalized within 12 months of final TPR. For Fulton, 10 out of 11 (91%) adoptions were finalized within this timeframe.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

19

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 23 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
APPENDIX A – METRICS UNDER THE MODIFIED EXIT PLAN
This Appendix contains two tables summarizing the metrics under the Modified Exit Plan, and the methods for generating each of them.
Table A-1 is a Measures Grid that identifies each measurable outcome, practice standard, or performance measure required under the Modified Ext Plan, and then describes the method for producing that metric.
Table A-2 is a technical document, Detailed Outcome Measures Period 27, that provides the numerator and denominator for each metric displayed in Tables 1 and 2 below and includes additional explanation and/or data that support interpretation of the outcome metric under the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan. It also contains additional technical explanations, and/or historical data that provides context for reviewing and interpreting Period 27 performance data.
Tables A-3 through A-8 provide caseload data as reported from the state.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

20

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 24 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec IV.B.1a
IV.B.1b
IV.B.1c
IV.B.1d IV.B.2b IV.B.2c IV.B.3 IV.B.4

Table A-1: Measures Grid

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

No child shall be placed in a temporary facility or any other foster home or group facility bed used on any temporary basis, for more than 30 days.
Children shall not be placed in more than one temporary facility within one episode of foster care.
No child shall spend more than 23 consecutive hours in county DFCS office. Any child who spends time in county DFCS office between 8pm8am shall be reported to the MTAT.

Jails, runaways, hospitals, PRTFs, respite care will not be considered temporary. Placement type "other resource" and placement category of hotels, receiving homes, office stays. Jails, runaways, hospitals, PRTFs, respite care will not be considered temporary. Placement type "other resource" and placement category of hotels, receiving homes, office stays.

Number of in care at the start of the period and number of children deprived during the period: How many were placed in a temporary facility for more than 30 days during the period

State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team

By calendar year cohorts (year of entry), how many enterers had more than one temporary placement episode EXCLUDING any temporary placement following a runaway episode. Follow cohorts over time.

State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team

Weekly documentation by county; reported Kenny A teams to the MTAT

Hotel use for class members to end by June 30, 2017.
No child under six shall be placed in group care setting. No child between ages of 6-12 shall be placed in group care setting. Race/Ethnicity /religion shall not be basis for delay or denial of placement. DFCS shall not contract with private provider that gives preference based on race/eth/religion DFCS to ensure basic physical needs of food, clothing, and shelter are met. Clothing to be reviewed with every placement / placement change

Number of distinct children; Number of distinct episodes; Number of nights No Changes
No Changes

Region 14 tracks and reports weekly to the MTAT. All data originates from SHINES. Tracked with Congregate Care Report
Tracked with Congregate Care Report State Data Unit

Kenny A Team with verification by State Data Unit State Data Unit State Data Unit
Kenny A. case review team

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

21

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 25 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec IV.B.5
V.A V.B V.C V.D V.E V.F VI.A.118
VI.A.2

Table A-1: Measures Grid

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

In placement visitation: 4 in 4 for new placements; monthly thereafter. There should be at least one in-placement visit and one private, face to face
CPS caseloads – no more than 12 cases
Family Preservation and Family Support caseloads– no more than 17 Placement caseloads – no more than 15 Adoption caseloads – no more than 16 Specialized caseloads - no more than 12 Supervisor – no more than 5 CM At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact with the alleged victim, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of the report.
At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of the report.

Drop children in care for only1 week. -measure 1 in placement visit for all in first week -measure 4 for all the placement for 4 weeks No Change
No change Weights are applied to produce equivalence for caseworkers with mixed caseloads
NOTE: There is a change here b/c old OM 1 and 3 have been combined. Those two outcomes used two different denominators (child/inv). New metric is at the child level No change Effective 7/1/2017 – the standard became 45 days

Number of new placements with 1 visit in 1 wk; 4 in 4 wks.
Generated weekly as part of CAP reports after getting data from each county Counts of Caseworkers, by program at end of period
Counts of cases assigned to verified case managers
Denominator: Children in foster care who are alleged victims of maltreatment Numerator: Number of child- investigations that started within 24 hours of referral Numerator: Number of children w/ face to face w/in 24 hours
Denominator: Number of MIC investigations referred in the PUR Numerator: Number of MIC investigations completed within 30 (45) days of receipt

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance
State Data Unit & Kenny A. Team
Kenny A case review team
Kenny A case review team

18 The current VI.A measures are the ongoing measures.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

22

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 26 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.A.3
VI.A.4 VI.A.5 VI.A.6

Table A-1: Measures Grid

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

Re-entry Into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge.

CFSR 3 measure Children in care for less than 8 days are dropped from outcome measure.
SDU will report CY 20142016.

Denominator: CY entries, duration greater than 8 days that exited to permanency within one year of entry. Numerator: Those who reentered w/in year of exit date

State Data Unit

Maltreatment in care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days.

Reporting for period 23 will start with first half of year, and then be completed for Period 24. CFSR 3 measure All substantiated of maltreatment in care regardless of perpetrator, are included.

Denominator: all days for every child in care for a least one day in the period. Numerator: every substantiated maltreatment episode in period

State Data Unit generates list for Kenny A case reviewers to review

Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care. At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months shall be discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

Report at 6 and 12 months No change
CFSR 3 measure Report at 6 and 12 months SDU will report CY 20142016.

Denominator: children in placement sample who are in first 60 days of placement; Numerator: number of children in denominator whose files show clear evidence of diligent search Denominator: All children in care on first day of CY who had been in care for 12-23 months Numerator: # who achieved permanency w/in calendar year

Kenny A case review team
State Data Unit

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

23

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 27 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.A.7
VI.A.8 VI.A.9 VI.A.10

Table A-1: Measures Grid

Standard/Outcome

Notes

At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption. Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights.
Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had either (a) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or (b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Sibling placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject to the following exceptions: (a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, (c) the size of the

CFSR 3 measure Report at 6 and 12 months SDU will report CY 20142016.
No change
No change
No change to method, add large sibling groups of 4 or more to exclusions

Measurement Method
Denominator: All children in care on first day of CY who had been in care for 24 + months Numerator: # who achieved permanency w/in calendar year

Data Produced by… State Data Unit

Denominator: Children TPR’d during the most recent six month period for whom 12 months can be observed.

Kenny A team

Numerator: Those in the denominator who were adopted/reached guardianship during the period.
Denominator: Eligible children who have been in care 15-22 months in the period Numerator: Those who have had TPR filed OR a documented compelling reason not to

Kenny A Team

Denominator: children with siblings who were in care or who had exited by end of period Numerator: placed together on last day of period OR if they discharged, were together at discharge

Kenny A Team

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

24

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 28 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-1: Measures Grid

Sec

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

VI.A.11

sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with relative. Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.

CFSR 3 measure Adjusted standard to reflect history of in care and admits SDU will report CY 20142016.

Denominator: All days by children who were served during the period. Numerator: All moves excluding DJJ, respite, jail, AWOL, hospitals

State Data Unit

VI.A.12 VI.A.13

Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of all children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had two or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one in-placement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

Children in care less than eight days are dropped. No change to method, Promoted caseworkers are now excepted
No change

Denominator: All children in care at end of the period Numerator: number of those with LE 2 case managers.

Kenny A Team

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

25

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 29 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.A.14 Vi.A.15
Vi.A.16
VI.A.17

Table A-1: Measures Grid

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification
Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall have graduated from high school or earned a GED.

No change No change
No change
No change in method; Include in the numerator qualifying youth who have an IEP or 504 plan who

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period
Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period
Denominator: youth 18+ who were discharged during the year Numerator: number who have graduated or who have GED

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance
State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance
Kenny A Team

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

26

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 30 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.A.18 VI.A.19
VI.A.20

Table A-1: Measures Grid

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement. Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six-month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for twelve or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.

achieved a special ed diploma prior to exit No change in method Only include children who have been in unapproved home for 30 days Break out by relative, public, and private foster homes No Change
No Change

Denominator: placements with child at end of period Numerator: number of placements fully approved
Denominator: Numerator:
Denominator: Numerator:

Data Produced by…
State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure
Kenny A Team, including case review team
Kenny A Team, including case review team

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

27

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 31 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-1: Measures Grid

Sec

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

VI.A.21

Health/Educational Needs. Of children in care at a point in time at end of reporting period, 92 percent shall have met each need documented in most recent plan: Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Educational.

No change in method Standard changed

VI.B.1922

Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months.

No Change

VI.B.23

Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

CFSR measure; SDU will report CY 20142016.
Reporting for period 23 will start with first half of year, and then be completed for Period 24.

Denominator: For each area, number of children from placement case review with identified need Numerator: Number of children in each denominator for whom there is evidence that need was addressed Denominator: All foster homes in the sample

Kenny A case review team
Kenny A case review team

Numerator: instances of Corporal Punishment Denominator: All children under 18 entering Region 14 during the CY period

State Data Unit

Numerator: Number of children in the denominator who exited to permanency w/in 12 months of entry

VI.B.24

Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period

Note: numerator is denominator for the reentry measure. Dissolution means that a child: 1) been adopted; 2) returned to foster care; and 3) has had a subsequent TPR or surrender from his or her adoptive parents within one year of the adoption finalization.

Denominator: Adoptions completed during the most recent six-month period for whom 12 months can be observed.

State Data Unit generates list for Kenny A team to review

Numerator: Dissolutions w/in one year

19 VI.B metrics are currently Attained Outcomes.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

28

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 32 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VI.B.25
VI.B.26 VI.B.27 VI.B.28

Table A-1: Measures Grid

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to the following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with relatives, or (d) the child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective adoptive family pursuant to an appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court. Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, inplacement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage. Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.
Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following capacity limits: (a) no placement shall result in more than 3 foster children in a foster home, or a total of 6 children in

Changed to rely on SHINES data and to cover full class.
No change
No Change No Change This only includes approved foster homes.

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

Denominator: All children in placement on the last day of the period
Numerator: Children in the denominator who were either placed in home court, or who were placed within 50 miles of removal

State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure

Denominator: All visits required for children in care during the period Numerator: All of the visits that occurred during period

State Data Unit supplies list; Kenny A team reviews performance

Denominator: Case review sample

Case review

Numerator: All children in denominator who

have document court order language

Denominator: Foster homes with one or more children in their home on the last day of the period. Numerator: Number of foster homes that exceed the capacity limit.

State Data Unit provides list, Kenny A team reviews and develops measure

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

29

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 33 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Sec VII.G.1 VII.G.2

Table A-1: Measures Grid

Standard/Outcome

Notes

Measurement Method

Data Produced by…

the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children, without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no placement will result in more than 3 children under the age of 3 in a foster home. The only exception to these capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a foster home. Of children in each county during prior two reporting periods who experienced substantiated maltreatment, the number who were victims of a second substantiated maltreatment report during the following 12 months.

Use earliest report and first subsequent report following.

Of cases that were referred to FSS, the number and percent for which there was a subsequent substantiated referral w/in 11-365 days of the FSS referral.

FSS can mean any alternative to opening a CPS case or removal.

Denominator: Number of children who had substantiated report during the prior year
Numerator: Number of children in the denominator who were subjects of a substantiated report within 12months of the first report Denominator: Number of children referred to FSS in a prior 12 month period
Numerator: Number of those who had substantiated report w/in 11-365 days of the referral

State Data Unit State Data Unit

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

30

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 34 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-2: Detailed Outcome Measures for Period 27 STILL BEING FINALIZED

Outcome

Numerator

VI.A.1

At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, including timely face-to-face private contact with the alleged victim, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of the report.

DeKalb: Fulton: SIU: Perimeter:

Total:

Denominator DeKalb: Fulton: SIU: Perimeter: Total:

Metric DeKalb: Fulton: SIU: Perimeter: Total:

At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of the report.
VI.A.2

DeKalb: Fulton: SIU: Perimeter: Total:

DeKalb: Fulton: SIU: Perimeter: Total:

DeKalb: Fulton: SIU: Perimeter: Total:

Re-entry Into Care: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who were discharged within 12 months from foster care to reunification (including aftercare), living with a relative, or guardianship no more than 8.3% shall have re-entered care within 12 months from the date of discharge.

DeKalb: 35 Fulton: 32 Total: 67

DeKalb: 178 Fulton:160 Total: 338

DeKalb: 19.7% Fulton: 20% Total: 19.8%

VI.A.3

This is new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 Reentry methodology. Because that method requires observing children enter, stay at least 8 days, exit to permanency within 1 year, and then reenter from that exit within one year – it is necessary to refer to prior entry cohorts in order to generate the metric. The figures above represent entries to Region 14 from CY 2017. Of them 338 exited to permanency within one year of entry (by 12/2018) and of them, 67 reentered care within one year of exit so far. This could increase because one full year since exit has not yet been observed. The State Unit Generated historical versions of this metric, as well as what is currently observable for the more recent entry cohorts. That performance is provided below – shaded cells contain incomplete data – not enough time has elapsed to fully observe the performance.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

31

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 35 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Outcome

Numerator

Denominator

Metric

Entry Year

Perm Exit w/in 1 Year Reentry w/in 6 Mos. Reentry win 1 Year 6 Mos.

12 Mos.

These data were generated 2014

by the State Data Unit Oct

2018. For this reason, the

2015

2015 data are the most

2016

recent complete cohort and

are used for this measure. 2017

627

76

109

12%

17%

562

68

95

12%

17%

384

47

67

12%

17%

335

44

65

13%

19%

2018

228

19

25

8%

11%

Maltreatment in care: Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, DeKalb: 7 the rate of victimization shall be no more than 8.50 victims per 100,000 days.
Fulton: 2

DeKalb: 150776 Fulton: 110220

DeKalb: 4.64 Fulton: 1.81

VI.A.4

Total: 9

Total: 260996

Total: 3.45

This a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. That methodology controls for “exposure time” for the risk of maltreatment by calculating the total number of days that children with a least one day of care in the period experienced. It also counts any substantiated investigation associated with a child in care, regardless of who was the perpetrator of the maltreatment.

VI.A.5

Search for Relatives: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care.

DeKalb: 31 Fulton: 28 Total: 59

DeKalb: 32 Fulton: 28 Total: 60

DeKalb: 97% Fulton: 100% Total: 98%

60 cases were reviewed (32 from DeKalb and 28 from Fulton). Of the 60, 18 were given credit because language was in the court order, and 31 were placed with relatives, 10 had evidence of diligent search in the file.

VI.A.6

Permanency: At least 43.6% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) between 12 and 23 months shall be discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

DeKalb: 38 Fulton: 48 Total: 86

DeKalb: 225 Fulton: 153 Total: 378

DeKalb: 16.9% Fulton: 23.1% Total: 22.8%

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

32

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 36 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Outcome

Numerator

Denominator

Metric

This measure relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Because this is 12-month measure, typically we would partial performance on permanency for the group of children in care in Region 14 on the periods beginning in January, and then provide the full metric the following period. However, for Period 27, we are able to report on performance up until Nov 2019, when we received the data. To understand that performance relative to recent years, the State Data Unit prepared historical data that displays the proportion of children exit to permanency by the end of a 12-month period for a similar group of children in care on the first day of prior two calendar year. See the table below for those data.

In Care between 12-23 Months

In Care 1/1 Qualifying Children

Exits in 6 Mos.

Exits in 12 Mos. % 6 Mos. % 12 Mos.

2017

264

81

30.7%

DeKalb County

2018

225

38

16.9%

2019

175

55

31.4%

Data prepared by

2017

196

State Data Unit Fulton County

2018

153

September 2018.

2019

169

58

29.6%

48

23.1%

64

37.9%

2017

460

139

30.2%

Region 14

2018

378

86

22.8%

2019

344

119

34.6%

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

33

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 37 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.7 VI.A.8

Permanency: At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

DeKalb: 111 Fulton: 74 Total: 185

DeKalb: 354 Fulton: 246 Total: 600

DeKalb: 31.4% Fulton: 30.1% Total: 30.8%

This measure relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Because this is 12-month measure, typically we would partial performance on permanency for the group of children in care in Region 14 on the periods beginning in January, and then provide the full metric the following period. However, for Period 27, we are able to report on performance up until Nov 2019, when we received the data. To understand that performance relative to recent years, the State Data Unit prepared historical data that displays the proportion of children exit to permanency by the end of a 12-month period for a similar group of children in care on the first day of prior two calendar year. See the table below for those data.

In Care 24 + Months

In Care 1/1 Qualifying Children Exits in 6 Mos. Exits in 12 Mos.

% 6 Mos.

% 12 Mos.

Data prepared by

DeKalb County 2017

276

State Data Dec 2019

2018

354

63

22.8%

111

31.4%

2019

402

154

38.3

Fulton County 2017

201

49

24.4%

2018

246

74

30.1%

2019

224

83

37.1%

Region 14 2017

477

112

23.5%

2018

600

185

30.8%

2019

626

237

37.9%

Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights.

DeKalb: 45 Fulton: 10 Total: 55

DeKalb: 57 Fulton: 11 Total: 68

DeKalb: 79% Fulton: 91% Total: 81%

Any exclusions to be noted here.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

34

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 38 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.9

Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had either (a) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or (b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.

DeKalb: 438 Fulton: 363 Total: 801

DeKalb: 468 Fulton: 374 Total: 842

DeKalb: 94% Fulton: 97% Total: 95%

VI.A.10

Sibling placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject to the following exceptions:
(a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, (c) the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with relative.

DeKalb: 37 Fulton: 45 Total: 82

DeKalb: 37 Fulton: 45 Total: 82

DeKalb: 100% Fulton: 100% Total: 100%

VI.A.11 Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.

DeKalb: 368 Fulton: 328

DeKalb: 148978 Fulton: 109781

DeKalb: 2.41 Fulton: 3.15

Total: 696

Total: 258759

Total: 2.73

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. It requires observing the total number of moves children with a least one day of care a 12month period, and dividing that figure by all of the days children with any days in care used in the same 12-month period. This measure includes both children in care on the first day of the 12-month period as well has children entering care during the 12-month period. To characterize baseline performance and in order to observe change over time, the State Data Unit generated historical analysis of this metric, preparing both six month and 12-month rates of movement. That analysis showed that six month rates notably overstate movement rates relative to full 12-month period. To control for overstated movement rate embedded in the six month estimate, the State Data Unit, in consultation with MTAT has developed a method to generate an annualized 12-month rate when reporting on the Jan-Jun period. That method relies on actual six month data that is then annualized to reflect 12-month performance by applying growth estimates to both the numerator and denominator based on observed change from six to 12 months in the most recent calendar years. Those figures, along with the prior year rates, are displayed below

Moves per 1,000 Days

Moves in Period

Days in Period

Calendar Year

DeKalb

Fulton

Total

DeKalb

Fulto Total

DeKalb

Fulton

Total

n

2015

4.60

8.31

6.14

1,310

1,68 2,996

284,869

203,005

487,874

6

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

35

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 39 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

2016 2017 Actual

3.10

4.99

3.89

966

1,10 2,071

311,486

5

2.22

3.87

2.93

699

909 1,608

313,649

221,347 234,777

532,833 548,426

2018- Annualized

2.41

3.53

2.91

VI.A.12 VI.A.13 VI.A.14 VI.A.15 VI.A.16

Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of all children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave.

DeKalb: 701 Fulton: 538 Total: 1239

Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one inplacement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

DeKalb: 9284 Fulton: 7272 Total: 16556

Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification

DeKalb: 1656 Fulton:1392

Total: 3048

Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage

DeKalb: 4673 Fulton: 3614 Total: 8287

Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with DeKalb: 562 whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed Fulton: 510

DeKalb: 803 Fulton: 600 Total: 1403
DeKalb: 9642 Fulton: 7413 Total: 17055 DeKalb: 1977 Fulton: 1575 Total: 3552
DeKalb: 4891 Fulton: 3732 Total: 8623
DeKalb: 658 Fulton: 548

DeKalb: 87% Fulton: 90% Total: 88%
DeKalb: 96.29% Fulton: 98.1% Total: 97.1% DeKalb: 83.8% Fulton: 88.4% Total: 85.85
DeKalb: 95.5% Fulton: 96.8% Total: 96.2%
DeKalb: 85.4% Fulton: 93.15

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

36

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 40 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.17 VI.A.18 VI.A.19 VI.A.20 VI.A.21

out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

Total: 1072

Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall DeKalb:

have graduated from high school or earned a GED.

Fulton:

Total:

This metric is generated annually in the report covering the period that ends December 31 of each year.

Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity of that placement.

Total: 2770

Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a sixmonth case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following the last review.

DeKalb:39 Fulton: 30 Total: 69

Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for twelve or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.

DeKalb: 34 Fulton: 23 Total: 57

Health/Educational Needs. Of children in care at a point in time at end of reporting period, 92 percent shall have met each need documented in most recent plan: Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Educational.

See Below

Total: 1206
DeKalb: Fulton: Total: Total: 2826
DeKalb: 39 Fulton: 30 Total: 69
DeKalb: 34 Fulton: 23 Total: 57

Total: 88.9%
DeKalb: Fulton: Total: Total: 98%
DeKalb: 100% Fulton: 100% Total: 100%
DeKalb: 100% Fulton: 100% Total: 100%

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

37

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 41 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Medical Needs DeKalb: 39

Fulton: 29

Total: 68

Dental Needs DeKalb: 39

Fulton: 24

Total: 63

Mental Health Needs DeKalb: 30

Fulton: 22

Total:

Education/Developmental DeKalb: 37 Needs Fulton: 29

Total: 66

VI.B.2022 Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months
.

Total: 81%

DeKalb: 42 Fulton: 30 Total: 72 DeKalb: 42 Fulton: 30 Total: 72 DeKalb: 33 Fulton: 25 Total: DeKalb: 43 Fulton: 32 Total: 75
Total: 82%

VI.B.23

Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

DeKalb: 163 Fulton: 116 Total: 279

DeKalb: 422 Fulton: 330 Total: 752

DeKalb: 93% Fulton: 97% Total: 94% DeKalb: 93% Fulton: 80% Total: 88% DeKalb: 91% Fulton: 88% Total: DeKalb: 86% Fulton: 91% Total: 88%
Total: 99%
DeKalb: 38.6% Fulton: 35.2% Total: 37.1%

20 VI.B metrics are currently Attained Outcomes.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

38

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 42 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Spells lasting less than 8 days are dropped so that the numerator can function as the denominator for the reentry metric. This is both a 12 month measure AND a longitudinal measure; so it takes some time to both observe entries in the most recent 12 and also to report on positive permanency that occurred within 12 months of entry. For that reason – we report the most recent cohort that is fully observable and additionally, we provide performance to date on the most recently observed entry group. Additionally, the State Data Unit prepared historical data that displays the historical data depicting permanency for enters within one year of their entry. See the table below for those data. The highlighted cells contained censored data – that is the full performance is not observable until 12/31/2019.

VI.B.24

Admission Entries Year

Data developed by the State Data Unit, reports on permanency achieved for the most recent three exit cohorts. Stays lasting less than 8 days are dropped in these results.

DeKalb County 2017

421

2018

422

2019

390

Fulton County 2017

390

2018

328

2019

336

Region 14 2017

811

2018

750

2019

726

Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period

Perm w/in 12
174
176 82
156
131 108
330
307 190 DeKalb: 0 Fulton: 0 Total: 0

Perm to Date % 12 Mos.

% to Date

265/416 227 82
257/386 171
108
522/802 398 190
DeKalb: 56 Fulton: 37 Total: 93

41.3%

63.7%

41.7%

53.8%

21.0%

21.0%

40%

66.6%

39.9%

52.1%

32.1%

32.1%

40.7%

65.1%

40.9%

53.1%

26.2%

26.2%

DeKalb: 0%

Fulton: 0%

Total: 0%

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

39

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 43 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.B.25

Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a 50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to the following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with relatives, or (d) the child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective adoptive family pursuant to an appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court.

Total: 1365

Total: 1403

Total: 97%

As noted above, the methodology for this metric changed. Rather than being evaluated through case review, the Data Unit generated a metric using the entire class of children in placement on the last day of the period. To generate the final metric – they considered who in placement on 6/30/2018 was placed in the w/in 50 miles of their removal address, was placed within the same county as their removal county, or qualified for an exception as stipulated in the agreement. The numerator was adjusted upward to reflected both those that met the standard AND those who were exceptions. The reciprocal of the numerator is the measure. See below for the adjustments.

Placed

Denominator

Numerator

%

Total in Placement on 6/30/2018

1403

1403

1365

97%

% of those placed

Placed in Same County

523

37%

523

Placed in Different County

880

63%

Different county & exception placement

97

7%

97

Different county

783

56%

Diff county & placed w/in 50 miles

745

53%

815

Diff county & place greater than 50 miles

38

3%

Diff county, > than 50 miles & exempt

0

0%

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

40

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 44 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.B.26 VI.B.27

Diff county, > than 50 miles & NOT exempt

38

3%

Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

DeKalb: 4601 Fulton: 3572 Total: 8173

Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.

DeKalb: 48 Fulton: 41

Total: 89

DeKalb: 4848 Fulton:3734 Total: 8582
DeKalb: 50 Fulton:42 Total: 92

DeKalb: 94.91% Fulton: 95.66% Total: 95.23%
DeKalb: 96% Fulton: 98% Total: 97%

VI.B.28

Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following capacity limits: (a) no placement shall result in more than 3 foster children in a foster home, or a total of 6 children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children, without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no placement will result in more than 3 children under the age of 3 in a foster home. The only exception to these capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a foster

Total: 1

Total: 444

Total: 0.2%

VII.G.1

Recurrence of substantiated investigations: Of children in each county during prior two reporting periods who experienced substantiated maltreatment, the number who were victims of a second substantiated maltreatment report during the following 12 months.

(For period 25 – partial data are provided)

DeKalb: 4 Fulton: 13 Total: 17

DeKalb: 489 Fulton: 477 Total: 966

DeKalb: 0.8% Fulton: 2.7% Total: 1.7%

This measure has been revised to be prospective, and is essentially the Federal CFSR recurrence measure. Like other longitudinal metrics, the full measure cannot be observed until 12 months following the last base substantiated report in each year. We report here the 2015 recurrence rate, but provide the performance to date for 2016 and 2017 substantiated reports. The 2016 are nearly complete; we will report on that rate in the P26 report, and provide updated information for both the 2017 reports and those that are referred in the first half of 2018.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

41

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 45 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VII.G.2

Region/County Report Year Earliest Subx Recurrence in 12 Mos. Report

% Recurrence

Data provided by State Data Unit in early November 2018. Because of reporting lag time, both the 2017 and the 2018 figures should be considered censored and incomplete.

DeKalb County 2016

564

21

3.7%

2017

531

13

2.5%

2018

489

4

0.8%

Fulton County 2016

796

46

5.8%

2017

453

13

2.9%

2018

477

13

2.7%

Region 14 2016

1,360

67

4.9

2017

984

26

2.6%

2018

966

17

1.7%

Substantiated investigation following FSS case. Of cases that were referred to FSS, the number and percent for which there was a subsequent substantiated referral w/in 11365 days of the FSS referral. For Period 25 – partial data are provided.

DeKalb: 42 Fulton: 97 Total: 5,262

DeKalb:1,901 Fulton: 3,361 Total: 139

DeKalb: 2.2% Fulton: 2.9% Total: 2.6%

This is prospective measure which looks to see what number and percent of cases referred to RSS have a re-referral in the subsequent year. Like other longitudinal measures, it takes time to observe the original referral and then look forward for future substantiations. For this reason we report on FSS cases from 2016 for whom the full period following referral to FSS could be observed, and report partial data for the subsequent two calendar years.

Region/County Report Year Earliest FSS Sub Report in 12 Mos. Report

% Sub in 12 Mos.

DeKalb County 2016

1,901

42

2.2%

Data provided by State Data Unit in early

August 2018.

2017

2,325

89

3.8%

2018

2234

91

3.9%

Fulton County 2016

3,361

97

2.9%

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

42

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 46 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

4 X 4 Visitation

2017

3,999

2018

3850

Region 14 2016

5,262

2017

6084

2018

3,113

DeKalb:

Fulton:

Total:

142 149 139 240 33 DeKalb: Fulton: Total:

3.6% 3.7% 2.6% 3.8% 1.1% DeKalb: Fulton: Total:

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

43

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 47 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.7
VI.A.8 VI.A.9 VI.A.10

Permanency: At least 30.3% of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care (in that episode) for 24 months or more shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the period. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure includes discharges from foster care to reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregiver, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

DeKalb: 122 Fulton: 59
Total: 181

DeKalb: 402 Fulton: 222 Total: 624

DeKalb: 30.4% Fulton: 26.6%
Total: 29.0%

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Because this is 12-month measure, typically we would partial performance on permanency for the group of children in care in Region 14 on the periods beginning in January, and then provide the full metric the following period. However, for Period 25, we are able to report on performance up until Sept 2018, when we received the data. To understand that performance relative to recent years, the State Data Unit prepared historical data that displays the proportion of children exit to permanency by the end of a 12-month period for a similar group of children in care on the first day of prior two calendar year. See the table below for those data.

In Care 24 + Months

In Care 1/1 Qualifying Children Exits in 6 Mos. Exits in 12 Mos.

% 6 Mos.

% 12 Mos.

Data prepared by

DeKalb County 2016

173

24

State Data Unit Sept

2017

275

27

2018

2018

360

47

51

14%

29%

60

10%

22%

13%

Fulton County 2016

136

21

35

15%

26%

2017

196

17

2018

241

28

Region 14 2016

309

45

43

9%

22%

12%

86

15%

28%

2017

471

44

103

9%

22%

2018

601

75

12%

Adoption/Guardianship Finalization: For all children whose parental rights are terminated or released during the reporting period (and any appeals completed), at least 80% will have their adoptions or guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights.

DeKalb: 45 Fulton: 10 Total: 55

DeKalb: 57 Fulton: 11 Total: 68

DeKalb: 79% Fulton: 91% Total: 81%

Any exclusions to be noted here.

Permanency Efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in custody for 15 of the prior 22 months shall have had either (a) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable, or (b) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Sibling placement: At least 80% of all children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings, subject to the following exceptions: (a) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, (b) one or more of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, (c) the size of

DeKalb: 438 Fulton: 363 Total: 801
DeKalb: 37 Fulton: 45 Total: 82

DeKalb: 468 Fulton: 374 Total: 842
DeKalb: 37 Fulton: 45 Total: 82

DeKalb: 94% Fulton: 97% Total: 95%
DeKalb: 100% Fulton: 100% Total: 100%

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

44

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 48 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.11

the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to

place the group together; or (d) the siblings are placed with relative.

Multiple Placement Moves: The rate of placement moves in foster care shall be no

DeKalb: 368 DeKalb: 148978

DeKalb: 2.41

more than 3.67 moves per 1,000 days in foster care.

Fulton: 328

Fulton: 109781

Fulton: 3.15

Total: 696

Total: 258759

Total: 2.73

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. It requires observing the total number of moves children with a least one day of care a 12-

month period, and dividing that figure by all of the days children with any days in care used in the same 12-month period. This measure includes both children in

care on the first day of the 12-month period as well has children entering care during the 12-month period. To characterize baseline performance and in order to

observe change over time, the State Data Unit generated historical analysis of this metric, preparing both six month and 12-month rates of movement. That

analysis showed that six month rates notably overstate movement rates relative to full 12-month period. To control for overstated movement rate embedded in

the six month estimate, the State Data Unit, in consultation with MTAT has developed a method to generate an annualized 12-month rate when reporting on the

Jan-Jun period. That method relies on actual six month data that is then annualized to reflect 12-month performance by applying growth estimates to both the

numerator and denominator based on observed change from six to 12 months in the most recent calendar years. Those figures, along with the prior year rates,

are displayed below

Moves per 1,000 Days

Moves in Period

Days in Period

Calendar Year

DeKalb

Fulton

Total

DeKalb

Fulto Total

DeKalb

Fulton

Total

n

2015

4.60

8.31

6.14

1,310

1,68 2,996

284,869

203,005

487,874

6

2016

3.10

4.99

3.89

966

1,10 2,071

311,486

221,347

532,833

5

2017 Actual

2.22

3.87

2.93

699

909 1,608

313,649

234,777

548,426

2018- Annualized

2.41

3.53

2.91

VI.A.12 VI.A.13

Caseworker Continuity: At least 90% of all children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption case manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, promoted, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave. Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of one inplacement visit per month and one additional private visit per month between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of this required minimum of one in-placement and one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

DeKalb: 701 Fulton: 538 Total: 1239
DeKalb: 9284 Fulton: 7272 Total: 16556

DeKalb: 803 Fulton: 600 Total: 1403
DeKalb: 9642 Fulton: 7413 Total: 17055

DeKalb: 87% Fulton: 90% Total: 88%
DeKalb: 96.29% Fulton: 98.1% Total: 97.1%

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

45

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 49 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.14 Vi.A.15 Vi.A.16
VI.A.17 VI.A.18 VI.A.19 VI.A.20

Visitation (Parent-Child): At least 85% of the children with a goal of reunification shall DeKalb: 1656

have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification

Fulton:1392

Total: 3048

Visitation (Worker-Caregiver): DFCS placement case managers shall visit each child’s

foster parent, group care setting, or other caregiver setting at least one time each month. At least 95% of the total minimum number of required monthly visits by placement case managers to caregivers during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits to any caregiver with respect to the same child in excess of the required one visit per month

DeKalb: 4673 Fulton: 3614 Total: 8287

shall be excluded when calculating this percentage

Visitation (Between Siblings): Children who have one or more siblings in custody with

whom they are not placed shall be provided a visit with their siblings at least one time

each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative. At least 90% of the total minimum number of required monthly sibling group visits shall have taken place during

DeKalb: 562 Fulton: 510 Total: 1072

the reporting period. Visits among siblings in excess of the required one visit per month

shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

Education: At least 56% of children discharged from foster care at age 18 or older shall DeKalb:

have graduated from high school or earned a GED.

Fulton:

Total:

This metric is generated annually in the report covering the period that ends December 31 of each year.

Placements Not in Full Approval Status: At least 98% of all foster placements serving Total: 2770

class member children shall be in full approval and/or licensure status. In computing this

percentage, each placement shall be weighted by the approved and/or licensed capacity

of that placement.

Six-Month Case Plan Review: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months

or more shall have either had their six-month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six-month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a sixmonth case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six-month period following

DeKalb:39 Fulton: 30 Total: 69

the last review.

Permanency Hearing: At least 95% of foster children in custody for twelve or more

months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12

months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency

DeKalb: 34

hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for Fulton: 23

and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12-month Total: 57

period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency

hearing.

DeKalb: 1977 Fulton: 1575 Total: 3552
DeKalb: 4891 Fulton: 3732 Total: 8623
DeKalb: 658 Fulton: 548 Total: 1206
DeKalb: Fulton: Total: Total: 2826
DeKalb: 39 Fulton: 30 Total: 69
DeKalb: 34 Fulton: 23 Total: 57

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

DeKalb: 83.8% Fulton: 88.4% Total: 85.85
DeKalb: 95.5% Fulton: 96.8% Total: 96.2%
DeKalb: 85.4% Fulton: 93.15 Total: 88.9%
DeKalb: Fulton: Total: Total: 98%
DeKalb: 100% Fulton: 100% Total: 100%
DeKalb: 100% Fulton: 100% Total: 100%
46

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 50 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.A.21 VI.B.2122

Health/Educational Needs. Of children in care at a point in time at end of reporting period, 92 percent shall have met each need documented in most recent plan: Medical, Dental, Mental Health, Educational.
Medical Needs
Dental Needs
Mental Health Needs
Education/Developmental Needs
Corporal Punishment: At least 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment (any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain) within the previous 12 months

See Below
DeKalb: 39 Fulton: 29 Total: 68 DeKalb: 39 Fulton: 24 Total: 63 DeKalb: 30 Fulton: 22 Total: DeKalb: 37 Fulton: 29 Total: 66 DeKalb: Fulton: Total:

During Period 26, there were 1 case of alleged corporal punishment (Neighbor to Family) which was screened in for a CPS investigation, however the case was not substantiated.

DeKalb: 42 Fulton: 30 Total: 72 DeKalb: 42 Fulton: 30 Total: 72 DeKalb: 33 Fulton: 25 Total: DeKalb: 43 Fulton: 32 Total: 75
DeKalb: Fulton: Total:

DeKalb: 93% Fulton: 97% Total: 94% DeKalb: 93% Fulton: 80% Total: 88% DeKalb: 91% Fulton: 88% Total: DeKalb: 86% Fulton: 91% Total: 88%
DeKalb: Fulton: Total:

VI.B.23

Timely Discharge to Permanency: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 40.5% shall be discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care. Permanency, for the purposes of this measure, includes reunification with the child’s parents or primary caregivers, living with a relative, guardianship, or adoption.

DeKalb: 163 Fulton: 116 Total: 279

DeKalb: 422 Fulton: 330 Total: 752

DeKalb: 38.6% Fulton: 35.2%
Total: 37.1%

This is a new measure which relies on the CFSR 3 methodology. Spells lasting less than 8 days are dropped so that the numerator can function as the denominator for the reentry metric. This both a 12 month measure AND a longitudinal measure; so it take some time to both observe entries in the most recent 12 and also to report on positive permanency that occurred within 12 months of entry. For that reason – we report the most cohort that is fully observable and additionally, we provide performance to date on the most recently observed entry group. Additionally, the State Data Unit prepared historical data that displays the historical data depicting permanency for enters within one year of their entry. See the table below for those data. The highlighted cells contained censored data – that is the full performance is not observable until 12/31/2018. Gray shaded cells represented the most current data.

21 VI.B metrics are currently Attained Outcomes.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

47

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 51 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.B.24 VI.B.25

Admission Entries Perm w/in 12 Perm to Date % 12 Mos.

% to Date

Year

Data developed by the State Data Unit, reports on permanency achieved for the most

DeKalb County 2016

493

179

2017

415

153

2018

423

117

Fulton County 2016

365

146

253

36.3%

191

36.9%

117

27.7%

222

40.0%

51.3% 46.0% 27.7% 60.8%

recent three exit cohorts. Stays lasting less than 8 days are dropped in these results.

2017

387

141

2018

329

95

Region 14 2016

858

325

2017

802

294

178

36.4%

95

28.9%

475

37.9%

369

36.7%

46.0% 28.9% 55.4% 46.0%

2018

752

212

212

28.2%

28.2%

Adoption Disruptions: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting

DeKalb: 0

DeKalb: 56

DeKalb: 0%

period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period

Fulton: 0

Fulton: 37

Fulton: 0%

Total: 0

Total: 93

Total: 0%

Placement Within County: At least 90% of all children at a point in time during the

reporting period shall be placed in the county from which they were removed or within a

50-mile radius of the home from which they were removed. This measure is subject to

the following exceptions: (a) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met

by a family or facility meeting these geographical restrictions, (b) the child is placed

through the ICPC consistent with its terms, (c) the child is appropriately placed with

relatives, or (d) the child is in an adoptive placement with a prospective adoptive family

pursuant to an appropriate placement agreement, but before the entry of the adoption

decree by the court.

As noted above, the methodology for this metric changed. Rather than being evaluated through case review, the Data Unit generated a metric using the entire

class of children in placement on the last day of the period. To generate the final metric – they considered who in placement on 6/30/2018 was placed in the w/in

50 miles of their removal address, was placed within the same county as their removal county, or qualified for an exception as stipulated in the agreement. The

numerator was adjusted upward to reflected both those that met the standard AND those who were exceptions. The reciprocal of the numerator is the measure.

See below for the adjustments.

Placed

Denominator

Numerator

%

Total in Placement on 6/30/2018

1403

1403

1365

97%

% of those

placed

Placed in Same County

523

37%

523

Placed in Different County

880

63%

Different county & exception placement

97

7%

97

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

48

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 52 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VI.B.26 VI.B.27 VI.B.28
VII.G.1

Different county

783

56%

Diff county & placed w/in 50 miles

745

53%

815

Diff county & place greater than 50 miles

38

3%

Diff county, > than 50 miles & exempt

0

0%

Diff county, > than 50 miles & NOT exempt

38

3%

Visitation (Worker-Child): At least 96.25% of the total minimum number of monthly private, in-placement visits between case managers and children during the reporting period shall have taken place. Visits in excess of the required one private visit per month shall be excluded when calculating this percentage.

DeKalb: 4601 Fulton: 3572 Total: 8173

DeKalb: 4848 Fulton:3734 Total: 8582

DeKalb: 94.91% Fulton: 95.66% Total: 95.23%

Court Orders: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the

reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess

qualification for federal funding under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act.

Capacity Limits: No more than 10% of all foster home placements serving class

member children at any time during the reporting period shall exceed the following

capacity limits: (a) no placement shall result in more than 3 foster children in a foster

home, or a total of 6 children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or Total: 1

Total: 444

Total: 0.2%

adopted children, without the written approval of the County Director, and (b) no

placement will result in more than 3 children under the age of 3 in a foster home. The

only exception to these capacity limits shall be the placement of a sibling group in a

foster

Recurrence of substantiated investigations: Of children in each county during prior

two reporting periods who experienced substantiated maltreatment, the number who

DeKalb: 4

DeKalb: 489

DeKalb: 0.8%

were victims of a second substantiated maltreatment report during the following 12

Fulton: 13

Fulton: 477

Fulton: 2.7%

months.

Total: 17

Total: 966

Total: 1.7%

(For period 25 – partial data are provided)

This measure has been revised to be prospective, and is essentially the Federal CFSR recurrence measure. Like other longitudinal metrics, the full measure

cannot be observed until 12 months following the last base substantiated report in each year. We report here the 2015 recurrence rate, but provide the

performance to date for 2016 and 2017 substantiated reports. The 2016 are nearly complete; we will report on that rate in the P26 report, and provide updated

information for both the 2017 reports and those that are referred in the first half of 2018.

Region/County Report Year Earliest Subx Recurrence in 12 Mos.

% Recurrence

Report

Data provided by State Data

DeKalb County 2016

564

21

3.7%

Unit in early November 2018.

2017

531

13

2.5%

Because of reporting lag time, both the 2017 and the 2018 figures should be considered censored and incomplete.

2018

489

4

0.8%

Fulton County 2016

796

46

5.8%

2017

453

13

2.9%

2018

477

13

2.7%

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

49

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 53 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

VII.G.2

Region 14 2016

1,360

67

4.9

2017 2018 Substantiated investigation following FSS case. Of cases that were referred to FSS, the number and percent for which there was a subsequent substantiated referral w/in 11365 days of the FSS referral. For Period 25 – partial data are provided.

984 966 DeKalb: 42 Fulton: 97 Total: 5,262

26 17 DeKalb:1,901 Fulton: 3,361 Total: 139

2.6% 1.7% DeKalb: 2.2% Fulton: 2.9% Total: 2.6%

This is prospective measure which looks to see what number and percent of cases referred to RSS have a re-referral in the subsequent year. Like other longitudinal measures, it takes time to observe the original referral and then look forward for future substantiations. For this reason we report on FSS cases from 2016 for whom the full period following referral to FSS could be observed, and report partial data for the subsequent two calendar years.

Region/County Report Year Earliest FSS Sub Report in 12 Mos. Report

% Sub in 12 Mos.

DeKalb County 2016

1,901

42

2.2%

2017

2,325

89

3.8%

Data provided by State Data Unit in early Augusr 2018.

2018 Fulton County 2016
2017

2234 3,361 3,999

91 97 142

3.9% 2.9% 3.6%

2018

3850

149

3.7%

Region 14 2016

5,262

139

2.6%

2017

6084

240

3.8%

2018

3,113

33

1.1%

4 X 4 Visitation

DeKalb: Fulton: Total:

DeKalb: Fulton: Total:

DeKalb: Fulton: Total:

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

50

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 54 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-3: Case Managers Meeting Caseload Standards in DeKalb County on June 30, 2019

Case Manager Function
CPS Investigations
Family Preservation Permanency Case Manager Specialized Case Manager Adoption Case Manager22 Total
.

Caseload Cap:
Number of cases (families
and children)

Number of Active Staff on 6/30/19

12

families

32

17

families

8

15

children

22

12

children

31

16

children

93

Actual Performance

Number of Active, Onleave Staff on 6/30/19

Meeting Caps on Not Meeting Cap on Assigned Caseload Assigned Caseload

Number

% Number %

0

23

72%

9

28%

0

9 100%

0 100%

0

9

41%

13

59%

0

9

29%

22

71%

49

53%

44

47%

Cases to be Assigned by Supervisors
Number 3 2 1 6
12

Table A-4: DeKalb County Supervisory Ratios on June 30, 2019

Program/Service Area

Number of Meeting 1 to 5 Not Meeting 1 to 5

Units

Ratio

Ratio

Total Number Percent Number Percent

Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation)

10

7

70%

3

30%

Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes Adoptions)

16

16 100%

0

0%

22 All adoptions caseloads are included in the specialized and permanency totals. There were 12 adoptions case managers in DeKalb on this date.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

51

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 55 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-5: Case Managers Meeting Caseload Standards in Fulton County on June 30, 2019

Case Manager Function

Caseload Cap:
Number of cases (families
and children)

Number of Active Staff on 6/30/19

Number of Active, Onleave Staff on 6/30/19

Actual Performance
Meeting Caps on Assigned Caseload

Number

%

Not Meeting Cap on Assigned Caseload

Number

%

Cases to be Assigned by Supervisors
Number

12

CPS Investigations

families

27

17

Family Preservation families

11

Permanency Case

15

Manager

children

27

Specialized Case

12

Manager

children

19

Adoption Case

16

Manager23

children

Total

84

18

67%

9

31%

5

10

91%

1 100%

0

15

56%

12

44%

2

10

53%

9

47%

13

53

63%

31

37%

20

Table A-6: Fulton County Supervisory Ratios on June 30, 2019

Program/Service Area

Number of Units
Total

Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio

Not Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio

Number Percent Number Percent

Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation)

9

Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes Adoptions)

15

6

67%

3

33%

15 100% 0

0%

23 All adoptions caseloads are included in the specialized and permanency totals. There were five adoptions case managers in Fulton on this date.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

52

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 56 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-7: Region 14 Caseload Managers Meeting Caseload Standards on June 30, 2019

Case Manager Function
CPS Investigations
Family Preservation Permanency Case Manager Specialized Case Manager Adoption Case Manager24
Total

Caseload Cap:
Number of cases (families
and children)
12 families 17 families 15 children 12 children 16 children 12 children

Number of Active Staff on 6/30/19
59 19 49 50
177

Number of Active, Onleave Staff on 6/30/19

Actual Performance

Meeting Caps on Assigned Caseload

Number 41 18 24 19

% 69% 95% 49% 38%

102

58%

Not Meeting Cap on Assigned Caseload

Number 18 1 25 31

% 31% 5% 51% 62%

75

42%

Cases to be Assigned by Supervisors
Number 8 2 3 19
32

24 All adoptions caseloads are included in the specialized and permanency totals. There were 15 adoption case managers in the Region on this date.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

53

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 57 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal

Table A-8: Region 14 Supervisory Ratios on June 30, 2019

Program/Service Area

Number of Units

Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio

Not Meeting 1 to 5 Ratio

Total Number Percent Number Percent

Child Protective Services (Investigations and Family Preservation)

19

Permanency Case Managers (Regular and Specialized) (includes Adoptions)

31

13

68%

6

32%

31 100%

0

100%

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

54

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 58 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
APPENDIX B – GLOSSARY

Adoptive Placement means the interval during which a child is placed with a prospective adoptive family following the signing of the appropriate adoptive placement agreement form, but before the entry of the adoption decree by the court.
Child or Children or Class Member Children or Class Members mean a child or children who have been, are or will be alleged or adjudicated deprived who (1) are or will be in the custody of the State Defendants; and (2) have or will have an open case in Fulton County DFCS or DeKalb County DFCS.
Child Caring Institution (CCI) is any child-welfare facility which provides full-time room, board and watchful oversight (RBWO) to six or more children up to 18 years of age. Some CCIs are approved to care for youth up to age 21. The CCI must be approved through the Office of Provider Management (OPM) to serve children in DFCS custody.
Child Placing Agency (CPA) is agency that places children in foster and adoptive homes for individualized care, supervision and oversight. Child placing agencies are responsible for assessing the placement regarding the appropriateness of the room, board and watchful oversight that the prospective foster and adoptive families will provide. The CPA’s employees and their foster and adoptive parents work as a team to provide a stabilizing and nurturing environment that promotes safety, permanency and well-being.
Corporal Punishment means any physical punishment on a child that inflicts pain.
CPA Foster Home is a foster home approved by a Child Placing Agency for the temporary placement of children in foster care.
DeKalb DFCS means DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services.
DFCS when used alone means the Georgia Division of Family and Children Services.
DFCS Foster Home is a non-relative foster homes approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of children in foster care.
DFCS or CPA Adoptive Home is an adoptive home approved for the foster care placement of a child for whom the established goal is adoption. Adoptive homes must meet the regular standards of care required for approved family foster homes and any conditions specified in that approval.
DFCS Relative Foster Home is a relative foster home approved by DFCS for the temporary placement of minor relatives. It is DFCS’ preference that all relatives are approved as foster parents and receive a foster care per diem. The goal of relatives becoming foster parents is to ensure that the child has services to address his/her needs.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

55

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 59 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
DHHS means the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
DHR means Georgia Department of Human Resources.
Discipline or Other Serious Foster Care Violation means and includes those acts or situations by the caregiver that pose an immediate or potential risk to the safety or well-being of the child in care. These may include, but are not limited to, inappropriate disciplinary measures (both physical/corporal and emotional), violations of supervision or other safety requirements that pose serious risk factors to the child.
EPSDT means the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Program for individuals under 21 years of age contained in Title XIX of the Social Security Act, as amended.
Fictive Kin means a person who is known to a child as a relative, but is not, in fact, related by blood.
Foster Parent means volunteers who are trained and certified by DFCS or Child Placing Agencies to provide for the temporary care of children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster parents work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster parents are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
Foster Relative means biological kin who are trained and certified by DFCS to provide for the care of relative children placed in the custody of DFCS. Foster relatives work as a part of a team to assure that a child’s physical, emotional, medical and psychological needs are met while they are in foster care. Although, it is not the goal to replace the child’s parents, foster relatives are asked to assume the responsibility of parenting the children placed in their home.
Fulton DFCS means the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services.
Georgia Health Check Program means Georgia Medicaid's well-child or preventive health care program adopted pursuant to EPSDT, and shall contain such components as they exist in the Georgia Health Check Program as of February 1, 2005.
Governor means the Governor of the State of Georgia.
Legal Guardianship means the appointment of an individual as a legal guardian for a child as authorized by either the probate court under O.C.G.A. Title 29 or the juvenile court under O.C.G.A. Chapter15-11-2(36).
One Episode of Foster Care means the period of time that a child is in foster care from the date of removal from the home until the child is discharged from DFCS custody, except that a runaway does not trigger a new episode of foster care.
Permanent Legal Custody means custody granted in accordance with an order of the superior court or the juvenile court, which places a child in the custody of an individual or individuals until the child reaches 18 years of age.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

56

Case 1:02-cv-01686-TWT Document 765 Filed 01/22/20 Page 60 of 60
Kenny A. v. Deal
Permanent Placement with Relatives means placing a child with a relative who is willing to assume long-term responsibility for the child, but has reasons for not adopting the child or obtaining guardianship or permanent legal custody, and it is in the child's best interests to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship by another person. In such circumstances, there shall be in place an agreement for long-term care signed by DFCS and the relative committing to the permanency and stability of this placement unless it is necessary to disrupt the long-term placement.
Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility (PRTF) is a temporary non-hospital facility with a provider agreement with a State Medicaid Agency to provide intensive therapeutic intervention to a child to ensure safety and stability. PRTFs offer intensive behavioral health services to children in Georgia.
Relatives are persons who are related by blood, marriage or adoption including the spouse of any of those persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or divorce.
Relative Placement refers to placement in the home of a relative or fictive kin who do not receive a foster care per diem for the care of the child. The relative placement may be a non-paid placement or the relative may receive TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive kin are not eligible for TANF or an Enhanced Relative Rate (ERR) Subsidy. Fictive kin must become foster parents to receive financial assistance.
Placement with relatives or fictive kin may occur very quickly if there is a satisfactory CPS history check, safety and home assessment check, and a Georgia Crime Information Center (GCIC) check through the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) on all household members 18 years of age or older. A Relative or Non-Relative Care Assessment must be completed no later than 30 calendar days after the placement of a child.
State DFCS means the Division of Family and Children Services of the Georgia Department of Human Resources.
Suspected Abuse or Neglect means being based on reasonable cause to believe that a child may have been abused or neglected.
Suspected Corporal Punishment means being based on reasonable cause to believe that corporal punishment may have been used on a child.

January 22, 2020

Period 27 Monitoring Report

57

 
 4months,CLOSED,EXH,PROTO
U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02−cv−01686−TWT

A., et al v. Barnes, et al Assigned to: Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr Demand: $0 Case in other court: usca, 06−15514−A
11th USCA, 06−15514
SUPERIOR CT/FULTON, 2002−CV−54182 Cause: 28:1443(1)Removal from State Court − Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/19/2002 Date Terminated: 08/16/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Kenny A. by his next friend Linda Winn

represented by Aaron Hirsh Finch Children's Rights, Inc. 330 7th Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 Email: afinch@childrensrights.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christina Wilson Remlin Children's Rights 400 West Peachtree St. NW Suite #4−1086 Atlanta, GA 30308 646−831−3543 Email: cremlin@childrensrights.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel W.E. Holt Children's Rights, Inc. 330 7th Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 Email: dholt@childrensrights.org LEAD ATTORNEY

Elissa Lee Glucksman Hyne Children's Rights, Inc. 330 7th Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 Email: ehyne@childrensrights.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ira P. Lustbader Children's Rights, Inc. 4th Floor 330 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 Email: ilustbader@childrensrights.org LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey O. Bramlett Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. 3900 One Atlantic Center Atlanta, GA 30309−3417 404−881−4100 Email: bramlett@bmelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence D. Borten Children's Rights, Inc. 330 7th Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 Email: lborten@childrensrights.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Marcia Robinson Lowry Children's Rights, Inc. 4th Floor 330 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael K. Bartosz Children's Rights, Inc. 330 7th Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shirim Nothenberg Children's Rights, Inc. 330 7th Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corey Fleming Hirokawa The Law Office of Corey F. Hirokawa 1237 Woods Circle Atlanta, GA 30324 404−434−5883 Email: hirokawa@bmelaw.com TERMINATED: 10/15/2008
David G.H. Brackett Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. 3900 One Atlantic Center Atlanta, GA 30309−3417 404−881−4100 Email: brackett@bmelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Douglas C. Gray Children's Rights 4th Floor 330 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 Email: dgray@childrensrights.org TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Erik S. Pitchal Suffolk University Law School Clinical Programs Suite 190 120 Tremont Street Boston, MA 02108 617−305−1641 Email: epitchal@suffolk.edu TERMINATED: 06/03/2011
Gordon Lee Hamrick , IV Georgia Court of Appeals 334 State Judicial Building 40 Capitol Square Atlanta, GA 30334 404−657−8894 Email: hamrickg@gaappeals.us TERMINATED: 03/11/2005
Jane M. Ricci Federal Trade Commission−D.C. 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20580 202−326−2269 Email: jricci@ftc.gov TERMINATED: 01/31/2008
Jeffrey K. Powell Children's Rights, Inc. 4th Floor 330 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Michael A. Caplan Caplan Cobb LLP Suite 2750 75 Fourteenth Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 404−596−5610 Fax: 404−596−5604 Email: mcaplan@caplancobb.com TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
Samika Nicole Boyd Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, LLP 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. 3900 One Atlantic Center Atlanta, GA 30309−3417 404−881−4100 Fax: 404−881−4111 Email: boyd@bmelaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Kara B. by her next friend Linda Pace

Sarah Hechtman Children's Rights, Inc. 4th Floor 330 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Sarah M. Shalf Emory University Law School 1301 Clifton Road Atlanta, GA 30322 404−712−4652 Fax: 404−727−6820 Email: sarah.shalf@emory.edu
Stacy F. Antonucci Children's Rights, Inc. 404 Park Avenue South 11th Floor New York, NY 10016 212−683−2210 TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
represented by Aaron Hirsh Finch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Wilson Remlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corey Fleming Hirokawa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Daniel W.E. Holt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Elissa Lee Glucksman Hyne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey O. Bramlett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Maya C. by her next friend Linda Pace

Laurence D. Borten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael K. Bartosz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shirim Nothenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G.H. Brackett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas C. Gray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Gordon Lee Hamrick , IV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/11/2005
Jane M. Ricci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2008
Jeffrey K. Powell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
Samika Nicole Boyd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Hechtman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Sarah M. Shalf (See above for address)
Stacy F. Antonucci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
represented by Aaron Hirsh Finch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christina Wilson Remlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corey Fleming Hirokawa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Daniel W.E. Holt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Elissa Lee Glucksman Hyne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey O. Bramlett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence D. Borten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shirim Nothenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G.H. Brackett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas C. Gray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Gordon Lee Hamrick , IV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/11/2005
Jane M. Ricci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2008

Plaintiff
Phelicia D. by her next friend Theresa Roth

Jeffrey K. Powell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
Samika Nicole Boyd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Hechtman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Sarah M. Shalf (See above for address)
Stacy F. Antonucci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
represented by Aaron Hirsh Finch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Wilson Remlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corey Fleming Hirokawa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Daniel W.E. Holt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Elissa Lee Glucksman Hyne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey O. Bramlett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Sabrina E. by her next friend Rebecca Silvey

Laurence D. Borten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shirim Nothenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G.H. Brackett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas C. Gray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Gordon Lee Hamrick , IV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/11/2005
Jane M. Ricci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2008
Jeffrey K. Powell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
Samika Nicole Boyd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Hechtman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Sarah M. Shalf (See above for address)
Stacy F. Antonucci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
represented by Aaron Hirsh Finch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Wilson Remlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corey Fleming Hirokawa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Daniel W.E. Holt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Elissa Lee Glucksman Hyne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey O. Bramlett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence D. Borten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael K. Bartosz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shirim Nothenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G.H. Brackett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas C. Gray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Gordon Lee Hamrick , IV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/11/2005
Jane M. Ricci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2008

Plaintiff
Korrina E. by her next friend Rebecca Silvey

Jeffrey K. Powell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
Samika Nicole Boyd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Hechtman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Sarah M. Shalf (See above for address)
Stacy F. Antonucci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
represented by Aaron Hirsh Finch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Wilson Remlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corey Fleming Hirokawa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Daniel W.E. Holt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Elissa Lee Glucksman Hyne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey O. Bramlett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Tanya F. by her next friend Carol Huff

Laurence D. Borten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael K. Bartosz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shirim Nothenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G.H. Brackett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas C. Gray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Gordon Lee Hamrick , IV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/11/2005
Jane M. Ricci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2008
Jeffrey K. Powell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
Samika Nicole Boyd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Hechtman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Sarah M. Shalf (See above for address)
Stacy F. Antonucci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
represented by Aaron Hirsh Finch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christina Wilson Remlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corey Fleming Hirokawa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Daniel W.E. Holt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Elissa Lee Glucksman Hyne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey O. Bramlett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence D. Borten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael K. Bartosz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shirim Nothenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G.H. Brackett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas C. Gray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Gordon Lee Hamrick , IV (See above for address)

Plaintiff
Priscilla G. by her Next Friend Roslyn M. Satchel

TERMINATED: 03/11/2005
Jane M. Ricci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2008
Jeffrey K. Powell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
Samika Nicole Boyd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Hechtman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Sarah M. Shalf (See above for address)
Stacy F. Antonucci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
represented by Aaron Hirsh Finch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Wilson Remlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Corey Fleming Hirokawa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Daniel W.E. Holt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey O. Bramlett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Briana H. by her next friend Linda Pace, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated

Laurence D. Borten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shirim Nothenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G.H. Brackett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Douglas C. Gray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Gordon Lee Hamrick , IV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/11/2005
Jane M. Ricci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2008
Jeffrey K. Powell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
Samika Nicole Boyd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Hechtman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Sarah M. Shalf (See above for address)
Stacy F. Antonucci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
represented by Aaron Hirsh Finch (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Wilson Remlin (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Corey Fleming Hirokawa (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/15/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY
Daniel W.E. Holt (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Elissa Lee Glucksman Hyne (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik S. Pitchal (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/03/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ira P. Lustbader (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeffrey O. Bramlett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence D. Borten (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE
Marcia Robinson Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael K. Bartosz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shirim Nothenberg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David G.H. Brackett (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gordon Lee Hamrick , IV (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/11/2005
Jane M. Ricci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2008
Jeffrey K. Powell (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007

V.
Defendant
Roy Barnes in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia TERMINATED: 04/14/2011

Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
Samika Nicole Boyd (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah Hechtman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Sarah M. Shalf (See above for address)
Stacy F. Antonucci (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
represented by Carmen L. Alexander The Employment Law Solution: McFadden Davis, LLC Suite 200 1100 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30309 678−310−7130 Fax: 404−795−1070 Email: calexander@theemploymentlawsolution.com (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY
Eddie Snelling , Jr. Office of State Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30334−1300 404−463−8850 Fax: 404−651−5304 Email: esnelling@law.ga.gov TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth B. Taylor Cobb County Attorney's Office 100 Cherokee Street Suite 595 Marietta, GA 30090 770−528−4000 Email: betaylor@AtlantaGa.Gov LEAD ATTORNEY
Jefferson James Davis Davis & Davis Suite 921 315 West Ponce de Leon Avenue Decatur, GA 30030 404−373−2531 Fax: 404−373−3620 Email: davisanddavis@bellsouth.net TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Kathleen Mary Pacious Office of State Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30334−1300 404−656−9622 Email: kpacious@law.ga.gov TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mark Howard Cohen Troutman Sanders, LLP−ATL Bank of America Plaza, Suite 3000 600 Peachtree St., NE Atlanta, GA 30308−2216 404−885−3597 Email: mark.cohen@troutmansanders.com TERMINATED: 11/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia A. Chandler The Law Office of Patricia Chandler 10614 Chambers Drive Tampa, FL 33626 Email: tricia_chandler@yahoo.com TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rolesia Butler Dancy U.S. Department of Labor−ATL Office of the Solicitor 61 Forsyth Street, SW Room 7T10 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−302−5457 Fax: 404−302−5438 Email: dancy.rolesia@dol.gov (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY
Thurbert E. Baker Dentons US LLP−GA Atl One Peachtree Center, Suite 5300 303 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30308−3201 404−527−8480 Fax: 404−527−4198 Email: Thurbert.Baker@dentons.com LEAD ATTORNEY
Vivica Mitchell Brown Office of DeKalb County Attorney DeKalb County Administration Building 1300 Commerce Drive Fifth Floor Decatur, GA 30030 404−371−3011 Email: vmbrown@co.dekalb.ga.us (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY
Willie Jake Lovett , Jr. Office of the Child Attorney Suite 4098 395 Pryor Street Atlanta, GA 30312 404−612−4407

Defendant
Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia

Email: willie.lovett@fultoncountyga.gov (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Winston A. Denmark Fincher, Denmark & Williams & Minnifield, LLC 8024 Fairoaks Court Jonesboro, GA 30236 770−961−4100 Fax: 770−471−9948 Email: wdenmark@fincherdenmark.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Jones Law Offices of John C. Jones 248 Roswell Street Marietta, Ga 30060 770−427−8066 Fax: . Email: jcjones1234@bellsouth.net TERMINATED: 12/04/2006
Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
Sarah Hechtman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/31/2007
Shalen S. Nelson Office of State Attorney General 40 Capitol Square, S.W. Atlanta, GA 30334−1300 404−656−3377 Email: snelson@law.ga.gov
represented by Carmen L. Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Eddie Snelling , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth B. Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jefferson James Davis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
John C. Jones (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY

Defendant
James Martin in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia TERMINATED: 04/14/2011

Kathleen Mary Pacious (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mark Howard Cohen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia A. Chandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rolesia Butler Dancy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Thurbert E. Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Vivica Mitchell Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Willie Jake Lovett , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Winston A. Denmark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jaime L. Theriot Troutman Sanders, LLP−ATL Bank of America Plaza, Suite 5200 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, GA 30308−2216 404−885−3000 Email: jaime.theriot@troutmansanders.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
Shalen S. Nelson (See above for address)
represented by Carmen L. Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Eddie Snelling , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth B. Taylor

Defendant
Division of Family and Children Services Fulton County

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jefferson James Davis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
John C. Jones (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kathleen Mary Pacious (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mark Howard Cohen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia A. Chandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rolesia Butler Dancy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Thurbert E. Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Vivica Mitchell Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Willie Jake Lovett , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Winston A. Denmark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
Shalen S. Nelson (See above for address)
represented by Carmen L. Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Eddie Snelling , Jr. (See above for address)

TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth B. Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jefferson James Davis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
John C. Jones (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kathleen Mary Pacious (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mark Howard Cohen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia A. Chandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rolesia Butler Dancy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Thurbert E. Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Vivica Mitchell Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Willie Jake Lovett , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Winston A. Denmark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jaime L. Theriot (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
Shalen S. Nelson (See above for address)

Defendant
Beverly Jones in her official capacity as Director of the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services TERMINATED: 04/14/2011

represented by Carmen L. Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Eddie Snelling , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth B. Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jefferson James Davis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
John C. Jones (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kathleen Mary Pacious (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mark Howard Cohen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia A. Chandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rolesia Butler Dancy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Thurbert E. Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Vivica Mitchell Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Willie Jake Lovett , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Winston A. Denmark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017

Defendant DeKalb County DFCS

Shalen S. Nelson (See above for address)
represented by Carmen L. Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Eddie Snelling , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth B. Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jefferson James Davis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
John C. Jones (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kathleen Mary Pacious (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mark Howard Cohen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia A. Chandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rolesia Butler Dancy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Thurbert E. Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Vivica Mitchell Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Willie Jake Lovett , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Winston A. Denmark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Wayne Drummond in his official capacity as Director of the DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services TERMINATED: 04/14/2011

Jaime L. Theriot (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shalen S. Nelson (See above for address)
represented by Carmen L. Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Eddie Snelling , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth B. Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jefferson James Davis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
John C. Jones (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/04/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY
Kathleen Mary Pacious (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Mark Howard Cohen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia A. Chandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rolesia Butler Dancy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Thurbert E. Baker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Vivica Mitchell Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Willie Jake Lovett , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Fulton County

Winston A. Denmark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shalen S. Nelson (See above for address)
represented by Andrew George MacKenzie Georgia Law Department Building 3000 535 Telfair St. Augusta, GA 30901 706−842−5550 Fax: 706−842−5556 Email: amackenzie@augustaga.gov (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY
Carmen L. Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Eddie Snelling , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth B. Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jefferson James Davis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Overtis Hicks Brantley Office of Fulton County Attorney Fulton County Government Center 141 Pryor Street, S.W. Suite 4038 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−730−7750 Email: ov.brantley@co.fulton.ga.us (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia A. Chandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rolesia Butler Dancy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Vivica Mitchell Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Willie Jake Lovett , Jr. (See above for address)

Defendant
DeKalb County TERMINATED: 10/15/2008

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Winston A. Denmark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
represented by Carmen L. Alexander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Charles George Hicks Office of DeKalb County Attorney DeKalb County Administration Building 1300 Commerce Drive Fifth Floor Decatur, GA 30030 404−371−3011 TERMINATED: 08/26/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Eddie Snelling , Jr. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Elizabeth B. Taylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Jefferson James Davis (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Patricia A. Chandler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/28/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Rolesia Butler Dancy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Stephen E. Whitted Attorney Stephen E. Whitted 1206 S. Best Street Goldsboro, NC 27530 404−374−8818 Email: attyswhitted@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vivica Mitchell Brown (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
William J. Linkous , III

Defendant Governor Sonny Perdue TERMINATED: 04/14/2011
Defendant Nathan Deal in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia Defendant Clyde L. Reese, III in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Human Services of the State of Georgia Defendant Glenda McMillan in her official capacity as Director of the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services Defendant

Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP −Atl Suite 1600 100 Galleria Parkway Atlanta, GA 30339−5948 678−996−9113 Fax: 404−450−3979 Email: wlinkous@fmglaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Willie Jake Lovett , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Winston A. Denmark (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charissa Ann Ruel Social Security Administration 61 Forsyth Street, S.W. Suite 20T45 Atlanta, GA 30303 404−562−1098 Email: charissa.ruel@law.state.ga.us (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY
Mark Howard Cohen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/21/2014 LEAD ATTORNEY
Michael A. Caplan (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2017
Shalen S. Nelson (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jaime L. Theriot (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Glenene Lanier in her official capacity as Director of the DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services Movant The Barton Child Law & Policy Clinic
unknown WestCare Georgia, Inc.
Movant Office of the Child Advocate of the State of Georgia Movant Devereux Georgia Treatment Network

represented by Terry Robert Howell Fields Howell Athans & McLaughlin, LLP Suite 1600 1180 West Peachtree St. Atlanta, GA 30309 404−214−1250 Email: thowell@fieldshowell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by J. Timothy Mast Troutman Sanders, LLP−ATL Bank of America Plaza, Suite 3000 600 Peachtree St., NE Atlanta, GA 30308−2216 404−885−3312 Fax: 404−962−6796 Email: tim.mast@troutmansanders.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Courtney Carter Fletcher Doosan Infracore International, Inc. 2905 Shawnee Industrial Boulevard Suite 100 Suwanee, GA 30024 770−353−3813 Fax: 866−536−5155 Email: courtney.fletcher@doosan.com TERMINATED: 12/09/2009 LEAD ATTORNEY
Joshua Luke Becker Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP 1230 Peachtree Street Suite 1200 Atlanta, GA 30309 470−867−6010 Email: jbecker@shb.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas J. Mazziotti Greenberg Traurig, LLP Terminus 200, Suite 2500 3333 Piedmont Road NE Atlanta, GA 30305 678−553−2101 Fax: 678−553−2102 Email: mazziottit@gtlaw.com TERMINATED: 10/05/2005

Date Filed 06/19/2002
06/19/2002 06/19/2002 06/20/2002 06/20/2002 06/27/2002
06/27/2002 06/27/2002 06/27/2002 06/28/2002
07/03/2002 07/05/2002 07/08/2002 07/08/2002 07/08/2002 07/08/2002
07/08/2002 07/08/2002 07/08/2002
07/09/2002
07/12/2002

# Docket Text
1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL with CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (Pretrial instructions attached to service copies and returned to attorney for service.) FILING FEE $150.00 RECEIPT #490190 (aet) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
2 Amendment to [1−1] removal complaint by defendants. (aet) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
Added attorney for plaintiffs: Marcia Robinson Lowry, Ira P. Lustbader, Jeffrey K. Powell, and Stacy F. Antonucci. (aet) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
3 MOTION by plaintiffs to expedite discovery with brief in support. (aet) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
4 ORDER by Judge G. E. Tidwell, recusing Judge. Case reassigned to Judge Marvin H. Shoob (cc w/notice) (bsm) (Entered: 06/24/2002)
5 PETITION for leave of absence of ELIZABETH B. TAYLOR for the period of 7/1/02−7/12/02; 7/29/02−8/16/02; & 8/26/02−9/13/02 (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 06/28/2002)
6 Application for admission of Jeffrey A. Powell pro hac vice for plaintiffs (ck) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
7 Application for admission of pro hac vice of Ira P. Lustbader for plaintiffs (to MHS) (ck) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
8 Application for admission of pro hac vice of Marcia Lowry for plaintiffs. (to MHS) (ck) (Entered: 07/01/2002)
9 Motion HEARING held before Judge Marvin H. Shoob [3−1] motion to expedite discovery GRANTED. Dfts given until 7/8/02 to respond to complaint. Dfts to provide DeKalb documents by 7/12/02 and Fulton documents by 7/17/02; depositions to be set 5 days later. Order to be prepared by pla. (adg) (Entered: 07/03/2002)
10 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING [3−1] motion to expedite discovery (cc) (jph) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
Steno notes of proceedings held 6/28/02 before Judge J. O. Forrester, by Court Reporter Lois D. Phillips. (adg) (Entered: 07/05/2002)
11 ENDORSED ORDER by Courtroom Deputy clerk APPROVING [6−1] pro hac vice application of Jeffrey Powell (cc) (jph) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
12 ENDORSED ORDER by Courtroom Deputy APPROVING [7−1] pro hac vice application of Ira P. Lustbader (cc) (jph) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
13 ENDORSED ORDER by CRD APPROVING [8−1] pro hac vice application of Marcia Lowery (cc) (jph) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
14 ANSWER by defendants Roy Barnes, Department of Human, James Martin, Family & Children Sv, Beverly Jones, DeKalb County DFCS, and Wayne Drummond to complaint [1−1] Discovery ends 12/5/02 (jph) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/10/2004 (dgs). (Entered: 07/09/2002)
15 ANSWER by defendant DeKalb County to complaint [1−1] (jph) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
16 ANSWER by defendant Fulton County to complaint [1−1] (jph) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
17 MOTION by defendant to extend time for 10 days after supplement to Motion for class certification (not on docket) to respond to said motion (jph) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
18 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING the [17−1] motion to extend time for 10 days after supplement to Motion for certification (not on docket) to respond to said motion. (cc) (aaq) (Entered: 07/11/2002)
19 Objections by State defendants to request to inspect. (crc) (Entered: 07/15/2002)

07/15/2002 07/15/2002 07/16/2002 07/17/2002 07/17/2002 07/19/2002 07/19/2002 07/22/2002 07/22/2002 07/24/2002
07/24/2002 07/26/2002
07/29/2002
08/02/2002 08/02/2002 08/06/2002 08/08/2002
08/08/2002 08/12/2002 08/13/2002 08/14/2002 08/14/2002 08/21/2002 08/26/2002

20 MOTION by state defendants to expedite production of docs. (er) (Entered: 07/16/2002)
21 RESPONSE by state defts to [3−1] plas' request for expedited production of docs. (er) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
22 Application for admission of Sarah Hechtman pro hac vice for plas. Fee paid − $100.00 Receipt #491447. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
23 SECOND REQUEST by state defts for expedited production of docs. (er) (Entered: 07/18/2002)
24 RESPONSE by state defts to plas' [3−1] request for expedited production of docs. (er) (Entered: 07/18/2002)
25 Preliminary Report and Discovery Schedule by plas. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
26 REQUEST by state defts for protective order with brief in support. (er) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
27 RESPONSES TO INITIAL DISCLOSURES by state defts. (er) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
28 BRIEF by pla in opposition to [26−1] defts' request for protective order. (er) (Entered: 07/23/2002)
29 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob DENYING [26−1] defts' request for protective order and GRANTING plas' request for a protective order to prevent further obstruction of the shelter inspections. (cc) (er) (Entered: 07/25/2002)
30 REPLY by defts to plas' response to [26−1] their request for protective order (er) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
31 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob, directing the parties to submit a Joint Preliminary Report and Discovery Plan w/in (10) days of the date of entry of this order. [31−1] order to be submitted on 8/9/02 (cc) (er) (Entered: 07/29/2002)
32 ENDORSED ORDER APPROVING [22−1] application of Sarah Hechtman pro hac vice with Jane Okrasinski as local counsel; approved by ct/room depty. (cc) (er) (Entered: 07/30/2002)
33 MOTION by plas for the substitution of a next friend with brief in support. (er) (Entered: 08/05/2002)
Proposed consent protective order by the parties. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 08/05/2002)
34 CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED, signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (cc) (er) (Entered: 08/07/2002)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [20−1] motion to expedite production of docs. by state defts and second request by state defts [23−1] for expedited production of docs. (er) (Entered: 08/08/2002)
35 Notice to take deposition of DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES by plas. (er) (Entered: 08/09/2002)
36 Notice to take deposition of LINDA WINN, THERESA ROTH, and CAROL HUFF by dft Fulton County. (er) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
Terminated submissions. (er) (Entered: 08/13/2002)
37 Certificate of interested persons. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 08/15/2002)
38 JOINT Preliminary Report and Discovery Schedule. (to: MHS) (er) Modified on 08/22/2002 (Entered: 08/15/2002)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [33−1] plas' motion for the substitution of a next friend. (*** file in chambers ***) (er) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
39 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING [33−1] motion for the substitution of a next friend; Theresa Roth is substituted for Alesia Adams as next friend for Phelicia

08/28/2002 08/28/2002 08/28/2002 08/28/2002 09/05/2002 09/06/2002 09/09/2002
09/16/2002 09/17/2002 09/17/2002 09/19/2002 09/19/2002 09/19/2002 09/19/2002 09/23/2002
09/25/2002 09/25/2002 10/02/2002
10/03/2002
10/03/2002

D. (cc) (er) (Entered: 08/27/2002)
40 TRANSCRIPT filed for dates of 6/28/02 Court Reporter: Lois D. Phillips (bsm) (Entered: 08/29/2002)
41 Notice to take deposition of Carol Huff by Fulton County (bsm) (Entered: 08/29/2002)
42 Notice to take deposition of Linda Winn by Fulton County (bsm) (Entered: 08/29/2002)
43 Notice to take deposition of Theresa Roth by Fulton County (bsm) (Entered: 08/29/2002)
44 MOTION by plaintiffs to compel expedited production of docs. with brief and exhibits in support & prop/order. (er) (Entered: 09/06/2002)
45 OBJECTIONS by State defts to the hearing scheduled for 9/9/02. (er) (Entered: 09/09/2002)
46 Motion HEARING held before Judge Marvin H. Shoob [44−1] plas' motion to compel expedited production of docs. taken under advisement. Plas to file motion for prel. inj. & given permission to file 80 pages − defts given 80 pages also. Plas given permission file exhibits UNDER SEAL. (er) Modified on 09/10/2002 (Entered: 09/10/2002)
47 TRANSCRIPT filed RE: for dates of 09/10/02 Court Reporter: LINDA W. BAGGETT − Hearing on pla's motion to compel. (er) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
48 Notice of appearance for defendants by Jefferson James Davis (er) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
49 RESPONSE by State Defts to [44−1] plas' motion to compel expedited production of docs. (er) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [44−1] plas' motion to compel expedited production of docs. (er) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
50 MOTION by plaintiffs for preliminary injunction with brief in support & prop/order. (er) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
51 Notice of filing the declaration of Lynn M. Adam and affidavit of Kevin Parker in support of motion for prel. injunction, dated 9/9/02 by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 09/20/2002)
52 Notice of FILING exhibits in support of motion for prel. injunction by plas. (3 vols.) (vol. 2 & 3 filed *** UNDER SEAL ***) (er) Modified on 09/20/2002 (Entered: 09/20/2002)
53 ENDORSED ORDER on report by Judge Marvin H. Shoob APPROVING [38−1] preliminary statement, GRANTING plas' request for an initial case management conference, at that conference the court will consider plas' request to increase the number of depositions to 50 (cc) (bsm) (Entered: 09/24/2002)
54 MOTION by State Defts for additional time to respond plas' [50−1] motion for preliminary injunction with brief in support. (er) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
55 REPLY MEMORANDUM by plaintiffs in support of their [44−1] motion to compel expedited production of docs. (er) (Entered: 09/26/2002)
57 STATUS CONFERENCE HELD before Judge Marvin H. Shoob. Plas' request to take depositions Granted − Defts allowed the same. Defts to respond to plas' motion for prel. inj. by 11/4/02; Plas to supplement their motion to compel − Defts have (5) days to respond. Prel. inj. hearing set for 11/14/02 at 11:00 a.m. (er) (Entered: 10/07/2002)
56 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob, directing Marilyn Weaver and Rebeca Silvey, to appear and permit the taking of their depositions on Monday 10/07/02 and Tuesday, 10/08/02 at the time and places indicated in defts' third notice of deposition, served on counsel for plas on 10/01/02 (cc) (er) (Entered: 10/03/2002)
58 Attorney appearance for defendants by Winston A. Denmark (er) (Entered: 10/07/2002)

10/04/2002
10/09/2002 10/10/2002 10/15/2002
10/16/2002 10/18/2002
10/18/2002 10/18/2002 10/18/2002 10/31/2002
10/31/2002 11/04/2002 11/04/2002 11/04/2002 11/04/2002 11/04/2002 11/04/2002 11/04/2002 11/04/2002

59 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob AMENDING [56−1] order as follows: Rebeca Silvey, to appear for her deposition on Thursday, October 10, 2002. Marilyn Weaver's replacement as next friend for pla Priscilla G. shall be identified, and her deposition shall take place, as soon as possible. (cc) (er) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [54−1] State Defts' motion for additional time to respond plas' [50−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (*** file in chambers ***) (er) (Entered: 10/09/2002)
Steno notes of proceedings held 9/9/02 before Judge Marvin H. Shoob by Court Reporter Linda W. Baggett. (bsm) (Entered: 10/10/2002)
60 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING [44−1] pla's motion to compel expedited production of docs. & directing defts to produce the docs. described w/in (3) days of the date of entry of this order. The parties shall bear their own costs incurred in connection with the motion. (cc) (er) (Entered: 10/16/2002)
61 MOTION by State Defts for reconsideration and for clarification of [60−1] order granting plas' request for motion to compel (er) (Entered: 10/17/2002)
62 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART [61−1] defts' motion for reconsideration and [61−2] for clarification of [60−1] order granting plas' request for expedited production of docs. (cc) (er) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
63 MOTION by plas for the substitution of a next friend with brief in support. (er) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
64 RESPONSE by plas to State Defts' [61−1] motion for reconsideration and [61−2] for clarification of [60−1] order granting plas' request for motion to compel. (er) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
65 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING [63−1] plas' motion for the substitution of a next friend; Roslyn M. Satchel is substituted for Marilyn Weaver as Next Friend for Priscilla G. (cc) (er) (Entered: 10/21/2002)
66 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob, directing the parties to consult regarding the issues raised to reach agreement; any matters that cannot be resolved by agreement, the Court DIRECT plas to file a motion by 4:00p.m., 11/4/02, setting forth each unresolved issue and stating plas' proposed resolution; Dfts shall have until 3:00 p.m., 11/7/02, to file their response. [66−1] order to be submitted on 11/7/02 (cc) (er) (Entered: 10/31/2002)
76 Application for admission of Erik S. Pitchal pro hac vice for plas. Fee Paid − Receipt # 496614. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
67 RESPONSE by dft DeKalb County to plas' [50−1] motion for preliminary injunction (er) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
68 RESPONSE by dft Fulton County to plas' [50−1] motion for preliminary injunction (er) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
69 Notice of Attorney appearance for defts Roy Barnes, Department of Human, James Martin, Family & Children Sv, Beverly Jones, DeKalb County DFCS, Wayne Drummond by Mark Howard Cohen (er) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
70 MOTION by State Defts to dismiss with brief in support. (er) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
71 MOTION by State Defts to exceed page limitation for brief in support of their motion to dismiss with brief in support. (er) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
72 BRIEF by State Defts in opposition to plas' [50−1] motion for preliminary injunction. (er) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
73 EXHIBITS in support of State Defts' brief in opposition to plas' motion for preliminary injunction. (er) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
74 MOTION by plas in limine in connection with hearing on motion for preliminary injunction with brief in support. (er) (Entered: 11/05/2002)

11/04/2002
11/05/2002 11/06/2002 11/06/2002 11/07/2002
11/07/2002 11/08/2002
11/08/2002 11/08/2002 11/08/2002
11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002
11/12/2002 11/12/2002 11/12/2002
11/13/2002
11/13/2002
11/13/2002 11/13/2002 11/13/2002

75 Notice of filing VOL IV (Exhibits 80−98) by plas in support of motion in limine and in further support of motion for preliminary injunction. (*** UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 11/06/2002)
77 SUPPLEMENT TO INITIAL DISCLOSURES by State Defts. (er) Modified on 11/07/2002 (Entered: 11/07/2002)
78 MOTION by dft DeKalb County to dismiss with brief in support. (er) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
79 Attorney appearance for plaintiff s by Jeffrey O. Bramlett and Corey Fleming Hirokawa (er) (Entered: 11/07/2002)
80 RESPONSE by dft DeKalb County to plas' [74−1] motion in limine in connection with hearing on motion for preliminary injunction (er) Modified on 11/08/2002 (Entered: 11/08/2002)
81 RESPONSE by State Defts to [66−1] order and to [74−1] plas' motion in limine in connection with hearing on motion for prel. inj. (er) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [74−1] plas' motion in limine in connection with hearing on motion for preliminary injunction. (*** file in chambers ***) (er) (Entered: 11/08/2002)
82 RESPONSE by dft Fulton County to [74−1] plas' motion in limine in connection with hearing on motion for prel. inj. (er) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
83 SUPPLEMENT TO ANSWERS TO INITIAL DISCLOSURES by dft Fulton County (er) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
84 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART [74−1] plas' motion in limine in connection with hearing on motion for preliminary injunction. (cc) (er) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
85 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW by plas in further support of [50−1] plas' motion for preliminary injunction. (er) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
86 Notice of intent to introduce Stone Mountain Police Department call logs, dated from January, 2002 to the present by plas. (er) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
87 Notice of the original affidavits of service of supboenas on Dr. Roy Quincy Sanders, Bridget Greene, Sharron Holmes, Judge Sanford Jones, Normer Adams, Judge Robin Nash, Officer Justin Lykins, M.B.(under seal) and H.L.(under seal) by plas. (er) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
The original affidavits of service of subpoenas on M.B. and H.L. [87−1] were filed *** under seal *** (er) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
88 Notice of original deposition transcripts of Wayne Brummond(2 vols); Sarah Motton; Beverly W. Jones; and Wayne McLean by plas. (er) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
89 Depositions of WAYNE DRUMMOND(2 vols.); SARAH MOTTON; BEVERLY W. JONES; and WAYNE MCLEAN(2 vols.) by plas. (*** UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 11/13/2002)
90 MOTION by dft Fulton County (Judge Sanford Jones) to quash subpoena and for protective order with brief in support. (er) Modified on 11/14/2002 (Entered: 11/14/2002)
91 ENDORSED ORDER APPROVING [76−1] application of Erik S. Pitchal pro hac vice with Don Keenan as local counsel; approved by ct/room depty. (cc) (er) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
92 Notice of intent to introduce City of Atlanta Police Department call logs, dated from January, 2002 thru October, 2002 by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
93 MOTION by plaintiffs to use equipment at hearing (er) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
94 Notice of filing original deposition transcript of Richard M. Lutz, ACSW by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 11/14/2002)

11/13/2002 11/13/2002 11/14/2002 11/14/2002 11/14/2002 11/14/2002
11/14/2002 11/14/2002 11/14/2002 11/15/2002 11/18/2002 11/18/2002
11/19/2002 11/19/2002 11/19/2002 11/19/2002
11/25/2002
11/25/2002 11/26/2002 11/29/2002

95 Deposition of RICHARD M. LUTZ, ACSW taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
96 MOTION by State Defts in limine to exclude testimony with brief and exhibit in support. (*** EXHIBITS, 2 envs. filed UNDER SEAL ***) (er) Modified on 11/29/2002 (Entered: 11/14/2002)
97 Notice of filing of affidavit of KEITH CHADWELL by dft Fulton County. (er) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
98 Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding plas' motion for preliminary injunction by dft Fulton County. (er) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
99 Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by plas. (er) (Entered: 11/15/2002)
104 Motion HEARING held before Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [50−1] plas' motion for preliminary injunction; Defts' [96−1] motion in limine granted in part and denied in part. Plas' exhibits 106, 47, 48, 107, & 108 ADMITTED. Defts' exhibits 2, 20, 3 and 3A ADMITTED. (er) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
105 Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by State Defts. (er) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
106 Witness list by defts. (er) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
107 Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by defendant DeKalb County DFCS (er) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
108 Motion HEARING held before Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [50−1] plas' motion for preliminary injunction, continued. Plaintiffs' exhibits ADMITTED. Defts' exhibits ADMITTED. (er) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
103 MOTION by State Defts to compel discovery (er) (Entered: 11/21/2002)
109 Motion HEARING held before Judge Marvin H. Shoob [50−1] on plas' motion for preliminary injunction, continued. Plas and Defts' exhibits ADMITTED. Oral motion to dismiss by State Defts; DENIED. County defts also made motion to dismiss − The Court reserved ruling. (er) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
100 MOTION by plaintiffs to file their memo of law in opposition to State Defts' motion to dismiss in excess pages limit (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
101 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by plaintiffs in opposition to [70−1] State Defts' motion to dismiss (er) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
102 TRANSCRIPT filed RE: for dates of 11/14/02 Court Reporter: C. MONTRELL VANN (**preliminary injunction on 11/14/02**) (er) (Entered: 11/20/2002)
110 Motion HEARING held before Judge Marvin H. Shoob [50−1] on plas' motion for preliminary injunction, continued. Plas call rebuttal witness Donald DeVore (already sworn). Dft exhibits ADMITTED. Exhibit # 11 returned to counsel. EXHIBITS retained by the Court. Closing arguments made by counsel. Each party has until 12/02/02 to supplement their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. (er) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [70−1] State Defts' motion to dismiss; [71−1] State Defts' motion to exceed page limitation for brief in support of their motion to dismiss and Dekalb County's [78−1] motion to dismiss. (*** file in chambers ***) (er) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
111 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by plaintiffs in opposition to [78−1] dft Dekalb County's motion to dismiss (er) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
112 TRANSCRIPT filed RE: for dates of 11/18/02 Court Reporter: C. MONTRELL VANN (er) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
Steno notes of proceedings held 11/14/02 before Judge Marvin H. Shoob, by Court Reporter C. MONTRELL VANN. (er) (Entered: 12/02/2002)

11/29/2002 11/29/2002 12/02/2002 12/02/2002 12/02/2002 12/02/2002 12/03/2002 12/04/2002 12/05/2002
12/05/2002 12/06/2002 12/06/2002 12/09/2002 12/10/2002 12/10/2002 12/11/2002 12/12/2002
12/12/2002 12/16/2002

Steno notes of proceedings held 11/18/02 before Judge Marvin H. Shoob, by Court Reporter C.MONTRELL VANN. (er) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
113 TRANSCRIPT filed RE: for dates of 11/19/02 Court Reporter: LOIS D. PHILLIPS (er) (Entered: 12/02/2002)
114 REVISED Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by State Defts. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
115 AMENDED AND SUPPLEMENTAL Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding plas' motion for prel. injunction. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
116 UNOPPOSED MOTION by plas for an extension of time until 12/06/02 to respond to dft Fulton County's [90−2] motion for protective order . (no prop/order) (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
117 SUPPLEMENTAL POST−HEARING Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by plas. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
118 Notice of filing and supplement to the record regarding juvenile court order by State Defts. (er) (Entered: 12/04/2002)
119 REPLY BRIEF by State Defts in support of their [70−1] motion to dismiss. (er) (Entered: 12/05/2002)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on dft Fulton County's [90−1] motion to quash subpoena and [90−2] for protective order, plas' [93−1] motion to use equipment at hearing, plas' [103−1] motion to compel discovery, and plas' [100−1] motion to file their memo of law in opposition to State Defts' motion to dismiss in excess limit. (*** file in chamebrs ***) (er) (Entered: 12/05/2002)
120 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by plas in opposition to [103−1] State Defts' motion to compel discovery (er) (Entered: 12/06/2002)
121 MOTION by plaintiffs for extension of time thru 12/20/02 to respond to Fulton County's [90−2] motion for protective order . (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
122 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING [116−1] plas' unopposed motion for an extension of time until 12/06/02 to respond to dft County's [90−2] motion for protective order (cc) (er) (Entered: 12/10/2002)
123 MOTION by plaintiffs to strike portions of State Defts' revised [114−1] proposed findings of fact and State Defts [118−1] supplement to the record. (er) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
124 MOTION by plaintiffs to substitute [117−1] revised proposed order (er) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
Proposed order granting [50−1] plas' motion for preliminary injunction. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 12/11/2002)
125 MEMORANDUM by State Defts in opposition to plas' [123−1] motion to strike portions of State Defts' revised [114−1] proposed findings of fact and supplement to the record. (er) (Entered: 12/12/2002)
126 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE plas' [50−1] motion for prel. injunction; DENYING [123−1] plas' motion to strike portions of State Defts' revised [114−1] proposed findings of fact and State Defts [118−1] to the record; GRANTING [124−1] plas' motion to substitute [117−1] revised proposed order; and DIRECTING the parties confer and report w/in (60) days of the date of entry of this order regarding a proposed date for a final hrg. on plas' request for a permanent injunction. (cc) (er) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
127 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING [121−1] plas' motion for extension of time thru 12/20/02 to respond to Fulton County's [90−2] motion for protective order (cc) (er) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
128 MOTION by plaintiffs leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in further support of their motion for class certification (the suppl. memo.) in excess page limit (er) (Entered: 12/17/2002)

12/16/2002 12/16/2002 12/18/2002 12/19/2002
12/19/2002 12/20/2002 12/20/2002
12/26/2002 12/30/2002 12/30/2002 12/30/2002 12/31/2002 12/31/2002 01/02/2003
01/02/2003 01/03/2003
01/06/2003 01/06/2003 01/07/2003
01/07/2003

129 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to supplement plas' motion for class certification and memorandum of law filed in support thereof (er) (Entered: 12/17/2002)
Proposed supplemental motion for class certification with supplemental memorandum of law in further support by plas. (er) (Entered: 12/17/2002)
Steno notes of proceedings held 11/1/02 before Judge J. O. Forrester, by Court Reporter Lois D. Phillips. (adg) (Entered: 12/18/2002)
130 UNOPPOSED MOTION by State Defts for extension of time to respond to [129−1] plas' supplemental motion for class certification and memorandum of law filed in support thereof with prop/order. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
131 REPLY by defendant Dekalb County to plas' memorandum of law in opposition to their [78−1] motion to dismiss (er) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
132 BRIEF by plaintiffs in opposition to [90−2] Fulton County's motion for protective order (er) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
133 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING unopposed State Defts' [130−1] motion for extension of time thru 01/10/03 to respond to [129−1] plas' supplemental motion for class certification (cc) (er) (Entered: 12/23/2002)
134 MOTION by plaintiffs to exceed twenty−five interrogs. with prop/interrogs. (er) (Entered: 12/30/2002)
135 MOTION by defendant DeKalb County to extend time for filing motion for sum. jgm. (er) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
136 MOTION by defendant Fulton County for summary judgment with brief & stmt. in support. (er) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
137 REQUEST by defendant Fulton County for filing original sealed deposition transcripts of Linda Winn. (er) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
Notice to respond to [136−1] motion for summary judgment mailed to counsel (er) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
138 STATUS REPORT by State Defts. (er) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
139 MOTION by defts Fulton County, Ga and DeKalb County for extension of time to respond to plas' [129−1] supplemental motion for class certification (er) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
140 MOTION by plaintiffs for status conference with memorandum in support. (er) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
141 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file their first amended complaint to add an additional claim to their cause of action under the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act with brief in support & prop/amended cmp. (er) Modified on 08/21/2003 (Entered: 01/06/2003)
142 MOTION by State Defts for protective order with brief in support. AND (er) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
142 OPPOSITION by State Defts to plas' [134−1] motion to exceed twenty−five interrogs. (er) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
143 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING the County Defts' [139−1] motion for extension of time to respond to plas' [129−1] supplemental motion for class certification (cc) (er) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
144 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING plaintiffs' [128−1] motion to file a 40−page sppl brief in support of their motion for class certification. Dfts are authorized to file responses to the motion for class certification up to 40 pages in length. Dft DeKalb County's [135−1] motion to extend time for filing motion for sum. jgm. to 30 days after the expiration of the discovery period is GRANTED. (cc) (dfb) (Entered: 01/08/2003)

01/07/2003
01/10/2003 01/10/2003
01/10/2003 01/10/2003 01/10/2003 01/13/2003 01/17/2003 01/22/2003
01/27/2003 01/30/2003
01/30/2003 02/06/2003 02/06/2003 02/14/2003 02/14/2003 02/18/2003 02/18/2003 02/20/2003 02/20/2003
03/05/2003
03/25/2003

145 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob extending discovery period until 4/7/03 ; GRANTING plas' [134−1] motion to exceed twenty−five interrogatories; denying as moot plas' [140−1] motion for status conference and DENYING State dfts' [142−1] motion for protective order and ORDERING State dfts to respond to plas' 3rd and 4th requests. (cc) (dfb) (Entered: 01/08/2003)
146 REPLY BRIEF by dft Fulton County Judge Sanford in support of [90−2] motion for protective order (er) (Entered: 01/14/2003)
147 RESPONSE by dft DeKalb County in opposition to plas' supplemental memorandum of law in further support of plas' [129−1] motion for class certification. (er) (Entered: 01/14/2003)
148 BRIEF by State Defts in opposition to plas' [129−1] motion for class certification. (er) (Entered: 01/14/2003)
149 Notice of Withdrawal of [136−1] motion for summary judgment by dft Fulton County. (er) (Entered: 01/14/2003)
150 RESPONSE by dft Fulton County to plas' [129−1] motion for leave to supplement plas' motion for class certification (er) (Entered: 01/14/2003)
Steno notes of proceedings held 10/01/02 before Judge Marvin H. Shoob, by Court Reporter DONNA KEEBLE. (er) (Entered: 01/15/2003)
151 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by State Defts in opposition to [141−1] plas' motion for leave to file their first amended complaint. (er) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on plas' [129−1] motion for leave to supplement plas' motion for class certification memorandum of law filed in support thereof and [141−1] plas' motion for leave to file their first amended complaint. (file in chambers) (er) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
152 Notice of supplemental authority by plaintiffs. (ck) (Entered: 01/30/2003)
153 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file a reply memorandum of law in further support of their motion for class certification in excess of the fifteen page limit (er) (Entered: 01/31/2003)
154 REPLY MEMORANDUM by plas in further support of plas' motion for class certification [129−1] (er) (Entered: 01/31/2003)
155 Notice of service of discovery by plaintiffs. (ck) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
156 Reply brief to [141−1] motion for leave to file their first amended complaint by plaintiffs. (ck) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
157 REPORT pursuant to 12/12/02 Order by State Defts. (er) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
158 STATUS REPORT pursuant to 12/12/02 Court's Order by plas. (er) (Entered: 02/18/2003)
159 RESPONSE by State Defts to plas' [158−1] status report (er) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
160 STATUS REPORT by State Defts on Dekalb County Emergency Shelter. (er) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
161 CONSENT ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob, directing production of records for expert review and protective order (cc) (er) (Entered: 02/21/2003)
162 CONSENT ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob, that with agreement of the parties, the deadlines contained in 1/7/03 Court's Order are extended as outlined for responses to disc. & disc. is extended thru 6/30/03 (cc) (er) (Entered: 02/21/2003)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [153−1] plas' motion for leave to file a reply memorandum of law in further support of their motion for class certification in excess of the fifteen page limit. (*** file in chambers ***) (er) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
Terminated submissions. (aar) (Entered: 03/25/2003)

03/27/2003 05/08/2003 05/12/2003 05/15/2003 05/23/2003 06/05/2003 06/05/2003 06/09/2003 06/09/2003 06/11/2003 06/13/2003 06/23/2003 06/24/2003 06/24/2003 06/24/2003 06/27/2003 06/27/2003 06/27/2003
06/27/2003 06/27/2003

163 NOTICE of supplemental authority by State Defts in support of its opposition to plas' [129−1] motion for for class certification. (er) (Entered: 03/31/2003)
Proposed consent order and protective order (to MHS) (bsm) (Entered: 05/09/2003)
164 CONSENT ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob, DIRECTING the production of named plaintiff records & other specifically identified records for expert review; and for protective order (cc) (ck) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
165 Notice of supplemental authority in support of defendants' motion to dismiss and opposition to plaintiffs' motion for class certification (bsm) (Entered: 05/16/2003)
166 MOTION by plaintiffs to file supplemental brief in further opposition to state defts' motion to dismiss with prop/suppl. brief. (er) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
167 RESPONSE by State Defts to plas' [166−1] motion to file supplemental brief in further opposition to state defts' motion to dismiss (er) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
168 MOTION by State Defts for extension of disc. period and for entry of scheduling order with brief & exhibist in support. (er) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
169 Objections and responses to plas' subpoena for production of documents by the Office of the Child Advocate of the State of Georgia (not a party to this action) (er) (Entered: 06/10/2003)
170 Application for admission of Douglas C. Gray pro hac vice for plaintiffs: Fee Paid − Receipt #506692. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
171 BRIEF by plas IN OPPOSITION TO State Defts' [168−1] motion for extension of disc. period and for entry of scheduling order and for entry of scheduling order with EXHIBITS in support. (er) Modified on 07/08/2003 (Entered: 06/13/2003)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [166−1] plas' motion to file supplemental brief in further opposition to state defts' motion to dismiss. (*** file in chambers ***) (er) (Entered: 06/13/2003)
172 REPLY BRIEF by State Defts in support of [168−1] their motion for extension of disc. period and for entry of scheduling order. (er) Modified on 07/08/2003 (Entered: 06/24/2003)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [168−1] motion for extension of disc. period and for entry of scheduling order by the State Defts. (*** file in chambers ***) (er) (Entered: 06/24/2003)
173 ENDORSED ORDER APPROVING [170−1] application of Douglas C. Gray pro hac vice with Jeffrey O. Bramlett as local counsel; approved by ct/room/depty clerk. (cc) (er) Modified on 07/08/2003 (Entered: 06/25/2003)
174 REPONSE by Countty Defts, Fulton County, Ga and Dekalb County Ga to [168−1] State Defts' motion for extension of disc. period and for entry of scheduling order (er) Modified on 07/08/2003 (Entered: 06/26/2003)
175 BRIEF by plaintiffs in opposition to the County Defts' response to [168−1] their motion for extension of disc. period (er) Modified on 07/08/2003 (Entered: 07/02/2003)
176 MOTION by plaintiff to compel production of child advocate attorneys' case files for the named plas with brief in support. (er) Modified on 07/08/2003 (Entered: 07/02/2003)
177 Notice of filing & request to file original discovery by plaintiffs. (plas' fifth and sixth request for prod. of docs. and depos. transcripts of Mary Hermann, Dorothy Murphy, Michael Wilson, and Gregory Adams) (er) Modified on 07/08/2003 (Entered: 07/02/2003)
178 Deposition of DOROTHY V. MURPHY taken for plaintiffs. (er) Modified on 07/08/2003 (Entered: 07/02/2003)
179 Deposition of MARY D. HERMANN taken for plaintiffs. (er) Modified on 07/08/2003 (Entered: 07/02/2003)

06/27/2003 06/27/2003 07/08/2003
07/17/2003 07/17/2003 07/17/2003 07/22/2003 07/22/2003 07/22/2003 07/22/2003 07/24/2003 07/31/2003 08/01/2003 08/11/2003 08/18/2003
08/20/2003

180 Deposition of MICHAEL WILSON taken for plaintiffs. (er) Modified on 07/08/2003 (Entered: 07/02/2003)
181 Deposition of GREGORY A. ADAMS taken for plaintiffs. (er) Modified on 07/08/2003 (Entered: 07/02/2003)
182 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART [168−1] the State Defts' motion for extension of disc. period and for entry of scheduling order and DENYING [173−1] the County Defts' request that they not be subject to any extension of discovery. Motions for sum. jgm. due 2/20/04; response briefs due 3/15/04; and reply briefs due 4/1/03. (see order for more details of the scheduling order) Discovery ends 10/31/03 (cc) (er) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
183 RESPONSE by defendant DeKalb County to [176−1] plas' motion to compel production of child advocate attorneys' case files for the named plas (er) Modified on 07/18/2003 (Entered: 07/18/2003)
184 RESPONSE by defendant Fulton County to plas' [176−1] motion to compel production of child advocate attorneys' case files for the named plas (er) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
185 Privilege log by by defendant Fulton County. (er) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
186 MOTION by plaintiffs for order authorizing depositions upon written questions and for protective order with brief in support & prop/order. (er) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
187 Notice of filing and request to file original discovery by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
188 Notice of filing the original deposition transcript of Edward J. Fuller by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
189 Deposition of EDWARD J. FULLER taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [176−1] pla's motion to compel production of child advocate attorneys' case files for the named plas. (*** file in chambers ***) (er) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
190 RESPONSE by State Defts to plas' [186−1] motion for order authorizing depositions upon written questions and [186−2] for protective order (er) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
191 REPLY MEMORANDUM by plas in further support of their [176−1] motion to compel production of child advocate attorneys' case files for the named plas (er) (Entered: 08/05/2003)
192 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob, authorizing depositions on written questions and protective order (cc) (er) (Entered: 08/12/2003)
193 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART [70−1] State Defts' motion to dismiss and [78−1] dft Dekalb County's motion to dismiss; motions to dismiss are GRANTED with respect to Count XI of the cmp and all other claims relating to the operation of the Fulton County and Dekalb County emergency shelters; therefore, these claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. The motions to dismss are DENIED in all other respects. GRANTING [71−1] State Defts' motion to exceed page limitation for brief in support of their motion to dismiss; DENYING AS MOOT [90−1] [90−2] dft Fulton County's motion to quash subpoena anf for protectice order; GRANTING plas' unopposed [100−1] motion to extend page DENYING AS MOOT [103−1] State Defts' motion to compel; GRANTING [129−1] plas' motion for leave to supplement motion for class certification; GRANTING [129−1] plas' supplemental motion for class certification; GRANTING [141−1] plas' motion for leave to file their first amended cmp; which shall be deemed filed as of the date of entry of this order; GRANTING [153−1] plas' motion to extend page limit; and GRANTING [166−1] plas' motion to file supplemental brief in further opposition to State Defts' motion to dismiss. (cc) (er) Modified on 08/20/2003 (Entered: 08/19/2003)
194 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by plaintiffs. (er) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/9/2004 (dgs). (Entered: 08/21/2003)

08/22/2003
08/22/2003
08/26/2003 08/28/2003 08/28/2003 08/29/2003 08/29/2003 09/02/2003 09/04/2003 09/04/2003 09/04/2003 09/04/2003 09/04/2003 09/05/2003
09/09/2003 09/09/2003 09/11/2003 09/11/2003 09/22/2003

195 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob, conference set for 8/29/03 @ 2:00 p.m.; the conference will be strictly limited to discussion of issues relating to counsel's representation of the class; if defense counsel have any objections to a conference, they should communicate their objections no later than 8/27/03 (cc) (er) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
196 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING [176−1] plas' motion to compel prod. of child advocate attorneys' case files for the named plas; DIRECTING the County Defts to produce the requested files w/in (10) days of the date of entry of this orders; DIRECTING the parties to submit a consent protective order to the Court prior to the prod. of the files; AWARDING plas their expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, in bringing the motion; and DIRECTING plas' to file an affidavit establishing the amount of such fees and expenses within (10) days of the date of entry of this order, after service of which the County Defts shall have (10) days to respond. [196−1]order to be submitted on 9/25/03 (cc) (er) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
197 RESPONSE by State Defts to [196−1] Court's order of 8/22/03. (er) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
198 Substitution of Counsel for defts by Carmen R. Alexander replacing Patricia A. Chandler. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
199 RESPONSE by plaintiffs to State Defts objections to ex parte hearing on class representation. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
200 STATUS CONFERENCE HELD before Judge Marvin H. Shoob pursuant to 8/22/03 order. Lead counsel for plas directed to prepare order, removing Don Keenan as counsel for plas. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
201 REPLY by State Defts in support of their [197−1] objection to ex parte conference on class representation. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2003)
202 TRANSCRIPT filed RE: for dates of 08/29/03 Court Reporter: ELISE SMITH EVANS (motion to remove counsel) − (er) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
EXHIBITS by defendants PLACED IN THE EXHIBIT ROOM. (#s: 1, 2, 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 3, 3A, 4 thru 10, 10A, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19, and 21) (er) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
EXHIBITS by plaintiffs PLACED IN THE EXHIBIT ROOM. (#s: 1, 7, 9 thru 19, 21 thru 35, 38 thru 50, 52, thru 63, 65 thru 79, 82 thru 97, 99 thru 110, and 112 thru 120) (er) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
203 MOTION by plaintiffs for expenses and attorneys' fees (er) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
204 Notice of filing original affidavit of Jeffrey O. Bramlett by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
Proposed protective order. (to MHS) (ck) (Entered: 09/10/2003)
205 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING the request of co−lead counsel for plas that Keenan be removed as counsel; RELIEVING Don C. Keenan and Keenan Kids law Center, Inc. of any further responsibility as counsel for plas; and DIRECTING the Clerk to remove their names form the docket as counsel for plas. (cc) (er) (Entered: 09/08/2003)
Don C. Keenan and Keenan Kids Law Center, Inc. and the name of Jane Okrasinski have been removed from the docket pursuant to [205−1] order filed 9/5/03. (er) (Entered: 09/09/2003)
206 MOTION by defendant Fulton County for reconsideration of [196−1] order with brief in support. (lme) (Entered: 09/12/2003)
207 PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (cc) (lme) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
208 RESPONSE by the Keenan's Kids Law Center to the [205−1] Court's order of 9/5/03 removing it from the captioned case. (er) (Entered: 09/16/2003)
210 OPPOSITION by defendant Fulton County to [203−1] plas' application for expenses and [203−2] attorneys' fees (er) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

09/23/2003
09/25/2003 09/25/2003 09/25/2003 09/25/2003 09/30/2003
10/01/2003 10/09/2003 10/17/2003 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/28/2003 10/30/2003 11/03/2003 11/20/2003
11/26/2003
12/04/2003 12/08/2003 12/15/2003 12/16/2003 12/22/2003 01/05/2004

209 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob responding to Don C. keenand and Keenan's Kids Law Center, Inc.'s [208−1] respond to the Order of 9/5/03. (cc) (er) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
211 Notice to take deposition of WILFRED HAMM by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
212 Notice to take deposition of PATRICIA WALKER by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
213 Notice to take deposition of JUNITA BLOUNT−CLARK by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
214 Notice to take deposition of BEVERLY JONES by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [203−1] plas' motion for expenses and [203−2] attorneys' fees, [206−1] motion reconsideration of [196−1] order by dft Fulton County. (*** file in chambers ***) (er) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
215 Notice to take deposition of WAYNE DRUMMOND, FORREST BURSON, and JIM MARTIN by plas. (er) (Entered: 10/02/2003)
216 REPLY BRIEF by plas in further support of [203−1] application for expenses and [203−2] attorneys' fees. (er) (Entered: 10/14/2003)
217 Attorney appearance for defendant Fulton County by Andrew George MacKenzie (er) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
218 Notice to take deposition of DEKALB COUNTY by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
219 NOTICE of issuance of subpoenas by plaintiffs. (request the Georgia Office of the Child Advocate to produce docs. on or before 10/31/03) (er) (Entered: 10/23/2003)
220 NOTICE of issuance of supoenas duces tecum by plaintiffs. (request the parties listed on such subpoenas to produce docs. on or before 10/31/03) (er) (Entered: 10/23/2003)
221 OBJECTIONS and responses to plas' second subpoena for production of docs. by movant Office of the Child Advocate. (er) (Entered: 10/29/2003)
222 Objections by movant Devereux Georgia to [220−1] non−party subpoena from plas. (er) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
Steno notes of proceedings held 08/29/03 before Judge Marvin H. Shoob , by Court Reporter Elise S. Evans. (lm) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
223 MOTION by the parties for entry of consent order adjusting one aspect of the pretrial schedule established in order of 7/8/03 with prop/consent order. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 11/21/2003)
224 CONSENT ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING [223−1] motion for entry of consent order adjusting one aspect of the pretrial schedule established in order of 7/8/03 (cc) (er) (Entered: 12/02/2003)
225 Certificate of service of discovery by plas. (er) (Entered: 12/08/2003)
226 Notice of service of discovery by plas. (er) (Entered: 12/09/2003)
227 Certificate of service of discovery by the State Defts: First request for production of docs. relating to experts. (er) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
Proposed consent protective order by the parties. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 12/18/2003)
228 CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED; signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (cc) (er) (Entered: 12/23/2003)
229 Certificate of service as to plaintiffs: plas' thirteenth request for production of docs. (er) (Entered: 01/07/2004)

01/06/2004 01/07/2004 01/07/2004 01/08/2004 01/08/2004 01/13/2004
02/11/2004 02/11/2004
02/17/2004
02/17/2004 02/20/2004 02/20/2004 02/20/2004 02/20/2004 02/20/2004 02/20/2004 02/25/2004 02/25/2004 03/01/2004 03/04/2004
03/11/2004 03/12/2004

230 Certificate of service as to State Defts: State Defts' responses and objections to plas' eleventh request for production of docs. (er) (Entered: 01/07/2004)
231 Certificate of service of disc. by plas: ntc of deposition of Robert McKeagney and ntc of deposition of Charlene Ingram. (er) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
232 Certificate of service of disc. by State Defts: Responses and objections to plas' Twelfth request for production of docs. (er) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
233 Notice to take deposition of PEG HESS, CATHY R. SMITH, JESSIE K. RASMUSSEN, and JOHN GOAD by State Defts. (er) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
234 Certificate of service of discovery by State Defts: Responses and objections to plas' thirteenth request for production of docs. (er) (Entered: 01/09/2004)
235 Certificate of service by plas: plas' response to State Defts' first request for production of docs. relating to experts and notice of deposition of Robert McKeagney. (er) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
236 MOTION by defendant DeKalb County to extend time for filing motion for sum. jgm. (er) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
237 Substitution of Counsel for dft DeKalb County. Winston A. Denmark and Elizabeth B. Taylor replacing attorney Vivica Mitchell Brown for dft DeKalb County. (er) (Entered: 02/13/2004)
238 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING [236−1] dft Dekalb County's motion to extend time for filing motion for sum. jgm.; is extended until 3/12/04. (cc) (er) (Entered: 02/18/2004)
239 MOTION by defendant Fulton County to file excess pages limitation with prop/order. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 02/20/2004)
240 MOTION by defendant Fulton County for summary judgment with brief; affidavits & stmt. in support. (er) Modified on 02/25/2004 (Entered: 02/25/2004)
241 Notice of filing and request plas to file original depos. by defendant Fulton County. (depositions by dft filed 12/30/2002) (er) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
242 MOTION by State Defts to exceed page limitation for memo. of law in support of their motion for sum. jgm. (er) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
243 MOTION by State Defts for summary judgment with brief & statements in support. (er) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
244 APPENDIX (3 vols.) by State Defts in support of their [243−1] motion for summary judgment (er) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
245 Notice of filing original affidavits and request for filing original discovery by State Defts. (er) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
Notice to response to [240−1] motion for summary judgment mailed to counsels. (er) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
Notice to respond to [243−1] motion for summary judgment mailed to counsel. (er) (Entered: 02/25/2004)
246 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING [239−1] dft Fulton County Government's motion to file excess pages limitation (cc) (er) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
247 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob, that plas shall have until 4/5/04 to respond to the [240−1] [248−1] motions for sum. jgm. filed by defts Fulton County and Dekalb County. Defts shall have until 4/22/04 to file their respective reply briefs in support of their motions for sum. jgm. [240−1] [243−1] motions for sum. jgm. to be submitted on 4/23/04 (cc) (er) Modified on 04/08/2004 (Entered: 03/05/2004)
Proposed consent order for plas to respond to the [240−1] [248−1] motions for sum. jgm. (to: MHS) (er) Modified on 04/08/2004 (Entered: 03/16/2004)
248 MOTION by defendant DeKalb County for summary judgment with brief & stmt. in support. (er) (Entered: 03/16/2004)

03/16/2004 03/16/2004 03/18/2004 04/05/2004 04/05/2004 04/05/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004
04/05/2004
04/05/2004 04/05/2004 04/05/2004 04/09/2004
04/16/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004

Notice to respond to [248−1] motion for summary judgment mailed to to counsel. (er) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
249 Certificate of service as to State Defts: second supplemental response to plas' first interrogs. to State Defts. (er) (Entered: 03/20/2004)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [242−1] State Defts' motion to exceed page limitation for memo. of law in support of their motion for sum. jgm. (*** file in chambers ***) (er) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
250 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend page limi on plaintiffs' response to state defendants' motion for sum.jgm. with brief in support. (bsm) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
251 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend page limitation for response to county defendants' motions for sum.jgm. with brief in support. (bsm) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
252 Consolidated RESPONSE by plaintiffs to [240−1] [248−1] Defts Fulton County and Dekalb ("County Defts") Rule 56.1 statement and statement of material facts as to which there remain genuine issues to be tried. (er) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
253 APPENDIX of exhibits in support of plas' consolidated brief in opposition to [240−1] [248−1] defts Fulton County and Dekalb County's motions for sum. jgm. (2 vols.) (** Volume 1: exhs. 1−19 and Volume 2: exhs. 20−34**) (er) Modified on 04/08/2004 (Entered: 04/08/2004)
254 STATEMENT of material facts as to which there remain genuine issues to be tried in opposition to [243−1] State Defts' motion for sum. jgm. by plas. (er) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
255 APPENDIX of exhibits by plaintiffs in support of their memorandum of law in opposition to State Defts' [243−1] motion for sum. jgm. (4 volumes) (** Volume 1: exhs. 1−9; Volume 2: exhs. 10−25; Volume 3: 26−75; & Volume 4: 76−178) (er) Modified on 04/08/2004 (Entered: 04/08/2004)
256 APPENDIX of exhibits by plaintiffs in support of their consolidated brief in opposition to [240−1] [248−1] County Defts' motions for sum. jgm. (** Volume 1: exhs. 20, 28, 29, 30, 33, and 34 **) (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
257 APPENDIX of exhibits by plaintiffs in support of their memorandum of law in opposition to [243−1] State Defts' motion for sum. jgm. and statement of material facts. (** Volume 1: exhs. 2, 16, 17, 28, 73, 75, 86, 88, 114, 115, 118, 133, 136, 162−164, and 167−172 **) (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
258 Notice of filing original discovery: the original affidavit of Jackie A. Hogan by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/08/2004)
260 CONSOLIDATED BRIEF by plaintiffs in opposition to [240−1] [248−1] County defts' motions for sum. jgm. (er) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
261 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by plaintiffs in opposition [243−1] to State Defts' motion for sum. jgm. (er) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
259 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING [242−1] the State Defts' motion to exceed page limitation for memo. of law in support of their motion for sum. jgm., GRANTING [250−1] plas' motion to extend page limit on their response to state defendants' motion sum.jgm., and GRANTING [251−1] plas' motion to extend page limit on their response to County defendants' motions for sum.jgm. (cc) (er) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
262 CONSENT ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob that State Defts shall have until 5/7/04 to file their reply to plas' brief in opposition to their [243−1] motion for sum. jgm. (cc) (er) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
263 Notice of filing original discovery by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
264 Deposition of SARAH G. BROWNLEE taken for plaintiffs. (er) Modified on 04/22/2004 (Entered: 04/21/2004)

04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/22/2004
04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/22/2004

265 Deposition of JUANITA BLOUNT−CLARK taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
266 ORIGINAL EXHIBITS to the deposition of JUANITA BLOUNT−CLARK by plas. (er) Modified on 04/22/2004 (Entered: 04/21/2004)
267 EXHIBIT No. 8 to the Deposition of JUANITA BLOUNT−CLARK taken for plaintiffs. (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
268 Deposition of FORREST B. BURSON taken for plaintiffs. (2 vols.) (er) Modified on 04/21/2004 (Entered: 04/21/2004)
269 ORIGINAL EXHIBITS to the Deposition of FORREST B. BURSON taken for plaintiffs. (2 vols.) (er) Modified on 04/22/2004 (Entered: 04/21/2004)
270 Deposition of AISHA CAUL taken for plaintiffs. (2 vols.) (er) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
271 ORIGINAL EXHIBITS to the Deposition of AISHA CAUL taken for plaintiffs. (1 vol. dated 9/15/04) (er) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
272 EXHIBITS 11 and 12 to the Deposition of AISHA CAUL taken for plas. (dated 9/15/04) (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
273 EXHIBIT 26 to the Deposition of AISHA CAUL taken for plas. (vol II dated 9/16/03) (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
274 ORIGINAL EXHIBITS to the Deposition of AISHA CAUL taken for plas. (Vol. II − dated 9/16/03) (er) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
275 Deposition of JANE ("PENNY") COOPER taken for plaintiffs. (2 vols. − dates 9/16/03 and 9/17/03) (er) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
276 ORIGINAL EXHIBITS to the Deposition of JANE PENNY COOPER taken for plas. (vo. 1 − dated 9/26/03) (er) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
277 ORIGINAL EXHIBITS to the Deposition of JANE PENNY COOPER taken for plas. (Vol. 2 − dated 9/17/03) (er) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
278 EXHIBIT 14 to the Deposition of JANE PENNY COOPER taken for plas. (Vol. II − dated 9/17/03) (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
279 Deposition of DOUGLAS ALAN DAVIS taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
280 ORIGINAL EXHIBITS to the Deposition of DOUGLAS ALAN DAVIS taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
281 EXHIBITS 3 and 4 to the Deposition of DOUGLAS ALAN DAVIS taken for plas. (dated − 10/01/03) (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
282 CONSENT ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob, extending the time until 5/7/04 for dft Dekalb County to file its reply to pla's consolidated brief in opposition to County defts' [240−1] motion for sum. jgm. (cc) (er) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
283 REPLY BRIEF by dft Fulton County in support of its [240−1] motion for sum. jgm. (er) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
284 Deposition of ANN BOOTH DEIBEL taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
285 ORIGINAL EXHIBITS to the Deposition of ANN BOOTH DEIBEL taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
286 EXHIBITS 5, 6, 7, 14, 22, 23, and 24 to the Deposition of ANN BOOTH DEIBEL taken for plas. (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
287 Deposition of WINSTON DINWOODIE taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
288 EXHIBIT 1 to the Deposition of WINSTON DINWOODIE taken for plaintiffs. (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)

04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/22/2004
04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/22/2004 04/29/2004 05/05/2004
05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004

289 Deposition of TROY WEYMAN taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
290 ORIGINAL EXHIBITS to the Deposition of TROY WEYMAN DRUMMOND, JR. taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
291 EXHIBIT 14 to the Deposition of TROY WEYMAN DRUMMOND, JR. taken for plaintiffs. (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
292 Deposition of ANGELYN EDWARDS taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
293 ORIGINAL EXHIBITS to the Deposition of ANGELYN EDWARDS taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
294 EXHIBIT 10 to the Deposition of ANGELYN EDWARDS taken for plaintiffs. (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
295 EXHIBITS 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 to the Deposition of EDWARD FULLER taken for plaintiffs. (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***) (er) Modified on 04/24/2004 (Entered: 04/24/2004)
296 Deposition of AMY HALE taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
297 ORIGINAL EXHIBITS to the Deposition of AMY HALE taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
298 EXHIBIT 1 Deposition of AMY HALE taken for plaintiffs. (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
299 Deposition of WILFRED HAMM taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
300 ORIGINAL EXHIBITS to the Deposition of WILFRED HAMM taken for plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
301 Notice of filing original discovery (depositions and exhibits to the depos. − DOC. #s: 284 thru 300) by plas. (er) (Entered: 04/24/2004)
302 MOTION by plaintiffs for case management conference. (aaq) (Entered: 05/04/2004)
303 Deposition of KATHERINE HERREN taken for plaintiffs with with 2 envelopes of exhibits (****EXHIBITS 9,17,20,21,22,24,25 & 27 FILED UNDER SEAL***) (jlm) Modified on 05/07/2004 (Entered: 05/07/2004)
304 Deposition of SHARON IRVING taken for plaintiffs with exhibits. (***EXHIBITS 2,3,7,11,13 & 14 FILED UNDER SEAL***) (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
305 Deposition of GERALDINE JACKSON−WHITE taken for plaintiffs with enclosed exhibits. (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
306 Deposition of D'ANNA K. LIBER taken for plaintiffs with 2 envelopes of exhibits. (***EXHIBITS 7 & 17 FILED UNDER SEAL***) (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
307 Deposition of BEBE JORDAN taken for plaintiffs (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
308 Deposition of DIANNE DUPONT SACKS taken for plaintiffs (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
309 Deposition of MARY ANN POWELL taken for plaintiffs (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
310 Deposition of ROBERT McKEAGNEY taken for plaintiffs (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
311 Deposition of TRENNY STOVALL taken for plaintiffs (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
312 Deposition of LISA C. LARISCY taken for plaintiffs with (***EXHIBITS 8,9 and 10 FILED UNDER SEAL***) (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
313 Deposition of DAVID O. MARTIN taken for plaintiffs with (1) envelope of exhibits. (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
314 Deposition of JIM MARTIN taken for plaintiffs with ***EXHIBIT 19 FILED UNDER SEAL***) (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)

05/05/2004
05/05/2004
05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004
05/05/2004
05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004
05/05/2004 05/05/2004
05/07/2004 05/07/2004
05/07/2004 05/07/2004 05/07/2004 05/12/2004 05/19/2004

315 Deposition of MELODY MEYER taken for plaintiffs with (2) envelopes of exhibits. (***EXHIBITS 6,9,13,14,17,19 & 20 FILED UNDER SEAL***) (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
316 Deposition of GARRETT W. SKELTON taken for plaintiffs with (2) envelopes of exhibits. (***EXHIBITS 4,5& 8 FILED UNDER SEAL***) (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
317 Deposition of ROGER SMITH taken for plaintiffs with (***EXHIBIT 11 FILED UNDER SEAL***) (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
318 Deposition of GALETHA C. THOMPSON taken for plaintiffs with (2) envelopes of exhibits. (***EXHIBIT 5 FILED UNDER SEAL***) (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
319 Deposition of SHIRLEY B. VASSY taken for plaintiffs with 2 envelopes of exhibits. (***EXHIBITS3,4,5,6,9,10 & 13 FILED UNDER SEAL***) (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
320 Deposition of DORIS A. WALKER taken for plaintiffs with (2) envelopes of exhibits. (***EXHIBITS 7,8,12,14 & 16 FILED UNDER SEAL***) (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
321 Deposition of PATRICIA WALKER taken for plaintiffs with (1) envelope of exhibits. (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
322 Deposition of ROSALYN M. WILLIAMS taken for plaintiff with (***1 envelope of EXHIBIT 5 FILED UNDER SEAL***) (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
323 Deposition of CONSTANCE WOODEN−SMITH taken for plaintiffs (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
324 Deposition of MARTIN J. ROTTER taken for plaintiffs (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
325 Deposition of BEVERLY W. JONES taken for plaintiffs with (2) envelopes of exhibits. (***EXHIBITS 6,21,22,23 & 35 FILED UNDER SEAL***) (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
326 Deposition of MARVIN VENTRELL taken for plaintiffs. (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
327 Notice of filing DEPOSITIONS by plaintiffs for Katherine Herren, Sharon Irving, Geraldine Jackson−White, D'Anna K. Liber, Bebe Jordan, Dianne Dupont Sacks, Mary Ann Powell, Robert McKeagney, Trenny Stovall, Lisa C. Lariscy, David O. Martin, Jim Martin, Melody Meyer, Garrett W. Skelton, Roger Smith, Galetha C. Thompson, Shirley B. Vassy, Doris A. Walker, Patricia Walker, Rosalyn M. Williams, Constance Wooden−Smith, Martin J. Rotter, Beverly W. Jones and Marvin Ventrell. (jlm) (Entered: 05/07/2004)
328 REPLY by defendant DeKalb County to response to [240−1] motion for summary judgment, [248−1] motion for summary judgment (tcc) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
329 MOTION by State Defendants to exceed page limitation for reply brief in support of State Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgement with brief in support. (tcc) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
330 State Defendants' Reply brief to [243−1] motion for summary judgment . (tcc) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
331 State Defendants' Brief in Opposition to [302−1] motion for case management conference. (tcc) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
332 State Defendants' Notice of Original Affidavit of Janet R. Oliva. (tcc) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
333 Response to [241−1] request for filing. (tcc) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [240−1] motion for sum. jgm. by dft Fulton County, [243−1] State Defts' motion for sum. jgm., [248−1] dft Dekalb County's motion for sum. jgm., [302−1] plas' motion for case management conference, and [329−1] State Defts' motion to exceed page limitation for reply brief in support of their motion for sum. jgm. (*** file in chambers ***) (er) (Entered: 05/19/2004)

05/19/2004
05/19/2004 05/19/2004 05/21/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004 05/27/2004
06/07/2004 06/07/2004 06/15/2004
06/16/2004 06/21/2004 06/21/2004 06/22/2004
06/23/2004 06/25/2004 06/25/2004 06/25/2004 06/25/2004 06/25/2004 06/25/2004 07/06/2004

334 MOTION by State Defts to exceed page limitation for memorandum of law in support of State Defts' motion to exclude reports and testimony of plas' experts (er) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
335 MOTION by State Defts to exclude reports and testimony of plas' experts (er) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
336 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by State Defts in support of their [335−1] motion to exclude reports and testimony of plas' experts (er) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
337 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob, case management conference set for 5/27/04 at 2:00p.m. (cc) (er) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
338 Notice of entry of appearance for defendant DeKalb County by dft. (er) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
339 MOTION by defendant DeKalb County to supplement [248−1] dft's motion for summary judgment (er) (Entered: 05/28/2004)
340 Motion HEARING held before Judge Marvin H. Shoob [302−1] on plas' motion for case management conference; motion granted. Plas to make offer w/in 30 days; to be followed by defts' counteroffer. Trial tentatively scheduled for 01/2005. (er) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
341 MEMORANDUM OF LAW by plaintiffs in opposition to [335−1] State Defts' motion to exclude reports and testimony of plas' experts (er) (Entered: 06/10/2004)
342 Notice of filing expert reports and request to file original discovery (depos.) by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 06/10/2004)
SUBMITTED to Judge Marvin H. Shoob on [334−1] motion to exceed page limitation for memorandum of law in support of State Defts' motion to exclude reports and testimony of plas' experts, [335−1] State Defts' motion to exclude reports and testimony of plas' experts, and [339−1] dft Dekalb County's motion to supplement [248−1] dft's motion for summary judgment. (*** file in chambers ***) (er) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
343 RESPONSE by plas to dft Dekalb County's supplemental brief in support of its [248−1] motion for summary judgment (er) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
344 REPLY BRIEF in support of State Defts' [335−1] motion to exclude reports and testimony of plas' experts (er) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
345 NOTICE OF supplemental authority in support of [243−1] their motion for summary judgment (er) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
346 ORDER by Judge Marvin H. Shoob GRANTING [339−1] dft Dekalk County's unopposed motion to supplement its [248−1] motion for summary judgment. Dft supplement shall be filed within 10 days of the date of entry of this order. (cc) (er) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
Steno notes of proceedings held May 27, 2004, before Judge Marvin H. Shoob , by Court Reporter Lois D. Phillips. (shb) (Entered: 06/23/2004)
347 Notice of filing original deposition transcripts of Jessie K. Rasmussen, Cathy R. Smith, John Goad, and Peg Hess, PhD. by State Defts. (er) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
348 Deposition of JESSIE K. RASMUSSEN taken for State Defts. (er) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
349 Deposition of CATHY R. SMITH taken for State Defts. (er) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
350 Deposition of JOHN GOAD taken for States Defts. (er) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
351 Deposition of PEG HESS, PhD. taken for State Defts. (er) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
352 Deposition of JESSIE K. RASMUSSEN taken for State Defts. (er) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
353 REPLY by defendant DeKalb County to plas' response to dft Dekalb County's supplemental brief in support of [248−1] motion for sum. jgm. (er) (Entered:

07/07/2004 07/09/2004 07/09/2004 07/15/2004 07/15/2004 07/16/2004 07/23/2004 07/23/2004 07/30/2004
08/10/2004 08/13/2004 08/17/2004
08/20/2004 08/24/2004 08/26/2004 08/27/2004
08/30/2004

07/08/2004)
354 MOTION by plaintiffs for scheduling order with brief in support & prop/scheduling order. (er) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
355 RESPONSE by State Defts to Plaintiffs'Motion re 354 Motion for Scheduling Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8# 9 # 10 Exhibit 10)(er) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
MOTION by State Defts for Entry of Alternative Scheduling Order. (motion filed with doc # 355 . (er) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
356 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DISCOVERY by Plaintiffs: Third Interrrogatories to State Defts and Fourteenth Requests for Production of Documents. (er) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
357 REPLY MEMORANDUM by plas in support of their 354 Motion for a scheduling order. (Attachments: # 1 EXHIBIT − A# 2 EXHIBIT − B)(er) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
358 RESPONSE by dft Fulton County to 354 plas' Motion for scheduling order. (er) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
359 MOTION by plas to Substitute Linda Pace for Rosa Davis as Next Friend for Kara B. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion # 2 Exhibit A − proposed order)(er) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
360 REPLY Memorandum by plas to defendant Fulton County's response to their 354 Motion for scheduling order. (Attachments: # 1 EXHIBIT A # 2 EXHIBIT − B)(er) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
361 ORDER GRANTING WITH MODIFICATION 354 plaintiffs' Motion for scheduling order and DIRECTING the parties to file a joint report on their settlement efforts within 10 days. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 7/28/04. (cc) (er) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
362 ORDER granting 359 plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Party. Linda Pace is substituted for Rosa Davis as Next Friend for Kara B. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 08/10/04. (cc) (er) (Entered: 08/12/2004)
363 STATUS REPORT of Settlement Efforts by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., DeKalb County, Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Fulton County, Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/13/2004)
364 ORDER directing counsel to confer in an effort to agree upon a qualified mediator. If agreement cannont be reached, within 20 days of the date of entry of this order, each party shall file a list of three suggested mediators together with a resume and any other pertinent information regarding each mediator's qualifications. The Court will then appoint a mediator. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 08/16/04. (cc)(er) (Entered: 08/18/2004)
365 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by dft DeKalb County: Supplemental responses to pla's first set of interrogatories and supplemental responses to plas' sixth requests for production of docs. (er) (Entered: 08/24/2004)
366 RESPONSE TO 361 Order by State Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(dr) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
Submission of 366 Response to Order, submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (dr) (Entered: 08/26/2004)
368 MOTION for Modification of Protective Order with Memorandum In Support filed by STATE DEFENDANTS. (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum of Law in Support# 2 Memorandum − Exhibit 1# 3 Memorandum − Exhibit 2# 4 Memorandum − Exhibit 3# 5 Memorandum − Exhibit 4# 6 Memorandum − Exhibit 5)(epm) (Entered: 09/02/2004)
367 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STATE DEFENDANTS regarding Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Request for Production of Documents and Plaintiffs' Third Interrogatories (Theriot, Jaime) (Entered: 08/30/2004)

09/07/2004 09/07/2004 09/07/2004 09/08/2004 09/10/2004 09/10/2004
09/10/2004 09/13/2004 09/15/2004
09/20/2004 09/21/2004 09/27/2004 09/27/2004 09/28/2004
09/29/2004 10/01/2004 10/12/2004 10/14/2004 10/15/2004

369 RESPONSE TO 364 Order of 8/17/04, by STATE DEFENDANTS. (Attachments: #(1) TAB − Exhibit A #(2) TAB − Exhibit B)(er) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
370 SUBMISSION on Mediator Candidates by plas in response to 364 Order of 8/17/04. (Attachments: #(1) TAB−1 #(2) TAB−2 #(3) TAB−3)(er) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
371 LIST of suggested Mediators filed by defendant Fulton County pursuant to 364 Order filed 8/17/04. (er) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
372 SUGGESTED Mediators filed by defendant DeKalb County in respond to 364 Order (er) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
373 SUPPLEMENTAL OBJECTION by State Defts to 370 additional mediatior candidate proposed by plas. (Attachments: # 1 TAB − Exhibit A)(er) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
374 RESPONSE by plas in Opposition to State Defts' 368 MOTION for Modification of Consent Protective Order. (Attachments: #(1) TAB−A Filed under seal; #(2) TAB−B Filed under seal; #(3) TAB−C Filed under seal; and #(4) TAB−D Letter)(er) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
375 EXHIBITS A, B, & C to 374 plaintiffs' response in opposition to 368 State Defts' motion for modification of consent protective order. (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***) (er) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
376 REPLY by class counsel's to 368 State Defts' multiple submissions on mediator selection. (er) (Entered: 09/16/2004)
377 REPLY MEMORANDUM filed by STATE DEFENDANTS in support of their 368 MOTION for Modification of Consent Protective Order. (Attachments: #(1) TAB−Exhibit 1)(er) Modified on 10/8/2004 to correct file date(adg). (Entered: 09/16/2004)
378 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STATE DEFENDANTS for State Defendants' Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' Fourteenth Request for Production of Documents and Third Interrogatories (Theriot, Jaime) (Entered: 09/20/2004)
Submission of 368 MOTION for Modification of Protective Order filed by State Defendants,submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (*** filed in chambers***) (er) (Entered: 09/21/2004)
379 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STATE DEFENDANTS regarding Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' Third Interrogatories (Theriot, Jaime) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
381 OBJECTION and responses to plas' third subpoena for production of documents by Office of the Child Advocate of the State of Georgia. (Attachments: #(1) Tab−1 Exhibit)(er) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
380 ORDER Proposing the appointment of a mediator of its own choosing, Hon. Dorothy Toth Beasley. Objection to the appointment of Judge Beasley, it should be filed within 10 days of the date of entry of this order. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 09/28/04. (cc)(er) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
382 NOTICE of Appearance by Gordon Lee Hamrick IV on behalf of all plaintiffs (Hamrick, Gordon) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
383 APPLICATION for Admission of Michael K. Bartosz Pro Hac Vice on behalf on plas.Filing Fee received $150.00, Receipt #527829. (to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
384 ORDER approving 383 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Michael K. Bartosz. Signed by ct/room depty on 10/12/04. (cc) (er) (Entered: 10/12/2004)
385 MOTION for Protective Order and Order Authorizing Depositions Upon Written Questions by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Hamrick, Gordon) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
386 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H. of Notices of 30(b)(6) Depositions of Fulton and DeKalb Counties (Hamrick, Gordon) (Entered: 10/15/2004)

10/15/2004 10/20/2004 10/20/2004 10/25/2004 10/26/2004
10/29/2004 11/01/2004 11/08/2004 11/17/2004 11/17/2004 11/17/2004 11/17/2004 11/17/2004
11/23/2004
11/23/2004
11/24/2004

387 ORDER granting 385 Motion; ORDER authorizing depositions upon written questions and Protective Order. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 10/15/04. (cc) (Attachments: #(1) Tab−1 and #(2) Tab−2) (er) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
388 CERTIFICATE of Counsel of Service of Objections and Responses to Subpoena by J. Timothy Mast on behalf of WestCare Georgia, Inc. (Mast, J.) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
389 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STATE DEFENDANTS re: Third Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories (Theriot, Jaime) (Entered: 10/20/2004)
390 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Hon. Dorothy Toth Beasley for Mediation. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 10/25/04. (cc)(er) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
391 ORDER denying 368 Defts' Motion for modification of protective order; and ORDERS defts to provide plas' counsel the current placement name, location, and contact information for the three named plaintiffs at issue within (5) days of the date of entry of this order. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 10/26/04. (er) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
392 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STATE DEFENDANTS regarding Fourth Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories (Theriot, Jaime) (Entered: 10/29/2004)
393 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H. of Plaintiffs' 2nd Supplemental Response to State Defendants' 1st Request for Expedited Production (Hamrick, Gordon) (Entered: 11/01/2004)
394 NOTICE of Change of Address for Jefferson James Davis, counsel for STATE DEFENDANTS (er) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
395 MOTION by plaintiffs for Order authorizing interviews/inspection. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order authorizing interviews/inspection# 2 Exhibit−A# 3 Exhibit−B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D)(er) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
396 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file a brief in support of their motion for Order authorizing interviews/inspection in excess of the 25 page limit, and expedited briefing and consideration of their motion.(to: MHS) (er) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
397 NOTICE Of Filing exhibits under seal (exhibits 4, 6, 7, 21, 22 and 25 to the brief in support of plas' motion for Order authorizing interviews/inspection) by plas. (er) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
398 EXHIBITS 4, 6, 7, 21, 22 & 25 to the brief in support of plas' motion for order authorizing interviews/inspection. (*** FILED UNDER SEAL ***)(er) (Entered: 11/22/2004)
399 BRIEF by plaintiffs in Support of 395 their MOTION for Order authorizing interviews/inspection. (Attachments: # 1 Tab−1# 2 Tab−2# 3 Tab−3# 4 Tab−4# 5 Tab−5# 6 Tab−6# 7 Tab−7# 8 Tab−8# 9 Tab−9# 10 Tab−10# 11 Tab−11# 12 Tab−12# 13 Tab−13# 14 Tab−14# 15 Tab−15# 16 Tab−16# 17 Tab−17# 18 Tab−18# 19 Tab−19# 20 Tab−20# 21 Tab−21# 22 Tab−23# 23 Tab−23# 24 Tab−24# 25 Tab−25# 26 Tab−26# 27 Tab−27# 28 Tab−28# 29 Tab−29# 30 Tab−30)(er) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
400 ORDER granting 396 plaintiffs' Motion to extend page limit and for expedited briefing and consideration of plaintiffs' motion for order authorizing interviews/inspections. Oposition papers to plas' motion shall be served by hand or facsimile on or before 11/29/04; and reply papers on or before 12/02/04. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 11/23/04. (er) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
401 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 203 plaintiffs' application for expenses and attorneys' fees, denying 206 defendant Fulton County's motion for reconsideration; and AWARDING plaintiffs $5,302.90 against defendants Fulton County and Dekalb County, jointly and severally. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 11/23/04. (er) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
402 CLERK'S JUDGMENT: plaintiffs recover from defendants Fulton County and Dekalb County, jointly and severally $5,302.90 as attorney's fees and expenses. (er) (Entered:

11/29/2004 11/29/2004 11/29/2004 12/02/2004 12/03/2004 12/03/2004 12/06/2004 12/13/2004 12/17/2004 12/20/2004
12/20/2004 12/20/2004
12/22/2004 12/23/2004 12/27/2004 12/28/2004

11/24/2004)
403 RESPONSE in Opposition re 395 MOTION for Order of Sale filed by WestCare Georgia, Inc.. (Mast, J.) (Entered: 11/29/2004)
404 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H. of Plaintiffs' First Request for Admissions (Hamrick, Gordon) (Entered: 11/29/2004)
405 RESPONSE to 395 plaintiffs' MOTION for Order authorizing interviews/inspection filed by STATE DEFENDANTS. (Attachments: # 1 Tab−1# 2 Tab−2# 3 Tab−3# 4 Tab−4# 5 Tab−5# 6 Tab−6# 7 Tab−7# 8 Tab−8# 9 Tab−9)(er) (Entered: 12/02/2004)
408 REPLY BRIEF by plaintiffs in further support of 395 their MOTION for Order Authorizithing Interviews/Inspection. (Attachments: # 1 Tab− 1# 2 Tab−2# 3 Tab−3# 4 Tab−4# 5 Tab−5)(er) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
406 ORDER granting 395 Motion for Order Authorizing Interviews/Inspection (see order for details) . Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 12/3/04. (jsr) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
409 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STATE DEFENDANTS : Third request for production of documents and first interrogatories relating to experts. (er) (Entered: 12/08/2004)
407 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H. of Plaintiffs' Fifteenth Request for Production of Documents (Hamrick, Gordon) (Entered: 12/06/2004)
410 ORDER denying 243 State Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, granting 329 and (334)State Defendants' Motions to exceed page limitations, and denying 335 State Defendants' Motion to Exclude rreports and testimony of plaintiffs' experts . Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 12/11/04. (jsr) (Entered: 12/13/2004)
411 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability with Brief In Support by STATE DEFENDANTS. (Attachments: # 1 Brief # 2 Certificate of Service)(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 12/17/2004)
412 Emergency MOTION for Protective Order and Stay with Brief In Support by STATE DEFENDANTS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Stay Order# 2 Brief # 3 Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4# 7 Errata 5# 8 Exhibit 6# 9 Exhibit 7# 10 Exhibit 8# 11 Exhibit 9# 12 Exhibit 10# 13 Certificate of Service)(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 12/20/2004)
413 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Beverly B. Martin : Telephone Conference held on 12/20/2004 on State Defendants' 412 motion for protective order and stay. Written order entered granting stay pending entry of an order on protective order. (er) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
414 ORDER granting 412 the State Defendants' Motion for a stay and that all interviews, inspections, or meetings with foster children in the custody of the State Defendants, and with the foster parents or other caretakers, STAYED pending entry of an order granting or denying State Defendants' requested Protective Order. Signed by Judge Beverly B. Martin on 12/20/2004. (er) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
417 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by defendant DeKalb County: First continuing interrogatories and first request for production of documents to pla. (er) (Entered: 12/28/2004)
415 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by STATE DEFENDANTS regarding State Defendants' Objections to Plaintiffs' First Request for Admissions (Theriot, Jaime) (Entered: 12/23/2004)
416 Joint MOTION to Vacate December 20, 2004 Order For Stay by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., STATE DEFENDANTS, Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Hamrick, Gordon) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
418 ORDER approving 416 Joint Motion to Vacate Court's Order For Stay Dated December 20, 2004 . Signed by Courtroom Deputy Clerk for Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 12/28/04. (jsr) (Entered: 12/28/2004)

12/30/2004 01/03/2005 01/04/2005 01/10/2005
01/11/2005
01/12/2005 01/13/2005 01/14/2005
02/02/2005 02/08/2005 02/08/2005 02/08/2005 02/17/2005 02/17/2005 02/18/2005 03/07/2005
03/07/2005

420 NOTICE Of Filing proof of service for subpoena issued to the Corporate Representative of The Annie E. Casey Foundation and to Jim Dimas by plaintiffs. (er) (Entered: 01/06/2005)
419 RESPONSE in Opposition re 411 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability filed by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/03/2005)
Submission of 411 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability, submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (jsr) (Entered: 01/04/2005)
421 MOTION to Compel Discovery with Brief In Support by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery# 2 Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit 2# 4 Errata 3# 5 Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit 14# 16 Exhibit 15# 17 Exhibit 16)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/10/2005)
422 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. of Plaintiffs' Responses to DeKalb County's First Interrogatories and First Requests for Production (Hamrick, Gordon) (Entered: 01/11/2005)
423 REPLY BRIEF re 411 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability filed by STATE DEFENDANTS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Theriot, Jaime) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
424 Certification of Consent to Substitution of Counsel for DeKalb County. Stephen E. Whitted for DeKalb County replacing attorney Vivica Mitchell Brown. (er) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
425 SCHEDULING ORDER: AMENDING scheduling Order filed 7/30/2004 as follows: Proposed Pretrial Order due by 2/18/2005 unless further extended by the Court; trial to be rescheduled at a later date. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 1/13/05. (jsr) (Entered: 01/14/2005)
Submission of 421 plaintiffs' MOTION to Compel Discovery, submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (er) (Entered: 02/02/2005)
426 ORDER denying 240 Fulton County's Motion for Summary Judgment, and denying 248 DeKalb's County's Motion for Summary Judgment . Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 2/7/05. (jsr) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
427 ORDER extending time to file the proposed consolidated pretrial order until 3/25/05 Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 2/7/05. (jsr) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Pretrial Order due by 3/25/2005. (jsr) (Entered: 02/08/2005)
428 MOTION for permission to File interlocutory appealby defendant Fulton County. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in support)(er) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
429 NOTICE of attorney withdraw for defendant DeKalb County. Charles George Hicks is removed as counsel for any parties in this matter. (er) (Entered: 02/22/2005)
NOTICE by DeKalb County Law Department of the death of attorney Charles G. Hicks, effective 8/26/04. (jsr) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
430 RESPONSE in Opposition re 428 MOTION for Leave to File interlocutory appeal PLAINTIFFS' CONSOLIDATED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT FULTON COUNTY'S MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL AND DEFENDANT DEKALB COUNTY'S MOTION TO AMEND ORDER TO PERMIT IMMEDIATE INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL filed by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 03/07/2005)
431 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability regarding February 8, 2005 Order with Brief In Support by STATE DEFENDANTS. (Attachments: # 1 Brief)(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 03/07/2005)

03/07/2005 03/09/2005 03/11/2005 03/21/2005
03/21/2005 04/06/2005 05/10/2005 05/10/2005 07/05/2005
07/05/2005
07/29/2005 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 09/02/2005
09/02/2005 09/02/2005

432 MOTION to Amend 426 Order to Permit Immediate Interlocutory Appeal, with Brief In Support by DeKalb County. (er) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
Submission of 428 MOTION for permission to file interlocutory appeal by defendant Fulton County, submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (er) (Entered: 03/09/2005)
433 NOTICE by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. of Withdrawal of Counsel (Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/11/2005)
434 RESPONSE in Opposition re 431 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability regarding February 8, 2005 Order PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO STATE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO AMEND FEBRUARY 8, 2005 ORDER TO PERMIT IMMEDIATE INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL filed by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 03/21/2005)
435 REPLY BRIEF in support of 428 MOTION for permission to file interlocutory appeal filed by defendant Fulton County. (er) (Entered: 03/23/2005)
Submission of 431 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability regarding 2/8/2005 Order 426 and 432 MOTION to Amend 426 Order to Permit Immediate Interlocutory Appeal, submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (er) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
436 NOTICE of Appearance by William Randall Turner on behalf of DeKalb County (Turner, William) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
437 NOTICE of Appearance by William Randall Turner on behalf of DeKalb County (Turner, William) (Entered: 05/10/2005)
438 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval, Class Notice, Fairness Hearing with Brief In Support by Briana H., Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, James Martin, Division of Family and Children Services, Beverly Jones, DeKalb County DFCS, Wayne Drummond, Fulton County, DeKalb County, Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Roy Barnes, STATE DEFENDANTS, Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Notice of Proposed Settlement# 2 Exhibit Consent Decree)(Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 07/05/2005)
439 ORDER granting 438 Joint Motion for Settlement, and approving settlement between the plaintiff class and the State Defendants, with Notice of Proposed Settlement. Fairness hearing is set for Wednesday, 9/21/05 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 1707. See order for further details. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 7/5/05. (jsr) (Entered: 07/06/2005)
440 NOTICE by STATE DEFENDANTS Notice of Filing Affidavit Certifying Compliance with Notice Requirements (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
441 NOTICE of Appearance by Terry Robert Howell on behalf of all plaintiffs (Howell, Terry) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
442 NOTICE of Appearance by Terry Robert Howell on behalf of The Barton Child Law & Policy Clinic (Howell, Terry) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
443 OBJECTION and Comments filed by The Barton Child Law & Policy Clinic. (Howell, Terry) (Entered: 09/01/2005)
444 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter from Nancy Friauf, Executive Director of Gwinnett Children's Shelter, Inc., requesting time for herself and a class member to make oral comments at the 9/21/05 fairness hearing. (jsr) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
445 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/4/05, from Nancy Friauf, Executive Director of Gwinnett Children's Shelter, Inc. (jsr) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
446 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/10/05, from Pam Ross, Vice President of Christian City Home for Children. (jsr) (Entered: 09/02/2005)

09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005
09/02/2005 09/02/2005

447 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/16/05, from Nancy Friauf, Executive Director of Gwinnett Children's Shelter, Inc. with written comments by former shelter residents. (jsr) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
448 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/16/05, from Philip E. Kouns, President of Georgia Emeregency Shelter Network (GEMS). (jsr) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
449 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/16/05, from Linda T. Stacy, DeKalb County CASA, with attachment, Georgia Foster Parent Bill of Rights. (jsr) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
450 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/24/05, from Glen and Marge Roberson, foster−adopt parents within the DeKalb County DFCS system, with attachments. (jsr) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
451 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/25/05, from James H. Maughon, President, Hayes, James & Associates, Inc., Civil Engineers, Planners & Surveyors. (jsr) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
452 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/29/05, from Dr. Frances E. Davis, Chief Human Resources Officer, Gwinnett County Public Schools. (jsr) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
453 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/29/05, from Robert E. Crutchfield, President & CEO of Christian City Home for Children. (jsr) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
454 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/31/2005, from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. (w/Resource Guidelines − 2 volumes) (er) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
455 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/31/2005, from Steve L. Rumford, ACSW, LCSW, President/CEO of The Methodist Home for Children and Youth Macon, Georgia. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
456 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/31/2005, from Mr. Douglas L. Mead, LCSW, Georgia Agape. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
457 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/31/2005, from Ron Scroggy, President/CEO, Inner Harbour for Children & Families. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
458 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/31/2005, from Mr. S. Truett Cathy and Tyra Walker, Chick−fil−A, Inc. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
459 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 8/31/2005, from Ms. Patricia W. Showell, President & CEO of families first. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
460 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 9/01/2005, from Mario Bolivar, Jr., Executive Director of The Devereux Georgia Treatment Network. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
461 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 9/01/2005, from Lige and Lillian Wallace. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
462 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 9/01/2005, from Abe M. Wilkinson, Chief Executive Officer of Elks Aidmore, Inc. (er) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/2/2005 (Comments Chart) (er). Modified on 9/2/2005 to describe the attachment (er). (Entered: 09/02/2005)
463 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 9/01/2005, from Beth Locker, Judicial Council of Georgia, Administrative Office of the Courts. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
464 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 9/01/2005, from Barry W. Kerr, President & CEO of Morningstar Treatment Services, Inc. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2005)

09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/02/2005 09/06/2005 09/08/2005 09/12/2005 09/13/2005 09/19/2005
09/19/2005
09/20/2005 09/21/2005
09/30/2005 10/03/2005
10/05/2005

465 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 9/01/2005, from Normer Adams, Executive Director, Georgia Association of Homes & Services for Children. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
466 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 9/01/2005, from Elizabeth A. Price, President of Atlanta Bar Association. (er) (Entered: 09/02/2005)
468 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter from John W. Blend III, Chairman of Goshen Valley Boys Ranch. (er) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
469 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 9/02/2005, from Kenneth M. Dobbs, D.Min., President/CEO of Georgia Baptist Children's Home and Family Ministries, Inc. (er) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
470 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 9/02/2005, from Lige and Lillian Wallace. (er) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
471 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter, received 9/2/2005, from Bishop B. Mike Watson, President of The Georgia Christian Council. (er) (Entered: 09/07/2005)
467 MOTION In The Capacity As Attorney Ad Litem For Member Of the Class 443 Objection (Formal Request To Be Heard) by The Barton Child Law & Policy Clinic. (Howell, Terry) (Entered: 09/06/2005)
472 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter received 9/08/2005, from Melissa Reid, MSW, Executive Director of The Alcove, Inc.(er) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
473 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter received 9/12/2005, from S. Truett Cathy, Founder a nd CEO of Chick−fil−A, Inc. (er) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
474 RESPONSE re 439 Order on Motion for Settlement. Letter received 9/13/2005, from Larry E. Freels, General Director of Hephzibah Children's Home. (er) (Entered: 09/14/2005)
475 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment and Settlement Agreement with Brief In Support by Briana H., Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Roy Barnes, Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum of Class Counsel in Support of Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement and Consent Decree# 2 Exhibit A − Part 1# 3 Exhibit A − Part 2# 4 Exhibit B Part 1# 5 Exhibit B − Part 2# 6 Exhibit B − Part 3# 7 Exhibit B − Part 4# 8 Exhibit B − Part 5# 9 Exhibit B − Part 6# 10 Exhibit B − Part 7# 11 Exhibit B − Part 8# 12 Exhibit C)(Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
476 RESPONSE in Support re 475 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment and Settlement Agreement [STATE DEFENDANTS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CONSENT DECREE] filed by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia. (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
477 Declaration of Dorothy Toth Beasley, Mediator. (jsr) (Entered: 09/20/2005)
478 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Marvin H. Shoob : Fairness Hearing held on 9/21/2005 pursuant to the Court's July 5, 2005 order regarding settlement. Individuals allowed to speak re their concerns about the proposed settlement, then counsel made closing statements. Counsel directed to provide the court with their proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law within 30 days. (Court Reporter Elise Evans.)(jsr) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
480 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 09/21/2005 before Judge Marvin H. Shoob. Court Reporter: Elise Smith Evans. (er) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
479 NOTICE Of Filing Comments on the proposed settlement by The Barton Child Law & Policy Clinic Cover letter from Michael Sullivan, Esq. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Letter from The Barton Child Law & Policy Clinic)(Sullivan, Michael) (Entered: 10/03/2005)
481 Certification of Consent to Substitution of Counsel. Courtney Carter Fletcher replacing attorney Thomas J. Mazziotti. (Fletcher, Courtney) (Entered: 10/05/2005)

10/19/2005
10/20/2005 10/21/2005 10/21/2005 10/27/2005 10/27/2005
10/28/2005 10/28/2005 11/17/2005 11/18/2005 11/28/2005 12/05/2005 12/09/2005 12/09/2005 12/09/2005
12/12/2005
12/12/2005

482 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment and Settlement Agreement with Brief In Support by Briana H., Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, James Martin, Division of Family and Children Services, Beverly Jones, DeKalb County DFCS, Wayne Drummond, Fulton County, DeKalb County, Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Roy Barnes, Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
483 Letter from Ruth F. Claiborne for Claiborne, Outman & Surmay,P.C., re: proposed settlement. (er) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
484 Letter dated 10/5/05 from Larry E. Freels, General Director of Hephzibah Children's Home. (jsr) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
485 Letter dated 10/4/05, from Ron Scroggy, President/CEO of Inner Harbour, with his letter of 8/30/05 attached. (jsr) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
486 ORDER granting 475 and 482 Motions to Approve Consent Judgment . Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 10/27/05. (jsr) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
487 DOCUMENT ERROR CONSENT DECREE (Exhibit 1) re 486 Order on Motion to Approve Consent Judgment. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 10/27/05. (Attachments: # 1 Main Document, Part 2# 2 Appendix A# 3 Appendix B)(jsr) Modified on 10/27/2005 to rename attachments (jsr). Modified on 10/28/2005 (er). (Entered: 10/27/2005)
488 CONSENT DECREE re 486 Order on Motion to Approve Consent Judgment, Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 10/28/2005. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2−Consent Decree# 2 Appendix A# 3 Appendix B)(er) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
Notification of Docket Correction: Entry 488 (Consent Decree) replaces the docket entry 487 . (er) (Entered: 10/28/2005)
489 PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER Extending Time for Class Counsel to File Application for Fees and Expenses. (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
490 CONSENT ORDER giving Class Counsel extension to 12/9/05 to file their application for fees and expenses; State Defendants have until 1/4/06 to file any objections. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 11/18/05. (jsr) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
491 BILL OF COSTS by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 11/28/2005)
492 ORDER that the parties have until Friday, 12/9/05, to file any comments on the proposed monitoring budget submitted by the accountability agents. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 12/5/05. (jsr) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
493 RESPONSE re 492 Order State Defendants' Response to Court's Order of December 5, 2005 filed by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services. (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
494 RESPONSE re 492 Order Plaintiffs' Response To Proposed Monitoring Budget filed by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
495 MOTION for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation with Brief In Support by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief # 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit G# 9 Exhibit H)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
496 NOTICE Of Filing Exhibits to Declarations of Marcia Robinson Lowry, Jeffrey O. Bramlett and Sara M. Bartosz in support of 495 MOTION for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit A−A# 3 Exhibit A−A1# 4 Exhibit A−A2# 5 Exhibit A−A3# 6 Exhibit A−A4# 7 Exhibit A−A5# 8 Exhibit A−A6# 9 Exhibit A−A7)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) Modified on 12/13/2005 to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (er). (Entered: 12/12/2005)
497 NOTICE Of Filing Exhibits to Bramlett Declaration by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. re 495 MOTION

12/12/2005
12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005 12/12/2005

for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit C# 2 Exhibit C−1# 3 Exhibit C−2−1# 4 Exhibit C−2−2# 5 Exhibit C−2−3# 6 Exhibit C−2−4# 7 Exhibit C−3)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
498 NOTICE Of Filing Part 1 Exhibits to Lowry Declaration by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. re 495 MOTION for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B# 2 Exhibit B−1# 3 Exhibit B−2# 4 Exhibit B−3−1# 5 Exhibit B−3−2# 6 Exhibit B−3−3# 7 Exhibit B−3−4# 8 Exhibit B−3−5# 9 Exhibit B−3−6# 10 Exhibit B−3−7# 11 Exhibit B−3−8# 12 Exhibit B−3−9# 13 Exhibit B−3−10# 14 Exhibit B−3−11# 15 Errata B−3−12# 16 Exhibit B−3−13# 17 Exhibit B−3−14# 18 Exhibit B−3−15# 19 Exhibit B−3−16# 20 Exhibit B−3−17# 21 Exhibit B−3−18)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
499 NOTICE Of Filing Exhibits to Lowry Declaration part 1 of 4 by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. re 495 MOTION for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B# 2 Exhibit B−1# 3 Exhibit B−2# 4 Exhibit B−3−1# 5 Exhibit B−3−2# 6 Exhibit B−3−3# 7 Exhibit B−3−4# 8 Exhibit B−3−5# 9 Exhibit B−3−6# 10 Exhibit B−3−7# 11 Exhibit B−3−8)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
500 NOTICE Of Filing Exhibits to Lowry Declaration part 2 of 4 by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. re 495 MOTION for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B−3−9# 2 Exhibit B−3−10# 3 Exhibit B−3−11# 4 Exhibit B−3−12# 5 Exhibit B−3−13# 6 Errata B−3−14# 7 Exhibit B−3−15# 8 Exhibit B−3−16# 9 Exhibit B−3−17# 10 Exhibit B−3−18# 11 Exhibit B−3−19)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
501 NOTICE Of Filing Exhibits to Lowry Declaration part 3 of 4 by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. re 495 MOTION for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B−3−20# 2 Exhibit B−3−21# 3 Exhibit B−3−22# 4 Errata B−3−23# 5 Exhibit B−3−24# 6 Exhibit B−3−25# 7 Errata B−3−26# 8 Errata B−3−27# 9 Exhibit B−3−28# 10 Exhibit B−3−29# 11 Exhibit B−3−30# 12 Exhibit B−3−31)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
502 NOTICE Of Filing Exhibits to Lowry Declaration part 3 of 4 by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. re 495 MOTION for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B−3−20# 2 Exhibit B−3−21# 3 Exhibit B−3−22# 4 Exhibit B−3−23# 5 Exhibit B−3−24# 6 Exhibit B−3−25# 7 Exhibit B−3−26# 8 Exhibit B−3−27# 9 Exhibit B−3−28)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
503 NOTICE Of Filing Exhibits to Lowry Declaration part 3 by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. re 495 MOTION for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B−3−20# 2 Exhibit B−3−21# 3 Exhibit B−3−22# 4 Exhibit B−3−23# 5 Exhibit B−3−24# 6 Exhibit B−3−25)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
504 NOTICE Of Filing Exhibits to Lowry Declaration part 4 by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. re 495 MOTION for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B−3−26# 2 Exhibit B−3−27# 3 Exhibit B−3−28# 4 Exhibit B−3−29# 5 Errata B−3−30# 6 Exhibit B−3−31)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
505 NOTICE Of Filing Exhibits to Lowry Declaration part 5 by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. re 495 MOTION for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B−3−32# 2 Exhibit B−3−33# 3 Exhibit B−3−34# 4 Exhibit B−3−35# 5 Exhibit B−3−36# 6 Exhibit B−3−37# 7 Exhibit B−3−38# 8 Exhibit B−3−39# 9 Exhibit B−3−40)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
506 NOTICE Of Filing Exhibits to Lowry Declaration part 6 by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. re 495 MOTION for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B−4−1# 2 Exhibit B−4−2# 3 Exhibit B−4−3# 4 Exhibit B−4−4)(Bramlett, Jeffrey)

12/13/2005 12/16/2005 12/27/2005 12/27/2005 01/04/2006 01/04/2006
01/18/2006 01/19/2006 01/19/2006 01/19/2006 01/26/2006 01/27/2006 02/08/2006 02/09/2006 02/09/2006
02/13/2006

(Entered: 12/12/2005)
Notification of Docket Correction re 496 Notice of Filing of Exhibits to Declariotions. (er) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
507 ORDER Approving the proposed monitoring budget, as modified. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 12/16/2005. (er) (Entered: 12/16/2005)
Submission of 495 Plaintiffs' MOTION for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation, submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (jsr) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
508 NOTICE by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR ERIK S. PITCHAL (Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 12/27/2005)
509 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for State Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Application for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses of Litigation by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services. (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
510 RESPONSE in Opposition re 495 MOTION for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation filed by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N# 15 Exhibit O# 16 Exhibit P)(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
511 MODIFIED PER 534 ORDER Costs Taxed in amount of $549,808.43 for plaintiffs against defendants. (er) Modified on 10/3/2006 (fmm). (Entered: 01/18/2006)
512 MOTION for Review of Taxation of Costs by Clerk of Court by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services. (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
513 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
514 REPLY BRIEF re 495 MOTION for Attorney Fees And Expenses of Litigation filed by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5)(Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
515 RESPONSE in Opposition re 512 MOTION for Review of Taxation of Costs by Clerk of Court filed by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
516 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs, and Expenses (Interim Award) with Brief In Support by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support)(Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
517 RESPONSE in Opposition re 516 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs, and Expenses (Interim Award) filed by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services. (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 02/08/2006)
518 NOTICE Of Filing by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
Submission of 509 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for State Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Application for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses of Litigation, 512 MOTION for Review of Taxation of Costs by Clerk of Court, 513 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages, 516 MOTION for Attorney Fees, Costs, and Expenses (Interim Award), submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (er) (Entered: 02/09/2006)
519 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment and For Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement, Class Notice and Fairness Hearing with Brief In Support by

02/15/2006
02/23/2006 02/27/2006 02/28/2006 03/07/2006 03/23/2006
03/24/2006 04/10/2006 05/15/2006
05/16/2006
05/16/2006 05/16/2006 05/16/2006 05/30/2006 10/03/2006

Briana H., Fulton County, Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3)(Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 02/13/2006)
520 ORDER granting 519 Joint Motion of Plaintiffs and Defendant Fulton County for preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement, Class Notice and Fairness Hearing. Fairness Hearing is set for Tuesday, 5/16/06 at 2:00 p.m. Objections & statements in support to be filed in writing with the Clerk by 4/12/06. See order for further details. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 2/14/06. (jsr) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
521 REPLY BRIEF re 516 MOTION for Attorney Fees , Costs, and Expenses (Interim Award) filed by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
522 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): April 17, 2006 through May 1, 2006, by Mark Howard Cohen. (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 02/27/2006)
523 NOTICE of Change of Address for Corey Fleming Hirokawa, counsel for Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. (Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
524 AFFIDAVIT Certifying Compliance With Notice Requirements by Fulton County. (Dancy, Rolesia) (Entered: 03/07/2006)
525 Joint MOTION for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement, Class Notice and Fairness Hearing with Brief In Support by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Order# 2 Exhibit 2 − Notice# 3 Exhibit 3 − Consent Decree# 4 Appendix A# 5 Appendix B# 6 Appendix C)(Hirokawa, Corey) Modified text on 3/24/2006 (dr). (Entered: 03/23/2006)
526 ORDER granting 525 Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement, Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 3/24/06. (See order for details). (Attachment: # 1 Notice of Proposed Settlement) (jsr) (Entered: 03/24/2006)
527 AFFIDAVIT of Stephen E. Whitted by DeKalb County, Roy Barnes. (Whitted, Stephen) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
528 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment of Plaintiffs, Defendant Fulton County, and Defendant DeKalb County for Final Approval of Consent Decrees with Brief In Support by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 05/15/2006)
529 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Marvin H. Shoob : Motion Hearing held on 5/16/2006 re 528 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment of Plaintiffs, Defendant Fulton County, and Defendant DeKalb County for Final Approval of Consent Decrees filed by Kenny A., et al. Motion GRANTED. Order to be entered. (Court Reporter Elise Smith Evans.)(jsr) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
530 ORDER granting 528 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment . Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 5/16/06. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Fulton County Consent Decree# 2 Exhibit 2 − DeKalb County Consent Decree) (jsr) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
531 ORDER: Fulton County Consent Decree Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 5/16/06 530 (jsr) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
532 ORDER: DeKalb County Consent Decree Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 5/16/06 530 . (jsr) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
533 NOTICE of Appearance by Charissa Ann Ruel on behalf of Sonny Perdue (Ruel, Charissa) (Entered: 05/30/2006)
534 ORDER granting 495 Motion for Attorney Fees, granting 509 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, granting 512 Motion for Review for Taxation of Costs, granting 513 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, denying 516 Motion for Attorney Fees. The court awards plaintiffs attorneys' fees in the amount of $10,522.405.08 and nontaxable expenses in the amount of $739,958.67 for a total award $11,262,363.75. Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against State defendants in

10/03/2006 10/03/2006
10/16/2006 10/16/2006
10/17/2006 10/18/2006 10/18/2006 10/24/2006 10/24/2006 10/27/2006 10/31/2006
11/02/2006 11/03/2006 11/03/2006

this amount and for post−jgm interest at the legal rate from 10/27/05 (date of entry of Consent Decree). The clerk is directed to modify the costs taxed on 1/18/06 and to tax costs in favor of plaintiffs and against State Defendants in the amount of $95,485.08. The court orders defendants to pay the entire cost of mediation. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 10/3/06. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2) (fmm) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
Costs Taxed in amount of $ 95,485.08 against State Defendants (As Modified by 534 Order) (fmm) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
535 VACATED AS PER 660 ORDER CLERK'S JUDGMENT entered in favor of plaintiffs and against State Defendants for attorneys? fees in the amount of $10,522,405.08 and nontaxable expenses in the amount of $739,958.67 for a total award of $11,262,363.75 and for post−judgment interest at the legal rate from October 27, 2005 and costs as modified in favor of plaintiffs and against State Defendants in the amount of $95,485.08. (fmm) −−Please refer to http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov to obtain an appeals jurisdiction checklist−− Modified on 10/13/2010 (rvb). (Entered: 10/03/2006)
536 MOTION to Stay Judgment Pending Resolution of Appeal with Brief In Support by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Sonny Perdue. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
537 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 535 Clerk's Judgment,,, 534 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Sonny Perdue. Transcript Order Form due on 10/30/2006 (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
538 Transmission of Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal, Judgment, Order and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 537 Notice of Appeal, (fem) (Entered: 10/17/2006)
USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number 557153 re 537 Notice of Appeal, filed by Division of Family and Children Services,, Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia,, Sonny Perdue, Notified USCA. (fem) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
539 TRANSCRIPT ORDER FORM re 537 Notice of Appeal,. Certificate of Readiness due on 11/1/2006. No transcript is needed for appeal purposes. (fem) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
540 USCA Acknowledgment of 537 Notice of Appeal, filed by Division of Family and Children Services,, Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia,, Sonny Perdue,. Case Appealed to USCA Case Number 06−15514−A (fem) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
541 APPLICATION for Admission of Shirim Nothenberg Pro Hac Vice by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G..Filing Fee received $150.00, Receipt #557336. (rth) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
542 ORDER approving 541 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Shirim Nothenberg, for plaintiffs . Signed by Courtroom Deputy Clerk for Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 10/27/06. (jsr) (Entered: 10/27/2006)
543 NOTICE OF CROSS APPEAL as to 535 Clerk's Judgment,,, 534 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees, Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages, Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief, by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. Transcript Order Form due on 11/15/2006 (fem) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
Submission of 536 MOTION to Stay Judgment Pending Resolution of Appeal, submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (jsr) (Entered: 11/02/2006)
544 NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT TO FILE ELECTRONICALLY pursuant to Standing Order 04−01 as to Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Corey Fleming Hirokawa, Marcia Robinson Lowry re 543 Notice of Cross Appeal,. (fem) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
545 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERRORUSCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number 557600 re 543 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by Kenny A.,, Kara B.,, Maya C.,,

11/03/2006 11/03/2006 11/03/2006 11/03/2006 11/06/2006 11/06/2006 11/13/2006
11/28/2006 11/29/2006 11/30/2006 11/30/2006 12/04/2006
12/04/2006 12/04/2006 01/29/2007

Phelicia D.,, Sabrina E.,, Korrina E.,, Tanya F.,, Priscilla G.,, Briana H., Case Appealed to USCA Case Number 06−15514−A. (fem) Modified on 11/28/2006. (fem). (Entered: 11/03/2006)
546 Transmission of Certified Copy of Notice of Appeal, Judgment, Order and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re 543 Notice of Cross Appeal, (fem) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
NOTICE of Undeliverable Electronic Mail re: 544 Notice of E−filing Requirement, 546 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to USCA, 545 USCA Appeal Fees,. Mail returned for John C. Jones due to no longer being employed with the agency. (aar) (Entered: 11/03/2006)
548 First Period Monitoring Report. (jsr) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
USCA Appeal Fees received $ 455 receipt number 557600 re 543 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by Kenny A.,, Kara B.,, Maya C.,, Phelicia D.,, Sabrina E.,, Korrina E.,, Tanya F.,, Priscilla G.,, Briana H., Case Appealed to USCA Case Number 06−15514−AA. (fem) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
547 Cover Letter from Accountability Agents re First Period Monitoring Report. (jsr) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
549 ORDER granting 536 State Defendants' Motion to Stay judgment entered 10/3/06, pending resolution of appeal . Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 11/03/06. (jsr) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
550 USCA Acknowledgment of 543 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by Kenny A.,, Kara B.,, Maya C.,, Phelicia D.,, Sabrina E.,, Korrina E.,, Tanya F.,, Priscilla G.,, Briana H.,, 537 Notice of Appeal, filed by Division of Family and Children Services,, Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia,, Sonny Perdue,. Case Appealed to USCA Case Number 06−15514−AA (fem) (Entered: 11/15/2006)
Notification of Docket Correction re 545 USCA Appeal Fees. The wrong PDF was attached to this docket entry. Receipt of cross−appeal fees, $455, Receipt number 557600 on 11/3/06, has been redocketed. (fem) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
552 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERRORRequest for Original Papers from US Court of Appeals re 543 Notice of Cross Appeal,, 537 Notice of Appeal, Case Appealed to USCA Case Number 06−15449−H. Original Papers due by 12/8/2006. (fem) Modified on 11/30/2006 (fem). Modified on 11/30/2006 (fem). (Entered: 11/30/2006)
551 MOTION to Withdraw John C. Jones as Attorneyby Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, James Martin, Division of Family and Children Services, Beverly Jones, DeKalb County DFCS, Wayne Drummond, Roy Barnes, Sonny Perdue. (Jones, John) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
Notification of Docket Correction re 552 Original Papers Requested from USCA. This document should not have been docketed in this case. (fem) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
CERTIFICATE OF READINESS of Appeal Record re 543 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by Kenny A.,, Kara B.,, Maya C.,, Phelicia D.,, Sabrina E.,, Korrina E.,, Tanya F.,, Priscilla G.,, Briana H.,, 537 Notice of Appeal, filed by Division of Family and Children Services,, Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia,, Sonny Perdue,. USCA Case Number 06−15514−H (fem) Modified on 2/5/2007 to correct USCA case No.(fem). (Entered: 12/04/2006)
553 Certified copy of CERTIFICATE OF READINESS transmitted to USCA re 543 Notice of Cross Appeal,, 537 Notice of Appeal,. Case Appealed to USCA Case Number 06−15514−H (Attachments: # 1 Part II of document# 2 Part III of Document)(fem) Modified on 2/5/2007 (fem). (Entered: 12/04/2006)
554 ORDER granting 551 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney John C. Jones terminated . Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 12/1/06. (jsr) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
555 FORTHWITH LETTER from USCA re 543 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by Kenny A.,, Kara B.,, Maya C.,, Phelicia D.,, Sabrina E.,, Korrina E.,, Tanya F.,, Priscilla G.,, Briana H.,, 537 Notice of Appeal, filed by Division of Family and Children Services,, Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia,, Sonny Perdue,. Case

01/29/2007 01/31/2007
02/05/2007 03/16/2007
06/15/2007 06/25/2007 06/25/2007 08/06/2007 08/06/2007
08/15/2007
08/23/2007 10/01/2007
10/03/2007 12/20/2007
12/20/2007 12/20/2007

Appealed to USCA Case Number 06−15514−AA. Appeal Record due by 2/7/2007. (fem) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
NOTICE of Undeliverable Electronic Mail re: 555 Forthwith letter,. Mail returned for Douglas C. Gray due to no longer employed with the agency. (aar) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
556 NOTICE by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. Of Withdrawal of Douglas C. Gray, Jeffrey K. Powell, Sarah Hechtman and Stacy F. Antonucci as Counsel (Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 01/31/2007)
557 Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 543 Notice of Cross Appeal,, 537 Notice of Appeal, Case Appealed to usca Case Number 06−15514−A. (fem) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
558 ORDER GRANTING the unopposed request of Judge William G. Jones, the Accountability Agent under the Fulton County settlement, for an extension of time from March 15 to June 15, 2007, to submit his first report. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 3/15/07. (hfm) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
559 NOTICE Of Filing Period II Monitoring Report. (hfm) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
560 NOTICE Of Filing Kenny A. Interim Report (hfm) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
561 NOTICE Of Filing Child Advocate Attorney Representation and Workload Study. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix)(hfm) (Entered: 06/25/2007)
562 NOTICE of Appearance by Jane M. Ricci on behalf of all plaintiffs (Ricci, Jane) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
563 Joint NOTICE Of Filing Dekalb Child Advocacy Center Compliance Report Covering the Period September 13, 2006 − March 13, 2007 (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 of Compliance Report# 2 Part 3 of Compliance Report# 3 Part 4 of Compliance Report# 4 Part 5 of Compliance Report# 5 Part 6 of Compliance Report# 6 Part 7 of Compliance Report) (ryc) (Entered: 08/09/2007)
564 APPLICATION for Admission of Daniel W.E. Holt Pro Hac Vice by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., and Priscilla G.Fee received: $150.00, Receipt #568273. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(sjk) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
565 ORDER APPROVING 564 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Signed by CRD for Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 8/23/2007. (sjk) (Entered: 08/23/2007)
566 DOCUMENT FILING ERROR NOTICE by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, James Martin, Division of Family and Children Services, Beverly Jones, DeKalb County DFCS, Wayne Drummond, Sonny Perdue of Substitution of Counsel (Cohen, Mark) Modified on 10/3/2007 (sjk). (Entered: 10/01/2007)
567 Certification of Consent to Substitution of Counsel. Shalen S. Nelson replacing attorney Eddie Snelling, Jr; Jefferson James Davis and Kathleen Mary Pacious. (Nelson, Shalen) (Entered: 10/03/2007)
568 NOTICE by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. of Filing the DeKalb County Child Advocacy Center Compliance Report Covering the Period March 14, 2007 − September 14, 2007 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B − Part 1, # 3 Exhibit B−Part 2, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
569 NOTICE Of Filing Attachments Under Seal by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. (Hirokawa, Corey) Modified on 12/21/2007 (sjk). (Entered: 12/20/2007)
570 Performance Evaluations by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. re 569 Notice of Filing. FILED UNDER SEAL (sjk) (sjk). Modified on 12/21/2007 (sjk). (Entered: 12/21/2007)

12/21/2007 01/29/2008
01/30/2008 01/30/2008 01/31/2008 02/12/2008 03/10/2008 05/14/2008 07/22/2008
07/22/2008 07/22/2008 08/01/2008
08/19/2008 08/19/2008

571 PERIOD III MONITORING REPORT by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(sjk) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
572 −DOCUMENT FILING ERROR− ORDER: the court DIRECTS Plaintiffs counsel to confer with Defendant and file a Joint Preliminary Planning Report and Discovery Plan within ten (10) days from the date of this order. The court cautions Plaintiffs that if they fail to do so, the court can impose any sanction up to and including dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute and failure to follow an order of the court. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to resubmit these cases in ten days. Signed by Judge J. Owen Forrester on 1/29/08. (hfm) Modified on 1/30/2008: attached in incorrect case. Correct case number 1:07−cv−2825 (hfm). (Entered: 01/30/2008)
Notification of Docket Correction re 572 Order: Inadvertently filed under incorrect case number. (see modification text above) (hfm) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
573 First MOTION to Withdraw Jane M. Ricci as Attorneyby Briana H., Office of the Child Advocate of the State of Georgia, Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., The Barton Child Law & Policy Clinic, Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Ricci, Jane) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
574 ORDER GRANTING 573 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jane M. Ricci terminated. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 1/31/2008. (sjk) (Entered: 02/01/2008)
575 NOTICE of Change of Address for Erik S. Pitchal, counsel for Kenny A. (Pitchal, Erik) (Entered: 02/12/2008)
576 NOTICE of Filing Additional Attachments to the January Report of the Monitor by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. (Attachments: # 1 Board Resolution, # 2 Response, # 3 Jones Response, # 4 Letter)(fmm) (Entered: 03/13/2008)
577 PERIOD IV MONITORING REPORT. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2)(sjk) (Entered: 05/15/2008)
578 STATUS REPORT by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. Covering the Period September 15, 2007 through March 15, 2008 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A part 1, # 2 Exhibit A Part 2, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C)(Hirokawa, Corey) Modified on 7/23/2008 to correct text to more accurately reflect e−filed document (sjk). (Entered: 07/22/2008)
579 NOTICE Of Filing by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. attachments to the DeKalb County Child Advoacy Center Compliance Report Covering the Period September 15, 2007 through March 15, 2008 Under Seal (Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 07/22/2008)
580 EXHIBITS by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. re 578 Status Report. FILED UNDER SEAL (sjk) (sjk). Modified on 7/23/2008 (sjk). (Entered: 07/23/2008)
581 STATUS REPORT re: Kenny A. by Fulton County on behalf of Willliam G. Jones (Attachments: # 1 List of Appendices, # 2 Appendix A, # 3 Appendix B, # 4 Appendix C, # 5 Appendix D, # 6 Appendix E, # 7 Appendix F, # 8 Appendix G, # 9 Appendix H, # 10 Appendix I, # 11 Appendix J, # 12 Appendix K, # 13 Appendix L, # 14 Appendix M, # 15 Appendix N, # 16 Appendix O, # 17 Appendix P, # 18 Appendix Q, # 19 Appendix R, # 20 Appendix S, # 21 Appendix T, # 22 Appendix U)(Lovett, Willie) Modified on 8/4/2008 to correct double wording in attachment and to correct text to more accurately reflect e−filed document (sjk). (Entered: 08/01/2008)
582 Notice for Leave of Absence for the following date(s): 9/10/08, 9/11/08, 9/12/08, 9/13/08, 9/14/08, 9/15/08, 9/16/08, 9/17/08, 9/18/08, 9/19/08, by Mark Howard Cohen. (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 08/19/2008)
583 MOTION for Order to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not Be Adjudged in Civil Contempt and Sanctioned with Brief In Support by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum of Law in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5

08/21/2008 08/27/2008 09/05/2008
09/05/2008 09/05/2008 09/09/2008 09/11/2008
09/29/2008 10/10/2008
10/10/2008
10/14/2008
10/14/2008 10/15/2008 10/15/2008

Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5)(Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 08/19/2008)
584 ORDER granting 583 Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to Show Cause. State defendants are ORDERED to show cause in writing within 20 days why they should not be adjudged in civil contempt and sanctioned. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 8/21/08. (jsr) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
585 RESPONSE re 581 Notice of Filing,, Second Kenny A. Report filed by Fulton County. (Lovett, Willie) (Entered: 08/27/2008)
586 MOTION for Order For Discovery and Scheduling Order with Brief In Support by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum of Law in Support, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Memorandum of Law, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Ira P. Lustbader Pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 1746)(Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
587 ORDER denying 585 Fulton County's Request for a direction to the Accountability Agent and for a status conference. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 9/5/2008. (ank) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
588 NOTICE of Appearance by Sarah M. Shalf on behalf of Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. (Shalf, Sarah) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
589 Joint MOTION to Stay re 584 Order on Motion for Order to Show Cause, by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit A − Stipulation and Agreed Order)(Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 09/09/2008)
590 ORDER granting 589 Motion to Stay. Further proceedings re plaintiffs' motion for order to show cause and plaintiffs' motion for discovery and scheduling order shall be stayed to and through 10/10/2008. Defendant's time to show cause and the date for defendant's response to plaintiffs' motion for discovery and scheduling order shall be extended to and through 10/20/2008.. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 9/11/2008. (ank) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
591 MOTION to Withdraw Corey Fleming Hirokawa as Attorneyby Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Hirokawa, Corey) (Entered: 09/29/2008)
592 STIPULATION re 590 Order on Motion to Stay, by Briana H., Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, James Martin, Division of Family and Children Services, Beverly Jones, DeKalb County DFCS, Wayne Drummond, Fulton County, DeKalb County, Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Roy Barnes, Sonny Perdue, Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Shalf, Sarah) (Entered: 10/10/2008)
594 ORDER extending stay of proceedings to and through 11/3/2008 and extending time for defendants to show cause in writing why they should not be adjudged in civil contempt and sanctioned, as well as the date for defendants' Response to plaintiff's Motion for Discovery and Scheduling Order, to and through 11/13/2008. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 10/10/2008. (ank) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
593 Brief in Support of Motion to Terminate Consent Decree and Compliance Monitoring 532 Order with Brief In Support by Briana H., DeKalb County DFCS, DeKalb County, Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Shalf, Sarah) Modified on 10/15/2008 to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (ank). (Entered: 10/14/2008)
Clerks Certificate of Mailing re 594 Order. Mailed to Shirim Nothenberg, Michael K. Bartosz, and Marcia Robinson Lowry. (ank) (Entered: 10/14/2008)
Notification of Docket Correction re 593 Brief in Support of Motion to Terminate Consent Decree and Compliance Monitoring 532 Order. The Brief in Support has been filed, but the Motion has not been filed. (ank) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
595 Consent Order to Terminate Consent Decree and Compliance Monitoring as to DeKalb County. This Court's jurisdiction over all requirements of the Consent Decree entered into by the Plaintiffs and DeKalb County is hereby terminated. Signed by Judge

10/15/2008 10/15/2008 10/16/2008 10/24/2008 10/27/2008 10/28/2008
10/29/2008 11/03/2008 11/03/2008 11/17/2008 11/18/2008
11/19/2008 11/19/2008

Marvin H. Shoob on 10/14/2008. (ank) Modified on 10/15/2008 to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (ank). (Entered: 10/15/2008)
Clerks Certificate of Mailing re 595 Consent Order. Mailed to Michael K. Bartosz, Marcia Robinson Lowry, and Shirim Nothenberg. (ank) (Entered: 10/15/2008)
596 ORDER granting 591 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Corey Fleming Hirokawa terminated. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 10/15/2008. (ank) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
Clerks Certificate of Mailing re 596 Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Mailed to Michael K. Bartosz, Marcia Robinson Lowry, and Shirim Nothenberg. (ank) (Entered: 10/16/2008)
597 PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER Regarding Third Reporting Period Monitoring re: 585 Response (Non−Motion), 587 Order filed by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H. (Shalf, Sarah) Modified on 10/27/2008 in order to correct filer information (ank). (Entered: 10/24/2008)
Notification of Docket Correction re 597 Proposed Consent Order. Modified in order to correct filer information. (ank) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
598 ORDER approving 597 Proposed Consent Order. The parties shall attempt to reach agreement on a monitoring tool by December 1, 2008, after which the Parties reserve all of their rights under the Decree should no agreement be reached. The Third Reporting Period shall be extended to cover the periodstarting July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. The Accountability Agent shall file with the Court an Interim Third Reporting Period Report on or before January 15, 2009, that addresses the County's compliance with the workload requirements established by the Child Advocate Attorney Representation and Workload Studyand incorporated as an enforceable provision of the Decree and the Accountability Agent shall file by August 1, 2009, acomprehensive report assessing Fulton County's performance on allof its obligations under the Decree for the full, extended ThirdReporting Period. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 10/28/2008. (ank) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to Michael K. Bartosz, Shirim Nothenberg and Marcia Robinson Lowry re 598 Order (ank) (Entered: 10/29/2008)
599 STIPULATION re 594 Order, 590 Order on Motion to Stay, by Briana H., Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, James Martin, Division of Family and Children Services, Beverly Jones, DeKalb County DFCS, Wayne Drummond, Fulton County, Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Roy Barnes, Sonny Perdue, Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Shalf, Sarah) (Entered: 11/03/2008)
600 ORDER extending stay of proceedings through and including 11/18/2008 and extending defendants' time to show cause why they should not be adjudged in civil contempt and sanctioned as well as time to respond to plaintiff's Motion for Discovery and Scheduling Order through and including 12/1/2008. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 11/3/2008. (ank) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
601 STIPULATION re 594 Order, 600 Order, 590 Order on Motion to Stay, by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Holt, Daniel) (Entered: 11/17/2008)
602 ORDER extending stay of proceedings through and including 12/12/2008 and extending the Defendants' time to show cause in writing why they should not be adjudged in civil contempt and sanctioned, as well as the date for State Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery and Scheduling Order, through and including 12/22/2008. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 11/18/2008. (ank) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to Michael K. Bartosz, Shirim Nothenberg, and Marcia Robinson Lowry re 602 Order. (ank) (Entered: 11/19/2008)
603 PERIOD V MONITORING REPORT. (dfb) (Entered: 11/20/2008)

12/11/2008 12/15/2008 12/15/2008 01/09/2009 02/17/2009 03/12/2009 03/19/2009 03/27/2009 05/18/2009
05/18/2009
05/19/2009 05/29/2009 06/19/2009 06/29/2009

604 STIPULATION re 584 Order on Motion for Order to Show Cause, 586 MOTION for Order For Discovery and Scheduling Order by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Holt, Daniel) (Entered: 12/11/2008)
605 ORDER approving Stipulation regarding plaintiff's contempt and discovery motions and assertion of state defendants' noncompliance with outcome measures 9 and 10 and dismissing 583 and 586 motions. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 12/11/2008. (ank) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to Michael K. Bartosz, Shirim Nothenberg, and Marcia Robinson Lowry re 605 Order (ank) (Entered: 12/15/2008)
ORAL ORDER granting the request of the Accountability Agent in the Fulton County settlement for an extension of time through February 18, 2009 to file his Interim Third Reporting Period Report. Approved by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 1/9/09. (jsr) (Entered: 01/09/2009)
ORAL ORDER granting a further extension until March 11, 2009, for the Accountability Agent in the Fulton County settlement to file his Interim Third Reporting Period Report. Approved by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 2/17/09. (jsr) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
ORAL ORDER granting a further extension until March 18, 2009, for the Accountability Agent in the Fulton County settlement to file his Interim Third Reporting Period Report. Approved by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 3/11/09. (jsr) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
ORAL ORDER granting a further extension until March 27, 2009, for the Accountability Agent in the Fulton County settlement to file his Interim Third Reporting Period Report. Approved by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 3/18/09. (jsr) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
606 FILED UNDER SEAL PER 610 ORDER Accountability Agent's Interim Third Period Report for Fulton County. (jsr) Modified on 5/29/2009 to change document security (gar). (Entered: 03/30/2009)
607 Joint MOTION for Entry of Stipulation and Order to Modify the Fulton County Consent Decree to Incorporate a Client − Directed Model of Representation by Briana H., Fulton County, Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Joint Stipulation and Order to Modify the Fulton County Consent Decree, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
608 NOTICE Of Filing Corrected Exhibit to Joint Motion for Entry of Stipulation and Order to Modify the Fulton County Consent Decree to Incorporate a Client − Directed Model of Representation by Briana H., Fulton County, Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/18/2009)
609 STIPULATION AND ORDER modifying Fulton County Consent Decree to Incorporate a Client − Directed Model of Representation. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 5/19/2009. (gar) (Entered: 05/20/2009)
610 ORDER directing the Clerk to place pages 9−11 of 606 Accountability Agent's Interim Third Period Report UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 5/28/2009. (gar) (Entered: 05/29/2009)
611 PERIOD VI MONITORING REPORT. (dfb) (Entered: 06/23/2009)
612 Joint MOTION for Order For Entry of Joint Stipulation and Order to Modify the Consent Decree Regarding Reimbursement Rates for Placements by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Joint Stipulation and Order to Modify the Consent Decree Regarding Reimbursement Rates for Placements)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/29/2009)

06/30/2009 07/30/2009 09/24/2009 09/29/2009 09/29/2009
10/01/2009 10/01/2009 10/30/2009 11/02/2009 11/18/2009 11/18/2009 11/19/2009 11/20/2009
11/23/2009

613 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER Modifying the Consent Decree regarding Reimbursement Rates for Placements. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 6/29/2009. (gar) (Entered: 07/01/2009)
ORAL ORDER granting the request of the Accountability Agent in the Fulton County settlement for an extension of time through October 15, 2009, to file his Second Report. Approved by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 7/29/09. (jsr) (Entered: 07/30/2009)
614 ORDER granting the request of the Accountability Agent in the Fulton County settlement for an extension of time through 10/30/2009, to file his next report. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 09/24/2009. (rvb) (Entered: 09/25/2009)
615 DOCUMENT FILING ERROR NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey O. Bramlett on behalf of Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. (Bramlett, Jeffrey) Modified on 9/30/2009 (rvb). (Entered: 09/29/2009)
616 MOTION for Attorney Fees with Brief In Support by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Reimbursement of Reasonable Supplemental Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 2−A, # 5 Exhibit 2−B, # 6 Exhibit 2−C, # 7 Exhibit 2−D, # 8 Exhibit 2−E, # 9 Exhibit 2−F, # 10 Exhibit 3, # 11 Exhibit 3−A, # 12 Exhibit 3−B, # 13 Exhibit 3−C, # 14 Exhibit 3−D, # 15 Exhibit 3−E, # 16 Exhibit 3−F, # 17 Exhibit 3−G, # 18 Exhibit 3−H, # 19 Exhibit 4, # 20 Exhibit 5, # 21 Exhibit 6, # 22 Exhibit 7, # 23 Exhibit 8, # 24 Exhibit 9, # 25 Exhibit 10, # 26 Exhibit 11)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/29/2009)
617 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response re: 616 MOTION for Attorney Fees by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Kenny A., Sonny Perdue. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
ORAL ORDER granting 617 Motion for Extension of Time. State defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees 616 no later than 11/18/09. Approved by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 10/1/09. (jsr) (Entered: 10/01/2009)
618 Third Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2009. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A − Part 1 of 2, # 2 Appendix A − Part 2 of 2) (dfb) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
619 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael A. Caplan on behalf of Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. (Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 11/02/2009)
620 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Sonny Perdue. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
621 RESPONSE in Opposition re 616 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Sonny Perdue. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Woodard Affidavit))(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 11/18/2009)
622 ORDER granting 620 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. State Defendants may file a brief not to exceed 40 pages in length. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 11/19/2009. (rvb) (Entered: 11/19/2009)
623 Consent MOTION for Order by Briana H., Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, James Martin, Division of Family and Children Services, Beverly Jones, Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Roy Barnes, Sonny Perdue, Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Consent Order)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 11/20/2009)
624 ORDER granting 623 Motion for Entry of Consent Order. Plaintiffs shall have until 12/21/2009 to file their reply brief in support of 616 Motion for Reimbursement of Reasonable Supplemental Attorney's Fees and Expenses. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 11/23/2009. (rvb) (Entered: 11/24/2009)

12/09/2009 12/21/2009
12/21/2009 12/22/2009 12/22/2009 12/28/2009 01/07/2010
01/22/2010
01/22/2010 01/26/2010
02/04/2010 02/18/2010 02/25/2010
02/25/2010 03/01/2010
03/04/2010
03/08/2010

625 NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel. Joshua Luke Becker replacing attorney Courtney Carter Fletcher. (Becker, Joshua) Modified on 12/10/2009 to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (rvb). (Entered: 12/09/2009)
626 REPLY BRIEF re 616 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses filed by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
627 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages with Brief In Support by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 12/21/2009)
628 NOTICE Of Filing Corrected Page of Reply Brief by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. re 626 Reply Brief, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
629 Amended MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit A)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 12/22/2009)
Submission of 616 MOTION for Attorney Fees, submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (rvb) (Entered: 12/28/2009)
630 ORDER granting Plaintiff's 629 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs may file a reply brief in support of 616 Motion for Attorney fees not to exceed twenty−six pages in length. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 01/06/2010. (rvb) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
631 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Supplement to Reply Brief with Brief In Support by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Plaintiffs' Supplement to Reply Brief, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 01/22/2010)
632 PERIOD VII MONITORING REPORT. (rvb) (Entered: 01/25/2010)
633 RESPONSE in Opposition re 631 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Supplement to Reply Brief filed by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Sonny Perdue. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 −− J. Milsteen Affidavit)(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 01/26/2010)
634 Correction to 632 Period VII Monitoring Report. (rvb) (Entered: 02/04/2010)
Submission of 631 MOTION for Leave to File Plaintiffs' Supplement to Reply Brief, submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (rvb) (Entered: 02/18/2010)
635 Joint MOTION for Order by Briana H., Division of Family and Children Services, Beverly Jones, Fulton County, Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
636 Consent Order. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 02/25/2010. (rvb) (Entered: 02/25/2010)
637 APPLICATION for Admission of Laurence D. Borten Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E0000000002588343)by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 03/01/2010)
APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 637 APPLICATION for Admission of Laurence D. Borten Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E0000000002588343). Attorney Laurence D. Borten added appearing on behalf of Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. (cdg) (Entered: 03/04/2010)
638 ORDER granting 637 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to Laurence Borten. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 03/08/2010. (rvb) (Entered: 03/08/2010)

03/15/2010
03/26/2010 04/05/2010 04/12/2010 04/13/2010 04/15/2010 04/15/2010 05/03/2010
05/04/2010 05/06/2010 05/07/2010 05/13/2010
05/20/2010
05/20/2010

639 MOTION for Discovery with Brief In Support by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Discovery, # 2 Proposed Discovery Order, # 3 Affidavit Declaration of Ira P. Lustbader Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746, # 4 Declaration Exhibit A, # 5 Declaration Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit Declaration Exhibit C, # 7 Declaration Exhibit D, # 8 Declaration Exhibit E)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 03/15/2010)
640 RESPONSE in Opposition re 639 MOTION for Discovery filed by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Sonny Perdue. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Affidavit of Melissa D. Carter, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Affidavit of Mark A. Washington)(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 03/26/2010)
ORAL ORDER granting the Accountability Agent in the Fulton County settlement an extension of time through April 14, 2010, to file his next interim report. Approved by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 4/5/10. (jsr) (Entered: 04/05/2010)
641 REPLY BRIEF re 639 MOTION for Discovery filed by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 04/12/2010)
Submission of 639 MOTION for Discovery, submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (rvb) (Entered: 04/13/2010)
642 Interim Report of the Accountability Agent in the Fulton County settlement. (rvb) (Entered: 04/15/2010)
643 Supporting Documents to 642 Interim Report of the Accountability Agent in the Fulton County settlement. (rvb) (Entered: 04/16/2010)
644 MOTION for Discovery in the Form of Quarterly Reports with Brief In Support by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion for Discovery in the Form of Quarterly Reports, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4 (FILED UNDER SEAL) )(Caplan, Michael) Modified on 5/6/2010 to change security of exhibit 4 (rvb). Modified on 5/7/2010 (rvb). (Entered: 05/03/2010)
NOTICE of Undeliverable Electronic Mail re: 644 MOTION for Discovery in the Form of Quarterly Reports. Mail returned for Elizabeth B. Taylor due to no longer being employed with the agency. (aar) (Entered: 05/04/2010)
645 NOTICE Of Filing [Draft] Order by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G. re 644 MOTION for Discovery in the Form of Quarterly Reports (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A [Draft] Order)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 05/06/2010)
646 ORDER Directing the clerk to seal Exhibit 4 [644−7] re 644 MOTION for Discovery under seal. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 05/07/2010. (rvb) (Entered: 05/07/2010)
647 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff's 631 Motion for Leave to File Supplement to Reply Brief. Plaintiff's 616 Motion for Attorney Fees and expenses is GRANTED. The Court DECLARES that Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h)(1) does not require that notice be directed to the plaintiff class of this or subsequent motions for supplemental attorneys' fees and expenses; and ORDERS the State Defendants to pay plaintiff's supplemental attorneys' fees in the amount of $989,706.58 and expenses in the amount of $55,289.88. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 05/13/2010. (rvb) (Entered: 05/13/2010)
648 RESPONSE in Opposition re 644 MOTION for Discovery in the Form of Quarterly Reports filed by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Sonny Perdue. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12)(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 05/20/2010)
649 ORDER granting Plaintiff's 639 Motion for Discovery. Within 10 days, State Defendants shall provide to plaintiff the information as outlined in this order. After State Defendant's provide the information to the plaintiffs, plaintiffs shall identify the

06/07/2010
06/07/2010 06/15/2010 06/16/2010 06/30/2010
07/14/2010
07/14/2010
07/22/2010 07/26/2010 09/21/2010 09/23/2010
10/04/2010

files to be produced for the purpose of case record review. State Defendants shall then produce copies of the complete, original DFCS case files for review by Class Counsel and/or their agents, consultants, or experts, within 20 days of plaintiffs' request. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 05/20/2010. (rvb) (Entered: 05/21/2010)
650 REPLY BRIEF re 644 MOTION for Discovery in the Form of Quarterly Reports filed by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Supplemental Declaration of Ira P. Lustbader, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Supplemental Declaration of Ira P. Lustbader, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Supplemental Declaration of Ira P. Lustbader)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 06/07/2010)
Appeal Record Returned: 537 Notice of Appeal, 543 Notice of Cross Appeal, Case Appealed to USCA Case Number 06−15514−AA. (fem) (Entered: 10/06/2010)
Submission of 644 MOTION for Discovery in the Form of Quarterly Reports, submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (rvb) (Entered: 06/15/2010)
651 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Marvin H. Shoob: Status Conference held on 6/16/2010. Argument by counsel. Attorneys to meet and submit the relief they want to the Court. Defendant to respond to the plaintiffs' Exhibit No.1, which was tendered to the Court during the hearing. (Court Reporter Debra Jernigan)(rvb) (Entered: 06/17/2010)
652 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on June 16, 2010, before Judge Marvin H. Shoob. Court Reporter/Transcriber D Jernigan, Telephone number 404−215−1383. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/21/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/2/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/28/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing of transcript) (dxj) (Entered: 06/30/2010)
653 RESPONSE re 651 Order on Motion for Discovery, Status Conference,, (State Defendants' Response to Court's Request for Position on Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery in the Form of Quarterly Reports and State Defendants' Update on Inquiry Concerning Caseloads) filed by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services. (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
654 RESPONSE re 651 Order on Motion for Discovery, Status Conference,, Plaintiffs' Response to Court Request for Position Concerning Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery in the Form of Quarterly Reports filed by Briana H., Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Sabrina E., Korrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Exhibit A − Declaration of Ira Lustbader, # 2 Text of Proposed Order Exhibit B − Proposed Order)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 07/14/2010)
655 PERIOD VIII MONITORING REPORT. (rvb) (Entered: 07/23/2010)
656 ORDER denying 644 Motion for Discovery in the form of quarterly reports. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 07/26/2010. (rvb) (Entered: 07/27/2010)
657 PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER Scheduling. (Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/21/2010)
658 CONSENT SCHEDULING ORDER: Plaintiffs shall file their opening submission on or before 11/15/2010; State Defendants shall file their responsive submission on or before 12/15/2010; Plaintiffs shall file any reply submission deemed necessary on or before January 7, 2011; Oral argument shall be scheduled by the Court at a date and time following the filing of Plaintiffs reply submission. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 09/23/2010. (rvb) (Entered: 09/23/2010)
659 Certified copy of USCA JUDGMENT on remand from the US Supreme Court VACATING and REMANDING to the District Court for further action re: 537 Notice of Appeal, filed by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Sonny Perdue, 543 Notice of Cross Appeal, filed by Phelicia D., Briana H., Korrina E., Maya C., Kara B., Priscilla G., Kenny A., Tanya F., Sabrina E. Case Appealed to 11th USCA Case Number 06−15514 & 06−15874. (rvb)

10/08/2010 10/12/2010
10/13/2010 10/22/2010
11/08/2010
11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010
11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/10/2010

(Entered: 10/08/2010)
Submission of 659 USCA Judgment, submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (rvb) (Entered: 10/08/2010)
660 ORDER making the USCA mandate the judgment of this Court re 537 Notice of Appeal, 543 Notice of Cross Appeal. Case Appealed to 11th USCA Case Number 06−15514. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 10/12/2010. (rvb) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
661 CLERK'S REMITTITUR NOTICE re 660 USCA Mandate to parties. (rvb) (Entered: 10/13/2010)
662 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses and Request to Hold Motion in Abeyance by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 10/22/2010)
663 RESPONSE in Opposition re 662 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses and Request to Hold Motion in Abeyance filed by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Sonny Perdue. (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 11/08/2010)
664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
665 Appendix A through D re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
666 Appendix E through F re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
667 Appendix G Part 1 of 2 re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) Modified on 11/12/2010 to correct filing date (rvb). (Entered: 11/12/2010)
668 Appendix G Part 2 of 2 re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
669 Appendix H re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
670 Appendix I Part 1 of 2 re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
671 Appendix I Part 2 of 2 re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
672 Appendix J Part 1 of 2 re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
673 Appendix J Part 2 of 2 re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
674 Appendix K Part 1 of 3 re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
675 Appendix K Part 2 of 3 re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
676 Appendix K Part 3 of 3 re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010.(rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
677 Appendix L Part 1 of 2 re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
678 Appendix L Part 2 of 2 re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
679 Appendix M re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)

11/10/2010 11/10/2010 11/15/2010 11/15/2010
11/18/2010 11/19/2010 11/22/2010
11/23/2010 11/23/2010
11/23/2010
12/06/2010 12/06/2010
12/07/2010
12/09/2010 12/21/2010

680 Appendix N through Q re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
681 Appendix R through V re 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/12/2010)
682 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − [Proposed] Order)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
683 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses [Renewed] with Brief In Support by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 1−A, # 4 Exhibit 2, # 5 Exhibit 3, # 6 Exhibit 4, # 7 Exhibit 5, # 8 Exhibit 6, # 9 Exhibit 7, # 10 Exhibit 8)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 11/15/2010)
684 PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER [Proposed] Stipulated Modification of Consent Decree re: 488 Order. (Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
685 ORDER granting 682 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs may file a reply brief not to exceed 55 pages in length. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 11/16/2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
686 Joint MOTION for Entry of Consent Order by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H., Sonny Perdue. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A [Proposed] Order)(Caplan, Michael) Modified on 11/23/2010 to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (rvb). (Entered: 11/22/2010)
687 STIPULATED MODIFICATION OF CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 11/22/2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
Notification of Docket Correction re 686 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Reply to State Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Preliminary Motion for Appellate Fees and Expenses and Request to Hold Motion in Abeyance. Docket text corrected to reflect e−filed pleading as 686 Joint MOTION for Entry of Consent Order. (rvb) (Entered: 11/23/2010)
688 ORDER granting 686 Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Order. The time for Plaintiffs to file their reply to State Defendants' Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Preliminary Motion for Appellate Fees and Expenses and Request to Hold Motion in Abeyance shall be extended through and including December 6, 2010. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 11/23/2010. (rvb) (Entered: 11/24/2010)
689 REPLY BRIEF re 662 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses and Request to Hold Motion in Abeyance filed by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
690 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time for Briefing on Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for an Award of Attorneys Fees and Expenses [dkt. 683] by Kenny A., Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Sonny Perdue. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 12/06/2010)
691 ORDER granting 690 Consent Motion for Extension of Time for Briefing. State Defendants shall respond to Plaintiffs' 683 Renewed Motion for an Award of Reasonable Attorneys' Fees and Expenses no later than 1/05/2011. Plaintiffs may file a reply brief in support of the motion no later than 01/31/2011. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 12/07/2010. (rvb) (Entered: 12/08/2010)
Submission of 662 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses and Request to Hold Motion in Abeyance, submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (rvb) (Entered: 12/09/2010)
692 Supplement to 664 Fourth Kenny A Report for Fulton County for the Period Ending June 30, 2010. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Part 2 of 4, # 2 Supplement Part 3 of 4, # 3 Supplement Part 4 of 4, # 4 Appendix)(rvb) (Entered: 12/21/2010)

12/22/2010 01/05/2011
01/05/2011
01/14/2011 01/31/2011 01/31/2011 02/02/2011 02/02/2011 03/14/2011 03/29/2011 03/29/2011 03/31/2011
04/08/2011
04/12/2011

693 PERIOD IX MONITORING REPORT. (ank) (Entered: 12/22/2010)
694 RESPONSE in Opposition re 683 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses [Renewed] filed by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Sonny Perdue. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P)(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
695 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for State Defendants' Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses by Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Sonny Perdue. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 01/05/2011)
696 ORDER granting State Defendant's 695 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. State Defendants may file a brief not to exceed 70 pages in length. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 01/07/2011. (rvb) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
697 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − [Proposed] Order Granting Motion to Exceed Page Limitation)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
698 REPLY BRIEF re 683 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses [Renewed] MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses [Renewed] filed by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 01/31/2011)
Submission of 683 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses [Renewed], submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (rvb) (Entered: 02/02/2011)
699 ORDER granting 697 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Plaintiffs may file a reply brief not to exceed 32 pages in length. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 02/02/2011. (rvb) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re: 683 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses [Renewed]. Motion Hearing set for Thursday, 3/31/2011, at 02:00 PM in ATLA Courtroom 1707 before Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (jsr) (Entered: 03/14/2011)
700 Motion to Bring Audio/Visual/Electronic Equipment in the Courtroom by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Order for Use of Electronic Equipment)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
701 ORDER granting 700 Motion to Bring Audio/Visual/Electronic Equipment in the Courtroom on 03/31/2011. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 03/29/2011. (rvb) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
702 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Marvin H. Shoob: Motion Hearing held on 3/31/2011. Argument held re 683 Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Attorney's Fees and Expense. Documents in notebook provided to the Court. The Court defers ruling on 683 Motion for Attorney Fees. (Court Reporter Elise Evans)(rvb) (Entered: 04/01/2011)
703 TRANSCRIPT of Motion for Attorney's Fees Proceedings held on 3/31/2011, before Judge Marvin H. Shoob. Court Reporter/Transcriber Elise Evans, Telephone number 404−215−1456. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/29/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/9/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/7/2011. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Filing Transcript) (ee) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/8/2011: # 2 Verification of Financial Arrangements) (fem). (Entered: 04/08/2011)
704 Consent MOTION to Terminate Modified Consent Decree with Defendant Fulton County and for Approval of Negotiated Attorneys' Fees and Expenses with Brief In Support by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F.,

04/12/2011 04/14/2011
04/14/2011
06/03/2011 06/06/2011 07/19/2011 07/19/2011
08/18/2011

Fulton County, Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief Memorandum in Support, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
705 PROPOSED ORDER of Substitution of Parties Named in Official Capacity. (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 04/12/2011)
706 CONSENT ORDER granting 704 Motion to Terminate Modified Consent Decree with Defendant Fulton County and for Approval of Negotiated Attorneys' Fees and Expenses. This Court's jurisdiction over all requirements of the Consent Decree entered into by Plaintiffs and Fulton County is terminated. Defendants shall pay Plaintiffs $145,000 in reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, without further notice to the class. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 04/14/2011. (rvb) (Entered: 04/14/2011)
707 ORDER of Substitution of Parties. Governor Nathan Deal, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia is substituted for former Governors Sonny Perdue and Roy Barnes. Clyde L. Reese III, in his official capacity as Commissioner ofthe Department of Human Services ofthe State of Georgia is substituted for former Commissioners Beverly Walker and James Martin. Glenda McMillan, in her official capacity as Director of the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services is substituted for former Directors Beverly Jones and Dannette Smith. Glenene Lanier, in her official capacity as Director ofthe DeKalb County Department ofFamily and Children Services is substituted for former Directors Wayne Drummond and Walker E. Solomon II. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 04/14/2011. (rvb) (Entered: 04/14/2011)
708 Notice to withdrawal attorney Erik S. Pitchal. (Caplan, Michael) Modified on 6/6/2011 to correct docket text to accurately reflect e−filed pleading (rvb). (Entered: 06/03/2011)
709 PERIOD X MONITORING REPORT. (rvb) (Entered: 06/06/2011)
710 ORDER denying 683 Renewed Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 7/19/11. (hfm) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
711 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 662 Motion for Attorney Fees and Request to hold Motion in Abeyance. Within thirty (30) days of the date of entry of this order, plaintiffs shall file with the Court an itemization of time and expenses, together with supporting documentation and a supporting brief, pertaining to the attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by plaintiffs in litigating this case before the Supreme Court. State Defendants shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of plaintiffs' materials to file a response, and plaintiffs shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the response to file a reply. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to resubmit this case after expiration of the above time period. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 7/19/11. (hfm) (Entered: 07/19/2011)
712 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF in Support of their 662 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses incurred in the United States Supreme Court filed by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2 Declaration of Marcia Robinson Lowry, # 3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Marcia Robinson Lowry, # 4 Exhibit B to Declaration of Marcia Robinson Lowry, # 5 Exhibit C to Declaration of Marcia Robinson Lowry, # 6 Exhibit D to Declaration of Marcia Robinson Lowry, # 7 Exhibit E to Declaration of Marcia Robinson Lowry, # 8 Exhibit F to Declaration of Marcia Robinson Lowry, # 9 Exhibit 3 Declaration of Jeffrey O. Bramlett, # 10 Exhibit A to Declaration of Jeffrey O. Bramlett, # 11 Exhibit B to Declaration of Jeffrey O. Bramlett, # 12 Exhibit C to Declaration of Jeffrey O. Bramlett, # 13 Exhibit D to Declaration of Jeffrey O. Bramlett, # 14 Exhibit E to Declaration of Jeffrey O. Bramlett, # 15 Exhibit 4 Declaration of Daryl Joseffer, # 16 Exhibit A to Declaration of Daryl Joseffer, # 17 Exhibit B to Declaration of Daryl Joseffer, # 18 Exhibit C to Declaration of Daryl Joseffer, # 19 Exhibit D to Declaration of Daryl Joseffer, # 20 Exhibit E to Declaration of Daryl Joseffer, # 21 Exhibit 5 Declaration of Paul Clement, # 22 Exhibit A to Declaration of Paul Clement, # 23 Exhibit B to Declaration of Paul Clement, # 24 Exhibit 6 Declaration of David Monde, # 25 Exhibit A to Declaration of David Monde, # 26 Exhibit 7, # 27 Exhibit 8)(Caplan, Michael) Modified on 8/18/2011 per

09/06/2011
09/07/2011 09/23/2011
12/20/2011
12/30/2011 06/15/2012 12/06/2012 12/10/2012
12/11/2012 12/18/2012 08/08/2013 02/05/2014 04/18/2014 04/21/2014 06/19/2014
06/26/2014 06/26/2014
06/27/2014
07/23/2014 11/20/2014

attorney's request to change the link to correct motion 662 and not to motion 704 . (cem) (Entered: 08/18/2011)
713 RESPONSE re 712 Response in Support of Motion,,,,,, filed by Nathan Deal, Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 09/06/2011)
Submission of 711 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees,submitted to District Judge Marvin H. Shoob. (hfm) (Entered: 09/07/2011)
714 REPLY to Response to Motion re 662 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses and Request to Hold Motion in Abeyance [Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Supplementation to Their Motion for Fees and Expenses Incurred in the United States Supreme Court] filed by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
715 NOTICE by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H. Notice of Withdrawal of Plaintiffs' Motion for Appellate Fees (Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/20/2011)
716 PERIOD XI MONITORING REPORT. (hfm) (Entered: 12/30/2011)
717 PERIOD XII MONITORING REPORT. (hfm) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
718 PROPOSED CONSENT ORDER To replace Accountability Agent. (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 12/06/2012)
719 CONSENT ORDER TO REPLACE ACCOUNTABILITY AGENT Approving 718 Proposed Consent Order. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 12/10/2012. (mdy) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to all unregistered attorneys re 719 Consent Order. (mdy) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
720 PERIOD XIII MONITORING REPORT. (mdy) (Entered: 12/18/2012)
721 PERIOD XIV MONITORING REPORT. (jtj) (Entered: 08/08/2013)
722 PERIOD XV MONITORING REPORT. (jtj) (Entered: 02/05/2014)
723 PROPOSED CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER. (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
724 CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 4/21/2014. (jtj) (Entered: 04/21/2014)
725 APPLICATION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Aaron Hirsh Finch by Kenny A., et al. Receipt # 113E−5225012 for $150.00. (Bramlett, Jeffrey) Modified on 6/19/2014 to edit docket text. (jtj) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
RETURN of 725 APPLICATION for Admission of Aaron Hirsh Finch to attorney for correction re: payment. (pb) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 725 APPLICATION for Admission of Aaron Hirsh Finch. Attorney Aaron Hirsh Finch added appearing on behalf of Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H. (pb) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
726 ORDER GRANTING 725 Application of Aaron Hirsh Finch for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Approved by CRD as directed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 6/27/2014. (jtj) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
727 PERIOD XVI MONITORING REPORT. (jtj) (Entered: 07/23/2014)
728 Proposed Consent Protective Order by Nathan Deal, Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services (Cohen, Mark) Modified on 11/21/2014 to correct docket text to match pdf filed (jpa). (Entered: 11/20/2014)

11/21/2014 11/24/2014 01/15/2015 05/06/2015 05/15/2015
05/18/2015 08/12/2015 08/26/2015 09/04/2015
09/08/2015 10/26/2015
10/28/2015 10/28/2015 11/02/2015
02/16/2016 02/24/2016

729 NOTICE by Nathan Deal, Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services Notice of Withdrawal of Counsel (Cohen, Mark) (Entered: 11/21/2014)
730 NOTICE of Appearance by Samika Nicole Boyd on behalf of Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H. (Boyd, Samika) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
731 PERIOD XVII MONITORING REPORT. (tcc) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
732 APPLICATION for Admission of Christina Wilson Remlin Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−5808309)by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 05/06/2015)
APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 732 APPLICATION for Admission of Christina Wilson Remlin Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−5808309). Attorney Christina M. Wilson Remlin added appearing on behalf of Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H. (pb) (Entered: 05/15/2015)
733 ORDER approving 732 Application for Admission of Christina Wilson Remlin Pro Hac Vice. Approved by CRD by direction of the Court on 5/18/2015. (tcc) (Entered: 05/18/2015)
734 PERIOD XVIII MONITORING REPORT. (tcc) (Entered: 08/12/2015)
735 APPLICATION for Admission of Elissa Lee Glucksman Hyne Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−6008921)by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/26/2015)
APPROVAL by Clerks Office re: 735 APPLICATION for Admission of Elissa Lee Glucksman Hyne Pro Hac Vice (Application fee $ 150, receipt number 113E−6008921). Attorney Elissa Lee Glucksman Hyne added appearing on behalf of Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Briana H. (pb) (Entered: 09/04/2015)
736 ORDER GRANTING 735 Application for Admission of Elissa Lee Glucksman Hyne Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 9/8/2015. (tcc) (Entered: 09/08/2015)
737 Joint MOTION for Order for Entry of Joint Stipulation and Order to Modify the Consent Decree Regarding Accountability and Monitoring by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Joint Stipulation and Order to Modify the Consent Decree Regarding Accountability and Monitoring)(Bramlett, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/26/2015)
738 PERIOD XIX MONITORING REPORT. (tcc) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
739 NOTICE of Appearance by Jaime L. Theriot on behalf of DeKalb County DFCS, Nathan Deal, Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services (Theriot, Jaime) (Entered: 10/28/2015)
740 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER granting the 737 Motion to Modify the Consent Decree Regarding Accountability and Monitoring. (See order for specifics.) Except as modified herein, all other provisions of the Consent Decree entered by this Court on October 28, 2005, and as subsequently modified, or further Orders of this Court, shall remain in full force and effect. Signed by Judge Marvin H. Shoob on 11/2/15. (aaq) (Entered: 11/02/2015)
741 PERIOD 19 FINAL DATA REPORT filed. (aaq) (Entered: 02/16/2016)
Case Reassigned to Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. Judge Marvin H. Shoob no longer assigned to case. NOTICE TO ALL COUNSEL OF RECORD: The Judge designation in the civil action number assigned to this case has been changed to 1:02−cv−1686−TWT. Please make note of this change in order to facilitate the docketing of pleadings in this case. (jpa) (Entered: 02/24/2016)

02/24/2016 02/24/2016 02/24/2016
09/12/2016 11/09/2016
11/09/2016
11/18/2016
12/01/2016 12/05/2016
12/05/2016
12/22/2016 01/03/2017
01/04/2017
05/31/2017 08/16/2017 08/16/2017 08/23/2017 08/24/2017 11/03/2017
11/07/2017
12/18/2017

Submission of 711 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees and 659 USCA Judgment, submitted to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (jpa) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
742 Letter regarding District Judge reassignment. (jpa) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
Clerks Certificate of Mailing as to Thurbert E. Baker, Sarah M. Shalf, and Children's Rights, Inc. re 742 Letter. Notice of street name change for the Atlanta courthouse included. (jpa) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
743 PERIOD 20 FINAL DATA REPORT. Received in chambers 8/11/2016 (ss) (Entered: 09/12/2016)
744 NOTICE of Appearance by David G.H. Brackett on behalf of Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H. (Brackett, David) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
745 Joint MOTION for Order for Entry of Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−Proposed Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Brackett, David) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion re: 745 Joint MOTION for Order for Entry of Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan Motion Hearing set for 12/5/2016 at 10:00 AM in ATLA Courtroom 2108 before Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr.. (ss) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
Submission of 745 Joint MOTION for Order for Entry of Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan to District Judge Thomas W. Thrash. (jkl) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
746 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr: Motion Hearing held on 12/5/2016; 745 Joint MOTION for Order GRANTED. (Court Reporter Susan Baker)(jkl) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
747 ORDER GRANTING 745 Joint Motion for Entry of Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan re 746 Motion Hearing. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 12/5/2016. (jkl) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
748 PERIOD 21 FINAL DATA REPORT. (ss) (Entered: 12/22/2016)
749 MOTION to Withdraw Michael A. Caplan as Attorneyby Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D., Korrina E., Sabrina E., Tanya F., Priscilla G., Briana H.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Caplan, Michael) (Entered: 01/03/2017)
750 ORDER granting 749 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Michael A. Caplan terminated. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 1/4/17. (hfm) (Entered: 01/04/2017)
751 PERIOD 22 FINAL DATA REPORT. (ss) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
752 ORDER to ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE the case. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 8/16/2017. (btql) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
Civil Case Terminated. (btql) (Entered: 08/16/2017)
753 Mail Returned as Undeliverable − forward time expired for Children's Rights, Inc. re 752 Order. (jkl) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
Clerk's Certificate of RE−Mailing to Childrens Rights, Inc. at 88 Pine St. Ste. 800, New York, NY 10005−1828 re 752 Order. (jkl) (Entered: 08/24/2017)
754 Joint MOTION for Order Amending Consent Decree by Kenny A., Kara B., Maya C., Phelicia D.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Consent Order to Amend Consent Decree)(Brackett, David) (Entered: 11/03/2017)
755 ORDER to Amend the Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan Regarding Infrastructure Standards granting 754 Motion for Order. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 11/7/2017. (rjs) (Entered: 11/07/2017)
756 Joint MOTION for Order Stipulated Amendment to Modified Consent Decree and Exit Plan by Nathan Deal. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Theriot, Jaime)

12/19/2017
12/19/2017
01/12/2018
02/02/2018 06/27/2018 12/31/2018 01/07/2019 03/20/2019 06/28/2019 01/22/2020

(Entered: 12/18/2017)
757 STIPULATED ORDER AMENDING THE MODIFIED CONSENT DECREE AND EXIT PLAN. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr. on 12/19/17. (bnw) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
Clerks Certificate of Mailing re 757 Order on Motion for Order as to Willie Jake Lovett, Jr. Michael K. Bartosz, Michael K. Bartosz, &Shirim Nothenberg (bnw) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
758 Mail Returned as Undeliverable − ATTEMPTED, NOT KNOWN. Mail sent to Michael K. Bartosz re 757 Order on Motion for Order (jkl) (Entered: 01/16/2018)
759 PERIOD 23 MONITORING REPORT. (ss) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
760 Period 24 Monitoring Report. (ss) (Entered: 06/27/2018)
761 Period 25 Monitoring Report. (ss) (Entered: 12/31/2018)
762 CORRECTED Period 25 Monitoring Report. (ss) (Entered: 01/07/2019)
763 First Brief on the Infrastructure Standards. (ss) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
764 Period 26 Monitoring Report. (cmd) (Entered: 07/01/2019)
765 Period 27 Monitoring Report. (cmd) (Entered: 01/23/2020)

 
 Embargoed for Release until 12:00 Noon EST, June 18, 2007
PERIOD II MONITORING REPORT
Kenny A. v Perdue July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006
Accountability Agents: James T. Dimas and Sarah A. Morrison
June 15, 2007

PART I PART II PART III PART IV PART V

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 Background, Purpose, Scope and Organization for this Report
A. The Kenny A. v. Perdue Consent Decree.................................................... 1 B. Methodology .................................................................................................. 1 C. Report Scope and Organization ................................................................... 3
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 5
A. Recommended Priorities for State Attention............................................. 6 B. Overview of Period II Performance ............................................................. 7 C. Progress in Issues Identified in First Period Report .................................. 17
SAFETY……………………………………………………..…………………… 19 Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment
A. Outcome Performance: ................................................................................. 19 B. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding
Maltreatment in Care Investigations..................................................... 27
PERMANENCY .................................................................................................... 35 Children in Care Maintain Family Connections and Achieve Permanency
A. Outcome Performance ................................................................................... 35 B. Other Practice/Process Requirements for Helping Children Achieve
Permanency .............................................................................................. 55 C. Supporting Permanency After Case Closure.............................................. 62
WELL‐BEING........................................................................................................ 65 Children in Care Experience Stable Placements, Worker Continuity, and Receive the Services They Need
A. Outcome Performance ................................................................................... 65 B. The Placement Experience ............................................................................ 76 C. Practice for Meeting the Needs of Children, Youth, and Families .......... 82

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report

PART VI

STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................... 93

A. Outcome Performance ................................................................................... 93 B. Specialized Staff and Lower Caseloads...................................................... 100 C. Building Workforce Skills ............................................................................. 113 D. Assuring Needed Services Are Available ................................................... 117 E. Placement Support ......................................................................................... 117 F. Supervision of Contract Agencies................................................................ 128 G. Improving Automated Support ................................................................... 130 H. Quality Assurance .......................................................................................... 133 I. Maximizing Federal Funding ....................................................................... 134

PART VII

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS .................................................................. 137 Child Protection Services Data

A. Repeat Maltreatment Data ............................................................................ 137 B. Diversion Data ................................................................................................ 138

APPENDI X A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C

Kenny A. v. Sonny Perdue Consent Decree Outcomes ............................ A‐1 Methodology .................................................................................................. B‐1 Foster Care Pre‐Service Curriculum Review............................................ C‐1

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report

Part I INTRODUCTION
Background, Purpose, Scope, and Organization of Report
This is the second report prepared by the Accountability Agents for the Kenny A. v Purdue Consent Decree to review the State Defendant’s progress between July 1 and December 31, 2006 in achieving improved child welfare outcomes and meeting its other obligations under the Consent Decree. The Kenny A. v Perdue Consent Decree established James T. Dimas and Sarah A. Morrison as independent Accountability Agents with responsibility to produce public reports every six months. This introduction is intended to provide a brief overview of the Kenny A. Consent Decree and the Accountability Agent’s methods of assessing the State’s performance, as well as the scope and organization of this report.
A. The Kenny A. v Perdue Consent Decree
Under the terms and conditions of the Kenny A. Consent Decree, the State is to achieve 31 outcomes as well as maintain certain practice standards with respect to the children in the custody of the DeKalb and Fulton County Departments of Family and Children Services. These practice standards relate to needs assessment and service planning, placement experience, health care, investigation of maltreatment allegations concerning children in foster care, and court reviews and reporting. Some are new requirements for administrators and case mangers and others are existing agency policy and practice requirements receiving heightened attention. In addition, the Consent Decree stipulates various infrastructure requirements for the State and Counties. These stipulations relate to automation, caseload sizes, training, supervision of private providers, foster parent licensing and support, and financing.
For purposes of analysis and reporting, the outcomes have been organized into seven thematic groupings. Exhibit I‐1 displays these groupings.
B. Methodology
Several sources of information and data collection methods have been employed to produce the analysis presented in this report. Appendix B has a full description of the methodology. In brief, information was obtained from State automated systems, county monitoring and reporting systems, interviews with state and county staff, and direct case record reviews. The Accountability Agents verified State and county reported data except where otherwise noted in the report. Four separate record reviews were conducted using staff from the DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Unit. Quality assurance oversight of the record reviews was provided by the Accountability Agents and by Georgia State University. The record reviews included files of nearly 300 children in foster care; 78 maltreatment in care investigations completed during the reporting period; and 160 foster homes, those supervised by private agencies as well as DFCS.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 1

EXHIBIT I‐1: Thematic Grouping of Kenny A Outcomes
Safety 1. Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment • Consent Decree Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 related to investigations of maltreatment in care. • Consent Decree Outcomes 5 and 6 related to the incidents of substantiated maltreatment in care and corporal punishment.
Permanency 2. Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections • Consent Decree Outcomes 7, 16, and 19 related to keeping children connected to family and community at the time of placement. • Consent Decree Outcomes 21 and 23 related to visitation among family members. 3. Children Achieve Permanency • Consent Decree Outcomes 4 and 14 related to re‐entry into care. • Consent Decree Outcomes 8a & b, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 related to positive permanency exits. • Consent Decree Outcomes 27 and 28 related to timely and complete court review of permanency efforts.
Well Being 4. Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity • Consent Decree Outcome 17 relates to placement stability. • Consent Decree Outcomes 18, 20, and 22 relate to worker continuity and contacts with children and caregivers. 5. Children and Youth Receive the Services they Need • Consent Decree Outcome 24 relates to the educational achievement of youth who “age out” of foster care. • Consent Decree Outcome 30 relates to meeting children’s service needs.
Strengthened Infrastructure 6. Effective Oversight of Placement Settings • Consent Decree Outcomes 25 and 31 relate to placement setting conditions. 7. Timely and Complete Court Orders • Consent Decree Outcomes 26 and 29 related to DFCS authority to assume and maintain custody.
Data from the record reviews were compared with other existing data sources and vice versa as another quality check of both the record review results and the State and county information systems and reports. Doing this comparison helped identify data entry errors as well as inconsistencies arising from interpretation issues in all sources of data. While flaws were identified, using multiple sources of data improved the quality of the analysis. Consultants were engaged through the Georgia State University School of Social Work to conduct a focus group of Specialized Case Managers and, under a separate contract, review the foster care case manager training.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 2

With respect to the information gathered through the record reviews, it is important to note that three of the reviews were based on random samples of the children in foster care, the children with the goal of adoption, and of foster homes that had a class member (i.e., a child in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton Counties) in care during the reporting period. The fourth record review (of maltreatment in care investigations completed during the reporting period) did not use a sample, but, instead reviewed the entire universe of such investigations. The three case record reviews based on random samples were each designed to achieve a 95 percent confidence level with a margin of error of no more than plus/minus 7 percent. This means that, statistically speaking, there is a 95 percent chance that the frequencies and rates reported for the entire random sample will fall within 7 percent of the actual frequency or rate among the entire population from which the sample was drawn. However, frequencies reported for subsets of the populations, for example children who entered care after the Consent Decree or the subset of foster homes that were supervised by DFCS are subject to a larger margin of error, making them less representative of the population as a whole. When assessment of performance against an outcome threshold relied on a case record review sample subset, an estimate of the larger margin of error is provided in footnotes.
Finally, a key component of the methodology is the nearly twice‐monthly meetings with State and county leadership and field staff that are referred to as “G2.” These meetings employ a recursive learning process that uses operational data to support the development and testing of hypotheses about the potential causes of observed performance problems and the framing of strategies for improvement. This iterative process helps participants identify what works to produce the desired outcomes, and to hold themselves and each other accountable for doing that which works. These meetings foster self‐evaluation and have lead the counties to create systems to track, monitor, and share with one another useful information that previously was unavailable or difficult to access.
In all data collection efforts the State and the County have been very cooperative. Case record reviews in particular can be disruptive to day‐to‐day operations.
C. Report Scope and Organization
This report describes the State’s performance relative to 1) the immediate and short‐term actions remaining from the first period; 2) the outcome measures that were to be achieved by the end of the second reporting period; and 3) progress implementing required policies, practices, and infrastructure. Where the information was available, comparisons to the first period reporting performance are cited.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 3

The remainder of the report is organized into the following parts:
Part II, Conclusions and Recommendations summarizes the accomplishments and status of State and County actions taken during the second reporting period. It offers several recommendations believed important to State and Counties’ continued progress.
Part III, Safety of Children in Care includes an assessment of the State’s second period performance related to Outcomes 1,2,3,5, and 6, focused on keeping children in its care safe from maltreatment and responding to reports of alleged maltreatment.
Part IV, Children Achieving Permanency includes an assessment of the State’s second period performance related to Outcomes 4, 7, 8a, 9, 10, 13, 15, 19, 21, 27 and 28, focused on maintaining and achieving permanent family connections for children in State custody.
Part V, Children’s Well Being in Care includes an assessment of the State’s second period performance related to completing the first period’s immediate actions and to Outcomes 17, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 30, focused on providing for the well‐being of children in custody.
Part VI, Strengthening the Infrastructure includes an assessment of the State’s progress in achieving Outcomes 25 and 31 and implementing required infrastructure components related to providing services to families and children.
Part VII, Miscellaneous Provisions provides verified data regarding the re‐maltreatment rate of children in DeKalb and Fulton Counties.
Three appendixes provide the full wording for all 31 outcomes (Appendix A) a detailed description of the data collection and analysis methods employed to produce this report (Appendix B) and foster care case managers’ training curriculum review. (Appendix C).
Note: With respect to the first period Kenny A. report, a correction is offered. The report contained a statement from an earlier draft that four (outcomes 5, 12, 13, and 25) were achieved. Outcome 25 was subsequently declared by the Accountability Agents to be un‐measurable (for reasons discussed in Chapter VI) and an assessment of it was postponed until the second reporting period. Discussions between the parties after the first report’s publication determined that Outcome 13 had been incorrectly interpreted and (as discussed in Chapter IV) that the restated measure had not been achieved. Thus, the State surpassed the thresholds for outcomes 5 and 12 and did not do so for outcomes 13 and 25.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 4

Part II CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Kenny A Consent Decree establishes an ambitious schedule for achieving 31 outcomes that set high standards for the safety, permanency, and well being of children in the custody of the Georgia Department of Human Resources and the Division of Family and Children Services. During the July 1 to December 31, 2006 period covered by this report, the State and DeKalb and Fulton counties had 27 of the 31 outcome thresholds to meet. This report provides an assessment of performance for 23 of the 27 outcomes; assessment of the remaining four will be provided in subsequent reports. As indicated in Table II‐1, the Department’s performance appears to have surpassed the thresholds in nine of the 23 areas, primarily concerning safety and permanency. Substantial progress was evident in ten other areas although the Department appears to have fallen short of the established thresholds. For the three outcomes related to sibling and case manager visitation, considerable progress is still needed and for one area, (Outcome 25), the applicable standard is unclear since it could not be measured for the first reporting period.
Two of the State’s achievements for this period stand out. First, according to the Consent Decree’s measures of the outcome of child safety, children in foster care appear to be safe. The State exceeded the established period two thresholds for the proportion of children in foster care that are victims of maltreatment, and the proportion of foster homes that are found to use corporal punishment.
Second, permanency was achieved for nearly 1900 children during this reporting period. About half of these children had been in state custody for more than two years at the time of their discharge. The vast majority of the children (81%) were reunified with their birth families or placed in the custody of their extended families. In addition, nearly 90 percent of those who remain in care are in safe placement settings that are close to the homes from which they were removed.1 More children in custody are experiencing more stable placements than previously estimated. At least 90 percent appear to have experienced fewer than two moves among placements in 2006 or the 12 months preceding their discharge. Finally, a smaller proportion of children are returning to foster care within a year of experiencing a previous foster care episode.
The progress made during the last half of 2006 provides the State and counties with a foundation for continued forward momentum. The Accountability Agents believe continuation of the efforts the State and counties are making to develop and strengthen their own accountability mechanisms for their foster care practices and services can help sustain this momentum.
However, the Department also faced serious challenges in the last few months of 2006 that continued to have repercussions into 2007 while the data collection and analysis for this report was underway. In November 2006, the tragic death of a child that had been recently served by
1 Close is defined as being in the same county or within 50 miles of the home from which the child is removed.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 5

the Department rightfully drew tremendous public scrutiny which has been followed by a period of discovery and reflection by the agency as well as the public As has often happened in other states and counties when a child death occurs, Fulton county DFCS leadership is in transition and staffing stability and caseload sizes have suffered. The full extent to which these events and circumstances have affected the progress achieved for children in the custody of the Department may not be known for some time. What is known is that reported caseloads, for CPS staff in particular, increased during January through March 2007. As of December 31, 2006, it appeared that 95 percent of staff were at or below the Consent Decree caseload caps. However, by the end of March 2007, this performance appeared to have dropped considerably. The Accountability Agents will be reporting on the Department’s performance for the period January 1 through June 30, 2007 in the third Kenny A. report.
A. Recommended Priorities for State Attention
Over the course of this second period, the following three areas for priority attention by the State and Counties came to the fore:
 Visitation: Sibling visitation and case manager visitation with children and caregivers. As described in sections IV and V, visitation has been a county priority during the reporting period and they have been taking steps to improve not only the frequency but the quality of the visits. The Counties have their quality assurance units systematically tracking and monitoring visits and they have devoted G2 meetings to discussing the strategies case managers, supervisors, and foster parents can employ to make quality visits happen. The monthly visitation data collected by the Counties since July 2006 indicate these efforts have spurred considerable improvement; however the Consent Decree’s visitation standards measure whether the required number of visits was made each and every month for the preceding 12 months. By this standard, which includes at least six months before the counties began their concentrated attention to this issue, every type of visitation rate appears disappointingly low. This remains something to be carefully watched.
 Partnership with the Courts: Several outcomes require a strong relationship with the courts to assure success. In almost all areas of DFCS court involvement, there was improvement in the second period over the first. However, further improvement is needed to assure timely continuous placement authority, semi‐annual case reviews, and annual permanency reviews, and child‐specific court orders that make more explicit the reasons for removing a child and why a child can not be safely reunited with his or her family.
 Improving coordination with other counties. Although the State surpassed the established period two thresholds that directly measure child safety, the State failed to attain the thresholds for three measures related to the process of investigating maltreatment of children in foster care. DeKalb and Fulton counties demonstrated substantial improvement on these measures for the investigations of maltreatment in care that they conducted; most of the State’s shortfall for the second reporting period in these measures is attributable to the
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 6

maltreatment investigations involving DeKalb and Fulton children that were conducted by neighboring counties. The DFCS Central Office needs to assure that other counties that have DeKalb and Fulton children placed in their jurisdictions meet the Kenny A. investigative standards and coordinate seamlessly in the investigation of maltreatment allegations concerning class member children to enable the State to achieve the measures related to the investigative process.
B. Overview of Period II Performance
This section further highlights the State’s major accomplishments and opportunities for improvement in four distinct areas of responsibility: Keeping Children Safe, Helping Children Achieve Permanency, Providing for the Well‐Being of Children in Care, and Strengthening the Service Delivery Infrastructure.

Table II‐1 Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2006

Safety Outcomes Children in Foster Care are Safe From Maltreatment in Care Outcome 1: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report. Outcome 2: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report. Outcome 3: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face‐to‐face, private contact with alleged victim, including face‐to‐ face contact with a child who is non‐verbal due to age or for any other reason. Outcome 5: By the end of the second reporting period, no more than .94% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. Outcome 6: By the end of the second reporting period, 90% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 6 months.

2nd Period Performance
87% 78%
87%
0.81% 100%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 7

Table II‐1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2006

Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections Outcome 7: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 90 days of entering foster care. Outcome 16: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. Outcome 19: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii). Outcome 23: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in the Class at a point in time during the reporting period who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have had visits with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.
Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 4: By the end of the second reporting period, no more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re‐entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 backlog pool”): For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.

2nd Period Performance To be reported
on in 3rd period report2 To be reported
on in 3rd period report3
88%
19%
9.2%
45%
49%

2 Measurement of this Outcome and Outcome 16 required a separate case record review of a sample of children who entered care July 1 through December 31, 2006. The review was conducted in April 2007 and the date were being analyzed at the time of this report’s release. 3 See previous footnote.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 8

Table II‐1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2006

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “over 24 backlog pool”): For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 11: By the end of the second reporting period, for all children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period.
Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Outcome 27: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐month period following the last review.

2nd Period Performance
36%
Will be reported on in the 4th period
report4
30%
Will be reported on in the 4th Period5
84%
70%

4 Measurement of this Outcome and Outcome 14 can not be accomplished until after July 1, 2007. Both outcomes set future 12-month expectations for the experience of children in custody July 1 through December 31, 2006. 5 See footnote 4.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 9

Table II‐1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2006

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 28: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12‐month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.
Well‐Being Outcomes Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity Outcome 17: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 86.7% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 18: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave. Outcome 20: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had at least one in‐placement visit and one other visit, as defined in Section 5.D, each month by their case manager. During the prior 12 months in custody.
Well‐Being Outcomes Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity Outcome 22: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had visits between their DFCS placement case manager and their foster parent, group care, institutional or other caretaker at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody.

2nd Period Performance
80%
90.0%
84%
16% 2nd Period Performance
39%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 10

Table II‐1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2006

Well‐Being Outcomes Children and Youth Receive Services They Need Outcome 24: By the end of the second reporting period, the percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 10 percentage points. By the end of the fourth reporting period, that percentage shall increase by an additional 10 percentage points. Outcome 30: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.
Strengthened Infrastructure Outcomes Effective Oversight of Placement Settings Outcome 25: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 85% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 98% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. Outcome 26: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act Outcome 31: By the end of the second reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than 10% of all children in foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three(3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.

2nd Period Performance 65.7% baseline 34.4% second
period 74%
86%
55%
8%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 11

1. Keeping Children Safe in Foster Care
During the second reporting period, five outcomes were measured (numbered 1,2,3,5 and 6) relating to the safety of children in the custody of DeKalb and Fulton counties and the practice used to investigate reports of maltreatment in care. As shown in Table II‐1, the State surpassed the period two thresholds for the two outcomes (numbered 5 and 6) that directly measure child safety. Although the performance of DeKalb and Fulton counties improved on the measures related to the investigative process, the State fell short of the established levels.
Less than one (1) percent, or 23 children, of the approximately 2800 children in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton counties at any time in the last half of 2006 were the victims of substantiated maltreatment by their substitute care givers (Outcome 5.) Furthermore, none of the sampled foster homes in which children resided during the reporting period had an incident of corporal punishment (Outcome 6.)
While Outcomes 5 and 6 focus on reducing maltreatment in care, Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 measure important aspects of the process through which allegations of maltreatment in foster care settings are investigated. Although the State fell short of the established thresholds for Outcomes 1, 2, and 3, the performance of Fulton and DeKalb Counties substantially improved in the three areas measured by these outcomes. In fact, when their performance alone is considered, they came very close to meeting the second period standards for all three of these outcomes. However, the Consent Decree covers investigations of maltreatment allegations involving any child in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton counties regardless of the county in which the children are placed. By policy, maltreatment allegations are investigated by the DFCS office in the county in which the maltreatment is alleged to have occurred. Thus, allegations of maltreatment involving a DeKalb or Fulton child placed in another county are investigated by Child Protective Services staff of that other county. Fifteen of the 78 maltreatment in care investigations completed during the second reporting period, or 19 percent, involved children in the custody of DeKalb and Fulton counties but placed outside of them. As detailed in Section III, the investigative performance of these other counties during the second reporting period fell well below that of DeKalb and Fulton.
2. Helping Children Achieve Permanency
During the second reporting period the State was to achieve a total of 13 outcomes relating to permanency. They focus on maintaining family connections: placement proximity, sibling placement together, sibling visitation when placed apart, diligent search for relatives, children achieving permanency, and timely and complete court reviews of permanency efforts. As shown in Table II‐1, the State met or exceeded the period two thresholds for five of the nine outcomes (numbered 8a, 9, 10, 15, and 19) measured for the second reporting period. Its performance in four outcome areas (numbered 4, 23, 27, and 28) fell short of the established levels. Performance on four outcomes can not be measured until future reporting periods due to
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 12

the follow‐up period specified in the measure.
Taken together, the performance against these outcome thresholds indicate that the State has been successful in placing children in substitute care settings that are in close proximity to the family homes from which they were removed. Nearly 90 percent live in the same county or within 50 miles of their home of origin (Outcome 19). However, when siblings are separated in care, the State has difficulty making sure that children visit with their siblings each and every month (Outcome 23). Case documentation indicates that slightly less than 20 percent of the separated siblings had at least one monthly visit in each of the last 12 months with one or more of their siblings, and as previously noted this visitation rate is a concern.
As previously highlighted, almost 1900 children exited to permanent family arrangements, including those who had been in custody many years (Outcomes 8a, 9, and 10.) Closely related to this success is the proportion of children who re‐enter custody within 12 months of a previous episode (Outcome 4). The threshold for this outcome was not reached, but there has been modest improvement over the first reporting period performance and second period performance was very close to the outcome threshold – a difference of less than one percentage point. This means that a smaller proportion of children are returning to foster care.
For those children who remain in custody, the picture is more mixed. The required permanency actions for children who reach their 15th of 22 months in foster care appeared to be occurring for 84 percent of the children who were in this cohort, exceeding the Consent Decree threshold of 80 percent. This means that actions had been taken to terminate parental rights or the State had compelling reasons not to take such action. Outcome 13 (adoption recruitment efforts for children without adoptive resources), reported on in the first Accountability Agent report as being achieved is revisited in this report as a result of subsequent discussions and decisions by the parties and the Accountability Agents regarding interpretation issues for this outcome. Based upon the agreed interpretation, the State’s first period performance fell short of the Outcome 13 threshold. Finally, the proportion of children receiving timely semi‐annual judicial or administrative review of their case plans (Outcome 27) and annual judicial permanency reviews (Outcome 28) fell short of the Consent Decree mandates. For both these Outcomes, however, the State’s performance substantially improved over the first reporting period performance.
3. Providing for the Well‐Being of Children in Care
During the second reporting period six outcomes were measured relating to the well‐being of children in care. (Outcomes numbered 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 30) As shown in Table II‐1, the State exceeded the threshold for Outcome 17, placement stability. It fell short of meeting the other outcome standards by varying degrees. In addition, while health care and mental health screenings and services improved from the first period, there still appear to be gaps in follow‐ up.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 13

Placement stability is a critical need for children in foster care. Once a child is removed from his or her home, moving the child again from one substitute placement setting to another should be minimized. Over a 12‐month period, it appears that 90 percent of the children in care experienced two or fewer placement settings, providing them with greater placement stability and surpassing the Outcome 17 threshold. As noted in Section V, the degree to which this performance reflects changes in case practice, better measurement, or both, since the first reporting period is unknown. The State has made efforts to improve the information used to calculate placement stability in its automated reporting system and the case record review finding of 90 percent of children experiencing two or fewer placement moves in 12 months compares to the 95 percent reported in IDS for children in DeKalb and Fulton custody as of December 31, 2006.
In other areas of well‐being, State effort has produced different degrees of improvement and significant gaps remain despite improvement. The level of worker continuity increased slightly over the first period while the counties continued to be challenged by personnel turnover and meeting the case coverage demands of all caseloads (Outcome 18). Three‐quarters (75%) of the children in custody received at least monthly visits from their case managers during their most recent 12 months in foster care. However, the Consent Decree establishes a twice‐monthly visitation requirement for children in foster care (Outcome 20). Against this standard, there was improvement in the percentage of children who received twice‐monthly visits from their case managers each and every month of the previous 12, going from less than five percent to 16 percent. As previously noted, while this level of performance remains in need of improvement, it represents visitations for the most recent 12 months in custody – not for the reporting period. The counties began closer tracking of visitation in July 2006 and these rates reflect at least six months prior to that concentrated attention. Information collected from the case review of children in foster care conducted for this report attempted to assess the impact of this tracking effort. The information indicates that there has been improvement in visitation frequency since July.
Monthly case‐manager visits with substitute care givers fell short of the threshold established for Outcome 22. About 40 percent of the substitute caregivers received a monthly visit in each of the last 12 months from case managers. As with the other visitation requirements, this level of performance is a concern to the Accountability Agents. On‐going partnership and communication between case managers and care givers is important to ensuring the best possible care for the children under their supervision. Case manager visitation with care givers is also now being monitored more closely by counties and there has been an improvement since the first reporting period.
Outcome 24 focuses on the educational attainment of older youth leaving foster care. Approximately 34 percent of the youth age 18 or older who left DFCS care in the 12 months after the Consent Decree left with a high school diploma or graduate equivalency diploma (GED.) This performance is considerably lower than what was reported for those exiting care in the year before the Consent Decree. In fact, the baseline year set a very high bar – 66 percent –
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 14

for state performance with the cohort of youth leaving care between October 27, 2004 and October 26, 2005. The State is urged to get behind these numbers to better understand what produced the apparent level of performance with both cohorts.
Outcome 30 is focused on meeting the needs of children as identified in their most recent case plans. In assessing State performance in this area, analysis was limited to those case plans that were created or updated in the previous 12 months. These criteria resulted in a pool of 147 plans for the sample of 168 children who had been in state custody more than 30 days. Half of these 147 case plans indicated one or more medical, dental, mental health, educational or other need. Almost three‐quarters of these children with identified needs were receiving or had received services to meet all of their needs. The areas for greatest attention are dental health and other, individualized needs of children such as transportation to appointments and other activities. In all other areas of need identified in case plans – medical, mental health, educational, and other ‐‐ the State performance was reasonably strong.
Outcome 30 measures State responsiveness to needs identified in the child’s most recent case plan. The Consent Decree also requires on‐going assessment and response to needs as they arise. These needs may or may not be incorporated into case plans depending on the timing of their identification. In looking at the information collected about on‐going assessment and treatment, the State’s performance overall is mixed. The State appears to do well at responding to immediate health needs as they arise. However, emergent dental needs and routine health needs appeared to be met less often. This analysis, however, does not attempt to factor in the amount of time available for receiving treatment between the identification of the need and the end of the reporting period.
A similar picture emerged around mental health assessment and treatment. As with physical health needs, the State appears to be better at responding to emergent mental health needs of the children in care than it is at addressing needs identified through assessments when children first enter care. However, when length of the child’s stay is considered, the time available to arrange for services appears to be a factor. Children who entered care in the last half of 2006 and had an assessment that identified a mental health need were, it appears, more likely to receive treatment the longer they were in care. Of the 15 children with identified mental health needs, those that were getting those needs met had been in care an average of 130 days. In contrast, an equal number of children that appeared not to have their needs met had been in care an average of 48 days.
In terms of education, the case record review did find that 80 percent of the children age 7 or older were enrolled in school or a GED program in the last half of 2006. Almost all of the remaining 20 percent experienced gaps in school enrollment for different reasons or did not appear to be enrolled at all during the period.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 15

4. Strengthening the Service Delivery Infrastructure

During the second reporting period, three outcomes were measured relating to aspects of the infrastructure supporting practice with families and children. (Outcomes numbered 25, 26, and 31) As shown in Table II‐1, the State surpassed the threshold for Outcome 31, foster home capacity limits. A measurement for Outcome 25, children in fully‐approved placements, which could not be measured for the first reporting period was accomplished during this period based on an agreement of the parties as to its interpretation. As so measured, the performance surpasses the period one threshold but falls short of the period two threshold. Outcome 26 focuses on properly documenting judicial determinations that removal and continued foster care are in the child’s best interest and efforts are being made to reunify the child with his/her family or there are appropriate reasons why that is not feasible. Having the applicable language in court orders is necessary for DFCS to receive all allowed federal reimbursement for foster care expenses. All applicable language was found in 55 percent of the case records reviewed.
In addition to the cited outcomes, other components of strengthening the infrastructure in the Consent Decree are caseload size and supervisory ratio. Specific caps on caseload sizes were to be in place by the end of December 2006. The different case manager types and the specified caseload caps are provided in Table II‐2. In addition, no supervisor is to supervise more than six case managers at any one time. At December 31, 2006, 95 percent of the case managers in DeKalb and Fulton counties had caseloads that were at or within the designated caps. In terms of supervisory ratios, 82 percent of the units had a caseworker‐supervisor ratio of 6 to 1 or less.
Table II‐2 Specified Caseload Sizes as of December 31, 2006

Case manager type
Child Protective Services Investigators (CPS Investigations). These case managers are responsible for responding to and investigating reports of child maltreatment. Child Protective Services On‐Going Case Managers. These case managers are responsible for providing services and supervising the safety of children who are not taken into state custody and remain in their own homes. Placement Case Managers. These case managers are responsible for providing services to the children and families of children who are in the custody of the state. Adoptions Case Managers. These are case managers responsible for providing services to children whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated and who have the permanency goal of adoption. Specialized Case Managers. These case managers are responsible for providing services to the children and families of children who have been in state custody 18 months or more.

Caseload size cap
20 cases (the equivalent of 20 families) 20 cases (the equivalent of 20 families)
25 cases (the equivalent of 25 children) 22 cases (the equivalent of 22 children) 12 cases (the equivalent of 12 children)

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 16

The overall assessment of county performance in meeting the caseload caps is tempered by two important circumstances.
• First, 34 cases out of approximately 2800 CPS and Foster Care cases open on December 31, 2006 were assigned to case managers who had resigned their positions during December or were on a leave of absence greater than 30 days. These cases, according to the counties, did not go unsupervised. In each instance, the counties reported that the supervisors or program administrators took responsibility for the necessary work in each case (such as visitation, court reports, service delivery, etc.) while awaiting the return of the absent case manager or cases of departed workers were being reassigned to other case managers. As a result, the performance level stated above is likely to be slightly overstated.
• Second, as of December 31, 2006, 36 children who had reached their 18th month in state custody appeared to have remained assigned to “regular” placement case managers. The Consent Decree intends that such children be moved to specialized caseloads. Their reassignment could affect the caseload sizes of the specialized case managers.
As previously noted, both counties experienced changes and turnover in late 2006 and into 2007. While the caseload data reported here is accurate as of December 31, 2006, the Accountability Agents are aware that during the first quarter of 2007 caseloads had increased ‐‐ particularly for CPS investigators and CPS On‐going case managers. The Consent Decree indicates that caseload measurements are to be taken at the end of the reporting period. The Accountability Agent’s third report will detail whether the State and Counties successfully bring CPS caseloads back within Consent Decree standards by June 30, 2007 – the end of the third reporting period.
The Accountability Agents directed more attention to training during the second reporting period with a commissioned review of the Foster Care case manager pre‐service curriculum. This review produced several actionable recommendations for the State to consider as it revises all pre‐service curricula.
C. Progress on Issues Identified in First Period Report
In the Accountability Agents’ first period report, four issues for priority attention by the State and Counties were identified. An update on state progress in addressing these issues is provided below:
 Issue 1: Strengthening the State’s management and accountability for the performance of provider‐supervised foster homes. This included the need to improve collaboration among all parties responsible for the licensing, approval, and management of private foster care providers, and the completeness of the information in the State’s information systems about the placements they supervise.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 17

Progress: As detailed in Sections III‐B and VI‐D of this report, the State has implemented many new or revised procedures and organizational processes in response to concerns about collaboration raised in the first period report. DHR has also revised the foster care provider master contract, established a new Office of Contract Compliance to monitor provider compliance and performance, and undertaken an initiative to completely populate the State’s main foster care data base with data on privately‐supervised placements. While the full impact of these changes has not yet been realized, a measure of their promise is the case of a foster parent with a problematic history who attempted, during this reporting period, to move from one child placing agency to another without disclosing that history. The attempt was promptly identified and the foster parent barred from further service to DFCS. Prior to these reforms, this type of situation might have “fallen through the cracks.”
 Issue 2: Building on the permanency report required for children entering their 13th month of care to make it a practice focused on active problem solving and direction setting that helps children achieve lasting permanence.
Progress: DFCS has taken some steps to strengthen this process and to make it more collaborative, but it is not clear that the opportunity for impact that this process represents has been fully seized. Case documentation indicated that the recommendations of the permanency report and its subsequent review were being fully implemented in 60 percent (14 of 23) of applicable cases reviewed.
 Issue 3: Institutionalizing better systems for ensuring and documenting that children in care receive routine health screening and medical treatment as indicated.
Progress: Periodic and routine health care for foster children has improved. A “Corrective Action” that the State was unable to complete in the first reporting period was completed. Improvements have been made to the state and the counties’ ability to track and trigger necessary health screening.
 Issue 4: The State should continue its effective use of the G2 process, which has proven effective in coordinating state and local action on priority issues, building problem solving and accountability capacity among State and field office staff, showcasing local effective practices, and learning what works and what doesn’t work to keep children in care safe and well.
Progress: The G2 continues to meet approximately twice per month to examine and discuss performance data. The State and county DFCS leadership continue to bring commitment and energy to the process, which remains an important vehicle for understanding and galvanizing action around areas needing improved performance. It continues to be an important forum for caseworkers and casework supervisors to bring their ideas and concerns to the table. A mark of the process’ maturation is that the counties now provide much or most of the data content for these meetings.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 18

Part III SAFETY
Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment
Principle four of the Consent Decree asserts, “the state has primary responsibility for the care and protection of the children who enter the foster care system.”6 As a consequence of this responsibility, several Consent Decree outcomes and requirements focus attention on the safety of children in the custody of DHR/DFCS. This chapter reports on the State’s progress in the areas related to the maltreatment of children in foster care and the process through which such allegations are investigated, and concludes with a more detailed discussion of the practices and processes employed to address reports and concerns of maltreatment in care.
A. Outcome Performance: Outcomes 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6
As previously noted, five of the Consent Decree outcomes are clustered around keeping children safe while they are in care and quickly addressing safety issues as they occur. All five of these outcomes were to be achieved in the second reporting period. Table III‐1 on the following page provides the language of the consent decree, the measured performance and a page reference to a fuller discussion of each Outcome. The following discussion provides a summary of State performance as well as the interpretation and measurement issues associated with the outcomes, and information about issues surrounding the work that provide a context for understanding the State’s performance.
1. Maltreatment in Care: Occurrence and Investigation of Reports
Outcome 5 – Maltreatment in Foster Care
Outcome 5 lies at the very heart of the Consent Decree. It is about keeping children in foster care safe from maltreatment. Child welfare systems have no higher obligation. By definition, children in foster care have already experienced some form of maltreatment in the home from which they were removed. The prospect of them experiencing maltreatment again in the foster care setting is deeply disturbing.

6 See p. 4, Principle 4, of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 19

Table III‐1 Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment: Progress as of December 31, 2006

Consent Decree Outcome

2nd Period Performance

Outcome 5: By the end of the second reporting period, no more than .94% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. Outcome 1: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report. Outcome 2: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report. Outcome 3: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face‐to‐face, private contact with alleged victim, including face‐to‐face contact with a child who is non‐verbal due to age or for any other reason. Outcome 6: By the end of the second reporting period, 90% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 6 months.

0.81% 87% 78% 87% 100%

Further discussion reference
pp. 19‐21
pp. 21‐22
pp. 23‐24
pp. 24‐26
pp. 26‐27

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues

There were no new interpretation or measurement issues encountered during the second reporting period. Those that were discussed in the first report are included in Appendix B, Methodology.

b. State Performance  The State Surpassed the Second Period Outcome 5 Threshold

As noted in Table III‐1 for Outcome 5, less than one percent (0.81%) of all children in foster care between July 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006 had been victims of substantiated maltreatment during that time period. The review found 23 instances of substantiated maltreatment among the 2,828 children in care at any point during the reporting period. While this rate falls below the standard (0.94%) established for the second reporting period, it does represent an increase from the maltreatment rate reported for the first period (0.54%). Anecdotal evidence suggests that this increase may be attributable to better reporting of suspected maltreatment as a consequence of the attention focused on this issue by the Consent Decree. Exceeding the second

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 20

period standard indicates that DFCS continues to do well at protecting the Fulton and DeKalb children in Georgia’s foster care system from maltreatment. These data are based on the review of all investigations of maltreatment in care completed during the reporting period.

Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 – Maltreatment Investigation Process Measures

While Outcome 5 focuses on the result of reduced maltreatment in care, Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 measure important aspects of the process through which allegations of maltreatment in foster care settings are investigated. Outcome 1 relates to the timeframe in which an investigation of suspected maltreatment of a foster child is commenced. Outcome 3 relates to the frequency with which such investigations include face‐to‐face contact with the alleged victim within 24 hours. Because DFCS policy defines the “commencement” of an investigation as the point at which face‐to‐face contact with the alleged victim is made, they are very similar measures; the primary difference between them is the unit of analysis. For Outcome 1, the unit of analysis is the investigation itself (which may involve multiple alleged victims). For Outcome 3, the unit of analysis is the individual child who is an alleged victim. Outcome 2 relates to the length of time it takes to complete such investigations. Data for these outcomes are based on the universe of 78 maltreatment investigations completed during the reporting period that involved a child in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton counties.

Although the State did not achieve the second period standard for Outcomes 1, 2, or 3, the performance of DeKalb and Fulton counties substantially improved in the three areas measured by these outcomes. In fact, when the performance of DeKalb and Fulton counties alone is considered, they came very close to meeting the second period standards for all three of these outcomes. However, the Consent Decree maltreatment in care investigations that involve any child in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton counties, regardless of which county conducts the investigation. Fifteen of the 78 maltreatment in care investigations completed during the second reporting period, or 19 percent, involved class members that were placed outside of DeKalb and Fulton counties. In accordance with DFCS policy, these investigations were conducted by the DFCS office of the county in which the child was placed. As detailed in the tables and analysis below, the performance of these counties during the second reporting period fell well below that of DeKalb and Fulton.

a.

Interpretation and Measurement

There were no new interpretation or measurement issues encountered during the second reporting period. Those that were discussed in the first report are included in Appendix B, Methodology.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 21

b. State Performance  The State Fell Short of the Second Period Threshold for Outcome 1

As noted in Table III‐1 for Outcome 1, 87 percent of maltreatment in care investigations commenced within 24 hours according to file review data from the universe of investigations completed during the reporting period. This represents a decrease from the first period rate of 91 percent. Outcome 1 requires that by the end of the first reporting period, 95 percent of such investigations be commenced within 24 hours. However, as displayed in Table III‐2, DeKalb and Fulton counties commenced 94 percent of the investigations they completed within 24 hours, while the 24‐hour commencement rate for the other counties was only 60 percent.

This measure counts only investigations in which an alleged victim is seen face‐to‐face by a trained CPS investigator within 24 hours. Four of the 10 cases in which this did not happen were investigated by DeKalb or Fulton County, six by other counties. Of these 10 cases:

• 5 of the alleged victims were seen and removed from the placement setting at the time
the allegation was made by their foster care case manager;
• 1 was seen by the foster care case manager within 24 hours; and, • 1 was out of state on a family vacation with the foster family at the time the allegation
was made and did not return for 72 hours.

Although these cases count as “misses” toward Outcome 1, in terms of assuring child safety it is important to acknowledge that of the 76 investigations involving alleged victims that might reasonably have been seen within 24 hours, 73 (96%) were seen by or removed from potential harm’s way by child welfare professionals within 24 hours.

Table III‐2 Outcome 1 – Commencement of Maltreatment in Care Investigations
N=77

Not Commenced Within Commenced Within 24

Total

Investigating

24 Hours

Hours

County

Number of Percent

Number of

Percent Number of Percent

Investigations of Total Investigations of Total Investigations of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

4

7%

58

94%

62

101%

Other Counties

6

40%

9

60%

15

100%

Total

10

13%

67

87%

77

100%

* The “N” for this measure is 77 because one investigation involved an accidental child fatality and the coroner had

already removed the child’s body from the home when the investigator arrived. Totals greater than 100 percent are

the result of rounding.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 22

 The State Fell Short of the Second Period Threshold for Outcome 2

As noted in Table III‐1 for Outcome 2, 78 percent of maltreatment in care investigations were completed within 30 days according to file review data from all investigations completed during the reporting period. (Another 14 percent of such cases were investigated within 45 days.) This represents a decrease from the first reporting period when 83 percent of such investigations were completed within 30 days. Outcome 2 requires that by the end of the first reporting period, 95 percent of such investigations be completed, in accordance with DFCS policy, within 30 days.

However, as displayed in Table III‐3, DeKalb and Fulton counties completed 94 percent of the investigations they conducted within 30 days, while the 30‐day completion rate for the other counties was only 13 percent. Table III‐3 also suggests one of the reasons for this disparity is the implementation of a new risk assessment tool and practice.

Briefly, in 2006 DFCS began using a new risk assessment approach to evaluate the more

dynamic and specific concept of “risk of harm” associated with leaving a child who is the

subject of a maltreatment investigation in the home, as opposed to the more static and general

concept of a assessing “child safety.” The risk assessment approach adopted by DFCS was

modeled on one developed by the State of Texas and validated by the federal Department of

Health and Human Services. The risk assessment is believed to be a better tool for identifying

which children can be safely kept with their birth families, and what interventions might enable

them to remain safely in the home, than the traditional safety assessment. It is significantly

more detailed and thorough than the previous safety assessment, and also takes more time to

complete.

Table III‐3

Outcome 3 – Timely Investigations

N=78

Investigating County

Completed in More than 30 Days

Using Risk Assessment

Not Using Risk
Assessment

Sub‐ total

% of Total

Completed Within 30 days

Using Risk Assessment

Not Using Risk
Assessment

Sub‐ total

% of Total

Total

#

%

DeKalb/Fulton

2

2

4

6%

55

4

59 94% 63 100

Other Counties

10

3

13 87%

1

1

2

13% 15 100

Total

12

5

17 22%

56

5

61 78% 78 100

Source: File Review of All Completed Investigations, July‐December 2006, January 2007.

To accommodate this need for more time, CPS investigators were given 45 days to complete investigations that used the risk assessment, rather than the 30 day time frame for completing an investigation using the safety assessment. However, the 30 day time frame continued to be operative for investigations of maltreatment in care. While this policy nuance was discussed in G2 meetings and was clear to the staff in DeKalb and Fulton counties, the data in Table III‐3 suggest that it may not have been well understood in the other counties. Table III‐3 shows that

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 23

of the four investigations conducted by DeKalb and Fulton counties that were not completed within 30 days, an equal number used, and did not use, the risk assessment. But of the investigations by other counties that were not completed within 30 days, those that used the risk assessment outnumbered those that did not by a margin of more than 3 to 1.
 The State Fell Short of the Second Period Threshold for Outcome 3

As noted in Table III‐1 for Outcome 3, 87 percent of the 105 alleged victims had face‐to‐face private contact with a CPS investigator within 24 hours according to file review data from all investigations completed during the reporting period. While this represents a small improvement over the first period performance of 85 percent, the performance standard for Outcome 3 is 99 percent. As with Outcomes 1 and 2, performance in this area was significantly better for DeKalb and Fulton counties (94%) than it was for other counties (50%). This disparity is displayed in Table III‐4.

Table III‐4 Outcome 3 – Face‐to‐Face Contact with Alleged Maltreatment Victims within 24 Hours
N=105

Investigating County

No Contact Within 24 Hours

Alleged

Percent

Seen/Removed Within 24 Hours

Alleged

Percent

CPS Contact Within 24 Hours

Alleged

Percent

Total
Alleged Percent of

Victims

of Total

Victims

of Total

Victims Of Total

Victims

Total

DeKalb/Fulton

1

1%

4

5%

82

94%

87

100%

Other Counties

4

22%

5

28%

9

50%

18

100%

Total

5

5%

9

9%

91

87%

105*

101%

* The “N” of 105 used for this measure excludes the victim of an accidental child fatality whose body the coroner had already

removed from the home when the investigator arrived. Results total more than 100% due to rounding

Source: File Review of All Completed Investigations, July‐December 2006, January 2007.

This measure counts only alleged victims having face‐to‐face, private contact with a trained CPS investigator within 24 hours. Five of the 14 alleged victims for whom this did not happen were in cases investigated by DeKalb or Fulton County; nine were in cases investigated by other counties. Of the 5 alleged victims “missed” by DeKalb or Fulton county:

• 4 had been removed from the placement setting prior to, or at the time the allegation
was made by their foster care caseworker o 2 of these had been removed to their grandmother’s house by the foster care case worker before the allegation was made. They were “seen” by the CPS investigator within 24 hours, but were asleep in their beds and therefore did not technically have private contact with the investigator until after the 24 hour period had elapsed.
• 1 was out of state on a family vacation with the foster family at the time the allegation
was made and did not return for 72 hours.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 24

Of the 9 alleged victims “missed” by other counties:
• 5 had been removed from the placement setting by their foster care caseworker prior
to, or at the time the allegation was made.
Although these cases count as “misses” toward Outcome 3, it is important to understand that of the 86 alleged victims investigated by DeKalb or Fulton County that might reasonably have been seen within 24 hours, 86 (100%) had had their safety assured by child welfare professionals within 24 hours. Of the 18 alleged victims investigated by other counties, 14 (78%) had had their safety assured by child welfare professionals within 24 hours.
The first period report assessed the State’s prospects for attaining and sustaining the performance target for Outcome 3 as uncertain.7 The circumstances surrounding these “missed” cases reinforce that assessment. For the second reporting period, the 99 percent standard stipulated in Outcome 3 would fail to be achieved if even two alleged victims were not seen face‐to‐face within 24 hours. Therefore, the child described above who was out‐of‐state when the report was received represented the State’s entire margin for error for this Outcome. Had that child had an alleged victim sibling, that case alone would have made Outcome 3 unattainable.
The circumstances surrounding these “missed” cases also illuminate a communication challenge inherent in Outcome 3 and an inconsistency between the achievement of Outcome 3 and the assurance of child safety. As indicated in Table III‐4, of the 14 “misses” 9 (64%) were the result of the foster care case manager removing the child from the placement setting as soon as the allegation was made. Case record notes indicate that for nearly all of these misses, the CPS investigator went to the child’s placement address within 24 hours to interview the child, only to find that the child had been moved. By the time the investigator obtained the new address and arrived at the child’s new location (which was sometimes in a different county) the 24 hour window had often elapsed.
Removing foster children from potentially harmful environments pending the results of a complete investigation is inarguably the right thing for foster care case managers to do. The outcome of child safety must always take precedence over the process of timely initiation of an investigation – the purpose of which is to effectuate the outcome of child safety. However, among many of the investigations reviewed for this reporting period, doing so created logistical and communication issues with respect to getting the correct information on the child’s new whereabouts to the appropriate CPS investigator. This problem was exacerbated when foster children were placed in other counties. In these circumstances, the child was often removed from the foster home by their DeKalb or Fulton County foster care case manager, but the child’s new whereabouts needed to be communicated to the assigned CPS investigator from the county of the child’s placement.
7 See Dimas, J.T. and S. Morrison “Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Purdue,” 2006, p. 25.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 25

The Accountability Agents recommend that the State address the logistical and communication issues that contributed to the “misses” on Outcomes 1 and 3, and will convene the parties for the purpose of considering ways to make Outcome 3 more faithful to the intent of assuring child safety, and reasonably attainable.
c. Operational Context
The shortfalls noted above in Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 seem to be associated with a common set of issues. First, the performance of the other counties investigating allegations of maltreatment involving DeKalb and Fulton children has not kept pace with the improvements seen in the investigatory processes of DeKalb and Fulton counties. In fairness to those counties, they have not benefited, as DeKalb and Fulton presumably have, from leadership focused on improving performance related to the Consent Decree outcomes, or from the collaborative, data‐driven problem‐solving that takes place in the G2 Meetings.
A second issue that appears to have undermined performance in this reporting period was the practice change to the risk assessment model. As staff gain familiarity with this more robust method of assuring child safety and become clearer on the expectations surrounding its use in foster care settings, the timely completion of investigations can be expected to improve.
Finally, the State’s success in achieving Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 appears to have been undermined by communication issues more than by practice. This applies to the apparent lack of clarity concerning the inapplicability of the 45‐day risk assessment time frame to maltreatment in care investigations, and to the more complex and organic problem of keeping CPS investigators apprised of the current whereabouts of children that have been removed from placement settings to ensure their safety pending an investigation.
Outcome 6 – Corporal Punishment
Outcome 6 seeks to protect children in foster care from experiencing corporal punishment, which the Consent Decree defines as “…any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain.”8 Outcome 6 stipulates that by the end of the second reporting period, 90 percent of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous six months.
a. Interpretation and Measurement
The Consent decree’s use of the phrase “…all foster homes….”9 is operationalized as all foster homes with a class member in custody during the reporting period for measurement purposes.

8 See p. 2 of the Consent Decree 9 Ibid, p. 32

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 26

b. State Performance
 The State Surpassed the Second Period Outcome 6 Threshold
As noted in Table III‐1 for Outcome 6, 100 percent of the foster homes sampled had not had an incident of corporal punishment in the previous six moths according to the data from 160 foster homes that had a class member in care at any point during the reporting period This is similar to the first reporting period, during which 99 percent of the foster homes sampled had not had an incident of corporal punishment and indicates that DFCS continues to do extremely well at protecting children in care from corporal punishment.
B. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding Maltreatment in Care Investigations and Corporal Punishment
1. Maltreatment in Care Investigations
Section 12 of the Consent Decree contains other requirements pertaining to the process of investigating and responding to reports of maltreatment in care.10 The following discussion summarizes the State’s implementation of these requirements.
a. Investigations of Reports of Maltreatment in Care
Section 12 A requires all reports of suspected maltreatment of children in foster care to be investigated by child protective services staff (rather than foster care staff) in the manner and within the time frame provided by law and DFCS policy. Based on interviews with Fulton and DeKalb County staff, with staff of the Social Services Treatment Services Unit and the Office of Regulatory Services, and the review of 100 percent of the reports of maltreatment in care completed during the reporting period, the State has successfully implemented the requirement that all reports of maltreatment in foster care be investigated by CPS staff. The extent to which such investigations comport to the required timeframes and other aspects of the policy guidance covering the proper conduct of special investigations is addressed in the discussion of Outcomes 1 and 2, above.
b. Investigations Conducted in Accordance with State Standards
Section 12.A. of the Consent Decree states that “All … reports of suspected abuse or neglect of children in foster care shall be investigated by DFCS child protective services staff in the manner and within the time frame provided by law and DFCS policy.”11 DFCS policy on maltreatment in care investigations (which are considered “Special Investigations”) is contained

10 See pp.28-30 of the Consent Decree 11 See p. 28 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 27

in Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual.12 Section 2106 contains guidance on the many aspects of properly conducting Special Investigations, such as separately interviewing the parties involved, making two collateral contacts, evaluating the likelihood of continued safety, etc. In all, Section 2106 contains more than 150 discrete requirements pertaining to Special Investigations. The particular requirements vary to an extent depending on the type of placement setting being investigated.

The file review explored the extent to which the maltreatment investigations completed during the second reporting period were conducted in accordance with the investigative standards contained in Section 2106. The results of that review are presented in Table III‐5 for the 12 investigative standards common to most placement types.

Table III‐5
Proportion of Investigations Meeting Policy requirements N=78

Percent of

Investigation Policy Requirement

Applicable Files with Documentation

of Compliance

Investigator reviewed previous CPS reports for foster parents/caregivers

96%

Continued safety of the child(ren) placed in the home was adequately evaluated and assessed

95%

All non‐DFCS case managers who visited in this foster care setting contacted

95%

Investigator saw/interviewed every alleged maltreated child separately

92%

Alleged maltreater was interviewed

91%

At least 2 relevant collateral sources contacted during the investigation

91%

Investigator reviewed the child’s placement history noting patterns of child behavior, additional sources of information, and any concerns

85%

All DFCS approved foster parents/caregivers interviewed separately

81%

All DFCS case managers required to visit in this foster care setting contacted

78%

All other adults frequently in the home interviewed separately

76%

Investigator saw/interviewed each of the other children (non‐alleged victims) separately

74%

File contains physical evidence to support case documentation

72%

Source: Case file review of all investigations completed July‐December 2006, January 2007

The percentages reported in Table III‐5 represent the number of instances for which the investigative file documentation was adequate to provide a conclusive, affirmative response. For certain items (e.g. children or adults interviewed separately) it was often the case that the file made it clear that these individuals were interviewed, but the documentation was inconclusive about whether those interviews were conducted separately. Also, with respect to

12 Social Services Manual, Chapter 2100, Section VI, Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, July 2005

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 28

the finding that 72 percent of the files contained physical evidence, it should be noted that 71 percent of the maltreatment in care investigations completed in the second reporting period were unsubstantiated; many of these would not be expected to contain physical evidence.

c.

Referrals of Reports of Maltreatment in Care in Private Provider Settings to

the Office of Regulatory Services and the Treatment Services Unit

Section 12 B requires all reports of suspected abuse or neglect of foster children in institutional, group, residential, or private provider‐supervised foster family home settings to be referred to and reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS) and the Social Services Treatment Services Unit (TSU).13 The purpose of the review specified in the Consent Decree is “…to determine whether a pattern of abuse or neglect exists within… [the provider agency]…. that contributed to the abuse or neglect; whether the contract should be terminated; whether particular homes or facilities should be closed….”14

DFCS policy requires counties, at the conclusion of maltreatment in care investigations, to send an “Administrative Packet” detailing the incident and findings to the Social Services Director within ten days. If the incident occurred in a provider‐supervised foster care setting, an investigative summary is also to be sent to TSU and ORS. The Accountability Agent’s first period report registered concern about the absence of a mechanism to ensure that all required reports had been received from the Counties, and characterized the practice in place at the time as a “passive surveillance” approach.15 That is, TSU and ORS had relied on the counties, of their own volition, to send in the required reports in a timely manner.

Data from the first period file review of maltreatment in care reports indicated that county compliance with this requirement needed significant improvement. However the Accountability Agents concluded that this could be indicative of a reporting problem, a documentation problem, or both, and planned in the second reporting period to reconcile State office files and the file review data to more fully understand the nature of the problem. For the second reporting period, the assessment of State compliance with Section 12 B is based on data from the 100 percent review of maltreatment in care reports; interviews with staff of DeKalb and Fulton Counties and with ORS, TSU, and other Central Office staff; and a self‐audit of ORS, TSU, and DFCS Policy Office files.

The second period file review of 78 maltreatment in care investigations found evidence in the case record that an administrative packet had been sent to the DFCS Policy Office for only 23 of them (30%). Only two of these 23 had been sent within the required 10 days. When this result was compared to the documentation in DFCS Policy Office files, it was found that another 21

13 ORS licenses child placing agencies (CPA), child caring institutions (CCI), and outdoor therapeutic programs
(OTP). TSU approves CPAs, CCIs, and OTPs wishing to serve DFCS children once they have been licensed by
ORS. 14 Kenny A Consent Decree, Section 12 B, p. 28. 15 See Dimas, J.T. and S. Morrison “Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Purdue,” 2006, pp. 27-28.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 29

administrative packets had been received, although none were received within the required 10 days. Taken together, these results indicate that administrative packets were received by the DFCS Policy Office for 56 percent of the maltreatment in care investigations completed in the second reporting period; 3 percent within the required 10 days. This suggests that with respect to the issue of reporting to the DFCS policy office, the problem is both one of reporting, especially timely reporting, and one of documenting in the case record that an administrative packet has been sent, and when it was sent.
The second period file review included 45 maltreatment in care investigations in provider‐ supervised settings. Evidence was found in the case record that an investigative summary had been sent to ORS and to TSU for 33 (73%) and 14 (31%), of these investigations, respectively. When these results were compared to the documentation in the ORS and TSU files, the Accountability Agents found another three investigative summaries had been received by ORS, and an additional seven by TSU. Taken together, these results indicate that investigative summaries were received by ORS for 80 percent of the maltreatment in care investigations completed in the second reporting period; and by TSU for only 47 percent of such investigations. This suggests that with respect to the issue of reporting to TSU, the problem is mostly one of reporting, although improvement is also needed in the extent to which such reporting is documented in the case record. Reporting to ORS is much more complete than it is for reporting to TSU or to the DFCS Policy Office, and is better documented in the case record, although there remains room for improvement in both.
Interviews with staff of ORS and DFCS Central Office suggest that many improvements have been made to transform the “passive surveillance” system described in the first monitoring report to an “active surveillance” system. These improvements include:
• Implementing a monthly cross check by the Evaluation and Reporting Section of CPS
reports against the roster of approved providers;
• Implementing new procedures to ensure that information related to incidents of
alleged maltreatment in provider‐supervised settings is passed between ORS & TSU;
o Every complaint received by ORS is sent to TSU and appropriate county DFCS
offices,
o ORS intake follows up with counties making verbal referrals to get a completed
investigative summary,
o Modifications have been made to the ORS data system to flag providers with a
history of reports (substantiated or not) for special attention when an ORS surveyor checks the system before going out for licensure reviews or unannounced visits,
o Improved tracking on the ORS website (www.ors.dhr.ga.gov) of investigations,
complaints, and findings for CPAs and CCIs,
o Joint office conferences between ORS, TSU and specific CPAs, o Collaboration between ORS and TSU on sanctions and adverse actions for
providers with repeat non‐compliance,
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 30

o Copying of appropriate TSU staff on every relevant e‐mail to/from ORS, o Requiring TSU staff to check for ORS citations before going out to conduct
utilization reviews or provider re‐evaluations;
• A list of foster parents with a history of substantiated maltreatment will be maintained
in perpetuity on Placement central. Policy is being revised to require that this list be checked before any foster placement is approved or re‐approved; and,
• A new Office of Contract Compliance has been created, headed by Yvonne Rodgers,
that will help TSU transition from focusing on medically‐oriented utilization reviews to a watchful oversight role focusing on the quality of provider‐delivered services and provider compliance with the terms of their contracts.
Many of these changes were implemented too late in the second reporting period to significantly impact the completeness of the reporting required in Section 12 B. The Accountability Agents expect these changes to have a substantial impact on the completeness of reporting observed in the third reporting period, and will continue to closely monitor progress in this area.
With respect to the requirement in Section 12.B. that ORS and TSU seek out patterns of abuse and neglect in provider‐supervised settings, an instance was identified in the second reporting period of a provider‐supervised foster parent with a history of unsubstantiated maltreatment investigations attempting to switch to the supervision of a different CPA without fully disclosing that history. ORS investigated her home and the CPA to which she had recently moved. The CPA was cited for a related licensing violation and closed her foster home. Although she had no history of substantiated reports, DFCS has barred her from caring for any children in DFCS custody in the future as a consequence of her misrepresentation, and has communicated her barred status to all CPAs statewide.
2. Corporal Punishment in Foster Homes
Section 12C16 contains process and practice requirements related to the prohibition of corporal punishment in foster care settings and investigations of reports of corporal punishment. The following discussion summarizes the requirements and how DFCS is meeting them.
a. Awareness of Corporal Punishment Prohibition
All placement settings are to prohibit the use of corporal punishment. In 100 percent of 160 foster home records sampled, there was a signed written statement or other evidence that foster parents understood and agreed to comply with DFCS’ prohibition on the use of corporal punishment. This is similar to the first period performance of 99 percent.

16 See pp 29-30, paragraph 12C in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 31

b. Enforcement of Corporal Punishment Prohibition

Enforcement of this provision in DFCS supervised homes is carried out by the County DFCS offices. Enforcement in private provider placements is carried out by the CPA, ORS and TSU. ORS requires CPAs CCIs and OTPs to have written policies prohibiting corporal punishment as a condition of licensure. ORS monitors compliance with this requirement by means of a pre‐ licensure review of all provider policies. They also review the files of CPAs to confirm that they have reviewed the DFCS disciplinary policy with the private foster homes they supervise. TSU conducts utilization reviews every six months for every child placed in a CCI or a CPA‐ supervised foster home. As part of each utilization review, TSU staff meets with the facility treatment teams to discuss individual needs of the children in care and conducts face‐to‐face, private interviews with 10 percent of the children in each group home and foster home supervised by each CPA. In addition, prior to contract approval or re‐approval, TSU checks for any prior ORS citations and visits three randomly selected foster homes of each CPA.

c.

Compliance with Corporal Punishment Prohibition

Actual compliance with the corporal punishment prohibition appears to be excellent. The review of 180 randomly selected placement records of children in foster care during the reporting period identified no confirmed instances of corporal punishment (0.0%). During the first reporting period there was only one confirmed instance of corporal punishment among the children included in the placement sample. However, while all corporal punishment in foster care settings is prohibited, not all corporal punishment meets the criteria that trigger a maltreatment investigation. The foster home record review looked for any evidence in the foster home record that foster parents or other placement resources may have used corporal punishment or permitted it to be used on any foster child, whether or not a subsequent investigation or assessment confirmed the allegation. Such evidence was found in none of the 160 foster home records reviewed (0.0%).

The review of all 78 maltreatment in care reports investigated during the reporting period identified five such reports (6%) that began with an allegation of corporal punishment. None of these five was substantiated, and four of the five did not identify a foster care or disciplinary policy violation. This represents an improvement over the first reporting period when 15 of the 74 maltreatment in care reports (20%) began as corporal punishment allegations; one of which was substantiated.

d. Screening and Investigation of Corporal Punishment Allegations

Allegations of corporal punishment must be screened by qualified CPS (rather than foster care) staff. Depending on the screening conclusions, the allegations may be responded to differently. Where reasonable cause exists to believe abuse or neglect occurred, or if the allegations arose in a group care setting, the allegations must be treated as an abuse referral and investigated accordingly. If the screener concludes that reasonable cause does not exist, the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 32

requires a timely assessment of the allegations and placing “holds” on any further placements until the assessment is complete. It also stipulates conditions under which homes must be closed, and conditions under which homes may remain open under a corrective action plan.
Interviews with the Special Investigations units in DeKalb and Fulton indicate that both counties are handling allegations of corporal punishment consistent with these provisions. Both counties use experienced CPS supervisors to assess incoming corporal punishment allegations. In DeKalb, all complaints of any kind of physical discipline of foster children are automatically referred to the CPS Special Investigations unit with a 24 hour response time. In Fulton County, incoming complaints are screened by the Special Investigations Unit: those showing reasonable cause are investigated by the Special Investigations unit with a 24 hour response time; those lacking reasonable cause are referred to the Resource Development unit (for a DFCS supervised foster home) or the Child Placing Agency and ORS (for a private provider supervised foster home) for response. In both counties, any complaint of corporal punishment of children in group homes automatically receives a CPS investigation.
As noted above, the review of all maltreatment in care investigations found 5 CPS investigations prompted by an allegation of corporal punishment; 2 in DFCS‐supervised settings and 3 in provider supervised settings. Of these five:
• 5 (100%) showed that all alleged victims were interviewed separately within 24 hours; • 5 (100%) showed evidence that the continued safety of the child was evaluated; and, • 5 (100%) were completed within the 30 days required by DFCS policy.
The 3 investigations of privately‐supervised settings represented an improvement over the first period during which 11 investigations of private care settings were precipitated by corporal punishment allegations. Two of these three contained documentation in the case record indicating ORS had been notified (for the third investigation, the documentation was inconclusive); and there was documentation indicating TSU had been notified in two of the three cases. During the first reporting period, ORS and TSU were notified of only 5 and 2, respectively, of the 11 such investigations.
In both Counties, corporal punishment allegations against DFCS supervised homes that do not meet the criteria for a CPS investigation receive an “assessment.” The Resource Development staffs in each county conduct the assessment in the home and decide if the home should be closed, placed under a corrective action plan, or if counseling or other support services are needed. While the assessment is being conducted, the home is to be placed on “hold” (barred from receiving additional placements). Both counties indicated that if the allegation revealed a policy violation that had a direct impact on safety or represented a serious risk, they would send the case to CPS and a special investigation would be opened. Both counties also indicated that if a policy violation was a home’s second violation, or the family was not amenable to change, the home would be closed.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 33

DeKalb and Fulton County each has a different method for responding to corporal punishment allegations against private provider supervised foster homes that fail to meet the criteria for a CPS investigation. In DeKalb County, all allegations of corporal punishment in provider supervised foster homes are handled by the special investigations unit. Cases that fail to meet the criteria for a CPS investigation receive an “assessment” from the special investigations unit. The results of those assessments are reportedly shared with TSU and ORS. In Fulton County, allegations of corporal punishment in provider supervised foster homes that fail to meet the criteria for a CPS investigation are referred to the supervising CPA and to ORS for response. As there were no foster homes identified through the foster home record review that had an allegation of corporal punishment during the reporting period, whether or not it met the criteria for a CPS investigation, there was no file review data available with which to independently assess how such situations are handled. However, as noted previously, one maltreatment in care investigation that began with a corporal punishment allegation identified a foster care or disciplinary policy violation. This violation appears to have been handled consistent with the representations made above.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 34

Part IV PERMANENCY
Children in Care Maintain Family Connections and Achieve Permanency
Several of the Consent Decree principles focus on the importance of permanency for children. For example, principle one refers to children “growing up in safe, nurturing family” and principle three dictates that “foster care should be as temporary an arrangement as possible, with its goal being to provide a permanent home fro the child as possible.” 17 As a result of this responsibility, several outcomes and practice requirements focus on children achieving permanency. The first part of this chapter reports in the State’s progress in the areas related to children in DFCS custody maintaining their family connections and achieving permanency. The remaining part describes the state’s performance in areas of required practice and process associated with achieving permanency.
A. Outcome Performance: Outcomes 7, 8a, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19, and 23
As described in the Introduction (Section I), 19 separate outcomes are clustered in the category of “Permanency.” Outcome number 12 related to children achieving the goal of adoption was achieved in the first reporting period. Several of the remaining outcomes applied to second reporting period. Table IV‐1 on the next three pages provides the language of the consent decree, the degree of performance and a page reference to a fuller discussion of each outcome. For analysis and communication, the 19 outcomes have been further subdivided into two broad categories, Children in Placement Maintain Family Connections and Children Achieve Permanency The following discussion provides a summary of State performance in these two areas as well as new interpretation and measurement issues associated with the outcomes, and information about issues surrounding the work that provide a context for understanding the State’s performance.

17 See p.4, Principles 1 and 3, of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 36

Table IV‐1 Permanency Outcomes

Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
Outcome 7: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 90 days of entering foster care. Outcome 16: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. Outcome 19: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii). Outcome 23: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in the Class at a point in time during the reporting period who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have had visits with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.
Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 4: By the end of the second reporting period, no more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re‐ entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.

2nd Period Performance
To be reported on in 3rd period report18
To be reported on in 3rd period report19
88%
19%
9.2%
45%

Further discussion reference
pp. 38‐39
pp. 39‐40
pp. 42‐43 pp. 43‐46

18 Measurement of this Outcome and Outcome 16 required a separate case record review of a sample of children who entered care July 1 through December 31, 2006. The review was conducted in April 2007 and the data were being analyzed at the time of this report’s release. 19 See previous footnote
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 37

Children Achieve Permanency

2nd Period Performance

Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 backlog pool”): For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “over 24 backlog pool”): For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 11: By the end of the second reporting period, for all children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.

49%
36%
Will be reported on in the 4th period report20
30%
Will be reported on in the 4th period report21
84%

Further discussion reference
pp. 43‐46
pp. 47‐49
pp. 49‐51

20 Measurement of this Outcome and Outcome 14 can not be accomplished until after July 1, 2007. Both outcomes set future 12-month expectations for the experience of children in custody July 1 through December 31, 2006. 21 See previous footnote.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 38

Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 27: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐ month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐month period following the last review. Outcome 28: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12‐month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.

2nd Period Performance
70%
80%

Further discussion reference
pp. 51‐54
p. 55

1. Children in Placement Maintain Family Connections

One of the Consent Decree principles is “all non‐destructive family ties should be maintained and nurtured.”22 Preserving connections between children and their families, friends, and community is an essential strategy for achieving permanency when those relationships are not destructive. Preservation starts with placing the children with family resources whenever possible and also includes placing children as close to home as possible and with their siblings. Once in care, visitation among family members – children with their birth parents and children with their siblings – can help maintain the connection.

Outcome 19 – Placement Proximity

When it is in the best interest of the child for the state to remove children from their homes and place them in state custody, Outcome 19 mandates that children be placed in a setting within the county or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed.23 By the end of the second reporting period 70 percent of all children in custody are to be in placement settings with this proximity.

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues

Currently, the State’s automated information systems do not sufficiently capture the data

22 See p. 4, principle 2 in the Consent Decree 23 See p 35, Outcome 19, in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 39

required to measure placement proximity. The information for performance measurement was therefore collected through a record review of 180 randomly selected children. When the record did not indicate that the child was placed within the county, either Dekalb or Fulton, from which he or she was removed, the case record review team used the on‐line program “Mapquest” to determine “shortest drive time distance” between the address of the child’s placement and the address of the home from which the child was removed. This is the default option in “Mapquest” and is generally used by the placement facilitators and case managers to determine the placement distance.
b. State Performance
• The State Surpassed the Second Period Outcome 19 Threshold.
As noted in Table IV‐1 for Outcome 19, 88 percent (159) of the 180 children in the sample of foster children were placed in the county or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed. The Outcome threshold was 70 percent. Of the 21 children not placed in proximity to their removal homes, the majority of children (12) were not placed in such close proximity to the address from which they were removed because they were placed in settings designed to meet their exceptional needs or were placed with relatives at greater distances. Proximity could not be determined for seven children because six were on run away status and one child had been abandoned at birth making the location of the home of origin unknown. In two cases, the reviewers could not determine why a more distant placement was chosen.
Outcome 23 – Sibling Visitation
DFCS has many sibling groups in its custody. As an example, during the last half of 2006, 46 percent of the children who entered foster care in Dekalb and Fulton counties, entered with one or more siblings. When these children cannot be placed together, it is important for them to maintain connection with one another through regular visits. The only times this is not desirable are when it is not in the best interest of the child to visit a sibling due to safety reasons or the emotional trauma it might cause. To assure that sibling visitation is a regular part of practice, the Consent Decree includes an outcome (number 23) that sets thresholds for the percent of children who see their separated siblings over the most recent 12‐months they are in custody.24 By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80 percent of separated siblings are to have at least monthly visits with their siblings.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
This information regarding sibling visitation is not currently tracked in the State IDS system; therefore it is not information that is easily retrieved. It is, however, a practice that the counties started tracking in July 2006 and the county Quality Assurance units began validating during
24 See p.36, Outcome 23, in the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 40

the second reporting period. For the second reporting period, the Accountability Agents collected information directly from the documentation in children’s records. To measure this outcome, the record reviewers looked for documentation indicating that children saw at least one sibling in custody from whom they were separated at least once a month during the previous 12 months (not during the reporting period).
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Second Period Outcome 23 Threshold.
As noted in Table IV‐1 for Outcome 23, 19 percent of children who had one or more siblings in custody but in separate placements visited with at least one separated sibling each month for the last 12 months or since they entered care. The outcome threshold was 80 percent. Sixty‐two (34%) of the children in the foster care sample had one or more siblings who were in separate placements for some or all of the most recent 12 months they were in custody. Among these 62 children, 19 were never placed with their siblings while 43 of the children were, for different periods of time placed apart. Regular sibling visitation was not allowed for three of the 62 children because of behavioral issues; one child, however, did see his siblings at court and a Family Team Meeting and the other had only been separated a month as a result of his behavior toward his siblings. The Consent Decree’s visitation requirements were met for 11 (19%) of 59 children.25 Although the measurement was limited to the frequency with which the child saw at least one sibling, it should be noted that when visitation did occur, the reviewers saw a pattern of children seeing all or many siblings during a visit. Table IV‐2 describes the visitation picture captured by the case record review.
The Accountability Agents are concerned about this low rate of visitation among siblings, but are aware that the counties are diligently working to improve this practice. As noted, they began tracking and validating their own performance in July 2006; thus, this reporting period’s performance includes six months visitation activity prior to that focused attention. According to these tracking systems, the Counties’ visitation rates are improving considerably.
25 Since this is smaller than the entire sample of 180, any conclusions drawn from the 59 children who were separated from their siblings for all or some of the time they were in care would have a margin of error of at least +/13%. It could possibly be greater or worse since the sample was not drawn from only the universe of children who were separated for some or part of the time.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 41

Table IV‐2 Separated Sibling Visitation Pattern
N=59

Frequency of visits Every month Every‐other‐month or more (i.e. the equivalent of 6‐8 visits in a 12 month period) Infrequent and Sporadic (i.e. the equivalent of less than 6 visits in a 12 month period) No visits Total Source: Case record review, February 2007.

Number 11 19
24
5 59

Percent 19% 32%
41%
8% 100%

Outcome 7 – Diligent search for Relatives and Outcome 16 – Sibling Placement

Measurement of these two outcomes required a targeted case record review of a sample of children drawn only from those who entered DeKalb or Fulton custody in the reporting period. The review was conducted in April 2007 and the results were not available to include in this report. The results will be reported on in the Accountability Agent’s third report.

2. Children Achieve Permanency

Permanency for a child can be achieved in many ways. Subject to the absolute constraint represented by child safety, the initial focus of child welfare work is always on reunification with the birth parents. Should that result be unattainable, the state may pursue transfer of custody to a relative or adoption by a relative or another family. Legal guardianship is also means of securing permanency for a child. The Consent Decree also stipulates another permanency option. This option is designed for a relative who is “willing to assume long‐term responsibility for the child but has reasons for not adopting the child or obtaining guardianship or permanent legal custody, and it is in the child’s best interest to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship by another person.”26 In these circumstances, the child will remain in the custody of the state with the relative committing to the “permanency and stability” of the placement.

Table IV‐3 displays the distribution of permanency goals for the 180 children in the foster care sample. Over half (62%) of the children had a judicially determined or presumed goal of reunification. 27 The permanency goal of reunification is presumed for those children in the sample who had been in DFCS custody less than 12 months unless there was evidence of a

26 See p.3, definition T in the Consent Decree 27 See Georgia Social Services Manual Chapter 1006.4 and Josylyn-Gaul, D., Georgia’s Responsibilities Toward
Children in Foster Care: A Reference Manual, Karen Worthington, editor, the Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic of Emory University (1st ed. Dec. 2004). p 43.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 42

“non‐reunification” court order prior to the first annual permanency hearing.28 Nine percent of the 180 children had a goal of adoption, another nine percent had the goal of placement with a fit and willing relative, and another nine percent had the goal of long term foster care. Five percent had the goal of “emancipation” referring to when a youth reaches the age of 18. For six percent, a permanency goal was not documented.

Table IV‐3 Permanency Goals of Children in Care Over 30 Days
N= 180

Permanency Goal

Number Percent

Judicially Determined/ Presumed Reunification*

111

62%

Adoption

16

9%

Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative

17

9%

Long Term Foster Care

17

9%

Emancipation

9

5%

No goal documented

10

6%

Total

180

100%

Source: Case Record Review, February 2007. * Presumed re‐unification goal for children in

care for less than 12 months.

Outcome 4 – Re‐Entry into Custody

When children exit foster care, it is a goal of Georgia’s child welfare system that they will have exited to a stable, family care arrangement. Unfortunately, circumstances sometimes require children to reenter care to assure their safety or well‐being. In Outcome 4, the Consent decree establishes a measure of the stability of foster care exits: the percentage of children who re‐ enter state custody within 12 months of having previously left custody.29 Outcome 4 sets the same standard as the national outcomes established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, no more than “8.6 percent of all foster children entering custody shall have re‐ entered care within 12 months.”

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues

The State’s information system (IDS) does provide a calculation to measure Outcome 4. The case record review of a sample of 180 children in foster care at any time during the last half of 2006 only included 46 children who entered custody during the time frame. As a result, this number is too small to accurately assess the State’s performance. It was used as a comparison to what IDS reports. The IDS data, however, is used for reporting performance.

28 See DHR Social Services Manual, Chapter 1006.4 29 See p 32, Outcome 4, in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 43

b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Second Period Outcome 4 Threshold.
As noted in Table IV‐1 for Outcome 4, the state’s IDS system reports that 9.2 percent of all children in custody as of December 31, 2006, had re‐entered care within 12 months of previously exiting custody. The outcome threshold is 8.6 percent. The case record review looked at the re‐ entry rate of those children who entered custody in the last 6 months of 2006. Of the 46 children who entered, it was the second entry within a year for 6, or 13 percent. As measured by either data source – IDS for the entire population and the case record review of those entering care within the reporting period ‐‐ the State’s performance has slightly improved over the first reporting period. At the end of June, 2006, IDS reported an 11 percent re‐entry rate and the case record review showed a 14 percent re‐entry rate for those children entering between October 27, 2005 and June 30, 2006.
Outcome 8a – Permanency Exits for Those Children Who Entered DeKalb or Fulton Custody on or After October 27, 2005
Outcome 9 – Permanency Exits For Those Children Who Had Been In the Custody of Dekalb or Fulton Custody Up To 24 Months as Of October 27, 2005
Outcome 10 ‐ Permanency Exits For Those Children Who Had Been In the Custody of Dekalb or Fulton Custody More Than 24 Months as Of October 27, 2005
The Consent Decree established four permanency outcomes to be achieved among four different cohorts of children. Outcome 12, achieved in the first period, related to the cohort of children that had identified adoptive resources as of the Consent Decree.30 Outcomes 8a and 8b relate to children that enter care after the effective date of the Consent Decree.31 The children to whom Outcomes 8a and 8b apply represent a dynamic cohort. In other words, it will continue to have new additions as children enter care. Outcome 8a will continue to apply to all those children who exit within 12 months. Outcome 8b will be applied to those children who continue to remain in care 24 months or more.32 The third cohort consists of children who were in care less than 24 months at the Consent Decree’s inception in October 2005. Outcome 9 relates to these children.33 Finally, children who were in state custody for 24 months or more at the Consent decree’s inception are the focus of Outcome 10. 34

30 Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A v Perdue, November 6, 2006, pp 41-45. 31 October 27, 2005 32 See p. 32 and 33, Outcomes 8a and 8b 33 See p. 33, Outcome 9, in the Consent Decree 34 See pp 33 and 34, Outcome 10, in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 44

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
There were no interpretation or measurement issues. Performance reported for outcomes 8a, 9, and 10 is based on IDS data and documentation of relatives who have signed”an agreement for long‐term care.”35 The data from IDS was not independently validated by the Accountability Agents.
b. State Performance
• The State Surpassed the Thresholds for Outcomes 8a, 9, and 10.
As noted in Table IV‐1 for Outcomes 8a, 9, and 10, the state’s IDS system reports the following:
• 883 (45%) of the children who entered DFCS custody since October 27, 2005 exited State custody within 12 months to return to their parents, live with relatives or guardians, or begin life with a new, adopted family. (Outcome 8a)
As of December 31, 2006, nearly 2000 children had entered DFCS custody on or after October 27, 2005. Among those who entered, 45 percent had exited to a “positive permanency” arrangement. The outcome threshold was 40 percent. This means that that these children had returned to live with their parents, other relatives or guardians. In a few cases the children were adopted into a new family. Table IV‐4 provides the distribution of all the children in this group who exited custody by December 31, 2006.
• 705 (49%) of the children who had been in DFCS custody up to 24 months as of October 27, 2005 had positive permanency exits by December 31, 2006. (Outcome 9)
As of October 27, 2005, approximately 1400 children had been in DFCS custody for 24 months or less. By December 31, 2006, almost half of these children, 49 percent, had returned to live with their parents, other relatives or guardians, or been adopted. This is substantially higher than the outcome threshold of 35 percent established in the Consent Decree. Again, Table IV‐4 provides the distribution of all the children in this group who exited custody by December 31, 2006. Another 111 children had other permanency exits during this time period while 630 children remained in custody.
• 298 (36%) of the children who had been in DFCS custody over 24 months as of October 27, 2005 had positive permanency exits by December 31, 2006.(Outcome 10)
As of October 27, 2005, approximately 830 children had been in DFCS custody more than 24 months. By December 31, 2006, slightly more than one third of these children, 36 percent, had a positive permanency exit. The outcome threshold was 35 percent. The majority have been
35 See p. 3, Definition T, in the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 45

adopted, the rest returned to live with their parents, other relatives or guardians. A small number, 15 children, are living with relatives who have committed to provide a home and permanency for these children but the state retains custody. In the language of the Consent Decree, this option is “permanent placement with relatives.”36 DFCS will continue to work with these families toward a transfer of custody through adoption, guardianship, or permanent legal custody. Table IV‐4 provides the distribution of all the children in this group who exited custody by December 31, 2006. Another 114 children had other permanency exits while 416 children remained in custody.
The members of the cohort of children in custody more than 24 months as of October 27, 2005 are, not surprisingly, older children. The average age of the children is 13 compared to 8 for the children remaining in the Outcome 8a cohort. In addition, many of the remaining children have been in custody well over 24 months, with the average length of stay being almost 7 years. The children’s age and their length of time in care present serious challenges to achieving the next outcome threshold for these children.

36 Ibid.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 46

Table IV‐4 Children Exited to Permanency by December 31, 2006

Number of children in cohort Number Exited to Permanency
Reunification Adoption Guardianship Live with other relative Permanent Placement with relatives Total number exiting Percentage exiting

Children who entered
custody on or since October
25, 2005 (Outcome 8a)

Cohorts of Children

Children in

Children in custody

custody for up to for more than 24

24 months and months and still in

still in custody custody on October

on October 25,

25, 2005

2005

(Outcome 10)

(Outcome 9)

Total

1954

1446

829

4229

722

397

3

101

52

28

106

179

883

705

45%

49%

56

1175

161

265

6

86

61

346

15

15

298

1887

36%

45%

Other exits (transfer to

other counties,

129

111

emancipation, etc)

114

354

Remaining number in

cohort at December 31,

942

2006

Average length of stay

6 months

Median length of stay

6 months

Average age

8

Percent female

50%

Percent male

50%

Source: IDS and county tracking systems

630
23 months 22 months
10 52% 48%

416
81 months (6.75 yrs) 67 months (5.6 yrs)
13 45% 55%

1988

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 47

Outcome 11 – Adoptions within 12 Months of Termination of Parental Rights
Outcome 11 cannot be measured yet because it focuses on the successful adoption within 12 months of children whose parents had their rights terminated between July 1 and December 31, 2006.37 Outcome 11 will be measured after July 1, 2007.
Outcome 13 – Registration and Recruitment Plans for Those Children Who Did Not Have an Identified Adoptive Resource on October 27, 2005
Continuous and individualized recruitment efforts may be necessary to move certain children to a permanent family. As presented in Table IV‐1, Outcome 13 required the State to identify all those children that, as of the entry of the Consent Decree, did not have an identified adoptive resource and to take steps within 60 days of the Consent Decree to register these children on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and create an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship. At a minimum, the State was to complete this action for 95 percent of the children to achieve the outcome. The performance reported for this outcome in the first period was 100%. However, that performance measurement is revisited in this report as a result of subsequent discussions and decisions by the parties and the Accountability Agents regarding interpretation issues for this outcome.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The interpretation of this outcome is tied to the interpretation of Outcome 12. Outcome 12 relates to children who were free for adoption and had an identified adoption resource on October 27, 2005.38 In assessing the State’s performance on this outcome, the Accountability Agents noted in the first period report the interpretation issues about defining what is and what is not an “identified adoptive resource.” For Outcome 12, this concept was defined as a family unit with an approved evaluation for the placement of a child or children into the home for the purpose of adoption. Applying this definition to identify the population that was the target of Outcome 12 left a remaining pool of 135 children. A closer inspection of the circumstances of these 135 children revealed that there was a portion that had a greater likelihood for having an “identified adoptive resource” than the rest because they had interested foster parents or relatives that DFCS was pursuing as adoptive resources. The remaining portion did not appear to have anyone at the time of the Consent Decree that could be considered an “identified adoptive resource”. As a result, efforts were made for this remaining cohort of 40 children to assure they were properly registered on adoption exchanges and had individualized recruitment plans. Table IV‐5, summarizes the population of children in each of these three categories.
In reviewing this interpretation and data, the parties substantially agreed that the 95 children

37 See p34, Outcome 11, in the Consent Decree 38 See p 34, Outcome 12, in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 48

that had interested foster parents or relatives that DFCS was pursuing as adoptive resources should have been included in the pool of children to whom Outcome 13 applied.

Table IV‐5 Status of Potential Adoptive Resources for Children with the Goal of Adoption and
Terminated Parental Rights on October 27, 2007

Categories of Children
Children, legally free for adoption and an adoptive home had been approved Children legally free for adoption with a potential resource for adoption or guardianship
Children legally free for adoption but have no identified resource for adoption or guardianship
Total Source: DeKalb and Fulton counties

Total 144

Actions taken in First Reporting Period
135 (94%) were adopted (Outcome 12)

95 No immediate action to register or create an individualized recruitment plan
40 All children were registered and had individualized recruitment plans
279

b. State Performance

• The Fell Short of the First Period Outcome 13 Threshold

As noted in Table IV‐1 for Outcome 13, 30 percent of the children without an adoptive resource were registered and had individualized recruitment plans within 60 days of the Consent Decree. The threshold was 95 percent. There has been progress, however, for many of the 95 children that had interested foster parents or relatives that DFCS was pursuing as adoptive resources, reflected in Table IV‐6. There have also been set‐backs. As shown in Table IV‐6, as of the end of February 2007, 50 children or 53 percent of the 95 children had achieved permanency with the potential resource they had on October 27, 2005. Forty‐four of the children had been adopted while six were in the custody of a relative or a permanent placement with a relative. Another 10 children remained in the placements they were in as of October 2005 and some incremental progress has been made in achieving permanency for them. Three youth did not want to be adopted and have subsequently reached age 18 and been discharged from custody.

For 32 of the 95 children, however, the placements or resources that had appeared viable on October 27, 2005 have subsequently disrupted or eliminated. Nine of the children had been registered on adoption exchanges prior to the Consent Decree, six within the immediate preceding 6 months. Seven children were registered six to eight months following the consent decree. Two were older youth who reached the age of 18 in July 2006 but had signed themselves back into care. Most of these children have been in state custody more than 3 years. The State has agreed to provide the plaintiffs and the Accountability Agents with a quarterly update on the progress of these children to assure there is continued focus on recruitment and finding permanence for these children.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 49

Table IV‐6 Disposition of those children not considered for either Outcome 12 or 13
As of February 28, 2007 N=95

Disposition

Number

Permanency Achieved

50

No change in 10/27/05 placement or resource, some progress being made

10

Older youth who do not want to be adopted

3

Resource of 10/27/05 failed or was not approved, new recruitment under

32

way

Total

95

Source: DeKalb and Fulton County. Total greater than 100% due to rounding

Percent 53% 11% 3% 34%
101%

Outcome 14 – Adoption Disruptions within 12 Months of Finalizations

Outcome 14 cannot be measured yet because it focuses on what happens to children within 12 months from their adoption for those adopted between July 1 and December 31, 2006. Outcome 14 will be measured after December 31, 2007.

Outcome 15 – Permanency Actions for Children Reaching Their 15h Month of Custody in Most Recent 22 Months

To prevent children from long‐term foster care stays, Federal law and the Consent Decree require DFCS to file for termination of parental rights when a child has been in care for 15 of the previous 22 months or to document compelling reasons why such action is not in the best interest of the child.39 Outcome 15 establishes a second period threshold of 80 percent.

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues

During the reporting period each county created a data base for tracking children who have reached or are approaching their 15th month in care within the most recent 22 months. The counties initially created their data bases by extracting information regarding length of stay and “TPR status” from the State’s IDS system. County data, therefore, was used as the primary source of information to evaluate the achievement of this outcome. Information found in the sample of placement records was used to independently validate the county data.

The Accountability Agents reviewed and tested the validity of the county data as follows. • First, independent of the county data, the case record review of children in foster care
collected information about the parental rights of children in custody at least 15 months.

39 See p 34, Outcome 15, in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 50

These questions asked whether parental rights had been terminated for one or both parents, if a petition to terminate rights had been filed, and, if neither of these actions had been taken, was a compelling reason not to take such action documented primarily in the case plan or court documentation, or, secondarily, other file documentation. These questions applied to 85 children in the sample of 180 children based on their length of stay. The margin of error for this subset of 85 children was +/‐10 percent. • The second test was a comparison of the information in the county data bases to the documentation contained in the child case files. This purpose of the comparison was to determine if the action (TPR complete, TPR petition, TPR planned, or Compelling Reason) in the county data bases agreed with the documentation in the case files. In this way, the Accountability Agents sought to independently validate the information in the county data bases. The comparison was made using 185 case records of children drawn from the samples used for the foster care case record review and the adoption case record review. In other words, if a child who appeared in one of the county’s outcome 15 data bases was also a child whose record was available for either record review, a comparison was done. In this test, the Accountability Agents found few discrepancies (about 5 %) between the contents of the county data bases and the information in the children’s files. • Thirdly, the Accountability Agents reviewed all of the compelling reasons cited in the data bases and compared them to Federal and State policy guidance. For the most part, the policy guidance directs staff to make a compelling reason based on the individual case circumstances guided by what is in the best interest of the child. DFCS policy provides examples of compelling reasons.40
b. State Performance
• The State Surpassed the Second Period Outcome 15 Threshold
As noted in Table IV‐1 for Outcome 15, 84 percent of the children in care 15 of the previous 22 months were legally free to be adopted or the State had filed to terminate parental rights or documented reasons why it had not taken such action. The outcome threshold was 80 percent. Table IV‐7 summarizes the different components of the Counties’ performance as analyzed from the data in their tracking systems. This is very close to the finding from the sample of foster care records reviewed. Among the 85 children in the sample, DFCS had obtained terminations, filed to terminate parental rights or had documented reasons for not doing so for 69 children, or 81 percent.41 In the remaining 16 cases, there were no documented reasons for not filing for termination of parental rights.
The majority of reasons cited noted the relationship of the child to his/her parents or other relatives. In addition, in a number of cases, the parents were still attempting to complete the case plan. A portion of the children were over 14 and did not want to be adopted. For a small
40 See Social Services Manual , Section 1002.12.3, 1002.17, and 1013.11 41 In the placement sample, 85 children had been in care 15 months. Since this is smaller than the entire sample, any conclusions drawn from the 85 would have a margin of error of +/- 10%.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 51

number of the cases, the compelling reason cited was “no adoptive resource.” Per the Consent Decree,42 cases with this reason were not considered to have documented a compelling reason.

Table IV‐7 Status of Children Who Had Been in DFCS Custody 15 of the Last 22 months
As of December 31, 2006

Category

Total Number Percent Cumulative

Parental Rights of Both Parents have been terminated or relinquished

330

25%

Parental Rights have been terminated or relinquished for one

parent and DFCS has filed a petition to terminate the

6

<1%

25%

remaining parent

DFCS has filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of both parents

23

2%

27%

There is a documented compelling reason for not terminating parental rights

757

57%

84%

Reasons cited

Child is age 14 or older and does not wish to be

170

adopted

Child is living with a relative

204

Reunification remains the goal and child has a close 273

bond with family; parents are completing plan

Child behavior/special need, making TPR at this

38

time inappropriate

Subtotal 1116

There is no documented Compelling Reason not to file a petition to terminate parental rights

113

8%

93%

There are plans to terminate parental rights, but a petition had not yet been filed as of December 31, 2006
Subtotal Total

97
210 1326

8% 100%

100%

Source: County tracking systems validated through January‐February 2007 Case Record

Review

Outcome 27 – Timely Semi‐annual Judicial or Administrative Case Plan Reviews

Children are expected to have case plans developed within 30 days of entering State custody. According to State policy and the Consent Decree, they are to be initially reviewed by the court or designated panel within six months and every six months in custody thereafter.43

42 See p. 11, paragraph 4E.2 in the Consent Decree 43 See p7, paragraphs 4A.4 and p7-8, paragraphs 4B.1-6, and p37, Outcome 27, in the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 52

According to Outcome 27, at least 80 percent of the children are to have timely semi‐annual reviews by the end of the second reporting period.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
There were no interpretation or measurement issues. Performance reported for outcome 27 is based on case record review data.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Second Period Outcome 27 Threshold
As noted in Table IV‐1 for Outcome 27, case file documentation indicates that 70 percent (92) of foster children in custody for six months or more had timely case plan reviews completed by the Juvenile Court or Juvenile Court Review Panel (JCRP) or a timely request for review. The threshold for this outcome was 80 percent. In the sample of 180 children, 13244 children had been in custody 6 months or more as of December 31, 2006. For these 132 children:
• 92 children had their case plans reviewed within 6 months of entry or the previous six month court review according to case file documentation which included court orders, JCRP reports, case manager narrative, and other correspondence indicating the timing of reviews;
• 17 children had their plans reviewed, but not within 6 months and DFCS did not file a motion requesting a six‐month review within 45 days of the expiration of the previous review; and
• 23 children had no case plans in the case files or the plans that were there did not appear to have been submitted for review
Although the State fell short of the threshold for this outcome, the achievement of timely 6‐ month court reviews for 70 percent of the children in the second reporting period presents a substantial improvement over the first reporting period. In period one, 36 percent of plans (45 of 126) had timely reviews.
Among all 109 plans reviewed by either the Juvenile Court or the JCRP, there were court orders documenting Court approval for 74 (68%.) There were no court orders in 32 files to indicate adoption or rejection of the plans by the court. In three other cases, the court was still deliberating or there were other reasons why the court had not acted.
There were similar findings among the 92 plans considered to have timely reviews based on case documentation, there were references in the files that indicated 66 of the reviews were
44 Since this is smaller than the entire sample of 180, any conclusions drawn from the 132 would have a margin of error of +/8 percent
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 53

conducted by the JCRP, but JCRP reports were found in only 47 files. Court orders documenting Court plan approval were found for 63 (68%) of the 92 plans. There were no court orders in 26 files to indicate the court’s action regarding the plans. The three other cases are those described in the preceding paragraph. Table IV‐8 provides the information captured from the case files regarding the 109 documented six‐month reviews (those that were timely as well as those that were not.)
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 54

Table IV‐8 Characteristics of Six‐month Case Reviews
N=109 (all plans submitted)

Characteristic
Participants Birth Mother Birth Father Child Pre‐adoptive parents Relative care givers Foster parents/placement providers DFCS case manager DFCS supervisor Other DFCS representative CCFA provider Private agency case manager Medical and mental health professionals Public Health representatives School representatives
Elements Evaluated/Considered Necessity and appropriateness of child’s placement Reasonable efforts made to obtain permanency Degree of compliance with specific goals and action steps Progress made in improving conditions that caused removal Changes that need to be made to plan County recommendations Parent recommendations

Number Percent

38

35%

12

11%

37

34%

2

2%

13

12%

30

28%

101

93%

6

6%

3

3%

1

1%

20

18%

3

3%

0

0

86

79%

92

84%

61

56%

59

54%

42

39%

45

41%

7

6%

JCRP conducted review

79

72%

Total JCRP reports submitted*

53

Number of reports with Panel findings

52

Number of reports with Panel recommendations

52

Number of reports with County findings

27

Number of reports with County recommendations

31

Number of reports with County proposed plan for 11

permanency

Court conducted review

30

28%

Plan adopted by Juvenile Court

74

68%

* Evidence that a JCRP was held was contained in the court documentation in one file, but no JCRP report was found in the file; Source: Case Record Review, February 2007

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 55

Outcome 28 – Timely Annual Judicial Permanency Reviews
According to Federal and State policy and the Consent Decree, children are expected to have a permanency review every 12 months they are in custody.45 According to Outcome 28, at least 95 percent of the children are to have timely annual permanency reviews by the end of the second reporting period.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
There were no interpretation or measurement issues. Performance reported for outcome 28 is based on case record review data.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Second Period Outcome 28 Threshold
As noted in Table IV‐1 for Outcome 28, 80 percent of the foster children in custody for 12 or more months had timely permanency hearings held by the Juvenile Court or a timely request for a hearing when the time had expired. The threshold for this outcome was 95 percent. In the sample of 180 children, 9846 had been in custody 12 months or more as of December 31, 2006 or their last day in custody. Seventy‐eight of these children had a permanency hearing within 12 months of entry or the previous twelve‐month permanency hearing. These hearings are held to determine whether reasonable efforts have been made to achieve permanency. In another case where the hearing was not held within 12 months, DFCS followed‐up within 45 days of the expiration of the 12‐month time frame.47
Again, as with Outcome 27, the State’s performance has improved since the first reporting period when the case record review found 67 percent of children had timely permanency hearings.
B. Other Practice and Process Requirements for Helping Children Achieve Permanency
Placement with relatives has been demonstrated to help children have placement stability48 and placement stability contributes to children achieving permanency. In addition, DFCS policy and the Consent Decree requirements establish several guidelines for practice to help children move to permanency. These requirements include regular parental visitation with children who have the permanency goal of reunification,49 and internal DFCS permanency reviews for
45 See p. 9, paragraph 4B.10, and p.37, Outcome 28, in the Consent Decree 46 Since this is smaller than the entire sample of 180, any conclusions drawn from the 98 would have a margin of error of +/10 percent 47 See p. 9, paragraph 4B, sub paragraph 9 in the Consent Decree 48 Zinn, Andrew, DeCoursey, Jan, Goerge, Robert M., Courtney, Mark E. A Study of Placement Stability in Illinois, Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2006. 49 See p 6, paragraph 4A.6vi, in the Consent Decree for visitation planning in Family Team Meetings. Visitation
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 56

children who reach their 13th month in custody and county‐state staffings for children who reach their 25th month in custody.50
1. Placement with Relatives
Of the 180 children in the foster care sample, 22 percent (39) were in/had been placed with relatives on December 31, 2006 or the last day the children were in custody. Children placed with family were in a combination of relative homes, relative homes approved and being reimbursed for foster care, and with parents themselves.
2. Parental Visitation
With some exceptions, parental visits with their children in custody are essential in order to maintain a child’s sense of connection, permanency, and well being. Sometimes, parental visitation is not appropriate because parental rights have been terminated, the parent is deceased, the permanency goal has been changed to something other than reunification, or because visits, even supervised ones, are not in the best interest of the child. Regular visitation is also a challenge when parents’ whereabouts are unknown to DFCS or the parent is incarcerated at considerable distance from their children. Among the 180 children in the foster care sample, regular visitation with their birth mother appeared to be appropriate and feasible for 113. Among the remaining 67 children, six children were reunified with their mothers after less than 14 days in state custody. The birth mothers of 25 children were either deceased or had had their parental rights terminated. Six mothers did not have contact because it was contrary to their child’s safety and five were incarcerated. Finally, case records indicate that 23 mothers could not be located. The review did not collect information about what efforts DFCS made to locate these mothers.
Visitation appeared to be appropriate or feasible for substantially fewer birth fathers. Among the 180 children, 38 had fathers who could be visiting with them. Visitation appropriateness was not considered for six children because they were in state custody less than 14 days. Among the remaining 142, for 50 children the paternity was unknown, fathers were deceased, parental rights had been terminated, non‐reunification had been ordered, or their visitation was considered contrary to the welfare of the child. Twelve fathers were incarcerated, one father reportedly told DFCS he did not want to be involved, and another 73 fathers could not be located. The review did not collect information about what DFCS made to locate these fathers.
One desired result from the Family Team Meetings to be held within 10 days of children entering custody is agreement on a parental/family visitation schedule. Maintaining the schedule, however, appears to be a challenge. The case record review found

schedules are also an element of DFCS case planning 50 See p9-10, paragraphs 4C.1 -5, in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 57

• 102 of 113 mothers had visitation schedules established. The majority (79) of these schedules were designed for the mother to visit at least monthly with her children. Documentation indicate that just over one‐third (41) of the mothers actually had at least monthly visits or telephone contact. Another third or so (43) mothers had less than monthly or sporadic visits with their children. In 29 records the documentation did not reflect any visits or the actual frequency of the visits. No barriers to maternal visitation were identified in 75 case files. Among case files in which such barriers were documented, the barriers identified included mother’s location changing, including becoming incarcerated, during the review period.

• More than half (20) of the 38 fathers had at least monthly visitation schedules established, 18 did not. File documentation indicates that eight fathers had monthly or more visits with their children while another seven had less than monthly or sporadic visits. Nineteen did not have any documented visits. No barriers to paternal visitation were identified in 27 case files. Among case files in which such barriers were documented, the primary barrier identified was related to the father’s location. Either their whereabouts became unknown or they were incarcerated during the review period.

3. DFCS Permanency Reviews at the 13th or 25th month in custody.

a.

13th month Permanency Reviews

Regularly scheduled reviews of progress toward permanency take place in each county, conducted by a team of people drawn from the Program Improvement Specialists, Regional Adoption Coordinators, and Field Program Specialists. The review teams are guided by a Permanency Reviews Practice Manual. According to the manual, the reviews are to include the following activities:

o Case readings using an on‐line Case Review Guide o Case packet reviews – these packets contain the information specifically required in
the Consent Decree for this process (Child Profile, FTM form, case plan, court orders, etc) o Documentation of findings, recommendations, and concurrence with the County’s permanency plan.

Staffings are held for those cases where the review team does not concur with the permanency plan or there is a belief that the plan would benefit from more discussion and additional actions. Post conference site meetings are held at the completion of the monthly reviews. The purpose of the meetings is to debrief the Permanency Review process and identify practice strengths and areas for improvement.

The State is now preparing quarterly reports on the Permanency Review efforts. Table IV‐9 draws on the 2 reports spanning the period July 1 through December 31, 2006 and summarizes

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 58

some of the characteristics of the 13th month permanency review practice. State reviewers concurred with the county permanency plans in 71 percent of all cases reviewed during the six month period. As reflected in the table, the concurrence rate improved between October and December over the previous quarter. County‐state staffings were convened for 150 (48%) of the reviews. The State quarterly reports have the following recommendations for improvement:
Diligent Search could be strengthened by more explanation about why relatives have been “ruled out” and what efforts have been used to connect with family members to get them involved in the case plan and reunification efforts.
Keeping Case Plans current and reflective of the most recent case activity. More timely proceedings/Court Orders by filing the motion to extend court orders within 90
to120 days of the expiration of the current court order to assure compliance with federal and state foster care guidelines. Family Team Meetings could be strengthened through more discussion of issues that precipitated out of home placement and strategies to reduce these risk factors. Parents and family members should be assisted to identify additional relative caretakers and safety resources as well as changes that need to be implemented for the child/ren to return home. Supervisory documentation of regularly scheduled case conferences with staff in the case files and more mentoring of inexperienced staff.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 59

Table IV‐9 13th Month Permanency Review Implementation
between July 1 and December 31, 2006

Total Cases Reviewer Concurrence

July ‐ September No. % 147
95 65%

October‐

December

No

%

168

128 76%

Full Period

No

%

315

223 71%

Permanency Goal Reunification Permanent Placement with relative Adoption Guardianship Another planned arrangement Other Totals

83 57% 18 12%

23 16%

0

0

22 15%

1 <1% 100%

132 79% 16 10%

8

5%

0

12

7%

101%

215 68% 34 11%

31 10% 0
34 11%

1

0%

315 100%

Practice Findings

% of

Cases

Cases with “Family Team

72 49%

160 95%

239 76%

Meetings” within the last 90

days

Cases with relatives

33 22%

80 50%

113 36%

involved in FTM

Cases wit h

61 42%

121 72%

183 58%

recommendations specific

to Family/Child Needs

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Risk Director, Quarterly Reports on

13th month and 25th month Reviews. Totals greater than 100% are due to rounding

Among the 36 children who had been in care 12 to 24 months as of December 31, 2006 or their last day of custody, there was evidence of 23 13th month permanency reviews. Barriers to permanency identified in the 13 month reports and reviews found in the case files include such issues as children with severe emotional and behavioral problems, parents continuing to work on case plan goals, parents’ whereabouts are unknown, lack of an adoptive resource, and lack of sufficient housing space to accommodate mother and all the children. Case documentation indicates that the recommendations of the permanency report and its subsequent review are being fully implemented in 14 of the 23 cases and another case had partial implementation until

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 60

the mother left Georgia. In the adoption sample, seven children had reached their 13th month in
care by December 31, 2006 and all 7 had permanency reviews. All 7 included some actions to be
taken by the county and the county appeared to be implementing the steps. These actions
varied by case, but included:  Steps to move expeditiously to complete termination of parental rights (6)  Review child’s treatment plan for modification that might allow an adoptive
placement (1)  Hold a staffing once TPR granted (1)  Place child in a pre‐adoptive home (1)

b.

25th Month County‐State Staffings

In addition to the 13th month permanency reviews, DFCS reports holding State/county staffings for 135 children who had reached their 25th month in care. County–state staffings at the 25th month in care were conducted for 56 of the 59 children in the placement sample in care 25 months or more as of December 31, 2006 or their last day of custody. The staffings were held for 60 of the 80 children in the adoption sample who had reached the same milestone. Some or all of the recommendations from the staffings were being implemented in nearly all of the identified cases in both samples.

4. The Adoption Process

Once parental rights are terminated, children are legally free to be adopted and it is in their best interest to be placed in a permanent home as quickly as circumstances permit. The case record review of children in the “adoption sample” provides some insight into how the adoption process is unfolding for 94 children who had at least one parent whose rights had been terminated. In fact, both parents of 91 of the 94 children have had their rights terminated or the parents were deceased. For the remaining three, a petition to terminate the parental rights of the remaining parent had been filed. The children in the sample averaged 9 years old. On average, the children in this sample had been in custody nearly 5 years (57 months.) They had been in their current placements an average of 21 months.

a. Placement Settings and Foster Parent Interest in Adoption

Eighty‐five children were living in family settings. Some of these settings had more potential for adoption than others. Twelve of the 85 children were placed with relatives or were in adoptive homes. The other 73 were placed in foster homes. Among the 85, DFCS had determined that 67 children have foster parents that are appropriate potential adoptive parents. Nine children were living in congregate care facilities.

Forty‐six children have foster parents who have verbally expressed interest in adoption according to the documentation in the case files. However, a smaller number, 26 of the 46, have actually taken another step in making a commitment to the children. Twenty‐six have signed

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 61

an affidavit for Consideration of Adoption (Form 150). Five of the 26 have reached the point of signing an Adoption Placement Agreement (Form 33) which means that they have moved beyond wanting to be considered as an adoptive resource to being willing to actually adopt the child in their home. The final step is for DFCS to notify the family that the child has been released for adoption so that the family can proceed with filing a petition to adopt.
Typically, families move through these different levels of increasing commitment. There are a number of steps along the way including appropriate monitoring of the child and family if the child has not had a previous long, stable placement with the parent; a home study to approve the home as an adoptive home; and applying for adoption assistance. For the five children who have foster parents who have signed the Adoption Placement Agreement, the signing was 7 to 45 months after their parents’ rights were terminated. One child was released for adoption in mid November 2006, but no finalization hearing had been scheduled as of December 31, 2006. For this child, the time between the termination of parental rights and release for adoption was 12 months.
b. Adoption Assistance
According to Federal law and state policy, eligibility for adoption assistance only needs to be “determined” if a child does not already meet certain criteria. The criteria that make a child automatically eligible include age (any child over the age of 8); black heritage over the age of 1; membership in a sibling group with additional criteria; and documented physical, emotional, or mental problems or limitations. Within the record review sample, nearly all of the children met at least one of these criteria: • 94 percent of the children had black heritage and were over the age of 1. • 18 percent (17) were part of a sibling group of three or more • 19 percent (18) were part of a sibling group of 2 with one sibling being 8 or older. • Over half of the children had documented physical, emotional or mental problems or
limitations. In addition, case managers submitted 14 children to the Office of Adoptions for determination of eligibility for assistance based on special needs and the Office approved 13 but rejected the 14th , determining that the child did not have special needs.
Discussion of the availability of adoption assistance with foster parents was documented for 32 children, but the amount and type of assistance appears to have been discussed with 20 foster parents.
An application for assistance had been submitted for 10 children, but the adoptive families of 14 children have been told they will receive a monthly payment, ranging from $35.00 to $1,368.75. Some families have yet to accept the amount; in particular a foster parent who would receive $35.00 a month has not yet signed the Adoption Placement Agreement. In the judgment of the record reviewers, this was the only case in which the proposed amount did not seem appropriate to the needs of the child documented in the record and the child’s current level of
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 62

care placement. The child has Down’s syndrome and other physical challenges requiring long term care as documented in a physician’s assessment. The type and amount of adoption assistance has not yet been determined for 80 children. The adoption assistance program was created to remove barriers to adoption.
c. Recruitment Efforts to Assure Permanency
Of the 89 children in the case record review who did not have an adoptive placement (foster parents had not signed an Adoptive Placement Agreement,) DFCS had identified adoptive resources among relatives, current and former foster parents, and others for 59 children. Twenty‐six children had active individualized adoption recruitment plans, and another child had documented recruitment efforts under way but no plan was found in the file. Recruitment efforts for these 27 children included registration on adoption exchanges, being featured on local adoption awareness outlets, participating in video conferences and other opportunities that allow potential resources to get to know them a little better. Recruitment was on hold for three other children as they received therapeutic treatment.
C. Supporting Permanency after Case Closure
The Consent Decree requires DFCS to make monthly visits to children who are discharged when the Juvenile Court orders aftercare visitation, and to determine if additional services are necessary.51 In addition, the newly created specialized case manager position is responsible for convening a discharge planning meeting 30 days before discharge.52 Finally, DFCS is to make available post‐adoption services to support and stabilize adoptions for at least 18 months following adoption finalization.53
1. Aftercare for Children Exiting DFCS Custody to a Permanency plan other than Adoption
Forty‐three children in the foster care sample were discharged from DFCS custody during the period July 1 through December 31, 2006. Among these 43 children, 37 had achieved their permanency goal. Three of these children did not achieve their goal because they were on “run away” status at time of discharge. Two others were being adopted post‐custody by a relative, or had been placed with a guardian instead of achieving reunification. One youth signed himself back into care for a month after his 18th birthday but then left.
DFCS determined that additional services were needed for 24 of the 43 children. These determinations were documented in court orders, relative care‐giver assessments, and independent living plans. The additional service determinations for the 24 children resulted in referrals for aftercare services, medical assistance, and open Child Protective Services orders
51 See p.10, paragraph 4C.6 in the Consent Decree 52 See p. 12, paragraph 4F.3e in the Consent Decree 53 See p. 11, paragraph 4E.2 in the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 63

among other individualized plans. For the remaining 19 children who were discharged, no documentation was found indicating whether or not the need for post discharge services had been assessed.
Documentation was found for court‐ordered after care plans for 2 of the 24 children discharged with needs identified. One family was referred to a private provider for wrap‐around services. Another family was helped to find independent housing, utility bill relief, furniture and assistance with child care.
After care supervision was ordered by the court for 6 children. It was clear in 3 files, that these visits were implemented, but for 3 other children there was no documentation of the visits. Thirteen children had cases that remained open after they were discharged from custody. Among the 13 cases, 6 remained open because the discharged youth had “signed themselves” back into care. All six were enrolled in an educational program.
Nine of the discharged children had been on the caseloads of specialized case managers at the time of discharge. It appears that only one of these individuals had a discharge planning meeting with his/her worker, at any time prior to discharge. In focus groups of Specialized Case Managers conducted in November 2006, participants confirmed that little formal discharge planning was taking place. SCMs reported that they might have a meeting with their supervisor regarding a case prior to discharge, but there was not a formalized process. Some reported that they would go to court and the judge would just send the child home so there was no time to prepare for the discharge. While many had attended the new family team meeting training, no one had actually participated in a meeting at which the family was in attendance.
2. Post Adoption Assistance
The post‐adoption financial assistance that a child’s family receives is based on the child’s needs (race, age, sibling group, characteristics, and special determinations.) According to data obtained from the Office of Adoptions, of the 160 children adopted from DeKalb and Fulton County in calendar year 2006, 86 percent received monthly Adoption Assistance benefits and Medicaid. Three of the 160 received Special Services. Special Services are benefits that are time limited or one‐time only services. These benefits may include special medical equipment, psychiatric/psychological testing, and therapy; special educational equipment, tutorial services, orthodontic services or respite care.
Several forms of supportive assistance are available to families after adoption54 including Crisis Intervention Team, Day Care, ATEAM (Adopted Teen Empowerment and Mentoring) Program, Camp Promise – a special camp for children with a special condition that might prevent them from attending a more traditional summer camp, Tutorial Services, etc. Referrals to these services are handled by the Georgia Center for Adoption and Foster Care Resources and
54 Office of Adoptions Manual, March 2003, Section 108
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 64

Support. According to the Office of Adoption data, of the 160 children adopted in calendar year 2006, one child received respite services, one family contacted the Georgia Center for Adoption Resources and Support for services, two children were enrolled in the Adopted Teen Empowerment Mentoring Program and 11 children received Day Care Services.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 65

Part V WELL‐BEING
Children in Care Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity and Receive the Services They Need
One of the Consent Decree principles is “Children in foster care should have stable placements that meet their needs and services necessary to address both the trauma of foster care and the problems surrounding their removal from their family.” 55 In addition, the policy of the Department of Human Services asserts that foster care services are to “focus on strengthening and rebuilding families to bring about the child’s early return. If this is not possible within a reasonable period of time, foster care promotes the permanency of children by arranging for placement in another stable, nurturing home. While in care, the comprehensive needs of children are assessed and services arranged and/or provided to promote their well‐being.”56 All six of the Consent Decree outcomes focused on the well‐being of children while they are in care had thresholds to be met during the second reporting period. This chapter reports on the State’s performance on these outcomes and the practice in this area.
A. Outcome Performance: Outcomes 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 30
As noted, six separate outcomes are clustered in the category of “Well‐Being.” Table V‐1 on the next two pages provides the language of the consent decree, the degree of performance and a page reference to a fuller discussion of each outcome. For analysis and communication, the six outcomes have been further subdivided into two broad categories, Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity and Children and Youth Receive the Services the Need. The following discussion provides a summary of State performance in these two areas as well as new interpretation and measurement issues associated with the outcomes, and information about issues surrounding the work that provide a context for understanding the State’s performance.

55 See p. 4, paragraph 7 in the Consent Decree 56 See Social Services Manual Section 3060

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 66

Table V‐1 Well‐Being Outcomes

Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity

2nd Period Performance

Outcome 17: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 86.7% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 18: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave. Outcome 20: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had at least one in‐placement visit and one other visit, as defined in Section 5.D, each month by their case manager. During the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 22: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had visits between their DFCS placement case manager and their foster parent, group care, institutional or other caretaker at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody.

90.0% 84% 16% 39%

Further discussion reference pp. 67‐68
pp. 68‐69
pp. 69‐70
pp. 71‐72

Children and Youth Receive the Services they Need
Outcome 24: By the end of the second reporting period, the percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 10 percentage points. By the end of the fourth reporting period, that percentage shall increase by an additional 10 percentage points. Outcome 30: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.

65.7% baseline 34.4% second period
74%

pp. 72‐73 pp. 74‐76

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 67

1. Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity
All four of the Outcomes (numbered 17, 18, 20, and 22) related to children experiencing a stable placement and continuity of care and case management had thresholds to be achieved by the end of the second reporting period.
Outcome 17 – Placement Stability
Once placed in an appropriate setting, a casework goal is to maintain the stability of the placement and avoid the trauma of disruption and placement in another setting. With Outcome 17, the Consent Decree establishes a threshold for placement stability by requiring that at least 86.7 percent of children in custody have 2 or fewer moves in most recent 12 months in custody.57
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Outcome 17 is similar to, but not identical to the federal standard for placement stability. The federal standard is applied to the number of placements, not moves, and suggests that at least 86.7 percent of children should experience no more than two placements in the most recent 12 months in custody. This similarity caused some confusion and, in part, suggested a different approach to measuring Outcome 17. Concerned that the first period measurement was substantially different than that reported for all children in IDS, the Accountability Agents reviewed the Federal measurement approach. In the record review for period one, reviewers were asked to count the number of moves a child experienced in the 12 months preceding June 30, 2006 or the last day the child was in custody. They were instructed to count the move from his/her home of origin to the initial placement at the time DFCS assumed temporary custody of the child as the first move. The Federal approach for purposes of the Child and Family Service Reviews is to count the number of “physical settings in which a child finds himself or herself after removal.” 58 The Accountability Agents therefore concluded that the more appropriate instruction to the reviewers was to record the number of placements a child had in the 12 months preceding December 31, 2006 or the last day in custody. For purposes of measurement, the number of moves a child experiences represents one less than the number of placements experienced.
b. State Performance
 The State Surpassed the Second Period Outcome 17 Threshold
As noted in Table V‐1, 90 percent of the 180 children in the foster care sample experienced two
57 See p. 35, Outcome 17 in the Consent Decree 58 See the U.S. Administration for Children and Families web site, http:///www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/results/results/slld029.htm
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 68

or fewer moves during the previous 12 months in custody. The outcome threshold was 86.7 percent. For the children in DFCS custody in December 2006, IDS reported 95 percent of all children experienced two or fewer moves. Table V‐2 provides a breakdown of the number of placements experienced by the children in the placement sample. For those children experiencing more than two placements in 12 months, the most frequent reason for placement changes cited in the case records is child behavior.

Table V‐2 Number of Moves Experienced by Children
N=180

Number of Moves Experienced in the Previous 12 Months in Care

Number Percent

No Moves

89

49%

One Move

53

29%

Two Moves

20

11%

Subtotal

162

90%

Three Moves

10

6%

Four Moves

4

2%

Five Moves

2

1%

Six Moves or more

2

1%

Total

180

99%

Source: Case Record Review, February 2007. Total is less than 100% due to rounding.

Outcome 18 – Worker Continuity

Worker continuity is also a contributor to a child achieving permanency more quickly and to a child’s well‐being while in care. Outcome 18 requires that at least 90 percent of children in custody have no more than 2 workers during their most recent 12 months in custody. There are exceptions that allow for case manager terminations, death, transfers, and temporary assignments to cover another case manager’s cases while out on sick leave. It also allows for the child’s transfer to a Specialized Adoptions case manager.59

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues

The performance measurement is based on County reported data drawn from IDS for children in Dekalb and Fulton County custody on December 15, 2006 and analyzed by the counties as to the reasons for case manager changes since December 14, 2005. Exemptions noted were case manager changes that resulted from 1) transfers to a Specialized Case Manager, 2) case manager deaths, terminations, and transfers to another county or, 3) temporary assignments to cover cases during a maternity or sick leave.60 The county data was reviewed by the Accountability

59 See p. 35, Outcome 18, in the Consent Decree 60 See p. 35, paragraph 18, in the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 69

Agents for consistency with the appropriated reasons. It was also compared to the information collected in the case record review of 180 children in placement as a means of verification. No exceptions were factored into the case record review data collection as it is often difficult if not impossible to determine from a child’s record why there was a case manager change. The performance calculated from the county data fell within the margin of error of the case record review results.
b. State Performance
 The State Fell Short of the Second Period Outcome 18 Threshold
As noted in Table V‐1, 84 percent of the children in custody on December 15, 2006 had had 2 or fewer placement case managers in the preceding 12 months. The outcome threshold for this is 90 percent. As noted, the case record review also collected data on the number of placement case managers experienced by the children in the foster care sample. The results showed that 83 percent of the children had 2 or fewer workers in the 12 months preceding December 31, 2006 or the last day of custody. This performance reflects a slight improvement over the 81 percent found in the first reporting period.
Outcome 20 – Case Manager Visitation with Children
Although the Consent Decree suggests the frequency and intensity of in‐placement visits and other visits with a child “shall be determined by the individual needs of the child,” it does stipulate twice monthly visits during the most recent 12 months in Outcome 20. Furthermore, Outcome 20 references the section of the Consent Decree that defines the nature of the twice monthly visits very specifically. One visit is to be “in‐placement” and there shall be one “other visit” each month.61 The nature of these visits is further defined as follows: “an in‐placement visit refers to a private face‐to face visit with the child in the child’s home/placement…. A visit refers to a face‐to‐face visit with the child.”62
c. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
As a result of the Consent Decree’s specific criteria for case manager – child visits, the case record review was designed and the reviewers were instructed to only “count” visits that met these criteria. For example, if a reviewer saw that two visits were made during the month, but neither were in‐placement visits or there was no indication that there was a private piece to a visit, the visit was not counted. However, this may have caused performance to be somewhat understated because case manager documentation lacked specificity about the visits. In fact, in 21 completed reviews, the reviewers noted that more visits occurred than they recorded in the case record review guide because the documentation did not reflect private visits. The

61 See p. 35, Outcome 20 in the Consent Decree 62 See p. 19, Section 5D in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 70

reviewers also cited this documentation issue as a reason why their visit count might differ from that seen in the county tracking systems. This is an issue the Accountability Agents will study before the next case record review to determine if there is a better approach to measuring visitation performance.
d. State Performance
 The State Fell Short of the Second Period Outcome 20 Threshold
As noted in Table V‐1, 16 percent of the children received two monthly visits during the previous 12 months, as defined in the Consent Decree. The threshold for this outcome is 95 percent. Although this level of performance is a concern to the Accountability Agents, it is important to note several things:
• These rates represent visitations for the 12 months preceding December 31, 2006 or the
last day the child was in custody – not for the reporting period. The counties began closer tracking of visitation in July 2006. These rates reflect at least six months of performance prior to that concentrated attention.
• This outcome is not calculated as an average (i.e., at least 24 visits in the last 12 months).
Any child that did not receive two visits, at least one of which was “private” and “in‐ placement,” each and every month of the designated 12‐month period was counted as a “no.”
• This is an improvement over the first period when it appeared that 3 percent of the
children in care received 2 visits per month in each of the previous 12 months.
• Another 58 percent of the children received at least one monthly visit.
Table V‐3 arrays the visitation pattern indicated in the case files.
In addition to the measurement challenge previously noted, there are reasons to believe this performance will continue to improve. In nearly two‐thirds (64%) of the records of children who had entered care before July 1, 2006, the reviewers did note an improvement in frequency of case manager visits since July. As indicated, both counties established a tracking process since July. Their Quality Assurance units are now regularly reviewing all case manager documentation, verifying and tracking all visits each month. This information is reported monthly to administration and in the G2 meetings by supervisory units.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 71

Table V‐3 Case Manager Visits with Children over the 12 months preceding
December 31, 2006 or last day of custody N=177*

Proportion of Twice Monthly Case Manager Visits Experienced by Children in Custody and as defined by the Consent Decree

Number Percent

All required visits

28

16%

Half to almost all visits (i.e. the equivalent to monthly visits or more)

103

58%

Chidlren in care 30 days or more receiving fewer than half the required visits

37

21%

(i.e. equivalent of less than monthly visits)

Children in custody for 30 days or less, visited once, but not in‐placement

3

2%

Children in custody 30 days or less, no visits No documented visits**

5

3%

1

Total children

177

100%

*Three children were excluded from the analysis because they have been placed out of state for the 12 months under

study.

**One child was being supervised in another county and there was no documentation about frequency of visits.

Source: Case record review, February 2007.

Case manager visitation with about half (54%) of the children typically covered a range of issues including safety, case planning, service delivery, and goal attainment. With the remaining children, the visits typically focused on one of these issues more than others with safety being the leading concern.

Outcome 22 – Case Manager Visitation with Substitute Caregivers
In Outcome 22, the Consent Decree requires case managers to visit once a month with the substitute care givers. This includes foster parents, group home and institutional staff and others charged with the responsibility of caring for children in DFCS custody and the substitute caregivers.63
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
There were no interpretation measurement issues associated with this outcome.

63 See p. 36, Outcome 22 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 72

b. State Performance
 The State Fell Short of the Second Period Outcome 22 Threshold
As noted in Table V‐1, 39 percent of the children had care givers who were visited at least once each month by case managers for the 12 months prior to December 31, 2006 or the last day in custody. The threshold for this outcome is 90 percent. Again, while the performance is low and a concern, it represents performance for at least six months prior to the counties’ initiation of closer tracking of visitation in July 2006. It is also an improvement over the first reporting period where the record review found 32 percent of the children’s substitute care givers received monthly case manager visits during the previous 12 months. Table V‐4 summarizes the pattern of case manager visitation with care givers.
Table V‐4 Case Manager Visits with Substitute Caregivers over the 12 months preceding December
31, 2006 or last day of custody N=174*

Proportion of Monthly Case Manager with Substitute Caregivers

Number Percent

All required visits Half to almost all visits (i.e. the equivalent to visiting every‐other month or more frequently) Less than half (i.e. sporadic) No visits

68

39%

84

48%

12

7%

10

6%

Total caregivers

174

100%

*Three children were excluded from the analysis because they have been placed out of state for the 12 months under

study and another three were excluded and three were excluded because they had been in care less than 14 days.

Source: Case Record review, February 2007.

Outcome 24 – Educational Achievement of Youth Leaving Foster Care at age 18 or Older

Outcome 24 in the Consent Decree focuses on the educational attainment of youth leaving DFCS care at age 18 or later. Specifically, it sets increasing targets over a baseline year for the percentage of youth who are “discharged from foster care at age 18 or older … who have graduated from high school or earned a GED.”64 This Outcome called for the State to increase by 10 percentage points, the proportion of youth who achieve a high school diploma or a graduate equivalency diploma (GED) over a pre‐Consent Decree baseline year.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues

The State compiled a preliminary baseline for the year, October 27, 2004 to October 26, 2005,

64 See p. 36, paragraph 24 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 73

from its own “case finding” (identifying youth who met the criteria for the outcome) and file documentation. Concerned about the accuracy of that approach, it recompiled the baseline and the first measurement year, October 27, 2005 to October 26, 2006, by reconciling DHR records with those maintained by the State of Georgia, Departments of Education (DOE) and Technical and Adult Education (DTAE). These two sister agencies maintain records of all Georgia residents who earn a high school diploma from a public school or Graduate Equivalency Diploma (GED) in Georgia, respectively. These records were supplemented, where necessary, with actual copies of diplomas or GED certification. The Accountability Agents did not do a separate validation of the records.
The baseline created from this approach revealed that 65.7 percent of the youth 18 years old or older who left DFCS care in the baseline year had earned a high school diploma or GED.
This performance is substantially higher than DHR’s own preliminary estimates. It represents 132 youth out of 201 exiting youth who exited with a high school diploma or GED. The rate is similar to the 65.4 percent high school graduation rate for all Georgia students in 2004.65 According to the National Working Group on Foster Care and Education, it is also within the range of what other studies have found for foster youth and what has been reported as the national completion rate for all students.66 To meet the first threshold for Outcome 24, the state would have to increase this performance to 75.7 percent among the cohort of youth who leave care between October 27, 2005 and October 26, 2006. To achieve and sustain the final threshold for Outcome 24, 85.7 percent of the youth who leave care between October 27, 2006 and October 26, 2007 would have to earn a high school diploma or a GED.
b. State Performance
 The State Fell Short of Bettering its Baseline Performance for Outcome 24
As noted in Table V‐1, 34.4 percent the youth who left DFCS care at age 18 or older between October 27, 2005 and December 31, 2006 achieved a GED/ High School Diploma. This represented 43 out of 125 exiting youth. This is 31.3 percentage points less than the baseline year. This result is surprisingly incongruous and raises questions about the methodology and whether one of these years is an anomaly. It seems unlikely that practice or child characteristics would vary enough from one year to the next to explain these disparate results. It is recommended that the State take another look at both years and gather data for some additional historical years to provide other points of comparison for these results as well as examine how other variables such as practice patterns and school attendance may have differed for these two (and any comparison) cohorts.
65 See September 21, 2006 press release from Governor Perdue at http://www.gov.state.us/press/2006/press1265.shtml 66 See Educational Outcomes for Children and Youth in Foster Care and Out-of-Home Care, December 2006, National Working Group on Foster Care and Education at http://www.casey.org/NR/rdonlyres/A8991CAB-AFC14CF0-8121-7E4C31A2553F/1069/DataSheetForWeb12092.pdf
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 74

Given that it has taken three years for the State of Georgia’s high school graduation rate to move from 63.3 to 70.8 percent67, approximately 7 percentage points, it may not be realistic to expect a 10 percentage point improvement in one year among the foster care population. The Accountability Agents will convene the parties for the purpose of evaluating the possible data anomalies associated with Outcome 24 and to discuss whether the existing escalation factor is realistic.
Outcome 30 – Meeting the Needs of Children as Identified in their Case Plans
The Consent Decree specifies that the needs to be considered for achieving Outcome 30 are those medical, dental, mental health, educational or other needs found in the child’s most recent case plan.68
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
For purposes of determining whether needs identified in the most recent case plans were being met, the following exclusions from the sample of 180 children in foster care were necessary for the analysis: 12 children who had been in custody less than 30 days and would not be expected to have a case plan; another 12 children for whom no plans were found in their case records, and four children were excluded because of data collection problems. The Accountability Agents chose to exclude from data collection and analysis another five plans older than 12 months because of the dynamic changes that can occur within 12 months of a child’s life and the older plans would be less likely to reflect more recent issues in the lives of the children. These data cleansing decisions provided 14769 plans for analysis and increased the margin of error to plus or minus eight percent.
To measure whether the identified needs were being met, the sample of case files were reviewed for evidence that services had been delivered or were being delivered to respond to the need.
To provide a context for the proportion of children in care that might be expected to have needs identified in case plans or in other documentation, the Accountability Agents found the following in national studies of children in foster care.
• According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, “about 30 percent of children in foster care have severe emotional, behavioral, or developmental problems. Physical health problems are also common.”70
67 See September 21, 2006 press release from Governor Perdue 68 See p 38, Outcome 30 in the Consent Decree 69 The most recent case plans for four children were inadvertently excluded from the data collection due to record reviewer error. All four were discharged before December 31, 2006 70 See Facts for Families, Foster Care No64, Updated May 2005, American Academy of Child and Adolescent
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 75

• Children in foster care are “more likely than other groups of Medicaid children to have a mental health or substance abuse condition” according to a 2001 report by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.71 The report specifically noted that the “the most common conditions in the foster care population were mental conditions.”72
• A 2003 Research Brief from Child Trends reported “Just under a quarter of foster children under the age of 15 (24 percent) have chronic health problems”73
• The National Working Group on Foster Care and Education writes that “numerous studies indicate that anywhere between one‐quarter and almost one‐half of children” in foster care “receive special education services at some point in their schooling.”74
b. State Performance
 The State Fell Short of the Second Period Outcome 30 Threshold
As noted in Table V‐1, 74 percent of children had all needs identified in their most recent case plan met. The threshold for this outcome was 80 percent.
Among the 14775 plans, half (73) had at least one need identified. However, Mental health needs were the most often cited, noted in 50 (34%) of the plans. Thirty‐seven plans cited educational needs and thirty–three had medical needs. Thirteen plans had dental needs identified. Finally, 21 plans identified some other type of need. This information is presented below in Table V‐5.
As reflected in Table V‐5, DFCS has been more successful in assuring services are delivered for identified medical needs than any other type of need. Individualized “other” needs and dental needs appear to have the most room for improvement. Examples of “other needs” cited by case record reviewers include transportation to medical appointments, substance abuse counseling, and a behavioral aide. This is the first time this performance has been measured, therefore the degree to which the State has improved since the Consent Decree is unknown.
Related to this outcome is how the State is performing in identifying and meeting the needs of children identified when they first enter foster care and through on‐going assessment and treatment. This performance is discussed later in this chapter under section C, Practice for
Psychiatry, at http://www.aacap.org/page.ww?name=Foster+Care&section=Facts+for+Families 71 Rosenbach, Margo. Children in Foster Care: Challenges in Meeting Their Health Care Needs Through Medicaid. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Princeton, NJ. March 2001. 72 Ibid. 73 Vandivere, Sharon, Chalk, Rosemary, Moor, Kristin Anderson. Children in Foster Homes: How Are They Faring?” Child Trends Research Brief. Child Trends. Washington, DC. December 2003. 74 See Educational Outcomes for Children and Youth in Foster Care and Out-of-Home Care, December 2006, National Working Group on Foster Care and Education at http://www.casey.org/NR/rdonlyres/A8991CAB-AFC14CF0-8121-7E4C31A2553F/1069/DataSheetForWeb12092.pdf 75 Since this is smaller than the entire sample of 180, any conclusions drawn from the 147 would have a margin of error of +/- 8 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 76

Meeting the Needs of Children, Youth, and Families. The findings around individual assessments suggest that there are needs which are not identified in the case plans and responsiveness to needs is different. This is not totally unexpected because the plans generally are developed every six months and needs that occur after the development of one plan may be resolved before the development of the next plan and are therefore not included as a need in that plan.

Table V‐5 Needs Identified in Most Recent Case Plans and Degree Needs Met as of
December 31, 2006 or last Day of Custody

Children with Case Plans not over 12 months

N=147

No

%

One or More Need Identified
Frequency of different identified needs
Medical Dental
Mental Health Educational/ Developmental
Other

73

50%

34

23%

13

9%

49

33%

37

25%

21

14%

Children Received/Receiving Services

N varies depending on need identified

No

% of

identified

need

All Identified Needs

54

74%

Met (N=73)

Frequency of

different needs being

met

31

94%

10

77%

42

86%

33

89%

15

71%

Source: Case Record Review, February 2007

B. The Placement Experience

This section describes characteristics and placement practices identified in the case record review of 180 children in foster care between July 1 and December 31, 2006. This includes county placement environment, the use of temporary placement settings, efforts to minimize trauma of change, and case manager visitation in new placements.

1. Placement Environment

There have been no significant changes to the placement process from that reported on in the first report. Considering the placement environment is important because Principle number six of the Consent Decree refers to children being placed in the “least restrictive, most family‐like setting possible.”76 Table V‐6 provides the distribution of children among placement settings

76 See p 4, Principle 6 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 77

found in the case record review.
 77 percent (138) of the children in the sample are/were in family settings during their time in custody These settings included family foster homes, relative foster homes, relative homes, therapeutic and emergency foster homes. The remaining children were in congregate care or hospital settings.
Table V‐6 Placement Settings of Children in DFCS Custody July 1 – December 31, 2006
As of December 31, 2006 or the last day of custody (N= 180)

Placement Type
Emergency Shelter/Assessment Center Emergency Foster Home Foster Home (DFCS or Private Agency Supervised) Relative Home (Foster and non Foster Home) Therapeutic Foster Home Returned to Parents Group Home Residential Treatment Facility/ Child Caring Institution Hospital Runaway status Regional Youth Detention Center (RYDC) Total Source: Case Record Review February 2007

Frequency
0 0 93 38 2 5 22 9 4 6 1 180

Percent
52% 21%
1% 3% 12% 5% 2% 3% Less than 1% 100%

 98 percent (170) of 174 children who were in some type of placement setting on December 31 or the last day of custody appeared to be in appropriate settings as indicated by the case documentation. Six children were excluded from this analysis because they were on “runaway” status. For two of the children the reviewers found documentation suggesting the child’s therapeutic needs were not being met in the placement setting (one child was subsequently moved.) For the two other children, the reviewers could not make a judgment because the relative assessment was incomplete.

 For children who enter care, the Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment (CCFA) is the primary vehicle for evaluating the initial placement within 30 days of a child’s entry into care and making recommendations for change if necessary. In the last half of 2006, 46 children entered care. Two children were moved to different placements based on the recommendation of the CCFA.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 78

 97 percent (174) of the children were known to be getting their basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing met.77 For six children, the status of these needs and how they were being met were unknown because they were in run away status on December 31, 2006 or the last day of custody.
 Two children experienced some waiting time for their placement as they were placed on waiting lists for special programs. No child was denied a placement on the basis of race and/or ethnicity and/or religion78.
2. Use of Congregate Care
The Consent Decree has several restrictions related to the use of group care.79 First it stipulates that no child under the age of 6 will be placed in a group care setting without the written approval by the Social Services Director based on the certification of need. It further stipulates that when a child under the age of six has a certified, approved need for group care, the child cannot be placed in a group care setting of more than 12 beds. Similar stipulations apply to children aged 6 to 12. For those children under the age of 6, an exception to these stipulations is provided when the child is placed with his or her parent. There is also a one‐time exception for all those children under the age of 12 who were placed in a group care setting with a capacity of more than 12 beds before the entry of the Consent Decree (October 27, 2005.) Under this exception, children under the age of 12 are allowed to remain in the placement settings if they are siblings of other children placed in those settings. However, the State was to move these children to either foster home settings (children under the age of 6) or non‐group care settings (children aged 6 to 12) within 12 months after the Consent Decree (October 26, 2006) “unless doing so would not be in the best interest of the children in question.”
With regard to placement of the youngest children, those under the age of six, the State has done well to place them in small group care settings when such placement has been deemed necessary. Table V‐7 summarizes the State’s actions with regard to these stipulations. From before the Consent Decree to December 31, 2006, no child under the age of 6 was in a group care setting of more than 12 beds. Half of those that were in a group care settings of 12 beds or less as of December 31, 2006 were there because they were with their parents.
Placement of children between the ages of 6 and 12 in small groupcare settings, although improving since the Consent Decree, appears to remain a challenge for the State. Before the Consent Decree, 43 children aged 6 to 12 were in a group care setting of any size. As of December 31, 2006, there were 18 children aged 6 to 12 in any such setting; 14 in group care settings with more than 12 beds. The State moved 21 of 43 children aged 6 to 12 who had been in group care settings prior to the Consent Decree. Of the 22 children that remained in group care settings, ten reached age 12 during the 12 months after the Consent Decree, six were
77 See p. 18, paragraph 5C.5j in the Consent Decree 78 See p. 18, paragraph 5C.5h in the Consent Decree 79 See p. 16-17, paragraph 5C.5f in the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 79

siblings of other children in the placement settings and the State reports six had certified needs that could only be met in a group care setting. However, children aged 6 to 12 continued to be placed in group care settings of more than 12 beds based on need according to State data. On December 31, 2006, five children who had been placed after the Consent Decree were in group care settings of more than 12 beds, primarily psychiatric hospitals.
Table V-7 Children Under the Age of 12 in Group Care Settings
October 27, 2005 through December 31, 2006

Reason for placement
With mother Service Need With sibling
Total Placement Setting size

Children under the age of 6

Number before Number still

Number entering Number still

10/27/05

placed 10/26/06 between July 1 placed at 12/31/06

and December

31, 2006

5

2

7

6

3

1

5

4

1

1

8

3

13

11

All children placed in settings with 12 or fewer beds during

all time frames

Children age of 6 to 12

Reason for placement

Number before 10/27/05

Number still placed 10/26/06

Number between July 1 and December 31, 2006

Bed Capacity Bed Capacity

Bed Capacity

<=12 12> <=12 12>

<=12 12>

With sibling

4

8

2

4

2

4

Service Need

14 17

1

5

4

13

Reached Age

12 by 10/26/06

(10)

Reached Age

12 by 12/31/06

Total

43

12

23

Source: State reported data, not independently verified.

Number still placed at 12/31/06

Bed Capacity

<=12

12>

2

4

2

10

(1) 18

3. Use of Emergency or Temporary Placements

The Consent Decree has several requirements addressing placement appropriateness. It requires that “no child shall be placed in an emergency or temporary facility....for more than 30 days.” It also stipulates that no child shall spend more than 23 hours in a County DFCS office or any facility providing intake functions.80

80 See p. 16, paragraph 5C4.c in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 80

The case record review found that 18 percent of the 88 children in the foster care sample who entered care and/or changed placement between July 1 and December 31, 2006 experienced some time in an emergency or temporary setting. This is a slightly lower proportion than found in the first reporting period. Of the 16 children represented by the 18 percent, four children were placed in more than one such facility. Thirteen children spent less than 30 days in such facilities, one child spent 34 days and the documentation did not indicate the length of stay for two children. File documentation indicated that three children spent more than 23 hours in a County DFCS office or a facility providing an intake function before being appropriately placed. In another seven files, reviewers could not determine how long children were in these settings. As of December 31, 2006 or the last day of custody, no children were placed in emergency placements.

4. Informing Caregivers and Providing Appropriate Clothing

The Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS will ensure available information concerning a specific foster child will be provided to foster parents before the child is placed.81 A small number (6) of foster parents who received 43 children into their homes during the period appear to have received information before the time of placement. This is much lower than the findings in the first period report where 20 out of 76 parents received some information. However, all foster parents are given the 24 hour/7 day a week contact information in training, which may explain why it was not documented in the files. Table V‐8 arrays the information provided. Among all 88 children who had an initial and/or a new placement during the period. Case managers appeared to have reviewed the clothing needs for 19 children (22%) and taken the necessary steps to ensure that the children had appropriate clothing in the new placement setting.

Table V‐8 Information Given to Foster Parents Before Placement
between July 1 and December 31, 2006 N=43*

Information provided

Number Percent

24 hour/7 days a week contact information Family history Medical information Dental information Educational/Developmental information Mental health information No information provided/documented Source: Case Record Review, February 2007.

5

12%

4

9%

5

12%

3

7%

3

7%

3

7%

37

86%

81 See p. 19, paragraph 5C.6d in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 81

5. Minimizing Trauma of Change

About three‐quarters (76%) or 136 children in the placement sample experienced a change in placement setting or case manager in the 12 months preceding December 31, 2006 or the last day of custody. One quarter (25%) experienced at least one placement change and one case manager change during the same period. However, case managers documented efforts to minimize the potential trauma82 caused by the most recent change for 39 (29% of 136) children. The Accountability Agents defined “minimizing trauma” as any steps the case manager took to ease the fears and concerns of the child and or to keep the child as connected to family and community as possible. Steps included explaining reasons for the change, answering child’s questions, arranging for trial visits and pre‐placement visits, and making joint visits with the new case manager. This performance is very similar to that found in the first reporting period.

6. Case Manager Visitation with Children Who Experienced a New Placement

The Consent Decree stipulates a frequent visitation schedule for the first eight weeks of a new placement. 83 Of the 88 children in the sample who entered and/or changed placements during the reporting period, the file documentation indicated the pattern arrayed in Table V‐9. Here too, improvement is still needed, but the percentage of children receiving a visit in the first week of a new placement substantially increased over the fist reporting period from 20 to 50 percent.

Table V‐9 Case Manager Visits with Children in the First 8 Weeks of a New Foster Care Placement
N=Varies by week

Number of children

Timeframe

in new placement

Number of children

during timeframe

Week 1

88

44 children received one visit (50% of 88)

Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8

85

79 77 73

51 children
received one
visit sometime between the 3rd

7 children received an additional 6 visits or more during the 8-
week period.

24 children had fewer than 6
additional visits during the 8-week

69

and 8th week

period

65

Source: Case Record Review, February 2007.

82 See p. 18, paragraph 5C.5 in the Consent Decree 83 See p. 19, paragraph 5D.1 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 82

C. Practice for Meeting the Needs of Children, Youth, and Families
In addition to safe, appropriate, and stable placement settings, DFCS policy and the Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS will provide for the physical, developmental, and emotional needs of children in its custody.84 As a means of “strengthening and rebuilding families to bring about the child’s early return”85 it is also responsible for providing services to birth families. Finally, DFCS is responsible for supporting and assisting foster parents to more effectively address the needs of the children in their care. This section of the report reflects on the State’s practice as obtained through the case record review and staff interviews.
1. Initial Teaming, Assessment and Planning
The Consent Decree stipulates standards for several casework practices intended to assure effective assessment of and planning for children when they first enter care.86 During the second reporting period, the Accountability Agents interviewed county staff responsible for arranging, facilitating, and tracking Family Team Meetings (FTM), Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments (CCFA), and Multidisciplinary Meetings (MDT.) Each county has a core unit of Family Team Meeting facilitators who facilitate most of the FTMs when children enter care and at the 13th month of custody. Supervisors, case managers, and others who have received the appropriate training co‐facilitate these meetings. One private provider is used to facilitate the meetings of families with sibling groups coming into custody. The facilitators are responsible for inviting the parents and their informal supports to the FTM. In addition, they attempt to meet with the family before hand to prepare them for the meeting. Although facilitators keep their own records regarding family contact and the meetings, they did report that this information should also be in the children’s case files. All Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments are prepared by private providers under contract to DFCS. These private providers also facilitate the Multidisciplinary Team meetings. During the second reporting period, the counties were developing tracking and monitoring systems to better assure families and children received these opportunities to participate and important service need information was obtained in a timely manner. These tracking systems will be considered as a data source in future reporting periods.
Table V‐10 provides the findings from the sample of children in foster care as to the timeliness of initial assessment and planning components for the 46 children who entered State custody between July 1 and December 31, 2006. Following the table is a discussion of the steps involved in assessment and service planning.
84 See p. 4, principle 7; pp. 20-21, section 6; p.38, Outcome 30 in the Consent Decree; See also Social Services Manual Section 3060 85 See Social Service Manual 3060 86 See pp 5-7, section 4A in the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 83

Table V‐10 Timeliness of Initial Assessment and Planning Components
July 1 – December 31, 2006 N=Varies Depending on Length of Stay

Component and Action
Family Team Meeting (N=46) Held within 3‐9 days of entry Held, but not within 3‐9‐days Total Initial Family Team Meetings
Multi‐Disciplinary Team Meeting (N=36: 35 in care 25 days or more, plus one held for child who exited before 25 days of custody)
Held within 25 days of entry Held, but not within 25 days
Total Multi‐Disciplinary Team Meetings Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments
Referral within 24 hours of 72 hour hearing (N=46) Completed within 30 days (N=36: 34 in care 30 days or more, plus two that had the CCFA completed before they exited) Completed, but not within 30 days Completed, but unable to determine time frame
Total Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments Initial Case Plan (N=34)
Source: Case Record Review, February 2007

Number Percent

24

52%

12

26%

36

78%

18

50%

10

28%

28

78%

28

61%

14

39%

7

19%

6

17%

27

75%

23

68%

a. Family Team Meetings
The case record review found that 78 percent (36) of the children entering had an initial Family Team Meeting. Twenty‐four of the 36 meetings occurred within 3‐9 days after the child entered care. This is an improvement over the first reporting period where 62 percent of the entering cohort had a FTM. Not all meetings appear to have discussed all of the topics or made the desired determinations specified in the Consent Decree. Again, however, some small improvements were observed. The most frequently discussed topics, (found in 32 of the 36 meetings) were family and child strengths and needs and case goals. File documentation indicated limited efforts were made to ensure participant attendance or to inform parents who did not attend of the goals and results of the meeting. The lack of information about inviting and preparing the family in the child’s files may relate to the separation of the facilitators’ role in the process. As noted above, the facilitators are responsible for inviting an preparing the families for the FTM. Their documentation of this effort is kept separately.
 56 percent (20) of the meetings were attended by the birth mother, birth father, or

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 84

relative care giver. In 10 of these meetings, the attending care giver also had another relative or informal support with them. Children were included in 8 of the meetings. DFCS case managers or supervisors attended 25 meetings and private agency case managers were at 9 meetings.
 64 percent (23) of the meetings made determinations about service needs and 22 determined that further evaluations were needed. Five meetings determined that the child could be safely returned home and three of these children were discharged by December 31, 2006. The other two children had been in care less than 14 days at year‐ end. Another 13 meetings identified an appropriate relative with whom the child could be placed. Family visitation with siblings and parents was determined in 15 meetings. Eight of the meetings had documentation about what was needed to assure the child remains in the school he or she had been attending or enrolling the child in a school near the foster placement.
b. Multi‐Disciplinary Meetings
The case record review found that 78 percent (28) of the children who were in care 25 days or more had a Multi‐Disciplinary Meeting (MDT). This is a substantial improvement from the first reporting period for which the proportion with MDTs was 50 percent . The timeliness of the meetings also improved. In the first reporting period, 2 of the 16 MDTs were held within 25 days. As noted in Table V‐10, 18 of the 28 MDTs recorded were held within 25 days. As in the first reporting period, case record documentation about efforts made to ensure attendance of any participants was limited. As reflected in Table V‐11, the most frequent recommendations that emerged from the MDTs focused on the child’s permanency goal (22) and the services needed (20). Examples of MDT results include:
 Reunification  Child received a developmental assessment  Counseling services  Drug treatment services for birth parents  School services  Wrap around services to ensure case plan completion  Transportation for visitation
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 85

Table V‐11 Recommendations Made by Multidisciplinary Team Meetings
between July 1 and December 31, 2006 N=28

Recommendation Subject
Appropriateness of child’s permanency goal Services needed Implementing Assessment recommendations Issues identified in Family Team Meetings Appropriateness of the child’s education Appropriateness of the child’s independent living plan Other issues No recommendations Source: Case Record Review, February 2007

Number of Meetings
Recommendation 22 20 3 9 4 3 7 3

c. Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments

According to the case record review, 75 percent of the children entering care and remaining for 30 days or more had completed Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments (CCFA). This represents an improvement over the first period rate of 62 percent. This improvement may in part be the result of county efforts to manage the CCFA contracts more assertively and only making referrals to those agencies that will commit to timely completion of the CCFA. As noted in Table V‐10 earlier, 28 of the 46 families who had children entering care had referrals for a CCFA within 24 hours of the 72 hour hearing. Twenty‐seven children had completed CCFAs in their files and 14 of these were completed within 30 days for those 36 children who were in custody 30 days or more. Another 13 completed CCFAs were found but they required longer to complete or the timeframe for completion was unclear.

d. Initial Case Planning

As indicated in Table V‐10, 68 percent (23) of the children entering care and remaining 30 days or more had an initial case plan developed by December 31, 2006 or their last day in custody. This is a substantial decline since the first reporting period for which 80 percent of a similar cohort had initial plans. These initial case plans appeared to address some or all87 needs identified for 17 children in 2088 Family Team and Multi‐disciplinary Team meetings. About half to two‐thirds of the plans addressed identified medical, dental, mental health or developmental/educational needs.

87Fifteen case plans addressed all needs raised in the FTM or MDT; two more addressed some of the needs. 88 Three plans were developed in the absence of a Family Team Meeting or a Multidisciplinary meeting

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 86

2. Health Care
The Consent Decree requires both an immediate corrective action with regard to children’s health screenings89 as well as on‐going regular screening and treatment. 90 DFCS’ performance in these areas is discussed below.
a. Past Due Corrective Action from the First Reporting Period
In the first period report, the Accountability Agents reported that 673 children had been identified as needing an annual or foster care entry medical exam as of the date of the Consent Decree. By the middle of August 2006, 48 children who were still in custody had not received these exams and action was still required. As of December 21, 2006, 41 of the children had received the necessary medicals and 7 children were discharged before receiving them.
b. Regular and timely screening
Both counties have created processes for better tracking and monitoring the completion of regular health care visits. The case record review of 180 children in placement collected information about the timeliness of health and dental examinations provided at entry and discharge as well as on‐going “well‐child” health screenings. The documentation indicated that there has been improvement in county efforts to assure children receive regular and timely health screenings but opportunities for improvement remain, especially for dental care. The specific findings regarding timelines of routine care are summarized in Table V‐12. Of note are the following:
 In comparison to the first reporting period, the State’s overall performance around initial health screening at entry into care is slightly improved in the second period. The proportion of children receiving initial health screens within 10 days of entering care increased from 55 to 58 percent. Those receiving dental screenings within 10 days increased substantially from 21 to 34 percent.
 The most noticeable area of improvement is in the attention to on‐going health assessments. In the first period, 60 percent of the children were current with their EPSDT/Georgia Health Check defined physical exam schedule compared to the 75 percent in period two. There was also evidence in the file that another 10 children (7%) received a some health screen or well child assessment, but it did not appear to be according to the EPSDT standards. Likewise, a substantially larger proportion of children were current with their dental examinations in the second period compared to the first (76% in period two compared to 48% in period one.)
89 See p. 30, paragraph 13A in the Consent Decree. 90 See p. 20, paragraphs 6A 1 and 2, and p.21, 6B, paragraphs 1-8 in the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 87

 Data on health screenings at discharge from care was not collected for period one, but the information for period two indicates a small proportion of children (16% of those discharged) are receiving health examinations before discharge.
Table V‐12 Timeliness of Health (Physical, Dental, Mental) and Developmental Assessment
July 1 through December 31, 2006 N=Varies Depending on Length of Stay, Age of Child, Requirement

Component and Action

Number Percent

Initial Health Screen At Foster Care Entry (N=43)

Received within 10 days

25

58%

Received, but not within 10 days (13 to 36 days)

5

12%

Total Initial Health Screens

30*

70%

Initial Dental Screen At Foster Care Entry (N=43)

Received within 10 days

15

35%

Received, but not within 10 days (13 to 60 days, 1 unable to

6

14%

determine)

Total Initial Dental Screens

21*

49%

Initial Mental Health Assessment in Compliance with EPSDT Standards

(children age 4 and older) At Foster Care Entry (N=21 of 34 children in care

30 days or more plus one child received earlier than required )

Received within 30 days

17

81%

Received, but not within 30 days (within 37 days)

1

5%

Total Initial Mental Health Assessment

18**

86%

Initial Developmental Assessment (children younger than age 4) At Foster

Care Entry (N=14 of 34 children in care 30 days or more)

Received within 30 days

4

29%

Received, but not within 30 days (within 33 days)

1

7%

Total Initial Developmental Assessment

5**

36%

On‐Going Health Care Exams received according to EPSDT schedule

109

75%

(includes initial screens) (N=146***)

On‐Going Health Care Exams received but not according to EPSDT schedule

10

7%

or standards (includes initial screens) (N=146***)

On‐Going Dental Exams received according to EPSDT schedule (includes

101

76%

initial screens) (N=133***)

Discharge Health Screen (N=43)

Received within 10 days of discharge

3

7%

Received, but not within 10 days

4

9%

Total Discharge Health Screens

7

16%

*In one case, the screen did not appear to comply with EPSDT/Georgia Health Check Standards and in two cases,

reviewers could not determine compliance

**In one case, reviewer could not determine if the assessment was in compliance with EPSDT standards.

***Not all children were due to have a health or dental assessment during the reporting period.

Source: Case record review, February 2007

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 88

c. Response to Medical and Dental Needs
According to the case record review, 70 percent of the 109 children who received regular (initial and on‐going) health screening did not have any health needs revealed. This is similar to what is suggested in national studies cited earlier in the discussion of Outcome 30. Among the 33 children who did have health needs identified through health screenings, the documentation in their files indicated that 24 (73%) received appropriate treatment for all the needs identified. Another 3 children (9%) appear to have had some of their needs met and treatment was scheduled for one child. For five (15%) of the 33 children, no follow‐up treatment was documented in the case record. The percentage with needs identified is slightly higher and the response to the need is lower than the findings for Outcome 30 reported earlier. This may be because health screenings reveal needs that were not identified at the time the last case plan was prepared. The difference in the responses may be a reflection of the length of time available to treat needs identified through health screening between the time of the screening and the end of the reporting period. However the State should focus attention on responding as quickly as possible to the issues identified by health screenings.
The State appears to be responding well to immediate health needs that arise between health screenings. According to the case record review 36 children of the 180 children in the entire sample experienced medical needs between screenings. Thirty‐four (94%) appear to have had these needs met.
Medication management appeared to be an issue for 7 of 87 children who were required to take medication. These issues included children refusing to take the prescribed medication, children not getting prescriptions timely, foster parents not giving the child medications, and doctors and foster parents not informing DFCS of a change in therapeutic approach.
Responding to dental health needs, as noted in the analysis of Outcome 30 is an area that needs attention. According to the case record review, 62 percent of the 101 children who received regular (initial and on‐going) dental screening did not have any dental needs revealed. Among the 38 children with dental needs, the case documentation indicated that 18 (47%) had all needs met and four had some needs met. Treatment was scheduled for seven children. Nine (24%) of the 38 children had not received treatment or the scheduling of such treatment was not documented in the case record.
According to the case record review, 22 children in 180 children in the entire sample experienced dental needs between screenings. Eight (36%) appeared to have had these needs addressed during the reporting period.
In terms of overall health, reviewers found sufficient documentation to suggest that about half of the 180 children in the sample appear to be in good health. Among the remaining half, the general assessment ranges from medically fragile to generally good but requiring some medication and monitoring. The status of some children did not appear to fit easily into an
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 89

overall category. Table V‐13 summarizes the reviewers’ assessment based on case documentation.
Table V‐13 Health (Physical and Dental) Status of Children in Foster Care
July 1 through December 31, 2006 N=180

Description of Child’s Overall Health
Good health, no concerns at this time Generally good, but requires some medication and monitoring Medically fragile Other (examples: respiratory problems, eye glasses, treatment for pre‐custody injury) Unable to determine (includes children on runaway status, children in care only 7 days and files with insufficient dental health information to get complete picture)
Total

Number 94 58 11 7
10
180

Percent 52% 32% 6% 4%
6%
100%

Source: Case Record Review, February 2007.

3. Mental Health

a. Timeliness of assessment

The Consent Decree requires that all children four years of age or older receive a mental health screening within 30 days of placement in compliance with EPSDT standards.91 As included in Table V‐12, 25 of the children in the placement sample who entered DFCS custody in the last half of 2006 were age 4 or older. Among these 25, 18 (72%) had completed mental health assessments – 17 within 30 days and 1 within 37 days. This represents an improvement over the first period when 56 percent had completed mental health assessments.

b. Mental Health Treatment

Fifteen of the 18 children (80%) receiving a mental health assessment within 30 days of entering foster care had mental health needs identified in the assessments. Of these 15 children, six were getting all needs met by December 31, 2006. Two were getting some needs met and treatment was scheduled for a third child. For six children (40%) however, there was no documentation that the mental health needs revealed in the assessment were being treated or that such treatment had been scheduled. These findings may reflect the time necessary to arrange for appropriate treatment. The six children who were receiving treatment for all their identified

91 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 in the consent decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 90

mental health needs had been in foster care an average of 130 days at December 31, 2006 or the last day of custody. In contrast, those six children who did not appear to be receiving treatment or have it scheduled, had been in foster care an average of 48 days,
Further supporting the hypothesis that documented responsiveness is related to length in care, the State appears to be doing better responding to the mental health needs of children that are identified between formal screenings or assessments. According to the case record review, 76 children (42%) of the 180 children in the entire sample experienced mental health care needs or sometime during the last half of 2006. Seventy‐one children (93%) had these needs addressed while five children had needs that appeared not to be met.
4. Education and Development
a. Timeliness of developmental assessment at entry
The Consent Decree requires that all children under the age of four years receive a developmental assessment within 30 days of placement in compliance with EPSDT standards.92 As included in Table V‐12, 14 of the children in the placement sample who entered DFCS custody between July 1 and December 31, 2006 were younger than four. Among these 14, five (29%) had completed developmental assessments – 4 within 30 days and 1 within 33 days. The relatively low number of completed assessments is an issue for the State’s attention.
b. Developmental and Educational Needs
To ascertain how many children may have an on‐going educational or developmental need, the record review of children in placement collected information about assessments and needs identified. Between July 1 and December 31, at least 63 percent (114) of the children in the sample had some aspect of their developmental and/or educational status evaluated, usually school performance and behavioral assessments. Among those with some assessment, 63 (35%) had a developmental or educational assessment need noted between July 1 and December 31, 2006. A subset of this group with identified needs was 25 children with an Individualized Education Plans (IEP.) An additional 10 children who were not assessed or did not have a specific need revealed also had IEPs. This suggests that as many as 73 (41%) children in the sample of 180 children appear to have an educational need. This is higher than the proportion of children with educational needs identified in case plans used in the analysis of Outcome 30, and is something to be explored further with the State. Among the thirty‐five children with IEPS, 22 (63%) appeared to be current. Those with IEPs may be having their educational needs met through the school system.

92 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 in the consent decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 91

c. School enrollment
Children age 7 or older are required to be enrolled in school in Georgia. Within the placement sample, 115 children were aged 7 or older by December 31, 2006. Among these children 92 (80%) were enrolled in school or a GED program in the last half of 2006. A few children younger than age 7 were also enrolled. Thirteen children (11%) experienced gaps in school enrollment for different reasons. For example, three children ran away, one child was expelled, and another child transitioned home in July and was not enrolled until August. Eight other children (7%) did not appear to be enrolled at all during the period for similar reasons or there was insufficient documentation to determine school status. In two instances, (2%), the children were in custody during the summer months, between school sessions and enrollment while in placement was moot.
5. Case Plans
Standard case work practice, DFCS Policy and the Consent Decree requires the development of an initial plan when a child enters care and to update it as necessary, but at least every six months.93 DFCS uses the Case Plan Reporting System (CPRS) for preparing and documenting the case plan. This system produces a plan with several components. These components include opportunities for the case manager to record the health and education status of the child. It also includes a section on the responsibilities of the parents, caretakers and/or child depending on what the permanency goal is. There is also a section for the case manager to identify DFCS responsibilities and actions. The plan is to be developed with parental participation if the goal is reunification and this should be signified by the parent’s signature.
In the sample of 180 children in foster care, 168 should have had an initial or subsequent plan as of December 31, 2006 or the last day they were in custody based on their length of time in custody. However, no plans were found for 12 (7%) of the 168 children. A few of these omissions may be explained because four of the 12 children were discharged from custody within 31 to 36 days of entering and another child was a runaway for nearly the entire 45 days she was in custody. Another 29 children (17%) had case plans that had not been updated for 7 months or more.
Current case plans (those within 7 months or less of previous plan or entry into care) numbered 127 (76% of 168). These plans contained the following important elements:
 70 percent (49) of the current case plans for children with the goal of reunification had documented efforts to involve parents in the planning, however 24 percent (17 plans) actually had parental signatures.

93 See p. 7, paragraph 4A.4 in the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 92

 93 percent of all current case plans for children (70) with the goal of reunification had goals and action steps identified for the parents.
 93 percent of all 127 current case plans had DFCS responsibilities and actions identified.
6. Assessing and Meeting the Needs of Birth and Foster Families
a. Birth Parents
Of the 180 children in the sample, the reviewers determined that 100 children had birth mothers who should have had their needs assessed and identified. Eighty children either did not have the goal of reunification, birth mother was deceased, incarcerated, or her whereabouts were unknown during the period, preventing her needs from being assessed. Among the 100 mothers, reviewers determined from the case documentation that 90 percent were getting their needs adequately assessed and identified. Based on case documentation, it appeared that all identified needs were being met for about half of the birth mothers. Another quarter had some of their needs met and for the remaining quarter, documentation was not found in the case record indicating their identified needs were being met.
Of the 180 children in the sample, the reviewers determined that 38 children had birth fathers who should have had their needs assessed and identified. A much larger number of birth fathers, 142 were determined to be not applicable for purposes of services because the children either did not have the goal of reunification, birth father was deceased, unknown, incarcerated, or his whereabouts were unknown during the period, preventing his needs from being assessed. Similar to birth mothers, it appeared that half of the fathers with identified needs were getting all those needs met. About 38 percent were getting some of their needs met and for about 10 percent no documentation was found indicating the father’s needs were being met.
b. Foster Parents
Foster families often need services and supports to provide nurturing care for the children in their homes. Among the nearly 100 foster parents, about half appeared to have their needs adequately assessed and identified. Of those with identified needs, two‐thirds appeared to be having all or some of there needs met.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 93

PART VI STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE
Several of the consent decree requirements focus on DHR/DFCS organizational capabilities, with the intent of enhancing or creating capacity thought to be instrumental to the achievement of desired outcomes. This includes specialized staff, caseload sizes, workforce skill development, and having the resources and services to meet needs and quality assurance. This chapter reports on the progress of the State in meeting Outcomes 25, 26, and 31 as well as the capacity requirements.
A. Outcome Performance: Outcomes 25, 26, and 31
Three outcomes (25, 26, and 31) have been attributed to creating a stronger infrastructure for caring for the children in DFCS custody. Table VI‐1 on the next two pages provides the language of the consent decree, the degree of achievement and a page reference to a fuller discussion of the Outcome.
1. Effective Oversight of Placement Settings
Two Outcomes (numbers 25 and 31) relate to the supervision of placement settings. Both had thresholds to be achieved by the end of the second reporting period. Data for these outcomes were gathered from case record reviews, State administrative data systems, and site visits to private providers.
Outcomes 25 ‐ Approved Placement Settings for Children
Outcome Measure 25 seeks to reduce the risk that children may be placed in harmful situations by requiring foster care placements to be evaluated and to be in full approval and/or licensure status. Outcome 25 stipulates that “…by the end of the first reporting period, at least 85% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status,” and that by the end of the second reporting period this percentage will increase to 95%.94

94 See p 36, Outcome 25, in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 94

Table VI‐1 Strengthening Infrastructure Outcomes

Effective Oversight of Placement Settings

2nd Period Performance

Outcome 25: By the end of the first reporting period, at least

85% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during

the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full

approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the second

reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children in custody

at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in

86%

placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status.

By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 98% of all

foster children in custody at a point in time during the

reporting period shall be in placements that are in full

approval and/or licensure status.

Outcome 31: By the end of the second reporting period and

continuing thereafter, no more than 10% of all children in

foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed

the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the

Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child

8%

shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result

in more than three(3) foster children in that foster home, or a

total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster

family’s biological and/or adopted children.

Timely and Complete Court Orders for Placement

Authorization

Outcome 26: By the end of the second reporting period, at

least 85% of foster children in custody at a point in time

during the reporting period shall have all applicable

language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for

federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act.

By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of

55%

foster children in custody at a point in time during the

reporting period shall have all applicable language in court

orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding

under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act

Further discussion reference pp. 95‐97
pp. 98‐99
pp. 99‐100

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 95

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Outcome 25 presented the most difficult measurement challenge of any of the Outcomes due in the first reporting period. Ultimately, the Accountability Agents concluded that Outcome 25 could not be satisfactorily measured for the first reporting period for two reasons.
The first reason was a difference among the parties on the intended applicability of the measure. At issue was whether and how Outcome 25 was intended to apply to non‐foster relative placements, since they are approved through a different process than the regulatory one that appears to be described by the Consent Decree language. In subsequent discussions, the parties agreed to include non‐foster relative placements in the measurement of Outcome 25 with the understanding that the approval process for these placements was qualitatively different than that for paid foster care placements. The operative concept underlying that agreement is that Outcome 25 measures the percentage of children in foster care that are in placements that have been approved through the relevant approval process.
The second reason Outcome 25 could not be satisfactorily measured was that the definition of the measure contained in the Consent Decree was poorly‐suited to the available data sources, and vice‐versa. This outcome contains the phrase “By the end of the first reporting period…” and adds the phrase “….children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period…” This makes it quite clear that it is intended as a point‐in‐time measure to be taken at the end of the reporting period. To operationalize the measure as specified in the Consent Decree, data on the current approval status of individual foster placements on a particular date must be linked to data about the number of class member children in those individual homes on that same date. Existing data sources are unable to accomplish this linking with satisfactory rigor.95
Therefore, by agreement of the parties and Accountability Agents, measurement of this outcome for this report is based on a subset of the 180 records sampled for the foster care placement file review. The full foster care placement file review is based on the universe of children in foster care at ANY time between July 1 and December 31, 2006. The subset used for measurement of Outcomes 25 represents the 13696 children from the sample of 180 who were in foster care on December 31, 2006. For each child in this subset, the Accountability agents “followed‐back” the child’s placement setting to its relevant approval status on December 31, 2006, using a variety of data sources, as indicated in Table VI‐2.
An interpretation issue is raised by the fact that, as indicated above, Outcome 25 could not be measured for the first reporting period. Now that the Parties have agreed on the scope covered by Outcome 25 and the methodology for its measurement, the Accountability Agents are
95 For a complete discussion of this issue, see Dimas, J.T. and S. Morrison “Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Purdue,” 2006, pp. 93-96.
96 It should be noted that while the full placement sample of 180 children provides a 95 percent confidence interval with a margin of error of ±7 percent, the smaller subset of children in care on December 31 provides a margin of error of approximately ±10 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 96

uncertain whether the applicable standard is the one established for the first period (85%) – which was intended to apply to Outcome 25 the first time it was measured; or the escalated second period standard (95%) which was intended to be the threshold the second time this outcome was measured. The Accountability Agents have concluded that the question of which standard should apply in this instance is now more a question of law than of measurement, and as such, we leave it to the parties to resolve.
b. State Performance
• The State Performance was 86 percent, Surpassing the First Period Outcome 25 Threshold but Falling Short of the Second Period Threshold
During the period July 1 – December 31, 2006, 86percent of the children in custody were in placements that were in full approval and/or licensure status. Additional detail on this measurement appears in Table VI‐2.
As indicated in Table VI‐2, compliance with the relevant approval processes was particularly strong among group homes (100%), child‐caring institutions, (100%), and DFCS‐supervised foster homes (97%). However, improvement is needed in conducting and/or properly documenting the approval process among provider‐supervised foster homes (81%) and non‐
foster relative placements (56%). Among the eight provider-supervised foster homes lacking full approval status, six had overdue re-evaluations (overdue by a few weeks to up to 21 months, with a median of 4.5 months) and for two, evidence of their re-evaluation was not found in the file. With respect to non‐foster relative placements, the criteria specified in Section 1004 of the
DFCS Policy Manual for approval of a relative placement are the Social Services Supervisor’s approval and completion of a satisfactory relative care assessment (RCA).97 For purposes of the
file review, a judge’s signature was also accepted as evidence of supervisory approval. Among the eight relative placements that were not “fully approved,” five had a completed RCA but no documentation of supervisory approval; one had documented supervisory approval but no documented RCA; and two had documentation of neither supervisory approval nor a completed RCA.
97 Social Services Manual, Chapter 1000, Section 4, Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, July 2005
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 97

Table VI‐2
Outcome 25 – Children in Placements in Full Approval Status

Placement Type

Children in Placement
Sample

Children in Placements on
12/31/2006

Children in “Fully
Approved” Placements on
12/31/2006

Percent of Children in care on 12/31/2006 in
“Fully Approved” Placements

Relative

Placement a b

30

18

10 c

56%

DFCS‐

supervised

51

38

37

97%

Foster Home d

Provider‐

supervised

48

42 g

34

81%

Foster Home e f

Group Home h

17

12

12

100%

Child Caring Institution i

16

14

14

100%

Other (NA) j

18

12

NA

NA

Total

180

136

107/124

86%

a Data source: Placement file review.

b Data source for ICPC relative placements: Georgia’s ICPC records.

c The criteria specified in Section 1004 of the DFCS Policy Manual for approval of a relative placement are the Social Services Supervisor’s approval and completion of a satisfactory relative care assessment (RCA). For purposes of the file review, a judge’s signature was also accepted as evidence of supervisory approval. Of the eight relative placements that were not “fully approved,” five had a completed RCA but no documentation of supervisory approval; one had documented supervisory approval but no documented RCA; and two had documentation of neither supervisory approval nor a completed RCA. d Data source: Placement Central e Data source: Review of child‐placing agency’s records. f Data source for ICPC foster home placements: Georgia’s ICPC records. g Excludes one child placed with a Child Placing Agency that, at the time of the review, was in the process of moving to a new location and had packed this file for shipment. This file will be provided by June 1, 2007. h Data source: LORE data system i Data source: LORE data system j Includes children in state custody in settings with no relevant approval process including: placed with parents, hospitalized, Youth Department of Corrections, or on runaway status

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 98

Outcome 31 – Foster Home Capacity Limits
Outcome 31 seeks to limit the number of children placed in individual foster homes. By the end of the Second reporting period, it stipulates that “…no more than 10% of all children in foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed… [specified] capacity limits….”98 The capacity limits referenced in Outcome 31 are contained in Section 5.c.4.e of the Consent Decree.99
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Outcome 31, like Outcome 25, is also intended as a point‐in‐time measure. This measure specifies “children in foster homes” as the unit of analysis and requires these data to be linked with point‐in‐time data on the census of individual foster homes. This measure, therefore, constitutes a measurement challenge similar to that represented by Outcome 25.
By agreement of the parties and Accountability Agents, measurement of Outcome 31 for this report is based on the subset of children from the placement sample that were in foster home placements on December 31, 2006 – a total of 80100 children. Outcome 31 references the capacity limits enumerated in Section 5.c.4.e of the Consent Decree, “…concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.”101 Section 5.c.4.e. also enumerates certain exceptions to these capacity limits.102 The parties further agreed that for purposes of measuring compliance with Outcome 31, the only exception that will pertain is that provided for the placement of a sibling group when there are no other children in the home.
b. State Performance
• The State Surpassed the Second Period Outcome 31 Threshold
At the end of the Second reporting period, six children (8% of the 80 children in the placement sample that were placed in foster homes on December 31) had been placed in foster homes that exceeded the specified capacity limits. Each of the six placements in homes that exceeded the capacity limits was due to the placement of sibling groups; however, they did not qualify for the exception enumerated in Section 5.c.4.e. because those foster homes already contained one or
98 See Kenny A. Consent Decree, p. 38 99 Ibid, p. 16 100 Since this is smaller than the entire sample of 180 children, any conclusions drawn from the 80 children used in this analysis provides a 95 percent confidence interval with a margin of error of approximately ±11 percent. 101 See Kenny A. Consent Decree, p. 38. 102 Ibid, p. 16.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 99

more children. Additional detail on this measurement and its interpretation appears below and in Table VI‐3.

Table VI‐3 Outcome 31 – Children in Foster Homes Exceeding Capacity Limits
N=80

Placement Type

Sampled Children in Foster Homes on 12/31/2006

Children Placed in Foster Homes
Having 3 or More Foster
Children

Children Placed in Foster Homes
Having 6 or More Children

Percent of Children in Foster Homes that Exceeded Capacity Limits

DFCS‐

supervised

38

5b

0

13%

Foster Homesa

Provider

Supervised

42d

1b

0

2%

Foster Homesc

Total

80

6

0

8%

aData Source: Placement Central

bEach of these placements exceeded the three foster child limit due to the placement of sibling

groups in homes that already contained one or more foster children

cData Source: Targeted review of provider foster home files

dExcludes one child placed with a Child Placing Agency that, at the time of the review, was in

the process of moving to a new location and had packed this file for shipment. This file will be

provided by June 1, 2007.

2. Timely and Complete Court Orders for Placement Authorization
Two Outcomes (numbered 26 and 29) relate to strengthening the infrastructure by establishing benchmarks for practices that help assure DFCS has the appropriate authority to keep children in custody and to seek federal reimbursement appropriately for the services to these children receive. The first threshold for Outcome 29 comes at the end of third reporting period.
Outcome 26 – Required IV‐E Language in Court Orders
Outcome 26 relates to DFCS having the proper documentation in a child’s file to support an appropriate claim for Federal reimbursement under the Title VI‐E program.103 Judicial orders authorizing the removal of a child from his or her home and placement into foster care must contain determinations that remaining in the home is “contrary to the welfare” of the child in question and that “reasonable efforts” were made to prevent the child from being removed

103 See pp 36-37, Outcome 26 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 100

from his/her home. These determinations must be made on a case‐by‐case basis and be child‐ specific.
As a result of federal legislative changes over the years, different timing requirements apply to these actions depending on when children entered foster care. The first cohort of children are those who entered care before March 27, 2000. For this cohort, the “judicial determination regarding contrary to the welfare may be made in the removal order or in a subsequent order resulting from court proceedings that are initiated … no later than 6 months from the date the child is removed from the home …”104 Furthermore, for these children, judicial determinations that “reasonable efforts were made to prevent removal or to reunify the child and family and family … may be made at any point in the foster care episode.” 105 The second cohort is comprised of children who entered care on or after March 27, 2000. For these children, the time frames for action are considerably shorter. Judicial determinations regarding “…contrary to the welfare…” must be made in the first order that sanctions the State agency’s action to remove the child from home. In practice, this is often the court order from the 72 hour hearing. In addition, there must be documentation of a judicial determination that “reasonable efforts” were made no later than 60 days from the date of child’s removal from the home.”106
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
There were no interpretation or measurement issues. Data for Outcome 26 was collected from the case records of the sample of 180 children in foster care.
b. State Performance
 The State Fell Short of the Second Period Outcome 26 Threshold
As indicated in Table VI‐1, 55 percent of the case records had all the applicable language in the court orders necessary within the required time frames to assess eligibility for federal funding under Title IV‐E. This performance is unchanged from the first reporting period. As in the first period, a larger proportion of the files had one or the other documentation requirement in the necessary timeframes. That is, 69 percent had the child specific language in the applicable court order and about 70 percent had child specific reasonable efforts language in the judicial determination.
B. Specialized Staff and Lower Caseloads
As required by the Consent Decree, DHR/DFCS created specialized case manager positions with caseloads limited to 12 for children reaching their 18th month in care.107 In addition, the
104 Title IV-E Foster Care Eligibility Review Guide, p. 26-28. 105 Ibid 106 Ibid 107 See p.11 and 12, paragraph 4F and p.23, paragraph 8D in the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 101

counties also have family team meeting specialists who facilitate family team meetings (FTMs.)108 By December 31 2006, counties were to meet the first phase of lower caseloads for all case managers and supervisors in both Child Protective Services and Foster Care Services.109 Finally, the State agreed to eliminate its use of temporary personnel in the second reporting period.110
1. Specialized Case Managers
The Consent Decree requires DHR/DFCS to “establish a Specialized Case Manager position to focus on and to remove barriers to permanence for children in DFCS custody for 18 months or longer. The maximum caseload for any person serving in the Specialized Case Manager position will be 12.”111 In addition, once assigned, they are to remain on these caseloads” for the remaining period in time while they are in DFCS custody.” 112 The Consent Decree is silent as to how a child’s permanency goal should be considered in these caseload assignments. An interpretation issue that arose during the first report period focused on the treatment of those children with the goal of Adoption. Typically, once the parental rights of a child with a goal of adoption have been relinquished or terminated, a child is moved to the caseload of a case manager specializing in the adoption process. This may occur at any time in a child’s time in care – very early, in the first few months, or at a much later time. In any case, the adoption process may proceed quickly and the child may exit care to a finalized adoptive family before reaching the 18th month in care. However, the longer a child is in care before parental rights are relinquished or terminated and the goal becomes Adoption, the greater is the likelihood the child will be in care 18 months or more before an adoption is finalized.
In practice, children have been transferred to adoption case managers from the specialized case managers because adoptions case managers typically are, at this time, better able to navigate the adoption process. However, as will be shown in the caseload data, the counties have kept their adoption caseloads capped at 12 per adoption case manger, thus creating “specialized case managers” of the adoption workers. Subsequent discussions with both parties have indicated that this practice is both allowable and desirable, given the specialized expertise of adoptions case managers, as long as the caseloads and the responsibilities of adoption case managers assigned to children who have been in care 18 months or longer conform to the Consent Decree stipulations for Specialized Case Managers found in Section 4(F) of the Consent Decree.
In November 2006, consultants from the School of Social Work at the University of Georgia conducted two separate focus groups, one each with Specialized Case Managers (SCMs) in Dekalb County and Fulton County, respectively. The focus groups were designed for 10 randomly selected participants. Scheduling conflicts and non responses from the originally
108 See p. 7, paragraph 4A.5 in the Consent Decree 109 See p. 22-23, paragraphs 8A and 8B in the consent decree 110 See p. 23, paragraph 8C in the Consent Decree 111 See p. 11, paragraph 4F1 in the Consent Decree 112 See p. 11, introduction to 4F in the consent decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 102

invited SCMs led the consultants to supplement the original invitations with requests to 10 additional randomly selected SCMS. Ultimately, eight of 27 SCMs participated in Dekalb County and 10 of 60 SCMS participated from Fulton County.
The consultants believed one message was clear in both focus groups: SCM’s felt a 12‐child caseload provided them with the opportunity to achieve positive outcomes with the children on their caseloads. Each case required the professional judgment of the SCM, with the support of the agency, to take into account the individual and the unique circumstances that had caused the child to have remained in custody 18 months or more. Common themes revealed in these focus groups that led the consultants to this conclusion included:
• SCMs are veteran workers
Virtually all of the SCMs had multiple years of experience with DFCS prior to selection for this assignment. Many had work experience in other related areas before working at DFCS. For example, some had worked at private treatment facilities or hospitals.
 SCMS have caseloads of 12 children or less Among the 18 focus group participants, there were two exceptions to this finding. One SCM had a teenage girl on her caseload who had a baby of her own and the other SCM picked up a case for another worker who was on maternity leave. All of the workers found the caseload size manageable and a welcome relief from caseloads of 25 or more. Two participants in one focus group had adoption caseloads. All of their children had parental rights terminated or were far along in the process. Another SCM noted that if a child on one SCMs’ caseload moved to adoption as the plan, that child was transferred to an adoption worker.
SCMs indicated that each child’s case was different, with a different family environment and history and with a different history while they were in custody. With 12 cases, case managers needed to and could work with the families and within the system to work towards the best outcome for the child.
 Caseloads are comprised of many older children
Caseloads ranged in age from approximately 2 years old to 20 years old. On most caseloads, well over half of the children are adolescents. Most of those children do not have a permanency plan other than transitioning to independent living. Many have signed themselves back in to care to continue to receive benefits.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 103

 Children’s length of stay in foster care presents challenges
Many believed that, by the time the SCM was assigned to the child, the child usually had had multiple workers because of turnover and plans were not completed. Much of their initial work when assigned a new child required getting all of the paperwork up‐ to‐date., SCMs believed that 18 months after being placed in foster care was too long too wait for intense work with a child allowed by the lower caseloads. They suggested that new workers were often overwhelmed with the number of cases and couldn’t manage all of the necessary work. They believed that if children entering care also had experienced workers with small caseloads, it might expedite their achievement of permanency.
 Children are sometimes inappropriate for the foster care system
SCMs commented that some children should not have been removed from the home in the first place. CPS workers need to do a better assessment regarding the risks to a child of remaining in his or her own home. They suggested that other children, because of behavior problems, should have been placed in the custody of the juvenile justice system, not DFCS.
 Sufficient Resources
With one exception, the SCMs felt that there are sufficient resources to support their work with children and families on their caseloads. Wrap‐around services were believed to be readily available to families and children, especially in the areas of mental health counseling and parenting supports. In addition, services for older children were regarded to be excellent, e.g. job training, college counseling, etc. Housing was the one area that was viewed as deficient. For some of the older children, group homes were not considered to be sufficiently helpful in preparing them for independent living. SCM’s participating in the focus groups suggested that collaboration with housing authorities and other permanent housing options needed to be available.
 Mixed views of the Kenny A. requirements
SCMs had both positive and negative views of the Consent Decree. Reducing caseload size, providing a strengthened legal basis for permanency for appropriate children, and additional resources were cited as helpful aspects of the Kenny A. decision. However many of the new expectations were regarded as not feasible or practical, and some of the mandates that set artificial deadlines and increased paperwork were deemed hurtful aspects of the Kenny A. Consent Decree. Specifically, the participating SCMs pointed out that the number of required visits under certain circumstances wasn’t useful. They
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 104

shared anecdotes about visiting older children who said they were fine and could not figure out why the worker was back for another visit so soon.
SCMs also indicated an understanding of the need for documentation and therefore, for increased record keeping. Yet, they felt the level of record keeping was only manageable because of their caseload size. They expressed concern that workers with larger caseloads would not be able to keep up with the recording requirements.
 Overall satisfaction with new position
There was universal satisfaction with the position of Specialized Case Manager. They felt that the caseload size permitted them to spend much more time with the children and families that needed the time and supports. In those cases where permanency (adoption or re‐unification) was the plan, they felt they had the time to cultivate resources and implement plans.
 Training Need
Many of their children are older and in school. Much of their work now involves intervening on behalf of the child with the school system. They felt they had limited knowledge about Individualized Learning Plans (ILPs). The SCMs believed they needed training in all areas of intervening with school systems.
In the case record review of 180 children in placement, 76 children had reached their 18th month in care sometime during the period between July 1 and December 31, 2006. Nearly all (96%) of the children were assigned to Specialized Case Managers when worker identification numbers were compared to separately provided caseload data since it often difficult to tell from case files what type of worker is managing the case. Forty‐four of the children (58%) were age 14 or older, supporting what the focus group participants had indicated. Twenty‐six113 of the 44 were receiving Independent Living Services. Thirty‐four youth had Written Transitional Living Plans. File documentation indicated that specialized case managers had convened meetings to review the permanency goal and services the child was receiving for 33 children, 43 percent. The number of meetings convened for these 33 children ranged from 1 to 5. In the most recent meeting documented in the files, children participated in 18 as did 18 foster parents. Birth parents were in attendance at 5 meetings with a few meetings having school representatives and therapists. In addition, there was evidence in the file that the Specialized case managers had renewed a diligent search for relatives for 40 children.
113 Information was not captured for eight youth assigned to specialized case managers because of an inadvertent error in the data collection instructions that was not identified until the analysis.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 105

2. Family Team Meeting Facilitators
The Consent Decree requires DFCS to have family team specialists who attend and facilitate family team meetings.114 Each county has a unit of a core set of Family Team Meeting (FTM) Facilitators representing a total of eleven facilitators and two supervisors for both counties. In December 2006, the Accountability Agents met with supervisors and other members of the FTM units in each county.
Within the team of facilitators, each county has a facilitator assigned to facilitate the FTMs conducted in preparation for the 13th month permanency reviews. However, the process is the same for entry FTMs and 13th month FTMs. The facilitator is responsible for getting to know the parent(s) and preparing them for the meeting. They are also responsible for sending a follow‐ up letter to remind them of the meeting. Case managers are responsible for bringing age‐ appropriate children to the meetings. The core facilitators facilitate the meetings, drawing on individuals who have been trained to co‐facilitate. Family Team Meeting follow‐up is the responsibility of individual case managers, not specialized staff.
3. Caseload Sizes and Supervisory Ratios
There are five primary types of case managers responsible for direct interventions with children and families. These case manager types are as follows:
• Child Protective Services Investigators (CPS Investigations). These case managers are responsible for responding to and investigating reports of child maltreatment.
• Child Protective Services On‐Going Case Managers. These case managers are responsible for providing services and supervising the safety of children who are not taken into state custody and remain in their own homes.
• Placement Case Managers. These case managers are responsible for providing services to the children and families of children who are in the custody of the state.
• Adoptions Case Managers. These are case managers responsible for providing services to children whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated and who have the permanency goal of adoption.
• Specialized Case Managers. These case managers are responsible for providing services to the children and families of children who have been in state custody 18 months or more.
An additional distinction may be a Diversion Case Manager. These are case managers responsible for short‐term intervention with families who come to the attention of DFCS because they are in need of services that will help them keep their families safe. Counties handle these cases differently. DeKalb County has created separate caseloads with designated

114 See p. 7, Paragraph 4A, 5 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 106

Diversion case managers. Fulton county CPS Investigators respond to and serve Diversion cases.
Counties may also use different strategies for Child Protective Services. Many counties have two distinct types of units. Those that do only CPS investigations and those that provide only on‐going case management services to families while the children remain home, under protective supervision. This is the approach Fulton uses. DeKalb, however, combined these two functions in late 2006 creating units where the case managers conduct investigations as well as provide on going in‐home services to families with an open CPS case.
A “case” in each of these areas is defined differently. For CPS investigations, on‐going, and diversion, a case is defined as the family unit being investigated, or receiving services and supervision. For Placement, a case is defined as a child, whether it is a “regular,” adoption, or “specialized “case. In this situation, siblings in State custody are considered separate cases. Case managers for children in the custody of the state, however, are also expected to provide services to birth parents, foster parents, and prospective adoptive parents in addition to the children.
The Consent Decree establishes caseload caps for the five primary types of case managers to be achieved by the end of the second reporting period.115 It also establishes supervisory ratios. These caps and ratios are as follows:
• CPS case managers (investigators): 20 cases (the equivalent of 20 families) • CPS ongoing case managers: 20 cases (the equivalent of 20 families) • Placement case managers: 25 cases (the equivalent of 25 children) • Adoption case managers: 22 cases (the equivalent of 22 children) • Specialized case managers: 12 cases (the equivalent of 12 children)
• The supervisory ratio should be no more than 6 case managers reporting to 1 supervisor.
Within a year, at the end of the fourth reporting period (December 2007) these caseload caps and supervisory ratios are to be further reduced.
a. State Performance as of December 31, 2006
Caseloads can and do fluctuate daily, especially among CPS investigators as investigations are completed and new ones are added. Adoption caseloads generally have the most stability, but they too can change within a month as children achieve permanency with a new family and new ones become legally free for adoption. Therefore, the Accountability Agents chose to measure the caseloads using the number of cases open after the final data entry “posting” for the month of December. For practical purposes, this is referred to as December 31, 2006. A
115 See page 22, Section 8, paragraph A.1 in the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 107

count of Diversion cases was included for those case managers who had a mixed CPS and Diversion caseload. Case managers responsible only for Diversion cases were not included in the analysis.
At December 31, 2006, 95 percent of the case managers in DeKalb and Fulton counties had caseloads that were at or within the designated caps, as reflected in Table VI‐4. Fouteen case managers had caseloads over the respective caps. Five were CPS case managers who had caseloads ranging from 22 to 34, instead of 20. One was an on‐going CPS case manager that had 24 cases compared to the cap of 20. Five were Placement Case Managers who had caseloads ranging from 26 to 29, instead of 25. Three were Specialized Case Managers who had caseloads of 13 or 14 instead of 12. It is important to point out that both counties are keeping their adoption caseloads well below the established cap for adoption case managers to allow all adoption case managers to be considered “specialized case managers” for those children with a goal of adoptions who are in DFCS custody 18 months or more.
The overall county performance assessment is tempered by two important circumstances.
• First, a small number of cases (34 of 2825 active cases on December 31, 2006) in each county were assigned to case managers who had resigned their positions during December or were on a leave of absence greater than 30 days. These cases, according to the counties, did not go unsupervised. In each instance, the counties reported that the supervisors or program administrators took responsibility for the necessary work in each case (such as visitation, court reports, service delivery, etc.) while awaiting the return of the absent case manager or cases of departed workers were being reassigned to other case managers. Supervisors, in turn, relied on the assistance of trainees and other case managers in their units to assure the work was completed. Thus, case managers in the units that were “down a person” might participate in covering the cases of an absent or departed co‐worker until they returned to work or were replaced. This reality of day‐to‐day operations makes it difficult to obtain an entirely “clean” measure of the level of compliance. The performance level stated above is likely to be slightly overstated as a result. The Accountability Agents believe the Counties are making good‐faith efforts to re‐assign cases as quickly as possible while taking into account the workload of all. Yet it must be noted that the caseload review identified one case manager that departed in October whose 17 cases had not yet been re‐assigned as of December 31, 2006.
• Second, a small number (36) of children appear to have remained assigned to “regular” placement case managers after reaching their 18th month in state custody. Their reassignment could affect the caseload sizes of the specialized case managers. This circumstance means that a small number of children who were intended by the Consent Decree to be moved to specialized caseloads had not yet been moved as of December 31, 2006.
Both counties experienced changes and turnover in late 2006 and into 2007. While the caseload
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 108

data reported here is accurate as of December 31, 2006, the Accountability Agents are aware that during the first few months of 2007 caseloads had increased considerably ‐‐ particularly for CPS investigators and CPS On‐going case managers. The Consent Decree indicates that caseload measurements are to be taken at the end of the reporting period. The Accountability Agent’s third report will detail whether the State and Counties successfully bring CPS caseloads back within Consent Decree standards by June 30, 2007 – the end of the third reporting period. The state and counties have taken steps to address the vacancies left by turnover and the growing caseloads within CPS. While continuing to recruit and train new staff, the counties are using short‐term teams of case managers and field program specialists drawn from other counties and state offices, and well‐regarded retirees to complete backlogged CPS investigations. While the increase in Fulton County CPS investigations in “pending” status (to a total of 331 according to recent reports116) merits continued vigilance, it should not be overlooked that even with that increase, the number of such cases remains about 75 to 80 percent lower than it was three years ago, when it ranged from 1200 to 1500 during the months of June‐August 2004117
116 “Fulton County Audit Report 2006,” Office of the Child Advocate, State of Georgia, 2007 117 DHR Protective Services Data System reports, June-August 2004.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 109

Table VI‐4 DeKalb and Fulton County Caseload Status at December 31, 2006

Target

Number Number

Actual Performance

Case Function

Manager

Caseload Cap: Number of cases

of Active Staff on 12/31/061

of Active, On‐leave Staff on 12/31/062

Meeting Cap

Not Meeting Cap

Cases assigned to separated

workers

No % No %

No

CPS Case Manager

20

80

75 94% 5 6%

10

Field Program

20

7

7 100%

Specialist on

Temporary

assignment

Ongoing Case

20

37

36 97% 1 3%

Manager

Placement Case

25

60

13 56 93% 5 8%

174

Manager

Adoption Case

22

28

15 296 100%

Manager

Specialized Case

12

68

1 66 96% 3 4%

7

Manger

Total

280

3 269 95% 14 5%

34

Sources: State data bases: IDS and Targeted Case Management (TCM); county personnel systems for leave and

separation information

Notes:

1Active staff are those staff who were not on leave of absence at 12/31/2006 that was expected to be more

than 30 days. Includes workers with mixed caseloads of CPS investigations and diversions. Excludes

workers who had diversion cases only. Excludes case managers who have caseloads of children placed

through ICPC and not in DFCS custody

2Active staff on leave at 12/31/2006 but leave anticipated to be more than 30 days

3One Placement case manager was on FMLA from 12/4/06 to 1/16/07. She had 17 cases assigned to her at

the end of the month. Reportedly, the supervisor managed the oversight of these 17 cases.

4Another 17 placement cases were assigned in IDS to a case manager who resigned in October 2006, some

cases were reportedly assigned to a provisionally certified worker who had a Cobb County caseworker ID

and others were reportedly being covered by a supervisor. The case assignment was corrected in January

2007.

5One adoption case manager with a caseload of 7 was on FMLA from 11/22/06 to 2/1/07. Reportedly, the

supervisor managed the oversight of the caseload.

6All adoption workers have caseloads of 12 or less; 1 case was assigned to a supervisor; the supervisor is

not counted as part of the 9 staff.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 110

As shown in Table VI‐5, on December 31, 2006, 82 percent of the supervisory units had a ratio of 6 workers to one supervisor or better. The ten units that exceeded these ratios were concentrated among the adoption and specialized case managers and the ratios in these units was 1 supervisor to 7 workers. As noted in the previous discussion and table, these units have individual case manager caseloads of 12 children or fewer. One supervisor was on Family and Medical Leave on December 31, 2006. The county reports that a Program Administrator oversaw unit operations while this supervisor was absent. Case managers reported to the Administrator and, as the need arose, she would request that one of the other supervisors be responsible for particular tasks.

Table VI‐5 DeKalb and Fulton County Supervisory Ratios at December 31, 2006

Actual Performance

Program/Service Area

Number of Meeting 1 to 6 Not Meeting 1 to 6

Units

ratio

ratio

Number %

Number %

CPS Investigations*

17

17 100%

0

0%

Ongoing CPS

10

10 100%

0

0%

Placement

14

14 100%

0

0%

Adoption

5

3 60%

2 40%

Specialized Case Management

10

2 20%

8 80%

Total

56

46 82%

10 18%

*In addition to the 17 full units there was one case manager under the supervision of an administrator

Sources: State data bases: IDS and Targeted Case Management (TCM); county personnel systems for

leave and separation information

4. Case Manager and Supervisor Certification

With the assistance of a nationally‐recognized child welfare training expert, the Education and Training Services Section developed a skills‐based competency assessment as a component of the certification118 process for all social service case managers and supervisors. The certification process has three parts, 1) classroom knowledge test, 2) field observation, and 3) case record review. Through this process, not only is “book learning” assessed, but the candidates must demonstrate the appropriate abilities and knowledge in the field and in their case documentation. Case managers and supervisors must complete and pass each part of the process to be fully certified. According to State policy, new case managers cannot carry a full caseload until they are certified.119 The entire process usually takes three to four months for a

118 Certification is defined by the Education and Training Services section as “the successful demonstration, at a
given point in time, that the employee possess the foundational competencies needed to perform the job.” 119 County Directors can provisionally certify new workers after six weeks if they pass the knowledge test.
Provisionally certified workers can carry up to seven low risk cases under the oversight of another case manager.
Full case responsibility, however, remains with the overseeing case manager.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 111

new case manager. Case manager and new supervisor pre‐service training is considered complete when they have achieved certification. However, once a new case manager has successfully passed the classroom knowledge test, county directors may provisionally certify them and allow them to carry no more than seven cases under the supervision of a fully certified case manager. The certification process began in the spring of 2005 and has been implemented in two phases. The first phase addressed certification for all case managers and supervisors hired before April 1, 2004.120 The second phase of certification implementation is ongoing. For all those hired after April 1, 2004, certification is acquired through the new worker and supervisor training process. Table VI‐6 summarizes the certification status available at the end of December 2006 for social service case managers and supervisors in Fulton and DeKalb County.
120 Among these individuals a distinction was made. The requirement for incumbent certification applied to case managers hired before April 1, 2004, who had less than 5 years experience, and to supervisors hired before December 1, 2005, who also had less than 5 years experience. “Fast track” certification was awarded to staff persons who had 5 years of satisfactory social services case management or supervisor practice in DFCS as of October 1, 2004. Resource Development staff and CPS Intake only case managers and supervisors were exempted from the certification requirement.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 112

Table VI‐6 Certification Status of Case Managers and Supervisors in
DeKalb and Fulton County DFCS as of December 2006

Position Title

Fully Certified

Incumbent, Results no date Pending

Needing Retakes

Provisional Total

Case Managers

CPS Investigators 70 (88%)

2

3

5 80

CPS On‐Going Case 28 (76%)

1

1

1

6 37

Managers

Placement Case 56 (92%)

1

4 61

Managers

Adoption Case 24 (83%)

1

4 29

Managers

Specialized Case 54 (78%)

1

3

5

6 69

Managers

TOTAL 232 (84%)

2

6

11

25 276

Supervisors

CPS Investigations 5 (28%)

10

2

18

CPS On‐Going 7 (70%)

1

2

10

Placement 7 (50%)

1

6

14

Adoption 5 (100%

5

Specialized Cases 3 (30%)

5

2

10

TOTAL 27 (48%)

2

23

4

56

1 Incumbents are individuals who were hired before April 1, 2004. The state was unable to provide

certification dates for some of these individuals.

Source: Compiled from data supplied by Education and Training Services Section and County

Kenny A. staff. Not verified by Accountability Agents.

As noted in Table VI‐6, 84 percent of case managers and 48 percent of supervisors had achieved full certification as of December 31, 2006. Staff who have failed to achieve certification on the first attempt are required to engage in remediation and retesting. This level of full certification for supervisors is of particular concern to the Accountability Agents. Supervisors have a key role and critical responsibilities. The State and counties are urged to review this process to determine how the barriers to supervisors completing the certification steps can be resolved and how this performance can be improved.

5. Elimination of Temporary Personnel

According to the consent decree, DFCS is to eliminate the use of temporary personnel, commonly referred to as “PRNS,” over a one‐year period beginning six months from the entry

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 113

of the Consent Decree through the period ending one year after the Consent Decree.121 After one year, no PRNs are to be employed. The counties report that they had discontinued the use of temporary personnel early in 2006 and financial records indicate that there have been no payments to the vendors who supply the temporary staffing since February 2006.
C. Building Workforce Skills
The Consent Decree has several training requirements.122 In this report section, the Accountability Agents describe a change in the Department’s training leadership and the results of a commissioned review of the Foster Care curriculum.
1. Education and Training Services Section 123
During the period July 1 and December 31, 2006, the Education and Training Services (ETS) Director retired. The new Director’s qualifications meet the criteria established by DFCS. He has a Master’s degree in Organizational Management and extensive military and private sector training experience. However, this position is his first in state government and in child welfare.
2. An Assessment of the Pre‐Service Curriculum for Foster Care Case Managers.
DFCS has developed a core curriculum for newly hired case managers and case managers recently promoted to supervisor. Both curriculums follow a sequenced combination of online training, field practice activities and classroom instruction. Both culminate with a certification process. However, all but the curriculum for foster care was undergoing revision during the second reporting period. The State reported that a new version of the curriculum for New Supervisor Training was in the final stages of revision as of February and was to be piloted by the end of March 2007. The Education and Training Section was also developing a proposal for a substantial revision to all curricular components required of new workers, including the CPS and Foster Care tracks. The Section anticipated proposing the plan for new curricula to upper management by the end of April 2007, with a recommended implementation date no sooner than April 2008.
Beyond an initial review during the first reporting period, the content of the existing CPS and Supervisory curriculum in comparison to the requirements of the Consent Decree has not been completed. The Accountability Agents contracted with an independent consultant to conduct a review the foster care curriculum. Assessment of the Supervisor’s training will be delayed until the revision has been piloted. The expert reviewer’s full report has been shared with the Education and Training Services unit to assist it with the revisions being considered for all the curricula.
121 See p. 23, paragraph 8C 122 See pages 25 and 26 of the consent decree for the complete description of the requirements. 123 See Period I report for a description of the Education and Training Services Section
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 114

This report section summarizes the expert’s assessment of the foster care curriculum that was in use as of the end of December 2006. The expert’s assessment of the Supervisor’s curriculum will be included in the third period report.
a. Overview and methodology employed
The Kenny A Consent Decree stipulates various training expectations for staff (i.e., case managers, supervisors) assigned to work with children and families receiving services from DHR/DFCS. This curricular assessment focused on the training components required for new workers who are assigned responsibilities in foster care.
In preparation for the curriculum review and assessment, the expert reviewed the terms of the Consent Decree as they related to case practice expectations and training requirements. The reviewer developed a checklist to guide the review and to permit assessment of the degree to which new foster care workers were being adequately prepared for their roles. The reviewer employed this checklist for recording findings as each training module (online or classroom) or field practice activity was analyzed. The expert’s complete report is presented in Appendix C, Foster Care Pre‐Service Curriculum Review. A summary of the review findings and recommendations are presented here.
b. Findings
• The three (3) components of Foster Care Track training (online, field practice activities, and classroom) reflect principles of adult education and learning.
The curriculum is responsive to various styles of learning. Furthermore, there is an appropriate level of redundancy to reinforce the trainee’s learning of and ability to apply material. Specifically, the classroom component reinforces general knowledge developed online and through field activities and applies the learning to a specific mock case. The curriculum is scripted to ensure a degree of continuity among trainers, and supplemented by a PowerPoint presentation that reinforces key points.
However, while there is a desired sequence, current scheduling flexibility allows for participants to attend the classroom training without having fully completed the on‐line portion of the curriculum.
• Together, the three (3) components of the Foster Care Track training cover most of the requirements identified for the Consent Decree.
Consent decree requirements and DFCS policies are included in the training. However, the Kenny A Consent Decree stipulates that all new workers should receive training in family team meetings. The Foster Care Track online and classroom training introduces family team meeting
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 115

(FTM) as a component of the case planning process. In addition, the field practice activities include an opportunity to observe, and critique in supervisory discussion, an actual family team meeting. The Foster Care Track training does not specifically cover the specifics about FTMs (i.e., who participates, FTM steps). These specifics are thoroughly addressed in Family Team Meeting Part 1 (OCP 312) and Part 2 (OCP 313), which are not a requirement of new worker pre‐service training. In fact, FTM training (OCP 312 & OCP 313) is identified as a required course for completion by new case managers within 12‐18 months of Initial Certification.
• Foster case knowledge is assessed after class room training but there is not a mechanism for Supervisors to know what areas need strengthening
At the end of the classroom instruction, trainees take a Foster Care Knowledge Assessment. In order to achieve Initial Certification, the trainee must achieve a score of 70% or higher on the fifty (50) question assessment. Trainees who fail to achieve a passing score are provided an opportunity to retake the test, by scheduling a retake with the Education & Training Section, or to retake the class. The decision about the trainee’s needs in relationship to the Assessment is left to the discretion of the County, though Initial Certification cannot be achieved until the trainee achieves a passing score. Supervisors are not provided information about specific content areas that individual trainees may have missed in the end‐of‐course Assessment.
• The primary focus of the curriculum is limited to administrative procedures and tasks, policies, laws, and processes fundamental to the case manager’s role.
There is limited use of field practice activities that allow the supervisor or field practice advisor to observe directly and assess the foster care worker’s fundamental practice skills and knowledge in actual interactions with clients. While the curriculum discusses the importance of the worker‐family relationship, it assumes that the new foster care worker comes to the training with a basic understanding of, and ability to apply, effective practice skills, core conditions of effective intervention, human behavior, and family dynamics. Since new workers come to their roles from a variety of degree programs and with differing professional practice experience, the current training curriculum for the Foster Care Track depends on Keys124 to instill the basic knowledge and skills foundation. Since the Keys training is under revision, DHR/DFCS has the opportunity to assure to build this foundation. From a professional standards perspective, it is essential that new workers be prepared to be critical consumers of services on behalf of children and families served by DFCS, in order to insure that agency clientele are receiving the best available services.
124 Keys is the foundational course that all case managers take before taking the courses specific to either the Child Protection Services curriculum or the Foster Care curriculum.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 116

c.

Recommendations

• Assure successful completion of all nineteen (19) modules of Foster Care Online training prior to beginning the classroom component of Foster Care Track training.

• Provide additional detail to supervisors or training coordinators about specific items missed by the supervisee on quizzes, so that individualized training plans may be created at the local level to ensure that the supervisee is able to integrate the learning into his/her practice.

• Carefully review the online training for accuracy. For example in Module Thirteen: Case Planning, on the final screen for Page 20 of 27, steps that may occur simultaneously are inaccurately reflected. While this is a minor issue that may be clarified in subsequent classroom training, training for new workers should be based on the clearest possible information.

• Assess the order of the Field Practice Activities (FPAs) and establish a recommended order for completing the FPAs that would best support the overall educational experience, while providing some flexibility for counties when the “ideal” may not be achievable.

• Create a Field Practice Activity that includes individualized assessment of the trainee models processes of effective case planning.

• Insure that the Field Activities incorporate an activity or provide for discussion with the case manager’s supervisor or field practice advisor of all county‐specific issues such as Judicial Review interpretation by county judge.

• Add Field Activities that permit the new foster care worker to carry out specific functions (i.e., interviews) with actual clients, under direct observation of the supervisor or field practice advisor.

• Add Field Activities related to Financial Eligibility Determinations and MDT, as well as other topics, included in Foster Care Online and Classroom training, that warrant supervised field practice before encountering a real case situation.

• Require the supervisor and/or field practice advisor to stipulate successful or satisfactory completion, not simple completion, of each activity.

In addition, DeKalb and Fulton counties should consider developing an alternative pre‐service training plan for new workers that includes Family Team Meeting Part 1 (OCP 312) as a component of their pre‐service requirements or develop a more in‐depth field activity requirement related to FTMs. Although both counties have Family Team Meeting facilitator

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 117

units, new case managers will be more effective in their roles as participants in FTMs, if they have fundamental knowledge of the purposes, benefits, and stages of FTMs.
3. New Supervisor Qualifications
As stipulated in the consent decree, supervisors employed by the counties after October 27, 2005 must have, at a minimum, a Bachelor’s degree in Social Work (BSW) and two years of experience. Five individuals were promoted or newly employed as supervisors between July 1 and December 31, 2006. All five individuals met these criteria.
4. Private providers required to meet same standards
The Consent Decree requires that “private provider agencies with whom DFCS contracts for the provision of placements for children in DFCS custody shall be required, through contract provisions, to certify that employees providing management or supervisory services for DFCS” essentially meet similar qualification, training, and certification as required for DFCS case managers and supervisors.125 The state convened a meeting with all the providers serving DeKalb and Fulton Counties on March 30, 2007 at which it was announced that their FY 2007 contracts would reflect this requirement. Plans for making the required training accessible to private providers are still being developed.
D. Assuring Needed Services Are Available
Hornby Zeller Associates was the selected contractor to conduct the Needs Assessment as required by the Consent Decree.126 A contract was executed with them in early March 2007 and the work is expected to be completed by July 2007.
E. Placement Support
In this section of the report, the State’s performance is described regarding a number of issues related to the regulation and support of foster care providers. These issues are described in the Consent Decree in Section 5C4e‐i, 5C6127 and Section 11128. Generally, the State appears to be performing quite well relative to most of these issues.
Section 11 of the Consent Decree contains a variety of requirements with respect to the screening, licensing, and training of foster parents. Paragraph B of Section 11 requires a set of uniform standards to be in place for the approval or re‐approval of all foster and pre‐adoptive families. In Paragraph F, the State agrees not to allow the perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment to become or to remain foster parents. The States performance against each of
125 See pp. 35 and 36, paragraph 10.B.4 in the Consent Decree 126 See pp. 12-13, section 5.A in the Consent Decree 127 Ibid, pp. 16-19. 128 Ibid, pp. 26-28.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 118

these requirements is considered below.
The file review of 160 foster homes sought evidence in each file that the home was in compliance with applicable standards at the end of the reporting period. Data from the file review are presented below. These data can be said to fairly represent the status of the sampled foster homes at the end of the reporting period, but may not accurately reflect the quality of the regulatory approval process. The reasons for this include changes that may occur in family circumstances or characteristics between the approval date and date the home’s file was reviewed, and certain nuances of the regulatory process such as “grace periods” that were transparent to the file reviewers. Common examples of the first phenomenon included birth or foster children residing in the home for which certain required documents (e.g., criminal records check for other adults in the home, appropriate heath statements) were missing. It is not known whether the child moved back home or attained the age of majority at some point between the previous approval and the end of the reporting period. Examples of the latter phenomenon are the “grace” periods that are allowed for certain changes in family structure such as a change in foster parent marital status or a new adult moving into the home. DFCS policy stipulates that the home is to remain in full approval status for up to 120 days while the required processes are completed for the new household member.129 The file review only sought evidence that the requirement had been met as of the end of the reporting period.
1. Regular and timely evaluations to assure placement settings meet standards
Successfully preventing maltreatment in care is aided by effective evaluation and reevaluation of care settings. In addition, foster care givers need to be supported and well‐trained to effectively care for and, when necessary, appropriately discipline the children in their care.
To ensure that foster homes are equipped to provide safe and appropriate care, DFCS has promulgated a uniform set of approval standards that are intended to apply to DFCS‐ supervised and provider‐supervised foster homes alike. In addition, the Office of Regulatory Services has promulgated licensing rules that apply to the Child Placing Agencies that supervise private foster homes.
However, the existence of uniform standards by itself cannot assure children in care are safe and well. Therefore, the review of foster home files specifically sought evidence that the foster homes reviewed were in compliance with the DFCS approval standards. Overall, evidence of compliance was found to be good and to have improved compared to the first reporting period, although it varied significantly by requirement.
Table VI‐7 summarizes the extent to which documentation was found in the foster home records reviewed indicating that these homes met specific approval standards, and compares

129 See Georgia Social Services Manual, Chapter 1015.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 119

the results for the first and second reporting periods. Following the table is a narrative that offers some analysis of these data.

Table VI‐7 Foster Care Approval and Licensing Standards

Foster Care Screening, Licensing, Training, and Investigative Requirements
Family assessment completed Pre‐service foster parent training requirements met Gender of children in home never varied from that approved Timely annual re‐evaluation (no lapses) Comprehensive medical report for each foster parent No violations of agency discipline or other foster care policies Number of children in home never exceeded approved capacity Timely Criminal Record Checks for foster parents CPS history has been checked Age of children in home never varied from that approved Sexual Offender Registry has been checked Appropriate health statements for household members Timely Criminal Record Checks for other adults in the home Ongoing foster parent training requirements met Comprehensive Drug Screen for Foster Parents Source: Case Record Review, July 2006 and January 2007

Documentation found

indicating requirement

met

1st Period 2nd Period

99%

98%

96%

97%

92%

96%

90%

92%

90%

89%

87%

95%

84%

90%

83%

98%

81%

91%

80%

79%

80%

76%

79%

86%

76%

89%

76%

82%

*

54%

* Not reported in First Period

The file review found completed initial/re‐evaluation reports in 99 percent of the files in which they should have appeared, compared to 94 percent in the first reporting period. The file review found evidence that over 90 percent of the homes reviewed met most of the approval standards. This is an improvement over the first reporting period, for which most of the approval standards were met by over 80 percent of the homes reviewed. Compliance appears to have improved on 9 of the 14 requirements measured for the first reporting period; four were virtually unchanged (=/‐ 1 percentage point); and one appeared to decline. Improvements were particularly large for timely criminal record checks for foster parents (15 percentage points), timely criminal record checks for other adults in the home (13 percentage points), and CPS history has been checked (10 percentage points).

Two other requirements merit additional discussion and attention. The first is “sexual offender registry has been checked.” The performance on this important requirement appears to have declined by four percentage points compared to the first period. As with some of the other items monitored (e.g., the file contains a complete history of any Child Protective Services substantiations) conducting an accurate file review can be problematic and the results

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 120

potentially misleading when the desired information rests on the clarity with which caseworkers and file reviewers are able to document the absence of an event. If a foster parent or other household adult does not appear on the sexual offender registry, there is no physical evidence to place in the file. In that circumstance caseworkers are instructed to make a note to that effect in the case record, but they may not always do so, or such notes can be missed by file reviewers working through sometimes voluminous case records. Because of the importance of sexual offender registry checks to ensuring the safety of the foster care environment, the Accountability Agents checked the sexual offender registry for each of the 37 foster homes for which documentation of this check was not found by the file reviewers. None of the adults living in those 37 foster homes appeared on the sexual offender registry. While this does not necessarily mean that the caseworker checked the sexual offender registry and failed to make note of it in the case record, or that such a note was made but was not found by the file reviewer, it does offer reassurance that none of these 37 foster homes had registered sex offenders living in them. The State and the counties are encouraged to emphasize with caseworkers the importance of prominently documenting the results of sexual offender checks, even when they come up clean, to facilitate accurate assessments of practice quality.
The other requirement meriting further discussion relates to the screening of foster parents for illicit drug use. Section 11 B of the Consent decree establishes that DFCS will develop and maintain uniform standards for the approval and re‐approval of foster homes.130 Section 1015 of the Social Services Manual establishes that satisfactory comprehensive drug screening is required of each foster parent at the time of their initial approval and once every five years thereafter.131 However, State Law 49‐5‐69 permits children to be placed with private agency foster homes on the basis of a satisfactory criminal records check and finger print check.132 This law has been interpreted in practice as leaving drug screening of private agency foster parents to the discretion of child placing agencies. As a result, only 24 percent of provider‐supervised foster parents had evidence in their file of a satisfactory drug screen. Among DFCS supervised foster homes, the drug screen compliance rate was 91 percent.
The Accountability Agents have raised this inconsistency in de facto approval standards with senior DFCS management. The Department of Human Resources intends to seek amendments to State Law 49‐5‐69 in the next legislative session. In the meantime, provider contracts are being amended to clarify that satisfactory drug screens are required for provider‐supervised foster homes, and providers were informed that this requirement would be binding on them at the March 30, 2007 meeting the state convened a with all the providers serving DeKalb and Fulton Counties.
130 See page 26, Section 11, paragraph B in the Consent Decree 131 Social Services Manual, Chapter 1015, Appendix B, Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, July 2005 132 O.C.G.A. §49-5-69
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 121

2. Prohibition of perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment to be foster parents
Section 11F specifies that DFCS will not allow perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment, those with policy violations that threaten child safety, or those who repeatedly or unrepentantly use corporal punishment to become or to remain foster parents. The State’s performance on this requirement was found to be excellent, and is considered in greater detail below.
The state’s performance in preventing foster parents from using corporal punishment was found to be excellent. Of the 160 foster home file reviewed, none (0%) showed evidence that corporal punishment had been used, or was allowed to be used, by foster parents. More detail on the State’s performance in preventing the use of corporal punishment is discussed earlier in this report, in Section III.
To assess the State’s performance in not allowing perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment to become or to remain foster parents, the Accountability Agents examined any file in the foster home sample that indicated any history of substantiated maltreatment, and cross‐referenced these cases with the Data in IDS, and in some instances, had the file reviewers re‐examine the case records on the homes involved and the children in them.
Two homes in the sample of 160 (1%) were found to have a prior substantiation of maltreatment and to be open during the reporting period. This represents an improvement over the first reporting period, when six such homes (4%) were found. The disposition of these homes is detailed below.
• Home 1 was a foster and adoptive home in which a maltreatment allegation concerning
a foster child was made against the adopted 16‐year old son in 2004. After the investigation of this alleged incident, the adoptive/foster parent asked DFCS to re‐take custody of the 16 year old and the adoption dissolved. The DFCS office felt obliged to substantiate abandonment against the adoptive parent but, under the circumstances, decided to allow the foster home to remain open.
• Home 2 was a foster‐to‐adopt home that was substantiated for lack of supervision in
2004. Resource development staff worked with the family to address the issues that gave rise to the complaint; a waiver was requested and approved to keep the home open to complete the adoption; and the home is to close as a foster home once the adoption is finalized.
Five other homes in the sample had allegations of maltreatment that were substantiated during the reporting period. Four of these were closed during the reporting period (one of which had the maltreatment substantiation reversed on appeal, but which nevertheless remained closed). The fifth home was substantiated for lack of supervision because two foster children were left
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 122

home alone while their siblings were taken to a doctor’s appointment. The supervising CPA concluded that this was an isolated incident, a corrective action plan was developed and implemented, the CPA received an ORS citation, and the foster home was allowed to remain open.
Given the importance of preventing perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment from becoming or remaining foster parents, the Accountability Agents vetted each of these seven cases very carefully. In four of the cases, the foster homes were appropriately closed at the conclusion of the investigation. In the cases of the three that remained open, it appears that reasonable and appropriate efforts were made to assure the safety of the children remaining in the home while, in their best interest, preserving the continuity of their placement arrangements.
Section 11F also stipulates that DFCS shall be able to identify DFCS‐supervised or provider‐ supervised foster parents that have perpetrated substantiated maltreatment or had their home closed, and subsequently seek foster home approval from a CPA or a different CPA. The Treatment Services Unit uses a provider registry to identify and to prevent such foster parents from attempting to do this. One of the closed foster homes discussed above (the one whose substantiation was reversed on appeal) attempted to move to a different supervising CPA. This was promptly discovered and this foster parent has been barred from serving any children in the custody of DFCS again.
3. Operational Context
Section 11 C of the Consent Decree requires the process of licensing and approving foster homes to be carried out jointly by DFCS and the Office of Rehabilitative Services. This section describes the Accountability Agent’s understanding of how DFCS and ORS collaborate in this process. It is based on interviews with staff of both these units as well as interviews with other central office and county staff.
The Office of Regulatory Services (ORS) licenses Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) and other institutional providers. A CPA must be licensed by ORS before DFCS will execute a contract with them to provide foster care. In these private provider arrangements, the CPA conducts the approval process for the foster homes it supervises. For DFCS‐supervised foster homes, the approval process is conducted by DFCS.
Section 5C4i of the consent decree stipulates that DFCS will contract only with licensed placement contractors. To assess compliance with this requirement, data from the foster home file review were compared against the CPA licensing information available in Placement Central. Of the provider‐supervised foster homes sampled that had a class member in care at the end of the reporting period, 100 percent were overseen by CPAs that had a valid license on January 8, 2007 (the closest date available to December 31, 2006).
ORS licenses the CPAs themselves, not the foster homes supervised by the CPAs. ORS only
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 123

gets involved with individual provider‐supervised foster homes if they receive a complaint about a particular home. To receive a license, a CPA must allow ORS to review their policies and procedures for compliance with the ORS rules regarding such things as home studies, visitation, non‐discrimination, etc. In deciding whether to renew a CPA’s license, ORS reviews the files of individual children against the provider record to ensure the placement was an appropriate match for the child and conducts unannounced inspections of a sample of the foster homes supervised by each CPA. If rule violations are found in the course of these the CPA can be cited for licensure violations. This process is discussed later in Part E of this Section Contract Agencies Focused on Same Outcomes.

CPAs wishing to serve children in DFCS custody must, in addition to licensure by ORS, be approved by the DFCS Treatment Services Unit (TSU). The DFCS policy manual specifies a set of uniform standards that foster care settings must meet to be approved by DFCS – in the case of DFCS supervised homes – or by CPAs – in the case of provider supervised homes. (As discussed in the previous section, “Regular and timely evaluations to assure placement settings meet standards,” the uniform application of these approval standards has been compromised by the existence of State Law 49‐5‐69, which is somewhat contradictory of certain aspects of DFCS’ uniform approval standards.) Before arriving at an initial approval decision, TSU reviews ORS licensing decision and follows up with ORS on any questions they have; performs a desk review and staffing of each application; and visits three of the CPAs foster homes to review physical plant and other issues not covered by the ORS licensing process. TSU also conducts utilization reviews every six months after approval in which they visit three homes of each CPA, meet with the staff, tour the cottages, and interview the children.

In response to recommendations made by the Accountability Agents in the First Period Report,133 collaboration between ORS and TSU appears to have appreciably strengthened. As a result, ORS and TSU appear to be better leveraging the opportunity presented by the licensing and approval of private foster care providers to assure the safety and well‐being of children placed in those settings. More detail on the improved collaboration between ORS and TSU appears in Section III, “Safety in Care.”

4. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding Placement Support

The Consent Decree contains a number of other requirements related to placement. These include restrictions on the capacity of foster and group homes; requirements that race/ethnicity will not be used inappropriately; payment, training and support requirements pertaining to foster parents; automating placement data; and accessible paper file information.

a.

Foster Home Capacity Restrictions

Section 5C4e of the Consent Decree limits the capacity of foster homes to three foster children or

133 See Dimas, J.T. and S. Morrison “Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Purdue,” 2006, pp. 27-28.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 124

a total of six children (including the family’s biological children) absent the written approval of the Social Services Director. It also prohibits any placement that would result in more than three children under the age of three residing in a foster home, unless the children in question are a sibling group. Data from our foster home file review indicate that the state performed quite well in meeting these requirements.

Of the foster home files reviewed, 87 percent never exceeded the three foster child limit at any time during the reporting period. This compares to 84 percent that never exceeded this limit during the first reporting period. Three of the 20 homes that did exceed the limit exceeded it for only brief periods of time while providing respite care for another foster family.

With respect to the limit of six total children, 99 percent of the foster homes we reviewed never exceeded that limit at any time during the reporting period. This appears to be an improvement from the first reporting period when 94 percent never exceeded this limit.

With regard to the limit on children under the age of three, 99 percent of the homes never exceeded this limit, even without the sibling group exception. This compares to 97 percent that never exceeded this limit during the first reporting period. The file review found two instances (1%) in which more than three children of this age were placed in a single foster home. They were both provider‐supervised foster homes with capacity limits that permitted this. Such a situation should be precluded in the future, as DFCS is implementing additional changes to provider contracts that are intended to bring them into full compliance with Kenny A. standards. These changes are discussed in greater detail below in the Section F, “Supervision of Contract Agencies.”

b.

Race/Ethnicity/Religion Restrictions

Section 5C4h of the Consent Decree reaffirms DHR’s existing prohibition against contracting with any provider that gives preference in its placement practices on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion. The Accountability Agents confirmed in our interviews with ORS that one of the things they look for in assessing CPA compliance with DHR rules is a CPA policy prohibiting discrimination or preferential treatment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or religion.

c.

Foster Care Maintenance Payments

Section 5B1 of the Consent Decree establishes specific Basic Foster Care Maintenance payments that are to be effective July 1, 2005. These rates are: for children aged 0‐6, $13.78; for children aged 7‐12, $15.50; and for each child aged 13 and older, $17.75. DFCS is to ensure that these rates are paid to all foster parents providing basic services whether they are DFCS‐supervised or provider‐supervised. In addition, the DHR Commissioner is to propose a periodic increase in these rates in succeeding fiscal years.

Through interviewing the DFCS Deputy Director and reviewing DFCS budget documents and

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 125

contract language the Accountability Agents determined that the State to met this provision. All DFCS foster homes were paid the required per diem rates and all new provider contracts contained language mandating the new rates. For SFY 2007, the Commissioner proposed the following higher rates: for children aged 0‐6, $14.18; for children aged 7‐12, $16.00; and for each child aged 13 and older, $18.25. These rates went into effect July 1, 2006. For SFY 2008, the Commissioner has proposed a cost‐of‐ living‐type increase of approximately 3% in foster care per diem rates. The proposed rates that would go into effect July 1, 2007 are: for children aged 0‐6, $14.60; for children aged 7‐12, $16.50; and for each child aged 13 and older, $18.80.

d.

Foster Parent Training and Support

Sections 5C6 and 11D of the Consent Decree stipulate that foster and pre‐adoptive parents will receive uniform pre‐service training prior to being approved or having a child placed in their home; and that they will be required to complete ongoing, annual training as part of the annual re‐approval process. Section 5C6 further stipulates that foster parents will be able to contact DFCS 24 hour a day, seven days a week with their questions or concerns. The Accountability Agents found DFCS’ performance to be quite good on the first and last of these requirements, and that it had improved from the first reporting period for the second requirement.

The foster home case record review found evidence in the files of 97 percent of the foster homes reviewed that the pre‐service training requirements had been met. This was about the same as the first period rate of 96 percent.

With respect to ongoing annual training, documentation supporting that the requirements had been met was found in 82 percent of the files of the 118 foster homes sampled to which the requirement applied. This appears to be an improvement from the first reporting period, for which the comparable rate was 76 percent. Compared to first period performance, compliance improved among both DFCS‐supervised foster homes (from 86% to 93%) and provider‐ supervised foster homes (from 51% to 74%). However, evidence of compliance with ongoing training requirements remained substantially higher among DFCS‐supervised foster homes.

With respect to the 24/7 phone support requirement, Resource Development staff in the Counties report that they provide foster parents with the phone number of their assigned monitoring worker whom they can call during work hours, and that during pre‐service foster parent training, they receive the phone number of an on‐call worker they can reach after hours.

e.

Automated Placement Data

Section 11E of the Consent Decree stipulates that, within 90 days of the entry of the consent decree, DFCS will have an automated information system that can provide: demographic characteristics and information on every foster or pre‐adoptive family; a list of all foster children in the home and the DFCS office in whose custody they have been placed; information about the other children or adults in the home; the approval or re‐approval status of the home

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 126

and, for provider‐supervised homes, the name and address of the supervising CPA; and a complete history back to January 2002 of any reports of maltreatment and substantiations of maltreatment. This requirement has been met.

An information system is only as good as the quality and completeness of the data it contains. In the first period report, the Accountability Agents urged the State to strengthen DFCS’ ability to manage and be accountable for provider‐supervised foster homes by completely populating Placement Central with provider‐supervised foster home data. DFCS has undertaken an initiative to do just that. Child placing agencies (CPAs) have been instructed to report to DFCS a data set on each of the foster homes they operate that will provide all the data specified in Section 11E. CPAs have also been instructed to send updates to this data set whenever a new foster home is opened or closed. The decision has also been taken to maintain this data base at the Central Office level, which should address a key problem with the data integrity of Placement Central – namely, that busy caseworkers occasionally failed to update Placement Central when the placement of a child changed. The Accountability Agents expect these steps will eventually provide better data less labor intensively for the State, Counties, and other interested parties.

Section 11E further stipulates that DFCS shall consider the information described above before a child is placed or a foster home is approved or re‐approved. In our review of compliance with foster home approval and licensing standards (discussed above) and our review of the completeness of paper files (discussed below) we found evidence that DFCS routinely considers the required information before placing children or approving or re‐approving foster homes. However, this process presently involves a combination of “look‐ups” in Placement Central and the Protective Services Data System components of IDS, and evaluating the contents of paper files. The Accountability Agents believe this process will be significantly streamlined and made less error prone when Placement Central is completely populated and its data integrity assured.

f.

Accessible Paper File Information

Section 11G of the Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS will maintain in accessible paper file form, certain information. The particular type of information and the proportion of the foster home files reviewed that contained it are displayed below in Table VI‐8.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 127

Table VI‐8 Accessible Paper File Information

Raw File Review Triangulated File

Required Information

Data

Review Data

% of files with % of files with

documentation documentation

Approval or re‐approval status of foster homes

100%

100%

Complete 5 year history of CPS reports

77%

98%

Complete 5 year history of CPS substantiations

83%

99%

Complete 5 year history of refusals to place other children

*

*

Complete history of corrective or disciplinary actions

17%

96%

* These data proved unusable. A misinterpretation of the file review question made the data among reviewers

inconsistent.

Data Sources: January 2007 file review and County Resource and Development Records

Concerned with the apparent level of performance indicated by the data collected in the file review, the Accountability Agents used other data to compare or “triangulate” the file review information to determine how to interpret the file review findings. This was a useful reminder of the sometimes problematic nature of accurately assessing through a file review the extent to which certain types of events are properly documented in the case record and/or the extent to which they actually occurred. The issue here is how properly to interpret the absence of information. Table VI‐8 displays compliance data two ways: the raw file review data taken at face value and the raw file review data after factoring in other data sources that help clarify the significance of information that the file review found to be missing. As can be seen, a much different picture of performance is drawn from the adjusted information.

The example of sexual offender registry checks, discussed previously is instructive in this context. The file review found documentation that the sexual offender registry had been checked for 76 percent of the foster homes sampled. Based on the file review alone, one might have concluded that up to 24 percent of the foster homes included in the sample might potentially have a sexual offender in them. However, comparing the file review results against the sexual offender registry itself demonstrated that no adult in any of the homes in question appeared in the sexual offender registry. This likely contributed to the dearth of information produced by the file review; the problem could have been with the documentation that the check had been performed and came up “clean,”, the file reviewers’ ability to locate such documentation, the casework practice itself, or some combination of these.

Similar discrepancies were found with the issue of maltreatment reports and substantiations of maltreatment. The results of the file review suggested that for 37 of the 160 foster homes (23%) reviewed a “complete 5‐year history of maltreatment reports” was not located in the file; and for 28 of the 160 foster homes (18%) a complete history of substantiations of maltreatment was

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 128

not located in the file. Of course, for a foster home with a history of no maltreatment reports or substantiations of maltreatment, there would be no reports to include in a “complete history.” Stated differently, the “complete history” would consist of no reports. Given the importance of knowing whether individuals with a history of substantiations were serving as foster parents, these findings were compared to the official CPS histories available in IDS. That analysis showed that for 33 of the 37 foster homes (89%) for which the review found no history of maltreatment reports, there were, in fact, no reports to be included in such a history. Similarly, for 26 of the 28 homes (93%) for which the file review found no five‐year history of substantiated maltreatment reports, there were no substantiated reports to include in such a history.
Finally, file review results suggested that 83 percent of the reviewed files lacked a complete 5‐ year history of corrective or disciplinary actions taken against the foster home. When this result was compared to the County Resource and Development records of such actions taken against foster homes, it showed that 96% of the foster homes for which a complete 5‐year history was not found in the case record had been the subject of no such actions in the last five years.
Before the next review cycle, the Accountability Agents will again try to ensure that there is clarity among reviewers about what each of these data elements means and the standard of evidence appropriate to each. In the meantime, the State is urged to provide training and technical assistance to the counties and to providers on how to interpret and satisfy the need to prominently document the complete five year history requirements in order to reduce the extent to which the paper files may otherwise appear to overstate the true level of non‐ compliance.
F. Supervision of Contract Agencies
Sections 5B, 9, and 10B of the Consent Decree contain various provisions regarding provider reimbursement rates and contracts, specific language to be included therein, and the licensing and inspection of provider‐supervised placement settings. With the exception of the last of these, recent developments related to DHR’s federal funding have caused many activities related to these provisions to be scaled back or placed on “hold” pending resolution of the federal reimbursement issue. That issue is briefly described below.
In May 2006, the Accountability Agents learned that the Federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) had informed DHR that it was no longer willing to provide Medicaid funding for “bundled” services, as it had for years under Georgia’s per diem system of reimbursement. CMS announced it was withholding approximately $70 million in reimbursement until DHR restructured its method of reimbursement.
In response, DHR submitted a proposal to CMS that would significantly change the way providers are reimbursed for services provided. As we understand it, the proposed changes include:
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 129

 Eliminating the current bundled Therapeutic Residential Intervention Services (TRIS) per diem rate;
 Eliminating the Level of Care system currently used to determine the per‐diem rate;  Moving Behavioral Health Services to a fee‐for‐service basis; and  If Behavioral Health Services are determined to be medically necessary, providing and
billing for them through the State’s outpatient Rehabilitation Options Services Program.
CMS approved DHR’s proposed “unbundling” plan in January, 2007. The State intends to roll out unbundling Statewide on July 1, 2007. DFCS is now moving forward with some of the other contract changes required by the Consent Decree (see Section F.2 New Contract Provisions, below).
DFCS has also created a new Office of Contract Compliance, headed by Yvonne Rodgers, that will help TSU transition from focusing on medically‐oriented utilization reviews to a watchful oversight role focusing on the quality of provider‐delivered services and provider compliance with the terms of their contracts. Creation of the Office of Contract Compliance is expected significantly improve the supervision of contract agencies.
1. Rate Reimbursement Task Force
Section 5B2‐7 of the Consent Decree stipulates that a Rate Reimbursement Task Force (RRTF) be established within 60 days of the entry of the Consent Decree to recommend changes to the Level of Care system and to design a rate structure based on measurable outcomes for children.134 The RRTF was established within the required timeframe and held at least three face‐to‐face meetings, ten teleconferences, and three video conferences.
When the RRTF learned that CMS was requiring reimbursement rates to be unbundled, they sought counsel of the Accountability Agents as to how this would affect their charge. We referred them to DHR and Plaintiff’s counsel as their authorizing entities. They held a face‐to‐ face meeting with the parties and our understanding is they have received a renewed charge that takes stock of the recent development with CMS. The membership of the RRTF is being revised as two members have resigned. The parties have agreed to appoint two replacement members and to ask the RRTF to begin meeting again after unbundling has been officially rolled out.
2. New Contract Provisions
Section 5B1, 9A‐C and 10B4 of the Consent Decree stipulate specific language and concepts that are to be incorporated into provider contracts.135 Some of these (e.g. requiring providers to pass through to their foster homes the full basic maintenance payment) were incorporated into new
134 See pp. 14-15, paragraphs 2-7 in the Consent Decree 135 See pp. 13 and 23-26, Sections 5B.1, 9A-C and 10B.4 in the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 130

contracts at the start of fiscal year 2006 (July 1, 2005.) However, other provisions (e.g. mandating detailed reporting requirements and adding contract language to bring provider‐ supervised placements into full compliance with DFCS approval and training standards) were placed on hold pending the resolution of the CMS rate restructuring. The State has indicated to the Accountability Agents and plaintiffs that these additional provisions have been fully implemented in the provider contracts that take effect on July 1, 2007. The State has provided plaintiffs with a copy of the new master contract.
3. Licensing and Inspections
Section 9 D of the Consent Decree stipulates that the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS) will conduct licensing evaluations of child caring institutions (CCI) and child placing agencies (CPA) to, among other things, ensure their compliance with applicable terms of the Consent Decree; conduct at least one unannounced inspection per year of each CCI and CPA, and of a sample of the foster homes supervised by each CPA; and prepare a written reports detailing the findings of such visits.136 Through interviews with ORS staff and examination of written documentation we are able to confirm that ORS is fulfilling these mandates as described below:
 Licensing evaluations: The ORS licensure rules were amended to reflect applicable requirements of the Consent Decree. ORS licensure re‐evaluations examine CCI and CPA polices to ensure they conform to these requirements.
 Unannounced inspections: In conjunction with re‐licensure visits, ORS is conducting the specified unannounced inspections of CCIs and CPAs, and a sample of foster homes supervised by CPAs. Each CCI or CPA serving class members received at least one such inspection during calendar year 2006.
 Written reports detailing the findings of each unannounced inspection are being prepared. The Accountability Agents have examined a number of them.
G. Improving Automated Support
1. SACWIS
Georgia is currently designing a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) in conformance with federal requirements and the Consent Decree.137 There has been no change since the first period report regarding this requirement. This system will replace several of the State’s existing systems used for collecting and reporting data to the federal government as well as to DFCS management and staff. The Consent Degree required Georgia to select and contract with a vendor by December 31, 2005. Accenture LLP was selected in November 2005 and the State signed a contract with the firm to begin the work immediately. However, the State was not able to execute the contract with the firm until February 2006 due to

136 See p. 24, Section 9D in the Consent Decree 137 See p. 22, Section 7 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 131

another bidder’s protest of the selection and the time required resolving the protest. The expected date for full implementation is January 2008.
2. Placement Central
Placement Central is DFCS’ automated system for tracking child placements and certain information about those placements. Although Placement Central has historically contained a limited amount of data on provider‐supervised foster care placements, DFCS is currently undertaking an effort to completely populate it with certain provider data, as discussed previously in this Chapter. This is an important step forward in improving DFCS’ ability to manage placement providers and to be accountable (and to hold providers accountable) for the work that is contracted out.
For the second reporting period the Accountability Agents undertook a limited effort to validate the data currently in Placement Central. The purpose of this validation effort was to understand the reliability of data from Placement Central for monitoring and accountability purposes, and to identify areas in need of improvement as the State undertakes its effort to completely populate this important data source. We performed a cross‐match between the computerized file review data and corresponding data in placement central to ascertain the degree to which they were in agreement. We were able to perform this cross‐match on five specific data fields:
• the foster home’s initial approval date (the date it was first approved to receive foster
children);
• the approval type (these include “initial full approval”, “annual re‐evaluation”, “special
approval” – all of which are regarded as “full approval” statuses; and temporary approval – which is not a “full approval” status;
• re‐approval due date (the date the current approval expires) • Number of children placed on 12/31/2006 (the number of class members in each foster
home at the end of the reporting period)
• Closure date (the placement’s open or closed status on 12/31/06 and, if closed, the date of
closure).
As DFCS is still in the process of populating Placement Central with data on provider‐ supervised foster homes, the comparison of file review and placement central data could be made for the entire sample of 160 foster homes for only the last two data fields listed above. For the first three data fields listed, the comparison could be made only for the 73 DFCS‐supervised foster homes in the sample. Some care should be exercised in interpreting the results of this comparison. There may be a natural inclination to assume that where discrepancies exist, the file review data are correct. For the most part, that is probably a safe assumption. However, in investigating a handful of the most glaring inconsistencies, the Accountability Agents learned that sometimes a data entry or file review error was responsible. The table below reflects corrected file review data when it could be determined that the file review data was in error,
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 132

but time did not permit the investigation of any but the most glaring inconsistencies.

Table VI‐9 Comparison of Placement Central (PC) and File Review (FR) Data

Data Field Initial approval date Approval type Re‐approval due date
Number of children placed on 12/31/06
Closure date
Total

Records Compared
73 73 73
160
160 539

Records with No Difference
63 67 69
136
154
489

% of records with No difference 86% 92% 95%
85%
96%
91%

Characteristics of Variance
For 8 of 10 records, variance was < 30 days All 6 that varied were approved, but PC and FR varied on the type of approval For 1 of 4 records variance was 7 days; for 3 records due date had not been updated in PC 10 DFCS‐supervised homes varied
• For 5, number in PC < FR • For 5, number in PC > FR
14 CPA‐supervised homes varied
• For 1, number in PC < FR • For 13, number in PC > FR
All 6 that varied were closed, provider‐supervised homes. For 2, variance was < 15 days; for 4, their closure was not reflected in PC (2 of these closed in the last 30 days of the reporting period).

As displayed in Table VI‐9, overall, Placement Central and the foster home file review matched exactly on 91 percent of the 539 data elements compared. However, the rate of agreement and the significance of disagreements varied by data element. The extent and nature of the observed variance is characterized in Table VI‐9. The rate of agreement was highest on the “Closure Date” field (96%) and lowest on the “Initial Approval Date” (86%) and “Number of Children Placed on 12/31/06” (85%) fields. The variance in the Initial Approval Date appears to be not terribly significant; for 8 of the 10 records that varied, the variance was less than 30 days and may simply represent the time lag between when the home was approved and when the approval was recorded in Placement Central. However, the variance in the number of children placed on December 31, 2006 is of greater concern. One reason for this is, by agreement of the Parties and the Accountability Agents, Placement Central was the source of the census data for DFCS‐supervised foster homes used to calculate achievement of Outcome 31 (Placement
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 133

Central data on the census of provider‐supervised foster homes was presumed to be less reliable than for DFCS‐supervised homes and, therefore, was collected by the file review team in site visits to the supervising CPAs – see pp. VI‐39‐41).
For this data field, data from the record review and from Placement Central varied for 24 of the 160 foster homes included in the sample. There was a comparable rate of agreement for DFCS homes (86%) and for provider‐supervised homes (84%); but the nature of the variance differed significantly. Relative to the file review data, Placement Central was equally likely to understate (5 homes) as to overstate (5 homes) the number of children placed in DFCS homes on a particular date. For provider supervised homes, Placement Central had a strong tendency, relative to the file review data, to overstate (13 homes) rather than to understate (1 home) the number of children placed on December 31, 2006.
These findings suggest two things. With respect to DFCS‐supervised homes, the variance between Placement Central and the file review data is unlikely to have biased the measurement of Outcome 31 since Placement Central was equally as likely to understate, as to overstate, the number of children placed relative to the file review.
Second, Placement Central’s tendency to overstate the number of children placed in provider‐ supervised settings relative to the file review tends to support a hypothesis from the G2 meetings that although caseworkers are proficient at entering into Placement Central children’s first placements in provider‐supervised settings, if the provider moves a child the caseworker may not always remove the child from the previous placement setting in Placement Central. This could account for the tendency of Placement Central to overstate the number of children in provider‐supervised homes relative to the file review. This hypothesis and the evidence supporting it have important implications for the State’s efforts to completely populate Placement Central. They underscore the importance of the State having an effective strategy for maintaining the integrity of placement central once it is completely populated or it may once again come to vary from the circumstances suggested in the case record.
H. Quality Assurance
There has been no change since the first period report regarding this requirement. DFCS continues to maintain an appropriate quality assurance system138 through its central Evaluation and Reporting (E&R) Section. In addition, the counties have increased the role of their quality assurance units in the development and maintenance of their own tracking systems for visitation and other Consent Decree requirements. For example, the Fulton County Quality Assurance team has been validating case manager documentation about visits with children and care givers since June. This process includes assessing the documentation for quality of the visits as well as following up with a small sample of caregivers to confirm the visits took place and the content of the visits.
138 See p. 42, Section 18 in the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 134

I.

Maximizing Federal Funding 139

The Consent Decree contains requirements for DHR/DFCS to 1) maximize available federal funding through Titles IV‐B and IV‐E of the Social Security Act, and 2) not supplant state dollars for foster care services with any federal increase that results from the maximization efforts.140 In addition, there are a number of the outcomes that pertain to actions and documentation required to support and enhance claiming IV‐E reimbursement for Foster Care expenditures.
According to the Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, “Titles IV‐B and IV‐E of the Social Security Act are the largest dedicated child welfare funding streams (that is, funds specifically designated for child welfare services).”141 However, these are two distinctly different funding approaches. Title IV‐B is “a capped state entitlement.”142 That is, funding may be available up to a pre‐determined state share. To draw‐down the IV‐B funding, states must match Title IV‐B funds with a 25 percent share of nonfederal funding, but there are no income or other eligibility restrictions on which families may be served with these funds. In contrast, “the Title IV‐E Foster Care program is a permanently authorized, open ended entitlement program. This means that states may claim federal reimbursement for every eligible child who is placed in a licensed foster home or institution.” 143 The required state match ranges from 50 to 83 percent depending on the type of expenditures and the state’s Medicaid match rate.
1. Georgia Baseline: Federal and State Funding Distribution for State Fiscal Year 2006
Since the Consent Decree became effective in October 2005, the baseline for future comparison of state expenditures is Federal Fiscal Year 2006 (October 1, 2005‐September 30, 2006) for Title IV‐B and State Fiscal Year 2006 (July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2006) for Title IV‐E. Slightly different time periods are being used because of the different reporting requirements for Titles IV‐B and IV‐E. Georgia submits annual financial reports to the Federal government for Title IV‐B and quarterly cost reports for Title IV‐E. Table VI‐10 provides the IV‐B baseline of federal and state expenditures based on the annual cost report and Table VI‐11 provides the baseline for Title IV‐ E federal and state expenditures based on the quarterly expenditure reports submitted to the federal government for the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006.

139 See Monitoring Report I for background on Title IV-E 140 See p. 31, Section 14 of the Consent Decree 141 Murray, K.O. The Child Welfare Financing Structure. [Online]. Available http://www.pewfostervare.org [Retrieved February 3, 2007] 142 Ibid 143 Ibid
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 135

Table IV‐10

Baseline for Title IV‐B Funding

Federal Fiscal Year 2006 Financial Report

(October 1, 2005 – September 30, 2006)

State

Federal

Total

$ 3,123,871

$ 9,371,613

$ 12,495, 484

Source: Georgia IV‐B Financial Status Report, submitted December 11, 2006 to the U.S

Department of Health and Human Services

Table IV‐11

Baseline for Title IV‐E Funding:

Federal Reporting for the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006

Category

State

Federal

Expenditures

Reimbursed

Expenditures

Title IV‐E Funding

Adoption Assistance Payments

18,796,102

28,864,149

Adoption Administration

6,522,392

6,522,392

Adoption Training

525,646

175,215

Adoption subtotal

$25,844,140

$35,561,756

Total
47,660,251 13,044,784
700,861 $61,405,896

Foster Care Maintenance Payments

12,830,120

19,706,811

32,536,931

Foster Care Administration

32,892,589

32,892,586

65,785,175

Foster Care Training

97,199

291,600

388,799

SACWIS

2,006,645

2,006,646

4,013,291

Foster Care subtotal

47,826,553

54,897,643

102,724,196

Title IV‐E Total

$ 73,320,262

$ 90,809,830 $ 164,130,092

Source: DHR/DFCS quarterly expenditure reports submitted to the U.S. Department of Health

and Human Services

2. Timely and Complete Court Orders

In addition to Outcome 26, the Consent Decree strives to limit the percent of children for whom the DHR/DFCS custodial authority lapses.144 Outcome 29 stipulates that no more than 5 percent of all children should have a lapse in their legal custody within the most recent 13 months of their placement. This outcome becomes effective in the third period, January 1 to June 30, 2007. The case record review indicates that the State’s performance on this measure at the end of December 31, 2006 was greater than the allowable margin, as 22 percent of the children in care for 12 months had lapses in DFCS’ custodial authority.

144 See p 37, Outcome 29 in the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 136

This performance applies to 97145 children who had been in care 12 months or more during the review period. This is an improvement from the first reporting period when the case record review found 36 percent had lapses in legal custody. Improving on this performance remains a critical issue for the Department.
145 Since this is smaller than the entire sample of 180, any conclusions drawn from the 97 would have a margin of error of approximately ±10 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 137

PART VII MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 20 of the Consent Decree contains the Agreement’s miscellaneous provisions. Two provisions, contained in Section 20G, contain substantive data reporting requirements.146 These are covered in this part of the report.

A. Repeat Maltreatment Data

Section 20 G 1 of the Consent Decree requires DHR to provide the Accountability Agents data and information sufficient to enable them to verify data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experienced repeat maltreatment. This is operationalized in the Consent Decree as follows:
• The number of children in each county who, during the reporting period, experienced substantiated maltreatment;
• The number and percentage of children in the first item who also experienced maltreatment during the preceding 12 month period. These data, as reported by the State, are reproduced in Table VII‐1, below. The approach taken by the Accountability Agents to verify it is discussed in Appendix B.

Table VII‐1 Repeat Maltreatment Reporting Period: July 1, 2006 ‐ December 31, 2006

a) Number of children during the report period experiencing substantiated maltreatment

DEKALB

FULTON

594

810

b) the number of children in a) of this item

who also experienced maltreatment during

the preceding 12 month period

35

65

Percentage of children who had substantiated maltreatment during the preceding 12 months

5.9%

8.0%

146 See Kenny A. Consent Decree, pp. 45-46.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 138

B. Diversion Data Section 20 G 2 of the Consent Decree requires DHR to provide the Accountability Agents data and information sufficient to enable them to verify data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experienced substantiated maltreatment within 11‐365 days after being referred to DHR’s diversion program. Due to the 11‐365 day follow up period for the diversion statistics, diversion data will not be reported until our third report, covering the period through June 30, 2007.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page 139

Appendix A Kenny A. v. Sonny Perdue Consent Decree Outcomes
Section 15 of the Consent Decree requires 31 outcomes. These outcomes are grouped in the categories of Safety, Permanency, Well‐Being, and Strengthened Infrastructure
SAFETY 1. Children in Foster Care are Safe From Maltreatment
• Outcome 1: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report.
• Outcome 3: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face‐to‐face, private contact with alleged victim, including face‐to‐face contact with a child who is non‐verbal due to age or for any other reason.
• Outcome 2: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report.
• Outcome 5: By the end of the first reporting period, no more than 1.27% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. By the end of the second reporting period, no more than .94% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. By the end of the fourth reporting period, no more than .57% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care.
• Outcome 6: By the end of the second reporting period, 90% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous six months. By the end of the third reporting period, 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.
PERMANENCY 2. Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
• Outcome 7: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 90 days of entering foster care. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care.
• Outcome 16: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page A‐ 1

• Outcome 19: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii). By the end of the third reporting period, at least 80% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii). By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii).
• Outcome 21: By the end of the third reporting period, 75% of all the children with the goal reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. By the end of the fourth reporting period, 85% of all the children with the goal reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification.
• Outcome 23: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in the Class at a point in time during the reporting period who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have had visits with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.
3. Children Achieve Permanency (Permanency = reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.)
Children in care at the time of the consent decree: • Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and
the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. • Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. • Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page A‐ 2

By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.. • Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 backlog pool”): For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the third period at least 40% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the third reporting period, by the end of the fourth reporting period at least 40% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. • Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “over 24 backlog pool”): For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the third reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the third reporting period, by the end of the fourth reporting period at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.
Children entering custody after consent decree: • Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent
Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. • Outcome 8b: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% (1) shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification or permanent placement with relatives; or (2) shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page A‐ 3

24 months or less of entering custody: adoption,, permanent legal custody, or guardianship.
Permanency actions after consent decree: • Outcome 11: By the end of the second reporting period, for all children whose parental
rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights. • Outcome 4: By the end of the second reporting period, no more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re‐entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. • Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period.
Court reviews of permanency actions • Outcome 27: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of foster children in
custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐month period following the last review. By the end of the third reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐month period following the last review. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐ month period following the last review. • Outcome 28: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12‐month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page A‐ 4

WELL BEING 4. Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity.
• Outcome 17: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 86.7% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody.
• Outcome 18: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave.
• Outcome 20: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had at least one in‐placement visit and one other visit, as defined in Section 5.D, each month by their case manager. During the prior 12 months in custody.
• Outcome 22: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had visits between their DFCS placement case manager and their foster parent, group care, institutional or other caretaker at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody.
5. Children and Youth Receive the Services they Need • Outcome 24: By the end of the second reporting period, the percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 10 percentage points. By the end of the fourth reporting period, that percentage shall increase by an additional 10 percentage points. • Outcome 30: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.
STRENGTHENED INFRASTRUCTURE 6. Capacity to Support Placement Process
• Outcome 25: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 85% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 98% of all foster children in custody at a point in time
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page A‐ 5

during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. • Outcome 31: By the end of the second reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than 10% of all children in foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three(3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children. 7. Timely and Complete Court Orders • Outcome 26: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in lime during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act • Outcome 29: By the end of the third reporting, no more than 5% of all children in custody of DHR/DFCS for 12 months or more shall have lapse of legal custody within the prior 13 months.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period I Monitoring Report Page A‐ 6

Appendix B Methodology
The Accountability Agents used several methodologies to arrive at the judgments, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report: (i) review of written materials and data supplied by the State and Counties; (ii) interviews; (iii) extensive case record reviews; and (iv) strategic engagement of State and county personnel for pro‐active, hands‐on monitoring through biweekly meetings known as the “G2.” This appendix describes these data sources and methods and also catalogues and explains interpretation and measurement issues that were addressed and resolved during the first reporting period.
A. Data Sources and Methodology for Measuring State Performance
Four primary sources of information were used to assess the State of Georgia’s progress during the second reporting period, July 1 – December 31, 2006.
1. State Data Systems
The first source of information is the DFCS administrative data systems that the Department currently employs to hold case‐related information and prepare reports for the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, the citizens of Georgia and other interested parties. This system is known as “IDS.”
There is general agreement that IDS is not sufficiently robust to support the kind of case management and data analysis desired by the State of Georgia. Over the next few years it will be replaced by a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) that the state is currently developing. However, IDS currently is sufficient to provide reports on a number, but not all of the outcomes.
a. Addressing Data Integrity Issues
Like all information systems, the accuracy of IDS’ data is function of the accuracy with which data are coded and input into the system. Previous evaluations have noted some significant discrepancies between the information contained in case records and data produced by IDS. It is important to understand that these discrepancies appear to be caused by human error (typically, mistakes in interpretation and coding of the facts contained in the case record that result in erroneous data being entered into the system) not any malfunction of the computer system itself that the Accountability Agents were able to detect. However it should also be noted that the efforts made for the current reporting period to compare IDS and file review data also turned up multiple instances in which the coding, key entry, or interpretation of information from the case record was responsible for the discrepancy with IDS. Whether they are data fields in IDS or from case record reviews, those that are less complex or qualitative (e.g., whether or not an allegation was substantiated) are less prone to
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 1

coding errors and produce data with a higher degree of reliability. Data fields that are more complex, qualitative, or ambiguous are more error prone and demonstrate greater problems of reliability.

As a result of such issues, the Accountability Agents have been very selective about which data to rely on for assessing compliance with the Consent Decree’s provisions. Most of the data in this report was generated by file and case record reviews conducted specifically for this purpose. In several instances, the case record readers were asked to collect the exact piece of information directly from the sampled case files and from IDS by going “on‐line” and looking at the IDS data base. These instances included information about a child’s date of entry into foster care, current placement type and date, and permanency goal. When it was possible or necessary to compare data from IDS or other automated sources to data from the file and case record reviews, it often produced a result that was more accurate and reliable than if any single data source had been relied upon.

2. Document Review and Interviews

During the monitoring period, the Accountability Agents collected written reports and materials regarding foster care and adoption policy, budgets, findings from the Child Advocate, licensing, treatment services, worker training and certification. At the state level, the leadership of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Treatment Services Unit, Statewide Risk Assessment, Education and Training Services Section, and other administrative offices were interviewed. At the local county level, interviews included supervisors and case managers responsible for investigating reports of maltreatment in care, placement, and foster parent training and support. The Accountability Agents worked directly with State and County Quality Assurance staff to analyze data collected and tracked at the local level such as caseloads, visitation, determinations for children in care 15 of 22 months, and certification.

3. Structured File and Case Record Reviews

A second source of information is systematic case record reviews (CRRs.) Four case record reviews were conducted: 1) investigations of maltreatment in care; 2) foster home approval status and capacity; 3) children in foster care placements; and 4) children with the goal of adoption. Table B‐1 summarizes sample characteristics of each review. The following discussion provides more detail on the sampling approach, the review instruments development, review logistics, reviewer qualifications and quality assurance, and analytical process.

a.

Sampling Approach

As indicated in Table B‐1, 100 percent of the investigations of maltreatment in care between July 1 and December 31, 2006 were read. Therefore, the margin of error in these results is extremely

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 2

small and would reflect case record reviewer differences or errors rather than differences within the universe. For the three other case record reviews, random samples were drawn from three different universes:  All foster homes located in DeKalb and Fulton counties that had a DeKalb or Fulton child
placed in the home at anytime between July 1 and December 31, 2006. This included private agency supervised homes as well as DFCS supervised homes.  All foster care cases (children) active in DeKalb and Fulton counties any time between July 1 and December 31, 2006.  All children with active cases in DeKalb and Fulton counties any time between July 1 and December 31, 2006, excluding finalized adoptions, who had the permanency goal of adoption and for whom the parental rights of at least one parent had been terminated. For each of these reviews, samples were drawn such that the findings would have a +/‐ 7% error rate at a 95% confidence level. As described later in this appendix, a certain number of records included in the original samples of Foster Homes, Foster Care, and Adoptions could not be read and were rejected based on pre‐determined criteria. This level of precision is for frequencies reported for the sample as a whole. Data provided on subsets of the sample are less precise; where appropriate, separate margins of error for the different subsets have been calculated and noted in the body of the report. To achieve the minimum number of records for each review, small additional, random replacement samples were drawn.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 3

Table B‐1 Case Record Review Sample Size and Associated Margin of Error

Target of Review Maltreatment in Care Investigations
Foster Homes Children in Foster Care
Children with at least one TPR

Universe of cases
78
992 2,623 children with active cases any time July 1 and December 31, 2006 190

Desired Maximum Sample Size 78
160 180
96

Actual Number Reviewed
63 completed by DeKalb and Fulton 15 completed by other counties involving children in the custody of DeKalb and Fulton Counties 160 180

Margin of Error +/‐ 0.0 percent
+/‐ 7 percent +/‐ 7 percent

94

+/‐7 percent

b. Instrument Design

Four separate data collection Instruments were developed, one for each sample. They were developed in conjunction with the DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Section (E&R) and consultants from Georgia State University (GSU) schools of public administration and social work. The instruments were field tested and Counsel for the Plaintiffs reviewed and recommended changes, many of which were incorporated into the final instruments. As is typical with case record reviews, reviewers encountered some problems with some of the questions. Learning from this second effort will be incorporated into the next case record review.

c.

Data Collection Schedule and Logistics

Planning for the data collection effort began in November 2006 with discussions with E&R and GSU regarding formatting data instruments for efficient data capture and analysis. Based on technology problems encountered during the first record review, changes were made in this round to improve the ease of use. Each of the review guides was set up as a field protected

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 4

Microsoft Word document that allowed electronic information entry. GSU separately entered the data into a SAS data base. As the reviews progressed, portions of guides were revised as necessary to accommodate unforeseen circumstances found in the records. In addition, the reviewers had the capability to make extensive comments to explain responses and provide more background on the case.
Field testing of the guides was limited and an area that could be improved. Original files were reviewed between January 9 and March 22, 2007. Data analysis began in March as GSU began compiling the collected data into four data bases.
Data collection began in January 2007 with the maltreatment in care investigations. The review of foster home files was also initiated in January. Records selected from private agencies were reviewed at the respective private agencies. The remaining records for investigations, foster care, adoptions, and DFCS supervised foster homes were reviewed at the county offices where the active cases are maintained. Closed records were brought to these sites for review.
d. Review Team Qualifications and Training
Twelve E&R staff were the primary case readers. These staff members average 25 years of experience in DFCS and are very familiar with the DFCS’s policies and practices. They were selected for this task based on their skills, experience, and knowledge.
There was a brief training before commencing each record review. The training consisted of reviewing and discussing the wording and meaning of each question on the data collection instruments. Additional changes were made to the guides as a result of these discussions, but it became apparent after the file reviews were completed that not all misunderstanding had been eliminated. Training is another area that would have benefited from more time. A practice round of record reviews would have been helpful to work out the questions that arose. Given the pace of the necessary semi‐annual reporting schedule, it has been difficult to extend the training time. On‐going training between reviews is taking place and it is anticipated that after the learning from this round is incorporated into the guides, limited changes will be needed during future reviews.
DFCS reviewers and GSU research staff were provided with digital files containing a “Handbook” and a copy of the consent decree for reference. In addition, reviewers had personal copies of the instruments in hard copy on which they made notations regarding the discussions about definitions, responses, and where within the case records to locate certain pieces of information.
e. Quality Assurance
Reading accuracy and inter‐reader reliability was addressed by an extensive quality assurance process that included constant “calibration” and a “second read” of the records. Two senior
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 5

E&R reviewers were designated team leaders. They were responsible for responding to reviewer questions regarding clarification or how to interpret information contained in the record. These team leaders shared with one another the questions being asked and the responses they were giving to reviewers so as to assure consistency. In this way, patterns among questions were monitored and instructions were clarified for all reviewers as necessary. Team leaders reviewed each reviewer’s work at the completion of each review. The Accountability Agents were also on‐site several days a week during the review and provided another resource for questions and clarification. Finally, reviewers were encouraged to provide explanatory comments for their responses if they felt the situation they found did not adequately fit the question being asked or additional detail for some critical questions was desired. These comments were invaluable to the Accountability Agents as they reviewed the data collected and made judgments about response recodes when necessary. However, occasionally reviewers failed to provide the requested comments which elongated and sometimes frustrated the data cleaning process.
An additional level of Quality Assurance was provided by the Georgia State University (GSU) project coordinator and four research assistants with masters degrees in social work and backgrounds in child welfare and case record review. They read at least one third to nearly one half of the sampled Foster Care, Adoptions, Foster Home and CPS investigations files. The records were randomly selected as each reviewer completed guide. Review guides that had different responses from the GSU QA staff and the E&R reviewers were set aside, investigated and resolved by the GSU project coordinator and E&R team leaders, often in consultation with the Accountability Agents, before the protocol was entered into the data base. One day a week was set aside in the schedule to review the completed review guides in question and do any necessary clean up, and to discuss observed trends.
To calculate inter‐rater reliability GSU selected variables from all four files (Adoptions, CPS Investigations, Foster Homes and Foster Care) where both the reviewers and the QA reviewers had access to the same information in the case file (information that did not require an on‐line “look up” in IDS). The variables were selected from the original responses to the questions – the record reviewers and the QA team. Therefore the correlation was tested on the “raw” responses. As noted above, these raw responses were compared, differences investigated, and resolved appropriately. Correlations between the raw reviewer results and the raw QA reviewer results were calculated using SPSS and a Cronbach’s Alpha statistic was calculated for each. Cronbachʹs Alpha measures how well a set of items, in this case the reviewer responses and the QA reviewer responses, correlate or match. Cronbachʹs Alpha is not a statistical test ‐ it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). When a Cronbach’s Alpha is used in a Social Science research situation, like the Kenny A. case review, a reliability coefficient of .70 or higher indicates that there is an almost zero probability that the reviewer and QA reviewer would achieve these results by chance.
The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for each of the data sets are provided in Table B‐2, below. All measures are above the threshold of .70.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 6

Table B‐2 Cronbach’s Alpha Measure of Inter‐Rater Reliability
for Each Case Record Review

Sample

Cronbach’s Alpha Measure

CPS Investigations Foster Homes Foster Care Adoptions

0.76104 0.78217 0.99112 0.92926

A final check on quality came during the analysis. When the analysis identified a discrepancy that could not be explained by the reviewer comments, the Accountability Agents requested a reviewer to go back to the file in question and collect more specific information on which to make a judgment. During the analysis, it became clear to the Accountability Agents that the majority of reviewer errors resulted from the 1) poorly worded questions that still caused confusion among some reviewers and 2) in the case for the foster care review, the length and complexity of the review guide. In addition, there were some data entry errors. Both these errors can be addressed with different data collection software with built‐in data edits and more careful attention to the instrument design and testing.

f.

Data analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel were used for analyzing the collected data and calculating inter‐rater reliability. GSU staff assisted in creating descriptive statistics for the Accountability Agents.

g. Records in Sample that Were not Read

Not all records included in the original samples were reviewed. Before the reviews began, we established a set of reasons for why a case record may not be read. Table B‐3 provides a summary distribution of the cases that were not read with the reasons for not reading them.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 7

Target of Review Maltreatment in Care Investigations
Foster Homes
Children in Foster Care
Children with at least one TPR

Table B‐3

Case Records Drawn for Original Sample, Not Reviewed

Number of cases sampled but not read as part of the review and reason why

they were not read

Coding error in IDS, this is not a maltreatment in care referral/report

6

Child was not in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton County

1

Total

7

No children were in the home during the 6 months of the review

22

No children in the legal custody of DeKalb or Fulton County DFCS were

8

placed in this home between July 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006

Case record cannot be located

7

Coding error in IDS, this home was not open between July 1, 2006 and

6

December 31, 2006 or the home was not associated with the identified

CPA

Total 43

Child’s file has been sealed as the result of finalized adoptions

3

Case timeframe too short (child in care less than 5 days)

3

Child not in the legal custody of Fulton or Dekalb counties between July

3

1 and December 31, 2006

Child not in foster care any time between July 1 and December 31, 2006

1

Total 10

Adoption was not the permanency goal

2

Child’s file has been sealed as the result of finalized adoptions

2

Child not in the legal custody of Fulton or DeKalb counties between July

1

1 and December 31, 2006

Neither parent has parental rights terminated

1

Total

6

5. Meetings with the management teams of Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS (G2)

The Accountability Agents met twice each month with Fulton and DeKalb directors, senior management, supervisors and case managers, and senior central office staff. These meetings allowed for hands‐on monitoring and data verification. Specifically, the purpose of the G2 has been fourfold:

o Engage Fulton and DeKalb County senior management teams in tracking their own progress in achieving the Consent Degree outcomes;
o Have “real‐time” communication about successes and areas of concern regarding the progress of reform;
o Establish a clear understanding of the relationship between practice, process, and infrastructure enhancements and outcome achievements; and,

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 8

o Integrate the settlement outcomes and required practice and process into other initiatives the Counties are engaged in, such as Family to Family and the Program Improvement Plan (PIP) to help develop and articulate the “big picture” of reform.
The process during the G2 starts with using administrative data to prompt the group to develop hypotheses about underlying problems that threaten the achievement of critical outcomes, and about potential solutions. Fresh data that shed light on the validity of those hypotheses are then brought back to a subsequent meeting. Based on the group’s examination and discussion of the fresh data, a given hypothesis may then be rejected, accepted, or refined and retested. For hypotheses that are accepted, in‐depth “So What?” conversations take place during which best practices among field staff may be highlighted, operational strategies that leverage the learning that has transpired are devised, resource allocation decisions may be made by DFCS leadership, and parties responsible for implementation identified.
B. First Reporting Period Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The following discussion highlights the interpretation and measurement issues that arose during the first reporting period that were accepted by the parties and also apply to period two.
1. Safety Outcomes
Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 use the same “By the end of the first reporting period…” language used in Outcome 5, but the standard remains fixed at the period 1 level for all subsequent reporting periods. These outcomes, therefore, do not raise the same point‐in‐time vs. cumulative measurement issue raised by Outcome 5.
Section 12.A. of the Consent Decree requires that maltreatment in care investigations be conducted by trained child protective services staff.147 As indicated above, DFCS policy regards the commencement of an investigation to be the point at which an alleged victim child is seen by the investigator. For measurement purposes Outcomes 1 was operationalized as the percentage of cases in which any alleged victim had face‐to‐face contact with a CPS investigator within 24 hours. Outcome 3 was operationalized as the percentage of alleged victims that had face‐to‐face contact with a CPS investigator within 24 hours.
Outcome 5 was operationally defined as the percentage of children in care during the reporting period that experience maltreatment in care during the reporting period. Performance was measured by a cumulative look across the entire reporting period, not just at one point in time during the reporting period. The interpretation and measurement issues considered are described below.
• The interpretation issue centers on the meaning attributed to the words “…shall be the victim

147 See p. 28 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 9

of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care.” This could be interpreted to mean that any child who had ever experienced maltreatment while in foster care (even if it was years ago) should be counted in this percentage. Although this is perhaps the most obvious and literal interpretation of these words, such an interpretation would be unhelpful to the cause of improving Georgia’s child welfare system.
A central precept of the Consent Decree is that it will bring about improvements in Georgia’s child welfare system. Interpreting this measure in a way that places it beyond the influence of the State’s current and future efforts to improve would be incongruous with this precept.
• The measurement issue inherent in Outcome 5 derives from the words “By the end of the first reporting period…” Taken literally, these words seem to suggest that this is a point‐in‐time measure to be taken on the last day of the first reporting period. In other words, what percentage of the children in care on December 31, 2006 had experienced maltreatment while in care? In the child welfare field, such a point‐in‐time approach is a common method of obtaining a census of children in care. The use of the word “By” could be construed to grant the state the entire length of the reporting period to produce improvements in this outcome.
However, operationalizing this as a point‐in‐time measure might create perverse incentives (i.e., schedule children who had experienced maltreatment in care for discharge before the end of the month). Although it is not believed the State would actually use this approach, the Accountability Agents believe that when the Consent Decree language is less than definitive, it should be construed to avoid establishing incentives that are inconsistent with spirit of improving Georgia’s child welfare system.
Outcome 6, “corporal punishment,” was operationalized to define “incident” as a confirmed allegation, whether or not the allegation was deemed serious enough to constitute maltreatment.
Measurement for a specific period will reflect incidents identified through completed investigations, therefore, the results of investigations completed after the close of a period will be reflected in the succeeding period’s report. For example, an incident that is reported in late December will likely not have a completed investigation report by December 31, 2006. Therefore it will not be represented in the Outcome 6 measurement for the second period. But it will likely be completed during the third reporting period and it will be reflected in the third reporting period’s measurement.
2. Permanency Outcomes
Outcome 7, “diligent search,” measurement for period two will be taken in April 2007 through a targeted case review of only children entering care during the period July 1, 2006 through
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 10

December 31, 2006. A sample will be drawn from this universe, stratified to accommodate drawing a large enough sample to assess sibling placement (See Outcome 16.)
Children who exit care before 90 days, but for whom there was a diligent search will be counted in both the numerator and the denominator. Children who exit care before 90 days without a diligent search will not be counted in either the numerator or denominator
Outcomes 8a, 8b, 9 and 10, “Exits to Positive Permanency” Discussion confirmed that the “Permanent placement with relatives” must be evidenced by a signed document indicating relative’s willingness to provide a home for the child until they reach the age of majority, if necessary.
The calculation for Outcome 8a is as follows: • The numerator will include all children who 1) entered custody on or after the consent decree and who exited to a specified permanency option within 12 months • The denominator includes all children who entered custody on or after the consent decree.
Outcome 11, “Adoptions/Guardianships within 12 months of TPR”, requires a 12 month observation period for children whose parent’s parental rights were terminated or released between July 1 and December 31, 2006 and therefore will be reported in the Fourth Period report.
Outcome 13, “Immediate Adoption Recruitment,” was revisited and the parties agreed that all children who were legally free for adoption at the time of the consent decree but did not have an adoptive resource as defined for Outcome 12 should be included in the cohort of children to whom Outcome 13 applied.
Outcome 14, “Adoption disruptions” was defined to refer to children that return to the Commissioner’s custody within 12 months of the finalization of their adoption. This outcome also requires a 12 month observation period; results for children whose adoptions became final between November 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006 will be reported in the Third Period report.
Outcome 15 “15 of last 22,”measurement considered two alternatives. One was a separate case record review of a sample of children who met these narrow criteria. The other alternative was to use the case record review of 180 children in the placement sample to validate the counties’ tracking data bases. Federal and State policy guidelines were to be followed for determining a compelling reason.
Outcome 16, “Sibling placement” measurement for period two will be taken in April 2007 through a targeted case review of only children entering care during the period July 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 11

Outcome 19, “Placement Proximity” was operationally defined as the “shortest drive time distance” derived through “Mapquest.”
3. Well‐being Outcomes
Outcome 17, “Placement Moves” is to be measured as using the AFCARS method of counting placements. The number of placement moves will be calculated by subtracting 1 from the number of placements.
Outcomes 20, 22, 23, Various Visitation requirements, will be based on children in care at any point during the reporting period. Measurement of these outcomes will be accomplished by “looking back” 12 months or to the date of the child’s entry into care from December 31, 2006 or from the last day the child was in custody.
For outcome 23, the phrase “with their siblings” means children will have visits with one or more of their siblings in a given month, but not necessarily all siblings every month.
4. Strengthening the Infrastructure Outcomes
Outcome 25, “Children in Approved Placement Settings,” the Consent Decree’s use of the term “full approval and/or licensure status” is agreed to refer not just to the regulatory approval process (through which foster and group homes are approved) which uses this designation, but to mean more generally the “relevant approval process” (including the non‐regulatory, casework process through which relative home placements are approved). It is to be measured by tracking the approval status of the foster placements in which the children in the placement sample were residing on December 31, 2006.
Outcome 26, “Appropriate court documentation for IV‐E,” claiming measurement will be based on children in care at any point during the reporting period.
Outcome 31, “Children in Over Crowded Foster Homes,” was measured by tracking the census of the foster homes in which the children in the placement sample were residing on December 31, 2006.
C. Methodology for Verifying Caseload Data
The state information system is able to produce reports on individual case manager caseloads and the Accountability Agents used these reports as the starting point for assessing State progress in meeting the caseload requirement of the Consent Decree as reported on in Section
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 12

VI. However, several steps were taken to assure the accuracy and completeness of these reports.
First, the Accountability Agents determined that there are several data sources, each with its potential for inaccuracies or incompleteness. The data sources include IDS and the Targeted Case Management (TCM) system as well as county personnel systems. Historically, IDS may have had incomplete caseload information for Fulton County because Fulton was using its own case management system referred to as “CDOT.” The Accountability Agents confirmed with Fulton County that they had discontinued using this system in June 2006.
Within IDS, data could be inaccurate or incomplete because:
• Case manager IDs are not timely assigned or deactivated. Case managers must have a unique, county generated “Case Worker ID” (CWID) to have a case assigned to him/or her in the information system. Conversely, cases remain assigned in the information system to case workers who are no longer employed by DFCS as long as cases are not reassigned to different case worker IDs. Counties are responsible for entering each case manager’s unique “ID” and deactivating the ID when the worker resigns, transfers, or is terminated. Counties are also responsible for promptly reassigning cases when a case manager vacancy occurs
• Worker type is not entered by counties Counties are also supposed to enter the worker type for each case manager, but omission of this information does not prevent case assignment or any other reporting. Thus, caseload reports may be incomplete because the worker type may be missing.
• Worker leave status is not included County personnel systems track extended leave periods authorized by disability policies, Family Medical Leave Act, or some other circumstances. This information, however, is not linked to the state information system, making it challenging to obtain an accurate picture of the effective caseloads of other case managers who may be sharing the workload of their absent colleagues.
• Worker certification status is not included Worker certification is tracked separately for different cohorts of staff by county training coordinators and the Education and Training Services section. These systems do not presently link to the State information system. Uncertified workers are not to be assigned any cases. Provisionally certified workers are to be assigned no more than “7 low risk” cases. The lack of this link complicates tracking the number of cases assigned to individuals who are in these categories.
• TCM “tear sheets” do not include all caseload data available in IDS. The Targeted Case Management system is used to collect information about service
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 13

delivery for purposes of billing Medicaid. Case managers can print a TCM “tear sheet” daily, if they choose. The tear sheet includes a list of all of the cases they have open at any point in time. At the close of each month, case managers submit the tear sheets with service updates and case closing actions noted for data entry. However, children who have reached age 18 but continue to have an open case are not listed on the tear sheets, neither are diversion cases. Tear sheets do list CPS “safety resources” separately. If a tear sheet does not contain information on a case that the case manager has been working during the month, they must hand‐write the additional information on the tear sheet as part of their monthly submission.
Given the identified potential sources of inaccurate and incomplete caseload reporting, the Accountability Agents worked closely with the counties and the State as the December 2006 report was generated. First, we met with the Counties and reviewed the November 2006 caseload report. These reports had missing worker types and workers who had resigned or were on leave. The Counties were asked to update the worker type and provide the resignation dates and leave dates for the designated workers.
Separately, the State and counties were asked to supply information about worker and supervisor certification status. The Accountability Agents used this information to compare with the workers and supervisors identified on the December 2006 caseload report. A reconciliation process was applied to identify discrepancies between the case manager lists and the counties were asked to provide additional information to resolve the discrepancies.
For Fulton County, the Accountability Agents also collected information from the county quality assurance unit regarding the caseload data it uses as part of its monthly visitation validation process. However, there was not a comparable activity for CPS caseloads.
After reviewing all this information and finding no troubling data discrepancies, the Accountability Agents conducted brief interviews with a total of 38 randomly selected case managers. The purpose of the interviews was not to conduct what is known as a “desk audit” where case managers are asked to show a reviewer the case files for all the cases they are working on at a given point in time. Rather, the interviews were used to obtain case manager perspectives on the accuracy of the case load reporting, the size of their caseloads at the end of December and their caseloads on the day they were interviewed as well as their certification status and training. However, during the course of the interviews, the accuracy of the most recent tear sheet was reviewed.
Two clear themes emerged from these interviews. First, the tear sheets accurately represent their caseloads. Some noted that there had been problems with the tear sheet accuracy in the past but that these problems seem to have been resolved for several months. They agreed with the reports produced for their December caseloads. Those interviewed who also handle Diversion cases believed that those numbers were accurately reported in IDS. Another theme that came primarily from Fulton County staff was the difference between the caseload sizes
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 14

during the later part of 2006 and February‐March 2007. Caseloads were at or under the cap at the end of 2006, but for some, they had begun rising. Placement caseloads appeared to be remaining stable but the CPS investigations had increased significantly in the first few months of 2007. One placement case manager did point out that she had children on her caseload who should be transferred to specialized case managers because they were had reached or were past their 18th month in care. This information prompted another look at the caseload data to determine if there was a larger pattern of this situation. The result of this analysis is reported with the caseload data in Section VI of this report.
D. Methodology for Verifying State Repeat Maltreatment Data
Section 20 G of the Consent Decree requires DHR to provide the Accountability Agents data and information sufficient to enable the verification of data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experience repeat maltreatment or substantiated maltreatment within 11‐365 days after being referred to DHR’s diversion program. Due to the 11‐365 day follow up period for the diversion statistics, diversion will not be reported on until the third report, covering the period through June 30, 2007. The DHR data on repeat maltreatment in DeKalb and Fulton Counties are presented in Section VII of this report. Following is a discussion of the approach the Accountability Agents used.
The validity of the State statistics on repeat maltreatment rest on the accuracy of the data coding and data input associated with maltreatment investigations, and the validity and rigor of the file matching algorithm. These are considered separately below.
1. Data Coding and Input
Data fields that are quantitative or less complex (e.g., whether or not an allegation was substantiated) are less prone to coding errors and produce data with a higher degree of reliability. Data fields that are more complex, qualitative, or ambiguous are more error prone and demonstrate greater problems of reliability. Data on the results of maltreatment investigations fall into the former category. When a report of maltreatment is received, it is reviewed by CPS intake staff, logged into the County’s tracking system, and if it meets the criteria to be investigated, an investigator initiates an investigation. Pertinent data about the report and subsequent investigation, including whether or not the investigation substantiated the allegation, are entered on Form 453. A casework supervisor reviews the completed form 453 and when they are satisfied as to its quality, they sign off in it. The completed form is then input into IDS.
Based on interviews with county investigations staff and the experience from reviewing of 100 percent of the investigations of maltreatment in care, the Accountability Agents have confidence that IDS captures virtually 100 percent of the investigations that are conducted. Every investigation of maltreatment in care that the file review indicated was undertaken was
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 15

properly reflected in IDS. No instances in which substantiated cases were miscoded as unsubstantiated, or vice versa, were identified. For the second reporting period, no substantive disagreement between the file review and IDS on the status, alleged victims, or disposition of maltreatment in care reports was detected.
2. File Matching Algorithm
To produce the data on repeat maltreatment required by the Consent Decree, E&R used the following algorithm:
• Data for Fulton and Dekalb are extracted from the state Protective Services Data System
(PSDS), a component of IDS;
• Children with substantiated maltreated are selected from two timeframes ‐‐ the
reporting period and the preceding 12 months;
• Foster children are deleted from the files; • Children from the reporting period are matched with children from the preceding 12
months; and
• Resulting matches are deemed to be children that experienced repeat maltreatment.
The record matching algorithm used by E&R is based on the way the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) historically recommended states conduct such matches. That is, a computer is programmed to match two case record listings on a set of consistently available demographic descriptors. In Georgia’s case, the fields are first name, last name, date of birth, and gender. A significant limitation of this approach is that only exact matches are counted. In other words a child who had experienced repeat maltreatment might be missed by the match if the first referral listed him as John O’Connor, and the second listed him as John O’Conner; or if his birth date on either referral was transposed as the 13th instead of the 31st.
However, the DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Section, working with a computer services vendor, recently undertook the development of a unique child identifier to enable it to produce and send to the federal Department of Health and Human Services an NCANDS Child File. Such an identifier will soon enhance the accuracy of such computer matches as those required to calculate the incidence of repeat maltreatment. Georgia’s new unique child identifier will also become a feature of the new SACWIS system. A recent beta test of Georgia’s unique identifier by DHHS showed that it increased the “hit” rate on Georgia’s statewide repeat maltreatment match by about 0.4 percentage points.148 As indicated in Section VII, the repeat maltreatment rates reported there for DeKalb and Fulton Counties likely understate the true incidence of repeat maltreatment by a similar margin of error.

148 Georgia Child and Family Services Review Data Profile: August 24, 2006.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page B‐ 16

APPENDIX C: FOSTER CARE PRE‐SERVICE CURRICULUM REVIEW
The training curricula for the Foster Care Track, as well as other pre‐service training for new workers and ongoing training for staff, are designed for statewide implementation. Therefore, training is not specifically designed to address Consent Decree issues specific and applicable only to Dekalb and Fulton counties. Consequently, in preparation for the curriculum review and assessment, the expert reviewed the terms of the Consent Decree, as they related to case practice expectations as well as training requirements. The reviewer developed a checklist (Exhibit 1 at the end of this appendix) to guide the review and to permit assessment of the degree to which new foster care workers were being adequately prepared for their roles. The reviewer employed this checklist for recording findings as each training module (online or classroom) or field practice activity was analyzed. This appendix summarizes the expert’s report.
A. Curriculum Design The curriculum for the Foster Care Track includes classroom training and field practice activities, the first of which is completion of the Foster Care – Online. Ideally, following completion of Keys, which involve the first six (6) weeks, the components occur in the following order:

Week of Pre‐Service Training Week 7 Week 8 Week 9
Week 10

Training Activity • Field Practice Activity 7.1 (Foster Care – online) • Other Field Practice Activities • Continued Field Practice Activities OR • Foster Care – Classroom (5 days) • Continued Field Practice Activities OR • Foster Care – Classroom (5 days) • Continued Field Practice Activities OR • Foster Care – Classroom (5 days)

The time frame for completing the entire track may vary depending on the time required for the trainee to: (1) Complete the Field Practice Activities and (2) be enrolled in OCP 202 Foster Care Track (classroom training).

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 1

Each of these components: on‐line, practice activities, and classroom are described in the following segments.
1. Foster care on‐line New workers assigned to the Foster Care Track are expected to complete the online Foster Care course prior to attending classroom training for the Track. However, there is no mechanism for ensuring completion prior to registering for OCP 202; thus, new workers may arrive at training with differential baseline understanding of foster care.
The online training includes nineteen (19) modules which may be expected to take a minimum of twelve (12) clock hours to complete, though according to one of the online instructors, the curriculum design allows up to two (2) hours per module or thirty‐eight (38) hours for the entire Foster Care – Online course. The online training, as reflected in the brief description of each module below, begins with an overview of material introduced in Keys (i.e., child welfare continuum, DHR/DFCS mission and goals) and moves on to explore specific foster care content, in more depth
Module One: Introduction  Mission and Purpose of Georgia’s Foster Care Program  Responsibilities of Birth Parents and the County DFCS Office  Federal and State Laws that Form the Legal Basis for the Foster Care Program  Temporary Nature of Foster Care
Module Two: Placement Authority Court‐Ordered  Concept of Placement Authority  Process by which DFCS Assumes Placement Authority  Types of Court‐Ordered Placement Authority  The Juvenile Court Process  Types of Court Hearings  Temporary Court Orders & Required Language for those Orders  Other Placement Authority Issues
Module Three: Reunification  Reunification as the Preferred Permanency Plan  Concurrent Planning  How and Why DFCS Custody May Be Extended  The Importance of Reviewing Case Plans
Module Four: Placement Authority Non‐Court Ordered  Types of Non‐Court Ordered Placement Authority  Other Means of Obtaining Custody  Issues Related to Non‐Court Ordered Placement Authority
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 2

Module Five: Pre‐placement and Visitation  Policy Governing How DFCS Prepares a Child for Initial Placement in Foster Care  How the Placement of Siblings is Treated  The Purposes of Parental and Other Visitation  The Procedures for Preparing for Placement
Module Six: Placement Disruption and Returning Home  Placement Disruption  Parent Notification of Placement Changes  Foster Parent Notification of Placement Changes  Emergency Removals from the Placement Resource  Re‐placement of the Child  Trial Home Placement  After‐care Services
Module Seven: Foster Care Placement Resources  The Purpose of Placement Resource Planning  Types of Relative Placements  Relative Care Assessments  Financial Assistance for Relative Placements  Support Services for Relative Placements  Types of Family Foster Care  Residential Treatment Resources  Level of Care  Brief Introduction to ICPC
Module Eight: Assessment  Policies and Procedures for Thorough Family Assessment  Initiating the Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment  Introduction to Family Team and Multidisciplinary Team Meetings  Documentation of Services  Maintaining Contact with Parents  Special Considerations for Parents with Substance Abuse Problems  Services to Birth Parents  CPS Reports on Placement Cases
Module Nine: Permanency  Selection of the Permanency Plan  Reunification  Adoption  Guardianship  Permanent Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 3

 Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement
Module Ten: Physical Needs of a Child  Referral Procedures for the Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment  Mental Health Needs  Medical Needs  HIV Antibody Testing, Diagnosis, and Treatment  HIV Risk Factors  Dental Needs  Comprehensive Assessment of Needs  Identifying and Arranging Services to Meet a Child’s Specific Physical Needs
Module Eleven: Non‐Physical Needs of a Child  Developmental Needs  Developing Life Books  Educational Needs  Spiritual Needs  Social and Recreational Needs  Traveling While in Foster Care  Supervision Needs  Evaluation, Approval, and Monitoring of In‐Home/Out‐of‐Home Providers  Safety Needs – Child Restraint Devices and Helmets
Module Twelve: Contacts  Emancipation Needs and Independent Living Services  Record Retention  Contact Standards in Special Situations  Documenting Contacts  Settings for Visitations  Contact Standards for Parents of Children in Care  Contact Standards for Children in Care  Dealing with Runaways  Child Injury or Death  Driving Permits for Youths in Care
Module Thirteen: Case Planning  Critical Dates to Calculate  Initial Case Planning  Case Plan Development Process  Case Planning for Reunification  Concurrent Case Planning  Case Planning for Non‐Reunification  Case Plan Reporting System (CPRS)
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 4

Module Fourteen: Case Plan Review  Case Plan Review Process  Methods of Case Plan Review  The Written Transitional Living Plan for Children Age 14 and Older
Module Fifteen: Case Plan Review II  Judicial Review  Judicial Citizen Review  Panel Case Review  Case Review Summary
Module Sixteen: Eligibility for Financial and Medical Support  Funding Sources for Children in Care  Applying for Medicaid and IV‐E  The Roles of the SSCM and Medicaid Eligibility Specialist (MES) in the IV‐E Application Process
Module Seventeen: Reimbursability for Federal Funding  How Reimbursability for Federal Funding is Determined  How to Report Changes to the MES  Special Situations Related to Eligibility for Federal Funding o SSI eligible children o Trial Home Visits o Runaway Status o Minor Parent and Child in Care o Out‐of‐State IV‐E o Adoption Assistance o Child Support Enforcement
Module Eighteen: Foster Parent/Foster Homes  How the Case Manager and Foster Parents Will Work Together  Training Requirements for Foster Parents  Purpose of Training Foster Parents  Required Contacts with Foster Parents  Types of Foster Homes  Expectations of Foster Homes o Discipline vs. Punishment  How to Monitor Foster Homes
Module Nineteen: Legal Proceedings  The Different Kinds of Courts in which the Case Manager May Be Required to Appear
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 5

 Layout of a Typical Court Room  Roles of People in the Courtroom  Who May Legally Observe Court Proceedings  How to Make a Good Impression in Court  Courtroom Procedures  Tips for Testifying in Court  Proceedings Leading to TPR
Throughout the online modules, references are made to specific handouts and materials (i.e., policies, forms, reference materials). Also, at various points throughout the online training, trainees are expected to engage in computer‐based interactive exercises or answer questions about the material that has been presented. These exercises and the “mini quizzes” at the end of each module provide the trainee immediate individualized feedback about his/her learning of the material. Trainees who achieve a satisfactory score (minimum requirement is 70%) are congratulated on their work and advised to continue to the subsequent module, while those whose performance is unsatisfactory are advised to review the module and repeat the end of module quiz. However, the system permits the trainee to move to the next module without reviewing or repeating a prior module, even if the trainee did not successfully complete the quiz. The Foster Care Online Instructor at Athens Tech is responsible for monitoring each trainee’s progress and following up appropriately to assist the trainee, as may be needed.
The online system provides an administrative report to the trainee and his/her Supervisor and/or Field Program Specialist. Reports are automatically generated on Wednesdays and Fridays. The Foster Care Online Instructor also sends emails to each trainee on Mondays to provide feedback on progress and offer additional support. The progress report provides information about the trainee’s completion score for each module and timely progression through the online curriculum. No information is generated about the specific content that the trainee may have missed on the module quizzes.
2. Foster Care – Field Practice Activities
The Training and Field Practice Guide: Foster Care Services includes a variety of structured activities for use by supervisors and field practice advisors as they provide on‐the‐job orientation and training for new foster care case managers. (NOTE: New workers cannot attain Initial Certification until completion of the track, though they may be provisionally certified, at the discretion of the County Director, upon completion of Keys. Provisional Certification allows the worker to carry up to seven (7) cases, under close supervision.)
Due to the case‐specific nature of some of the field practice activities, it is virtually impossible to determine the number of clock hours required to complete the various assignments. According to the guidelines provided to supervisors on page 1‐17 of the Training and Field Practice Guide, it is expected that completion of the Field Practice Activities will require 5 days, though the potential for variance is noted.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 6

The activities include:
7.1 Online Training 7.2 Court Hearings 7.3 Foster Care CPRS 7.4 Family Team Meeting 7.5 Reporting Systems (IDS/TCM) 7.6 Prevention of Unnecessary Placement Program (PUP) 7.7 Assembling the Case File 7.8 Case Plan Review 7.9 Emancipation/Independent Living 7.10 Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment 7.11 Foster Care Fiscal Services 7.12 Policy Exercise
These activities provide varied observational opportunities, including, but not limited to various types of court hearings and a Family Team Meeting. Other activities include experiences such as interviews with key personnel (i.e., Independent Living personnel), becoming familiar with the Case Plan Reporting System, developing an understanding of the Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment, and developing a working knowledge of policies contained in the Foster Care Policy Manual. A worksheet, to be completed by the trainee, or discussion guide for the supervisor/field practice advisor and trainee conference, for each activity structures and supports the learning experience for each activity in the Guide. The trainee, supervisor, and field practice advisor are expected to sign a sheet indicating completion of each activity; however, only the activities involving completion of the online modules and review of policies reflects a score.
As noted above, Activity 7.1 Online Training is to be completed prior to the classroom experience. Activity 7.4 Family Team Meeting notes that it is “preferable” that this activity be completed in Week 7 (prior to classroom training). Other activities do not offer specific recommendations in terms of timing of completion. For the new worker who might be exposed to additional field activities prior to attending the classroom training for the Foster Care Track, the lack of a recommended sequence might result in depth of learning in isolated functions, rather than an in‐depth appreciation of all that is involved in carrying out the full role of the SSCM in Foster Care. For example, it would appear that a new worker might come to the classroom having attended several court hearings and reviewed policies, thus achieving a depth of understanding in those areas, but no breadth of understanding of all that foster care entails. Furthermore, completing the online and classroom components prior to doing some activities might enhance the learning experience derived from the activity. For example, the new worker should gain knowledge and experience in online and classroom that would bolster his/her understanding of the importance of Activity 7.11 Foster Care Fiscal Services.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 7

The majority of activities are task‐specific, designed to familiarize the new worker with policies, forms, and procedures. Some activities involve observation of court hearings, meetings, and/or interviews conducted by various workers. While each of these activities is accompanied by a worksheet, the worksheets do not make direct connection back to relevant components in Keys, and few of the worksheet items require critical thinking skills. For example:
Activity 7.2 Court Hearings. Tying this Activity back to the discussion in Keys related to “best interests of the child,” by adding a question that requires the new worker to assess how the court action and/or actions of the SSCM or SAAG supported (or failed to support) the child’s best interests. Also, this Activity requires the new worker to observe “what the SSCM or SAAG” did to prepare for the respective hearing. Having the new worker interview the SSCM or SAAG prior to the hearing to ask about preparation might be added to this Activity. The addition of such an interview would also allow the new worker the opportunity to prepare interview questions and conduct an interview, which might further enable to supervisor to evaluate the trainee’s interviewing skills.
Activity 7.9 Emancipation/Independent Living Worksheet. One of the items in this Activity requires the new worker to “record your observations of the IL planning with the youth.” Asking the new worker to think critically about the specific interviewing and practice skills (i.e., open‐ended questions, closed‐ended questions, reflection, empathy) learned in Keys that the IL worker demonstrated (or should have demonstrated) while interacting with the youth might reinforce the importance of Keys curriculum to work in foster care.
Activity 7.10 Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment. The worksheet that accompanies this Activity focuses largely on policies (i.e., time frames, documentation). While there are some questions about the sufficiency and comprehensiveness of information contained in the CCFA, the questions are written in closed‐ended format. Rewording the questions to push the new worker to be more critical of information contained (or omitted) from the CCFA might reinforce the new worker’s responsibility to be an “effective consumer of services” on behalf of the child/family and DFCS.
The field practice component of the curriculum does not require that the new worker engage directly with clients, while under the observation of the supervisor or field practice advisor. Thus, the curriculum does not provide a structured mode of providing the new worker direct assessment of and feedback about his/her skills, especially related to the worker‐client relationship. Since the ability to develop an effective relationship with the client is known to be fundamental to effective professional practice, the omission of activities that evaluate the worker’s demonstrated skills (or lack thereof) is significant.
As mentioned earlier, the trainee, supervisor, field practice advisor are expected to sign‐off on each activity, with an indication that the trainee has completed the activity. The sign‐off
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 8

statement does not require the supervisor and field practice advisor to make a qualitative assessment of the trainee’s performance (i.e., excellent, satisfactory, needs further review), indicate that the trainee has completed the activity at the level expected of a new worker in foster care, or identify any specific areas for the new worker’s ongoing professional development. In addition, there is no requirement that content of the supervisory/trainee conferences be documented.
The Field Practice component of the curriculum provides a rich opportunity for the supervisor, training coordinator, and/or field practice advisor to model effective case planning. By incorporating a Field Practice Activity that involves the new worker in working with these experienced personnel to create an individualized training plan, based on an assessment of the new worker’s prior educational, internship/work experiences, and performance in Keys, the processes involved in case planning may be modeled.
3. Foster Care – Classroom
Foster Care Track classroom training (OCP 202) requires trainees to attend 5 days (32.5 instructional hours) of traditional classroom training. The curriculum includes various modes of instruction, including, but not limited to, lecture, small group activities, and role‐play. Trainees have the opportunity to apply various concepts relevant to foster care to a specific mock case. Throughout the training, trainers refer trainees to references contained in the Electronic Participant Guide, Foster Care Policy Manual, and Foster Care forms. The curriculum is scripted to ensure a degree of continuity between trainers, and supplemented by a PowerPoint presentation that reinforces key points.
At the end of the classroom instruction, trainees take a Foster Care Knowledge Assessment. In order to achieve Initial Certification, the trainee must achieve a score of 70% or higher on the fifty (50) question assessment. Trainees who fail to achieve a passing score are provided an opportunity to retake the test, by scheduling a retake with the Education & Training Section, or retake the class. The decision about the trainee’s needs in relationship to the Assessment is left to the discretion of the County, though Initial Certification cannot be achieved until the trainee achieves a passing score. Supervisors are not provided information about specific content areas that individual trainees may have missed on the end‐of‐course Assessment.
The classroom curriculum for Foster Care Track reflects on content of the Keys curriculum and places foster care in the context of DHR beliefs and values. The stated purpose of the course is: “To be able to apply policy, procedures and practice skills to a foster care case from the entry into foster care through closure.” To that end, the curriculum is organized around seven (7) modules, outlined as follows:
Module 1: Introduction to Foster Care  Special Instructions on the Use of the Electronic Participant Guide  Introductions & Housekeeping
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 9

 Beliefs about Foster Care  Case Record Standards
Module 2: Foster Care Policy  Introduction to Policy and Permanency  Placement Authority  Court Process  Funding Sources ‐ IV‐E and Medicaid
Module 3: Entering Foster Care  Entering Foster Care o Impact of Placement o Getting Started o Meeting the Family o IDS and Placement Central
Module 4: Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment  Requesting the Comprehensive Assessment  Reviewing the Stevens Assessment
Module 5: Case Planning  Permanency Options  Goals & Steps  Stevens Case Plan  Case Plan Reporting System (CPRS)
Module 6: Case Management  Activities of Case Management  The Visit  Reevaluating the Case Plan
Module 7: Foster Care Case Closure  Phases of Family Reunification  Preparing for Case Closure  Closing the Case  Course Closure

c.

Reviewer Conclusions and Recommendations

The three (3) components of Foster Care Track training (online, field practice activities, and classroom) reflect principles of adult education and learning. The curriculum is responsive to various styles of learning. Furthermore, there is an appropriate level of redundancy to reinforce the trainee’s learning of and ability to apply material. Specifically, the classroom component

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 10

reinforces general knowledge developed online and through field activities and applies the learning to a specific mock case. Together, the three (3) components of the Foster Care Track training cover most of the items on the master checklist used in conducting the review.
While the curriculum discusses the importance of the worker‐family relationship, the primary focus is on administrative procedures and tasks, policies, laws, and processes (i.e., court hearings) fundamental to the case manager’s role. In other words, the curriculum assumes, to a significant degree, that the new foster care worker comes to Track training with a basic understanding of, and ability to apply, effective practice skills, core conditions of effective intervention, human behavior, and family dynamics. Since new workers come to their roles from a variety of degree programs and with differing professional practice experience, a training curriculum for the Foster Care Track depends on Keys to instill the basic knowledge and skills foundation. Until the Keys curriculum is reviewed, it is difficult to assess fairly whether this assumption is warranted. However, the addition of field practice activities (as noted earlier) that allow the supervisor or field practice advisor to observe directly and assess the new foster care worker’s ability to effectively apply fundamental practice skills and knowledge in actual interactions with clients would bolster the learning experience. Furthermore, it would move Georgia DFCS a step ahead in insuring that clients are well served, not only by understanding of procedures and tasks, but by the worker‐client relationship which is fundamental to each client’s success. From a professional standards perspective, it is essential that new workers be prepared to be critical consumers of services on behalf of children and families served by DFCS, in order to insure that agency clientele are receiving the best available services.
The Kenny A Consent Decree stipulates that all new workers should receive training in family team meetings. The Foster Care Track online and classroom training introduces family team meeting (FTM) as a component of the case planning process. In addition, the field practice activities include an opportunity to observe, and critique in supervisory discussion, an actual family team meeting. The Foster Care Track training does not specifically cover the specifics about FTMs (i.e., who participates, FTM steps). These specifics are thoroughly addressed in Family Team Meeting Part 1 (OCP 312) and Part 2 (OCP 313), which are not a requirement of new worker pre‐service training. In fact, FTM training (OCP 312 & OCP 313) is identified as a required course for completion by new case managers within 12‐18 months of Initial Certification.
In order to fully meet the terms of the Consent Decree, Dekalb and Fulton counties may need to develop an alternative pre‐service training plan for new workers. For example, the counties could include Family Team Meeting Part 1 (OCP 312) as a component of their pre‐service requirements or develop a more in‐depth field activity requirement related to FTMs. It is important to note that both counties have established FTM units that carry out specific functions with regard to planning, implementing, and facilitating FTMS, which may adequately address the concerns that generated the stipulations of the Consent Decree. However, new case managers will be more effective in their roles as participants in FTMs, if they have fundamental
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 11

knowledge of the purposes, benefits, and stages of FTMs.
Recommendations: Foster Care ‐ Online
1. Assure successful completion of all nineteen (19) modules of Foster Care Online training prior to beginning the classroom component of Foster Care Track training. Participants who have not completed the online component would inappropriately deter the learning experience in the classroom of participants who had successfully completed the entire online component. Furthermore, lack of completion of the online course would make the classroom experience less beneficial to the trainee who had not completed the work.
2. Provide additional detail to supervisors or training coordinators about specific items missed by the supervisee on quizzes, so that individualized training plans may be created at the local level to ensure that the supervisee is able to integrate the learning into his/her practice.
3. Carefully review the online training for accuracy. For example in Module Thirteen: Case Planning, on the final screen for Page 20 of 27, steps that may occur simultaneously are inaccurately reflected. While this is a minor issue that may be clarified in subsequent classroom training, there is no need to begin training for a new worker with confusing information.
Recommendations: Field Practice Activities
1. Assess the order of the Field Practice Activities (FPAs), especially in relationship to enhancing the Classroom training experience. Provide a recommended order for completing the FPAs that would best support the overall educational experience, while providing some flexibility for counties when the “ideal” may not be achievable.
2. Create a Field Practice Activity that includes individualized assessment of the trainee, as described above, and models processes of effective case planning.
3. Insure that the Field Activities incorporate an activity or provision for discussion with the case manager’s supervisor or field practice advisor for ALL issues that may be county specific (i.e., Judicial Review interpretation by county judge). Such county‐ specific Field Activities should also be incorporated in retraining of workers who transfer from one county to another to assure the worker’s understanding of the county‐ specific processes.
4. Add Field Activities that permit the new foster care worker to carry out specific functions (i.e., interviews) with actual clients, under direct observation of the supervisor or field practice advisor.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 12

5. Add Field Activities related to Financial Eligibility Determinations and MDT, as well as other topics, included in Foster Care Online and Classroom training, that warrant supervised field practice before encountering a real case situation.
6. Require the supervisor and/or field practice advisor to stipulate successful or satisfactory completion, not simple completion, of each activity.
Recommendations: Foster Care Track – Classroom 1. Assess the order of the Field Practice Activities (FPAs), especially in relationship to enhancing the Classroom training experience. Provide a recommended order for completing the FPAs that would best support the overall educational experience, while providing some flexibility for counties when the “ideal” may not be achievable. (Also identified in the recommendations for field activities.) 2. Provide additional detail to supervisors or training coordinators about specific items missed by the supervisee on the Foster Care Knowledge Assessment, so that individualized training plans may be created at the local level to ensure that the supervisee is able to integrate the learning into his/her practice.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 13

Exhibit 1 REVIEW MATRIX (Abbreviated)

1 Consent Decree

Curriculum Module or Other Location in Training

M1 M2.. M3.. M4

….

…

Opportunity to grow up in

nurturing family

Non-destructive

ties

maintained

Foster care temporary

Child’s interests paramount

State

has

primary

responsibility for children in

care

Full & equal access to best

available services

Least restrictive, most family-

like setting

Stable placements, with

services to support

Services consistent with law

CCFA referral w/in 24h after

72h hearing

Initial FTM in 3-9 days 1. Participants 2. Needs/Goals/Strengths 3. Determine safety 4. Evaluations needed 5. Appropriate relative 6. Sib placement/visitation 7. Stay in school/no change 8. Visitation frequency 9. Held even if parents not in attendance

Online

Field Activities

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 14

10. Outcomes reported to MDT
MDT w/in 25 days of placement
1. Review CCFA 2. Identify services
needed to support MDT determination Complete case plan submitted to JC w/in 30 days of placement Training on FTM as part of pre-service 6 month reviews by JCRP/JC w/ identified participants

Consent Decree
1. Eval necessity/approp of child’s placement
2. Reasonable efforts for permanency
3. Degree of compliance w/ case plan
4. Progress in improving conditions
5. Required changes to case plan

Curriculum Module or Other Location in Training

M1 M2 M3

Online

Field Activities

Necessity for additional meetings DFCS file request for JCRP or JC review IF JC does not convene 12 month JCRP/JC review w/in 45 days after 12 month of prior review

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 15

Permanency Report by end of
13month
FTM prior to Permanency
Report
State SSD or designee review
of PR w/in 5 business days of
receipt
If referred, County/state
staffing no later than 10 days
after State SSD decision, w/
designated participants
Develop staffing plan to
resolve concerns
At least one additional
count/state staffing by end of 25th month after child remains
in placement
W/ plan of adoption,
determination of FP as approp
Post-adoption services to
support for at least 18m after
final
After 18m in care 1. Specialized CM 2. Evaluate permanency goal 3. Evaluate services provided to child 4. Partner w/ ILC for children over 14y 5. Evaluate services provided to bio family 6. Ensure provision of services leading to permanency 7. Convene special discharge planning meet non sooner than

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 16

30 days prior to d/c
Placement w/in own county or 50 miles & NAs No emergency placement for 30+ or more than 1 w/in 1 episode of FC No more than 23h at DFCS office Sibs placed together unless harmful or exc needs Efforts to locate family for sib reunification Limit of 3 fc in home/total 6 children No placement w/ more than 3 children under age of 3 in fh, except sib group No child under 6 in group care, w/o written approve of SSD Limit on group care of 12 for child under age 6, unless sibs Move to FH w/in 12 m, unless not in best interest SSD to approve group care fo child between 6f-12. Capacity of group care 12 or less, unless sib Uniform pre-serv training for FPs Uniform ongoing training for FPs 24-7 DFCS contact for FPs Accurate info to be shared w/ FPs

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 17

Visitation 1st 8 weeks: 1 in-p visit 1st week; 1 b/tween 3rd & 8th week; six more during 8 weeks. Ongoing visitation 1x inplacement & 1x private//month
Consent Decree M1
Physical health screen w/in 10d Dental screen w/in 10d MH, 4y+, w/in 30d MH begin prior to MDT Development assess 4y+ Dev begin prior to MDT Timing of periodic health screenings by age Meds prescribed as ordered Caseload limits (pg. 22-23) Supervision rations (pg 23) Elimination of temps (pg 23) Training to comply w/ terms of CD, Law, DFCS policy, prof stand Annual eval of worker specific training needs 160h pre-service training Sups – 40h pre-service training CMs & sups responsibility – 20 h inservice/yr Ongoing training 20h/yr Private contracts to insure training

Curriculum Module or Other Location in Training

M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M M9 Field

8

Activities

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 18

Training – difference b/twn corporal punish & abuse/neglect
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period II Monitoring Report Page C‐ 19

 
 Embargoed For Release Until NOON EST, December 17, 2007
PERIOD III MONITORING REPORT
Kenny A. v Perdue January 1, 2007 to June 30, 2007
Accountability Agents: James T. Dimas and Sarah A. Morrison
December 14, 2007

PART I PART II PART III PART IV PART V

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 Background, Purpose, Scope and Organization for this Report
A. The Kenny A. v. Perdue Consent Decree.................................................... 1 B. Methodology .................................................................................................. 1 C. Report Scope and Organization ................................................................... 3
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 5
A. Recommended Priorities for State Attention............................................. 6 B. Overview of Period III Performance............................................................ 7
SAFETY……………………………………………………..…………………… 18 Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment
A. Outcome Performance: ................................................................................. 18 B. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding
Maltreatment in Care Investigations..................................................... 28
PERMANENCY .................................................................................................... 40 Children in Care Maintain Family Connections and Achieve Permanency
A. Outcome Performance ................................................................................... 40 B. Other Practice/Process Requirements for Helping Children Achieve
Permanency .............................................................................................. 74 C. Post Adoption Assistance.............................................................................. 78
WELL‐BEING........................................................................................................ 79 Children in Care Experience Stable Placements, Worker Continuity, and Receive the Services They Need
A. Outcome Performance ................................................................................... 79 B. The Placement Experience ............................................................................ 91 C. Practice for Meeting the Needs of Children, Youth, and Families .......... 96

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report

PART VI

STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................... 103

A. Outcome Performance ................................................................................... 103 B. Caseloads ......................................................................................................... 111 C. Building Workforce Skills ............................................................................. 116 D. Assuring Needed Services Are Available ................................................... 122 E. Placement Support ......................................................................................... 122 F. Supervision of Contract Agencies................................................................ 132 G. Improving Automated Support ................................................................... 133 H. Maximizing Federal Funding ....................................................................... 135

PART VII

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS .................................................................. 138 Child Protection Services Data

A. Repeat Maltreatment Data ............................................................................ 138 B. Diversion Data ................................................................................................ 139

APPENDI X A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C

Kenny A. v. Sonny Perdue Consent Decree Outcomes ............................ A‐1 Methodology .................................................................................................. B‐2 Hornby Zeller Needs Assessment, Executive Summary........................ C‐1

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report

Part I INTRODUCTION
Background, Purpose, Scope, and Organization of Report
This is the third report prepared by the Accountability Agents for the Kenny A. v Perdue Consent Decree to review the State Defendant’s progress between January 1 and June 30, 2007 in achieving improved child welfare outcomes and in meeting its other obligations under the Consent Decree. The Kenny A. v Perdue Consent Decree established James T. Dimas and Sarah A. Morrison as independent Accountability Agents with responsibility to produce public reports every six months. This introduction is intended to provide a brief overview of the Kenny A. Consent Decree and the Accountability Agent’s methods of assessing the State’s performance, as well as the scope and organization of this report.
A. The Kenny A. v Perdue Consent Decree
Under the terms and conditions of the Kenny A. Consent Decree, the State is to achieve 31 outcomes as well as maintain certain practice standards with respect to the children in the custody of the DeKalb and Fulton County Departments of Family and Children Services (DFCS). These practice standards relate to needs assessment, service planning, placement experience, health care, investigation of maltreatment allegations concerning children in foster care, and court reviews and reporting. Some are new requirements for administrators and case mangers and others are existing agency policy and practice requirements receiving heightened attention. In addition, the Consent Decree stipulates various infrastructure requirements for the State and Counties. These stipulations relate to automation, caseload sizes, training, supervision of private providers, foster parent licensing and support, and financing.
For purposes of analysis and reporting, the outcomes have been organized into seven thematic groupings. Exhibit I‐1 displays these groupings.
B. Methodology
Several sources of information and data collection methods have been employed to produce the analysis presented in this report. Appendix B has a full description of the methodology. In brief, information was obtained from State automated systems, county monitoring and reporting systems, interviews with state and county staff, and case record reviews. The Accountability Agents verified State and county reported data except where otherwise noted in the report. Three separate record reviews were conducted using staff from the DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Unit. Quality assurance oversight of the record reviews was provided by the Accountability Agents and by Georgia State University. The record reviews included files of 180 children in foster care; 93 maltreatment in care investigations completed during the reporting period; and 159 foster homes, those supervised by private agencies as well as DFCS.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 1

EXHIBIT I‐1: Thematic Grouping of Kenny A Outcomes
Safety 1. Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment • Consent Decree Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 related to investigations of maltreatment in care. • Consent Decree Outcomes 5 and 6 related to the incidents of substantiated maltreatment in care and corporal punishment.
Permanency 2. Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections • Consent Decree Outcomes 7, 16, and 19 related to keeping children connected to family and community at the time of placement. • Consent Decree Outcomes 21 and 23 related to visitation among family members. 3. Children Achieve Permanency • Consent Decree Outcomes 4 and 14 related to re‐entry into care. • Consent Decree Outcomes 8a & b, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 related to positive permanency exits. • Consent Decree Outcomes 27 and 28 related to timely and complete court review of permanency efforts.
Well Being 4. Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity • Consent Decree Outcome 17 relates to placement stability. • Consent Decree Outcomes 18, 20, and 22 relate to worker continuity and contacts with children and caregivers. 5. Children and Youth Receive the Services they Need • Consent Decree Outcome 24 relates to the educational achievement of youth who “age out” of foster care. • Consent Decree Outcome 30 relates to meeting children’s service needs.
Strengthened Infrastructure 6. Effective Oversight of Placement Settings • Consent Decree Outcomes 25 and 31 relate to placement setting conditions. 7. Timely and Complete Court Orders • Consent Decree Outcomes 26 and 29 related to DFCS authority to assume and maintain custody.
Data from the record reviews were compared with other existing data sources and vice versa as another quality check of both the record review results and the State and county information systems and reports. This comparison helped identify data entry errors as well as inconsistencies arising from interpretation issues in all sources of data. While flaws were identified, using multiple sources of data improved the quality of the analysis
With respect to the information gathered through the record reviews, it is important to note that two of the reviews were based on random samples of the children in foster care and of foster homes that had a class member (i.e., a child in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton Counties) in care during the reporting period. The third record review (of maltreatment in care investigations
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 2

completed during the reporting period) did not use a sample, but, instead reviewed the entire universe of such investigations. The two case record reviews based on random samples were each designed to achieve a 95 percent confidence level with a margin of error of no more than plus/minus 7 percent. This means that, statistically speaking, there is a 95 percent chance that the frequencies and rates reported for the entire random sample will fall within 7 percent of the actual frequency or rate among the entire population from which the sample was drawn. However, frequencies reported for subsets of the populations, for example children who entered care after the Consent Decree or the subset of foster homes that were supervised by DFCS are subject to a larger margin of error, making them less representative of the population as a whole. When assessment of performance against an outcome threshold relied on a case record review sample subset, an estimate of the larger margin of error is provided in footnotes.
Finally, a key component of the methodology is the nearly twice‐monthly meetings with State and county leadership and field staff that are referred to as “G2.” These meetings employ a recursive learning process that uses operational data to support the development and testing of hypotheses about the potential causes of observed performance problems and the framing of strategies for improvement. This iterative process helps participants identify what works to produce the desired outcomes, and to hold themselves and each other accountable for doing that which works. These meetings foster self‐evaluation and have lead the counties to create systems to track, monitor, and share with one another useful information that previously was unavailable or difficult to access.
In all data collection efforts the State and the County have been very cooperative. Case record reviews in particular can be disruptive of day‐to‐day operations.
C. Report Scope and Organization
This report describes the State’s performance relative to the outcome measures that were to be achieved by the end of the third reporting period, and progress implementing required policies, practices, and infrastructure. Where the information was available, comparisons to previous reporting period performance are cited.
The remainder of the report is organized into the following parts:
Part II, Conclusions and Recommendations summarizes the accomplishments and status of State and County actions taken during the third reporting period. It offers several recommendations believed important to the State and Counties’ continued progress.
Part III, Safety of Children in Care includes an assessment of the State’s third period performance related to Outcomes 1,2,3,5, and 6, focused on keeping children in its care safe from maltreatment and responding to reports of alleged maltreatment.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 3

Part IV, Children Achieving Permanency includes an assessment of the State’s third period performance related to Outcomes 4, 7, 8a, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 23, 27 and 28, focused on maintaining and achieving permanent family connections for children in State custody. Part V, Children’s Well Being in Care includes an assessment of the State’s third period performance related to Outcomes 17, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 30, focused on providing for the well‐ being of children in custody. Part VI, Strengthening the Infrastructure includes an assessment of the State’s progress in achieving Outcomes 25, 26, 29, and 31 and implementing required infrastructure components related to providing services to families and children. Part VII, Miscellaneous Provisions provides verified data regarding the re‐maltreatment rate of children in DeKalb and Fulton Counties and the number and percentage of “diversion” cases in those counties that experienced substantiated maltreatment within the subsequent 12 months. Three appendices provide the full wording for all 31 outcomes (Appendix A) a detailed description of the data collection and analysis methods employed to produce this report (Appendix B) and the Foster Care Needs Assessment Executive Summary prepared by Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. (Appendix C).
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 4

Part II CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Kenny A Consent Decree establishes an ambitious schedule for achieving 31 outcomes that set high standards for the safety, permanency, and well being of children in the custody of the Georgia Department of Human Resources and the Division of Family and Children Services. During the January 1 to June 30, 2007 period covered by this report, the State continued to make progress in some key areas but has yet to reach or sustain achievements in several other areas according to the schedule established in the Consent Decree.
The State appears to have continued to keep children safe, according to the Consent Decree’s measures of the outcome of child safety. Less than one percent of the children in custody were victims of substantiated maltreatment by their substitute care givers and none of the sampled foster homes appear to be using corporal punishment to discipline the children in their its care. Children continue to achieve permanency within families, but for children who have been in care a long time, the pace that produced the second period success slowed in the third period and fell short of the outcomes thresholds established by the Consent Decree. While in custody, children continue to be placed within an acceptable proximity to the homes from which they were removed, they are being placed with their siblings, and are being placed in homes that are not overcrowded as the State met or exceeded the outcome thresholds in these areas. An independently conducted needs assessment has recommended targeted foster home recruitment to provide more homes even closer to the neighborhoods in which the families of children live and to accommodate even more sibling groups. Another study commissioned by the Department has offered suggestions on how Georgia might better claim its fair share of federal funding support for foster care. Other State accomplishments include meeting the outcome thresholds for timely diligent search for relatives and other placement resources, adoption stability within the first year after finalization, and case manager continuity despite a rise in caseload size since the end of the second period.
The Department has yet to achieve the desired standards as set forth in the Consent Decree in several areas of responsibility. However, the means to improvement is not the same for all. At the risk of over‐simplification, the areas needing further attention appear to fall into two distinct groups:
• For several areas, the opportunities and necessary steps for improvement are becoming clearer. For example, there is a growing body of evidence regarding certain aspects of the maltreatment in care investigative process that should enable the State to map out effective strategies for improvement. This report provides an analysis of where the problems appear to be occurring and suggests remedial actions. Another area has to do with appropriate court order documentation, timely case plan and permanency reviews, and timely renewal of custodial authority. All three of these activities require, at a minimum, more effective calendaring and tracking with the courts. A third area includes all aspects of visitation. Still substantially short of the Consent Decree standards, the counties have continued to improve visitation performance – both
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 5

frequency and quality – through increased supervisory oversight and accountability. The lessons and insights gained thus far need to be leveraged to consolidate gains and deliver the desired outcomes.
• In other areas, the rate of improvement appears to have stalled and the path to further improvement is not as straightforward. As a result, these areas are of particular concern to the Accountability Agents. Permanency for children who remain in care longer than 12 months is still a challenge and children are still moving among placements too often. An insufficient proportion of children are having their needs met while in care and the rate of re‐entry into foster care has remained unchanged through the end of the third period. These activities directly affect the lives of children and families. Improvement in these areas will likely require multiple strategies including those promoted by the Consent Decree and new ones designed to address specific challenges. Momentum demonstrated in the second period needs to be regained. The Department’s efforts to renew and strengthen its emphasis on family‐centered practice are promising. Various findings in this report and the State’s own experience with the 13th‐month permanency reviews suggest greater family engagement and authentic teaming is needed. From the system reform experience of other states, this effort will take time but it has produced results.
A. Recommended Priorities for State Attention
Based on the third period results, the following areas are recommended as priorities for State and County attention:
 Visitation: Regular and on‐going visitation among family members and case manager visitation with children and care givers represent informal assessment opportunities that can be as valuable as formal, clinical testing and diagnosis. Visits are the primary means of engaging families and children to express their needs and concerns, ask for services, and report on the effectiveness of services. Visitation can provide necessary information to develop a sense of progress toward permanency and to drive decisions about permanency alternatives. The Counties are to be commended for their continuous improvement in this area thus far, but they can not relax their diligence on the frequency or quality of visits because visitation is so fundamental to good practice. A particular focus for the future is ensuring that parents and children who are to be reunified have regular, meaningful time together.
 Partnership with the Courts: Several outcomes require a strong relationship with the courts to ensure success. Improvements identified in the second period report appear to have diminished in the third, therefore renewed efforts are needed to achieve timely continuous placement authority, semi‐annual case reviews, and annual permanency reviews, and child‐ specific court orders that make more explicit the reasons for removing a child and why a child can not be safely reunited with his or her family. The importance of this partnership
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 6

to the financial health of the foster care program in Georgia is underscored by an assessment that greater federal revenue might be obtained by improving the court order compliance with the appropriate language in court orders.
 Preventing maltreatment in foster care: Opportunities exist to go beyond thoroughly investigating and responding to reports of maltreatment in foster care and to become increasingly successful at preventing maltreatment in care. Recommended steps for seizing this opportunity include: • Changing the practice of opening investigations in group homes in the name of the birth parent, thus improving the system’s ability to identify patterns of repeat maltreatment; • Improving the completeness of county reporting of maltreatment in care investigations to the appropriate units in DHR’s central office, which have a much better vantage point for detecting maltreatment patterns than any county can have; and, • Continuing to strengthen the collaboration between the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS), the reorganized Provider Relations Unit (PRU – formerly TSU), and the DFCS Policy Unit to enable them to identify and intervene appropriately with providers having a history of child safety concerns or marginal child safety records for the purpose of preventing maltreatment in care.
 Improving non‐foster relative placement approval: Too few non‐foster relative placements are documented to have been properly approved. Although the rate of such approvals improved somewhat from the second period, it is perplexing that it remains so low (59%) given that the approval process for these placements is substantially less complex than for any other type of placement, all of which had much higher approval rates.
B. Overview of Period III Performance
This section further highlights the State’s major accomplishments and opportunities for improvement in four distinct areas of responsibility: Keeping Children Safe, Helping Children Achieve Permanency, Providing for the Well‐Being of Children in Care, and Strengthening the Service Delivery Infrastructure. Table II‐1 at the end of this chapter provides the performance summary by outcome.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 7

1. Keeping Children Safe in Foster Care
During the third reporting period, five outcomes were measured (numbered 1,2,3,5 and 6) relating to the safety of children in the custody of DeKalb and Fulton counties and the practice used to investigate reports of maltreatment in care. As shown in Table II‐1, the State surpassed the period three thresholds for the two outcomes (numbered 5 and 6) that directly measure child safety. Less than one (1) percent, or 26 children, of the approximately 2800 children in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton Counties at any time during the reporting were the victims of substantiated maltreatment by their substitute care givers (Outcome 5). Furthermore, none of the sampled foster homes in which children resided during the reporting period had a confirmed incident of corporal punishment (Outcome 6).
While Outcomes 5 and 6 focus on reducing maltreatment in care, Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 measure important aspects of the process through which allegations of maltreatment in foster care settings are investigated. Outcome 1 relates to the timely initiation of maltreatment in care investigations; Outcome 2 relates to the timely completion of such investigations; and Outcome 3 relates to timely face‐to‐face contact between investigators and alleged victims of maltreatment in foster care. The State’s performance on each of these three outcomes (85%, 72%, and 83%, respectively) fell short of the established thresholds. The Consent Decree covers investigations of maltreatment allegations involving any child in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton Counties regardless of the county in which the child is placed. By policy, maltreatment allegations are investigated by the DFCS office in the county in which the maltreatment is alleged to have occurred. Thus, allegations of maltreatment involving a DeKalb or Fulton child placed in another county are investigated by Child Protective Services staff of that other county (referred to in this report as “perimeter counties”).
Compared to the second reporting period, the performance of the perimeter counties substantially improved on the aspects of the investigative process measured by Outcomes 1, 2, and 3. However, the State’s overall performance declined for three reasons: 1) compared to the second reporting period, a higher proportion of third period investigations were conducted by counties outside DeKalb and Fulton; 2) although the performance of perimeter counties improved, their performance remained well below that of DeKalb and Fulton counties; 3) DeKalb and Fulton Counties’ performance declined somewhat on Outcomes 1 and 3 compared to the second reporting period.
2. Helping Children Achieve Permanency
Taken together, the State’s performance against permanency outcome thresholds is a mixture of success, opportunities for continued improvement, and serious challenges to further large‐scale progress. The State has established a good foundation for enabling children to maintain strong family connections by successfully placing children in substitute care settings that are in close proximity to the family homes from which they were removed and by placing sibling groups together. Nearly 90 percent of the children live in the same county or within 50 miles of their
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 8

home of origin (Outcome 19) and 73 percent are placed with all of their siblings (Outcome 7). However, documentation suggests that many children did not have regular and sustained contact with their parents and their separated siblings. One‐quarter of the children who are to be reunified appear to be having regular visitation with their parents or other reunification resources (Outcome 21). While the State has made some modest improvements in making sure that children visit with their siblings each and every month (Outcome 23) there is still a substantial portion of children who have not visited with their siblings each and every month of the 12 months prior to June 30, 2007. Case documentation indicates that 21 percent of the children with one or more siblings in a different placement visited with their separated siblings at least once a month in each and every month of the 12 months prior to June 30, 2007. Another 12 percent of the children missed one of the monthly visits in the 12‐month span, leaving about 68 percent who missed one or more monthly visits with a sibling over 12 months.
The State has also been successful in helping more recent foster care entries achieve permanency without a lengthy stay in foster care (Outcome 8a). As of June 30, 2007, 45 percent of the children who entered foster care since October 27, 2005 have exited to permanency with a family. However, as is the case in public child welfare systems nationwide, permanency is more elusive for older children who have been in state custody a long time. The State fell short of the period three thresholds for Outcomes 9 and 10 that specifically target these children. About 160 children who had been in care anywhere from 2.5 to 7 or more years left DFCS custody to return to their own families, to be adopted, or live with guardians. While the County staff and families who made permanency happen for these 160 children should be recognized, nearly 400 children with such long lengths of stay would have had to achieve permanency in this reporting period to meet the Consent Decree standard. Ironically, the strong efforts made prior to January 1, 2007 to exceed the minimum performance level in period two for Outcome 9 made the period three threshold harder to achieve. In the second period, 199 children in excess of the number needed to meet the period two standard achieved permanency. That was a positive development for those children, but having exited care in the second period, they did not count toward the period three standard. The children for whom Outcomes 9 and 10 are designed will continue be a challenging population. Research suggests that given the ages and length of time in custody of those children who remain, securing permanent family relationships is an increasingly difficult task and there is no single strategy for succeeding with this population. In response to the challenge, DFCS has renewed diligent searches for relatives, pursued non relatives to be guardians, continued with adoptive home recruitment, and implemented the 13th month and 25th month internal permanency review process.
Finally, the proportion of children receiving timely semi‐annual judicial or administrative review of their case plans (Outcome 27) and annual judicial permanency reviews (Outcome 28) fell considerably short of the Consent Decree mandates. The State’s performance in both of these areas declined since the second reporting period. As previously highlighted, the opportunities for improving the performance in both areas rely on an effective partnership with the courts and ensuring reliable tracking mechanisms within both the courts and DFCS to bring the reviews to the court in a timely manner.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 9

3. Providing for the Well‐Being of Children in Care
Assessment of child well‐being based on the framework of the Consent Decree relies on the stability of placements and relationships, and the receipt of services and supports to meet identified needs. Although placement stability declined somewhat (Outcome 17), the hallmark of the State’s third period performance in providing for the well being of children in its custody is the worker continuity it was able to provide. Ninety‐one percent of the children had two or fewer placement case managers over a 12 month period (Outcome 18.). In other areas of well‐ being, State effort has produced different degrees of improvement and significant gaps remain despite improvement. There are encouraging signs that twice monthly visits between case managers and children are becoming embedded in practice. For example, nearly 80 percent of the children in custody each received an average of two case manager visits each month over a twelve‐month period. However, only 15 percent of the children received the Consent Decree‐ defined two visits each and every month of the last 12 months (Outcome 20). As previously noted, meeting the Consent Decree’s high standards for consistently frequent and well‐ documented case manager visits with children will require continued improvement.
On‐going partnership and communication between case managers and caregivers is important to ensuring the best possible care for and safety of the children under their supervision. Monthly case‐manager visits with substitute caregivers still fell short of the threshold established for Outcome 22, but there appears to have been some improvement. Forty‐five percent of the substitute caregivers received a case manager visit in each and every month of the 12‐ month period prior to June 30, 2007. Case managers missed only one month with another 23 percent of the caregivers. As with the other visitation requirements, this level of performance remains a concern to the Accountability Agents but further improvement appears likely given the steady increase seen during the reporting period in the percentage of caregivers receiving a caseworker visit each month.
Meeting the physical and mental health and developmental needs of children needs more attention. All needs identified in case plans appear to have been met for 77 percent of the children compared to the Outcome 30 threshold of 80 percent. However needs identified during the reporting period through routine screenings and assessments were generally less likely to have been met in the six months of the reporting period. A similar pattern was apparent in the second reporting period. Acute or episodic needs are more likely to be met than those of a more chronic nature that may be identified through routine examinations and assessments. However, there was an apparent decline from the second period in the responsiveness to the episodic needs.
In terms of education, the case record review found that 83 percent of the children age 7 or older were enrolled in school or a GED program in the first half of 2007. Almost all of the remaining 17 percent experienced gaps in school enrollment for different reasons or did not appear to be enrolled at all during the period.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 10

4. Strengthening the Service Delivery Infrastructure
During the third reporting period, four outcomes were measured relating to aspects of the infrastructure supporting practice with families and children. Two of these (Outcomes 25 and 31) relate to the characteristics of foster placements; two (Outcomes 26 and 29) relate to the legal process by which the State receives temporary custody of the children that come into foster care.
As shown in Table II‐1, the State surpassed the threshold for Outcome 31, as only 8 percent of children were placed in foster homes that exceeded specified home capacity limits. The proportion (86%) of foster placements that were in “full approval” status (Outcome 25) was unchanged from the second reporting period and fell below the required threshold. However, approval rates for individual placement types showed some improvement compared to the second period (the statewide rate remained unchanged due to random fluctuation in the specific placement type of children in the sample upon which the outcome measure was calculated). Despite the improvement in other placement types, documentation that non‐foster relative placements had been properly approved remained far too low.
Outcome 26 focuses on properly documenting judicial determinations that removal and continued foster care are in the child’s best interest and efforts are being made to reunify the child with his/her family or there are appropriate reasons why reunification is not feasible. Having the applicable language in court orders is necessary for DFCS to more effectively claim the allowed federal reimbursement for foster care expenses. All applicable language was found in 42 percent of the case records reviewed. An important underpinning for any DFCS activity on behalf of children is that DFCS have legal custody of the children. DFCS should seek judicial extensions of its temporary legal custody annually. A lapse in legal custody occurs when the extension has not been sought in a timely manner or it has not been granted in a timely way. Outcome 29 limits the percentage of children with lapsed legal custody to 5 percent. Lapses in legal custody in the 13 months prior to June 30, 2007 were found for 30 percent of the children.
In addition to the cited outcomes, other components intended by the Consent Decree to strengthen the service infrastructure are caps on caseload size and supervisory ratios. No supervisor is to supervise more than six case managers at any one time. On June 30, 2007, 70 percent of the case managers in DeKalb and Fulton Counties had caseloads that were at or within the designated caps. Case managers who had caseloads that were over the caps had caseloads ranging from one case to, in one instance, as many as 31 cases over the established caps. This compares to 95 percent at or within caps in December 2006. This decline was not unexpected because both counties experienced changes and turnover in late 2006 and into 2007 and returning the caseloads to the required limits has taken longer than anticipated despite continued efforts. More recent information obtained for fourth period analysis suggests that the Counties have made progress since June.
The State has been more successful in reducing the supervisory span of control. In June 2007, 92 percent of the units had a caseworker‐supervisor ratio of 6 to 1 or less compared to 82 percent in
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 11

December 2006. However, a few supervisors greatly exceeded the ratio, supervising up to ten case managers. Two reports commissioned by the Department and completed shortly after June 30, 2007 are important to reference. Both reports were prepared by Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. The first report is the needs assessment required by the Consent Decree (the Executive Summary is included as Appendix C to this report.) It contains six recommendations to the Department. Four recommendations focused on increasing the number and location of foster homes, a fifth recommendation suggested an emphasis on placement prevention in order to reduce the need for more homes, and the final recommendation suggested implementing an automated resource matching and tracking system to support appropriate placement decisions. The second report, not required by the Consent Decree, was an assessment of Georgia’s use of Title IV‐E, the primary source of Federal funding support for state foster care services. This report made recommendations as to how the Department might improve its claiming of IV‐E funding to obtain increased Federal resources.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 12

Table II‐1 Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of June 30, 2007

Safety Outcomes Children in Foster Care are Safe From Maltreatment in Care Outcome 1: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report. Outcome 2: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report. Outcome 3: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face‐to‐face, private contact with alleged victim, including face‐to‐ face contact with a child who is non‐verbal due to age or for any other reason. Outcome 5: By the end of the second reporting period, no more than .94% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. Outcome 6: By the end of the second reporting period, 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.
Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections Outcome 7: By the end of the • 2nd reporting period, at least 70% • 4th reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 90 days of entering foster care. Outcome 16: By the end of the • 2nd reporting period, at least 70% • 4th reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. Outcome 19: By the end of the: • 2nd reporting period, at least 70% • 3rd reporting period, at least 80% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b (ii) and (iii).

3rd Period Performance
85%
72%
83%
0.92% 100%
73%
2nd period performance reported here
73%
2nd period performance reported here
89%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 13

Table II‐1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of June 30, 2007

Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections Outcome 21: By the end of the third reporting period, at least 75% of all children with the goal of reunification shall have appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. Outcome 23: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in the Class at a point in time during the reporting period who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have had visits with their siblings at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.
Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 4: By the end of the second reporting period, no more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re‐entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 backlog pool”): For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, • at least 35% by the end of the second reporting period; • of those remaining in custody at the end of the second reporting period, at least 40% by the end of the third reporting period; shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “over 24 backlog pool”): For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, • at least 35% by the end of the second reporting period; • of those remaining in custody at the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% by the end of the third reporting period; shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.

3rd Period Performance
25% 21%
9.6% 45%
20%
9%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 14

Table II‐1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of June 30, 2007

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 11: By the end of the second reporting period, for all children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights
Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Outcome 27: By the end of the third reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐month period following the last review.

3rd Period Performance
Will be reported on
in the 4th period report1
94% One Time Measure
30% One Time Measure
1%
86%
33%

1 Measurement of this Outcome can not be accomplished until after July 1, 2007. The Outcome set future 12-month expectations for the experience of children in custody July 1 through December 31, 2006.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 15

Table II‐1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of June 30, 2007

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 28: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12‐month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.
Well‐Being Outcomes Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity Outcome 17: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 86.7% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 18: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave. Outcome 20: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had at least one in‐ placement visit and one other visit, as defined in Section 5.D, each month by their case manager during the prior 12 months in custody.
Well‐Being Outcomes Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity Outcome 22: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had visits between their DFCS placement case manager and their foster parent, group care, institutional or other caretaker at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody.

3rd Period Performance
70%
84.4% 91% 15%
45%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 16

Table II‐1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of June 30, 2007

Well‐Being Outcomes Children and Youth Receive Services They Need Outcome 24: By the end of the second reporting period, the percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 10 percentage points. By the end of the fourth reporting period, that percentage shall increase by an additional 10 percentage points.
Outcome 30: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.
Strengthened Infrastructure Outcomes Effective Oversight of Placement Settings Outcome 25: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. Outcome 26: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act. Outcome 29: By the end of the third reporting, no more than 5% of all children in custody of DHR/DFCS for 12 months or more shall have lapse of legal custody within the prior 13 months. Outcome 31: By the end of the second reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than 10% of all children in foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three(3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.

3rd Period Performance
Next measurement at the end of
the 4th reporting
period
77%
86%
42%
30%
5%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 17

Part III SAFETY
Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment
Principle four of the Consent Decree asserts, “the state has primary responsibility for the care and protection of the children who enter the foster care system.”2 As a consequence of this responsibility, several Consent Decree outcomes and requirements focus attention on the safety of children in the custody of DHR/DFCS. This chapter reports on the State’s progress in the areas related to the maltreatment of children in foster care and the process by which such allegations are investigated, and concludes with a more detailed discussion of the practices and processes employed to address reports and concerns of maltreatment in care.
A. Outcome Performance: Outcomes 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6
As previously noted, five of the Consent Decree outcomes are clustered around keeping children safe while they are in custody and quickly addressing safety issues as they occur. All five of these outcomes were to be initially achieved before the third reporting period. Table III‐ 1 on the following page provides the language of the Consent Decree and the measured performance for each Outcome. The following discussion provides a summary of State performance as well as the interpretation and measurement issues associated with the outcomes, and information about issues surrounding the work that provide a context for understanding the State’s performance.
1. Maltreatment in Care: Occurrence and Investigation of Reports
Outcome 5 – Maltreatment in Foster Care
Outcome 5 lies at the very heart of the Consent Decree. It is about keeping children in foster care safe from maltreatment. Child welfare systems have no higher obligation. By definition, children in foster care have already experienced some form of maltreatment in the home from which they were removed. The prospect of them experiencing maltreatment again in the foster care setting is deeply disturbing.

2 See p. 4, Principle 4, of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 18

Table III‐1 Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment: Progress as of June 30, 2007

Consent Decree Outcome
Outcome 5: By the end of the second reporting period, no more than .94% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. Outcome 1: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report. Outcome 2: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report. Outcome 3: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face‐to‐face, private contact with alleged victim, including face‐to‐face contact with a child who is non‐verbal due to age or for any other reason. Outcome 6: By the end of the third reporting period, 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.

3rd Period Performance
0.92% 85%
72%
83% 100%

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues

There were no new interpretation or measurement issues encountered during the third reporting period. Those that were discussed in the first report are included in Appendix B, Methodology.

b. State Performance  The State Surpassed the Third Period Outcome 5 Threshold

As noted in Table III‐1 for Outcome 5, less than one percent (0.92%) of all children in foster care between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2007 had been victims of substantiated maltreatment during that time period. The review found 26 instances of substantiated maltreatment among the 2,812 children in care at any point during the reporting period. The type of maltreatment substantiated for these 26 children consisted of inadequate supervision alone (19 children), physical abuse alone (5 children), and physical abuse along with inadequate supervision (2 children). While this rate falls below the standard (0.94%) established for the third reporting period, it represents an increase over the maltreatment rate reported for the second period (0.81%). This may be a result of improved reporting of suspected maltreatment in care as a consequence of increased visitation between caseworkers and children in care discussed in Part

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 19

V, Well‐being. Exceeding the third period standard indicates that DFCS continues to do well at protecting the Fulton and DeKalb children in Georgia’s foster care system from maltreatment. These data are based on the review of all investigations of alleged maltreatment concerning class member children in foster care completed during the reporting period.

Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 – Maltreatment Investigation Process Measures

While Outcome 5 focuses on the result of reduced maltreatment in care, Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 measure important aspects of the process through which allegations of maltreatment in foster care settings are investigated. Outcome 1 relates to the timeframe in which an investigation of suspected maltreatment of a foster child is commenced. Outcome 3 relates to the frequency with which such investigations include face‐to‐face contact with the alleged victim within 24 hours. Because DFCS policy defines the “commencement” of an investigation as the point at which face‐to‐face contact with the alleged victim is made, they are very similar measures; the primary difference between them is the unit of analysis. For Outcome 1, the unit of analysis is the investigation itself (which may involve multiple alleged victims). For Outcome 3, the unit of analysis is the individual child who is an alleged victim. Outcome 2 relates to the length of time it takes to complete such investigations. Data for these outcomes are based on the universe of 93 maltreatment investigations completed during the reporting period that involved a child in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton County.

The State did not achieve the third period standard for Outcomes 1, 2, or 3. Three factors contributed to this: 1) compared to the second reporting period, a higher proportion of third period investigations were conducted by counties outside DeKalb and Fulton (referred to in this report as “perimeter counties”); 2) although the performance of perimeter counties substantially improved compared to the second reporting period, their performance remained well below that of DeKalb and Fulton counties; 3) DeKalb and Fulton counties’ performance declined somewhat on Outcomes 1 and 3 compared to the second reporting period. These factors are discussed further below.

During the third reporting period perimeter counties conducted nearly one‐third (30 of 93) of the maltreatment in care investigations completed; during the second reporting period perimeter counties conducted less than one‐fifth (15 of 78) of the maltreatment in care investigations. The Consent Decree covers maltreatment in care investigations that involve any child in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton counties, regardless of where in the State of Georgia the child’s foster care placement is located. DFCS policy stipulates that alleged maltreatment is to be investigated by the County of the child’s residence. Thus, when maltreatment is alleged to involve a class member who is placed outside DeKalb or Fulton County, the allegation is investigated by the DFCS office in the county in which the child resides.

a.

Interpretation and Measurement

There were no new interpretation or measurement issues encountered during the second

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 20

reporting period. Those that were discussed in the first report are included in Appendix B, Methodology.

b. State Performance  The State Fell Short of the Third Period Threshold for Outcome 1

As noted in Table III‐1 for Outcome 1, 85 percent of maltreatment in care investigations commenced within 24 hours according to file review data from the universe of investigations completed during the reporting period. This represents a decrease from the second period rate of 87 percent. Outcome 1 requires that by the end of the first reporting period, 95 percent of such investigations be commenced within 24 hours. As displayed in Table III‐2, DeKalb and Fulton counties commenced 89 percent of the investigations they completed within 24 hours, while the 24‐hour commencement rate for the perimeter counties was 77 percent. This represents an improvement in the performance of the perimeter counties compared to the second reporting period when they initiated only 60 percent of maltreatment in care investigations within the required 24 hours; but a decline for DeKalb and Fulton counties compared to their 94 percent success rate for the second reporting period.

This measure counts only investigations in which an alleged victim is seen face‐to‐face by a trained CPS investigator within 24 hours. Seven of the 14 cases in which this did not happen were investigated by DeKalb or Fulton County, seven by other counties. Among these 14 cases, five of the alleged victims were seen and removed by their foster care case manager from the placement setting before or at the time the allegation was made. Although these cases count as “misses” toward Outcome 1, in terms of ensuring child safety it is important to recognize that in 84 of the 93 investigations (90%) the alleged victim(s) were seen by or removed from potential risk by child welfare professionals within 24 hours. In three of the remaining nine cases, file notes indicate the investigators made multiple unsuccessful attempts to interview the alleged victim within 24 hours.

Table III‐2 Outcome 1 – Commencement of Maltreatment in Care Investigations
N=93

Not Commenced Within Commenced Within 24

Total

Investigating

24 Hours

Hours

County

Number of Percent

Number of

Percent Number of

Investigations of Total Investigations of Total Investigations

DeKalb/Fulton

7

11%

56

89%

63

Perimeter

7

23%

23

77%

30

Counties

Total

14

15%

79

85%

93

Source: File Review of All Completed Investigations, January – June 2007, July 2007.

Percent of Total
100% 100%
100%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 21

 The State Fell Short of the Third Period Threshold for Outcome 2
As noted in Table III‐1 for Outcome 2, 72 percent of maltreatment in care investigations were completed within 30 days according to file review data from all investigations completed during the reporting period. (Another 14 percent of such cases were investigated within 45 days.) This represents a decrease from the second reporting period when 78 percent of such investigations were completed within 30 days. The observed decrease is attributable to the fact that, compared to the second reporting period, more of the third period maltreatment in care investigations were conducted by counties other than DeKalb and Fulton. Outcome 2 requires that by the end of the first reporting period, 95 percent of such investigations be completed, in accordance with DFCS policy, within 30 days.
For the third reporting period DeKalb, Fulton, and the other counties performed as well or better on Outcome 2 as they had in the second period, but paradoxically, the State’s overall performance declined. As displayed in Table III‐3, DeKalb and Fulton Counties’ performance in timely completion of investigations was unchanged compared to the second reporting period at 94 percent. The other counties actually showed marked improvement on this measure, rising from a timely completion rate of 13 percent in the second period to 27 percent in the third period. Yet, because a higher proportion of the investigations were conducted by the other counties in the third period (32 percent of the total) than in the second period (19 percent of the total), and because, regardless of their improvement, their performance remained substantially below that of DeKalb and Fulton, the State’s overall performance declined.
In the Accountability Agents’ second period report, it was noted that in 2006 DFCS began using a new risk assessment approach to evaluate the more dynamic and specific concept of “risk of harm” associated with leaving a child who is the subject of a maltreatment investigation in the home, as opposed to the more general and static concept of assessing “child safety.” It was noted this change seemed to impact negatively the timely completion of investigations by the counties other than DeKalb and Fulton in that reporting period and it was suggested that…. “as staff gain familiarity with this more robust method of ensuring child safety and become clearer on the expectations surrounding its use in foster care settings, the timely completion of investigations can be expected to improve.”3 The forecasted improvement appears to be taking place although significant additional improvement is needed.
3 Dimas, J. T. and Morrison, S. A. Period II Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v Perdue, June 2007, p.27.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 22

Table III‐3

Outcome 2 – Timely Investigations

N=93

Investigating Completed in > 30 Days Completed in ≤ 30 Days

Total

County

Number % of Total Number % of Total Number

% of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

4

6%

59

94%

63

100%

Other Counties

22

73%

8

27%

30

100%

Total

26

28%

67

72%

93

100%

Source: File Review of All Completed Investigations, January – June 2007, July 2007.

 The State Fell Short of the Third Period Threshold for Outcome 3

As noted in Table III‐1 for Outcome 3, 83 percent of the 129 alleged victims had face‐to‐face private contact with a CPS investigator within 24 hours according to file review data from all investigations completed during the reporting period. This falls below the performance standard for Outcome 3 of 99 percent, and represents a decrease from the second period performance of 87 percent. However, the third period cases that “missed” 24 hour, face‐to‐face contact included five teenage boys who had run away from their group home before the alleged maltreatment was reported, and who could not be seen face‐to‐face until after they were located (which took up to four weeks). There were no such incidents in the second reporting period. When these children are excluded from the calculation, the State’s third period performance rises to 86 percent – virtually unchanged from the second reporting period. As with Outcomes 1 and 2, performance in this area was substantially better for DeKalb and Fulton counties (90 percent) than it was for the perimeter counties (70%). However, compared to the second reporting period, the performance of DeKalb and Fulton Counties declined somewhat (from 94% to 90%), while the perimeter counties showed substantial improvement (from 50% to 70%). Third period data for Outcome 3 is displayed in Table III‐4.

Table III‐4 Outcome 3 – Face‐to‐Face Contact with Alleged Maltreatment Victims within 24 Hours
N=129

Investigating County

No Contact Within 24 Hours

Alleged Victims

Percent of Total

Seen/Removed Within 24 Hours

Alleged Victims

Percent of Total

CPS Contact Within 24 Hours

Alleged Victims

Percent Of Total

Total

Alleged Victims

Percent of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

5

6%

4

5%

77

90%

86

100%

Other Counties

11

26%

2

5%

30

70%

43

100%

Total

16

12%

6

5%

107

83%

129

100%

Source: File Review of All Completed Investigations, January 1 through June 30, 2007, January

2007.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 23

Outcome 3 counts as successes only alleged victims having face‐to‐face, private contact with a trained CPS investigator within 24 hours of the report’s receipt. Nine of the 22 alleged victims for whom this did not happen were in cases investigated by DeKalb or Fulton County; 13 were in cases investigated by other counties. Of the 9 alleged victims “missed” by DeKalb or Fulton County:
• 4 had been removed from the placement setting prior to, or at the time the allegation
was made by their foster care caseworker;
• 2 had investigators that made multiple, unsuccessful attempts to see the alleged victim
within 24 hours; and,
• 1 was away from the foster home visiting with family at the time the investigation
commenced and did not return for 48 hours.
Of the 13 alleged victims “missed” by the perimeter counties:
• 5 were on runaway status when the allegation was reported and could not be
interviewed until they were located;
• 2 had been removed from the placement setting by their foster care caseworker prior
to, or at the time the allegation was made;
• 1 had an investigator that made multiple, unsuccessful attempts to see the alleged
victim within 24 hours.
Although these cases count as “misses” toward Outcome 3, it is important to understand that of the 85 alleged victims investigated by DeKalb or Fulton County that might reasonably have been seen within 24 hours, 81 (95%) had had their safety ensured by child welfare professionals within 24 hours. Of the 38 alleged victims investigated by the perimeter counties that might reasonably have been seen within 24 hours, 32 (84%) had had their safety ensured by child welfare professionals within 24 hours.
The Accountability Agents’ second period report identified a communication challenge inherent in Outcome 3 that was illuminated by the circumstances surrounding many of the “missed” cases. A large proportion of the period two “misses” were the result of foster care case managers removing children from the placement setting as soon as the allegation was made. Case record notes indicated that for nearly all of those misses, the CPS investigator went to the child’s placement address within 24 hours to interview the child, only to find that the child had been moved by the foster care case manager. By the time the investigator obtained the new address and arrived at the child’s new location (which was sometimes in a different county) the 24 hour window had often elapsed.
The Accountability Agents recommended that the State address the logistical and communications issues that contributed to the second period “misses.” In response, the State identified points of contact in DeKalb, Fulton, and the perimeter counties and established a
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 24

contact and notification protocol regarding the removal of foster children from placement settings in which maltreatment has been alleged. These efforts appear to be making a difference. During the second reporting period nine of the 14 “misses” (64 percent) were attributable to problems communicating the current location of the alleged victim. Such circumstances appear to have contributed to only six of 22 “misses” (27 percent) during the third reporting period.
The first and second period reports assessed the State’s prospects for attaining and sustaining the performance target for Outcome 3 as uncertain.4 The circumstances surrounding the third period “missed” cases further reinforce that assessment. For the third reporting period, the 99 percent standard stipulated in Outcome 3 would fail to be achieved if even two alleged victims were not seen face‐to‐face within 24 hours. Therefore, the child described above who was away from the foster home visiting family when the report was received represented the State’s entire margin for error for this Outcome. The five teens that ran away from their placement represented five times the number of “misses” the State is allowed under Outcome 3.
c. Operational Context
The shortfalls noted above in Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 appear to be associated with several factors:
• The performance of DeKalb and Fulton counties on Outcomes 1 and 3 declined
somewhat compared to the second reporting period.
• Although the performance of the other counties investigating allegations of
maltreatment involving DeKalb and Fulton children has improved since the second reporting period, it continues to lag behind the performance of DeKalb and Fulton Counties.
• Compared to the second reporting period, a higher proportion of the maltreatment
in care investigations for the third period were conducted by counties other than DeKalb and Fulton. Due to the perimeter counties’ lower performance on Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 than DeKalb and Fulton counties, the State’s overall performance was negatively impacted by this shift.
• Fewer of the “misses” on Outcomes 1 and 3 were attributable to the communication
problem identified in the second period report, but this still appears to have happened in the cases of six alleged victims. (This problem involves investigators missing the required response time because they arrive at the foster care setting to find that the alleged victim has already been removed from harm’s way by a foster care case manager).
4 Dimas, J.T. and Morrison S. Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v Perdue, November 2006, p. 25 and Period II Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v Perdue, June 2007, p. 26.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 25

• Finally, six alleged victims were “misses” despite the best efforts of the investigator
and county. In one instance, although the investigation was timely initiated, the alleged victim was away visiting family and could not be interviewed until returning the following day. In another case, although the investigation was initiated timely, 5 adolescent males were on runaway at the time the allegation was made and could not be interviewed until they had been located, which took well over 24 hours.
An issue of concern that emerged during the third reporting period relates to the coding practice of opening CPS investigations of alleged maltreatment in group homes and other congregate care settings in the name of the child’s birth parent. This has been the practice in Georgia dating back to 1998, when the Georgia Supreme Court held, in the case of State v. Jackson5, that the State’s establishment of a central registry of child maltreatment perpetrators was unconstitutional. The legal reasoning behind the Court’s decision involved the fact that a finding of substantiated maltreatment could have life‐long consequences for the accused, but that alleged perpetrators did not have the opportunity, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to confront their accusers. The Department of Human Resources was instructed to either abandon the Central Registry that had been developed, or to agree to produce victims of alleged maltreatment in court to be cross‐examined by their alleged perpetrators. The Department’s leadership at that time chose not to subject alleged victims of child maltreatment to cross‐examination by their alleged perpetrators, and so agreed to abandon the Central Registry.
Although the concept of a central registry was abandoned, DFCS/DHR continued to have an internal means of tracking CPS investigations in IDS. The policy and practice has been and still remains, to open every CPS investigation in the name of an adult in IDS. For children not in foster care, that is usually in the name of the child’s parent or guardian, who is also often the alleged perpetrator. For children in foster care, it is typically in the name of the foster parent, who may also be the alleged perpetrator. But in group homes or other congregate care facilities, no single individual has custodial authority over the children placed there, and so the decision was made to open group home investigations in the name of the birth parent or legal guardian.
Whatever the merits of the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Jackson, the Department’s efforts to comply with it have produced two consequences of concern. First, the practice of opening CPS investigations in group homes and congregate care settings in the name of the birth parent or legal guardian adds a CPS report to the records of these individuals with which they presumably had nothing to do. While in the vast majority of cases this does not make the difference between these individuals having a CPS record or not (their child would not be in foster care if they had not already experienced maltreatment), it seems inappropriate and unjust and it may provide misleading information for subsequent case decision‐making.
5 269 Ga. 308, 496 S.E. 2d 912 (1998)
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 26

Second, this practice can leave the actual perpetrator, when it is possible to identify that individual, without a CPS record they deserve. This is a safety concern because one of the safeguards in the selection of foster parents and of facility staff is a check of the IDS data base to see if there are any previous CPS reports in their name. While IDS is not a “central registry” in the sense that it maintains a list of all known perpetrators of child maltreatment, if an individual seeking to become a foster parent or facility staff has had a previous CPS report opened in his or her name that fact will be reflected in IDS. This safety concern is mitigated to an extent by the existence of a second safeguard which is the criminal records check. If the maltreatment involved is criminal in nature (such as sexual or physical abuse) a police report should have been made and a perpetrator seeking to become a foster parent or congregate facility staff should be identified when a criminal records check is performed.
However, this still leaves open the possibility that the system is “blind” to perpetrators in group homes of maltreatment that is not criminal in nature. In the current reporting period 21 group homes or residential care facilities were the subject of maltreatment in care allegations; 17 of these involved inadequate supervision – either by itself (11 cases) or in combination with another allegation (6 cases). Only three of these investigations substantiated the alleged maltreatment; all for inadequate supervision by itself.
The actual safety risk posed by the Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling on the constitutionality of a Central Registry in State v. Jackson appears to be limited by several factors: the safeguard of a criminal records check, the Department efforts to honor the Court’s decision while preserving the ability to identify perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment when they are birth or foster parents, and by the nature of the allegations most commonly associated with the placement environments in which substantiated maltreatment perpetrators cannot be tracked – group homes and congregate care settings. Nevertheless, the Accountability Agents have encouraged DHR to review its options for addressing the concerns raised here. The DHR Commissioner has committed to seeking legislation in the next legislative session to exempt the alleged victims of maltreatment from being confronted in legal proceedings by their alleged perpetrators. To ensure changes are made, the Commissioner has also appointed a task force charged with identifying non‐legislative strategies that might ameliorate the concerns raised here. The Accountability Agents will report on the progress of these initiatives in future reports.
Outcome 6 – Corporal Punishment
Outcome 6 seeks to protect children in foster care from experiencing corporal punishment, which the Consent Decree defines as “…any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain.”6 Outcome 6 stipulates that by the end of the third reporting period, 98 percent of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.

6 See p. 2 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 27

a. Interpretation and Measurement
The Consent Decree’s use of the phrase “…all foster homes….”7 is operationalized as all foster homes with a class member in custody during the reporting period for measurement purposes.
b. State Performance
 The State Surpassed the Third Period Outcome 6 Threshold
As noted in Table III‐1 for Outcome 6, 100 percent of the foster homes sampled had not had a confirmed incident of corporal punishment in the previous 12 months. These data come from the sample of 158 foster homes that had a class member in care at any point during the reporting period. This is identical to the second reporting period, during which 100 percent of the foster homes sampled had not had an incident of corporal punishment and indicates that DFCS continues to do extremely well at protecting children in care from corporal punishment.
B. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding Maltreatment in Care Investigations and Corporal Punishment
1. Maltreatment in Care Investigations
Section 12 of the Consent Decree contains other requirements pertaining to the process of investigating and responding to reports of maltreatment in care.8 The following discussion summarizes the State’s implementation of these requirements.
a. Investigations of Reports of Maltreatment in Care
Section 12 A requires all reports of suspected maltreatment of children in foster care to be investigated by child protective services staff (rather than foster care staff) in the manner and within the time frame provided by law and DFCS policy. Interviews with Fulton and DeKalb County staff, with staff of the Social Services Treatment Services Unit (TSU – which became the Provider Relations Unit on July 1, 2007) and the Office of Regulatory Services, and the review of 180 randomly selected foster care records and all 93 reports of maltreatment in care completed during the reporting period indicate that it is the policy and the practice that all reports of maltreatment in foster care are investigated by CPS staff. However, the review of 180 placement records identified three instances from Fulton County (two occurring in the current reporting period; one that occurred during the second period but was reflected in a case record selected for the third period review) where an allegation of maltreatment appears to have been inappropriately screened out by a foster care worker. These instances are described below:
7 Ibid, p. 32 8 See pp.28-30 of the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 28

• Case 1 – In this instance, the older sibling of the child whose file was reviewed indicated
to the foster care case manager that he and his brothers were being “abused.” When questioned about the nature of the alleged abuse, the child indicated that they were being treated “differently” than the foster mother’s birth child. When asked to give an example the child indicated he was not allowed to run through the house as the birth child was. The foster care case manager believed that the child was being coached by his birth mother who was attempting to regain custody of the children over the Department’s objections. Concluding that the allegation did not rise to the level of maltreatment, the foster care case manager failed to report the allegation to the CPS unit.
• Case 2 – In this instance, a maternal grandmother alleged that the paternal grandmother,
with whom the child was placed, physically abused the child. The paternal grandmother admitted allowing the paternal aunt to physically discipline the child for breaking a vase. The foster care case manager indicated that she did not report the incident to the CPS unit because she was unsure of the timeframe in which the alleged abuse took place.
• Case 3 – This instance occurred during the second reporting period but was identified in
a case record selected for third period review. During a visit to the child’s placement setting, a foster mother indicated to the foster care case manager that one of the children in her care had been displaying inappropriate behaviors. When asked about the foster mother’s concerns, the child alleged that the foster mother and her birth daughter pulled her hair and threw her against a dresser when she declined to fold cloths. The foster mother denied any knowledge of the child’s allegations, and the child subsequently indicated that it was only the foster mother’s birth daughter who had engaged in the alleged maltreatment. The foster care case manager was not available for interview but her supervisor indicated that the allegation was not reported to CPS because the child had changed her account of the incident and the alleged perpetrator was a minor.
According to Section 12 A of the Consent Decree and to DFCS policy, it appears that each of these allegations should have been referred to the CPS unit for assessment and screen‐out or investigation. These cases have been shared with Fulton County leadership and the case managers involved have been counseled as to the policy requirements and appropriate procedure. Based on a careful vetting of each of these cases and their specifics, the Accountability Agents are satisfied that they represent isolated incidents and are not part of a larger pattern or indicative of a systemic problem. Future file reviews, however, will continue to scrutinize placement files for any indication that these cases represent a larger problem.
b. Investigations Conducted in Accordance with State Standards
Section 12.A. of the Consent Decree states that “All … reports of suspected abuse or neglect of children in foster care shall be investigated by DFCS child protective services staff in the
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 29

manner and within the time frame provided by law and DFCS policy.”9 DFCS policy on maltreatment in care investigations (which are considered “Special Investigations”) is contained in Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual.10 Section 2106 contains guidance on the many aspects of properly conducting Special Investigations, such as separately interviewing the parties involved, making two collateral contacts, evaluating the likelihood of continued safety, etc. In all, Section 2106 contains more than 150 discrete requirements pertaining to Special Investigations. The particular requirements vary to an extent depending on the type of placement setting being investigated. The file review explored the extent to which the maltreatment investigations completed during the third reporting period were conducted in accordance with the investigative standards contained in Section 2106. (The extent to which such investigations comport to the required timeframes is addressed in the discussion of Outcomes 1 and 2, above.) The results of that review are presented in Table III‐5 for the 12 investigative standards common to most placement types.
9 See p. 28 of the Consent Decree 10 Social Services Manual, Chapter 2100, Section VI, Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, July 2005
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 30

Table III‐5 Proportion of Investigations Meeting Policy requirements N= varies based on placement setting and other case characteristics

Percent of

Investigation Policy Requirement

Applicable Files with Documentation

of Compliance

Continued safety of the child(ren) placed in the home was adequately

evaluated and assessed (N=93)

96%

Investigator reviewed previous CPS reports for foster parents/caregivers

(N=71)

94%

Investigator saw/interviewed every alleged maltreated child separately

(N=93)

94%

Non‐DFCS case managers who visited in this foster care setting were

contacted (N=47)

89%

Investigator saw/interviewed each of the other children (non‐alleged

victims) separately (N=68)

82%

DFCS case managers required to visit in this foster care setting were

contacted (N=93)

81%

Alleged maltreater was interviewed separately (N=85)

76%

At least two relevant collateral sources contacted during the investigation

(N=93)

73%

File contains physical evidence to support case documentation (N=58)

72%

All DFCS approved foster parents/caregivers interviewed separately (N=61)

66%

All other adults frequently in the home interviewed separately (N=25)

52.0%

Investigator reviewed the child’s placement and CPS history noting patterns

of child behavior, additional sources of information, and any concerns (N=93)

42%

Source: Case file review of all investigations completed January – June, 2007, July 2007

The percentages reported in Table III‐5 represent the number of instances for which the investigative file documentation was adequate to provide a conclusive, affirmative response. For six of these 12 standards, State compliance was found to be below 80 percent. These items beg additional analysis.

Three of these six items assessed whether particular individuals (the alleged maltreater, the foster parents/caretakers, or other adults frequently in the home) were interviewed separately. As in the second reporting period, it was often the case that the file made it clear that these individuals were interviewed, but the documentation was inconclusive about whether those

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 31

interviews were conducted privately. This problem was more prevalent in the investigations conducted by counties other than DeKalb or Fulton, which, as noted earlier, also conducted a larger proportion of the third period investigations than in the second reporting period.
With respect to the finding that 73 percent of the investigations documented at least two relevant collateral contacts, it should be noted that an additional 12 investigations (13 percent) were deemed to have one relevant collateral contact. For the investigations that were deemed to have only one or no relevant collateral contacts, it is unclear whether the problem was the absence of collateral contacts or the perceived “relevance” of the contacts that were made. Sixty‐two percent of the investigations found to have no relevant collateral contacts were in group homes, although group homes accounted for only 19 percent of the placement settings investigated. It is possible that collateral contacts with group home staff that have no association with an allegation were erroneously deemed to be not relevant. Unfortunately, the file review protocol did not ask reviewers to explain negative findings on this item, so there is no way to be certain. The file review guide will be revised to capture an explanation of negative findings for the fourth reporting period, and additional file reviewer training will be conducted on what constitutes a “relevant” collateral contact.
With respect to the finding that 72 percent of the investigative files that might be expected to include physical evidence actually contained such evidence, it should be noted that among those that contained no such evidence, the allegation was found to be unsubstantiated 81 percent of the time. The non‐existence of physical evidence may explain both its absence in the case file and an investigative finding that an allegation such as physical abuse can not be substantiated.
Finally, the finding that 42 percent of the investigative files documented that the child’s placement and CPS histories had been reviewed for patterns of behavior, additional information, etc. appears to be at least partly a function of the Accountability Agents having revised this question for the third reporting period. The second reporting period file review protocol asked only about the investigator’s review of the child’s placement history. Compliance for the second period was found to be 85 percent. For the third period, the question was reframed to include the child’s placement and CPS histories (upon subsequent review, it is clear that Section 2106 of the policy manual intends this requirement to pertain to the foster home’s placement and CPS history, not the child’s). This appears to have caused some confusion among file reviewers about the standard of evidence appropriate to this modified requirement. For the fourth reporting period, this question will be reframed so it more accurately reflects the requirement found in Section 2106 and additional training on it will be conducted.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 32

c.

Referrals of Reports of Maltreatment in Care in Private Provider Settings to

the Office of Regulatory Services and the Treatment Services Unit

Section 12 B requires all reports of suspected abuse or neglect of foster children in institutional, group, residential, or private provider‐supervised foster family home settings to be referred to and reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS) and the Social Services Treatment Services Unit (TSU).11 The purpose of the review specified in the Consent Decree is “…to determine whether a pattern of abuse or neglect exists within… [the provider agency]…. that contributed to the abuse or neglect; whether the contract should be terminated; whether particular homes or facilities should be closed….”12

DFCS policy requires counties, at the conclusion of maltreatment in care investigations, to send an “Administrative Packet” detailing the incident and findings to the Social Services Director within ten days. If the incident occurred in a provider‐supervised foster care setting, an investigative summary is also to be sent to TSU and ORS. The Accountability Agents’ first period report registered concern about the absence of a mechanism to ensure that all required reports had been received from the Counties, and characterized the practice in place at the time as a “passive surveillance” approach.13 That is, TSU and ORS had relied on the counties, of their own volition, to send in the required reports in a timely manner.

Data from the first period file review of maltreatment in care reports indicated that county compliance with this requirement needed significant improvement. However the Accountability Agents concluded that this could be indicative of a reporting problem, a documentation problem, or both. In the second reporting period, file review data were reconciled with State office files to more fully understand the nature of the problem. This analysis enabled the Accountability Agents to conclude that reporting to ORS of suspected maltreatment in care was much more complete than was reporting to TSU or to the DFCS Policy Office, and was better documented in the case record. However, there remained room for improvement in both reporting and documentation with regard to ORS. Substantial improvement in both reporting and documentation were still needed in regard to TSU and the DFCS Policy Office. For the third reporting period, data were collected directly from ORS, TSU, and the DFCS Policy Office to ascertain which maltreatment reports involving foster children had been reported to each office.

Data collected directly from the DFCS Policy Office indicate that the Office received an administrative packet for 40 (47%) of the 85 third period maltreatment in care investigations that should have been reported to that office. This represented an improvement from the

11 ORS licenses child placing agencies (CPA), child caring institutions (CCI), and outdoor therapeutic programs
(OTP). TSU approves CPAs, CCIs, and OTPs wishing to serve DFCS children once they have been licensed by
ORS. 12 See Section 12 B, p. 28 of the Consent Decree 13 Dimas, J.T. and Morrison S. Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v Perdue, November 2006, pp. 27-28.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 33

second period when the Policy Office was notified of 23 of 78 investigations (30%), but remains too low. Only five of the reports received for the third reporting period were sent within the required 10 days.
The third period file review included 61 investigations of maltreatment in provider‐supervised settings. Data collected directly from ORS and TSU indicate that ORS was notified of 82 percent of these investigations. This is slightly better than the second period when ORS was notified of 80 percent of such maltreatment in care investigations. TSU, however, appears to have been notified of 27 (43%) of the 61 maltreatment in care investigations in provider‐supervised settings. This represents a decrease from the second reporting period when TSU was notified of 47 percent of such investigations. This is a serious concern because a number of steps were purportedly taken at the Central Office level to improve the completeness of reporting to ORS and TSU as part of the State’s effort to implement an “active” rather than a “passive” maltreatment in care surveillance system. These steps, described in the Accountability Agents’ second period report, included:
• The DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Section’s implementation of a monthly cross check
of CPS reports against the roster of approved foster care providers to enable DHR to track whether counties had submitted all required reports; and,
• Implementation of a new protocol to ensure that information related to incidents of
alleged maltreatment in provider‐supervised settings was passed between ORS and TSU. This protocol includes:
o ORS sending every relevant complaint it received to TSU and appropriate county
DFCS offices,
o ORS intake following up with counties making verbal referrals to get completed
investigative summaries, and,
o Copying of appropriate TSU staff on every relevant e‐mail to or from ORS
regarding alleged maltreatment in provider‐supervised settings.
The Accountability Agents expected these steps would help to move DHR toward an “active” surveillance system and to measurably improve the completeness of reporting to ORS and TSU, thereby strengthening their ability to determine whether a pattern of abuse or neglect exists within any private providers, as required by Section 12 B of the Consent Decree. That these steps have produced little improvement in the reporting completeness of alleged maltreatment in provider‐supervised settings is disappointing. It necessarily raises the question of how robust DHR’s “active” surveillance system is at this juncture.
One of the intended purposes of the requirement in Section 12.B. that ORS and TSU seek out patterns of abuse and neglect in provider‐supervised settings is to enable the child welfare system to detect when a provider with a history of previous substantiated maltreatment might attempt to switch supervision authorities (moving from one private provider to another) to distance himself or herself from that history. Although no such instances were identified in the third reporting period, TSU and ORS did identify a somewhat similar situation. In that
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 34

instance, a provider‐supervised group home sought to expand its Fulton County operations. TSU, which had previous safety concerns about the provider, denied the expansion request. The provider surreptitiously assumed the operations of another provider in an adjacent county without reporting this action to DFCS. The provider in question subsequently was the focus of an unsubstantiated allegation of maltreatment in the county into which it had moved. That county DFCS office failed to report this maltreatment allegation to TSU. However, TSU received a copy of the maltreatment report from ORS as part of their efforts to identify patterns of abuse and neglect. TSU recognized that the report concerned the provider whose expansion request earlier had been denied. ORS and TSU conducted a joint staffing of this provider and took action to close all of the provider’s operations.
This example indicates how active collaboration between TSU and ORS can help ensure the integrity of the provider‐supervised foster care environment. While the system has the responsibility to detect patterns of abuse, it also has the opportunity to prevent abuse by vigilantly monitoring the available information (or that which is supposed to be available) and proactively intervening in marginal situations. However, the system’s ability to seize the opportunity for prevention remains limited by the incompleteness of reporting from the counties to the appropriate central offices – the level at which it may be possible to detect the very patterns that can afford the opportunity to prevent maltreatment in care. A moral imperative exists behind capturing this opportunity; children who have experienced maltreatment in their natural home should never experience it again in the very environment they have been placed them to keep them safe. Moreover, one standard by which the system’s effectiveness in fulfilling this moral imperative is judged will soon become much more stringent. The Consent Decree’s standard for maltreatment in foster care (Outcome 5) drops from 0.94% to 0.57% for the fourth reporting period. Given the system’s performance on this core measure of child safety over the second and third reporting periods (0.81% and 0.92%, respectively) successfully attaining the fourth period standard is likely to require the prevention of maltreatment in foster care that otherwise might occur.
Although the sharing of information between ORS and TSU can reduce the impact of incomplete reporting from the counties, it does not solve the root problem. The counties and State are urged to:
• Make improving the completeness of county reporting a high priority.
ORS and TSU are urged to:
• Continue to strengthen their collaboration, and to actively work to identify providers
with marginal child safety records, and
• To develop strategies for proactively intervening with providers with marginal child
safety records to capture the opportunity to prevent maltreatment in care.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 35

DHR is urged to:
• Ensure that ORS and TSU are adequately staffed and resourced to successfully and
proactively carry out the recommendations made above.

2. Corporal Punishment in Foster Homes

Section 12C14 contains process and practice requirements related to the prohibition of corporal punishment in foster care settings and investigations of reports of corporal punishment. The following discussion summarizes the requirements and how DFCS is meeting them.

a. Awareness of Corporal Punishment Prohibition

All placement settings are to prohibit the use of corporal punishment. In 156 of the 158 foster home records sampled (99%), there was a signed written statement or other evidence that foster parents understood and agreed to comply with DFCS’ prohibition on the use of corporal punishment. This is about the same as the second period performance of 100 percent.

b. Enforcement of Corporal Punishment Prohibition

Enforcement of this provision in DFCS supervised homes is carried out by the County DFCS offices. Enforcement in private provider placements is carried out by the child placing agency (CPA), Office of Regulatory Services (ORS), and Treatment Services Unit (TSU – which became the Provider Relations Unit on July 1, 2007). ORS requires CPAs CCIs and OTPs to have written policies prohibiting corporal punishment as a condition of licensure. ORS monitors compliance with this requirement by means of a pre‐licensure review of all provider policies. They also review the files of CPAs to confirm that they have reviewed the DFCS disciplinary policy with the private foster homes they supervise. TSU conducts utilization reviews every six months for every child placed in a CCI or a CPA‐supervised foster home. As part of each utilization review, TSU staff meets with the facility treatment teams to discuss individual needs of the children in care and conducts face‐to‐face, private interviews with 10 percent of the children in each group home and foster home supervised by each CPA. In addition, prior to contract approval or re‐approval, TSU checks for any prior ORS citations and visits three randomly selected foster homes of each CPA.

c.

Compliance with Corporal Punishment Prohibition

Actual compliance with the corporal punishment prohibition appears to be excellent. The review of 180 randomly selected placement records of children in foster care during the third reporting period identified no confirmed instances of corporal punishment (0.0%). During the second reporting period there were also no confirmed instances of corporal punishment among

14 See pp 29-30, paragraph 12C of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 36

the children included in the placement sample. However, while all corporal punishment in foster care settings is prohibited, not all corporal punishment meets the criteria that trigger a maltreatment investigation. The foster home record review looked for any evidence in the foster home record that foster parents or other placement resources may have used corporal punishment or permitted it to be used on any foster child, whether or not a subsequent investigation or assessment confirmed the allegation. Such evidence was found in one of the 158 foster home records reviewed (0.6%). This one incident received a full CPS investigation and was found to be unsubstantiated.
The review of all 93 maltreatment in care reports investigated during the reporting period identified four such reports (4%) that began with an allegation of corporal punishment. This represents an improvement over the second reporting period when 5 of the 78 maltreatment in care reports (6%) began as corporal punishment allegations. One of the four investigations completed during the third period that began with an allegation of corporal punishment was substantiated and that foster home was closed (this foster home was not part of the random sample of 158 foster homes upon which Outcome 6 was calculated; and the child involved was not part of the random sample of 180 foster children whose placement records were reviewed). No foster care or disciplinary policy violations were identified among the remaining three cases, although one of the foster homes involved was placed on a corrective action plan to address disciplinary issues.
d. Screening and Investigation of Corporal Punishment Allegations
Allegations of corporal punishment must be screened by qualified CPS (rather than foster care) staff. Depending on the screening conclusions, the allegations may be responded to differently. Where reasonable cause exists to believe abuse or neglect occurred, or if the allegations arose in a group care setting, the allegations must be treated as an abuse referral and investigated accordingly. If the screener concludes that reasonable cause does not exist, the Consent Decree requires a timely assessment of the allegations and placing “holds” on any further placements until the assessment is complete. It also stipulates conditions under which homes must be closed, and conditions under which homes may remain open under a corrective action plan.
Interviews with the Special Investigations units in DeKalb and Fulton Counties indicate that both counties are handling allegations of corporal punishment consistent with these provisions. Both counties use experienced CPS supervisors to assess incoming corporal punishment allegations. In DeKalb, all complaints of any kind of physical discipline of foster children are automatically referred to the CPS Special Investigations unit with a 24 hour response time. In Fulton County, incoming complaints are screened by the Special Investigations Unit: those showing reasonable cause are investigated by the Special Investigations unit with a 24 hour response time; those lacking reasonable cause are referred to the Resource Development unit (for a DFCS supervised foster home) or the Child Placing Agency and ORS (for a private provider supervised foster home) for response. In both counties, any complaint of corporal punishment of children in group homes automatically receives a CPS investigation.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 37

As noted above, the review of all maltreatment in care investigations found four CPS investigations prompted by an allegation of corporal punishment; two in DFCS‐supervised foster homes, one in a provider supervised foster home, and one in a relative placement (the alleged perpetrator in this instance was elementary school staff). Of these four:
• 4 (100%) showed that all alleged victims were interviewed separately within 24 hours; • 4 (100%) showed evidence that the continued safety of the child was evaluated; and, • 4 (100%) were completed within the 30 days required by DFCS policy.
The one investigation in a privately‐supervised setting represented an improvement over the second period during which three investigations in private care settings were precipitated by corporal punishment allegations (there were 11 such instances in the first reporting period). Documentation indicates that both ORS and TSU were notified of this investigation, but neither was notified of the investigative conclusion. This represented an improvement over the second period when ORS and TSU had been notified of two of three such investigations.
In both Counties, corporal punishment allegations against DFCS supervised homes that do not meet the criteria for a CPS investigation receive an “assessment.” The Resource Development staffs in each county conduct the assessment in the home and decide if the home should be closed, placed under a corrective action plan, or if counseling or other support services are needed. While the assessment is being conducted, the home is to be placed on “hold” (barred from receiving additional placements). Both counties indicated that if the allegation revealed a policy violation that had a direct impact on safety or represented a serious risk, they would send the case to CPS and a special investigation would be opened. Both counties also indicated that if a policy violation was a home’s second violation, or the family was not amenable to change, the home would be closed.
DeKalb and Fulton County each has a different method for responding to corporal punishment allegations against private provider supervised foster homes that fail to meet the criteria for a CPS investigation. In DeKalb County, all allegations of corporal punishment in provider supervised foster homes are handled by the special investigations unit. Cases that fail to meet the criteria for a CPS investigation receive an “assessment” from the special investigations unit. The results of those assessments are reportedly shared with TSU and ORS. In Fulton County, allegations of corporal punishment in provider supervised foster homes that fail to meet the criteria for a CPS investigation are referred to the supervising CPA and to ORS for response.
As indicated previously, only one foster home identified through the foster home record review had an allegation of corporal punishment during the reporting period. This allegation, arising in a provider‐supervised foster home in DeKalb County, appears to have been handled consistent with the representations made above. A full CPS investigation was initiated, ORS and TSU were notified of the investigation, and the home was placed on “hold” for further placements pending the outcome of the investigation. The CPS investigation found the
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 38

allegation to be unsubstantiated and that no violation of the DFCS disciplinary policy had occurred. No maltreatment in care investigations that began with a corporal punishment allegation had a foster care or disciplinary policy violation identified, so no file review data are available with which to independently assess how those situations are handled. However, foster care or disciplinary policy violations identified in the first and second reporting periods appeared to have been handled consistent with the representations made above.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 39

Part IV PERMANENCY
Children in Care Maintain Family Connections and Achieve Permanency
Several of the Consent Decree principles focus on the importance of permanency for children.15 As a result, several outcomes and practice requirements focus on various aspects of permanency for children. The first part of this chapter reports in the State’s progress on the areas related to children in DFCS custody maintaining their family connections and returning home or achieving permanency with new families. The remaining part describes the state’s performance in areas of required practice and process associated with achieving permanency.
A. Outcome Performance
As described in the Introduction (Section I), 17 separate outcomes are clustered in the category of “Permanency.” Outcomes 12 and 13 relate to children achieving the goal of adoption were one‐time, first period requirements that have been discussed in previous reports.16 Most of the remaining outcomes applied to the second and third reporting periods. Table IV‐1 on the next three pages provides the language of the Consent Decree and the summary of outcome performance for the third period. For analysis and communication, the 17 outcomes have been further subdivided into two broad categories, Children in Placement Maintain Family Connections and Children Achieve Permanency The following discussion provides a summary of State performance in these two areas as well as new interpretation and measurement issues associated with the outcomes, and information about issues surrounding the work that provide a context for understanding the State’s performance.
15 See p.4, Principles 1 and 3, of the Consent Decree 16 See Dimas, J. T. and Morrison, S. Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v Perdue, November 2006 and Period II Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v Perdue, June 2007.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 40

Table IV‐1 Permanency Outcomes

Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
Outcome 7: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 90 days of entering foster care.
Outcome 16: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings.
Outcome 19: By the end of the: o second reporting period, at least 70% o third reporting period, at least 80% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b (ii) and (iii). Outcome 21: By the end of the third reporting period, at least 75% of all children with the goal or reunification shall have appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. Outcome 23: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in the Class at a point in time during the reporting period who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have had visits with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.
Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 4: By the end of the second reporting period, no more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re‐entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.

3rd Period Performance
73% in the second
reporting period, reported on
here 73% in the
second reporting period, reported on
here
89%
25%
21%
9.6%
45%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 41

Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 backlog pool”): For all children in the 24 month backlog pool,
o at least 35% by the end of the second reporting period o at least 40% of those remaining in custody at the end of the second reporting
period, by the end of the third reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “over 24 backlog pool”): For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool,
o at least 35% by the end of the second reporting period o at least 35% of those remaining in custody at the end of the second reporting
period, by the end of the third reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 11: By the end of the second reporting period, for all children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.

3rd Period Performance
20%
9%
Will be reported on in the 4th period
report17 First Period
94% One Time Measure First period
30% One time measure
1%
86%

17 Measurement of this Outcome can not be accomplished until after July 1, 2007. The Outcome sets future 12month expectations for the experience of children in custody July 1 through December 31, 2006.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 42

Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 27: o By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% o By the end of the third reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐ month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐month period following the last review. Outcome 28: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12‐month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.

3rd Period Performance
33%
70%

1. Children in Placement Maintain Family Connections: Outcomes 7, 16, 19, 21, and 23
One of the Consent Decree principles is “all non‐destructive family ties should be maintained and nurtured.”18 Preserving connections between children and their families, friends, and community is an essential strategy for achieving permanency when those relationships are not destructive. Preservation of these connections starts with placing the children with family resources whenever possible and placing children with their siblings.
Outcome 7 – Diligent Search
A “reasonably diligent search is required by law (O.C.G,A. Section 15‐11‐55) to identify those individuals who may be considered a resource for placement or custody of the child.”19 The search is to be completed and “filed with the court no later than 60 days after the child’s removal.”20 Outcome 7 establishes an initial threshold of at least 70 percent of all foster children entering care having a diligent search undertaken and documented within 90 days of entry. By the fourth reporting period (December 31, 2007), the threshold is raised to at least 95 percent having a diligent search undertaken and documented within 60 days.
According to DFCS policy, “at a minimum,” the case manager is to conduct the diligent search by identifying, the child’s parent(s), relatives, and “other persons who have demonstrated an

18 See p. 4, principle 2 in the Consent Decree 19 Social Services Manual, Chapter 1000, Section 1002.3.1, Georgia Department of Social Services 20 Social Services Manual, Chapter 1000, Section 1002.3.3, Georgia Department of Social Services
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 43

ongoing commitment to the child.”21 Search steps include:  Interviewing the child and his/her family about extended family members and other
significant individuals in the child’s life;  Reviewing the basic information worksheet (Form 450) initiated during the investigation of
maltreatment allegations;  Using the Family Team Meeting, case planning meetings, or Multi‐disciplinary Team
Meetings as an opportunity to identify individuals and collect contact information;  Reviewing the Family Assessment portion of the Comprehensive Child and Family
Assessment (CCFA);  Checking various DFCS data systems;  Contacting other individuals involved with the family such as day care or school staff,
court appointed special advocates, ministers, etc.  Making direct contact with individuals to determine their interest and suitability as a
placement resource.
In practice, these “steps” are not mutually exclusive or sequential. For example, Family Team and other meetings provide an opportunity for interviews and contact with family members and others of significance to the child. In addition, direct contact with individuals to assess placement interest and suitability may lead to information about other potential resources. Not all of these activities are easily documented in case records, such as the act of reviewing documents or checking data systems. Furthermore, DFCS policy also stipulates that the individual circumstances of the case “may dictate how and to what extent the search is conducted.”22 Therefore, these steps may be abbreviated at the caseworker’s discretion if, for example, a child is quickly reunified with the family member from whom he or she was removed.
Although policy stipulates that the search is intended to identify viable placement or custody resources, there are a number of ways the strengths of these individuals can be incorporated into a permanency plan for children that should not be overlooked. The process can be an effective tool in identifying individuals who are or can be part of a supportive team for the child and family. For example, these individuals may be called on to help supervise a safety plan for a child who is returned home or provide housing and transportation for parents or facilitate regular visits among separated siblings.
In addition, while policy and the Consent Decree address the importance of a diligent search for placement resources when a child enters custody, the Counties have demonstrated the importance of it is an on‐going activity. Counties report that when a Specialized Case Manager receives a new assignment of a child who has reached the 18th month in custody one of his or her first tasks is to renew the diligent search effort. This effort has produced previously unidentified resources and reconnected children with other resources that had previously been
21 Social Services Manual, Chapter 1000, Section 1002.3.1 Georgia Department of Human Resources 22 Social Services Manual, Chapter 1000, Section 1002.3.2 Georgia Department of Human Resources
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 44

overlooked or not pursued, or whose ability or interest in serving as a resource for the child may have changed. Therefore, although an abbreviated search may be appropriate based on the immediate case circumstances, conducting a thorough search in the beginning has long‐term benefits.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
As described in Appendix B, measurement for period two was taken in April 2007 through a targeted case review of children entering care during the period July 1 through December 31, 2006. By prior agreement with the Parties, children who exited care before 90 days, but for whom there was a documented diligent search undertaken were included in the analysis. Children who exited care before 90 days without documentation that a diligent search was undertaken were not included.
Considering the policy requirements and intent, the flexibility allowed in policy to tailor the search to individual circumstances, and the outcome’s language, the Accountability Agents applied the following standards to determine if a diligent search was “undertaken and documented”: 1. A “minimum full search” included evidence in the reviewed case files of the following
minimum activities: a. Children were interviewed, excluding children under the age of four under the
presumption that the child would not have sufficient communication skills to provide useable information. b. Family members were interviewed. c. Other relatives and/or significant others involved in the family were contacted, whether it was to obtain more information or to assess placement suitability. d. There was evidence that the minimal information gathering produced identified potential placement resources for the child. e. There was evidence that potential resources were contacted. 2. If the some of the above steps were missing or not clearly documented, but the child was placed with relatives or such placement was pending (waiting for ICPC approval, home evaluation approval, etc), it was presumed to be an “abbreviated search.” 3. Documentation included DFCS forms for recording basic family information, case narratives, Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments (CCFAs), Family and Multidisciplinary Team Meeting notes, case plans, county and state forms for documenting diligent searches, and court documentation.
b. State Performance
• The State Exceeded the Second Period Outcome 7 Threshold.
The Consent Decree requires at least 70 percent of children entering care in the reporting period to have a diligent search undertaken and documented within 90 days. Using the criteria
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 45

previously described, the file documentation indicated that a diligent search was undertaken for 73 percent of the children in the sample.

Within the final sample of 204 children, 128 children (63%) who entered foster care in the last half of 2006 were in DFCS custody 90 days or more by March 31, 2007 or the last date of their custody. Another 22 children who were in custody less than 90 days were included in the analysis because the documented diligent search activities met the “minimum full search” criteria previously described. Table IV‐2 provides the number and frequency of different types of diligent search actions undertaken.

Table IV‐2 Diligent Search Actions Undertaken For 128 Children in Custody 90 days or More For 22 Children in Custody less than 90 days
N= 150

Actions

Number Percent

Full Search: Evidence of interviews with In custody less than 90 days

22

15%

child and child’s family and others*

In custody 90 days or more

61

41%

Subtotal

83

55%

For remaining children in custody 90 days or more:

Abbreviated Search: Evidence of interviews with family and/or

27

18%

others and child placed/placement pending with relative or

resources contacted

Subtotal

110

73%

Limited actions that resulted in contacting potential placement

30

20%

resources, no placements arranged as of March 31, 2007

Limited action that did not produce contacts

6

4%

No documented action

4

3%

Total

150 101%

Source: Case Record Review, April 2007. Total is greater than 100% due to rounding.

*This category includes families only when child was under the age of 4 years or child was on runaway

status and could not be interviewed. Includes cases where only the children were interviewed where

documentation indicated that the family members were not interviewed because of extenuating

circumstances, such as the child being an undocumented immigrant.

c. Diligent Search Results

Resources identified.

The fundamental purpose of any diligent search is to identify and locate individuals who care about the well‐being of the child and are willing and able to provide a safe home for the child while he or she is separated from his or her parents. The thoroughness or robustness of a search

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 46

cannot always be discerned from the file documentation. An important indication of the quality of a diligent search, therefore, is the results produced. There was evidence of some degree of diligent search activity for 176 children. There did not appear to be any diligent search activity for four children who had been in custody more than 90 days and there was no activity for 24 children who were in custody less than 90 days (20 of whom were in custody less than 10 days.) These activities, whether they represented a full search or not, produced a list of 754 possible resources for 165 children (94% of 176 searches.) The individuals identified ranged from parents to siblings and other relatives to fictive kin. This represents an average of 4.6 resources or family connections per child. This information demonstrates that many children have resources that are or can be a part of the family team, that help a child stay connected with his or her family and community and that can support a child’s return to permanency and safety as well as being considered potential placement resources. Table IV‐3 displays the type and number of resources identified.

Table IV‐3 Types and Frequency of Individuals Identified as a part of Diligent Search Efforts
N=165

Types of Individual Resources

Total Identified for 165

children

Number Percent of Children

Mother

23

14%

Father

56

34%

Percent of other

individuals

Maternal Relatives excluding mother

432

64%

Siblings (17 Adult and 30 Minor)

47

7%

Paternal relatives excluding father

158

24%

Fictive Kin

27

4%

Stepparents

6

1%

Step siblings (1 adult and 4 Minor)

5

1%

Total relatives or identified resources other than parents

675

101%*

Average number of nonparental resources per child

4.1

Source: Case Record Review, April 2007. *Percentage is greater than 100% due to rounding.

Resources contacted
Of the 165 children who had resources identified through diligent search efforts, DFCS followed up with a total of 335 individuals for 149 children (90% of the 165). As reflected in Table IV‐4, overall 41% of the identified non‐parental resources were contacted. Fictive kin were contacted most often of those resources identified.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 47

Table IV‐4 Types and Frequency of Individuals Contacted as a part of Diligent Search Efforts
N=149

Individual
Mother Father Maternal Relatives excluding mother Siblings Paternal relatives excluding father Fictive Kin Stepparents Step siblings Total resources other than the parents Source: Case Record Review, April 2007

Total

Total

Identified Contacted

23

16

56

40

432

190

47

8

158

57

27

20

6

3

5

1

675

279

Percent of those
identified contacted
70% 71% 44% 17% 36% 74% 50% 20% 41%

Placement or discharge resources obtained
Seventy‐three of the 165 children for whom resources were identified had a placement and/or discharge resource, visiting resource, or both from the pool of individuals. Specifically, 60 children (36% of 165) had placements or permanency.
Practice Implications
As demonstrated by the data, not all resources that are initially identified are contacted and even fewer become placement and/or visiting resources for children. An image of a funnel emerges as the numbers grow smaller from those identified to those willing, able, and called upon to be a support to children and families. The Accountability Agents have discussed this process with the county staff and recommended that they take a closer look at what produces this pattern and how it might be changed to help families and friends stay better connected to the children in DFCS custody. In addition, they should ensure that their search efforts explore all possible avenues. As reflected in the data presented, not all files had evidence that children who were old enough or verbal enough were specifically interviewed about the people that are important in their lives. Children are an important source for information even if they do not know exact addresses or phone numbers. Specific contact information may be obtained from others or the automated tools available to the case managers. Supervisors and managers should ensure this is a documented step in each diligent search.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 48

Outcome 16 – Sibling Placement
One of the placement standards stipulated by the Consent Decree has to do with the placement of sibling groups. Unless it is harmful to the child or a sibling, a child in a sibling group has exceptional needs or the size of the sibling group makes placement together impractical, sibling groups who enter at or near the same time are to be placed together.23 As an initial threshold, Outcome 16 establishes that at least 70 percent of all foster children entering care with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. By the fourth reporting period, the threshold rises to require that at least 80 percent of all foster children entering care with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
For purposes of the outcome measurement, “children who entered foster care … along with one or more siblings” was defined as those siblings who entered on the same day. In reviewing the demographics of all the children who entered foster care during the second period, the typical pattern was for all siblings to enter the same day.24 Of the 760 children who entered custody between July 1 and December 31, 2006, 386 entered as part of a sibling group. It appeared that 90 percent, (348) of the children entered on the same day as their siblings. Another 38 children with at least one sibling in foster care during the reporting period entered on a different date during the time period than another sibling. Of the 38 children, 31 entered within 60 days of another sibling.
Of the 138 children in the sample who had siblings, 128 entered foster care with one or more of the siblings during the last six months of 2006. Among the 128 children, 124 (97%) entered foster care the same day with one or more of their siblings. However, for one child, the record indicated that his placement with his siblings could be harmful to them. Excluding this child from the analysis, 123 children who entered the same day with all or some of their siblings were considered the pool to be used to measure Outcome 16.
b. State Performance
• The State Exceeded the Second Period Outcome 16 Threshold.
Of the 123 children in the sample who entered foster care with one or more siblings on the same day, 90 children (73%) were placed with those siblings at the end of the second period. Outcome 16 requires at least 70 percent of the children entering care with one or more siblings during second reporting period be placed with those siblings. As indicated in Table IV‐6, an additional 3 children who entered care on different days from one or more siblings were placed with those siblings by the end of the reporting period.
23 See p. 16, paragraph 5C.4.d of the Consent Decree 24 This pattern was also noted by Hornby Zeller Associates in the Needs Assessment presentation on July 17, 2007.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 49

Overall, 88 of 93 children were with all their siblings by the end of December 2006 or the last date of their custody. Of the five that were not with all their siblings, three children in one sibling group were separated into two groups, two children entering care 167 days after the first sibling. The two siblings who entered later in the reporting period were placed together the entire time they were in state custody up to December 31, 2006. Two other children in a sibling group remained together, but another sibling, an infant, entered care 34 days later and was not placed with them.

Table IV‐6 Relationship of Sibling Entry to Sibling Placement on December 31, 2006
or Last Date of Custody N=127

Entry and Placement Relationship

Number Number Percent

Entered the same day with all siblings

112

Placed with all siblings

82

73%

Entered the same day with at least one sibling

11

Placed with at least the siblings

8

73%

Who entered on same day*

Entered on different date than all other siblings who

4

entered

Placed with all siblings

3

75%

TOTAL

127

93

73%

Source: Case Record Review, April 2007. *In some instances, these children joined or were

joined by other siblings.

c.

Characteristics and Placement Process

1. Sibling group characteristics

Among the 15 children who had siblings who entered care on different days during the period, they entered care anywhere from 3 to 167 days apart. The vast majority, 12 (80%) entered 45 days or less apart from one another.

The size of the sibling groups ranged from 2 to 9. The majority (60%) of children were in sibling groups of 2 or 3.

2. Placement settings

Most children who entered care with siblings (92%) were placed in family settings. Table IV‐7 reports the number and proportion of children placed in each type of setting

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 50

Table IV‐ 7

Placement Settings of Children With Siblings Entering Foster Care

Between July 1 and December 31, 2006

N=127

Placement Setting

Number

Percent

Foster Homes

85

67%

Relative Homes

28

22%

Parent Homes (children remained in DFCS custody)

5

4%

Group Homes

7

6%

Residential Treatment

2

2%

TOTAL

127

101%

Source: Case Record Review, April 2007. Total greater than 100% due to rounding.

3. Case manager efforts to get separated sibling groups placed together.

Of the 127 children who entered with siblings on the same day, 92 were initially placed with all who entered with them. Another 26 were placed with some of the siblings with whom they entered and nine were not placed with any of the siblings with whom they entered. It appears that the case manager for eight (23%) of the 35 children made efforts during the observation period to locate or recruit a family where the children could be reunited. The placement of the 92 children initially placed with siblings however, shifted over the course of their time in care. Some sibling groups were split while some sibling groups were reunited.

4. Reasons siblings were not placed together.

Of the 34 children who entered custody in the second period with, before, or after one or more siblings but were not placed with all their siblings by December 31, 2006 or the last date of custody, reasons were documented for 13 children. No reasons were documented for 21 children. The reasons cited for the 13 were as follows:
• Size of sibling group (2 children from the same sibling group of 6) • Number would put the foster home over capacity (1 child) • Child behaviors toward foster parent. (2 children in 2 sibling groups) • Child behaviors toward siblings (4 children in 2 sibling groups) • Siblings divided among relatives (4 children, 2 sibling groups)

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 51

Outcome 19 – Placement Proximity
When it is in the best interest of the child for the state to remove children from their homes and place them in state custody, Outcome 19 mandates that children be placed in a setting within the county or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed.25 By the end of the third reporting period 80 percent of all children in custody are to be in placement settings with this proximity.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
No new interpretation or measurement issues were encountered in the third period. Appendix B provides a summary of the applied interpretation and measurement.
b. State Performance
• The State Surpassed the Third Period Outcome 19 Threshold.
As noted in Table IV‐1 for Outcome 19, 89 percent (161) of the 180 children in the sample of foster children were placed in the county or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed. The Outcome threshold was 80 percent. This performance is virtually the same as the second period performance of 88 percent.
Outcome 21 – Parent‐Child Visitation
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The outcome language refers to “appropriate visitation”26 between children and parents where the goal is reunification. DFCS policy and practice provides a frame of reference for determining “appropriate” as it establishes several requirements with regard to parental‐child visitation. First, “if possible” a child should have a family visit in the first week after removal.27 Second, a plan for parental visitation should be a part of every Case Plan.28 Third, “when agency resources allow, visitation shall be scheduled at two‐week intervals unless the court has specified another visitation arrangement.”29 Finally, established practice in the field requires a minimum of monthly visits when “agency resources do not allow” and the court does not dictate otherwise. Given these policy requirements, the case record review was designed to gather information on both the planned schedule for visitation and the actual visitation. In the
25 See p. 35, Outcome 19, of the Consent Decree 26 See p. 36, Outcome 21, of the Consent Decree 27 Social Services Manual, Section 1009.3 Georgia Department of Human Resources 28 Social Services Manual, Section 1009.4 Georgia Department of Human Resources 29 Social Services Manual Section 1009.5, Georgia Department of Human Resources
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 52

absence of a schedule dictating otherwise the performance of the state was assessed according to the minimum monthly visitation standard.
Although the Consent Decree specifies visitation between parent(s) and children, in some cases the child was removed from a relative and that relative is the reunification resource. In these cases, the record review considered the reunification resource equivalent to the parent(s).
Measurement issues included the limitations of case documentation, how to address those children living with relatives and those children who were reunified during the reporting period but whose records contained little or no documentation relating to parent child visits. Case documentation often does not include precise dates of visits because case managers are not always present for the visits. However, case managers may record what they learn from parents and children about the visits. As a result, in a portion of the cases the reviewers could determine “regular” visitation was occurring but could not match the pattern of visits to the schedule established in the case plan or Family Team Meetings. Such cases were counted toward the achievement of the outcome.
A portion of the children in the sample live with relatives. These circumstances may allow for frequent visitation between parents and children.30 Again, however, the dates and frequency may not always be reported to the case manager and, therefore, documented. These children were included in the denominator for measurement of the outcome, but not the numerator unless there was documentation of a visitation pattern.
Finally, a small number of children achieved reunification without any or with few documented visits with parents or their reunification resource. Again, this does not mean that the children did not have contact with their parents. These children were included in the denominator for measurement, but not the numerator.
Within the sample of 180 children in foster care, 116 had the permanency goal of reunification. However, the records for 6 children were excluded from the Outcome 21 analysis because the children were placed with the reunification resource the entire reporting period or they were in custody a brief period of time during the review period.
30 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Elders as Resources Fact Sheet, Basic Data: Kinship Care, 2005, found at http://www.aecf.org/upload/PublicationFiles/FactSheet.pdf,
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 53

b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Third Period Outcome 21 Threshold.
Among the 11031 children used in this analysis, 62 (56%) had some documented visitation with their reunification resource during the time they were in custody between January 1 and June 30, 2007. However, a much smaller number could be considered to have documented regular visitation as suggested by their plans or policy. Twenty‐five children (25%) had regular visitation. The threshold for this outcome in the third period is 85 percent.
DFCS efforts to promote visitation
The records indicated that case managers made efforts to promote and support parental visitation for 48 (44%) of the 110 children. Efforts included arranging for transportation, reminding resources about the visits, asking substitute caregivers to help make the visits occur, and arranging for a convenient visit location. There appeared to be little follow‐up, however, with parents after the visits took place or were to take place. Efforts to locate parents whose whereabouts became unknown were mixed. A few case managers attempted to locate the parents by going to the last address they had for the parent, or continually trying the phone numbers they had, or asking the children to relay messages to their parent(s) should they be in contact with them. More than one child acknowledged telephone conversations with their parents but did not know where they resided or how to contact them directly. In these circumstances, case managers asked children to request that the parents contact the case manager. However, more often than not, documented attempts to locate parents were missing.
Factors Affecting State Performance
In addition to the parent’s location becoming unknown, other factors appeared to affect the State’s performance. Children running from placements make continued and frequent visitation difficult. Six children were on runaway status off and on during the review period. Parental or child mental health issues may have affected the lack of visitation in two cases. Distance was an issue in two other cases.
Another factor is the appropriateness of the permanency goal. This is particularly true for the approximate 30 percent of children in the sample who had been in DFCS custody more than 12 months. The circumstances of several children with the goal of reunification suggested that reunification may not be realistic. One child’s mother was deceased, another had an adoptive mother who wanted to dissolve the adoption and have nothing more to do with the child, and others had parents who were living in other states. In some of these situations the children
31 Because this is smaller than the entire sample of 180, any conclusions drawn from the 110 children used in this analysis are subject to a margin of error of + 9 percent. Actual parent-child visitation may be 9 percentage points greater or worse than 25 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 54

were placed with relatives. In one instance, the mother of a child who had been in DFCS custody nearly seven years and is placed with a relative had moved to Louisiana, but the most recent court order required DFCS to continue working with the mother. County staff have reported that their efforts to change reunification plans often meet with resistance from the court. The recommendations of the State’s 13th month permanency review process suggest that “Special attention should be given to the examination of cases with a plan of reunification when there is no documentation or a sufficient level of interaction with the parents/guardians to support this goal.”
As with other measures that rely on the case documentation, a third factor affecting performance may be the lack of documentation that visits are occurring. Or the performance may be low because the Counties have only recently initiated efforts to track this activity, thus bringing more oversight and accountability to the issue.
Implications for Practice
Almost universally in child welfare, the degree to which parents and other reunification resources remain in contact with their case managers and their children is used as a measure of parental interest in or commitment to making the changes considered necessary for their children to be returned home. Therefore, the burden to stay connected often falls solely on the parents and is often thought to be outside the control of the case managers except through the threat of taking action to terminate parental rights. However, the records did indicate that parents may stay in contact with their children while avoiding the case managers. DFCS is in the process of developing a case practice model that includes a renewed emphasis on engaging parents and other family members in a supportive team approach rather than a coercive one. Practice in other states suggest that such an approach will help build trusting relationships with parents and increase the likelihood they will remain in frequent contact with the case managers.
This aspect of practice in particular requires a partnership with the court. One step the counties could take is to collaborate with the courts to identify what judges and review panels want to see to ensure that reunification efforts have been exhausted and reunification is not realistic. They may wish to see more intensive efforts to locate and reconnect with parents to confirm that the parents are not committed to reunification.
Outcome 23 – Sibling Visitation
DFCS has many sibling groups in its custody. When these children cannot be placed together, it is important for them to remain connected with one another through regular visits. The only times this is not desirable are when it is not in the best interest of the child to visit a sibling due to safety reasons or the emotional trauma it might cause. To ensure that sibling visitation is a regular part of practice, the Consent Decree includes an outcome (number 23) that sets thresholds for the percent of children who see their separated siblings each and every month for
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 55

the pervious 12 months, or every month they have been in custody if less than 12 months.32 By the end of the second reporting period, and continuing thereafter, at least 80 percent of separated siblings are to have had at least monthly visits with their siblings each and every month for the previous 12 months in custody.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Information regarding sibling visitation is not currently tracked in the State IDS system; therefore it is not information that is easily retrieved. It is, however, a practice that the counties started tracking in July 2006 and the county Quality Assurance units began validating during the second reporting period. For the third reporting period, the Accountability Agents collected information directly from the documentation in children’s records. To measure this outcome, the record reviewers looked for documentation indicating that children saw at least one sibling in custody from whom they were separated at least once a month during each of the previous 12 months in custody.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Outcome 23 Threshold.
As noted in Table IV‐1 for Outcome 23, the Consent Decree’s sibling visitation requirements were met for 12 (21%) of the 58 children33 in the sample who had one or more siblings in custody but in separate placements. These children visited with at least one separated sibling every month for the last 12 months or since they entered care. The outcome threshold is 80 percent. Although the measurement was limited to the frequency with which the child saw at least one sibling, it should be noted that when visitation did occur, the reviewers saw a pattern of children seeing all or many siblings during a visit. Table IV‐8 describes the visitation picture captured by the case record review.
These third period results are about the same as the second period results of 19 percent of separated siblings who had 12 sequential months of monthly visits. However, there continue to be signs that indicate movement in the right direction. First, another 7 children (12%) only missed sibling visitation in one of the required months. Second, over time, monthly sibling visitation ranged from 44 percent to 72 percent each month January through June 2007 compared to 16 to 41 percent July through December 2006. This means that an increasing proportion of children have the opportunity to see each other monthly, every month over an extended period of time. Third, the Counties continue to focus on improving the monthly visitation rate through internal tracking and reporting.
32 See p.36, Outcome 23, in the Consent Decree 33 Because this is smaller than the entire sample of 180, any conclusions drawn from the 58 children who were separated from their siblings for all or some of the time they were in care would have a margin of error of at least +/13%. It could possibly be greater or worse since the sample was not drawn from only the universe of children who were separated for some or part of the time.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 56

Barriers to performance include children who’s behaviors prevent more regular visitation for fear of harm or stress on the their siblings, children living with relatives but separated by more than 50 miles, children who do not wish to see their siblings or who run away. Children with these barriers still had some visits with their siblings in the last 12 months.

Table IV‐8 Separated Sibling Visitation Pattern for the 12 months Preceding June 30, 2007 or the last
date of DFCS custody* N=58

Frequency of meeting required visitation

Number Percent

Met outcome requirement of monthly visits each month for every month of

12

21%

previous 12 months.

Missed visitation in one of the required months (i.e. equivalent to 11 of 12

7

12%

months)

Did not meet outcome requirement but visited with siblings at least half of the

19

33%

months separated (i.e. the equivalent of 6‐8 visits in a 12 month period)

Visitation pattern was infrequent and sporadic (i.e. the equivalent of less than 6

19

33%

visits in a 12 month period)

No visits were documented

1

2%

Total

58

101%

Source: Case record review, August‐September 2007. Total is greater than 100% due to rounding.

*For those children in custody less than 12 months, only the applicable number of months in custody was

considered.

2. Children Achieve Permanency: Outcomes 4, 8a, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 27, and 28

Permanency for a child can be achieved in many ways. Subject to the absolute constraint represented by child safety, the initial focus of child welfare work is always on reunification with the birth parents. Should that result be unattainable, the state may pursue transfer of custody to a relative or adoption by a relative or another family. Legal guardianship is also a means of securing permanency for a child. The Consent Decree stipulates another permanency option. This option is designed for a relative who is “willing to assume long‐term responsibility for the child but has reasons for not adopting the child or obtaining guardianship or permanent legal custody, and it is in the child’s best interest to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship by another person.”34 In these circumstances, the child will remain in the custody of the state with the relative committing to the “permanency and stability” of the placement.

Table IV‐9 displays the distribution of permanency goals for the 180 children in the foster care sample. About two‐thirds (64%) of the children had a judicially determined or presumed goal of

34 See p.3, definition T of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 57

reunification. 35 The permanency goal of reunification is presumed for those children in the sample who had been in DFCS custody less than 12 months unless there was evidence of a “non‐reunification” court order prior to the first annual permanency hearing.36 As noted earlier in the discussion of parental visits (Outcome 21,) a permanency goal of reunification may not be realistic or appropriate for all the children who currently have that goal. Children with the goal of adoption represented the next largest proportion ‐‐ 12 percent of the 180 children. Another 10 percent had the goal of placement with a fit and willing relative, and 10 percent had the goal of long term foster care or “emancipation” referring to when a youth reaches the age of 18. For two percent, a permanency goal was not documented.

Table IV‐9 Permanency Goals of Children
N= 180

Permanency Goal

Number Percent

Judicially Determined/ Presumed Reunification*

116

64%

Adoption

21

12%

Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative

18

10%

Long Term Foster Care

9

5%

Emancipation

9

5%

No goal documented

4

2%

Total

180

100%

Source: Case Record Review, August 2007. * Presumed re‐unification goal for children in care

for less than 12 months.

When children exit foster care, it is a goal of Georgia’s child welfare system that they will have exited to a stable, family care arrangement. In particular, exits to reunification and adoption are intended to be life‐long arrangements. The casework done while a child is in custody and the planned aftercare can help ensure these exits remain successful. Unfortunately, circumstances sometimes require children to reenter care to ensure their safety or well‐being. Two outcomes, Outcome 4 and Outcome 14, focus on the State’s performance in ensuring long‐term permanency.

Outcome 4 – Re‐Entry into Custody

In Outcome 4, the Consent Decree establishes a measure of the stability of foster care exits: the percentage of children who re‐enter state custody within 12 months of having previously left custody.37 Outcome 4 sets the same standard as the national outcomes established by the U.S.

35 For an explanation of what is meant by “presumed goal of reunification in the first 12 months, see Social Services
Manual Chapter 1006.4 Georgia Department of Human Resources and Josylyn-Gaul, D., Georgia’s Responsibilities
Toward Children in Foster Care: A Reference Manual, Karen Worthington, editor, the Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic of Emory University (1st ed. Dec. 2004). p 43. 36 See Social Services Manual, Chapter 1006.4 Georgia Department of Human Resources 37 See p 32, Outcome 4, of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 58

Department of Health and Human Services, no more than “8.6 percent of all foster children entering custody shall have re‐entered care within 12 months.”
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The State’s information system (IDS) does provide a calculation to measure Outcome 4. The case record review of a sample of 180 children in foster care at any time during the first half of 2007 only included 50 children who entered custody during the review period. As a result, this number is too small to accurately assess the State’s performance. The IDS data is used for reporting performance, with the case record review as a comparison.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Outcome 4 Threshold.
As noted in Table IV‐1 for Outcome 4, the state’s IDS system reports that 9.6 percent of all children in custody as of June 30, 2007, had re‐entered care within 12 months of previously exiting custody. The outcome threshold is 8.6 percent. The case record review looked at the re‐ entry rate of those children who entered custody in the first six months of 2007. Of the 50 children who entered, it appeared to be the second entry within a year for 1 child, or 2 percent. As measured by IDS, the State’s performance remained about the same as it was at the end of 2006.
Outcome 14 – Adoption Disruptions within 12 Months of Finalizations
Outcome 14 is concerned about adoptions that fail or are at the brink of failure. These are situations where adoptive parents no longer can or wish to parent the children to whom they made lifetime commitments or the children are found to be at risk of harm and the children must be removed. DFCS works with these families to achieve reunification and prevent dissolution, but the effort is not always successful. The Consent Decree establishes an on‐going threshold that no more than 5 percent of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to finalization.38
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The interpretation of this measure, as agreed to by the parties, includes those children who return to the custody of DFCS/DHR after their adoption has been finalized. This includes children who are in the temporary custody of the Department while reunification is attempted and those children who return to the Department’s permanent custody because the adoption has been dissolved.

38 See p. 34, Outcome 14, of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 59

Measurement issues include timing and case identification. In terms of timing, the first cohort of children for whom this outcome can be measured are those children who were adopted during the first reporting period, October 27, 2005 to June 30, 2006. In terms of case identification, it is difficult to link case records of children who are returning to foster care from an adoption to their previous case records because key identifying information has changed and adoption records have been sealed. An adopted child always receives a new last name and social security number. In some cases, the child also receives a new first name. In addition, adoptive parents may live or move out of Georgia after the adoption and the disruption or dissolution may occur in another state. Furthermore, children who are discharged to relatives for the purposes of private adoption will not necessarily be reflected in the case files or data system as an adoption. Case identification, therefore, currently relies on a case manager’s familiarity with the family through on‐going post adoption communication, and comparing adoption dissolution actions that occur in the state to the adoptions that occurred in the state. In March 2007, the State established new procedures for collecting information about prior adoption activity as children enter care. This change requires case managers to record in IDS, 1) whether the child was ever adopted, 2) type of adoption – public or private, 3) country of adoption, 4) state of adoption, and 5) if a Georgia adoption, the county of adoption.
Finally, although assessing adoption disruptions is problematic for the reasons cited above, such cases have been identified in the record reviews that have been completed of the general placement populations. What has typically been found in these reviews are adoption disruptions that have occurred several years after the adoption, when the children are older and more behavioral issues have emerged. None of the adoption disruptions identified through the first three reporting period’s placement samples has disrupted within 12 moths.
b. State Performance
• The State Surpassed the Third Period Threshold for Outcome 14.
The total number of finalized adoptions for the period October 27, 2005 to June 30, 2006 was 161. Within this group, one child is known to have re‐entered the Department’s custody and it appears the adoption will be dissolved. This one child represents less than one percent of the children in the cohort. The outcome threshold is no more than 5 percent.
Outcome 8a – Permanency Exits for Those Children Who Entered DeKalb or Fulton Custody on or After October 27, 2005
Outcome 9 – Permanency Exits For Those Children Who Had Been In the Custody of Dekalb or Fulton Custody Up To 24 Months as Of October 27, 2005
Outcome 10 ‐ Permanency Exits For Those Children Who Had Been In the Custody of Dekalb or Fulton Custody More Than 24 Months as Of October 27, 2005
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 60

The Consent Decree established four permanency outcomes to be achieved among four different cohorts of children. Outcome 12, achieved in the first period, related to the cohort of children with identified adoptive resources at the time the Consent Decree was entered.39 Outcome 8 (parts a and b) relate to children that enter care after the effective date of the Consent Decree.40 The children to whom Outcome 8 applies represent a dynamic cohort. In other words, it will continue to change as new children enter care and others exit. Outcome 8a will continue to apply to all those children who exit within 12 months. Outcome 8b will be applied to all those children who enter on or after October 27, 2005.41 The third cohort, to which Outcome 9 relates, consists of children who were in care less than 24 months at the Consent Decree’s inception in October 2005.42 Finally, children who were in state custody for 24 months or more at the Consent Decree’s inception are the focus of Outcome 10. 43
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
There were no interpretation or measurement issues. Performance reported for outcomes 8a, 9, and 10 is based on IDS data and documentation of relatives who have signed “an agreement for long‐term care.”44 The outcome data from IDS were not independently validated by the Accountability Agents. However, the Accountability Agents did participate with County leadership in monthly review of the data and the State’s efforts to safely discharge children to permanent families. Furthermore, removal dates and discharge dates were collected for children in the foster care sample and compared to what was in IDS.
b. State Performance
• The State Surpassed the Third Period Threshold for Outcomes 8a
As noted in Table IV‐1 and displayed in detail in Table IV‐10, the State’s Outcome 8a performance as reported from the state’s IDS system is as follows:
• Of 2803 children, who entered DFCS custody since October 27, 2005, 1254 (45%) exited State custody within 12 months to return to their parents, live with relatives or guardians, or begin life with a new, adopted family. (Outcome 8a)
Through June 30, 2007, there were approximately 2800 children who met the Outcome 8a criteria. From this cohort, 45 percent (1254 children) had exited to a “positive permanency” arrangement within 12 months. The outcome threshold is 40 percent. This means that that these
39 Dimas, J.T. and Morrison S. Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v Perdue, November 2006, pp 41-45. 40 October 27, 2005 41 See p. 32 and 33, Outcomes 8a and 8b, of the Consent Decree 42 See p. 33, Outcome 9, of the Consent Decree 43 See pp 33 and 34, Outcome 10, of the Consent Decree 44 See p. 3, Definition T, of the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 61

children had returned to live with their parents, other relatives or guardians. In a few cases the children were adopted into new families. Table IV‐10 provides the distribution of all the children in this group who exited custody by June 30, 2007. Another 58 children exited to reunification, custody of relatives, or guardianship since coming into care, but these permanency exits occurred more than 12 months after the children entered. Of the 58, 12 did exit to guardianship in less than 24 months and can be included in the Outcome 8b performance measurement, but the remaining 46 can not. Although the permanency exits of the 46 children do not contribute to either Outcome 8a or Outcome 8b, the accomplishment should be recognized. In order to address this issue accurately, Table IV‐10 does provide preliminary data for Outcome 8b, but it is not a measurement of performance because the time frame for fully achieving Outcome 8b does not begin until October 27, 2007, in the fourth reporting period. The State’s performance on Outcome 8a is comparable to that at the end of period two.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 62

Table IV‐10 Outcome 8a Children Entering DFCS Custody on or after October 27, 2005 Who Exited to Permanency by June 30, 2007

Outcome 8a

Preliminary Outcome 8b

data

Children who entered custody

Children who entered

on or since October 27, 2005 custody on or since October

in custody 12 months or less as

27, 2005 as of

of June 30, 2007

June 30, 2007

Number of children in cohort

2803

2803

Exits as of June 30, 2007

Reunification

1025

1025

Adoption

8

8

Guardianship

71

83

Live with other relative (permanent legal custody)

150

150

Permanent Placement with relatives

0

0

Number Exited to Permanency but not in required time frame

58

46

Total number exiting

1312

1312

Other exits (transfer to other counties, emancipation, etc)

168

168

Total for Outcome Measurement

1254

1266

Percentage exiting for Outcome Measurement

45%

46%

Remaining number in cohort at June 30, 2007

1323

1323

Average length of stay:8 months

Median length of stay: 7 months

Average age: 8

49.5% female; 50.5% male

Source: IDS and county tracking systems. *Beginning Third Period cohort numbers are slightly lower than the

period II ending number previously reported due to data entry lag time for formally closing cases.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 63

• The State Fell Short of the Third Period Thresholds for Outcomes 9 and 10.
As noted in Table IV‐1 and displayed in detail in Table IV‐11, the State’s Outcomes 9 and 10 performance as reported from the state’s IDS system is as follows:
• Of 625 children who had been in DFCS custody up to 24 months as of October 27, 2005 and remained in custody on December 31, 2006, 122 (20%) had positive permanency exits between January 1 and June 30, 2007. (Outcome 9)
As of December 31, 2006, 625 children remained in the cohort of children who had been in DFCS custody for 24 months or less on October 27, 2005. By June 30, 2007, another 122 (20%) had returned to live with their parents, other relatives or guardians, or been adopted. This compares to the third period threshold of 40 percent established in the Consent Decree. Another 36 children had other permanency exits during this time period while 469 children remained in custody.
The Accountability Agents want to recognize the State’s current practice efforts to help the children in this cohort achieve permanency as quickly as possible and not simply “manage by the numbers.” By December 31, 2006, the State was expected to help “at least” 35 percent of the cohort or approximately 500 children achieve permanency. In fact, the State’s performance went beyond the minimum and helped about 700 children achieve permanency. Ironically, this strong performance in period two made the period three threshold harder to attain. In the second period, 199 children in excess of the number needed to meet the standard achieved permanency. That was a positive development for those children, but having exited care in the second period, they did not count toward the period three standard. The Accountability Agents believe that in considering the State’s performance on Outcomes 9 and 10, the cumulative accomplishments since the Consent Decree are meaningful in addition to the performance in an individual reporting period.
• Of 414 children who had been in DFCS custody over 24 months as of October 27, 2005 and remained in custody on December 31, 2006, 39 (9%) had positive permanency exits between January 1 and June 30, 2007. (Outcome 10)
As of December 31, 2006, 414 children remained in the cohort of children who had been in DFCS custody for over 24 months as of October 27, 2005. By June 30, 2007, another 39 (9%) had returned to live with their parents, other relatives or guardians, or been adopted. The outcome threshold was 35 percent. The majority have been adopted, the rest returned to live with their parents, other relatives or guardians. Another 27 children had other permanency exits while 349 children remained in custody.
The members of the cohort of children in custody more than 24 months as of October 27, 2005 are, not surprisingly, older children. The average age of the children is 13 compared to 8 for the
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 64

children remaining in the Outcome 8 cohort. In addition, many of the remaining children have been in custody well over 24 months, with the average length of stay being 7.4 years. The children’s age and their length of time in care present serious challenges to achieving the next outcome threshold for these children.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 65

Table IV‐11 Outcomes 9 and 10 Remaining Children Who Entered DFCS Custody before October 27, 2005 and Who Exited to Permanency by between January 1 and June 30, 2007

Number of children in cohort Exits

Cohorts of Children

Children in custody for up to 24 Children in custody for more

months and still in custody on

than 24 months and still in

October 25, 2005

custody on October 25, 2005

(Outcome 9)

(Outcome 10)

625*

414*

Total 1039

Reunification

44

7

51

Adoption

41

19

60

Guardianship

5

2

7

Live with other

relative

34

11

45

Permanent

Placement with

0

0

0

relatives

Other exits (transfer

to other counties,

36

emancipation, etc)

27

63

Total number exits

160

66

226

Total for Outcome

Measurement

124

39

163

Percentage exiting for

Outcome

20%

9%

Measurement

Remaining number in

cohort July 1, 2007

469

349

818

Average length of stay

30 months (2.5 years)

89 months (7.4 years)

Median length of stay

30 months (2.5 years)

75 months (6.25 years)

Average age

10

13

Percent female

50.1%

45%

Percent male

49.9%

55%

Source: IDS and county tracking systems. *Beginning Third Period cohort numbers are slightly lower

than the period II ending number previously reported due to data entry lag time for formally closing

cases.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 66

Outcome 11 – Adoptions within 12 Months of Termination of Parental Rights
Outcome 11 cannot be measured yet because it focuses on successful adoption within 12 months of children whose parents had their rights terminated between July 1 and December 31, 2006.45 Outcome 11 will be measured after July 1, 2007.
Outcome 15 – Permanency Actions for Children Reaching Their 15h Month of Custody in Most Recent 22 Months
To prevent children from long‐term foster care stays, Federal law requires DFCS to file for termination of parental rights when a child has been in care for 15 cumulative months of the previous 22 months. There are three exceptions to this requirement, they are:
• The child is being cared for by a relative; • The state has documented a compelling reason that filing a petition to terminate would
not serve the childʹs best interests; or • The state has not made reasonable efforts to reunify the family.46
Furthermore, Federal regulations state and DFCS policy advises, that a “compelling reason” must be based on the individual case circumstances guided by what is in the best interest of the child.47 Examples of compelling reasons provided in Federal regulations include:
• Adoption is not the appropriate permanency goal for the child; • No grounds to file a petition to terminate parental rights exist; and, • The child is an unaccompanied refugee minor.48
DFCS policy offers these additional examples: • The child is 14 (or older), has been counseled about the decision and its ramifications, and maintains his/her objection to being adopted; • The child is in a residential treatment facility where his/her therapeutic needs are being met; adoption is unlikely or undesirable; and, • The child has spent a significant portion of his life in the home of his parents and has a positive and meaningful attachment to them.
The Consent Decree Outcome 15 stipulates an increasing threshold for the percentage of children who reach their 15th month who have had either 1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers, as applicable, or 2) documented compelling reasons in the case record as to why such action is not in the best interest of the
45 See p34, Outcome 11, of the Consent Decree 46 Adoption and Safe Families Act, see also Social Services Manual Chapter 1000, Section 1002.7, Georgia Department of Human Resources 47 See Social Services Manual , Section 1002.12.3, 1002.17, and 1013.11 Georgia Department of Human Resources 48 See the website http://ncsconline.org/WC/FAQs/Print/Prt_TermPRFAQ.htm
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 67

child.49 In period two this percentage was 80 percent and this continues to be the standard for the third period. The Consent Decree also stipulates that “DFCS will not use as a documented compelling reason for not filing a petition for termination of parental rights that fact there is an absence of an adoptive resource for the child.”50
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Each county has a data base for tracking children who have reached or are approaching their 15th month in care within the most recent 22 months. The counties add to this data base by extracting information regarding length of stay and “TPR status” from the State’s IDS system. County data, therefore, was used as the primary source of information to evaluate the continued progress on this outcome. Information found in the sample of placement records was used to independently validate the county data.
The Accountability Agents reviewed and validated the county data as follows. • First, independent of the county data, the case record review of children in foster care collected information about the parental rights of children in custody at least 15 months. These questions asked whether parental rights had been terminated for one or both parents, if a petition to terminate rights had been filed, and, if neither of these actions had been taken, were there exceptions for taking these actions, including compelling reasons, documented primarily in the case plan or court documentation, or, secondarily, other file documentation. These questions applied to 79 children in the sample of 180 children based on their length of stay.51 • Second the Accountability Agents reviewed all of the compelling reasons cited in the data bases and compared them to Federal and State policy guidance. This effort frequently involved requesting more information about the circumstances of the case that led to the compelling reason.
Final measurement of the State’s performance used the population of children to whom the Federal regulatory exceptions did not apply. In other words, if a child was placed with a
relative or there was a judicial indication in the child’s record that the State had yet to make “reasonable efforts to reunify the family,” the child was removed from the analysis.
49 See p 34, Outcome 15, of the Consent Decree 50 See p. 11, paragraph 4E.2 of the Consent Decree 51 Because this is smaller than the entire sample of 180, any conclusions drawn from the 79 children used in this analysis are subject to a margin of error of + 11 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 68

b. State Performance
• The State Surpassed the Second Period Outcome 15 Threshold
As noted in Table IV‐1 for Outcome 15, 86 percent of the children in care 15 of the previous 22 months were legally free to be adopted or the State had filed to terminate parental rights or documented reasons why it had not taken such action. The outcome threshold was 80 percent. Table IV‐12 summarizes the different components of the Counties’ performance as analyzed from the data in their tracking systems.
The majority of reasons cited noted the relationship of the child to his/her parents or other relatives. In addition, in a number of cases, the parents were still attempting to complete the case plan. A portion of the children were over 14 and did not want to be adopted. For a small number of the cases, the compelling reason cited was “no adoptive resource.” Per the Consent Decree,52 cases with this reason were not considered to have a documented compelling reason.

52 See p. 11, paragraph 4E.2 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 69

Table IV‐12

Status of Children Who Had Been in DFCS Custody 15 of the Previous 22 months

As of June 30, 2007

Category

Total Number Percent Cumulative

Children who reached or had surpassed their 15th month in custody in the last 22 months between January and June 2007

1306

Excepted subpopulations total

202

Children placed with relatives 196

The State has not made reasonable efforts to reunify the family

6

Pool of Children for Outcome 15 Measurement 1104

Parental Rights of Both Parents have been terminated or relinquished

305

28%

DFCS has filed a petition to complete the termination of the parental rights of both parents or care givers where applicable

52

5%

32%

There is a documented compelling reason for not terminating parental rights

592

54%

86%

Reasons cited

Number

Child is age 14 or older and does not wish to be

183

adopted

Reunification remains the goal and child has a

195

close bond with family; parents are completing

plan

Child behavior/special need, making TPR at

44

this time inappropriate

Other (unique circumstances or a combination

170

of the two or more of the reasons given)

There is no documented Compelling Reason not to file a

petition to terminate parental rights before June 30 or date of 104

9%

95%

discharge

There are plans to terminate parental rights, but a petition had not yet been filed as of June 30 or date of discharge

51

5%

100%

Total 1104

Source: County tracking systems compared to August‐September Case Record Review

Outcome 27 – Timely Semi‐annual Judicial or Administrative Case Plan Reviews

Children are expected to have case plans developed within 30 days of entering State custody. According to State policy and the Consent Decree, they are to be initially reviewed by the court or designated panel within six months and every six months in custody thereafter.53

53 See p. 7, paragraphs 4A.4 and pp. 7-8, paragraphs 4B.1-6, and p. 37, Outcome 27, of the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 70

According to Outcome 27, at least 85 percent of the children are to have timely semi‐annual reviews by the end of the second reporting period.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
There were no interpretation or measurement issues. Performance reported for outcome 27 is based on case record review data. However, in the second period, the record review was designed to collect information on the timeliness of DFCS submission of plans for review. In the third period, the record review collected information on the date of actual reviews and timeliness of the reviews.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Outcome 27 Threshold
As noted in Table IV‐1 for Outcome 27, case file documentation indicates that 33 percent (41) of the foster children in custody for six months or more had documented timely case plan reviews completed by the Juvenile Court or Juvenile Court Review Panel (JCRP) or a timely request for review. The threshold for this outcome in period three was 85 percent. In the sample of 180 children, 12654 children had been in custody 6 months or more as of June 30, 2007. For these 126 children:
• 39 children had their case plans reviewed within 6 months of entry or the previous six month court review according to case file documentation which included court orders, JCRP reports, case manager narrative, and other correspondence indicating the timing of reviews;
• 2 children had not had their case plan reviewed, but DFCS had filed a motion requesting a review within 45 days of when it was due;
• 24 children had their plans reviewed, but not within 6 months; • 57 children do not appear to have had their plans reviewed at all; • 2 children were scheduled to have their plans reviewed; and • 2 children had no case plans
This performance represents a substantial decline from the second reporting period where 70 percent of the children had timely 6‐month court reviews. Part of this difference may be the result of changing the wording in the case review data collection guide as previously noted. This potential difference between the dates of submission and actual review dates will be explored further in the in the 4th period review to better understand what may affect performance in this area.
54 Because this is smaller than the entire sample of 180, any conclusions drawn from the 126 would have a margin of error of + 9 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 71

Among all 63 plans reviewed by either the Juvenile Court or the JCRP, there were court orders documenting Court approval for 34 (54%). There were no court orders in 29 files to indicate adoption or rejection of the plans by the court. Table IV‐13 provides the information captured from the case files regarding the 63 documented six‐month reviews (those that were timely as well as those that were not.)
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 72

Table IV‐13 Characteristics of Six‐month Case Reviews
N=63 (all plans reviewed)

Characteristic
Participants Birth Mother Birth Father Child Pre‐adoptive parents Relative care givers/ Extended Family Members Foster parents/placement providers DFCS case manager DFCS supervisor Other DFCS representative CCFA provider Private agency case manager Medical and mental health professionals Parents’ attorney(s) SAAG (State Assistant Attorney General) Child’s advocate Panel members
Elements Evaluated/Considered Necessity and appropriateness of child’s placement Reasonable efforts made to obtain permanency Degree of compliance with specific goals and action steps Progress made in improving conditions that caused removal Changes that need to be made to plan County recommendations Parent recommendations
JCRP conducted review Total JCRP reports submitted Number of reports with Panel findings Number of reports with Panel recommendations Number of reports with County findings Number of reports with County recommendations Number of reports with County proposed plan for permanency
Court conducted review Plan adopted by Juvenile Court
Source: Case Record Review, August‐September 2007

Number Percent

25 8 21 1 8 11 58 4 2 3 5 1 13 15 18 42
53 42 41 28 15 19 6
46 43 42 40 22 21 5 17 34

40% 13% 33% 2% 13 17% 92% 6% 3% 5% 8% 2% 21% 24% 29% 67%
84% 67% 65% 44% 24% 30% 10%
73% 93% 98% 93% 51% 48% 12% 27% 54%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 73

Outcome 28 – Timely Annual Judicial Permanency Reviews
According to Federal and State policy and the Consent Decree, children are expected to have a permanency review every 12 months they are in custody.55
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
There were no interpretation or measurement issues. Performance reported for outcome 28 is based on case record review data.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Outcome 28 Threshold
As noted in Table IV‐1 for Outcome 28, 70 percent of the foster children in custody for 12 or more months had timely permanency hearings held by the Juvenile Court or a timely request for a hearing when the time had expired. The threshold for this outcome was 95 percent. In the sample of 180 children, 955657 had been in custody 12 months or more as of June 30, 2007 or their last day in custody. Sixty‐six of these children had a permanency hearing within 12 months of entry or the previous twelve‐month permanency hearing. These hearings are held to determine whether reasonable efforts have been made to achieve permanency. There were no instances of DFCS follow‐up within 45 days of the expiration of the 12‐month time frame.58
The State’s performance has declined since the second reporting period when the case record review found 80 percent of children had timely permanency hearings.
B. Other Practice and Process Requirements for Helping Children Achieve Permanency
Placement with relatives has been demonstrated to help children have placement stability59 and placement stability contributes to children achieving permanency. In addition, DFCS policy and the Consent Decree requirements establish several guidelines for practice to help children move to permanency. These requirements include regular parental visitation with children who have the permanency goal of reunification,60 and internal DFCS permanency reviews for
55 See p. 9, paragraph 4B.10, and p.37, Outcome 28, of the Consent Decree. 56 Since this is smaller than the entire sample of 180, any conclusions drawn from the 94 would have a margin of error of +/10 percent. 57 Inadvertent review error. Data collection was skipped for one record. 58 See p. 9, paragraph 4B, sub paragraph 9 of the Consent Decree 59 Zinn, Andrew, DeCoursey, Jan, Goerge, Robert M., Courtney, Mark E. A Study of Placement Stability in Illinois, Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2006. 60 See p 6, paragraph 4A.6vi, of the Consent Decree for visitation planning in Family Team Meetings. Visitation schedules are also an element of DFCS case planning
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 74

children who reach their 13th month in custody and county‐state staffings for children who reach their 25th month in custody.61

1. Placement with Relatives

Of the 180 children in the foster care sample, 50 (27%) were in/had been placed with relatives on June 30, 2007 or the last day the children were in custody. Children placed with family were in a combination of relative homes, relative homes approved and being reimbursed for foster care, and with parents themselves.

2. DFCS Permanency Reviews at the 13th or 25th month in custody.

a.

13th month Permanency Reviews

Regularly scheduled reviews of progress toward permanency take place in each county, conducted by a team of three quality improvement specialists and an administrative program assistant. The state risk director provides administrative oversight for the permanency review process. The review teams are guided by a Permanency Reviews Practice Manual. According to the manual, the reviews are to include the following activities:

o Case readings using an on‐line Case Review Guide o Case packet reviews – these packets contain the information specifically required in
the Consent Decree for this process (Child Profile, FTM form, case plan, court orders, etc) o Documentation of findings, recommendations, and concurrence with the County’s permanency plan.

Staffings are held for those cases where the review team does not concur with the permanency plan or there is a belief that the plan would benefit from more discussion and additional actions. Post conference site meetings are held at the completion of the monthly reviews. The purpose of the meetings is to debrief the Permanency Review process and identify practice strengths and areas for improvement.

The State is now preparing quarterly reports on the Permanency Review efforts. Table IV‐14 draws on the two reports spanning the period January 1 through June 30, 2007 and summarizes some of the characteristics of the 13th month permanency review practice. According to State data, 299 children reached their 13th month in custody sometime during the first half of 2007. The quarterly reports of permanency reviews indicate that permanency reviews were conducted for 288 (96%) children. This information was not independently verified by the Accountability Agents.

61 See p. 9-10, paragraphs 4C.1 -5, of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 75

State reviewers concurred with the county permanency plans in 68 percent of all cases reviewed during the six‐month period. As reflected in the table, the concurrence rate declined between April and June over the previous quarter and the concurrence rate was lower for the whole six‐ month period compared to the last 6 months of 2006 (68% compared to 71%) County‐state staffings were convened for 165 (57%) of the reviews. The State reports that all staffings occurred within one week of the review. These staffings included the reviewer, a regional adoption coordinator, field program specialist, and a county supervisor and/or case manager. The State quarterly reports have the following recommendations for improvement:
Permanency Goals: Special attention should be given to the examination of cases with a plan of reunification when there is no documentation or a sufficient level of interaction with the parents/guardians to support this goal.
Case Plans continue to need attention. They need to be current and reflective of the most recent case activity.
Family Team Meetings continues to be an area needing enhancement. Non‐traditional strategies to increase the participation of parents/relatives such as scheduling and location should be explored. Recommendations from FTMs should identify specific steps, timeframes, individual responsibility and requirements fro successful achievement.
The first two recommendations are supported by the findings of the recent case record review.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 76

Table IV‐14 13th Month Permanency Review Implementation
January 1 and June 30, 2007

Total Cases Reviewed Reviewer Concurrence

January ‐ March No. %
128 94 73%

April‐June No %
160 102 64%

Full Period

No

%

288

196 68%

Permanency Goal Reunification Permanent Placement with relative Adoption Guardianship Another planned arrangement Totals

102 80% 123 77%

13 10% 21 13%

9

7%

8

5%

0

1 <1%

4

3%

7

4%

128 100% 160 100%

225 78%

34 12%

17

6%

1 <1%

11

4%

288 100%

Practice Findings

Cases with current case plans

109

85%

128 80%

237 82%

Cases with steps and timeframes to 110

86%

137 86%

247 86%

promote permanency

Case plans with court/panel review 84

66%

112 70% 196 68%

recommendations incorporated

Cases with “Family Team

105 82% 141 88%

246 85%

Meetings” within the last 90 days

FTMs with parents/legal

55 52% 68 48%

123 50%

guardians involved

FTMs with relatives

42 40% 60 43% 102 41%

involved

FTMs with foster parents

43 41% 62 44% 105 43%

involved

FTMs identified specific

89 85% 113 80%

202 82%

Family/Child Needs

FTMs that developed

45 43% 49 35%

94 38%

specific steps and time

frames

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Risk Director, Quarterly Reports on 13th month

Permanency Reviews.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 77

a.

25th Month County‐State Staffings

In addition to the 13th month permanency reviews, DFCS reports holding State/county staffings for 142 children who had reached their 25th month in care. According to state data, 112 children reached their 25th month sometime between January 1 and June 30, 2007. The State reported that all of these children had a 25th month staffing. The staffings concurred with the direction of the cases nearly all the time, according to state reporters. Observations from the staffings provided by the review team to the counties at a “G2” meeting included:
• Fewer problems with case documentation and casework at the 25th month staffing because these cases are assigned to case managers with smaller caseloads;
• Cases have additional requirements for parents that go beyond safety and risk, including income and educational goals and housing space;
• There is a need to explore paternal relatives more; • There is a need to engage all parents more, there is insufficient re‐exploration of
relatives; • More transfers to Adoption staff are occurring and there has been greater case
movement with the Adoptions unit handling the petitions for terminations of parental rights: • Case managers and supervisors should staff cases weekly between the 13th and 25th month to assure 13th month recommendations are implemented.

C. Post Adoption Assistance

Sixty‐four children were adopted during the first half of 2007. Another three children were also adopted by relatives after permanent custody had been awarded to the relatives. According to data obtained from the Office of Adoptions, of the 64 children adopted from DeKalb and Fulton Counties between January and June 2007, 94 percent were receiving or were scheduled to receive monthly Adoption Assistance benefits and Medicaid. Twenty‐seven received one‐time non‐recurring adoption assistance, and four received Special Services, and another four families are receiving day care services. Special Services are benefits that are time limited or one‐time only services. These benefits may include special medical equipment, psychiatric/psychological testing, and therapy; special educational equipment, tutorial services, orthodontic services or respite care.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 78

Part V WELL‐BEING
Children in Care Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity and Receive the Services They Need
One of the Consent Decree principles is “Children in foster care should have stable placements that meet their needs and services necessary to address both the trauma of foster care and the problems surrounding their removal from their family.” 62 In addition, the policy of the Department of Human Resources asserts that foster care services are to “focus on strengthening and rebuilding families to bring about the child’s early return. If this is not possible within a reasonable period of time, foster care promotes the permanency of children by arranging for placement in another stable, nurturing home. While in care, the comprehensive needs of children are assessed and services arranged and/or provided to promote their well‐being.”63 Five of the six of the Consent Decree outcomes focused on the well‐being of children while they are in care had thresholds to be met during the third reporting period. This chapter reports on the State’s performance on these outcomes and the practice in this area.

A. Outcome Performance
The language of the Consent Decree and summary of State outcome performance for the third period is summarized in table V‐1, below and the following page.
Table V‐1 Well‐Being Outcomes

Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity
Outcome 17: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 86.7% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 18: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave.

3rdPeriod Performance
84.4%
91%

62 See p. 4, paragraph 7 of the Consent Decree 63 See Social Services Manual Section 3060, Georgia Department of Human Resources
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 78

Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity
Outcome 20: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had at least one in‐placement visit and one other visit, as defined in Section 5.D, each month by their case manager during the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 22: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had visits between their DFCS placement case manager and their foster parent, group care, institutional or other caretaker at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody.

3rdPeriod Performance
15%
45%

Children and Youth Receive the Services they Need Outcome 24: By the end of the second reporting period, the percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 10 percentage points. By the end of the fourth reporting period, that percentage shall increase by an additional 10 percentage points.
Outcome 30: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.

Next measure‐ ment at end of 4th reporting
period
77%

1. Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity: Outcomes 17, 18, 20 and 22
The Consent Decree stipulated four Outcomes (numbered 17, 18, 20, and 22) related to children experiencing a stable placement and continuity of care and case management that had thresholds to be achieved by the end of the second reporting period and maintained in the third reporting period.
Outcome 17 – Placement Stability
Once placed in an appropriate setting, a casework goal is to maintain the stability of the placement and avoid the trauma of disruption and placement into another setting. With Outcome 17, the Consent Decree establishes a threshold for placement stability by requiring that at least 86.7 percent of children in custody have 2 or fewer moves during the most recent 12 months in custody.64 By the end of the fourth reporting period (December 2007), the threshold increases to 95 percent.

64 See p. 35, Outcome 17 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 79

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues Outcome 17 is similar, but not identical to the federal standard for placement stability. The federal standard is applied to the number of placements, not moves, and suggests that at least 86.7 percent of children should experience no more than two placements in the most recent 12 months in custody. Therefore, for comparison purposes the number of moves is equivalent to the number of placements minus one. The Accountability Agents continue to be concerned that IDS is not capturing all of the placement moves. Therefore, the results of the case record review rather than IDS are used to measure the progress in this outcome.
b. State Performance • The State Fell Short of the Second Period Outcome 17 Threshold
As noted in Table V‐2, 84.4% percent of the 180 children in the foster care sample experienced two or fewer moves during the previous 12 months in custody. The outcome threshold was 86.7 percent. For the children in DFCS custody at the end of June 2007, the State reported from IDS that 95 percent had experienced two or fewer moves. Table V‐2 provides a breakdown of the number of moves experienced by the children in the placement sample. For those children experiencing more than two moves in 12 months, the most frequent reason for placement changes cited in the case records is child behavior including frequent episodes of running away from placements. The State’s performance appears to have declined from the second period rate of 90 percent (although the change is within the sample’s margin of statistical error) and the difference between what is reported by IDS and what was found in the case file review increased. The State may need to take steps to prevent further slippage on this outcome, and to understand and reconcile the differences with IDS.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 80

Table V‐2

Number of Moves Experienced by Children in the 12 months prior to June 30, 2007 or the

Last Date of Custody

N=180

Number of Moves

Number Percent Cumulative

Percent

No Moves

77

42.8%

42.8%

One Move

57

32.0

74.4%

Two Moves

18

10.0%

84.4%

Subtotal 152

Three Moves

12

6.7%

91.1%

Four Moves

5

2.8%

93.9%

Five Moves

5

2.8%

96.7%

Six Moves or more

6

3.3%

100%

180

Source: Case Record Review, August‐September 2007.

Outcome 18 – Worker Continuity

Worker continuity also contributes to a child achieving permanency more quickly and to a child’s well‐being while in care. Outcome 18 requires that at least 90 percent of children in custody have no more than 2 workers during their most recent 12 months in custody. There are exceptions that allow for case manager terminations, death, transfers, and temporary assignments to cover another case manager’s cases while out on sick leave. The Consent Decree also allows for the child’s transfer to a Specialized or Adoptions case manager.65

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues

The performance measurement is based on data drawn from IDS for children in Dekalb and Fulton Counties’ custody on June 15, 2007 and updated by the counties as to the reasons for case manager changes since June 16, 2006. Exemptions noted were case manager changes that resulted from 1) transfers to a Specialized Case Manager or Adoptions Case Manager, 2) case manager deaths, terminations, and transfers to another county or, 3) temporary assignments to cover cases during a maternity or sick leave.66 Resignations and promotions were not exempted because they were not specifically identified as such in the Consent Decree. State performance on this outcome does not reflect staff turnover rates. Children may still experience more than two case managers in a 12‐month period if they are assigned to a series of case managers who leave as a result of terminations or transfers. This Outcome does encourage the counties to minimize reassignment of children among case managers for other reasons. The

65 See p. 35, Outcome 18, of the Consent Decree. 66 See p. 35, paragraph 18, of the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 81

county data was reviewed by the Accountability Agents for consistency with the appropriate reasons and compared to monthly caseload data to verify resignations, terminations, transfers, and promotions.
b. State Performance
• The State Exceeded the Outcome 18 Threshold
As noted in Table V‐1, 91 percent of the 2150 children in custody on June 15, 2007 had had 2 or fewer placement case managers since June 16, 2006 once the allowable exceptions were taken into account. The outcome threshold for this is 90 percent. This is an improvement over the second period performance of 84 percent.
Outcome 20 – Case Manager Visitation with Children
Visits are an opportunity to engage children and assess their well‐being and address the trauma they are experiencing or from which they may be healing. Frequent visits can increase the case manager’s knowledge base about the children and their needs if they are quality visits. At the time the Consent Decree was established, there was no Federal visitation standard. Recent federal legislation will require monthly case manager visitation with 90 percent of the children in custody starting October 1, 2011.67
The Consent Decree stipulates multiple expectations for case manager visitation with the children in State custody. First, it stipulates that the frequency and intensity of in‐placement visits and other visits with a child “shall be determined by the individual needs of the child.”68 Second it specifically defines what is meant by in‐placement and other visits. Third, it specifies near weekly visitation in the first eight weeks of a new placement for a child. Finally, to achieve the Outcome 20 threshold, case managers must have two visits per month with each child, each and every month of the previous 12 months in custody. Furthermore, Outcome 20 references the section of the Consent Decree that defines the nature of the twice monthly visits very specifically. One visit is to be “in‐placement” and there shall be one “other visit” each month.69 The nature of these visits is further defined as follows: “an in‐placement visit refers to a private face‐to face visit with the child in the child’s home/placement…. A visit refers to a face‐to‐face visit with the child.”70 All visits should be used to monitor and document the “child’s adjustment to placement, the appropriateness of placement to meet the child’s needs, the receipt of appropriate treatment and services by the child, the child’s safety, and service goals.”71 According to Outcome 20, 95 percent
67 See Sections 424(e)(1) and (2) of the Social Security Act. As of October 1, 2007, States are required to provide data on monthly visits between a child in foster care and "the caseworker handling the case of the child" and to make progress toward 90 percent of children in foster care in the State being visited by "their caseworkers." 68 See p.19, paragraph 5.D, of the Consent Decree. 69 See p. 35, Outcome 20 of the Consent Decree 70 See p. 19, Section 5D of the Consent Decree 71 Ibid.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 82

of the children in custody should be receiving at least two visits each month from their case managers for 12‐months straight as of January 1, 2007.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues The case record review collected information about the number of visits a child received each month from his or her case manager as well as whether the requirement for two monthly visits as defined by the Consent Decree was met. This allowed an analysis of how many children had been receiving visits that did not fit the twice‐monthly each and every month of the last 12 month pattern for Outcome 20. In addition, it is important to note that these results represent visitation for 12 sequential months prior to and including June 30, 2007 or the last day the child was in custody – not for the 6‐month reporting period. If a child was in custody for less than 12 months as of June 30, 2007 or the last date of custody, visitation was counted only for the applicable months of custody. Months that children were on run away status were also excluded from the analysis.
b. State Performance • The State Fell Short of the Outcome 20 Threshold
As noted in Table V‐1, case manager visits with 15 percent of the children met the Outcome 20 criteria for twice‐monthly visits each and every month of the previous 12 months. The threshold for this outcome is 95 percent. This performance is about the same as the second period performance of 16 percent. Table V‐3 presents the break down of the number of months in which visits as stipulated by Outcome 20 were conducted for 179 children, with adjustments for those children who were actually in custody less than 12 months.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 83

Table V‐3 Continuous Case Manager Visitation with Children as Stipulated in Outcome 20:
Visitation Pattern over the 12 months prior to June 30, 2007 or last date of custody N=179*

Number of Months Achieving Two Visits per Number of Percent
Month That Meet the Outcome 20 Definition Children

Cumulative Percent

12 of 12 months

27

15%

15%

11 of 12 months

6

3%

18%

10 of 12 months

12

7%

25%

9 of 12 months

11

6%

31%

8 of 12 months

10

6%

37%

7 of 12 months

8

4%

41%

6 of 12 months

12

7%

48%

5 of 12 months

9

5%

53%

4 of 12 months

12

7%

60%

3 of 12 months

16

9%

69%

2 of 12 months

15

8%

77%

1 of 12 months

14

8%

85%

0 of 12 months

27

15%

100%

TOTAL

179

100%

One child was excluded from the analysis because she had been placed in an adoptive home out of state through

ICPC for the 12 months under study. Source: Case record review, August‐September 2007.

The Accountability Agents continue to believe that visitation practice, if not the documentation of it, is improving, and that the difference between the outcome performance and the actual documented visitation patterns continues to be the result of three factors. First, the outcome measure’s continuity feature (each and every month of the previous 12) means that if one visit is missed in any month, that child will not meet the requirement for a full twelve months from the missed month. This makes the measure one that takes a long time to improve. Second, while case documentation clearly indicates where the visits take place, it is often difficult to determine in a case review if there was any private time spent with the children during the visit. Third, the case documentation often does indicate that case managers are having private conversations with the children, but these conversations are taking place outside of the child’s placement. They may be taking place at school, in court, in DFCS offices, and at locations used for Family Team Meetings or sibling and/or parent visitation.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 84

The impact of the first factor, the continuity feature, is evident in the fact that while only 15 percent of the children received the Consent Decree‐defined two visits each and every month of the previous 12 months, 79 percent of the children in the sample each received an average of two or more visits per month from their case managers in the 12 months prior to June 30, 2007 or the last date they were in custody. Another 20 percent were visited an average of once a month. The impact of the second and third factors, concerning the documentation in the case record of the Consent Decree’s specific requirements about the type and nature of visits, can be seen in Table V‐4. Table V‐4 presents the break down of the number of months in which children received 2 or more visits ‐ any type of visit ‐‐ per month, with similar adjustments for those in custody less than 12 months. A comparison of Table V‐3 and Table V‐4 indicate that case managers are visiting children nearly twice a month more frequently than reflected in the Outcome 20 requirement. As previously noted, 15 percent had twice monthly visitation that met the Outcome 20 parameters and 26 percent had 2 or more monthly visits every month for 12 months.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 85

Table V‐4 Continuous Case Manager Visitation with Children: Visitation Pattern over the 12 months preceding
June 30, 2007 or last date of custody N=179*

Number of Months with Children with 2 or

Percent of 179

Cumulative

visits

more visits each month

Percentage

12 of 12 months

46

26%

26%

11 of 12 months

45

25%

51%

10 of 12 months

22

12%

63%

9 of 12 months

11

6%

69%

8 of 12 months

8

4%

74%

7 of 12 months

4

2%

76%

6 of 12 months

7

4%

80%

5 of 12 months

10

6%

85%

4 of 12 months

6

3%

88%

3 of 12 months

9

5%

94%

2 of 12 months

1

1%

94%

1 of 12 months

No Visits

3

2%

TOTAL

172**

96%

*One child was excluded from the analysis because she had been placed in an adoptive home out of state through

ICPC for the 12 months under study.

** Five children received one visit per month

Source: Case record review, August‐September 2007.

Case manager visitation with the children typically covered a range of issues. For 80 percent of the children visits addressed issues surrounding their placements: safety, adjustment and appropriateness. Two‐thirds of the children had case managers discuss with them service goals and service delivery. Both Counties continue to employ a quality review process that reviews the monthly visitation documentation not only to determine if the visits are occurring, but also the quality of the interaction that is taking place and the information that is being obtained.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 86

Outcome 22 – Case Manager Visitation with Substitute Caregivers
In Outcome 22, the Consent Decree requires case managers to visit once a month with placement caregivers.72 This includes foster parents, group home and institutional staff and others charged with the responsibility of caring for children in DFCS custody. In situations where the child has been returned home but remains in DFCS custody, “caregivers” refers to the birth parents or other reunification resources.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Case manager‐caregiver visitation has a similar measurement issue to case manager‐child visitation. Again, the Consent Decree only counts case manager visits with care givers if they happened at least once a month, each and every month, for 12 sequential months preceding June 30, 2007. Again, if a child was in custody for less than 12 months as of June 30, 2007 or the last date of custody, visitation with the caregiver was counted only for the applicable months of custody.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Outcome 22 Threshold
As noted in Table V‐1, 45 percent of the children had caregivers who were visited by case managers at least once each month in the 12 months prior to June 30, 2007 or the last day in custody. The threshold for this outcome is 90 percent. Although the performance is low, it appears to be an improvement over the second reporting period where the record review found 39 percent of the children’s substitute caregivers received monthly case manager visits each and every month of the previous 12 months (although the change is within the sample’s margin of error). Case Managers only missed one month with another 41 caregivers. Table V‐5 summarizes the pattern of case manager visitation with care givers.

72 See p. 36, Outcome 22 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 87

Table V‐5 Case Manager Visits with Placement Caregivers over the 12 months preceding December
31, 2006 or last day of custody N=179*

Proportion of Monthly Case Manager Visits with Substitute Caregivers

Number Percent

All required sequential monthly visits

81

45%

All but one monthly visit (missed one month in the applicable sequence)

41

23%

All but two monthly visits (missed two months in the applicable sequence)

13

7%

Some Visits

35

20%

No visits (5 children were in custody less than 20 days)

9

5%

Total caregivers

179

100%

*One child was excluded because she was placed out‐of‐state in an adoptive home through ICPC. Source: Case

Record review, August‐September 2007.

2. Children and Youth Receive the Services They Need: Outcomes 24 and 30
Outcome 24 – Educational Achievement of Youth Leaving Foster Care at age 18 or Older
Outcome 24 in the Consent Decree focuses on the educational attainment of youth leaving DFCS care at age 18 or later. Specifically, it sets increasing targets over a baseline year for the percentage of youth who are “discharged from foster care at age 18 or older … who have graduated from high school or earned a GED.”73 This Outcome called for the State to increase by 10 percentage points, the proportion of youth who achieve a high school diploma or a graduate equivalency diploma (GED) over a pre‐Consent Decree baseline year. As reported in the period two monitoring report, the State compiled the baseline and the first measurement year, October 27, 2005 to October 26, 2006, by reconciling DHR records with those maintained by the State of Georgia, Departments of Education (DOE) and Technical and Adult Education (DTAE). These two sister agencies maintain records of all Georgia residents who earn a high school diploma from a public school or Graduate Equivalency Diploma (GED) in Georgia, respectively. These records were supplemented, where necessary, with actual copies of diplomas or GED certification. The baseline created from this approach revealed that 65.7 percent of the youth 18 years old or older who left DFCS care in the baseline year had earned a high school diploma or GED.

However 34.4 percent the youth who left DFCS care at age 18 or older between October 27, 2005 and December 31, 2006 achieved a GED/ High School Diploma. This represented 43 out of 125 exiting youth. This is considerably lower than the baseline performance year. The State has taken another look at both years and believes the levels are accurate for each. The next measurement of this outcome will be at the end of the fourth reporting period.

73 See p. 36, paragraph 24 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 88

During the third reporting period, both Counties created separate caseloads for youth who are age 18 or older and have voluntarily remain or returned to foster care to continue their transition to adulthood. The purpose of these caseloads is to better focus on the needs, especially educational achievement, of these older youth.
Outcome 30 – Meeting the Needs of Children as Identified in their Case Plans
The Consent Decree specifies that the needs to be considered for achieving Outcome 30 are those medical, dental, mental health, educational or other needs found in the child’s most recent case plan.74 As noted previously, in Chapter IV, case plans are to be developed within 30 days of a child’s entry into foster care and every six months thereafter. The plans are to be reviewed by the Court every six months.
• Interpretation and Measurement Issues
For purposes of determining whether needs identified in the most recent case plans were being met, the following exclusions from the sample of 180 children in foster care were necessary for the analysis: 9 children who had been in custody less than 30 days and would not be expected to have a case plan and another 15 children for whom no plans were found in their case records. Therefore there were 156 children in the sample for on whom this analysis is based.
Among the 156 plans, 119 (76%) had been developed within the seven months prior to June 30 or child’s discharge. Another 25 (16%) were seven to 12 months old and the remaining 12 plans were older than 12 months or their exact age could not be determined. Among the group with the oldest plans, two children were discharged during the period. Among the 15 children for whom no plans were found, four had been discharged within three months and two had been in custody more than 6 months.
The current case plan format used by DFCS is part of the Case Plan Reporting System (CPRS.) This format allows case managers to include routine goals and responsibilities for DFCS and others for parents when reunification is the goal. Although DFCS pre‐service training provides guidance on tailoring the case plan and the initial case plan should be a product of a Family Team Meeting, multi‐disciplinary meeting and the insights from the Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment, the CPRS format does not appear to be conducive to tailored plans without a good deal of modification. Child‐specific need and treatment information therefore is often limited in the plans.
To better align the case record review with the CPRS format, reviewers were asked to categorize the needs found in the plan as being “routine” or “child‐specific.” Routine needs included regular medical appointments, school enrollment, educational progress or grade completion.
74 See p 38, Outcome 30 of the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 89

These routine needs are likely to be standard for every child. Child‐specific needs included information about chronic conditions, prescribed treatment follow‐up, placement requirements, and special education or academic assistance. Both types of needs were combined in the analysis for Outcome 30.
To measure whether the identified needs were being met the sample of case files were reviewed for evidence that services had been delivered or were being delivered to respond to the need. This information was gathered from any and all sources found in the files.
Outcome 30 is related to how the State is performing in identifying and meeting the needs of children on a regular, on‐going basis. This performance is discussed later in this chapter under section C. Practice for Meeting the Needs of Children, Youth, and Families. The Accountability Agents have not attempted to compare the findings from these related but different aspects of practice because the contexts and timeframes are different. As previously described, the context for Outcome 30 is the case plan and the current CPRS format lends itself to more generic planning that may define needs very broadly. The context for the later analysis is the routine screening and subsequent follow‐up. The health screens and other assessments required at different points apply very specific tools and identify very specific needs for follow‐up.
In addition, the timeframe for analysis is the time elapsed since the plan was developed. The timeframe applied to the analysis of follow‐up to routine screening is the six months of reporting period three. If the identified needs are quickly resolved, they will likely not appear in a subsequent case plan. For example, if a child is diagnosed as needing a pair of glasses and obtains them within a week, this need may not be incorporated into the next plan because it has been resolved.
a. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Second Period Outcome 30 Threshold
As noted in Table V‐1, 77 percent of the children had all needs identified in their most recent case plan met. The threshold for this outcome was 80 percent. Although still short of the threshold, this performance appears to be an improvement over the second reporting period performance of 74 percent (although the change is within the sample’s margin of statistical error).
Among the 15675 plans analyzed, nearly all (151) had at least one routine or child‐specific need identified. Medical and dental health needs were the most often cited, noted in over 90 percent of the plans. Medical, mental health and educational needs have been met most often. This information is presented below in Table V‐6.
75 Because this is smaller than the entire sample of 180, any conclusions drawn from the 156 would have a margin of error of +/- 8 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 90

As reflected in Table V‐6, DFCS has been more successful in ensuring services are delivered for identified medical needs than any other type of need. Individualized “other” needs and dental needs appear to have the most room for improvement. Examples of “other needs” cited by case record reviewers most often include transportation to medical and other appointments and independent living skill development and services.

Files contained very few documented barriers to meeting children’s needs. In the few cases where barriers were noted, the child’s runaway behavior was cited as making it difficult to help the child receive the treatment or services identified. Waiting lists and provider scheduling protocols were never cited as barriers. In some cases, it appeared that the plan was too recently developed to allow sufficient time for the services to be put into place.

Table V‐6 Needs Identified in Most Recent Case Plans and Degree Needs Met as of
June 30, 2007 or last Day of Custody

Children with Case Plans N=156 No

One or More Need Identified

151

(routine or child‐specific)

Frequency of different

identified needs

Medical

148

Dental

147

Mental Health

123

Educational/ Developmental

138

Other

24

%
97%
95% 94% 79% 89% 15%

Children Received/Receiving Services

N varies depending on need identified

No

% of

identified

need

All Identified Needs Met

116

77%

(N=151)

Frequency of different

needs being met

136

92%

121

82%

111

90%

124

90%

20

83%

Source: Case Record Review, August‐September 2007

B. The Placement Experience

This section describes characteristics and placement practices identified in the case record review of 180 children in foster care between January 1 and June 30, 2007. This includes county placement environment, the use of temporary placement settings, and case manager visitation in new placements.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 91

1. Placement Setting
There have been no significant changes to the placement process from that reported on in the first report. Principle number six of the Consent Decree refers to children being placed in the “least restrictive, most family‐like setting possible.”76 Table V‐7 provides the distribution of children among placement settings found in the case record review. When the different family settings children are in are combined, 134 (74%) of the children in the sample are/were in family settings during their time in custody These settings included family foster homes, relative foster homes, relative homes, and the homes of birth parents and guardians. The remaining children were in congregate care settings, detention settings, or had run away from their official placement.
Table V‐7 Placement Settings of Children in DFCS Custody on June 30 or the last day of custody
(N= 180)

Placement Type

Frequency

Percent

Emergency Shelter/Assessment Center

0

0%

Foster Home (DFCS or Private Agency Supervised)

86

47%

Relative Home (Foster and non Foster Home)

41

23%

Parents/Guardian

9

5%

Group Home

21

12%

Residential Treatment Facility/ Child Caring Institution/ Specialty Hospital

11

7%

Runaway status

9

5%

Regional Youth Detention Center (RYDC)

3

2%

Total

180

101%

Source: Case Record Review August‐September 2007. Total is greater than 100% due to rounding.

2. Use of Congregate Care

The Consent Decree has several restrictions related to the use of group care.77 First it stipulates that no child under the age of 6 will be placed in a group care setting without the written approval by the Social Services Director based on the certification of need. It further stipulates that when a child under the age of six has a certified, approved need for group care, the child cannot be placed in a group care setting of more than 12 beds. Similar stipulations apply to children aged 6 to 12. For those children under the age of 6, an exception to these stipulations is provided when the child is placed with his or her parent. There is also a one‐time exception for all those children under the age of 12 who were placed in a group care setting with a

76 See p 4, Principle 6 of the Consent Decree 77 See p. 16-17, paragraph 5C.5f of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 92

capacity of more than 12 beds before the entry of the Consent Decree (October 27, 2005.) Under this exception, children under the age of 12 are allowed to remain in the placement settings if they are siblings of other children placed in those settings. However, the State was to move these children to either foster home settings (children under the age of 6) or non‐group care settings (children aged 6 to 12) within 12 months after the Consent Decree (October 26, 2006) “unless doing so would not be in the best interest of the children in question.”
With regard to placement of the youngest children, those under the age of six, the State has done well in placing them in small group care settings when such placement has been deemed necessary. Table V‐8 summarizes the State’s actions with regard to these stipulations. Seven children were placed in these settings during the reporting period. Two children exited these settings. Therefore as of June 30, 2007, 15 children under the age of six were in group care settings of 12 or less; one was placed with his/her mother in a setting with an 18 bed capacity. Seven of the remaining 14 children in smaller settings were placed with their mothers and the remaining seven were medically fragile infants and toddlers placed in a facility operated by a university medical center. These children have multiple medical issues and the staff in the placement setting are trained to respond to their medical and emotional needs.
Placement of children between the ages of 6 and 12 in small group care settings, although improving since the Consent Decree appears to remain a challenge for the State. Four children were placed in settings with more than 12 beds during the reporting period and two exited, leaving 18 children in placements with a capacity of more than 12 beds on June 30, 2007. Two of the 18 children were siblings of other children in the placement settings and the remaining 16 had special needs that could only be met in the group care settings in which they were placed. Some of these placements have occurred after an episode in an acute psychiatric hospital or as a result of a Multidisciplinary Team Meeting. Symptoms and diagnoses of needs include:
• Suicidal behavior • Self‐mutilation • Bipolar Disorder • Post Traumatic Stress Disorder • Perpetrator of sexual abuse • Aggressive and violent outbursts
These children are placed in what the State refers to as “specialty hospitals.” For each child there is a placement authorization signed by the DFCS Family Services Director. These authorizations generically describe services the placement setting is providing and confirmation that the placement setting is the least restrictive environment for the child at the time of placement. In some cases there are plans to “step‐down” the children to therapeutic foster homes.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 93

Table V‐8 Children Younger Than Age 12 in Group Care Settings
January 1 through June 30, 2007

Reason for placement With mother Service Need
Total Placement Setting size

Children under the age of 6

Number placed as of

Number placed between

December 31, 2006

January 1 and June 30, 2007

Number still placed as of June 30, 2007

6

4

8

4

3

7

10

7

15

One child, placed with mother, is in a setting with an 18 bed capacity, the rest are placed in settings of 12 or fewer beds; all 7 children with service needs are
medically fragile

Children aged 6 to 12

Reason for placement

Number placed as of December 31, 2006

Number placed between

Number still placed

January 1 and June 30, 2007 as of June 30, 2007

Bed Capacity

Bed Capacity

Bed Capacity

<=12

12>

<=12

12>

<=12

12>

With sibling

since before

1

2

2

the Consent

Decree

Service Need

2

12

4

2

16

Total

17

4

20

Source: State reported data, waivers and documentation of need reviewed by Accountability Agents.

3. Use of Emergency or Temporary Placements

The Consent Decree has several requirements addressing placement appropriateness. It requires that “no child shall be placed in an emergency or temporary facility....for more than 30 days.” It also stipulates that no child shall spend more than 23 hours in a County DFCS office or any facility providing intake functions.78

The case record review found that 16 children (17%) of the 97 children in the foster care sample who entered care and/or changed placements between January 1 and June 30, 2007 experienced some time in an emergency or temporary setting. This is the same number of children and nearly the same proportion as found in the second reporting period sample. Among the 16

78 See p. 16, paragraph 5C4.c of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 94

children, seven children were placed in more than one such facility compared to four in period two. Ten children spent less than 30 days in such facilities, five children spent from 37 to 88 days, and the documentation did not indicate the length of stay for one child. This compares to 13 children in period two who spent less than 30 days in such facilities. File documentation indicated that three children spent more than 23 hours in a County DFCS office or a facility providing an intake function before being appropriately placed. This is no different than period two. In another five files, reviewers could not determine how long children were in these settings. This compares to similar difficulties in seven files in period two. As of June 30, 2007 or the last day of custody, no child in the sample was placed in an emergency placement.
4. Informing Caregivers and Providing Appropriate Clothing
The Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS will ensure available information concerning a specific foster child will be provided to foster parents before the child is placed.79 Based on the information in the child records, a small number of foster parents (12) who received 49 children into their homes during the period appear to have received information at the time of placement. However, an additional review of the files at the Fulton County Resource Center that handles the majority of placements for Fulton County revealed more documentation of information provided to foster parents in another 27 instances. Thus, the assessment based solely on children’s records understates actual case practice and the Accountability Agents will seek a means of obtaining a more complete assessment of this practice in the fourth period. The information found in the Resource Center records included not only the basic contact and medical information but also sleep patterns, eating habits, fears, etc. Among all 97 children who had an initial and/or a new placement during the period, case managers appeared to have reviewed the clothing needs for 28 (29%) children and taken the necessary steps to ensure that the children had appropriate clothing in the new placement setting.
5. Case Manager Visitation with Children Who Experienced a New Placement
The Consent Decree stipulates a frequent case manager visitation schedule for the first eight weeks of a new placement. 80 Children are to have at least one visit in the first week and one visit between the third and eighth weeks with six additional visits at any time within the eight week period; essentially, weekly visitation. Of the 97 children in the sample who entered and/or changed placements during the reporting period, the file documentation indicated the pattern arrayed in Table V‐9. The proportion of children seen in the first week of placement (48%) was comparable to the second period proportion (50%). However, a higher proportion of children were seen at least once in the third through eight weeks of a new placement. In the second reporting period, 60 percent were visited in this time frame compared to the 73 percent in the third period. Of the 45 children in a new placement a full 8 weeks, three do not appear to have

79 See p. 19, paragraph 5C.6d of the Consent Decree 80 See p. 19, paragraph 5D.1 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 95

received any visits in the 8 weeks and two were on runaway status after the third week. The remaining 40 children had an average of 4 visits from their case managers in 8 weeks.

Table V‐9 Pattern of Case Manager Visits with Children in the First 8 Weeks
of a New Foster Care Placement N=Varies by timeframe

Timeframe

Number of children

Visitation Pattern

5 Days or More in new placement as of end of reporting period

94*

43 children received one visit (48% of 90)

15 Days to 56 Days or More in new

57 children received one visit sometime in the

placement as of end of reporting

78

third through 8th week in new placement

period

(73% of 78)

Of the 45 children:

• 2 were runaways shortly after first three

weeks and had no visits after first week

57 Days or more in new placement as of end of reporting period

45

• 3 received no visits • 40 received an average of 4 visits each

in the first eight weeks of new

placement (expected number of visits

is 8)

Source: Case Record Review, August‐September 2007.

*Three children were excluded from the analysis because they had been in their new placements 4 days or

less at the end of the reporting period.

C. Practice for Meeting the Needs of Children, Youth, and Families

In addition to safe, appropriate, and stable placement settings, DFCS policy and the Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS will provide for the physical, developmental, and emotional needs of children in its custody.81 As a means of “strengthening and rebuilding families to bring about the child’s early return”82 it is also responsible for providing services to birth families. Finally, it is responsible for supporting and assisting foster parents to more effectively address the needs of the children in their care. This section of the report reflects on the State’s practice as obtained through state and county reported data, the case record review, and staff interviews.

81 See p. 4, principle 7; pp. 20-21, section 6; p.38, Outcome 30 of the Consent Decree; See also Social Services Manual Section 3060, Georgia Department of Human Resources. 82 See Social Service Manual 3060, Georgia Department of Human Resources
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 96

1. Needs Assessment at Foster Care Entry
Once a child enters custody, one of the earliest opportunities for assessment of family strengths and needs is a Family Team Meeting (FTM), to be held within three to nine days of entry. 83 Each county has a core unit of Family Team Meeting facilitators who facilitate most of the FTMs when children enter care and at the 13th month of custody. Supervisors, case managers, and others who have received the appropriate training co‐facilitate these meetings. One private provider is used to facilitate the meetings of families with sibling groups coming into custody.
During the third reporting period, the State reported from IDS that 856 children entered custody. However, 113 children were in DFCS custody fewer than nine days as of June 30, 2007. According to the county tracking systems, timely Family Team Meetings (within 3 to 9 days) were convened for 600 of the 743 children (81%) who remained in care. Another 13 percent of the children did have Family Team Meetings but they were not convened within the first nine days. The participation and determinations of the Family Team Meetings were not explored during the third reporting period. The Accountability Agents have reviewers taking a closer, monthly look at the Family Team Meeting practice and related assessment work during the fourth period and plan to report on the results of this review in the fourth period report.
2. Health Care
The Consent Decree requires both an immediate corrective action with regard to children’s health screenings84 as well as on‐going regular screening and treatment. 85 DFCS’ performance in these areas is discussed below.
b. Regular and timely screening
The case record review of 180 children in placement collected information about the timeliness of health and dental examinations provided at entry and discharge as well as on‐going “well‐ child” health screenings. The documentation indicates a mixed picture. There appears to be continued improvement in providing initial health screens for children as they enter custody and regular on‐going regular health examinations. Ensuring children receive initial and periodic dental screenings continue to need improvement. Another area of focus should be discharge screenings. It appears that children are rarely receiving a health screening before being discharged. The specific findings regarding timelines of routine care are summarized in Table V‐10. Of note are the following:
• The State’s overall performance around initial health screening at entry into care continued to improve with 69 percent of the children who entered custody in the first
83 See pp 5-7, section 4A of the Consent Decree. 84 See p. 30, paragraph 13A in the Consent Decree. 85 See p. 20, paragraphs 6A 1 and 2, and p.21, 6B, paragraphs 1-8 of the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 97

half of 2007 receiving initial health screens within 10 days of entering care. This is an increase over 58 percent in period two. In total, when the ten‐day time frame is relaxed, 81 percent of the children received an initial health screen. For those not meeting the ten‐day timing, the elapsed time ranged from 12 to 29 days. • Initial dental screening performance remained about the same as the second period for those receiving the screen within 10 days, 34 percent in period two; 35 percent in period three. However, the total proportion receiving an entry dental screening within any timeframe appears to have increased from 49 percent to 56 percent (although the change is within the sample’s margin of statistical error). The 10‐day requirement was exceeded by 11 to 39 days for a portion of the children. • By the end of the third period, 81 percent of the children in the sample were current with their EPSDT/Georgia Health Check defined physical exam schedule compared to the 75 percent in period two. Regular dental check‐ups appear to have declined. A smaller proportion of children were current with their dental examinations in the third period (67%) compared to the second period (76%). • As in the second period, a small proportion of children (7% of those discharged) are receiving health examinations before discharge.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 98

Table V‐10 Timeliness of Health (Physical, Dental, Mental) and Developmental Assessment
January 1 through June 30, 2007 N=Varies Depending on Length of Stay, Age of Child, Requirement

Component and Action

Number Percent

Initial Health Screen At Foster Care Entry (N=48 applicable)

Received within 10 days

33

69%

Received, but not within 10 days (12 to 29 days, 1 unable to

6

13%

determine)

Total Initial Health Screens

39*

81%

Initial Dental Screen At Foster Care Entry (N=48)

Received within 10 days

17

37%

Received, but not within 10 days (11 to 39 days, 1 unable to

10

22%

determine)

Total Initial Dental Screens

27*

60%

Initial Mental Health Assessment in Compliance with EPSDT Standards

(children age 4 and older) At Foster Care Entry (N=25)

Received within 30 days

19

76%

Received, but not within 30 days (within 33 and 66 days)

2

8%

Total Initial Mental Health Assessment

21

84%

Initial Developmental Assessment (children younger than age 4) At Foster

Care Entry (N=15)

Received within 30 days

9

60%

Received, but not within 30 days (within 34 and 35 days)

2

13%

Total Initial Developmental Assessment

11

73%

On‐Going Health Care Exams received according to EPSDT schedule

142

80%

(includes initial screens) (N=178)

On‐Going Health Care Exams received but not according to EPSDT schedule

3

2%

or standards (exams received were overdue) (N=178)

On‐Going Dental Exams received according to EPSDT schedule (includes

114

64%

initial screens) (N=178)

On‐Going Dental Care Exams received but not according to EPSDT schedule

5

3%

or standards (exams received were over due) (N=178)

Discharge Health Screen (N=29)

Received within 10 days of discharge

2

7%

Received, but not within 10 days

0

0%

Total Discharge Health Screens

2

7%

*In four cases, reviewers could not determine compliance with EPSDT/Georgia Health Check Standards

Source: Case record review, August‐September 2007

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 99

c.

Response to Medical and Dental Needs

Responsiveness to health needs remains an area for continued State focus. According to the case record review, 35 (40%) of the 88 children who received regular (initial and on‐going) health screening during the period had health needs identified. Among these 35 children, the documentation in their files indicated that 20 (57%) had received appropriate treatment for all the needs identified during the reporting period. Another 5 children (14%) appear to have had some of their needs met and treatment was scheduled for two children. For eight (23%) of the 35 children, no follow‐up treatment was documented in the case record. The proportion of children with potentially unmet health needs as identified in a periodic screening is higher in the third period than in the second period in which 15 percent of the sampled children had unmet health needs identified through health screenings.

Again, as in the second period, the State appears to do better at responding to immediate health needs as they arise, but this effort too appears to have declined since the second period. According to the case record review 42 children of the 180 children in the entire sample experienced medical needs between screenings. Thirty‐six (86%) appear to have had these needs met and another child had treatment scheduled. This compares to 94 percent in period two.

Responding to dental health needs continues to lag behind physical health. More children have needs identified and fewer children are receiving the required treatment for dental needs. According to the case record review, 18 (25%) of the 72 children who received regular dental screening had dental needs identified. Among the 18 children with dental needs, the case documentation indicated that 11 (61%) had all needs met. Seven (39%) of the 18 children had not received treatment nor did treatment appear to have been scheduled by the end of the reporting period.

According to the case record review, 13 children in the entire sample experienced dental needs between screenings. Seven (54%) appeared to have had these needs addressed during the reporting period.

3. Mental Health

a. Timeliness of assessment

The Consent Decree requires that all children four years of age or older receive a mental health screening within 30 days of placement in compliance with EPSDT standards.86 As included in Table V‐10, 25 of the children in the placement sample who entered DFCS custody in the first half of 2007 were age 4 or older and remained in care 30 days or more. Among these 25, 21 (84%) had completed mental health assessments – 21 within 30 days and 2 within 37 days and

86 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 of the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 100

66 days, respectively. This represents about the same performance as found in the second reporting period.
b. Mental Health Treatment
Of the 48 children that received a mental health assessment during the reporting period, 34 (71%) had mental health needs identified in the assessments. Among these children, 15 were getting all needs met. Six more were getting some needs met and treatment was scheduled for one child. For 12 children (35%) however, there was no documentation that the needs revealed had yet been addressed. This proportion with potentially unmet needs appears to have declined from the second period level of 40 percent (although the change is within the sample’s margin of statistical error).
Although the State appears to be more responsive to episodic or emerging mental health needs of children when compared to the response to needs identified in the assessments, the third period response to episodic needs declined from the second period. According to the case record review, 45 children (25%) of the 180 children in the entire sample experienced mental health care needs between screenings. Of these children, 39 (87%) had the emerging needs addressed while six children had needs that appeared not to be met. This appears to be a decline from the 93 percent of children who experienced mental health needs between screenings and had those needs met in second period (although the change is within the sample’s margin of statistical error).
4. Education and Development
a. Timeliness of developmental assessment at entry
The Consent Decree requires that all children under the age of four years receive a developmental assessment within 30 days of placement in compliance with EPSDT standards.87 As included in Table V‐10, 15 of the children in the placement sample who entered DFCS custody between January 1 and June 30, 2007 were younger than four. Among these 15, 11 (73%) had completed developmental assessments – 9 within 30 days and 2 within 35 days. This is an improvement from the second period in which 29 percent of the children under age 4 had received a developmental assessment at entry. Six of the children assessed had developmental needs identified; 5 of these children were getting some or all of their needs met or services were scheduled.
b. Developmental and Educational Needs
To ascertain how many children may have on‐going educational or developmental needs, the record review of children in placement collected information about assessments and needs
87 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 101

identified. Between January 1 and June 30, at least 35 percent (62) of the children in the sample had some developmental and/or educational need identified. One third of the children needed academic assistance because of educational delays and poor academic performance. Another 43 percent had multiple physical, emotional, behavioral, and developmental challenges. The remaining children had a variety of symptoms. Approximately 75 percent of the children were having their needs addressed, 12 percent of the children ran away while services were being delivered, and the remaining 12 percent did not appear to be having their needs addressed.
Other indicators of developmental or educational needs are Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits and Individualized Education Plans (IEP). Eight (4%) of the children in the sample are receiving SSI benefits and thirty‐three (18%) had IEPs. Of those with IEPs, 60 percent of the IEPs appeared to be current. These should be developed annually.
c. School enrollment
Children aged 7 or older are required to be enrolled in school in Georgia. Within the placement sample, 114 children were age 7 or older by August 31, 2006. Among these children 94 (83%) were enrolled in school or a GED program in the first half of 2007. Ten children (8%) experienced gaps in school enrollment for different reasons. For example, five children ran away, one child was expelled, three were considering enrolling in a GED program, and the remaining one was the result of placement changes. Six other children (5%) did not appear to be enrolled at all during the period for similar reasons or there was insufficient documentation to determine school status. In four instances (4%), the children were in custody during the summer months, between school sessions and school enrollment while in placement was moot. About one third of the children younger than age seven were enrolled in a kindergarten or pre‐ school program.
5. Initial Case Plans
Among the 40 children entering custody during the reporting period and remaining in custody more than 30 days, 29 (73%) had an initial case plan developed by June 30, 2007 or their last day in custody. This appears to be an increase from the second reporting period in which 68 percent of a similar cohort had initial plans (although the change is within the sample’s margin of statistical error). Two of these plans had been reviewed by the Court and another was scheduled to be reviewed. The majority, however, were too recently developed to have been reviewed during the reporting period.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 102

PART VI STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE
Several of the Consent Decree requirements focus on DHR/DFCS organizational capabilities, with the intent of enhancing or creating capacity thought to be instrumental to the achievement of desired outcomes. This includes specialized staff, caseload sizes, workforce skill development, and having the resources and services to meet needs and quality assurance. This chapter reports on the progress of the State in meeting Outcomes 25, 26, 29, and 31 as well as capacity requirements.
A. Outcome Performance
Four outcomes (25, 26, 29, and 31) have been attributed to creating a stronger infrastructure for caring for the children in DFCS custody. Table VI‐1 on the next two pages provides the language of the Consent Decree and the degree of achievement for each outcome.

Table VI‐1 Strengthening Infrastructure Outcomes

Effective Oversight of Placement Settings Outcome 25: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 85% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 98% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. Outcome 31: By the end of the second reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than 10% of all children in foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three(3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.

3rd Period Performance
86%
5%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 103

Timely and Complete Court Orders for Placement Authorization
Outcome 26: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody at a point in lime during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in lime during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act. This outcome shall be measured for court orders entered after the entry of the Consent Decree. Outcome 29: By the end of the third reporting, no more than 5% of all children in custody of DHR/DFCS for 12 months or more shall have lapse of legal custody within the prior 13 months.

3rd Period Performance
42%
30%

1. Effective Oversight of Placement Settings: Outcomes 25 and 31
Two Outcomes (numbers 25 and 31) relate to the supervision of placement settings. Both had thresholds to be achieved by the end of the second reporting period. Data for these outcomes were gathered from case record reviews, State administrative data systems, and site visits to private providers.
Outcomes 25 ‐ Approved Placement Settings for Children
Outcome Measure 25 seeks to reduce the risk that children may be placed in harmful situations by requiring foster care placements to be evaluated and to be in full approval and/or licensure status. Outcome 25 stipulates that “…by the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status.”88
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The Consent Decree language framing Outcome 25 presents a difficult measurement challenge, as described in the Accountability Agents’ reports on the first and second monitoring periods.89 This outcome contains the phrase “By the end of the first reporting period…” and adds the phrase “….children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period…” This makes it quite clear that it is intended as a point‐in‐time measure to be taken at the end of the reporting period. To operationalize the measure as specified in the Consent Decree, data on the current approval status of individual foster placements on a particular date must be linked to data about the number of class member children in those individual homes on that same date. Existing data
88 See p 36, Outcome 25, of the Consent Decree 89 For a complete discussion of this issue, see Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S. A. Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue, November 2006, pp. 93-96 and “Period II Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue,” 2007, pp. 96-97.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 104

sources are unable to accomplish this linking with satisfactory rigor.
By agreement of the parties and the Accountability Agents, measurement of this outcome is based on a subset of the 180 records sampled for the foster care placement file review. The full foster care placement file review is based on the universe of children in foster care at ANY time between January 1 and June 30, 2007. The subset used for measurement of Outcomes 25 represents the 15090 children from the sample of 180 who were in foster care on June 30, 2006. For each child in this subset, the Accountability Agents “followed‐back” the child’s placement setting to its relevant approval status on June 30, 2007, using a variety of data sources, as indicated in Table VI‐2.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Third Period Outcome 25 Threshold
During the period January 1 – June 30, 2007, 86 percent of the children in custody were in placements that were in full approval and/or licensure status. This is comparable to the second period performance of 86 percent. Additional detail on this measurement appears in Table VI‐ 2. The Outcome 25 threshold is 95 percent.
As indicated in Table VI‐2, compliance with the relevant approval processes was particularly strong among group homes (100%), child‐caring institutions (100%), and DFCS‐supervised foster homes (100%). In addition, modest improvement was apparent in conducting and/or properly documenting the approval process among provider‐supervised foster homes (which appear to have increased from 81% to 88% since the second reporting period) and unpaid relative placements (which appear to have increased from 56% to 59%). However, both changes are within the sample’s margin of statistical error, and even with the apparent improvement remain too low. The approval performance for unpaid relative placements is especially disappointing since the approval process itself is substantially less complex than for other types of placements. DFCS is urged to make the approval rates among provider‐supervised foster homes and unpaid relative placements a priority for improvement during the fourth reporting period.
Among the six provider‐supervised foster homes lacking full approval status, five had overdue re‐evaluations (overdue by six weeks to 12 months, with a median of 14 weeks) and for one, the re‐evaluation report was not found in the file. With respect to unpaid relative placements, the criteria specified in Section 1004 of the DFCS Policy Manual for approval of a relative placement are the Social Services Supervisor’s approval and completion of a satisfactory relative care assessment (RCA).91 For purposes of the file review, a judge’s signature was also accepted as evidence of supervisory approval. Among the 13 relative placements that were not “fully
90 Because this is smaller than the entire sample of 180, any conclusions drawn from the smaller subset of children in care on June 30, 2007 provides a margin of error of approximately ±8 percent. 91 Social Services Manual, Chapter 1000, Section 4, Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, July 2005
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 105

approved,” seven had a completed RCA but no documentation of supervisory approval; two had documented supervisory approval but no documented RCA; and four had documentation of neither supervisory approval nor a completed RCA.
Table VI‐2
Outcome 25 – Children in Placements in Full Approval Status

Placement Type

Children in Placement
Sample

Children in Placements on
6/30/2007

Children in “Fully
Approved” Placements on
6/30/2007

Percent of Children in care on 6/30/2007 in
“Fully Approved” Placements

Relative

Placement a b

38

32

19 c

59%

DFCS‐

supervised

32

28

28

100%

Foster Home d

Provider‐

supervised

57

51

45

88%

Foster Home e f

Group Home g

21

17

17

100%

Child Caring

7

5

5

100%

Institution h

Other (NA)i

25

17

NA

NA

Total

180

150

114/133

86%

a Data source: Placement file review.

b Data source for ICPC relative placements: Georgia’s ICPC records.

c The criteria specified in Section 1004 of the DFCS Policy Manual for approval of a relative placement are the Social Services Supervisor’s approval and completion of a satisfactory relative care assessment (RCA). For purposes of the file review, a judge’s signature was also accepted as evidence of supervisory approval. Of the 13 relative placements that were not “fully approved,” seven had a completed RCA but no documentation of supervisory approval; two had documented supervisory approval but no documented RCA; and four had documentation of neither supervisory approval nor a completed RCA. d Data source: Placement Central e Data source: Review of child‐placing agency’s records. f Data source for ICPC foster home placements: Georgia’s ICPC records. g Data source: LORE data system h Data source: LORE data system i Includes children in state custody in settings with no relevant approval process including: placed with parents, hospitalized, Youth Department of Corrections, or on runaway status

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 106

Outcome 31 – Foster Home Capacity Limits
Outcome 31 seeks to limit the number of children placed in individual foster homes. By the end of the Second reporting period, it stipulates that “…no more than 10% of all children in foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed… [specified] capacity limits….”92 The capacity limits referenced in Outcome 31 are contained in Section 5.c.4.e of the Consent Decree.93
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Outcome 31, like Outcome 25, is also intended as a point‐in‐time measure. This measure specifies “children in foster homes” as the unit of analysis and requires these data to be linked with point‐in‐time data on the census of individual foster homes. This measure, therefore, constitutes a measurement challenge similar to that represented by Outcome 25.
By agreement of the parties and Accountability Agents, measurement of Outcome 31 for this report is based on the subset of children from the placement sample that were in foster home placements on June 30, 2007 – a total of 7994 children. Outcome 31 references the capacity limits enumerated in Section 5.c.4.e of the Consent Decree, “…concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.”95 Section 5.c.4.e. also enumerates certain exceptions to these capacity limits.96 The parties further agreed that for purposes of measuring compliance with Outcome 31, the only exception that will pertain is that provided for the placement of a sibling group when there are no other children in the home.
b. State Performance
• The State Surpassed the Third Period Outcome 31 Threshold
At the end of the third reporting period, four children (5% of the 79 children in the placement sample that were placed in foster homes on June 30) had been placed in foster homes that exceeded the specified capacity limits. By comparison, eight percent of the children in foster homes on December 31, 2006 had been placed in foster homes that exceeded the specified capacity limits. The two DFCS supervised foster homes exceeding the capacity limits in the
92 See p. 38 of the Consent Decree 93 Ibid, p. 16 94 Because this is smaller than the entire sample of 180, any conclusions drawn from the 78 children used in this analysis provides a 95 percent confidence interval with a margin of error of approximately ±11 percent. 95 See p. 38 of the Consent Decree, 96 Ibid, p. 16.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 107

third period were relative foster homes in which the three foster child limit was exceeded due to the placement of sibling groups; however, they did not qualify for the exception enumerated in Section 5.c.4.e. because those homes already contained other foster children. None of the children in the sample that were placed in foster homes on June 30 were placed in homes containing more than six children total. Additional detail on this measurement appears below in Table VI‐3.

Table VI‐3 Outcome 31 – Children in Foster Homes Exceeding Capacity Limits
N=79

Placement Type

Sampled Children in Foster Homes on 6/30/2007

Children Placed in Foster Homes
Having 3 or More Foster
Children

Children Placed in Foster Homes
Having 6 or More Children

Percent of Children in Foster Homes that Exceeded Capacity Limits

DFCS‐

supervised

28

2b

0

7%

Foster Homesa

Provider

Supervised

51

2

0

4%

Foster Homesc

Total

79

4

0

5%

a Data Source: Placement Central

b Both of these placements exceeded the three foster child limit due to the placement of sibling

groups in relative foster homes that already contained other foster children

c Data Source: Targeted review of provider foster home files

2. Timely and Complete Court Orders for Placement Authorization: Outcomes 26 and 29
Two Outcomes (numbered 26 and 29) relate to strengthening the infrastructure by establishing benchmarks for practices that help ensure DFCS has the appropriate authority to keep children in custody and to seek federal reimbursement appropriately for the services these children receive.
Outcome 26 – Required IV‐E Language in Court Orders
Outcome 26 relates to DFCS having the proper documentation in a child’s file to support an appropriate claim for Federal reimbursement under the Title VI‐E program.97 Judicial orders authorizing the removal of a child from his or her home and placement into foster care must
97 See pp 36-37, Outcome 26 of the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 108

contain determinations that remaining in the home is “contrary to the welfare” of the child in question and that “reasonable efforts” were made to prevent the child from being removed from his/her home. These determinations must be made on a case‐by‐case basis and be child‐ specific.
For those children who entered care on or after October 25, 2005, judicial determinations regarding “…contrary to the welfare…” must be made in the first order that sanctions the State agency’s action to remove the child from home. In practice, this is often the court order from the 72 hour hearing. In addition, there must be documentation of a judicial determination that “reasonable efforts” were made no later than 60 days from the date of child’s removal from the home.”98
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Data for Outcome 26 were collected from the case records of the sample of 180 children in foster care. The Outcome 26 analysis was applicable to those children who had entered DFCS custody after the Consent Decree was entered on October 27, 2005. This represented 119 children (66%) in the sample of 180.99
Previous measurements of this outcome included children who entered custody before the Consent Decree. Measurement in the third period was limited to those children who entered on or after the Consent Decree because of the specific language in the Consent Decree. The significance of this for the analysis is the application of the federal requirements for those children who entered custody since March 2000. Among the cohort that entered before the Consent Decree, a portion of them entered custody before March 2000. A different set of federal documentation requirements apply to those children. The requirements for those children allow an expanded timeframe in which to meet the requirements. For those children who entered custody after the Consent Decree, the more restrictive timeframe from the federal standards effective after March 2000 apply.
b. State Performance
 The State Fell Short of the Outcome 26 Threshold
As indicated in Table VI‐1, 42 percent of the case records of those children who entered custody after the Consent Decree had all the applicable language in the court orders necessary within the required time frames to assess eligibility for federal funding under Title IV‐E. The applicable threshold for this outcome in the third period is 85 percent. This performance appears to be lower than that of previous reporting periods. In periods one and two, 55 percent of the orders had all the applicable language.
98 Ibid. 99 Because 119 is smaller than the entire sample of 180, the margin of error for this smaller number is +9 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 109

The performance in the third period may be a result of lower actual performance or a different measurement of the performance by only analyzing the records of children who entered custody since the Consent Decree, and thereby excluding those who entered before March 2000. One barrier to assessing this performance is the proportion of case files that were missing court orders or other documentation. Slightly more than a one third of the records did not have the initial court order or the judicial determination. As in the earlier periods, a larger proportion of the files had one or the other documentation requirement in the necessary timeframes. That is, 50 percent had the child specific language in the applicable initial court order and about 66 percent had child specific reasonable efforts language in the judicial determination. Improving performance in this outcome requires a strategy that involves a strong partnership with the judges and court administration in the counties.
The potential impact of improving this performance in terms of increasing federal reimbursement for foster care expenditures is discussed more fully later in this chapter in Section G “Maximizing Federal Funding.” As noted in a State commissioned independent analysis of Georgia’s efforts to claim a larger proportion of federal funding, improving compliance with the required court order language could improve Georgia’s Title IV‐E penetration rate 8 to 12 percentage points but “this is beyond the range of DHR/DFCS’ authority and responsibility.” The experts go on to note that “some strategy will have to be developed to increase judicial compliance with the federal requirements even further than that found currently. Given the experience of other states, a realistic goal for improvement in this area would be eight percentage points, and little or none of that should be expected immediately.”100
Outcome 29 – Lapses in Legal Custodial Authority
The Consent Decree strives to limit the percent of children for whom DHR/DFCS custodial authority lapses.101 Outcome 29 stipulates that no more than 5 percent of all children should have a lapse in their legal custody within the most recent 13 months of their placement. This outcome became effective in the third period.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Data for Outcome 29 was collected from the case records of the sample of 180 children in foster care. The outcome 29 analysis was applicable to 86 children (48%) in the sample of 180 who had been in custody 12 months or more and were still in the temporary custody of the Department.102
100 Hornby Zeller Associates Inc, Georgia’s Use of Title IV-E. August 2007, p. ii. 101 See p 37, Outcome 29 of the Consent Decree 102 Because this is a smaller number than the entire sample of 180, the margin of error for 86 is approximately + 10 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 110

b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Third Period Outcome 29 Threshold
As indicated in Table VI‐1, DFCS had timely extensions of custody for 60 (70%) of the 86 children of the children for whom a custodial issue would be applicable. This means that 30 percent or 26 children had lapses in custody. The outcome threshold is no more than 5 percent. There has been limited improvement in this area since the first reporting period.
In three of the lapsed cases, there was documentation to show that DFCS had filed a motion to extend the custody 90‐120 days prior to the expiration. For the most part, however, there was no documentation of such action. The length of lapses appear to have ranged from less than 30 days to 2 years, with half of them being 2 months or less.
B. Lower Caseloads and Staff Qualifications
1. Caseload Sizes and Supervisory Ratios
There are five primary types of case managers responsible for direct interventions with children and families. These case manager types are as follows:
• Child Protective Services Investigators (CPS Investigations). These case managers are responsible for responding to and investigating reports of child maltreatment.
• Child Protective Services On‐Going Case Managers. These case managers are responsible for providing services and supervising the safety of children who are not taken into state custody and remain in their own homes.
• Placement Case Managers. These case managers are responsible for providing services to the children and families of children who are in the custody of the state.
• Adoptions Case Managers. These are case managers responsible for providing services to children whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated and who have the permanency goal of adoption.
• Specialized Case Managers. These case managers are responsible for providing services to the children and families of children who have been in state custody 18 months or more.
An additional distinction may be a Diversion Case Manager. These are case managers responsible for short‐term intervention with families who come to the attention of DFCS because they are in need of services that will help them keep their families safe. Counties handle these cases differently. DeKalb County has created separate caseloads with designated Diversion case managers. In Fulton County, CPS Investigators respond to and serve Diversion cases.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 111

Counties may also use different strategies for Child Protective Services. Many counties have two distinct types of units. Units that do only CPS investigations and those that provide only on‐going case management services to families while the children remain home under protective supervision. This is the approach Fulton County uses. DeKalb, however, combined these two functions in late 2006 creating units in which the case managers conduct investigations as well as provide on going in‐home services to families with an open CPS case.
A “case” in each of these practice areas is defined differently. For CPS investigations, on‐going, and diversion, a case is defined as the family unit being investigated, or receiving services and supervision. For Placement, a case is defined as a child, whether it is a “regular,” adoption, or “specialized “case. In this situation, siblings in State custody are considered separate cases. Case managers for children in the custody of the state, however, are also expected to provide services to birth parents, foster parents, and prospective adoptive parents in addition to the children.
The Consent Decree establishes caseload caps for the five primary types of case managers to be achieved by the end of the second reporting period.103 It also establishes supervisory ratios. These caps and ratios are as follows:
• CPS case managers (investigators): 20 cases (the equivalent of 20 families) • CPS ongoing case managers: 20 cases (the equivalent of 20 families) • Placement case managers: 25 cases (the equivalent of 25 children) • Adoption case managers: 22 cases (the equivalent of 22 children) • Specialized case managers: 12 cases (the equivalent of 12 children) • The supervisory ratio should be no more than 6 case managers reporting to 1
supervisor.
At the end of the fourth reporting period (December 2007) these caseload caps and supervisory ratios are to be further reduced.
a. State Performance as of June 30, 2007
Caseloads can and do fluctuate daily, especially among CPS investigators as investigations are completed and new ones are added. Adoption caseloads generally have the most stability, but they too can change within a month as children achieve permanency with a new family and new children become legally free for adoption. Therefore, the Accountability Agents chose to measure the caseloads using the number of cases open after the final data entry “posting” for the month of June. For practical purposes, this is referred to as June 30, 2007. A count of Diversion cases was included for those case managers who had a mixed CPS and Diversion caseload. Case managers responsible only for Diversion cases were not included in the analysis.

103 See page 22, Section 8, paragraph A.1 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 112

As of June 30, 2007, 70 percent of the case managers in DeKalb and Fulton Counties had caseloads that were at or within the designated caps, as reflected in Table VI‐4. This represents a decline from the second period performance of 95 percent. After the highly publicized tragic death of a child in November 2006 and some internal organizational changes, both counties struggled with increased maltreatment investigations and child protective cases and with staff turnover. The higher caseloads were not limited to child protective services. Not surprisingly, all program areas experienced slippage compared to the second period. There is usually a “ripple effect” after a child death that not only increases the number of reports and open in‐ home child protective services cases, it also increases the number of children brought into custody, thereby increasing all workloads.
The degree to which the caseloads exceeded the caps varied by program area. In Child Protective Services Investigations and On‐Going, 45 of 136 caseloads were over the cap of 20 cases; the size of the caseloads exceeding the cap ranged from 21 to 51. Ten case managers had caseloads of 30 or more, while the average caseload for the remaining 35 was 25 families per case manager. Among foster care case managers, 15 of 65 case managers had caseloads exceeding the cap of 20; the size of the caseloads exceeding the cap ranged from 26 to 33 children. Also, one worker with provisional certification had 14 cases, exceeding the DFCS policy limit of seven cases for provisionally‐certified case managers. All adoption case managers were under the Consent Decree stipulated caseload cap of 22 children. The counties have committed to keeping these caseloads at 12 or fewer to be equivalent with the specialized case manager requirements; however two adoption case managers had caseloads of 13 children each. Finally, 23 of 60 specialized case managers had caseloads ranging from 13 to 15 children.
Additionally, not all children appear to be moving to specialized case managers when they reach their 18th month in custody. Forty children remained assigned to “regular” placement case managers after reaching their 18th month in state custody. Their reassignment would affect the caseload sizes of both placement case managers and those of the specialized case managers.
The state and counties have taken steps to address the vacancies left by turnover and the growing caseloads. They have safely reduced the number of open cases by temporarily drawing on the assistance of retired veteran workers, regional field staff, and staff that had been assigned as court liaisons but had been certified to work in Child Protective Services. In addition, new staff have been hired and trained over the summer. By the end of the summer, retired staff and field specialists had been phased‐out of CPS case management responsibilities and the caseloads had come down. In Fulton County in particular, the number of CPS case managers with caseloads greater than 30 was four on August 31, 2007, compared to eight on June 30, 2007. In addition, those with caseloads exceeding the 20 case cap on August 31, 2007 had caseloads ranging from 21 to 33.
To fill vacancies, new staff have been hired and trained. This process, however, takes time as new staff move through periods of being trainees and having provisional certification status before they can assume caseloads greater than seven. In addition, staff turnover continues as
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 113

individuals learn better about the job demands and decide they are not suited for the work, or as supervisors and program administrators counsel staff that they may not be suited for this career choice. This situation is no different in Georgia than around the country. This set back in the third period makes the further reduced caseload requirements by the end of the fourth reporting period (December 2007) all the more challenging. In order to meet the Consent Decree requirements, the State will need to: • Continue to recruit and hire individuals who have the attitudes and skills that will enable
them to be successful in the work; • Provide the training that furthers skill development; • Provide supportive supervision; • Continually evaluate recruitment and retention strategies.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 114

Table VI‐4 DeKalb and Fulton County Caseload Status at June 30, 2007

Target Number Number

Actual Performance

Case Manager Function

Caseload Cap:
Number of cases

of Active Staff on 06/30/071

of Active, On‐leave Staff on 06/30/072

Meeting Cap

Not Meeting Cap

Cases assigned to separated
workers/

Supervisors

Number

%

Number %

Number

CPS Case

20

75

1

53 70%

23 30%

383

Manager

Ongoing

20

61

39 64%

22 36%

24

Case

Manager

Placement

25

65

49 75%

16 25%

65

Case

Manager

Adoption

22

28

266 93%

2 7%

Case

Manager

Specialized

12

60

37 62%

23 38%

76

Case

Manger

Total

289

1

204 70%

86 30%

52

Sources: State data base: IDS; county personnel systems for leave and separation information

Notes:

1Active staff are those staff who were not on leave of absence at 6/30/07 that was expected to be more

than 30 days. Includes workers with mixed caseloads of CPS investigations and diversions. Excludes

workers who had diversion cases only. Excludes case managers who have caseloads of children placed

through ICPC and not in DFCS custody

2Active staff on leave at 6/30/07 but leave anticipated to be more than 30 days; one CPS investigator was

on leave on June 30, 2007. Three cases remained assigned to this investigator in IDS on June 30, 2007.

3 Of the 38 cases, seven remained assigned in IDS to three case managers who had resigned during June,

three cases were assigned to one case manager on medical leave on June 30, 2007 (same as in footnote 2),

and 28 cases were assigned to five supervisors. For one supervisor, six of these cases had been her

responsibility before she was promoted to a supervisory position during June.

4The two CPS ongoing cases were assigned to a supervisor

5The six cases were assigned to a case manager who was terminated June 29, 2007.

6The seven cases were assigned to one supervisor.

As shown in Table VI‐5, on June 30, 92 percent of the supervisory units had a ratio of 6 workers to one supervisor or better. This is an improvement over the second period performance of 82

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 115

percent. All five of the units that exceeded these ratios were child protective services units. One supervisor was responsible for supervising as many as ten case managers and two others had responsibility for eight workers each. According to the Fulton County CPS caseload data for August 31, 2007, these supervisory ratios have been reduced since June. The majority of units had a ratio of 5 workers to one supervisor so the fourth period standard of a ratio of five to one appears attainable.

Table VI‐5 DeKalb and Fulton County Supervisory Ratios at June 30, 2007

Program/Service Area

Number of Units

Meeting 1 to 6 Not Meeting 1 to 6

ratio

ratio

Number %

Number %

Child Protective Services

26

21 81%

5 19%

(Investigations* and Ongoing)

Placement

15

15 100%

Adoption

6

6 100%

Specialized Case Management

14

14 100%

Total

61

56 92%

5

8%

*Includes supervisors of diversion units where diversion case managers also carrying CPS cases

Sources: State IDS and county personnel systems for leave and separation information

C. Building Workforce Skills

The Consent Decree has several training requirements.104 In this report section, the Accountability Agents describe the qualifications of new supervisors and the Department’s compliance with pre‐service and in‐service training requirements.

1. Education and Training Services Section 105

There were no changes in the Education and Training Services (ETS) during the third period. There were some organizational changes after July 1, 2007, including the naming of a new director. These changes will be reported on further in the fourth reporting period.

2. Response to the Assessment of the Pre‐Service Curriculum for Foster Care Case Managers.

During the second period, the Accountability Agents had an outside expert evaluate the pre‐ service curriculum for foster care case managers. This curriculum, along with the curricula for child protective services and for supervisors were undergoing revision during the third period.

104 See pages 25 and 26 of the Consent Decree for the complete description of the requirements. 105 See Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S. A. Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue, November 2006, for a
description of the Education and Training Services Section.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 116

The recommendations of the outside expert, therefore, were particularly timely. Some of the recommendations had to do with sequencing and organization of the modules to assure that case managers receive information in a logical fashion, building on each previous step. Others suggestions included making the curriculum more skill‐based with more direct observation by supervisors or field practice advisors.
The State reports that a “New Worker Training Series” was being developed to be launched in conjunction with the implementation of “Georgia Shines”, the State’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS). Georgia Shines was originally scheduled to be implemented statewide in January 2008. However, as discussed later in this chapter, the implementation schedule has been revised.
The new curriculum has been designed to combine the current Keys (required of all new staff), separate CPS and Foster Care Track classes, along with the new Georgia Shines training into one eight‐week long training that covers foundational knowledge for case practice, Child Protective Services, and Foster Care Services case practice. The State reports, this training will be more focused on skills needed to successfully work a caseload and will cover the case continuum from Intake through Foster Care. The trainees will be given twelve cases to work through the training process. The training will consist of Classroom training combined with a very structured Field Practice and on‐ line training. Once a new worker completes the new training series they will be certified as a Case Manager, and can work in either Foster Care or CPS depending on their county’s need.”106
3. New Supervisor Qualifications
As stipulated in the Consent Decree, case manager supervisors employed by the counties after October 27, 2005 must have, at a minimum, a Bachelor’s degree in Social Work (BSW) and two years of experience.107 Sixteen individuals were promoted or newly employed as case manager supervisors between January 1 and June 30, 2007. All sixteen individuals met these criteria. Table VI‐6 summarizes the activity in the first 18 months of the Consent Decree.
106 Email correspondence from Jeffery Brown, Unit Manager, Social Services Learning and Development Unit Organizational Skills Development Group, July 11, 2007. 107 See p. 26 of the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 117

Table VI‐6 Qualifications of Individuals Employed as/ Promoted to Supervisors
Since October 27, 2005

Total

First Period (October 27, 2005‐June 30, 2006)

16

Second Period (July 1 to December 31, 2006

6

Third Period (January 1 to June 30, 2007)

16

Sources: County personnel data

Description of Cohort • Two did not have the required years of experience and
one did not have a BSW, however, they were assigned supervisory responsibility for non case management units. • One had the minimum degree and experience level. • Thirteen exceeded the minimum experience levels and of the thirteen, four exceeded the minimum degree requirement by possessing master’s degrees in social work and other disciplines All 6 exceeded the required years of experience and four exceeded the minimum degree requirement by possessing master’s degrees in social work and other disciplines All 16 exceeded the required years of experience and six exceeded the minimum degree requirement by possessing master’s degrees in social work and other disciplines

4. Pre‐Service and On‐going Training Hours

Table VI‐7 summarizes the training requirements in the Consent Decree and what DFCS has in place to meet these requirements. Tracking training hours is a split responsibility between the State Education and Training unit and the counties. There is currently no standard, shared data base for county use. Each employee has a “training transcript” in which the training hours provided directly by the Education and Training Unit and Georgia State University are recorded. The counties have developed their own in‐house training log to track the hours provided in the county. According to the county data and the certification data reviewed by the Accountability Agents, it appears that new case managers are receiving the required number of hours of pre‐service training. New supervisors appointed or hired in the last year appear to have received the supervisory pre‐service training. However, a small proportion of case managers and supervisors do not appear to be receiving the required 20 hours annually of professional development. In reviewing the training hours for the 12‐month period July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007, 84 percent of the 290 case managers with cases assigned on June 30, 2007 had the required training hours. Likewise, 85 percent of the supervisors had received the required training. The Accountability Agents intend to do more verification of this information in the fourth period.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 118

Table VI‐7 Training and Professional Development Requirements

Level
Case manager

Requirement108

Provided

This requirement is met over a period of approximately 10 weeks with a

combination of  97.5 classroom hours in “Keys to Child Welfare” in the first six

weeks of employment  32.5 hours of program track classroom training (Child Protective

160 hours pre‐

Services or Foster Care Services)

service

 200‐240 hours of field practice activities and self‐paced on‐line

training, depending on the program track. (3 weeks interspersed

with classroom instruction in the first six weeks, and 2 to 3 weeks

with 1 week of classroom in the subsequent 3 to 4 weeks)

Culminates with a three‐part certification process that tests case

manager knowledge and skills

• 36‐48 required hours in the first six months after certification,

depending on program track

•

20 hours/year on‐

going

•

16‐48 required hours in the 6‐12 months after certification, depending on program track
18 to 36 required hours in the 12‐18 months after certification, depending on program track

• Approved professional development classes, conferences, work

shops, etc

• 40 required hours of classroom, 15 days of field practice, and

40 hours pre‐

additional assignments

service

Culminates with a three‐part certification process that tests supervisor

knowledge and skills109

Supervisor

36 required hours, subject matter depends on what they received as case

20 hours/year on‐ managers

going

Approved professional development classes, conferences, work shops,

etc

Source: Compiled from the Education and Training Services Certification Manuals, second

period Foster Care curriculum assessment commissioned by the Accountability Agents, and the

Social Services Training Course Descriptions, DFCS Education and Training Services, June 19,

2007.

108 See p. 25.Section 10. B paragraph 3 of the Consent Decree, 109 Ibid

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 119

5. Case Manager and Supervisor Certification
With the assistance of a nationally‐recognized child welfare training expert, the Education and Training Services Section developed a skills‐based competency assessment as a component of the certification110 process for all social service case managers and supervisors. The certification process has three parts, 1) classroom knowledge test, 2) field observation, and 3) case record review. Through this process, not only is “book learning” assessed, but the candidates must demonstrate the appropriate abilities and knowledge in the field and in their case documentation. Case managers and supervisors must complete and pass each part of the process to be fully certified. According to State policy, new case managers cannot carry a full caseload until they are fully certified.111 The entire process usually takes three to four months for a new case manager. Case manager and new supervisor pre‐service training is considered complete when they have achieved certification. However, once a new case manager has successfully passed the classroom knowledge test, county directors may provisionally certify them and allow them to carry no more than seven cases under the supervision of a fully‐ certified case manager.
The certification process began in the spring of 2005 and has been implemented in two phases. The first phase addressed certification for all case managers and supervisors hired before April 1, 2004.112 The second phase of certification implementation is ongoing. For all those hired after April 1, 2004, certification is acquired through the new worker and supervisor training process. Table VI‐8 summarizes the certification status available from the State at the end of June 2007 for social service case managers and supervisors in Fulton and DeKalb Counties.
110 Certification is defined by the Education and Training Services section as “the successful demonstration, at a given point in time, that the employee possess the foundational competencies needed to perform the job.” 111 County Directors can provisionally certify new workers after six weeks if they pass the knowledge test. Provisionally certified workers can carry up to seven low risk cases under the oversight of another case manager. Full case responsibility, however, remains with the overseeing case manager. 112 Among these individuals a distinction was made. The requirement for incumbent certification applied to case managers hired before April 1, 2004, who had less than 5 years experience, and to supervisors hired before December 1, 2005, who also had less than 5 years experience. “Fast track” certification was awarded to staff persons who had 5 years of satisfactory social services case management or supervisor practice in DFCS as of October 1, 2004. Resource Development staff and CPS Intake only case managers and supervisors were exempted from the certification requirement.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 120

Table VI‐8 Certification Status of Case Managers and Supervisors in
DeKalb and Fulton County DFCS as of June 30, 2007

Position Title

Fully Certified

Results Pending

Provisional

Not Certified

Total

Case Managers

CPS Investigators 49 (64%)

27

76

CPS On‐Going Case 44 (72%)

1

15

1

61

Managers

Placement Case Managers 59 (91%)

6

65

Adoption Case Managers 27 (96%)

1

28

Specialized Case 56 (93%)

3

1

60

Managers

TOTAL 235 (81%)

2

50

1

290

Supervisors

CPS (Investigations and 14 (54%)

7

5

26

On‐Going)

Placement 12(80%)

2

1

15

Adoption 3 (50%)

3

6

Specialized Cases 8 (57%)

5

1

14

TOTAL 37 (51%)

17

7

61

Source: Compiled from data supplied by Education and Training Services Section and County

Kenny A. staff. Not verified by Accountability Agents.

As noted in Table VI‐6, 81 percent of case managers and 61 percent of supervisors had achieved full certification as of June 30, 2007. Staff who have failed to achieve certification on the first attempt are required to engage in remediation and retesting. The level of full certification for case managers is not surprising given the number of new staff both counties brought in during the third period, but is slightly lower than the second period. The level of supervisor certification has improved from 48 percent and it continued to improve after the third reporting period as 11 of the 17 that had certification pending on June 30 were certified in July and August. The State however needs to continue to focus on certifying all supervisors and to review the training needs of those individuals who are not certified. While some of those serving as supervisors may be getting the required number of professional development hours, they may not be getting the specific training needed for the supervisory certification.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 121

6. Private providers required to meet same standards
The Consent Decree requires “private provider agencies with whom DFCS contracts for the provision of placements for children in DFCS custody shall be required, through contract provisions, to certify that employees providing management or supervisory services for DFCS.” Essentially, private provider agencies must meet similar qualification, training, and certification as required for DFCS case managers and supervisors.113 The state convened a meeting with all the providers serving DeKalb and Fulton Counties on March 30, 2007 at which it was announced that their FY 2007 contracts would reflect this requirement. Plans for making the required training accessible to private providers are still being developed.
D. Assuring Needed Services Are Available
The Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS engage in a needs assessment to “identify what new and/or different placements and related services, if any, are needed to provide substantially for the care of the Plaintiff Class.”114 At the completion of the needs assessment, DFCS is to phase‐ in the identified needed services over a period of twelve months. After selection and contractual delays, the needs assessment was initiated by Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. (HZA) in March 2007 and a final report was delivered to the Department August 29, 2007. The report’s Executive Summary is included as Appendix C to this report. The assessment made six recommendations. Four recommendations focused on increasing the number and location of foster homes for children in the custody of Fulton and DeKalb Counties. Specifically, HZA recommended increasing homes in Fulton County in general and in the neighborhoods where the greatest disparity between need and resources exist. The contractor also recommended these homes be specifically recruited to serve adolescents and sibling groups. Another recommendation urged DFCS to expand and enhance its placement prevention efforts to reduce the need for placement settings. The sixth recommendation suggested implementing an automated placement matching system that would facilitate matching children with homes that can meet their needs and provide a better means for managing and tracking available resources.
E. Placement Support
In this section of the report, the State’s performance is described regarding a number of issues related to the regulation and support of foster care providers. These issues are described in the Consent Decree in Section 5C4e‐i, 5C6115 and Section 11.116 Generally, the State appears to be performing well relative to most of these issues.

113 See pp. 35 and 36, paragraph 10.B.4 of the Consent Decree 114 See pp 12 – 13, paragraphs 4A,1-4 of the Consent Decree 115 Ibid, pp. 16-19. 116 Ibid, pp. 26-28.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 122

Section 11 of the Consent Decree contains a variety of requirements with respect to the screening, licensing, and training of foster parents. Paragraph B of Section 11 requires a set of uniform standards to be in place for the approval or re‐approval of all foster and pre‐adoptive families. In Paragraph F, the State agrees not to allow the perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment to become or to remain foster parents. The State’s performance against each of these requirements is considered below.
The file review of 159 foster homes sought evidence in each file that the home was in compliance with applicable standards at the end of the reporting period. Data from the file review are presented below. These data can be said to fairly represent the status of the sampled foster homes at the end of the reporting period, but may not accurately reflect the quality of the regulatory approval process. The reasons for this include changes that may occur in family circumstances or characteristics between the approval date and date the home’s file was reviewed, and certain nuances of the regulatory process such as “grace periods,” and aspects of the approval process that may have been underway at the end of the reporting period but had not yet been concluded and documented in the case record. The foster home file review instruments for the third reporting period attempted to correct for these nuances to the extent possible, but the Accountability Agents have not yet had the opportunity to evaluate how successfully they did so.
1. Regular and timely evaluations to ensure placement settings meet standards
Successfully preventing maltreatment in care is aided by effective evaluation and reevaluation of care settings. In addition, foster caregivers need to be supported and well‐trained to effectively care for and, when necessary, appropriately discipline the children in their care.
To ensure that foster homes are equipped to provide safe and appropriate care, DFCS has promulgated a uniform set of approval standards that are intended to apply to DFCS‐ supervised and provider‐supervised foster homes alike. In addition, the Office of Regulatory Services has promulgated licensing rules that apply to the Child Placing Agencies that supervise private foster homes.
However, the existence of uniform standards by itself cannot ensure children in care are safe and well. Therefore, the review of foster home files specifically sought evidence that the foster homes reviewed were in compliance with the DFCS approval standards. Overall, evidence of compliance was found to be satisfactory and to be comparable to the second reporting period, although it varied significantly by requirement.
Table VI‐7 summarizes the extent to which documentation was found in the foster home records reviewed indicating that these homes met specific approval standards, and compares the results for the second and third reporting periods.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 123

Table VI‐7 Foster Care Approval and Licensing Standards
N=36

Foster Care Screening, Licensing, Training,

Documentation found

and Investigative Requirements

indicating requirement

met

2nd Period 3rd Period

Family assessment completed

98%

98%

No violations of agency discipline or other foster care policies

95%

98%

Gender of children in home never varied from that approved

96%

97%

Pre‐service foster parent training requirements met

97%

96%

Timely Criminal Record Checks for foster parents

98%

92%

Comprehensive medical report for each foster parent

89%

91%

Number of children in home never exceeded approved

90%

89%

capacity

Timely annual re‐evaluation (no lapses)

92%

88%

CPS history has been checked

91%

85%

Age of children in home never varied from that approved

79%

85%

Appropriate health statements for household members

86%

81%*

Timely Criminal Record Checks for other adults in the home

89%

78%*

Sexual Offender Registry has been checked

76%

77%

Ongoing foster parent training requirements met

82%

75%

Comprehensive Drug Screen for Foster Parents

54%

57%

Source: Case Record Review, July 2006 and January 2007 * As these measures are based on a sub‐sample of 36 foster homes, they have a margin of statistical error of ±16%.

The file review found completed initial/re‐evaluation reports in 96 percent (151 of 158) files in which they should have appeared, compared to 99 percent in the second reporting period. The file review found evidence that for most approval standards, 88 percent or more of the homes reviewed were in compliance. This is comparable to the second reporting period, for which most of the approval standards were met by 90 percent or more of the homes reviewed. Compliance appears to have improved on 4 of the 15 requirements; five were virtually unchanged (±1 percentage point); and six appeared to decline; however, all the observed changes were within the foster home sample’s margin of statistical error.

For four of the approval standards, evidence of compliance was found in fewer than 80 percent of the foster home records sampled: timely criminal record checks for other adults in the home, sexual offender registry checks, fulfillment of ongoing foster parent training requirements, and comprehensive drug screens for foster parents. These standards have something in common:

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 124

although all are now required by the standard DFCS child placing agency contracts that went into effect July 1, 2007 (i.e., after the close of the third reporting period), each had previously been deemed not mandatory for private provider‐supervised foster homes.

As discussed in the Accountability Agents’ second period report, State Law 49‐5‐69 permits children to be placed with private agency foster homes on the basis of a satisfactory preliminary criminal records check for the foster parents and other adult residents in the home, and a satisfactory finger print check for the foster parents.117 This law had been interpreted in practice as leaving to the discretion of child placing agencies such things as sex offender registry checks, finger print checks of other adults in the home, and drug screening of private agency foster parents.

However, Section 11 B of the Consent Decree establishes that DFCS will develop and maintain uniform standards for the approval and re‐approval of foster homes.118 Section 1015 of the Social Services Manual establishes among other standards, that satisfactory criminal record and finger print checks are required of all foster parents and other adult residents of the home every five years; that comprehensive drug screening is required of each foster parent at the time of their initial approval; and that sex offender registry checks are required for the foster parents and all adult residents of the home at initial approval.119 Providers were informed at a March 30, 2007 meeting convened by the State that these and other requirements of the Consent Decree would be contained in their contracts that became effective July 1, 2007. However, this was too late to impact the third period file review results. As shown in Table VI‐8, documentation of compliance with each of these standards was substantially higher (82‐87%) among DFCS‐ supervised foster homes than among provider‐supervised homes (41‐76%).

Table VI‐8

Foster Care Approval and Licensing Standards, by Home Type

Foster Home Approval Standard

DFCS – supervised Foster Homes

Provider‐ supervised Foster
Homes

Timely Criminal Record Checks for other adults in the home

82%

76%

Sexual Offender Registry has been checked

87%

70%

Ongoing foster parent training requirements met

87%

67%

Comprehensive Drug Screen for Foster Parents

82%

41%

Source: Case Record Review, September 2007.

Total
78% 77% 75% 57%

117 O.C.G.A. §49-5-69 118 See p. 26, Section 11, paragraph B of the Consent Decree 119 Social Services Manual, Chapter 1015 and Appendix B, Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, July 2005
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 125

One of these requirements merits additional discussion: “sexual offender registry has been checked.” The performance on this important requirement appears to be about the same as in the second period. As with some of the other items monitored (e.g., the file contains a complete history of any Child Protective Services substantiations) conducting an accurate file review can be problematic and the results potentially misleading when the desired information rests on the clarity with which caseworkers and file reviewers are able to document the absence of an event. If a foster parent or other household adult does not appear on the sexual offender registry, there may be no physical evidence to place in the file. In that circumstance caseworkers are instructed to make a note to that effect in the case record, but they may not always do so, or such notes can be missed by file reviewers working through sometimes voluminous case records. Because of the importance of sexual offender registry checks to ensuring the safety of the foster care environment, the file review team checked the sexual offender registry for each of the 37 foster homes for which documentation of this check was not found by the file reviewers. None of the adults living in those 37 foster homes appeared on the sexual offender registry. While this does not necessarily mean that the caseworker checked the sexual offender registry and failed to make note of it in the case record, or that such a note was made but was not found by the file reviewer, it does offer reassurance that none of these 37 foster homes had registered sex offenders living in them. The State and the counties are again encouraged to emphasize with caseworkers the importance of prominently documenting the results of sexual offender checks, even when they come up clean, to facilitate accurate assessments of practice quality.
2. Prohibition of perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment to be foster parents
Section 11F of the Consent Decree specifies that DFCS will not allow perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment, those with policy violations that threaten child safety, or those who repeatedly or unrepentantly use corporal punishment to become or to remain foster parents. The State’s performance on this requirement was found to be excellent, and is considered in greater detail below.
The state’s performance in preventing foster parents from using corporal punishment was found to be excellent. Of the 159 foster home files reviewed, none (0%) had a confirmed incident of corporal punishment during the third reporting period. Similarly, no confirmed incidents of corporal punishment were identified in the second period’s foster home sample. More detail on the State’s performance in preventing the use of corporal punishment is discussed earlier in this report, in Section III.
To assess the State’s performance in not allowing perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment to become or to remain foster parents, the Accountability Agents examined any file in the foster home sample that indicated any history of substantiated maltreatment, and cross‐referenced these cases with the Data in IDS, and in some instances, had the file reviewers re‐examine the case records on the homes involved and the children in them.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 126

Three homes in the sample of 159 (2%) were found to have a prior substantiation of maltreatment and to be open during the reporting period. This is similar to the second reporting period, when two such homes (1%) were found. The disposition of these homes is detailed below.
• Home 1 was a DFCS‐supervised foster‐to‐adopt home that had an allegation of
inadequate supervision substantiated in 2003. The home was closed to additional placements, but was allowed to remain open under a waiver from the central office to complete the adoption. The adoption of the child remaining in the home was completed in May 2007.
• Home 2 was a provider supervised foster home that had an allegation of inadequate
supervision substantiated in 2006. The supervising CPA developed a Corrective Action Plan that addressed getting the foster father more involved so both parents did not have to attend meetings leaving the children unsupervised, and updating the family’s approved support system. The supervising CPA requested a waiver from the county office to allow the home to remain open, but there is no evidence the county followed this up with a waiver request to the central office.
• Home 3 was a provider supervised home that had an allegation of inadequate
supervision substantiated in 2006. The child involved in the allegation was removed from the home several weeks prior to the date the report was received. The child who was in this home during the third reporting period was removed from the home in August, 2007 and placed with a relative. The home currently has no placements, but appears to remain open.
Three other homes in the sample had allegations of maltreatment that were substantiated during the reporting period. (This is comparable to the second reporting period sample which included five such homes.) One of the three foster homes was closed at the conclusion of the investigation; one had the foster children removed from the home at the conclusion of the investigation but remained open at the end of the reporting period (the investigation was concluded within two weeks of the reporting period’s end); and one was allowed to remain open under a corrective action plan because the maltreatment substantiated involved the foster parent’s adoptive child, not the foster child in the home.
Given the importance of preventing perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment from becoming or remaining foster parents, the Accountability Agents vetted each of these six cases very carefully. In two of the cases, the foster homes were appropriately closed at the conclusion of the investigation. In two of the four that remained open, it appears that reasonable and appropriate efforts were made to assure the safety of the children remaining in the home while, in their best interest, preserving the continuity of their placement arrangements, (although in one of these cases, it appears that a required waiver was not requested from the central office).
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 127

In two remaining cases, the most current information available to the Accountability Agents is that the homes have no foster children placed in them, but appear to remain open. The State is urged to follow up on these cases to ensure that these homes are either closed if appropriate, or are properly approved to remain open under waivers.
Section 11F also stipulates that DFCS shall be able to identify DFCS‐supervised or provider‐ supervised foster parents that have perpetrated substantiated maltreatment or had their home closed, and subsequently seek foster home approval from a CPA or a different CPA. The Treatment Services Unit uses a provider registry to identify and to prevent such foster parents from attempting to do this. No examples of a foster parent with a history of substantiated maltreatment attempting to change supervision environments were identified during this reporting period.
3. Operational Context
Section 11 C of the Consent Decree requires the process of licensing and approving foster homes to be carried out jointly by DFCS and the Office of Rehabilitative Services. This section describes the Accountability Agents’ understanding of how DFCS and ORS collaborate in this process. It is based on interviews with staff of both these units as well as interviews with other central office and county staff.
The Office of Regulatory Services (ORS) licenses Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) and other institutional providers. A CPA must be licensed by ORS before DFCS will execute a contract with them to provide foster care. In these private provider arrangements, the CPA conducts the approval process for the foster homes it supervises. For DFCS‐supervised foster homes, the approval process is conducted by DFCS.
Section 5C4i of the Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS will contract only with licensed placement contractors. To assess compliance with this requirement, data from the foster home file review were compared against the CPA licensing information available in Placement Central. Of the provider‐supervised foster homes sampled that had a class member in care at the end of the reporting period, 100 percent were overseen by CPAs that had a valid license on July 10, 2007 (the closest date available to June 30, 2007).
ORS licenses the CPAs themselves, not the foster homes supervised by the CPAs. ORS only gets involved with individual provider‐supervised foster homes if they receive a complaint about a particular home. To receive a license, a CPA must allow ORS to review their policies and procedures for compliance with the ORS rules regarding such things as home studies, visitation, non‐discrimination, etc. In deciding whether to renew a CPA’s license, ORS reviews the files of individual children against the provider record to ensure the placement was an appropriate match for the child and conducts unannounced inspections of a sample of the foster homes supervised by each CPA. If rule violations are found in the course of these the CPA can be cited for licensure violations.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 128

CPAs wishing to serve children in DFCS custody must, in addition to licensure by ORS, be approved by the DFCS Treatment Services Unit (TSU). The DFCS policy manual specifies a set of uniform standards that foster care settings must meet to be approved by DFCS – in the case of DFCS supervised homes – or by CPAs – in the case of provider supervised homes. (As discussed in the previous section, “Regular and timely evaluations to ensure placement settings meet standards,” the uniform application of these approval standards has been compromised by the existence of State Law 49‐5‐69, which is somewhat contradictory of certain aspects of DFCS’ uniform approval standards.) Before arriving at an initial approval decision, TSU reviews the ORS licensing decision and follows up with ORS on any questions they have; performs a desk review and staffing of each application; and visits three of the CPAs foster homes to review physical plant and other issues not covered by the ORS licensing process. TSU also conducts utilization reviews every six months after approval in which they visit three homes of each CPA, meet with the staff, tour the cottages, and interview the children. TSU became the Provider Services Unit on July 1, 2007. The extent to which this change alters TSU’s previous responsibilities and activities will be addressed in the Accountability Agent’s fourth report.

4. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding Placement Support

The Consent Decree contains a number of other requirements related to placement. These include restrictions on the capacity of foster and group homes; payment, training and support requirements pertaining to foster parents; and automating placement data.

a.

Foster Home Capacity Restrictions

Section 5C4e of the Consent Decree limits the capacity of foster homes to three foster children or a total of six children (including the family’s biological or other children) absent the written approval of the Social Services Director. It also prohibits any placement that would result in more than three children under the age of three residing in a foster home, unless the children in question are a sibling group. Data from the foster home file review indicate that the state performed extremely well in meeting these requirements.

Of the foster home files reviewed, 96 percent had three or fewer foster children in them on June 30, 2007.120 With respect to the limit of six total children, 98 percent of the foster homes reviewed were within that limit on June 30, 2007. Finally, all of the foster homes reviewed (100%) had three or fewer children under the age of three in them on June 30, 2007.

120 In the first and second reporting periods, the foster home file review assessed whether homes exceeded the capacity limits at any time during the reporting period. The file review assessed compliance with capacity limits as a point-in-time measure for the third reporting period so the results could be used to validate similar data in Placement Central. (See discussion in Section G of this chapter, Improving Automated Support.)
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 129

b.

Foster Care Maintenance Payments

Section 5B1 of the Consent Decree establishes specific Basic Foster Care Maintenance payments that were to be effective July 1, 2005. Those per diem rates were: for children aged 0‐6, $13.78; for children aged 7‐12, $15.50; and for each child aged 13 and older, $17.75. In addition, the DHR Commissioner is to propose a periodic increase in these rates in succeeding fiscal years.

Through interviewing the DFCS Deputy Director and reviewing DFCS budget documents and contract language the Accountability Agents determined that the State met this provision. Since the inception of the Consent Decree, the Commissioner has proposed and implemented increases each year in the foster care per diem rates. For SFY 2008, a cost‐of‐ living‐type increase of approximately 3% in foster care per diem rates was implemented. The per‐diem rates that went into effect July 1, 2007 are: for children aged 0‐6, $14.60; for children aged 7‐12, $16.50; and for each child aged 13 and older, $18.80. All DFCS foster homes were paid the required per diem rates and all new provider contracts contained language mandating the new rates.

c.

Foster Parent Training and Support

Sections 5C6 and 11D of the Consent Decree stipulate that foster and pre‐adoptive parents will receive uniform pre‐service training prior to being approved or having a child placed in their home; and that they will be required to complete ongoing, annual training as part of the annual re‐approval process. Section 5C6 further stipulates that foster parents will be able to contact DFCS 24 hour a day, seven days a week with their questions or concerns. The Accountability Agents found DFCS’ performance to be quite good on the first and last of these requirements, but that performance on the second of these three requirements needs further improvement.

The foster home case record review found evidence in the files of 96 percent of the foster homes reviewed that the pre‐service training requirements had been met. This was about the same as the second period rate of 97 percent.

With respect to ongoing annual training, documentation supporting that the requirements had been met was found in 75 percent of the files of the 120 foster homes sampled to which the requirement applied. This appears to be a decrease from the second reporting period, for which the comparable rate was 82 percent, although the observed change falls within the sample’s margin of statistical error. Compared to second period performance, compliance appears to have declined among both DFCS‐supervised foster homes (from 93% to 87%) and provider‐ supervised foster homes (from 74% to 67%), although both changes were within the sample’s margin of statistical error. Evidence of compliance with ongoing training requirements remained substantially higher among DFCS‐supervised foster homes than among provider‐ supervised homes. As discussed in Section 1 Regular and timely evaluations to ensure placement settings meet standards, above, the implementation of the new provider contracts effective July 1, 2007 can be expected to reduce this disparity.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 130

With respect to the 24/7 phone support requirement, Resource Development staff in the Counties report that they provide foster parents with the phone number of their assigned monitoring worker whom they can call during work hours, and that during pre‐service foster parent training, they receive the phone number of an on‐call worker they can reach after hours.

d.

Automated Placement Data

Section 11E of the Consent Decree stipulates that, within 90 days of the entry of the Consent Decree, DFCS will have an automated information system that can provide: demographic characteristics and information on every foster or pre‐adoptive family; a list of all foster children in the home and the DFCS office in whose custody they have been placed; information about the other children or adults in the home; the approval or re‐approval status of the home and, for provider‐supervised homes, the name and address of the supervising CPA; and a complete history back to January 2002 of any reports of maltreatment and substantiations of maltreatment. This requirement has been met.

An information system is only as good as the quality and completeness of the data it contains. In the first period report, the Accountability Agents urged the State to strengthen DFCS’ ability to manage and be accountable for provider‐supervised foster homes by completely populating Placement Central with provider‐supervised foster home data. DFCS undertook an initiative to do just that. Initially, a spreadsheet was designed to secure relevant information from Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) about the capacity, census, and approval status (among other things) of the foster homes they supervised. CPAs were asked to provide updates about foster homes as needed (utilizing the spreadsheet) by directly sending them to Data Integrity Specialists at the Central Office who would input the new data into Placement Central. TSU (now PRU) subsequently determined that not all CPAs were consistently reporting data changes as intended.
To facilitate consistent compliance from the CPAs, PRU has redesigned the reporting process. PRU regional staff throughout the state now initiates a weekly census request to the CPAs within their region utilizing an electronic spreadsheet. PRU is responsible for ensuring CPA compliance with the updating process and the completeness of reporting from the CPAs.
Completed spreadsheets are forwarded weekly to the Central Office Data Integrity Specialists for input of updates to Placement Central. An historical account of the spreadsheet data is also maintained within PRU. The weekly census requests should help to ensure the completeness and correctness of Placement Central data on provider‐supervised foster homes.
Section 11E of the Consent Decree further stipulates that DFCS shall consider the information described in that Section before a child is placed or a foster home is approved or re‐approved. The Accountability Agents’ found, in the review of compliance with foster home approval and licensing standards (discussed above), evidence that DFCS routinely considers the required

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 131

information before placing children or approving or re‐approving foster homes. However, this process presently involves a combination of “look‐ups” in Placement Central and the Protective Services Data System components of IDS, and evaluating the contents of paper files. The Accountability Agents believe this process will be significantly streamlined and made less error prone when Placement Central is completely populated and its data integrity ensured.
F. Supervision of Contract Agencies
Sections 5B, 9, and 10B of the Consent Decree contain various provisions regarding provider reimbursement rates and contracts, specific language to be included therein, and the licensing and inspection of provider‐supervised placement settings.
In May 2006, the Accountability Agents learned that the Federal Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) had informed DHR that it was no longer willing to provide Medicaid funding for “bundled” services, as it had for years under Georgia’s per diem system of reimbursement. CMS announced it was withholding approximately $70 million in reimbursement until DHR restructured its method of reimbursement.
In response, DHR submitted a proposal to CMS that significantly changed the way providers are reimbursed for services provided. The changes included:
 Eliminating the current bundled Therapeutic Residential Intervention Services (TRIS) per diem rate;
 Eliminating the Level of Care system currently used to determine the per‐diem rate;  Moving Behavioral Health Services to a fee‐for‐service basis; and  If Behavioral Health Services are determined to be medically necessary, providing and
billing for them through the State’s outpatient Rehabilitation Options Services Program.
CMS approved DHR’s proposed “unbundling” plan in January, 2007. The State rolled out unbundling Statewide on July 1, 2007. DFCS also moved forward on that date with some of the other contract changes required by the Consent Decree (see Section F.2 New Contract Provisions, below), and with the reorganization of TSU into the Provider Relations Unit (PRU). PRU will transition from TSU’s previous focus on medically‐oriented utilization reviews to a watchful oversight role focusing on the quality of provider‐delivered services and provider compliance with the terms of their contracts.
1. Rate Reimbursement Task Force
Section 5B2‐7 of the Consent Decree stipulates that a Rate Reimbursement Task Force (RRTF) be established within 60 days of the entry of the Consent Decree to recommend changes to the Level of Care system and to design a rate structure based on measurable outcomes for
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 132

children.121 The RRTF was established within the required timeframe and held at least three face‐to‐face meetings, ten teleconferences, and three video conferences.
While the State waited to learn the fate of its unbundling proposal to CMS the RRTF members, one‐by‐one resigned. The parties have agreed to appoint replacement members and to ask the RRTF to begin meeting again now that unbundling has been officially rolled out.
2. New Contract Provisions
Section 5B1, 9A‐C and 10B4 of the Consent Decree stipulate specific language and concepts that are to be incorporated into provider contracts.122 Some of these (e.g. requiring providers to pass through to their foster homes the full basic maintenance payment) were incorporated into new contracts at the start of fiscal year 2006 (July 1, 2005). However, other provisions (e.g. mandating detailed reporting requirements and adding contract language to bring provider‐ supervised placements into full compliance with DFCS approval and training standards) were implemented along with the new rate structures occasioned by the unbundling issue. The required contract provisions were fully implemented in the provider contracts that took effect on July 1, 2007.
G. Improving Automated Support
1. SACWIS Implementation
Georgia is currently designing a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) in conformance with federal requirements and the Consent Decree.123 This system, Georgia Shines, will replace several of the State’s existing systems used for collecting and reporting data to the federal government as well as to DFCS management and staff. The Consent Degree required Georgia to select and contract with a vendor by December 31, 2005. Accenture LLP was selected in November 2005 and the State signed a contract with the firm to begin the work immediately. However, the State was not able to execute the contract with the firm until February 2006 due to another bidder’s protest of the selection and the time required resolving the protest. The implementation date designated in the contract is December 31, 2007. All required design and planning requirements have received approval from the Federal oversight office. As planned, the system was piloted in Douglas County in September 2007. As a result of the knowledge gained from the pilot, the current schedule is to implement the new system in DeKalb and Fulton Counties in June 2008, not February 2008 as reported in the second period report. According to the State, the pilot implementation underscored the need to have certain manual processes in place to ensure successful implementation. Because Fulton and DeKalb Counties have the largest caseloads in the state, the preparation work is more

121 See pp. 14-15, paragraphs 2-7 of the Consent Decree 122 See pp. 13 and 23-26, Sections 5B.1, 9A-C and 10B.4 of the Consent Decree 123 See p. 22, Section 7 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 133

extensive and it was determined that it was not in the best interest of the Counties or the system implementation as whole to attempt implementation before June 2008.
2. Placement Central
Placement Central is DFCS’ automated system for tracking child placements and certain information about those placements. Although Placement Central has historically contained a limited amount of data on provider‐supervised foster care placements, DFCS is currently undertaking an effort to completely populate it with certain provider data, as discussed previously in this Chapter. This is an important step forward in improving DFCS’ ability to manage placement providers and to be accountable (and to hold providers accountable) for the work that is contracted out.
For the third reporting period the Accountability Agents undertook a limited effort to validate the data currently in Placement Central. The purpose of this validation effort was to understand the reliability of data from Placement Central for monitoring and accountability purposes, specifically as it relates to Outcome 31. The Accountability Agents are interested in moving away from file review data in favor of automated administrative data when such automated data can be demonstrated to be sufficiently reliable. A cross‐match was performed between the computerized file review data and corresponding data in Placement Central to ascertain the degree to which they were in agreement. This cross‐match was performed on three specific data fields related to the census of individual foster homes at a point‐in‐time:
• Were there more than three foster children residing in this foster home on June 30, 2007? • Were there more than six children total (including birth and adopted children) residing
in this foster home on June 30, 2007?
• Were there more than three children under the age of three residing in this foster home
on June 30, 2007?
As described in the Accountability Agents’ second period report, DFCS undertook an effort within the past year to populate Placement Central with data on provider‐supervised foster homes to complement the data on DFCS‐supervised foster homes, group homes, and residential treatment facilities that historically as been found in Placement Central. Therefore, the comparison of file review and placement central data was made for the entire sample of 159 foster homes. Table VI‐9 displays the results of this comparison.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 134

Table VI‐9 Comparison of Placement Central (PC) and File Review (FR) Data

Data Field
More than 3 foster children in home on June 30, 2007? More than 6 children total in home on June 30, 2007? More than 3 children > age 3 in home on June 30, 2007?
Total Fields Compared

Records Compared
159
159
159 477

Records with No Difference
155
156
159
470

% of records with No difference 97%
98%
100%
99%

Characteristics of Variance
PC equally likely to understate (2 records) or overstate (2 records) compliance found by file review PC understated census on 2 records, overstated census on 1 record compared to file review
No variance

As displayed in Table VI‐9, overall, Placement Central and the foster home file review matched exactly on 99 percent of the 477 data elements compared. The rate of agreement was consistently high across the three data elements compared. This is a positive development because, by agreement of the Parties and the Accountability Agents, while Placement Central has been the source of the census data for DFCS‐supervised foster homes used to calculate achievement of Outcome 31, it was thought to be less reliable for provider‐supervised foster homes and so data on their censuses was collected by the file review team in site visits to the supervising CPAs. The results of the third period validation of Placement Central foster home census data suggest that it may be possible for future review cycles to replace this labor intensive manual data collection process by relying on Placement Central without sacrificing data accuracy.

H. Maximizing Federal Funding 124

The Consent Decree contains requirements for DHR/DFCS to 1) maximize available federal funding through Titles IV‐B and IV‐E of the Social Security Act, and 2) not supplant state dollars for foster care services with any federal increase that results from the maximization efforts.125 In addition, there are a number of the outcomes that pertain to actions and documentation required to support and to enhance claiming IV‐E reimbursement for Foster Care expenditures. To evaluate this requirement, the State is to establish a baseline of “present”

124 See Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S. A. Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue, November 2006 for
background on Title IV-E 125 See p. 31, Section 14 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 135

levels of state and federal funding. 126 In the second period report, the Accountability Agents provided funding information for State Fiscal Year 2006 (July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2006,) as the baseline year. Similar information for State Fiscal Year 2007 (July 1, 2006 –June 30, 2007) will be included in the fourth period report.
In July and August 2007, the Department engaged Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc (HZA) in an assessment of the Department’s IV‐E reimbursement efforts. According to HZA, the study was to identify 1) both the extent to which the state’s Title IV‐E penetration rate can legitimately increase and the limits beyond which it cannot increase; and 2) mechanisms through which DHR/DFCS can increase its level of federal reimbursement, even in the face of the limitations on the penetration rate.127
As noted by HZA, the amount of federal reimbursement each state receives under Title IV‐E “depends on two factors: the rate of federal reimbursement and the percentage of foster children eligible for federal funding. The reimbursement rate for foster care maintenance costs (room, board and supervision for eligible children) varies from state to state based upon the state per capita income. Poorer states are reimbursed as much as 77 cents on the dollar while states with the highest income per capita are reimbursed at the rate of 50 cents on the dollar for foster care maintenance payments.
The percentage of children in out‐of‐home placements who are eligible to receive federal reimbursement under Title IV‐E is known as the penetration rate. Penetration rates vary by state even more widely than do reimbursement rates, but the national average percent of children eligible for Title IV‐E is 42 percent according to AFCARS data for 2004.” 128
The HZA analysis found Georgia’s Title IV‐E penetration rate of about 28 percent “very low” but estimated it realistically could be increased to about 45 percent. However, they also note that achieving this goal will “require time and DHR/DFCS cannot do it by itself.”129 Their analysis indicated what specific efforts could potentially produce incremental changes in the rate. Reducing errors may increase the rate to 32 percent. Another effort with the potential of an 8 to 12 percentage point increase (allowing the penetration rate to climb to 36 to 40 percent) is a focus on court order language. However, as previously noted in the discussion of Outcome 26, this effort requires a strategy that involves local judges and court administration. These data should help make the importance of such a strategy clear to all.
Finally, another area with the potential for producing a larger incremental increase is the placement of children in licensed settings. HZA estimated that as many as 17 percentage points might be achieved with more emphasis in this area. However, this recommendation may be at odds with other principles central to good practice and to the Consent Decree. One such
126 Ibid. 127 Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc., Georgia’s Use of Title IV-E, August 2007, p.i. 128 Ibid. 129 Ibid, p. ii.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 136

principle is the importance of placing children in proximity to their community of origin. HZA cautions against a result that would place more children out of county or in higher cost settings, such as congregate care settings. Another such principle is the desirability of placing children with relatives if they cannot safely be reunited with their birth parents. This principle may conflict with the revenue maximization goal of placing more children in licensed care settings when relatives are unwilling to become licensed providers.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 137

PART VII MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 20 of the Consent Decree contains the Agreement’s miscellaneous provisions. Two provisions, contained in Section 20G, contain substantive data reporting requirements.130 These are covered in this part of the report.

A. Repeat Maltreatment Data

Section 20.G.1 of the Consent Decree requires DHR to provide the Accountability Agents data and information sufficient to enable them to verify data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton Counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experienced repeat maltreatment. This is operationalized in the Consent Decree as follows:
• The number of children in each county who, during the reporting period, experienced
substantiated maltreatment;
• The number and percentage of children in the first item who also experienced
maltreatment during the preceding 12 month period. These data, as reported by the State, are reproduced in Table VII‐1, below. The Accountability Agents’ verification approach is discussed in Appendix B.

Table VII‐1 Repeat Maltreatment

Reporting Period: January 1, 2007 – June 30, 2007

DEKALB

a) Number of children during the reporting period

experiencing substantiated maltreatment

648

b) the number of children in a) of this item who also

experienced maltreatment during the preceding 12

month period

33

Percentage of children who had substantiated

maltreatment during the preceding 12 months

5.1%

FULTON 1130
76 6.7%

These repeat maltreatment rates represent an improvement compared to the second period rates of 5.9 percent and 8.0 percent for DeKalb and Fulton counties, respectively.

130 See pp. 45-46 of the Consent Decree,

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 138

B. Diversion Data

Section 20.G.2 of the Consent Decree requires DHR to provide the Accountability Agents data and information sufficient to enable them to verify data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton Counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experienced substantiated maltreatment within 11‐365 days after being referred to DHR’s diversion program. These data, as reported by the State for the period October 27, 2005 – June 30, 2006 are reproduced in Table VII‐2, below. (Due to the 11‐365 day follow up period for the diversion statistics, the diversion data reported here is for the first reporting period.) The Accountability Agents’ verification approach is discussed in Appendix B.

Table VII‐2 Diversions with Subsequent Substantiated Maltreatment

Reporting Period: October 27, 2005 – June 30, 2006

DEKALB

FULTON

a) Number of cases in each county during the reporting

period in which there was a referral into DHR’s diversion

program

492

636

b) the number of cases in a) in which there was

substantiated maltreatment within 11‐365 days after referral

to DHR’s diversion program

20

30

Percentage of cases in which there was substantiated

maltreatment within 11‐365 days of referral into DHR’s

diversion program

4.1%

4.7%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page 139

Appendix A Kenny A. v. Sonny Perdue Consent Decree Outcomes
Section 15 of the Consent Decree requires 31 outcomes. These outcomes are grouped in the categories of Safety, Permanency, Well‐Being, and Strengthened Infrastructure
SAFETY 1. Children in Foster Care are Safe From Maltreatment
• Outcome 1: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report.
• Outcome 3: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face‐to‐face, private contact with alleged victim, including face‐to‐face contact with a child who is non‐verbal due to age or for any other reason.
• Outcome 2: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report.
• Outcome 5: By the end of the first reporting period, no more than 1.27% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. By the end of the second reporting period, no more than .94% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. By the end of the fourth reporting period, no more than .57% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care.
• Outcome 6: By the end of the second reporting period, 90% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous six months. By the end of the third reporting period, 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.
PERMANENCY 2. Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
• Outcome 7: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 90 days of entering foster care. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care.
• Outcome 16: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings.
• Outcome 19: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all children in
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page A‐1

care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii). By the end of the third reporting period, at least 80% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii). By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii). • Outcome 21: By the end of the third reporting period, 75% of all the children with the goal reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. By the end of the fourth reporting period, 85% of all the children with the goal reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. • Outcome 23: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in the Class at a point in time during the reporting period who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have had visits with their siblings at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.
3. Children Achieve Permanency (permanency= reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.)
Children in care at the time of the Consent Decree: • Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and
the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. • Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. • Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page A‐2

By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.. • Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 backlog pool”): For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the third period at least 40% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the third reporting period, by the end of the fourth reporting period at least 40% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. • Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “over 24 backlog pool”): For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the third reporting period, at least 35 percent shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the third reporting period, by the end of the fourth reporting period at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.
Children entering custody after Consent Decree: • Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent
Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. • Outcome 8b: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% (1) shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification or permanent placement with relatives; or (2) shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page A‐3

24 months or less of entering custody: adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship.
Permanency actions after Consent Decree: • Outcome 11: By the end of the second reporting period, for all children whose parental
rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights. • Outcome 4: By the end of the second reporting period, no more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re‐entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. • Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period.
Court reviews of permanency actions • Outcome 27: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of foster children in
custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐month period following the last review. By the end of the third reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐month period following the last review. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐ month period following the last review. • Outcome 28: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12‐month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page A‐4

WELL BEING 4. Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity.
• Outcome 17: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 86.7% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody.
• Outcome 18: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave.
• Outcome 20: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had at least one in‐placement visit and one other visit, as defined in Section 5.D, each month by their case manager. During the prior 12 months in custody.
• Outcome 22: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had visits between their DFCS placement case manager and their foster parent, group care, institutional or other caretaker at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody.
5. Children and Youth Receive the Services they Need • Outcome 24: By the end of the second reporting period, the percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 10 percentage points. By the end of the fourth reporting period, that percentage shall increase by an additional 10 percentage points. • Outcome 30: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.
STRENGTHENED INFRASTRUCTURE 6. Capacity to Support Placement Process
• Outcome 25: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 85% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 98% of all foster children in custody at a point in time
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page A‐5

during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. • Outcome 31: By the end of the second reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than 10% of all children in foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three(3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children. 7. Timely and Complete Court Orders • Outcome 26: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in lime during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act • Outcome 29: By the end of the third reporting, no more than 5% of all children in custody of DHR/DFCS for 12 months or more shall have lapse of legal custody within the prior 13 months.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page A‐6

Appendix B Methodology
The Accountability Agents used several methodologies to arrive at the judgments, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report: (i) review of written materials and data supplied by the State and Counties; (ii) interviews; (iii) extensive case record reviews; and (iv) strategic engagement of State and county personnel for pro‐active, hands‐on monitoring through biweekly meetings known as the “G2.” This appendix describes these data sources and methods and also catalogues and explains interpretation and measurement issues that were addressed and resolved during the first reporting period. The final portion of this appendix describes the specific methodology employed to report on Outcome 7 (Diligent Search) and Outcome 16 (Sibling Placement) because a separate file review was conducted in April 2007 to collect data for performance measurement.
A. Data Sources and Methodology for Measuring State Performance in the Third Reporting Period
Four primary sources of information were used to assess the State of Georgia’s progress during the second reporting period, January 1 – June 30, 2007.
1. State Data Systems
The first source of information is the DFCS administrative data systems that the Department currently employs to hold case‐related information and prepare reports for the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, the citizens of Georgia and other interested parties. This system is known as “IDS.”
There is general agreement that IDS is not sufficiently robust to support the kind of case management and data analysis desired by the State of Georgia. Over the next few years it will be replaced by a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) that the state is currently developing. However, IDS currently is sufficient to provide reports on a number, but not all, of the outcomes.
a. Addressing Data Integrity Issues
Like all information systems, the accuracy of IDS’ data is function of the accuracy with which data are coded and input into the system. Previous evaluations have noted some significant discrepancies between the information contained in case records and data produced by IDS. These discrepancies appear to be caused by human error. Typically, mistakes in interpretation and coding of the facts contained in the case record or data entry result in erroneous data being entered into the system.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐1

The Accountability Agents have been very selective about which data to rely on for assessing compliance with the Consent Decree’s provisions. Most of the data in this report was generated by file and case record reviews conducted specifically for this purpose. In several instances, the case record readers were asked to collect the exact piece of information directly from the sampled case files and from IDS by going “on‐line” and looking at the IDS data base. These instances included information about a child’s date of entry into foster care, current placement type and date, and permanency goal. Discrepancies were found, but for most analysis, the discrepancies did not make material differences. For example, 30 (16%) of the children in the foster care sample of 180 had different dates of removal in IDS than was found documented in the case files. Nearly 75 percent of these dates were no more than five days apart. However, while IDS always had a removal date, in 16 case files no date of removal was documented. When it was possible or necessary to compare data from IDS or other automated sources to data from the file and case record reviews, it often produced a result that was more accurate and reliable than if any single data source had been relied upon.
2. Document Review and Interviews
During the monitoring period, the Accountability Agents collected written reports and materials regarding foster care and adoption policy, budgets, findings from the Child Advocate, licensing, treatment services, worker training and certification. At the state level, the leadership of the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Treatment Services Unit, Statewide Risk Assessment, Education and Training Services Section, and other administrative offices were interviewed. At the local county level, interviews included supervisors and case managers responsible for investigating reports of maltreatment in care, placement, and foster parent training and support. The Accountability Agents worked directly with State and County Quality Assurance staff to analyze data collected and tracked at the local level such as caseloads, visitation, determinations for children in care 15 of 22 months, and staff certification.
3. Structured Case Record Reviews
A second source of information is systematic case record reviews (CRRs.) Three case record reviews were conducted: 1) investigations of maltreatment in care; 2) foster home approval and capacity; and 3) children in foster care placements. Table B‐4 summarizes sample characteristics of each review. The following discussion provides more detail on the sampling approach, the review instruments development, review logistics, reviewer qualifications and quality assurance, and analytical process.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐2

a.

Sampling Approach

As indicated in Table B‐1, 100 percent of the investigations of maltreatment in care between January 1 and June 30, 2007 were read. Therefore, the margin of statistical error in these results is extremely small, and would reflect case record reviewer differences or errors rather than differences within the universe.

For the two other case record reviews, random samples were drawn from two different universes:
 All foster homes that had a DeKalb or Fulton child placed in the home at anytime between January 1 and June 30, 2007. This included private agency supervised homes as well as DFCS supervised homes.
 All foster care cases (children) active in DeKalb and Fulton counties any time between January 1 and June 30, 2007.

For each of these reviews, samples were drawn such that the findings would have a +/‐ 7% error rate at a 95% confidence level. This level of precision is for frequencies reported for the sample as a whole. Data provided on subsets of the sample are less precise; where appropriate, separate margins of error for the different subsets have been calculated and noted in the body of the report. As described later in this appendix, a certain number of records included in the original samples could not be read and were rejected based on pre‐determined criteria. To achieve the minimum number of records for each review, small additional, random replacement samples were drawn.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐3

Table B‐1 Case Record Review Sample Size and Associated Margin of Error

Target of Review Maltreatment in Care Investigations
Foster Homes Children in Foster Care

Universe of cases
93
925 2,812 children with active cases any time January 1 through June 30, 2007

Desired Maximum Sample Size 93
145 180

Actual Number Reviewed

Margin of Error

63 completed by DeKalb and Fulton 30 completed by other counties involving DeKalb and Fulton children 159 180

+/‐ 0.0 percent
+/‐ 7 percent +/‐ 7 percent

b. Instrument Design

Three separate data collection Instruments were developed, one for each sample. They were developed in conjunction with the DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Section (E&R) and consultants from Georgia State University (GSU) schools of public administration and social work. The instruments were field tested and reviewed by Counsel for the Plaintiffs and by the State; many changes recommended by the reviewers were incorporated into the final instruments. As is typical with case record reviews, reviewers encountered some problems with some of the questions. Learning from this third effort will be incorporated into the next case record review.

c.

Data Collection Schedule and Logistics

Planning for the data collection effort began in April 2007 with discussions with E&R and GSU regarding formatting data instruments for efficient data capture and analysis. Based on technology problems encountered during the first and second record review, changes were made in this round to improve the ease of use. Each of the review guides was set up as a SAS‐ based form for electronic information entry directly into a data base through a GSU secure web site. This eliminated a separate data entry step. However, it did rely on the ability of the reviewers to be consistently linked to the internet. Occasional connectivity problems interfered with some data entry. This required some work to be repeated. As the reviews progressed, portions of guides were revised as necessary to accommodate unforeseen circumstances found

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐4

in the records. In addition, the reviewers had the capability to make extensive comments to explain responses and provide more background on the case.

Data collection began in August 2007 with the maltreatment in care investigations. The review of foster care files was also initiated in August. The foster home file review began in October. Records selected from private agencies were reviewed at the respective private agencies. The remaining records for investigations, foster care, and DFCS supervised foster homes were reviewed at the county offices where the active cases are maintained. Closed records were brought to these sites for review.

d. Review Team Qualifications and Training

Twelve E&R staff were the primary case readers. These staff members average 25 years of experience in DFCS and are very familiar with the DFCS’s policies and practices. They were selected for this task based on their skills, experience, and knowledge.

There was a brief training before commencing each record review. The training consisted of reviewing and discussing the wording and meaning of each question on the data collection instruments. Additional changes were made to the guides as a result of these discussions. Given the pace of the necessary semi‐annual reporting schedule, it has been difficult to extend the training time. On‐going training between reviews is taking place.

DFCS reviewers were provided with digital files containing a “Handbook” and a copy of the Consent Decree for reference. In addition, reviewers had personal copies of the instruments in hard copy on which they made notations regarding the discussions about definitions, responses, and where within the case records to locate certain pieces of information.

e.

Quality Assurance

Reading accuracy and inter‐reader reliability was addressed by an extensive quality assurance process that included constant “calibration” and a “second read” of the records. Two senior E&R reviewers were designated team leaders. They were responsible for responding to reviewer questions regarding clarification or how to interpret information contained in the record. These team leaders shared with one another the questions being asked and the responses they were giving to reviewers so as to assure consistency. In this way, patterns among questions were monitored and instructions were clarified for all reviewers as necessary. Team leaders reviewed each reviewer’s work at the completion of each review. The Accountability Agents were also on‐site several days during the review and provided another resource for questions and clarification in addition to reviewing some files. Finally, reviewers were encouraged to provide explanatory comments for their responses if they felt the situation they found did not adequately fit the question being asked or additional detail for some critical questions was desired. These comments were invaluable to the Accountability Agents as they reviewed the data collected and made judgments about response recodes when necessary.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐5

An additional level of Quality Assurance was provided by the Georgia State University (GSU) project coordinator and four to five research assistants with masters degrees in social work and backgrounds in child welfare and case record review. They read at least one third to nearly one half of the sampled Foster Care, Foster Home, and CPS investigations files. The records were randomly selected from each reviewer’s completed set. Review guides that had different responses from the GSU QA staff and the E&R reviewers were set aside, investigated and resolved as possible by the GSU project coordinator and E&R team leaders, often in consultation with the Accountability Agents, before the protocol was entered into the data base. Time was set aside in the schedule to review the completed review guides in question and do any necessary clean up.

To calculate inter‐rater reliability GSU selected variables from all three files (CPS Investigations, Foster Homes, and Foster Care) where both the reviewers and the QA reviewers had access to the same information in the case file. Each response was not tested for inter‐rater reliability. Correlations between the reviewer results and the QA reviewer results were calculated using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), and a Cronbach’s Alpha statistic was calculated for each. Cronbachʹs Alpha measures how well a set of items, in this case the reviewer responses and the QA reviewer responses, correlate or match. Cronbachʹs Alpha is not a statistical test ‐ it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). Note: when a Cronbach’s Alpha is used in a Social Science research situation, like the Kenny A. case review, a reliability coefficient of .70 or higher indicates that there is an almost zero probability that the reviewer and QA reviewer would achieve these results by chance.

The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for each of the data sets are provided in Table B‐2, below. All measures are above the threshold of .70.

Table B‐2 Cronbach’s Alpha Measure of Inter‐Rater Reliability
for Each Case Record Review

Sample

Cronbach’s Alpha Measure

CPS Investigations Foster Homes
Foster Care

0.96795 0.90849 0.96408

A final check on quality came during the analysis. When the analysis identified a discrepancy that could not be explained by the reviewer comments, the Accountability Agents requested a reviewer to go back to the file in question and collect more specific information on which to make a judgment. During the analysis, it became clear to the Accountability Agents that the majority of reviewer errors resulted from the 1) poorly worded questions that still caused confusion among some reviewers and 2) in the case for the foster care review, the length and complexity of the review guide. Both these errors will be monitored more closely in the fourth

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐6

period data collection effort.

f.

Data analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel were used for analyzing the collected data and calculating inter‐rater reliability. GSU staff assisted in creating descriptive statistics for the Accountability Agents.

g. Records in Sample that Were not Read

Not all records included in the original samples were reviewed. Before the reviews began, we established a set of reasons for why a case record may not be read. Table B‐3 provides a summary distribution of the cases that were not read with the reasons for not reading them. Files that could not be located for the review were reported to county leadership.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐7

Target of Review Maltreatment in Care Investigations
Foster Homes
Children in Foster Care

Table B‐3

Case Records Drawn for Original Sample, Not Reviewed

Number of cases sampled but not read as part of the review and reason why

they were not read

Coding error in IDS, this is not a maltreatment in care referral/report

3

No child in the legal custody of Fulton or DeKalb Counties was involved

6

in the report

Child was not in the legal custody of DeKalb or Fulton Counties at the

2

time of the report

Other

1

Total 15

No children were in the home during the 6 months of the review

1

No children in the legal custody of DeKalb or Fulton Counties DFCS

4

were placed in this home between January 1 and June 30, 2007

Sampling error, home was incorrectly selected from wrong population

1

Homes were ICPC homes located out of state

2

Other

4

Total 12

Incomplete case file provided

5

Case timeframe too short (child in care less than 8 days)

3

Case record could not be located within the timeframe of the review

3

Child placed out of state through ICPC the entire review period

3

Caser record provided too late in the review to be included

2

Child not in the legal custody of Fulton or Dekalb Counties between

1

January 1 and June 30, 2007

Child was age 18 before the review period

1

Total 18

4. Biweekly meetings with the management teams of Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS (G2)

The Accountability Agents met twice each month with Fulton and DeKalb directors, senior management, supervisors and case managers, and senior central office staff. These meetings allowed for hands‐on monitoring and data verification. Specifically, the purpose of the G2 has been fourfold:

o Engage Fulton and DeKalb County senior management teams in tracking their own progress in achieving the Consent Degree outcomes;
o Have “real‐time” communication about successes and areas of concern regarding the progress of reform;
o Establish a clear understanding of the relationship between practice, process, and infrastructure enhancements and outcome achievements; and,

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐8

o Integrate the settlement outcomes and required practice and process into other initiatives the Counties are engaged in, such as the Program Improvement Plan (PIP) to help develop and articulate the “big picture” of reform.
The process during the G2 starts with using administrative data to prompt the group to develop hypotheses about underlying problems that threaten the achievement of critical outcomes, and about potential solutions. Fresh data that shed light on the validity of those hypotheses are then brought back to a subsequent meeting. Based on the group’s examination and discussion of the fresh data, a given hypothesis may then be rejected, accepted, or refined and retested. For hypotheses that are accepted, in‐depth “So What?” conversations take place during which best practices among field staff may be highlighted, operational strategies that leverage the learning that has transpired are devised, resource allocation decisions may be made by DFCS leadership, and parties responsible for implementation identified.
B. Previous Reporting Period Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The following discussion highlights the interpretation and measurement issues that arose during the previous reporting periods that were accepted by the parties and also apply to period three.
Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 use the same “By the end of the first reporting period…” language used in Outcome 5, but the standard remains fixed at the period 1 level for all subsequent reporting periods. These outcomes, therefore, do not raise the same point‐in‐time vs. cumulative measurement issue raised by Outcome 5.
Section 12.A. of the Consent Decree requires that maltreatment in care investigations be conducted by trained child protective services staff.131 As indicated above, DFCS policy regards the commencement of an investigation to be the point at which an alleged victim child is seen by the investigator. For measurement purposes Outcomes 1 was operationalized as the percentage of cases in which any alleged victim had face‐to‐face contact with a CPS investigator or police within 24 hours. Outcome 3 was operationalized as the percentage of alleged victims that had face‐to‐face contact with a CPS investigator within 24 hours.
Outcome 5 was operationally defined as the percentage of children in care during the reporting period that experience maltreatment in care during the reporting period. Performance was measured by a cumulative look across the entire reporting period, not just at one point in time during the reporting period. The interpretation and measurement issues considered are described below.

131 See p. 28 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐9

• The interpretation issue centers on the meaning attributed to the words “…shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care.” This could be interpreted to mean that any child who had ever experienced maltreatment while in foster care (even if it was years ago) should be counted in this percentage. Although this is perhaps the most obvious and literal interpretation of these words, such an interpretation would be unhelpful to the cause of improving Georgia’s child welfare system.
A central precept of the Consent Decree is that it will bring about improvements in Georgia’s child welfare system. Interpreting this measure in a way that places it beyond the influence of the State’s current and future efforts to improve would be incongruous with this precept.
• The measurement issue inherent in Outcome 5 derives from the words “By the end of the [number] reporting period…” Taken literally, these words seem to suggest that this is a point‐ in‐time measure to be taken on the last day of the first reporting period. In other words, what percentage of the children in care on June 30, 2007 had experienced maltreatment while in care? In the child welfare field, such a point‐in‐time approach is a common method of obtaining a census of children in care. The use of the word “By” could be construed to grant the state the entire length of the reporting period to produce improvements in this outcome.
However, operationalizing this as a point‐in‐time measure might create perverse incentives (i.e., schedule children who had experienced maltreatment in care for discharge before the end of the month). Although it is not believed the State would actually use this approach, the Accountability Agents believe that when the Consent Decree language is less than definitive, it should be construed to avoid establishing incentives that are inconsistent with spirit of improving Georgia’s child welfare system.
C. Methodology for Verifying Caseload Data
The state information system is able to produce reports on individual case manager caseloads and the Accountability Agents used these reports as the starting point for assessing State progress in meeting the caseload requirement of the Consent Decree as reported on in Section VI. However, several steps were taken to assure the accuracy and completeness of these reports.
First, the Accountability Agents determined that there are several data sources, each with its potential for inaccuracies or incompleteness. The data sources include IDS as well as county personnel systems. Historically, IDS may have had incomplete caseload information for Fulton County because Fulton was using its own case management system referred to as “CDOT.” The Accountability Agents confirmed with Fulton County that they had discontinued using this system in June 2006.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐10

Within IDS, data could be inaccurate or incomplete because:
• Case assignments are not timely re‐assigned to active staff. Case managers must have a unique, county generated “Case Worker ID” (CWID) to have a case assigned to him/or her in the information system. Cases remain assigned in the information system to case workers who are no longer employed by DFCS as long as cases are not reassigned to different case worker IDs. Counties are responsible for entering each case manager’s unique “ID” and deactivating the ID when the worker resigns, transfers, or is terminated. Counties are also responsible for promptly reassigning cases when a case manager vacancy occurs.
• Worker type is not entered by counties Counties are also supposed to enter the worker type for each case manager, but omission of this information does not prevent case assignment or any other reporting. Thus, caseload reports may be incomplete because the worker type may be missing.
• Worker leave status is not included County personnel systems track extended leave periods authorized by disability policies, Family Medical Leave Act, or some other circumstances. This information, however, is not linked to the state information system, making it challenging to obtain an accurate picture of the effective caseloads of other case managers who may be sharing the workload of their absent colleagues.
• Worker certification status is not included Worker certification is tracked separately for different cohorts of staff by county training coordinators and the Education and Training Services section. These systems do not presently link to the State information system. Uncertified workers are not to be assigned any cases. Provisionally certified workers are to be assigned no more than “7 low risk” cases. The lack of this link complicates tracking the number of cases assigned to individuals who are in these categories.
• Data entry lag time Data entry into IDS of case opening and closing actions may lag behind when workers and supervisors consider the cases open or closed and have submitted the appropriate data entry requirements. As noted earlier, discrepancies between the case records and IDS regarding removal dates indicated a range of 1 to 5 days for the majority of cases where there was a difference. However, there was always a removal date in IDS. Similar discrepancies affect discharge dates. This lag time, therefore, can have the effect of both deflating and inflating the actual case load size.
Given the identified potential sources of inaccurate and incomplete caseload reporting, the Accountability Agents worked closely with the counties and the State as the June 2007 report
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐11

was generated. After the second reporting period, the Accountability Agents received monthly caseload reports for January through May 2007 before sending the final June report. The Counties were asked to update the worker type and provide the resignation dates and leave dates for the designated workers.
Separately, the State and counties were asked to supply information about worker and supervisor certification status. The Accountability Agents used this information to compare with the workers and supervisors identified on the June 2007 caseload report. A reconciliation process was applied to identify discrepancies between the case manager lists and the counties were asked to provide additional information to resolve the discrepancies.
Finally, the Accountability Agents requested a separate data report from the State that identified the case managers with children who were in custody 18 months or more on June 30, 2007. This information was compared to the worker type associated with each case manager. As a result, the Accountability Agents identified regular caseloads that appeared to still have children assigned to them instead of being transferred to the caseloads of specialized case managers.
D. Methodology for Verifying State Data on Repeat Maltreatment and Maltreatment Subsequent to Diversion
Section 20 G of the Consent Decree requires DHR to provide the Accountability Agents data and information sufficient to enable the verification of data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experience repeat maltreatment or substantiated maltreatment within 11‐365 days after being referred to DHR’s diversion program. Due to the 11‐365 day follow up period for the diversion statistics, this third period report is the first time diversion data could be reported. The DHR data on repeat maltreatment and substantiated maltreatment subsequent to diversion in DeKalb and Fulton Counties are presented in Section VII. Following is a discussion of the approach the Accountability Agents used.
The validity of the State statistics on repeat maltreatment and substantiated maltreatment subsequent to diversion rest on the accuracy of the data coding and data input associated with maltreatment investigations and diversion cases, and the validity and rigor of the file matching algorithm. These are considered separately below.
1. Data Coding and Input
Data fields that are quantitative or less complex (e.g., whether or not an allegation was substantiated) are less prone to coding errors and produce data with a higher degree of reliability. Data fields that are more complex, qualitative, or ambiguous are more error prone and demonstrate greater problems of reliability. Data on the results of maltreatment investigations and on whether or not a CPS report is “diverted” fall into the former category.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐12

When a report of maltreatment is received, it is reviewed by CPS intake staff, logged into the County’s tracking system, and if it meets the criteria to be investigated, an investigation is initiated. Pertinent data about the report and subsequent investigation, including whether or not the investigation substantiated the allegation, are entered on Form 453. A casework supervisor reviews the completed form 453 and when they are satisfied as to its quality, they sign off in it. The completed form is then input into IDS.
If the report does not meet the criteria for a CPS investigation and it manifests issues that are primarily economic in nature, it may be considered for diversion. Diversion cases are not opened as CPS investigations, but the family is usually connected with community‐based resources that can help meet the family’s economic or other needs with the intent of helping the family keep their children safely in their own home. For each diversion case, a form 590 (which captures demographic information about the family, a case opening date, and a service code that distinguishes diversion from CPS cases) is completed and entered into IDS. Casework supervisors review the completed form 590s for accuracy and completeness.
Based on interviews with county investigations staff and the experience of reviewing 100 percent of the investigations of maltreatment in care, the Accountability Agents have confidence that IDS captures virtually 100 percent of the investigations that are conducted. Every investigation of maltreatment in care that the file review indicated was undertaken was properly reflected in IDS. No instances in which substantiated cases were miscoded as unsubstantiated, or vice versa, were identified. For the third reporting period, no substantive disagreement between the file review and IDS on the status, alleged victims, or disposition of maltreatment in care reports was detected.
With respect to diversion cases, the Accountability Agents are satisfied that effective safeguards are in place to ensure that diversion cases are not miscoded as CPS investigations or screen‐ outs, and vice versa. Each county maintains an intake log that captures pertinent information about each report received, and its disposition as: accepted for CPS investigation, diverted, or screened‐out. The Kenny A. file review staff begins each maltreatment in foster care file review by reviewing the county’s intake log against the data contained in IDS to ensure that all CPS investigations and diversions are accurately reflected in IDS. Any miscoding issues are identified, brought to the attention of county management staff, and rectified. Changes in IDS to the dispositional coding of reports received can only be made by the designated data specialists for each county. If those specialists detect a pattern of common coding errors they conduct training for the county intake staff.
2. File Matching Algorithms
To produce the data on repeat maltreatment required by the Consent Decree, E&R used the following algorithm:
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐13

• Data for DeKalb and Fulton counties were extracted from the state Protective Services
Data System (PSDS), a component of IDS;
• Children with substantiated maltreated were selected from two timeframes ‐‐ the
reporting period and the preceding 12 months;
• Foster children were deleted from the files; • Children from the reporting period were matched with children from the preceding 12
months; and
• Resulting matches were deemed to be children that experienced repeat maltreatment.
Similarly, to produce the data on substantiated maltreatment subsequent to diversion, E&R used the following algorithm:
• Data for DeKalb and Fulton counties were extracted from the State Protective Services
Data System (PSDS) and the diverted cases file provided monthly by Systems & Methods, Inc. (SMI);
• Cases diverted during the first reporting period (October 27, 2005 – June 30, 2006) were
selected;
• Diverted cases from the first reporting period were matched with substantiated cases of
maltreatment from the period November 7, 2005 – June 30, 2007 to reflect the specified 11‐365 day follow‐up period after the diversion referral; and,
• Resulting matches were reviewed to ensure they fell within the 11‐365 day follow‐up
window of the diversion referral. Matches within this window of time were deemed to be maltreatment substantiations within 11 ‐ 365 days of the diversion referral.
The record matching algorithms used by E&R are based on the way the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) historically recommended states conduct such matches. That is, a computer is programmed to match two case record listings on a set of consistently available demographic descriptors. In Georgia’s case, the fields are first name, last name, date of birth, and gender. A significant limitation of this approach is that only exact matches are counted. In other words a child who had experienced repeat maltreatment or substantiated maltreatment subsequent to diversion might be missed by the match if the first referral listed him as John O’Connor, and the second listed him as John O’Conner; or if his birth date on either referral was transposed as the 13th instead of the 31st.
However, the DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Section continues to work with a computer services vendor to implement a unique child identifier to enable it to produce and send to the federal Department of Health and Human Services an NCANDS Child File. Such an identifier will enhance the accuracy of such computer matches as those required to calculate the incidence of repeat maltreatment. The new Georgia Shines system will also include a new unique child identifier. A beta test of Georgia’s unique identifier by DHHS showed that it increased the “hit” rate on Georgia’s statewide repeat maltreatment match by about 0.4 percentage points.132 As
132 Georgia Child and Family services Review Data Profile: August 24, 2006.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐14

indicated in Section VII, the repeat maltreatment rates reported there for DeKalb and Fulton Counties likely understate the true incidence of repeat maltreatment by a similar margin of error.
The project to completely populate IDS with unique child identifiers covering fiscal years 2004 – 2007 is scheduled to be completed by March 2008. The Accountability Agents encourage the State to use this new capability to generate the repeat maltreatment data to be reported for future reporting periods. However, data on substantiated maltreatment subsequent to diversion will, until Georgia Shines is available, continue to be produced by the matching algorithm described above as these data are not included in the federal NCANDS data set and were therefore not part of the federal unique identifier project.
E: Methodology for Outcome 7 (Diligent Search) and Outcome 16 (Sibling Placement.
The performance measurement for Outcomes 7 and 16 relied on a separate case record review. This case record review followed the same basic process as previously described for the case record reviews that produced data for other portions of this third period report. A data collection instrument was designed, reviewed with the State and the Plaintiffs, and implemented with training and continuous quality review by team leaders and GSU staff. The review was conducted in April 2007. The data was compiled into a SPSS data base for analysis.
To ensure statistically valid results for the two populations of interest, the case record review used a random, stratified sample of 208 children who had entered the custody of DeKalb or Fulton counties sometime between July 1 and December 31, 2006. The first population of interest, related to Outcome 7, was the universe of children who entered care during the second reporting period. The second population of interest, related to Outcome 16, was the universe of children who had entered care on the same day with one or more siblings during the second reporting period. The first sample stratum consisted of 156 children drawn randomly from the 760 children entering care between July 1 and December 31, 2006. A number of these children were also in the universe of children entering the same day with one or more siblings. To assure a sufficient sample of the children entering care with siblings, another stratum of 52 children were randomly selected from the subpopulation of children entering foster care with one or more siblings on the same day. The sample was designed to achieve a 95 percent confidence level with a + 7 percent margin of error. Over the course of the record review, four records were removed from the analysis because they did not meet the criteria for review. For example, one child did not enter care during the period, but, in fact, had a disrupted placement causing a new placement in an existing foster care episode. The Cronbach’s Alpha Measure of inter‐rater reliability for this review was .965887.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐15

Appendix C Foster Care Needs Assessment prepared by Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc., August 2007
Executive Summary
Early in 2006, the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) within the Georgia Department of Human Resources (DHR), released a request for proposals for a foster care needs assessment in Fulton and DeKalb Counties. Conduct of a foster care needs assessment was one of the stipulations of the Consent Decree in the Kenny A. case, and the procurement was designed to ensure compliance with that component of the decree. The foster care needs assessment contract was awarded to Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. (HZA) and began approximately one year after the initial request for proposals had been released.
NEEDS
Over 90 percent of the children in care are African American, nearly half are 12 years of age or older and roughly one-third are under the age of six. Children with the goal of adoption comprise less than 10 percent of the total, but children with siblings in care represent about one-third of the population in DeKalb and 40 percent in Fulton. For those under six years of age, children with siblings in care represent nearly half of the population. In broad stroke the largest needs are for homes for African American children, and specifically for African American teenagers and African American children with siblings under the age of six.
Between the end of 2006 and June of 2009, DFCS should anticipate a relatively small increase, less than three percent, in the Fulton County population and a somewhat larger one in the DeKalb County population, nearly 12 percent. Moreover, those changes will affect different portions of the counties in different ways, with some areas showing a declining a population, even while the total population in each county grows. The changes are, however, relatively gradual and do not reflect any major shift in the overall composition of the population.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐1

RESOURCES
Over 40 percent of the homes identified as serving children from Fulton or DeKalb Counties were located beyond the borders of either county. This represents a serious need for restructuring of the system.
The first thing to note about the available foster home resources is that DeKalb County has nearly twice as many available foster homes as Fulton County, although it has only about half the foster care population. In fact, DeKalb has more resources than Fulton for every demographic category.
A second important point is that the group for whom the smallest number of homes is available is also the group representing the largest proportion of children, i.e., those 12 and older. Within DeKalb County the smallest age grouping, children six to 11, has the largest number of available beds, while in Fulton the largest number of beds are available for children under six.
In terms of the ability and willingness of foster homes to handle children’s special needs, in one sense DeKalb is again more richly resourced than Fulton County. Although DeKalb has nearly double the number of foster home beds as Fulton, it has roughly equal numbers of homes that do not handle any special needs. On the other hand, the only special needs category in which DeKalb has more available beds than does Fulton is developmental needs – with the exception of developmental needs, 60 percent of homes in DeKalb County are unavailable to children with any given special need, compared to roughly 30 to 35 percent of homes in Fulton County. Children with physical, developmental or emotional/behavioral needs are more likely to find an appropriate foster home in Fulton County.
Not all children can or should be cared for in foster homes. Some require more structured settings with professional staff who can provide closer supervision than generally occurs in home-like settings. Thus, a second component of the resource analysis involved a survey of child-caring institutions (CCIs) serving children from Fulton and DeKalb Counties. Like the foster care case reviews, CCIs were surveyed to determine their total capacity, as well as the types of populations they serve by age, race, ethnicity and special needs.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐2

The vast majority of the CCI beds available for children from Fulton and DeKalb are for older youth. Developmental needs are those most commonly served by CCIs, with 62 percent of all CCI beds available to children with developmental needs, while beds are least frequently available for children with emotional/behavioral needs – only 25 percent of the beds are available to children with those needs.
One significant finding was the disparity between the types of needs served by CCIs in each county. Within DeKalb County, only 28 percent of the 194 CCI beds are available to children with a physical disability, while in Fulton County, 48 percent of the 319 CCI beds are available to physically disabled children. Equally disproportionate ratios are evidenced for children with emotional/behavioral disabilities– while 41 percent of beds in DeKalb County are available to children with emotional/behavioral disabilities, only 14 percent of beds in Fulton County are available to children with such needs.
RESOURCE GAPS
There is a relatively serious problem with foster home resources in Fulton County, because there is less than one bed per child in foster care. In contrast there are 2.4 beds per child in DeKalb. This latter figure should not be taken as a standard and may well not be sufficient to provide every child an opportunity at an appropriate placement setting, but it stands in sharp contrast to the situation in Fulton.
Nor is the situation in Fulton helped substantially by available beds in CCIs. Within the county, there are one-third as many CCI beds as there are foster home beds, not enough to ensure a bed for every child in care, even if those beds could meet all the needs the children present.
The real issue, however, lies not so much with the total number of beds but with disparities in available resources among sub-groups within the population. For most sub-groups there are far more beds nominally available, even if currently occupied by someone from another sub-group, than are needed to meet the children’s needs. This is not the case, however, for African American children, for older youth and for siblings needing placement together.
The picture is much better in relation to special needs children in foster care may present. Comparing the number of children with each type of need with the resources available to meet those needs, there are very few categories where resources do not exceed need by some
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐3

margin. However, in both counties, children six and older with a combination of emotional/behavioral and educational needs are not likely to be served appropriately within the county. In particular, DeKalb County youth 12 and older who show emotional/behavioral needs face a dearth of placement resources. While broadly speaking, resource providers in Fulton County are more willing than those in DeKalb County to accept children with special needs, the lack of overall systemic capacity in Fulton County leads to large gaps when it comes to serving children with special needs within the county.

RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION 1:

DFCS should begin a major effort to expand the number of foster homes in Fulton County, until there exists for each child at least two appropriate potential beds.

There is nothing magical about a 2:1 ratio, but it serves as an ambitious but realistic goal for Fulton County and would mean a major improvement in the chances that every child would have an opportunity for an appropriate placement. At present Fulton County would have to recruit 1,500 additional beds to achieve this overall standard. Assuming 3 beds per home, that would be 500 homes. DeKalb is already at the standard.

RECOMMENDATION 2:

DFCS should increase the number of homes available for adolescents, especially adolescents with emotional/behavioral issues.

At present DFCS would have to recruit 941 new beds in Fulton and 324 new beds in DeKalb to meet the need for adolescent placements assuming the 2:1 ratio. The majority of the new homes which are recruited under the first recommendation should be targeted at the disturbed adolescent population.

RECOMMENDATION 3:

DFCS needs to find a strategy to increase the number of beds available for siblings who need to be placed together.

This is perhaps the most difficult area to address because it requires finding new homes that can handle not only children with special needs but also multiple children from the same family, all of whom may have special needs, possibly of varying type and severity. The size of the

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐4

recruitment effort that would be needed cannot easily be estimated because some of the homes with empty beds which were assumed here to be available for siblings are probably not actually available for siblings. What can be said with some certainty is that a successful effort to address this issue will be a large undertaking.

RECOMMENDATION 4:

Development efforts should be focused on specific neighborhoods, specifically those in which there is currently a disparity between needs and resources.

The disparity of need is currently so great that in Fulton County one of the areas133 with the largest number of foster children shows only four foster home beds available within the entire area. Many foster care recruitment efforts are done through broad media campaigns, but that is unlikely to generate homes in the specific areas where the homes are most needed. A different strategy or set of strategies is needed. Programs which target particular churches, schools and organizations in the selected communities are also needed. When an identified child requires a home, child specific recruitment in the given community may help as well.

RECOMMENDATION 5:

Aside from expanding resources to meet the current need, DFCS should attempt to reduce the current level of need by expanding and enhancing its placement prevention efforts.

Georgia uses placement more frequently than do most of its neighboring states. Given that it currently does not have sufficient resources to meet the needs of all those children adequately, it is likely to be beneficial to many of those children to remain with their families. This will require, however, the services necessary to ensure the safety of those children, as well as the services needed to address any of the special needs they may exhibit.

RECOMMENDATION 6:

DFCS should implement an automated placement matching system which would both ensure that each child is provided the most appropriate available placement and that also provides a measure of the progress the agency is making in making appropriate placements for all children.

133 The “Fulton Central” cluster involves zip codes 30303, 30308 and 30313.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐5

As part of its work on this project, HZA is delivering to the agency a tool which will provide a quantified score for each potential placement for each child. In addition, its results can be aggregated to determine whether the placements being made at the present time are more appropriate than the placements made last month or six months ago or even a year ago. No development efforts will be useful unless they impact the individual children needing placement. Whether DFCS uses this tool or something equivalent, it needs to connect its resource development efforts to individual placements to ensure that the requirements of Kenny A. are met.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report Page C‐6

 
 EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL 4 P.M. EDT MAY 14, 2008
PERIOD IV MONITORING REPORT
Kenny A. v Perdue July 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007
Accountability Agents: James T. Dimas and Sarah A. Morrison
May 14, 2008

PART I PART II PART III PART IV PART V

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 1 Background, Purpose, Scope and Organization for this Report
A. The Kenny A. v. Perdue Consent Decree .................................................... 1 B. Methodology .................................................................................................. 1 C. Report Scope and Organization ................................................................... 3
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 5
A. Trends and Accomplishments ...................................................................... 5 B. Continuing Concerns and Challenges and
Recommended Priorities for State Attention.............................................. 7
SAFETY……………………………………………………..…………………… 16 Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment
A. Outcome Performance: ................................................................................. 16 B. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding
Maltreatment in Care Investigations..................................................... 24
PERMANENCY .................................................................................................... 38 Children in Care Maintain Family Connections and Achieve Permanency
A. Outcome Performance ................................................................................... 38 B. Other Practice/Process Requirements for Helping Children Achieve
Permanency .............................................................................................. 59 C. Post Adoption Assistance.............................................................................. 61
WELL‐BEING........................................................................................................ 63 Children in Care Experience Stable Placements, Worker Continuity, and Receive the Services They Need
A. Outcome Performance ................................................................................... 63 B. The Placement Experience ............................................................................ 74 C. Practice for Meeting the Needs of Children, Youth, and Families .......... 78

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report

PART VI

STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................................................... 89

A. Outcome Performance ................................................................................... 90 B. Caseloads ......................................................................................................... 95 C. Building Workforce Skills ............................................................................. 103 D. Assuring Needed Services Are Available ................................................... 106 E. Placement Support ......................................................................................... 108 F. Supervision of Contract Agencies ................................................................ 119 G. Improving Automated Support ................................................................... 122 H. Maximizing Federal Funding ....................................................................... 124

PART VII

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS .................................................................. 128 Child Protection Services Data

A. Repeat Maltreatment Data ............................................................................ 128 B. Diversion Data ................................................................................................ 129

APPENDI X A Kenny A. v. Sonny Perdue Consent Decree Outcomes ............................ A‐1 APPENDIX B Methodology .................................................................................................. B‐1

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report

Part I INTRODUCTION
Background, Purpose, Scope, and Organization of Report
This is the fourth report prepared by the Accountability Agents for the Kenny A. v Perdue Consent Decree to review the State Defendant’s progress between July 1 and December 31, 2007 in achieving improved child welfare outcomes and in meeting its other obligations under the Consent Decree. The Kenny A. v Perdue Consent Decree established James T. Dimas and Sarah A. Morrison as independent Accountability Agents with responsibility to produce public reports every six months. This introduction is intended to provide a brief overview of the Kenny A. Consent Decree and the Accountability Agent’s methods of assessing the State’s performance, as well as the scope and organization of this report.
A. The Kenny A. v Perdue Consent Decree
Under the terms and conditions of the Kenny A. Consent Decree, the State is to achieve 31 outcomes as well as maintain certain practice standards with respect to the children in the custody of the DeKalb and Fulton County Departments of Family and Children Services (DFCS). These practice standards relate to needs assessment, service planning, placement experience, health care, investigation of maltreatment allegations concerning children in foster care, and court reviews and reporting. Some are new requirements for administrators and case mangers and others are existing agency policy and practice requirements receiving heightened attention. In addition, the Consent Decree stipulates various infrastructure requirements for the State and Counties. These stipulations relate to automation, caseload sizes, training, supervision of private providers, foster parent licensing and support, and financing.
For purposes of analysis and reporting, the outcomes have been organized into seven thematic groupings. Exhibit I‐1 displays these groupings.
B. Methodology
Several sources of information and data collection methods have been employed to produce the analysis presented in this report. Appendix B has a full description of the methodology. In brief, information was obtained from State automated systems, county monitoring and reporting systems, interviews with state and county staff, and case record reviews. The Accountability Agents verified State and county reported data except where otherwise noted in the report. Three separate record reviews were conducted using staff from the DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Unit. Quality assurance oversight of the record reviews was provided by the Accountability Agents and by Georgia State University. The record reviews included files of 180 children in foster care; 93 maltreatment in care investigations completed during the reporting period; and 155 foster homes, those supervised by private agencies as well as DFCS.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 1

EXHIBIT I‐1: Thematic Grouping of Kenny A Outcomes
Safety 1. Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment • Consent Decree Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 related to investigations of maltreatment in care. • Consent Decree Outcomes 5 and 6 related to the incidents of substantiated maltreatment in care and corporal punishment.
Permanency 2. Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections • Consent Decree Outcomes 7, 16, and 19 related to keeping children connected to family and community at the time of placement. • Consent Decree Outcomes 21 and 23 related to visitation among family members. 3. Children Achieve Permanency • Consent Decree Outcomes 4 and 14 related to re‐entry into care. • Consent Decree Outcomes 8a & b, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 15 related to positive permanency exits. • Consent Decree Outcomes 27 and 28 related to timely and complete court review of permanency efforts.
Well Being 4. Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity • Consent Decree Outcome 17 relates to placement stability. • Consent Decree Outcomes 18, 20, and 22 relate to worker continuity and contacts with children and caregivers. 5. Children and Youth Receive the Services they Need • Consent Decree Outcome 24 relates to the educational achievement of youth who “age out” of foster care. • Consent Decree Outcome 30 relates to meeting children’s service needs.
Strengthened Infrastructure 6. Effective Oversight of Placement Settings • Consent Decree Outcomes 25 and 31 relate to placement setting conditions. 7. Timely and Complete Court Orders • Consent Decree Outcomes 26 and 29 related to DFCS authority to assume and maintain custody.
Data from the record reviews were compared with other existing data sources as another quality check of both the record review results and the State and county information systems and reports. This comparison helped identify data entry errors as well as inconsistencies arising from interpretation issues in all sources of data. While flaws were identified, using multiple sources of data improved the quality of the analysis.
With respect to the information gathered through the record reviews, it is important to note that two of the reviews were based on random samples of the children in foster care and of foster homes that had a class member (i.e., a child in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton Counties) in care during the reporting period. The third record review (of maltreatment in care investigations
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 2

completed during the reporting period) did not use a sample, but, instead reviewed the entire universe of such investigations. The two case record reviews based on random samples were each designed to achieve a 95 percent confidence level with a margin of error of no more than plus/minus 7 percent. This means that, statistically speaking, there is a 95 percent chance that the frequencies and rates reported for the entire random sample will fall within 7 percent of the actual frequency or rate among the entire population from which the sample was drawn. However, frequencies reported for subsets of the populations, for example children who entered care after the Consent Decree or the subset of foster homes that were supervised by DFCS are subject to a larger margin of error, making them less representative of the population as a whole. When assessment of performance against an outcome threshold relied on a case record review sample subset, an estimate of the larger margin of error is provided in footnotes.
Finally, a key component of the methodology continues to be the nearly twice‐monthly meetings with State and county leadership and field staff that are referred to as “G2.” These meetings employ a recursive learning process that uses operational data to support the development and testing of hypotheses about the potential causes of observed performance problems and the framing of strategies for improvement. This iterative process helps participants identify what works to produce the desired outcomes, and to hold themselves and each other accountable for doing that which works. These meetings foster self‐evaluation and have led the counties to create systems to track, monitor, and share with one another useful information that previously was unavailable or difficult to access.
In all data collection efforts the State and the Counties have been very cooperative. Case record reviews in particular can be disruptive of day‐to‐day operations.
C. Report Scope and Organization
This report describes the State’s performance relative to the December 31, 2007 outcome measures that were to be achieved by the end of the fourth reporting period, and progress implementing required policies, practices, and infrastructure. Where the information was available, comparisons to previous reporting period performance are cited.
The remainder of the report is organized into the following parts:
Part II, Conclusions and Recommendations summarizes the accomplishments and status of State and County actions taken during the fourth reporting period. It offers several recommendations believed important to the State and Counties’ continued progress.
Part III, Safety of Children in Care includes an assessment of the State’s fourth period performance related to Outcomes 1,2,3,5, and 6, focused on keeping children in its care safe from maltreatment and responding to reports of alleged maltreatment.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 3

Part IV, Children Achieving Permanency includes an assessment of the State’s fourth period performance related to Outcomes 4, 8a, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19, 21, 23, 27 and 28, focused on maintaining and achieving permanent family connections for children in State custody. Part V, Children’s Well Being in Care includes an assessment of the State’s fourth period performance related to Outcomes 17, 18, 20, 22, 24 and 30, focused on providing for the well‐ being of children in custody. Part VI, Strengthening the Infrastructure includes an assessment of the State’s progress in achieving Outcomes 25, 26, 29, and 31 and implementing required infrastructure components related to providing services to families and children. Part VII, Miscellaneous Provisions provides verified data regarding the re‐maltreatment rate of children in DeKalb and Fulton Counties and the number and percentage of “diversion” cases in those counties that experienced substantiated maltreatment within the subsequent 12 months. Appendix A provides the full wording for all 31 outcomes and a Appendix B has a detailed description of the data collection and analysis methods employed to produce this report.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 4

Part II CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Kenny A Consent Decree establishes an ambitious schedule for achieving 31 outcomes that set high standards for the safety, permanency, and well being of children in the custody of the Georgia Department of Human Resources and the Division of Family and Children Services. The State’s performance during the July 1 to December 31, 2007 period covered by this report was mixed. Progress, ranging from substantial to modest, was demonstrated on a wide array of the Consent Decree’s requirements. This was the first reporting period where such broad progress has been noted. However, the State fell short of the new maltreatment in care standard and performance declined in other areas as well. This section highlights the trends and the State’s major accomplishments and opportunities for improvement. Table II‐1 at the end of this chapter provides the performance summary by outcome.
A. Trends and Accomplishments
Although the State fell short of many of the Period IV outcome thresholds, there are several positive trends and accomplishments that deserve recognition because they serve as the building blocks for future success. Briefly, these trends and accomplishments are as follows:
• Declining Foster Care Population
Both Counties had fewer children entering care during the fourth period. They held the rate of re‐entry into foster care within 12 months to about 9 percent (Outcome 4). Although this is still higher than the Consent Decree standard of 8.6 percent it is improved slightly from 9.6 percent to 9.2 percent. In addition, it does not appear that any adoption has disrupted in its first year after finalization (Outcome 14). Among those children who recently entered custody, the Counties were successful in returning them to their families or being placed with new, permanent families relatively quickly. Nearly half (48%) of the children who had been in custody 12 months or less exited to reunification or to another family‐connected permanency by the end of the reporting period (Outcome 8a), exceeding the Consent Decree standard of 45 percent. The Counties continued their efforts to find permanency for those children in care over 12 months. Although not as successful with the longer staying children, the Counties did reunify or find family permanency for 337 of 1458 children who had been in custody for 13 months to several years (Outcomes 8b, 9, and 10).
• Lower Caseloads for All Case Managers
By the end of the fourth period, new, lower caseload caps went into effect. The caps differ by type of case manager, but no Child Protective Services case manager should now have more than 17 families and no Placement case manager should have responsibility for more than 15 children. In general, caseload sizes have diminished, although they do not universally meet the new, lower designated caps. As of December 31, 2007, 71 percent of the case managers in DeKalb and Fulton Counties had caseloads that were at or under the designated caps. (See
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 5

Section VI, Strengthening the Service Delivery Infrastructure). This trend appears to be continuing into 2008.
The area of greatest caseload improvement is among the Child Protective Services case managers who supervise children in their own home. A substantial proportion of case managers (95%) had caseloads of 17 or fewer families in contrast to June 2007 when 64 percent had caseloads of 20 or fewer families. None of the CPS on‐going case managers who exceeded the 17 family cap had more than 20. Caseloads of CPS investigators have also declined. In June 2007, 70 percent had caseloads of 20 or fewer families and in December about the same proportion (68%) had caseloads of 12 or fewer families. Additionally, among placement case managers, the proportion with 15 or fewer children was 61% at the end of 2007. Another 32 percent had caseloads of 16 to 25 children and 7 percent had caseloads exceeding 25 children.
• Continued Placement Proximity and Stability and Worker Continuity
The Counties continue to place children within close proximity of the locations from which they were removed, again exceeding the Outcome 19 threshold. Placement Stability is improving with 91 percent of the children in the case record review experiencing 2 or fewer placement moves in 12 months, just shy of the Outcome 17 threshold of 95 percent. Children not only appear to be experiencing stable placements, but they also appear to be experiencing reasonable case manager continuity as 92 percent of all children in custody in 2007 had no more than two case managers handling their case and providing services during 2007 (Outcome 18).
• Improving Visitation
There are four separate outcomes that focus on regular face‐to‐face contact with and among the individuals who are central in the lives of children in state custody. Outcomes 21 and 23 set standards for visits between children and their parents and among siblings, respectively. Outcomes 20 and 22 set standards for case manager visits with children and the individuals providing substitute parental care. The State has yet to come close to any of the thresholds set for these outcomes and, due to the measurement approach required by the framing of the outcomes in the Consent Decree for three of the four outcomes, the Accountability Agents anticipate that the pace of improvement reflected in the measurement will remain very gradual. For example, for Outcome 20, 95 percent of the children in custody are expected to have two, specifically defined visits each and every month for at least 12 sequential months. However, about half of the children in care in the fourth reporting period exited care in less than 12 months. If these children missed even a single month while in care, even perfect visitation thereafter would not enable them to be counted toward Outcome 20. Although only 14 percent of the children in the fourth period placement sample received the degree of visitation required by Outcome 20 (a proportion similar to the third period), the number of children receiving twice monthly visits grew. More than half of the children in the fourth period sample had twice monthly visits with their case managers eight or more months out of 12 sequential months in 2007 compared to one third of the children in the third period sample. In addition, the
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 6

Accountability Agents believe the increased visitation between case managers and children has increased the identification of maltreatment in care.
In contrast, the fourth visitation outcome, number 21, which has a different frame for the visitation between children with the goal of reunification and their parents had the proportion of children who regularly visited with their parents nearly doubled from 25 percent in the first half of 2007 to 47 percent in the second half of 2007. Although this performance is still well below the standard of 85 percent, the gains during the period demonstrate a trend in the right direction.
County and State efforts reflect a continued focus on increasing visitation frequency, consistency, and meaningfulness. County leadership continues to hold all staff – from case managers to program administrators – accountable for seeing that the visits are made and the State is currently engaged in providing case managers with training to help them make their visits more effective and engaging.
• Protecting Children in Custody from Corporal Punishment
For the third consecutive reporting period, the State met the Consent Decree standard related to the use of corporal punishment in foster homes (Outcome 6). As in the previous two reporting periods, there was no confirmed instances of the use of corporal punishment in 100 percent (155) of the sampled foster homes. .
• Improving Quality of Maltreatment in Care Investigations
The Consent Decree contains three outcome measures that relate to the quality of maltreatment in care investigations: Outcome 1 assesses the timeliness with which such investigations are initiated; Outcome 2 the timeliness of their completion; and Outcome 3 how frequently face‐to‐ face contact is made between a trained Child Protective Services investigator and an alleged victim.1 The performance of DeKalb and Fulton Counties improved on two of these three measures (Outcomes 1 and 3) as did the performance of perimeter counties (Outcomes 2 and 3).
• Improved Documentation of Required Court Actions
There are four outcomes that focus on necessary court actions to ensure that State has continuous legal custodial authority (Outcome 29), and judicial determinations that removal is in the best interest of the children and reasonable efforts are being made to achieve permanency (Outcomes 26 and 28). Finally, Outcome 27 seeks to ensure the court or its designee is appropriately reviewing case plans every six months. State performance in all these outcomes improved, exceeding the Outcome 29 threshold requiring that no more than 5 percent of the
1 Because maltreatment investigations are conducted by the DFCS office in the county of the child’s residence, these outcome measures, unlike most of the others in the consent decree, reflect the performance of Fulton and DeKalb Counties as well as other Georgia counties (referred to throughout this report as “perimeter counties”).
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 7

children have a lapse in custody. In the sample of children in the case record review, it appears that the State had brief lapses in custody for 3 percent of the children. However, the supporting documentation for this improved performance was not always in child records indicating that the State needs to continue working with the Courts on timeliness of orders and clerical filing of the orders in children’s records.
• Foster Homes are Not Overcrowded
Outcome 31 specifies foster home capacity standards that apply to all DFCS‐supervised and provider‐supervised foster homes. The Outcome 31 standard stipulates that no more than 10 percent of the children in foster homes shall be placed in homes if their placement will result in more than three foster children, or six total children in the home, unless they are part of a sibling group and there are no other children in the home. Only seven percent of the children in the fourth period placement sample were placed in homes with more than three foster children; none of the homes had more than six total children.
• Providers are Working to Achieve Compliance with Uniform Foster Home Approval Standards
The Consent Decree requires the State to maintain uniform approval standards for all foster homes; those approved by DFCS and those approved by private providers. In previous reporting periods, the Accountability Agents registered concern about the consistently lower rates of compliance with these standards among provider‐supervised foster homes. As a consequence of some federally‐required changes in the way Georgia pays private providers for services, the contracts under which the providers operate were extensively modified for the contract year that commenced July 1, 2007, and the State took that opportunity to include all the required contract language to make the State’s uniform foster home approval standards binding on private providers. Although fourth period compliance with the uniform approval standards remained lower among provider‐supervised foster homes, file review evidence shows that for some of the standards that have had relatively low rates of compliance (e.g., criminal records checks and sex offender registry checks for other adults in the home) the providers sampled were taking steps to bring their foster homes into compliance.
• Stronger Supervision of Contract Agencies
With enabling language having been incorporated into foster care provider contracts, DFCS’ new Provider Relations Unit (PRU), which came into existence on July 1, 2007, appears to be moving aggressively to strengthen provider accountability for meeting the terms of the Consent Decree. PRU is conducting unannounced quarterly site visits that include file reviews with every child placing agency (CPA) and provider‐supervised foster care setting serving DeKalb and Fulton Counties; collecting updated monthly data on provider‐supervised foster home compliance with most licensing and approval standards; and more frequently conducting joint investigations of alleged maltreatment in care with the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS).
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 8

• Leadership and Organizational Transitions
Midway through the fourth period, Ms. Dannette Smith was appointed as the new Director of Fulton County DFCS. Ms Smith is an experienced professional who immediately tackled the rising Child Protective Services caseloads in Fulton County and has reduced the number of families with open Child Protective Services cases.
In February 2008, at the start of the fifth period, DFCS Director Mary Dean Harvey announced her resignations and a search for her replacement was initiated. As of the writing of this report, a new director had not yet been named.
Finally, the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System known as Georgia SHINES is scheduled for full implementation in Fulton and DeKalb County by the end of June 2008. This new system should eventually bring greater internal integrity to the data the State collects and reports, and will automate much of the data that at present can only be extracted manually from paper files. However, as with most large‐scale information system implementation projects, some adverse effect on operations can be anticipated in the first year or two.
B. Continuing Concerns and Challenges and Recommended Priorities for State Attention
Sustained worker continuity, lower caseloads, and more frequent visitation can provide increased opportunities for improved needs assessment, case planning, and service delivery, but they do not automatically produce effective practice or lead to prevention of maltreatment, quicker permanency, or more timely and responsive services. The Accountability Agents continue to be concerned about the State’s performance in preventing maltreatment in care, meeting the service needs of children and their families, and moving children who have been in care a long time to permanency. We believe these areas should be priorities for State attention.
• Prevention of maltreatment in care
In the third period report, the Accountability Agents registered their concern that with the maltreatment in care standard (Outcome 5) being reduced from the 0.94 percent for the second and third periods to 0.57 percent for the fourth period and beyond, the State would need to succeed at preventing maltreatment in care (not just responding to it) in order to meet the new standard. This did not happen for the fourth period. In fact, the maltreatment in care rate crept upward as compared to the third period, from 0.92 percent to 1.01 percent.
One factor that appears to be contributing to the rate’s increase is improved case finding that has been a by‐product of more frequent caseworker visits in foster care settings. Another factor
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 9

appears to be random fluctuation associated with the number of children residing in group homes that have a substantiated allegation of maltreatment. The type of allegation substantiated in group homes is most frequently inadequate supervision. DFCS investigative practice is to substantiate inadequate supervision for every child in a group home if it is substantiated for any child. This is not a universal practice among all public child welfare agencies and the State may want to consider evaluating how other States respond to this type of incident and the implications of different approaches on the safety of children in care.
However, these factors appear unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, and therefore underscore the need for DFCS to find effective ways to prevent maltreatment in care from occurring. The Accountability Agents recommend that the State attend to several priority areas to strengthen its ability to prevent maltreatment in care:
• Accountability for complete reporting of maltreatment in care allegations and investigative findings from the counties to ORS, PRU, and the DFCS Policy Office needs to be significantly strengthened. These statewide offices cannot be expected to develop effective strategies for preventing maltreatment in care if they lack the information needed to identify patterns and trends.
• The performance of the perimeter counties in meeting the Consent Decree’s investigative practice standards needs to be closely supervised and must continue to improve. Although the perimeter counties have shown improvement the last two reporting periods, they continue to lag well behind DeKalb and Fulton Counties. This is a heightened concern because the proportion of maltreatment in care reports that originate in the perimeter counties has increased in each of the last two reporting periods.
• The State should consider centralizing the process of running CPS “clearances” (checks for previous CPS histories) on prospective foster parents or caregivers. At present, these checks are run by individual counties at the request of CPAs. The foster home file review identified several instances in which the requested check was apparently never run (one of these homes had a previous CPS substantiation). The current approach offers too little accountability for ensuring requested checks are run, and places too much reliance on county staff that have many other responsibilities.
• Meeting family and children’s needs and case planning
File documentation reflects a need for continued State focus on identifying and meeting the service needs of children and families. Performance on Outcome 30 (which addresses meeting the case plan‐identified needs of children) dropped substantially from the third to the fourth period, from 77 percent to 57 percent. It may be a reflection of case manager efforts to focus on the most pressing individual needs instead of more routine or less urgent needs. It appears that
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 10

routine health, dental, and mental health needs (such as regular health screens or assessments) were more likely to be unmet than child specific chronic needs indentified in the case plan. Conversely, the routine educational need of school enrollment was more likely to appear met than child specific needs such as tutoring. The Accountability Agents intend to review this decline with the Counties to determine possible causes. Case planning should take advantage of all available information about a child and family to craft a plan that is specific to their strengths and needs rather than applying a “cookie cutter” approach of standard language, goals, and action steps.
• Permanency for children with lengthy stays in foster care
As previously described, the State’s permanency efforts continue to be successful with those children who experience short stays in foster care – those in custody 12 months or less. However, like other child welfare agencies nationwide, the state continues to struggle to produce permanency for children who have been in care a long time and who may also have severe emotional, behavioral, or health issues. Some of these children have not only experienced the disbanding of their birth families, they have also had adoptive families dissolve. The average child in the longest staying group (those in care more than 5 years) is a 14 year old boy who has been in care almost 8 years – nearly half his lifetime. Although the number of long‐stay children reflects, in part, on past child welfare practice, it is, nevertheless, the responsibility of current County and State leadership and workforce to engage family networks and the community to help these children exit custody to loving, safe homes with life‐ long connections that will help them become successful adults. To that end, the Counties report that case managers are renewing searches for viable relative placements and community connections for these children and success stories are being celebrated to show that permanency can be achieved for the more challenging children. County leadership is scrutinizing the effectiveness of frequent visitation to move children to permanency and setting expectations for casework practice. Finally, although the prospect of adoption may be limited for many of these children, the Counties report that some children have been moved onto adoption caseloads to increase efforts to find adoptive homes.
In the monthly “G2” meetings, DeKalb and Fulton staff have discussed the importance of being strategic and intentional about using the required elements of case practice (such as family team meetings, case plan reviews, 12‐month permanency hearings, 13‐month internal permanency reviews, and the transfer of children from regular to specialized caseloads when they reach their 18th month in custody) as opportunities to advance the cause of permanency for each of these children. The State, Counties, and Courts are urged to make each one of these required steps a strategic opportunity for a positive change in a child’s life, rather than simply a compliant activity.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 11

Table II‐1 Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2007

Safety Outcomes Children in Foster Care are Safe From Maltreatment in Care Outcome 1: At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report. Outcome 2: At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report. Outcome 3: At least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face‐to‐face, private contact with alleged victim, including face‐to‐face contact with a child who is non‐ verbal due to age or for any other reason. Outcome 5: No more than 0.57% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. Outcome 6: 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.
Permanency Outcomes Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections Outcome 7: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 90 days of entering foster care.
Outcome 16: At least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings.
Outcome 19: 90% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b (ii) and (iii). Outcome 21: At least 85% of all children with the goal of reunification shall have appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. Outcome 23: At least 80% of children in the Class at a point in time during the reporting period who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have had visits with their siblings at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.

4th Period Performance
86%
72%
83%
1.01% 100%
To be reported on at a later date
To be reported on at a later date 97%
47%
26%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 12

Table II‐1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2007

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 4: No more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re‐ entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 8b: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entry: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, or shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less after entering: adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship. Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 backlog pool”): For all children remaining in the 24 month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 40% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “over 24 backlog pool”): For all children remaining in the over 24 month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 35% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 11: For all children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period.

4th Period Performance
9.2% 48%
50%
20%
9%
74% 94% One Time Measure 30% One Time Measure 0%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 13

Table II‐1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2007

Permanency Outcomes Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Outcome 27: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐ month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐month period following the last review. Outcome 28: At least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12‐month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.
Well‐Being Outcomes Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity Outcome 17: At least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 18: At least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave. Outcome 20: At least 95% of children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had at least one in‐placement visit and one other visit, as defined in Section 5.D, each month by their case manager during the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 22: At least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had visits between their DFCS placement case manager and their foster parent, group care, institutional or other caretaker at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody.

4th Period Performance
86% 46%
84%
91% 92% 14% 52%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 14

Table II‐1, continued Kenny A. Outcomes: Progress as of December 31, 2007

Well‐Being Outcomes Children and Youth Receive Services They Need Outcome 24: The percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 20 percentage points. Outcome 30: By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.
Strengthened Infrastructure Outcomes Effective Oversight of Placement Settings Outcome 25: At least 98% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. Outcome 26: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act. Outcome 29: No more than 5% of all children in custody of DHR/DFCS for 12 months or more shall have lapse of legal custody within the prior 13 months. Outcome 31: No more than 10% of all children in foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three(3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.

4th Period Performance
25%
57%
88% 70% 3%
7%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 15

Part III SAFETY
Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment

Principle four of the Consent Decree asserts, “the state has primary responsibility for the care and protection of the children who enter the foster care system.”2 As a consequence of this responsibility, several Consent Decree outcomes and requirements focus attention on the safety of children in the custody of DHR/DFCS. This chapter reports on the State’s progress in the areas related to the maltreatment of children in foster care and the process by which such allegations are investigated, and concludes with a more detailed discussion of the practices and processes employed to address reports and concerns of maltreatment in care.

A. Outcome Performance: Outcomes 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6

As previously noted, five of the Consent Decree outcomes are clustered around keeping children safe while they are in custody and quickly addressing safety issues as they occur. All five of these outcomes had thresholds that were to be achieved before the fourth reporting period. Table III‐1 below provides the measured performance summary for each Outcome. The discussion following the table provides a more detailed description of State performance as well as the interpretation and measurement issues associated with the outcomes, and information about issues surrounding the work that provide a context for understanding the State’s performance.

Table III‐1 Children in Foster Care are Safe from Maltreatment: Progress as of December 31, 2007

Consent Decree Outcome
Outcome 5: No more than .57% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. Outcome 1: At least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report. Outcome 2: At least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report. Outcome 3: At least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face‐to‐face, private contact with the alleged victim, including face‐to‐face contact with a child who is non‐verbal due to age or for any other reason. Outcome 6: 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.

4th Period Performance
1.01% 86%
72%
83%
100%

2 See p. 4, Principle 4, of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 16

1. Maltreatment in Care: Occurrence and Investigation of Reports
Outcome 5 – Maltreatment in Foster Care
Outcome 5 lies at the very heart of the Consent Decree. It is about keeping children in foster care safe from maltreatment. Child welfare systems have no higher obligation. By definition, children in foster care have already experienced some form of maltreatment in the home from which they were removed. The prospect of them experiencing maltreatment again in the foster care setting is deeply disturbing.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
There were no new interpretation or measurement issues encountered during the fourth reporting period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues. The Consent Decree standard for maltreatment in care (Outcome 5) dropped from 0.94 percent for the second and third reporting periods to 0.57 percent for the fourth and all subsequent reporting periods. This percentage (0.57%) represents the federal standard for maltreatment in care that was in effect at the time the Consent Decree was finalized. (The federal standard has since been reduced to 0.32%). Accordingly, Outcome 5 is measured using the federal definition of maltreatment in care: “Of all children in foster care during the reporting period, what percent were not victims of a substantiated or indicated maltreatment by foster parents or facility staff members?ʺ3 The data used to measure the Outcome performance is derived from a review of all 93 investigations of alleged maltreatment concerning class member children in foster care completed during the reporting period.
b. State Performance
 The State Fell Short of the Fourth Period Outcome 5 Threshold
For Outcome 5, about one percent (1.01 %) of all children in foster care between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007 had been victims of substantiated maltreatment during that time period. The State’s fourth period performance fell substantially short of the new standard of 0.57 percent. The case record review found 27 instances of substantiated maltreatment fitting the federal; definition among the 2,672 children in care at any point during the reporting period. The type of maltreatment substantiated for these 27 children consisted of inadequate supervision alone (8 children), inadequate supervision along with other abuse/neglect (8 children), physical abuse (5 children), inadequate medical care (3 children), emotional abuse (2 children), and sexual abuse with inadequate supervision (1 child). The number of victims of substantiated maltreatment increased by one compared to the third reporting period total of 26,
3 The Data Measures, Data Composites, and National Standards to be Used in the Child and Family Services Reviews, 71 Fed. Reg. 109, 32973 (June 7, 2006).
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 17

while the maltreatment in care rate increased by 0.09 percent from the third period rate of 0.92 percent. During the reporting period, four other class‐member children were the victims of substantiated maltreatment that did not fit the federal definition of maltreatment in care. Three of these children were maltreated by a relative (adoptive father, step‐grandfather, maternal aunt) and one was maltreated by Youth Department of Corrections staff.
The State’s fourth period performance on Outcome 5 raises two concerns. The first is to understand why the maltreatment in care rate has increased in each of the four reporting periods (0.54% in period 1, 0.81% in period 2, 0.92% in period 3, 1.01% in period 4). The second is to understand the nature of the challenge inherent in meeting the new and final standard for Outcome 5 of 0.57 percent, given the State’s historical performance.
With respect to the first concern, the increasing maltreatment in care rates observed over the four reporting periods appears to be a function of at least two factors. One of these factors is improved reporting of suspected maltreatment in care as a consequence of increased visitation between caseworkers and children in care, discussed in Part V, Well‐being. A second factor is the apparently random fluctuations between periods in the number of children involved in substantiated reports against congregate care settings (group homes and residential care facilities).
With respect to the effect of increased visitation, Figure III‐1 shows that the total number and the proportion of all maltreatment in care reports that have DHR staff as the reporter steadily increased in each of the first three reporting period, as the proportion of children receiving two or more caseworker visits per month also increased. However, this does not appear to explain the State’s fourth period performance, as the proportion of substantiated reports and of all reports that had DHR staff as the reporter declined somewhat compared to the third reporting period.
As noted, the actual increase in maltreatment in care between the third and fourth reporting periods appears to relate to the number of substantiations in group care settings. The third reporting period total of 26 substantiated victims of maltreatment in care included five children that were part of a single report against one group home. The fourth reporting period total of 27 victims of maltreatment in care included a total of 10 children associated with two reports against congregate care settings: one a residential treatment center (7 children) and the other a group home (3 children). It should be noted that the nature of the substantiated allegation involving the three children in the group home (which alone accounted for the entire observed difference between the third and fourth reporting periods) was inadequate supervision of the children, aged 15‐17, for a period of four hours when the group home staff walked off the job.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 18

100 DHR staff
90 Total
80
70

Figure III‐1 Proportion of Maltreatment Reports
Initiated by DHR Staff
93

78

76

64

93 71

60

55

50

48

50

40

30

20

16

13

9 10

22

23 25

7
34%

40 32

41%

17 10

31 22
9
54%

40
43%

0

Subst. Unsub. Total Subst. Unsub. Total Subst. Unsub. Total Subst. Unsub. Total

1st Reporting Period

2nd Reporting Period

3rd Reporting Period

4th Reporting Period

The second concern about the State’s performance relates to the assessment, contained in the Accountability Agents third period report, that “…successfully attaining the fourth period standard is likely to require the prevention of maltreatment in foster care that otherwise might occur.”4 A vexing challenge is to identify, understand, and implement strategies that might effectively prevent maltreatment in care. To this end, DHR Commissioner Walker has declared meeting the new Federal standard for maltreatment in care (0.32%) to be (in the parlance of management guru Steven Covey) a “Wildly Important Goal” (WIG) for DHR and DFCS. In service of this goal, several initiatives have been undertaken since the release of the Accountability Agents’ Third Period Report in December 2007:
• The G2 meetings have taken up the issue of preventing maltreatment in care as a major focus. Commissioner Walker personally kicked‐off the new WIG at the February 7, 2008 G2 meeting, the available research literature on preventing maltreatment in care has been presented and discussed, maltreatment in care incidence by placement type and by individual provider has been examined, and panel and small group discussions of special investigations and foster care case managers and supervisors have been organized to identify potential prevention strategies;

4 Ibid., p. 36.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 19

• The DFCS Policy office, the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS), and the Provider Relations Unit (PRU) have intensified their collaboration and information sharing about safety concerns in provider‐supervised settings;
• PRU has implemented weekly data collection from providers on the foster homes they supervise that includes the current census of individual homes and their approval status;
• PRU has implemented a schedule of quarterly, unannounced visits to every congregate care setting and provider‐supervised foster home; and,
• DeKalb County DFCS has implemented its own quarterly schedule of unannounced visits to the congregate care settings operating in that county to proactively identify and address potential safety concerns.
These new initiatives hold promise for reducing maltreatment in care rates through prevention. The Accountability Agents commend the high degree of attention this difficult challenge is now commanding. While it is unlikely these new initiatives will produce a significant impact by the end of the fifth reporting period (June 2008), it is hoped that DHR’s ongoing commitment to identifying what works to prevent maltreatment in care will begin to reduce maltreatment in care rates by the end of the sixth reporting period (December 2008). The Accountability Agents will continue to monitor closely and report on the State’s progress in this area.
Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 – Maltreatment Investigation Process Measures
While Outcome 5 focuses on the result of reduced maltreatment in care, Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 measure important aspects of the process through which allegations of maltreatment in foster care settings are investigated. Outcome 1 relates to the timeframe in which an investigation of suspected maltreatment of a foster child is commenced. Outcome 3 relates to the frequency with which such investigations include face‐to‐face contact with the alleged victim within 24 hours. Because DFCS policy defines the “commencement” of an investigation as the point at which face‐to‐face contact with the alleged victim is made, they are very similar measures; the primary difference between them is the unit of analysis. For Outcome 1, the unit of analysis is the investigation itself (which may involve multiple alleged victims). For Outcome 3, the unit of analysis is the individual child who is an alleged victim. Outcome 2 relates to the length of time it takes to complete such investigations.
Data for these outcomes are based on the universe of 93 maltreatment investigations completed during the reporting period that involved a child in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton County. The Consent Decree covers maltreatment in care investigations that involve any child in the custody of DeKalb or Fulton counties, regardless of where in the State of Georgia the child’s foster care placement is located. DFCS policy stipulates that alleged maltreatment is to be investigated by the County of the child’s residence. Thus, when maltreatment is alleged to involve a class member who is placed outside DeKalb or Fulton County, the allegation is investigated by the DFCS office in the county in which the child resides. For ease of reference,
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 20

Counties outside DeKalb and Fulton are referred to through out this report as “perimeter counties.”

Although the State did not achieve the fourth period standards for Outcomes 1, 2, or 3, the performance of DeKalb and Fulton counties improved for two of these three outcomes, and performance of the perimeter counties improved for two of the three as well. However, the State’s overall performance failed to show substantial improvement for two reasons. First, the performance of DeKalb and Fulton counties remained well above that of the perimeter counties on each of the three measures. Second, compared to the third reporting period, the perimeter counties conducted a slightly higher percentage of the maltreatment in care investigations and those investigations accounted for a substantially higher percentage of the total alleged victims. Maltreatment in care investigations completed by the perimeter counties accounted for 34 percent of fourth reporting period investigations and 45 percent of fourth period alleged victims. During the third reporting period perimeter counties conducted 32 percent of the maltreatment in care investigations which accounted for 33 percent of the alleged victims.

a.

Interpretation and Measurement

There were no new interpretation or measurement issues encountered during the fourth reporting period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues.

b. State Performance  The State Fell Short of the Outcome 1 Threshold

As noted in Table III‐1 for Outcome 1, 86 percent of maltreatment in care investigations commenced within 24 hours according to file review data from the universe of investigations completed during the reporting period. This represents a slight improvement from the third period rate of 85 percent. Outcome 1 requires that 95 percent of such investigations be commenced within 24 hours. As displayed in Table III‐2, DeKalb and Fulton counties commenced 93 percent of the investigations they completed within 24 hours, while the 24‐hour commencement rate for the perimeter counties was only 72 percent. This represents an improvement in the performance of DeKalb and Fulton counties compared to their 89 percent success rate for the third reporting period, but a decline among the perimeter counties compared to the third reporting period when they initiated 77 percent of maltreatment in care investigations within the required 24 hours.

This measure counts only investigations in which an alleged victim is seen face‐to‐face by a trained CPS investigator within 24 hours. Four of the 13 cases in which this did not happen were investigated by DeKalb or Fulton County, nine by other counties. Among these 13 cases, seven of the alleged victims were seen and removed by their foster care case manager from the placement setting before or at the time the allegation was made. Although these cases count as

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 21

“misses” toward Outcome 1, in terms of ensuring child safety it is important to recognize that in 86 of the 92 investigations (93%) the alleged victim(s) were seen by or removed from potential risk by child welfare professionals within 24 hours. This represents an improvement compared to the third reporting period when 90 percent of alleged victim(s) were seen by or removed from potential risk by child welfare professionals within 24 hours.

Table III‐2
Outcome 1 – Commencement of Maltreatment in Care Investigations N=92*

Not Commenced Within Commenced Within 24

Total

Investigating

24 Hours

Hours

County

Number of Percent

Number of

Percent Number of Percent

Investigations of Total Investigations of Total Investigations of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

4

7%

56

93%

60

100%

Perimeter Counties

9

28%

23

72%

32

100%

Total

13

14%

79

86%

92*

100%

Source: File Review of All Completed Investigations, July– December 2007.

* One case was excluded from the Outcome 1 and Outcome 3 analysis because the child involved was not

a class member at the time of the report.

 The State Fell Short of the Fourth Period Outcome 2 Threshold

For Outcome 2, 72 percent of maltreatment in care investigations (67 of 93) were completed within 30 days according to file review data from all investigations completed during the reporting period. (Another 16 cases, or 17 percent, were investigated within 45 days.) This rate is unchanged from the third reporting period when 72 percent of such investigations were completed within 30 days. Outcome 2 requires that 95 percent of such investigations be completed, in accordance with DFCS policy, within 30 days.

For the fourth reporting period the performance of DeKalb and Fulton counties in timely completing investigations declined slightly compared to the third reporting period (from 94% to 92%). The performance of the perimeter counties on this outcome improved somewhat, (from 27% to 34%), but remained substantially below that of DeKalb and Fulton. The fourth period performance of DeKalb, Fulton, and the perimeter counties is displayed in Table III‐3.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 22

Table III‐3

Outcome 2 – Timely Investigations

N=93

Investigating Completed in > 30 Days Completed in ≤ 30 Days

Total

County

Number % of Total Number % of Total Number

% of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

5

8%

56

92%

61

100%

Perimeter Counties

21

66%

11

34%

32

100%

Total

26

28%

67

72%

93

100%

Source: File Review of All Completed Investigations, July– December 2007, July 2007.

 The State Fell Short of the Outcome 3 Threshold

For Outcome 3, 83 percent of the 133 alleged victims of maltreatment in care during the fourth reporting period had face‐to‐face private contact with a CPS investigator within 24 hours, according to file review data from all investigations completed during the reporting period. This falls below the performance standard for Outcome 3 of 99 percent, and represents no change from the third period performance of 83 percent. As with Outcomes 1 and 2, performance in this area was substantially better for DeKalb and Fulton counties (93%) than it was for the perimeter counties (72%). Compared to the third reporting period, the performance of DeKalb and Fulton Counties and of the perimeter counties improved somewhat; from 90 percent to 93 percent, and from 70 percent to 72 percent, respectively. Yet, because a higher proportion of the alleged victims were in investigations conducted by the perimeter counties in the fourth period (45 percent of the total) than in the third period (33 percent of the total), and because their performance remained substantially below that of DeKalb and Fulton, the State’s overall performance remained unchanged. Fourth period data for Outcome 3 is displayed in Table III‐4.

Table III‐4

Outcome 3 – Face‐to‐Face Contact with Alleged Maltreatment Victims within 24 Hours

N=133

Investigating County

No Contact Within 24 Hours

Alleged Victims

Percent of Total

Seen/Removed Prior

To or Within 24

Hours of Report

Alleged

Percent

Victims

of Total

CPS Contact Within 24 Hours

Alleged Victims

Percent Of Total

Total

Alleged Victims

Percent of Total

DeKalb/Fulton

4

5%

1

1%

68

93%

73

100%

Perimeter

100%

Counties

7

12%

10

17%

43

72%

60

Total

11

8%

11

8%

111

83%

133

100%

Source: File Review of All Completed Investigations, July1 through December 31, 2007.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 23

Outcome 3 counts as successes only alleged victims having face‐to‐face, private contact with a trained CPS investigator within 24 hours of the report’s receipt. Five of the 22 alleged victims who apparently were not seen within this time frame were in cases investigated by DeKalb or Fulton County; 17 were in cases investigated by perimeter counties. Of the 22 alleged victims “missed” by DeKalb, Fulton, or the perimeter counties, 11 had been removed from the setting in which the maltreatment was alleged to have occurred by their foster care caseworker prior to, or at the time the allegation was made.
Although these cases count as “misses” toward Outcome 3, it is important to understand that of the 133 alleged victims in period four, 122 (92%) had their safety ensured by child welfare professionals within 24 hours (69 of 73 alleged victims (95%) in investigations conducted by DeKalb or Fulton County; 53 of 60 alleged victims (88%) in investigations conducted by the perimeter counties).
c. Operational Context
The shortfalls noted above in Outcomes 1, 2 and 3 continue to be associated with several factors:
• Although the performance of the perimeter counties continues to improve, it still
lags behind the performance of DeKalb and Fulton Counties.
• Compared to the second and third reporting periods, a higher proportion of the
maltreatment in care investigations for the fourth period were conducted by counties other than DeKalb and Fulton. Moreover, perimeter counties accounted for a substantially larger proportion of fourth period alleged victims than in previous reporting periods. This may reflect a degree of randomness in the number of children associated with any particular report, or it may reflect that many of the group homes in which Fulton and DeKalb County children are placed are located in perimeter counties. Regardless of the explanation, due to the perimeter counties’ lower performance on Outcomes 1, 2 and 3, the State’s overall performance has been negatively impacted by this shift.
• The Accountability Agent’s second period report described a communication
problem that appeared to explain a number of the “misses” on Outcomes 1 and 3. (This problem involves investigators missing the required response time because they arrive at the foster care setting to find that the alleged victim has already been removed from harm’s way by a foster care case manager). The 11 alleged victims shown in Table III‐4 as “seen/removed prior to or within 24 hours of report” includes 5 alleged victims for whom the “miss” may be attributable to this communication problem. This is an improvement over the six such alleged victims identified in the third period report.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 24

An issue of concern that emerged during the third reporting period relates to the coding practice of opening CPS investigations of alleged maltreatment in group homes and other congregate care settings in the name of the child’s birth parent.5 This practice can leave the actual perpetrator, when it is possible to identify that individual, without a CPS record they deserve. This is a safety concern because one of the safeguards in the selection of foster parents and of facility staff is a check of the IDS data base to see if there are any previous CPS reports in their name.
In the third period report, the Accountability Agents encouraged DHR to review its options for addressing this concern. To date, there is no progress to report on this issue. The Accountability Agents will continue to monitor this situation and to report any progress in addressing this concern.
Outcome 6 – Corporal Punishment
Outcome 6 seeks to protect children in foster care from experiencing corporal punishment, which the Consent Decree defines as “…any physical punishment of a child that inflicts pain.”6 Outcome 6 stipulates that by the end of the fourth reporting period, 98 percent of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.
a. Interpretation and Measurement
The Consent Decree’s use of the phrase “…all foster homes….”7 is operationalized as all foster homes with a class member in custody during the reporting period for measurement purposes.
b. State Performance
 The State Surpassed the Outcome 6 Threshold
The standard for Outcome 6 requires that 98 percent of foster homes be without an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months. As noted in Table III‐1, 100 percent of the foster homes sampled had not had a confirmed incident of corporal punishment in the previous 12 months, surpassing the fourth period standard. These data come from the sample of 155 foster homes that had a class member in care at any point during the reporting period, none of which had a confirmed incident of corporal punishment. This is the same as the third reporting period, during which 100 percent of the foster homes sampled had not had an incident of corporal punishment and indicates that DFCS continues to do extremely well at protecting children placed in foster homes from corporal punishment.

5 Ibid., pp. 26-27. 6 See p. 2 of the Consent Decree 7 Ibid, p. 32

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 25

B. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding Maltreatment in Care Investigations and Corporal Punishment
1. Maltreatment in Care Investigations
Section 12 of the Consent Decree contains other requirements pertaining to the process of investigating and responding to reports of maltreatment in care.8 The following discussion summarizes the State’s implementation of these requirements.
a. Investigations of Reports of Maltreatment in Care
Section 12 A requires all reports of suspected maltreatment of children in foster care to be investigated by Child Protective Services staff (rather than foster care staff) in the manner and within the time frame provided by law and DFCS policy. Interviews with Fulton and DeKalb County staff, with staff of the Provider Relations Unit (PRU) and the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS), and the review of 180 randomly selected foster care records and all 93 reports of maltreatment in care completed during the reporting period indicate that it is the policy and the practice that all reports of maltreatment in foster care are investigated by CPS staff. However, the review of 180 placement records and 155 foster home records identified three instances from Fulton County (two from the placement review; one from the foster home review) where an allegation of maltreatment appears to have been inappropriately screened out by a foster care worker. These three incidents are described below:
• A child made allegations against the director of the group home in which he was placed indicating she had pushed him, locked him out of the house, did not feed him, and referred to his mother using derogatory language. Upon follow‐up, County DFCS management confirmed that the foster care case manager (FCCM) did not refer the allegation to CPS for investigation. The child’s FCCM provided a statement indicating she did not make a referral to CPS due to the child’s history of disrupting placements by making false allegations and threats to staff members (causing him to have approximately 20 placements since October 2007). The FCCM suggested that the child’s motivation to do these things was to be placed back with his birth mother. The FCCM also indicated that most of the child’s placements have had a therapeutic component but that his behavior has been so erratic he never has taken full advantage of the services.
• A child placed with a maternal cousin acting as a non‐foster relative caregiver got into a fight with another child on the school bus and hit that child. The relative caregiver acknowledged to the FCCM that she punished the child by striking him with a switch. The child’s sibling who was also in the same placement was interviewed and indicated also that she had been hit with a switch “whenever she is bad.” The FCCM removed the
8 See pp.28-30 of the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 26

children from the maternal cousin’s care and placed them in the care of another relative in a different county. The FCCM, believing this resolved the issue, failed to refer it for a CPS investigation.
• A child placed in the home of a couple who have been foster parents since 1995 reported to his FCCM that he had been spanked with an extension cord by the foster mother. The FCCM examined the child and found no marks consistent with the spanking allegation. She interviewed the foster mother who adamantly denied using corporal punishment on the child. The FCCM had no other concerns about the home, and believed the child’s allegation to be attributable to the children being upset that their mother had stopped attending scheduled visitations. The FCCM reported the incident and her findings to her supervisor, who passed the information on to the foster home’s resource development case manager in an e‐mail message. The resource development case manager interpreted the e‐mail to mean the allegations had been investigated by CPS.
According to Section 12 A of the Consent Decree and to DFCS policy, it appears that each of these three allegations should have been referred to the CPS unit for assessment and screen‐out or investigation. Each of these cases was referred to the Fulton County leadership for further action. As a consequence, each case was re‐staffed, a protocol and assessment instrument for Fulton County resource and development workers to address disciplinary concerns in foster homes was implemented in January 2008, and training was conducted for placement workers in January and February 2008 on the importance of referring all safety concerns to CPS Special Investigations staff for response. Based on a careful vetting of each of these cases and their specifics, the Accountability Agents are satisfied that they represent isolated incidents and are not indicative of a systemic problem. Future file reviews, however, will continue to scrutinize placement files for any indication of a larger, systemic problem.
b. Investigations Conducted in Accordance with State Standards
Section 12.A. of the Consent Decree states that “All … reports of suspected abuse or neglect of children in foster care shall be investigated by DFCS child protective services staff in the manner and within the time frame provided by law and DFCS policy.”9 DFCS policy on maltreatment in care investigations (which are considered “Special Investigations”) is contained in Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual.10 Section 2106 contains guidance on the many aspects of properly conducting Special Investigations, such as separately interviewing the parties involved, making two collateral contacts, evaluating the likelihood of continued safety, etc. In all, Section 2106 contains more than 150 discrete requirements pertaining to Special Investigations. The particular requirements vary to an extent depending on the type of placement setting being investigated.
9 See p. 28 of the Consent Decree 10 Social Services Manual, Chapter 2100, Section VI, Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, July 2005
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 27

The file review of maltreatment in care investigations explored the extent to which the investigations completed during the fourth reporting period were conducted in accordance with the investigative standards contained in Section 2106. (The extent to which such investigations comport to the required timeframes is addressed in the discussion of Outcomes 1 and 2, above.) The results are presented in Table III‐5 for the 11 investigative standards common to most placement types.

Table III‐5 Proportion of Investigations Meeting Policy requirements N= varies based on placement setting and other case characteristics

Investigation Policy Requirement

Percent of Applicable Files with Documentation of Compliance

Investigator saw/interviewed every alleged maltreated child separately

(N=92)

97%

Continued safety of the child(ren) placed in the home was adequately evaluated and assessed (N=93)

95%

Investigator reviewed the DFCS history of the foster parent/caregiver (N=60)

90%

Investigator reviewed previous CPS reports for foster parents/caregivers (N=60)

90%

DFCS case managers required to visit in this foster care setting were contacted (N=93)

88%

Alleged maltreater was interviewed separately (N=89)

83%

Investigator saw/interviewed each of the other children (non‐alleged victims) separately (N=75)

80%

All approved foster parents/caregivers interviewed separately (N=93)

69%

At least two relevant collateral sources contacted during the investigation (N=93)

68%

File contains physical evidence to support case documentation (N=54)

56%

All other adults frequently in the home interviewed separately (N=11)

55%

Source: Case file review of all investigations completed July 1 – December 31, 2007.

The percentages reported in Table III‐5 represent the number of instances for which the investigative file documentation was adequate to provide a conclusive, affirmative response. For four of these 11 standards, State compliance was found to be below 80 percent. Further analysis of these four standards is provided below.
• Two of these four items assessed whether particular individuals (the foster parents/caretakers, or other adults frequently in the home) were interviewed separately.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 28

As in previous reporting periods, it was often the case that the file made it clear that these individuals were interviewed, but the documentation was inconclusive about whether those interviews were conducted privately. With respect to foster parents/caregivers, file reviewers also noted that in investigations in congregate care settings, some staff members were interviewed privately, but one or more other staff members were not interviewed at all. This problem was much more prevalent in the investigations conducted by counties other than DeKalb or Fulton, which, as noted earlier, also conducted a larger proportion of the fourth period investigations than in the third reporting period.
• With respect to the finding that 68 percent of the investigations documented at least two relevant collateral contacts, it should be noted that an additional 22 investigations (24 percent) were deemed to have one relevant collateral contact. For the investigations that were deemed to have only one or no relevant collateral contacts, the issue was usually the perceived “relevance” of the contacts that were made. About one‐third of the investigations found to have only one relevant collateral contact, and one‐half of the investigations found to have no relevant collateral contacts were in group homes, although group homes accounted for only 24 percent of the placement settings investigated. As noted in the third period report, it is possible that some collateral contacts with group home staff that have no association with an allegation were erroneously deemed by reviewers to be not relevant. However, it may also be the case that investigators would benefit from refresher training on what constitutes appropriate collateral contacts in investigations of maltreatment in congregate care settings. Although the file review protocol for the fourth period was modified to try to improve clarity on this issue, this effort may not have been completely successful. The file review guide will again be revised for the fifth reporting period and additional file reviewer training will be conducted around this issue. In addition, the State, DeKalb and Fulton Counties, and the perimeter counties are encouraged to review with their investigative staff the DFCS policy and practice requirements around collateral contacts and the application of those requirements in congregate care settings.
• With respect to the finding that 56 percent of the investigative files that might be expected to include physical evidence actually contained such evidence, it should be noted that among those that contained no such evidence, the allegation was found to be unsubstantiated 80 percent of the time. The non‐existence of physical evidence may explain both its absence in the case file and an investigative finding that an allegation such as physical abuse cannot be substantiated.
c. Referrals of Reports of Maltreatment in Care to the Office of Regulatory Services, the Provider Relations Unit, and the DFCS Policy Office
DFCS policy requires counties, at the conclusion of maltreatment in care investigations, to send an “Administrative Packet” detailing the incident and findings to the Social Services Director
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 29

within ten days. If the incident occurred in a provider‐supervised foster care setting, an investigative summary is also to be sent to ORS and PRU.
Section 12 B of the Consent Decree requires all reports of suspected abuse or neglect of foster children in institutional, group, residential, or private provider‐supervised foster family home settings to be referred to and reviewed by the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS) and the Provider Relations Unit (PRU).11 The purpose of the review specified in the Consent Decree is “…to determine whether a pattern of abuse or neglect exists within… [the provider agency]…. that contributed to the abuse or neglect; whether the contract should be terminated; whether particular homes or facilities should be closed….”12
Compliance with this requirement has been a concern to the Accountability Agents since the first reporting period. Although some improvements were identified in the third period in terms of reporting to ORS, overall the Accountability Agents concluded that substantial improvement in both reporting and documentation was needed in regard to PRU and the DFCS Policy Office, especially in light of the Consent Decree’s increasingly stringent standards for maltreatment in care. Improving the completeness of maltreatment in care reporting to the three statewide offices responsible for identifying maltreatment in care patterns is regarded as critical to the State’s ability to successfully prevent maltreatment in care. For the third and fourth reporting periods, data were collected directly from ORS, PRU, and the DFCS Policy Office to ascertain which maltreatment reports involving foster children had been reported to each office.
For the fourth period, data collected directly from the DFCS Policy Office indicate that the Office received an administrative packet for 31 (33%) of the 93 fourth period maltreatment in care investigations completed during the reporting period. This represented a substantial decrease from the third period when the Policy Office was notified of 40 of 85 investigations (47%), and remains far too low. Only four of the reports received for the fourth reporting period were sent within the required 10 days. Table III‐6 displays data on county reporting of maltreatment in care investigations to the DFCS Policy Office.
11 ORS licenses child placing agencies (CPA), child caring institutions (CCI), and outdoor therapeutic programs (OTP). TSU approves CPAs, CCIs, and OTPs wishing to serve DFCS children once they have been licensed by ORS. 12 See Section 12 B, p. 28 of the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 30

Table III‐6 Policy Unit Notification of Fourth Period Maltreatment in Care Investigations
N=93

Investigating County
DeKalb Fulton Baldwin Bibb Clayton Cobb Douglas Fayette Gwinnett Henry Newton Richmond Rockdale Troup Total

Total Investigations Number 50 10 1 1 6 3 1 6 1 7 2 1 3 1 93

Notified

Number % of Total

9

18%

3

30%

5

83%

1

33%

6

100%

1

100%

5

71%

1

50%

31

33%

Not Notified

Number % of Total

41

82%

7

70%

1

100%

1

100%

1

17%

2

67%

1

100%

2

29%

1

50%

1

100%

3

100%

1

100%

62

67%

DeKalb County conducted the largest number of maltreatment in care investigations, primarily due to the large number of provider‐supervised foster and group homes in the county. DeKalb also had by far the largest number of investigations of which the Policy Unit was not notified, at 41. The Policy Unit notification rate for DeKalb was somewhat higher for substantiated investigations (7 of 22, or 32%). Clayton, Fayette, and Gwinnett counties had Policy Unit notification rates of greater than 80 percent. Counties that failed to notify the DFCS Policy Unit of two‐thirds or more of their maltreatment in care investigations included DeKalb, Fulton, Baldwin, Bibb, Cobb, Douglas, Richmond, Rockdale, and Troup. This is a serious shortcoming as the DFCS Policy Office is one of the triumvirate of statewide offices that is charged with responsibility for identifying maltreatment in care patterns, and the only statewide office that is charged with receiving all maltreatment in care reports, regardless of placement setting.

The fourth period file review of maltreatment in care investigations included 65 investigations in provider‐supervised settings. Data collected directly from ORS and PRU indicate that ORS was notified of 83 percent of these investigations. This is slightly better than the third period when ORS was notified of 82 percent of such maltreatment in care investigations. Table III‐7 displays data on county reporting of maltreatment in care investigations to ORS.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 31

Table III‐7 Office of Regulatory Services Notification of Maltreatment in Care Investigations
N=65

Investigating County
DeKalb Fulton Clayton Cobb Douglas Fayette Gwinnett Henry Newton Richmond Rockdale Troup Total

Total Investigations Number 30 5 6 3 1 6 1 7 2 1 2 1 65

Notified

Number % of Total

25

83%

2

40%

6

100%

1

100%

1

100%

6

100%

1

100%

6

86%

2

100%

1

100%

2

100%

1

100%

54

83%

Not Notified

Number % of Total

5

17%

3

60%

2

67%

1

14%

11

17%

DeKalb County conducted the largest number of maltreatment in care investigations in provider‐supervised settings at 30. Twenty‐five of these (83%) were reported to ORS; five were not. Fulton County, which has many fewer provider‐supervised foster care settings than DeKalb, conducted only five maltreatment in care investigations in these settings but failed to notify ORS of three of them. ORS was notified of nearly all substantiated investigations in provider‐supervised settings (10 of 11, or 91%) – the one failure coming from Cobb County. DeKalb, Clayton, Douglas, Fayette, Gwinnett, Henry, Newton, Richmond, Rockdale, and Troup counties all had ORS Unit notification rates of greater than 80 percent. However, Fulton and Cobb counties failed to notify ORS of more than half of their maltreatment in care investigations in provider‐supervised settings. Notifying ORS of maltreatment reports in the care settings they license is essential to the ability of ORS to effectively use that licensing authority to help prevent maltreatment in care.

PRU, the Statewide organizational entity charged with supervising DFCS’ provider contracts, appears to have been notified of 33 (51%) of the 65 maltreatment in care investigations in provider‐supervised settings. This represents an improvement from the third reporting period when PRU’s organizational predecessor, TSU, was notified of 43 percent of such investigations, yet remains far too low. Table III‐8 displays data on county reporting of maltreatment in care investigations to PRU.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 32

Table III‐8 Provider Relations Unit Notification of Maltreatment in Care Investigations
N=65

Investigating County
DeKalb Fulton Clayton Cobb Douglas Fayette Gwinnett Henry Newton Richmond Rockdale Troup Total

Total Investigations Number 30 5 6 3 1 6 1 7 2 1 2 1 65

Notified

Number % of Total

11

35%

2

40%

3

50%

1

33%

1

100%

6

100%

5

71%

2

100%

2

100%

33

51%

Not Notified

Number % of Total

19

65%

3

60%

3

50%

2

67%

1

100%

2

29%

1

100%

1

100%

32

49%

As was the case with Policy Unit notifications, DeKalb also had the largest number (19) of investigation that lacked PRU notification. Douglas, Fayette, Newton, and Rockdale counties had PRU notification rates of 100 percent. However, counties that failed to notify PRU of half or more of their maltreatment in care investigations included DeKalb, Fulton, Clayton, Cobb, Gwinnett, Richmond, and Troup. PRU’s ability to be a prudent purchaser of care is significantly hampered by the fact that, in the aggregate, it was informed of only half the maltreatment investigations that occurred in the agencies with which it contracts.

One “workaround” that has improved the situation somewhat is the direct sharing of information between ORS and PRU. Notes from the review of ORS and PRU records on maltreatment in care reporting indicate the two offices regularly share information on reported incidents, and that they are more frequently conducting joint staffings with provider agencies and joint investigations of complaints as a result. The fourth period notification data illustrate that county reporting of incidents enables prudent, collaborative action by ORS and PRU. Among the 54 maltreatment in care allegations of which ORS was informed, ORS elected to conduct a joint investigation with DFCS for 22 (41%) of them. Not surprisingly, among the 11 complaints that were not reported to ORS, no joint investigations were conducted. While collaboration between ORS and PRU reduces the impact of incomplete reporting from the counties, as the fourth period data clearly indicate, it does not solve the root problem.

As noted in the previous discussion of Outcome 5, given the State’s improved ability to detect and report maltreatment in care that has resulted primarily from the Consent Decree’s visitation requirements, achieving the new maltreatment in care standard for Outcome 5 (0.57%) or the

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 33

new federal standard (0.32%) will almost certainly require the State to learn to successfully prevent maltreatment in care. Identifying maltreatment patterns and acting proactively on situations that fit patterns associated with maltreatment can contribute to prevention.
The Accountability Agents have identified no insurmountable impediments to ORS, PRU, and the DFCS Policy Office getting the information they need to take appropriate action. On the contrary, this appears to be a relatively straightforward problem to solve. For these reasons, the lack of progress in improving central office notification of maltreatment in care reports is vexing.
The counties and State are again urged to:
• Make improving the completeness of county reporting a high priority. Developing
better accountability mechanisms to track county‐to‐state office reporting is a strategy that would likely produce improvement.
ORS and PRU are urged to:
• Continue to strengthen their collaboration, and to actively work to identify providers
with marginal child safety records, and
• To develop strategies for proactively intervening with providers with marginal child
safety records to capture the opportunity to prevent maltreatment in care.
DHR is urged to:
• Ensure that ORS and PRU are adequately staffed and resourced to successfully and
proactively carry out the recommendations made above.
2. Corporal Punishment in Foster Homes
Section 12C of the Consent Decree13 contains process and practice requirements related to the prohibition of corporal punishment in foster care settings and investigations of reports of corporal punishment. The following discussion summarizes the requirements and how DFCS is meeting them.
a. Awareness of Corporal Punishment Prohibition
All placement settings are to prohibit the use of corporal punishment. In 153 of the 155 foster home records sampled (99%), there was a signed written statement or other evidence that foster parents understood and agreed to comply with DFCS’ prohibition on the use of corporal punishment. This is the same as the third period performance of 99 percent.

13 See pp 29-30, paragraph 12C of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 34

b. Enforcement of Corporal Punishment Prohibition

Enforcement of this provision in DFCS supervised homes is carried out by the County DFCS offices. Enforcement in private provider placements is carried out by the child placing agency (CPA), Office of Regulatory Services (ORS), and the Provider Relations Unit (PRU). ORS requires CPAs, Child Caring Institutions, and Outdoor Child Caring Programs to have written policies prohibiting corporal punishment as a condition of licensure. ORS monitors compliance with this requirement by means of a pre‐licensure review of all provider policies. They also review the CPA files to confirm that they have reviewed the DFCS disciplinary policy with the private foster homes they supervise.

PRU requires providers to refrain from using corporal punishment as part of the Room Board Watchful Oversight (RBWO) Provider Contract, the Foster Home Minimum Standards, and the Prospective Provider Application. PRU is attempting to visit every CPA approved home once a quarter and to review a sample of the files the CPAs maintain. PRU is enhancing the record review forms they complete during their quarterly site visits to capture the acknowledgment of and compliance with pre‐service and ongoing training that addresses the use of appropriate behavioral interventions. As of the middle of March 2008, PRU management reported completing visits to approximately 60 percent of the homes and that they were on‐track to complete visits to all CPA homes by the end of March.

c.

Compliance with Corporal Punishment Prohibition

Actual compliance with the corporal punishment prohibition appears to be excellent. The review of 180 randomly selected placement records of children in foster care during the fourth reporting period identified one confirmed instance of corporal punishment (0.6%). This is comparable to the third reporting period when there were no confirmed instances of corporal punishment among the children included in the placement sample. However, while all corporal punishment in foster care settings is prohibited, not all corporal punishment meets the criteria that trigger a maltreatment investigation. The foster home record review looked for any evidence in the foster home record that foster parents or other placement resources may have used corporal punishment or permitted it to be used on any foster child, whether or not a subsequent investigation or assessment confirmed the allegation. Such evidence was found in six of the 155 foster home records reviewed (4%). Five of these six incidents received a full CPS investigation and four of the five were found to be unsubstantiated. The sixth incident was handled as a disciplinary policy violation, the foster parents were counseled on appropriate disciplinary techniques, and a bi‐weekly monitoring plan was implemented to ensure the child’s safety and well‐being.

The review of all 93 maltreatment in care reports investigated during the reporting period identified seven reports (8%) that began with an allegation of corporal punishment. This is somewhat higher than the third reporting period when 4 of the 93 maltreatment in care reports

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 35

(4%) began as corporal punishment allegations. Two of the seven investigations completed during the fourth period that began with an allegation of corporal punishment were substantiated and both of these foster homes were closed (these foster homes were not part of the random sample of 155 foster homes upon which Outcome 6 was calculated; and the children involved were not part of the random sample of 180 foster children whose placement records were reviewed.) No foster care or disciplinary policy violations were identified among the remaining five cases.
d. Screening and Investigation of Corporal Punishment Allegations
Allegations of corporal punishment must be screened by qualified CPS (rather than foster care) staff. Depending on the screening conclusions, the allegations may be responded to differently. Where reasonable cause exists to believe abuse or neglect occurred, or if the allegations arose in a group care setting, the allegations must be treated as an abuse referral and investigated accordingly. If the screener concludes that reasonable cause does not exist, the Consent Decree requires a timely assessment of the allegations and placing “holds” on any further placements until the assessment is complete. It also stipulates conditions under which homes must be closed, and conditions under which homes may remain open under a corrective action plan.
Interviews with the Special Investigations units in DeKalb and Fulton Counties indicate that both counties are handling allegations of corporal punishment consistent with these Consent Decree provisions. Both counties use experienced CPS supervisors to assess incoming corporal punishment allegations. In DeKalb, all complaints of any kind of physical discipline of foster children are automatically referred to the CPS Special Investigations unit with a 24 hour response time. In Fulton County, incoming complaints are screened by the CPS Intake Unit; those showing reasonable cause are investigated by Special Investigations unit with a 24 hour response time. Those lacking reasonable cause are either screened out or referred to the Resource Development unit if it is a DFCS‐supervised foster home. Incidents that occur in provider‐supervised foster homes are investigated by the Special Investigations Unit and are referred to the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS). In both counties, any complaint of corporal punishment of children in group homes automatically receives a CPS investigation.
As noted above, the review of all maltreatment in care investigations found seven CPS investigations prompted by an allegation of corporal punishment; four in DFCS‐supervised foster homes, three in provider‐supervised foster homes. Of these seven:
• 7 (100%) showed that all alleged victims were interviewed separately within 24 hours; • 7 (100%) showed evidence that the continued safety of the child was evaluated; • 7 (100%) file reviewers felt the investigative conclusion was consistent with the
investigative documentation; and,
• 6 (86%) were completed within the 30 days required by DFCS policy.
The three investigations in privately‐supervised foster homes were comparable to the second
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 36

and third periods during which three and one investigations, respectively, in private care settings were precipitated by corporal punishment allegations (there were 11 such instances in the first reporting period). Documentation indicates that both ORS and PRU were notified of two of these three investigations, and notified as well of the investigative conclusion. Neither ORS nor PRU was notified of the third investigation. The one private foster home that had a substantiated allegation of corporal punishment was closed by ORS. In both Counties, corporal punishment allegations against DFCS‐supervised foster homes that do not meet the criteria for a CPS investigation receive an “assessment.” The Resource Development staff in each county conduct the assessment in the home and decide if the home should be closed, placed under a corrective action plan, or if counseling or other support services are needed. While the assessment is being conducted, the home is to be placed on “hold” (barred from receiving additional placements). Both counties indicated that if the allegation revealed a policy violation that had a direct impact on safety or represented a serious risk, they would send the case to CPS and a special investigation would be opened. Both counties also indicated that if a policy violation was a home’s second violation, or the family was not amenable to change, the home would be closed. In both Counties, all allegations of corporal punishment in provider‐supervised foster homes are handled by the Special Investigations unit. Cases that fail to meet the criteria for a CPS investigation receive an “assessment” from the Special Investigations unit. The results of those assessments are reportedly shared with ORS.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 37

Part IV PERMANENCY
Children in Care Maintain Family Connections and Achieve Permanency
Several of the Consent Decree outcomes and practice requirements focus on various aspects of permanency for children. This chapter reports on the State’s progress in the areas related to children in DFCS custody maintaining their family connections and returning home or achieving permanency with new families.
A. Outcome Performance
As described in the Introduction (Part I), 17 separate outcomes are clustered in the category of “Permanency.” Outcomes 12 and 13, related to children achieving the goal of adoption, were one‐time, first period requirements that have been discussed in previous reports.14 The remaining outcomes applied to subsequent reporting periods with the final phase‐in of performance thresholds occurring in period four. Measuring performance for Outcomes 7, diligent search efforts, and 16, sibling placement, require a targeted sample of just those children who entered foster care between July 1 and December 31, 2007. This targeted sample will be drawn and data collected in May 2008 and reported on at a later date. Table IV‐1 on the next two pages provides the measured performance summary for each of the remaining Outcomes. The discussion following the table provides a more detailed description of State performance as well as the interpretation and measurement issues associated with the outcomes, and information about issues surrounding the work that provide a context for understanding the State’s performance.
For purposes of analysis and communication, the 17 outcomes have been further subdivided into two broad categories, Children in Placement Maintain Family Connections and Children Achieve Permanency.
14 See Dimas, J. T. and Morrison, S. Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v Perdue, November 2006 and Period II Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v Perdue, June 2007.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 38

Table IV‐1 Permanency Outcomes

Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
Outcome 7: At least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care. Outcome 16: At least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. Outcome 19: At least 90% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b (ii) and (iii). Outcome 21: At least 85% of all children with the goal or reunification shall have appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. Outcome 23: At least 80% of children in the Class at a point in time during the reporting period who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have had visits with their siblings at least one time each month, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.
Children Achieve Permanency Outcome 4: No more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re‐ entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 8b: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entry: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, or shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less after entering: adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship. Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 backlog pool”): For all children remaining in the 24 month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 40% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.

4th Period Performance
To be measured May
200815 To be measured May 2008 97%
47%
26%
9.2%
48%
50%
20%

15 Measurement of this Outcome and Outcome 16 required a separate case record review of a sample of children who entered care July 1 through December 31, 2007. The review will be conducted in May 2008 at the time of this report’s release.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 39

Children Achieve Permanency
Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “over 24 backlog pool”): For all children remaining in the over 24 month backlog pool after the third reporting period at least 35% by the end of the fourth reporting period shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. Outcome 11: For all children whose parental rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period. Outcome 15: At least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. Outcome 27: At least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐ month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐month period following the last review. Outcome 28: At least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12‐month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.

4th Period Performance
9%
74% First Period
94% One Time Measure First period
30% One time measure
0%
86%
46%
84%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 40

1. Children in Placement Maintain Family Connections: Outcomes 19, 21, and 23
One of the Consent Decree principles is “all non‐destructive family ties should be maintained and nurtured.”16 Preserving connections between children and their families, friends, and community is an essential strategy for achieving permanency when those relationships are not destructive. Preservation of these connections starts with placing the children with family resources whenever possible and placing children with their siblings.
Outcome 19 – Placement Proximity
When it is in the best interest of the child for the state to remove children from their homes and place them in state custody, Outcome 19 mandates that children be placed in a setting within the county or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed.17 By the end of the fourth reporting period 90 percent of all children in custody are to be in placement settings within this proximity.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
No new interpretation or measurement issues were encountered in the fourth period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues.
b. State Performance
• The State Surpassed the Fourth Period Outcome 19 Threshold.
The State placed 97 percent of the children in the placement sample within the designated proximity to the home from which they were removed. The Outcome threshold was 90 percent. This performance is an improvement over the third period performance of 89 percent. Of the 180 children in the sample, 174 children were placed within the same county as the home from which they were removed or within a 50 mile radius of the home or they met one or more of the criteria that exempted them from the placement proximity standard. Specifically, seven of the 174 children were placed outside the designated proximity because of their exceptional needs or because they were placed with relatives.
Outcome 21 – Parent‐Child Visitation
National studies have found that children who have frequent, regular contact with their birth parents are more likely to be successfully reunified with them. Outcome 21 seeks to focus

16 See p. 4, principle 2 in the Consent Decree. 17 See p. 35, Outcome 19, of the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 41

efforts on ensuring that appropriate visitation18 takes place by setting targets for the percent of children who visit with their parents, but there are no stipulations as to timing or visit content.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
Within the sample of 180 children in foster care, 119 were considered to have the permanency goal of reunification for purposes of parental visitation. However, eight of the children were living with their reunification resources during the entire 6 months of the review period and parental contact with two children had been determined to be contrary to the child’s safety or best interest. Another child was removed from the analysis because the only identified reunification resource was incarcerated more than 50 miles from child’s placement. After these exclusions, there were 108 children in the analysis of Outcome 21
The County visitation tracking system which tracks monthly visits conducted or facilitated by case managers, for this requirement and the others (Outcomes 20, 21, 22, and 23) continues to show a higher level of performance than what was found in the sample case record review. The Accountability Agents believe the Counties are working in good faith to collect accurate information for their own accountability efforts and have identified several possible sources for differences between the county system and the file review. These sources include 1) documentation that is submitted to the County Quality Assurance units for internal accountability but not filed timely in the child’s record; 2) documentation that is misfiled in the child’s record and not located by the file reviewer; and 3) file reviewer error. All of these sources are being investigated to more fully assess the reasons for the differences and to seek a means of reconciling the information.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Fourth Period Outcome 21 Threshold.
Of the 10819 children used in this analysis, almost half of the children, 47 percent, had evidence in their records of regular (at least monthly) visitation with their parents or other reunification resource. This is nearly double the third period performance of 25 percent. However, the threshold for this outcome in the fourth period is 85 percent. Over all, 87 children (81%) had some documented visits with their reunification resource during the time they were in custody between July 1 and December 31, 2007. This is a substantial improvement from the third period performance of 56 percent. During individual months from July to December, 52 percent to 65 percent of the children visited with their parents.
This performance remains a concern to the Accountability Agents, but it does appear that the increased focus on this issue by the counties is producing positive results. The counties are
18 There is no stipulated frequency of visitation in Outcome 21. 19Conclusions drawn from the subsample of 108 children used in this analysis are subject to a margin of error of + 9 percent. Actual parent-child visitation may be 9 percentage points higher or lower than 47 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 42

encouraged to continue working to identify and resolve barriers to achieving the required and appropriate visitation frequency between children and their parents.
Outcome 23 – Sibling Visitation
DFCS has many sibling groups in its custody. When these children cannot be placed together, it is important for them to remain connected with one another through regular visits. The only times this is not desirable are when it is not in the best interest of the child to visit a sibling due to safety reasons or the emotional trauma it might cause. To ensure that sibling visitation is a regular part of practice, this Consent Decree outcome establishes the expectation that at least 80 percent of children separated from siblings in custody see their separated siblings each and every month for the pervious 12 months, or every month they have been in custody if less than 12 months.20
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
No new interpretation or measurement issues were encountered in the fourth period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues. There were 63 children in the sample who were separated from some or all of their siblings during some or all of the period under review. Two children were excluded from the analysis because the only sibling of one child was placed with a relative in Louisiana and the other child was separated less than a month from his siblings.
The County visitation tracking system which captures monthly visits conducted or facilitated by case managers, continues to show a higher level of performance on a monthly basis than what is measured by the case record review for this outcome because of the required measurement differences as well as the possible documentation issues previously discussed. The County system is designed for management and accountability. The Outcome and required measurement methodology seeks to capture a “child’s view” of visitation over time.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Outcome 23 Threshold
For Outcome 23, the Consent Decree’s sibling visitation requirements were met for 16 (26%) of the 61 children21 in the sample who had one or more siblings in custody but in separate placements. The outcome threshold is 80 percent. These children visited with at least one separated sibling each and every month for the last 12 months or since they entered care. This appears to be a small improvement over the third period proportion of 21 percent, but the
20 See p.36, Outcome 23, in the Consent Decree. 21 Conclusions drawn from the subsample of 61 children who were separated from their siblings for all or some of the time they were in care would have a margin of error of at least +/- 13%. It could possibly be higher or lower since the sample was not drawn from only the universe of children who were separated for some or part of the time.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 43

difference is still within the sample’s margin of error. However, a slightly larger proportion of children appear not to have had any visits with their siblings than in the third period. Table IV‐ 8 describes the visitation picture captured by the placement case record review.

Table IV‐8 Separated Sibling Visitation Pattern for the 12 months preceding December 31, 2007 or the
last date of DFCS custody* N=61

Frequency of meeting required visitation

Number Percent Cumulative

Percent

Met outcome requirement of monthly visits each month for every month of previous 12 months.

16

26%

26%

Missed visitation in one of the required months (i.e. equivalent to 11 of 12 months)

7

11%

38%

Did not meet outcome requirement but visited with siblings at

least half of the months separated (i.e. the equivalent of 6‐10

22

36%

74%

visits in a 12 month period)

Visitation pattern was infrequent and sporadic (i.e. the equivalent of less than 6 visits in a 12 month period)

12

20%

93%

No visits were documented

4

7%

100%

Total

61

100%

Source: Case record review, January‐February 2008.

*For those children in custody less than 12 months, only the applicable number of months in custody was

considered.

This performance also remains a concern to the Accountability Agents; however there is evidence to suggest the gradual nature of the State’s progress as measured for Outcome 23 should be expected. The Accountability Agents believe that the measurement will continue to show gradual progression over time rather than change dramatically in a short period of time. This assumption is based on looking at the monthly visitation rates since July 2006 as captured in the case record reviews in three periods. Over time, the proportion of children visiting monthly with their siblings has gradually increased. As reported in the second period report, the percent of children visiting monthly with their siblings ranged from 16 percent to 41 percent for the 6‐month period July through December 2006. A year later, the percent of children with monthly sibling visits ranged from 60 percent to 73 percent. This pattern suggests that the State may eventually achieve this outcome, but it will take an extended time period and continued efforts.

2. Children Achieve Permanency: Outcomes 4, 8a, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 27, and 28

Permanency for a child can be achieved in many ways. Subject to the absolute constraint represented by child safety, the initial focus of child welfare work is always on reunification with the birth parents. Should that result be unattainable, the state may pursue transfer of

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 44

custody to a relative or adoption by a relative or another family. Legal guardianship is also a means of securing permanency for a child. The Consent Decree stipulates another permanency option. This option is designed for a relative who is “willing to assume long‐term responsibility for the child but has reasons for not adopting the child or obtaining guardianship or permanent legal custody, and it is in the child’s best interest to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship by another person.”22 In these circumstances, the child will remain in the custody of the state with the relative committing to the “permanency and stability” of the placement.

Table IV‐9 displays the distribution of permanency goals for the 180 children in the foster care sample as documented in their case files. About two‐thirds (65%) of the children had a judicially determined or presumed goal of reunification or a concurrent goal of reunification and another goal.23 The permanency goal of reunification is presumed for those children in the sample who had been in DFCS custody less than 12 months unless there was evidence of a “non‐ reunification” court order prior to the first annual permanency hearing.24 Children with the goal of adoption and those with the goal of placement with a fit and willing relative represented the next largest proportions ‐‐ 10 percent each of the 180 children. Another 10 percent had the goal of long term foster care or “emancipation” referring to when a youth reaches the age of 18 and at that point is no longer in State custody. For three percent, the file reviewers could not determine the permanency goal from the documentation.

Table IV‐9 Permanency Goals of Children
N= 180

Permanency Goal

Number Percent

Judicially Determined/ Presumed Reunification*

107

59%

Concurrent Goal (Reunification and another Goal)

10

6%

Adoption

17

10%

Guardianship

4

2%

Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative

17

10%

Long Term Foster Care

8

4%

Emancipation

10

6%

No goal documented

5

3%

Total

180

100%

Source: Case Record Review, January‐February 2008. * Presumed re‐unification goal for children in care

for less than 12 months.

22 See p.3, definition T of the Consent Decree. 23 For an explanation of what is meant by “presumed goal of reunification in the first 12 months, see Social Services Manual Chapter 1006.4 Georgia Department of Human Resources and Josylyn-Gaul, D., Georgia’s Responsibilities Toward Children in Foster Care: A Reference Manual, Karen Worthington, editor, the Barton Child Law and Policy Clinic of Emory University (1st ed. Dec. 2004). p 43. 24 See Social Services Manual, Chapter 1006.4 Georgia Department of Human Resources.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 45

When children exit foster care, it is a goal of Georgia’s child welfare system that they will have exited to a stable, family care arrangement. In particular, exits to reunification and adoption are intended to be life‐long arrangements. The casework done while a child is in custody and the planned aftercare can help ensure these exits remain successful. Unfortunately, circumstances sometimes require children to reenter care to ensure their safety or well‐being. Two outcomes, Outcome 4 and Outcome 14, focus on the State’s performance in ensuring long‐term permanency.
Outcome 4 – Re‐Entry into Custody
In Outcome 4, the Consent Decree establishes a measure of the stability of foster care exits: the percentage of children who re‐enter state custody within 12 months of having previously left custody.25 Outcome 4 sets the same standard as the national outcomes established by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
No new interpretation or measurement issues were encountered in the fourth period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Outcome 4 Threshold.
For Outcome 4, the state’s information system reports that 9.2 percent of all children entering foster care in DeKalb and Fulton counties between July 1 and December 31, 2007, had re‐entered care within 12 months of previously exiting custody. The outcome threshold is 8.6 percent. The difference between meeting the threshold and falling short is represented by 4 children. The State’s performance remained about the same as it was at the end of the third period in terms of percentages. However, because of the overall declining numbers of children in foster care, the State’s performance in the fourth period represents a total of 54 children who had returned to foster care within 12 months compared to 84 children who had returned in the third period. This suggests that with some additional focus, this outcome threshold should be achievable in the near term.
Outcome 14 – Adoption Disruptions within 12 Months of Finalizations
Outcome 14 is concerned about adoptions that fail or are at the brink of failure. These are situations where adoptive parents no longer can or wish to parent the children to whom they made lifetime commitments or the children are found to be at risk of harm and the children
25 See p 32, Outcome 4, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 46

must be removed. DFCS works with these families to achieve reunification and prevent dissolution, but the effort is not always successful. The Consent Decree establishes an on‐going threshold that no more than 5 percent of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to finalization.26
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
No new interpretation or measurement issues were encountered in the fourth period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues.
b. State Performance
• The State Surpassed the Threshold for Outcome 14.
The total number of finalized adoptions for the period July 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 was 102. Within this group, no child is known to have re‐entered the Department’s custody by December 2007. The outcome threshold is no more than 5 percent.
Outcome 8a and 8b – Permanency Exits for Those Children Who Entered DeKalb or Fulton Custody on or After October 27, 2005
Outcome 9 – Permanency Exits For Those Children Who Had Been In the Custody of DeKalb or Fulton Custody Up To 24 Months as Of October 27, 2005
Outcome 10 ‐ Permanency Exits For Those Children Who Had Been In the Custody of DeKalb or Fulton Custody More Than 24 Months as Of October 27, 2005
The Consent Decree established three on‐going permanency outcomes to be achieved among three different cohorts of children. Outcome 8 (parts a and b) relate to children that enter care after the effective date of the Consent Decree.27 These children represent a dynamic cohort, in other words, this cohort will continue to change as new children enter care and others exit. The second cohort, to which Outcome 9 relates, consists of children who were in care less than 24 months when the Consent Decree’ was finalized in October 2005.28 Finally, children who were in state custody for 24 months or more when the Consent Decree was finalized are the focus of Outcome 10.29
Outcome 8 concerns the permanency outcomes achieved within specific timeframes by children who have entered state custody following the entry of the Consent Decree. The difference
26 See p. 34, Outcome 14, of the Consent Decree 27 October 27, 2005 28 See p. 33, Outcome 9, of the Consent Decree 29 See pp 33 and 34, Outcome 10, of the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 47

between (a) and 8(b) lies in how they treat three permanency outcomes: adoption, permanent legal custody (live with other relatives), and guardianship. To meet the requirements of 8(a), those permanency outcomes must be achieved within 12 months of a child’s entering state custody; to meet the requirements of 8(b), those outcomes must be achieved within 24 months of entry. With respect to two other permanency outcomes – reunification and permanent placement with relatives (i.e. living with relatives but remaining in legal custody of the State) – the requirements of 8(a) and 8(b) are identical: to meet the Outcome requirements, both must be achieved within 12 months of a child’s entering state custody. Table IV‐10 below summarizes these requirements.

Table IV‐10 Requirements for Outcome 8(a) and (8b)

Permanency Exit Reunification Permanent Placement with Relatives Permanent Legal Custody Adoption Guardianship

Outcome 8(a) Timeframe Outcome 8(b) Timeframe Within 12 months of Entry Within 12 months of Entry

Within 12 months of Entry Within 12 months of Entry Within 12 months of Entry

Within 24 months of Entry Within 24 months of Entry Within 24 months of Entry

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues

No new interpretation or measurement issues were encountered in the fourth period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues.

b. State Performance

• The State Surpassed the Threshold for Outcome 8a and Fell Short of the Threshold for Outcome 8b

Through December 31, 2007, there were approximately 3400 children who had entered foster care since October 27, 2005. From this cohort, 48 percent (1636 children) had exited to live with their parents, other relatives, guardians or new families through adoption within 12 months of entering State custody. (Outcome 8a) The outcome threshold for 8a is 40 percent. The State’s performance on Outcome 8a in the fourth period is a slight improvement over its period three performance of 45 percent.

Another 49 children were adopted or exited to legal guardianship within 24 months of entering foster care (8b), bringing the total that exited to these designated permanency arrangements within the time fames dictated to 1684 or 50 percent of the cohort. The outcome threshold for

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 48

8b is 74 percent. The State’s performance on Outcome 8b is also a slight improvement over the preliminary measurement of 46 percent in period three.
Table IV‐11 provides the distribution of all the children in the Outcome 8 cohort who exited custody by December 31, 2007. As noted, another 153 children (5% of the cohort) exited to one of the designated permanency arrangements but these permanency exits occurred outside the designated timeframes for the outcome.
Table IV‐11 Outcome 8 Children Entering DFCS Custody on or after October 27, 2005 Who Exited to Permanency by December 31, 2007

Number of children in cohort Exits as of December 31, 2007
Reunification within 12 months Permanent Placement with Relatives within 12 months (still in state custody) Permanent Legal Custody within 12 months (live with other relatives in the custody of relatives) Permanent Legal Custody within 24 months (live with other relatives in the custody of relatives) Adoption within 12 months Adoption within 24months Guardianship within 12 months Guardianship within 24 months Number Exited to Permanency but not in required time frame Total Exits for Outcome Measurement Percentage Exiting for Outcome Measurement Other exits (transfer to other counties, emancipation, etc) Total number exiting Remaining number in cohort at December 31, 2007
Demographics of those still in DFCS custody at December 31, 2007
Source: IDS and county tracking systems.

Children who entered custody on or since October 27, 2005

8(a) 3395

8(b) 3395

1334 0

1334 0

200

200

5

29

97

122

202

153

1636

1685

48%

50%

216

216

1838

1838

1341

1341

Average length of stay:11 months

Median length of stay: 10 months

Average age: 8

49% female; 50.% male

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 49

• The State Fell Short of the Fourth Period Thresholds for Outcomes 9 and 10.
The State’s performance on Outcomes 9 and 10 as reported from the state’s IDS system is as follows. Positive permanency exits refers to reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption or guardianship.
• Of 470 children who had been in DFCS custody up to 24 months as of October 27, 2005 and remained in custody on June 30, 2007, 92 (20%) had positive permanency exits between July 1 and December 31, 2007. (Outcome 9)
The outcome threshold is 40 percent. The State’s fourth period performance is the same as the third period performance of 20 percent. Another 23 children had other permanency exits during this time period while 355 children remained in custody.
• Of 349 children who had been in DFCS custody over 24 months as of October 27, 2005 and remained in custody on June 30, 2007, 33 (9%) had positive permanency exits between July 1 and December 31, 2007. (Outcome 10)
The outcome threshold is 35 percent. The State’s fourth period performance is the same as the third period performance of nine percent. Another 27 children had other permanency exits while 289 children remained in custody.
Table IV‐12 provides the detail of exits for Outcomes 9 and 10.
As noted in previous reports, the members of the cohort of children in custody more than 24 months as of October 27, 2005 are older children, many of whom have significant emotional or behavioral issues. The average age of the children is 14 compared to 8 for the children remaining in the Outcome 8 cohort. In addition, many of the remaining children have been in custody well over 24 months, with the average length of stay being 7.7 years. The children’s age, needs, behaviors, and their length of time in care present serious challenges to achieving the next outcome threshold for these children.
There were 45 children in the sample who entered custody before the Consent Decree and remained in care on December 31, 2007, providing a small snap shot of the children in Outcome 9 and 10 cohorts. These children ranged in age from just over 2 years old to 17. Sixteen year old youth represented the largest single age group. Just over one quarter (27%) had the goal of reunification and another 24 percent had the permanency goal of adoption. Six children were living with relatives and another two had been reunified with their parents but were still in DFCS custody. Over half the children, (25) were living in family foster homes. Eleven children were placed in group homes or child care institutions (CCIs) and one child was on runaway status. Parental rights of ten of the 45 children had been terminated. Termination of parental rights was not yet a part of the plan for about two‐thirds of the children.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 50

Table IV‐12 Outcomes 9 and 10 Remaining Children Who Entered DFCS Custody before October 27, 2005 and Who Exited to Permanency by between July 1 and December 31, 2007

Number of children in cohort Exits

Cohorts of Children

Children in custody for up to Children in custody for more

24 months and still in custody

than 24 months and still in

on October 25, 2005

custody on October 25, 2005

(Outcome 9)

(Outcome 10)

470*

349

Total 819

Reunification

32

Adoption

16

Guardianship

9

Live with other relative

35

Permanent Placement with relatives

0

Other exits (transfer to

other counties,

23

emancipation, etc)

Total number exits

115

Total for Outcome

Measurement

92

5

37

20

36

4

12

3

28

1

1

27

50

60

175

33

125

Percentage exiting for Outcome Measurement

20%

9%

Remaining number in cohort December 31, 2007
Average length of stay Median length of stay

355
36 months (3 years) 34 months (2.8 years)

289

644

92 months (7.7 years) 79 months (6.6 years)

Average age

11

14

Percent female

50%

45%

Percent male

50%

55%

Source: IDS and county tracking systems. *Beginning Fourth Period cohort number is one more than the

period III ending number previously reported due to data entry error.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 51

Outcome 11 – Adoptions within 12 Months of Termination of Parental Rights
Outcome 11 applies to all children whose parents’ parental rights were terminated between July 1, 2006 and December 31, 2006. Among these children, Outcome 11 stipulates that 80 percent will have their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights30 The intent of this outcome is to encourage the movement of children into permanent families as quickly as possible after dissolution of their family of origin.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The fourth period is the first time this outcome could be measured to allow a full 12 months to elapse for those children who first became eligible in the second reporting period. This outcome is similar to the Federal measure31 for expeditious adoption following termination of parental rights and method used to calculate this outcome is consistent with the Federal method.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Outcome 11 Threshold
Between July 1 and December 31, 2006, the parental rights of the parents of 88 children had been terminated or released. Of these 88 children, 74 percent (65) were adopted within 12 months. The Outcome 11 threshold is 80 percent. No child was discharged into a guardianship arrangement. The termination decision was under appeal for 7 of the 88 children and it is not possible to proceed with the adoption process while an appeal is pending. Table IV‐13 summarizes the data for this Outcome measure.

30 See p. 34. Outcome 11 of the Consent Decree. 31See either of the following Federal internet sites:
data_indicators.htm.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/cwmonitoring/

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 52

Table IV‐13 Status as of December 31, 2007 of Children with Parental Rights Terminated between
July 1 and December 31, 2006

Adoption finalized within 12 months Guardianship finalized within 12 months Adoption or Guardianship finalized but not within 12 months Still awaiting adoption or guardianship Termination of Parental Rights is being appealed
Source: State reporting from IDS

Total

Number Percent

65 74%

0

0%

1

1%

15 19%

7

8%

88

Cumulative Percent
74% 74% 75%
92% 100%

Outcome 15 – Permanency Actions for Children Reaching Their 15h Month of Custody in Most Recent 22 Months

To prevent children from long‐term foster care stays, Federal law requires DFCS to file for termination of parental rights when a child has been in care for 15 cumulative months of the previous 22 months. There are three exceptions to this requirement:
• The child is being cared for by a relative, at the option of the State; • The state has documented in the child’s case plan a compelling reason that filing a
petition to terminate would not serve the childʹs best interests; or • The state has not made reasonable efforts to reunify the family.32

Furthermore, Federal regulations state and DFCS policy advises, that a “compelling reason” must be based on the individual case circumstances guided by what is in the best interest of the child.33 Examples of compelling reasons provided in Federal regulations include:
• Adoption is not the appropriate permanency goal for the child with reasons documented;
• No grounds to file a petition to terminate parental rights exist; and, • The child is an unaccompanied refugee minor.34

DFCS policy offers these additional examples of compelling reasons: • The child is 14 (or older), has been counseled about the decision and its ramifications, and maintains his/her objection to being adopted;

32 Adoption and Safe Families Act, see also Social Services Manual Chapter 1000, Section 1002.7, Georgia Department of Human Resources 33 See Social Services Manual , Section 1002.12.3, 1002.17, and 1013.11 Georgia Department of Human Resources 34 See the website http://ncsconline.org/WC/CourTopics/FAQs.asp?topic=TermPr
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 53

• The child is in a residential treatment facility where his/her therapeutic needs are being met; adoption is unlikely or undesirable; and,
• The child has spent a significant portion of his life in the home of his parents and has a positive and meaningful attachment to them.
The Consent Decree Outcome 15 stipulates that by period four, 95 percent of children who reach their 15th month in care will have had either 1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers, as applicable, or 2) documentation of compelling reasons in the case record as to why such action is not in the best interest of the child.35
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
No new interpretation or measurement issues were encountered in the fourth period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues. County tracking systems, built from case plan and court documentation, was the data source for measurement. It is important to note however that these tracking systems have varying degree of unique detail for each child. The compelling reason categories used in Table IV‐14 were created by the Accountability Agents as a summation of what was found. The categories do not necessarily convey the exact language of the reasons given. For a small number of the cases, the compelling reason cited was “no adoptive resource.” Per the Consent Decree,36 cases with this reason were not considered to have a documented compelling reason. During the fourth reporting period, there were approximately 1300 children who had reached or surpassed their 15 month in custody out of the last 22 months. The 310 children in this universe who were discharged by the end of the reporting period were included in the analysis as required by both ASFA and the Consent Decree.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Fourth Period Outcome 15 Threshold
For Outcome 15, 86 percent of the children in care 15 of the previous 22 months were legally free to be adopted or the State had filed to terminate parental rights or documented reasons why it had not taken such action. The outcome threshold was 95 percent. Table IV‐14 summarizes the different components of the Counties’ performance as analyzed from the data in their tracking systems. This is the same performance as in the third period.
The majority of compelling reasons cited noted that the termination of parental rights would not serve the child’s best interests because of the relationship of the child to his/her parents or extended family. In addition, in a number of cases, the parents were still attempting to

35 See p 34, Outcome 15, of the Consent Decree. 36 See p. 11, paragraph 4E.2 of the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 54

complete the case plan requirements after a period of substance abuse or incarceration had interfered with their ability to concentrate on their plan responsibilities. A portion of the children were over 14 and did not want to be adopted. Another portion included children who currently need special therapeutic environments to meet their behavioral and/or physical needs. .
Table IV‐14 Status of Children Who Had Been in DFCS Custody 15 of the Previous 22 months
As of December 31, 2007

Category

Total Number Percent Cumulative

Children who reached or surpassed their 15th month in

custody in the last 22 months between July and December

1358

2007

Excepted subpopulation

276

Children placed with relatives 274

The State has not made reasonable efforts to reunify the family

2

Pool of Children for Outcome 15 Measurement 1082

Parental Rights of Both Parents have been terminated or relinquished

294

27%

DFCS has filed a petition to complete the termination of the parental rights of both parents or care givers where applicable

50

5%

32%

There is a documented compelling reason for not terminating parental rights

588

54%

86%

Reasons cited

Number

Child is age 14 or older and does not wish to be adopted

182

Termination of parental rights would not serve the

child’s best interest because reunification remains

the goal and parents are completing plan or child has 262

a close bond with family and relatives remain a

viable permanency option;

Child behavior/special need, medical fragility, etc, making TPR at this time inappropriate

65

Other (unique circumstances or a combination of the two or more of the reasons given)

79

There is no documented Compelling Reason not to file a

petition to terminate parental rights before December 31 or

91

8%

94%

date of discharge

There are plans to terminate parental rights, but a petition had not yet been filed as of December 31 or date of discharge

59

5%

100%

Total 1082

100%

Source: County tracking systems compared to January‐February 2008 Case Record Review

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 55

Outcome 27 – Timely Semi‐annual Judicial or Administrative Case Plan Reviews
Children are expected to have case plans developed within 30 days of entering State custody. According to State policy and the Consent Decree, they are to be initially reviewed by the court or a designated panel within six months and every six months the child is in custody thereafter.37 Outcome 27 stipulates that at least 85 percent of the children in custody are to have timely semi‐annual reviews.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
There were no interpretation or measurement issues. Performance reported for outcome 27 is based primarily on the placement case record review data. The third reporting period’s performance was a sharp decline from period two. The Accountability Agents speculated that this decline might be due, in part, to a measurement issue. Therefore, in the fourth period, the timing of DFCS submission of plans to the court as well as the review timing was collected to enable analysis that might shed light on this issue. In addition, after the third period performance, the State believed that a significant factor affecting performance was the timely retrieval of court orders and the appropriate filing in the children’s records. Therefore, during the analysis of the fourth period performance, the Accountability Agents gave the State a list of the children in the sample for whom semi‐annual case plan reviews did not appear documented or timely due to missing court orders. The State was able to provide the Accountability Agents with documentation of some additional case plan reviews for inclusion in the analysis. The outcome 27 analysis was applicable to 14038 children (78%) in the sample of 180 who had been in custody six months or more.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Outcome 27Threshold
For Outcome 27, case file documentation indicates that 46 percent (64) of the foster children in custody for six months or more had documented timely case plan reviews completed by the Juvenile Court or Juvenile Court Review Panel (JCRP) or a timely request for review. The threshold for this outcome in period four was 95 percent. This performance however is an improvement over the third period performance of 33 percent and the degree of improvement is greater than what would be expected with the margin of error.
Among all 73 plans reviewed by either the Juvenile Court or the JCRP during the review period, there were court orders documenting Court approval for 39 (53%). Approval of the remaining plans could not be confirmed because there were no subsequent court orders or the orders did
37 See p. 7, paragraphs 4A.4 and pp. 7-8, paragraphs 4B.1-6, and p. 37, Outcome 27, of the Consent Decree. 38 Conclusions drawn from the 140 would have a margin of error of + 9 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 56

not indicate approval or rejection of the plans by the court. Table IV‐15 provides the information captured from the case files regarding the 73 documented six‐month reviews occurring during the fourth reporting period.

Table IV‐15 Characteristics of Six‐month Case Reviews
N=73 (all plans reviewed)
Characteristic
Participants Birth Mother Birth Father Child Relative care givers/ Extended Family Members Foster parents/placement providers DFCS case manager DFCS supervisor Other DFCS representative CCFA provider Private agency case manager Medical and mental health professionals Parents’ attorney(s) SAAG (State Assistant Attorney General) Child’s advocate Panel members
Elements Evaluated/Considered Necessity and appropriateness of child’s placement Reasonable efforts made to obtain permanency Degree of compliance with specific goals and action steps Progress made in improving conditions that caused removal Changes that need to be made to plan County recommendations Parent recommendations
JCRP conducted review Total JCRP reports submitted Number of reports with Panel findings Number of reports with Panel recommendations Number of reports with County findings Number of reports with County recommendations Number of reports with County proposed plan for permanency
Court conducted review Plan adopted by Juvenile Court
Source: Case Record Review, January‐February 2008

Number Percent

32 11 25 10 25 64 13 2 2 12 1 15 25 32 43
60 61 52 39 26 31 7
44 39 39 38 22 21 5 29 39

44% 15% 34% 18% 34% 88% 28% 3% 3% 16% 1% 21% 34% 44% 59%
82% 84% 71% 53% 35% 42% 10%
60% 88% 100% 97% 56% 54% 12% 40% 53%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 57

Outcome 28 – Timely Annual Judicial Permanency Reviews
According to Federal and State policy and the Consent Decree, children are expected to have a permanency review every 12 months they are in custody.39 These hearings are held to determine whether the State is making reasonable efforts to help children achieve permanency.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
There were no interpretation or measurement issues. Data for Outcome 28 was primarily collected from the case record review sample of 180 children in foster care. The outcome 28 analysis was applicable to 102 children (57%) in the sample of 180 who had been in custody 12 months or more.40 The State questioned whether the timely retrieval of court orders and the appropriate filing of these orders in the children’s records had affected the measured third period on Outcome 28. Therefore, during the analysis of the fourth period performance, the Accountability Agents gave the State a list of the children in the sample for whom annual permanency reviews did not appear documented or timely due to missing court orders. The State provided the Accountability Agents with documentation of several of the permanency hearings for inclusion in the analysis.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Outcome 28 Threshold
For Outcome 28, 84 percent of the foster children in custody for 12 or more months had timely permanency hearings held by the Juvenile Court or a timely request for a hearing when the time had expired. The threshold for this outcome was 95 percent. Eighty‐one children had a permanency hearing within 12 months of entry or of the previous twelve‐month permanency hearing. Another five had timely petitions for permanency hearings but continuances delayed the hearings.
The State’s performance is a substantial improvement over the third period where the case record review found 70 percent of children had timely permanency hearings. This improvement may be attributed to at least two factors. First the counties have worked with their courts to focus on ensuring greater timeliness. Second, the improvement may be the result of collecting supporting documentation from a source other than the case files.
39 See p. 9, paragraph 4B.10, and p.37, Outcome 28, of the Consent Decree. 40 Conclusions drawn from the subsample of 102 children will have a margin of error for 102 is approximately +10 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 58

B. Other Practice and Process Requirements for Helping Children Achieve Permanency

Placement with relatives has been demonstrated to help children have placement stability41 and placement stability contributes to children achieving permanency. DFCS policy and the Consent Decree requirements establish several guidelines for practice to help children move to permanency. These requirements include regular parental visitation with children who have the permanency goal of reunification,42 and internal DFCS permanency reviews for children who reach their 13th month in custody and county‐state staffings for children who reach their 25th month in custody.43

1. Placement with Relatives

Of the 180 children in the foster care sample, 50 (28%) were in/had been placed with relatives on December 31, 2007 or the last date the children were in custody. Children placed with family were in a combination of relative homes, relative homes approved and being reimbursed for foster care, and with parents themselves.

2. DFCS Permanency Reviews at the 13th or 25th month in custody.

a.

13th month Permanency Reviews

The State reports that regularly scheduled reviews of progress toward permanency take place in each county, conducted by a team of three quality improvement specialists and an administrative program assistant. Staffings are held for those cases where the review team does not concur with the permanency plan or there is a belief that the plan would benefit from more discussion and additional actions.

Through the fourth reporting period, the State Risk Director provided administrative oversight for the permanency review process and prepared reports that summarized review findings in three month increments. As of the end of the fourth period, however, these reports had not yet become a routine timely activity that was shared with the counties. During the fourth reporting period, the State started to review the process to determine how it could be improved in calendar year 2008. Starting in February 2008, a new state‐level Permanency Review Project Director assumed responsibility for oversight of the process and began working with the counties.

41 Zinn, Andrew, DeCoursey, Jan, Goerge, Robert M., Courtney, Mark E. A Study of Placement Stability in Illinois, Chapin Hall Center for Children, 2006. 42 See p 6, paragraph 4A.6vi, of the Consent Decree for visitation planning in Family Team Meetings. Visitation schedules are also an element of DFCS case planning. 43 See p. 9-10, paragraphs 4C.1-5, of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 59

To demonstrate that permanency reviews are being conducted as stipulated in the Consent Decree, the State supplied the Accountability Agents with the information reported in Table IV‐ 16. The information summarizes some of the characteristics of the 13th month permanency review practice. According to State data, 260 children reached their 13th month in custody sometime during the last half of 2007. The Permanency Review team reports that permanency reviews were conducted for all 260 children and an additional five children from the previous reporting period. This information was not independently verified by the Accountability Agents.44
State reviewers concurred with the county permanency plans in 64 percent of all cases reviewed during the six‐month period. The concurrence rate was slightly lower than the concurrence rate for the permanency reviews conducted in the first 6 months of 2007 (64% compared to 68%) County‐state staffings were convened for 130 (49%) of the reviews. The State reports that all staffings occurred within one week of the review and they included the reviewer, a regional adoption coordinator, field program specialist, and a county supervisor and/or case manager.
The 13th month permanency reviews in the last half of 2007 had a lower percentage of supporting Family Team Meetings than those conducted in the first half – 42 percent compared to 85 percent. The state‐prepared quarterly reports continue to identify this as an area for practice improvement but do not offer insight for the decline over the year or suggest strategies for improvement.
The Permanency Review process is now under new leadership at the state level. Efforts are under way to improve the process and make it a more collaborative, meaningful effort for all involved.
25th Month County‐State Staffings
In addition to the 13th month permanency reviews, DFCS reports holding State/county staffings for 161 children (96%) of the 167 who had reached their 25th month in care sometime between July1 and December 31, 2007.
44 The Accountability Agents have previously verified that 13th month permanency reviews were occurring in the first period by reviewing a random sample of reviews and in the first and second periods using the placement case record review.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 60

Table IV‐16 13th Month Permanency Review Implementation
July 1 and December 31, 2007

Total Cases Reviewed Reviewer Concurrence

July‐ September No. % 149 91 61%

October‐ December No % 116
78 67%

Full Period
No % 265 169 64%

Permanency Goal

Reunification

106 71% 100 86% 206 78%

Permanent Placement with relative

19 13%

2 2% 21

8%

Adoption

16 11%

7 6% 23

9%

Guardianship

1 >1%

0

1 >1%

Another planned arrangement

7

5%

7 6% 14

5%

Totals 149 100% 116 100 265 100%

Practice Findings

Cases with current case plans

114 77% 78 67% 192 72%

Cases with “Family Team Meetings”

65 47% 46 59% 111 42%

within the last 90 days

FTMs with parents/legal

Not collected 27 58%

guardians involved

FTMs with relatives involved

36 55% 23 50% 59 53%

FTMs with foster parents

Not Collected 18 40%

involved

FTMs had recommendations

65 100% 37 80% 102 91%

specific to Child/Family needs

Source: Division of Family and Children’s Services, State Permanency Review Project Director, Quarterly

Reports on 13th month Permanency Reviews.

C. Post Adoption Assistance
Sixty‐two children were adopted during the last half of 2007. Another three children were also adopted by relatives after permanent custody had been awarded to the relatives. According to data obtained from the Office of Adoptions, of the 62 children adopted from DeKalb and Fulton Counties between July and December 2007, 89 percent were receiving or were scheduled to receive monthly Adoption Assistance benefits and Medicaid. This is down from 94 percent in the third period. Thirty‐six received one‐time non‐recurring adoption assistance, and one family received Special Services, and another two children are receiving day care services. Four
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 61

children received post adoption services from the Georgia Center for Resources and Support. Special Services are benefits that are time limited or one‐time only services. These benefits may include special medical equipment, psychiatric/psychological testing, and therapy; special educational equipment, tutorial services, orthodontic services or respite care.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 62

Part V WELL‐BEING
Children in Care Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity and Receive the Services They Need
All six of the Consent Decree outcomes focused on the well‐being of children while they are in care had thresholds to be met during the fourth reporting period. This chapter reports on the State’s performance on these outcomes and the practice in this area.
A. Outcome Performance
Table V‐1 below provides the measured performance summary for each of the six Outcomes (numbered 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 30). The discussion following the table provides a more detailed description of State performance as well as the interpretation and measurement issues associated with the outcomes, and information about issues surrounding the work that provide a context for understanding the State’s performance. .
Table V‐1 Well‐Being Outcomes

Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity
Outcome 17: At least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 18: At least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave. Outcome 20: At least 95% of children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had at least one in‐placement visit and one other visit, as defined in Section 5.D, each month by their case manager during the prior 12 months in custody. Outcome 22: At least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had visits between their DFCS placement case manager and their foster parent, group care, institutional or other caretaker at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody.

4thPeriod Performance
91%
92%
14% 52%

Children and Youth Receive the Services they Need

Outcome 24: The percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 20 percentage points.

25%

Outcome 30: At least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental,

mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs

57%

documented in the child’s most recent case plan.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 63

1. Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity: Outcomes 17, 18, 20 and 22
The Consent Decree stipulated four Outcomes (numbered 17, 18, 20, and 22) related to children experiencing a stable placement and continuity of care and case management that had thresholds to be achieved by the end of the second reporting period and maintained or raised again in the fourth reporting period.
Outcome 17 – Placement Stability
Once placed in an appropriate setting, a casework goal is to maintain the stability of the placement and avoid the trauma of disruption and placement into another setting. With Outcome 17, the Consent Decree established a threshold to be met in the second period for placement stability by requiring that at least 86.7 percent of children in custody have 2 or fewer moves during the most recent 12 months in custody.45 By the end of the fourth reporting period (December 2007), the threshold increases to 95 percent.

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues

No new interpretation or measurement issues were encountered in the fourth period. Appendix B provides a summary previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues.

b.

State Performance

• The State Fell Short of the Fourth Period Outcome 17 Threshold

For Outcome 17, 91 percent of the 180 children in the foster care sample experienced two or fewer moves during the previous 12 months in custody. The outcome threshold is 95 percent. Table V‐2 provides a breakdown of the number of moves experienced by the children in the placement sample. The State’s performance appears to have improved from the third period rate of 84 percent (although the change is still within the sample’s margin of statistical error.)

45 See p. 35, Outcome 17 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 64

Table V‐2

Number of Moves Experienced by Children in the 12 months prior to December 31, 2007 or

the Last Date of Custody

N=180

Number of Moves

Number Percent Cumulative

Percent

No Moves

97

53.9%

53.9%

One Move

42

23.3%

77.2%

Two Moves

25

13.9%

91.1%

Subtotal

164

Three Moves

5

2.8%

93.9%

Four Moves

2

1.1%

95.0%

Five Moves

2

1.1%

96.1%

Six Moves or more

7

3.9%

100%

180

Source: Case Record Review, January‐February 2008.

For the children in DeKalb and Fulton DFCS custody at the end of December 2007, the State Placement Central data system indicated that 86 percent had experienced two or fewer moves in the previous 12 months. This was within the margin of error of the case record review findings. In the future, the Accountability Agents may be able to rely on Georgia SHINES which will be populated with Placement Central data for measurement of this outcome. The system is designed with more edit checks and alerts to ensure more accurate data capture and reporting of information such as placement moves than the current system capabilities allow.

Among the 83 children who experienced more than one placement setting in the last twelve months, there was documentation that case managers attempted to minimize the trauma of at least one of the changes for 38 (46%) of the children. These efforts included transition visits, increased therapy sessions, and explanatory conversations with the children.

Outcome 18 – Worker Continuity

Worker continuity also contributes to a child achieving permanency more quickly and to a child’s well‐being while in care. Outcome 18 requires that at least 90 percent of children in custody have no more than 2 workers during their most recent 12 months in custody. There are exceptions that allow for case manager terminations, death, transfers, and temporary assignments to cover another case manager’s cases while out on sick leave. The Consent Decree also allows for the child’s one time transfer to a Specialized or Adoptions case manager.46

46 See p. 35, Outcome 18, of the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 65

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
No new interpretation or measurement issues were encountered in the fourth period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues.
b. State Performance
• The State Exceeded the Outcome 18 Threshold
For Outcome 18, 92 percent of the 2150 children in custody on December 15, 2007 had had 2 or fewer placement case managers since December 16, 2006 once the allowable exceptions were taken into account. The threshold for this outcome is 90 percent. This performance is about the same as the third period performance of 91 percent.
Outcome 20 – Case Manager Visitation with Children
Visits are an opportunity to engage children and assess their well‐being and address the trauma they are experiencing or from which they may be healing. Frequent visits can increase the case manager’s knowledge about the children and their needs if they are quality visits. At the time the Consent Decree was established, there was no Federal visitation standard. Recent federal legislation will require case manager visits with 90 percent of the children in custody, with the majority of visits to occur in the residence of the child, starting October 1, 2011.47
The Consent Decree stipulates multiple expectations for case manager visitation with the children in State custody. Overall, the frequency and intensity of visitation with a child “shall be determined by the individual needs of the child.”48 It follows up this expectation with stipulations for the frequency of the visits in the first eight weeks of a placement and every month in custody. To achieve the Outcome 20 threshold, case managers must have two visits per month with each child, each and every month of the previous 12 months in custody and the nature of the twice monthly visits are defined very specifically. At least one of the visits is to be “private face‐to face visit with the child in the child’s home/placement.”49 All visits should be used to monitor and document the “child’s adjustment to placement, the appropriateness of placement to meet the child’s needs, the receipt of appropriate treatment and services by the child, the child’s safety, and service goals.”50
47 See Sections 424(e) (1) and (2) of the Social Security Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 624 (e). As of October 1, 2007, States are required to provide data on monthly visits between a child in foster care and "the caseworker handling the case of the child" and to make progress toward 90 percent of children in foster care in the State being visited by their caseworkers on a monthly basis, with a majority of the visits to occur in the residence of the child. 48 See p.19, paragraph 5.D, of the Consent Decree. 49 See p. 19, Section 5D of the Consent Decree 50 Ibid.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 66

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues No new interpretation or measurement issues were encountered in the fourth period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues. As with the sibling visitation (Outcome 23), the County visitation tracking system which captures monthly visits conducted or facilitated by case managers, continues to show a higher level of performance on a monthly basis than what is measured for this outcome because of the required measurement differences as well as the possible documentation issues previously discussed. The County system is designed for management and accountability. The Outcome and required measurement methodology seeks to capture a “child’s view” of visitation over time.
b. State Performance • The State Fell Short of the Outcome 20 Threshold
Case manager visits with 14 percent of the children met the Outcome 20 criteria for twice‐ monthly visits each and every month of the previous 12 months. The threshold for this outcome is 95 percent. This performance is virtually the same as the third period performance of 15 percent. Table V‐3 presents the break down of the number of months in which visits as stipulated by Outcome 20 were conducted for 180 children, with adjustments for those children who were actually in custody less than 12 months. Case manager visitation with the children typically covered a range of issues. For 85 percent to 90 percent of the children, case manager visits addressed issues surrounding their placements: safety, adjustment, and appropriateness. Eighty percent of the children had case managers discuss with them service goals and service delivery.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 67

Table V‐3 Continuous Case Manager Visitation with Children as Stipulated in Outcome 20:
Visitation Pattern over the 12 months prior to December 31, 2007 or last date of custody N=180

Number of Months Achieving Two Visits per Month That Meet the Outcome 20 Definition 12 of 12 months 11 of 12 months 10 of 12 months 9 of 12 months 8 of 12 months 7 of 12 months 6 of 12 months 5 of 12 months 4 of 12 months 3 of 12 months 2 of 12 months 1 of 12 months 0 of 12 months TOTAL

Number of Children
26 19 25 15 16 24 10 10 5 12 6 4 8 180

Percent
14% 11% 14% 8% 9% 13% 6% 6% 3% 7% 3% 2% 4% 100%

Cumulative Percent 14% 25% 39% 47% 56% 69% 75% 81% 83% 90% 93% 96% 100%

The Accountability Agents continue to believe that visitation practice, if not the documentation of it, is gradually improving. Although the proportion of children receiving all the required visits each month, every month, remained about the same as in the third period, overall, a larger proportion of children appeared to be receiving more of the required visits in the fourth period. A few comparisons to the third period performance reveal:

• Nearly 4 times the proportion of children had the required 2 visits per month 11 of 12 months in the fourth period (11% compared to 3% in the third period.)
• Twice the proportion of children had the required 2 visits per month 10 of 12 months in the fourth period (14% compared to 7% in the third period.)
• Over half the children had the required 2 visits per month 8 months or more of the preceding 12 months compared to less than 40 percent in period three.

As with Outcome 23, sibling visitation, the gradual nature of the State’s improved performance on Outcome 20 should be expected. If a single visit with a child is missed in any month (or that visit is not in the prescribed setting), that child cannot be counted toward Outcome 20

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 68

performance until that child has had 12 consecutive months of twice monthly visits after that missed visit. The following examples reflect the challenge of meeting Outcome 20 and of demonstrating any dramatic improvement in the measure.
• Child A enters care and receives the required twice‐monthly visits the first three months in custody. In the fourth month, the case manager is unable to make both required visits but is able to make one. In month five the case manager arranges to see the child three times. In month six, the case manager makes both required visits and in the seventh month, Child A is reunified with his or her family.
• Child B enters care and receives both required visits each month of the first four months in custody. In the fifth month, Child B is assigned a new case manager and in the transition, the child does not receive any case manager visits in month five. After that one lapse, the case manager resumes twice monthly visits for another twelve months.
Both children are drawn as part of one of the semi‐annual record reviews used by the Accountability Agents for measuring performance. The 12‐month retrospective view of visitation for measuring Outcome 20 includes all seven months child A was in custody and months three through 15 for Child B. Neither of these children can be counted in the measurement for meeting Outcome 20. Both had one missed month, although Child A had at least one visit each month and multiple visits in others and Child B had one month with no visits and then went on to have 12 months with the all the required visits.
Moreover, the example of Child A shows why the measure for Outcome 20 is difficult to improve. Child A exited care in less than 12 months, as did about half of the children in the fourth period placement sample. For children that exit care in less than 12 months, if their caseworker misses just one visit in any month, even flawless casework thereafter will never be able to “redeem” them to count toward Outcome 20 because they will never have 12 consecutive months of twice‐monthly visits.
Figure V‐1 below provides a graphical display of the improvement between the third and fourth periods. As shown, there is a clear difference between the third and fourth reporting periods starting with the percentage of children who had the required visits 7 of 12 months.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 69

Figure VI Comparison of Required Case Manager – Child Visitation Patterns January – June 2007 (Period 3) compared to July to December 2007 (Period 4)

Percentage of Children

Required Casemanager-Child Visitation Periods 3 and 4 Comparisons

16 14
12 10
8 6
4 2 0

12 of 12 11 of 12 10 of 12

9 of 12

8 of 12

7 of 12

6 of 12

5 of 12

4 of 12

3 of 12

2 of 12

1

of

12 No

Months

Number of Months with the Two Required Visits Each Month

Period 3 Period 4

Outcome 22 – Case Manager Visitation with Substitute Caregivers
In Outcome 22, the Consent Decree requires case managers to visit once a month with placement caregivers.51 This includes foster parents, group home and institutional staff and others charged with the responsibility of caring for children in DFCS custody. In situations where the child has been returned home but remains in DFCS custody, “caregivers” refers to the birth parents or other reunification resources.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
No new interpretation or measurement issues were encountered in the fourth period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Outcome 22 Threshold
For Outcome 22, 52 percent of the children had caregivers who were visited by case managers at least once each and every month in the 12 months prior to December 31, 2007 or the last day
51 See p. 36, Outcome 22 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 70

in custody. The threshold for this outcome is 90 percent. The fourth period performance is an improvement over the third reporting period performance of 45 percent. Case Managers appeared to miss one month with another 34 caregivers. Therefore, nearly three‐quarters of the caregivers saw the child’s case manager every month, 11 months or more. Table V‐5 summarizes the pattern of case manager visitation with care givers.
Table V‐5 Case Manager Visits with Placement Caregivers over the 12 months preceding
December 31, 2007 or last day of custody N=180

Proportion of Monthly Case Manager Visits with Substitute Caregivers

Number Percent

All required sequential monthly visits

94

52%

All but one monthly visit (missed one month in the

34

19%

applicable sequence)

All but two monthly visits (missed two months in the

19

11%

applicable sequence)

Some Visits

27

15%

No visits*

6

3%

Total caregivers

180

100%

Source: Case Record review, January‐February 2008. Two children were in care 18 days.

Cumulative Percent 52% 71%
82%
97% 100%

2. Children and Youth Receive the Services They Need: Outcomes 24 and 30
Outcome 24 – Educational Achievement of Youth Leaving Foster Care at age 18 or Older
Outcome 24 in the Consent Decree focuses on the educational attainment of youth leaving DFCS care at age 18 or older. Specifically, it sets increasing targets over a baseline year for the percentage of youth who are “discharged from foster care at age 18 or older … who have graduated from high school or earned a GED.”52 This Outcome called for the State to increase by 20 percentage points the proportion of youth who achieve a high school diploma or a graduate equivalency diploma (GED) over a pre‐Consent Decree baseline year. As reported in the period two monitoring report, the State compiled the baseline and the first measurement year, October 27, 2005 to October 26, 2006, by reconciling DHR records with those maintained by the State of Georgia, Departments of Education (DOE) and Technical and Adult Education (DTAE). These two sister agencies maintain records of all Georgia residents who earn, respectively, a high school diploma from a public school or General Equivalency Diploma (GED) in Georgia, respectively. These records were supplemented, where necessary, with actual copies of diplomas or GED certification. The baseline created from this approach revealed that 65.7 percent of the youth 18 years old or older who left DFCS care in the baseline year, October 27, 2004 to October 26, 2005, had earned a high school diploma or GED.

52 See p. 36, paragraph 24 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 71

At the end of the second reporting period, 34.4 percent the youth who left DFCS care at age 18 or older between October 27, 2005 and December 31, 2006 achieved a GED/ High School Diploma. This represented 43 out of 125 exiting youth.

a.

Interpretation and Measurement Issues

The State applied the previously described data collection methodology in the fourth period as in the second period.

b.

State Performance

• The State Fell Short of the Fourth Period Outcome 24 Threshold

The State reports that 25 percent of the youth who left DFCS care at age or older between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007 were graduated from high school or achieved a GED. This proportion is not only lower than the baseline; it is lower than the first year of measurement.

During the fourth period and continuing into the fifth reporting period (January to June 2008) the State began implementing strategies and seeking consultation to improve this performance. Both counties have created caseloads of youth age 18 or older to better focus on their unique needs.

Outcome 30 – Meeting the Needs of Children as Identified in their Case Plans

The Consent Decree specifies that the needs to be considered for achieving Outcome 30 are those medical, dental, mental health, educational or other needs found in the child’s most recent case plan.53 As noted in Chapter IV, case plans are to be developed within 30 days of a child’s entry into foster care and every six months thereafter.

• Interpretation and Measurement Issues

No new interpretation or measurement issues were encountered in the fourth period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues.

Among the 180 children in the sample, 157 children had one or more case plans in their records. Fifteen children who had been in custody over 30 days did not appear to have case plans, another eight children were not expected to have plans because they had not been in custody 30 days. Of the 157, 119 (76%) had been developed within the seven months prior to December 31,

53 See p 38, Outcome 30 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 72

2007 or the child’s discharge. Another 28 (18%) were seven to 12 months old and the remaining 10 plans were older than 12 months or their exact age could not be determined. Among the group with the oldest plans, four children were discharged during the period.
a. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Fourth Period Outcome 30 Threshold
Fifty‐seven percent of the children had all needs identified in their most recent case plan met. The threshold for this outcome was 85 percent. While the outcome threshold rose, the State’s performance declined from the third reporting period performance of 77 percent. The Accountability Agents are uncertain as to the reason for this decline because and it is an area for further review. It may be a reflection of case manager efforts to focus on the most pressing individual needs instead of more routine or less urgent needs. In this same vein, it may be that case managers are more likely have documentation about how unique individual needs are being met because they may be more directly involved in the service provision. In contrast, if they are not the ones to take children to dentists or physicians for routine health care, they need to rely on a third party – the foster parent, facility staff, or “wrap around” service provider ‐‐ to collect and pass along the appropriate documentation. It does appear that with the routine health, dental, and mental health needs – regular health screens or assessments – were more likely to be unmet than child specific chronic needs indentified in plan. Conversely, the routine educational need of school enrollment was more likely to appear met than child specific needs such as tutoring.
Among the 157 plans analyzed, 152 (97%) had at least one routine or child‐specific need identified. 54 This is the same as the third period. Overall, however, a higher percentage of children appear to have had multiple needs identified than in previous periods. Medical and dental health needs were the most often cited, noted in 97 percent of the plans, appearing to be slightly higher than indicated in the third period with 95 percent and 94percent having medical and dental needs, respectively. (Although still within the margin of error) A higher percentage of children appear to have mental health needs documented than in previous reporting periods. In period three, 79 percent of the plans indicated a need for mental health services compared to 90 percent in period four. The percent with educational/developmental identified needs increased slightly from 89 percent to 93 percent and unique, other needs increased from 15 percent to 35percent.
As reflected in Table V‐6, DFCS has been more successful in ensuring services are delivered for identified educational and developmental needs more often than any other type of need and meeting individualized “other” needs has improved. The children with unmet educational/developmental needs had unique child‐specific needs unmet, most often tutoring,
54 Conclusions drawn from the subsample of 157 would have a margin of error of +/- 8 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 73

as well as the routine need of school enrollment. Meeting routine dental needs continues to have the most room for improvement and unmet medical needs has increased.

Files contained very few documented barriers to meeting children’s needs. In the few cases where barriers were noted, the child’s runaway behavior was cited as making it difficult to help the child receive the treatment or services identified. A waiting list provided one barrier to a child being seen by Babies Can’t Wait for assessment. In one cases it appeared that the plan was too recently developed to allow sufficient time for the services to be put into place.

Table V‐6 Needs Identified in Most Recent Case Plans and Degree Needs Met as of
December 31, 2007 or last Date of Custody

Children with Case Plans N=157 Number

Percent

One or More Need

152

97%

Identified (routine or child‐

specific)

Frequency of different

identified needs

Medical

148

97%

Dental

147

97%

Mental Health

143

94%

Educational/

138

91%

Developmental

Other

35

23%

Source: Case Record Review, January‐February 2008

Children Received/Receiving Services

N varies depending on need identified

Number Percent

of

identified

need

All Identified Needs

87

57%

Met (N=152)

Frequency of different needs being met
Medical Dental
Mental Health Educational/
Developmental Other

121

82%

107

73%

128

90%

129

93%

32

91%

B. The Placement Experience

This section describes characteristics and placement practices identified in the case record review of 180 children in foster care between July 1 and December 31, 2007. This includes county placement environment, the use of temporary placement settings, and case manager visitation in new placements.

1. Placement Setting

There have been no significant changes to the placement process from that reported on in the first report. Table V‐7 provides the distribution of children among placement settings found in the case record review. When the different family settings in which children are placed are

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 74

combined, 136 (76%) of the children in the sample are/were in family settings during their time in State and County custody These settings included family foster homes, relative foster homes, relative homes, and the homes of birth parents and guardians. The remaining children were in congregate care settings, detention settings, or had run away from their official placement.

Table V‐7 Placement Settings of Children in DFCS Custody on December 31 or the last day of custody
(N= 180)

Placement Type

Number of Children

Percent

Emergency Shelter/Assessment Center

0

0%

Foster Home (DFCS or Private Agency Supervised)

98

54%

Relative Home (Foster and non Foster Home)

41

23%

Parents/Guardian

7

4%

Group Home

21

12%

Residential Treatment Facility/ Child Caring Institution/ Specialty Hospital

8

4%

Runaway status

3

2%

Regional Youth Detention Center (RYDC)

2

1%

Total

180

101%

Source: Case Record Review January‐February 2008. Total is greater than 100% due to rounding.

2. Use of Congregate Care

The Consent Decree has several restrictions related to the use of group care.55 With regard to placement of the youngest children, those under the age of six, the State has done well in placing them in small group care settings when such placement has been deemed necessary. Table V‐8 summarizes the State’s actions with regard to the Consent Decree stipulations. As of December 31, 2007, 19 children under the age of six were in group care settings. Sixteen were in settings of 12 or fewer beds and three were placed with their mothers in 18 bed‐capacity settings. Among the 16 children in smaller settings, nine were placed with their mothers and the remaining seven were medically fragile infants and toddlers placed in a facility operated by a university medical center. These children have multiple medical issues and the staff in the placement setting is trained to respond to their medical and emotional needs.

Placement of children between the ages of 6 and 12 in small group care settings appears to be declining. By the end of the period, 15 children ages 6 to 12 were in placements with a capacity of more than 12 beds and one child was placed in a smaller facility. Three of the 15 children in the larger settings were siblings of other children in the placement settings and had been with those siblings since before the Consent Decree was effective. The remaining 12 children had

55 See p. 16-17, paragraph 5C.5f of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 75

special needs that could only be met in the group care settings in which they were placed. For each child there is a placement authorization signed by the DFCS Family Services Director. These authorizations generically describe services the placement setting is providing and confirmation that the placement setting is the least restrictive environment for the child at the time of placement.
Table V‐8 Children Younger Than Age 12 in Group Care Settings
July 1 through December 31, 2007

Reason for placement
With mother Service Need
Total Placement Setting size

Children under the age of 6

Number placed as of Number placed between

Number still placed as

June 30, 2007

July1 and December 31,

of December 31, 2007

2007

10

6

12

6

4

7

16

10

19

One child, placed with mother, is in a setting with an 18 bed capacity, the rest

are placed in settings of 12 or fewer beds; all 7 children with service needs are

medically fragile

Children aged 6 to 12

Reason for placement

Number placed as Number placed between Number still

of June 30, 2007 July 1 and December 31, placed as of

2007

December 31,

2007

Bed Capacity

Bed Capacity

Bed Capacity

<=12

12>

<=12

12> <=12

12>

With sibling since before the Consent Decree

3

3

Service Need

2

13

1

1

1

12

Total

18

2

16

Source: State reported data, waivers and documentation of need reviewed by Accountability Agents.

3. Use of Emergency or Temporary Placements

The Consent Decree has several requirements addressing placement appropriateness. It requires that “no child shall be placed in an emergency or temporary facility....for more than 30 days.” It also stipulates that no child shall spend more than 23 hours in a County DFCS office or any facility providing intake functions.56

56 See p. 16, paragraph 5C4.c of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 76

The case record review found that 8 children (11%) of the 73 children in the foster care sample who entered care and/or changed placements between July 1 and December 31, 2007 experienced some time in an emergency or temporary setting. This is half the number of children found in the third reporting period sample. Among the eight children, four children spent more than 23 hours in one of the counties’ intake and assessment centers before being appropriately placed. Another four children were placed in a temporary setting with one being placed more than once in such a facility. One of the four children spent less than 30 days before being moved to a more stable placement. The length of stay for the other three children could not be determined from the documentation. As of December 31, 2007 or the last date of custody, no child in the sample was placed in an emergency placement.
4. Informing Caregivers and Providing Appropriate Clothing
The Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS will ensure available information concerning a specific foster child will be provided to foster parents before the child is placed.57 As the Accountability Agents learned in the third period, the files of children do not contain an adequate picture of what information is given to foster parents. Most of the information is maintained by the designated placement units in each county and an assessment based solely on children’s records understates actual case practice. These additional files were not reviewed in the fourth period. Among all 73 children who had an initial and/or a new placement during the period, case managers appeared to have reviewed the clothing needs for 21 (29%) children and taken the necessary steps to ensure that the children had appropriate clothing in the new placement setting. This is the same proportion as found in period three.
5. Case Manager Visitation with Children Who Experienced a New Placement
The Consent Decree stipulates a frequent case manager visitation schedule for the first eight weeks of a new placement. 58 Children are to have at least one in‐placement visit in the first week and one in‐placement visit between the third and eighth weeks with six additional visits at any time within the eight week period; essentially, weekly visitation. Of the 69 children in the sample who entered and/or changed placements during the reporting period, the file documentation indicated the pattern arrayed in Table V‐9. The proportion of children seen in the first week of placement (48%) was the same as in the third period. However, a higher proportion of children had an in‐placement visit at least once in the third through eight weeks of a new placement. In the third reporting period, 73 percent were visited in this time frame compared to the 86 percent in the fourth period. Of the 37 children in a new placement a full 8 weeks, one did not appear to have received any visits in the 8 weeks. The remaining 36 children had an average of 4 visits from their case managers in 8 weeks.

57 See p. 19, paragraph 5C.6d of the Consent Decree 58 See p. 19, paragraph 5D.1 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 77

Table V‐9 Pattern of Case Manager Visits with Children in the First 8 Weeks
of a New Foster Care Placement N=Varies by timeframe

Timeframe

Number of children

Visitation Pattern

5 Days or More in new placement as of end of reporting period

69*

33 children received one in‐placement visit (48% of 69)

15 Days to 56 Days or More in new

placement as of end of reporting

56

period

48 children received one in‐placement visit sometime in the third through 8th week in new placement (86% of 56)

Of the 37 children:

• 1 received no visits

• 36 received

57 Days or more in new placement as of end of reporting period

37

• an average of 4 visits each in the first eight weeks of new placement

• from one to ten visits over the entire

eight weeks

(expected number of visits is 8)

Source: Case Record Review, January‐February 2008.

*Five children were excluded from the analysis. Three children had been in their new placements 4 days

or less at the end of the reporting period; and one child was placed with a relative out of state through

ICPC; and one child ran away on the first day of placement.

C. Practice for Meeting the Needs of Children, Youth, and Families
In addition to safe, appropriate, and stable placement settings, DFCS policy and the Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS will provide for the physical, developmental, and emotional needs of children in its custody.59 As a means of “strengthening and rebuilding families to bring about the child’s early return”60 DFCS is also responsible for providing services to birth families. Finally, DFCS is responsible for supporting and assisting foster parents to more effectively address the needs of the children in their care. This section of the report reflects on the State’s practice as gleaned through state and county reported data, the case record review, and staff interviews.

59 See p. 4, principle 7; pp. 20-21, section 6; p.38, Outcome 30 of the Consent Decree; See also Social Services Manual Section 3060, Georgia Department of Human Resources. 60 See Social Service Manual 3060, Georgia Department of Human Resources
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 78

1. The First 30 Days in Custody: Initial Teaming, Needs Assessment and Planning
The first 30 days a child is in custody is a critical time. DFCS policy and the Consent Decree stipulates standards for several casework practices intended to ensure effective assessment of and planning for children when they first enter care.61 This appears to be an area requiring further attention from the counties.
Table V‐10 provides the findings from the sample of children in foster care as to the timeliness of initial assessment and planning components for the 36 children who entered State custody between July 1 and December 31, 2007. Following the table is a discussion of the steps involved in assessment and service planning.
Table V‐10 Timeliness of Initial Assessment and Planning Components
July 1 – December 31, 2007 N=Varies Depending on Length of Stay

Component and Action Family Team Meeting (N=36)
Held within 3‐9 days of entry Held, but not within 3‐9‐days (held within 11‐27 days)
Total Initial Family Team Meetings Multi‐Disciplinary Team Meeting (N=29 : 28 in care 25 days or more, plus one held for child in custody less than 25 days)
Held within 25 days of entry Held, but not within 25 days (3 held within 28‐38 days )
Total Multi‐Disciplinary Team Meetings Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments (N=29)
Completed within 30 days Completed, but not within 30 days Completed, but unable to determine time frame
Total Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments Initial Case Plan (N=27)
Source: Case Record Review, January‐February 2008

Number Percent

26

4

30

83%

20

3

23

79%

17

2

1

20

69%

17 63%

61 See pp 5-7, section 4A in the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 79

a. Family Team Meetings
Once a child enters custody, one of the earliest opportunities for assessment of family strengths and needs is a Family Team Meeting (FTM), to be held within three to nine days of entry. 62 During the fourth reporting period, the State reported that 592 children entered custody. However, 74 children were in DFCS custody fewer than nine days as of December 31, 2007. According to the county tracking systems, timely Family Team Meetings (within 3 to 9 days) were convened for 409 (79%) of the 518 children who remained in care. Another 19 percent of the children did have Family Team Meetings but they were not convened within the first nine days. The proportion of FTMs that were timely was lower in the fourth period than in the third (when it was 81%)63, but overall, the proportion of children who had a FTM was the same.
In the small subsample of 36 children in the placement sample who entered custody between July 1 and December 31, 2007, 30 children had an initial Family Team Meeting. In the 30 meetings, not all meetings appear to have discussed all of the topics or made the desired determinations specified in the Consent Decree. Again, however, some small improvements were observed. The most frequently discussed topics, (found in 28 of the 30 meetings) were family and child needs. Family and child strengths and goals were discussed in 26 of 30 meetings. Placement arrangements were discussed in half of the meetings. File documentation indicated limited efforts were made to ensure participant attendance or to inform parents who did not attend of the goals and results of the meeting.
• 70 percent (21) of the meetings were attended by the birth mother, birth father, or relative care giver. In 5 of these meetings, the attending care giver also had another relative or informal support with them. Children were included in 5 of the meetings. DFCS case managers attended 29 meetings and the meeting that did not have a case manager, a supervisor attended. Supervisors attended another 21 meetings. The Child and Family Comprehensive Assessment providers had representatives at 17 of the meetings.
• 57 percent (17) of the meetings made determinations about service needs and 19 meetings determined that further evaluations were needed. One meeting determined that the child could be safely returned home and the child did return home in less than 30 days. Another 9 meetings identified an appropriate relative with whom the child could be placed. Schedules for family visitation with siblings and parents were determined in 15 meetings. Seven of the meetings had documentation about what was needed to assure the child remains in the school he or she had been attending or enrolling the child in a school near the foster placement.
62 See pp 5-7, section 4A of the Consent Decree. 63 Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S.A. Period III Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v Perdue, December 2007, p.97.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 80

b. Multi‐Disciplinary Meetings
The case record review found that 79 percent (23) of the children who were in care 26 days or more had a Multi‐Disciplinary Meeting (MDT). This is a about the same as found in the second reporting period. The timeliness of the meetings has improved. In the second reporting period, 18 of the 28 MDTs recorded were held within 25 days, compared to 20 of 23 in the fourth period. As in the first reporting period, case record documentation about efforts made to ensure attendance of any participants was limited. As reflected in Table V‐11, the most frequent recommendations that emerged from the MDTs focused on the child’s permanency goal (15) and the services needed (16). As reflected in the following examples, MDT results and follow‐up are mixed. However, since these children were in custody less than six months following the MDT, the time for follow‐up was more limited.
• A psychological evaluation for the mother and supervised visitation with the children were identified and implemented. The psychologist advised that reunification should proceed with caution because of the allegations of sexual abuse but supervised visits were taking place.
• Child is placed in a therapeutic foster home and is receiving counseling is also on medication to address mental health needs.
• Child is receiving medical care, has been referred for language evaluation. There is no documentation of referral for counseling (other than meeting with school counselor). Visitation is occurring with mother but there is no further documentation of referrals.
• DFCS has contracted with providers for mother’s psychological evaluation and parenting classes. The child’s medical, psychological, and educational needs are being met through the placement provider. A referral has been made for speech therapy.
• It was determined that Childs most appropriate placement would be with maternal grandparents. DFCS requested a Home Evaluation from the county in which the relatives reside, and the child was placed in the home.
• MDT identified need for mental health and substance abuse Evaluations, individual and family therapy, drug screens, GED, medical care for child, and family visitation. The child was receiving medical care and was visiting with sibling and mother. However, there was no documentation to indicate DFCS is ensuring provision of any of the other services.
• Parenting skills training, therapy, substance abuse treatment, employment and housing were among the services identified for the family. Most of the responsibility was left up to the mother to accomplish these goals, she is to follow through with mental health appointments, find housing and employment, etc. The Case Manager’s primary role was to monitor the mother’s progress.
• The MDT only addressed the issue of substance abuse for the mother from the FTM though there were a number of other needs/services identified at the FTM for both parents as well as child. A referral to Family Ties to assist the mother with working her case plan was done. A Parenting Evaluation of the father was also completed .The MDT also recommended as the CCFA and FTM recommended a relative resource be sought but the file did not have evidence of the relative identified at the FTM being evaluated.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 81

• The placement case manager documented that she will submit a referral to Family Ties wrap around services to assist with providing the family individual and family counseling to assist the mother in parenting classes and locating employment, ensure the relative continue to provide a safe environment, the child enrolled into school.
Table V‐11 Recommendations Made by Multidisciplinary Team Meetings
between July 1 and December 31, 2007 N=23

Recommendation Subject
Appropriateness of child’s permanency goal Services needed Implementing Assessment recommendations Issues identified in Family Team Meetings Appropriateness of the child’s education Appropriateness of the child’s independent living plan Other issues No recommendations Source: Case Record Review, January‐February 2008

Number of Meetings
Recommendation 15 16 6 16 2 1 3 3

c. Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments

According to the case record review, 20 of 29 children entering care and remaining for 30 days or more had completed Comprehensive Child and Family Assessments (CCFA). Seventeen were completed within 30 days. Another 3 had completed CCFAs but they required a few more days to complete (2‐6) or the timeframe for completion was unclear from the file documentation. Half of the completed CCFAs addressed the appropriateness of the child’s placement. Three CCFAs had recommendations to move children to different placements and it appears that two children were moved. The majority of CCFAs included completed health checks, family assessments, MDT reports, and FTM information.

2. Health Care

The Consent Decree requires both an immediate corrective action with regard to children’s health screenings64 as well as on‐going regular screening and treatment. 65 DFCS’ performance in these areas is discussed below.

64 See p. 30, paragraph 13A in the Consent Decree. 65 See p. 20, paragraphs 6A 1 and 2, and p.21, 6B, paragraphs 1-8 of the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 82

a. Regular and timely screening
The case record review of 180 children in placement collected information about the timeliness of health and dental examinations provided at entry and discharge as well as on‐going “well‐ child” health screenings. The specific findings regarding timelines of routine care are summarized in Table V‐10. Of note are the following:
• The State’s overall performance around initial health screening for the 36 children who entered care appears to be about the same as the third period with 69 percent of the children having documented health screens within 10 days of entering care. In total, when the ten‐day time frame is relaxed, 83 percent of the children received an initial health screen. For those not meeting the ten‐day timing, the elapsed time ranged from 13 to 27 days. However, as in previous reports, caution should be exercised in interpreting these and other results drawn from the 36 children in the sample who entered care because they were not selected from the entire population entering custody during the period.
• Documented initial dental screening performance appears to have declined substantially from the third period. Three children, 8 percent, had a documented dental screen within 10 days. In period three 35 percent had the screens within 10 days. The total proportion receiving an entry dental screening within any timeframe was also lower than that documented in the third period, 25 percent in the fourth period compared to 56 percent. The 10‐day requirement was exceeded by 18 to 72 days for a portion of the children.
• Although 82 percent of the children in the sample had documentation of a health screen in 2007, 68 percent of the children in the sample appeared to be current with their EPSDT/Georgia Health Check defined physical exam schedule. This is a decline from the third period rate of 80 percent and the difference is greater than the margin of error for the sample. Regular dental check‐ups appear to have declined slightly. A smaller proportion of children were current with their dental examinations in the fourth period (62%) compared to the third period (64%) although the change was within the sample’s margin of error.
• As in the third period, a small proportion of children (two of the 41 children) who were discharged had documented health examinations before discharge.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 83

Table V‐10 Timeliness of Health (Physical, Dental, Mental) and Developmental Assessment
July 1 through December 31, 2007 N=Varies Depending on Length of Stay, Age of Child, Requirement

Component and Action

Number Percent

Initial Health Screen At Foster Care Entry (N=36 applicable)

Received within 10 days

25

69%

Received, but not within 10 days (13 to 27 days, 1 unable to

5

14%

determine)

Total Initial Health Screens

30*

83%

Initial Dental Screen At Foster Care Entry (N=36)

Received within 10 days

3

8%

Received, but not within 10 days (18‐72 days)

6

17%

Total Initial Dental Screens

9*

25%

Initial Mental Health Assessment in Compliance with EPSDT Standards

(children age 4 and older) At Foster Care Entry (N=13)

Received within 30 days

11

85%

Total Initial Mental Health Assessment

11

85%

Initial Developmental Assessment (children younger than age 4) At Foster

Care Entry (N=16)

Received within 30 days

5

31%

Received, but not within 30 days (within 39)

1

6%

Total Initial Developmental Assessment

6

38%

On‐Going Health Care Exams received according to EPSDT schedule

123

68%

(includes initial screens) (N=180)

On‐Going Health Care Exams received but not according to EPSDT schedule

4

2%

or standards (exams received were overdue) (N=180)

On‐Going Dental Exams received according to EPSDT schedule (includes

111

62%

initial screens) (N=180)

On‐Going Dental Care Exams received but not according to EPSDT schedule

3

2%

or standards (exams received were over due) (N=180)

Discharge Health Screen (N=41)

Received within 10 days of discharge

2

5%

Received, but not within 10 days

0

0%

Total Discharge Health Screens

2

5%

*In two cases, reviewers could not determine compliance with EPSDT/Georgia Health Check Standards

Source: Case record review, January‐February 2008

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 84

b.

Response to Medical and Dental Needs

Responsiveness to health needs remains an area for continued State focus. According to the case record review, 31 (38%) of the 81 children who received regular (initial and on‐going) health screenings during the period had health needs identified. Among these 31 children, the documentation in their files indicated that 19 (61%) had received appropriate treatment for all the needs identified during the reporting period, or treatment was scheduled. Another 3 children (10%) appear to have had some of their needs met. For nine (29%) of the 31 children, no follow‐up treatment was documented in the case record. The proportion of children with potentially unmet health needs as identified in a periodic screening appears to be slightly higher than in the third period (23%) but still within the margin of error for such a small subsample.66

The State appears to do better at responding to immediate health needs as they arise and this effort appears to have improved since the third period. According to the case record review 47 children of the 180 children in the entire sample experienced medical needs between screenings. Forty‐five (96%) appear to have had these needs met and another child had treatment scheduled. This compares to 86 percent in period three, but the observed change is within the subsample’s margin of error.

The data from the case record review was too limited to draw conclusions about dental health needs for the population as a whole. One child of the 29 who had a dental health screening had identified dental needs and these were met. Nine children in the entire sample experienced dental needs between screenings. Eight (89%) appeared to have had these needs addressed during the reporting period.

3. Mental Health

a. Timeliness of assessment

The Consent Decree requires that all children four years of age or older receive a mental health screening within 30 days of placement in compliance with EPSDT standards.67 As included in Table V‐10, 12 of the children in the placement sample who entered DFCS custody in the last half of 2007 were age 4 or older and remained in care 30 days or more. A thirteenth child is included in the analysis because although the child was not in care 30 days, a mental health assessment had been completed. All 11 children who had completed mental health assessments had them completed within 30 days. This represents about the same performance as found in the third reporting period.

66 Conclusions drawn from subsamples of 50 or less have margins of error of + 13 percent or more. 67 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 of the Consent Decree.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 85

b.

Mental Health Treatment

Of the 38 children that received a mental health assessment at any point during the reporting period, 32 (84%) had mental health needs identified in the assessments. Among these children, 15 were getting all needs met. Six more were getting some needs met and treatment was scheduled for one child. For 11 children (34%) however, there was no documentation that the needs revealed had yet been addressed. This proportion with potentially unmet needs is about the same as in the third period.

Again, the State appears to be more responsive to episodic or emerging mental health needs of children when compared to the response to needs identified in the routine assessments. According to the case record review, 66 children (37%) of the 180 children in the entire sample experienced mental health care needs between screenings. Of these children, 62 (94%) had the emerging needs addressed while four children had needs that appeared not to be met. This appears to be an improvement from the 87 percent of children who experienced mental health needs between screenings and had those needs met in third period (although the change is within the sample’s margin of statistical error).

4. Education and Development

a. Timeliness of developmental assessment at entry

The Consent Decree requires that all children under the age of four years receive a developmental assessment within 30 days of placement in compliance with EPSDT standards.68 As included in Table V‐10, 16 of the children in the placement sample who entered DFCS custody between July 1 and December 31, 2007 were younger than four and in placement 30 days or more. Among these 16, 6 (38%) had completed developmental assessments – 5 within 30 days and 1 within 39 days. Three of the children assessed had developmental needs identified; one child was getting their needs met or services were scheduled.

b. Developmental and Educational Needs

To ascertain how many children may have on‐going educational or developmental needs, the record review of children in placement collected information about assessments and needs identified. Between July1 and December 31, at least 22 percent (39) of the children in the sample had some developmental and/or educational need identified. Academic assistance was needed by 62 percent. Half (54%) had behavioral concerns. The remaining children had a variety of symptoms. Approximately 77 percent of the children were having all or some of their needs addressed and the remaining 12 percent did not appear to be having their needs addressed.

68 See p. 20, paragraph 6A.3 of the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 86

Other indicators of developmental or educational needs are Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits and Individualized Education Plans (IEP). Three (2%) of the children in the sample appear to be receiving SSI benefits and twenty (11%) had IEPs. Of those with IEPs, 65 percent of the IEPs appeared to be current. IEPs should be developed annually.
c. School enrollment
Children aged 7 or older are required to be enrolled in school in Georgia. Within the placement sample, 104 children were age 7 or older by August 31, 2007. Among these 104 children 90 (87%) were enrolled in school or a GED program in the last half of 2007. Nine children (9%) experienced gaps in school enrollment for different reasons. Two other children (5%) did not appear to be enrolled at all during the period. In three instances (3%), the children were in custody during the summer months, between school sessions and school enrollment while in placement was moot. Slightly more than one third of the children younger than age seven were enrolled in a kindergarten or pre‐school program.
5. Initial Case Plans
Among the 27 children entering custody during the reporting period and remaining in custody more than 30 days, 17 (69%) had an initial case plan developed by December 30, 2007 or their last day in custody. This appears to be a slight decline from the third reporting period in which 73 percent of a similar cohort had initial plans (although the change is within the sample’s margin of statistical error). These initial case plans appeared to be inconsistent in addressing the needs identified through the various assessments. Some plans responded to the recommendations of the FTMs, MDTs, and CCFAs; others did not. Some mentioned specific services for health or mental health but a number did not. Three of the 17 plans were reviewed by the court.
6. Independent Living Services
Independent living services are designed to prepare teens aged 14‐21 for independence and adulthood. DFCS policy dictates that youth 14 or older should be referred to the Independent Living Program. Within the sample of 180 children, 55 (31%) were age 14 or older during the review period. Among these 55 children, it appeared that 29, or about half, were receiving independent living services. Of the 29, 28 actually had Written Transitional Living Plans (WTLP). Almost 80 percent of the youth had the educational goal of a high school diploma or better.
7. Services to Youth in Custody 18 Months or More
Thirty‐two of the children age 14 or older had been in custody 18 months or more. There was documentation in the files of 13 children that a renewed diligent search for family members to serve as life‐long connections had been conducted. These searches produced resources for 5 of
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 87

the children. Eight of the youth had been involved in one or more meetings to review their permanency goals and services.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 88

PART VI STRENGTHENING THE SERVICE DELIVERY INFRASTRUCTURE
Several of the Consent Decree requirements focus on DHR/DFCS organizational capabilities, with the intent of enhancing or creating capacity thought to be instrumental to the achievement of desired outcomes. This includes specialized staff, caseload sizes, workforce skill development, and having the resources and services to meet needs. This chapter reports on the progress of the State in meeting Outcomes 25, 26, 29, and 31 as well as capacity requirements.
A. Outcome Performance
Four outcomes (25, 26, 29, and 31) have been attributed to creating a stronger infrastructure for caring for the children in DFCS custody. Table V1‐1 below provides the measured performance summary for each of the Outcomes. The discussion following the table provides a more detailed description of State performance as well as the interpretation and measurement issues associated with the outcomes, and information about issues surrounding the work that provide a context for understanding the State’s performance.

Table VI‐1 Strengthening Infrastructure Outcomes

Effective Oversight of Placement Settings Outcome 25: At least 98% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. Outcome 31: No more than 10% of all children in foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three(3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.

4thPeriod Performance
88%
7%

Timely and Complete Court Orders for Placement Authorization

Outcome 26: At least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in lime during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act. This outcome shall be measured for court orders entered after the entry of the Consent Decree.
Outcome 29: No more than 5% of all children in custody of DHR/DFCS for 12 months or more shall have lapse of legal custody within the prior 13 months.

70% 3%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 89

1. Effective Oversight of Placement Settings: Outcomes 25 and 31
Two Outcomes (numbers 25 and 31) relate to the supervision of placement settings. Both had thresholds to be achieved by the end of the fourth reporting period. Data for these outcomes were gathered from all three case record reviews, State administrative data systems, and site visits to private providers.
Outcomes 25 ‐ Approved Placement Settings for Children
Outcome Measure 25 seeks to reduce the risk that children may be placed in harmful situations by requiring foster care placements to be evaluated and to be in full approval and/or licensure status. Outcome 25 stipulates that “…by the end of the second reporting period [and continuing thereafter], at least 95% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status.”69
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
There were no new interpretation or measurement issues encountered during the fourth reporting period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues.
b. State Performance
• The State Fell Short of the Fourth Period Outcome 25 Threshold
During the period from July 1 to December 31, 2007, 88 percent of the children in custody were in placements that were in full approval and/or licensure status. This is comparable to the second period performance of 86 percent. Additional detail on this measurement appears in Table VI‐2. The Outcome 25 threshold is 95 percent.
As indicated in Table VI‐2, compliance with the relevant approval processes was particularly strong among group homes (100%) and child‐caring institutions (100%). In their third period report, the Accountability Agents urged DFCS to make the approval rates among non‐foster relative placements and provider‐supervised foster homes a priority for improvement. Substantial improvement was evident among non‐foster relative placements, which increased from 59 percent to 75 percent, while provider‐supervised foster homes were about the same (86%) as in the third reporting period (88%). However, the approval rate among DFCS foster homes (90%) declined from the third period level (100%).

69 See p 36, Outcome 25, of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 90

Table VI‐2
Outcome 25 – Children in Placements in Full Approval Status

Placement Type

Children in Placement
Sample

Children in Placements on
12/31/2007

Children in “Fully
Approved” Placements on
12/31/2007

Percent of Children in care on 6/30/2007 in
“Fully Approved” Placements

Relative

Placement a b

40

24

18 c

75%

DFCS‐

supervised

31

28

90%

Foster Home d 96
Provider‐

supervised

44

38

86%

Foster Home e f

Group Home g

21

18

18

100%

Child Caring Institution h

7

5

5

100%

Other (NA)i

16

17

NA

NA

Total

180

139

107/122

88%

a Data source: Placement file review.

b Data source for ICPC relative placements: Georgia’s ICPC records.

c The criteria specified in Section 1004 of the DFCS Policy Manual for approval of a relative placement are the Social Services Supervisor’s approval and completion of a satisfactory relative care assessment (RCA). For purposes of the file review, a judge’s signature was also accepted as evidence of supervisory approval. d Data source: Placement Central e Data source: Review of child‐placing agency’s records. f Data source for ICPC foster home placements: Georgia’s ICPC records. g Data source: KIDSTAR (formerly LORE) data system h Data source: KIDSTAR (formerly LORE) LORE data system i Includes children in state custody in settings with no relevant approval process including: placed with parents, hospitalized, Youth Department or Corrections, or on runaway status

Outcome 31 – Foster Home Capacity Limits

Outcome 31 seeks to limit the number of children placed in individual foster homes. By the end of the Second reporting period, it stipulates that “…no more than 10% of all children in foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed… [specified] capacity limits….”70 The capacity limits referenced in Outcome 31 are contained in Section 5.c.4.e of the Consent Decree.71

70 See p. 38 of the Consent Decree 71 Ibid, p. 16

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 91

a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues

There were no new interpretation or measurement issues encountered during the fourth reporting period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues.

b. State Performance

• The State Surpassed the Fourth Period Outcome 31 Threshold

At the end of the fourth reporting period, five children (7% of the 75 children in the placement sample that were placed in foster homes on December 31) had been placed in foster homes that exceeded the specified capacity limits. By comparison, five percent of the children in foster homes on July 31, 2007 had been placed in foster homes that exceeded the specified capacity limits. All four of the provider‐supervised foster homes exceeding the capacity limits in the fourth period were foster homes in which the three foster child limit was exceeded due to the placement of sibling groups; however, they did not qualify for the exception enumerated in Section 5.c.4.e. because those homes already contained one or more other foster children. None of the children in the sample that were placed in foster homes on December 31 were placed in homes containing more than six children total. Additional detail on this measurement appears below in Table VI‐3.

Table VI‐3 Outcome 31 – Children in Foster Homes Exceeding Capacity Limits
N=75

Placement Type

Sampled Children in Foster Homes on 12/31/2007

Children Placed in Foster Homes
Having 3 or More Foster
Children

DFCS‐

supervised

31

1

Foster Homesa

Provider‐

supervised

44

4

Foster Homesb

Total

75

5

a Data Source: Placement Central

b Data Source: Targeted review of provider foster home files

Children Placed in Foster Homes
Having 6 or More Children
0
0
0

Percent of Children in Foster Homes that Exceeded Capacity Limits
3%
9%
7%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 92

2. Timely and Complete Court Orders for Placement Authorization: Outcomes 26 and 29
Two Outcomes (numbered 26 and 29) relate to strengthening the infrastructure by establishing benchmarks for practices that help ensure DFCS has the appropriate authority to keep children in custody and to seek federal reimbursement appropriately for the services these children receive.
Outcome 26 – Required IV‐E Language in Court Orders
Outcome 26 relates to DFCS having the proper documentation in a child’s file to support an appropriate claim for Federal reimbursement under the Title VI‐E program.72 Judicial orders authorizing the removal of a child from his or her home and placement into foster care must contain determinations that remaining in the home is “contrary to the welfare” of the child in question and that “reasonable efforts” were made to prevent the child from being removed from his/her home. These determinations must be made on a case‐by‐case basis and be child‐ specific. In addition, children must have an annual judicial determination that reasonable efforts are being made to help the child achieve permanency.
For those children who entered care on or after October 27, 2005, judicial determinations regarding “…contrary to the welfare…” must be made in the first order that sanctions the State agency’s action to remove the child from home. In practice, this is often the court order from the 72 hour hearing. In addition, there must be documentation of a judicial determination that “reasonable efforts” were made no later than 60 days from the date of child’s removal from the home.”73 All children in State custody after the Consent Decree should have a permanency hearing at least every 12 months.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
There were no new interpretation issues encountered during the fourth reporting period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues. However, measurement was modified to allow for the State to provide copies of court orders that were not found in the case record review. Data for Outcome 26 was primarily collected from the case record review sample of 180 children in foster care. After the third period performance, the State believed that a factor affecting performance was the timely retrieval of court orders and the appropriate filing in the children’s records. Therefore, during the analysis of the fourth period performance, the Accountability Agents gave the State a list of the children in the sample for whom the applicable court orders did not have the appropriate language. The State provided the Accountability Agents with copies of several of the missing court orders for inclusion in the analysis.
72 See pp 36-37, Outcome 26 of the Consent Decree 73 Ibid.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 93

b. State Performance
 The State Fell Short of the Outcome 26 Threshold
For Outcome 26, 70 percent of the 180 children in placement sample had the required court orders with all the required language within the required time frames necessary to assess eligibility for federal funding under Title IV‐E. The threshold for this outcome is 95 percent. This performance is a substantial improvement over the third period performance of 42 percent. Not all of the necessary documentation was found in the child records, but the State was able to provide documentation (court orders) to support compliance with the requirements for several children in the sample. Without the additional effort of the State to locate the appropriate documentation, performance would have been similar to the third period performance.
Outcome 29 – Lapses in Legal Custodial Authority
The Consent Decree strives to limit the percent of children for whom DHR/DFCS custodial authority lapses.74 Outcome 29 stipulates that no more than 5 percent of all children should have a lapse in their legal custody within the most recent 13 months of their placement. This outcome became effective in the third period.
a. Interpretation and Measurement Issues
There were no new interpretation issues encountered during the fourth reporting period. Appendix B provides a summary of previously resolved interpretation and measurement issues. However, measurement was modified to allow for the State to provide copies of court orders that were not found in the case record review. Data for Outcome 29 was primarily collected from the case record review sample of 180 children in foster care. The outcome 29 analysis was applicable to 89 children (59%) in the sample of 180 who had been in custody 12 months or more and were still in the temporary custody of the department.75 The State questioned whether the timely retrieval of court orders and the appropriate filing of these orders in children’s records had affected the measured third period performance on Outcome 29. Therefore, during the analysis of the fourth period performance, the Accountability Agents gave the State a list of the children in the sample for whom there appeared to be a custodial lapse due to missing court orders. The State provided the Accountability Agents with copies of several of the missing court orders for inclusion in the analysis.
74 See p 37, Outcome 29 of the Consent Decree 75 This is a smaller number than the entire sample of 180 children, the margin of error for 89 is approximately +10 percent.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 94

b. State Performance
• The State Surpassed the Outcome 29 Threshold
DFCS had timely extensions of custody for 86 (97%) of the 89 children of the children for whom a custodial issue would be applicable. This means that 3 percent or 3 children had lapses in custody. The outcome threshold is no more than 5 percent. The fourth period performance is a substantial improvement over the third period performance. The primary reason for the improvement appears to be in the way the outcome was measured. The State’s additional effort to locate the court orders that had not been in the children’s records at the time of the record review allowed the Accountability Agents to include them in the analysis. Without this effort, the analysis indicated that approximately 20 percent of the children had legal lapses in custody. This suggests that the strategy for improving this performance further and sustaining it may be clerical assistance to retrieve and appropriately file court orders in a timely manner.
B. Lower Caseloads and Staff Qualifications
1. Caseload Sizes and Supervisory Ratios
There are five primary types of case managers responsible for direct interventions with children and families. These case manager types are as follows:
• Child Protective Services Investigators (CPS Investigations). These case managers are responsible for responding to and investigating reports of child maltreatment. They may also be responsible for responding to reports of families in need who are considered candidates for “diversion” services.
• Child Protective Services On‐Going Case Managers, (also referred to as Family Preservation case managers) These case managers are responsible for providing services and supervising the safety of children who are not taken into state custody and remain in their own homes.
• Placement Case Managers. These case managers are responsible for providing services to the children and families of children who are in the custody of the state.
• Adoptions Case Managers. These case managers are responsible for providing services to children whose parents’ parental rights have been terminated and who have the permanency goal of adoption.
• Specialized Case Managers. These case managers are responsible for providing services to the children and families of children who have been in state custody 18 months or more.
An additional distinction may be a Diversion Case Manager. These are case managers responsible for short‐term intervention with families who come to the attention of DFCS because they are in need of services that will help them keep their families safe. Diversion case managers may handle child protective services investigations as well if, upon meeting with the
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 95

family and determining that the situation does rise to the level of possible abuse or neglect, the case designation is revised from “diversion” to “child protective services.”
A “case” in each of these practice areas is defined differently. For CPS investigations, on‐going, and diversion, a case is defined as the family unit being investigated, or receiving services and supervision. For Placement, a case is defined as a child, whether it is a “regular,” adoption, or “specialized “case. In placement cases, siblings in State custody are considered separate cases. Case managers for children in the custody of the state, however, are also expected to provide services to birth parents, foster parents, and prospective adoptive parents in addition to the children.
The Consent Decree establishes caseload caps for the five primary types of case managers to be achieved by the end of the fourth reporting period.76 It also establishes supervisory ratios. These caps and ratios are as follows:
• CPS case managers (investigators): 12 cases (the equivalent of 12 families)—a decrease from the previous requirement of 20 cases
• CPS ongoing case managers: 17 cases (the equivalent of 17 families) —a decrease from the previous requirement of 20 cases
• Placement case managers: 15 cases (the equivalent of 15 children)‐ a decrease from the previous requirement of 25 cases
• Adoption case managers: 16 cases (the equivalent of 16 children)‐ a decrease from the previous requirement of 22 cases
• Specialized case managers: 12 cases (the equivalent of 12 children) – no change • The supervisory ratio should be no more than 5 case managers reporting to 1
supervisor – a decrease from previous requirement of 6 to 1.
a. State Performance as of December 31, 2007
The Accountability Agents chose to measure the caseloads using the number of cases open after the final data entry “posting” for the month of December. For practical purposes, this is referred to as December 31, 2007. A count of Diversion cases was included for those case managers who had a mixed CPS and Diversion caseload. Case managers responsible only for Diversion cases were not included in the analysis.
In general, caseload sizes have diminished, although they are yet to be universally within the new, lower designated caps. As of December 31, 2007, 71 percent of the case managers in DeKalb and Fulton Counties had caseloads that were at or under designated caps, as reflected in Table VI‐4. The degree to which individual caseloads exceeded the caps varied by program area. An initial review of the January 2008 caseloads indicates that the Counties have made further progress in reducing the caseload sizes.

76 See page 22, Section 8, paragraph A.1 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 96

The most improvement in caseload size was found among CPS Ongoing Services case managers. Nearly all Ongoing Services case managers (95%) had caseloads of 17 or fewer families in contrast to June 2007 when 64 percent had caseloads of 20 or fewer families. None of the CPS Ongoing Services case managers had more than 20 cases. Caseloads of CPS investigators have also diminished. In June 2007, 70 percent had caseloads of 20 or fewer families and in December about the same proportion (68%) had caseloads of 12 or fewer families. In all, 9 percent of the CPS investigators had caseloads greater than 20 families.
Among Placement case managers, the proportion with 15 or fewer children was 61% at the end of 2007. Another 24 percent had caseloads of 16 to 24 children and 15 percent had caseloads of 25 or more children.
As previously noted, the Consent Decree stipulates that all Adoption case managers have caseloads no larger than 16 children. However, in the first reporting period, the counties committed to keeping these caseloads at 12 or fewer children to be equivalent with the specialized case manager requirements. As the counties have increased their efforts to move more children to permanency through adoption, this commitment has been a challenge to maintain. County performance as measured by the counties’ self‐imposed limits reveals that 54 percent of the adoption case managers have caseloads of 12 or fewer children. As measured by the Consent Decree requirement, 96 percent of the adoption case managers have 16 or fewer children.
Finally, three‐quarters of specialized case managers had caseloads of 12 or fewer children. This is an improvement from June 2007 when 62 percent were at or under this caseload cap. Thirteen case managers had caseloads ranging from 13 to 15 children, one case manager had 21 children.
The counties continue to struggle with moving children who reach their 18th month in custody from placement case managers to specialized case managers. The number of children who remained assigned to “regular” Placement case managers after reaching their 18th month in state custody was more than double the number in June 2007. Their reassignment would affect the caseload sizes of both placement case managers and those of the specialized case managers. More placement case managers would likely be at or under the caseload caps and more specialized case managers would exceed the cap on their caseloads.
The counties continue to balance caseload size management with case manager continuity for children and keeping sibling groups together with the same case manager. As they are able, they have reassigned children to newly trained and certified case managers as well as transferring qualified case managers from the Child Protective Services program area.
The Accountability Agents interviewed 35 randomly selected case managers or their supervisors in the first two weeks of January 2008. The case managers were asked about their caseload sizes as of the end of December and the first part of January. The interviews
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 97

confirmed the caseload sizes and supervisory ratios reported by the State. Errors in reporting primarily occur because case closures or transfers are not processed timely. A number of those interviewed noted that efforts were underway in January to redistribute caseloads by shifting case managers from Child Protection units to Placement units. The series of figures following the table display the caseload changes over the period of time the caseload standards have been in effect.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 98

Table VI‐4 DeKalb and Fulton County Caseload Status at December 31, 2007

Case Manager Function

Target Caseload
Cap: Number of cases

Number of Active Staff on 12/31/071

Number of Active, On‐leave Staff on 12/31/072

Actual Performance

Meeting Cap

Not Meeting Cap

Cases assigned to separated
workers/

Supervisors

Number % Number %

Number

CPS Case Manager

12 families

62

42 68%

203 33%

Ongoing Case

17

Manager

families

43

1

42 95%

24 5%

Placement

15

Case Manager children

72

44 61%

285 39%

56

Adoption Case

16

Manager

children

28

157 54%

138 46%

Specialized Case Manger

12 children

57

43 75%

149 25%

Total

262

1

186 71%

77 29%

5

Sources: State data base: IDS; county personnel systems for leave and separation information

Notes:

1Active staff are those staff who were not on leave of absence at 12/31/07 that was expected to be more

than 30 days. Includes workers with mixed caseloads of CPS investigations and diversions. Excludes

workers who had diversion cases only. Excludes case managers who have caseloads of children placed

through ICPC and not in DFCS custody

2Active staff on leave at 12/31/07 but leave anticipated to be more than 30 days;

one ongoing CPS was on leave on December 31, 2007. Five cases remained assigned to this investigator

in IDS on December 31, 2007.

3 Of the 20 case managers over the cap, 15 had 12 to 17 cases, 5 had 20 or more cases and included

individuals who were serving diversion cases.

4 The two case managers over the cap each had 19 cases

5 Of the 28 case managers over the cap, 17 had 16 to 24 cases; 11 had 25 or more cases. Among all 72, 26

had children who had reached their 18th month in custody and had not yet been transferred to

Specialized Case Managers.

6 Five cases remained assigned in IDS to two case managers who had resigned during December

7All 15 Adoption Case Managers have caseloads of 12 or fewer

8 Among the 13 case managers over the cap, 12 have 13‐16 cases; 1 has 17 cases.

9 Of the 14 Specialized Case Managers, 13 had 13‐15 cases and 1 had 21 cases.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 99

Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standards

Figure VI‐1 Percent of CPS Investigation Caseloads Meeting Standards
at the End of Three Reporting Periods

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

94%

70%

68%

Standard: 20 Families

Standard: 20 Families

Standard: 12 Families

Period II (December 2006)

Period III (June 2007)

Period IV (December 2007)

CPS Investigations Caseload Standards

Figure VI‐2 Percent of CPS On‐Going Caseloads Meeting Standards
at the End of Three Reporting Periods

100% 90%
80% 70% 60%
50% 40% 30% 20%
10% 0%

97%

95%

64%

Standard: 20 Families Period II (December 2006)

Standard: 20 Families Period III (June 2007)

CPS On-going Caseloads Standards

Standard: 17 Families Period IV (December 2007)

Perecent of Caseloads Meeting Standards

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 100

Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standards

Figure VI‐3 Percent of Placement Caseloads Meeting Standards
At the End of Three Reporting Periods

100% 90% 80%
70% 60% 50% 40% 30%
20% 10%
0%

93%

75%

61%

Standard: 25 Children Period II (December 2006)

Standard: 25 Children Period III (June 2007) Placem ent Caseload Standards

Standard: 15 Children Period IV (December 2007)

Figure VI‐4 Percent of Adoption Caseloads Meeting Standards
At the End of Three Reporting Periods

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

100% 100%

100% 93%

96% 54%

Consent Decree: 22 Children Consent Decree: 22 Children Consent Decree: 16 Children

County: 12 Children

County: 12 Children

County: 12 Children

Period II (December 2006)

Period III (June 2007)

Period IV (December 2007)

Adoption Caseload Standards

County Consent Decree

Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standards

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 101

Percent of Caseloads Meeting Standard

Figure VI‐5 Percent of Specialized Case Manager Caseloads Meeting Standards
At the End of Four Reporting Periods

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

86% Period I (June 2006)

96%
75% 62%

Period II (Dec 2006)

Period III (June 2007)

Specialized Caseloads Standard: 12 Children

Period IV (Dec 2007)

As shown in Table VI‐5, on December 31, 2007, 92 percent of the supervisory units had a ratio of 5 workers to one supervisor or better. This is the same as in third period. There were 3 instances of program administrators acting as frontline supervisors for some staff.

Table VI‐5 DeKalb and Fulton County Supervisory Ratios at December 31, 2007

Program/Service Area

Number of Units

Meeting 1 to 6 Not Meeting 1 to 6

ratio

ratio

Number %

Number %

Child Protective Services

24

23 96%

1

4%

(Investigations* and Ongoing)

Placement

16

13 81%

3 19%

Adoption

6

6 100%

Specialized Case Management

13

13 100%

Combined units

3

2 67%

1 33%

Total

62

57 92%

5

8%

*Includes supervisors of diversion units where diversion case managers also carrying CPS cases

Sources: State IDS and county personnel systems for leave and separation information

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 102

C. Building Workforce Skills
The Consent Decree has several training requirements.77 This section, the Accountability Agents describe the qualifications of new supervisors and the Department’s compliance with pre‐ service and in‐service training requirements.
1. Education and Training Services Section 78
A new Director of the Education and Training Services (ETS) section was appointed during the fourth period. The new Director’s qualifications meet the criteria established by DFCS. She has a Master’s degree in Criminal Justice and has been with the Georgia Department of Human Resources since 2000, most recently serving as unit manager of the Technology and Systems Management Unit in ETS. She has extensive training design and delivery experience pertaining to the implementation of Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information Systems (SACWIS) in two states.
2. Response to the Assessment of the Pre‐Service Curriculum for Foster Care Case Managers.
During the second period, the Accountability Agents had an outside expert evaluate the pre‐ service curriculum for foster care case managers. This curriculum, along with the curricula for child protective services and for supervisors were undergoing revision during the fourth period. The recommendations of the outside expert, therefore, were particularly timely. Some of the recommendations had to do with sequencing and organization of the modules to ensure that case managers receive information in a logical fashion, building on each previous step. Others suggestions included making the curriculum more skill‐based with more direct observation by supervisors or field practice advisors.
In response to the suggestions and recommendations of the curriculum review, the State reports developing aggregate and individual training reports. These reports help validate successful completion of on‐line instruction and detail specific items that individuals miss on classroom quizzes and knowledge tests to give their supervisors more helpful information for training and supporting the individuals in field practice activities. The State also reports revising some training requirements to ensure classroom instructors are aware of what the trainees have accomplished in their field practice activities and field supervision includes individualized assessment with more specific performance rating of the field practice. Additional, specific field activities with clients have been included for supervisors and field practice advisors to observe, document and rate.
77 See pages 25 and 26 of the Consent Decree for the complete description of the requirements. 78 See Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S. A. Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue, November 2006, for a description of the Education and Training Services Section.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 103

The State reports working with Fulton and DeKalb counties to incorporate a comprehensive Family Team Meeting Overview into the pre‐service training requirements for their case managers. This overview is intended to provide new case managers with the information needed to effectively support the Family Team Meeting (FTM) process. Specifically, this overview is to include the role of the case manager in FTMs, the standards of practice for FTMS and how to engage and recruit extended family members to the FTM.
The State reports it has been revamping its new worker training series prompted in part by implementation of the new Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) called “Georgia SHINES.” In December 2007, Education and Training (ETS) piloted a version of the new worker training that incorporated Georgia SHINES. The first phase of full implementation statewide is to begin April 2008 with Georgia SHINES fully incorporated. The revisions will continue, however, and by July 2008, ETS anticipates having a reconfigured and shortened new worker training sequence that will include a “case continuum model of instruction.” This approach will assign “virtual cases” to new workers to follow and manage as they advance through the training sequence. It is intended that the new series will focus more on the day to day skill sets needed by case managers to complete timely and accurate work.
Although the sequence will be shortened, the total number of pre‐service hours is still expected to exceed the Consent Decree requirements.79 Currently, the foundational training for new workers known as the “Keys Training” is delivered over a six‐week combination of classroom and on‐line training, and field practice. Keys Training is followed by “pragmatic tracks” for Foster Care or Child Protective Services (CPS). The Foster Care track currently requires an additional three to four weeks following Keys and CPS requires two to three additional weeks. The plan is to eliminate the separate Keys Training and expand each of the separate track curricula. The Foster Care and CPS series will each incorporate the essential elements of Keys and each will be six weeks in duration, amounting to 227 hours of pre‐service instruction for new workers. The first implementation phase beginning in April 2008 will incorporate Georgia SHINES and begin the reconfiguration of the Keys Training and the program track training. The April 2008 implementation will also have components on practice values and beliefs and visitation incorporating curriculum available through the National Resource Center for Family Centered Practice.80
3. New Supervisor Qualifications
As stipulated in the Consent Decree, case manager supervisors employed by the counties after October 27, 2005 must have, at a minimum, a Bachelor’s degree in Social Work (BSW) and two years of experience.81 Eleven individuals were promoted or newly employed as case manager
79 See p. 25.Section 10. B paragraph 3 of the Consent Decree, 80 National Resource Center for Family-Centered Practice and Permanency Planning at Hunter College School of Social Work, New York, www.nrcfcppp.org. Promoting Placement Stability and Permanency through Caseworker/Child Visits, a One Day Training. 81 See p. 26 of the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 104

supervisors between July 1 and December 31, 2007. Ten of the eleven met the minimum degree requirements and the required level of experience. The eleventh supervisor has a Bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice and Psychology with less than 12 months of experience. This individual supervises the Intake function where case managers do not carry active cases. The individual supervised two staff members each with one diversion case in September in addition to her Intake supervision responsibilities. 4. Pre‐Service and On‐going Training Hours According to the county data and the certification data reviewed by the Accountability Agents, it appears that new case managers are receiving the required number of hours of pre‐service training. New supervisors appointed or hired in the last year appear to have received the supervisory pre‐service training. However, it appears that 12 percent of the case managers and 5 percent of the supervisors had not received all of the required 20 hours annually of professional development. Although this information was not validated by the Accountability Agents, training and certification information was collected from the 35 randomly selected case managers who were interviewed regarding caseload sizes. 5. Case Manager and Supervisor Certification The proportion of staff and supervisors who are fully certified has improved substantially since the third period. Table VI‐8 summarizes the certification status available from the State at the end of December 2007 for social service case managers and supervisors in Fulton and DeKalb Counties. As noted 96 percent of case managers and 86 percent of supervisors had achieved full certification as of December 31, 2007.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 105

Table VI‐8 Certification Status of Case Managers and Supervisors in DeKalb and Fulton County DFCS as of December 31, 2007

Position Title

Fully Certified

Results Pending

Provisional

Not Certified

Total

Case Managers

CPS Investigators 61 (98%)

1

62

CPS On‐Going Case 43 (97%)

1

44

Managers

Placement Case Managers 67 (93%)

5

72

Adoption Case Managers 27 (96%)

1

28

Specialized Case Managers 55 (96%)

2

57

TOTAL 253 (96%)

2 (1%)

8 (3%)

263

Supervisors

CPS (Investigations and On‐ 19 (86%)

1

2

22

Going)*

Placement* 13 (86%)

2

15

Adoption 4 (67%)

2

6

Specialized Cases 12 (92%

1

13

Combined Placement Units 3 (100%)

3

TOTAL 51 (86%)

3 (5%)

5 (8%)

59

Source: Compiled from data supplied by Education and Training Services Section and County Kenny A.

staff. Not verified by Accountability Agents.

*Two administrators were acting supervisors for CPS caseloads; one administrator was an acting

supervisor for Placement Caseloads. These individuals are not included in this table.

D. Assuring Needed Services Are Available

In August 2007, Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. (HZA) delivered a final Needs Assessment report to the Department.82 The assessment made six recommendations. Four recommendations focused on increasing the number and location of foster homes for children in the custody of Fulton and DeKalb Counties. Specifically, HZA recommended increasing homes in Fulton County in general and in the neighborhoods where the greatest disparity between need and resources exist. HZA also recommended these homes be specifically recruited to serve adolescents and sibling groups. Another recommendation urged DFCS to expand and enhance its placement prevention efforts to reduce the need for placement settings. The sixth recommendation suggested implementing an automated placement matching system

82 See pp 12-13, paragraphs 4A, 1-4 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 106

that would facilitate matching children with homes that can meet their needs and provide a better means for managing and tracking available resources.
As of December 31, 2007 the State central office and the counties had initiated some actions and begun working on individual plans in response to the first five recommendations. A core effort in both counties is to safely reduce the number of children in foster care thereby reducing the need for the number of foster care beds recommended by Hornby‐Zeller. After reviewing data on entry and re‐entry trends, DeKalb County designed and began implementing a strategy to prevent youth from entering and re‐entering foster care. By early 2008 it was showing some modest success. DeKalb County also requires an administrative staffing and approval prior to any child being “deprived” (that is, declared a child who should be taken into State custody) by DFCS staff. The county continues to work with the DeKalb County school system administrative personnel to identify youth who are at risk of entering foster care so that prevention services can be offered instead of removal. Fulton County embarked on an effort to improve decision making in Child Protective Services (CPS) and the criteria for “depriving” children. As a result, Fulton has seen declining caseloads in both CPS and foster care. The County also implemented a practice of requiring prior approval of all deprivation decisions from either the county director or her designee
Both counties have plans to enlist existing foster youth and foster parents to help with recruitment efforts. Faith‐based and other community agencies in the geographic areas of greatest need are being asked to sponsor recruitment presentations and provide locations for foster parent orientation and training classes. Informational and media campaigns are being designed. There are efforts underway to support existing foster parents and ensure their retention. In addition, Fulton County is beginning to work with the Child Placing Agencies to include foster home recruitment and licensure targets in their new contracts beginning July 1, 2008. The counties plan to measure the effectiveness of these strategies by tracking the number of inquiries received; applications received; individuals in training; and, ultimately, foster homes licensed.
The planning process has established initial goals for recruitment, as summarized in Table VI‐9. The baseline selected by the State and counties is March 31, 2008. This point in time was selected to allow time for a complete status review of all the known foster homes in January and February 2008. The State reports that this process pared the number of homes to only those that were viable, in compliance with standards, and willing to accept children. The numerical goals are for homes that specifically meet the need for placement of siblings, children with behavioral or emotional challenges, youth and designated zip codes within each county.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 107

Table VI‐9 DeKalb and Fulton Foster Home Goals

County and Type of Home
DeKalb – All DFCS supervised homes Fulton – only homes in county
DFCS supervised homes Child Placing Agency homes
Total Fulton

Baseline – As of

March 31, 2008

Beds Homes

423

214

Goals – As of July 2009
Beds Homes 798 308 to 339

Anticipated Net Gain Homes 94 to 125

504

238

594

328

90

140

70

70

504

238

734

398

160

The State Office is working with the counties regarding a media campaign and will be working with the counties to develop a tool for tracking their success. In addition, the State has started negotiating with several private providers for additional resources to meet placement needs, specifically for large sibling groups.

E. Placement Support

In this section of the report, the State’s performance is described regarding a number of issues related to the regulation and support of foster care providers. These issues are described in the Consent Decree in Section 5C4e‐i, 5C683 and Section 11.84 Generally, the State appears to be performing well relative to most of these issues.

Section 11 of the Consent Decree contains a variety of requirements with respect to the screening, licensing, and training of foster parents. Paragraph B of Section 11 requires a set of uniform standards to be in place for the approval or re‐approval of all foster and pre‐adoptive families. In Paragraph F, the State agrees not to allow the perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment to become or to remain foster parents. The State’s performance against each of these requirements is considered below.

The file review of 155 foster homes sought evidence in each file that the home was in compliance with applicable standards at the end of the reporting period. Data from the file review are presented below. These data can be said to fairly represent the status of the sampled foster homes at the end of the reporting period, but may not accurately reflect the quality of the regulatory approval process. The reasons for this include changes that may occur in family circumstances or characteristics between the approval date and date the home’s file was reviewed, aspects of the approval process that may have been underway at the end of the reporting period but had not yet been concluded and documented in the case record, and the

83 Ibid, pp. 16-19. 84 Ibid, pp. 26-28.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 108

practice among some child‐ placing agencies of keeping certain information such as health records and toxicology reports in separate, locked files rather than in the foster home file due to HIPPA and privacy concerns.
1. Regular and timely evaluations to ensure placement settings meet standards
Successfully preventing maltreatment in care is aided by effective evaluation and reevaluation of care settings. In addition, foster caregivers need to be supported and well‐trained to effectively care for and, when necessary, appropriately discipline the children in their care.
To ensure that foster homes are equipped to provide safe and appropriate care, DFCS has promulgated a uniform set of approval standards that are intended to apply to DFCS‐ supervised and provider‐supervised foster homes alike. In addition, the Office of Regulatory Services (ORS) has promulgated licensing rules that apply to the Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) that supervise private foster homes.
However, the existence of uniform standards by itself cannot ensure children in care are safe and well. Therefore, the review of foster home files specifically sought evidence that the foster homes reviewed were in compliance with the DFCS approval standards. Overall, evidence of compliance was found to be comparable to the third reporting period, although it varied by requirement. Table VI‐10 summarizes the extent to which documentation was found in the foster home records reviewed indicating that these homes met specific approval standards, and compares the results for the third and fourth reporting periods.
The file review found completed initial/re‐evaluation reports in 93 percent (142 of 153) files in which they should have appeared, compared to 96 percent in the third reporting period. The file review found evidence that for most approval standards, 88 percent or more of the homes reviewed were in compliance. This is similar to the third reporting period, for which most of the approval standards were met by 88 percent or more of the homes reviewed. Compliance appears to have improved on 4 of the 16 requirements; seven were virtually unchanged (±1 percentage point); and five appeared to decline; however, all the observed changes were within the foster home sample’s margin of statistical error.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 109

Table VI‐10 Foster Care Approval and Licensing Standards
N = 155

Foster Care Screening, Licensing, Training,

Documentation found

and Investigative Requirements

indicating requirement

met

3rd Period 4th Period

Family assessment completed

98%

99%

Pre‐service foster parent training requirements met

96%

96%

Gender of children in home never varied from that approved

97%

95%

No violations of agency discipline or other foster care policies

98%

93%

Timely Criminal Record Checks for foster parents

92%

92%

Timely annual re‐evaluation (no lapses)

88%

91%

CPS history has been checked

85%

89%

Comprehensive medical report for each foster parent

91%

88%

Number of children in home never exceeded approved capacity

89%

88%

Age of children in home never varied from that approved

85%

83%

Timely Criminal Record Checks for other adults in the home

78%

80% a

Sex Offender Registry checked for foster parents Sex Offender Registry checked for other adults in the home

77% b

83% 55% a

Ongoing foster parent training requirements met

75%

76%

Appropriate health statements for household members

81%*

75% a

Comprehensive Drug Screen for Foster Parents

57%

60%

Source: Case Record Review, July 2007 and March 2008

a As these measures are based on a sub‐sample of 44 foster homes, they have a margin of statistical error of ±14%.

b Prior to the fourth reporting period, data on sex offender registry checks were not collected separately for foster parents and for other adults in the home.

For four of the approval standards, evidence of compliance was found in fewer than 80 percent of the foster home records sampled: appropriate health statements for household members, sex offender registry checks for other adults in the home, fulfillment of ongoing foster parent training requirements, and comprehensive drug screens for foster parents. These standards have something in common: although all are now required by the standard DFCS child placing agency contracts that went into effect July 1, 2007 (i.e., the start of the fourth reporting period), each had previously been deemed not mandatory for private provider‐supervised foster homes.
As shown in Table VI‐11, documentation of compliance with each of these standards was substantially higher (79‐88%) among DFCS‐supervised foster homes than among provider‐ supervised homes (42‐73%). File review evidence suggests that private providers are still working to come into compliance with the new contract requirements. For certain of the
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 110

licensing and approval standards (e.g., CPS history checks, sex offender registry checks for foster parents and for other adults in the home) a number of the private provider foster home files that did not contain evidence that the check had been completed did contain evidence that the check had been requested, although not necessarily before the end of the reporting period.
Another factor common to two of these standards is that they pertain to “other” household members. For several of the homes for which required information on other household members was missing, the missing information was for adult children who were away at college. For these individuals, file reviewers assumed that they would reside temporarily in the home of the foster parents at some point in the year and thus should be covered by the requirement, but no evidence was available to support or refute that assumption.
One of these requirements merits additional discussion: “sexual offender registry has been checked.” The performance on this important requirement appears to be about the same as in the third period, although a direct comparison is not possible because the file review questionnaire was revised for the fourth period to separately capture foster parents and other adults in the home. As with some of the other items monitored (e.g., the file contains a complete history of any Child Protective Services substantiations) conducting an accurate file review can be problematic and the results potentially misleading when the desired information rests on the clarity with which caseworkers and file reviewers are able to document the absence of an event. If a foster parent or other household adult does not appear on the sexual offender registry, there may be no physical evidence to place in the file. In that circumstance caseworkers are instructed to make a note to that effect in the case record, but they may not always do so, or such notes can be missed by file reviewers working through sometimes voluminous case records. Because of the importance of sexual offender registry checks to ensuring the safety of the foster care environment, the file review team checked the sexual offender registry for each of the 26 foster homes for which documentation of this check for the foster parents was not found by the file reviewers, and the 20 foster homes with other adult residents for whom documentation of this check was not found. None of the adults living in those foster homes appeared on the sexual offender registry. While this does not necessarily mean that the caseworker checked the sexual offender registry and failed to make note of it in the case record, or that such a note was made but was not found by the file reviewer, it does offer reassurance that none of these foster homes had registered sex offenders living in them. The State and the counties are again encouraged to emphasize with caseworkers the importance of prominently documenting the results of sexual offender checks, even when they come up clean, to facilitate accurate assessments of practice quality.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 111

Table VI‐11 Foster Care Approval and Licensing Standards, by Home Type
N = 155

Foster Home Approval Standard

DFCS – supervised
Foster Homes

Provider‐supervised Foster

Homes

Evidence of

File shows

compliance

check was

in file

requested

Total, Evidence of Compliance
in File

Appropriate health statements for other household members

79%

73%

n/a

75%

Sex offender registry checked for other adults in the home

85%

42%

23% a

55% b

Ongoing foster parent training requirements met

88%

68%

n/a

76%

Comprehensive drug screen for foster parents

83%

44%

n/a

60%

Source: Case Record Review, March 2008.

a The foster homes represented in this column are not included in the total column

b As this measure is based on a sub‐sample of 44 foster homes, it has a margin of statistical error of ±14%.

2. Prohibition of perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment to be foster parents
Section 11F of the Consent Decree specifies that DFCS will not allow perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment, those with policy violations that threaten child safety, or those who repeatedly or unrepentantly use corporal punishment to become or to remain foster parents. The State’s performance on this requirement was found to be excellent, and is considered in greater detail below.
The state’s performance in preventing foster parents from using corporal punishment was found to be excellent. Of the 155 foster home files reviewed, none (0%) had a confirmed incident of corporal punishment during the fourth reporting period. Similarly, no confirmed incidents of corporal punishment were identified in the third period’s foster home sample. More detail on the State’s performance in preventing the use of corporal punishment is discussed earlier in this report, in Section III.
To assess the State’s performance in not allowing perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment to become or to remain foster parents, file reviewers performed a “look‐up” in IDS for every foster home in the sample to determine if the home had any history of substantiated maltreatment. Five homes in the sample of 155 (3%) were found to have a prior substantiation of maltreatment

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 112

and to be open during the reporting period. This is similar to the third reporting period, when three such homes (2%) were found. The disposition of these homes is detailed below.
• Home 1 is a provider‐supervised foster home that was also reviewed in the second and
third reporting periods as part of those foster home samples and the incident below is also described in the Accountability Agent’s second and third period reports. The home has had no subsequent allegations since this incident in September 2006. At that time, the home had an allegation of inadequate supervision substantiated. The foster parents were attending training in a neighboring county and their back‐up resource failed to pick‐up two of the siblings in their care from school. The supervising CPA developed a Corrective Action Plan that addressed back‐up child care plans and updating the family’s approved support system. The supervising CPA requested a waiver from the county office to allow the home to remain open and the county requested a waiver from central office.
• Home 2 is a DFCS‐supervised foster/adoptive home that was also reviewed in the
second reporting period as part of that foster home sample and the incident below is also described in the Accountability Agent’s second period report. The home has had no subsequent allegations since this incident. However in 2004, a maltreatment allegation concerning a foster child was made against the foster mother’s adopted 16‐year old son. After the investigation of this alleged incident, the foster parent asked DFCS to re‐take custody of the 16 year old and the adoption dissolved. The DFCS office felt obliged to substantiate abandonment against the adoptive parent but, under the circumstances, decided to allow the foster home to remain open.
• Home 3 is a DFCS‐supervised group home run by former foster parents that adopted
two of their former foster children. In 2005, the adoptive mother was the subject of a substantiated report of corporal punishment for physically disciplining one of her adopted children after he got in trouble at school. This home has had no maltreatment allegations involving foster children, and no CPS reports since this 2005 incident. Under the circumstances, the county office decided to counsel the adoptive mother and to allow the home to remain open.
• Home 4 was a DFCS‐supervised foster home that never had any maltreatment
allegations involving foster children made against it, but did have substantiated reports in 2004 and 2006 involving the foster mother’s adopted child. The first investigation was “opened on report,” meaning there was no specific allegation. The second investigation involved an allegation of emotional abuse made by the adopted child because she wanted to change schools and her adoptive mother would not allow it. The class member that was placed in this home was moved in January 2008 and the home was subsequently closed.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 113

• Home 5 is a provider‐supervised foster home that had a substantiated report in 2004 for
abandonment/rejection of their biological child. It appears that a proper check for previous CPS reports was not run on this foster home prior to its initial approval. This home had no subsequent CPS reports. When this situation came to the attention of the county DFCS office the class member who had been placed in this home was removed and the county issued a “do not place” order against the home.
Two other homes in the sample had allegations of maltreatment that were substantiated during the reporting period. (This is comparable to the third reporting period sample which included three such homes.) One of the two foster homes was closed at the conclusion of the investigation. The other home had the foster child removed at the conclusion of the investigation, was placed on the “do not place” list, and was closed after the end of the reporting period.
Given the importance of preventing perpetrators of substantiated maltreatment from becoming or remaining foster parents, the Accountability Agents vetted each of these seven cases very carefully. In the first three cases (two of which were reviewed in previous reporting periods) it appears that reasonable and appropriate efforts were made to ensure the safety of the children remaining in the home while, in their best interest, preserving the continuity of their placement arrangements. In three of the cases (Home 4 with a previous history and the two homes with substantiated reports during the fourth period) the foster homes involved were closed, either at the conclusion of the investigation or at some point thereafter.
However, the situation with Home 5 with a previous history raises a serious concern. According to the documentation available to the Accountability Agents and the follow‐up on this case that was performed, it appears that this provider‐supervised foster home was approved in August 2007 but a CPS check, which revealed a previous CPS substantiation involving the foster parent’s birth child, was not performed until January 2008. The class member placed in this foster home was removed a week later and a “do not place” order issued against the foster home. The provider subsequently closed this home.
This case illustrates the importance of timely CPS checks for those interested in becoming foster parents. The review of 155 foster home records revealed two other provider‐supervised foster homes for which the file appeared to indicate that a requested CPS clearance had never been received. The procedure currently in place requires CPAs to request a CPS clearance from the DFCS office in the would‐be foster home’s county of residence. Each county develops its own process and procedures for fulfilling requested clearances, which must be handled along with all the counties’ other responsibilities. It appears to the Accountability Agents that this arrangement offers too little accountability and may leave too much room for error.
The State is urged to consider centralizing the CPS clearance process, perhaps vesting responsibility for conducting these clearances in the Provider Relations Unit. Such an arrangement would provide “one‐stop shopping” for the CPAs; create clear lines of
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 114

accountability for ensuring clearances are promptly run; and strengthen PRU’s gatekeeper role with respect to the provider‐supervised foster care environment.
Section 11F also stipulates that DFCS shall be able to identify DFCS‐supervised or provider‐ supervised foster parents that have perpetrated substantiated maltreatment or had their home closed, and subsequently seek foster home approval from a CPA or a different CPA. The Provider Relations Unit uses the IDS placement central history, CPS‐specific notes in the KIDSTAR data system, and an ʺissueʺ spreadsheet that is developed and distributed monthly by the office of Family Services Section Director to identify and to prevent such foster parents from attempting to do this.
In addition, a KIDSTAR software release is planned for later this year that will provide historical tracking detail for private foster homes and make it easier to identify those that had previously been closed or suspended. PRU expects to further strengthen their ability to enforce the provisions of Section 11F when the resource maintenance feature of SHINES is fully operational. No examples of a foster parent with a history of substantiated maltreatment attempting to change supervision environments were identified during this reporting period.
3. Operational Context
Section 11 C of the Consent Decree requires the process of licensing and approving foster homes to be carried out jointly by DFCS and the Office of Rehabilitative Services. This section describes the Accountability Agents’ understanding of how DFCS and ORS collaborate in this process. It is based on interviews with staff of both these units as well as interviews with other central office and county staff.
The Office of Regulatory Services (ORS) licenses Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) and other institutional providers. A CPA must be licensed by ORS before DFCS will execute a contract with them to provide foster care. In these private provider arrangements, the CPA conducts the approval process for the foster homes it supervises. For DFCS‐supervised foster homes, the approval process is conducted by DFCS.
Section 5.C.4.i of the Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS will contract only with licensed placement contractors. To assess compliance with this requirement, data from the foster home file review were compared against the CPA licensing information available in Placement Central. Of the 44 provider‐supervised foster homes sampled that had a class member in care at the end of the reporting period, 43 (98%) were overseen by CPAs that had a valid license on January 2, 2008 (the closest date available to December 31, 2007).
ORS licenses the CPAs themselves, not the foster homes supervised by the CPAs. ORS only gets involved with individual provider‐supervised foster homes if they receive a complaint about a particular home. To receive a license, a CPA must allow ORS to review their policies and procedures for compliance with the ORS rules regarding such things as home studies,
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 115

visitation, non‐discrimination, etc. In deciding whether to renew a CPA’s license, ORS reviews the files of individual children against the provider record to ensure the placement was an appropriate match for the child and conducts unannounced inspections of a sample of the foster homes supervised by each CPA. If rule violations are found in the course of these the CPA can be cited for licensure violations.

CPAs wishing to serve children in DFCS custody must, in addition to licensure by ORS, be approved by the DFCS Provider Relations Unit (PRU). The DFCS policy manual specifies a set of uniform standards that foster care settings must meet to be approved by DFCS – in the case of DFCS supervised homes – or by CPAs – in the case of provider‐supervised homes. These uniform standards became fully operational on July 1, 2007 with the implementation of amended provider contract language. Before arriving at an initial approval decision, PRU reviews the ORS licensing decision and follows up with ORS on any questions they have; performs a desk review and staffing of each application; and visits a sample of the CPAs foster homes to review physical plant and other issues not covered by the ORS licensing process. PRU also conducts quarterly site visits to each of the CPAs foster homes and interviews children, reviews files for compliance with contract provisions, and inspects physical plant.

4. Other Practice/Process Requirements Regarding Placement Support

The Consent Decree contains a number of other requirements related to placement. These include restrictions on the capacity of foster and group homes; payment, training and support requirements pertaining to foster parents; and automating placement data.

a.

Foster Home Capacity Restrictions

Section 5C4e of the Consent Decree limits the capacity of foster homes to three foster children or a total of six children (including the family’s biological or other children) absent the written approval of the Social Services Director. It also prohibits any placement that would result in more than three children under the age of three residing in a foster home, unless the children in question are a sibling group. Data from the foster home file review indicate that the state performed extremely well in meeting these requirements.

Of the foster home files reviewed, 99 percent had three or fewer foster children in them on December 31, 2007.85 With respect to the limit of six total children, 100 percent of the foster homes reviewed were within that limit on December 31, 2007. Finally, all of the foster homes reviewed (100%) had three or fewer children under the age of three in them on December 31, 2007. These capacity compliance rates appear to be the same or better than the comparable third period rates of 96 percent for three or fewer foster children, 98 percent for six or fewer

85 In the first and second reporting periods, the foster home file review assessed whether homes exceeded the capacity limits at any time during the reporting period. The file review assessed compliance with capacity limits as a point-in-time measure for the third and fourth reporting periods so the results could be used to validate similar data in Placement Central. (See discussion in Section G of this chapter, Improving Automated Support.)

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 116

total children and 100 percent for three or fewer children under the age of three, although all changes are within the foster home sample’s margin of statistical error.

b.

Foster Care Maintenance Payments

Section 5B1 of the Consent Decree establishes specific Basic Foster Care Maintenance payments that were to be effective July 1, 2005. Those per diem rates were: for children aged 0‐6, $13.78; for children aged 7‐12, $15.50; and for each child aged 13 and older, $17.75. In addition, the DHR Commissioner is to propose a periodic increase in these rates in succeeding fiscal years.

Through interviews with the DFCS Deputy Director and reviewing DFCS budget documents and contract language the Accountability Agents determined that the State met this provision. Since the inception of the Consent Decree, the Commissioner has proposed and implemented increases each year in the foster care per diem rates. For FY 2008, a cost‐of‐ living‐type increase of approximately 3 percent in foster care per diem rates was implemented. The per‐diem rates that went into effect July 1, 2007 are: for children aged 0‐6, $14.60; for children aged 7‐12, $16.50; and for each child aged 13 and older, $18.80. All DFCS foster homes were paid the required per diem rates and all new provider contracts contained language mandating the new rates. For FY 2009, the Commissioner proposed a 3 percent cost‐of‐living adjustment to the foster care per diem rates. This request was not approved in the budget review process. The Governorʹs FY 2009 budget request to the legislature did not include any rate changes for foster care; thus, the current foster care rates will remain in effect through FY2009.

c.

Foster Parent Training and Support

Sections 5C6 and 11D of the Consent Decree stipulate that foster and pre‐adoptive parents will receive uniform pre‐service training prior to being approved or having a child placed in their home; and that they will be required to complete ongoing, annual training as part of the annual re‐approval process. Section 5C6 further stipulates that foster parents will be able to contact DFCS 24 hour a day, seven days a week with their questions or concerns. The Accountability Agents found DFCS’ performance to be quite good on the first and last of these requirements, but that performance on the second of these three requirements needs further improvement.

The foster home case record review found evidence in the files of 96 percent of the foster homes reviewed that the pre‐service training requirements had been met. This was the same as the third period rate of 96 percent.

With respect to ongoing annual training, documentation supporting that the requirements had been met was found in 76 percent of the files of the 121 foster homes sampled to which the requirement applied. This is about the same as the third reporting period, for which the comparable rate was 75 percent. Compared to third period performance, compliance appears to be about the same among DFCS‐supervised foster homes (third period ‐ 87%; fourth period ‐ 88%) and provider‐supervised foster homes (third period ‐ 67%; fourth period ‐ 68 %), although

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 117

both changes were within the sample’s margin of statistical error. Evidence of compliance with ongoing training requirements remained substantially higher among DFCS‐supervised foster homes than among provider‐supervised homes.

With respect to the 24/7 phone support requirement, Resource Development staff in the Counties report that they provide foster parents with the phone number of their assigned monitoring worker whom they can call during work hours, and that during pre‐service foster parent training, they receive the phone number of an on‐call worker they can reach after hours.

d.

Automated Placement Data

Section 11E of the Consent Decree stipulates that, within 90 days of the entry of the Consent Decree, DFCS will have an automated information system that can provide: demographic characteristics and information on every foster or pre‐adoptive family; a list of all foster children in the home and the DFCS office in whose custody they have been placed; information about the other children or adults in the home; the approval or re‐approval status of the home and, for provider‐supervised homes, the name and address of the supervising CPA; and a complete history back to July 2002 of any reports of maltreatment and substantiations of maltreatment. This requirement has been met.

An information system is only as good as the quality and completeness of the data it contains. In the first period report, the Accountability Agents urged the State to strengthen DFCS’ ability to manage and be accountable for provider‐supervised foster homes by completely populating Placement Central with provider‐supervised foster home data. Given the imminent implementation of Georgia SHINES, DFCS decided upon a slightly different approach to capture and maintain the required information about provider‐supervised foster homes that would more seamlessly interface with the new Georgia SHINES system. The State’s approach and progress in implementing it is discussed below in part G.1 of this report section.
Section 11E of the Consent Decree further stipulates that DFCS shall consider the information described in that Section before a child is placed or a foster home is approved or re‐approved. The Accountability Agents’ found, in the review of compliance with foster home approval and licensing standards (discussed above), evidence that DFCS routinely considers the required information before placing children or approving or re‐approving foster homes. However, this process presently involves a combination of “look‐ups” in Placement Central and the Protective Services Data System components of IDS, and evaluating the contents of paper files. The Accountability Agents believe this process will be significantly streamlined and made less error prone when Georgia SHINES is completely implemented.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 118

F. Supervision of Contract Agencies
Sections 5B, 9, and 10B of the Consent Decree contain various provisions regarding provider reimbursement rates and contracts, specific language to be included therein, data submission, training, and the licensing and inspection of provider‐supervised placement settings.
The former Treatment Services Unit has been reorganized into the Provider Relations Unit (PRU). PRU has assumed an oversight role focusing on the quality of provider‐delivered services and provider compliance with the terms of their contracts.
1. Rate Reimbursement Task Force
Section 5B2‐7 of the Consent Decree stipulates that a Rate Reimbursement Task Force (RRTF) be established within 60 days of the entry of the Consent Decree to recommend changes to the Level of Care system and to design a rate structure based on measurable outcomes for children.86 The RRTF was established within the required timeframe and held at least three face‐to‐face meetings, ten teleconferences, and three video conferences. However, while the State waited to learn the fate of its service proposal to CMS (see previous report) the RRTF members, one‐by‐one resigned. The parties are in the process of re‐establishing the RRTF with a revised scope of work.
2. New Contract Provisions
Section 5B1, 9A‐C and 10B4 of the Consent Decree stipulate specific language and concepts that are to be incorporated into provider contracts.87 Some of these (e.g. requiring providers to pass through to their foster homes the full basic maintenance payment) were incorporated into new contracts at the start of fiscal year 2006 (July 1, 2005). However, other provisions (e.g. mandating detailed reporting requirements and adding contract language to bring provider‐ supervised placements into full compliance with DFCS approval and training standards) were implemented along with the new rate structures occasioned by the unbundling issue. The required contract provisions were fully implemented in the provider contracts that took effect on July 1, 2007.
3. Data Requested from Private Providers
Section 5B1, 9C of the Consent Decree stipulates that DFCS request data from private agencies every six months. During the fourth reporting period, the Department finalized its reorganization of the Treatment Services Unit into the Provider Relations Unit (PRU). To improve communication with providers about the standards they are expected to meet, the unit created and distributed to Child Placing Agencies (CPA) a “Quick Reference Guide for
86 See pp. 14-15, paragraphs 2-7 of the Consent Decree 87 See pp. 13 and 23-26, Sections 5B.1, 9A-C and 10B.4 of the Consent Decree
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 119

DFCS/CPA Foster Homes.” The guide is based on several pertinent sections of the Social Services Manual for Foster Care services and provides a summary of nineteen standards ranging from the skills and abilities required of foster parents to foster home approval. The unit also created a set of on‐site review tools for use in visiting newly approved and existing foster homes in CPA networks. Finally, they completed the design of an internal data base of all CPA approved foster homes and the process for weekly updates to the data base. The data base is designed to maintain the following information for each CPA‐approved home:
• Number of adults in the household • Number of nonfoster children in the household • Status of completing foster parent curriculum • Date of initial approval • Date of re‐evaluation and whether it was completed timely • Date(s) of satisfactory criminal records check for all adults and whether it was
completed timely • Completion of a CPS History check(s) • Completion of Reference check(s) • Completion of Comprehensive Drug screens • Completion of Comprehensive Medical report(s) and whether it was completed timely
PRU actually started implementing these tools and data base in January 2008. In the first quarter of 2008, the unit reports establishing a “baseline” of the status of all CPA foster homes. PRU is getting weekly reports from CPAs on all the above listed information, asking them to note any changed information. Once they have information on the complete approval status of all homes throughout the state, they are planning on using their automated system referred to as “KIDSTAR” (the former “LORE” system used by TSU) to generate alerts 60 days before each home’s annual re‐evaluation due date. The information from this data base will be included in Georgia SHINES and continually updated by PRU staff. Once Georgia SHINES is fully implemented, it will be used to generate a report that alerts workers 60 days in advance of the homes requiring an annual re‐evaluation. The current weekly reporting by CPAs will be discontinued once the new automated system is functional. The unit’s goal is to have all private homes in full approval status by the end of March 2008.
To verify the CPA reporting and to become familiar with the foster homes, PRU is attempting to complete an in‐home visit of every newly approved CPA home shortly after it has been approved. It also has the goal of visiting every CPA approved home once a quarter and reviewing a sample of the files the CPAs maintain. As of the middle of March 2008, PRU management reported completing visits to approximately 60 percent of the homes and that they were on‐track to complete visits to all CPA homes by the end of March.
PRU also continues to use KIDSTAR to record child placements. This system contains child placement information. PRU is now getting the roster of children CPAs have in placements each week rather than each month. CPAs will have access to KIDSTAR and will be able to enter updates about homes on their own.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 120

4. Case Management and Training
Section 10.B.4 of the Consent Decree stipulates that private providers who provide placements for children in DFCS custody shall be “required, through contract provisions, to certify that employees providing case management or supervisory services for DFCS”88 meet certain criteria including educational credentials, pre‐service training, certification, and on‐going professional development. The State has struggled with how to address this requirement because it lacked information about the providers’ job descriptions, credentialing and training standards. It made an initial attempt to collect information from providers at a specially convened meeting in March 2006. This effort did not produce the information the State has subsequently determined it needed to assess how the private providers align with DFCS case manager responsibilities, credentialing, and training. As a result, the Provider Relations Unit reported that they were in the process of establishing a “baseline” regarding the current practice and process used by private providers. An initial step in this process was requesting the CPAs to provide the following information by March 4, 2008:
• A description or list of all case management activities being performed by the agency’s employees;
• A list of employees performing case management; • A list of all employees’ credentials that have contact with children; • The names of the governing bodies through whom they are accredited; • Their accreditation body’s training requirements (initial and annual).
This baseline will determine what actions are necessary with which providers. In the meantime, the State reports inviting private agencies to send staff to the Professional Excellence/Professional Development courses provided by Georgia State University, School of Social Work under contract to the Department. These courses address topics such as maternal substance abuse, interviewing skill, adolescents, working with fathers, etc.
5. The Office of Regulatory Services Continues to Conduct Unannounced Visits of Licensed Placement Settings
The State reports that there were 82 Licensed Child Placing Agencies (CPA) in Georgia as of the end of 2007. Between July 1 and December 31, 2007, ORS conducted 48 licensure inspections that included 115 unannounced Foster Home visits. According to the State, these inspections and visits had generally positive results. Some foster parents, however, did express a desire for increased support from their respective CPAs in the areas of 1) behavior management training, and 2) availability of respite and other supportive resources and 3) communication with their CPA case managers. The State reports that ORS / Residential Child Care unit continues its efforts to conduct at least one unannounced evaluation to each child caring institution and child placing agency providing services to children in the custody of Fulton and DeKalb counties.
88 See Section 10.B. 4.a.-d. in the Consent Decree, pp 25 and 26.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 121

ORS reports that meeting the inspection and visit responsibilities is challenging due to issues of workload, competing priorities, and staffing. Part of the workload challenge is that it may be necessary to make multiple visits to homes before actually connecting with the foster parents. ORS has found that, in order to maintain the integrity of the “unannounced” visit, it requires three visits (on average) for surveyors to connect with foster parents. To address some of these challenges, the office has requested additional FTE’s in the 2009 budget. ORS also plans to request, at the time of their re‐licensure inspection, that CPAs provide a schedule of anticipated monthly visits by their workers to assist ORS in conducting unannounced visits of foster homes on the same day the CPA visits.
Effective February 13, 2008, ORS revised its rule about home capacity. Through 2007, foster homes were not allowed to have more than 6 children under the age of 19 who are not related to the foster parent(s) residing in a foster home. This rule has been revised such that no more than 6 children total under the age of 19 will be allowed to reside in any foster home.
G. Improving Automated Support
1. SACWIS Implementation
Georgia is currently implementing a Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) in conformance with federal requirements and the Consent Decree.89 This system, Georgia SHINES, will replace several of the State’s existing systems used for collecting and reporting data to the federal government as well as to DFCS management and staff. The implementation date designated in the contract is December 31, 2007. All required design and planning requirements have received approval from the Federal oversight office. As planned, the system was piloted in Douglas County in September 2007. As a result of the knowledge gained from the pilot, and subsequent roll‐out to the remaining 156 counties, the current schedule is to implement the new system in DeKalb and Fulton Counties in June 2008. It is the Accountability Agents understanding that this remains the implementation schedule as DeKalb and Fulton County staff began the necessary training and preparation in February 2008.
2. Placement Central
Placement Central is DFCS’ automated system for tracking child placements and certain information about those placements. Although Placement Central has historically contained a limited amount of data on provider‐supervised foster care placements, DFCS is currently undertaking an effort to completely populate it with certain provider data, as discussed previously in this Chapter. This is an important step forward in improving DFCS’ ability to

89 See p. 22, Section 7 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 122

manage placement providers and to be accountable (and to hold providers accountable) for the work that is contracted out.
For the fourth reporting period the Accountability Agents undertook a limited effort to validate the data currently in Placement Central. The purpose of this validation effort was to understand the reliability of data from Placement Central for monitoring and accountability purposes, specifically as it relates to Outcome 31. The Accountability Agents are interested in moving away from file review data in favor of automated administrative data when such automated data can be demonstrated to be sufficiently reliable. A cross‐match was performed between the computerized file review data and corresponding data in Placement Central to ascertain the degree to which they were in agreement. This cross‐match was performed on three specific data fields related to the census of provider‐supervised foster homes at a point‐in‐ time:
• Were there more than three foster children residing in this foster home on December 31,
2007?
• Were there more than six children total (including birth and adopted children) residing
in this foster home on December 31, 2007?
• Were there more than three children under the age of three residing in this foster home
on December 31, 2007?
As described in the Accountability Agents’ second period report, DFCS undertook an effort within the past year to populate Placement Central with data on provider‐supervised foster homes to complement the data on DFCS‐supervised foster homes, group homes, and residential treatment facilities that historically has been found in Placement Central. The reliability of Placement Central as it relates to the point‐in‐time census of DFCS‐supervised foster homes was demonstrated in the Accountability Agent’s validation work for previous reporting periods. Therefore, the comparison of file review and placement central data for the fourth period was made for only for the 44 provider‐supervised foster homes that had a class member in care on December 31, 2007. Table VI‐12 displays the results of this comparison.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 123

Table VI‐12 Comparison of Placement Central (PC) and File Review (FR) Data

Data Field
More than 3 foster children in home on December 31, 2007?
More than 6 children total in home on December 31, 2007? More than 3 children > age 3 in home on December 31, 2007?
Total Fields Compared

Records Compared
44
44 44 132

Records with No % of records with

Difference

No difference

41

93%

41

93%

41

93%

123

93%

As displayed in Table VI‐12, overall, Placement Central and the foster home file review matched exactly on 93 percent of the 132 points of comparison. The rate of agreement was consistently high across the three data elements compared. This is a positive development because, by agreement of the Parties and the Accountability Agents, while Placement Central has been the source of the census data for DFCS‐supervised foster homes used to calculate achievement of Outcome 31, it was thought to be less reliable for provider‐supervised foster homes and so data on their censuses was collected by the file review team in site visits to the supervising CPAs. The results of the fourth period validation of Placement Central foster home census data suggest that it may be possible for future review cycles to replace this labor intensive manual data collection process by relying on Placement Central without exceeding the Accountability Agent’s desired margin of error of ± 7 percent.
H. Maximizing Federal Funding 90
The Consent Decree contains requirements for DHR/DFCS to 1) maximize available federal funding through Titles IV‐B and IV‐E of the Social Security Act, and 2) not supplant state dollars for foster care services with any federal increase that results from the maximization efforts.91 In addition, there are a number of outcomes that pertain to actions and documentation required to support and to enhance claiming IV‐E reimbursement for Foster Care expenditures. To evaluate this requirement, the State is to establish a baseline of “present” levels of state and federal funding. 92

90 See Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S. A. Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue, November 2006 for background on Title IV-E 91 See p. 31, Section 14 of the Consent Decree 92 Ibid.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 124

1. Comparison of Federal and State Funding Distribution for State Fiscal Year 2007 to State Fiscal Year 2007

Since the Consent Decree became effective in October 2005, the baseline for future comparison of state expenditures is Federal Fiscal Year 2006 (October 1, 2005‐September 30, 2006) for Title IV‐B and State Fiscal Year 2006 (July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2006) for Title IV‐E. Slightly different time periods are being used because of the different reporting requirements for Titles IV‐B and IV‐E. Georgia submits annual financial reports to the Federal government for Title IV‐B and quarterly cost reports for Title IV‐E.

Table VI‐13 provides a comparison of the baseline and most recent year of federal and state IV‐B expenditures based on the annual cost reports. The comparison reveals a slight increase in IV‐B expenditures.

Table IV‐13

Title IV‐B Funding

Federal Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 Financial Reports

(October 1, 2005 – September 30, 2007)

State

Federal

Total

Federal Fiscal Year 2006 $ 3,123,871

$ 9,371,613

$ 12,495, 484

Federal Fiscal Year 2007

$ 3,162,131

9,486,392

12,648,523

Percent change

+1%

+1%

+1%

Source: Georgia IV‐B Financial Status Reports, submitted December 11, 2006 and November 6, 2007 to the

U.S Department of Health and Human Services

Table VI‐14 at the end of this chapter provides a comparison of the baseline and most recent year of federal and state IV‐E expenditures based on the quarterly expenditure reports submitted to the federal government for the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 and July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007. The comparison of IV‐E expenditures reveals a slight overall decrease in both state and federal expenditures although the expenditures for adoption assistance and supporting the adoption program increased and the expenditures for the design and development of the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (Georgia SHINES) increased significantly. In part, the decline in foster care expenditures can be attributed to a 6 percent decline in the number of children in foster care between the two time periods.
In July and August 2007, the Department engaged Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc (HZA) in an assessment of the Department’s IV‐E reimbursement efforts. According to HZA, the study was to identify 1) both the extent to which the state’s Title IV‐E penetration rate (about 28% at the time of the analysis) can legitimately increase and the limits beyond which it cannot increase;

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 125

and 2) mechanisms through which DHR/DFCS can increase its level of federal reimbursement, even in the face of the limitations on the penetration rate.93
The study produced a number of recommendations that Hornby‐Zeller estimated affect the penetration rate to varying degrees. As of the end of the fourth reporting period, the State had begun to implement some of the recommendations but had yet to see a change in the penetration rate. Hornby‐Zeller estimated that the greatest improvement would come from ensuring that court orders relating to foster children are consistently in conformity with federal requirements. In response, the State has been working with the judiciary and the State Assistant Attorney Generals to improve the compliance with the requirements and timeliness. The State reports implementing a tracking and reporting process that identifies untimely and non compliant court orders as well as providing additional IV‐E training to staff. However, these systems had not yet been implemented in time to have an affect on Outcome 26 in period four. In addition, while these efforts may improve the ability of the state to make future IV‐E claims, for those children who entered custody before this initiative and whose initial removal orders are not compliant, the opportunity for improvement has been lost.
With the further assistance of Hornby‐Zeller, the State is also currently completing a review of approximately 3000 cases to determine the potential for retroactive reimbursement. Other state activities prompted by the Hornby‐Zeller report include new policies for relative care placements and including, where appropriate, expenditures of the Office of Regulatory Services in its IV‐E claims.

93 Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc., Georgia’s Use of Title IV-E, August 2007, p.i.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 126

Title IV‐E Funding Category
Adoption Assistance Payments Adoption Administration Adoption Training
Adoption subtotal
Foster Care Maintenance Payments Foster Care Administration Foster Care Training SACWIS
Foster Care subtotal

Table IV‐14 Title IV‐E Funding: Expenditures for the period July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2007

State Expenditures

Federal Reimbursed Expenditures

2005‐2006

2006‐2007 Change

2005‐2006

2006‐2007

Change

2005‐2006

18,796,102 19,073,837

+1%

28,864,149

30,490,022

+6

47,660,251

6,522,392 7,886,253

175,215

237,802

$25,493,709 $27,197,892

+21% +36% +7%

6,522,392 525,646
$35,912,187

7,886,254 713,409
$39,089,685

+21% +36% +9%

13,044,784 700,861
$61,405,896

12,830,120 10,804,756 ‐16%

32,892,589 27,845,512 ‐15%

97,199 2,006,645 47,826,553

104,675 5,221,541 43,976,484

+8% +160%
‐8%

19,706,811
32,892,586 291,600
2,006,646 54,897,643

17,284,001 ‐12%

32,536,931

27,845,515 ‐15%

314,029 5,221,541 50,665,086

+8% +160%
‐18%

65,785,175
388,799 4,013,291 102,724,196

Total
2006‐2007

Change

49,563,859

+4%

15,772,507 951,211
$66,287,577

+21% +36%
+8%

28,088,757

‐14%

55,691,027
501,122 10,433,082 83,832,683

‐15% +8% +160% ‐18%

Title IV‐E Total

$ 73,320,262 $71,174,376

‐3%

$ 90,809,830

$89,754,771

‐1% 164,130,092

$150,120,260

‐2%

Source: DHR/DFCS quarterly expenditure reports submitted to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 127

PART VII MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Section 20 of the Consent Decree contains the Agreement’s miscellaneous provisions. Two provisions, contained in Section 20G, contain substantive data reporting requirements.94 These are covered in this part of the report.

A. Repeat Maltreatment Data

Section 20.G.1 of the Consent Decree requires DHR to provide the Accountability Agents with data and information sufficient to enable them to verify data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton Counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experienced repeat maltreatment. This is operationalized in the Consent Decree as follows:
• The number of children in each county who, during the reporting period, experienced
substantiated maltreatment;
• The number and percentage of children in the first item who also experienced
maltreatment during the preceding 12 month period. These data, as reported by the State, are reproduced in Table VII‐1, below. The Accountability Agents’ verification approach is discussed in Appendix B.

Table VII‐1 Repeat Maltreatment

Reporting Period: July 1, 2007 – December 31, 2007

DEKALB

a) Number of children during the reporting period

experiencing substantiated maltreatment

539

b) the number of children in a) of this item who also

experienced maltreatment during the preceding 12

month period

30

Percentage of children who had substantiated

maltreatment during the preceding 12 months

5.6%

FULTON 911
37 4.1%

The fourth period repeat maltreatment rates represent an improvement for Fulton County compared to the third period rate of 6.7 percent and a slight increase for DeKalb County from the third period rate of 5.1 percent

94 See pp. 45-46 of the Consent Decree,

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 128

B. Diversion Data

Section 20.G.2 of the Consent Decree requires DHR to provide the Accountability Agents with data and information sufficient to enable them to verify data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton Counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experienced substantiated maltreatment within 11‐365 days after being referred to DHR’s diversion program. These data, as reported by the State for the period July 1, 2006 – December 31, 2006 are reproduced in Table VII‐2, below. (Due to the 11‐365 day follow up period for the diversion statistics, the diversion data reported here is for the second reporting period.) The Accountability Agents’ verification approach is discussed in Appendix B.

Table VII‐2 Diversions with Subsequent Substantiated Maltreatment

Reporting Period: July 1, 2006 – December 31, 2006

DEKALB

FULTON

a) Number of cases in each county during the reporting

period in which there was a referral into DHR’s diversion

program

265

1172

b) the number of cases in a) in which there was

substantiated maltreatment within 11‐365 days after referral

to DHR’s diversion program

12

79

Percentage of cases in which there was substantiated

maltreatment within 11‐365 days of referral into DHR’s

diversion program

4.5%

6.7%

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page 129

Appendix A Kenny A. v. Sonny Perdue Consent Decree Outcomes
Section 15 of the Consent Decree requires 31 outcomes. These outcomes are grouped in the categories of Safety, Permanency, Well‐Being, and Strengthened Infrastructure
SAFETY 1. Children in Foster Care are Safe From Maltreatment
• Outcome 1: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reports of abuse or neglect of foster children shall be commenced, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 24 hours of receipt of report.
• Outcome 3: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 99% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children during the reporting period shall include timely, face‐to‐face, private contact with alleged victim, including face‐to‐face contact with a child who is non‐verbal due to age or for any other reason.
• Outcome 2: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 95% of all investigations of reported abuse or neglect of foster children shall be completed, in accordance with Section 2106 of the Social Services Manual, within 30 days of receipt of report.
• Outcome 5: By the end of the first reporting period, no more than 1.27% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. By the end of the second reporting period, no more than .94% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care. By the end of the fourth reporting period, no more than .57% of all children in foster care shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care.
• Outcome 6: By the end of the second reporting period, 90% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous six months. By the end of the third reporting period, 98% of all foster homes will not have an incident of corporal punishment within the previous 12 months.
PERMANENCY 2. Children in Placements Maintain Family Connections
• Outcome 7: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 90 days of entering foster care. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children entering care shall have had a diligent search for parents and relatives undertaken and documented within 60 days of entering foster care.
• Outcome 16: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who entered foster care during the reporting
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period IV Monitoring Report Page A‐1

period along with one or more siblings shall be placed with all of their siblings.
• Outcome 19: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 70% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii). By the end of the third reporting period, at least 80% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii). By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care shall be placed in their own county (the county from which they were removed) or within a 50 mile radius of the home from which they were removed, subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 5.C.4.b(ii) and (iii).
• Outcome 21: By the end of the third reporting period, 75% of all the children with the goal reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification. By the end of the fourth reporting period, 85% of all the children with the goal reunification shall have had appropriate visitation with their parents to progress toward reunification.
• Outcome 23: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in the Class at a point in time during the reporting period who have one or more siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have had visits with their siblings at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody, unless the visit is harmful to one or more of the siblings, the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with ICPC, or the distance between the children’s placement is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative.
3. Children Achieve Permanency (permanency= reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.)
Children in care at the time of the Consent Decree: • Outcome 12: For children whose parental rights have been terminated or released and
the child has an identified adoptive or legal guardian resource at the time of the entry of the Consent Decree, 90% shall have had their adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within six months after the entry of the Consent Decree. • Outcome 13: For all children for whom parental rights have been terminated or released at the time of entry of the Consent Decree, and the child does not have an identified adoptive resource, 95% shall have been registered on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges, and have an individualized adoption recruitment plan or plan for legal guardianship within 60 days of the Consent Decree. • Outcome 15: Permanency efforts (15/22): By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Draft Period IV Monitoring Report
Page A‐2

rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children who reached the point of being in state custody for 15 of the prior 22 months, shall have had either (1) a petition for the termination of parental rights filed as to both parents or legal caregivers as applicable OR (2) documented compelling reasons in the child’s case record why termination of parental rights should not be filed.. • Outcome 9: Children in custody for up to 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “24 backlog pool”): For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the third period at least 40% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the third reporting period, by the end of the fourth reporting period at least 40% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. • Outcome 10: Children in custody for more than 24 months and still in custody upon entry of the Consent Decree (children in the “over 24 backlog pool”): For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, by the end of the second reporting period, at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the second reporting period, by the end of the third reporting period, at least 35 percent shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. For all children in the over 24 month backlog pool, who remain in custody at the end of the third reporting period, by the end of the fourth reporting period at least 35% shall have one of the following permanency outcomes: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship.
Children entering custody after Consent Decree: • Outcome 8a: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent
Decree, at least 40% shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification, permanent placement with relatives, permanent legal custody, adoption, or guardianship. • Outcome 8b: Of all the children entering custody following the entry of the Consent Decree, at least 74% (1) shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Draft Period IV Monitoring Report
Page A‐3

within 12 months or less after entering custody: reunification or permanent placement with relatives; or (2) shall have had one of the following permanency outcomes within 24 months or less of entering custody: adoption, permanent legal custody, or guardianship.
Permanency actions after Consent Decree: • Outcome 11: By the end of the second reporting period, for all children whose parental
rights have been terminated or released during the reporting period, 80% will have adoptions or legal guardianships finalized within 12 months of final termination or release of parental rights. • Outcome 4: By the end of the second reporting period, no more than 8.6% of all foster children entering custody shall have re‐entered care within 12 months of the prior placement episode. • Outcome 14: No more than 5% of adoptions finalized during the reporting period shall disrupt within the 12 months subsequent to the reporting period.
Court reviews of permanency actions • Outcome 27: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of foster children in
custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐month period following the last review. By the end of the third reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐month period following the last review. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for six months or more shall have either had their six‐month case plan review completed by the Juvenile Court within six months of their prior case plan review, or DFCS shall have submitted the child’s six‐month case plan to the Juvenile Court and filed a motion requesting a six‐month case plan review within 45 days of the expiration of the six‐ month period following the last review. • Outcome 28: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody for 12 or more months shall have either had a permanency hearing held by the Juvenile Court within 12 months of the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing, or DFCS shall have submitted the documents required by the Juvenile Court for and requested a permanency hearing within 45 days of the expiration of the 12‐month period following the time the child entered foster care or had his or her last permanency hearing.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Draft Period IV Monitoring Report
Page A‐4

WELL BEING 4. Children Experience Stable Placements and Worker Continuity.
• Outcome 17: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 86.7% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of all children in care shall have had 2 or fewer moves during the prior 12 months in custody.
• Outcome 18: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had 2 or fewer DFCS placement case managers during the prior 12 months in custody. This measure shall not apply to cases that are transferred to an adoption worker or Specialized Case Manager; case managers who have died, been terminated, or transferred to another county; or case managers who have covered a case during another case manager’s sick or maternity leave.
• Outcome 20: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had at least one in‐placement visit and one other visit, as defined in Section 5.D, each month by their case manager. During the prior 12 months in custody.
• Outcome 22: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 90% of all children in care at a point in time during the reporting period shall have had visits between their DFCS placement case manager and their foster parent, group care, institutional or other caretaker at least one time each month during the prior 12 months in custody.
5. Children and Youth Receive the Services they Need • Outcome 24: By the end of the second reporting period, the percentage of youth discharged from foster care at age 18 or older with a high school diploma or GED will increase over baseline by 10 percentage points. By the end of the fourth reporting period, that percentage shall increase by an additional 10 percentage points. • Outcome 30: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 80% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 85% of children in care shall not have any unmet medical, dental, mental health, education or other service needs, according to the service needs documented in the child’s most recent case plan.
STRENGTHENED INFRASTRUCTURE 6. Capacity to Support Placement Process
• Outcome 25: By the end of the first reporting period, at least 85% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the second reporting period, at least 95% of all foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 98% of all foster children in custody at a point in time
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Draft Period IV Monitoring Report
Page A‐5

during the reporting period shall be in placements that are in full approval and/or licensure status. • Outcome 31: By the end of the second reporting period and continuing thereafter, no more than 10% of all children in foster homes shall be placed in foster care homes that exceed the capacity limits referenced in Section 5.C.4.e. of the Consent Decree, concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three(3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children. 7. Timely and Complete Court Orders • Outcome 26: By the end of the second reporting period, at least 85% of foster children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act. By the end of the fourth reporting period, at least 95% of foster children in custody at a point in lime during the reporting period shall have all applicable language in court orders necessary to assess qualification for federal funding under Title IV‐E of the Social Security Act • Outcome 29: By the end of the third reporting, no more than 5% of all children in custody of DHR/DFCS for 12 months or more shall have lapse of legal custody within the prior 13 months.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Draft Period IV Monitoring Report
Page A‐6

Appendix B Methodology
The Accountability Agents used several methodologies to arrive at the judgments, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report: (i) review of written materials and data supplied by the State and Counties; (ii) interviews; (iii) extensive case record reviews; and (iv) strategic engagement of State and county personnel for pro‐active, hands‐on monitoring through biweekly meetings known as the “G2.” This appendix describes these data sources and methods and also catalogues and explains interpretation and measurement issues that were addressed and resolved during previous reporting periods.
A. Data Sources and Methodology for Measuring State Performance in the Fourth Reporting Period
Four primary sources of information were used to assess the State of Georgia’s progress during the fourth reporting period, July1 – December 31, 2007.
1. State Data Systems
The first source of information is the DFCS administrative data systems that the Department currently employs to hold case‐related information and prepare reports for the Federal Department of Health and Human Services, the citizens of Georgia and other interested parties. This system is known as “IDS.”
There is general agreement that IDS is not sufficiently robust to support the kind of case management and data analysis desired by the State of Georgia. By July 2008, it will be replaced by the Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) known as Georgia SHINES. However, IDS currently is sufficient to provide reports on a number, but not all, of the Consent Decree outcomes.
a. Addressing Data Integrity Issues
Like all information systems, the accuracy of IDS’ data is function of the accuracy with which data are coded and input into the system. Previous evaluations have noted some significant discrepancies between the information contained in case records and data produced by IDS. These discrepancies appear to be caused by human error. Typically, mistakes in interpretation and coding of the facts contained in the case record or data entry result in erroneous data being entered into the system.
The Accountability Agents have been very selective about which data to rely on for assessing compliance with the Consent Decree’s provisions. Most of the data in this report was generated by file and case record reviews conducted specifically for this purpose. In several instances, the
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-1

case record readers were asked to collect the exact piece of information directly from the sampled case files and from IDS by going “on‐line” and looking at the IDS data base. These instances included information about a child’s date of entry into foster care, current placement type and date, permanency goal, and discharge date. Discrepancies were found, but for most analysis, the discrepancies did not make material differences. When it was possible or necessary to compare data from IDS or other automated sources to data from the file and case record reviews, it often produced a result that was more accurate and reliable than if any single data source had been relied upon.

2. Document Review and Interviews

During the monitoring period, the Accountability Agents collected written reports and materials regarding foster care and adoption policy, budgets, findings from the Child Advocate, licensing, treatment services, worker training and certification. At the state level, the leadership of the Office of Regulatory Services, Provider Relations Unit, Statewide Risk Assessment, Education and Training Services Section, and other administrative offices were interviewed. At the county level, interviews included supervisors and case managers responsible for investigating reports of maltreatment in care, placement, and foster parent training and support. The Accountability Agents worked directly with State and County Quality Assurance staff to analyze data collected and tracked at the local level such as caseloads, visitation, determinations for children in care 15 of 22 months, and staff certification.

3. Structured Case Record Reviews

A second source of information is systematic case record reviews (CRRs.) Three case record reviews were conducted: 1) investigations of maltreatment in care; 2) foster home approval and capacity; and 3) children in foster care placements. Table B‐4 summarizes sample characteristics of each review. The following discussion provides more detail on the sampling approach, the review instruments development, review logistics, reviewer qualifications and quality assurance, and analytical process.

a.

Sampling Approach

As indicated in Table B‐1, 100 percent of the investigations of maltreatment in care between July 1 and December 31, 2007 were read. Therefore, the margin of statistical error in these results is extremely small, and would reflect case record reviewer differences or errors rather than differences within the universe.

For the two other case record reviews, random samples were drawn from two different universes:
 All foster homes that had a DeKalb or Fulton child placed in the home at anytime between July 1 and December 31, 2007. This included private agency supervised homes as well as
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-2

DFCS supervised homes.  All foster care cases (children) active in DeKalb and Fulton counties any time between July 1
and December 31, 2007.

For each of these reviews, samples were drawn such that the findings would have a +/‐ 7% error rate at a 95% confidence level. This level of precision is for frequencies reported for the sample as a whole. Data provided on subsets of the sample are less precise; where appropriate, separate margins of error for the different subsets have been calculated and noted in the body of the report. As described later in this appendix, a certain number of records included in the original samples could not be read and were rejected based on pre‐determined criteria. To achieve the minimum number of records for each review, small additional, random replacement samples were drawn.

Table B‐1 Case Record Review Sample Size and Associated Margin of Error

Target of Review Maltreatment in Care Investigations
Foster Homes Children in Foster Care

Universe of cases
93
925 2,812 children with active cases any time July1 through December 31 2007

Desired Maximum Sample Size 93
145 180

Actual Number Reviewed

Margin of Error

61 completed by DeKalb and Fulton 32 completed by other counties involving DeKalb and Fulton children 155 180

+/‐ 0.0 percent
+/‐ 7 percent +/‐ 7 percent

b. Instrument Design

Three separate data collection Instruments were developed, one for each sample. They were developed in conjunction with the DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Section (E&R) and consultants from Georgia State University (GSU) schools of public administration and social work. The instruments were field tested and reviewed by Counsel for the Plaintiffs and by the State; many changes recommended by the reviewers were incorporated into the final instruments. As is typical with case record reviews, reviewers encountered some problems with some of the questions. Learning from this fourth effort will be incorporated into the next case record review.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-3

c.

Data Collection Schedule and Logistics

Planning for the data collection effort began in November 2007 with discussions with E&R and GSU regarding formatting data instruments for efficient data capture and analysis. Each of the review guides was set up as a SAS‐based form for electronic information entry directly into a data base through a GSU secure web site. However, it did rely on the ability of the reviewers to be consistently linked to the internet. Occasional connectivity problems interfered with some data entry. Another issue that arose during the fourth period review was the duplication of assigned Unique IDs assigned to each record in the Maltreatment in Care Investigation review. This problem was discovered during the quality assurance process. Both of these problems required some work to be repeated. Safeguards are being put into place for the next review to avoid at least the duplication problem. As the reviews progressed, portions of guides were revised as necessary to accommodate unforeseen circumstances found in the records. In addition, the reviewers had the capability to make extensive comments to explain responses and provide more background on the case.

Data collection began in December 2007 with the maltreatment in care investigations. The foster care file review began in January and the foster home file review in February. Records selected from private agencies were reviewed at the respective private agencies. The remaining records for investigations, foster care, and DFCS supervised foster homes were reviewed at the county offices where the active cases are maintained. Closed records were brought to these sites for review.

d. Review Team Qualifications and Training

Twelve E&R staff were the primary case readers. These staff members average 25 years of experience in DFCS and are very familiar with the DFCS’s policies and practices. They were selected for this task based on their skills, experience, and knowledge.

There was a brief training before commencing each record review. The training consisted of reviewing and discussing the wording and meaning of each question on the data collection instruments. Additional changes were made to the guides as a result of these discussions. Given the pace of the necessary semi‐annual reporting schedule, it has been difficult to extend the training time. On‐going training between reviews is taking place.

DFCS reviewers were provided with digital files containing a “Handbook” and a copy of the Consent Decree for reference. In addition, reviewers had personal copies of the instruments in hard copy on which they made notations regarding the discussions about definitions, responses, and where within the case records to locate certain pieces of information.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-4

e.

Quality Assurance

Reading accuracy and inter‐reader reliability was addressed by an extensive quality assurance process that included constant “calibration” and a “second read” of the records. Two senior E&R reviewers were designated team leaders. They were responsible for responding to reviewer questions regarding clarification or how to interpret information contained in the record. These team leaders shared with one another the questions being asked and the responses they were giving to reviewers so as to assure consistency. In this way, patterns among questions were monitored and instructions were clarified for all reviewers as necessary. Team leaders reviewed each reviewer’s work at the completion of each review. The Accountability Agents were also on‐site several days during the review and provided another resource for questions and clarification in addition to reviewing some files. Finally, reviewers were encouraged to provide explanatory comments for their responses if they felt the situation they found did not adequately fit the question being asked or additional detail for some critical questions was desired. These comments were invaluable to the Accountability Agents as they reviewed the data collected and made judgments about response recodes when necessary.

An additional level of Quality Assurance was provided by the Georgia State University (GSU) project coordinator and four to five research assistants with master’s degrees in social work or a related field and backgrounds in child welfare and case record review. They read at least one third to nearly one half of the sampled Foster Care, Foster Home, and CPS investigations files. The records were randomly selected from each reviewer’s completed set. Review guides that had different responses from the GSU QA staff and the E&R reviewers were set aside, investigated and resolved as possible by the GSU project coordinator and E&R team leaders, often in consultation with the Accountability Agents, and any changes were made to the data set. Time was set aside in the schedule to review the completed review guides in question and do any necessary clean up.

To calculate inter‐rater reliability GSU selected variables from all three files (CPS Investigations, Foster Homes, and Foster Care) where both the reviewers and the QA reviewers had access to the same information in the case file. Each response was not tested for inter‐rater reliability. Correlations between the reviewer results and the QA reviewer results were calculated using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), and a Cronbach’s Alpha statistic was calculated for each. Cronbachʹs Alpha measures how well a set of items, in this case the reviewer responses and the QA reviewer responses, correlate or match. Cronbachʹs Alpha is not a statistical test ‐ it is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency). Note: when a Cronbach’s Alpha is used in a Social Science research situation, like the Kenny A. case review, a reliability coefficient of .70 or higher indicates that there is an almost zero probability that the reviewer and QA reviewer would achieve these results by chance.

The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for each of the data sets are provided in Table B‐2, below. All measures are above the threshold of .70.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-5

Table B‐2 Cronbach’s Alpha Measure of Inter‐Rater Reliability
for Each Case Record Review

Sample

Cronbach’s Alpha Measure

Maltreatment in Care Investigations Foster Homes Foster Care

.90483
.93495 .99591

A final check on quality came during the analysis. When the analysis identified a discrepancy that could not be explained by the reviewer comments, the Accountability Agents requested a reviewer to go back to the file in question and collect more specific information on which to make a judgment. The majority of reviewer errors continue to result from the 1) poorly worded questions that still caused confusion among some reviewers and 2) in the case for the foster care review, the length and complexity of the review guide. Both these errors will be monitored more closely in the fifth period data collection effort.

f.

Data analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel were used for analyzing the collected data and calculating inter‐rater reliability. GSU staff assisted in creating descriptive statistics for the Accountability Agents.

g. Records in Sample that Were not Read

Not all records included in the original samples were reviewed. Before the reviews began, a set of reasons was established for why a case record may not be read. Table B‐3 provides a summary distribution of the cases that were not read with the reasons for not reading them. Files that could not be located for the review were reported to county leadership.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-6

Target of Review Maltreatment in Care Investigations
Foster Homes
Children in Foster Care

Table B‐3

Case Records Drawn for Original Sample, Not Reviewed

Number of cases sampled but not read as part of the review and reason why

they were not read

Coding error in IDS, this is not a maltreatment in care referral/report

8

Case record not located

2

Child was not in the legal custody of DeKalb or Fulton Counties at

2

the time of the report

Other

4

Total

16

Coding error in IDS, home not open between July 1 and December

1

31, 2007

No children were in the home during the 6 months of the review

1

No children in the legal custody of DeKalb or Fulton Counties DFCS

1

were placed in this home between July 1 and December 31, 2007

Case record cannot be located

1

Oversight of home transferred to another county

2

Other

6

Total

12

Child’s file sealed as result of adoption

4

Case timeframe too short (child in care less than 8 days)

4

Case record could not be located

2

Child placed out of state through ICPC the entire review period

1

Incomplete file, missing important volumes

1

Total

12

4. Biweekly meetings with the management teams of Fulton and DeKalb County DFCS (G2)

The Accountability Agents met once or twice each month with Fulton and DeKalb directors, senior management, supervisors and case managers, and senior central office staff. These meetings allowed for hands‐on monitoring and data verification. Specifically, the purpose of the G2 has been fourfold:

o Engage Fulton and DeKalb County senior management teams in tracking their own progress in achieving the Consent Degree outcomes;
o Have “real‐time” communication about successes and areas of concern regarding the progress of reform;
o Establish a clear understanding of the relationship between practice, process, and infrastructure enhancements and outcome achievements; and,
o Integrate the settlement outcomes and required practice and process into other initiatives the Counties are engaged in, such as the federal Program Improvement Plan (PIP) to help develop and articulate the “big picture” of reform.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-7

The G2 process starts with using administrative data to prompt the group to develop hypotheses about underlying problems that threaten the achievement of critical outcomes, and about potential solutions. Fresh data that shed light on the validity of those hypotheses are then brought back to a subsequent meeting. Based on the group’s examination and discussion of the fresh data, a given hypothesis may then be rejected, accepted, or refined and retested. For hypotheses that are accepted, in‐depth “So What?” conversations take place during which best practices among field staff may be highlighted, operational strategies that leverage the learning that has transpired are devised, resource allocation decisions may be made by DFCS leadership, and parties responsible for implementation identified.
B. Previous Reporting Period Interpretation and Measurement Issues
The following discussion highlights the interpretation and measurement issues that arose during the previous reporting periods that were accepted by the parties and also apply to period four.
1. Safety Outcomes
Outcome 5 was operationally defined as the percentage of children in care during the reporting period that experience maltreatment in care during the reporting period. Performance was measured by a cumulative look across the entire reporting period, not just at one point in time during the reporting period. The interpretation and measurement issues considered are described below.
• The interpretation issue centers on the meaning attributed to the words “…shall be the victim of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care.” This could be interpreted to mean that any child who had ever experienced maltreatment while in foster care (even if it was years ago) should be counted in this percentage. Although this is perhaps the most obvious and literal interpretation of these words, such an interpretation would be unhelpful to the cause of improving Georgia’s child welfare system.
A central precept of the Consent Decree is that it will bring about improvements in Georgia’s child welfare system. Interpreting this measure in a way that places it beyond the influence of the State’s current and future efforts to improve would be incongruous with this precept.
• The measurement issue inherent in Outcome 5 derives from the words “By the end of the [number] reporting period…” Taken literally, these words seem to suggest that this is a point‐ in‐time measure to be taken on the last day of the first reporting period. In other words, what percentage of the children in care on December 31, 2007 had experienced maltreatment while in care? In the child welfare field, such a point‐in‐time approach is a common method of obtaining a census of children in care. The use of the word “By” could be construed to grant the state the entire length of the reporting period to produce improvements in this
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-8

outcome.
However, operationalizing this as a point‐in‐time measure might create perverse incentives (i.e., schedule children who had experienced maltreatment in care for discharge before the end of the month). Although it is not believed the State would actually use this approach, the Accountability Agents believe that when the Consent Decree language is less than definitive, it should be construed to avoid establishing incentives that are inconsistent with spirit of improving Georgia’s child welfare system.
Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 use the same “By the end of the first reporting period…” language used in Outcome 5, but the standard remains fixed at the period 1 level for all subsequent reporting periods. These outcomes, therefore, do not raise the same point‐in‐time vs. cumulative measurement issue raised by Outcome 5.
Section 12.A. of the Consent Decree requires that maltreatment in care investigations be conducted by trained child protective services staff.95 As indicated above, DFCS policy regards the commencement of an investigation to be the point at which an alleged victim child is seen by the investigator. For measurement purposes Outcomes 1 was operationalized as the percentage of cases in which any alleged victim had face‐to‐face contact with a CPS investigator or police within 24 hours. Outcome 3 was operationalized as the percentage of alleged victims that had face‐to‐face contact with a CPS investigator within 24 hours
2. Permanency Outcomes
Outcome 4
The State’s information system (IDS) does provide a calculation to measure Outcome 4. The case record review of a sample of 180 children in foster care at any time during the last half of 2007 only included 50 children who entered custody during the review period. As a result, this number is too small to accurately assess the State’s performance. The IDS data is used for reporting performance, with the case record review as a comparison.

95 See p. 28 of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-9

Outcomes 8, 9, and 10 There were no interpretation or measurement issues. Performance reported for outcomes 8a, 9, and 10 is based on IDS data and documentation of relatives who have signed “an agreement for long‐term care.”96 The outcome data from IDS were not independently validated by the Accountability Agents. However, the Accountability Agents did participate with County leadership in monthly review of the data and the State’s efforts to safely discharge children to permanent families. Furthermore, removal dates and discharge dates were collected for children in the foster care sample and compared to what was in IDS.
Outcome 14 The interpretation of this measure, as agreed to by the parties, includes those children who return to the custody of DFCS/DHR after their adoption has been finalized. This includes children who are in the temporary custody of the Department while reunification is attempted and those children who return to the Department’s permanent custody because the adoption has been dissolved.
Measurement issues include timing and case identification. In terms of timing, the first cohort of children for whom this outcome could be measured were those children who were adopted during the first reporting period, October 27, 2005 to December 31, 2006. In terms of case identification, it is difficult to link case records of children who are returning to foster care from an adoption to their previous case records because key identifying information has changed and adoption records have been sealed. An adopted child always receives a new last name and social security number. In some cases, the child also receives a new first name. In addition, adoptive parents may live or move out of Georgia after the adoption and the disruption or dissolution may occur in another state. Furthermore, children who are discharged to relatives for the purposes of private adoption will not necessarily be reflected in the case files or data system as an adoption. Case identification, therefore, currently relies on a case manager’s familiarity with the family through on‐going post adoption communication, and comparing adoption dissolution actions that occur in the state to the adoptions that occurred in the state. In March 2007, the State established new procedures for collecting information about prior adoption activity as children enter care. This change requires case managers to record in IDS, 1) whether the child was ever adopted, 2) type of adoption – public or private, 3) country of adoption, 4) state of adoption, and 5) if a Georgia adoption, the county of adoption.
Outcome 15 Each county has a data base for tracking children who have reached or are approaching their 15th month in care within the most recent 22 months. The counties add to this data base by extracting information regarding length of stay and “TPR status” from the State’s IDS system. County data, therefore, was used as the primary source of information to evaluate the continued progress on this outcome. Information found in the sample of placement records was used to independently validate the county data.

96 See p. 3, Definition T, of the Consent Decree

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-10

In the first three reporting periods, the Accountability Agents reviewed and validated the county data using the two steps described below. In the fourth period, only the second step was completed.

• First, independent of the county data, the case record review of children in foster care collected information about the parental rights of children in custody at least 15 months. These questions asked whether parental rights had been terminated for one or both parents, if a petition to terminate rights had been filed, and, if neither of these actions had been taken, were there exceptions for taking these actions, including compelling reasons, documented primarily in the case plan or court documentation, or, secondarily, other file documentation,
• Second the Accountability Agents reviewed all of the compelling reasons cited in the data bases and compared them to Federal and State policy guidance. This effort frequently involved requesting more information about the circumstances of the case that led to the compelling reason.

Final measurement of the State’s performance used the population of children to whom the Federal regulatory exceptions did not apply. In other words, if a child was placed with a relative or there was a judicial indication in the child’s record that the State had yet to make “reasonable efforts to reunify the family,” the child was removed from the analysis.

Outcome 21 The outcome language refers to “appropriate visitation”97 between children and parents where the goal is reunification. DFCS policy and practice provides a frame of reference for determining “appropriate” as it establishes several requirements with regard to parental‐child visitation. First, “if possible” a child should have a family visit in the first week after removal.98 Second, a plan for parental visitation should be a part of every Case Plan.99 Third, “when agency resources allow, visitation shall be scheduled at two‐week intervals unless the court has specified another visitation arrangement.”100 Finally, established practice in the field requires a minimum of monthly visits when “agency resources do not allow” and the court does not dictate otherwise. Given these policy requirements, the case record review was designed to gather information on both the planned schedule for visitation and the actual visitation. In the absence of a schedule dictating otherwise the performance of the state was assessed according to the minimum monthly visitation standard.

Although the Consent Decree specifies visitation between parent(s) and children, in some cases the child was removed from a relative and that relative is the reunification resource. In these cases, the record review considered the reunification resource equivalent to the parent(s).

97 See p. 36, Outcome 21, of the Consent Decree 98 Social Services Manual, Section 1009.3 Georgia Department of Human Resources 99 Social Services Manual, Section 1009.4 Georgia Department of Human Resources 100 Social Services Manual Section 1009.5, Georgia Department of Human Resources

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-11

Measurement issues included the limitations of case documentation, how to address those children living with relatives and those children who were reunified during the reporting period but whose records contained little or no documentation relating to parent child visits. Case documentation often does not include precise dates of visits because case managers are not always present for the visits. However, case managers may record what they learn from parents and children about the visits. As a result, in a portion of the cases the reviewers could determine “regular” visitation was occurring but could not match the pattern of visits to the schedule established in the case plan or Family Team Meetings. Such cases were counted toward the achievement of the outcome.
A portion of the children in the sample live with relatives. These circumstances may allow for frequent visitation between parents and children.101 Again, however, the dates and frequency may not always be reported to the case manager and, therefore, documented. These children were included in the denominator for measurement of the outcome, but not the numerator unless there was documentation of a visitation pattern.
Finally, a small number of children achieved reunification without any or with few documented visits with parents or their reunification resource. Again, this does not mean that the children did not have contact with their parents. These children were included in the denominator for measurement, but not the numerator.
However, the records of children placed with the reunification resource the entire reporting period and those who were in custody a brief period of time during the review period were excluded from the Outcome 21 analysis..
Outcome 23 Information regarding sibling visitation is not currently tracked in the State IDS system; therefore it is not information that is easily retrieved. It is, however, a practice that the counties started tracking in July 2006 and the county Quality Assurance units began validating during the second reporting period. For the fourth reporting period, the Accountability Agents collected information directly from the documentation in children’s records. To measure this outcome, the record reviewers looked for documentation indicating that children saw at least one sibling in custody from whom they were separated at least once a month during each of the previous 12 months in custody.
101 Annie E. Casey Foundation, Elders as Resources Fact Sheet, Basic Data: Kinship Care, 2005, found at http://www.aecf.org/upload/PublicationFiles/FactSheet.pdf,
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-12

3. Well‐Being Outcomes
Outcome 17 Outcome 17 is similar, but not identical, to the federal standard for placement stability. The federal standard is applied to the number of placements, not moves, and suggests that at least 86.7 percent of children should experience no more than two placements in the most recent 12 months in custody. Therefore, for comparison purposes the number of moves is equivalent to the number of placements minus one.
The Accountability Agents continue to be concerned that IDS is not capturing all of the placement moves. Therefore, the results of the case record review rather than IDS are used to measure the progress in this outcome.
Outcome 18 The performance measurement is based on data drawn from IDS for children in DeKalb and Fulton County custody on December 15, 2007 and updated by the counties as to the reasons for case manager changes since December 16, 2006. Exemptions noted were case manager changes that resulted from 1) transfers to a Specialized Case Manager or Adoptions Case Manager, 2) case manager deaths, terminations, and transfers to another county or, 3) temporary assignments to cover cases during a maternity or sick leave.102 Resignations and promotions were not exempted because they were not specifically identified as such in the Consent Decree. The county data was reviewed by the Accountability Agents for consistency with the appropriate reasons and compared to monthly caseload data to verify resignations, terminations, transfers, and promotions.
Outcome 20 The case record review collected information about the number of visits a child received each month from his or her case manager as well as whether the requirement for two monthly visits as defined by the Consent Decree was met. This allowed an analysis of how many children had been receiving visits that did not fit the twice‐monthly each and every month of the last 12 month pattern required for Outcome 20. In addition, it is important to note that these results represent visitation for 12 sequential months prior to and including December 31, 2007 or the last day the child was in custody – not for the 6‐month reporting period. If a child was in custody for less than 12 months as of December 31, 2007 or the last date of custody, visitation was counted only for the applicable months of custody. Months that children were on run away status were also excluded from the analysis.
Factors affecting measurement include the following. First, the outcome measure’s continuity feature (each and every month of the previous 12) means that if one visit is missed in any month, that child will not meet the requirement for a full twelve months. And, no visits in a

102 See p. 35, paragraph 18, of the Consent Decree.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-13

month are treated the same as one visit in a month – neither count toward the outcome measurement. This makes the measure one that takes a long time to improve. Second, while case documentation clearly indicates where the visits take place, it is often difficult to determine in a case review if there was any private time spent with the children during the visit. Third, the case documentation often does indicate that case managers are having private conversations with the children, but these conversations are taking place outside of the child’s placement. They may be taking place at school, in court, in DFCS offices, and at locations used for Family Team Meetings or sibling and/or parent visitation.
Outcome 22 Case manager‐caregiver visitation has a similar measurement issue to case manager‐child visitation. Again, the Consent Decree only counts case manager visits with care givers if they happened at least once a month, each and every month, for 12 sequential months preceding December 31, 2007. Again, if a child was in custody for less than 12 months as of December 31, 2007 or the last date of custody, visitation with the caregiver was counted only for the applicable months of custody.
Outcome 30 For purposes of determining whether needs identified in the most recent case plans were being met, the analysis excludes children who have been in custody less than 30 days and would not be expected to have a case plan and children for whom no plans were found in their case records.
The current case plan format used by DFCS is part of the Case Plan Reporting System (CPRS.) This format allows case managers to include routine goals and responsibilities for DFCS and others for parents when reunification is the goal. Although DFCS pre‐service training provides guidance on tailoring the case plan and the initial case plan should be a product of a Family Team Meeting, multi‐disciplinary meeting and the insights from the Comprehensive Child and Family Assessment, the CPRS format does not appear to be conducive to tailored plans without a good deal of modification. Child‐specific need and treatment information therefore is often limited in the plans.
To better align the case record review with the CPRS format, reviewers were asked to categorize the needs found in the plan as being “routine” or “child‐specific.” Routine needs included regular medical appointments, school enrollment, educational progress or grade completion. These routine needs are likely to be standard for every child. Child‐specific needs included information about chronic conditions, prescribed treatment follow‐up, placement requirements, and special education or academic assistance. Both types of needs were combined in the analysis for Outcome 30.
To measure whether the identified needs were being met the sample of case files were reviewed for evidence that services had been delivered or were being delivered to respond to the need. This information was gathered from any and all sources found in the files.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-14

3. Strengthening Infrastructure Outcomes
Outcome 25 The Consent Decree language framing Outcome 25 presents a difficult measurement challenge, as described in the Accountability Agents’ reports on the first and second monitoring periods.103 This outcome contains the phrase “By the end of the first reporting period…” and adds the phrase “….children in custody at a point in time during the reporting period…” This makes it quite clear that it is intended as a point‐in‐time measure to be taken at the end of the reporting period. To operationalize the measure as specified in the Consent Decree, data on the current approval status of individual foster placements on a particular date must be linked to data about the number of class member children in those individual homes on that same date. Existing data sources are unable to accomplish this linking with satisfactory rigor.
By agreement of the parties and the Accountability Agents, measurement of this outcome is based on a subset of the records sampled for the foster care placement file review. The full foster care placement file review is based on the universe of children in foster care at ANY time between July 1 and December 31, 2007. The subset used for measurement of Outcomes 25 represents the children from the sample who were in foster care on December 31 2007. For each child in this subset, the Accountability Agents “followed‐back” the child’s placement setting to its relevant approval status on December 31, 2007, using a variety of data sources, as indicated in Table VI‐2.
Outcome 26 Data for Outcome 26 were collected from the case records of the sample of 180 children in foster care. The Outcome 26 analysis was applicable to those children who had entered DFCS custody after the Consent Decree was entered on October 27, 2005.
Previous measurements of this outcome included children who entered custody before the Consent Decree. Measurement in the fourth period was limited to those children who entered on or after the Consent Decree because of the specific language in the Consent Decree. The significance of this for the analysis is the application of the federal requirements for those children who entered custody since March 2000. Among the cohort that entered before the Consent Decree, a portion of them entered custody before March 2000. A different set of federal documentation requirements apply to those children. The requirements for those children allow an expanded timeframe in which to meet the requirements. For those children who entered custody after the Consent Decree, the more restrictive timeframe from the federal standards effective after March 2000 apply.
103 For a complete discussion of this issue, see Dimas, J.T. and Morrison, S. A. Period I Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue, November 2006, pp. 93-96 and “Period II Monitoring Report, Kenny A. v. Perdue,” 2007, pp. 96-97.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-15

Outcome 29 Data for Outcome 29 was collected from the case records of the sample of children in foster care. Children in the Department’s custody less than 12 months and those who were in the Department’s permanent custody were excluded from the analysis.
Outcome 31 Outcome 31, like Outcome 25, is also intended as a point‐in‐time measure. This measure specifies “children in foster homes” as the unit of analysis and requires these data to be linked with point‐in‐time data on the census of individual foster homes. This measure, therefore, constitutes a measurement challenge similar to that represented by Outcome 25.
By agreement of the parties and Accountability Agents, measurement of Outcome 31 for this report is based on the subset of children from the placement sample that were in foster home placements on December 31, 2007. Outcome 31 references the capacity limits enumerated in Section 5.c.4.e of the Consent Decree, “…concerning the requirement that no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three (3) foster children in that foster home, or a total of six (6) children in the home, including the foster family’s biological and/or adopted children.”104 Section 5.c.4.e. also enumerates certain exceptions to these capacity limits.105 The parties further agreed that for purposes of measuring compliance with Outcome 31, the only exception that will pertain is that provided for the placement of a sibling group when there are no other children in the home.
C. Methodology for Verifying Caseload Data
The state information system is able to produce reports on individual case manager caseloads and the Accountability Agents used these reports as the starting point for assessing State progress in meeting the caseload requirement of the Consent Decree as reported on in Section VI. However, several steps were taken to assure the accuracy and completeness of these reports.
First, the Accountability Agents determined that there are several data sources, each with its own potential for inaccuracies or incompleteness. The data sources include IDS as well as county personnel systems. Historically, IDS may have had incomplete caseload information for Fulton County because Fulton was using its own case management system referred to as “CDOT.” The Accountability Agents confirmed with Fulton County that they had discontinued using this system in December 2006.

104 See p. 38 of the Consent Decree, 105 Ibid, p. 16.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-16

Within IDS, data could be inaccurate or incomplete because:
• Case assignments are not timely re‐assigned to active staff. Case managers must have a unique, county generated “Case Worker ID” (CWID) to have a case assigned to him/or her in the information system. Cases remain assigned in the information system to case workers who are no longer employed by DFCS as long as cases are not reassigned to different case worker IDs. Counties are responsible for entering each case manager’s unique “ID” and deactivating the ID when the worker resigns, transfers, or is terminated. Counties are also responsible for promptly reassigning cases when a case manager vacancy occurs.
• Worker type is not entered by counties Counties are also supposed to enter the worker type for each case manager, but omission of this information does not prevent case assignment or any other reporting. Thus, caseload reports may be incomplete because the worker type may be missing.
• Worker leave status is not included County personnel systems track extended leave periods authorized by disability policies, Family Medical Leave Act, or some other circumstances. This information, however, is not linked to the state information system, making it challenging to obtain an accurate picture of the effective caseloads of other case managers who may be sharing the workload of their absent colleagues.
• Worker certification status is not included Worker certification is tracked separately for different cohorts of staff by county training coordinators and the Education and Training Services section. These systems do not presently link to the State information system. Uncertified workers are not to be assigned any cases. Provisionally certified workers are to be assigned no more than “7 low risk” cases. The lack of this link complicates tracking the number of cases assigned to individuals who are in these categories.
• Data entry lag time Data entry into IDS of case opening and closing actions may lag behind when workers and supervisors consider the cases open or closed and have submitted the appropriate data entry requirements. As noted earlier, discrepancies between the case records and IDS regarding removal dates indicated a range of 1 to 5 days for the majority of cases where there was a difference. However, there was always a removal date in IDS. Similar discrepancies affect discharge dates. This lag time, therefore, can have the effect of both deflating and inflating the actual case load size.
Given the identified potential sources of inaccurate and incomplete caseload reporting, the Accountability Agents worked closely with the counties and the State as the December 2006
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-17

report was generated. After the second reporting period, the Accountability Agents began receiving caseload reports allowing frequent review of changes and opportunities to raise questions about the data. The Counties were asked to update the worker type and provide the resignation dates and leave dates for the designated workers.
Separately, the State and counties were asked to supply information about worker and supervisor certification status. The Accountability Agents compared this information with the workers and supervisors identified on the December 2007 caseload report. A reconciliation process was applied to identify discrepancies between the case manager lists and the counties were asked to provide additional information to resolve the discrepancies.
Finally, the Accountability Agents requested a separate data report from the State that identified the case managers with children who were in custody 18 months or more on December 31, 2007. This information was compared to the worker type associated with each case manager. As a result, the Accountability Agents identified regular caseloads that appeared to still have children assigned to them instead of being transferred to the caseloads of specialized case managers.
D. Methodology for Verifying State Data on Repeat Maltreatment and Maltreatment Subsequent to Diversion
Section 20 G of the Consent Decree requires DHR to provide the Accountability Agents data and information sufficient to enable the verification of data reported by the State on the number of children in DeKalb and Fulton counties during the reporting period (other than those in foster care) that experience repeat maltreatment or substantiated maltreatment within 11‐365 days after being referred to DHR’s diversion program. Due to the 11‐365 day follow up period for the diversion statistics, this fourth period report is the second time diversion data could be reported. The DHR data on repeat maltreatment and substantiated maltreatment subsequent to diversion in DeKalb and Fulton Counties are presented in Section VII. Following is a discussion of the approach the Accountability Agents used to verify the integrity of these data.
The validity of the State statistics on repeat maltreatment and substantiated maltreatment subsequent to diversion rest on the accuracy of the data coding and data input associated with maltreatment investigations and diversion cases, and the validity and rigor of the file matching algorithm. These are considered separately below.
1. Data Coding and Input
Data fields that are quantitative or less complex (e.g., whether or not an allegation was substantiated) are less prone to coding errors and produce data with a higher degree of reliability. Data fields that are more complex, qualitative, or ambiguous are more error prone and demonstrate greater problems of reliability. Data on the results of maltreatment investigations and on whether or not a CPS report is “diverted” fall into the former category.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-18

When a report of maltreatment is received, it is reviewed by CPS intake staff, logged into the County’s tracking system, and if it meets the criteria to be investigated, an investigation is initiated. Pertinent data about the report and subsequent investigation, including whether or not the investigation substantiated the allegation, are entered on Form 453. A casework supervisor reviews the completed form 453 and when they are satisfied as to its quality, they sign off in it. The completed form is then input into IDS.
If the report does not meet the criteria for a CPS investigation and it manifests issues that are primarily economic in nature, it may be considered for diversion. Diversion cases are not opened as CPS investigations, but the family is usually connected with community‐based resources that can help meet the family’s economic or other needs with the intent of helping the family keep their children safely in their own home. For each diversion case, a form 590 (which captures demographic information about the family, a case opening date, and a service code that distinguishes diversion from CPS cases) is completed and entered into IDS. Casework supervisors review the completed form 590s for accuracy and completeness.
Based on interviews with county investigations staff and the experience of reviewing 100 percent of the investigations of maltreatment in care, the Accountability Agents have confidence that IDS captures virtually 100 percent of the investigations that are conducted. Every investigation of maltreatment in care that the file review indicated was undertaken was properly reflected in IDS. No instances in which substantiated cases were miscoded as unsubstantiated, or vice versa, were identified. For the fourth reporting period, no substantive disagreement between the file review and IDS on the status, alleged victims, or disposition of maltreatment in care reports was detected.
With respect to diversion cases, the Accountability Agents are satisfied that effective safeguards are in place to ensure that diversion cases are not miscoded as CPS investigations or screen‐ outs, and vice versa. Each county maintains an intake log that captures pertinent information about each report received, and its disposition as: accepted for CPS investigation, diverted, or screened‐out. The Kenny A. file review staff begins each maltreatment in foster care file review by reviewing the county’s intake log against the data contained in IDS to ensure that all CPS investigations and diversions are accurately reflected in IDS. Any miscoding issues are identified, brought to the attention of county management staff, and rectified. Changes in IDS to the dispositional coding of reports received can only be made by the designated data specialists for each county. If those specialists detect a pattern of common coding errors they conduct training for the county intake staff.
2. File Matching Algorithms
To produce the data on repeat maltreatment required by the Consent Decree, E&R used the following algorithm:
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-19

• Data for DeKalb and Fulton counties were extracted from the state Protective Services
Data System (PSDS), a component of IDS;
• Children with substantiated maltreated were selected from two timeframes ‐‐ the
reporting period and the preceding 12 months;
• Foster children were deleted from the files; • Children from the reporting period were matched with children from the preceding 12
months; and
• Resulting matches were deemed to be children that experienced repeat maltreatment.

Similarly, to produce the data on substantiated maltreatment subsequent to diversion, E&R used the following algorithm:

• Data for DeKalb and Fulton counties were extracted from the State Protective Services
Data System (PSDS) and the diverted cases file provided monthly by Systems & Methods, Inc. (SMI);
• Cases diverted during the second reporting period (July 1, 2006 – December 31, 2006)
were selected;
• Diverted cases from the second reporting period were matched with children with
substantiated maltreatment from the period Jul. 1, 2006 through Dec. 31, 2007; and,
• Resulting matches were reviewed to ensure they fell within the 11‐365 day follow‐up
window of the diversion referral. Matches within this window of time were deemed to be maltreatment substantiations within 11 ‐ 365 days of the diversion referral.

The record matching algorithms used by E&R are based on the way the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) historically recommended states conduct such matches. That is, a computer is programmed to match two case record listings on a set of consistently available demographic descriptors. In Georgia’s case, the fields are first name, last name, date of birth, and gender. A significant limitation of this approach is that only exact matches are counted. In other words a child who had experienced repeat maltreatment or substantiated maltreatment subsequent to diversion might be missed by the match if the first referral listed him as John O’Connor, and the second listed him as John O’Conner; or if his birth date on either referral was transposed as the 13th instead of the 31st.

However, the DFCS Evaluation and Reporting Section continues to work with a computer services vendor to implement a unique child identifier to enable it to produce and send to the federal Department of Health and Human Services an NCANDS Child File. Such an identifier will enhance the accuracy of such computer matches as those required to calculate the incidence of repeat maltreatment. The new Georgia Shines system will also include a new unique child identifier. A beta test of Georgia’s unique identifier by DHHS showed that it increased the “hit” rate on Georgia’s statewide repeat maltreatment match by about 0.4 percentage points.106 As indicated in Section VII, the repeat maltreatment rates reported there for DeKalb and Fulton

106 Georgia Child and Family services Review Data Profile: August 24, 2006.

KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-20

Counties likely understate the true incidence of repeat maltreatment by a similar margin of error. The project to completely populate IDS with unique child identifiers covering fiscal years 2004 – 2007 is scheduled to be completed by March 2008. The Accountability Agents encourage the State to use this new capability to generate the repeat maltreatment data to be reported for future reporting periods. However, data on substantiated maltreatment subsequent to diversion will, until Georgia Shines is available, continue to be produced by the matching algorithm described above as these data are not included in the federal NCANDS data set and were therefore not part of the federal unique identifier project.
KENNY A. CONSENT DECREE Period III Monitoring Report
Page B-21

 
 130 S.Ct. 1662 (2010)
Sonny PERDUE, Governor of Georgia, et al., Petitioners, v.
KENNY A., by his next friend Linda WINN, et al.
No. 08-970.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued October 14, 2009. Decided April 21, 2010.
1669*1669 Pratik A. Shah, for U.S. as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the Petitioner.
Thurbert E. Baker, Atty. Gen. of Ga, Dennis R. Dunn, Deputy Atty. Gen., Shalen S. Nelson, Sen. Asst., Atty. Gen., Elizabeth M. Williamson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, GA, Mark H. Cohen, Troutman Sanders LLP, Atlanta, Georgia, for Petitioners.
Marcia Robinson Lowry, Ira P. Lustbader, New York, NY, Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Michael A. Caplan, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Paul D. Clement, Adam Conrad, King & Spalding, LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondents.
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the calculation of an attorney's fee, under federal fee-shifting statutes, based on the "lodestar," i.e., the number of hours worked multiplied by the prevailing hourly rates, may be increased due to superior performance and results.[1] We have stated in previous cases that such an increase is permitted in extraordinary circumstances, and we reaffirm that rule. But as we have also said in prior cases, there is a strong presumption that the lodestar is sufficient; factors subsumed in the lodestar calculation cannot be used as a ground for increasing an award above the lodestar; and a party seeking fees has the burden of identifying a factor that the lodestar does not adequately take into account and proving with specificity that an enhanced fee is justified. Because the District Court did not apply these standards, we reverse the decision below and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I
A
Respondents (plaintiffs below) are children in the Georgia foster-care system and their next friends. They filed this class action on behalf of 3,000 children in foster care and named as defendants the Governor of Georgia and various state officials (petitioners in this case). Claiming that deficiencies in the foster-care system in two counties near Atlanta violated

their federal and state constitutional and statutory rights, respondents sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as attorney's fees and expenses.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia eventually referred the case to mediation, where the parties entered into a consent decree, which the District Court approved. The consent decree resolved all pending issues 1670*1670 other than the fees that respondents' attorneys were entitled to receive under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.[2]
B
Respondents submitted a request for more than $14 million in attorney's fees. Half of that amount was based on their calculation of the lodestar—roughly 30,000 hours multiplied by hourly rates of $200 to $495 for attorneys and $75 to $150 for non-attorneys. In support of their fee request, respondents submitted affidavits asserting that these rates were within the range of prevailing market rates for legal services in the relevant market.
The other half of the amount that respondents sought represented a fee enhancement for superior work and results. Affidavits submitted in support of this request claimed that the lodestar amount "would be generally insufficient to induce lawyers of comparable skill, judgment, professional representation and experience" to litigate this case. See, e.g., App. 80. Petitioners objected to the fee request, contending that some of the proposed hourly rates were too high, that the hours claimed were excessive, and that the enhancement would duplicate factors that were reflected in the lodestar amount.
The District Court awarded fees of approximately $10.5 million. See 454 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1296 (N.D.Ga.2006). The District Court found that the hourly rates proposed by respondents were "fair and reasonable," id., at 1285, but that some of the entries on counsel's billing records were vague and that the hours claimed for many of the billing categories were excessive. The court therefore cut the non-travel hours by 15% and halved the hourly rate for travel hours. This resulted in a lodestar calculation of approximately $6 million.
The court then enhanced this award by 75%, concluding that the lodestar calculation did not take into account "(1) the fact that class counsel were required to advance case expenses of $1.7 million over a three-year period with no on[-]going reimbursement, (2) the fact that class counsel were not paid on an on-going basis as the work was being performed, and (3) the fact that class counsel's ability to recover a fee and expense reimbursement were completely contingent on the outcome of the case." Id., at 1288. The court stated that respondents' attorneys had exhibited "a higher degree of skill, commitment, dedication, and professionalism . . . than the Court has seen displayed by the attorneys in any other case during its 27 years on the bench." Id., at 1289. The court also commented that the results obtained were "`extraordinary'" and added that "[a]fter 58 years as a practicing attorney and federal judge, the Court is unaware of any other case in which a plaintiff class has achieved such a favorable result on such a comprehensive scale." Id., at 1290. The enhancement resulted in an additional $4.5 million fee award.
Relying on prior Circuit precedent, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. 532 F.3d 1209 (2008). The panel held that the District Court had not abused its discretion by failing to

make a larger reduction in the number of hours for which respondents' attorneys sought reimbursement, 1671*1671 but the panel commented that it "would have cut the billable hours more if we were deciding the matter in the first instance" and added that the hourly rates approved by the District Court also "appear[ed] to be on the generous side." Id., at 1220, and n. 2. On the question of the enhancement, however, the panel splintered, with each judge writing a separate opinion.
Judge Carnes concluded that binding Eleventh Circuit precedent required that the decision of the District Court be affirmed, but he opined that the reasoning in our opinions suggested that no enhancement should be allowed in this case. He concluded that the quality of the attorneys' performance was "adequately accounted for `either in determining the reasonable number of hours expended on the litigation or in setting the reasonable hourly rates.'" Id., at 1225 (quoting Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565-566, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986) (Delaware Valley I)). He found that an enhancement could not be justified based on delay in the recovery of attorney's fees and reimbursable expenses because such delay is a routine feature of cases brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. And he reasoned that the District Court had contravened our holding in Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992), when it relied on "`the fact that class counsel's compensation was totally contingent upon prevailing in this action.'" 532 F.3d, at 1226, 1228 (quoting affidavit in support of fee request).
Judge Wilson concurred in the judgment but disagreed with Judge Carnes' view that Eleventh Circuit precedent is inconsistent with our decisions. Judge Hill also concurred in the judgment but expressed no view about the correctness of the prior Circuit precedent.
The Eleventh Circuit denied rehearing en banc over the dissent of three judges. See 547 F.3d 1319 (2008). Judge Wilson filed an opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing; Judge Carnes, joined by Judges Tjoflat and Dubina, filed an opinion dissenting from the denial of rehearing; and Judge Tjoflat filed a separate dissent, contending, among other things, that the District Court, by basing the enhancement in large part on a comparison of the performance of respondents' attorneys with all of the unnamed attorneys whose work he had observed during his professional career, had improperly rendered a decision that was effectively unreviewable on appeal and had essentially served as a witness in support of the enhancement. Id., at 1326-1327.
We granted certiorari. 556 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1907, 173 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2009).
II
The general rule in our legal system is that each party must pay its own attorney's fees and expenses, see Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 429, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), but Congress enacted 42 U.S.C. § 1988 in order to ensure that federal rights are adequately enforced. Section 1988 provides that a prevailing party in certain civil rights actions may recover "a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs."[3] Unfortunately, the statute does not explain what Congress meant by a "reasonable" fee, and therefore the task of identifying an appropriate methodology for determining a "reasonable" fee was left for the courts.

One possible method was set out in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 1672*1672 Inc., 488 F.2d 714, 717-719 (C.A.5 1974), which listed 12 factors that a court should consider in determining a reasonable fee.[4] This method, however, "gave very little actual guidance to district courts. Setting attorney's fees by reference to a series of sometimes subjective factors placed unlimited discretion in trial judges and produced disparate results." Delaware Valley I, supra, at 563, 106 S.Ct. 3088.
An alternative, the lodestar approach, was pioneered by the Third Circuit in Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. of Philadelphia v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161 (1973), appeal after remand, 540 F.2d 102 (1976), and "achieved dominance in the federal courts" after our decision in Hensley. Gisbrecht v. Barnhart, 535 U.S. 789, 801, 122 S.Ct. 1817, 152 L.Ed.2d 996 (2002). "Since that time, `[t]he "lodestar" figure has, as its name suggests, become the guiding light of our fee-shifting jurisprudence.'" Ibid. (quoting Dague, supra, at 562, 112 S.Ct. 2638).
Although the lodestar method is not perfect, it has several important virtues. First, in accordance with our understanding of the aim of fee-shifting statutes, the lodestar looks to "the prevailing market rates in the relevant community." Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 895, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). Developed after the practice of hourly billing had become widespread, see Gisbrecht, supra, at 801, 122 S.Ct. 1817, the lodestar method produces an award that roughly approximates the fee that the prevailing attorney would have received if he or she had been representing a paying client who was billed by the hour in a comparable case. Second, the lodestar method is readily administrable, see Dague, 505 U.S., at 566, 112 S.Ct. 2638; see also Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598, 609, 121 S.Ct. 1835, 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001); and unlike the Johnson approach, the lodestar calculation is "objective," Hensley, supra, at 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, and thus cabins the discretion of trial judges, permits meaningful judicial review, and produces reasonably predictable results.
III
Our prior decisions concerning the federal fee-shifting statutes have established six important rules that lead to our decision in this case.
First, a "reasonable" fee is a fee that is sufficient to induce a capable attorney to undertake the representation of a meritorious civil rights case. See Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S., at 565, 106 S.Ct. 3088 ("[I]f plaintiffs . . . find it possible to engage a lawyer based on the statutory assurance that he will be paid a `reasonable fee,' the purpose behind the feeshifting statute has been satisfied"); Blum, supra, at 897, 104 S.Ct. 1541 ("[A] reasonable attorney's fee is one that is adequate to attract competent counsel, but that does not produce windfalls to attorneys" (ellipsis, brackets, and internal quotation marks 1673*1673 omitted)). Section 1988's aim is to enforce the covered civil rights statutes, not to provide "a form of economic relief to improve the financial lot of attorneys." Delaware Valley I, supra, at 565, 106 S.Ct. 3088.
Second, the lodestar method yields a fee that is presumptively sufficient to achieve this objective. See Dague, supra, at 562, 112 S.Ct. 2638; Delaware Valley I, supra, at 565, 106 S.Ct. 3088; Blum, supra, at 897, 104 S.Ct. 1541; see also Gisbrecht, supra, at 801-802, 122

S.Ct. 1817. Indeed, we have said that the presumption is a "strong" one. Dague, supra, at 562, 112 S.Ct. 2638; Delaware Valley I, supra, at 565, 106 S.Ct. 3088.
Third, although we have never sustained an enhancement of a lodestar amount for performance, see Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 12, 17, we have repeatedly said that enhancements may be awarded in "`rare'" and "`exceptional'" circumstances. Delaware Valley I, supra, at 565, 106 S.Ct. 3088; Blum, supra, at 897, 104 S.Ct. 1541; Hensley, 461 U.S., at 435, 103 S.Ct. 1933.
Fourth, we have noted that "the lodestar figure includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a `reasonable' attorney's fee," Delaware Valley I, supra, at 566, 106 S.Ct. 3088, and have held that an enhancement may not be awarded based on a factor that is subsumed in the lodestar calculation, see Dague, supra, at 562-563, 112 S.Ct. 2638; Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 483 U.S. 711, 726-727, 107 S.Ct. 3078, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987) (Delaware Valley II) (plurality opinion); Blum, 465 U.S., at 898, 104 S.Ct. 1541. We have thus held that the novelty and complexity of a case generally may not be used as a ground for an enhancement because these factors "presumably [are] fully reflected in the number of billable hours recorded by counsel." Ibid. We have also held that the quality of an attorney's performance generally should not be used to adjust the lodestar "[b]ecause considerations concerning the quality of a prevailing party's counsel's representation normally are reflected in the reasonable hourly rate." Delaware Valley I, supra, at 566, 106 S.Ct. 3088.
Fifth, the burden of proving that an enhancement is necessary must be borne by the fee applicant. Dague, supra, at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2638; Blum, 465 U.S., at 901-902, 104 S.Ct. 1541.
Finally, a fee applicant seeking an enhancement must produce "specific evidence" that supports the award. Id., at 899, 901, 104 S.Ct. 1541 (An enhancement must be based on "evidence that enhancement was necessary to provide fair and reasonable compensation"). This requirement is essential if the lodestar method is to realize one of its chief virtues, i.e., providing a calculation that is objective and capable of being reviewed on appeal.
IV
A
In light of what we have said in prior cases, we reject any contention that a fee determined by the lodestar method may not be enhanced in any situation. The lodestar method was never intended to be conclusive in all circumstances. Instead, there is a "strong presumption" that the lodestar figure is reasonable, but that presumption may be overcome in those rare circumstances in which the lodestar does not adequately take into account a factor that may properly be considered in determining a reasonable fee.
B

In this case, we are asked to decide whether either the quality of an attorney's 1674*1674 performance or the results obtained are factors that may properly provide a basis for an enhancement. We treat these two factors as one. When a plaintiff's attorney achieves results that are more favorable than would have been predicted based on the governing law and the available evidence, the outcome may be attributable to superior performance and commitment of resources by plaintiff's counsel. Or the outcome may result from inferior performance by defense counsel, unanticipated defense concessions, unexpectedly favorable rulings by the court, an unexpectedly sympathetic jury, or simple luck. Since none of these latter causes can justify an enhanced award, superior results are relevant only to the extent it can be shown that they are the result of superior attorney performance. Thus, we need only consider whether superior attorney performance can justify an enhancement. And in light of the principles derived from our prior cases, we inquire whether there are circumstances in which superior attorney performance is not adequately taken into account in the lodestar calculation. We conclude that there are a few such circumstances but that these circumstances are indeed "rare" and "exceptional," and require specific evidence that the lodestar fee would not have been "adequate to attract competent counsel," Blum, supra, at 897, 104 S.Ct. 1541 (internal quotation marks omitted).
First, an enhancement may be appropriate where the method used in determining the hourly rate employed in the lodestar calculation does not adequately measure the attorney's true market value, as demonstrated in part during the litigation.[5] This may occur if the hourly rate is determined by a formula that takes into account only a single factor (such as years since admission to the bar)[6] or perhaps only a few similar factors. In such a case, an enhancement may be appropriate so that an attorney is compensated at the rate that the attorney would receive in cases not governed by the federal fee-shifting statutes. But in order to provide a calculation that is objective and reviewable, the trial judge should adjust the attorney's hourly rate in accordance with specific proof linking the attorney's ability to a prevailing market rate.
Second, an enhancement may be appropriate if the attorney's performance includes an extraordinary outlay of expenses and the litigation is exceptionally protracted. As Judge Carnes noted below, when an attorney agrees to represent a civil rights plaintiff who cannot afford to pay the attorney, the attorney presumably understands that no reimbursement is likely to be received until the successful resolution of the case, 532 F.3d, at 1227, and therefore enhancements to compensate for delay in reimbursement for expenses must be reserved for unusual cases. In such exceptional cases, however, an enhancement may be allowed, but the amount of the enhancement must be calculated using a method that is reasonable, objective, and capable of being reviewed on appeal, such as by applying a standard 1675*1675 rate of interest to the qualifying outlays of expenses.
Third, there may be extraordinary circumstances in which an attorney's performance involves exceptional delay in the payment of fees. An attorney who expects to be compensated under § 1988 presumably understands that payment of fees will generally not come until the end of the case, if at all. See 532 F.3d, at 1227 (opinion of Carnes, J.). Compensation for this delay is generally made "either by basing the award on current rates or by adjusting the fee based on historical rates to reflect its present value." Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 282, 109 S.Ct. 2463, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted). But we do not rule out the possibility that an enhancement may be

appropriate where an attorney assumes these costs in the face of unanticipated delay, particularly where the delay is unjustifiably caused by the defense. In such a case, however, the enhancement should be calculated by applying a method similar to that described above in connection with exceptional delay in obtaining reimbursement for expenses.
We reject the suggestion that it is appropriate to grant performance enhancements on the ground that departures from hourly billing are becoming more common. As we have noted, the lodestar was adopted in part because it provides a rough approximation of general billing practices, and accordingly, if hourly billing becomes unusual, an alternative to the lodestar method may have to be found. However, neither respondents nor their amici contend that that day has arrived. Nor have they shown that permitting the award of enhancements on top of the lodestar figure corresponds to prevailing practice in the general run of cases.
We are told that, under an increasingly popular arrangement, attorneys are paid at a reduced hourly rate but receive a bonus if certain specified results are obtained, and this practice is analogized to the award of an enhancement such as the one in this case. Brief for Respondents 55-57. The analogy, however, is flawed. An attorney who agrees, at the outset of the representation, to a reduced hourly rate in exchange for the opportunity to earn a performance bonus is in a position far different from an attorney in a § 1988 case who is compensated at the full prevailing rate and then seeks a performance enhancement in addition to the lodestar amount after the litigation has concluded. Reliance on these comparisons for the purposes of administering enhancements, therefore, is not appropriate.
V
In the present case, the District Court did not provide proper justification for the large enhancement that it awarded. The court increased the lodestar award by 75% but, as far as the court's opinion reveals, this figure appears to have been essentially arbitrary. Why, for example, did the court grant a 75% enhancement instead of the 100% increase that respondents sought? And why 75% rather than 50% or 25% or 10%?
The District Court commented that the enhancement was the "minimum enhancement of the lodestar necessary to reasonably compensate [respondents'] counsel." 454 F.Supp.2d, at 1290. But the effect of the enhancement was to increase the top rate for the attorneys to more than $866 per hour,[7] and the District Court did not 1676*1676 point to anything in the record that shows that this is an appropriate figure for the relevant market.
The District Court pointed to the fact that respondents' counsel had to make extraordinary outlays for expenses and had to wait for reimbursement, id., at 1288, but the court did not calculate the amount of the enhancement that is attributable to this factor. Similarly, the District Court noted that respondents' counsel did not receive fees on an ongoing basis while the case was pending, but the court did not sufficiently link this factor to proof in the record that the delay here was outside the normal range expected by attorneys who rely on § 1988 for the payment of their fees or quantify the disparity. Nor did the court provide a calculation of the cost to counsel of any extraordinary and unwarranted delay. And the court's reliance on the contingency of the outcome contravenes our holding in Dague. See 505 U.S., at 565, 112 S.Ct. 2638.

Finally, insofar as the District Court relied on a comparison of the performance of counsel in this case with the performance of counsel in unnamed prior cases, the District Court did not employ a methodology that permitted meaningful appellate review. Needless to say, we do not question the sincerity of the District Court's observations, and we are in no position to assess their accuracy. But when a trial judge awards an enhancement on an impressionistic basis, a major purpose of the lodestar method—providing an objective and reviewable basis for fees, see id., at 566, 112 S.Ct. 2638—is undermined.
Determining a "reasonable attorney's fee" is a matter that is committed to the sound discretion of a trial judge, see 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (permitting court, "in its discretion," to award fees), but the judge's discretion is not unlimited. It is essential that the judge provide a reasonably specific explanation for all aspects of a fee determination, including any award of an enhancement. Unless such an explanation is given, adequate appellate review is not feasible, and without such review, widely disparate awards may be made, and awards may be influenced (or at least, may appear to be influenced) by a judge's subjective opinion regarding particular attorneys or the importance of the case. In addition, in future cases, defendants contemplating the possibility of settlement will have no way to estimate the likelihood of having to pay a potentially huge enhancement. See Marek v. Chesny, 473 U.S. 1, 7, 105 S.Ct. 3012, 87 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) ("`[M]any a defendant would be unwilling to make a binding settlement offer on terms that left it exposed to liability for attorney's fees in whatever amount the court might fix on motion of the plaintiff'").
Section 1988 serves an important public purpose by making it possible for persons without means to bring suit to vindicate their rights. But unjustified enhancements that serve only to enrich attorneys are not consistent with the statute's aim.[8] In many cases, attorney's fees 1677*1677 awarded under § 1988 are not paid by the individuals responsible for the constitutional or statutory violations on which the judgment is based. Instead, the fees are paid in effect by state and local taxpayers, and because state and local governments have limited budgets, money that is used to pay attorney's fees is money that cannot be used for programs that provide vital public services. Cf. Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. ___, ___, 129 S.Ct. 2579, 2593-2594, 174 L.Ed.2d 406 (2009) (payment of money pursuant to a federalcourt order diverts funds from other state or local programs).
* * *
For all these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice KENNEDY, concurring.
If one were to ask an attorney or a judge to name the significant cases of his or her career, it would be unsurprising to find the list includes a case then being argued or just decided. When immersed in a case, lawyers and judges find within it a fascination, an intricacy, an importance that transcends what the detached observer sees. So the pending or just completed case will often seem extraordinary to its participants. That is the dynamic of the adversary system, the system that so well serves the law.

It is proper for the Court today to reject the proposition that all enhancements are barred; still, it must be understood that extraordinary cases are presented only in the rarest circumstances.
With these comments, I join in full the opinion of the Court.
Justice THOMAS, concurring.
Nearly 30 years ago, a group of attorneys sought a fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 after "achiev[ing] only limited success" litigating their clients' constitutional claims. Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 431, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). This Court's opinion resolving their claim for fees observed that "in some cases of exceptional success an enhanced award" of attorney's fees under § 1988 "may be justified." Id., at 435, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (emphasis added). That observation plainly was dicta, but one year later this Court relied on it to reject the "argument that an `upward adjustment'" to the lodestar calculation "is never permissible." Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 897, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). Yet "we have never sustained an enhancement of a lodestar amount for performance," ante, at 1673, and our jurisprudence since Blum has charted "a decisional arc that bends decidedly against enhancements," 532 F.3d 1209, 1221 (C.A.11 2008) (Carnes, J.). See also ante, at 1672-1674.
Today the Court holds, consistent with Hensley and Blum, that a lodestar fee award under § 1988 may be enhanced for 1678*1678 attorney performance in a "few" circumstances that "are indeed `rare' and `exceptional.'" Ante, at 1674. But careful readers will observe the precise limitations that the Court imposes on the availability of such enhancements. See ante, at 1674-1675; see also ante, at 1677 (KENNEDY, J., concurring) ("[I]t must be understood that extraordinary cases are presented only in the rarest circumstances"). These limitations preserve our prior cases and advance our attorney's fees jurisprudence further along the decisional arc that Judge Carnes described. I agree with the Court's approach and its conclusion because, as the Court emphasizes, see ante, at 1672-1673, the lodestar calculation will in virtually every case already reflect all indicia of attorney performance relevant to a fee award.
Justice BREYER, with whom Justice STEVENS, Justice GINSBURG, and Justice SOTOMAYOR join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
We granted certiorari in this case to consider "whether the calculation of an attorney's fee" that is "based on the `lodestar,'" ante, at 1669 (opinion of the Court), can "ever be enhanced based solely on [the] quality of [the lawyers'] performance and [the] results obtained," Pet. for Cert. i (emphasis added). The Court answers that question in the affirmative. See ante, at 1669 ("We have stated in previous cases that such an increase is permitted in extraordinary circumstances, and we reaffirm that rule"); see also ante, p. 1677 (KENNEDY, J., concurring). As our prior precedents make clear, the lodestar calculation "does not end the [fee] inquiry" because there "remain other considerations that may lead the district court to adjust the fee upward." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 434, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). For that reason, "[t]he lodestar method was never intended to be conclusive in all circumstances." Ante, at 1674. Instead, as the Court today reaffirms, when "superior attorney performance," ibid., leads to "exceptional success an enhanced award

may be justified," Hensley supra, at 435, 103 S.Ct. 1933; see also Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986); Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 896-900, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). I agree with that conclusion.
Where the majority and I part ways is with respect to a question that is not presented, but that the Court obliquely, and in my view inappropriately, appears to consider nonetheless— namely, whether the lower courts correctly determined in this case that exceptional circumstances justify a lodestar enhancement. See Parts IV-V, ante; see also ante, p. 1677 (KENNEDY, J., concurring). I would not reach that issue, which lies beyond the narrow question that we agreed to consider. See 556 U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1907, 173 L.Ed.2d 1056 (2009) (limiting review to the first question presented); Pet. for Cert. i (stating question); see also Glover v. United States, 531 U.S. 198, 205, 121 S.Ct. 696, 148 L.Ed.2d 604 (2001) ("As a general rule. . . we do not decide issues outside the questions presented . . ."). Nor do I believe that this Court, which is twice removed from the litigation underlying the fee determination, is properly suited to resolve the fact-intensive inquiry that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 demands. But even were I to engage in that inquiry, I would hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding an enhancement. And I would therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
As the Court explains, the basic question that must be resolved when considering an enhancement to the lodestar is whether the lodestar calculation "adequately measure[s]" 1679*1679 an attorney's "value," as "demonstrated" by his performance "during the litigation." Ante, at 1674. While I understand the need for answering that question through the application of standards, I also believe that the answer inevitably involves an element of judgment. Moreover, when reviewing a district court's answer to that question, an appellate court must inevitably give weight to the fact that a district court is better situated to provide that answer. For it is the district judge, and only the district judge, who will have read all of the motions filed in the case, witnessed the proceedings, and been able to evaluate the attorneys' overall performance in light of the objectives, context, legal difficulty, and practical obstacles present in the case. In a word, the district judge will have observed the attorney's true "value, as demonstrated . . . during the litigation." Ibid. (emphasis added). By contrast, a court of appeals, faced with a cold and perhaps lengthy record, will inevitably have less time and opportunity to determine whether the lawyers have done an exceptionally fine job. And this Court is yet less suited to performing that inquiry. Accordingly, determining whether a fee enhancement is warranted in a given case "is a matter that is committed to the sound discretion of a trial judge," ante, at 1676, and the function of appellate courts is to review that judge's determination for an abuse of such discretion. See Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552, 571, 108 S.Ct. 2541, 101 L.Ed.2d 490 (1988); see also General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 143, 118 S.Ct. 512, 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997) ("[D]eference . . . is the hallmark of abuse-of-discretion review").
This case well illustrates why our tiered and functionally specialized judicial system places the task of determining an attorney's fee award primarily in the district court's hands. The plaintiffs' lawyers spent eight years investigating the underlying facts, developing the initial complaint, conducting court proceedings, and working out final relief. The District Court's docket, with over 600 entries, consists of more than 18,000 pages. Transcripts of hearings and depositions, along with other documents, have produced a record that fills 20 large

boxes. Neither we, nor an appellate panel, can easily read that entire record. Nor should we attempt to second-guess a district judge who is aware of the many intangible matters that the written page cannot reflect.
My own review of this expansive record cannot possibly be exhaustive. But those portions of the record I have reviewed lead me to conclude, like the Court of Appeals, that the District Judge did not abuse his discretion when awarding an enhanced fee. I reach this conclusion based on four considerations.
First, the record indicates that the lawyers' objective in this case was unusually important and fully consistent with the central objectives of the basic federal civil-rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Moreover, the problem the attorneys faced demanded an exceptionally high degree of skill and effort. Specifically, these lawyers and their clients sought to have the State of Georgia reform its entire foster-care system—a system that much in the record describes as well below the level of minimal constitutional acceptability. The record contains investigative reports, mostly prepared by Georgia's own Office of the Child Advocate, which show, for example, the following:
• The State's foster-care system was unable to provide essential medical and mental health services; children consequently and unnecessarily suffered illness and life long medical disabilities, such as permanent hearing loss, due to failures on the part of the State 1680*1680 to administer basic care and antibiotics. See, e.g., Doc. 3, Exh. 3C, pp. 11-13.
• Understaffing and improper staffing placed children in the care of individuals with dangerous criminal records; children were physically assaulted by the staff, locked outside of the shelters at night as punishment, and abused in other ways. See, e.g., Doc. 50, pp. 32-36, 55; Doc. 3, Exh. 3A, pp. 2-6; Doc. 3, Exh. 2, pp. 4-5; Doc. 52, Exh. 1, pp. 6, 12-15, 34.
• The shelters themselves were "unsanitary and dilapidated," "unclean," infested with rats, "overcrowded," unsafe, and "`out of control.'" See, e.g., Doc. 3, Exh. 3A, at 1-2; Doc. 3, Exh. 3B, p. 2; Doc. 50, at 29.
• Due to improper supervision and other deficiencies at the shelters, 20% of the children abused drugs; some also became victims of child prostitution. See id., at 39; Doc. 3, Exh. 3A, at 3.
• Systemic failures also caused vulnerable children to suffer regular beatings and sexual abuse, including rape, at the hands of more aggressive shelter residents. See, e.g., Doc. 50, at 18-22, 54-55; Doc. 52, Exh. 1, at 7-10, 26; Doc. 3, Exh. 3B, at 3 ("[A child] was beaten so badly by eight other [children] that he suffered severe internal bleeding"); id., at 4 (describing violent sexual assault and rape).
• Not surprisingly, many children—upwards of 5 per day and over 750 per year—tried to escape these conditions; others tried to commit suicide. See, e.g., Doc. 50, at 27-28, 54; Doc. 52, Exh. 18, p. 4 (under seal) (at least 25% of children run away from shelters); Doc. 52, Exh. 18E, pp. 1-11, 18-19 (under seal) (daily logs); see also Doc. 50, Exh. 1, at 37, 54 (describing suicide attempts) (all docket entries above and hereinafter refer to No. 1:02-cv1686 (ND Ga.) (case below)).

The State's Office of the Child Advocate, whose reports provide much of the basis for the foregoing description, concluded that the system was "operating in crisis mode" and that any private operator who ran such a system "would never be licensed to care for children." Office of the Child Advocate for the Protection of Children Ann. Rep. 10, 14 (2001), Record, Doc. 3, Exh. 3C (hereinafter OCA 2001 Report); accord, id., Exh. 3A, at 1. The advocate noted that neither her investigative reports nor national news publicity (including a television program that highlighted a 5-year-old foster child's death from beatings) had prompted corrective action by the State. OCA 2001 Report 1, 14.
The advocate further stated that litigation was necessary to force reform. Id., at 14-15. And she repeatedly asked the State to give her office the authority to conduct that litigation. See Office of the Child Advocate Advisory Committee, Ann.Effectiveness Rep.4(2002), onlineathttp://www.georgia.gov/vgn/ images/portal/cit _ 1210/7/22/ 84622967effectiveness2003.pdf (all Internet materials as visited Apr. 16, 2010, and available in Clerk of Court's case file) ("[F]or the Office to be truly effective, it must possess the authority to compel change [and] . . . to initiate litigation on behalf of children. Such authority is widely considered by other states' Child Advocates as crucial to effecting meaningful change for children"); Office of the Child Advocate Advisory Committee, Ann. Effectiveness Rep. 13 (2003-2004) (same), online at http://gachild advocate.org/ vgn/images/portal/cit _ 1210/48/16/84624761OCA _ Effectivenes s_ Report2003 _ 2004.doc; Office of the Child Advocate Advisory Committee, Ann. Effectiveness Rep. 11 (2004-2005) (same), online at http://www.georgia.gov/vgn/images/ 1681*1681 portal/ cit_1210/31/23/XXXXXXXXXOCA% 20 Effectiveness% 20Report % XXXXXX-XXXX.doc. But the State did not grant the Child Advocate's office the litigating authority she sought. See 2000 Ga. Laws p. 245, as codified, Ga.Code Ann. § 15-11-173 (2008).
The upshot is that the plaintiffs' attorneys did what the child advocate could not do: They initiated this lawsuit. They thereby assumed the role of "a `private attorney general'" by filling an enforcement void in the State's own legal system, a function "that Congress considered of the highest priority," Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968) (per curiam), and "meant to promote in enacting § 1988," Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland Independent School Dist., 489 U.S. 782, 793, 109 S.Ct. 1486, 103 L.Ed.2d 866 (1989).
Second, the course of the lawsuit was lengthy and arduous. The plaintiffs and their lawyers began with factual investigations beyond those which the child advocate had already conducted. See, e.g., Record, Docs. 50-52 (partially under seal). They then filed suit. And the State met the plaintiffs' efforts with a host of complex procedural, as well as substantive, objections. The State, for example, argued that the law forbade the plaintiffs to investigate the shelters; on the eve of a state-court decision that might have approved the investigations, the State then removed the case to federal court; the State then sought protective orders preventing the attorneys from speaking to the shelters' staff; and, after losing its motions, the State delayed to the point where the District Court "was forced to admonish [the] State Defendants for `relying on technical legal objections to discovery requests in order to delay and hinder the discovery process.'" 454 F.Supp.2d. 1260, 1268 (N.D.Ga.2006) (quoting Record, Doc. 145, p. 4). See also Doc. 1; Doc. 3, pp. 9-10; Docs. 26, 28-29, 44, 60.

In the meantime, the State moved for dismissal, basing the motion on complex legal doctrines such as Younger abstention and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which the District Court found inapplicable. 218 F.R.D. 277, 284-290 (N.D.Ga.2003). See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923), and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). The State also opposed the petitioners' request to certify a class of the 3,000 children in foster care, but the District Court again rejected the State's argument. 218 F.R.D., at 299-302. And, after that, the State filed a lengthy motion for summary judgment, Record, Docs. 243-245, which plaintiffs' attorneys opposed in thorough briefing supported by comprehensive exhibits, see Docs. 254-258, 260. After losing that motion and eventually agreeing to mediation, the State forced protracted litigation as to who should be the mediator. See Docs. 363-364, 366, 369370, 373, 376, 380. All told, in opposing the plaintiffs' efforts to have the foster-care system reformed, the State spent $2.4 million on outside counsel (who, because they charge the State reduced rates, worked significantly more hours than that figure alone indicates) and tapped its own law department for an additional 5,200 hours of work. 454 F.Supp.2d, at 1287.
Third, in the face of this opposition, the results obtained by the plaintiffs' attorneys appear to have been exceptional. The 47-page consent decree negotiated over the course of the mediation sets forth 31 specific steps that the State will take in order to address the specific deficiencies of the sort that I described above. See id., at 1289; see also App. 92-207 (consent decree). 1682*1682 And it establishes a reporting and oversight mechanism that is backed up by the District Court's enforcement authority. See 454 F.Supp.2d, at 1289. As a result of the decree, the State agreed to comprehensive reforms of its foster-care system, to the benefit of children in many different communities. And informed observers have described the decree as having brought about significant positive results. See, e.g., Record, Doc. 632, p. 4 (most recent court-appointed overseers' report) ("The State's overall performance ... continues the trend of steady improvement..."); id., at 4-10 (detailing substantial health, safety, and welfare improvements); see also, Office of the Child Advocate Ann. Report (2008), Letter from Tom C. Rawlings, Child Advocate, to Sonny Perdue, Governor of Georgia (Jan. 16, 2009), online at http://oca.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/ cit_ 1210/48/0/XXXXXXXXXOCA2008ÄnnualReport.pdf ("[W]e are generally pleased with the direction of our state's child welfare system ..."); cf. Weinstein & Weinstein, Before It's Too Late: Neuropsychological Consequences of Child Neglect and their Implications for Law and Social Policy, 33 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 561, 590-591 (2000) (describing in general the broad social impact of dysfunctional child-welfare systems (quoting National Institute of Health, Research on Child Neglect (1999), online at http:// grants. nih.gov/grants/guide/rfafiles/RFA-OD-99-06.html)). But see Record, Doc. 632, at 10-13 (noting areas in which Georgia's system still needs improvement).
Fourth and finally, the District Judge, who supervised these proceedings, who saw the plaintiffs amass, process, compile, and convincingly present vast amounts of factual information, who witnessed their defeat of numerous state procedural and substantive motions, and who was in a position to evaluate the ultimate mediation effort, said:

1. the "mediation effort in this case went far beyond anything that this Court has seen in any previous case," 454 F.Supp.2d, at 1282;
2. "based on its personal observation of plaintiffs' counsel's performance throughout this litigation, the Court finds that ... counsel brought a higher degree of skill, commitment, dedication, and professionalism to this litigation than the Court has seen displayed by the attorneys in any other case during its 27 years on the bench," id., at 1288-1290;
3. the Consent Decree "provided extraordinary benefits to the plaintiff class ... ." Id, at 1282. "[T]he settlement achieved by plaintiffs' counsel is comprehensive in its scope and detailed in its coverage .... After 58 years as a practicing attorney and federal judge, the Court is unaware of any other case in which a plaintiff class has achieved such a favorable result on such a comprehensive scale," id., at 1289-1290.
Based on these observations and on its assessment of the attorneys' performance during the course of the litigation, the District Court concluded that "the evidence establishes that the quality of service rendered by class counsel ... was far superior to what consumers of legal services in the legal marketplace ... could reasonably expect to receive for the rates used in the lodestar calculation." Id., at 1288.
On the basis of what I have read, I believe that assessment was correct. I recognize that the ordinary lodestar calculation yields a large fee award. But by my assessment, the lodestar calculation in this case translates to an average hourly fee per attorney of $249. See id., at 1287 (lodestar calculation and attorney hours). 1683*1683 (The majority's reference to an hourly fee of $866, ante, at 1675, refers to the rate associated with the single highest paid of the 17 attorneys under the enhanced fee, not the average hourly rate under the lodestar. The lay reader should also bear in mind that a lawyer's "fee" is substantially greater than his "profit," given that attorneys must sometimes cover case-specific costs (which in this case exceeded $800,000, see 454 F.Supp.2d, at 1291) and also must cover routine overhead expenses, which typically consume 40% of their fees, see Altman Weil Publications, Inc., Survey of Law Firm Economics 30 (2007 ed.)).
At $249 per hour, the lodestar would compensate this group of attorneys— whom the District Court described as extraordinary—at a rate lower than the average rate charged by attorneys practicing law in the State of Georgia, where the average hourly rate is $268. See id., at 89. Accordingly, even the majority would seem to acknowledge that some form of an enhancement is appropriate in this case. See ante, at 1674 ("[A]n enhancement may be appropriate where the method used in determining the hourly rate employed in the lodestar calculation does not adequately measure the attorney's true market value, as demonstrated in part during the litigation"). Indeed, the fact that these exceptional results were achieved in a case where "much of the work," ante, at 1675-1676, n. 7, was performed by relatively inexperienced attorneys (who, accordingly, would be compensated by the lodestar "below the market average," ibid.) is all the more reason to think that their service rendered their outstanding performance worthy of an enhancement. By comparison, the District Court's enhanced award— a special one-time adjustment unique to this exceptional case—would compensate these attorneys, on this one occasion, at an average hourly rate of $435, which is comparable to the rates charged by the Nation's leading law firms on average on every occasion. See Firm-by-Firm Sampling of Billing Rates Nationwide, National Law Journal, Dec. 11, 2006, p. S2 (listing 13 firms at which average hourly rate is between $400 and

$510); J. Barnett, Certification Drag: The Opinion Puzzle and Other Transactional Curiosities, 33 Iowa J. Corp. L. 95, 110, n. 58 (2007) ("These numbers are probably an underestimate given that many of the highest-billing national law firms decline to take part in the National Law Journal Survey"). Thus, it would appear that the enhanced award is wholly consistent with the purpose of § 1988, which was enacted to ensure that "counsel for prevailing parties [are] paid as is traditional with attorneys compensated by a fee-paying client." S.Rep. No. 94-1011, p. 6 (1976); see H.R.Rep. No. 94-1558, p. 9 (1976) ("[C]ivil rights plaintiffs should not be singled out for different and less favorable treatment"); see also Blum, 465 U.S., at 893, 897, 104 S.Ct. 1541.
In any event, the circumstances I have listed likely make this a "rare" or "exceptional" case warranting an enhanced fee award. And they certainly make clear that it was neither unreasonable nor an abuse of discretion for the District Court to reach that conclusion. Indeed, if the facts and circumstances that I have described are even roughly correct, then it is fair to ask: If this is not an exceptional case, what is?
* * *
My disagreement with the Court is limited. As I stated at the outset, we are in complete agreement with respect to the answer to the question presented: "[A]n increase" to the lodestar "due to superior performance and results" "is permitted in extraordinary circumstances." Ante, at 1684*1684 1678. Unlike Justice THOMAS, I do not read the Court's opinion to "advance our attorney's fees jurisprudence further along the decisional arc" toward a point where enhancements are "virtually" barred in all cases. Ante, at 1678 (concurring opinion). Our prior cases make clear that enhancements are permitted in "`exceptional' cases," Delaware Valley, 478 U.S., at 565, 106 S.Ct. 3088, where the attorney achieves "exceptional success," Hensley, 461 U.S., at 435, 103 S.Ct. 1933; see also Blum, 465 U.S., at 896-901, 104 S.Ct. 1541. By definition, such exceptional circumstances occur only rarely. See ante, p. 1677 (KENNEDY, J., concurring). I do not see how the Court could "advance" our fee enhancement jurisprudence so as to further discourage lodestar enhancements without overruling the precedents I have just cited, which the Court has not done. To the contrary, today the Court "reaffirm[s]" those precedents, which allow enhancements for exceptional performance. Ante, at 1669. And with respect to that central holding we are unanimous.
Nor is my disagreement with the Court absolute with respect to the proper resolution of the case before us, for the Court does not purport to prohibit the District Court from awarding an enhanced fee on remand if that court provides more detailed reasoning supporting its decision. Ante, at 1675; cf. Tr. of Oral Arg. 47. But the majority and I do disagree in this respect: I would not disturb the judgment below. "A request for attorney's fees should not result in a second major litigation." Hensley, 461 U.S., at 437, 103 S.Ct. 1933. Nor should it lead to years of protracted appellate review. See id., at 455-456, 103 S.Ct. 1933 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). We did not grant certiorari in this case to consider the fact-intensive dispute over whether this is, in fact, an exceptional case that merits a lodestar enhancement. The District Court has already resolved that question and the Court of Appeals affirmed its judgment, having found no abuse of discretion. I would have been content to resolve no more than the question presented. But, even were I to follow the Court's inclination to say more, I would hold that the principles upon which we

agree—including the applicability of abuse-of-discretion review to a District Court's fee determination—require us to affirm the judgment below.
[1] Justice BREYER would have us answer this question "Yes" and then end the opinion. See post, at 1678-1679 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). Such an opinion would be of little use to the bench or bar and would pointlessly invite an additional round of litigation. The issue of the standards to be applied in granting an enhancement is fairly subsumed within the question that we agreed to decide and has been extensively discussed in the briefs filed in this case.
[2] Title 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) provides:
"In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1981a, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or section 13981 of this title, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs . . . ." (Citations omitted.)
[3] Virtually identical language appears in many of the federal fee-shifting statutes. See Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 562, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992).
[4] These factors were: "(1) the time and labor required; (2) the novelty and difficulty of the questions; (3) the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly; (4) the preclusion of employment by the attorney due to the acceptance of the case; (5) the customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7) time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8) the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) the experience, reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) the `undesirability' of the case; (11) the nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 430, n. 3, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983).
[5] Respondents correctly note that an attorney's "brilliant insights and critical maneuvers sometimes matter far more than hours worked or years of experience." Brief for Respondents 14. But as we said in Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 898, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984), "[i]n those cases, the special skill and experience of counsel should be reflected in the reasonableness of the hourly rates."
[6] See, e.g., Salazar v. District of Columbia, 123 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C.2000); Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 572 F.Supp. 354 (D.D.C. 1983), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 746 F.2d 4 (C.A.D.C.1984).
[7] Justice BREYER's reliance on the average hourly rate for all of respondents' attorneys is highly misleading. See post, at 1683. In calculating the lodestar, the District Court found that the hourly rate for each of these attorneys was "eminently fair and reasonable" and "consistent with the prevailing market rates in Atlanta for comparable work." 454 F.Supp.2d, at 1285-1286. Justice BREYER's calculation of an average hourly rate for all attorney hours reflects nothing more than the fact that much of the work was performed by attorneys whose "fair and reasonable" market rate was below the market average. There is nothing unfair about compensating these attorneys at the very rate that they requested.
[8] Justice BREYER's opinion dramatically illustrates the danger of allowing a trial judge to award a huge enhancement not supported by any discernible methodology. That approach would retain the $4.5 million enhancement here so that respondents' attorneys would earn as much as the attorneys at some of the richest law firms in the country. Post, at 1683. These fees would be paid by the taxpayers of Georgia, where the annual per capita income is less than $34,000, see Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2010, p. 437 (2009) (Table 665) (figures for 2008), and the annual salaries of attorneys employed by the State range from $48,000 for entry-level lawyers to $118,000 for the highest paid division chief, see Brief for State of Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae, 10, and n. 3 (citing National Association of Attorneys General, Statistics on the Office of the Attorney General, Fiscal Year 2006, pp. 37-39). Section 1988 was enacted to ensure that civil rights plaintiffs are adequately represented, not to provide such a windfall.

 
 547 F.3d 1319 (2008)
KENNY A., by his next friend Linda WINN, Kara B., by her next friend Linda Pace, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
Sonny PERDUE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia, Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 06-15514.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
November 5, 2008.
Mark H. Cohen, Troutman Sanders, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Corey Fleming Hirokawa, Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Before EDMONDSON, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, FIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
ORDER:
The Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35, Federal 1320*1320 Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 35-5), the Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
WILSON, concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc:
I concur in the Court's denial of rehearing en banc only for the purpose of responding to the dissents that follow. I believe that existing precedent regarding the discretion afforded to district judges to calculate attorney's fee awards based on the longstanding lodestar analysis is clear, and not as confusing as the dissents attempt to make it out to be. Several decades of established Supreme Court precedent make it clear that district judges are vested with discretion to enhance a fee in accordance with a federal fee-shifting statute, in the "rare" and "exceptional" case, when there is specific evidence in the record to support an exceptional result and superior performance. See Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens, Council for Clean Air ("Delaware Valley I"), 478 U.S. 546, 565, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 3098, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986); Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984).
In Blum, the Supreme Court held that the "quality of representation" and the "results obtained" from the litigation could not serve as an independent basis for increasing the basic fee award only because the attorneys in Blum offered no evidence of an exceptional

result or superior performance. Blum, 465 U.S. at 899, 104 S.Ct. at 1549. That is not the case here. In Blum, the Court indicated that the outcome would have been different had the plaintiff's attorneys "offer[ed] specific evidence" to demonstrate that an enhancement was necessary to reflect counsel's performance. Id. I find no language in Blum that can be interpreted to suggest that upward adjustments for excellent results or superior performance are categorically excluded. The Court stated that an upward adjustment may be justified in the "rare case where the fee applicant offers specific evidence to show that the quality of service rendered was superior to that one reasonably should expect in light of the hourly rates charged" and resulted in "exceptional" success. Id.
Delaware Valley I presented the Supreme Court with a clear opportunity to overrule Blum, but it did not expressly do so. Rather, the Court repeatedly cited Blum with approval. See Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 564, 106 S.Ct. at 3098 ("We further refined our views [regarding the proper manner in which to determine a `reasonable' attorney's fee] in Blum . . . f[inding] that [the lodestar] is presumed to be the reasonable fee . . . ."); id. at 568, 106 S.Ct. at 3100 (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 897, 104 S.Ct. at 1549) (leaving questions left open in Blum to be decided later). Additionally, the Supreme Court in Delaware Valley I echoed Blum's non-categorical language and conducted a case-specific analysis of the enhancement at issue. See id. at 566-68, 106 S.Ct. at 3099-3100.
Moreover, the Supreme Court affirmed in Delaware Valley I that "upward adjustments of the lodestar figure are still permissible. . . in certain `rare' and `exceptional' cases, supported by both `specific evidence' on the record and detailed findings by the lower courts." Id. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098 (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 898-901, 104 S.Ct. at 1548-50). See The Supreme Court, 1986 Term: Leading Cases, 101 HARV. L. REV. 270, 293 (1987) (concluding that the Delaware Valley I Court "rejected the use of an enhancement based on superior attorney performance. . . absent specific evidence that the lodestar did not provide a reasonable award that reflected the quality of representation"). The dissents mischaracterize Delaware Valley I by ignoring this language, which precedes the Court's holding that 1321*1321 "the lodestar figure includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a `reasonable' attorney's fee, and it is unnecessary to enhance the fee for superior performance in order to serve the statutory purpose of enabling plaintiffs to secure legal assistance." Id. at 566, 106 S.Ct. at 3098. Although the Court is clear that "the overall quality of performance ordinarily should not be used to adjust the lodestar," the Court leaves open the possibility of an extraordinary case. Id. at 566, 106 S.Ct. at 3099 (emphasis added). Reading Blum and Delaware Valley I together, the Supreme Court has consistently indicated that, in the "rare" and "exceptional" case, the district court has the discretion to grant an enhancement.
Importantly, there is no circuit split on this issue. The Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits — all of the circuits that have considered this issue — agree that a district court may provide an enhancement for exceptional performance. See Kenny A. v. Perdue, 532 F.3d 1209, 1242 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming a lodestar enhancement); Geier v. Sundquist, 372 F.3d 784, 794-95 (6th Cir.2004) (concluding that Delaware Valley I permits enhancements based on quality of representation and results obtained in rare and exceptional cases); Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that, as in Blum and Delaware Valley I, upward adjustment for quality of representation "is justified only in the rare case where there is

specific evidence that the quality of service was superior in light of the hourly rates charged and that the success was exceptional"); Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F.3d 422, 425 (2d Cir.1999) ("The lodestar may be adjusted based on several factors, including in particular the results obtained. . . .") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Forshee v. Waterloo Indus., Inc., 178 F.3d 527, 532 (8th Cir.1999) (stating that, to justify enhancement for outstanding service and results, the applicant "must establish that the quality of service rendered and the results obtained were superior to what one reasonably should expect in light of the hourly rates charged and the number of hours expended") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Hyatt v. Apfel, 195 F.3d 188, 192 (4th Cir.1999) (affirming enhancement "on account of the exceptional results obtained . . ."); Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc., 124 F.3d 1221, 1233 n. 8 (10th Cir. 1997) ("The lodestar figure may be adjusted to suit the particular circumstances of the case, especially where the degree of success achieved is exceptional."); and, Shipes v. Trinity Indus., 987 F.2d 311, 320 (5th Cir.1993) (noting that upward adjustments based on quality of representation and results obtained are proper where supported by specific evidence on record and detailed findings by lower courts).
The discretion to enhance an attorney's fee is a tool uniquely within the province of the district judge. The district judge has an unparalleled opportunity to observe the attorney's performance in a given case. Only the district judge can evaluate the attorney's performance from the day he or she files the complaint to the day the judge enters the order. Before arriving at its decision in this case, the district judge set forth detailed findings to explain why the lodestar figure did not fully reflect the quality of representation and the results achieved.
Judge Tjoflat's dissent mischaracterizes the district court's observations and findings in its published order as "testimony." These findings and observations are simply explanations for the enhancement, provided because Blum and Delaware Valley II require that an enhancement be justified. This is not a due process violation. The district judge explained that he was motivated to enhance by his "own substantial 1322*1322 experience and familiarity with the prevailing rates in Atlanta, and the Court's observation of the stellar performance of plaintiffs' counsel throughout this long and difficult case," including the court's "58 years as a practicing attorney and federal judge." Kenny A. v. Perdue, 454 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1286, 1290 (2006). The district judge is in the best position to evaluate trial level advocacy, and therefore is in the best position to identify when that advocacy is exceptional. Although we review the district court's decision for an abuse of discretion, we should afford the district court the deference and discretion to which it is entitled.
We need not disturb our precedents in Norman v. Housing Auth. of Montgomery, NAACP v. Evergreen, and Kenny A. because they are consistent with existing Supreme Court precedent. Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1242; Norman v. Housing Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1302 (11th Cir.1988); NAACP v. Evergreen, 812 F.2d 1332, 1336-37 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam). Our decisions are also consistent with every other Circuit that has considered whether, and to what extent, exceptional performance and results can be used to enhance an attorney's fee under the lodestar calculation. The Supreme Court has instructed that a district judge should only do so in an exceptional case when there is specific evidence to support it. Kenny A. is that case.

TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:
In this case, the district judge, in undertaking the task of awarding attorney's fees to the prevailing plaintiffs under a federal fee-shifting statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1988,[1] decided to testify on behalf of the plaintiffs and did so ex parte, without notice to the defendants, in the form of statements made in the order he entered granting plaintiffs the fees they requested.[2] Based on these statements — in which he compared plaintiffs' counsel's performance and the comprehensiveness of the injunction the court entered with other cases that he declined to identify — the judge enhanced plaintiffs' fee request by a multiplier of 1.75. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 454 F.Supp.2d 1260 (N.D.Ga.2006) ("Kenny A. III"). On appeal, the panel accepted the judge's statements as probative evidence of the quality of counsel's performance and the result plaintiffs achieved,[3] 1323*1323 and, concluding that it was bound by precedent, NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 812 F.2d 1332 (11th Cir.1987) (per curiam), and Norman v. Housing Auth. of the City of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1988), upheld the 1.75 fee multiplier. See Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 532 F.3d 1209, 1236-37 (11th Cir.2008) ("Kenny A. IV"); id. at 1246 (Wilson, J., specially concurring); id. at 1251 (Hill, J., concurring). In my view, neither NAACP nor Norman compelled the result the panel reached, nor, as Judge Carnes's panel opinion argues, should they have.
I dissent from the court's failure to take this case en banc. In light of the numerous feeshifting statutes that Judge Carnes has cited in the appendix to his dissenting opinion, the panel's reading of NAACP and Norman, which I believe goes beyond the cases' holdings, will control the litigation of attorney's fees issues in this circuit. But there are reasons other than the panel's reading of NAACP and Norman that require the full court's attention en banc — reasons independent of those Judge Carnes advances.
If my reading of NAACP and Norman, as set out in part I, is correct, the district court's decision should be vacated and the case remanded to the district court. I would vacate the court's decision on two independent grounds: (1) the decision is unreviewable; and (2) the manner in which the court used its own testimony to enhance plaintiffs' attorney's fees request denied the defendants due process of law.
If my reading of NAACP and Norman is wrong, and their holdings required the panel to affirm, en banc review is still necessary to determine whether — in a case seeking the sort of injunctive relief plaintiffs sought and obtained in this case — quality of performance and the result obtained are permissible grounds for enhancing a lodestar fee that already incorporates an hourly rate at the top of the relevant market for the type of services performed. I contend in part III that an enhancement on these grounds is not available in cases like the one before us.
I.
In NAACP, we vacated and remanded the district court's decision refusing to grant an attorney's fee enhancement. We did so due to ambiguities in the district court's stated bases for denying the enhancement and the court's failure to address plaintiffs' "exceptional success" justification for a fee enhancement. NAACP, 812 F.2d at 1336-37. In Norman, we reversed and remanded the district court's refusal to enhance the attorney's fee award

because the court used the wrong standard in assessing the significance of the results the plaintiffs had obtained. Norman, 836 F.2d at 1306.
While we did assume in those cases that, at least theoretically, "superior results coupled with superior performance can be the basis for an enhancement of the lodestar amount," Kenny A. IV, 532 F.3d at 1238 (emphasis added), in neither case did we hold that fee enhancements granted on those grounds must be affirmed. We certainly did not hold that a district court would not be abusing its discretion if it enhanced an attorney's fee award on the basis of exceptional performance or result, particularly where, as here, the court relied 1324*1324 almost exclusively on unidentified and unreviewable personal experience, rather than specific evidence in the record, in reaching its determination. See Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 899, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1549, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984) (requiring "specific evidence" to support an enhancement based on superior service and exceptional success). If, as Judge Carnes's panel opinion "readily" concluded, "the district court's award of a $4,500,000 enhancement to the lodestar amount in this case is an abuse of discretion," then NAACP and Norman present no impediment to vacating the fee award. Kenny A. IV, 532 F.3d at 1236.
Because, however, the panel relied on the supposedly preclusive effect of NAACP and Norman, the panel gave those decisions greater precedential value than they deserve, by their own terms, in the future review of fee enhancements. Should the panel's decision stand, there would be almost no room for a panel of this court to find that a district court abused its discretion in granting a fee enhancement on the basis of the lawyer's purportedly superior performance or the result attained. For this reason alone, we should hear this case en banc to clarify and limit the reach of NAACP and Norman so that future courts will not mistakenly find their precedential effect so constraining.
II.
If my reading of NAACP and Norman is correct, the district court's decision should be vacated and the case remanded to the district court. As I explain in subparts A and B, the decision is unreviewable and is the product of the denial of due process of law.
A.
The district court's decision to enhance the lodestar in this case through the use of a multiplier of 1.75 ultimately was driven by the court's personal experience and subjective relative assessment of the lawyers' performance.[4] Specifically,
based on its personal observation of plaintiffs' counsel's performance throughout this litigation, the Court [found] that the superb quality of their representation far exceeded what could reasonably be expected for the standard hourly rates used to calculate the lodestar. Quite simply, plaintiffs' counsel brought a higher degree of skill, commitment, dedication, and professionalism to this litigation than the Court has seen displayed by the attorneys in any other case during its 27 years on the bench.[5]

Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1288-89 (emphasis added). Along similar lines, the 1325*1325 district court commented that "the quality of service rendered by class counsel . . . was far superior to what consumers of legal services in the legal marketplace in Atlanta could reasonably expect to receive for the rates used in the lodestar calculation." Id. at 1288. The court further opined "that plaintiffs' success in this case was truly exceptional." Id. at 1289. Indeed, the court continued, "[a]fter 58 years as a practicing attorney and federal judge, the Court is unaware of any other case in which a plaintiff class has achieved such a favorable result on such a comprehensive scale." Id. at 1290.
The district judge arrived at the fee enhancement by comparing counsel's performance and the result obtained in this case with the attorneys' performance and the result plaintiffs obtained in other cases. The court did not identify the other cases, the comparators, but I assume that they were cases over which the district judge presided and that they were class actions in which the plaintiffs sought equitable relief as sweeping, or nearly so, as what plaintiffs sought in this case. Indulging this assumption, the judge's statements regarding the quality of counsel's representation and the result plaintiffs achieved invite a multitude of questions, none of which the judge answered, including:
• What quality of representation would "consumers of legal services in the legal marketplace in Atlanta" have expected to receive for the rates used in the lodestar the district judge fixed in this case?
• What cases was the district judge using as comparators? Were they cases in which the attorneys claimed a far lower fee? (If so, counsel in this case should have been expected to bring "a higher degree of skill" to their task in order to earn the higher requested hourly rate.)
• What definition of "success" did the court use?
• What level of success did plaintiffs' counsel achieve in the comparators? Assuming that the level of success they achieved was lower than what counsel achieved in this case, why was it so?
The district judge provided no clue as to the answers to these questions. Accordingly, the critical portions of the record for review — the specific evidentiary facts on which the decision turned — do not exist. It is well-established that "no enhancement is permissible unless there is specific evidence in the record to show that the quality of representation was superior to that which one would reasonably expect in light of the rates claimed." Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302 (citing Blum, 465 U.S. at 899, 104 S.Ct. at 1549) (emphasis added). A district judge's mental impressions that are based on unknown facts cannot be reviewed.[6]
1326*1326 B.
The district judge provided the critical evidence that plaintiffs needed to obtain an enhancement of the lodestar that they proposed and that the court accepted as full compensation for services rendered. The evidence was testimonial and was given ex parte and without notice to the defendants.[7] In arriving at his fee-award decision in this manner, the judge denied defendants fundamental due process of law. "[I]t is not proper to admit ex

parte evidence, given by witnesses not under oath and not subject to cross-examination by the opposing party." Hornsby v. Allen, 326 F.2d 605, 608 (5th Cir.1964).[8] The district judge was required to afford defendants the right of cross-examination and, depending on what cross-examination might disclose, an opportunity to put on rebutting evidence.[9] It is obvious to me 1327*1327 that the district judge failed to comprehend the due process implications of what he was doing. Had he been aware of those implications, he would have been faced with two choices: he could (1) announce his intent to testify as a plaintiff's witness; or (2) put aside his personal opinion of counsel's performance and the result attained and, instead, point to other specific evidence in the record as the bases for his attorney's fees decision.
The first choice would have required his recusal from the case. When a judge becomes a material witness in a case over which he is presiding, he must recuse and let another judge take over. The judicial disqualification statute provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
28 U.S.C. § 455(a), (b)(1). Where, as here, the district judge feels compelled to testify — here as a plaintiff's witness — to his personal knowledge and experience, the judge clearly has, and has chosen to offer, "personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding." Id. § 455(b)(1). Whether, in addition, the judge actually has a personal bias or prejudice in favor of the party whom his testimony benefits is less clear, although the judge's opinion here is replete with unrestrained and glowing praise for plaintiffs' counsel, suggesting a distinct possibility of such bias or prejudice. But, by testifying on behalf of a party, there is little doubt that, at a minimum, the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Id. § 455(a). In such a circumstance, the need for recusal is clear.
III.
In this part, I assume that my reading of NAACP and Norman is wrong and that their holdings required the panel to affirm the enhancement of the lodestar by a multiple of 1.75. En banc review would still be necessary to explore the proposition that quality of performance and result may be employed in a class action brought under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to enhance a lodestar already reflecting an hourly rate prevailing at the top of the relevant market. I contend that neither factor would be an appropriate basis for an enhancement. I consider first the result reached, then the quality of performance.
A.

Aside from the procedural deficiencies associated with the lodestar enhancement in this case, it appears to me that an attorney's fee enhancement based on "exceptional" or "superior" results can never be appropriate in a class action, like this one, in which plaintiffs sought sweeping equitable relief.[10] Assuming that a court sitting in equity properly discharges its function in entering a just and legally appropriate 1328*1328 injunction, whether following a bench trial or after consideration of a consent decree crafted by the parties, there can be but one qualitative result; in no such case can one result be any more "exceptional" than, or "superior" to, another.
In any case in equity, such as the Rule 23(b)(2) class action at hand, the judge, sitting as a chancellor, has an obligation to do justice under the circumstances. See Coral Springs Street Sys., Inc. v. City of Sunrise, 371 F.3d 1320, 1340 (11th Cir. 2004) ("It is a bedrock principle of courts of equity that they may impose the substantive remedy of injunctive relief only when fundamental fairness and justice demand it." (emphasis in original)). The court can reach its judgment in one of two ways. It can hold a nonjury trial, in which case the court has all of the evidence before it and the opportunity to engage the witnesses and the attorneys in an effort to muster the information necessary to fashion an appropriate injunction. Alternatively, the court can enter a consent decree, in which case it must rely heavily on the competence of counsel to craft a legally appropriate injunction.
Under either approach — a bench trial or a consent decree — the court's obligation is the same. First, the final judgment must be fair and just under the circumstances. Second, because the decree will be enforced through the court's civil contempt power, the decree's injunctive provisions must be enforceable, meaning capable of feasible enforcement. To the extent they are not, the provisions should not be entered, as the issuance of an injunctive order that cannot be enforced breeds disrespect for the rule of law. Thus, in considering whether to enter a consent decree, a court must ask itself the same questions it would ask in assessing the adequacy and propriety of its own order after finding for the plaintiffs at the end of a bench trial: Are the injunctive provisions to be entered not only fair and just under the circumstances, but are they also capable of enforcement through the court's civil contempt power? Do they reach only as far as is necessary to right the wrong, to give the plaintiffs the relief to which they are legally entitled but not more? Are they tailored as narrowly as is necessary to effect the appropriate relief?
This evaluative rubric will produce one of three qualitative assessments: (1) the order will do justice and give the plaintiffs what the law allows; (2) the order will give the plaintiffs more relief than the law allows, which is plainly improper;[11] or (3) 1329*1329 the order will provide less relief than the law allows, which would be unconscionable and unjust. Every entered injunctive order or decree should fall into the first category; a court should never enter an order or approve a consent decree falling into the second or third category. Accordingly, in any given equitable case, there can be but one legally proper result.
In this case, we must assume that the consent decree approved by the district court was prepared by competent counsel on both sides and was crafted to be just and legally appropriate under the circumstances, affording the plaintiff class no more and no less than that to which it was legally entitled. Were this not the case, the district court would not — and should not — have approved it. It is against this necessary background assumption that we must review whether the result the consent decree provided could ever be deemed

"exceptional" or "superior" relative to the result the district court would have fashioned had it tried the case or the results reached in other comparable cases. As a matter of law and logic, it cannot.
"Exceptional" has been defined as "constituting, or occurring as, an exception; not ordinary or average; esp., much above average in quality, ability, etc." Webster's New World Dictionary 473 (3d college ed.1988). "Superior" means "greater in quality or value than . . . above average in quality; excellent." Id. at 1344. The result in one case can only be deemed "exceptional" or "superior" in relation to the result the district judge would have fashioned had he tried the case to a conclusion or the result he approved or fashioned in an appropriate comparator case. A proper comparator case in this situation would be another Rule 23(b)(2) class action seeking equitable relief.[12]
However, assuming, as we must, that a comparator case involved an order or consent decree whose injunctive provisions both (1) were fair and just under the circumstances, affording the plaintiffs all the relief to which they were legally entitled but no more, and (2) were feasibly enforceable, it is hard to see how the result in this case could be qualitatively "superior" or "exceptional." Indeed, were a district court to have found the result in the case before it to be "exceptional" or "superior" relative to comparator cases, it necessarily would have to conclude that the injunctions in the other cases were unconscionable, unjust, or unenforceable and, ipso facto, should never have been entered.
In this case, in which the district judge presumably relied on comparator cases from his own body of judicial experience, 1330*1330 his finding that the result in this case was "exceptional" and "superior" enough to justify a fee enhancement implicitly denigrates his own prior judgments by suggesting that they failed to satisfy the standard for proper equitable relief and that he never should have entered them. I am unwilling to assume that the district judge erred in deciding those prior cases — nor could I reach such a conclusion in any event because, as the district judge has not disclosed which other cases he was considering, I have no way to know which decisions to evaluate. Therefore, I have to assume that the injunctive relief awarded in the comparator cases was every bit as just, fair, and enforceable as the relief in this case and, accordingly, no less "exceptional."
The upshot is that, in the context of equitable relief, no properly-crafted injunction can be more "exceptional" than or "superior" to any other. As such, it can never be appropriate to enhance the attorney's fees in a case seeking injunctive relief on the basis of "exceptional" or "superior" results.
B.
In light of what the Supreme Court has said regarding the proper composition and function of the lodestar,[13] I am convinced that the district court was precluded from enhancing the admittedly adequate lodestar on the basis of counsel's performance. "[T]he lodestar figure includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a `reasonable' attorney's fee, and it is unnecessary to enhance the fee for superior performance in order to serve the statutory purpose of enabling plaintiffs to secure legal assistance." Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizen's Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 566, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 3098, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986). The lodestar is normally already assumed to account for the difficulty and cost of the

case and the performance rendered by the attorney. The proper way to account for attorney performance is in setting the hourly rate, not in enhancing the lodestar.
In the case at hand, however, there is evidence that, in calculating the lodestar, the district court used hourly rates already at the top of the relevant market for the type and character of legal services performed. Neither the Supreme Court nor this court has addressed the question of whether a performance-based fee enhancement may push the lodestar hourly rate above the upper end of the prevailing market rate. If it may, then the resulting lodestar would yield a fee higher than necessary to serve the purposes of the fee shifting statutes — fairly compensating attorneys for the work performed, but only at a rate high enough to ensure their clients' access to legal services. Therefore, I believe that a lodestar hourly rate that is already at the top of the relevant 1331*1331 market is simply ineligible for an additional enhancement.
A fee enhancement might conceivably be appropriate where an attorney quotes his client an hourly rate at the outset of the case, and later submits that rate to the court as his reasonable rate, yet that hourly rate ultimately proves to be insufficient in light of what the case in fact required the attorney to do.[14] Perhaps in the beginning the attorney did not accurately predict or appreciate how much time or effort the case would require, the level of resources he would have to devote, or the complexity of the issues that would arise. In short, an attorney who finds himself in over his head, stuck with an inadequate hourly rate, may be able to warrant relief in the form of a fee enhancement in order to obtain full and fair compensation for the work actually performed.
The situation is very different, however, when, as should more typically be the case, the attorney does not request an hourly rate until the end of the litigation and the submission of the fee application. At this stage, the attorney already knows how much time, skill, effort, and expense he has devoted to the case. With this knowledge, he is able to determine the combination of hours and hourly rate that will compensate him adequately for his services, in light of the results obtained and the prevailing rates in the relevant market for comparable legal services. Attorneys know how to value their own services, and this fully compensatory rate is the one that the attorney should request. Having already included every factor properly bearing on compensation — including the degree of the attorney's performance and the results obtained in the litigation — there is no need or justification for an enhancement on top of this. Anything over and above this fully and fairly compensatory fee, to be candid, could only be the product of the attorney's greed or the judge's favoritism. Neither ground is, or should be, permitted under the fee shifting statutes or sanctioned by this court.
IV.
I conclude where I began. The court ought to rehear this case en banc for reasons aplenty.
CARNES, Circuit Judge, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc, in which TJOFLAT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, join:
Although I have been on the short end of en banc votes before, this is the first time in sixteen years on the bench that I have written, or even joined, a dissent from the denial of

rehearing en banc. I take this unusual step to explain why I believe that in this case "a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by [the Supreme] Court." Sup.Ct. R. 10(c).
The important, unresolved question this case presents is one that affects the proper application of at least one hundred federal fee-shifting statutes that allow the prevailing party to recover a reasonable attorney's fee from the losing party. In arriving at an attorney's fee award, a district court calculates a lodestar amount by multiplying the reasonable number of hours worked, which reflects the difficulty of the case, by an hourly rate that fully reflects the attorney's skill and experience. See Penn. v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 563, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 3097, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 1332*1332 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). The question is whether a district court can then increase the award beyond that reasonable amount based on its finding that the attorney's performance was of superior quality and the results achieved were exceptional.
My court of appeals has answered that question "yes" in this case by affirming the district court's judgment, which included a $4.5 million enhancement based on a number of factors, the most important of which were what the district court found to be superior performance and exceptional results. Kenny A. ex rel Winn v. Perdue, 532 F.3d 1209, 1218 (11th Cir.2008) (majority opinion);[1] id. at 1225, 1242 (Carnes, J., concurring); id. at 1247, 1249 (Wilson, J., concurring); id. at 1251 (Hill, J., concurring); see also Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 454 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1288-90 (N.D.Ga.2006). The performance and results component was so important to the district court's enhancement decision that we declined to vacate and remand the enhancement on other grounds, concluding that it would be futile to do so given the primacy of that component. Id. at 1242 (Carnes, J., concurring) (recognizing that the district court improperly took contingency and other factors into account but explaining that it would be futile to remand on those grounds because "[t]he district court was so obviously enamored with the performance of plaintiffs' counsel and with the result that they achieved, and so determined to reward them for it, that we have no doubt the court would simply reinstate the enhancement"); see also id. at 1242, 1248 (Wilson, J., concurring) (agreeing that the district court should not have considered the contingency factor in making its enhancement decision but voting to affirm the full amount of the enhancement anyway).
Two of the three judges on the panel voted to affirm the multi-million dollar enhancement part of the fee award in this case because they were bound to follow established circuit law that a district court may take a reasonable attorney's fee award and enhance it for what the court views as extraordinary performance and results. Id. at 1236-38 (Carnes, J., concurring); id. at 1251 (Hill, J., concurring); see generally Norman v. Hous. Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1302 (11th Cir.1988); NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 812 F.2d 1332, 1336-37 (11th Cir.1987). The third judge on the panel voted to affirm the enhancement both because binding circuit law permits it and because he reads Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984), as "establish[ing] that enhancements for quality of representation and exceptional results, while not warranted in most cases, are permissible where supported by specific evidence." Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1243, 1246 (Wilson, J., concurring).

The Supreme Court speculated on this issue in the Blum case, but the facts did not present it. There was no specific evidence in that case to support the district court's conclusory findings that, among other things, the quality of legal services was superior to what one should reasonably expect and that the results obtained were exceptional. Blum, 465 U.S. at 898-99, 104 S.Ct. at 1548-49.
The Court reversed the enhancement in the Blum case. Id. at 902, 104 S.Ct. at 1550. Therefore, what the Blum decision 1333*1333 establishes, and all that it establishes, is that absent specific evidence and findings an enhancement for the quality of representation or results obtained is not permitted. See id. at 901-02, 104 S.Ct. at 1550; see also Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1221-22 (Carnes, J., concurring).
The Blum case does not establish as law the proposition that with specific evidence and findings an enhancement for superior representation and exceptional results is permissible. It could not. A decision in a case where particular facts are not present cannot establish the law governing cases where those facts are present. Any statements, and certainly any implications from statements, in the Blum opinion about what might have been the result if the facts had been different are nothing more than dicta. See Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 399-400, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821) ("It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision.") (Marshall, C.J.); United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2031, 170 L.Ed.2d 912 (2008) (plurality opinion) (speculations that address a case not before the Court "are the purest of dicta"); Parents Involved in Cmty. Schs. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1, 551 U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2738, 2762, 168 L.Ed.2d 508 (2007) (plurality opinion); Cent. Va. Cmty. Coll. v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356, 363, 126 S.Ct. 990, 996, 163 L.Ed.2d 945 (2006).[2]
The Supreme Court had another go at the issue two years later in the Delaware Valley case. The court of appeals had affirmed an enhancement based in part on 1334*1334 the superior quality of the representation and the exceptional nature of the success achieved. Delaware Valley, 478 U.S. at 554-56, 106 S.Ct. at 3093-94. The Supreme Court held that the enhancement was improper. Id. at 567-68, 106 S.Ct. at 3099-3100. In explaining why, the Court made statements indicating that it was categorically ruling out enhancements for superior performance and by extension superior results. See id. at 564-66, 106 S.Ct. at 3098-3100. For example, the Court stated that the special skill and experience of counsel, the quality of representation, and the results obtained "are presumably fully reflected in the lodestar amount, and thus cannot serve as independent bases for increasing the basic fee award." Id. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098. And the Court said this about superior performance enhancements: "In short, the lodestar figure includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a `reasonable' attorney's fee, and it is unnecessary to enhance the fee for superior performance in order to serve the statutory purpose of enabling plaintiffs to secure legal assistance." Id. at 566, 106 S.Ct. at 3098; see also id., 106 S.Ct. at 3099 ("[T]he overall quality of performance ordinarily should not be used to adjust the lodestar, thus removing any danger of `double counting.'").
Those categorical statements are clear, and if the Delaware Valley Court's discussion had ended there everyone would agree that this type of enhancement had been categorically

ruled out. The problem is that the discussion did not end with those statements. Instead, there was a "furthermore." After explaining why the quality of the performance or the results obtained cannot serve as bases for enhancing the fee award, the Court stated that "[f]urthermore" there was neither specific evidence nor specific findings in that case about why the results were so outstanding or why the quality of representation was not fully reflected in the lodestar. Id. at 567-68, 106 S.Ct. at 3099. And "[i]n the absence of such evidence and such findings," the Court could "find no reason to increase the fee award" based on the quality of representation. Id. at 568, 106 S.Ct. at 3099-3100.
There are two ways to interpret the Delaware Valley decision and its "furthermore" discussion. One way is to read the decision as containing two alternative holdings: an enhancement for superior representation and exceptional results is never permitted; and, even if it were, there was insufficient evidence or findings of anything special in that case. See Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1239-41 (Carnes, J., concurring). The other way is to read Delaware Valley as containing not two alternative holdings but only one, which is that such enhancements are not allowed absent specific evidence and findings to support the conclusion that the quality of representation and results obtained were truly special. See Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1243-45 (Wilson, J., concurring); Geier v. Sundquist, 372 F.3d 784, 794-95 (6th Cir.2004). Under that view, everything before the "furthermore" in the Delaware Valley opinion is not an alternative holding but only dicta.
If my alternative holdings interpretation of Delaware Valley is correct, then the law of this circuit and of the Sixth Circuit is flatly contrary to Supreme Court precedent, which needs to be clarified so that it will no longer be misinterpreted as holding exactly the opposite of what it does. If, instead, the narrow interpretation of the Delaware Valley decision is correct, then the Supreme Court has yet to hold—not imply, intimate, or suggest in dicta but actually hold—whether the federal fee-shifting statutes allow an enhancement when there is specific evidence and findings of superior performance and unexpected results.
1335*1335 The issue is clearly and squarely presented in this case. Two of the panel members in this case sharply disagreed and wrote about the meaning and effect of the Blum and Delaware Valley decisions, both of which reversed instead of affirmed enhancements for superior performance and results. Those two panel members also disagreed about the effect on this issue of the reasoning in City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992), which is the Court's last decision on the subject of lodestar enhancements. Compare Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1221-33, 1239-41 (Carnes, J., concurring) with id. at 1242-49 (Wilson, J., concurring). The third panel member kept his views about that matter to himself. See id. at 1251 (Hill, J., concurring). The bottom line for certiorari review purposes, however, is that the law of the Eleventh Circuit permits this kind of enhancement, and that law was applied to permit a $4.5 million enhancement of the lodestar amount in this case. See id. at 1236-39, 1242 (Carnes, J., concurring); id. at 1242, 1251 (Wilson, J., concurring); id. at 1251 (Hill, J., concurring).
The decision whether to affirm or vacate the $4.5 million enhancement part of the attorney's fee award turns on whether an enhancement for superior performance and exceptional results is permissible. If boosting the fee award on that basis is not proper, the judgment of the district court will have to be vacated and the case remanded. On remand the enhancement will have to be set aside entirely or at least substantially reduced because

without that basis the $4.5 million increase above the lodestar amount of reasonable fees cannot stand.
This case presents the superior performance and exceptional results enhancement issue as well as any ever will because the evidence and findings in this case are as specific as any are likely to be. It is true that the evidence that the attorneys put into the record in this case was in the form of affidavits from friendly lawyers with a vested interest in boosting the award, and for that and other reasons I did not find it particularly convincing. See id. at 1231-33 (Carnes, J., concurring). But the district court and at least one panel member did. See id. at 1247-49 (Wilson, J., concurring); Kenny A., 454 F.Supp.2d at 1290. More importantly for present purposes, the evidence in this case goes beyond that in the Blum and Delaware Valley cases, and given the nature of the question it is hard to imagine any more specific supporting evidence than is in the record here.
And the supporting findings by the district court were probably as specific as any could be, to say nothing of the enthusiasm with which they were uttered. See Kenny A., 454 F.Supp.2d at 1288-90. The district court unequivocally proclaimed that the attorneys being awarded fees "brought a higher degree of skill, commitment, dedication, and professionalism to this litigation than the Court has seen displayed by the attorneys in any other case during its 27 years on the bench." Id. at 1289. To convey its feelings about the result obtained, the court reached back beyond its 27 years on the bench, stating that "[a]fter 58 years as a practicing attorney and federal judge, the Court is unaware of any other case in which a plaintiff class has achieved such a favorable result on such a comprehensive scale." Id. at 1290.
In fact, the district court speculated, the results the attorneys were able to achieve through settlement probably exceeded what their clients were entitled to receive under the law. Id. at 1289-90 ("[E]ven if plaintiffs had prevailed in a trial of this case, it is doubtful that they would have obtained relief as `intricately detailed and comprehensive' as that contained in the Consent Decree."); see also Kenny A., 532 1336*1336 F.3d at 1229-30 (Carnes, J., concurring) (explaining that "[t]o the extent that the district court rewarded plaintiffs' counsel with an enhancement for obtaining better results than the class would have received had the case been resolved on the merits, that is plainly wrong," because "the fee-shifting statutes are not designed to provide representation that will win plaintiffs more than a correct application of substantive and remedial law entitles them to receive"). The district court's statement highlights the exceptional results issue.[3]
It may be that the evidence and findings in this case are insufficient to support a superior performance and exceptional results enhancement. If so, it likely will be because no evidence or findings can ever justify an enhancement on performance and results grounds because the lodestar already takes into account all of the factors that go into how well an attorney performs and the result obtained. The decisions in Dague and Delaware Valley imply as much. See Dague, 505 U.S. at 562-63, 112 S.Ct. at 2641-42; Delaware Valley, 478 U.S. at 565-66, 106 S.Ct. at 3098-99. If that is the law, the Supreme Court needs to tell those of us on the lower courts because that point has not gotten across. See, e.g., Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1243-45 (Wilson, J., concurring); Geier, 372 F.3d at 794-95; see also Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302; NAACP, 812 F.2d at 1336-37. See generally Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1239 n. 29 (Carnes, J., concurring).

The importance of the lodestar question presented by this case extends beyond the particular statute involved in this case. It arises not only under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as significant as that statute is, but also under every other federal fee-shifting statute that allows the prevailing party to recover a reasonable attorney's fee. While these statutes "cover a wide variety of contexts and causes of action, the benchmark for the awards under nearly all of these statutes is that the attorney's fee must be `reasonable.'" Delaware Valley, 478 U.S. at 562, 106 S.Ct. at 3096-97. And "case law construing what is a `reasonable' fee applies uniformly to all of [the federal fee-shifting statutes]." Dague, 505 U.S. at 562, 112 S.Ct. at 2641; see also Indep. Fed'n of Flight Attendants v. Zipes, 491 U.S. 754, 758 n. 2, 109 S.Ct. 2732, 2735 n. 2, 105 L.Ed.2d 639 (1989) ("[F]ee-shifting statutes' similar language is `a strong indication' that they are to be interpreted alike." (citation omitted)); Blum, 465 U.S. at 893, 104 S.Ct. at 1546 (noting that "Congress 1337*1337 directed that attorney's fees [under § 1988] be calculated according to standards currently in use under other fee-shifting statutes"); Ruckelshaus v. Sierra Club, 463 U.S. 680, 691, 103 S.Ct. 3274, 3281, 77 L.Ed.2d 938 (1983) (explaining "that similar attorney's fee provisions should be interpreted pari passu"); Northcross v. Bd. of Educ. of Memphis City Schs., 412 U.S. 427, 428, 93 S.Ct. 2201, 2202, 37 L.Ed.2d 48 (1973) (noting that "[t]he similarity of language" in two fee-shifting statutes "is, of course, a strong indication that the two statutes should be interpreted pari passu").
At a minimum, there are "over 100 separate [federal] statutes providing for the award of attorney's fees." Delaware Valley, 478 U.S. at 562, 106 S.Ct. at 3096. The actual number may be higher. See Marjorie A. Silver, Evening the Odds: The Case for Attorneys' Fee Awards for Administrative Resolution of Title VI and Title VII Disputes, 67 N.C. L.Rev. 379, 386 n.47 (1989) (estimating that "Congress has enacted anywhere from 100 to 200 feeshifting statutes" (citations omitted)); John F. Vargo, The American Rule on Attorney Fee Allocation: The Injured Person's Access to Justice, 42 Am. U.L.Rev. 1567, 1588 (1993) (noting that "[t]here are over 200 federal statutes . . . that provide for shifting of attorney's fees"). A partial list of federal fee-shifting statutes is attached as an appendix to this opinion. The precise number of federal "reasonable attorney's fee" statutes is not the point. The point is that this issue arises under not just one federal statute but under at least a hundred of them.
An unresolved issue affecting so many federal statutes is important. The record in this case and the facts and findings drawn from it present this important, unresolved issue as well as any case will and better than almost any other case can. It presents an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reach the issue it could not reach in Blum and Delaware Valley: Under the federal fee-shifting statutes can a reasonable attorney's fee be enhanced based on extraordinary effort or results where some evidence and findings support the enhancement, or are all of the factors that lead to the quality of the performance and the results obtained already covered in the lodestar calculation, as the opinions in Delaware Valley and Dague imply?
APPENDIX

Partial List of Federal Statutes Providing for the Prevailing Party To Recover a Reasonable Attorney's Fee
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E); Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(2)(B) & (g)(4)(B); Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b(i); Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. § 18(d)(1) & (e); Packers and Stockyards Act, 7 U.S.C. § 210(f); Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act 1930, 7 U.S.C. § 499g(b); Agricultural Fair Practices Act of 1967, 7 U.S.C. § 2305(a) & (c); Plant Variety Protection Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2565; Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, 11 U.S.C. §§ 303(i)(1)(B) & 523(d); Home Owners' Loan Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1464(q)(3); Federal Credit Union Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1786(p); Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. § 1818(n); Bank Holding Company Act Amendments of 1970, 12 U.S.C. § 1975; 1338*1338 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, 12 U.S.C. § 2607(d)(5); Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, 12 U.S.C. §§ 3417(a)(4) & 3418; Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 15(a) & (b)(1); Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, 15 U.S.C. §§ 15c(a)(2) & 26; Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77k(e); Trust Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77ooo(e) & 77www(a); Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. §§ 78i(e), 78r(a), 78u(h)(8); Jewelers' Liability Act, 15 U.S.C. § 298(b)-(d); Consumer Leasing Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1667b(a);

Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691e(d) & 1692k(a)(3); Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1709(c); Consumer Product Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2060(c), 2072(a), 2073(a); Hobby Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2102; Magnuson-Moss Warranty—Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(2); Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2618(d) & 2619(c)(2); Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2805(d)(1)(c) & (3); Condominium and Cooperative Abuse Relief Act of 1980, 15 U.S.C. §§ 3608(d) & 3611(d); Export Trading Company Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. § 4016(b)(1) & (4); National Cooperative Research Act of 1984, 15 U.S.C. § 4304(a)(1) & (b); National Historic Preservation Act Amendments of 1980, 16 U.S.C. § 470w-4; Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(4); Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, 16 U.S.C. § 2632(a)(1); Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 505; Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984, 17 U.S.C. § 911(f); Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c); Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2520(b)(3); Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation Amendments Act of 1980, 25 U.S.C. § 640d27(b); Tax Reform Act of 1976, 26 U.S.C. § 6110(j)(2)(B); Jury System Improvement Act of 1978, 28 U.S.C. § 1875(d)(2); Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1927; 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b); Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. § 504(a)-(b); Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b);

Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 431(c); Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b); Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b); Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g); Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, 29 U.S.C. § 1451(e); Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §§ 815(c)(3) & 938(c); Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. §§ 1275(e) & 1293(c); Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, 30 U.S.C. § 1427(c); Federal Oil and Gas Royalty Management Act of 1982, 30 U.S.C. § 1734(a)(4); 1339*1339 Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, 33 U.S.C. § 928(a); Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d); Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1415(g)(4); Deepwater Ports Act of 1974, 33 U.S.C. § 1515(d); Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, 33 U.S.C. § 1910(d); Patent Infringement Act, 35 U.S.C. § 285; Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300j-8(d); Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 406(b); Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973l(e); Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997a(b) & 1997c(d); Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(b); Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000b-1; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k); Privacy Protection Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 2000aa-6(f);

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. § 2184;
Fair Housing Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3612(p);
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4654(a) & (c);
Noise Control Act of 1972, 42 U.S.C. § 4911(d);
National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. § 5412(b);
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. § 5851(e)(2);
Comprehensive Older Americans Act Amendments of 1978, 42 U.S.C. § 6104(e)(1);
Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6305(d);
Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(e);
Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7604(d), 7607(f);
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, 42 U.S.C. § 7622(e)(2);
Powerplant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978, 42 U.S.C. § 8435(d);
Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9124(d);
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act Amendments of 1978, 43 U.S.C. § 1349(a)(5) & (b)(2);
Railway Labor Act of 1926, 45 U.S.C. § 153(p); Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 206 & 407;
Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(2)(C);
Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 11704(d)(3), 11707(b);
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, 50 U.S.C. § 1810(c).
[1] Plaintiffs' amended complaint, the pleading that contained all of the claims for relief, contained 18 counts, 15 of which stated causes of action. Nine of the counts sought relief under the Georgia constitution, Georgia statutes, or common law. Six of the counts sought relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the United States Constitution or federal statutes. Section 1988 applied only to those six counts. The consent decree the court signed does not indicate whether the decree was based on state or federal law. I assume that it was based on one or more of the § 1983 counts. In granting plaintiffs attorney's fees under § 1988, neither the parties nor the court appeared to have segregated out the time plaintiffs' counsel spent litigating the state law causes of action. Rather, they assumed that all of the time for which plaintiffs' counsel asked to be compensated dealt with the § 1983 claims. In extolling counsel's performance as far superior to anything he had witnessed in his 27 years on the district court, the district judge did not comment on, and apparently did not take account of, counsel's performance in prosecuting plaintiffs' state law claims.

[2] It is clear from a reading of the district judge's order granting plaintiffs' attorney's fees request that the district judge served as plaintiffs' witness. He provided the testimony that was critical and essential to the fee enhancement. See Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 454 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1288-90 (N.D.Ga.2006).
[3] Judge Carnes authored the panel's majority opinion; however, part VI of the opinion, 532 F.3d at 1220-42, which addressed the district court's fee enhancement, represented his views alone. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 532 F.3d 1209, 1220 n. 3 (11th Cir.2008). Judge Hill, who joined the remainder of Judge Carnes's opinion, voted to affirm the fee enhancement solely "because we are bound" by NAACP and Norman. Id. at 1251 (Hill, J., concurring). None of the three panel opinions referred to the district judge's statements as testimony given ex parte and without notice or questioned whether those statements were unreviewable. Yet the panel necessarily accepted the statements as probative evidence; otherwise, the panel could not have reached the result it did.
[4] The district court also purported to rely on the following factors as evidence that the lodestar calculation failed to account for the quality of service rendered by plaintiffs' counsel: (1) that counsel were required to advance case expenses of $1.7 million with no ongoing reimbursement; (2) that counsel were not paid on an ongoing basis as the work was performed; and (3) that counsel's ability to recover any fee or expense reimbursement was contingent on the outcome of the case. Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1288. Judge Carnes, correctly in my view, noted why none of these factors are legally permissible bases for a fee enhancement. Kenny A. IV, 532 F.3d at 1225-28 (relying on Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986), and City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992)). This leaves the district court's personal views of plaintiffs' counsel's performance and the result plaintiffs obtained as the only remaining bases for the enhancement. Id. at 1228-29.
[5] The district court's lodestar enhancement surely cannot stand to the extent that it was based on counsel's "commitment, dedication, and professionalism" displayed in the litigation. These attributes are always required of officers of the court, and attorneys should never be compensated — let alone compensated extra — merely for comporting themselves in a manner expected of all members of the bar, regardless of the fee charged for their services. See, e.g., Ga. State Bar R. & Regs., Rule 4-102, Rules of Prof'l Conduct, Preamble & Rules 1.1 (Competence), 1.3 (Diligence), 3.1 (Meritorious Claims and Contentions), 3.2 (Expediting Litigation), 3.3 (Candor Toward the Tribunal), 3.4 (Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel), 3.5 (Impartiality and Decorum of the Tribunal); see also LR 83.1(C), NDGa ("All lawyers practicing before this court shall be governed by and shall comply with the specific rules of practice adopted by this court and, unless otherwise provided, with the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct contained in the Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of Georgia and with the decisions of this court interpreting these rules and standards.").
[6] While we have previously suggested that a district judge may base a fee enhancement decision on his own knowledge and experience, see Norman, 836 F.2d at 1303, this option, even if properly available, does not relieve the judge of the obligation of identifying on the record the specific facts supporting the enhancement decision, see Blum, 465 U.S. at 899, 104 S.Ct. at 1549 (requiring "specific evidence" to support an enhancement based on superior service and exceptional success). Here, the district judge relied only on generalized, conclusory findings, keeping the factual premises of those findings locked away inside his personal recollection, shielded from challenge or appellate review. Such conclusions are insufficient to support an enhancement.
[7] I have not overlooked the possibility that the district judge, in comparing the quality of counsel's performance and the result plaintiffs attained with the quality of attorney performance and the result attained in the comparator cases, was effectively taking judicial notice of the quality of performance and result in those other cases. If that is what the judge was doing, it is no less troubling than his ex parte testimony is.
First, "[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed.R.Evid. 201(b). Clearly, the issues here are subject to reasonable dispute, and the accuracy of the court's determination of the relative merits of plaintiffs' counsel's performance and the result as compared to other cases can be, and have been, questioned. Second, the district judge afforded the defendants no opportunity to be heard, as required by Fed.R.Evid. 201(e), "as to the propriety of taking judicial notice and the tenor of the matter noticed." In sum, not only were the facts of which the judge may have taken judicial notice not proper subjects of such notice, but the court denied the defendants the procedural protections guaranteed by the rules of evidence.
[8] In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981.

[9] In theory, defendants could have exercised their right of cross-examination had they moved the court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59 for a new trial. Rule 59(a)(2) provides,
Further Action After a Nonjury Trial. After a nonjury trial, the court may, on motion for a new trial, open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new ones, and direct the entry of a new judgment.
An attorney's fee hearing under a fee shifting statute is essentially a nonjury trial limited to the issue of fees. Therefore, Rule 59(a)(2) provides a mechanism by which a defendant, ambushed by previously-undisclosed judicial testimony in the dispositive fee order, could obtain a re-opening of the proceedings in order to cross-examine the new witness (the judge), introduce rebuttal evidence if necessary, and obtain new findings of fact and conclusions of law on the basis of a record so augmented. If the judge granted the Rule 59(a)(2) motion, the defendant would no doubt follow with a motion for recusal unless the judge recused sua sponte. Whether a defendant in a case such as the one at hand must resort to Rule 59(a)(2) relief in order to preserve its argument that the court's utilization of its own ex parte testimony, given without notice, operated as a denial of due process is open to question. I would answer the question in the negative for two reasons: (1) a motion for a new trial is not a prerequisite for the direct appeal of the attorney's fees decision; therefore, such a motion is not necessary to preserve the due process issue this case presents; and (2) the scenario associated with processing the new trial motion would likely be unpleasant. In this case, defendants have not asserted the denial of due process as a basis for disturbing the district court's attorney's fees decision. The issue is, however, inextricably intertwined with the question of whether the court's decision is unreviewable for the reasons I have posited, and defendants were not required to assert in their principal brief that the decision under review is unreviewable. Unreviewability is a matter the court of appeals notices on its own initiative.
[10] Comparing class actions seeking equitable relief, as in this case, with class actions seeking money damages is like comparing apples and oranges. In granting equitable relief, the district court is concerned with whether the injunction it enters is narrowly tailored to provide only such relief as is necessary to prevent the future repetition of the legal wrong the court has found and whether the injunction is enforceable through the court's contempt power. In approving the settlement of a damages action, the court is not faced with those concerns. Rather, its concern is with the fairness of the settlement to all parties. In a money damages case, once the settlement is approved, the court is no longer involved.
[11] If, in a given case, a proposed consent decree would afford the plaintiffs a level of relief greater than they would be entitled to receive under a decree the court would fashion — because the consent decree would give the plaintiffs more than the law would allow — the district court should not approve the decree. In the case before us, the district court indicated that the consent decree may have provided plaintiffs with more than the law would allow. See Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1289-90 ("Indeed, the Court has previously recognized that even if plaintiffs had prevailed in a trial of this case, it is doubtful that they would have obtained relief as `intricately detailed and comprehensive' as that contained in the Consent Decree."); see also Kenny A. IV, 532 F.3d at 1230 ("To the extent that the district court rewarded plaintiffs' counsel with an enhancement for obtaining better results than the class would have received had the case been resolved on the merits, that is plainly wrong. . . . [T]he fee shifting statutes are not designed to provide representation that will win plaintiffs more than a correct application of substantive and remedial law entitles them to receive. . . . To put it in an either-or manner, superb results are either what a fair application of the law produces, which means that they are not truly `superb,' or they are results that exceed what the law allows and for that reason are beyond the purpose of the fee-shifting statutes."). Thus, no fee award, whether or not enhanced beyond an appropriately-calculated lodestar, should ever exceed fair market compensation for obtaining the maximum level of relief to which the client is legally entitled. Applied to the present context, if any of the unidentified comparator cases contemplated by the district court involved (1) receipt by plaintiffs of all the relief allowed by law, yet (2) no lodestar enhancement of the attorney's fees, then the lawyers here, who necessarily provided their clients no more "exceptional" a result, should not do any better in terms of fees on the basis of the result obtained in the litigation.
[12] The ideal comparators in this case would also involve broad injunctive remedies in which the court placed numerous affirmative obligations on governmental service bureaucracies. However, because all injunctive relief, no matter how sweeping or detailed, must meet the same equitable criteria and any such case can have but one legallyappropriate result, the inexorable conclusion that no properly-crafted injunctive remedy can be any more "exceptional" than or "superior" to the next applies regardless of what type of equity case serves as the comparator.
[13] Judge Carnes's panel opinion canvasses, accurately I believe, the Supreme Court's pronouncements about the composition and function of the lodestar. See Kenny A. IV, 532 F.3d at 1220-24. In a nutshell, the Court has long advised that the lodestar — the "product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate" — "is presumed to be the

reasonable fee contemplated by [42 U.S.C.] § 1988." Blum, 465 U.S. at 897, 104 S.Ct. at 1548. The Court has further emphasized that "[a] strong presumption that the lodestar figure . . . represents a `reasonable' fee is wholly consistent with the rationale behind the usual fee-shifting statute." Del. Valley, 478 U.S. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098 (emphasis added). In addition, fee shifting statutes "were not designed as a form of economic relief to improve the financial lot of attorneys . . . . Instead, the aim of such statutes was to enable private parties to obtain legal help in seeking redress for injuries resulting from the actual or threatened violation of specific federal laws." Id. In other words, the lodestar is intended to provide full compensation for the legal services rendered, but no more than that.
[14] I assume a case in which the requested hourly rate was somewhere below the top of the relevant market and even the enhanced hourly rate would not exceed an hourly rate prevailing at the upper end of the market.
[1] Judge Hill joined Parts I-V and VII of the lead opinion, which I authored, making those parts a majority opinion. See id. at 1220 n. 3. Neither he nor Judge Wilson joined Part VI of the lead opinion, and for that reason I refer to it as a concurring opinion by me. Although Part VI of the lead opinion is not part of the majority opinion, the pronoun "we" was used throughout it for continuity purposes.
[2] There is this passage in the Blum opinion:
[W]e reiterate what was said in Hensley: "where a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee. Normally this will encompass all hours reasonably expended on the litigation, and indeed in some cases of exceptional success an enhancement award may be justified." Hensley, 461 U.S., at [435], 103 S.Ct., at 1940. We therefore reject petitioner's argument that an upward adjustment to an attorney's fee is never appropriate under § 1988.
Blum, 465 U.S. at 901, 104 S.Ct. at 1550 (footnote omitted). The speculative "may be" language is "the purest of dicta," Santos, 128 S.Ct. at 2031 (plurality opinion), because the enhancement in Blum was reversed instead of affirmed. The quotation from Hensley is itself the purest of dicta because that case involved the reduction of an attorney's fee award for partial success, not the enhancement of one for more success than was expected. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 426, 103 S.Ct. at 1935-36.
For what it is worth, I agree with the literal statement in the dicta of the last sentence of the quotation from Blum, which rejects the argument that an upward adjustment of a fee award is never appropriate. While I believe that enhancements are never appropriate for superior performance and exceptional results, see Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1220-42 (Carnes, J., concurring), they may well be appropriate in other situations, especially those involving unpopular clients or causes where the attorney suffers from the representation in ways not compensated by the lodestar. Id. at 1233-34 (giving three examples); see also Guam Soc. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 100 F.3d 691, 698-99 (9th Cir.1996) (concluding that enhancement was appropriate where case was extremely controversial and attorney received death threats during the course of the litigation). No one contends that this is a case where the clients were detested, the litigation was unpopular, or the attorneys' standing in their profession or community suffered in the least. In fact, just the opposite is true. Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1234-35 (Carnes, J., concurring); cf. Applegate v. United States, 52 Fed.Cl. 751, 773 (Fed.Cl.2002) (reversing judgment awarding enhancement where "the facts here demonstrate that [plaintiffs' counsel] was not prosecuting an unattractive case, but rather pursuing a cause celeb—the type of case that a firm with local roots likely would embrace and seek to publicize to its clients and prospective clients as an indication of its community involvement").
[3] The issue is also highlighted by the fact that the district court calculated the lodestar using the full hourly rates the plaintiffs requested, ranging from $75 to $150 for paralegals, interns, and assistants up to from $215 to $495 for the attorneys depending on "skill, judgment, and performance." See Kenny A., 454 F.Supp.2d at 1284-85; Kenny A., 532 F.3d at 1217 (majority opinion). "[T]hose hourly rates . . . appear to be on the generous side," Kenny A. 532 F.3d at 1220 n. 2., but the district court did not cut them by so much as a penny.
In approving in full the hourly rates that the plaintiffs requested, the district court expressly relied on "the stellar performance of plaintiffs' counsel throughout this long and difficult case," Kenny A., 454 F.Supp.2d at 1286. That admission perfectly frames the question of whether the Supreme Court meant what it said in Delaware Valley about "the novelty and complexity of the issues, the special skill and experience of counsel, the quality of representation, and the results obtained from the litigation [being] presumably fully reflected in the lodestar amount, and thus [those factors] cannot serve as independent bases for increasing the basic fee award." Delaware Valley, 478 U.S. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098 (quotation marks omitted, brackets omitted and added). The district court plainly counted "the

stellar performance of plaintiffs' counsel" twice—once in setting the high hourly rates and again in enhancing the lodestar after using those hourly rates to calculate it. Kenny A., 454 F.Supp.2d at 1286, 1288-89.

 
 616 F.3d 1230 (2010)
KENNY A., by his next friend Linda Winn, Kara B., by her next friend Linda Pace, Maya C., by her next friend Linda Pace, Phelicia D., by her next friend Theresa Roth, Sabrina E., by her next friend Rebecca Silvey,
Korrina E., by her next friend Rebecca Silvey, Tanya F., by her next friend Carol Huff, Priscilla G., by her Next Friend Roslyn M. Satchel, Briana H., by her next friend Linda Pace, on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees-CrossAppellants, v.
Sonny PERDUE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia, Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia,
James Martin, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Fulton County, Beverly Jones, in her official capacity as Director of the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services, DeKalb County DFCS, Wayne Drummond, in his official capacity as Director of the DeKalb County Department of Family
and Children Services, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, Fulton County, DeKalb County, Defendants.
Nos. 06-15514, 06-15874.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
September 2, 2010.
1231*1231 Mark H. Cohen, Troutman Sanders, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Corey Fleming Hirokawa, Bondurant, Mixon & Elmore, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Before CARNES, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The district court's order and judgment entered on October 3, 2006, awarding the plaintiffs attorney's fees, costs, and expenses is VACATED, and this case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's decision and opinion in Perdue v. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1662, 176 L.Ed.2d 494 (2010).

 
 532 F.3d 1209 (2008)
KENNY A., by his next friend Linda Winn, Kara B., by her next friend Linda Pace, Maya C., by her next friend Linda Pace, Phelicia D., by her next friend Theresa Roth, Sabrina E., by
her next friend Rebecca Silvey, Korrina E., by her next friend Rebecca Silvey, Tanya F., by her next friend Carol Huff,
Priscilla G., by her next Friend Roslyn M. Satchel, Briana H., by her next friend Linda Pace, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-AppelleesCross-Appellants, v. Sonny PERDUE, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Georgia, Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, James Martin, in his official capacity as
Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, Division of Family and Children Services, Fulton County, Beverly Jones, in her official capacity as Director of the Fulton County Department of Family and Children Services, DeKalb County DFCS, Wayne Drummond, in his official capacity as Director of the DeKalb County Department of Family and Children Services, DefendantsAppellants-Cross-Appellees, Fulton County, DeKalb County, Defendants.
Nos. 06-15514, 06-15874. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. July 3, 2008.
1214
*1214 Mark H. Cohen, Troutman Sanders, Atlanta, GA, for DefendantsAppellants-Cross-Appellees. Corey Fleming Hirokawa, Jeffrey O. Bramlett, Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. Before CARNES, WILSON and HILL, Circuit Judges. CARNES, Circuit Judge: When asked how much money would be enough for him, John D. Rockefeller reportedly said: "Just a little bit more."[1] The attorneys for the plaintiff class in this case want more than just a little bit more. They want a lot more money than they would receive from multiplying the number of

hours they worked on this case by the hourly rate they charge. And the district court gave them a lot more — $4,500,000 more — out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Georgia. Not caught up in the district court's spirit of generosity with their money, the Georgia taxpayers (through their governor and other officials who are defendants) have appealed the attorneys' fees award because of that multimillion dollar enhancement and for other reasons. The plaintiffs' attorneys, convinced that the district court was not generous enough, have crossappealed (through the class they represent), insisting that they deserve even more than the $10,500,000 total fees that the court awarded them.
I.
Kenny A. and eight other named plaintiffs in this lawsuit are foster children in the custody of the Georgia Department of Human Resources. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 454 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1266 (N.D.Ga.2006) (Kenny A. III). In June 2002, on behalf of a class of all foster children in Fulton and DeKalb Counties and a subclass of African American foster children, the plaintiffs sued the governor, DHR, its commissioner, Fulton and DeKalb Counties, each county's department of family and children services, and the
1215
*1215 director of each of those departments. Id. at 1266-67. The complaint alleged systemic deficiencies in the counties' foster care systems. Id. at 1267. These deficiencies, according to the complaint, included: (1) assigning excessive numbers of cases to inadequately trained and poorly supervised caseworkers; (2) not developing a sufficient number of foster homes properly screened to ensure the plaintiff children's safety; (3) not identifying adult relatives who could care for the plaintiff children as an alternative to strangers or impersonal institutions; (4) failing to provide relevant information and support services to foster parents in order to prevent foster placements from being disrupted; (5) failing to develop administrative controls such as an information management system that ensures plaintiff children are expeditiously placed in a foster home matched to meet the children's specific needs; (6) failing to provide timely and appropriate permanency planning, including failing to provide services that would enable plaintiffs to achieve their permanency planning goals; (7) placing plaintiffs in dangerous, unsanitary, inappropriate shelters and other placements; (8) failing to provide appropriate and necessary mental health,

medical, and education services to children in their custody; and (9) separating teenage mothers in foster care from their own children and separating siblings in foster care from each other without providing visitation. Id. The complaint asserted fifteen causes of action under federal and state law. Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277, 283 (N.D.Ga.2003) (Kenny A. I). The federal law claims included alleged violations, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, of the class members' Fourteenth Amendment rights to substantive and procedural due process and their First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights to liberty, privacy, and association. Id. The complaint also alleged violations of the class members' statutory rights under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, as well as violations of the early and periodic screening, diagnosis, and treatment program of the Medicaid Act. Id. The state law claims asserted included violations of the class members' substantive due process and equal protection rights under the Georgia Constitution, violations of various Georgia statutes, and claims of nuisance, breach of contract, and inadequate and ineffective legal representation. Id. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees and expenses. Id. at 283 n. 1. The district court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1269; Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue, 356 F.Supp.2d 1353, 1355 (N.D.Ga.2005) (Kenny A. II); Kenny A. I, 218 F.R.D. at 305. It certified the class of all foster children in the Fulton and DeKalb County foster care systems, and the subgroup of African American foster children "who have had, or are subject to the risk of having, their adoption delayed or denied on the basis of their race or color," Kenny A. I, 218 F.R.D. at 305, and set the case for trial, Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1268-69. At the same time, the district court referred the case to mediation. Id. at 1269. As that court would later describe it, "over the next four months the parties attended eighteen separate mediation sessions where they spent more than 110 hours trying to hammer out a settlement agreement." Id. They were eventually successful. Id.
1216
*1216 In May 2006 the district court gave final approval to the settlement between the plaintiff class and Fulton and DeKalb Counties; the parties agreed to an attorneys' fees award in that part of the case; the district court entered that award, and it has not been appealed. This appeal arises from

the settlement involving the rest of the defendants, which was approved by the district court in October 2005. Id. The court summarized that settlement this way: Its centerpiece is a series of thirty-one outcome measures that State Defendants have agreed to meet and sustain for at least three consecutive six-month reporting periods. The outcome measures, many of them requiring phased-in results over a two-year period, seek to improve performance in the following areas: timely commencement and thorough completion of investigations of reported abuse or neglect; regular visits of foster children by case workers; approval and licensure of foster homes and other placements; the percentage of children who are the victims of substantiated maltreatment while in foster care; the percentage of children in foster homes that exceed their licensed capacity; the percentage of children who have experienced multiple moves while in foster care; and periodic judicial reviews of the safety and status of foster children. In addition, the Consent Decree requires comprehensive and periodic delivery of medical, dental, and mental health services to foster children; a detailed process for improved goal-setting, case planning and periodic reviews of children's status while in foster care; limits on the placement of children in emergency shelters and group homes and institutions, and protections against overcrowding in foster homes; and the establishment of reimbursement rates to adequately compensate providers for caring for foster children. Moreover, State Defendants commit to reduced caseloads for all case managers and supervisors; a fully implemented single statewide automated child welfare information system; and maintaining or establishing placements and related services identified in a "needs assessment" to be conducted by a neutral expert. The settlement also includes processes for the supervision of private contract agencies that provide homes and services for foster children; improvements in foster parent screening, licensing and training, as well as foster parent support and communication; improvements in case manager training; improvements in processes for addressing suspected abuse or neglect and suspected corporal punishment of children in foster care; and improvements in efforts to maximize available federal funding. Finally, the settlement provides that two child welfare specialists will serve as the Court's independent accountability agents charged with the responsibility of measuring and reporting publicly on the State Defendants' compliance with these and other undertakings as specified in the Consent

Decree. Id. at 1289. The 2005 settlement agreement further acknowledged that "Plaintiff Class is entitled to recover its expenses of litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and nontaxable costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(h)." The agreement said that the parties would "attempt without court intervention to resolve the proper amount of Class Counsel's fees and expenses of litigation." If the parties could not reach an agreement, then "[t]he amount of any award shall be determined by the Court in accordance with the requirements
1217
*1217 of applicable law and procedures." That is what happened. Because the parties could not agree on the amount of fees, the class filed a motion for the court to make a determination and award. Id. at 1269-70. It was accompanied by 2,500 pages of billing records, by affidavits from the two lead counsel for the class, and by affidavits from five Atlanta area attorneys who were not involved in the case. Id. at 1270, 1290. The motion sought a total of $14,342,860 in fees. Id. Half of that amount, $7,171,434.30, was to compensate the attorneys and their paralegals for the 29,908.73 hours they claimed to have worked at rates they sought; those rates ranged from $75 to $495. Id. The other $7,171,434.30 they sought was to be an enhancement of the fee award for a job well done. Id. The defendants objected to some of the hourly rates requested and to the number of hours claimed. Id. They broke down the 2,500 pages of submitted billing records into fifteen categories of hours representing different stages of the case, and argued that in fourteen of those categories the plaintiffs' attorneys had expended more hours than was reasonably necessary to effectively represent the class. Id. at 1273-74 & n. 5. The defendants also argued that many of the entries on the billing records were too vague to support a claim for compensation. Id. at 1274. As for the request that the fee award be doubled by means of a $7 million enhancement, the defendants objected, arguing that this was not one of the rare cases in which an enhancement would be appropriate. They argued that enhancing the fee based on the results obtained would be improper because the skill of the plaintiffs' attorneys in litigating the case would already have been taken into account in setting their hourly rates. Double counting the skill factor would be inappropriate, the defendants argued. The district court overruled all of the defendants' objections to the hourly rates sought by the plaintiffs' attorneys. Id. at 1285. It granted in full each

hourly rate requested, ranging from $215 to $495 for plaintiffs' attorneys, depending on their relative skill and experience. Id. at 1284-85. The court did not reduce the requested rates at all even though some of them were New York rates instead of Atlanta rates, and even though some of the attorneys (for example, Marcia Robinson Lowry, one of the two lead attorneys) recently had been awarded a smaller hourly rate for work on another case of exactly the same type. Id. at 1284-86. Likewise, the court approved in full the requested hourly rates of $75 to $150 for paralegal work. Id. at 1285. The district court did partially sustain the defendants' objection to the number of hours that the plaintiffs' attorneys claimed to have worked on the case. Id. at 1274. The court agreed with the defendants that some of the entries on counsel's billing records were vague and that the hours claimed for nine of the fifteen billing categories were excessive. Those nine excessively billed categories were: (1) preparing the complaint and mandatory disclosures; (2) litigating the preliminary injunction motion; (3) producing and analyzing documents; (4) litigating discovery motions; (5) conferencing with each other; (6) preparing expert witness reports; (7) responding to the summary judgment motion; (8) preparing for trial; and (9) travel. Id. at 1274-84, 1286. The court dealt with the vague and excessive billing two ways, one for the non-travel hours and the other for travel hours. It made "an across-theboard 15% reduction in the number of non-travel related hours claimed by plaintiffs' counsel." Id.
1218
*1218 at 1286. This 15 percent reduction amounted to 4,371.22 hours being sliced off the 29,141.46 total number of non-travel hours for which the attorneys had requested compensation. In dollar terms, that amounted to a reduction of $1,040,176.92 in non-travel related attorneys' fees. To remedy the vagueness and excessive billing problem as it related to travel hours, the court halved the hourly rate, thereby effectively halving the number of travel hours that were compensated from 767.27 to 383.64, which amounted to a reduction of $118,460.75. When travel and non-travel fees are considered together, the court reduced the overall $7,171,434.30 fee request by $1,158,631.40, which amounted to an overall reduction of 16 percent. After the reductions, the total award was $6,012,802.90 before enhancement. Id. On the applicability of an enhancement to the fee request, the court overruled the defendants' objections. Id. at 1288. The court found that the plaintiffs' attorneys were entitled to an enhancement because their hourly

rate did "not take into account (1) the fact that class counsel were required to advance case expenses of $1.7 million over a three-year period with no ongoing reimbursement, (2) the fact that class counsel were not paid on an on-going basis as the work was being performed, and (3) the fact that class counsel's ability to recover a fee and expense reimbursement were completely contingent on the outcome of the case." Id. (footnote omitted). The district court also found that "the superb quality of [counsel's] representation far exceeded what could reasonably be expected for the standard hourly rates used to calculate the [fee]." Id. at 1288-89. The court commented that "[q]uite simply, plaintiffs' counsel brought a higher degree of skill, commitment, dedication, and professionalism to this litigation than the Court has seen displayed by the attorneys in any other case during its 27 years on the bench." Id. at 1289. Finally, the court said that an enhancement was appropriate because "the evidence establishes that plaintiffs' success in this case was truly exceptional." Id. For these reasons, and based on the affidavits of some Atlanta area attorneys urging the court to enhance the fee award (even more than it did), the court multiplied the $6,012,802.90 fee award by 1.75, thereby enhancing it by 75 percent or $4,509,602.00. Id. at 1290. That enhancement boosted the total fee award to $10,522,405.08. Id.
II.
In reviewing the decisions of the district court raised in this appeal and cross-appeal, we look at questions of law anew but we review the court's findings of fact only for clear error. Atlanta Journal & Constitution v. City of Atlanta Dep't of Aviation, 442 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2006). The abuse of discretion standard applies to the district court's determination of the number of compensable billable hours, the hourly rate at which plaintiffs' counsel is compensated, the award of costs and expenses, and the enhancement decision. See Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ga. v. Barnes, 168 F.3d 423, 439 (11th Cir.1999); Richardson v. Ala. State Bd. of Educ., 935 F.2d 1240, 1248-49 (11th Cir. 1991). In applying the abuse of discretion standard, we keep in mind that "[w]hen a district court has discretion, there are usually a range of choices it may make and still be affirmed; there is not only one right choice for the court to make." Blasland, Bouck & Lee, Inc. v. City of N. Miami, 283 F.3d 1286, 1298 (11th Cir. 2002); McMahan v. Toto, 256 F.3d 1120, 1128 (11th Cir.2001) (same). This is true "even though we would have gone the other way had it been our call." Rasbury v. Internal

Revenue Serv., 24 F.3d 159, 168 (11th Cir.1994).
1219
*1219 Of course, "[a] district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law." Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 2047, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996); accord Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 333, 115 S.Ct. 851, 870, 130 L.Ed.2d 808 (1995) (O'Connor, J., concurring) ("It is a paradigmatic abuse of discretion for a court to base its judgment on an erroneous view of the law."). We may also find an abuse of discretion if the district court failed to follow proper procedures in making its determination, based an award upon findings of fact that are clearly erroneous, or committed a clear error of judgment. Johnson v. Breeden, 280 F.3d 1308, 1326 (11th Cir.2002); Sun-America Corp. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 77 F.3d 1325, 1333 (11th Cir.1996); BankAtlantic v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc., 12 F.3d 1045, 1048 (11th Cir.1994).
III.
In their cross-appeal the plaintiffs contend that the district court abused its discretion in two respects: (1) by not applying the common fund and common benefit doctrines, which would have resulted in a fee award substantially higher than the one they received; and (2) by not compensating them for the $801,864.40 they spent on expert witness expenses. The district court resolved each of those two issues correctly, and we affirm its decision of them on the basis of the reasoning contained in its opinion. Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1270-72, 1291-92.
IV.
The defendants conceded in the settlement agreement that the class had prevailed in the litigation and was entitled to recover reasonable attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. That section provides in relevant part that in any action, like this one, where the plaintiffs seek to enforce their constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, "the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs." 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). In their appeal the defendants contend that the district court abused its discretion in three ways. Their first contention is that the district court should not have awarded the plaintiffs' attorneys all of the photocopying expenses they claimed. See Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1294-95.

Although we probably would not award the full amount of the claimed expenses if we were deciding the matter in the first instance, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in doing so.
V.
We turn now to the defendants' other contentions, starting with their argument that the district court erred in calculating the lodestar amount. "The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate." Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1939, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983). The product of this formula is the "lodestar," Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 781 (11th Cir.1994) (per curiam), which is "the guiding light of our fee-shifting jurisprudence," City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 562, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 2641, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992). Although the defendants no longer contest the hourly rate component of the district court's lodestar calculation,[2]
1220
*1220 they do contend that the district court compensated the plaintiffs' attorneys for an unreasonable number of hours. As we have already explained, the court essentially cut the total number of hours submitted by 16 percent because of vague entries and excessive billing. See supra at 1217-18. We have held that where the billing records are voluminous, as they are here, a district court may make a reasonable across the board reduction in hours instead of engaging in the pick and shovel work necessary to make a more precise determination. See Loranger, 10 F.3d at 783. Even so, the defendants argue, the district court's cut was unreasonably shallow — it should have cut much deeper. The district court's reduction of only 16 percent in the submitted hours does appear charitable, maybe even excessively so, in favor of the plaintiffs' attorneys, but we are not quite convinced that it was a clear error of judgment, which is what we would have to conclude in order to find an abuse of discretion. See Johnson, 280 F.3d at 1326; SunAmerica Corp., 77 F.3d at 1333; BankAtlantic, 12 F.3d at 1048. Even though we would have cut the billable hours more if we were deciding the matter in the first instance, we cannot say that the result the district court reached was outside the range of permissible choices on this record. See Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe County, Fla., 402 F.3d 1092, 1103-04

(11th Cir.2005); Cooper v. Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695, 711-12 (11th Cir.2004); Rasbury, 24 F.3d at 168.
VI.[3]
The defendants' final contention is that the district court should not have granted plaintiffs' attorneys a $4.5 million enhancement to the $6 million lodestar amount. That contention can claim the favor of a presumption, and not a weak one either. The Supreme Court has instructed us that there is a "strong presumption" that the lodestar figure, without any adjustment, is the reasonable fee award. Dague, 505 U.S. at 562, 112 S.Ct. at 2641; Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 3098, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986) (Delaware Valley I). That strong presumption can be rebutted only in "rare" and "exceptional" cases, Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098, where the fee applicant has shown that without an upward adjustment of the lodestar amount the fee would be unreasonable, Dague, 505 U.S. at 562, 112 S.Ct. at 2641. Even in the rare and exceptional case where an enhancement is permissible, it must be "supported by both `specific evidence' on the record and detailed findings by the lower court." Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098.
A.
In order to appreciate just how rare and exceptional a case must be for an enhancement of the lodestar amount to be permissible these days, a review of the evolution of Supreme Court thinking in this area is necessary. The history of the issue is one of early, tentative statements indicating more receptiveness to enhancements than
1221
*1221 the statements and holdings of later decisions actually permit. Suggestion has been followed by retrenchment, resulting in a decisional arc that bends decidedly against enhancements. Hensley, a 1983 decision, was the Court's first stab at interpreting what Congress meant by a "reasonable fee" under § 1988 and similar feeshifting statutes. In that case the Court adopted the lodestar method for calculating fees. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 433-34, 103 S.Ct. at 1939-40. In doing so, the Court said that "[t]he most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number of hours

reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate." Id. at 433, 103 S.Ct. at 1939. It added, however, that this "does not end the inquiry," because "[t]here remain other considerations that may lead the district court to adjust the fee upward or downward, including the important factor of the `results obtained.'" Id. at 434, 103 S.Ct. at 1940. The context in which that statement was made, however, was not one of upward enhancement. Instead, the actual adjustment issue decided in Hensley was whether the lodestar figure should be reduced for plaintiffs who have achieved only partial or limited success. See id. at 426, 103 S.Ct. at 1935-36 ("The issue in this case is whether a partially prevailing plaintiff may recover an attorney's fee for legal services on unsuccessful claims."); see also id. at 434-37, 103 S.Ct. at 1940-41. The Court decided that the fees should be reduced by the amount spent on claims that do not succeed. Id. at 440, 103 S.Ct. at 1943 ("Where the plaintiff has failed to prevail on a claim that is distinct in all respects from his successful claims, the hours spent on the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the amount of a reasonable fee."); see also id. ("[W]here the plaintiff achieved only limited success, the district court should award only that amount of fees that is reasonable in relation to the results obtained."). Even though the issue of enhancements was not presented in Hensley, the opinion does contain this dicta: "Where a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee. Normally this will encompass all hours reasonably expended on the litigation, and indeed in some cases of exceptional success an enhanced award may be justified." Id. at 435, 103 S.Ct. at 1940. The use of "may be" instead of "will be" was a harbinger of decisions to come. The next term the Supreme Court decided Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984), which, unlike Hensley, was a case in which the district court had actually awarded an enhancement. Id. at 891, 104 S.Ct. at 1545. The court had enhanced the lodestar figure by 50 percent "because of the quality of representation, the complexity of the issues, the riskiness of success, and the great benefit to the large class that was achieved." Id. (quotation omitted). Unimpressed with that reasoning, the Supreme Court held that awarding the enhancement was an abuse of discretion. Id. at 896-902, 104 S.Ct. at 1547-50. While repeating the Hensley opinion's statement that "in some cases of exceptional success an enhanced award may be justified," id. at 897, 104 S.Ct. at 1548 (quotation omitted), the Blum Court qualified that possibility with the statement that the lodestar amount "is presumed to be the

reasonable fee contemplated by § 1988," id. The Court then considered and rejected each of the district court's four justifications for the enhancement. It began: The novelty and complexity of the issues presumably were fully reflected in the number of billable hours recorded by
1222
*1222 counsel and thus do not warrant an upward adjustment in a fee based on the number of billable hours times reasonable hourly rates. There may be cases, of course, where the experience and special skill of the attorney will require the expenditure of fewer hours than counsel normally would be expected to spend on a particularly novel or complex issue. In those cases, the special skill and experience of counsel should be reflected in the reasonableness of the hourly rates. Neither complexity nor novelty of the issues, therefore, is an appropriate factor in determining whether to increase the basic fee award. Id. at 898-99, 104 S.Ct. at 1549. The Blum Court then moved on to the next factor: The "quality of representation" ... generally is reflected in the reasonable hourly rate. It, therefore, may [note the use, again, of the word "may" instead of "will"] justify an upward adjustment only in the rare case where the fee applicant offers specific evidence to show that the quality of service rendered was superior to that one reasonably should expect in light of the hourly rates charged and that the success was "exceptional." Id. at 899, 104 S.Ct. at 1549 (words in brackets added). Otherwise, the Court said, "an upward adjustment for quality of representation is a clear example of double counting." Id. The Court found the district court's opinion that "[t]he quality of work performed by counsel throughout this case was high," without any specific evidence to support it, insufficient to justify the enhancement. Id. at 899-90, 104 S.Ct. at 1549 (quotation omitted). Regarding the results obtained factor, the Court reasoned that successful results are to be considered when calculating counsel's hourly rate. Id. at 900, 104 S.Ct. at 1549-50. "Because acknowledgment of the `results obtained' generally will be subsumed within other factors used to calculate a reasonable fee, it normally should not provide an independent basis for increasing the fee award." Id. (footnote omitted). The Blum Court left for another day the question of whether the risk borne by the plaintiffs' counsel in taking the case on a contingency basis could ever justify an enhancement of the lodestar. Id. at 901 n. 17, 104 S.Ct. at 1550 n. 17. Assuming that it could, however, the Court said that the record did not identify any specific risks to counsel in that case. Id. at 901, 104

S.Ct. at 1550. Accordingly, the Court vacated the portion of the district court's order enhancing the plaintiffs' fees award. Id. at 901-02, 104 S.Ct. at 1550. The Court's next "reasonable fee" case was Delaware Valley I.[4] The district court had enhanced the plaintiffs' lodestar calculation in that case because of the contingent nature of the fee and the quality of counsel's work "which culminated in an outstanding result." Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 555, 106 S.Ct. at 3093 (quotation omitted). As it had done in Blum, the Delaware Valley I Court reviewed the district court's reasons for enhancing the fee award and found all of them wanting. This time the Court did not just say that
1223
*1223 there's a presumption, but emphasized that there is a "strong presumption" that the lodestar figure represents the reasonable fee. Id. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098. The Court explained the basis for that strong presumption: A strong presumption that the lodestar figure — the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate — represents a "reasonable" fee is wholly consistent with the rationale behind the usual fee-shifting statute, including the one in the present case. These statutes were not designed as a form of economic relief to improve the financial lot of attorneys, nor were they intended to replicate exactly the fee an attorney could earn through a private fee arrangement with his client. Instead, the aim of such statutes was to enable private parties to obtain legal help in seeking redress for injuries resulting from the actual or threatened violation of specific federal laws. Hence, if plaintiffs, such as Delaware Valley, find it possible to engage a lawyer based on the statutory assurance that he will be paid a "reasonable fee," the purpose behind the fee-shifting statute has been satisfied. Id. The Court in Delaware Valley I closed some doors for enhancements that it had left ajar in earlier cases. It held that the strong presumption that the lodestar figure is the amount to be awarded — the presumption against enhancements — cannot be overcome by the special skill and experience of counsel, the quality of representation, or the results obtained. Id. Those factors, the Court reasoned, "are presumably fully reflected in the lodestar amount, and thus cannot serve as independent bases for increasing the basic fee award." Id. This is the Court's reasoning: [W]hen an attorney first accepts a case and agrees to represent the client, he obligates himself to perform to the best of his ability and to produce the

best possible results commensurate with his skill and his client's interests. Calculating the fee award in a manner that accounts for these factors, either in determining the reasonable number of hours expended on the litigation or in setting the reasonable hourly rate, thus adequately compensates the attorney, and leaves very little room for enhancing the award based on his post-engagement performance. In short, the lodestar figure includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a "reasonable" attorney's fee, and it is unnecessary to enhance the fee for superior performance in order to serve the statutory purpose of enabling plaintiffs to secure legal assistance. Id. at 565-66, 106 S.Ct. at 3098. Not using the overall quality of performance to enhance the fee removes "any danger of `double counting.'" Id. at 566, 106 S.Ct. at 3099. The Delaware Valley I Court reversed the enhancement part of the fee award insofar as the enhancement was based on the quality of the attorneys' work and the outstanding result obtained. Id. at 568, 106 S.Ct. at 3099-100. It left undecided the question of whether the enhancement was proper insofar as it was based on the contingency nature of the fee — the risk that the attorneys would lose the case and receive no fees. That issue was to be reargued in the same case the next term, id., 106 S.Ct. at 3100, but that attempt to decide it misfired when the Court fractured, with no opinion garnering a majority vote, see Pennsylvania v. Del. Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 483 U.S. 711, 107 S.Ct. 3078, 97 L.Ed.2d 585 (1987) (Delaware Valley II). It was not until five years later, after the membership of the Court had changed,
1224
*1224 that the contingency issue was definitively resolved. In Dague the Court squarely rejected the proposition that a court "may enhance the fee award above the `lodestar' amount in order to reflect the fact that the party's attorneys were retained on a contingent-fee basis and thus assumed the risk of receiving no payment at all for their services." Dague, 505 U.S. at 559, 112 S.Ct. at 2639.[5] The Court reasoned that an enhancement for contingency would duplicate in substantial part factors that had already been considered in arriving at the lodestar. It explained that "[t]he risk of loss in a particular case (and, therefore, the attorney's contingent risk) is the product of two factors: (1) the legal and factual merits of the claim, and (2) the difficulty of establishing those merits." Id. at 562, 112 S.Ct. at 2641. The second factor, the Court said, is "ordinarily reflected in the lodestar —

either in the higher number of hours expended to overcome the difficulty, or in the higher hourly rate of the attorney skilled and experienced enough to do so." Id. "Taking account of it again through lodestar enhancement amounts to double counting." Id. at 563, 112 S.Ct. at 2641. The Court recognized that, unlike the second contingency factor, the first one — the relative merits of the claim — is not taken into consideration in determining the lodestar figure. That is no problem, the Court decided, because the relative merits of the claim "should play no part in the calculation of the award." Id. For one thing, there is always a risk that a case will be lost — "no claim has a 100% chance of success." Id. As a result, permitting adjustments based on risk would mean that the "computation of the lodestar would never end the court's inquiry in contingent-fee cases." Id. That would contradict the Court's repeated instruction that there is a strong presumption that the lodestar is the fee to be awarded and adjustments to it are to be the rare exception, not the general rule. Not only that, the Court said, but awarding enhancements based on the financial risk in taking the case would also "provide attorneys with the same incentive to bring relatively meritless claims as relatively meritorious ones." Id. The "social cost of indiscriminately encouraging nonmeritorious claims" would be too high, and encouraging attorneys to take less meritorious cases is "an unlikely objective of the `reasonable fees' provisions." Id. at 563, 112 S.Ct. at 2642. Accordingly, the Court concluded that a contingency enhancement is "not consistent with our general rejection of the contingent-fee model for fee awards, nor is it necessary to the determination of a reasonable fee." Id. at 566, 112 S.Ct. at 2643. The Court in Dague did not merely reverse the application of a contingency or risk enhancement in that case, but also ruled out one in any case, "concluding that no contingency enhancement whatever is compatible with the feeshifting statutes at issue." Id. at 565, 112 S.Ct. at 2643. The Dague decision is the last word we have from the Supreme Court on the issue of whether, and if so when, the lodestar amount may be enhanced in calculating the attorneys' fees award under one of the federal fee-shifting statutes.
1225
*1225 B.
The district court's $4.5 million enhancement to the $6 million lodestar

figure in the present case cannot be squared with the Supreme Court decisions we have discussed. The district court did not explicitly mention, much less give full effect to, the strong presumption that the lodestar amount is a reasonable fee and therefore the fee to be awarded. See Dague, 505 U.S. at 562, 112 S.Ct. at 2641 ("We have established a strong presumption that the lodestar represents the reasonable fee, and have placed upon the fee applicant who seeks more than that the burden of showing that such an adjustment is necessary to the determination of a reasonable fee." (quotation and citation omitted)); Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098 ("A strong presumption that the lodestar figure — the product of reasonable hours times a reasonable rate — represents a `reasonable' fee is wholly consistent with the rationale behind the usual fee-shifting statute, including the one in the present case."). The district court relied on several factors in granting the multi-million dollar enhancement to the lodestar figure, most of which are cited in the following passage from its opinion: First, the evidence establishes that the quality of service rendered by class counsel, including their extraordinary commitment of capital resources, was far superior to what consumers of legal services in the legal marketplace in Atlanta could reasonably expect to receive for the rates used in the lodestar calculation. Specifically, the evidence shows that the hourly rates used in the lodestar calculation do not take into account (1) the fact that class counsel were required to advance case expenses of $1.7 million over a three-year period with no ongoing reimbursement, (2) the fact that class counsel were not paid on an on-going basis as the work was being performed, and (3) the fact that class counsel's ability to recover a fee and expense reimbursement were completely contingent on the outcome of the case.FN8 (Chandler Decl. ¶¶ 5-8; Fellows Decl. ¶¶ 5-8; Knowles Decl. ¶¶ 7-12; Rawls Decl. ¶¶ 5-8; Lowry Decl. ¶ 25; Bramlett Decl. ¶¶ 7(a) & 10, 13-14.) FN8. A lodestar enhancement cannot be based on contingency alone. City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992). In this case, however, the risk of nonrecovery is only one of several factors which, taken together, establish a level of service well beyond what could reasonably be expected for the rates claimed. Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1288 & n.8 (citations omitted). None of the three factors the district court relied on in that passage to justify boosting the award is a proper basis for doing so.

1.
Starting from the top of the list, the district court's reliance on the quality of service and superior performance, which are essentially the same thing, conflicts with the Supreme Court's teachings that those considerations are adequately accounted for "either in determining the reasonable number of hours expended on the litigation or in setting the reasonable hourly rates," and that it is "unnecessary to enhance the fee for superior performance in order to serve the statutory purpose of enabling plaintiffs to secure legal assistance." Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565-66, 106 S.Ct. at 3098; see also id. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098 ("Hence, if plaintiffs... find it possible to engage a lawyer based on the statutory assurance that he will be paid a `reasonable fee,' the purpose behind the fee-shifting statute has been satisfied."). In this case, the district court specifically considered "the stellar performance of plaintiffs' counsel throughout this long and difficult case" in approving
1226
*1226 their hourly rates, which reached $450 and $495 for lead counsel. Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1284, 1286. Having already been used to increase the lodestar amount, the quality of the services rendered and superior performance could not also be used to enhance the award above the lodestar amount that had been calculated using those higher rates. See Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098. Double counting simply is not allowed. It was after the successful settlement had been achieved, after they knew how well they had performed, after they knew the degree of difficulty involved, and after they knew how much capital resources and legal effort had been required that the plaintiffs' attorneys asked for hourly rates they thought that they deserved. Over the objections of the defendants, the district court gave them those rates in full. It did not reduce a single hourly rate for any attorney or paralegal by so much as a penny.[6] In requesting their hourly rates, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs represented that those rates were adequate, subject to considerations they specified, to compensate them. Marcia Robinson Lowry, one of the two lead counsel, testified by affidavit that: The standard hourly rates reflected in Exhibit 2 are fair, reasonable, and consistent with hourly rates in the Atlanta market for the price of legal services of comparable quality rendered in cases demanding similar skill, judgment and performance. These standard hourly rates do not, however,

take into account the fact that class counsel was required in this case to advance the entire $1.7 million expense of prosecuting this case for the benefit of the class, or the fact that class counsel's compensation was totally contingent upon prevailing in this action. Jeffrey O. Bramlett, the other lead counsel, testified by affidavit that: "The hourly rates set forth in Exhibit 1 correctly reflect the hourly rates my law firm currently charges and collects from clients who hire us to perform legal services on a Standard Hourly Rate basis." However, he further testified: Standard Hourly Rates are predicated on the assumptions that the client will pay in full on a 30-60 day cycle, that counsel is not required to shoulder any significant financial risk of unreimbursed case expense, and that counsel will be paid currently regardless of the result ultimately achieved. Here, Class Counsel was forced to advance case expenses approaching $1.7 million to protect the Class' interests, largely because State Defendants refused Plaintiffs' suggestion of a neutral case record review that would have saved both sides (and ultimately the State) duplicative cost. Here, Class Counsel was forced to personally advance Plaintiffs' portion of that cost in the face of State Defendants' vigorous assertion that it would not and could not be recovered. Here, Class Counsel's recovery of any cost, let alone fee, was utterly dependent upon the contingency of a successful result. Here, Class Counsel was forced to invest more than $8.85 million of professional time and out-of-pocket expense over a threeand-one-half year period with no assurance of any recovery. There is no indication that Mr. Bramlett's firm's regular hourly rates are anywhere near the low side of the Atlanta legal market or even the midpoint.
1227
*1227 The position that the two lead counsel took in their affidavits is that the hourly rates used to calculate the lodestar figure were the same rates paying clients would have been charged. They each represented that those rates would fully compensate them except for three facts that the district court listed in its opinion: "(1) the fact that class counsel were required to advance case expenses of $1.7 million over a three-year period with no ongoing reimbursement, (2) the fact that class counsel were not paid on an on-going basis as the work was being performed, and (3) the fact that class counsel's ability to recover a fee and expense reimbursement were completely contingent on the outcome of the case." Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1288.

2.
The first two of those three considerations are delayed payment factors, and if they were permissible bases for enhancing a fee award, an enhancement would be required in virtually every class action covered by one of the traditional federal fee-shifting statutes. It is a rare § 1983 action where those whose rights have been violated finance the cost of the litigation. Attorneys for the plaintiffs in these types of cases almost always have to advance the cost of the litigation and do not receive any payment for their time until the case is completed. That is simply the nature of the beast. If the delays in reimbursement for costs and payment for services that these cases inevitably entail justified enhancement, there would be an enhancement in almost every case. We know that cannot be, because the Supreme Court has instructed us that we must employ a strong presumption against enhancements and confine them to the rare and exceptional case. Dague, 505 U.S. at 562, 112 S.Ct. at 2641; Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098. Particularly instructive on this point is some of the Supreme Court's reasoning in concluding that there could be no enhancement for the contingency nature of a case — for the risk that the plaintiffs' attorneys would not be paid at all for the costs they advanced and the time they expended. See Dague, 505 U.S. at 563, 112 S.Ct. at 2641. Because there is always a risk that a case will be lost, permitting enhancements based on the degree of risk would mean that calculation of the lodestar would never end the inquiry in a contingent-fee case, and that, the Court decided, would be unacceptable. Id. Likewise, permitting enhancements for the delay in compensation for expenses incurred and services rendered would mean that calculation of the lodestar would be merely the first step, not the presumptive last step in the process. That would be unacceptable. Finally, we have said that any delay in payment for professional services rendered is offset by the fact that the hourly rates used are those that prevail at the completion of the case instead of the usually lower rates that were in effect at the time the earlier work was done. See Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302 ("[W]here there is a delay the court should take into account the time value of money and the effects of inflation and generally award compensation at current rates rather than at historic rates."). In this case, as in most, the hourly rates used were those in effect after the case had been completed. (See R32:495:Ex.C:¶ 6) ("The hourly rates set forth in Exhibit 1 correctly reflect the hourly rates my firm currently charges and

collects from clients who hire us to perform legal services on a Standard Hourly Rate basis."). That covers two of the three factors the district court relied on in determining that the hourly rates were underinclusive and an enhancement was warranted. Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1288.
1228
*1228 3.
The third factor was the contingent nature of the case. Enhancing a lodestar based on contingency is flatly forbidden by the Dague decision. The district court was under the mistaken impression that the Dague rule forbids only an enhancement based on contingency alone. Id. at 1288 n. 8. The rule is not so limited. The Supreme Court's description of the scope of its holding leaves no wiggle room. The Court stated that it was "concluding that no contingency enhancement whatever is compatible with the feeshifting statutes at issue." Dague, 505 U.S. at 565, 112 S.Ct. at 2643. In case anyone missed the point of that, the Court unequivocally stated in the penultimate sentence of its opinion: "[W]e hold that enhancement for contingency is not permitted under the fee-shifting statutes at issue." Id. at 567, 112 S.Ct. at 2643-44. Period. Even if we were to go beyond that clear language of the Supreme Court's command, the reasons it gave for concluding that contingency enhancements are incompatible with the fee-shifting statutes apply with equal force to using contingency as one of several reasons for an enhancement. For example, taking the risk of loss into account both in the lodestar and in an enhancement amounts to double counting the difficulty of the case, id. at 562-63, 112 S.Ct. at 2641, regardless of whether contingency is the sole enhancement factor. No double counting means no double counting. Allowing contingency to figure into an enhancement to any extent would also provide attorneys with an incentive to bring relatively meritless claims. See id. at 563, 112 S.Ct. at 2642; see also id. at 566, 112 S.Ct. at 2643 ("Contingency enhancement would make the setting of fees more complex and arbitrary, hence more unpredictable, and hence more litigable."). That, the Court reasoned, would be bad. Dague, 505 U.S. at 566, 112 S.Ct. at 2643. In summary, none of the three factors that the district court enumerated as a basis for determining that the professional services rendered by plaintiffs' counsel were "far superior to what consumers of legal services in the legal marketplace in Atlanta could reasonably expect to receive for the rates

used in the lodestar calculation," Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1288, is a permissible basis for enhancing the lodestar amount. An enhancement based on them is inconsistent with controlling Supreme Court decisions.
4.
Making a further attempt to justify the enhancement, the district court also stated that: In addition, based on its personal observation of plaintiffs' counsel's performance throughout this litigation, the Court finds that the superb quality of their representation far exceeded what could reasonably be expected for the standard hourly rates used to calculate the lodestar. Quite simply, plaintiffs' counsel brought a higher degree of skill, commitment, dedication, and professionalism to this litigation than the Court has seen displayed by the attorneys in any other case during its 27 years on the bench. The foster children of Fulton and DeKalb Counties were indeed fortunate to have such unparalleled legal representation, and the Court would be remiss if it failed to compensate counsel for this extraordinary level of service to their clients. Id. at 1288-89. This rationale is little more than a restatement of the district court's position that the lodestar amount should be enhanced because of the quality of the representation. Two points about that. First, the district court itself found that plaintiffs' attorneys had submitted vague
1229
*1229 records and overbilled in nine of fifteen categories, forcing the court to cut more than 4,700 hours off those they claimed, amounting to a reduction of more than $1 million of billable time. See supra at 1217-18. And, as we have indicated, if anything, the district court was too kind to plaintiffs' attorneys in that respect. See supra at 1219-20. Any kindness aside, in Delaware Valley I the Supreme Court held that the "elimination of a large number of hours on the grounds that they were unnecessary, unreasonable, or unproductive is not supportive of the court's later conclusion that the remaining hours represented work of `superior quality.'" Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 567, 106 S.Ct. at 3099. See generally id. at 554 n. 2, 106 S.Ct. at 3093 n. 2. The holding reflects the common sense idea that bad and excessive billing is inconsistent with superb lawyering. The district court failed to consider that inconsistency in its findings. The second, and more fundamental, point about the district court's reliance

on the quality of the representation as a ground for enhancing the lodestar amount is that it amounts to double counting and is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Delaware Valley I. As we have already explained, in that decision the Court reversed an enhancement for superior performance, holding that "the special skill and experience of counsel" and "the quality of representation" are "presumably fully reflected in the lodestar amount, and thus cannot serve as independent bases for increasing the basic fee award." Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098 (quotation and citation omitted); see also id. at 566, 106 S.Ct. at 3098 ("In short, the lodestar figure includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a `reasonable' attorney's fee, and it is unnecessary to enhance the fee for superior performance in order to serve the statutory purpose of enabling plaintiffs to secure legal assistance." (emphasis added)).[7] The final reason the district court gave for the $4.5 million enhancement was that "plaintiffs' success in this case was truly exceptional." Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1289. The result was so good, the court said, that: "After 58 years as a practicing attorney and federal judge, the Court is unaware of any other case in which a plaintiff class has achieved such a favorable result on such a comprehensive scale." Id. at 1290. Not only that, but the district court also said that "even if the plaintiffs had prevailed in a trial of this case, it is doubtful that they would have obtained relief as `intricately detailed and comprehensive' as that contained in the Consent Decree." Id. at 1289-90.
1230
*1230 To the extent that the district court rewarded plaintiffs' counsel with an enhancement for obtaining better results than the class would have received had the case been resolved on the merits, that is plainly wrong. The purpose of the fee-shifting statutes, as the Supreme Court explained in Delaware Valley I, is "to enable private parties to obtain legal help in seeking redress for injuries resulting from the actual or threatened violation of specific federal laws." Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098. The statutes are designed to ensure that civil rights plaintiffs are adequately represented by counsel. See Hensley, 461 U.S. at 429, 103 S.Ct. at 1937 ("The purpose of § 1988 is to ensure `effective access to the judicial process' for persons with civil rights grievances." (quoting H.R.Rep. No. 94-1558, at 1 (1976))). For that reason, a fee award should "result[] in fees which are adequate to attract competent counsel, but which do not produce windfalls to attorneys." Blum, 465 U.S. at 893-94, 104 S.Ct. at 1546 (quoting S.Rep. No. 94-1011, at 6 (1976), as reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5908, 5913).

Stated from the other direction, the fee-shifting statutes are not designed to provide representation that will win plaintiffs more than a correct application of substantive and remedial law entitles them to receive. Their purpose is not to provide representation that will secure settlement relief that is more "intricately detailed and comprehensive," Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1289-90, than the plaintiffs would have received if their claims had been litigated to final judgment. The purpose of the statutes, most assuredly, is not to provide plaintiffs with representation that dazzles or bedazzles the district court judge. Fee awards should be calculated in a way that furthers the purpose of the fee-shifting statutes; they should not be used to encourage or reward results that go beyond that purpose. See Blum, 465 U.S. at 893-95, 104 S.Ct. at 1546-47. Some of the discussion in the Dague opinion is useful in understanding why enhancements should not be given for merits-exceeding results. As we have recounted, in that case the Supreme Court rejected the idea of enhancements for contingency or risk of loss in part because permitting them would provide attorneys with some incentive to bring relatively meritless claims. Dague, 505 U.S. at 563, 112 S.Ct. at 2641-42. The social cost of encouraging attorneys to press claims of dubious merit would be too high, the Court reasoned, and providing attorneys with incentives to bring them is "an unlikely objective of the `reasonable fees' provision." Id. at 563, 112 S.Ct. at 2643. A result that obtains more or better relief than plaintiffs are entitled to receive under the law is, to the extent it exceeds their entitlement on the merits, analogous to relief on a meritless claim. Just as Dague instructs us that fee awards should not underwrite efforts to obtain relief where none is due under the law, neither should they underwrite efforts to receive more or better relief than that due under the law. Just as the societal costs for fee awards for non-meritorious claims are too high, so also are they too high for results that exceed what the law allows. Just as encouraging nonmeritorious claims cannot have been an objective of the fee-shifting provisions, neither can encouraging results that go beyond what the law allows have been an objective. To put it in an either-or manner, superb results are either what a fair application of the law produces, which means that they are not truly "superb," or they are results that exceed what the law allows and for that reason are beyond the purpose of the fee-shifting statutes. Those statutes are designed to provide a reasonable fee for a reasonable result, not an extraordinary fee
1231

*1231 for a result that goes beyond what the law would provide if the claims were litigated to their correct conclusion on the merits. Look at it this way. A merits-exceeding result for plaintiffs must be the product of one, or some combination, of the following factors: superior lawyering by plaintiffs' counsel, bad lawyering by defendants' counsel, poor decision making by the court, or dumb luck. The Supreme Court held in Delaware Valley I that superior lawyering by the plaintiffs' counsel is not a proper basis for an enhancement. Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565-68, 106 S.Ct. at 3098-100. So, the first possible cause of results that go beyond the merits cannot be used to justify an enhancement. Nor can it plausibly be argued that plaintiffs' attorneys ought to reap a windfall, and defendants ought to have to pay more in fees than they otherwise should, because of bad lawyering on the defense side. Surely a defendant suffers enough from the additional relief granted against it because of inferior representation without making the defendant pay a surcharge to the other side for the privilege of having been the victim of bad lawyering. Nor can it be argued, with tongue out of cheek, that fees should be increased to reward plaintiffs' attorneys for being on the side that happens to benefit from bad judging or good luck. That exhausts the possible explanations for excessively favorable results, and none supports awarding an enhancement.
5.
The district court relied to some extent on four of the five affidavits that the plaintiffs' attorneys in this case obtained from their friends who do similar work. Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1290.[8] The district court found that the affiants were "disinterested Atlanta attorneys." Id. That finding is clearly erroneous. At oral argument, one of the two lead counsel for the plaintiffs conceded that he not only had recruited these attorneys to provide the affidavits but that in the past he had also supplied some of them with similar affidavits to help boost their own fee awards.[9] Aside from the need to support those who support them, the lawyers who signed the affidavits have a financial interest in keeping the fee award in this case and every case like it as high as possible. The higher this fee award is the more useful it will be as precedent for the lawyer signing the affidavit when he seeks a high fee award in his own cases. The affiants are anything but "disinterested."[10]
1232

*1232 The lodestar amount will never suffice for attorneys who practice in this area. They will always believe, in all sincerity, that they deserve more and that the justice system will function better if they are paid more. Lawyers who handle these kinds of cases cannot be disinterested witnesses because they are financially interested. To state this is not to slam lawyers in general or plaintiffs' lawyers in particular. It simply recognizes that because self-interest is hard-wired into human circuitry, no group is disinterested when it comes to the question of what members of the group are to be paid. Cf. H.L. Mencken, A Little Book in C Major 22 (John Lane Co.1916) ("It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place."). Aside from the obvious self-interest of the affiants, the contents of the affidavits that were filed in this case are also flawed in other ways. For example, in each of them the affiant solemnly swore that the amount of compensable time claimed in this case was "reasonable,"[11] was "reasonable, fair, and fully compensable,"[12] or was "fair, reasonable, and fully deserving of adequate and full compensation."[13] Yet, we know those assertions are not true. As we have already noted, the district court found that plaintiffs had inflated the number of hours for which they were due compensation in most of the fifteen billing categories and by a substantial amount. Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1274-84, 1286; supra at 1217-18. The court's finding, which is being affirmed by this Court, that the hours submitted were not reasonable contradicts a key premise in every one of the lawyer's affidavits. All five of the affidavits urged the district court to enhance the fee award based on the fact that plaintiffs' counsel advanced the cost of expenses.[14] That is not a permissible basis for an enhancement. See supra at 1226-28. All of the affidavits urged the court to enhance the fee award because of the risk or contingency factor.[15] That, too, is an impermissible factor for an enhancement, as the concurring opinion in this case concedes. See infra at 1247-48 (Wilson, J., concurring specially). The Supreme Court itself has specifically ruled it out. See supra at 1228. Four of the affidavits even urged the court to base its fee award on the common fund or common benefit doctrines,[16] which the district court correctly concluded was not legally permissible
1233
*1233 or even possible. See Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1270-72; supra at 1219. The fact that the opinions expressed in all five of the affidavits were based on consideration of several improper factors makes any finding of the district court based on the affidavits clearly erroneous, and it renders

any reliance the court placed on those affidavits an abuse of discretion. As we have recognized, "[i]t would be a paradigmatic abuse of discretion for a court to base its judgment on an erroneous view of the law." McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168, 1173 (11th Cir.2008) (internal marks omitted) (quoting Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. at 333, 115 S.Ct. at 870 (O'Connor, J., concurring)); see also Koon, 518 U.S. at 100, 116 S.Ct. at 2047 ("A district court by definition abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law."); United States v. Hall, 349 F.3d 1320, 1323 (11th Cir.2003) (explaining that if a district court decision is "based on an error of law, then it is by definition an abuse of discretion"). It is no less an abuse of discretion for a district court to base its decision on affidavits that are themselves based on legally erroneous assumptions. Were it otherwise, there would be no end to enhancements and no limit to them. In every case where an established member of the Bar seeks an enhancement he will be able to get his colleagues who are interested in keeping fee awards as high as possible to sign affidavits stating that the only thing that will ensure adequate representation in cases like that one is a multi-million dollar enhancement. And some district court judges will credit those interested affiants as "disinterested attorneys." But none of this and none of the multiple, specific, and serious defects in the affidavits that were filed in this case should obscure the more fundamental point, which is that enhancements for superior performance and results are not permissible, no matter how much the interested members of this particular segment of the Bar might want them to be. See supra at 1228-31. Supreme Court decisions cannot be overruled by affidavits.
6.
Our conclusion that the enhancement to the lodestar amount in this case was improper does not mean that one will never be appropriate under any circumstances. If, as the Supreme Court has instructed us, the proper calculation of the lodestar amount leaves "very little room" for enhancements, which may be proper only in "rare" and "exceptional" cases, Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565-66, 106 S.Ct. at 3098, where is that little room — and what are those rare and exceptional cases that may fit within it? We can think of some. Suppose, for example, that an attorney's representation vindicates the federal rights of an unpopular client and as a result that attorney suffers a

loss of standing in the community which damages his practice and income. The kind of situation we have in mind was discussed by Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr., albeit not on the issue of enhancing a lodestar amount. Actually, the discussion came before the enactment of the § 1988 feeshifting statute and was in the context of deciding the amount of fees that should be awarded by the court through the exercise of its equitable power. NAACP v. Allen, 340 F.Supp. 703 (M.D.Ala.1972), aff'd in relevant part, 493 F.2d 614 (5th Cir.1974). In deciding how much the attorney should receive, Judge Johnson stated: [A] lawyer representing black plaintiffs in an employment discrimination case, or in any civil rights litigation, is likely to suffer social, political and community ostracism. This likelihood is multiplied, of course, in a case such as the present one
1234
*1234 in which plaintiffs have sued high-ranking state officials and have alleged and proved racial discrimination. Even more damaging to an attorney involved in such litigation is the probability that he will be estranged from other members of his profession who are unwilling to participate in, or even lend moral support to, suits seeking to vindicate the public good. Id. at 710. We hope that three-and-a-half decades after those words were written in the Allen case attorneys who represent victims of racial discrimination no longer suffer social, political, or professional ostracism. But attorneys who represent other types of plaintiffs might. It could happen to an attorney who represents a pedophile attacking a sexual offender registration law on Due Process grounds, or perhaps to an attorney in a small Bible Belt town who succeeds in having a popular public religious practice enjoined as contrary to the Establishment Clause. Whether those circumstances, and others we have not mentioned, would be proper ones for enhancing the lodestar amount are issues for other days. For now it is enough to recognize the possibility and to point out that the "rare" and "exceptional" circumstances that we have mentioned would be more likely to fit within the "very little room" that the Supreme Court has told us is left for enhancements. Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565-66, 106 S.Ct. at 3098. The Supreme Court decisions on fee-shifting do not clearly preclude an enhancement of the lodestar amount in those circumstances. And an enhancement in those circumstances is less likely to result in double counting, or to encourage meritless lawsuits, or to go beyond the basic purpose of the fee-shifting statutes than the enhancement that the district court awarded in this case

does. Representing children who find themselves in foster care is not the same as representing activist atheists in the Bible Belt or pedophiles anywhere. The plaintiffs' attorneys in this case do not, and reasonably could not, claim to have suffered any social or professional ostracism, nor do they contend that their victory here will somehow damage their legal practice. To the contrary, vindicating the rights of helpless children is the kind of accomplishment that brings professional accolades and enhances one's standing in the community. It is to that type of enhancement, instead of a monetary one, that the attorneys must look for any satisfaction beyond the $6,012,802.90 they are already receiving for their work in this case. And Mr. Bramlett, for one, has done so. The "Attorney Profile" on his law firm's website boasted of his "track record of results in class action litigation," listing three of his biggest successes.[17] The one that was discussed the most was described as follows: Prosecution of class action in conjunction with New York's Children's Rights, Inc. resulting in systematic reform of State of Georgia's dysfunctional foster care system and establishing that foster children have a right to counsel. The federal judge who presided over the case for Georgia's foster children wrote of the work performed by the legal team led by Jeff and Marcia Robinson Lowry of New York's Childrens' Rights, Inc.: "[P]laintiffs' counsel brought a higher degree of skill, commitment, dedication and professionalism to this litigation than the Court has seen displayed by the attorneys in any other
1235
*1235 case during its 27 years on the bench.... After 58 years as a practicing attorney and federal judge, the Court is unaware of any other case in which a plaintiff class has achieved such a favorable result on such a comprehensive scale." 454 F.Supp.2d at 1289-90.[[18]] The profile also recounted that Mr. Bramlett received the Elbert P. Tuttle Jurisprudence Award from the Anti-Defamation League "for dedication to justice and fair treatment for all people."[19] He received that award in 2007 and he was also chosen as President-elect of the Georgia State Bar that same year.[20] Those honors came the year after the judgment that he helped secure was entered in this lawsuit. It appears that, if anything, Mr. Bramlett's professional standing and prestige, as well as his earning ability, have been enhanced as a result of his service as one of the lead counsel for the foster children. The other co-lead counsel for the foster children in this case has not

suffered any reduction in professional standing or livelihood because of her work in it, either. To the contrary, what she did in this case has furthered her credentials, her reputation, her chosen lifework, and the purpose of her organization. Marcia Robinson Lowry has litigated on behalf of children's welfare for more than a quarter of a century. She has "directed major litigation efforts in jurisdictions throughout the United States designed to promote major reform of child welfare systems." (R32:495:Ex.B:2.) Ms. Lowry founded and is the Executive Director of the Children's Rights Group, a non-profit organization that advocates and litigates on behalf of children. The organization's website explains that, among other things, "Children's Rights files class action lawsuits on behalf of classes of abused and neglected children who have contact with public child welfare systems, to enforce their legal rights. The goal of these lawsuits is to improve the functioning of state child welfare systems ...."[21] As with any organization that is largely dependent upon donations and grants, Children's Rights cannot afford to hide its achievements, and it has not been shy about what it achieved in this case. In at least four press releases over the course of the lawsuit, Children's Rights trumpeted what it had done and was doing for "some of Atlanta's most vulnerable citizens,"[22] and it proudly proclaimed that "[a]fter so many years of failure and broken promises by the state, this lawsuit has given these abused and neglected children a voice."[23] The organization described one of the district court's rulings as "a landmark decision
1236
*1236 nationally and a huge victory for the rights of abused and neglected children."[24] It later referred to the "groundbreaking settlement agreement" in the case, adding that the agreement "appears to be the first of its kind nationally, and we expect that children throughout Georgia and perhaps elsewhere in the country will benefit."[25] The accomplishments of Children's Rights in this case were discussed in its annual report: "In 2006-2007, we took the fight for America's abused and neglected children" to eight states.[26] Georgia is listed in the report as one of the eight states where Children's Rights took "the fight."[27] The point is not that Ms. Lowry and her organization don't have every reason to boast about their role in this case. The point is that their work in this case is something that is in their interest to boast about. It is not something that requires more than the $495 per hour that Ms. Lowry received to attract her and her organization to this case. This area of the law is the sea in which they sail and class action lawsuits are their chosen vessel. It is what they do. They submitted three-fourths of the billable hours

in this lawsuit. Except for the relatively insignificant travel hours, they were paid at the high hourly rates they demanded. To suggest that the prospect of a huge monetary bonus was needed to attract them to this lawsuit is not only absurd, but it also demeans the dedication of Ms. Lowry and her organization. Cf. Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 567, 106 S.Ct. at 3099 ("Clearly, Delaware Valley was able to obtain counsel without any promise of reward for extraordinary performance."). The multi-million dollar enhancement, over and beyond the full lodestar sum that Ms. Lowry and her organization received, amounts to an involuntary, federal court ordered contribution from the taxpayers of Georgia to a non-profit organization. The perverse irony of the seven figure, court ordered gratuity in this case is that it reduces the amount of state funds available to care for what Children's Rights itself has described as some of Georgia's "most vulnerable citizens," the very group that the organization is dedicated to protecting. For all of the reasons we have discussed, were we free to decide the issue we would readily conclude that the district court's award of a $4,500,000 enhancement to the lodestar amount in this case is an abuse of discretion, because it is based on an erroneous view of the law and reflects a clear error of judgment.
C.
Unfortunately, under the prior panel precedent rule we are not free to decide the enhancement issue, but must instead follow this Court's earlier decisions in NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 812 F.2d 1332 (11th Cir.1987), and Norman v. Housing Authority of Montgomery, 836
1237
*1237 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir.1988). Both of those decisions were issued after the Supreme Court last spoke on the subject of enhancements for quality of representation and superior results, which was in the Delaware Valley I case. In the NAACP case, the plaintiffs' attorneys had requested a 50 percent enhancement of the lodestar amount, which was based, in part, on "the assertion that the relief obtained was of great benefit to the black citizens of Evergreen and represented exceptional success." NAACP, 812 F.2d at 1336. After the district court denied the request, the plaintiffs appealed and this Court vacated and remanded, in part because "[t]he district court's opinion does not address at all the last factor that the NAACP argued

justified enhancement — that the relief obtained was of great benefit to the black citizens of Evergreen and represented exceptional success." Id. In remanding, the Court instructed: [T]he district court should make findings with regard to each of the grounds put forward by the NAACP as warranting an enhancement and relate those findings to its ultimate determination of the issue. We note, however, in remanding, that the Supreme Court has held that the fact the results obtained would be of far-reaching significance to a large number of people usually is not grounds for enhancement, because the results obtained, as one of the Johnson factors, normally will be subsumed in the calculation of a reasonable fee and, therefore, usually should not provide an independent basis for increasing the fee award. Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 900, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 1549-50, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984). The award may be enhanced, however, "in some cases of exceptional success." Id. at 897, 104 S.Ct. at 1548 (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S.Ct. at 1940). The district court's reconsideration of the appropriateness of an enhancement based on this factor should be made in light of these principles.FN6 FN6. The basic assumption of Blum, however, is that the district court will have taken factors such as the benefit obtained into account in its initial determination of the reasonable fee. There is no indication that the district court has done so in this case. In fact, it appears that the district court limited its consideration of the results obtained to its determination that the prevailing and unsuccessful claims were separable. On remand, the district court should take into account all relevant considerations put forth by the NAACP in determining the effect of the results obtained, as well as the effect of the other Johnson factors, on its initial calculation of a reasonable attorney's fee. It should then consider whether the NAACP has shown grounds for an enhancement of that initial calculation. NAACP, 812 F.2d at 1337 & n. 6 (citations omitted). In Norman the attorneys for the prevailing civil rights plaintiffs had requested a substantial enhancement of the lodestar amount based in part on the "quality of representation provided." Norman, 836 F.2d at 1297. In denying that request the district court found "that substantial results were obtained even if the lawsuit was unnecessary to obtain them," but that an enhancement was inappropriate "because of the possibility of duplication of efforts and the possibility of improperly charged hours." Id. at 1297-98. This Court reversed the denial of the enhancement because "the wrong standards were applied." Id. at 1306. In doing so, the Norman Court explained that "[i]f the results obtained were

exceptional, then some enhancement of the lodestar might be called for." Id. at 1302 (citing Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 564-65, 106 S.Ct. at 3098). It also stated that "[e]xceptional results are results that are out of the ordinary, unusual or rare," not those that are expected, because "[t]he law
1238
*1238 is usually faithful to its teachings, and so an outcome that is not unexpected in the context of extant substantive law will not ordinarily be exceptional." Id. These were among the remand instructions in the Norman case: Any enhancement begins with a finding that the results were exceptional; the district court has also failed to address this issue with reference to the extant substantive law. Accordingly, we remand for reconsideration. In adjusting the lodestar, as has been noted earlier, the court must take into account the significance of the results obtained in relation to those sought. It is at this point that the court may wish to make adjustments for unsuccessful theories and dismissal of the case as to some parties. Even if the court found the results obtained to be exceptional, no enhancement for these results would be justified unless the court also finds that class counsel's representation was superior to that which would have been expected considering the rates requested. Blum, 465 U.S. at 899, 104 S.Ct. at 1549. Norman, 836 F.2d at 1306; accord Ass'n of Disabled Ams. v. Neptune Designs, Inc., 469 F.3d 1357, 1359 (11th Cir.2006) (dicta) ("The court may then adjust the lodestar to reach a more appropriate attorney's fee, based on a variety of factors, including the degree of the plaintiff's success in the suit." (footnote omitted)); Villano v. City of Boynton Beach, 254 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir.2001) (dicta) ("If the court determines that the result obtained was an excellent result, then the award of fees `will encompass all hours reasonably expended on the litigation, and indeed in some cases of exceptional success an enhanced award may be justified.'" (citation omitted)); Duckworth v. Whisenant, 97 F.3d 1393, 1399 (11th Cir.1996) (dicta) ("After determining the lodestar amount as above, the court is entitled to adjust the amount of final fees awarded in light of the results obtained through the litigation."). The NAACP and Norman decisions both vacated district court orders denying enhancements for superior results and issued remand instructions. Those instructions, especially the ones in Norman, constitute a holding that superior results coupled with superior performance can be the basis for an enhancement of the lodestar amount. For the reasons we have already explained at length, we are convinced that holding is wrong and conflicts

with relevant Supreme Court decisions. Nonetheless, as a later panel we are bound to follow it. Hurth v. Mitchem, 400 F.3d 857, 862 (11th Cir.2005) ("[W]e are not permitted to reach a result contrary to a prior panel's decision merely because we are convinced it is wrong ...."); Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F.3d 1292, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001) ("The idea of an exception to the prior panel precedent rule where a subsequent panel is convinced the prior one reached the wrong result — for whatever reason — is also inconsistent with a number of decisions in which panels of this Court have obediently followed prior panel precedents they were convinced were wrong."); id. at 1304 ("In summary, the parties' alternative argument boils down to the position that [a decision of this Court] incorrectly interpreted and applied [a Supreme Court decision] .... The prior panel precedent rule clearly forecloses their position."); Wascura v. Carver, 169 F.3d 683, 687 (11th Cir.1999) ("Wascura argues that the reasoning of [a decision of this Court] is unclear and inadequate to support its holding. We have no occasion to pass on that criticism, because we are bound by [that] decision regardless of whether we agree with it."); United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir.1998) (en banc) ("Under our prior precedent rule, a
1239
*1239 panel cannot overrule a prior one's holding even though convinced it is wrong."). Our colleague, Judge Wilson, is of the opinion that this Court's decisions in NAACP and Norman are correct, that enhancements of the lodestar amount can and should be allowed for the quality of representation and the exceptional nature of the results obtained. While we respect those views, we are unpersuaded by them.[28] The concurring opinion essentially adopts the position of the Sixth Circuit in Geier v. Sundquist, 372 F.3d 784 (6th Cir. 2004), that the Supreme Court's holding about performance enhancements in Delaware Valley I is nothing but dicta. Id. at 794.[29] That proposition is a matter of necessity for those who defend enhancements based on superior performance and the results it produces, because what the Court instructed us in the Delaware Valley I decision is that "it is unnecessary to enhance the fee for superior performance in order to serve the statutory purpose of enabling plaintiffs to secure legal assistance." Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 566, 106 S.Ct. at 3098. We should not worry about that instruction, Geier and the concurring opinion assure us, because it was just a summary of the Court's earlier Blum decision, and Blum did not say that.
1240

*1240 In other words, the Supreme Court in Delaware Valley I mischaracterized its own earlier decision in Blum. That view is wrong for two reasons. The first one, of course, is that the Supreme Court knows its decisions better than we do, and we are not free to disregard the Court's instructions because we think they may be based on a misreading of its own prior decisions. Secondly, Geier and the concurring opinion are also wrong about the context in which the Supreme Court told us in Delaware Valley I that enhancements for superior performance and results are unnecessary. That key statement is not confined to a recitation of the Blum case. It is part of an additional discussion that follows one in which the Court had stated that the federal fee-shifting statutes "were not designed as a form of economic relief to improve the financial lot of attorneys." Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098. Instead, the Court explained, the sole purpose of those statutes is to enable "private parties to obtain legal help in seeking redress for injuries resulting from the actual or threatened violation of specific federal laws." Id. That purpose, the Court emphasized, is satisfied if plaintiffs "find it possible to engage a lawyer based on the statutory assurance that he will be paid a `reasonable fee.'" Id. Immediately after explaining that, in the next paragraph of the Delaware Valley I opinion, the Supreme Court made the statements that the concurring opinion and Geier would have us disregard. That paragraph, in its entirety, reads as follows: Moreover, when an attorney first accepts a case and agrees to represent the client, he obligates himself to perform to the best of his ability and to produce the best possible results commensurate with his skill and his client's interests. Calculating the fee award in a manner that accounts for these factors, either in determining the reasonable number of hours expended on the litigation or in setting the reasonable hourly rate, thus adequately compensates the attorney, and leaves very little room for enhancing the award based on his post-engagement performance. In short, the lodestar figure includes most, if not all, of the relevant factors constituting a "reasonable" attorney's fee, and it is unnecessary to enhance the fee for superior performance in order to serve the statutory purpose of enabling plaintiff's to secure legal assistance. Id. at 565-66, 106 S.Ct. at 3098 (emphasis added). That statement is not dicta. It might have been if the Court had somehow affirmed the fee enhancement for superior performance in Delaware Valley I, but the Court did not do that. Instead, the Court reversed the fee award because of the enhancement, stating in the very next sentence after the

quoted paragraph: "With this teaching from our prior cases in mind, we sustain the Commonwealth's contention that the lower courts erred in increasing the fee award to Delaware Valley in Phase V based on the `superior quality' of counsel's performance." Id. at 566, 106 S.Ct. at 3099.[30] The teaching the Supreme Court had in mind included the lesson that it was unnecessary to enhance fees for superior performance. Any additional statements about the particular evidence
1241
*1241 in that case that come later in the opinion are, at most, additional or alternative holdings. See id. ("Furthermore, we are unpersuaded that ...." (emphasis added)). Even if the first holding stated in the Delaware Valley I opinion, which is that fee enhancements for superior performance and exceptional results are unnecessary, is viewed as one of two alternative holdings, we are still required to follow it. See Massachusetts v. United States, 333 U.S. 611, 623, 68 S.Ct. 747, 754, 92 L.Ed. 968 (1948); Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 331, 340, 48 S.Ct. 194, 196, 72 L.Ed. 303 (1928) ("It does not make a reason given for a conclusion in a case obiter dictum, because it is only one of two reasons for the same conclusion."); Johnson v. DeSoto County Bd. Comm'rs, 72 F.3d 1556, 1562 (11th Cir. 1996) ("[W]e are bound by alternative holdings"); McLellan v. Miss. Power & Light Co., 545 F.2d 919, 925 n. 21 (5th Cir.1977) ("It has long been settled that all alternative rationales for a given result have precedential value."). The concurring opinion, the Sixth Circuit's decision in Geier, and our decisions in NAACP and Norman all disregard the teaching that the Supreme Court used as a basis for its decision in Delaware Valley I. They all contradict the Supreme Court's holding that fee enhancements for superior performance and results are unnecessary. We would not, if we were not bound by the prior precedent rule to do so. The opinions concluding that enhancements for those reasons are appropriate also fail to mention, much less grapple with, the part of the Dague decision that discusses enhancements related to the merits of the federal claims that have been vindicated in the lawsuit. As we have already pointed out, see supra at 1227-28, in the course of rejecting any enhancement to fee awards based on contingency, the Supreme Court unequivocally concluded in Dague that enhancements should not be granted based on the legal and factual merits of the claim or the difficulty of establishing those merits. Dague, 505 U.S. at 562-63, 112 S.Ct. at 2641. It is logically impossible to reconcile those clear instructions from Dague with the position that enhancements can be granted based on the superior

performance of counsel in establishing the legal and factual merits. Which may be why Geier, NAACP, Norman, and the concurring opinion make no attempt to do so.[31]
1242
*1242 Despite our disagreement with the concurring opinion about the correctness of our NAACP and Norman decisions, we do agree that those decisions control the outcome of this case. They do not foreclose us from vacating the district court's judgment based on its improper consideration of the contingency nature of the award, the advancing of expenses, and the delay in payment of fees. However, our reading of the district court's opinion leaves us convinced that it would be pointless to remand to that court with instructions that it reconsider whether to give an enhancement, or the amount of one, free of those improper considerations. The district court was so obviously enamored with the performance of plaintiffs' counsel and with the result that they achieved, and so determined to reward them for it, that we have no doubt the court would simply reinstate the enhancement. So long as our NAACP and Norman decisions stand, the district court can, and would again on remand, reach the same result that we have before us and rest it on the basis of quality of representation and superior results. All that a remand would achieve is more delay and the generation of more billable hours. Of course, this Court sitting en banc, or the Supreme Court, can overrule any prior decisions of this Court. Unless and until this Court does overrule NAACP and Norman, we are constrained to let stand the $4,500,000 enhancement to the lodestar amount that is included in the district court's judgment in this case.
VII.
AFFIRMED. WILSON, Circuit Judge, specially concurring: I agree with the decision to uphold the fee award in this case. I do not, however, share my colleague Judge Carnes' view that the district court's decision and our own prior precedents in this area are inconsistent with the teachings of the Supreme Court. The Court has not held that quality of representation and exceptional results can never be grounds for an upward adjustment of the lodestar figure. To the contrary, the Court has allowed for the possibility of an enhancement based on these factors where, as here, specific record evidence indicates that the lodestar amount is insufficient to

provide a reasonable fee. Accordingly, I concur in the result only.
I.
In Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 104 S.Ct. 1541, 79 L.Ed.2d 891 (1984), the Supreme Court considered whether, and under what circumstances, quality of representation and exceptional results can support an enhancement of the lodestar. The Court noted that the quality of an attorney's representation "generally is reflected in the reasonable hourly rate." Id. at 899, 104 S.Ct. at 1549. However, the Court stated that this factor may justify an upward adjustment "in the rare case where the fee applicant offers specific evidence to show that the quality of service rendered was superior to that one reasonably should expect in light of the hourly rates charged and that the success was `exceptional.'" Id. (quoting Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 435, 103 S.Ct. 1933, 1940, 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983)). Because the attorneys in Blum offered no such evidence, the Court concluded that the district court's reliance on quality of representation as grounds for an enhancement amounted to double counting. Id. The Court indicated, however, that the outcome would have been different had there been specific evidence showing that an enhancement was necessary
1243
*1243 to reflect counsel's superior performance. See id. at 900, 104 S.Ct. at 1549 ("Absent specific evidence to the contrary, we cannot say that [the] rates... for these three attorneys do not fully reflect the quality of their representation."). With respect to the results obtained, the Court said that this factor likewise will "generally ... be subsumed within other factors used to calculate a reasonable fee," and therefore "it normally should not provide an independent basis for increasing the fee award." Id. at 900, 104 S.Ct. at 1549-50. The Court did not hold, however, that consideration of the results obtained is categorically impermissible. In fact, the Court took the opposite position, reiterating its prior statement from Hensley: "[W]here a plaintiff has obtained excellent results, his attorney should recover a fully compensatory fee. Normally this will encompass all hours reasonably expended on the litigation, and indeed in some cases of exceptional success an enhancement award may be justified." Blum, 465 U.S. at 901, 104 S.Ct. at 1550 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S.Ct. at 1940). Again, the Court indicated that the determinative consideration is whether the record contains evidence "show[ing] that the

benefit achieved requires an upward adjustment to the fee." Id. at 900, 104 S.Ct. at 1550. Blum thus establishes that enhancements for quality of representation and exceptional results, while not warranted in most cases, are permissible where supported by specific evidence. Therefore, to accept Judge Carnes' view that these factors can never be grounds for an enhancement, one would have to conclude that the Supreme Court has repudiated that aspect of Blum. I find little support for that proposition. Judge Carnes' opinion cites language in Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air (Delaware Valley I), 478 U.S. 546, 106 S.Ct. 3088, 92 L.Ed.2d 439 (1986), that, when read in isolation, arguably characterizes Blum as having established a categorical rule against consideration of the quality of representation and the results obtained. See id. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098 ("[W]e specifically held in Blum that ... the `quality of representation,' and the `results obtained' from the litigation are presumably fully reflected in the lodestar amount, and thus cannot serve as independent bases for increasing the basic fee award." (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 898-900, 104 S.Ct. at 1548-50)). Judge Carnes' reliance on this passage is misplaced for a number of reasons. As an initial matter, the statement is internally inconsistent: while providing that the named factors "cannot serve as independent bases for increasing the basic fee award," it also indicates that the factors are only "presumably" reflected in the lodestar amount. Thus, even standing alone, the statement provides uncertain support for Judge Carnes' opinion's conclusion. More significantly, the statement is not a holding of the Court. It is merely part of a discussion summarizing Blum and citing the case with approval. A review of the discussion as a whole makes clear that the Court was not purporting to alter Blum in any way. Indeed, in the sentence immediately following the language at issue, the Court restated Blum's holding that upward adjustments are proper "in certain `rare' and `exceptional' cases, supported by both `specific evidence' on the record and detailed findings by the lower courts." Id. (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 898-901, 104 S.Ct. at 1548-50). The Court's references to "specific evidence" are quoted from the portions of Blum addressing the showing necessary for an enhancement based on quality of representation.[1]
1244
*1244 Read in this context, the language cited by Judge Carnes' opinion cannot reasonably be characterized as a departure from Blum. Rather, it must be construed as a reaffirmation of Blum's teachings concerning the "quality of representation" and "results obtained" factors: namely, that while

these considerations are presumably reflected in the lodestar figure, and cannot serve as grounds for an enhancement where that is the case, the presumption may be rebutted by specific evidence. The portions of Delaware Valley I setting forth the Court's holding confirm this interpretation. In concluding that the enhancement awarded by the district court was improper, the Court discussed the "quality of representation" factor in noncategorical terms consistent with Blum: "Because considerations concerning the quality of a prevailing party's counsel's representation normally are reflected in the reasonable hourly rate, the overall quality of performance ordinarily should not be used to adjust the lodestar, thus removing any danger of `double counting.'" Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 566, 106 S.Ct. at 3099 (emphasis added). Moreover, the Court conducted a case-specific analysis, explaining how the record before it failed to support an upward adjustment. See, e.g., id. at 567, 106 S.Ct. at 3099 (noting that nearly one-third of hours reasonably spent on relevant phase of case were not compensated at hourly rate for most difficult work). It was this lack of evidentiary support — rather than a blanket rule against consideration of the quality of representation or the results obtained — that compelled reversal, as the Court repeatedly made clear. As to the attorneys' performance, the Court stated: "[V]iewing the evidence submitted by Delaware Valley to support its petition for attorney's fees, there is no indication as to why the lodestar did not provide a reasonable fee award reflecting the quality of representation ...." Id. The same conclusion applied to the results obtained: "Delaware Valley presented no specific evidence as to what made the results it obtained ... so `outstanding,' nor did it provide any indication that the lodestar figure for this portion of the case was far below awards made in similar cases where the court found equally superior quality of performance." Id. at 567-68, 106 S.Ct. at 3099. Finally, the Court deemed it significant that neither of the lower courts "made detailed findings as to why the lodestar amount was unreasonable, and in particular, as to why the quality of representation was not reflected in the product of the reasonable number of hours times the reasonable hourly rate." Id. at 568, 106 S.Ct. at 3099. The Court left little doubt that these considerations were critical to its disposition of the case. Using language virtually identical to that of Blum, the Court concluded: "In the absence of such evidence and such findings, we find no reason to increase the fee award ... for the quality of representation." Id. at 568, 106 S.Ct. at 3099-100 (emphasis added). Cf. Blum, 465 U.S. at 900, 104 S.Ct. at 1549 ("Absent specific evidence to the

contrary, we cannot say that [the] rates ... for these three attorneys do not fully reflect the quality of their representation."). These statements undermine any suggestion that Delaware Valley I precludes
1245
*1245 courts from ever considering the quality of representation and the results obtained as grounds for enhancing the lodestar figure. Such an interpretation cannot be squared with the Court's repeated descriptions of these factors as presumptively, but not absolutely, reflected in the lodestar figure. Moreover, had the Court intended to establish such a rule, its entire discussion concerning the deficiencies in the record and the lack of findings by the lower courts would have been unnecessary. Judge Carnes' opinion argues that we may ignore the Court's statements regarding the record because they are merely alternative holdings. However, that view fails to account for the statement that immediately precedes the Court's record analysis: "Because considerations concerning the quality of a prevailing party's counsel's representation normally are reflected in the reasonable hourly rate, the overall quality of performance ordinarily should not be used to adjust the lodestar ...." 478 U.S. at 566, 106 S.Ct. at 3099 (emphasis added). At no point did the Court suggest that this unambiguous statement of the governing law (a statement that Judge Carnes' opinion does not address) was somehow an alternative basis for its decision. Moreover, as discussed, the Court repeatedly made clear that the evidentiary deficiencies and lack of findings were essential to the outcome in the case. See, e.g., id. at 567, 106 S.Ct. at 3099 ("In sum, viewing the evidence submitted by Delaware Valley to support its petition for attorney's fees, there is no indication as to why the lodestar did not provide a reasonable fee award reflecting the quality of representation provided during Phase V of the litigation."); id. at 568, 106 S.Ct. at 3099100 ("In the absence of such evidence and such findings, we find no reason to increase the fee award ... for the quality of representation."). There simply is no basis for concluding, as Judge Carnes' opinion does, that we are free to disregard virtually all of Part III.B of the Court's opinion. Judge Carnes' opinion also relies on language in which the Court described enhancements for superior performance as "unnecessary" for purposes of enabling plaintiffs to secure legal assistance. See id. at 566, 106 S.Ct. at 3098. In the same discussion, however, the Court reiterated that such enhancements are not categorically barred, despite being disfavored as a general matter. In explaining the reasons for the "strong presumption" that the lodestar figure represents a reasonable fee, see id. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at

3098, the Court noted that an attorney who accepts a case "obligates himself to perform to the best of his ability and to produce the best possible results commensurate with his skill and his client's interests." Id. Therefore, the Court said, "[c]alculating the fee award in a manner that accounts for these factors, either in determining the reasonable number of hours expended on the litigation or in setting the reasonable hourly rate, ... adequately compensates the attorney, and leaves very little room for enhancing the award based on his post-engagement performance." Id. at 565-66, 106 S.Ct. at 3098 (emphasis added). The Court's subsequent description of performance-based enhancements as "unnecessary" must be read in light of that statement, which makes clear that such adjustments are permissible under narrow circumstances. Given that instruction, as well as the Court's numerous other statements articulating a non-categorical approach, the language cited by Judge Carnes' opinion cannot be read to preclude enhancements for performance in all cases.[2]
1246
*1246 Accordingly, I cannot accept the conclusion that our decisions in NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 812 F.2d 1332 (11th Cir. 1987), and Norman v. Housing Authority of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1988), were wrongly decided. In NAACP, the district court denied a request for an enhancement but failed to make findings with regard to one of the factors relied upon as a justification: "the assertion that the relief obtained was of great benefit to the black citizens of Evergreen and represented exceptional success." 812 F.2d at 1336. While stressing that the results obtained "normally will be subsumed in the calculation of a reasonable fee," id. at 1337, we noted that "[t]he award may be enhanced... `in some cases of exceptional success,'" id. (quoting Blum, 465 U.S. at 897, 104 S.Ct. at 1548). We therefore remanded for reconsideration in light of those principles. Id. Similarly, in Norman, the district court failed to make a finding as to whether the results obtained were exceptional. 836 F.2d at 1306. In remanding, we were careful to note that even a finding of exceptional results would not support an enhancement unless the court also found that counsel's representation "was superior to that which would have been expected considering the rates requested." Id. (citing Blum, 465 U.S. at 899, 104 S.Ct. at 1549). NAACP and Norman thus are fully consistent with the principles set forth in Hensley, Blum, and Delaware Valley I.[3] Other circuits share our understanding of the Court's teachings. See, e.g., Geier v. Sundquist, 372 F.3d 784, 794-95 (6th Cir. 2004) (concluding that Delaware Valley I permits enhancements based on quality of representation and results obtained in rare and exceptional cases); Van

Gerwen v. Guarantee Mut. Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that upward adjustment for quality of representation "is justified only in the rare case where there is specific evidence that the quality of service was superior in light of the hourly rates charged and that the success
1247
*1247 was exceptional"); Hyatt v. Apfel, 195 F.3d 188, 192 (4th Cir.1999) (affirming enhancement for results obtained); Forshee v. Waterloo Indus., Inc., 178 F.3d 527, 532 (8th Cir.1999) (stating that, to justify enhancement for outstanding service and results, applicant "must establish that the quality of service rendered and the results obtained were superior to what one reasonably should expect in light of the hourly rates charged and the number of hours expended" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F.3d 422, 425 (2d Cir.1999) ("The lodestar may be adjusted based on several factors, including in particular the results obtained...." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc., 124 F.3d 1221, 1233 n. 8 (10th Cir.1997) ("The lodestar figure may be adjusted to suit the particular circumstances of the case, especially where the degree of success achieved is exceptional."); Shipes v. Trinity Indus., 987 F.2d 311, 320 (5th Cir.1993) (noting that upward adjustments based on quality of representation and results obtained are proper where supported by specific evidence on record and detailed findings by lower courts). In each of these cases, the court recognized (at least implicitly) that Delaware Valley I did not fundamentally alter the controlling law regarding enhancements for outstanding performance and results. Judge Carnes' opinion thus conflicts not only with two decades of our own jurisprudence, but also with the decisions of numerous other courts.
II.
In this case, the district court made detailed findings as to why the lodestar figure did not fully reflect the quality of representation and the exceptional results achieved. As to the former, the court found that "the quality of service rendered by class counsel, including their extraordinary commitment of capital resources, was far superior to what consumers of legal services in the legal marketplace in Atlanta could reasonably expect to receive for the rates used in the lodestar calculation." Kenny A. ex rel. Winn v. Perdue (Kenny A. III), 454 F.Supp.2d 1260, 1288 (N.D.Ga. 2006).

In support of that conclusion, the court cited affidavits submitted by four attorneys with extensive experience in the Atlanta legal market, particularly in the area of class action litigation. See id. at 1290. These attorneys each stated that the hourly rates claimed by counsel would not provide a fee sufficient to reflect the value of the services performed. For example, Henry D. Fellows, Jr. testified: In the current Atlanta market for legal services, the Standard Hourly Rates specified in the Declarations of Marcia Robinson Lowry and Jeffrey O. Bramlett would be generally inadequate and insufficient to induce lawyers of comparable skill, judgment, professional reputation and experience to perform the necessary services to prosecute a case of this magnitude on terms where the lawyers are not paid on an ongoing basis as the work is being performed, are required to advance case expenses of $1.7 million over a three year period with no ongoing reimbursement, and the lawyers' ability to recover a fee and expense reimbursement are completely contingent on the outcome of the case. [Fellows Decl., R32:495:Ex.G:7; see also Knowles Decl., R32:495:Ex.D:11; Chandler Decl., R32:495:Ex.F:7; Rawls Decl., R32:495:Ex.H:7.] In the view of three of these attorneys, a 1.5-2 multiplier was necessary to bring the fee award into line with awards in comparable class action litigations in the Atlanta market: Taking into account the work required to achieve the results obtained for the plaintiff class in this case, the level of expense and risk entailed for class counsel
1248
*1248 to prosecute this case over a three-year period with recovery of fee and investment in advanced case expenses, and fees actually awarded by courts in class actions in this district in securities, antitrust and other types of non-civil rights cases presenting comparable complexity and risk, a multiplier of no less than 1.5-2 times the lodestar amount... would yield a reasonable fee consistent with prevailing prices in the Atlanta legal market for legal services of comparable value. [Fellows Decl., R32:495:Ex.G:8; see also Chandler Decl., R32:495:Ex.F:8; Rawls Decl., R32:495:Ex.H:8.] Judge Carnes' opinion discounts these affidavits on the ground that the factors identified in them — the lack of ongoing payment, the advancement of case expenses, and the contingent nature of the fee recovery and reimbursement — cannot support an enhancement. I agree with that conclusion insofar as it pertains to contingency. See City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 567, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 2643-44, 120 L.Ed.2d 449

(1992) (holding that enhancement for contingency is not permitted under fee-shifting statutes). The other two factors, Judge Carnes believes, have already been accounted for because the lodestar was calculated using current rather than historic hourly rates. See ante at 1227-28 (citing Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302). But we did not hold in Norman that the use of current rates will always be sufficient to compensate for delayed payment. Here, the affidavit testimony indicates that the rates used to calculate the lodestar, although current, would be inadequate to provide a reasonable fee in light of the exceptionally high commitment of capital resources by the attorneys and the three-year delay in receipt of payment. The district court properly relied on this evidence in concluding that an upward adjustment was warranted. Judge Carnes' opinion also faults the district court for failing to give sufficient weight to the testifying attorneys' own interest in securing a high fee award for plaintiffs' counsel in this case. But determinations as to the credibility and the weight of testimonial evidence are clearly within the purview of the district court in these circumstances. See Childrey v. Bennett, 997 F.2d 830, 834 (11th Cir.1993) ("[I]t is the exclusive province of the judge in non-jury trials to assess the credibility of witnesses and to assign weight to their testimony."). Such determinations always involve an assessment of the factors bearing upon a witness's objectivity. It cannot reasonably be contended that the able and experienced district judge in this case never considered the possibility that the affiants — who are prominent Atlanta attorneys — might be known by plaintiffs' counsel, or that they could derive an indirect benefit from the precedential value of a high fee award. The court concluded, however, that these considerations were outweighed by other factors that bolstered the probative value of their testimony. These included the court's familiarity with the affiants, their reputations in the Atlanta legal community, and their experience in complex class action litigations. See Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1290. Absent any showing of clear error, it is improper for us to second-guess the court's determination, even if we would have made a different credibility finding or weighed the evidence differently. Johnson v. DeSoto County Bd. of Comm'rs, 72 F.3d 1556, 1561 n. 5 (11th Cir.1996) ("The credibility of competing experts and the weight to be accorded the evidence submitted by both sides will, of course, be decided by the district court, subject only to clearly erroneous review on appeal."); Jones v. Childers, 18 F.3d 899, 908 (11th Cir.1994) ("We... will not presume to second guess the
1249
*1249 trial judge's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the

weight assigned to their testimony."). Such deference is particularly appropriate in this case, given that the defendants did not introduce evidence challenging the attorneys' conclusion that an enhancement was necessary to yield a fee consistent with prevailing rates in the Atlanta legal market for similar services. In addition to the affidavits, the district court took into account its personal observations of the attorneys' performance in this case: [T]he court finds that the superb quality of [counsel's] representation far exceeded what could reasonably be expected for the standard hourly rates used to calculate the lodestar. Quite simply, plaintiffs' counsel brought a higher degree of skill, commitment, dedication, and professionalism to this litigation than the Court has seen displayed by the attorneys in any other case during its 27 years on the bench. The foster children of Fulton and DeKalb Counties were indeed fortunate to have such unparalleled legal representation, and the Court would be remiss if it failed to compensate counsel for this extraordinary level of service to their clients. Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1288-89; see also id. at 1286 ("[B]ased upon the Court's own substantial experience and familiarity with the prevailing rates in Atlanta, and the Court's observation of the stellar performance of plaintiffs' counsel throughout this long and difficult case, it finds the requested hourly rates eminently fair and reasonable. If anything, they are too low."). In the area of fee awards, it is well established that "[t]he court ... is itself an expert on the question and may consider its own knowledge and experience concerning reasonable and proper fees and may form an independent judgment ... as to value." Norman, 836 F.2d at 1303 (quoting Campbell v. Green, 112 F.2d 143, 144 (5th Cir.1940)). As part of this determination, the court may factor in its personal assessment of the quality of counsel's representation. See Duckworth v. Whisenant, 97 F.3d 1393, 1397 (11th Cir.1996). The district court thus did not err in relying on these considerations as additional grounds for an enhancement. As to the results obtained, the court found that the plaintiffs' success was "truly exceptional." Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1289. The court provided a detailed summary of the Consent Decree entered into by the parties, finding that it provided "sweeping relief to the plaintiff class" and was "comprehensive in its scope and detailed in its coverage." Id. Based on these considerations, the court found the result achieved to be "extraordinary," particularly in light of "the contentiousness of the litigation, complexity of the issues and the uncertainties and delays of further litigation." Id. at 1290 (internal quotation marks omitted). To underscore the

truly exceptional nature of the outcome, the court again cited its own experience: "After 58 years as a practicing attorney and federal judge, the Court is unaware of any other case in which a plaintiff class has achieved such a favorable result on such a comprehensive scale." Id. Judge Carnes' opinion takes issue with the court's statement that the remedial measures established by the Consent Decree go beyond the relief the plaintiffs likely would have obtained had they prevailed at trial. We have recognized, however, that the unexpected nature of a result is relevant to the determination of whether it is exceptional. See Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302 ("[A]n outcome that is not unexpected in the context of extant substantive law will not ordinarily be exceptional."). In finding exceptional results
1250
*1250 here, the district court did not err in considering the fact that the remedies agreed upon by the parties exceeded its own expectations as to the nature and scope of relief likely to result from this litigation. See id. ("Exceptional results are results that are out of the ordinary, unusual or rare."). Moreover, other courts have recognized that results similar to those obtained here can justify an enhancement. For example, in Hyatt v. Apfel, 195 F.3d 188 (4th Cir. 1999), the Fourth Circuit affirmed an enhancement for results obtained where the plaintiff class prevailed in challenging a Social Security Administration policy pertaining to disability benefits. The enhancement was proper, the court held, because the plaintiffs "succeeded in bringing about fundamental change to a recalcitrant agency," the challenged policy affected the determination of hundreds of thousands of disability claims, and the government promulgated new national regulations in response to the litigation. Id. at 191-92. The court also found it significant that "[t]hese results were obtained in the face of monumental resistance [by the government] on every claim." Id. at 192. These factors closely resemble those involved in this case, where the plaintiffs succeeded in effecting systemic changes to the foster care systems in Fulton and DeKalb Counties, in spite of considerable opposition by defendants. Likewise, in Shipes v. Trinity Industries, 987 F.2d 311 (5th Cir.1993), the Fifth Circuit held that an enhancement might be warranted for the results obtained in a "lengthy and protracted" Title VII class action. Id. at 322. The court noted that the plaintiff's victory was complete on all issues and resulted in both substantial monetary damages and, "very importantly, future protection against discrimination in the form of injunctive relief." Id. The Consent Decree in this case provides similarly comprehensive relief. It

remedies numerous existing deficiencies in the delivery of foster care services and provides safeguards against future unlawful conduct by defendants. These results are no less exceptional than those obtained in Shipes. Additionally, we have recognized that the public benefit created by a lawsuit is an important factor in the determination of a reasonable fee award. In Villano v. City of Boynton Beach, 254 F.3d 1302 (11th Cir.2001), we held that the district court erred in reducing a plaintiff's fee award without considering the public benefit of the case. Id. at 1307. We stated that "[p]ublic benefit is a distinct measure of success in civil rights actions," and thus it must be accounted for in the calculation of a fee award. Id. We further recognized that the vindication of a constitutional right against a government institution heightens a lawsuit's public benefit by deterring future unconstitutional conduct by public officials. Id.; see also Popham v. City of Kennesaw, 820 F.2d 1570, 1580 (11th Cir.1987) ("The affirmation of constitutional principles produces an undoubted public benefit that courts must consider in awarding attorneys' fees under Section 1988."). Accordingly, we instructed the district court as follows: On remand, the district court must examine the qualitative value of [plaintiff's] successes. In doing so, the court needs to account for the vital role private litigation plays in the enforcement of civil rights, the difficulties involved in sustaining those lawsuits, the heightened importance of such lawsuits when the defendant is a public body, and the public benefit that occurs when those lawsuits ultimately vindicate a constitutional right. Villano, 254 F.3d at 1308 (citation omitted).
1251
*1251 Although Villano involved the reduction of a fee award rather than an enhancement, its principles are relevant to this case. Through the provisions of the Consent Decree, the plaintiffs have obtained redress for the constitutional violations alleged in the complaint, thereby vindicating the constitutional rights of the class members. Given the scope of the remedial measures agreed to by the defendants, the public benefit created by this litigation is enormous. See Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302 (stating that vindication of class-wide rights is generally more significant than relief for isolated constitutional violation). This consideration further supports the conclusion that an enhancement for exceptional success is warranted in this case.[4]
III.

I find no abuse of discretion in the district court's fee award. The court made detailed findings as to why the lodestar did not fully reflect the quality of representation and the results achieved in this case, and those findings are supported by specific evidence in the record. Because I conclude that the district court's decision is consistent with controlling Supreme Court and Eleventh Circuit precedents, I concur only in the result. HILL, Circuit Judge, concurring: I concur in the judgment. The enhancement by the district court is due to be affirmed because we are bound by the prior cases of our court, NAACP v. City of Evergreen, 812 F.2d 1332 (11th Cir.1987), and Norman v. Housing Authority of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292 (11th Cir. 1988). I do not add anything to my colleagues' discussions of the holding and opinions in those cases other than to acknowledge that they are scholarly and well done. No doubt these additional writings will be of interest to jurists who might wish to pursue the matter in further proceedings, should any arise.
[1] Robert M. Sharp, The Lore and Legends of Wall Street 233 (1989). [2] The defendants did object in the district court that the hourly rates requested were too high, but they have not raised that as an issue on appeal. Accordingly, we have no occasion to pass on that matter, but we do not mean to imply approval of those hourly rates, which appear to be on the generous side. [3] The views expressed in Parts I-V and Part VII of this opinion represent the views of a majority of the Court, consisting of Judges Carnes and Hill. The views expressed in this part, Part VI, of this opinion represent the views of the author of this opinion alone. The views of Judge Hill on the question addressed in this part are expressed in his separate concurring opinion. The views of Judge Wilson are expressed in his separate concurring opinion. [4] In Delaware Valley I, the Court reviewed an attorneys' fees award that was ordered pursuant to the Clean Air Act § 304(d), 42 U.S.C. § 7604(d). Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 557, 106 S.Ct. at 3094. The Court held that "[g]iven the common purpose of both § 304(d) and § 1988 to promote citizen enforcement of important federal policies, we find no reason not to interpret both provisions governing attorney's fees in the same manner." Id. at 560, 106 S.Ct. at 3096. Delaware Valley I has been applied to § 1988 cases by this Court, as well. See, e.g., Norman v. Hous. Auth. of Montgomery, 836 F.2d 1292, 1298-99 (11th Cir.1988). [5] The fees in Dague were awarded pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act § 7002(e), 42 U.S.C. § 6972(e), and the Clean Water Act § 505(d), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d). Dague, 505 U.S. at 559, 112 S.Ct. at 2639. As it had in Delaware Valley I, the Dague Court held that the language of these attorneys' fees statutes are "similar to that of many other federal fee-shifting statutes; our case law construing what is a `reasonable' fee applies uniformly to all of them." Id. at 562, 112 S.Ct. at 2641 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1988). [6] The district court did cut the hourly rates for travel time in half, but not in order to lower the rates. Instead, the reduction was the court's way of correcting for the attorneys' excessive billing of time. Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1284. [7] The Court in Delaware Valley I also said that "[b]ecause considerations concerning the quality of a prevailing party's counsel's representation normally are reflected in the reasonable hourly rate, the overall quality of performance ordinarily should not be used to adjust the

lodestar, thus removing any danger of `double counting.'" Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 566, 106 S.Ct. at 3099. Judge Wilson's concurring opinion reads the words "normally" and "ordinarily" to eviscerate the Court's clear instruction that "it is unnecessary to enhance the fee for superior performance in order to serve the statutory purpose of enabling plaintiffs to secure legal assistance." Id. That reading, which infers too much from two words, would license courts to award enhancements for superior performance or results in any case where the performance or result was anything better than "ordinary" or "normal," thereby contradicting the Court's clear instruction that there is a strong presumption against an enhancement for any reason and that they should rarely be granted for any reason. Id. at 565, 106 S.Ct. at 3098. That reading would also be inconsistent with much of what the Court has said on the subject, contradicting, for example, the clear implication of the Court's later teachings in the Dague case. See infra at 1230-31. [8] It is unclear why, in its discussion of the affidavits, the district court omitted any discussion of the one signed by Ralph Goldberg. See Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1290. For the sake of completeness, we will include it in our discussion. Four of the five affidavits indicate that they are from attorneys who practice regularly as plaintiffs' lawyers depending on attorneys' fee awards. The lone exception is John Chandler, whose affidavit indicates that although most of his work has been on the defense side he has also served as counsel for some plaintiffs' classes.
[9] Court: Who selected those lawyers who served as experts? Bramlett: I sought those witnesses out. I mean the Court didn't say — Court: I would be shocked if you told me you had never filed an affidavit for one of them. Bramlett: You would be shocked and that would be incorrect. But, but the fact is that all four of these lawyers are highly experienced, highly competent, have practiced law in the Atlanta market — Court: And highly interested in keeping the rates up and the multipliers as high as possible — Bramlett: Ah.
[10] Judge Wilson's concurring opinion states that "[i]t cannot be reasonably contended that the able and experienced district judge in this case never considered the possibility that the affiants ... could derive an indirect benefit benefit from the precedential value of a high fee award." See infra at 1248 (Wilson, J., concurring specially). Actually, the able and experienced district court judge himself explicitly found that the affiant attorneys were "disinterested." That finding, which underlies any credit the court gave to the affidavits, is clearly erroneous. It just is not true. [11] (R32:495:Ex.F:4) (affidavit of John Chandler); (R32:495:Ex.G:4) (affidavit of Henry D. Fellows, Jr.); (R32:495:Ex.H:4) (affidavit of James C. Rawls). [12] (R32:495:Ex.E:4-5) (affidavit of Ralph Goldberg). [13] (R32:495:Ex.D:5) (affidavit of Ralph I. Knowles, Jr.) (emphasis omitted). [14] (R32:495:Ex.D:6-8, 11) (affidavit of Ralph I. Knowles, Jr.); (R32:495:Ex.E:5-6) (affidavit of Ralph Goldberg); (R32:495:Ex.F:4-5) (affidavit of John Chandler); (R32:495:Ex.G:4-5) (affidavit of Henry D. Fellows, Jr.); (R32:495:Ex.H:4-5) (affidavit of James C. Rawls). [15] (R32:495:Ex.D:6-8, 11) (affidavit of Ralph I. Knowles, Jr.); (R32:495:Ex.E:5-6) (affidavit of Ralph Goldberg); (R32:495:Ex.F:4-5) (affidavit of John Chandler); (R32:495:Ex.G:4-5) (affidavit of Henry D. Fellows, Jr.); (R32:495:Ex.H:4-5) (affidavit of James C. Rawls). [16] (R32:495:Ex.D:8) (affidavit of Ralph I. Knowles, Jr.); (R32:495:Ex.F:5) (affidavit of John Chandler); (R32:495:Ex.G:4-5) (affidavit of Henry D. Fellows, Jr.); (R32:495:Ex.H:5) (affidavit of James C. Rawls). [17] Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore LLP, Jeffrey O. Bramlett Attorney Profile, http://www.atlantageorgiatriallawyers./attorneys/business_torts_lawyer_bramlett.html (last visited Dec. 8, 2007).

[18] Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore LLP, Jeffrey O. Bramlett Attorney Profile, http://www.atlantageorgiatriallawyers.com/attorneys/business_torts_lawyer_bramlett.html (last visited Dec. 8, 2007). [19] Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore LLP, Jeffrey O. Bramlett Attorney Profile, http://www.atlantageorgiatriallawyers.com/attorneys/business_torts_lawyer_bramlett.html (last visited Dec. 8, 2007). [20] Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore LLP, Jeffrey O. Bramlett Attorney Profile, http://www.atlantageorgiatriallawyers.com/attorneys/business_torts_lawyer_bramlett.html (last visited Dec. 8, 2007). [21] Children's Rights, Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.childrensrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=faq# Lawsuit (last visited June 5, 2008). [22] Press Release, Children's Rights, New Settlement Guarantees the Right to Legal Counsel for Abused and Neglected Children in DeKalb County, Georgia, http://www.childrensrights.org/pdfs/press_releases/DeKalbCountySettle3% 20231.pdf (last visited June 5, 2008) [23] Press Release, Children's Rights, Settlement of Class-Action Lawsuit Mandates Sweeping Reform of Foster Care in Atlanta, Georgia (July 5, 2005), http://www.childrensrights.org/pdfs/press_releases/07-05-05.pdf (last visited June 5, 2008). [24] Press Release, Children's Rights, Inc., In First Ruling of its Kind in Nation, Federal Judge in Georgia Rules Abused and Neglected Children Have Right to an Attorney While in State Custody (Feb. 8, 2005), at http://www.childrensrights.org/pdfs/press_releases/02-08-05.pdf (last visited June 5, 2008). [25] Press Release, Children's Rights, Inc., Landmark Settlement Guarantees the Right to Legal Counsel for Abused and Neglected Children in Atlanta, Georgia (Feb. 13, 2006), at http://www.childrensrights.org/pdfs/press_releases/3197_001.pdf (last visited June 5, 2008). [26] Children's Rights, Inc., Annual Report, at 4 (2006-2007), http://www.childrensrights.org/pdfs/Annual% 20Report% XXXXXX-XXXX.pdf (last visited June 5, 2008). [27] Children's Rights, Inc., Annual Report, at 5 (2006-2007), http://www.childrensrights.org/pdfs/Annual% 20Report% XXXXXX-XXXX.pdf (last visited June 5, 2008). [28] Both Judges Wilson and Hill have authored concurring opinions in this case. See supra at 1220 n. 3. References in this opinion to "the concurring opinion" are to Judge Wilson's. [29] The concurring opinion cites six additional cases from other circuits in support of its position that the district court may enhance the lodestar based on the quality of the representation and superior results: the Second Circuit's decision in Quaratino v. Tiffany & Co., 166 F.3d 422 (2d Cir.1999), the Fourth Circuit's decision in Hyatt v. Apfel, 195 F.3d 188 (4th Cir.1999), the Fifth Circuit's decision in Shipes v. Trinity Industries, 987 F.2d 311 (5th Cir.1993), the Ninth Circuit's decision in Van Gerwen v. Guarantee Mutual Life Co., 214 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir.2000), the Eighth Circuit's in Forshee v. Waterloo Industries, Inc., 178 F.3d 527 (8th Cir.1999), and the Tenth Circuit's Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, Inc., 124 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir.1997). There are three problems with reliance on those decisions. For one thing, none of them actually holds that the lodestar may be enhanced based on the quality of representation. Indeed the Shipes decision rejected the district court's enhancement on that ground, holding that "[e]ven though Shipes's counsel presented extensive statistical data with competence, nothing less should be expected of counsel; consequently, this factor alone does not support enhancement." Shipes, 987 F.2d at 321. Because the Quaratino case did not even involve, directly or indirectly, an enhancement of any type, Quaratino, 166 F.3d at 424, anything that opinion says about enhancements is pure dicta. Likewise, the issue before the court in Van Gerwen was "whether — and if so, how — a district

court may permissibly reduce an attorney's fees award under federal fee-shifting statutes to reflect poor quality of representation." Van Gerwen, 214 F.3d at 1044. Because it was a fee reduction case, not an enhancement case, anything the Van Gerwen opinion says about enhancements is also dicta. Finally, in Forshee, the court of appeals reversed the district court's fee enhancement because it was based on the contingent nature of the case. Forshee, 178 F.3d at 532. There was no evidence supporting an enhancement for superior representation or results. The court said: "the case was not unusually difficult or complex to prepare and try, the result while favorable to Forshee was not exceptional, Forshee gave only an impermissible reason for enhancement, and the district court made no `detailed findings' that would justify an enhanced fee award." Id. As with the other two cases, anything the Forshee court said about superior representation or results is dicta. Finally, none of the opinions from other circuits in those six cases engages in an extended discussion of the Supreme Court's Delaware Valley I and Dague opinions, nor do they confront the Supreme Court's reasoning in those two decisions, reasoning that is inconsistent with enhancements for superior representation and results.
[30] As we explained earlier in this opinion, the Court carried over for reargument the next term the issue of whether an enhancement for contingency risk was proper. See Delaware Valley I, 478 U.S. at 568, 106 S.Ct. at 3100. But the Court did reverse the rest of the enhancement, including the increase for superior performance and exceptional results. Id. ("The judgment below is therefore affirmed insofar as it upheld the award of attorney's fees for the work done in Phases II and IX and, except for the multiplier for risk, is otherwise reversed." (emphasis added)). [31] On a related point, the concurring opinion's reliance on our own decision in Villano, is misplaced. The Villano case had nothing to do with fee enhancements. Instead, it is a case in which the district court actually reduced the lodestar amount because the plaintiff did not prevail on all claims or against all of the defendants, and did not recover all of the damages he was seeking. Villano, 254 F.3d at 1304. The unremarkable holding of Villano is that before a court can reduce the lodestar amount for limited success it must consider not just the benefit the plaintiff obtained for himself measured in the damage award but also the public benefit of vindicating federal rights against a governmental entity. Id. at 1306-07. Of course. But to say, as Villano does, that a fee award should not be reduced below the lodestar amount for partial success without considering all aspects of the success is one thing. To say, as the concurring opinion in this case does, that the lodestar should be increased for success if the public gained some benefit from having federal rights vindicated is an entirely different thing. Indeed, if public benefit through vindication of federal rights was enough to justify an enhancement of the lodestar amount, there would be an enhancement in every single fee case. There can be no fee award under § 1988 and its statutory cousins unless plaintiff's counsel has obtained a judgment establishing that some federal statutory or constitutional right has been violated. Every judgment that will support a fee award will have benefitted the public by vindicating federal rights and serving as a deterrence to future violations. Therefore, under the concurring opinion's logic, every fee award should be increased as a reward for success and on public benefit grounds. That cannot be.
[1] See Blum, 465 U.S. at 899, 104 S.Ct. at 1549 (stating that quality of representation "may justify an upward adjustment only in the rare case where the fee applicant offers specific evidence to show that the quality of service rendered was superior to that one reasonably should expect in light of the hourly rates charged and that the success was `exceptional'" (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S.Ct. at 1940)); id. at 900, 104 S.Ct. at 1549 ("Absent specific evidence to the contrary, we cannot say that [the] rates ... for these three attorneys do not fully reflect the quality of their representation.").

[2] Judge Carnes' opinion also asserts that enhancements for superior performance cannot be reconciled with City of Burlington v. Dague, 505 U.S. 557, 112 S.Ct. 2638, 120 L.Ed.2d 449 (1992), in which the Court held that enhancements for contingency are not permitted. As Judge Carnes' opinion notes, the Dague Court defined an attorney's contingent risk in a particular case as the product of "(1) the legal and factual merits of the claim, and (2) the difficulty of establishing those merits." Id. at 562, 112 S.Ct. at 2641. However, Dague is inapposite because, unlike an attorney's level of risk, the quality of his or her representation cannot be defined solely by reference to these two factors. Two attorneys could bring identical claims, the merits of which are equally difficult to establish. Even if both attorneys prevail, it does not follow that their respective performances were necessarily equal in quality. In any given case, a host of factors beyond those relating specifically to the merits of a claim are pertinent to assessing the quality of an attorney's representation. Nothing in Dague precludes courts from considering these additional factors as possible grounds for an enhancement. [3] Since NAACP and Norman were decided, we have repeatedly reiterated their understanding of the Court's teachings. See Ass'n of Disabled Ams. v. Neptune Designs, Inc., 469 F.3d 1357, 1359 (11th Cir.2006) (per curiam) ("The court may then adjust the lodestar to reach a more appropriate attorney's fee, based on a variety of factors, including the degree of the plaintiff's success in the suit."); Villano v. City of Boynton Beach, 254 F.3d 1302, 1308 (11th Cir.2001) ("If the court determines that the result obtained was an excellent result, then the award of fees `will encompass all hours reasonably expended on the litigation, and indeed in some cases of exceptional success an enhanced award may be justified.'" (quoting Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435, 103 S.Ct. at 1940)); Duckworth v. Whisenant, 97 F.3d 1393, 1396 (11th Cir.1996) (per curiam order incorporating district court decision into opinion) ("After determining the lodestar, the court may adjust the amount depending upon a number of factors, including the quality of the results and representation of the litigation."); Loranger v. Stierheim, 10 F.3d 776, 781 (11th Cir.1994) (per curiam) ("[The] `lodestar' may then be adjusted for the results obtained."). [4] Judge Carnes' opinion argues that the public benefit created by a lawsuit cannot be a factor supporting an enhancement because every suit that vindicates a federal right benefits the public in some way. Therefore, he argues, taking the public benefit into account would result in an enhancement in every successful fee case. I disagree. The fact that every vindication of federal rights confers some public benefit does not mean that the benefit is equal in every case. The present case underscores this point. The district court's opinion demonstrates that the public benefit created here was truly exceptional, far exceeding that achieved in the majority of cases of this type. See Kenny A. III, 454 F.Supp.2d at 1290 ("After 58 years as a practicing attorney and federal judge, the Court is unaware of any other case in which a plaintiff class has achieved such a favorable result on such a comprehensive scale."). Taking this factor into account is proper under the "results obtained" analysis, which asks whether the outcome in the case was "out of the ordinary, unusual or rare." Norman, 836 F.2d at 1302.