DAVID L. HARRIS (DH3391) PATRICK WHALEN (PW3066) CARMELA CANNISTRACI (CC8233) LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 (973) 597-2500

MARCIA ROBINSON LOWRY (ML5501) (Pro Hac Vice) SUSAN LAMBIASE (SL5041) (Pro Hac Vice) ERIC THOMPSON (ET6457) (Pro Hac Vice) CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 404 Park Avenue South, 11 th Floor New York, New York 10016 (212) 683-2210 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

.-------------------------------------------------

CHARLIE AND NADINE H., by and

: Civil Action No. 99-3678 (GEB)

I

through their next friend, Ellen

: Hon. Garrett E. Brown, Jr., U.S.D.J.

Koehler; JASON, JENNIFER and PATTI

I I

I

W., by and through their next friend,

Yvonne Mitchell; DENNIS M. and

DENISE R., by and through their next

friend, Karol Corbin Walker, Esq.;
MARCO and JUAN c., by and through

Civil Action

their next friend, Dr. George Bigge;

RICARDO 0., by and through his next

friend, Rosanne Maraziti, Esq.;

AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

DOLORES and ANNA G., by and through

DECLARATORY AND

their next friend, Susan Dargay, Esq.;

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

KYLE J., by and through his next

friend, the Reverend Doctor Warren

CLASS ACTION

Bouton; BARRY M., by and through his

next friend, Constance McManus, Esq.;

SHARON K., by and through her next

friend, Dr. Barbara Fleischer; on their own

behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated;

Plaintiffs,

--v.--
,~CHRISTINE TODD WHJTMAN, as Governor of the l~tate of New Jersey;! MICHELE K. GUHL, as
Commissioner of the Department of Human Services; and CHARLES VENTI, as Director of the Division of Youth and Family Services of the State of New Jersey,
Defendants.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PARTIES ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Named Plaintiffs ................................................................................................................ 1 Defendants ........................................................................................................................ 2
JURISDICTION AND VENUE ................................................................................................... 3 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 3 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................. 5 STRUCTURE OF THE NEW JERSEY CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM ....................................... 6 LEGAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................... 9
The United States Constitution........................................................................................ 9 . The Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994,
as Amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996 ............................................................................................................. 9

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING NAMED PLAINTIFFS ...................................... 10 A . CHARLIE AND NADINE H ............................................................................. 10 B. JASON, JENNIFER and PATTI W................................................................... 14 C. DENNIS M. AND DENISE R............................................................................ 16 D. MARCO and JUAN C........................................................................................ 18 E. RICARDO 0 .... ;·................................................................................................. 21 F. DOLORES and ANNA G .................................................................................. 24 G. KYLEJ ................................................................................................................. 26 H. BARRYM ........................................................................................................... 27

1. SHARON K........................................................................................................ 30 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SYSTEMIC DEFICIENCIES ............................. 32
Out~Of~Home Placements .............................................................................................. 33 Lack of Appropriate DYFS Foster Homes .......................................................... 33 Inadequate and Harmful Adolescent Placements .......................................................................................................... 36 Inadequate and Harmful Special Needs Placements .......................................................................................................... 36
Services to Foster Children............................................................................................. 37 Health Care and Related Services ...................................................................... 37 Educational Services............................................................................................39 Adoption Services............................................................................................... 39
Caseworker Screening, Training, Retention and Support .............................................•...................................................... 40 Accountability Throughout the System .......................................................................... 43 Insufficient Resource Development and Maximization .................................................. 44 Lack of Planning and Failure to Prioritize
Systemic Improvements ...................................................................................... 45 CAUSES OF ACTION .............................................................................................................. 46 PRAYER FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................... 46

PARTIES Named Plaintiffs

1. Plaintiffs CHARLIE AND NADINE H.l are a brother and sister aged eleven and

nine, respectively, who have been in DYFS custody for over five years.

2. Charlie and Nadine H. appear in this action through their next friend, Ellen

Koehler, 702 Twin Rivers Drive North, East Windsor, New Jersey 08520.

3. Plaintiffs JASON, JENNIFER and PATTI W. are siblings aged ten, eight and six,

respectively, who were removed from their mother's custody three years ago.

4. Jason, Jennifer and Patti W. appear in this action through their next friend,

Yvonne Mitchell, 65 Edgarton Terrace, East Orange, New Jersey 07017.

5. Plaintiffs DENNIS M. and DENISE R. are a brother and a sister aged eight and

seven, respectively, who were removed from their mother's custody in 1995.

6. Dennis M. and Denise R. appear in this action through their next friend, Karol

Corbin Walker, Esquire, 2 Penn Plaza East, Newark, New Jersey 07105.

7. Plaintiffs MARCO and his brother JUAN C. are eight and ten~year~old boys,

respectively, with special needs who were removed from their mother's care for a second time in

1995. 8.

Marco and Juan c. appear in this action by their next friend, Dr. George Bigge,

90 Rainbow Trail, Pittsgrove, New Jersey 08318.

9.

Plaintiff RICARDO O. is a 13 1!2~year~old youth who has been in DYFS custody

since June 1997.

10. Ricardo O. appears in this action by his next friend, Rosanne Maraziti, Esquire, 50

Inwood Road, Chatham, New Jersey 07928.

1

To protect their confidentiality, all named plaintiffs appear in this action by pseudonym

and their addresses are not being disclosed herein.

-1-

11. Plaintiffs DOLORES and ANNA G. are two sisters who are four,years,old and seventeen,months,old, respectively, and have been in DYFS custody since August 1998.
12. Dolores and Anna G. appear in this action by their next friend, Susan Dargay, Esquire, 114 High Street, Mount Holly, New Jersey 08060.
13. Plaintiff KYLE J. is a one,and,a,half,year,old infant who has been in foster care since birth.
14. Kyle J. appears in this action through his next friend, the Reverend Doctor Warren Bouton, 79 Addison Drive, Short Hills, New Jersey 07078.
15. Plaintiff BARRY M. is a 17,year,old youth who has been in and out of DYFS custody since the age of four.
16. Barry M. appears in this action through his next friend, Constance McManus, Esquire, 50 Powder Springs Street, Suite 32E, Marietta, Georgia 30064 \
17. Plaintiff SHARON K., age four, has been in DYFS custody since birth. 18. Sharon K. appears in this action by her next friend Dr. Barbara Fleischer, 271A Route 516, Matawan, New Jersey 07747.
Defendants 19. Defendant CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN is the Governor of New Jersey, and is sued in her official capacity. Her offices are located at P.O. Box 001, Trenton, New Jersey 08625,0001. Governor Whitman is responsible for ensuring that all New Jersey agencies comply with all applicable federal and state law, pursuant to Article V, § 1, cl. 11 of the New Jersey State Constitution. 20. Defendant MICHELLE GUHL is the Commissioner of the Department of Human Services ("DHS"), of the State of New Jersey, and is sued in her official capacity. Her offices are located at 222 South Warren Street, Trenton, New Jersey, 08625-0700. Commissioner Guhl is responsible for the welfare of all children in need of public assistance, care, support or protection who reside in New Jersey; for overseeing the administration of DHSj and for ensuring that DYFS,

and the private agencies with which DYFS contracts, comply with all applicable federal and state

laws"pursuant to §§ 30: 1,2 and 30: 1,12 of New Jersey State Institutions and Agencies Law.

21. Defendant CHARLES VENTI is the Director of the Division of Youth and Family

Services, and is sued in his official capacity. His offices are located at 50 E. State Street, P.O.

Box 717, Trenton, New Jersey 08625,0717. Director Venti is responsible for the Division's

policies, practices and operation, and for ensuring that DYFS and the private agencies with which

it contracts comply with all applicable federal and state law pursuant to §§ 30:1,9 and 30:4C,4 of

New Jersey State Institutions and Agencies Law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22. This is an action pursuant to 42 United States Code § 1983, alleging violations of

the United States Constitution and federal statutes. This court has jurisdiction over the federal

claims pursuant to 28 United States Code §§ 1331 and 1343 (a)(3).

23. Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 United States Code § 1391 (b)

because the claims arise in the district.

INTRODUCTION

24. This is a civil rights action against officials of the New Jersey Division of Youth

and Family Services (the "Division" or "DYFS"), the Department of Human Services ("DHS"),

and the State of New Jersey (collectively, the "defendants"), on behalf of all children who are or

will be in the custody of the Division (the "plaintiffs").

25. The defendants' systemic failure to protect these children and provide them and

r

their families with legally required services has/ jeopardized their health and safety, and subjected

~ights them to significant harm,! in violation of their

under the United States Constitution and

federal statutes.

26. Many children are being left by DYFS in homes where they are abused and

neglected, and even killed, while those children who are removed from dangerous situations and

placed in foster care spend a substantial part of their childhood growing up in government

,3-

custody subject to additional deprivations in a poorly managed and grossly overburdened child welfare system.
27. As a direct result of defendants' pattern of actions and inactions, New Jersey's child welfare system is rife with systemic deficiencies that prevent it from meeting constitutional and statutory requirements.
28. Defendants have not provided the leadership, resources and support necessary to ensure that the child welfare system complies with the law and provides adequate protection and services to New Jersey's most vulnerable children. Many DYFS administrators lack the ability, support and resources necessary to engage in appropriate problem~solving or long~term, strategic. planning on the Division's behalf. They cannot and do not provide necessary, professional guidance and support to their subordinates. There has been turnover in both the leadership of the agency and the corps of front~line caseworkers, jeopardizing even the Division's most basic functions.
29. The plight of children served by DYFS and the Division's systemic deficiencies have been extensively documented. In response to mounting concerns that children were being victimized in a system required to protect them, defendant Governor Christine Todd Whitman appointed a Blue Ribbon Panel of professionals involved with the child welfare system, including social services administrators and service providers, lawyers and court personnel, children's advocates, and medical experts, to take public testimony around the state and to analyze documentary evidence concerning the New Jersey child welfare system. The Blue Ribbon Panel's Final Report (the "Blue Ribbon Panel Report")was issued on February 20, 1998, and concluded that New Jersey's child welfare system had been seriously damaged by years of cut~backs and neglect. The Report identified vast problems at every point in the child welfare process and concluded that the overall capacity of DYFS has been reduced to a crisis mode of intervention. The Report confirmed a decade of reports and child welfare data issued by such organizations as the Association for Children of New Jersey ("ACNJ") and the Child Welfare League of America ("CWLA"). DYFS failures have also been widely reported in the New Jersey press.

30. Defendants have thus been well aware of their systemic, ongoing failure to adequately serve the children who depend on them for their health, their safety, and their lives. Although defendants have engaged in superficial reform efforts, many areas for which aggressive reform is needed have not been addressed by management, and few meaningful changes have resulted. The deprivations experienced by New Jersey's most vulnerable children have only worsened significantly over time, leading to the unlawful and sometimes desperate conditions prevailing today.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 31. This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 (a) & (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 32. The plaintiff class includes the approximately 9,250 children who are in the legal and/or physical custody of the Division and children who will be in its custody. 33. The plaintiff class is sufficiently numerous. There are approximately 9,250 children in the custody of DYFS. Joinder of all class members is impracticable. 34. The questions oflaw and fact raised by the named plaintiffs' claims are common to arid typical of those raised by the claims of the putative class members. Each named plaintiff and each putative class member is in need of child welfare services, must rely on defendants for the provision of those services, and is harmed by the Division's systemic failures to adequately provide such services. 35. Common questions of fact include:
a. whether defendants fail to provide children in their custody with safe, secure foster care placements, as required by law and reasonable professional standards;
b. whether defendants fail to provide foster children with legally required services, consistent with reasonable professional standards, necessary to prevent them from deteriorating physically and psychologically while in state custody, including but not limited to appropriate medical and educational services;
36. Common questions oflaw include:
~5~

a. whether defendants' actions and inactions violate plaintiffs' rights under

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

b.

whether defendants' actions and inactions violate plaintiffs' rights under

the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, as Amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of

1996,42 United States Code §§ 622 (b)(9) , 671 (a)(18), 674(d).

37.

The legal claims alleged by the named plaintiff children are typical and

representative of those of the putative class. In addition, the harms suffered by the named

plaintiffs are typical of the harms suffered by all class members.

38. The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

They are represented by attorneys employed by Children's Rights, Inc., a privately funded, non~

profit organization with extensive experience in complex class action litigation involving child

welfare systems, and by attorneys associated with the law firm of Lowenstein Sandler P.c. who

have extensive experience in child welfare and civil rights litigation. Plaintiffs' counsel have the

resources, expertise and experience to prosecute this action.

39. Each named plaintiff child appears by a next friend, and each next friend is

sufficiently familiar with the facts and circumstances of the child's situation to fairly and

adequately represent the child's interests in this litigation.

40. Defendants have acted or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,

making declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole appropriate and

necessary. Counsel for the plaintiffs know of no conflicts among members of the class.

STRUCTURE OF THE NEW JERSEY CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

41. The Division of Youth and Family Services ("DYFS") of the Department of

Human Services ("DHS") is the agency established by the State of New Jersey to investigate

reports of suspected child abuse and neglect; provide necessary services to children and families

and protect children who are the subject of such reports; investigate and assess requests for child

welfare services and, where appropriate, provide such services; manage cases accepted for service

by developing, reviewing, revising, and implementing case plans, and provide services to children

and families in accordance with their case plan; provide proper care to children in state custody; and secure permanent placements for children in custody. Defendants Governor Christine Todd Whitman, DHS Commissioner Michele K. Guhl and DYFS Director Charles Venti are responsible for ensuring that DYFS carries out its mandates.
42. DYFS is legally required to maintain, on a 24~hour daily basis, an emergency telephone service for receiving allegations of abuse and neglect. These calls are answered by Child Protective Services "screeners" who are responsible to elicit relevant information from the caller, document it, and assess the response necessary. After hours, calls are screened by the office of Child Abuse Control.
43. When a screener determines that a report of abuse or neglect warrants a child protective service investigation, or a request for services warrants a visit by DYFS, the referral is forwarded to an Intake Unit, or, after hours, the Office of Child Abuse Control or a Special Response Unit ("SPRU"), located in DYFS district offices. DYFS has at least one district office in every county of the State. Intake workers are required to respond to reports referred to them by conducting an investigation within the time frame mandated by statute, and conducting a child welfare service assessment.
44. If a DYFS worker determines that a child's health and safety is in imminent danger, the worker may remove the child from his home with or without the consent of the parent. If the child is removed without consent, DYFS is required to immediately file an abuse or neglect complaint with the Family Part of the Chancery Division of the Superior Court ("Family Court"). A child may also be removed from the home, by order of the Family Court, or a parent may voluntarily place a child with DYFS under a voluntary placement agreement, which is required to be approved by the Family Court. Pursuant to such a voluntary agreement, DYFS is obligated to return the child at the parents' request or seek a Family Court order to continue the out~of~home placement.
45. If, following an investigation, an intake worker determines that a child is not in imminent risk of harm, but that the family is in need of child welfare services, the family's case is

"opened" and becomes a part of the "generic" case load of a district office caseworker. That caseworker is obligated to develop a case plan for the family, to ensure that the family receives the services identified in the case plan, to modify the case plan when appropriate, and to monitor the family.
46. If a child is removed from her home and placed in DYFS custody, her case is assigned to a district office case worker. A child may be placed in either a relative's home, a foster home, a shelter, a group home, or a residential treatment facility ("RTF"). In the event that an appropriate placement cannot be immediately located for a child because the child was removed after hours, he or she is placed in a temporary emergency placement on a nightly basis.
47. For a child placed outside her home, the district office in the county where the child is placed assumes case planning and case management responsibilities over the child and the placement. These responsibilities include developing and updating as necessary the child's case plan with the required elements; ensuring that the child and foster family are receiving services set out in the case plan within the time frames established by the plan; and, making face~to~face and other regular contacts with the foster child.
48. If a child is placed in a district different from where the child was removed, the case is then dually managed. The district where the child is placed assumes the duties described above, while the district where the child was removed has responsibility over providing services and supervision to the birth parent and in ensuring visitation between the child and the birth parent.
49. All children placed out of their homes under DYFS are monitored by citizen review boards called Child Placement Review Boards ("CPRBs"), overseen by the Family Courts and located in each county.
50. Once adoption is identified as a child's case goal, his case is forwarded from the district office to one of five regional Adoption Resource Centers ("ARCs"). An adoption case~ worker then takes over the case management responsibilities. Regional ARCS are responsible for finalizing adoptions by pursuing termination of parental rights or voluntary surrenders of custody

and consents for adoption, and placing the child in an appropriate adoptive home. Complaints to terminate parental rights are filed with the court by Deputy Attorneys General.
51. The Division also has a Central office which includes a training and staff development unit, a quality assurance unit, a Bureau of Licensing newly responsible for certifying foster homes, and four Regional offices which include regional foster care units, and regional Institutional Abuse Investigation Units ("IAIUs") which investigate reports of abuse and neglect in DYFS placements.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK 52. Defendants are violating statutes and legal obligations that create an overall scheme to regulate the provision of child welfare services to children entitled to them. 53. The applicable constitutional standards and federal statutes establish a broad range of general and specific duties that defendants are failing to meet in administering the state's child welfare system.
The United States Constitution 54. The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees to each child in state custody the substantive due process right to be free from harm and the right to conditions of custody reasonably related to the purpose of custody. The right to be free from harm encompasses the right to treatment in accordance with reasonable professional standards, and the right to the services necessary to prevent children from deteriorating physically, psychologically or otherwise while in state care, including but not limited to safe, secure foster care placements, appropriate monitoring and supervision, case planning and management, permanency planning and medical, psychiatric, psychological and educational services.
The Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, as Amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996
55. The Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, as Amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996, requires that public agencies engage in aggressive efforts to recruit

potential foster and adoptive parents who reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the children for whom such foster and adoptive placements are needed. The Act prohibits defendants from denying any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or a foster parent on the basis of the race, color or national origin of the child or adoptive or foster parent and prohibits the delay or denial of the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care on that same basis.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING NAMED PLAINTIFFS A. CHARLIE AND NADINE H.
56. Plaintiffs Charlie and Nadine H. are siblings from Mercer County, who will soon be eleven and nine years old, respectively, and who desperately want to be adopted. When they were removed by DYFS from their mother's custody because of abuse and neglect, they were placed by DYFS in a foster home where they were again neglected and abused, including being beaten with broomsticks and curtain rods. They remained in that home, under DYFS supervision, for close to five years. Although Charlie and Nadine's plan has been adoption for at least the last four years, DYFS has yet to seek or secure an appropriate permanent home and has currently suspended its adoption placement efforts. While Charlie and Nadine wait to be adopted, they have been placed in a "temporary" foster home, and are suffering continued emotional harm.
57. Charlie and Nadine's father is deceased. Charlie, Nadine and their older half~sister were removed by DYFS from their mother in 1994 after she attempted to drown three~year~old Nadine in the bathtub. Charlie and his half~sister were able to pull Nadine out from their mother's grasp.
58. DYFS placed Charlie and Nadine in foster care with their father's estranged wife, Mrs. H., in Trenton. DYFS planned to have Charlie and Nadine adopted by Mrs. H., even though Mrs. H. was ill~equipped to care for any child and it soon became obvious that she was also neglectful and abusive.

59. Mrs. H. had uncontrolled diabetes and ulcers in her feet, and had difficulty walking. She was also prescribed medication for psychiatric problems. She often screamed at the children and beat them with whatever was available.
60. By 1996, Mrs. H. also had an alcoholic and physically abusive live,in boyfriend who beat Charlie. The boyfriend previously spent six years in prison for a sexual offense involving his own child. When Mrs. H. was hospitalized for several weeks due to a diabetic coma, Charlie and Nadine were left by DYFS in the home with Mrs. H's abusive boyfriend.
61. Calls to DYFS reporting the deplorable condition of the home and that the children had nothing to eat were not adequately investigated by DYFS.
62. Mrs. H's home was consistently dark, malodorous and littered with garbage, cat feces and dirty laundry. When the only toilet in the apartment backed up, Mrs. H. never cleaned up the feces left in both the bathroom and the kitchen. The children slept on mattresses without bedding or sheets and with broken windows in their rooms, even in wintertime. The walls had gaping holes and the electrical wiring was exposed. Syringes for Mrs. H.'s insulin shots were littered all over the apartment. The children could not bathe in the bathtub because it was full of cockroaches. The Division's only response to numerous complaints made on behalf of the children was to conduct a home visit, before which Mrs. H. would enlist the help of others to clean her foyer and living room. No inspection of the rest of the home was ever made by DYFS, nor did DYFS ever offer Mrs. H. assistance in making the living conditions more appropriate, safer and less dangerous for the children.
63. Even though Mrs. H. was unable and unwilling to participate in therapy and failed to make progress regarding her poor parenting, the Division's goal for Charlie and Nadine remained adoption by Mrs. H. throughout 1997.
64. In 1998, a sergeant in the Trenton Police Department who knew the children and Mrs. H. through his church, requested and attended a meeting with DYFS personnel to present information on the abuse and neglect Charlie and Nadine were suffering in Mrs. H.'s home. He presented photographs of the home, a sample of syringes that littered the home, and copies of
,11,

notes and documents he had begun to keep the previous year of his many interventions in the home on behalf of the children.
65. DYFS acknowledged t~at they were aware of some of these issues and agreed to have the sergeant meet with a DYFS supervisor regarding his concerns. The sergeant was later told that the meeting would not take place and that Mrs. H. 's planned adoption of Charlie and Nadine was proceeding.
66. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. H and the children were evicted and they moved into another apartment. The home quickly became as filthy as the last one. Mrs. H. continued to put off most home visits by DYFS and a therapist. Mrs. H. took the children to the dentist for the first time in more than four years under pressure from DYFS because of the pending adoption. In the meantime, DYFS continued to fail to protect the children from abuse and neglect.
67. That summer, neighbors repeatedly called the police to Mrs. H.'s home. Mrs. H. was often heard screaming at the children, and admitted beating them with curtain rods and a metal ruler. The Division's Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit ("IAIU") investigated the home, but took no action.
68. A few months later, in September 1998, Mrs. H. beat the children with a bucket. Nadine hit her head on the toilet seat, breaking the seat, while Charlie tried to protect his sister. Mrs. H. called the police sergeant and left a recorded message telling him repeatedly that she was going to kill the children if he did not come for them. When the sergeant arrived, Mrs. H. told him to "get them out of here; I can't stand to see them." The next day, DYFS placed both children in a "temporary" emergency foster home, where they have been for almost one year.
69. Five-and-a-half years after coming into DYFS custody, and two years after their mother's parental rights were terminated, Charlie and Nadine understand that their current placement can only be temporary. They are still waiting to find a stable and loving family that will adopt them.
70. DYFS has failed to take necessary steps to seek and secure an appropriate adoptive family for these children. The police sergeant and his wife have been involved in Charlie and

Nadine's lives for five years and are interested in adopting both of them. On March 1, 1999, they spoke to a DYFS adoption screener about doing so. DYFS has yet to take any action to investigate and approve them as a potential adoptive family, nor has it found another family for these children.
71. As a result of the defendants' actions and inactions, Charlie and Nadine have been and continue to be irreparably harmed. Charlie and Nadine both have significant emotional and behavioral problems due to their previous history of chronic abuse and neglect, both at home and in foster care. Both children are placed in special education classrooms because of their behavior. Charlie and Nadine do not know whether they will ever be placed with an adoptive family, or when that decision will be made. Although Charlie and Nadine have formed attachments in their present foster home, they know that the placement is temporary. Despite the fact that they have been the Division's responsibility for over five years, these young children continue to be deprived of the opportunity for healthy development and a normal childhood in a safe, permanent family, subjecting them to further emotional harm.
72. Defendants have violated Charlie and Nadine's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect them from harm; by failing to provide necessary services and an appropriate permanent placement to these children once they entered foster care; by failing to make timely and meaningful casework contacts and monitor.their progress in foster care; by failing to investigate their foster home before approving their placement in that home and failing to annually evaluate and review that home; by placing them in a foster home that was not safe or secure; by failing to remove them from an abusive and neglectful foster home even though DYFS knew or should have known that they were being abused and neglected; by failing to treat them in accordance with reasonable professional standards; by failing to provide them with services necessary to prevent them from deteriorating while in state custody; by failing to ensure that they received proper medical attention or psychological or psychiatric or other foster care services while in DYFS custody; by failing to provide appropriate management and supervision while supervised by DYFS; by failing to provide case planning and management in accordance with

reasonable professional standards; and by failing to develop and implement a viable permanent plan that will allow them to leave foster care and secure a safe and appropriate permanent home, all of which are required by law and by reasonable professional standards.
B. JASON, JENNIFER and PATTI W.
73. Jason, Jennifer and Patti W., ten, eight and six years old, respectively, are siblings who were removed from their neglectful mother and have been in foster care for three years. During that time they have been in several different foster homes, and Patti has now been separated from Jason and Jennifer. DYFS is planning to have the children placed for adoption even though their father has had an ongoing relationship with his children and is able and willing to care for them.
74. All three children were initially placed by DYFS in a Cape May foster home where they resided for a year, during which time the children contracted ringworm and impetigo, a contagious skin condition. Following this placement, the children were moved first to one Burlington County foster home and then to another. Patti was removed from this second Burlington County home because of behavioral problems. She was subsequently replaced with the first foster family, but has been recently removed from that home as well.
75. DYFS has long been aware that Jason, Jennifer and Patti's father wants to provide a home and care for his children, and has told him that he could assume custody of the children if he did not live in a trailer that is too small to accommodate them. In the past three years, DYFS has simply advised the father to apply for federal housing, which he has done and for which there is a years~long waiting list. They also referred him to a program for homeless families, even though the program could not help him because he is not homeless.
76. In the last three years, DYFS has attempted to send Jason, Jennifer and Patti's case to an Adoption Resource Center ("ARC") on five separate occasions to terminate their father's parental rights. The ARC rejected the case the first four times, deciding that where housing was the only obstacle to reunification, termination of parental rights was unwarranted.

77. DYFS has again sent Jason, Jennifer and Patti's case to ARC, where it has now been accepted. The Division's current plan for the children is to terminate their parents' rights and to attempt to place the children for adoption.
78. Jason and Jennifer remain separated from not only their father, but also from their sister Patti. Despite the Division's long~standing plan to have these children placed for adoption, DYFS has taken no steps to secure an appropriate adoptive family for them. All three have been placed repeatedly with foster parents who are unable to adopt them.
79. Three years after Jason, Jennifer and Patti were removed from their mother, who was found to have neglected them and has since missed many visits with her children, DYFS has yet to file a petition to terminate her parental rights.
80. Jason, Jennifer and Patti visit with their father only once every two weeks, even though DYFS policy states that parental visits should occur at least once a week unless thera~ peuticallyharmful. Additionally, the visits arranged by DYFS require Jason and Jennifer to miss virtually one complete day of school every two weeks, even though reasonable alternatives are available.
81. Jason, Jennifer and Patti each have special needs. DYFS has taken no steps to ensure these needs will be met. Jason needs speech therapy which DYFS refused to take steps to provide. Jennifer suffers from adjustment disorder likely due to the instability of her situation, and also requires weekly treatment from a behavior therapist. She is not receiving these services because DYFS has not taken the steps to endure they are provided. Patti is not only developmentally delayed, but also is speech and language delayed. Patti has been characterized by doctors as very apprehensive. Following a disruption in her placement, Patti began to vomit daily. All of these conditions require therapy, and DYFS has not taken steps to ensure that the needed therapies are being provided.
82. As a result of the defendants' actions and inactions, Jason, Jennifer and Patti have been and continue to be irreparably harmed. The children's special needs are not being met, causing them delay in their development and other physical and emotional harm. The children

do not know whether they will ever be reunified with their father, or, if not, if they will ever have a permanent, stable family. As a result they live in a state of constant anxiety and fear, and are being deprived of the opportunity for healthy development and a normal childhood, subjecting them to further emotional harm.
83. Defendants have violated Jason, Jennifer and Patti's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect them from harm; by failing to provide their father with services necessary to address their needs and facilitate their return to a parent; by failing to make reasonable efforts to prevent placement and then to make reasonable efforts after placement for the children to safely be discharged from foster care to a parent; by failing to conduct an adequate search for relatives willing and able to care for them after they had to be removed from their mother and within thirty days of the children's entering custody and failing to make its best effort to place the children with a relative; by failing to ensure they achieve permanency by the earliest possible date; by failing to develop and implement a plan that would provide the children with a permanency plan to either be returned to their parent or be adopted within a reasonable period of time; by failing to provide appropriate services and supervision while the children are in DYFS custody; by failing to support the family relationship by not providing parent,child visits as frequently as required, all of which are required by law and by reasonable professional standards. C. DENNIS M. and DENISE R.
84. Plaintiffs Dennis M. and Denise R. are siblings who are eight and seven years old, respectively. They have been under DYFS supervision since at least 1995, and in DYFS custody since at least 1997. Their mental health has deteriorated due to the Division's failure to provide for their special needs. Successive inappropriate DYFS placements have continued to jeopardize Dennis and Denise's mental health.
85. DYFS did not remove Dennis and Denise from their grandparents' home, however, until 1997, when DYFS finally concluded that the children were unsafe, poorly supervised and being neglected. DYFS petitioned the Family Court for custody, and placed both children in foster care. Later that year, DYFS placed Dennis and Denise with their father.
,16,

86. Both Dennis and Denise have learning disabilities and severe emotional and behavioral problems. Both children have been attending special schools for the emotionally disturbed. Dennis started exhibiting fear of returning to his father's home after school. On several occasions, his hands had to be pried from a school railing to get him on the school bus home. Professionals familiar with Dennis' case repeatedly expressed concern to DYFS regarding the care Dennis was receiving in his father's home. Dennis also disclosed that another adult in his father's home was placing Dennis at serious risk of physical injury. The Division's investigation into Dennis' allegations, however, was inadequate, and that report of suspected abuse and neglect was unsubstantiated by DYFS.
87. Dennis and Denise were left in their father's home for over one year by DYFS, until their father was arrested in November 1998 for sexually assaulting a minor. He was later convicted of the crime. Dennis has since also reported that his father made him vandalize automobiles by breaking their windows.
88. After a one~week stay in an inappropriate placement, in November 1998, Dennis was placed with his sister Denise in the emergency foster home where they currently live. Both children continue to have serious emotional and behavioral problems. The current foster parent is unable to meet their needs. While DYFS has recently acknowledged that the children should be in a therapeutic foster home that could provide specialized care, DYFS has failed to secure such a home for them or to otherwise provide adequately for the children's special needs.
89. No adequate permanency planning has been initiated on behalf of these two young siblings. Although DYFS has recently acknowledged that adoption should be their goal, upon information and belief none of the steps necessary to prepare and transfer their case to the ARC, or to terminate parental rights, or to find them adoptive resources, have been completed.
90. As a result of the defendants' actions and inactions, Dennis and Denise have been and continue to be irreparably harmed. They remain seriously emotionally disturbed due to the Division's failure to protect them, keep them safe, place them in an appropriate home, and provide them services for their special needs after their abuse was discovered. The Division's

repeated inappropriate placements and failure to address the needs of these young children, which continue to this day, has caused them further deterioration and has exacerbated their emotional and behavioral problems. Their lack of permanency causes them further anxiety and stress and they are being deprived of the opportunity for healthy development and a normal childhood in a safe, loving, permanent family, subjecting them to further emotional harm.
91. Defendants have violated Dennis and Denise's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect them from harm; by failing to treat them in accordance with reasonable professional standards; by failing to provide them services necessary to prevent them from deteriorating physically, psychologically or otherwise while in foster care; by failing to provide safe, secure and appropriate placements; by failing to provide appropriate monitoring, supervision, case planning and management; by failing to provide appropriate psychiatric and psychological and other appropriate services; by failing to conduct adequate investigations of abuse and neglect reports; by failing to conduct comprehensive assessments of the children; by failing to ensure foster care placements that are appropriate to the individualized needs of the children; by failing to ensure that the children were being provided safe and appropriate care while being supervised by DYFS; by failing to ensure the homes in which the children were placed were appropriately investigated, reviewed and evaluated; by failing to ensure that the children achieved permanency at the earliest date by which it was safe to do so; by failing to ensure that they receive proper care while in state custody and that they or their foster parents receive the services necessary to address the children's needs and to assure their placement into a permanent home; and by failing to ensure they receive all the benefits of the Division's child welfare program without discrimination for their handicaps or disabilities, all of which are required by law and by reasonable professional standards. D. MARCO and IVAN C.
92. Plaintiffs Marco and his brother Juan c., eight and ten years old, respectively,
have spent half their young lives in DYFS custody. During that time they have been repeatedly shifted from one placement to another, sent out of state with the promise of adoption to a family
-18-

whose home was so bad it was closed by local authorities, and returned to New Jersey only to be placed by DYFS with foster parents who could not adequately communicate with them because the boys only speak English and the foster parents speak almost exclusively Spanish. The brothers have now been separated, and Marco's condition is deteriorating in this inappropriate foster home where his needs are not being met. Even though these children will never be returned to their parents, DYFS has not taken reasonable and timely actions to seek and secure a permanent home for them.
93. In the last four years that Marco and Juan have been in DYFS custody, each has been in ten different placements. Both boys suffer from neurological and behavioral problems.
94. Marco and Juan lived together in a therapeutic foster home in New Jersey for two years until January 1999, when DYFS sent them to live in a pre~adoptive home out~of~state.
95. DYFS sent these two young children out~of~state without conducting an adequate investigation of the potential adoptive family and home, and without taking necessary steps to ensure that Marco and Juan would be safe or would receive appropriate care, and without adequate supervision, despite the fact that these children remained in the Division's legal custody.
96. After Marco and Juan had lived in this new placement for only a few months, local authorities closed the home and sent the boys back to New Jersey, having discovered that the family to whom defendants had entrusted Marco and Juan had adopted over 20 special needs children. Many of the children in the home were filthy and heavily medicated, and were being abused.
97. When Marco and Juan were returned to New Jersey, DYFS placed them in a foster home with parents that speak almost exclusively Spanish, despite the fact that the boys speak only English. These foster parents were unable to communicate adequately with the boys or with professionals involved with their care. The foster parents also have had no training in caring for children with the neurological and behavioral problems the boys are experiencing, nor did DYFS provide them with the training to do so.
~19~

98. Juan is now placed in a foster home with an English~speaking foster mother who has extensive experience in the care of special needs children. Juan's behavior is improving and he is thriving in this placement. However, DYFS is failing to take necessary and timely action to ensure a permanent placement for him.
99. Marco's behavior has deteriorated markedly since his return from the failed pre~adoptive home out~of~state and separation from his brother. Marco now exhibits severe signs of distress, such as excessive rocking, mutilating himself by scratching his neck until his skin is raw, and smearing his mucus over walls. DYFS has failed to take reasonable steps to end the continuing harm to this eight~year~old child.
100. Although the goal that DYFS has set for Marco is adoption, the defendants have failed to take reasonable and timely steps to accomplish that goal. Instead, defendants have left Marco in a home that is an inappropriate permanent placement for him and have failed to take steps to protect the only permanent relationship this child has had, with his brother Juan.
101. For most of the time that Marco and Juan have been in defendants' custody, the supervision of their case and contacts with DYFS caseworkers have been inconsistent at best.
102. As a result of defendants' actions and inactions, Marco and Juan have been and continue to be irreparably harmed. Both boys have serious psychological and neurological problems which have been exacerbated by defendants' failures to fulfill their legal responsibilities to them. As a result of defendants' actions and inactions, these young children have been subjected to the serious emotional trauma of repeated movements while in foster care, further abuse and instability while in DYFS custody, and separation from each other, the only family member with whom each has had an ongoing relationship. In addition, defendants' failure to take reasonable steps to seek an appropriate adoptive home for Marco while he has deteriorated in DYFS custody, and defendants' failure to provide permanency for Marco and Juan, are depriving them of their only opportunity for a permanent family, and for healthy development and a normal childhood, subjecting them to further emotional harm.
~20~

103. Defendants have violated Marco and Juan's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect them from harm while they have been the Division's responsibility; by failing to provide them with proper care and treatment in accordance with reasonable professional standards; by failing to provide appropriate foster care services once placed outside their home; by failing to develop and implement appropriate permanent plans for them; by failing to conduct adequate assessments of the appropriateness and safety of their placements and obtain appropriate placements for them; by failing to appropriately screen and supervise their placements; by failing to provide services necessary to prevent their deterioration while in DYFS custody; by failing to ensure contact with their case workers in accordance with their case plans; by failing to ensure they receive medical, psychological and psychiatric services; by failing to develop and implement appropriate case plans; by separating these brothers unnecessarily and failing to ensure contact and visitation between them when they were placed separately; by failing to provide planning and services that would permit them to be placed in a suitable permanent home; and by failing to ensure they receive all the benefits of the Division's child welfare program without discrimination for their handicaps or disabilities, all of which are required by law and by reasonable professional standards. E. RICARDO O.
104. Plaintiff Ricardo O. is a 13 1I2~year~old boy from Hudson County who has been in DYFS custody since June 1997, when he and his four siblings were removed from their mother's home. Ricardo had been sexually abused by his mother's boyfriend and, consequently, has serious mental health problems. Since he became the Division's responsibility, DYFS has failed to place him in a safe setting. As a result, Ricardo was sexually abused again while he was in state custody, and his mental health has deteriorated.
105. Before going into foster care, Ricardo lived with his divorced mother. The four oldest children, including Ricardo, have all since disclosed that they were sexually abused by their mother's boyfriend. Ricardo was approximately ten years old when he was molested and

threatened by his abuser. When Ricardo told his mother about the incident, she told him that she did not believe him. Ricardo was also beaten with a belt by his mother's boyfriend.
106. When Ricardo was removed from his mother's home and placed in DYFS custody, he was already prescribed Prozac. Defendants knew or should have known that Ricardo had serious psychological problems because of what he had experienced, and was in urgent need of treatment and a specialized therapeutic placement. However, DYFS failed to conduct an evaluation of his needs, or to secure an appropriate placement or necessary services for him.
107. Instead, all five children, and a later~born sixth sibling, were placed by DYFS with Ricardo's maternal aunt in Camden. DYFS made this placement without determining whether such a placement was appropriate for him and without providing necessary supervision or services to keep Ricardo from deteriorating while in DYFS custody.
108. While living in his aunt's home under DYFS supervision, Ricardo's behavior became increasingly disturbed, making clear his need for immediate treatment and help. He attempted to drink Clorox, stuck his fingers in electrical sockets, tried to throw himself in front of a moving car, and ran away from his aunt's home, hitchhiking on the New Jersey Turnpike. He said that he heard voices telling him to do things and also saw monsters.
109. While living with his aunt in DYFS custody, Ricardo had to be hospitalized on three separate occasions, each time for dangerous behaviors. DYFS was aware of these hospitalizations and of Ricardo's worsening condition but took no steps to help him or to provide services or a therapeutic placement. After each hospitalization, he returned to his aunt's home.
110. Ricardo was so troubled that his aunt hid knives in the house so that Ricardo could not get them.
111. In approximately September 1998, in the middle of the night, Ricardo cut his penis with a dull knife. He also disclosed to his aunt that he had recently been sexually molested by an adult male. He was again hospitalized.

112. Ricardo ultimately required psychiatric commitment, and in September, 1998 was placed in the Arthur Brisbane Child Treatment Center ("Brisbane"), New Jersey's only children's psychiatric hospital.
113. DYFS referred Ricardo to nine residential facilities, each of which rejected him, because DYFS allows the facilities with which it contracts to do so without challenge.
114. While waiting for DYFS to find a less restrictive placement, Ricardo was housed with older boys and was sexually assaulted by three older youths at Brisbane in March, 1999. He was subsequently forced to sleep in a seclusion unit for several weeks before being transferred to Brisbane's Coed unit for younger residents.
115. A tenth facility finally accepted Ricardo in early April 1999. He was placed there in June 1999. He reports that he does not feel safe there, and that he was just sexually assaulted and threatened by his roommate on August 2, 1999.
116. Ricardo currently suffers from Post~Traumatic Stress Disorder ("PTSD"), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"), Impulse Control Disorder, depression, and psychosis, and has a learning disability. He has been on several medications including Prozac, Depakote and Melaril.
117. DYFS has never developed an adequate permanent plan for Ricardo. When discussing his life and his future, this 13 Yz ~year~old boy states: "I've got nothing to live for."
118. As a result of the defendants' actions and inactions, Ricardo has been and continues to be irreparably harmed. He has suffered continued physical and sexual abuse while in DYFS custody. He does not know whether he will ever have a permanent family or any hope of a secure childhood.
119. Defendants have violated Ricardo's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect him from harm; by failing to provide services to prevent him from deteriorating while in DYFS custody; by failing to provide appropriate placement and services to meet his needs; by failing to meet his medical needs; by failing to place him promptly in the least restrictive placement appropriate for his needs; by failing to provide appropriate supervision; by failing to

develop and implement appropriate permanent plans; by failing to ensure his placement in a permanent home; and by failing to ensure he receives all the benefits of the Division's child welfare program without discrimination for his handicap or disability, all of which are required by law and reasonable professional standards. F. DOLORES and ANNA G.
120. Plaintiffs Dolores and Anna O. are sisters who are four years old and 17 months old, respectively.
121. Dolores and Anna have now spent a year in foster care. Even though parental rights were terminated as to three previous children, and despite a history of neglect of Dolores and Anna and the fact that the home and parenting circumstances had not changed, the Division's plan is to send Dolores and Anna back home. However, DYFS has made no plans as to when it would be appropriate to do so or what services would be necessary to ensure that the children could be returned home safely.
122. Almost one year after they came into DYFS custody, DYFS is still planning for Dolores and Anna to be reunified with their parents, even though DYFS previously terminated these same parents' rights for three other children. DYFS has made no reasonable determination that the parents will ever be able to care for Dolores and Anna. Dolores and Anna's parents repeatedly miss their scheduled visits with the children.
123. Although DYFS knows or should know that it is highly unlikely that Anna and Dolores can safely be returned to their parents' custody, DYFS has taken no action to place the children into a foster home that can also be a potential adoptive placement. Instead, the children have been living for the last eleven months with a foster family with which they have formed emotional attachments, despite the fact that DYFS is aware that this family cannot provide a permanent home for the girls.
124. In the spring of 1999, Dolores and Anna were assigned a new caseworker, who has visited the foster home on only one occasion. Meanwhile, Dolores and Anna's family court hearings have had to be adjourned due to the Division's lack of preparation.

125. Although both these children have significant physical and emotional needs because of their early deprivations, DYFS is failing to provide appropriate treatment, services and supervision necessary to address those needs.
126. As a result of the defendants' actions and inactions, Dolores and Anna have been and continue to be irreparably harmed. Dolores and Anna both have significant developmental delays due to their previous home environment. Dolores, at the age of four, functions like a two~and~one~half to three~year~old child and attends a pre~school class for the disabled. 17~month~old Anna is just learning to walk. Dolores and Anna do not know whether they will be reunified with their biological parents or placed with an adoptive family, or when that decision will be made. They are likely to be removed from the foster family to whom they have formed attachments and moved to yet another family home, subjecting them to further emotional harm. Despite the fact that they ~~ as with their siblings before them ~~ have long been the Division's responsibility, these young children are being deprived of the opportunity for healthy development and a normal childhood in a safe, loving permanent family, subjecting them to further emotional harm.
12 7. Defendants have violated Dolores and Anna's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect them from harm; by failing to make timely and meaningful casework contacts and monitor their progress; by failing to provide necessary services and an appropriate long~term placement to these children once they entered foster care; by failing to provide appropriate monitoring and supervision while in state custody; by failing to develop and implement a permanent plan that would allow them to leave foster care and secure a permanent home; by failing to provide planning services to facilitate adoption or another permanent home; by failing to file timely petitions to terminate parental rights; and by failing to develop and implement appropriate permanency plans, all of which are required by law and by reasonable professional standards.
~25~

G. KYLE I.
128. Kyle]. is a one~and~a~half~year~old infant from Essex County who remained in the hospital for over two months after birth, but who was discharged to DYFS foster care after being deemed healthy by his doctors. Kyle's mother is a homeless substance abuser who has never visited her son or shown any interest in his welfare since his birth. Her current whereabouts are unknown. Kyle's six~year~old brother is also currently in foster care. DYFS has yet to place Kyle in a pre~adoptive home.
129. Although Kyle's doctors deemed him to be healthy, DYFS placed him in a foster home for medically fragile infants. DYFS was made aware that Kyle's foster parents are only interested in providing temporary care for infants, and cannot adopt Kyle. Despite this, DYFS listed them in Kyle's record as a pre~adoptive resource. One year and three months later, Kyle remains in this "temporary," non~adoptive home.
130. Although DYFS has concluded that adoption is the appropriate goal for Kyle, it has done nothing to further that plan. While Kyle has been in DYFS custody since birth and his mother has never visited him, DYFS has not yet begun a proceeding to terminate his mother's parental rights.
131. DYFS has failed to place Kyle, who has been described as a beautiful, healthy, bright, curious boy, in an appropriate pre~adoptive placement. As a result, Kyle has become emotionally attached to his foster parents, although DYFS knows that they cannot adopt him.
132. During the fifteen months that Kyle has been in his foster parents' care, his caseworker has visited the home only three times.
133. At one point, DYFS was alerted to a potential adoptive home for Kyle. DYFS never called this family, which adopted another infant through a private agency.
134. As a result of the defendants' actions and inactions, Kyle is being irreparably harmed. He is growing up in foster care without a permanent family and is becoming emotionally attached to a family with whom he cannot live permanently. Kyle is being deprived of an

opportunity for healthy development and a normal childhood, subjecting him to further emotional harm.
135. Defendants have violated Kyle's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect him from harm while in state custody; by failing to provide required caseworker contacts; by failing to provide appropriate monitoring, supervision and,case management; by failing to develop and implement an appropriate permanent plan; by failing to achieve permanency by filing to terminate parental rights and arranging for his adoption within appropriate time frames; and by failing to implement his permanent plan and allow him to leave foster care and enjoy a permanent and secure home, all of which are required by law and by reasonable professional standards.
J. BARRYM.
136. Plaintiff Barry M. is a 17,year,old teenager from Camden County who has been in DYFS custody repeatedly since he was approximately four years old. Barry was removed from his mother's custody because of neglect as well as sexual abuse by her boyfriend. His mother is a former DYFS foster child. Although Barry has been the Division's responsibility for most of the last thirteen years, defendants have never provided Barry with appropriate services to address his problems or to cope with the many losses that have been inflicted on this youngster throughout his childhood. Barry's latest DYFS placement is in a residential treatment facility in Georgia, far from his only remaining family, because DYFS has not developed sufficient facilities in New Jersey for youngsters with mental illness and behavioral problems.
13 7. Barry's father died when Barry was an infant, and his step-father died when Barry was eight years old. Barry's mother died in December 1994. Shortly after her death, Barry lost contact with his only sibling, Natalie, who is 14 years old, when her adoptive family moved out,of-state.
138. When Barry was first removed from his mother's custody-at the approximate age of four, DYFS initially placed Barry with a foster family. He was later placed with an aunt and then with his maternal grandfather. At that time, DYFS failed to assess Barry's mental health

needs related to his history of neglect and sexual abuse, or to provide appropriate and necessary services to address those needs. Barry remained with his grandfather for several years, until 1991, when Barry's grandfather suffered a stroke. DYFS then placed Barry with a foster family, once again without doing an adequate assessment of Barry's needs or providing services that were appropriate to address those needs.
139. In reaction to the losses in his family and the instability in his life, Barry began to exhibit the signs of serious emotional and behavioral problems. Barry has now been diagnosed with paranoid,schizophrenia with psychosis and conduct disorder. He is currently prescribed Haldol, Cogentin and Zyprexa.
140. At the end of 1993, when Barry was eleven years old, he was arrested for burglary and placed by DYFS in a residential program. In December 1994, while he was placed there, Barry's mother died, and shortly thereafter, Barry ran from the program and was subsequently arrested again.
141. Since then, Barry has repeatedly alternated between detention, unsuccessful DYFS placements, and incarceration. In 1995, DYFS placed Barry in another residential program from which he ran, then in a temporary therapeutic foster care home for a month, and then sent him to live with a relative out,of,state. That placement lasted approximately one month before Barry was sent back to New Jersey.
142. After several incarcerations, the Family Court ordered DYFS to identify an appropriate residential program for Barry.
143. In September 1998, Barry's grandfather signed a voluntary Residential Placement Agreement with DYFS and Barry was placed by DYFS at a residential treatment program out-of,state, far from his grandfather, because there is no adequate program in New Jersey. Barry was dismissed from that program after an altercation with a teacher in February 1999.
144. Barry was then held at a lock,up county detention center in Blackwood, New Jersey, awaiting another DYFS placement.

145. The Family Court ordered Barry into DYFS custody for residential placement, but DYFS did not have any appropriate program for Barry in New Jersey that would accept him. Meanwhile, Barry was held in the secure detention facility for three and a half months, without adequate psychiatric and other treatment services. At least four scheduled dates for his move out of detention lapsed before Barry was moved out~ofstate again to a treatment program in Georgia on July 7, 1999.
146. Contact with his grandfather, the only family he has left, is now limited. The program he is now in will not keep him past his eighteenth birthday in June of next year.
147. Because of the defendants' actions and inactions, Barry has been and continues to be irreparably harmed. Barry has been placed out~of~state again, far from his only remaining family, and he will need to be moved again in less than one year due to his age. DYFS has not made any plans for Barry's transition back to New Jersey and into adulthood. The uncertainty of his situation and his placement in an out~of~state facility is detrimental to his mental health and proper development.
148. The defendants have violated Barry's constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect him from harm; by failing to provide an appropriate placement that can manage Barry's psychiatric and behavioral problems; by failing to provide him with a written plan, reviewed annually, to prepare him for self~sufficient living; by failing to ensure that the services he received were designed to maintain and advance his mental and physical well~being; and by leaving him for months without adequate psychiatric and other care in a secure detention facility which was not the least restrictive placement to which Barry was entitled and which was inappropriate for his individual needs; failing to provide Barry, who has a disability, with the least restrictive placement and services appropriate to his particular needs; and by failing to ensure Barry receives all the benefits of the Division's child welfare program without discrimination for his handicap or disability, all of which are required by law and by reasonable professional standards.

K. SHARONK. 149. Plaintiff Sharon K., who is four years old, was born in Middlesex County and
within days of her birth entered DYFS custody directly from the hospital. Her mother was abusing drugs and alcohol, and her father's identity was unknown. She has remained in DYFS placement since birth. Her current permanency planning goal is adoption.
150. Sharon K., who is African~American, was placed with Caucasian foster parents, Mr. and Mrs. K. at six days old, and remains with them to this date. Sharon K. has never known any other home and considers Mr. and Mrs. K. to be her mother and father. Even though she is bonded to Mr. and Mrs. K and will suffer grave harm if she is separated from them, Defendants are delaying or denying her adoption in this home because her foster parents are of a different race and color than Sharon K.
151. Within a year of Sharon K.'s placement in DYFS custody, her case was transferred to the DYFS Metro Adoption Resource Center ("ARC") in Edison, New Jersey. In early 1998, her foster parents expressed to DYFS their interest in adopting Sharon K. and signed a letter of intent affirming that they would adopt Sharon K. when she was free for adoption.
152. Sharon K.'s foster parents had already successfully adopted six DYFS children with special needs during the previous ten years. Mr. and Mrs. K. have received recognition awards for dedication and outstanding service as foster and adoptive parents from DYFS's Middlesex District Office, DYFS's Metro ARC office, and the DYFS Central Office. The six children they adopted are all Caucasian.
153. Sharon K. was legally freed for adoption on June 24, 1998. 154. A DYFS homestudy approving Sharon K. 's foster parents to adopt Sharon K. was not completed until May 1999. 155. By June 1999, the petition to finalize Sharon K.'s adoption by her foster parents, Mr. and Mrs. K. was finally ready for submission to the court. DYFS, however, never proceeded with the adoption petition and, beginning in June 1999, repeatedly informed Sharon K.'s foster
~30~

parents that the adoption was "on hold," even though a DYFS manager admitted that there is no such status.
156. In fact, Sharon K.'s ARC worker was instructed to stop the adoption by the DYFS worker who had completed the homestudy because DYFS had some unspecified concerns about the placement. This same worker inquired of the ARC worker whether Sharon K.'s skin was "ashy" and whether Sharon K.'s hair was properly groomed " questions clearly related to her race and color.
157. When Mr. and Mrs. K. had previously taken in a biracial foster child, a DYFS social worker told them on or about March 1995 to "be careful, because they [DYFS] don't always let you adopt a black baby." Shortly thereafter, that child was removed from this foster home and placed with a relative.
158. Defendants have delayed and denied Sharon K.'s adoption by her foster parents because of Sharon K.'s race. This is part of a policy, pattern and practice of racial discrimination and racial matching in foster and adoptive placements by DYFS and of delaying and denying adoptions because of the race of the child and/or the adoptive parents. These policies, patterns of conduct and practices are not consistent with reasonable and accepted professional standards and do not constitute professional decision'making with respect to selecting appropriate adoptive parents for children in DYFS custody for whom adoption is determined to be appropriate or expediting the adoption of such children. Defendants have been aware of and deliberately indifferent to these policies, patterns and practices that delay and deny adoption on the grounds of race and color.
159. As a result of the Defendants' actions and inactions, Sharon K. has been and continues to be irreparably harmed and deprived of the security of a permanent, loving home,
" because of her race and color. She also risks serious psychological and emotional harm from
further denial of that security. 160. Defendants have violated Sharon K.'s statutory rights pursuant to MEPA, by
delaying or denying her placement for adoption on the basis of her race and color. Defendants
,31,

have also violated her substantive due process right to be free from harm while in Defendants' custody by subjecting her to the uncertainties of a temporary foster care placement and the risk of an arbitrary removal from the only family she has known, as well as the emotional and psychological damage she will suffer as she ages and becomes aware that her adoption has been delayed and denied because of her race and color.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SYSTEMIC DEFICIENCIES 161. The experiences and current circumstances of the named plaintiffs are typical of the class. They illustrate defendants' long~standing pattern and practice of not meeting the needs of the children in the plaintiff class and reflect deliberate indifference to and failure to exercise professional judgment regarding the health, safety and welfare of the plaintiff class. Because of the failures in decision~making at every level, as well as the lack of placements and services, the lack of planning for children, and the absence of accountability, plaintiff children are not receiving adequate protection, care, treatment and services as required by law. This system's chronic dysfunction is hurting the very children defendants are obligated to protect. 162. The Governor's own Blue Ribbon Panel concluded in 1998 that "New Jersey's child welfare system has been seriously damaged by years of neglect[,]" and has reached "a state of crisis," as previously described in numerous other reports such as the Association for Children of New Jersey's ("ACNJ") 1997 "Children First" report, 1996 "In Their Own Words" report, 1994 "Stolen Futures" report and 1988 "Splintered Lives" report. Despite their long~standing awareness of the need to redress systemic problems in the child welfare system, however, defendants have refused to exercise their authority to ensure that adequate funds are available and used appropriately to ensure compliance with their legal responsibilities to plaintiff children. 163. Little has changed since the Blue Ribbon Panel Report was issued more than 17 months ago. Over one year ago, on June 30, 1998, DYFS issued a Strategic Plan in response to the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendations, but it ignored the Blue Ribbon Panel's "unequivocal conclusion that continued sustained investment of resources will be required to achieve the

essential changes in the child welfare system." The Strategic Plan contained only non~specific

goals and lacked any discussion of the key problem areas identified by the Blue Ribbon Panel,

including the lack of resources, unmanageable caseloads and inadequate staffing that are a result

of a decade of defendants' willful neglect of the Division and repeated cuts to its budget. The

Division's resources and staff have been decimated, but there has been little, if any, reform made

in these areas, as acknowledged in the Division's 1999 Report Card, issued on July 23, 1999. The

ensuing violations of plaintiffs' rights, detailed below, continue.

Out~of~Home Placements

164.

When children are removed from their families, DYFS is failing to ensure that

they are placed in safe settings that can meet their needs. Case workers first have to transport

children in old, unsafe automobiles without appropriate child car seats. Regional Foster Care

Units are in disarray and children are shuffled in and out of inappropriate placements. Many are

diverted to informal placements and their cases closed without any DYFS services or judicial

oversight.

Lack of Appropriate DYFS Foster Homes

165. When children are taken into DYFS custody, they are being placed wherever

there is an available bed regardless of their particular needs, because defendants have not

developed a sufficient quantity of proper placements to meet the needs of children in DYFS care

and custody. In addition, insufficient safeguards exist to assure that children are not actually

suffering harm in foster care. As a result, many children who have already suffered the effects of

abuse or neglect in their own homes are further deteriorating in the Division's custody.

166. DYFS has failed to recruit sufficient numbers of foster homes to meet the needs

of the steadily increasing number of children coming into DYFS care. As reported by the Home

News Tribune, in an Associated Press article, on November 30, 1998, New Jersey state officials

estimate that they need 500 more foster homes to provide a safe place for every abused and

neglected child who needs a home. According to the Division's own 1999 Report Card, since

July 1998, it has only been able to increase its net pool of foster homes by 93. The number of

available foster homes has since declined, however, and the Division expects to lose more homes as it finally implements a program to certify foster homes.
167. Newly regionalized Home Finding Units, responsible for matching children with available foster homes, are understaffed and overwhelmed, so that when a child is removed from home, district office caseworkers are often left to find available foster homes themselves. The disarray in the Home Finding Units is so extreme that one unit even arranged for a young child to be placed in a foster home in Ocean County even though the home was closed to younger children because an older child in the home had sexually abused a young child in that very home.
168. There are so few placement resources that in some DYFS district offices it is a daily occurrence for several children to be awaiting placement at the office all day and well into the night, sometimes staying until midnight. Repeated overnight emergency placements are often resorted to, and many children experience daily changes in placement. One child was brought in daily to the Perth Amboy district office for two consecutive weeks waiting for a placement and was exposed there to a janitor masturbating as a result.
169. Due to the lack of available placement resources, workers also frequently place children in foster homes beyond their allowable capacity ~~ the maximum number of children a particular home is allowed to care for at any given time. Waivers of DYFS placement policies are routinely being granted for emergency overnight placements even though placing more children in a home than the foster family can manage places all the children in the home at greater risk of harm.
170. Many foster homes are not safe. Foster homes have been subject only to a perfunctory approval process with insufficient standards to ensure that children will be safe. DYFS then fails to monitor foster homes providing care to children in DYFS custody and fails to make the required annual assessments of these homes. Upon information and belief, only 275 of the 2,686 foster homes state~wide have been certified by DYFS as part of the Division's new certification protocol. At the current rate it will be more than a year before existing foster homes have all been inspected for certification.

171. Some foster homes are filthy, offer poor child supervision and have consistently violated DYFS policies and regulations. Workers do not have time to check up on children within the first week of placement as required.
172. Caseworker complaints of abuse or neglect by foster parents are often not reported by DYFS, because the Division tolerates behavior from foster parents which would be unacceptable if exhibited by birth parents. Despite notice of foster child abuse, the Division routinely delays any action, thus jeopardizing children's safety in foster care. Some foster homes that repeatedly have had children removed because of social worker complaints of abuse are still receiving DYFS children.
173. When formally filed, reports of children being abused or neglected while in a foster home are referred to the Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit ("IAIU") for investigation. Instead of being fully investigated or assessed as independent protective investigation cases as required, however, many of these investigations are simply referred on by the IAIU to the ongoing caseworker. District offices are instructed to handle these reports of child abuse or neglect as contract performance problems with the foster parents instead of child protection cases. Foster homes are so scarce that some children remain placed in foster homes where the Institutional Abuse Unit has substantiated reports of physical abuse by the foster parents.
174. Children who suffer multiple movements, effectively severing over and over again attachments they have formed, become increasingly unable to love and trust their caretakers, exhibit higher levels of problem behavior, and are more difficult to place in permanent homes as a consequence. Such movement also disrupts children's education as they move from school to school.
175. 54% of New Jersey children in regular foster care have had multiple placements. Children who experience multiple placements typically spend more time in care before returning home or achieving an alternate permanent plan than children who experience one placement. In New Jersey, the average time in regular foster care for children with multiple placements is 41.14

months, or over 3.3 years, compared to 32.47 months, or approximately 2.7 years for all children in regular foster care.
Inadequate and Harmful Adolescent Placements
176. Because of the lack of foster or group home placements available for teenagers, many youth are placed in emergency shelter care facilities for extended periods of time. The average stay in some short term shelters that are only intended to house youth for 14 days is approximately six months. As a result, these youth are denied necessary therapeutic treatment by qualified professionals because the shelters are not designed to provide such treatment services.
177. Some teenage girls who give birth while in foster care are separated from their infant children solely because of a lack of appropriate mother~child placements. Teenage mothers and their babies are thus unnecessarily deprived of their opportunity to develop and nurture an emotional attachment while in separate DYFS placements.
178. Other youth, who have been adjudicated delinquent and ordered by the Family Court into DYFS care and custody for placement, wait for months in county detention centers before being placed by DYFS, although detention is intended to be temporary only. Meanwhile, specialized treatment is not provided nor are county detention center staff trained to meet the needs of those youth who need specialized care. For example, while many DYFS youth in detention centers need special education and psychiatric help, the county detention centers are not equipped to address special education or therapeutic needs.
179. In addition, some youth waiting for DYFS placement are in severely overcrowded detention centers such as those in Atlantic, Camden, and Hudson counties. Some youth in county detention centers awaiting DYFS placement do not even have basic toiletries such as soap, or clean underclothes.
Inadequate and Harmful Special Needs Placements
180. Many children with special medical or psychiatric needs are inappropriately placed, which results in additional, harmful deterioration of their condition. The reduction in

available residential treatment facility placements in particular has resulted in children being referred later in a much more traumatized and fragile state, often after years of inappropriate movement through the foster care system.
Services to Foster Children 181. Defendants fail to provide foster children with the services necessary to keep them free from harm while in foster care and to prevent their stay in foster care from being longer than necessary. 182. DYFS caseloads are too high to allow for professional foster care services for every child entitled to such critical services. In Essex County, for example, caseworkers carry caseloads of 70 to 90 children each, far above reasonable professional standards. 183. Because of high caseloads, case workers do not have time to visit children in their foster homes or procure services necessary to support the children's behavioral and emotional needs. In addition, many services needed by children are simply not available, further compromising case workers' ability to function effectively. 184. While in DYFS custody, children suffer a myriad of substantial deprivations, such as inadequate physical and mental health care and inadequate educational services.
Health Care and Related Services 185. Although DYFS is required to ensure that children in its custody receive adequate health care, the Division does not adequately track children's health care needs and records. As a result, many foster children's physical and mental health care needs go unaddressed. 186. Besides an initial medical screening before placement, which usually only consists of a visit to a hospital emergency room, foster children do not routinely receive medical care. Many foster children are behind on their immunizations. The failure to provide health services to foster children is particularly egregious in that foster children tend to have heightened health care needs as a. result of their background of abuse and/or neglect.

187. DYFS routinely expects foster parents to assess and coordinate their foster children's health care needs, as caseworkers do not have the time to do so themselves. While children in DYFS custody are eligible for Medicaid, DYFS often fails to make children's Medicaid cards available to foster parents. Thus, when a foster child needs medical care, the foster parent is often required to pay the costs out of pocket. DYFS then fails to reimburse the foster parents for these out~of~pocket medical expenses.
188. Children in DYFS care with parents known to be HIV positive are not routinely tested for the HIV virus themselves, jeopardizing their effective treatment if they are in fact infected.
189. DYFS does not provide children with needed counseling or therapy after traumatic removals from their parents' homes. DYFS does not explain to the children what is happening to them.
190. For those children with mental health care needs, there is a critical lack of appropriate services. The Division's failure to develop and provide an adequate range and quantity of mental health care services ~~ from out~patient counseling to in~patient psychiatric care ~~ deprives children of necessary health care. According to figures analyzed by ACN], psychological and therapeutic services, including evaluations and on~going treatment, were cut 21.6% in the FY 98 budget.
191. The Blue Ribbon Panel Report recommended that DYFS "[m]ove to eliminate the considerable variability in determining the need for and extent of diagnostic and treatment services within District offices by developing minimal standards and assuring adherence to such through a monitoring process." However, the Division's Strategic Plan does not address these recommendations and, upon information and belief, the recommendations have not been implemented.
192. Defendants have failed to develop a functioning children's mental health system. DYFS is routinely unable to access the services provided by the Division of Mental Health Services ("DMHS") and the Division of Developmental Disabilities ("DDD") for the children in

DYFS custody because of a long,standing lack of coordination and access among these various divisions of the Department of Human Services.
193. There are approximately 1500 to 2000 children on waiting lists for placements with Division of Developmental Disabilities programs. Many times DYFS social workers cannot even get personnel at DDD to answer their phone calls.
194. As a result, many foster children do not receive the mental health care they need, which often results in disrupted placements and the movement of these children from one foster care placement to another, causing further problems. Ultimately, these children often end up hospitalized or involved with the juvenile justice system because their mental health problems have gone unaddressed for too long.
Educational Services 195. DYFS systemically fails to ensure that all children in foster care receive an education appropriate to their needs and in accordance with state education laws. This includes, but is not limited to, ensuring that all foster children receive appropriate academic and vocational guidance. 196. Children being moved between placements are kept out of school for days at a time. Children are also often taken out of school for an entire day each time they attend visitation with their parents and/or siblings, rather than having these visits scheduled during non,school hours. 197. Children in need of special education who are in county detention centers or temporary shelters awaiting DYFS placement for up to six months are not receiving appropriate educational services.
Adoption Services 198. DYFS has also delayed or blocked the adoption of some African,American foster children by their non~African~American foster parents because of race, thus limiting adoption opportunities for many children. Meanwhile, the children languish in foster care, awaiting
~39~

permanent families despite the fact that in many instances, families already taking care of them are available to adopt them.
Caseworker Screening, Training, Retention and Support 199. Even though DYFS staff are entrusted with protecting the well;being of the most vulnerable children in the State, DYFS suffers from insufficient and inadequately trained and supervised staff, excessive caseworker workloads, and inadequate support staff and supplies. This has made worker professionalism almost impossible and contributed to low worker morale, worker burnout, and high attrition rates. As a result, defendants are not providing a workforce that can protect plaintiff children from harm, or provide them with necessary services, or ensure compliance with applicable legal and professional standards. 200. Staffing levels have not kept pace with increased referrals to and demands on DYFS. While the number of children and families needing DYFS services continues to increase, DYFS has eliminated hundreds of positions since fiscal year 1991, with most cuts coming from direct service staff positions. Staff additions in the last two years have not made up the chronic shortfall, so that even non;case carrying staff are being assigned to cover cases. 201. In addition, DYFS has never achieved full staffing of existing positions. The burden on remaining staff is even greater because DYFS vacancy rates do not include its numerous personnel on leave, many for stress;related health problems. Also, inappropriate or incompetent staff are retained because otherwise additional positions would be left unfilled. 202. Additional vacancies in the district offices are being created by the improvident transfer of case workers to the regional offices and ARCS. 203. Meanwhile, the hiring of several hundred additional caseworker trainees over the past two years has had little impact on the provision of direct services as most new workers are unqualified, inexperienced, poorly trained, and many have already resigned. 204. New caseworkers being hired by DYFS are only required to have a bachelor's degree in any subject without any related work experience. In addition, applicants are not adequately screened for their ability to succeed in such challenging and critical positions.

205. There is inadequate training for new workers, so that inexperienced new workers have to rely heavily on whatever informal training they can get from more experienced co~workers. New workers are also being assigned complex and difficult cases that should be reserved for experienced staff.
206. CPS screeners and intake workers in particular are poorly supervised and lack the guidance of any uniform or clearly applied policies or adequate training regarding screening criteria and when removal of the child or provision of in~home services is appropriate.
207. There is inadequate in~service training for experienced workers. Workers do not have the time to avail themselves of training provided in any event because of high caseloads. Training manuals are not readily available to staff. Computer training is minimal.
208. Because many promotions are now based on a worker's ability 'to close cases instead of on quality of social work practice, an increasing number of DYFS supervisors do not have the appropriate skills and experience to direct and be accountable for a workforce required to make critical life and death decisions. In addition, such inappropriate promotions demoralize experienced caseworkers and supervisors.
209. Because supervisors are responsible for too many workers and do not all have the necessary skills, experience and education, caseworkers do not receive needed supervision, guidance or support. Much of the supervision received is "hallway" supervision when a crisis occurs. One case worker in the Central Passaic district office has only had one formal supervision meeting in the past two years. CPS supervisors are also either unqualified or untrained to perform the requirements of their positions, or are too overworked to perform their duties adequately. Supervisor to caseworker ratios exceed the 1:5 ratio recommended by the Child Welfare League of America. Some units have up to eight workers per one supervisor, and some days there is only one supervisor in a DYFS district office responsible for up to eight separate units of workers.
210. While the Child Welfare League of America ("CWLA") recommends that workers be responsible for no more than 12 family cases in intake and 17 families in ongoing

services, for DYFS workers individual caseloads of over 80 children are not unusual. With average caseloads well over reasonable professional standards in all units, adequate casework is not possible.
211. The Blue Ribbon Panel Report confirmed that case worker staffing levels are woefully inadequate, staffing goals are unrealistically low and even then still unmet, and case worker hiring requirements must be increased in order to develop a qualified and motivated staff. The Blue Ribbon Panel Report recommended that DYFS should conform its caseload standards to established national standards as recommended by the CWLA, to enable workers to effectively provide services to children and their families.
212. The DHS Critical Incident and Child Death Review Board, created in 1992 to examine cases in which a child under DYFS supervision (currently or within the past 12 months) dies or is critically injured due to abuse or neglect, released a report in 1998 covering deaths in 1995~96, and a final report covering deaths in 1997. The Board noted in these fatality reports that inadequate staffing levels throughout DYFS contributed to work overload for many caseworkers and all levels of supervision and had a negative impact on the staffs' ability to effectively manage daily tasks and protect children.
213. However, the Division's Strategic Plan does not address this issue and, upon information and belief, the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendation has not been implemented.
214. The Division's response has been to put enormous pressure on supervisors and case workers to keep caseloads down by closing cases. Case workers are told to close cases if no services are available for a family, even though the need for ongoing services is apparent and the case will most likely come back as a new intake case. So that caseloads will appear lower, siblings of abused and neglected children are also closed out from active cases if they are not imminently at risk, without consideration of their need for preventive services.
215. DYFS provides case workers with inadequate clerical support and supplies, also affecting their ability to perform their jobs competently. Case workers are expected to do their own typing and data entry. Copy machines routinely do not work. Case workers have had to

wait for an available car to be returned to the office before they could respond to emergencies. In order to respond to simultaneous emergencies, workers compete over whatever car is available. Needed supplies as simple as blank copies of voluntary placement agreements are often unavailable.
216. When a case worker has to work after hours on an emergency, management in some DYFS district offices imposes mandatory flex time, requiring the case worker to report to work late the next day, so as to avoid paying overtime, even though the workers' caseloads need immediate attention. Case workers with too many cases have to complete much necessary case work, such as parent/child visits, on their own time or not at all.
217. With high caseloads and a lack of adequate training, support and supervision, a large number of DYFS caseworkers are resigning. As a result, the front~line staff is frequently young, inexperienced and poorly trained, putting an even higher burden on the remaining experienced over~worked staff. Many cases remain unassigned or uncovered for weeks and even months.
Accountability Throughout the System 218. The current level of accountability in New Jersey's child welfare system is inadequate. The diminished capacity of DYFS to carry out many basic management functions has resulted in weak internal assessment and oversight functions. External oversight of DYFS by DHS and Governor Whitman has also been inadequate. 219. DYFS has no accurate or timely system for the measurement of case management and outcomes. Management cannot track individual case progress and only has periodic case totals to rely on. 220. DYFS has no operational or effective quality assurance program. The Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel Report estimated that DYFS only reviewed 0.0035% of its cases for quality assurance purposes. 221. Nor does DYFS have a functioning system for monitoring the quality of foster care and related services. The Blue Ribbon Panel Report noted that" [f] oster care has never

officially been reviewed .., and thus, there is no baseline of what the status of practice and quality of care is in order to address the areas of needs or gaps."
222. DYFS has no functioning system for monitoring contracted services provided by private agencies that include most residential and group home placements as well as preventive services.
223. Field staff are unfamiliar with the services available, various contracts, or changes in policy and practice within DYFS. Central office senior officials are remote and uninformed. Management staff do not know what is actually happening to children and families in the field.
224. Prior to the Blue Ribbon Panel Report, the DHS Critical Incident and Child Death Review Board had reviewed and reported on cases through 1994 to determine if the cases were handled appropriately and what if any changes in practice were needed. According to the Governor's own Blue Ribbon Panel Report, however, the identified concerns and recommendations regarding DYFS case practice in the two reports covering cases through 1994 had still not been adequately addressed by DYFS.
Insufficient Resource Development and Maximization 225. Assuming a modest 3% inflation rate from FY 1992 to FY 1998, the DYFS FY 1998 budget fell $47 million short of providing the same level of services that was provided in FY 1992. Recent additions to the state appropriations for DYFS have not closed the gap, especially in light of the increase in cases over the past seven years. 226. DYFS fails to ensure that the New Jersey child welfare system receives the maximum amount of possible federal financial support to which it is entitled and which could be used to enhance services for children and families. For example, despite the obvious need for training, New Jersey has requested and received one of the smallest amounts of Title IV~E federal funds earmarked for training in the country, with only four other states requesting less, according to the most recent comparative data available.

227. The Blue Ribbon Panel Report recommended that DYFS "[c]onduct a complete budget analysis of every aspect of the Division's operations." The Blue Ribbon Panel also recommended that DYFS "[a]llocate sufficient resources for appropriate staffing levels," for "administrative support, equipment, cars and technology to carry out functions that have been compromised by shortages in each of these areas," and for "improved training." The Panel also recommended that the Division "devote more resources to preventive and family support, preservation, and reunification services."
228. However, the Division's Strategic Plan does not address these recommendations and, upon information and belief, the recommendations have not been implemented.
229. DYFS is currently running a deficit of approximately $40 million for money owed to residential treatment facilities for prior services rendered.
Lack of Planning and Failure to Prioritize Systemic Improvements 230. Although long,term strategic planning is necessary to resolve the problems confronting the child welfare system in New Jersey, the defendants have only managed to respond episodically to crises with ineffective short,term fixes. 231. The cumulative effects of a decade of neglect, budget cuts and minimal maintenance of New Jersey's child welfare system now require a drastic restructuring and infusion of resources. Additional emergency allocations to the Division's budget in recent years have only restored a fraction of the budget losses the Division suffered throughout the last decade. Moreover, few of the resources that had been cut in the past ten years have been restored. 232. The Strategic Plan DYFS issued in response to the Blue Ribbon Panel's recommendations contains only very non,specific goals and is inadequate to address the long,term disintegration of the Division. As set forth throughout this Complaint, many of the Blue Ribbon Panel's Recommendations went ignored in the Strategic Plan and, upon information and belief, the recommendations have not been implemented. As acknowledged by the data in the Division's 1999 Report Card, the Division's recent attempts at reform have resulted in little meaningful change.
A5,

233. DYFS does not operate in a manner consistent with reasonable professional standards or applicable legal standards, and, as a direct result, plaintiffs are being denied their legal rights and subjected to unnecessary harm by state officials legally responsible for their care and protection.
CAUSES OF ACTION First Cause of Action ~ Substantive Due Process 234. The foregoing actions and inactions of the defendants are inconsistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment and also amount to a pattern, practice and custom of deliberate indifference to plaintiff children's constitutional rights. As a result, plaintiff children are being deprived of their substantive due process rights conferred upon them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. These rights include, but are not limited to, their right to protection from harm; their right not to be harmed" physically, emotionally, developmentally or otherwise -- while in state custody; their right to treatment; their right to treatment related to the cause of their confinement; their right to receive care, treatment and services consistent with competent professional judgment. Second Cause of Action ~ The Multiethnic Placement Act 235. As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of the defendants, the plaintiff children are being deprived of the rights conferred upon them by the federal Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, as amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996. These rights include, but are not limited to the right not to have adoptive or foster placements delayed or denied on the basis of the race, color or national origin of the foster or adoptive parent or of the child.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the plaintiff children respectfully request that this Honorable Court: A. Assert jurisdiction over this action; B. Order that plaintiffs may maintain this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 (b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

C. Declare unconstitutional and unlawful pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure defendants' failure to provide for plaintiffs' safety and freedom from harm,

consistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment and failure to comply with the

federal Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, as amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions

of 1996;

D. Permanently enjoin defendants from subjecting members of the plaintiff class to

practices that violate their rights;

E. Order appropriate remedial relief to ensure defendants' future compliance with

legally mandated services to plaintiffs;

F.

Appoint an expert panel with full access to defendants, their records and their

personnel, to develop and oversee the implementation of a plan for reform, to ensure that defen~

dants protect the constitutional and federal statutory rights of the plaintiff class;

G. Award plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.c.

§§ 1988 & 1920; and

H.

Grant such other and further equitable relief as the Court deems just, necessary

and proper to protect the plaintiff class members from further harm by defendants.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 29, 2000

By; DAVID L. HARRIS (DH~3391) LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 (973) 597~2500
MARCIA ROBINSON~LOWRY(ML~5501) (Pro hac vice) CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 404 Park Avenue South, 11th floor New York, NY 10016 (212) 683~2210 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Initial Certification
I, David L. Harris, attorney of record for Plaintiffs Charlie and Nadine H., et al., do hereby certify, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 11.1, that the matters in controversy in the foregoing complaint are not the subject of any other action pending in any court, or of any pending arbitration or administrative proceeding.

Dated: September 29,2000

David L. Harris (DH~3391) LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland, NJ 07068 (973) 597~2500 Counsel for Plaintiffs

-49-

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

-------------------------------------------------------- )(

CHARLIE AND NADINE H., et ai.

:Hon. Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.DJ.

:Civ. Action No. 99-3678 (SRC)

Plaintiffs,

v.

JON S. CORZINE, as Governor of the State of New Jersey, and KEVIN M. RYAN, as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families,

Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------- )(
MODIFIED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
PREAMBLE
This Modified Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") shall supercede all previous agreements, oral and written, and resolve all disputes in the case captioned Charlie and Nadine H., et aI., v. Corzine, et aI., Civil Action Number 99-3678 (SRC) including without limitation, the claims of the named plaintiffs and the plaintiff classes as of the date of original Settlement Agreement and Plaintiffs' Motion for Contempt and Noncompliance of December 1,2005.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth in the Amended Complaint filed in the Action, personal jurisdiction over parties to the Action, and the authority to approve and enter this Agreement as a fair, reasonable and adequate settlement of the Action. Unless otherwise noted, the terms of this Agreement shall not take effect until the Court approves and enters the Agreement.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey shall have continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreement, and any documents incorporated herein, until such time as the parties agree to terminate the Agreement or the Court terminates the Agreement.
In the event that the legislation currently known as the "Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act" is enacted into law, Defendants agree that they will not invoke their right under that Act to modify or vacate the Consent Decree resulting from this Agreement. Nothing in this section limits the Defendants' ability to seek to modify or vacate the provisions of

I

this Agreement under caselaw not interpreting the legislation that is currently known as the Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act, and this provision is not intended to affect in any way other Consent Decrees that have been or will be entered into by the State.
This Agreement is not, nor shall it be construed to be, an admission of liability on the part of Defendants, or any of them, as to the truth of any fact alleged or the validity of any claim which has or could have been asserted in the Action, or of the deficiency of any defense which has or could have been asserted in the Action or of any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever, nor shall this Agreement be construed as an acknowledgment by Plaintiffs of the absence of such liability.
As set forth above, it is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that the Court retain jurisdiction over this Agreement and that this Agreement shall be enforceable by the Court as provided herein. It is also the intent of the parties that, notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the parties shall apply their best efforts to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement and make every reasonable effort to resolve disputes prior to seeking Court intervention. Plaintiffs agree not to seek relief for isolated or minor violations, or for violations relating solely to an individual child, unless that child is a named plaintiff in this litigation.
Unless otherwise specifically stated in a provision of this Agreement, all provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as provided herein and shall apply to all children in custody, regardless whether they are in a placement made by the State or by a contract agency, and regardless of the type ofplacement.
All references to "the State" within this Agreement refer to and specifically apply to the Defendants, the Governor ofthe State ofNew Jersey and the Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families ("DCF"), acting in their official capacities.
I. PRINCIPLES OF MODIFIED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
The interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement will be guided by the following principles:
A. Children in out-of-home care should be protected from harm.
1. Foster care should be as temporary an arrangement as possible, with its goal being to provide to children in out-of-home placements a safe, nurturing, and permanent home quickly.
2. If at all possible, children in out-of-home placements should be quickly and safely reunified with their biological families. If this cannot be accomplished, children need to be placed with an adoptive family, or in the permanent legal custody of an appropriate kinship family, in a timely fashion.
3. Families should be provided with the services they need to keep them together whenever possible. Families should be provided
2

with the services they need to allow for safe and speedy reunification whenever possible.
4. In making determinations about plans and services, the child's interests are paramount.
5. Children in out-of-home placement should be in the least restrictive, most family-like setting appropriate for their needs.
6. Children in out-of-home placement should be placed in settings that promote the continuity of critical relationships: together with their siblings; with capable relatives whenever possible; and in their own communities.
7. Children in out-of-home placement should have stable placements that meet their needs, and should be protected from the harm caused by multiple placement moves.
8. Children in out-of-home placements should have the services necessary to address their medical and psychological needs, including those services needed to address problems arising from the child's removal from his or her biological family.
9. Children in out-of-home placement must have timely decisionmaking about where and with whom they will spend their childhood, and timely implementation of whatever decisions have been made.
10. Children in out-of-home placement should be protected from abuse and neglect and, to this end, investigations of allegations of abuse and neglect in out-of-home placements should be timely, thorough and complete.
11. Adolescents in out-of-home placements should be provided with the skills, opportunities, housing and permanent connections with caring adults they need to successfully make the transition to adulthood.
12. The State shall make every effort to ensure that all children shall receive equal and appropriate access to services without regard to race, religion, sexual identity or ethnic origin.
B. Decisions about children in out-of-home placement should be made with meaningful participation of their families and of the youth themselves to the extent they are able to participate.
3

C. In order to protect children and support families, New Jersey's child welfare system should operate in partnership with the neighborhoods and communities from which children enter care.
D. New Jersey's child welfare system should be accountable to the public; to other stakeholders; and to communities throughout the State.
E. Services to children in care and their families should be provided with respect for and understanding of their culture. No child or family should be denied a needed service or placement because of race, ethnicity, or special language needs.
F. New Jersey's child welfare system should have the infrastructure, resources, and policies needed to serve the best interests of the children in its care.
The list of principles outlined above is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, the parties acknowledge that the shared goal of improving outcomes for children will require commitments to principles and outcome measures that are broader than the subject matter of this Action.
II. PHASE I - JULY 2006 TO DECEMBER 2008
A. NEW CASE PRACTICE MODEL
1. The parties acknowledge that high-quality case practice is essential to children in the plaintiff class; that it will take several years to achieve the necessary level of performance; and that progress towards this goal must be measured regularly. Accordingly, the State shall, in collaboration with the Monitor, develop and implement a new case practice model consistent with the Principles in this Agreement and sufficient to meet the needs and purposes of this Agreement, as follows.
2. The case practice model shall address at least the issues listed below:
a. effective engagement of the family and its natural supports; b. quality assessment of family and child strengths and needs; c. the quality of protective services screening and protective
services and IAIU investigations and decision-making; d. the occurrence and timeliness of regular case planning
meetings and reviews, with participation by the family and by the child if of age; e. the development of individualized service plans built on the strengths and needs identified in the assessment; f. the provision of services called for in the service plan; g. the ongoing tracking and adjustment of service plans;
4

h. the quality of pennanency planning, including appropriateness of pennanency goals;
1. placement standards and the appropriateness of placements for children in out-of-home care;
j. placement of children in their own communities, in order to allow them to maintain contact with family and friends and to continue to attend the same school, unless such a placement would not be in the child's best interests;
k. regular contact between siblings who have been separated from one another, unless such contact would be inappropriate;
1. meeting the educational needs of children in out-of-home care; m. the development and implementation of child-specific
recruitment plans for children needing adoptive homes; and n. the provision of services to prepare adolescents for adulthood,
including both life skills and ongoing connections to caring adults.

3. The State shall develop the case practice model by December 2006

and shall then begin to implement it.

.

4. Beginning January 2007, the Monitor shall, in consultation with the parties, identify the methodology to be used in tracking successful implementation of the case practice model. This methodology may be phased in over time, such that baselines will be created as soon as practicable, but baseline data will be available for the key case practice elements no later than December 2007.

5. In reporting during Phase Ion the State's compliance with the commitments set forth in this section, the Monitor shall focus primarily on the quality of the case practice model and the actions taken by the State to implement it.

B. TRAINING

1. Pre-Service Training

a.

By September 2006 and continuing thereafter, the State

shall institute a quality Pre-Service Training program that is

consistent with the Principles in this Agreement and

sufficient to meet the needs and purposes of this Agreement

and that is at least 160 class hours; such training shall

include training on intakes and investigations and,

beginning January 2007, supplemental training on the new

case practice model.

5

b. By September 2006 and continuing thereafter, 100% of all new case carrying workers shall be enrolled in Pre-Service Training, inclu~ing training on intake and investigations, within two weeks of their start date.
c. By September 2006 and continuing thereafter, no case carrying worker shall assume a full caseload until completing pre-service training and until after she has passed competency exams.
2. In-Service Training
a. By April 2007 and continuing thereafter, the State shall develop, in collaboration with the Monitor, and institute a quality In-Service Training program that is consistent with the Principles in this Agreement and sufficient to meet the needs and purposes of this Agreement for case carrying staff, supervisors and case aides.
b. By December 2007, 100% of all case carrying workers and supervisors shall have taken a minimum of 20 hours of InService Training and shall pass competency exams. State management shall be responsible for deciding the subject areas that are mandatory for particular staff or types of staff.
c. Beginning January 2008 and continuing thereafter, 100% of all case carrying workers and supervisors shall take a minimum of 40 hours of annual In-Service Training and shall pass competency exams. DCF management shall be responsible for deciding the subject areas that are mandatory for particular staff or types of staff.
d. By September 2006 and continuing thereafter, the State shall implement in-service training on concurrent planning for all existing staff. Such training can be utilized to satisfy in part the requirement set forth in 2b and 2c, above.
e. Beginning April 2007 and continuing through December 2007, 100% of case carrying staff, supervisors and case aides that had not been trained on the new case practice model shall haye received this training. The training may take place as part of mandatory annual In-Service Training.
3. Investigations/Intake Training
.6

a. By September 2006 and continuing thereafter, all new staff responsible for conducting intake or investigations shall receive specific, quality training on intake and investigations process, policies and investigation techniques that is consistent with the Principles in this Agreement and sufficient to meet the needs and purposes of this Agreement. The staff shall pass competency exams before assuming responsibility for intake/investigation cases.
b. Beginning September 2006 with completion by June 2007, all staff currently responsible for conducting intake or investigations who have not yet received investigations training shall receive specific training on intake and investigations process, policies and investigation techniques.
4. Supervisory Training
a. By September 2006, the State shall develop, in collaboration with the Monitor, a quality Supervisory Training Program for all supervisors that is consistent with the Principles in this Agreement and sufficient to meet the needs and purposes of this Agreement and that consists of at least 40 class hours. The State shall institute this training program thereafter.
b. Beginning December 2006 and continuing thereafter, 100% of all staff newly promoted to supervisory positions shall complete their 40 hours of supervisory training and shall have passed competency exams within 3 months of assuming their supervisory positions.
c. 100% of supervisors promoted to supervisory positions before December 2006 who had not previously received supervisory training shall receive their 40 hours of the supervisory training and shall have passed competency exams by June 2007.
C. SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
1. By December 2006, the Division of Children's Behavioral Health Services ("DCBHS") will complete an assessment of the continuum of services needed to best meet the needs of the children and families served by the DCBHS. DCBHS will use the information gathered through this assessment to infonn the development of new services.
7

2. By June 2007, the State shall seek from the federal government approval for a Medicaid rate structure to support the use of new services for children and families, including community-based and evidence-based, informed, or support practices, such as Functional Family Therapy and Multi-Systemic Therapy.
3. By June 2007, the State will amend its policies and procedures to better promote family preservation and reunification by permitting the utilization of flexible funds for birth families involved with DYFS, as follows: (i) the amount of expenditures that may be made without obtaining consent for an exception to the rule shall be increased from $1,500.00 annually per parent to $8,6340.00 annually, and (ii) the current limitation that payments made on behalf of birth parents may not be made for a period exceeding three months shall be extended to twelve months.
4. By June 2007, the State will develop a plan for appropriate service delivery for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth, and thereafter begin to implement the plan.
5. By June 2007, the State shall promulgate and implement policies designed to ensure that the State continues to provide services to youth between ages 18 and 21 similar to services previously available to them unless the youth, having been informed of the implications, formally requests that the Department close his case.
6. By December 2008, the State shall provide mental health services to at least 150 birth parents whose families are involved with the child welfare system.
7. By December 2008, the State shall expand its preventive home visitation program by 250 slots above the baseline of slots available as of June 2006. This program shall provide home visitation by professionals to pregnant women and families of newborns and young infants who have been identified as at higher risk, and may also provide home visitation for new parents under the age of 20 with a child under the age of 6 months.
8. By June 2008, the State will support an additional 250 child care slots for children whose families are involved with DYFS above the baseline available as of June 2006.
9. By June 2008, the State will expand its support of the violence prevention and child therapy initiative, "Peace: A Learned
8

Solution" (PALS) to four additional counties above the number of counties where PALS operates as of June 2006.
10. By June 2008, the State will increase the flexible funding available to meet the unique needs of children and birth families, above the amount available as of December 2006, in order to facilitate family preservation and reunification where appropriate.
11. By June 2008, the State will add 18 transitional living program beds for youth between the ages of 16 and 21, above the number of beds available in June 2006.
12. By June 2008, the State will increase substance abuse services to DCF-involved parents and children to include (i) 30 new residential treatment slots for parents; (ii) 50 new intensive outpatient care slots for parents; and (iii) 20 new residential treatment slots for youth. All expansion will be above the number of supported slots as of June 2006.
13. Nothing in Section C shall limit the State's responsibility with regard to the commitments made in this Agreement involving the State's needs assessments and the provision ofplacements and services consistent with those assessments, as described in sections II.C.l, II.H.l3 and III.C.7 of this Agreement.
D. FINDING CHILDREN APPROPRIATE PLACEMENTS
1. By December 2006 and continuing thereafter, the State shall implement an accurate real time bed tracking system to manage the number ofbeds available from the DCBHS and match those beds with children who need them.
2. By October 2006 and continuing thereafter, the State shall create a process to ensure that no child shall be sent to an out-of-state congregate care facility unless (i) the placement to which the child is being sent is closer to the child's family than any appropriate instate placement; or (ii) the child (a) cannot reasonably be served by any appropriate in-state placement, including a foster home or group facility, even with the addition of any available individualized services to the child; and (b) the out-of-state placement can appropriately meet the child's individualized service needs. In either instance, the child's placement must be approved in writing by the Director ofDCBHS. The process shall also ensure that for any child who is sent out-of-state, the State shall ensure an appropriate plan to maintain contacts with family and return the child in-state as soon as appropriate.
9

3. By June 2007, the State shall evaluate the needs of the children in custody who are currently in out-of-state congregate placements to determine what additional services are necessary to serve children with these needs in-state and shall develop action steps with timetables to develop those services and placements. The State shall implement the action steps according to the timetables.
4. By September 2007 the State will assess the efficacy of a separate division for children's behavioral health for meeting the behavioral health needs of children in the custody of the State. Based on that assessment, the State will, by June 2008, make whatever structural changes are indicated from the assessment to improve the delivery of behavioral health services to children in the custody of the State.
5. By December 2006 and continuing thereafter, the State shall implement an automated system for identifying youth in its custody being held in juvenile detention facilities post-disposition pending a placement and implement a placement process that ensures that these youth are placed within 30 days of disposition.
6. By September 2006, the State shall develop a methodology for identifying children in custody who are in out-of-state congregate care who are potentially ready to return to New Jersey and step down to a lower level of care. By October 2006, the State shall implement the methodology.
7. Beginning July 2007, the State shall not place a child under the age of 13 in a shelter.
8. By June 2007, DYFS will eliminate the inappropriate use of shelters as an out-of-home placement for children in its custody. Appropriate use means: (i) an alternative to detention; or (ii) a short-term placement of an adolescent in crisis which shall not extend beyond 45 days; or (iii) a basic center for homeless youth pursuant to the New Jersey Homeless Youth Act. N.J.S.A.9:12A2 et seq. Notwithstanding this provision, the State will comply with all court orders requiring placement in a shelter.
9. By December 2008, the State shall, in consultation with the Monitor, set forth, and shall thereafter (in Phase II) implement, a placement process consistent with the Principles of this Agreement and sufficient to meet the needs and purposes of this Agreement.
E. CASELOADS
1. By December 2006 and continuing thereafter, the State shall develop an interim reporting system to track actual caseloads by
10

office and type of worker and, for permanency and adoption workers, that tracks children as well as families. Such reporting shall include only caseload carrying staff and shall not include trainees who are not yet eligible to carry a full caseload.
2. By December 2006 and continuing thereafter, the State shall provide accurate caseload data to Plaintiffs and the public, via the DCF website, on a quarterly basis.
3. By December 2006, DCF shall hire a new Human Resources Director.
4. By December 2006 and continuing thereafter, DCF shall make Safe Measures accessible to all staff.
5. By December 2006 and continuing thereafter, DCF shall train all staff on the use of Safe Measures.
6. By December 2006,60% of offices shall have average caseloads for the permanency staff at the caseload standard of 15 families or less and 10 children in out-of-home care or less.
7. By December 2006, 42% of offices shall have average caseloads for the intake staff at an interim caseload standard of 15 families or less and 10 new referrals per month or less.
8. By December 2006, 80% of offices shall have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a 5 worker to 1 supervisor ratio.
9. By June 2007 and thereafter, 79% of offices shall have average caseloads for the permanency staff at the caseload standard of 15 families or less and 10 children in out-of-home care or less.
10. By June 2007, 58% of offices shall have average caseloads for the intake staff at an interim caseload standard of 15 families or less and 10 new referrals per month or less.
11. By June 2007, 85% of offices shall have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a 5 worker to 1 supervisor ratio.
12. By December 2007 and thereafter, 95% of offices shall have average caseloads for the permanency staff at the caseload standard of 15 families or less and 10 children in out-of-home care or less.
11

13. By December 2007,63% of offices shall have average caseloads for the intake staff at an interim caseload standard of 15 families or less and 8 new referrals per month or less.
14. By December 2007, 90% of offices shall have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a 5 worker to 1 supervisor ratio.
15. By June 2008, 95% of offices shall have average caseloads for the permanency staff at the caseload standard of 15 families or less and 10 children in out-of-home care or less.
16. By June 2008, 74% of offices shall have average caseloads for theintake staff at the caseload standard of 12 families or less and 8 new referrals per month or less.
17. By June 2008, 95% of offices shall have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a 5 worker to 1 supervisor ratio.
18. By December 2008, 95% of offices shall have average caseloads for the permanency staff at the caseload standard of 15 families or less and 10 children in out-of-home care or less.
19. By December 2008, 95% of offices shall have average caseloads for the intake staff at the caseload standard of 12 families or less and 8 new referrals per month or less.
20. By December 2008 and thereafter, 95% of offices shall have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a 5 worker to 1 supervisor ratio.
F. PROVISION OF HEALTH CARE (MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH)
1. By August 2006, the State shall hire a new chief medical officer.
2. By December 2006, the State shall provide (i) pre-placement assessments to children entering out-of-home care; (ii) a full medical examination for children entering out-of-home care within 60 days of the day the child entered care; (iii) annual medical examinations for children in out-of-home care according to the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment ("EPSDT") guidelines (the full medical examination detailed under (ii) can serve as partial or full satisfaction for this requirement as applicable); (iv) semi-annual dental examinations for children ages 3 and older; (v) mental health assessments for children with a suspected mental health need, and (vi) such follow up care as appropriate for the needs identified in (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v).
12

For 2006, the State shall provide such care to the best of its ability and document provision of such care.
3. By December 2006, 70% of children entering out-of-home custody shall have pre-placement assessments in a setting other than an emergency room.
4. By December 2006, the State shall have gathered data collected pursuant to paragraph 2 above by utilizing case file reviews, review of electronic databases (such as Medicaid's), and any other applicable methodologies sufficient to ensure it has the information necessary to establish a baseline for provision of medical and dental services for 2007 and thereafter.
5. By January 2007, the State shall share the data with the Monitor and shall consult with the Monitor to analyze the data and establish baselines from 2006 and set targets for 2007 and thereafter for: (i) pre-placement assessments to children entering out-of-home care; (ii) full medical examinations for children entering out-of-home care within 60 days of the day each child entered care; (iii) annual medical examinations for children in out-of-home care according to the EPSDT guidelines (the full medical examination detailed under (ii) can serve as partial or full satisfaction for this requirement as applicable); (iv) semi-annual dental examinations for children ages 3 and older; (v) mental health assessments for children with a suspected mental health need, and (vi) such follow up care as appropriate for the needs identified in (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v). The target shall be 98% and the State shall work with the Monitor to define, by April 2007, the staging of compliance and methodology for tracking compliance.
6. By April 2007, the State shall have established targets for the provision of medical and dental care detailed in paragraph 2 above and those targets shall be incorporated by reference into this Agreement.
7. Beginning June 2007,90% of children entering out-of-home custody shall have pre-placement assessments in a setting other than an emergency room.
8. By June 2007, the State shall identify a statewide coordinated system of health care including a provision to develop a medical passport for children in out-of-home care.
13

G. PERMANENCY PLANNING AND ADOPTION
1. The process of freeing a child for adoption and seeking and securing an adoptive placement shall begin as soon as the child's permanency goal becomes adoption but in no event later than as required by federal law. The adoption process shall begin immediately for all children for whom a diligent search has failed to locate the whereabouts of both parents and for whom no appropriate family member is available to assume custody.
2. By December 2006, the State shall develop and begin implementation of permanency practices that include a minimum of:
a. Five month permanency reviews: When a child has been in custody for five months, the State shall hold a five month permanency review. The following individuals shall be invited, with ample notice given of date and time of the review: the child's parents; the child (when age appropriate); foster parent(s) or caretakers; other interested adults as indicated in the case file. The caseworker and the supervisor on the case shall attend the fivemonth permanency review. The review shall focus on progress towards achieving the case plan, including a review of the completion of permanency tasks (such as completing searches for missing parents); review of the effectiveness of services already provided; identification of any additional service needs for the child, family, and foster parent; and review of the appropriateness and stability of the placement. The State shall then initiate any of the additional services identified during the review. If, due to abandonment or other issues, it is appropriate to fast-track the adoption process, the State shall identify the issue at the five month review (or earlier if appropriate) and petition the court for an early permanency hearing. Such exceptions shall trigger the processes identified as part of the ten month review process, set forth below.
b. Ten month placement reviews: In preparation for the 12 month permanency hearing, the State shall hold a ten month placement review. That review shall include the caseworker, supervisor, deputy attorney general, casework supervisor and when appropriate, the area office concurrent planning specialist. At this review, the State shall decide if the child is a candidate for a change in goal to adoption. In the event the child is a candidate for a change in goal to adoption, the State shall: i) identify the adoption worker who will assume responsibility for the case in the event the court approves the change in goal; ii) introduce the adoption worker to the child and critical adults; iii) review the checklist of preparatory tasks the permanency worker will be
14

responsible for completing prior to the permanency hearing; iv) assign a recruiter to engage in child specific recruitment for those children who lack an identified adoptive family; and v) initiate the drafting and filing of the termination of parental rights petition.
c. When adoption becomes the approved goal at the permanency hearing (whether at ten months, or earlier, or later), the child's case shall be transferred to the adoption worker within five business days of the approval of the goal change by the court. The State shall complete a child specific recruitment plan for children needing an adoptive family within thirty days of the approved goal change.
d. The termination of parental rights petition shall be filed within six weeks of the permanency hearing.
e. The State shall complete the consent package for the adoption of children who are being adopted by their foster or relative parents within 90 days post tennination of parental rights.
f. For the children awaiting an adoptive home, theState shall hold monthly reviews to assess progress towards identifying an adoptive family. The adoption worker, the supervisor and the area office recruiter shall attend these reviews.
3. By December 2006, the State shall build an adoption tracking system that sets adoption targets based on milestones and finalizations for each office and area.
4. By December 2006, the State shall design an adoption process tracking system to record the completion of: five month reviews, ten month reviews and permanency hearings; the transfer of cases to adoption staff and identification of assigned adoption staff; termination of parental rights petition filings; tenninations of parental rights; appeals of terminations; adoption placements; and adoption finalizations.
5. . By December 2006, the State shall continue to provide paralegal support and child case summary writer support for adoption staff in the local offices.
6. By December 2006, the State shall institute Adoption Impact Teams which consist of permanent full-time employees with adoption training who shall
(a) be under the direction of the statewide Adoption Director;
15

(b) focus first on the 100 longest waiting children who are waiting for an adoptive home and develop individualized recruitment plans for each of those children;
(c) work towards permanency for those children, which includes regular reviews of progress;
(d) identify common barriers and proposed solutions for the Adoption Director to utilize in modifying statewide adoption practice; and
(e) upon completion of their initial task, assist in further special projects to achieve the adoption targets set forth in this Agreement.
7. By December 2006, the State shall develop local office plans to address the adoption backlog in each office. The State shall commit the necessary resources to address the backlog.
8. By December 2006, the State shall designate for each area office at least one resource family recruiter to conduct child specific recruitment for children with a goal of adoption who are awaiting adoptive families.
9. By December 2006, the State shall identify designated adoption workers for each local office. The State shall have provided adoption training to those designated adoption workers. The State shall transfer cases with a goal of adoption to those adoption workers and by December 2006, the adoption staff in 88% of local offices shall have responsibility for all of the children in that office with a goal of adoption, with the exception that a child who has an established relationship with a permanency worker can remain on that permanency worker's caseload with the permanency worker taking responsibility for adoption work for that child with support from an assigned adoption staff worker.
10. By December 2006,35% of offices will have average caseloads for the adoption staff consisting of 18 or fewer children.
11. By December 2006, the State shall have finalized 1100 adoptions during the calendar year 2006.
12. By June 2007, the State shall complete the adoption case transfer process, described above, across 100% of offices.
16

13. By June 2007,60% of offices will have average caseloads for the adoption staff consisting of 18 or fewer children.
14. By June 2007, the State shall implement the adoption process tracking system.
15. By December 2007, the State shall issue 'reports based on the adoption process tracking system.
16. By December 2007, 81 % of offices will have average caseloads for the adoption staff consisting of 18 or fewer children with a subset of35% of total offices achieving average caseloads for adoption staff of 15 or fewer children.
17. By December 2007, the State shall have finalized 1400 adoptions for calendar year 2007.
18. By June 2008, 95% of offices will have average caseloads for adoption staff of 18 or fewer children, with a subset of 60% of total offices achieving average caseloads for adoption staff of 15 or fewer children.
19. By December 2008, 95% of offices will have average caseloads for adoption staff of 15 or fewer children.
H. RESOURCE FAMILIES
. 1. By December 2006, the State shall incorporate the function of licensing resource families into the Department of Children and Families.
2. By September 2006, the State shall appoint a person to run the Resource Family Recruitment and Retention Program statewide.
3. By December 2006, the State shall designate the point person in each area office who shall focus on resource family recruitment and support.
4. By December 2006, the period for processing resource family applications through licensure shall be 150 days. The 150 days begins to run upon receipt of the resource family's completed application. The intent of this provision is to reduce pressure on potential resource families to complete training, home studies and licensing requirements.
17

5. By December 2006, the State shall create and utilize "Impact Teams." The Impact Teams shall:
a. Focus on applications pending for more than 150 days.
b. Involve staff from both the field offices and licensing units.
c. Work on a sample of those applications to complete processing through licensing.
d. Identify potential structural challenges to completing licensing within 150 days.
e. Continue their work until the majority of applications can be resolved within 150 days.
f.· Provide assistance to support the State's ability to meet the targets for new resource families set forth in this Agreement.
6. By December 2006, the State shall implement, in collaboration with the Monitor, a quality methodology that is consistent with the Principles in this Agreement and sufficient to meet the needs and purposes of this Agreement to ensure applications resolve within 150 days, absent exceptional circumstances.
7. By December 2006, the State shall establish targets for numbers of new resource families to license by office.
8. By December 2006, the State shall establish an accurate baseline of available resource family homes that reports non-kin and kin homes separately.
9. By June 2007, the State shall create an accurate and quality tracking and target setting system for ensuring there is a real time list of current and available resource families. This system shall distinguish between non-kin and kin licensed homes.
10. By June 2007, the State shall have licensed 1030 non-kin resource family homes between July 2006 and June 2007.
11. By December 2007, the State shall establish new targets for numbers of new resource families to license by office.
12. By December 2007, the State shall have licensed 1071 non-kin resource family homes between January 2007 and December 2007.
18

13. By December 2007, the State shall have created a methodology for setting annualized targets for resource family non-kin recruitment based on a needs assessment for such homes by county throughout the State of New Jersey. By January 2008, the State shall implement that methodology. By December 2008, the State shall meet the targets established through the needs assessment.
14. Beginning June 2008 and thereafter, the State shall provide flexible funding, meant to ensure that families are able to provide appropriate care for children and to avoid the disruption of otherwise stable and appropriate placements, at the same level or higher than provided in FY 07.
15. The State shall continue to close the gap between current resource family support rates (foster care, kinship care, and adoption subsidy) and the United States Department of Agriculture'S ("USDA") estimated cost of raising a child in a two-parent, middle-income family in the urban northeast, according to the following dates:
a. By January 2007, the State shall reduce the gap by a further 25%.
b. By January 2008, the State shall reduce the gap by a further 25%.
c. By January 2009, the State shall reduce the gap by a final 25%.
16. By January 2009 and annually thereafter, the State shall adjust the resource family care support rates to maintain them at the USDA estimated rates for the following State Fiscal Year.
17. Once the resource family board rate approaches the level of the USDA rate, the State shall review the Special Home Service Provider ("SHSP") resource family board rates, to ensure the continued availability of SHSP families as resources for children with special needs and shall make adjustments as necessary.
I. INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE INVESTIGATIONS UNIT ("IAIU")
1. By July 2006, the State shall locate IAlU within DCF.
2. By December 2007, the State shall maintain a continuous quality improvement ("CQI") unit within IAIU to screen all corrective action plans and ensure follow up.
19

3. By June 2007, the State shall complete 80% oflAIU investigations within 60 days.
4. By June 2007, the State shall provide all IAIU investigators specific training on intake and investigations process, policies, and investigative techniques.
5. By June 2008, the State shall hire sufficient IAIU field investigators such that 95% of investigators shall have no more than 8 new cases per month and 12 open cases at a time.
J. DATA
1. By August 2006 and continuing thereafter, the State shall identify an initial key set of indicators, ensure the accuracy of such indicators and publish these indicators.
2. By September 2006 and continuing thereafter, the State shall initiate management reporting based on Safe Measures.
3. By November 2006 and continuing thereafter, the State shall identify and ensure the accuracy of additional key management indicators and shall publish these indicators.
4. By July 2006, the State shall implement New JerseySpirit Release 2, Phase 1.
5. By February 2007 and continuing thereafter, the State shall identify additional indicators, ensure their accuracy and shall publish these indicators.
6. By February 2007 and annually thereafter, the State shall produce DCF agency performance reports with a set of measures approved by the Monitor. The accuracy of these reports shall be confirmed by the Monitor.
7. By February 2007, the State shall implement New Jersey Spirit Release 2, Phase 2 (case practice).
8. By May 2007, the State shall train all case carrying workers on New Jersey Spirit.
9. By August 2007, the State shall issue regular, accurate reports from Safe Measures.
20

10. By December 2007 and continuing thereafter, the State shall produce caseload reporting that tracks actual caseloads by office and type of worker and, for permanency and adoption workers, that tracks children as well as families.

11. By December 2007 and continuing thereafter, the State shall maintain an accurate worker roster.

12. By December 2007, the State shall implement New Jersey Spirit Release 3.

III. PHASE II - JANUARY 1,2009 UNTIL TERMINATION

A. TARGETED PERFORMANCE LEVELS FOR CRITICAL OUTCOMES

The State shall attain the performance levels indicated below.

1. Outcome 1,' Children Are Safe

a

Indicator 1a: Children in custody are not abused or

neglected.

(i) Measurement: Number of children in custody in out-of-home placement who were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member during a period, divided by the total number of children who have been in care at any point during the period.

(ii) Targeted Performance Levels: for the period beginning July 2009, no more than 0.53%; for the period beginning July 2010 and thereafter, no more than 0.49%.

b. Indicator 1b: Children who remain with their families after being abused or neglected do not suffer repetition of abuse or neglect.

(i) Measurement: Of all children who remain at home after substantiation of abuse or neglect, the percentage who have another substantiation within the next twelve months.

(ii) Targeted Performance Levels: for the period beginning July 2009 and thereafter, no more than 7.2%

c. Indicator 1c: Children reunified with their families are not

21

subject to abuse or neglect after they go home.
(i) Measurement: Of all children who are reunified during a period, the percentage who are victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within one year after the date of reunification.
(ii) Targeted Performance Levels: for the period beginning July 2009 and thereafter, no more than 4.8%
2. Outcome 2: Children Have Permanent, Stable Families
a. Indicator 2a: Children in custody achieve timely permanency through reunification, adoption, or legal guardianship.
(i) Measurements and Targeted Performance Levels: The specific measures to be used will be developed by the Monitor in consultation with the parties by September 2006. The parties agree that there may be separate measures ~elated to reunification and adoption; that the State will determine the baseline level of performance for these indicators by June 2007; that the final target levels will be ambitious ones, reflecting an expectation that children entering custody will attain permanency in a timely manner; and that interim targets will be set at a level designed to promote a significant but realistic amount of annual progress towards the final target levels. Interim and final targets will be set by June 2008.
b. Indicator 2b: Children who leave custody do not later have to re-enter it.
(i) Measurement: Of all children who leave custody during a period, except those whose reason for discharge is that they ran away from their placement, the percentage that re-enter custody within one year of the date of exit.
(ii) Targeted Performance Levels: for the period beginning July 2009, no more than 14%; for the period beginning July 2010, no more than 11.5%; for the period beginning July 2011 and thereafter, no more than 9%.
3. Outcome'3: Children in Out-ol-Home Care Have Placements That Meet Their Needs
22

a. Indicator 3a: Children have no more than two placements.
(i) Measurement: Of the number of children entering care in a period, the percentage with two or fewer placements during the twelve months beginning with the date of entry.
(ii) Targeted Performance Levels: by June 2009 and thereafter, at least 88%.
b. Indicator 3b: Siblings are placed together.
(i) Measurement: Of sibling groups entering custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another, the percentage in which all siblings are placed together, measured separately for (A) groups of 2 or 3 siblings and (B) groups of 4 or more siblings.
(ii) Targeted Performance Levels for sub-group (A): for siblings entering custody in the period beginning July 2009, at least 65%; in the period beginning July 2010, at least 70%; in the period beginning July 2011, at least 75%; in the period beginning July 2012 and thereafter, at least 80%.
(iii) Targeted Performance Levels for sub-group (B): for siblings entering custodyjn the period beginning July 2009, at least 30%; in the period beginning July 2010, at least 35%; in the period beginning July 2011 and thereafter, at least 40%..
c. Indicator 3c: Children are placed with families rather than in congregate settings.
(i) Measurement: the percentage of children currently in custody who are placed in a family setting.
(ii) Targeted Performance Level: Beginning July 2009 and thereafter, at least 85%.
For all measurements for which the Monitor is to establish interim and/or final performance targets, such targets shall be established no later than December 2008 unless otherwise specified above. The Monitor's report analyzing compliance with the targeted performance levels, which will begin July 2009, shall be released in December 2009 or later.
23

B. TARGETED PERFORMANCE LEVELS FOR CRITICAL PROCESSES
1. Caseloads. By June 2009 and thereafter, the State shall meet the caseload standards set forth in subsections (a) through (d) below. Compliance will be defined as having at least 95% of offices with average caseloads meeting the standard and at least 95% of individual workers with caseloads meeting the standard.
a. permanency workers: no more than 15 families and no more than ten children in out-of-home care;
b. intake workers: no more than 12 open cases and no more than eight new case assignments per month;
c. IAIU investigators: no more than 12 open cases and no more than eight new case assignments per month;
d. adoption workers: no more than 15 children.
2. Commencement ofProtective Services Investigations. The State will require by poliCy that allegations of abuse or neglect be classified as to their type and the required response time. Response times for reports Classified as requiring abuse/neglect investigation may range from immediate to not more than. 48 hours. For periods beginning July 1, 2009 and thereafter, 98% of such investigations shall commence within the required timeframes.
3. Completion ofProtective Services Investigations. By a date to be determined by the Monitor in consultation with the parties, 98% of all abuse/neglect investigations shall be completed within 60 days. The Monitor shall also establish interim targets set at a level designed to promote a significant but realistic amount of annual progress towards the final target.
4. Investigations by IAIU: Completion of investigations by IAIU shall continue to meet the final standards described in Section 11.1.3 of this Agreement.
5. Number ofResource Families: The State shall continue to establish, in consultation with the Monitor, annual targets for the number of resource families to be licensed, including targets for . specific geographic areas and/or homes for particular subpopulations. Findings of the periodic needs assessments described in Section III.C.7 below shall be taken into account in establishing the targets. The State shall meet such targets.
24

6. Placement in Shelters. The State shall continue to meet the restrictions concerning use of shelters set forth in Section II.D.1 0 above. Beginning January 1, 2009 and thereafter, placements of adolescents in crisis in shelters pursuant to subsection II.D.10 (ii) shall be limited to no more than 30 days.
7. Caseworker Contacts With Children: By a date to be determined by the Monitor in consultation with the parties, caseworkers shall have face-to-face contact with children in custody as follows:
a. during the first two months of a placement, whether the child's initial placement or a subsequent placement, at least two visits per month with at least 95% of children;
b. during all other parts of a child's time in out-of-home care, at least one visit per month with at least 98% of children.
The Monitor shall also establish interim targets set at a level designed to promote a significant but realistic amount of annual progress towards the final target.
8. Caseworker Contacts With Families: By a date to be determined by the Monitor in consultation with the parties, caseworkers shall have face-to-face contact with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody as follows:
a. for children with a permanency goal of reunification, at least two visits per month with at least 95% of families;
b. for children with other permanency goals, at least one visit per month with at least 85% of families, unless parental rights have been terminated, in which case there shall be no requirement for such contacts with parents.
Contacts made by private providers shall count towards these requirements. The Monitor shall also establish interim targets set at a level designed to promote a significant but realistic amount of annual progress towards the final target.
9. Visits Between Parents and Children in Out-aI-Home Care. Bya date to be determined by the Monitor in consultation with the parties, at least 85% of children in custody shall have in-person visits with their parent(s) or other legally responsible family member at least bi-weekly and at least 60% of children in custody shall have such visits at least weekly. Cases in which parental
25

rights have been terminated and cases in which the Family Court has restricted visiting may be excluded from these calculations. The Monitor shall also establish interim targets set at a level designed to promote a significant but realistic amount of annual progress towards the final target.
10. Visits Between Siblings. By a date to be determined by the Monitor in consultation with the parties, at least 85% of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with those siblings as appropriate. The Monitor shall also establish interim targets set at a level designed to promote a significant but realistic amount of annual progress towards the final target.
11. Provision and Timeliness ofMedical and Mental Health Care. The State shall· attain and continue to meet the final standards for provision and timeliness of medical and mental health care set forth in Section II.F. of this Agreement. Beginning January 1, 2009 and thereafter, the standard for timely completion of full medical examinations for children entering out-of-home care shall be that at least 85% of children receive such examinations within 30 days and at least 98% of children receive such examinations within 60 days.
12. Adoption Milestones. For periods beginning July 1, 2009 and thereafter,
a. of the children in custody whose permanency goal has been changed to adoption by court order during the period,
(i) at least 90% shall have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within six weeks of the date the goal was changed to adoption;
(ii) at least 90% of children for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of termination of parental rights shall have a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the date the goal was changed to adoption;
(iii) at least 75% of children for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of termination shall be placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights.
26

b. of adoptions finalized during the period, at least 80% shall have been finalized within nine months of adoptive placement.
13. Quality ofCase Practice. The State shall continue to implement the case practice model set forth in Section II.A of this Agreement. Beginning July 2009, the Monitor shall regularly measure and report on the extent to which the State has implemented the case practice model, utilizing the methodology developed pursuant to Section II.AA of this Agreement and addressing the key practice elements set forth in section II.A.
C.OTHERSTANDARDS
1. Resource Home Capacity. By June 2009, placements of children in resource homes shall conform to the following limitations: no child shall be placed in a resource home if that placement will result in the home having more than four foster children, or more than two foster children under age two, or more than six total children including the resource family's own children. Exceptions to these limitations may be made as follows:
a. No more than 5% of resource home placements may be made into resource homes with seven or eight total children including the resource family's own children, but such placements may only be made so long as the other limitations set forth above are adhered to.
b. Any of the limitations set forth above may be waived if needed and appropriate to allow a group of siblings to be placed together.
2. Protection From Harm. By June 2009, the State shall promulgate and implement policies designed to ensure that psychotropic medication is not used as a means of discipline or control and that the use of physical restraint is minimized.
3. Training and StaffDevelopment. The State shall continue to meet the final standards for pre-service and in-service training of frontline staff and supervisors, as described in Phase I of this Agreement.
4. Training ofResource Families. The State shall continue to meet the final standards for pre-licensure and ongoing training of resource families, as described in Phase I of this Agreement.
5. Performance Standardsfor Contracts. By June 2009, the State
27

shall incorporate into its contracts with service providers performance standards consistent with the Principles of this Agreement.
6. Quality Improvement. By June 2009, in consultation with the Monitor, the State shall develop and implement a well-functioning quality improvement program consistent with the Principles of this Agreement aI?-d adequate to carry out the reviews of case practice set forth in section II.A. above.
7. Annual Needs Assessments. By June 2009 and thereafter, the State shall regularly evaluate the need for additional placements and services to meet the needs of children in custody and their families, and to support intact families and prevent the need for out-of-home care. Such needs assessments shall be conducted on an annual, staggered basis that assures that every county is assessed at least once every three years. The State shall develop placements and services consistent with the findings of these needs assessments.
8. Resource Family Reimbursement. By June 2009 and thereafter, reimbursement rates for resource families shall equal the median monthly cost per child calculated by the United States Department of Agriculture for middle-income, urban families in the northeast
IV. MONITORING
A. The parties agree that the Center for the Study of Social Policy, under the direction of Judith Meltzer, shall be the Monitor ofthe State's compliance with the goals and principles of this Agreement.
B. The Monitor's duties shall be to: confirm independently the data reports and statistics provided pursuant to this Agreement; conduct independent case record and other qualitative reviews; review all plans and documents agreed to be developed and produced by the State pursuant to this Agreement; and report on the State's progress in implementing the terms of the Modified Settlement Agreement and the achievement of the improved outcomes set forth herein. Among the Monitor's responsibilities, the Monitor shall specifically review whether case practice reflects the components of the Case Practice Model referred to throughout this Agreement. The Monitor shall prepare reports that will address these issues and be released periodically but no less than every six months, unless the parties and the Monitor agree otherwise. In order to avoid duplication and to build capacity within the agency, the Monitor will look first to the State's data and data analysis. Accordingly, the State shall provide the Monitor with copies of all regular data reports respecting topics covered by this Agreement. Notwithstanding the existence of State data, data analysis and reports, however, the Monitor shall have the authority to prepare new reports on outcome measures and all
28

other enforceable topics covered by this Agreement, to the extent the Monitor deems necessary.
C. The State agrees to: provide the Monitor with free access to all individuals within DCF and its Divisions, any successor agencies or divisions, and persons within the Executive Branch, as the Monitor chooses; to assist the Monitor in gaining free access to other stakeholders in the child welfare system (including but not limited to the staff of contract providers); and to provide the Monitor with free access to all documents and data it deems relevant to its work (including but not limited to documents and data from contract agencies). The Monitor agrees to respect the confidentiality of all information related to individually identifiable clients ofthe Department and its Divisions, subject to applicable law. The Monitor further agrees to respect the confidentiality of any documents that are in draft form or otherwise privileged.
D. The reports of the Monitor shall be public documents, except that any individually identifiable information (as that term is understood under New Jersey law) and any other confidential information protected from disclosure by law, including without limitation any protected health information andlor individually identifiable health information (as those terms are understood under HIPAA) shall be redacted or otherwise removed from any public report. The Monitor shall have a sufficient, reasonable budget (the funding of which shall be the responsibility of the State), staff and access to information, including access to State employees, that the Monitor deems necessary to fulfill his or her duties. Any such information received by the Monitor, unless already public, shall not be made public without the State's prior written permission, except as incorporated into a public report of the Monitor.
E. Plaintiffs shall have access, through the Monitor, to all information made available to the Monitor, and to all other information related to ensuring compliance with and enforcing this Agreement, subject to the existing confidentiality order in effect in this case.
F. The parties may request that the Monitor review and issue recommendations regarding the provision of services to the named plaintiffs in this case.
O. The intent ofthe parties is that the Monitor shall develop a plan to transfer the primary monitoring function to DCF's quality assurance unit upon the termination of this Agreement, or at such earlier time as the parties may agree. The Monitor shall work in collaboration with the State in building DCF quality assurance capacity.
H. The Monitor may periodically meet privately with the Court concerning issues related to this case, provided the parties are made aware of the occurrence of such a meeting.
I. If at any point the Monitor can no longer serve, the parties shall agree on another Monitor, with input and recommendations from the outgoing Monitor.
29

V. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
In the event that Plaintiffs identify an area in which they believe Defendants are . not in substantial compliance with an enforceable provision of this Agreement:
A. Plaintiffs shall, prior to seeking judicial relief, notify the Defendants and the Monitor, in writing, of the compliance issue.
B. Within 10 calendar days of Plaintiffs' notification, the State shall respond in writing, to Plaintiffs and the Monitor, as to what actions, if any, it proposes to take with regard to the issue of alleged non-compliance.
C. Regardless of whether the State agrees with the Plaintiffs' assertion of non-compliance, the parties shall meet with the Monitor within 15 calendar days of the Plaintiffs' notice, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The purpose of this meeting shall be for the parties to engage in good faith negotiations with the assistance of the Monitor, to determine whether additional actions are necessary to address Plaintiffs' assertion of non-compliance. The parties shall engage in negotiations for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
D. If, at the end ofthe 30 day negotiation period, or the period as extended by mutual agreement of the parties, Plaintiffs determine that judicial action is necessary, Plaintiffs may seek further relief from the Court.
E. At the conclusion of the dispute resolution process, if the parties have failed to come to an agreement, the Monitor shall analyze the issues raised by Plaintiffs and the State's response during the mediation process and shall prepare and issue a report with recommendations concerning the dispute. This report shall be issued no later than 10 calendar days after the dispute resolution process has ended. This report shall be provided to the parties and the Court and shall be considered a public document.
F. If Plaintiffs believe that Defendants have violated this Agreement and, as a result, have caused or are likely to cause immediate and irreparable harm to children's well-being in the State's custody, they may seek emergent judicial relief. Before taking such action, however, Plaintiffs must give Defendants written notice with respect to any such harm, including with such notice any documentation that Plaintiffs believe supports their decision to invoke the provisions of this paragraph. Defendants will respond to this notice, in writing, within 3 business days. The parties must then invoke the provisions in sections A, B, C, D and E above, provided that the entire mediation process is completed within 10 business days of Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' notice, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
G. Notwithstanding the provision in section D. and F. above, Plaintiffs agree that in order to encourage the restructuring and reform of child welfare services in New Jersey, there will be a defined period of limitation from further litigation during Phase I, where Plaintiffs agree not to return to court unless the Defendants unreasonably fail to
30

take the actions agreed to in Phase I, as set forth in this Agreement. Before seeking court intervention, Plaintiffs shall first utilize the dispute resolution process set forth herein.
H. In Phase II, Plaintiffs may seek court intervention for Defendants' failure to comply with the tenns of any of the enforceable actions from Phases I or II. Before seeking court intervention, Plaintiffs shall first utilize the dispute resolution process.
I. In Phase II, Plaintiffs may fully enforce all phases of the Agreement and both sides reserve their legal rights to make all applicable legal arguments.
J. In an action in federal court to remedy an alleged failure to comply with any tenns of this Agreement, Plaintiffs shall have the burden of demonstrating that Defendants have failed to comply with specific tenns of the Agreement and that they are entitled to relief. Factors that may be included in any defense, which may be considered by the Court but are not dispositive, are:
1. Conclusions and findings in the independent monitoring reports;
2. Constraints, including legal constraints, upon Defendants' ability to comply;
3. The interests at stake;
4. The progress that has been made towards achieving compliance with the specific tenn in dispute.
VI. TERMINATION AND EXIT
After June 2010 or the last deadline set by the Monitor, whichever is later, Defendants may seek a ruling from the Court terminating the Court's jurisdiction over this Agreement based on Defendants' demonstrating that they have achieved and maintained compliance with this Agreement for a continuous period of at least two years. In order to demonstrate that they have achieved and maintained compliance for a continuous period of at least two years, Defendants may prove compliance with the Agreement during the period from June 2010 and thereafter, as long as Defendants also prove that they have achieved and sustained compliance with the applicable interim and final measures. Defendants may not, however, seek such a ruling ifthere are any pending motions before the Court, if there are then in effect any remedial Court orders based on noncompliance with any enforceable provisions of this Agreement, or there are any notices of noncompliance or action plans still in effect pursuant to the dispute resolution section of this Agreement. If, in response to such an application by Defendants, Plaintiffs can show that Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden outlined above, the Court shall retain jurisdiction. If Plaintiffs can show continued Court jurisdiction is necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the Court may also retain jurisdiction. Neither side may argue that any change in the exit standard from the Settlement Agreement of September 2, 2003 to this Modified Settlement Agreement is intended to reflect agreement on a change to the applicable legal standard.
31

IN WITNESS WHEREOF AND INTENDING TO BE LEGALLY BOUND

HEREBY, the parties, by and through their duly authorized

representatives, execute this Agreement, intending that it

shall become effective upon its approval and entry by the

Court as provided herein.

DATED:
ftt~·~~~~
Marcia Robinson Lowry, mbiase, Esq. SL5041
r;~

Jon

zi

Governor of t'

of New Jersey

Stuart A. Law, SL9473 Patricia A. Cullen, P~201
Drinker, Biddle and Reath, LLP

Kev'in Ryan / Comrnissione Department of Children and Families

APPROVED AS TO FORM: Zulima V. Farber Attorney General of New Jersey
-s.~w..A:~~
By: Stefa 1e A. Brand SB9163 Assistant Attorney General Howard McCoach HM5510 Assistant Attorney General

DATED: 32

 
 Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Period I Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine
July 2006 through December 31, 2006
Center for the Study of Social Policy 1575 Eye Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 February 26, 2007

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Period I Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine
July 2006 through December 31, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1
II. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF PROGRESS ...........................3
III. DEPARTMENTAL LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION.................................13
IV. THE CASE PRACTICE MODEL FOR
THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES .......................................15
V. BUILDING A HIGH QUALITY WORKFORCE.....................................................17
1. Pre-Service Training .................................................................................................17 2. In-Service Training ...................................................................................................21 3. Supervisory Training ................................................................................................23 4. Caseloads ..................................................................................................................25 5. Creating an Effective Human Resource Function within DCF ................................33
VI. APPROPRIATE PLACEMENTS AND SERVICES FOR CHILDREN ................36
1. Resource Family Recruitment, Licensing and Retention .........................................36 2. Increasing the Resource Family Board Rate.............................................................46 3. Improving Access to Placements Available through
the Division of Children’s Behavioral Health ..........................................................46 4. Out-of-State Placement of Children..........................................................................47 5. Youth in Juvenile Detention Post-Disposition..........................................................53 6. Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU) .......................................................54
Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

VII. MEETING THE HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE
NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH.....................................................................55
1. Assessment of DCBHS System of Care ...................................................................56 2. DCF Hired a Chief Medical Officer .........................................................................57 3. Pre-Placement Medical Assessment .........................................................................58 4. Data on Health Care Services ...................................................................................59
VIII. PERMANENCY PLANNING AND ADOPTION .....................................................59
IX. ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH THE PRODUCTION
AND USE OF ACCURATE DATA.............................................................................71

APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B:

New Jersey Department of Children and Families Table of Organization
Caseload and Supervisory Ratio Detail for Local Offices
Table B-1: Number of Families, Children Placed and Assignments Permanency Workers – December 2006
Table B-2: Number of Families, Children Placed and Assignments Intake Workers – December 2006
Table B-3: Adoption Workers – December 2006
Table B-4: Number of Supervisors, By Local Office December 2006

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Progress on Modified Settlement Agreement ...........................9-14 2. DYFS Supervisory Training ..........................................................................27 3. Baseline of DCF Licensed Family Resource Homes as of December 31, 2006 ...................................................................39 4. DCF Task Plan for 150-Day Resources Home Licensing Process ................42 5. Number of New Licensed Families Resource Homes ...................................46 6. Resource Family Monthly Licensure Targets................................................47 7. DYFS Approved Resource Family Rates, Effective January 1, 2007 ...........46 8. New Placements Out-of-State........................................................................54 9. Principal Barrier to Adoption for Legally Free Children Waiting More Than 90 Days...........................................................67
Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Modules in NJCWTA Pre-Service Training Curriculum ..............................21 2. NJ DCF DYFS Permanency Caseload Compliance by Office ......................30 3. NJ DCF DYFS Intake Caseload Compliance by Office................................33 4. Adoption Caseload Compliance ....................................................................34 5. NJ DCF DYFS Compliance With Supervisors-to-Worker Ratio ..................35 6. NJ DCF DYFS Children in Placement by Placement Type ..........................38 7. Resource Families Licensed - Net Gain/Loss by Month & Total – CY 2006........................................................................45 8. DCBHS Placement Process for Children and Youth Requiring Treatment Providers...........................................................51 9. Out-of-State Placements – 2006 for all Youth Served by DCBHS ...............53 10. Number of Adoptions Finalized in CY 2002 through 2006 ..........................64 11. NJ DCF Legally Free Children Awaiting Adoption (As of December 2006 Total = 1919) ............................................................66
Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Period I Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine July 2006 through December 31, 2006

I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of this Report In July 2006, the State of New Jersey and Children’s Rights, Inc. reached agreement on a Modified Settlement of the class-action litigation (Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine) aimed at improving longstanding problems in the State’s child welfare system.1 As part of the Modified Settlement Agreement, which was approved by the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court on July 17, 2006, the Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) was appointed to independently monitor the State’s compliance with the goals and principles of the Modified Settlement Agreement. As Monitor, CSSP is to independently assess the State’s actions and to report periodically to the Parties and the public on the State’s progress in implementing the terms of the Agreement and in achieving defined outcomes for systemic improvement and improved results for children and families. This is the first Monitoring report under this Agreement covering the period from July 2006 through December 31, 2006.
The Modified Settlement Agreement structured the State’s commitments into two phases of work. Phase I (from July 1, 2006 to December 2008) is primarily focused on building a strong infrastructure and practice model within the newly-created Department of Children and Families (DCF) to ensure that children are protected and safe, helped to achieve permanency and stability in their lives, and that resources and service delivery systems exist to meet children’s health, mental health, educational and developmental needs. Phase II, which runs from January 2009 until termination is focused on the State’s ability to reach and sustain defined performance levels

1 Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine, Modified Settlement Agreement, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civ. Action No. 99-3678 (SRC), July 18, 2006. To see the full Agreement, go to http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/home/Modified_Settlement_Agreement_7_17_06.pdf.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 1

for children’s safety, permanency, stability and well-being. This first Monitoring report primarily addresses the State’s commitments to build the infrastructure within DCF and to develop and begin to implement strategies to support high quality child welfare practice – ultimately leading to an improved future for New Jersey’s most vulnerable children and families.
Methodology The Monitor’s responsibilities under the Modified Settlement Agreement (Section IV) are broadly defined: to verify the data reports and statistics produced by the Department; to independently gather information from case record and other qualitative reviews; and to review all plans and documents agreed to be developed and produced by the State. In preparing this report, the primary source of information has been the Department of Children and Families, which provided the Monitor with extensive aggregate and backup data and access to staff at all levels and across the State. Where possible, the Monitor verified the accuracy of the data and conclusions through a variety of means as specified in the body of this report.
Section II of the report provides overall conclusions and a summary of the State’s progress in meeting the Modified Settlement Agreement commitments through December 31, 2006.
Other sections of the report provide specific information on the requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement as follows:
Section III: Departmental Leadership and Organization Section IV: The Case Practice Model for the Department of Children and Families Section V: Building a High Quality Workforce (Training, Staffing and Caseload) Section VI: Appropriate Placements for Children Section VII: Meeting Health and Mental Health Care Needs of Children Section VIII: Permanency Planning and Adoption Section IX: Accountability through the Production and Use of Accurate Data

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 2

II. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY OF PROGRESS
Summary of Accomplishments The new Department of Children and Families (DCF) should be pleased with its accomplishments in its first six months of operation. As shown in summary fashion in Table 1 on pages 9-14 and discussed more in depth in the body of this report, DCF substantially fulfilled the expectations of the Modified Settlement Agreement in each area in which activity was to be completed during this monitoring period.

The Modified Settlement Agreement was constructed to permit DCF’s leadership and its staff to focus first on fundamental building blocks without which the longer-term reform goals of the State could not be met. As such, the Modified Settlement Agreement’s requirements for the period between July and December 2006 are heavily weighted toward building a solid infrastructure for the future.

Highlights of the Monitor’s assessment of progress include:

The new Department of Children and Families assembled a strong leadership team both in the Central Office and in its Area Offices and committed itself with a clarity of purpose and a welcome sense of urgency to improving results for the children and families it serves. As DCF set about its work, it:
• Communicated a clear vision of change designed to improve results for children and families with Agency administrators and frontline staff and with key stakeholders including resource parents, providers, parents and community members;
• Successfully managed the transition of staff and functions from the Department of Human Services to a newly created cabinet level agency;
• Worked to clarify responsibilities for functions within Divisions and Offices of the Department; and

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 3

• Promoted more effective two-way communication between leadership in Trenton and the field so that there is regular and honest dialogue about the strengths and weaknesses of the system and opportunities for staff at all levels to work toward productive solutions for identified needs.

DCF leadership consistently focused on acquiring reliable and up-to-date data to inform internal decision making and to share progress with staff at all levels and with the public at large. DCF is now increasingly relying on data to inform its strategic thinking about what works and what needs to be fixed to support better results for children and families. DCF is using data to uncover and understand problems, assess contributing factors and implement strategies to resolve the identified issues: Examples include:
• The delay in timely completion of adoption consent packets was identified as a significant barrier to adoption. As a result, DYFS hired adoption expeditors to help alleviate the backlog in the Local Offices with the highest number of children awaiting adoption.
• Intensive efforts have been devoted to making sure that information about the number of active case-carrying workers and their assignments is up-to-date and correct. The Department developed a sound methodology for projecting the required available workers to meet caseload standards, and this information is used to inform decisions about the allocation of additional positions and for structuring regular discussions with Area Directors to stay abreast of personnel needs and barriers.
• Detailed data about the problems Local Offices experience to ensure that children in out-of-home placement receive pre-placement medical examinations in nonemergency room settings led to a better identification of the resource availability issues and is informing work to develop more creative solutions targeted to the problem.
• Worker’s access to on-line data systems, which provide more accurate information about the status of their cases, is increasingly seen by local managers and workers as a tool for improving their performance.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 4

The State met its Phase 1 commitments for the reduction of caseloads as of December 31, 2006. This means that average caseloads of DYFS workers have been reduced across the State. While there are still offices and workers with high caseloads, there has been positive movement across the State, a trend which is confirmed by the caseload data and experienced by workers in the field as a sign of progress.
The amount and quality of training made available to staff through the New Jersey Child Welfare Training Academy improved and continues to become more accessible, more responsive to the needs of the field, and more aligned with the outcomes that DCF must achieve. The newly established Training Partnership with a consortium of New Jersey universities is designed to greatly expand the scope and depth of in-service training for workers, and is expected to focus on the skills and capacities that are needed to implement the Department’s Case Practice Model.
DCF took steps to develop and publish a Case Practice Model that identifies the kind of case practice DCF committed to provide to every child and family in its care. The Case Practice Model seeks to translate the basic principles that are embodied in the Modified Settlement Agreement into expectations for the ways in which DCF serves children and families. The next challenge for the Department is to ensure that 1) workers and supervisors are provided the skills and supports to deliver this practice, and 2) the array of services to support high quality work with children and families exists in New Jersey’s communities.
Considerable thoughtful work is being directed to the diagnosis of longstanding key problems, including barriers to finalizing adoptions for legally free children; barriers to timely and respectful licensing of potential resource families (foster, kinship and adoptive); and barriers to recruitment of homes for children whose individual needs left them waiting for permanent homes for too long. In each of these areas, DCF leadership and designated Central Office and local staff looked closely at the number of children and families involved and their status, identified critical barriers, and have begun to initiate steps to resolve them. This evolving process has only just begun.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 5

Analysis also began to identify the systemic and practice changes needed to better meet the health care and mental health needs of children served by the Department of Children and Families. In each of these areas, the Department began to assemble the relevant data, reached out to the broader community to learn about the strengths and problems with existing practices and desired solutions, and just recently began the work to develop, propose and implement reform proposals.
There are several areas where outcomes are improving and results to date are encouraging. Most notable are:
• The Department exceeded its target for the number of children with finalized adoptions in Calendar Year (CY) 2006. One-thousand three-hundred eightyseven (1387) children were adopted and are now living with permanent families.
• The Department began to experience a net increase in the number of resource families who are licensed each month, moving toward addressing the longstanding problem of an inadequate number of licensed families available for children who need placement.
• Most of the children newly placed in out-of-state treatment facilities from October through December of 2006 were placed in facilities within 50 miles of New Jersey’s border, making it more possible that they can maintain connections with their families and communities.2
• In January 2007, no youth waited for an appropriate treatment placement in a juvenile detention center for more than 30 days post-disposition.
The State and the Monitor are cognizant of the fact that the hard and focused work during this Monitoring period and the encouraging trends are just beginning steps and there is much complex and challenging work ahead to achieve the ambitions of the reform and to meet the future commitments of the Modified Settlement Agreement. It would be unrealistic to expect significant impact at this point in the new Department’s reform efforts on the ways in which

2 Ultimately, the goal is for children to be placed close to their neighborhoods, communities and schools.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 6

children, families and advocates routinely experience the child welfare system. It is important to acknowledge that the problems that led to the Modified Settlement Agreement are longstanding and wide-ranging and will not be completely fixed in six months, one year or even two years. The Modified Settlement Agreement prioritizes the expectations and requirements for improvements between 2006 and 2010. Better outcomes for children and families need to be demonstrated all along the way, and there is much work that remains to be done.
The Work Ahead In this next monitoring period, the Department will be held to even higher standards regarding the building blocks (e.g., caseloads, supervision, training, resource family recruitment and licensing, management and data systems) for reform. In addition, the Department must begin the even more challenging work of translating their practice model into consistent planning and decision making on the frontline and, in doing so, they must provide workers with the skills and support to engage children and families, comprehensively assess their strengths and needs, and link them to services and supports that are essential to safety, stability and a brighter future. This effort requires not only providing the workforce with additional training and skill development but also requires a review of existing policies and practices to ensure they consistently support the Case Practice Model. Over the next several months, the Monitor will work with DCF to determine how best to fully implement and measure the quality of this Case Practice Model.
Importantly, Phase 2 of NJ SPIRIT, the State’s new information technology system, will begin its deployment in the spring and complete its deployment in July 2007. Implementing a SACWIS system such as NJ SPIRIT is a challenging process even for the most prepared child welfare agency. This dramatic change is intended to facilitate the work of frontline workers as well as provide vital information to DCF management. However, it is to be expected that full deployment of NJ SPIRIT will result in some short-term stress to the workforce.
Finally, while much of Phase 1 focuses on building the infrastructure of DCF and solidifying a Case Practice Model, these efforts ultimately must improve outcomes for children and youth. There are many promising strategies that have been initiated or are in development by the

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 7

leadership at DCF. The Monitor will continue to track the progress of these efforts and examine their effects on the lives of children and families. Increasing the number of children finding safety and permanency through successful reunification with their families, decreasing the number of children legally free for adoption and the time they wait for finalization, ensuring regular medical assessment and follow-up care, reducing out-of-state placement, increasing the number and quality of resource families, facilitating the appropriate and timely step down of children in higher levels of care are just a few of the positive outcomes the Monitor expects to see in the next reporting period. New Jersey is finally on a positive path toward reforming the way it delivers child welfare services to children and families. Challenges of all sorts are ahead as previously described, but with its strong leadership team and increasing staff capacity in Area Offices and Local Offices, DCF appears well-situated to continue on its current trajectory.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 8

Table 1: Summary of Progress on Modified Settlement Agreement Requirements
(July – December 2006)

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

Fulfilled (Yes/No)3

Comments

New Case Practice Model
II.A.3 Develop and begin to implement a new case practice model.

December 2006

Yes

Case Practice Model publicly released January 2007.

Training Pre-Service Training

II.B.1.a Institute pre-service training program that is at least 160 class hours.

September 2006

II.B.1.b 100% of new caseworkers will be enrolled in new pre-service training program – September 2006 enrolled within two weeks of start date.

II.B.1.c Completion of pre-service training and competency exams will be required for all September 2006 case-carrying workers.

In-Service Training
II.B.2.d Implement in-service training on concurrent planning for all current case carrying staff.
Investigations/Intake Training
II.B.3.a All new staff responsible for conducting intake or investigations shall receive training on intake and investigations and shall pass competency exams.

September 2006 September 2006

Revised curriculum includes 176

Yes

hours of training that includes training on intake and

investigations.

All new workers are enrolled

Yes

within two weeks; 363 new

workers trained July-Dec. 2006.

Requirement satisfied; Monitor

recommends the development of a

Yes

standardized statewide process to

certify when trainee can assume a

full caseload.

Yes∗ Yes∗∗

2,408 case-carrying staff have been trained; 408 additional staff need training and will be scheduled by end of 1st quarter 2007.
New First Responders training (33 hours) developed and is now part of pre-service training. Competency exam has been developed and is administered.

3 “Yes” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment based on presently available information, DCF has substantially fulfilled its obligations regarding the requirement under the Modified Settlement Agreement for the July-December 2006 monitoring period; or is substantially on track to fulfill an obligation expected to have begun during this period and be complete in a subsequent monitoring period. “No” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment, DCF has not fulfilled its obligation regarding the requirement.
∗ The Monitor recommends the development of a standardized statewide process to certify when a trainee can assume a full caseload.
∗∗ Competency exam has been developed and administered; Monitor has not yet assessed whether all intake and investigations workers completing training have passed the competency exams.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 9

Table 1: (Continued) Summary of Progress on Modified Settlement Agreement Requirements
(July – December 2006)

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

Fulfilled (Yes/No)

Comments

II.B.3.b Begin giving specific training on intake and investigations process, policies and investigation techniques to all staff currently responsible for conducting intake or investigations who have not yet received such.

Beginning September 2006; Complete by June 2007

Supervisory Training

II.B.4.a Develop and begin to provide supervisory training program.

September 2006 and ongoing

Yes

150 staff trained to date.

Yes

Revised supervisory curriculum (40 hours of training).

II.B.4.b Begin training for all staff newly promoted to supervisory positions. Staff to complete training and passed competency exams within 3 months of promotion.

Beginning December 2006

Training has begun; majority of

Yes

training to be completed by May 2007. Supervisory competency

exam has been developed.*

Services for Children and Families

II.C.1 DCBHS to complete assessment of continuum of child behavioral health services.

December 2006

Finding Children Appropriate Placements

Assessments complete; analysis

Yes

and recommendations for future

under development.

II.D.1 Implement an accurate real time bed tracking system to manage the number of beds December 2006 available from DCBHS and match with need.

Implemented September 2006;

Yes

Administered by CSA,

ValueOptions.

II.D.2 Create a process to minimize out-ofstate congregate care placements.
II.D.5 Implement automated system to identify all post-disposition foster youth in juvenile detention facilities; have placement process that assures placement in 30 days.

October 2006 December 2006

Multi-step review with

Yes

requirement for approval by

DCBHS Director.

For month of January 2007, no

Yes

youth waited more than 30 days

post-disposition.

II.D.6 Develop and implement methodology for identifying children placed out-of-state in congregate care who might be returned and stepped down to lower LOC.

September 2006 (development)
October 2006 (implementation)

Yes

Process developed and implemented involving review of children’s status by case manager, provider and CSA.

* The Monitor will assess the comprehensiveness and application in the field of the supervisory competency exam in the next monitoring period.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 10

Table 1: (Continued) Summary of Progress on Modified Settlement Agreement Requirements
(July – December 2006)

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

Fulfilled (Yes/No)

Comments

Caseloads
II.E.1 Develop an interim caseload tracking system.

December 2006

Yes

Labor-intensive manual process.

II.E.2 Provide accurate caseload data to plaintiffs and public via DCF website on a quarterly basis.

December 2006

Yes

www.state.nuj.us/dcf .

II.E.3 Hire new Human Resources Director. December 2006

II.E.4 Make “Safe Measures” available to all staff.

December 2006

II.E.5 Train all staff on “Safe Measures.”

December 2006

II.E.6 60% of offices have permanency worker with average caseloads of 15 families or fewer and no more than 10 children in outof-home care.

December 2006

Yes

Human Resources Director, Janet Zatz.

Yes

Training completed; additional

Yes

training/technical assistance to

local users continues.

Yes

60% of offices met the 15/10 standard.

II.E.7 42% of offices have intake worker caseloads averaging no more than 15 families or less and no more than 10 new referrals per month.

December 2006

Yes

65% of offices met the 15/10 standard.

II.E.8 80% of offices have supervisory ratios of 5 to 1.

December 2006

Provision of Health (Medical and Mental Health)
II.F.1 Hire Chief Medical Officer.

August 2006

Yes (through combination of SFSS2 and SFSS1 positions)

In some Local Offices, casework supervisors (SFSS1) are performing unit supervisor (SFSS2) functions. 95% of offices meet supervisory standard utilizing both SFSS2 and SFSS1 staff. 61% of offices meet the standard based solely on SFSS2 supervisors.

Yes

Robert Morgan, M.D., Chief Medical Officer hired June 2006.

II.F.3 70% of children entering care to have pre-placement assessments in a nonemergency room setting.

Beginning December 2006

All children entering are receiving

pre-placement assessments.

Yes

January 2007 data is needed for full measurement; as of November

2006, 70% of exams were in non-

emergency room settings.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 11

Table 1: (Continued) Summary of Progress on Modified Settlement Agreement Requirements
(July – December 2006)

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

Fulfilled (Yes/No)

Comments

II.F.4 Gather data to establish baseline for provision of medical and dental services for 2007 and thereafter.

December 2006

Yes

Baseline information collected; analysis in process.

Permanency Planning and Adoption

II.G.2 Develop and begin implementing improved permanency practices, including 5 month permanency reviews, 10 month placement reviews.

December 2006

II.G.3 Develop adoption tracking system that

sets up adoption targets based on

December 2006

milestones/finalizations.

II.G.4 Develop adoption process tracking system that records completion of important practices including 5-month and 10-month reviews, permanency hearings.

December 2006

II.G.5 Continue to provide paralegal support

and child case summary writer support for

December 2006

adoption staff in local offices.

II.G.6 Institute Adoption Impact Teams.

December 2006

II.G.7 Develop plans and commit resources to address adoption backlogs in Local Offices.

December 2006

II.G.8 Designate one resource family recruiter for each Area Office to do specific recruiting for individual adoptable children.

December 2006

Revised process developed; to be

Yes

implemented in 10 demonstration

sites beginning January 1, 2007.

Yes

Local offices report monthly on Adoption Milestones.

Excel spreadsheet to be completed

Yes

and tracked by Area Office

Concurrent Planning Specialists.

73 paralegals have been converted

Yes

from temps to DCF employees; 55 paralegal temp positions (36

filled); 23 child summary writers

Adoption Impact Teams lead by 5

Yes

Impact Recruiters are working to find homes for 100 longest waiting

children.

Offices facing the highest

Yes

backlogs are receiving additional

resources.

13 Child-Specific Recruiters have

been identified for the 12 Area

Yes

Offices. (The Middlesex/

Monmouth Area has 2 child-

specific recruiters.)

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 12

Table 1: (Continued) Summary of Progress on Modified Settlement Agreement Requirements
(July – December 2006)

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

Fulfilled (Yes/No)

Comments

II.G.9 Identify and train adoption workers in each office. In 88% of offices, all children with goal of adoption should be on the designated adoption worker’s caseload, unless child has established relationship with permanency worker.

December 2006

Yes (Training is ongoing.)

All offices have separate adoption workers; 81% of children with adoption goal statewide are assigned to adoption workers. According to the State, all adoption workers have been trained.

II.G.10 35% of offices will have average caseloads of 18 or fewer children for their adoption staff.
II.G.11 Finalize 1,100 adoptions during Calendar Year 2006.

December 2006 December 2006

Yes

65% of offices met the standard for 18 or fewer cases.

Yes

1,387 adoptions were finalized.

Resource Families

II.H.1 DCF to take over licensing resource families.

December 2006

II.H.2 Appoint new head of Resource Family Recruitment and Retention Program.

September 2006

Yes

Completed July 2006

Yes

Peggy McHale appointed September 2006.

II.H.3 DCF to designate point person in each

area office to recruit and support resource

December 2006

families.

Resource Family Area Case

Yes

Practice Specialists appointed as of

end of December 2006.

II.H.4 Time to process application of resource family for licensure = 150 days.

December 2006

II.H.5 Create “Impact Teams” for licensing resource families.

December 2006

II.H.6 Implement methodology to ensure license applications are processed within 150 days.

December 2006

Yes

Procedure developed.

Yes

4 Impact Teams created.

Yes

Operational as of the end of December 2006.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 13

Table 1: (Continued) Summary of Progress on Modified Settlement Agreement Requirements
(July – December 2006)

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

Fulfilled (Yes/No)

Comments

II.H.7 Establish target number of new resource families for each office.

December 2006

Currently serving as tool to

Yes

manage monthly progress on recruitment and licensing of

resource homes.

II.H.8 Establish accurate baseline of available resource families, broken down into kinship and non-kinship families.

December 2006

Produced by hand count of

Yes

computer runs of active resource

family homes as of 12/31/06.

Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU)

II.I.1 Locate IAIU within DCF.
Data
II.J.1 Identify initial set of key indicators, ensure accuracy and publish.

July 2006 August 2006

II.J.2 Initiate management reporting based on Safe Measures.

September 2006

II.J.3 Identify, ensure accuracy of, and publish additional key management indicators.

November 2006

II.J.4 Implement New Jersey SPIRIT Release 2, Phase 1.

July 2006

Yes

Complete with creation of DCF in July 2006.

Data posted on DCF website;

Yes

progressive addition of new

indicators.

Yes

Yes

Release 2/Phase I complete by July

2006. Work in progress toward

Release 2/Phase II (case

Yes

management implementation),

expected to begin deployment in

April 2007 and be completed in July 2007.*

* Implementation deadline was modified by agreement between the parties.
Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 14

III. DEPARTMENTAL LEADERSHIP AND ORGANIZATION

A New Cabinet-level Department of Children and Families (DCF) was Created in July 2006.
On July 11, 2006, Governor Jon Corzine signed legislation that created the New Jersey Department of Children and Families (DCF) as a cabinet-level department with responsibilities for child welfare, children’s behavioral health and the development of preventive services and community supports for children and their families4 By creating this new department, the responsibility of child protection was removed from the Department of Human Services (DHS) and placed in DCF. The Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), Division of Child Behavioral Health Services (DCBHS), and Division of Prevention and Community Partnerships all were transferred from DHS to the new DCF with the goal of creating unified responsibility and improved coordination of services for New Jersey’s most vulnerable children and their families. The DHS Unit responsible for investigating institutional abuse (IAIU) was also relocated to the new Department. Appendix A provides the organizational chart for DCF. The estimated Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 budget for DCF is $1.4 billion.5

The Governor appointed Kevin Ryan as the first Commissioner of DCF. Commissioner Ryan has extensive experience working on behalf of children and families as New Jersey Commissioner of the Department of Human Services and as New Jersey’s first Child Advocate. Since the creation of DCF, Commissioner Ryan assembled a strong senior leadership team6 and is working to build an effective infrastructure for this new department. DCF has a workforce of approximately 7,000 employees, most of whom were transferred from DHS. As is to be expected, there were many human resource needs that required immediate attention when the new Department was created. In addition to fulfilling the many technical requirements of transferring so many workers (such as setting up new personnel and payroll accounts), DCF also

4 N.J. Stat. §9:3A-3. 5 According to the DCF budget documents, the Departmental funds are allotted as follows: DYFS $837.5 million;
Division of Prevention and Community Partnerships $52.1 million; DCBHS $420.3 million; NJ Child Welfare
Training Academy $6.4 million; and Office of Education $64.3 million. 6 The DCF website contains additional information about the professional expertise of these individuals
(http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/staff/) and the organization chart of DCF
(http://www.nj.gov/dcf/about/DCFTableOrgOct06.pdf ).

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 15

created supports for their workers including establishing an Office of Equal Employment and an employee counseling program.
DCF also focused on communicating with the public about child welfare issues with an explicit goal of providing the public with greater access to information. A website for the new department was fully operational in July 2006, and it provides easy access to child and family outcome data, departmental news and accomplishments, and announcements of requests for proposals. Information about the creation of DCF and the Modified Settlement Agreement are available in English and Spanish as are most publications and outreach materials.
Finally, extensive work went into setting up an appropriate financial system for DCF, particularly separating funds from DHS and assigning them to DCF, establishing procurement processes and establishing procedures to appropriately manage expenditures against budget.
In creating the new organizational structure for DCF, attention was given to clarifying lines of responsibility and accountability and improving communication throughout the Department and between the Central Office and the field. Key leaders at the Central Office level meet regularly to improve coordination among the Divisions and to track progress against defined work plans related to the Modified Settlement Agreement as well as other Departmental priorities. Central Office staff, particularly through the Directors of DYFS, Policy and Planning, and Training are in much closer communication with Area Directors and Local Office managers, in an effort to correct longstanding and debilitating communications problems. Area Directors are more consistently engaged as part of the Department’s leadership structure. Anecdotal reports from the field confirm a greater sense of shared understanding of the vision, goals and direction of the agency and perception of improved responsiveness to the needs of workers in the field offices. External partners report greater access to information and enhanced communication with departmental leadership. Efforts continue to improve communication and clarity about responsibility and accountability within DCF Central offices and with Area and Local offices.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 16

IV. THE CASE PRACTICE MODEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
In the Modified Settlement Agreement, the Parties acknowledged the multi-year goal of achieving high quality practice with children and families that reflects the values and principles of protecting children and preserving families. A key first step toward that goal is the development and communication of a shared practice model for DCF that defines who the agency serves, the expected outcomes of those services as well as the guiding values, principles and expectations of the work. Without a clear model of practice, it is difficult – if not impossible – for a public child welfare system and its stakeholders to hold each mutually accountable for their work with children and families and for what they hope to achieve.

The Modified Settlement Agreement (Section II.A .1-3) requires the State to develop a Case Practice Model by December 2006 in consultation with the Monitor that is consistent with the vision and principles of the Agreement. New Jersey has long been in need of a model of practice to guide its direct service work with children and families. However, the model must be more than words on paper, and the Department recognized that the more difficult work ahead is to translate the model into actions. In addition, if the model is to be effective as both a guide and a framework for accountability, it needs to be developed with broad participation by and in collaboration with the field and external partners. In developing the Case Practice Model, DCF committed itself to a process of involving as many individuals and organizations affected by the new model as possible. The final product reflects the Department’s effort to solicit advice from staff, community partners, parents and youth as well as the Monitor and Plaintiffs. DCF convened focus groups in the Northern and Southern portions of the State, and attempted to incorporate into the Case Practice Model comments submitted from each group. The Department also researched case practice models from other states and incorporated many of their provisions while tailoring them to fit New Jersey’s history, needs and aspirations.

At the beginning of January 2007 DCF released its Case Practice Model. In the short term, the focus is on practice with children and families who come to the Department’s attention because

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 17

of alleged abuse or neglect and are served by DYFS, but the model will be expanded to include the operations of the Division of Prevention and Community Partnerships and the Division of Child Behavioral Health Services in 2007. The work to implement the model is only beginning.
Highlights of New Jersey’s new Case Practice Model are:
• A mission statement for DCF: to ensure the safety, permanency and well-being of children and to support families.
• A definition of who DYFS serves: all children who have been abused or neglected, children who are alleged to have been abused or neglected, children placed into the agency’s custody, and families in which child abuse or neglect has occurred; children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral health care challenges, and children and families at risk of abuse or neglect.
• A definition of the agency’s core values and principles that articulates the belief that children do best when they have strong families, preferably their own, and when that is not possible, a stable relative, foster or adoptive family.
• The importance of engaging with youth and families, often by developing and working through family teams.
• Quality assessments and investigations, using a strengths-based approach. • Individualized case planning and service delivery that strives to place children in family
settings while concurrently planning for alternative permanency arrangements. Here, in addition to the new Case Practice Model, DCF strengthened and enhanced its protocol for concurrent planning. • Continuous review and adaptation of case progress through the use of family team meetings and other processes to review the child and family’s status, service progress, the appropriateness of decision making and goals, and to make adaptations as case goals are met and circumstances change. • A commitment to timely tracking and regular reports to the public on DCF’s performance across key indicators.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 18

The challenge ahead for the Department is to broadly communicate the Case Practice Model and to use it as a living document to frame and guide future work. This means that it must be reflected in staff training; supervision and skill development; performance evaluations; daily interactions with children and family members; protocols for developing and reviewing case plans and assessing decisions about placement and progress toward permanency; and coordination among all divisions of DCF and with community providers and members.
V. BUILDING A HIGH QUALITY WORKFORCE
A key focus of the Phase I commitments in the Modified Settlement Agreement is to build a high quality workforce that is of sufficient number and has the right skills and qualities to meet the complex demands of child welfare work with children and families. A principal failure of past reform efforts has been insufficient attention to training new and existing workers and supervisors and to effectively recruiting, hiring and retaining workers. The Modified Settlement Agreement includes a range of requirements for quick action on training and caseload reduction during this monitoring period as an essential building block of reform. The Department devoted much attention to this work, and all of the Modified Settlement Agreement requirements through December 2006 with respect to training and caseloads were substantially met. Each is discussed in the next section.
1. Pre-Service Training.
The Modified Settlement Agreement requires the State to institute a pre-service training program that provides sufficient training to newly hired workers to enable them to effectively protect and serve children and families (Section B.1.a). Specifically, the pre-service training must be at least 160 class hours, include training on intake and investigations for all staff, and be available for any new employee’s enrollment within two weeks of beginning work. Further, the Department is required to have a process so that no case-carrying worker can assume a full caseload until after completing training and until after s/he passes competency exams. There are significant improvements during this monitoring period in the methods and materials DCF uses to train its

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 19

workforce. In the Monitor’s assessment, the New Jersey Child Welfare Training Academy (NJCWTA) made important strides in the past six months in its ability to provide new and existing staff with quality training.
a. DYFS revised and clarified its processes for the initial entry and training of new workers.
Effective August 2005, the requirements for training a new case-carrying DYFS employee were revised as follows: • As soon as a trainee is hired s/he is assigned to a Field Training Unit Supervisor
(FTS) who serves as a training “guide” throughout the trainee period. • Every trainee must be enrolled in pre-service training within two weeks of his/her
employment start date. NJCWTA staff review Human Resources reports every pay period for up-to-date data on new hires to ensure that trainees are properly enrolled in training. • Pre-service training now consists of 11 modules of classroom training. After each module of pre-service training, the trainee takes a competency test. The results of the competency exams are shared with the trainee and his/her FTS. • NJCWTA trainers also prepare an interim and final progress report for each trainee that is provided to both the trainee and the FTS. • A trainee is not eligible to be assigned cases until after completion of Module 7 of the pre-service training. Cases are assigned to trainees at the discretion of the FTS and the Local Office manager. After a period of six months, the trainee transitions from the FTS and is supervised by a supervisor. • Once the trainee has completed the pre-service training modules, s/he is eligible to enroll in required core competency courses which must be successfully completed between the 3rd and 11th month of service and are a prerequisite for moving from the Civil Service Trainee position to a permanent position. • At the conclusion of six months of service, a trainee may be assigned a full caseload, at the discretion of the FTS and the supervisor.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 20

b. DCF revised the pre-service training curricula for all newly hired staff.

The NJCWTA began using a revised pre-service curriculum in September 2006. The preservice training incorporates a newly revised curriculum that includes 176 hours of training, 32 classroom days and 20 days of field instruction. Figure 1 below shows the 12 modules in the pre-service training during the monitoring period.

Figure 1: Modules in NJCWTA Pre-Service Training Curriculum

Module 1

Orientation

Module 2

Understanding Child Welfare in New Jersey

Module 3

Computer Applications

Module 4

Self-Aware Practitioner

Module 5

Life of A DYFS Case

Module 6

Taking Care of Yourself

Module 7

Functional Assessments for Child Well-Being, Safety and Risk

Module 8

Engagement and Interpersonal Skills

Module 9

Casework Applications

Module 10

Teaming with Families for Positive Change

Module 11

First Responders in Child Welfare

Module 12

Program Wrap Up

Source: New Jersey Child Welfare Training Academy, 2006.

DCF reports that 711 staff participated in pre-service training in Calendar Year 2006, an increase from 462 staff in CY 2005. The Monitor reviewed training logs of pre-service training participation for July through December 2006. During that six-month period, 363 staff participated in pre-service training.

Anecdotal reports from the field, including comments by Area and Local Office managers indicate that the new training curriculum is well-received by trainees and better meet the Local Office manager’s needs for basic skill development for new workers. The Monitor has not yet conducted an independent assessment of the pre-service curriculum.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 21

Given that the curriculum needs some revision to reflect the newly developed Case Practice Model, the Monitor is waiting to review the training content in-depth until a later monitoring period. Now that the Department’s Case Practice Model is developed, the NJCWTA, in collaboration with DCF’s leadership, is beginning to assess the curriculum and is expected to make modifications as needed to ensure that it provides new workers with the appropriate skills and training to carry out the Department’s practice expectations.
c. All newly hired staff are enrolled in pre-service training within two weeks of their start date.
The NJTWA enrolls newly hired workers in training within two weeks of their employment start. To determine if a trainee is enrolled in pre-service training within two weeks of his/her start date, the NJCWTA staff cross-references reports from Human Resources each pay period with signed rosters from participants in pre-service training sessions. The Monitor independently used this methodology to review trainees hired in October and November 2006 and found consistent enrollment in pre-service training within two weeks of the trainee’s start date.
d. The Department and the NJCWTA are taking beginning steps to assess the competency and skills of workers during and after pre-service training, although the Monitor recommends that a standardized process be developed to certify that a trainee who has taken competency exams has acquired sufficient skills to assume a full caseload.
A process does exist for trainers from the NJCWTA to assess a trainee’s acquisition of knowledge and skills during pre-service training and to communicate that information to the trainee and to the Field Training Supervisor. Trainees are assessed after each module of the training to determine if they mastered the content, and an interim and final progress report is provided to the Field Training Supervisor. This is a considerable improvement over past practice by creating a connection between what goes on in classroom training and subsequent field training and skill development in the Local Office. The decisions about when a trainee is sufficiently skilled to assume a full caseload are made by the

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 22

Field Training Supervisor after a review of the trainee’s performance on competency exams and their performance on assigned cases. However, the Monitor is recommending that the Department consider creating a standardized and more consistent statewide process for certifying how and when a trainee demonstrates evidence of competency performance and skill development and is ready to assume a full caseload.
2. In-Service Training.
The Modified Settlement Agreement’s required timeline for in-service training for the existing workforce will begin in 2007 (Section II.B.2). During this monitoring period, however, the Department was required to take the initial steps to enhance its training capacity by revamping its overall in-service training program and offerings. In the interim, the Modified Settlement Agreement required the Department to begin to 1) train all workers on concurrent planning and 2) train all workers conducting investigations on intake and investigations processes, policies and techniques (Section II.B.2.d). The Department met each of these commitments as discussed in the next section.
a. The State developed an RFP for the operation of a statewide training partnership and selected the State University of New Jersey – Rutgers School of Social Work to help develop and implement expanded in-service training through a statewide training consortium.
The School of Social Work at Rutgers University plans to work with the NJCWTA to form a broader training consortium called the New Jersey Partnership for Child Welfare Program (NJCWP). The first phase of the NJCWP’s scope of work focuses on developing the consortium, designing and implementing a statewide training needs assessment, presenting training recommendations to NJCWP’s steering committee, and beginning in April 2007, offering training for case aide and supervisory staff. The second phase of NJCWP’s work includes formalizing five priority training courses for the existing workforce to be designed and developed based on the results of the statewide training needs assessment, and identifying experts to assist in teaching the priority courses. It is

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 23

the Monitor’s expectation that the in-service training will focus heavily on the skills needed by workers to implement the newly developed Case Practice Model.
NJCWP is expected to provide 452 training days during CY 2007 and more than 900 training days during CY 2008. Courses will take place at locations in the northern, central, and southern regions of the State, and incorporate an extensive quality assurance program. The full implementation of this training partnership has the potential to greatly enhance the State’s ability to develop and maintain a skilled and effective child welfare workforce.
b. The State implemented concurrent planning training for staff; almost 2,500 staff have received concurrent planning, training and the remaining 400 staff are expected to be trained by March 2007.
DCF delivered training about concurrent planning to approximately 2,408 caseloadcarrying staff and supervisors in CY 2006. Other staff, including new workers, litigation specialists and case practice specialists also participated, for a total of 2,499 staff who completed the concurrent planning training. Concurrent planning training is conducted by Rutgers University School of Social Work based on a nationally recognized curriculum developed by Hunter College School of Social Work’s National Resource Center for Permanency Planning. Four-hundred eight (408) caseload-carrying staff still need to be trained in the concurrent planning curriculum. The Monitor reviewed a schedule for concurrent planning training through March 2007, which suggests that there is sufficient capacity to train the remaining staff. Actual scheduling of the remaining 408 staff should occur in the first quarter of 2007.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 24

c. The State developed a new and improved curriculum for those staff responsible for intake and investigations. Procedures are in place to ensure that all new staff conducting intake and investigations are trained. Existing staff who currently conduct intake and investigations have begun training. All existing staff members are scheduled to complete training and take competency exams by June 2007.
In preparing for revisions to the existing curriculum on intake and investigations, DCF conducted focus groups with staff to determine what information they felt was most needed. A new curriculum entitled First Responders, was pilot-tested by the NJCWTA in two sites. The Monitor reviewed the curriculum, attended the First Responders pilot training, and subsequently provided DCF with suggestions for improvement. As a result of feedback from the Monitor and others, including DYFS field staff, DCF revised the curriculum to include new information on safety assessments and safety planning. The Department began providing the First Responders training at the end of September 2006. The pilot-test groups included 44 supervisors and casework supervisors. One-hundred six (106) trainees also took the First Responders training, for a total of 150 staff trained to date. The training consists of 33 hours in five modules, including: Family Engagement; Communication/Interviewing; Assessment; Documentation; and Quality Investigations.
DCF expanded its pre-service training to include First Responders in Child Welfare training in August 2006. The Modified Settlement Agreement requires that all workers performing intake and investigations pass a competency examination following training (Section II.B.3.a.). A competency examination was developed, pilot-tested and subsequently refined. The Monitor has not independently reviewed data on the results of competency testing on the First Responders training but intends to do so in the next monitoring period.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 25

3. Supervisory Training.
a. The State developed a new curriculum for newly promoted supervisors that consists of at least 40 training hours.
The Modified Settlement Agreement requires that by September 2006, DCF develop a quality supervisory training program of at least 40 classroom hours that is consistent with the principles in the Agreement and sufficient to meet the need for a highly effective supervisory workforce (Section II.B.4.a). In the summer of 2006, the new Department formally promoted a large number of staff to supervisory positions; it is this group for whom the new training was initially designed. All supervisors promoted to their positions before December 2006 are expected to receive this training over the next six months and to pass supervisory competency exams by no later than June 2007. All supervisors hired after December 2006 are expected to receive this training within three months of assuming their supervisory positions.
As a prelude to revising the supervisory training curriculum, the NJCWTA conducted focus groups with managers and field training unit supervisors and pilot-tested the training in two areas of the State. The Monitor also reviewed the supervisory training curriculum and provided comments on the content and the methods. The Monitor found the revised supervisory training to be comprehensive, well-organized and strong in many ways, particularly in its emphasis on tools for workers to engage the families they serve.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 26

b. The State has begun offering supervisory training to newly promoted supervisors and has scheduled the majority of the remaining supervisors for training by May 2007.

Table 2 below provides data on the number of supervisors who received and/or are scheduled to receive supervisory training.

Table 2: DYFS Supervisory Training

Number of Newly Promoted Supervisors Completing
Supervisory Training as of November 2006

Number of Newly Promoted Supervisors
Yet to be Trained

94

189

Source: NJCWTA rosters, independently reviewed by the Monitor.

*DCF reports that 20 more supervisors will be scheduled by May 2007.

Number of Newly Promoted Supervisors
Scheduled for Supervisory Training between January and
May 2007
169*

Training newly promoted supervisors – defined by DCF as any supervisor promoted before December 2006 – began in November 2006 and is scheduled to be completed by May 2007. The expectation of the Modified Settlement Agreement (Section II.B.4.c.) is that this group of supervisors will train and pass competency exams by June 2007, and moving forward, newly appointed supervisors will complete the training and pass competency exams within three months of appointment. The Monitor’s independent review of class rosters for supervisory training against Human Resource reports of newly appointed supervisors indicates that the NJCWTA is providing supervisory training within three months of the supervisor’s promotion. All supervisors who completed the supervisory training are assigned a final exam project, which is graded on a three-point system. The exam is useful in that supervisors are required to apply skills they are learning with their staff and they receive feedback on their acquisition of those skills. The examination includes an oral presentation as well as a written narrative of their final projects. The Monitor is unclear, however, how the exams are used in practice to determine whether supervisors have sufficiently mastered all the competencies required for effective supervision. The Monitor will look more closely at this issue in the next monitoring period.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 27

4. Caseloads

No child welfare system can be expected to be successful unless and until it has a sufficient and stable workforce. High caseloads have been a problem in DYFS for years, and they are a visible source of concern for agency leadership, the legislature, the union, workers and the public. In addition, there has been considerable controversy for many years about the accuracy of published caseload data and the State’s system for collecting, tracking and reporting data on the number of workers and their caseloads. Given this history, a high priority for the Modified Settlement Agreement is the accuracy and transparency of caseload data and visible progress toward reducing worker caseloads across the State. Considerable progress was made on both of these issues in the past six months. Average caseloads in Local Offices all across the State are dropping although, as anticipated, there remain some Local Offices with high average caseloads and some workers with caseloads too high to perform high quality work. The State substantially met all of its staffing commitments in the Modified Settlement Agreement for this reporting period, as discussed in the next section.

a. The State has developed the required interim system for tracking and reporting caseloads.
DCF developed a system for accurately tracking and reporting caseloads that relies on data primarily from its existing service information system (SIS) and from its personnel database. By working to keep these databases up-to-date and linked through manual mechanisms, DCF now has the capability to report separately on the “available” workers by functional responsibility – intake, permanency, and adoption. “Available” is the term used to refer to those workers who are actually available to carry full caseloads. Trainees, support workers, and impact workers are excluded from the count of available workers. However, DCF does report separately on trainees, support workers, and impact workers who have assigned cases. Finally, DCF produces regular exception reporting which is distributed to Local Offices and Area Offices for review and to update with 1) Local Office personnel changes, 2) corrections to inaccuracies, and/or 3) explanations of differences between Local Office operations and the data in the system. Keeping data

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 28

current and accurate on employees and their caseloads has become a shared Departmental priority and responsibility.
Considerable time and effort goes into obtaining and maintaining accurate information on worker status and caseloads at this time because the process depends on unlinked systems that require separate and continuous manual updating to keep information in sync. Nevertheless, the focus and effort on obtaining and maintaining accurate information about employees and their caseloads is critical, not only to the Modified Settlement Agreement but to the credibility of DCF with its workers and with its partners.
Prior to December 31, 2006, the Department posted caseload data quarterly on its website and continually refined what could be accurately shared with the public. The most recent refinement is to disaggregate adoption caseloads from the other permanency caseloads. Starting with the December 31, 2006 posting, the website reflects separate caseloads for intake, adoption and permanency staff and trainees will be reflected separately. (Section II.E.2)
b. DCF achieved the December 2006 caseload target set for average caseloads for permanency staff.
Permanency workers are assigned to provide case management of services to families whose children remain at home under the protective supervision of DYFS and to those families whose children are removed from home due to safety concerns. To assure staff have the time to devote to children and families with diverse needs and circumstances, the State agreed to achieve a caseload standard that has two intertwined components referred to as a “two-prong standard.” One component is the number of families and the other component is the number of children placed out-of-home. Permanency workers are to serve no more than 15 families and 10 children in out-of-home care. If either of these standards is higher, the caseload is not compliant with the Modified Settlement Agreement standard (Section II.E.6).

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 29

Until December 2008 (Phase 1), caseload compliance is measured by average caseloads in an office. Ultimately, the Phase I goal is for 95 percent of all offices to have average caseloads for the permanency workers that meet the two-pronged standard. This goal is to be achieved over a period of time with targets starting in 2006, and with the final target of 95 percent to be achieved by December 2007. Starting in December 2006, average caseloads in 60 percent of all 43 Local Offices were to meet the caseload standard. (Section II.E.6)
As displayed in Figure 2, the State achieved this first target with available permanency workers in 60 percent of the offices averaging 15 families or fewer and 10 or fewer children in placement. This chart is posted on the Department’s website and also indicates the progress the Department made since March 2006. Appendix B contains a table with supporting details for each office.
Figure 2: NJ DCF DYFS Permanency Caseload Compliance by Office*

Dec-06 Actual

60%

Dec-06 Target

60%

Sep-06

61%

Jul-06

58%

Mar-06

40%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% of offices meeting permanency standard

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning, February 2007. *Adoption staff began to be counted separately in December 2006; previously they were listed as permanency staff.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 30

The Monitor took several steps to independently verify caseload information. First, in conjunction with Department staff, the Monitor reviewed monthly reports and the Department’s methodology for computing caseloads as well as the process used to verify and refine the caseload reporting. This included looking at examples of communication between Central Office and Local Office managers regarding the exception reporting. Second, the Monitor participated in the final stages of the quality assurance effort as the December caseload report was prepared. This review allowed for first-hand knowledge of the work done to assure accurate reporting. For example, an issue about the actual employment date for some workers identified as trainees in the first draft of the December report required additional work and communication with the Local Offices as well as with Human Resources. In some instances, workers who were listed in the DYFS information system as trainees based on their formal hire date, had in fact, passed their six-month employment period based on the date they first were employed as a temporary worker. They had completed their training period, which enabled them to be considered as available workers to carry full caseloads. In addition to assessing the Department’s internal quality assurance on the accuracy of caseload data and as added verification, the Monitor randomly selected 14 local offices for follow-up telephone discussions over a two week period with Local Office managers about the number of available staff and efforts to keep caseload reporting accurate. Our independent conversations with nine of the Local Office managers7 confirmed the accuracy of the State’s caseload reporting for December 2006.

c. DCF achieved the December 2006 caseload target set for intake staff.

DCF intake staff are responsible for responding to community concerns regarding child safety and well-being. They take referrals from the State Central Registry and, depending on the nature of the allegation, they have 2 hours to 5 days to visit the home and begin an investigation/assessment. They must complete their investigation/

7 Of the 14 offices selected, nine Local Office managers were interviewed; one manager was on vacation throughout the review period, and interviews were not conducted with 3 managers despite efforts and exchanged telephone calls by both Local Office managers and the Monitor.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 31

assessment within 60 days. The caseload standard for intake staff also has two components. One component is the number of families under investigation or assessment at any given time and the other component is the number of new referrals assigned to a worker each month. When fully implemented in Phase II (by June 2009), intake workers must have total caseloads of 12 families or fewer and 8 or fewer new referrals per month. (Section III.B.1.b)
As with the permanency caseloads, the Phase I standard is based on average caseloads in an office, and by December 2008, the goal is for 95 percent of all offices to have average caseloads for intake workers that meet the two-pronged standard (Section II.E.7). As an interim standard, starting in December 2006, 42 percent of all Local Offices must have average caseloads for intake staff of 15 families or fewer and 10 or fewer new referrals per month. (Section II.E.7)
As displayed in Figure 3 on the following page, the State exceeded this first target with intake staff since July 2006. As of December 2006, 65 percent of the offices had average caseloads for intake staff at or below the standard. These data were independently verified by the Monitor as part of the previously described process. This chart is posted on the Department’s website and also indicates the progress the Department has made since March 2006. Appendix B contains a table with supporting detail for each office.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 32

Figure 3:
NJ DCF DYFS Intake Caseload Compliance By Office

Dec-06 Actual

65%

Dec-06 Target

42%

Sep-06

57%

Jul-06

60%

Mar-06

17%

0%

10%

20% 30% 40% 50%

60% 70%

% of offices meeting interim intake standard

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning, February 2007.

d. DCF achieved the December 2006 caseload target set for average caseload for adoption staff.

Adoption staff are responsible for moving children to permanency by developing adoptive resources and performing the work needed to finalize adoptions. The Modified Settlement Agreement requires the State to move away from generic permanency caseloads and to ensure that children with a goal of adoption are assigned to designated adoption workers with the exception of children who have an already established relationship with a permanency worker who is also responsible for adoption work. As of December 31, 2006, 81 percent of children in DYFS custody with a permanency goal of adoption had been assigned to an adoption worker. Adoption workers are placed in every Local Office with the exception of the three Newark Local Offices; in Newark, there is a separate Local Office handling adoption work for the entire city. (Section II.G.9)

As with the permanency and intake caseloads, by December 2008, the goal is for adoption staff in 95 percent of offices to have average caseloads of 18 or fewer children

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 33

with a subset of 60 percent of the offices achieving average caseloads of 15 or fewer families (Section II.G.18). Starting in December 2006, adoption staff in 35 percent of all Local Offices are to have average caseloads of 18 or fewer children. (Section II.G.10)
As displayed in Figure 4 below, the State far exceeded this first target with adoption staff in 65 percent of the offices having average caseloads for adoption staff at or below the standard. This information was verified by the Monitor using the previously described approach. This chart is posted on the Department’s website. Appendix B contains a table with supporting detail for each office.
Figure 4:
NJ DCF DYFS Adoption Caseload Compliance*

Dec-06 Actual

65%

Dec-06 Target

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% of offices meeting interim adoption standard

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning, February 2007. *Prior to December 2006, adoption staff were included in permanency staff numbers.

e. DCF appears to have met the benchmark for ratio of supervisors to workers through the utilization of frontline casework supervisors ( SFSS2) and the assignment of unit supervisors (SFSS1).

Supervision is a critical role in child welfare, and the span of supervisory responsibility should be limited to allow more effective individual supervision. Therefore, the Modified Settlement Agreement also establishes standards for supervisory ratios. By December 2008, 95 percent of all offices should be able to maintain a 5 worker to 1

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 34

supervisor ratio (Section II.E.8). Like the caseload standards, this standard was to be phased in starting in December 2006, with a target of 80 percent of the offices meeting the 5 to 1 ratio (Section II.E.8).

The Department has two supervisor levels. One level, Supervising Family Service Specialist 2 (SFSS2), is a direct frontline supervisor position responsible for supervising a casework unit. The field refers to this position as “supervisor” or “unit supervisor.” The second level is Supervising Family Service Specialist 1 (SFSS1). In the field, this position is referred to as “Casework Supervisor.” In general, three unit supervisors typically report to a Casework Supervisor. By combining the individuals in both supervisory levels in each office, the State appears to have met the December 2006 target with 95 percent of the offices having “sufficient supervisory staff” to maintain a 5 worker to 1 supervisor ratio (see Figure 5 below). Applying only available SFFS2 positions to compute the supervisory ratio, 61% of local offices have met the supervisory interim standard. The Department has reported that some Casework Supervisors are temporarily supervising frontline staff as the offices move to fill allocated unit supervisor (SFSS2) positions. During the next reporting period, the Monitor will review the interim assignment of SFFS1 supervisors to support direct worker supervision and will collect more information about supervisor ratios during visits to Local Offices. Appendix B contains a table with supporting detail for each office, including the number of supervisors in each level.
Figure 5:
NJ DCF DYFS Compliance With Supervisor-to-Worker Ratio

Dec-06 Target

80%

Dec-06 Actual with SFFS2 Supv. Only

61%

Dec-06 Actual with SFFS1 & SFFS2 Supv.
Combined

95%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% of offices meeting 5 worker to 1 supervisor ratio

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning, February 2007.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 35

5. Creating an Effective Human Resource Function within DCF.
a. DCF hired a new Human Resource Director.
DCF developed and filled the position of Director of Human Resources and Labor Relations (Section II.E.3). The new Director has extensive public service human resource and labor relations experience in New Jersey including twenty years in senior executive positions in the New Jersey Department of Personnel. As part of the leadership team in DCF, the new Director has helped to implement an overall hiring plan that is based on individual office need-based projections for staff. The hiring plan calls for filling 203 casework positions and 42 supervisor positions between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2007.
The positions authorized for each office are based on actual workload and the caseload standards to be achieved and sustained. The projections for July 2006 through March 2007 were reassessed in January 2007 based on the actual experience of July through December 2006, and some reallocation of new hires projected among offices took place. The DCF Human Resource Director joins the DYFS Director in weekly teleconferences with Area Office managers to review and track hiring and position vacancies against the plan and other personnel issues raised by the managers.
Typically, the bi-weekly conversations, referred to as “position control calls,” allow Area Office managers to 1) cover the steps they are taking to fill positions, including the source of candidates, interviews planned, offers to be made and likely timeframes for filling positions; 2) confirm filled positions and start dates within the previous week and ensure that Human Resources has the appropriate completed paperwork to ensure a smooth process for new hires; and 3) raise questions and problems. The Human Resources Director and staff troubleshoot and help problem solve around positions – what can and cannot be done within the New Jersey Civil Service requirements.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 36

b. Strengthening and streamlining the recruitment and hiring process
The Human Resources Director revamped the recruitment and hiring process. Previously, recruitment and hiring was entirely a local responsibility. Now it is a shared responsibility. Initial candidate screening is done by the Central Office, enabling a more uniform process. Priority is given to individuals with Bachelor and Master degrees in Social Work. Accepted candidates are invited to bi-monthly regional “job fests” where Local Office representatives are given an opportunity to meet and interview candidates. If the candidates pass these interviews, they are placed in an eligible pool according to their geographic preference and interests. Candidates stay in this pool for a year, available for Local Offices to contact and hire. As of November 2006, 400 candidates are in this pool.
Local Office managers interviewed about the recruitment and hiring process were pleased with how the process is now working. They believe they are getting good candidates to consider with the necessary skills, including bilingual capability. Some offices add an additional step by inviting candidates for a “meet and greet” orientation to help the candidates obtain a full understanding of the work. Others hire directly from the candidate pool after meeting candidates at the job fest.
However, the lists of qualified candidates for higher classified positions such as supervisory positions have been reduced since the last supervisory qualifying test was given in 2005. DCF asked the State Department of Personnel (DOP) to offer another certifying test to re-populate the list with qualified candidates. DOP is doing a job analysis to identify needed changes to the test to assure that they have a tool to assess the candidates based on the current work of DCF rather than that of two years ago. DCF, therefore, has an opportunity to ask DOP to consider and incorporate the supervisory skills required by the Case Practice Model.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 37

Retention of workers also appears to be improving. Overall, DCF reports that the attrition rate is down from 14 percent in 2004/2005 to 11 percent in the period between November 2005 and October 2006. To improve workforce stability further, DCF Human Resources is renewing efforts to complete exit interviews for all staff that leave employment. They hope these interviews will provide information on how to improve the work place and job satisfaction.

VI. APPROPRIATE PLACEMENTS AND SERVICES FOR CHILDREN

As of January 6, 2007, there were 10,379 New Jersey children in placement under the supervision of the DCF’s Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS). Figure 6 below shows the types of settings where children are placed.

Figure 6: NJ DCF DYFS Children in Placement by Placement Type (Total = 10,379, January 6, 2007, point-in-time)

Independent Living 158 2%

Group & Residential
1552 15%

Resource Family 4960 47%

Kinship 3709 36%

Source: DCF, Office of Policy and Planning, February 2007.
Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 38

1. Resource Family Recruitment, Licensing and Retention
When children cannot be maintained safely at home because they have been abused or neglected or are at risk of abuse or neglect, it is the responsibility of DYFS to remove them from their families and place them in a safe and stable alternative – if at all possible – in a family with an appropriate relative or with an approved resource family. The Modified Settlement Agreement (Section I.A) and the DCF practice model further state that when children need to be placed, efforts must be made to place them with siblings, close to their neighborhoods and schools, and with families that can, if necessary, become a permanent placement. Recruitment and retention of the appropriate array of resource families has long been a serious problem for the State. DCF spent its first six months intensively investigating and assessing the problems and barriers to resource family recruitment, licensing and retention. As a result of its findings, DCF made some key changes and is beginning to build a new infrastructure to support this work.

a. The State established a baseline of available resource family homes that separately identifies kinship and non-kinship resource homes.
To produce an accurate baseline of available resource family homes, DCF went through the arduous process of hand-counting computer-generated data on active resource family homes, distinguishing kinship from non-kinship homes. The result is shown in Table 3 below. This is a baseline only; the next monitoring period requires DCF maintain an accurate list of current kinship and non-kinship resource family homes and to create systems to set and track targets.

Table 3: Baseline of DCF Licensed Family Resource Homes as of December 31, 2006

Non kinship resource family homes (DCF licensed) Resource family homes (licensed and supervised by Babyland) Resource family homes (licensed and supervised by Tri-City) Treatment Homes (DCF licensed)

2,260 114 74 504

Total non-kinship resource family homes Kinship resource family homes

2,952 + 2,584

Total kinship and non-kinship resource family homes Source: New Jersey DCF, 2006.
Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

5,536 Page 39

b. The resource family licensing function was incorporated into DCF with the creation of the new Department in July 2006.
In order to provide clearer lines of authority and accountability for the recruitment and licensure of resource homes, the Modified Settlement Agreement requires that the function of resource family licensing be incorporated into DCF (Section II.H.1). A new Resource Family Director with more than 30 years experience in child welfare was appointed in September 2006. In October 2006, she assumed responsibility for the resource family licensing, a unit that formerly reported to the Office of Licensing (OOL) as well as for resource family recruitment and support. This important shift helped unify two divisions: Resource Family Support and Resource Family Licensing, and served as the structural change necessary to help overcome significant communication and coordination challenges previously experienced.
c. The State designated a point person for each area office to focus on resource family recruitment.
By the end of December 2006, DCF finalized the appointment of a full-time resource development person in each Area Office to serve as the point person to coordinate the recruitment and licensing support work for that area. A job description dated January 2007 for Resource Family Area Case Practice Specialists describes these point people’s primary function as a liaison between resource family units and the Office of Licensing Area Inspector. They will be responsible for the overall outcomes of all recruitment, retention, development/licensing and support of the resource families in their respective Areas. They will also be responsible for monitoring the outcomes, compliance and submission of each Local Office’s monthly targets and for monitoring tracking reports of data from resource family support workers’ home inspections. They will also make sure that all resource families in their Area are assigned to a support worker and that all databases are accurately maintained. Many of the staff are newly appointed and, therefore, not yet fully oriented to their roles. The State will need to provide intensive training and support in the next few months on job functions and performance

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 40

expectations in order for these new staff members to be effective in their jobs and to create a statewide learning network.
d. The period for processing resource family applications is expected to take no more than 150 days.
The Modified Settlement Agreement requires the State to process prospective resource families through to licensure within 150 days of application (Section II.H.4). DCF has developed an implementation plan and process (see Table 4) that establishes responsibilities with timeframes for actions so that an application can be expected to move from receipt through to licensing within 150 days. This plan became operational at the end of December 2006 and may be modified as the geographic impact teams operating in the Passaic and Atlantic Area Offices implement it and develop more information. The plan is a significant improvement over past practice in that it mandates continuous communication between the Office of Licensing and the resource family staff within DCF so that an application is not permitted to sit with unresolved issues in either the resource family support unit or licensing units without joint problem-solving, an issue identified as the primary cause of past backlogs. For example, under the new process, the home inspection is done jointly between the licensing and resource support teams so that if small corrections are needed for a home to meet licensing standards, both offices are aware and share the responsibility for addressing the licensing barriers. This was not how the system functioned in the past.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 41

Time Frame Day 1 – 7
Day 7 – 30 Day 30 – 60
Day 60 – 90
Day 90 – 95 Day 95 – 100
Day 100 – 120 Day 120 – 150 Between Day 100 – 150 Every 30 days
Concurrent to 150day licensing process

Table 4: DCF Task Plan for 150-Day Resource Home Licensing Process

Tasks

Responsibilities

• Completed application sent to OOL • Family contacted to schedule appointment and
review home study process • Resource Family Support worker and supervisor
conference

• Resource Family Supervisor (RFS)
• Resource Family Support Worker (RFSW)

• First home visit (orientation, home inspection) • References for family solicited

• RFSW • RFSW

• Second home visit (interview using SAFE home study model)
• Materials for CHRI/CARI waivers prepared and submitted, if needed

• RFSW • RFSW

• Third home visit; all interviews complete and obstacles identified/addressed
• SAFE home study report completed

• RFSW • RFSW

• SAFE home study packet approved by supervisor and sent to OOL

• Resource Family Supervisor

• OOL reviews and notifies RFSW if additional information is needed
• OOL inspection date set

• Office of Licensing (OOL) • OOL

• Joint home inspection by OOL and RFSW (must be • Joint OOL and RFSW done within 20 days of completed home study)

• Joint re-inspection if violations/issues needed to be resolved

• Joint OOL and RFSW

• License issued; all parties notified

• OOL

• Supervisory conferences • Family completes pre-service training

• Resource Family Supervisor and OOL Supervisor

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 42

e. The State created “Impact Teams” to address the backlog of homes waiting to be licensed and to better assess the obstacles to prompt and effective licensing and support.
In September 2006, under the direction of the new Resource Family Director, DCF began to develop four Impact Teams: a licensing impact team (implemented October 2006), and teams in Middlesex (implemented November 2006), Passaic (implemented December 2006), and Atlantic (implemented January 2007.) The Impact Teams are charged with:
• Completing a sample of the applications pending for more than 150 days from processing through licensing;
• Identifying potential structural challenges to completing licensing within 150 days; and
• Providing assistance to support the State’s ability to meet the targets for new resource families.
DCF plans to keep the Impact Teams in place until the majority of resource family home applications can be resolved in 150 days.
The licensing team – the first team to begin work in October 2006 – is staffed with experienced resource family central operations staff and senior licensing staff who now work in the same geographic location. The team focused on a backlog of 189 home study applications that were languishing in the Office of Licensing. Their work helped inform the development of the newly-implemented process discussed above. In addition, 75 percent (142) of the applications reviewed by the licensing Impact Team have been resolved: 94 families were licensed; 44 families have withdrawn from the process; and 4 families were denied licenses. DCF reports that the remaining 47 families have been assigned to an inspector for joint follow up by the Office of Licensing and Local Office Resource Family staff.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 43

From their review of the 189 pending resource family applications, the licensing Impact Team found critical gaps in communication between the field and licensing staff. DCF took an important step towards remedying this longstanding communications failure by shifting both the Office of Licensing and the Resource Family staff reporting to the Resource Family Director. Having both offices report to a single Director not only communicates a shared purpose but establishes a requirement for teamwork and has created incentives for eliminating communication and responsibility problems.
Due to the Impact Team’s findings, DCF made the following positive changes: • Practical solutions such as providing needed equipment to licensing inspectors to help them resolve inspection violations such as lacking batteries for smoke detectors or thermometers to take water temperature, etc. Similarly, resource family support workers now have the ability to supply homes with some of the same equipment to resolve problems in advance of the inspection. • Geographic assignments for licensing staff. Impact teams recommended that licensing inspectors be linked to Local Offices to reduce travel time and expense, a structural improvement that began in December 2006 along with the implementation of the 150-day methodology. • Process improvements, including establishing a statewide courier to deliver completed applications from the field to licensing, rather than by fax, a method that DCF determined to be inefficient in a host of ways.
These improvements are positive; however, they are foundational and suggest that DCF is still in the initial stages of the diagnostic process. The only Impact Team that has been operational for any length of time is staffed by Central Office personnel. As DCF is aware, capacity development for these issues needs to shift to the Area Offices. DCF also needs to develop a process to systemically track recommendations and improvements. Since two of the Impact Teams have just been formed, it is too soon to know what additional remedies will be required to address barriers they uncover as well as the extent to which the current improvements will have lasting influence statewide. As seen in

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 44

Figure 8 below, early indications of progress are promising as net gains in the number of licensed resource families have risen.
f. DCF ramped up its efforts to license resource family homes and is starting to show net gains.
As of December 2006, DCF reports it has a net gain of 209 licensed resource families during CY 2006 (see Figure 7). During this period, a total of 1,280 homes were licensed; 1,071 are no longer active resource homes due to adoption, death or other reasons for closure, leaving a net increase of 209 families.
Figure 7: Resource Families Licensed Net Gain/Losses by Month & Total CY 2006
250 209
200

Net Number of Homes

150

100

50

35

11 -30
0

-5J0anuary February

arch M

8 -5

April

ay M

3 June

44 32

39 35

17

20

July

AugustSeptember

OctoberNovember December

TOTAL

Months

Source: DCF Office of Policy and Planning; includes both kinship and non-kinship homes, January 2007.

In July 2006, DCF began to collect data to distinguish the number of kinship and non-kinship homes licensed each month. Table 5 on the following page provides data for July 2006 through January 2007.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 45

Table 5: Number of New Licensed Families Resource Homes
(July 2006 - January 2007)

Kinship Non-Kinship TOTAL

Jul-06

18

56

74

Aug-06

36

94

130

Sep-06

35

94

129

Oct-06

27

82

109

Nov-06

25

72

97

Dec-06

80

80

106

Jan-07

165

55

220

Total

643

222

865

Source: DCF, Office of Policy and Planning, February 2007.

g. The State established monthly targets for the number of new resource families to be licensed by each Local Office.
The Modified Settlement Agreement requires the State to have set Local Office targets for the number of new resource families to license each month by December 2006 (Section II.H.7). Table 6 shows the monthly targets that DCF established for each office in order for the State to reach the Modified Settlement Agreement’s overall target of 1,030 new homes licensed by June 2007 (Section II.H.10). These targets, which were the result of information on local capacity, serve primarily as a DCF management tool to promote and track performance. They do not appear to be based on an assessment of areas of greatest need or the specific recruitment needs for target populations. The Monitor is confident that in reaching more permanent targets for each office, the State will develop a system that takes into account specific Local Office needs and regional differences.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 46

Table 6: Resource Family Monthly Licensure Targets (January – June 2007)

Local Office Atlantic I Atlantic II Bergen Central Bergen South Burlington East Burlington West Camden Central Camden East Camden North Camden South Cape May Cumberland East Cumberland West Newark Center City Newark No East Newark South Newark West W. Essex Central W. Essex North W. Essex South Gloucester East Gloucester West Hudson South Hudson Central

Monthly Target 3 3 4 4 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3

Local Office Hudson North Hudson West Hunterdon Mercer North Mercer South Midd Cent Midd Coast Midd West Monm. South Monm. North Morris Ocean North Ocean South Passaic Central Passaic North Salem Somerset Sussex Union East Union West Union Central Warren

Monthly Target 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 4 3 3 3 2 3

Statewide Total

123

Source: New Jersey DCF, December 2006.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 47

2. Increasing the Resource Family Board Rate.

The Modified Settlement Agreement requires the State to close the gap between current resource family support rates (foster care, kinship care, and adoption subsidy) and the United States Department of Agriculture’s estimated costs of raising a child. By January 2007, the State was expected to raise rates sufficient to close the gap by 25 percent (Section II.H.15). Table 7 below provides the new rates, effective January 1, 2007.

Age of Child

Table 7: DYFS Approved Resource Family Rates,
Effective January 1, 2007

DYFS Rate 12/31/06 (STEP 0)

Revised USDA Rate CY 2005 (published
April 2006)

Difference between USDA 2005 Rate and DYFS Rate
12/31/06

Percentage of increase required to close gap 25%
by 1/1/07

Approved Increase to
Monthly Rate

Approved DYFS Rate
1/1/07

0-5

$497

$667

6-9

$534

$718

10-12

$557

$741

13-17

$609

$786

Source: DCF, DYFS.

$170 $184 $184 $177

33%

$56

$553

33%

$61

$595

33%

$61

$618

33%

$58

$667

3. Improving Access to Placements Available through the Division of Children’s Behavioral Health: Real Time Bed Tracking.

In accordance with the Modified Settlement Agreement (Section II.D.1), DCBHS instituted a real time bed-tracking system, entitled “Bed-Tracking 2,” in September 2006 to more accurately identify the number and type of specialty beds managed by the Value Options (the Contracted Systems Administrator – CSA), that are available for placement for children and youth. The purpose of this change is to improve timely access to appropriate treatment alternatives for children by more easily identifying a program with an open bed with the capacity to meet the needs of a specific child or youth. In the past, children were typically referred to multiple programs without any systematic means of identifying whether the program had an available vacancy.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 48

According to DCBHS, the Bed-Tracking 2 system provides: • Real time bed availability • Information about the number of children and youth waiting for out-of-home treatment for specific levels of care • Length of time a child/youth waits for placement—tracking time from referral to out-of-home placement • Ability to track providers’ acceptance and non-acceptance rates • Ability to track reasons children/youth are not accepted into programs • Ability for case managers to view all referrals and admission status

Through this bed-tracking system, each program receives one referral at a time and must make a decision on that referral before another child is referred to their program. The child is also referred to one program at a time; in this way fewer referral packets are created and potentially there are fewer program interviews and rejections for the child/youth.

The real time bed-tracking system also helps DCBHS monitor treatment programs’ compliance with their contract obligations. For example, if DCBHS contracts with a program to provide services to boys ages 12-17 who have a history of assaultive behavior and setting fires, but a program denies placement of a 16-year-old boy with this type of history, DCBHS can review the contract obligation with the Director of the program. Initial implementation of the system created some problems as providers needed to be sure that the information in the database about their program and capacities to provide services was correct and could be relied on by the CSA as an accurate screen for referrals. While still relatively new, DCF believes this system will help reduce the number of children placed out-of-state and reduce vacancies in residential programs.

4. Out-of-State Placement of Children.

Consistent with the DCF practice model and the desire to allow children in placement to maintain contacts with their family and community, the Modified Settlement Agreement requires the State to minimize the number of children who are placed in out-of-state congregate care

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 49

facilities (Section II.D.2) and to bring children who are placed out-of-state back to New Jersey as soon as they are ready to be “stepped down” (Section II.D.6). While recognizing that some children’s treatment needs will be better served in out-of-state facilities, the State implemented a process to monitor and prevent the inappropriate use of such placements.
a. To ensure that out-of-state congregate placement is only used when needed to meet a child’s treatment needs, the State developed an administrative process to ensure that children and youth are not placed in out-of-state congregate care, unless certain exceptions are shown.
The CSA is responsible for identifying placements for children and youth requiring outof-home treatment placements. The CSA uses the Bed-Tracking 2 system previously described to try to identify an appropriate placement in New Jersey. The CSA determines if the child or youth requires out-of-home treatment placement based on an assessment. Children and youth with highly specialized needs (such as those who set fires, those with a low IQ, those who exhibit sexual aggression, and cruelty to animals) are immediately referred to DCBHS’ Placement Services Unit (PSU). The PSU worker collaborates with the child’s team and Care Manager to identify in-state options. If no instate option is available or appropriate for the needs of the child, the PSU worker will identify out-of-state placement options as soon as possible. For all other children and youth, the CSA is initially responsible for identifying an available and appropriate placement. The CSA conducts a daily available placement search for seven days. After seven days, the PSU is alerted and acts in a consultative manner while the CSA continues a daily search for an appropriate placement. The PSU worker collaborates with the caseworker to determine if adequate supports are available to treat and maintain the child/youth in his/her current placement or at another in-state placement. The PSU begins to look for appropriate placements out-of-state when it is determined that no instate facility is available and the child’s present living situation cannot be maintained. Figure 8 on the following page shows the DCBHS placement process.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 50

Figure 8: DCBHS Placement Process For Children and Youth Requiring Treatment Providers
CSA receives referral on child/youth. Level of care determined.

For child/youth who do not meet specialty criteria. Begin search for available and appropriate specialty bed in NJ.

Day 1

For child/youth who meet “specialty” criteria, direct referral to PSU for placement. Out-of-state options may be used if most appropriate.

If no placement is found, renew search every day for total of 7 days.

Day 2 - 7

If no placement is found, PSU begins consultative assistance. Daily bed search by CSA continues for instate placement but out-ofstate options explored by PSU if present living situation cannot be maintained.

Day 7 and beyond

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 51

The State also developed an internal process to ensure high-level review and approval for decisions about placing a child/youth in an out-of-state treatment facility. With input from the Monitor, the State drafted an approval form, which asks for and records appropriate documentation about the acceptable reasons for out-of-state placement (in compliance with the Modified Settlement Agreement; Section II.D.2). In order to be approved for out-of-state placement, the child/youth 1) must be placed in a facility that is closer to his/her family than other appropriate in-state options, or 2) cannot be appropriately served by any in-state program and the out-of-state placement can appropriately meet treatment needs. The PSU manager and DCBHS director are responsible for ensuring that the PSU worker and case manager make every effort to find an appropriate in-state placement; the DCBHS Director has final approval for all out-ofstate placements.
To verify that the State has implemented the process, the Monitor reviewed all out-ofstate placement approval forms signed by the DCBHS Director for the time period of October 2006-December 2006 (approximately 62 requests). Several children/youth were placed in out-of-state placement more accessible to their families than in-state options. Many children/youth were placed out-of-state for multiple and complex factors such as an IQ below 75, fire-setting or aggressive behavior, a history of rejection from in-state programs, sexual aggression, schizoaffective disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder. A recent examination by DCBHS of the profiles of children/youth placed in-state and out-of-state for longer than six months found that low IQ and sexual aggression were significant factors in placing children/youth out-of-state. The State is attempting to address the need for more in-state treatment services by creating 60 new specialty beds for children/youth who have some of the most common challenges of children placed out-of-state in the last six months – fire setting, low IQ (55-75), assaultive behavior, and sexual aggression. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued by DCBHS seeking in-state program bids for specialty services for boys and girls age 8-12 and 15-18 and for girls age 12-18 with the behaviors previously described and those with a history of running away from placement. The RFP seeks programs that will adhere to a “no reject/no eject”

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 52

policy so that children/youth who meet a specific program’s criteria for treatment will be accepted in the program, and the program will not terminate the child/youth from the program before his/her treatment is complete.

For the most part, the Monitor found that PSU workers provided documentation with the approval form of the in-state programs that denied placement to the child/youth. Although not required by the Modified Settlement Agreement, there was no documentation that the child’s/youth’s family was aware of the placement plans other than through self-reporting by the PSU worker. Additionally, some of the approval forms failed to identify which agency or worker is ultimately responsible for the tasks in the plan to return the child/youth to the State of New Jersey.

Figure 9 shows the number of DCBHS authorized out-of-state placements for 2006 for all youth served by DCBHS. It is important to note that the Modified Settlement Agreement focuses on developing adequate in-state services and placements only for children or youth in DYFS custody (Section II.D.3), although obtaining adequate in-state services is a DCF priority for all children served by DCBHS.

Figure 9: Out-of-State Placements 2006 for All Youth Served by DCBHS

340

No. ofOut ofStatePlacements

330 320 310 300 290 280

314

325

327

322

323

326

322

304

288

280

291

297

270

260

250

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June July Month

Aug. Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Source: New Jersey DCBHS, February 2007.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 53

Table 8 below provides data regarding the number of new out-of-state placements since October 1, 2006 for all New Jersey children served by DCBHS and separately identifies those children in DYFS custody. In October 2006, DCF began to collect data to separately look at children/youth placed within 50 miles of New Jersey and children/ youth involved with DYFS. Beginning in January 2007, the monthly data will be further refined to reflect the children/youth who returned to New Jersey (exited the out-of-state placement). Eighty-nine percent (89%) of youth placed out-of-state since October 2006 were treated within a 50 mile radius of New Jersey.

Month October 2006

Table 8:

New Placements Out-of-State

(October – December 2006)

Number of

Number

Out-of-State Within 50 miles of

Placements

NJ

13

11

Number in DYFS Custody
5

November 2006

28

26

9

December 2006

21

18

7

Total

62

55

21

Source: New Jersey DCBHS

b. The state developed a methodology for identifying children in custody in out-of-state congregate care who are potentially ready to return to New Jersey and step down to a lower level of care.

In accordance with the Modified Settlement Agreement (Section II.D.6), the State developed an administrative process for identifying children/youth who are placed out-ofstate and who may be ready to return to New Jersey and “step down” to a lower level of care.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 54

Every month, DCBHS generates a list of children/youth placed out-of-state and highlights those who may be appropriate for step down. Youth are identified for step down by consensus of the case manager, provider, and CSA, or if the child’s length of stay exceeds one standard deviation of the mean length of stay. Every 90 days, each of the three staff members involved is expected to indicate on the electronic treatment plan whether the child/youth is ready to be discharged from the current program and stepped down. When any one of the three parties directly involved in the child/youth’s care – the case manager, the provider or the CSA – feel that the child/youth is step-down ready, s/he is placed on a “three button” report generated by DCBHS. DCBHS team leaders consult directly with the case management entity to explore if the child/youth is step-down ready and, if so, to identify barriers, action steps and strategies for transitioning youth.

5. Youth in Juvenile Detention Post-Disposition.

a. The State developed an automated system for tracking youth in juvenile detention facilities post-disposition and awaiting placement.
A longstanding problem is the continued placement of children/youth in juvenile detention facilities post-disposition – youth who remain in these detention facilities solely because they are awaiting an appropriate placement. One of the barriers to moving children/youth out of detention quickly was the lack of a systematic process to identify and track youth and to use information about their needs to identify appropriate resources. Through the Modified Settlement Agreement (Section II.D.3), the State committed to implement an automated system by December 2006 to identify youth in DYFS custody being held in juvenile detention facilities post-disposition and to ensure that each youth is appropriately placed within 30 days of disposition.

The automated system was pilot-tested in the spring 2006 and was fully operational by the early fall 2006. DYFS court liaisons and key staff from the Case Management Organizations (CMOs) and Youth Case Management Organizations (YCMs) received

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 55

training by the Central Office staff on how to use an electronic tracking form. Tracking and processes put in place to find appropriate placements produced the desired outcome. Based on DCF data for children/youth in DYFS custody in detention post-disposition in January 2007, no child waited more than 30 days for a placement. In subsequent months, these data will be examined by the Monitor to ensure that the results are maintained.
6. DCF Incorporated the Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU) to Investigate Allegations of Maltreatment for Children in Placement.
The new DCF organization includes the Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU), which was formerly housed under DHS (Section II.I.1). IAIU is responsible for investigating allegations of abuse and neglect in any out-of-home care setting. This includes foster care placement settings as well as correctional, detention and treatment facilities, schools (public or private), residential schools, shelters, hospitals, camps or day care centers that are licensed or should be licensed, resource family homes and registered family day care homes. 8 In 2006, IAIU received 3,777 referrals.
To date, the organizational structure of IAIU has not changed since its move to DCF. It is comprised of a Central Office and four regional investigative offices – Northern, Southern, Central and Metropolitan. A Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) unit is part of the Central Office organization. The purpose of IAIU’s investigative effort is to determine whether children in out-of-home care settings have been abused or neglected9 and to ensure their safety by requiring corrective actions to eliminate the risk of future harm. IAIU leadership reports that all of the investigators will receive the First Responder training by June 2007. The IAIU supervisors are also attending the DYFS supervisor training. In the coming months, DCF leadership intends to focus more attention on the scope, organization, and staffing of IAIU and during the next monitoring period, the Monitor will more fully assess IAIU operations.

8 DYFS (7-1-1992). IAIU Support Operations Manual, III E Institutional Abuse and Neglect, 302. 9 As defined by statute at N.J.S.A. 30:40C-12 or 9:6-8.21.
Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 56

VI. MEETING THE HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH CARE NEEDS OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH
The Modified Settlement Agreement emphasizes the important and urgent need for DCF to do a better job meeting the health and mental health needs of children and youth in their care and requires the State by June 2007, to have developed a statewide coordinated system of health care for children and youth in out-of-home care. The Commissioner and his staff committed to developing and implementing a new comprehensive medical health care model for children and youth in care that will provide for a pre-placement assessment, comprehensive medical examinations within 60 days of a child entering care (similar to the current CHEC model, which provides for a 4-6 hour physical, developmental, and mental health assessment), a case management component that ensures children/youth who require follow up care receive these services, and annual medical and dental check-ups. Further, the medical care model will ensure that all children in care have some type of medical passport that follows them in placement and provides continuity of care when they return home or move to a permanent placement.
At this point, the State is undertaking a variety of activities to assess the current delivery of health care services and to seek input on the design of the new model. Activities to date include discussions with Medicaid and Department of Health staff; meetings with key stakeholders including nurses currently contracted to provide some of the pre-placement exams in nonemergency room settings and monitor medically fragile children; and discussions with existing CHEC facilities and providers. State staff are assessing whether there are additional potential health care resources and data tracking capacities available through the Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) that exist across the State. Over the next three to six months, the Monitor will work closely with DCF officials as they complete their analysis and develop more specific ideas and implementation plans for an improved medical care system for the children/youth in their care.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 57

1. Assessment of DCBHS System of Care.

Under the Modified Settlement Agreement, the State committed to complete an assessment, by December 2006, of the continuum of services needed to best meet the needs of children and families served by DCBHS (Section II. C.1). This assessment is intended to inform the development of mental health and behavioral health care services over the next few years.

Two reports recently completed have provided DCBHS with insight into their current array of services for children and families. The reports include an assessment of the New Jersey Children’s Behavioral Health Care System, dated October 2006. This report was commissioned in response to a recommendation of a Task Force on Mental Health Services, established by Governor Codey in 2004 and was conducted by the University of South Florida.10 The report provides a broad evaluation of how the current child behavioral health system functions and offers recommendations for continued improvement. Service need was one area that this report explored. The researchers recommended the development of specialty services for children with dual diagnoses (mental health and developmental delays) and children with a history of setting fires or sexual aggression. As mentioned previously, DCF recently issued an RFP for specialty services to meet the needs of these children. The report also includes recommendations about specific ways to improve assessments, governance structures of the system of care, and involvement of families in all levels of decision making.

DCF commissioned another study11 to create empirically grounded estimates of the continuum of services needed to meet the treatment needs of children and adolescents accessing treatment in New Jersey’s System of Care. Dr. John Lyons of Northwestern University’s Mental Health Services and Policy Program conducted this study. Dr. Lyons analyzed data on service needs and experiences of children and youth currently in the system to estimate what quantity of
10 Final Report: Independent Assessment of New Jersey’s Children’s Behavioral Health Care System, October 5, 2006, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida, October 5, 2006.
11 Empirically Estimating the Level and Type of Behavioral Health Services Required to Meet the Needs of Children and Families in New Jersey’s System of Care, New Jersey Department of Children and Families Division of Child Behavioral Health Services, December 2006.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 58

services are needed at the various levels of care. His overall conclusion, which mirrored an earlier DCBHS needs assessment using a completely different methodology, was that “youth may be well-served at more community integrated levels of care than the System of Care currently provides.”12 The implication of this assessment is that additional treatment home capacity is needed and that the Department needs to develop a clear model and delivery system for treatment foster care.
In addition to the formal reports, the DCBHS Director sponsored a series of public meetings around the State to gain input on the DCBHS System of Care and future strategic directions. DCF leadership and the DCBHS Director are now using the findings of these reports and their assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the existing system to decide next steps. Options under consideration include administrative changes, changes to the System of Care case management functions and providers and the development of new service models, including a clinical model for treatment foster care.
2. DCF Hired a Chief Medical Officer.
The Modified Settlement Agreement requires the new Department of Children and Families to hire a new Chief Medical Officer by August 2006 (Section II.F.1). A Chief Medical Officer, a pediatrician with expertise in epidemiology was hired June 1, 2006. The Chief Medical Officer is responsible for providing individual case consultation, approving the administration of psychotropic drugs, and emergency consultation. Other duties include conferring with DCF senior staff on health and health care issues, reviewing and creating policies and procedures related to health care issues and services, supervising the nursing unit, and participating in the Child Fatality and Near Fatality Board reviews.

12 Ibid., p. 2.
Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 59

3. Pre-Placement Medical Assessment.
DCF data support that all children entering out-of-home care are routinely receiving preplacement assessment, but there is wide variability in the extent to which they are performed in non-emergency settings, in what the examination entails, and in who sees the child (Nurses or Doctors). The goal of the pre-placement assessment is to perform a quick check-up of the child, assess for any communicable diseases, and determine any medication that may need to be continued or administered.
Under the Modified Settlement Agreement, all children entering placement are expected to have a pre-placement medical assessment in a setting other than an emergency room (Section II.F.2). Removal of children from their homes is always a traumatic experience, and the intent of this requirement is not to add to the trauma by subjecting a child to examination in a hospital emergency facility. The Modified Settlement Agreement establishes progressive targets for meeting this goal. Beginning January 2007, 70 percent of children entering out-of-home care are to have their assessment in a setting other than an emergency room; by June 2007, the target is raised to 90 percent of children. According to DCF data, 67 percent of children received preplacement assessment in non-emergency settings in October 2006 and 70 percent in November 2006. December 2006 data are not yet available.
DCF leadership is focusing on pre-placement assessments in its work with Local Offices, through data collection and tracking as well as through individual problem solving to address barriers. Because of unique county characteristics, there is no “one-size fits all” solution to providing pre-placement assessments. However, the Central Office has worked with Local and Area Offices to find solutions to reduce the number of emergency room pre-placement assessments in non-emergency room settings. For example, in Essex County, there was a significant problem of workers taking children to emergency rooms for assessments after business hours. The Central Office collaborated with nurses in Essex County, and a nurse now is available to provide pre-placement assessments at a local clinic from 7-11:00 pm. This strategy

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 60

will be evaluated for its effectiveness in reducing the use of emergency rooms setting for these assessments.
4. Data on Health Care Services.
New Jersey law and policy requires the State provide children entering out-of-home care with pre-placement assessments, full medical exams within 60 days of entering out-of-home care, annual medical exams in accordance with EPSDT guidelines, semi-annual dental exams for children age 3 years and older, mental health assessments, and all identified follow-up care. Recognizing that DCF had much work to create the service and data tracking systems to ensure appropriate delivery of health care services, the Modified Settlement Agreement requires that in 2006, the State shall provide such care to the best of its ability and document provisions of such care (Section II.F.2). Using data collected in 2006, by April 2007, the State and the Monitor will develop both the baseline and future performance targets for improved health care delivery.
DCF gathered data from a variety of sources to inform the upcoming work to establish a baseline for provision of medical and dental services for 2007 and thereafter. Data sources include a random statewide sample of 260 children in care for one year and a random statewide sample of 294 children in care during the months of April – June 2006. Other data sources being reviewed include data extracts from the Quality Service Reviews (QSR) and Child and Family Service Review (CFSR) performed in 2005 and 2006, a 2005 report by the Office of the Child Advocate on CHEC examinations and follow-up health care and CHEC provider reports. The DCF senior staff are in the process of analyzing these data. DCF intends to collaborate with the Office of the Child Advocate to review these data and will work with the Court Monitor to set the baseline and establish future performance targets.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 61

VIII. PERMANENCY PLANNING AND ADOPTION

Along with assuring children’s safety, child welfare agencies must work vigilantly to provide every child with a chance to live and thrive in a family, whether their own through safe reunification, an adoptive family, or in the permanent legal custody of an appropriate kinship family. In New Jersey, as in other states, too many children have languished in foster care without the attainment of a permanent home.

The Modified Settlement Agreement requires the implementation of a new permanency practice in DYFS to make sure decisions about children’s lives are timely and appropriate and are carried out through high quality reunification, permanency and adoption practices across the State. During this monitoring period, the State was to reconstitute adoption units within Local Offices and assign children with a permanency goal of adoption to adoption workers with the capacity and expertise to assure them permanent families. In addition, the State was to develop and begin implementing a series of practices to promote permanency from the first day that a child enters DCF custody. The Modified Settlement Agreement requirements for this monitoring period related to permanency planning and adoption are discussed below.

1. DYFS Created Adoption Units in Local Offices and Successfully Transitioned Cases of Children with a Permanency Goal of Adoption to Adoption Workers.
For nearly 20 years, Adoption Resource Centers (ARCs) were responsible for ensuring timely finalization of adoption for children and youth in New Jersey. While the ARC system had several strengths, due to significant administrative complications, numerous children and youth with the goal of adoption were delayed in having their cases transferred to the ARCs. Under the original Settlement Agreement of 2003, the ARCs were dismantled with the intent that permanency workers with the assistance of adoption specialists would handle all adoption cases. This restructuring proved challenging, due in part to the lack of adoption expertise of permanency workers, high caseloads, and the failure to preserve and/or build adoption expertise in the newly-created adoption specialist positions. Beginning in 2006, adoption units were created in all Local offices with the exception of Newark, which has an adoption office that

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 62

handles the finalization of adoptions for children from three local Newark offices. At the end of December 2006, 81 percent of children statewide with a goal of adoption, were transferred and being served by adoption workers. Non-adoption permanency workers still carry some cases of children moving toward adoption but DCF staff report that based on their interactions with Local Offices, in most instances these specific situations are exceptions allowed by the Modified Settlement Agreement, due to previously-established relationships with the permanency workers. Thus, in the Monitor’s view, the Department is meeting the Modified Settlement Agreement requirement (Section II.G.9) that children with a permanency goal of adoption be assigned to qualified adoption workers.
Designated adoption workers exist for each Local Office, and cases are to be transferred to them within five days of a child’s permanency hearing. Concurrent planning specialists have been hired to support adoption practice in all Area Offices. These specialists provide expertise in concurrent planning practice, assist with decisions made on cases, track progress towards adoption, and monitor compliance with 5-month and 10-month review hearing protocols. Currently, as required by the Modified Settlement Agreement (Section II.G.9), a three-day training session is provided to all new adoption workers (the New Adoptive Worker Training). The Office of Adoption Operations is responsible for conducting this training. DCF trained 91 new and existing adoption workers by December 2006 in training held in Monmouth, Camden and Middlesex counties; 51 additional workers were trained in January 2007 in training held in Essex and Ocean counties. According to the State, all adoption workers have received the New Adoptive Worker Training (a curriculum modified from the original ARC training) at some point over the last several years. The Office of Adoption Operations sends rosters of trained adoption workers to NJWTA, which maintains the information in a statewide database. The Monitor has not independently verified these data and will do so in the next monitoring period.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 63

2. The State Finalized the Adoption of 1,387 Children in Calendar Year 2006, Exceeding the Modified Settlement Agreement Target of 1,100 Adoptions.
This is an extremely positive and noteworthy accomplishment, which reflects the hard and focused efforts of individuals at all levels of DCF, working in cooperation with resource families and Judges across the State.
Figure 10 below provides historical data on the number of adoptions finalized in Calendar Years 2002 through 2006.
Figure 10: Number of Adoptions Finalized in CY 2002 through 2006

No. of Finalized Adoptions

1,500
1,400 1,266
1,300

1,418

1,200

1,100
1,000
900 2002

1,014

2003

2004 Calendar Years

Source: New Jersey DCF, February 2007.

1,315 2005

1,387 2006

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 64

3. The State Created Adoption Impact Teams.
In December 2006, DYFS created Adoption Impact Teams (under the direction of the statewide Adoption Director) to find permanent homes for the 100 longest-waiting youth as of November 2006 who are legally free with adoption as their permanency goal. The children on the list are primarily teenage African American males. The Adoption Impact Teams consist of five DYFS employees experienced in adoption recruitment or placement work. Impact Team staff are physically located around the State in areas with the highest number of waiting children but are a part of the Central Office of Adoption Operations. The Impact Team members (also referred to as Impact recruiters) are charged with assisting the longest waiting children but also with identifying common barriers to adoption and developing strategies to address them. Team members will receive additional child-specific recruitment training in early summer 2007.
Each Impact recruiter is assigned to work with approximately 20 youth in concert with the child’s Adoption worker and the child. The children will be featured in the 2007 Heart Gallery of New Jersey, a recruitment program where children available for adoption have their pictures taken by professional photographers. Recruitment supervisors will review the efforts of the Impact recruiters on a monthly basis. Impact Team members will meet once a month for training, brainstorming and to share resources.
In addition, the State has designated 13 child-specific recruiters to work with the twelve Area Offices to find adoptive placements for children who are legally free for adoption but with no adoptive home identified.13 These 13 child-specific recruiters and the five Impact recruiters received child-specific recruitment training in the summer 2006. DCF plans to provide this group with ongoing training in 2007.

13 The Middlesex/Monmouth Area Office has two assigned child-specific recruiters.
Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 65

4. DCF Developed Plans to Address the Adoption Backlog in Local Offices with the Highest Numbers of Children Awaiting an Adoptive Home.
Despite the positive work and adoption outcomes this year, DCF continues to face a great challenge in reducing the “backlog” of cases where children are legally free for adoption, but the adoption has not been finalized. As of December 31, 2006, there remain 1,919 children who are legally free whose adoption has not been finalized. This number declined from 2,260 children in January 2006 to 2,154 children in September 2006, to 1,919 children in December 2006. Figure 11 below shows DCF data on the status of the 1919 legally free children awaiting adoption as of December 31, 2006. As illustrated, at least 402 children require adoptive home recruitment; over 1,100 children are awaiting completion of a home study and finalized adoption packet for an already identified resource, and slightly more than 300 children are awaiting a court hearing to finalize their adoption.
Figure 11: NJDCF
Legally Free Children Awaiting Adoption As of December 2006 Total = 1919
Awaiting Court Hearing 17%
Awaiting Decision by Current Foster/Kinship
Family 3%

Awaiting Adoptive Home 21%

Awaiting Home Study & Packet Finalization
59%

Source: DCF, December 2006.
Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 66

In order to better understand the delays in adoption, each Local Office was asked to assess barriers for backlogged cases in which a child was legally free for more than 90 days, and not in a finalized adoption.

The assessment of the “Adoption Backlog” was completed in September 2006, at which time Local Offices reported that there were 1,113 legally free children and youth waiting more than 90 days for a finalized adoptive home. Three hundred ten (35%) of the children were in Essex County and an additional 119 (11%) children in Union County. The Local Offices identified timely completion of consent materials as the principal barrier to adoption for almost 40 percent of these cases. Table 10 below shows the number of cases identified by their principal barrier.

Table 10: Principal Barrier to Adoption for Legally Free Children Waiting More than 90 Days* (September 2006)

Primary Barrier

No. of Cases

Timely Completion of Consent Materials

442

Completion of Home Study

280

Completion of ICPC (out-of-state) Study

37

Criminal History/Child Abuse Clearance (CHRI/CARI issue)

61

Require Facilitation of Decision Making

96

on Adoption Plan

Require Recruitment of an Adoptive Home

197

TOTAL:

1113**

Source: DYFS Local Office Assessments

*Staff were to identify primary barrier per case although a case could have more than one barrier.

**As of September 2006, the total number of legally free children was 2,154 although by December

2006, it dropped to 1,919 (see Figure 12) and by January 2007, is reported to be at 1,861 children.

According to Office of Adoptions Operations, the difference between 2,154 children legally free for

adoption in September 2006 and the 1,113 children assessed for barriers is accounted for as follows: 550

children were placed in adoptive homes and 491 children were legally free less than 90 days or were in

the final stages of the adoptions process.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 67

Based on these assessments, the Office of Adoption Operations is working with the Local Offices to create strategies to alleviate the primary barriers identified. Specifically, four counties (Essex, Union, Ocean and Burlington) required additional resources to assist in preparing the adoption consent materials. DYFS has since designated one-half of its federal Adoption Incentive Award ($243,000) to support “adoption expeditors” who will write child summaries, assemble necessary packets, write court reports, and perform other administrative tasks. These expeditors, under contract with the Children’s Home Society, are scheduled to operate from January 22, 2007 through September 30, 2007. The number of expeditors assigned per county is: Essex (4), Union (2), Ocean (1), and Burlington (1). The primary barrier identified in Middlesex County was the completion of the home study and, thus, the plan for those Local Offices is to have the completion of these studies become part of the resource family Impact Team process.
5. Increasing Staff Supports to Facilitate Adoption Activities.
The Modified Settlement Agreement requires the State, by December 2006, to increase staff support in two specific ways to promote successful adoption outcomes. The first is to designate a resource family recruiter in each Local Office to conduct child-specific recruitment for children with a goal of adoption awaiting families (Section II.G.8. The second is to provide paralegal support and child summary writer support for adoption staff in Local Offices (Section II.G.5). DCF fulfilled these requirements to support staff in finding homes for children awaiting adoption and in addressing the paperwork necessary to complete the adoption process.
As of December 2006, the State designated a resource family recruiter for each Area Office to conduct child-specific recruitment for children with a goal of adoption who are waiting for families. To support their work, the State developed a “Child-Specific Recruitment Plan” form. This form is designed to guide the recruitment team (permanency/adoption worker, supervisor, and recruiter) in their work with children who are not yet legally free and with children who are legally free.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 68

The State also hired paralegals and child case summary writers to support the Local Office adoption staff. There are currently 73 paralegals in the Local Offices who formerly had been contract employees but were made State employees with the creation of DCF. Contracts exist for 55 additional temporary paralegal positions; some of which may be converted to full-time state employees. Thirty-six of the 55 positions are currently filled. Finally, DCF contracted for 23 child care summary writers in various Local Offices; five were recently placed in offices that needed the most help.
6. DCF is Working to Implement an Adoption Tracking System That Sets and Monitors Adoption Targets. An Adoption Tracking Form Was Created That Requires Local Offices to Evaluate Their Milestones and Finalizations in Adoption on a Monthly Basis and Forecast Milestones and Finalizations for the Next Month.
The Office of Adoption Operations sends out a monthly Adoption Milestone and Forecasting Report to each Local Office. The report identifies adoption placements and finalizations achieved that month. If the milestones achieved fall below the number forecasted, the Local Office is directed to predict, on a case-level basis, the new projected date for the milestone to be achieved and provide an explanation for the delay. By collecting this information from the Local Office on a monthly basis, DYFS leadership believes more accurate targets are set and there is greater accountability for work toward completion. The data collection tool requires the Local Offices to actively monitor the status of each adoption case.
In addition, the State has designed an automated Adoption Process Tracking form called the DYFS Concurrent Planning Tracking Tool. The tracking form is filled out by the concurrent planning specialist with information obtained from the SIS and NJ SPIRIT systems and from caseworkers. While the form as developed satisfies the Modified Settlement Agreement requirement to track completion of key permanency planning and adoption milestones as outlined in Section II.G.4., it does not, in the Monitor’s view, adequately support the Department’s concurrent planning focus. Specifically, any reference to reunification as a goal is missing. In order to align with the values and goals of concurrent planning, the Monitor encourages DYFS to consider also tracking data relevant to successful family reunification.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 69

7. By December 2006, the State of New Jersey Designed a Concurrent Planning Model to be Demonstrated in Ten Sites That Includes 5- and 10-Month Permanency Reviews.
The Modified Settlement Agreement requires the Department to improve concurrent permanency planning and adoption practice (Section II.G.1 and 2). Particularly, DYFS must begin the process earlier of identifying and supporting permanent living arrangements for children and youth who are unable to reunify with their parents. In response to this goal, DYFS created a new Concurrent Planning “Enhanced Review” Model for implementation in 10 demonstration sites beginning January 2007. This Model outlines the key meetings at various stages of case processing and provides checklists for workers delineating their permanency planning responsibilities at each point in the life of a case.

The concurrent planning focus begins when a child enters out-of-home placement and requires a pre-placement conference within 72 hours of a child’s removal. Participants in this meeting include the casework supervisor, supervisor, caseworker, parents and other interested parties. The purpose of this meeting is to begin family engagement and a “full disclosure” discussion. Placement options for the child are discussed, relatives identified, and visitation is planned.

The Model also includes a 30-day supervisory review (that ensures that the case plan developed addresses the need for placement and that the concurrent planning process has begun) and a 90day staff review to examine the likelihood of reunification and assess the steps made toward permanency, including the appropriateness of the child’s current placement as a permanent placement.

For children remaining in care, the Model includes the enhanced review at five months. This review involves the administrative placement reviewer, area concurrent planning specialist, supervisor, caseworker, parents, child (if age appropriate), caregivers, and other interested parties. According to the Model, this review will “focus on progress made in achieving the case plan, including the completion of key permanency tasks (such as searches for missing parents); review parent’s compliance with services and progress towards reunification; review the effectiveness of services already provided and identify additional service needs of the child,

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 70

family or resource family; review the appropriateness and stability of the child’s placement and verify that the home is licensed. This review is also meant to facilitate the identification of cases for early reunification, early adoption or Kinship Legal Guardianship.”14

For children remaining in care at 10 months, there is a required placement review to be held in preparation for the permanency hearing in court. After this review, a decision is made to either provide more time for reunification to the parent(s) because of improved circumstances and likelihood of reunification (an exception to ASFA) or to recommend the Termination of Parental Rights (TPR). This review has two parts—a family discussion (involving the family, caseworker, supervisor, casework supervisor, caretaker, and other interested parties) and a litigation conference involving casework and legal staff as preparation for moving forward with Kinship Legal Guardianship or Termination of Parental Rights. If a decision is made to change the child’s goal to adoption, an adoption worker is assigned to the case, but does not formally take on the case until after the permanency hearing. The permanency worker is responsible for introducing the adoption worker to the child and caregiver. Any remaining tasks required to be completed by the permanency worker before the permanency hearing are identified at this time. After the post-permanency hearing, the case is required to be transferred to the adoption worker within five days and a child-specific recruitment plan must be completed within 30 days. A guardianship petition (the Termination of Parental Rights petition) must be filed within 45 days of the permanency hearing. Missing from this Model is the requirement to assign a recruiter for children moving toward adoption who lack an identified adoptive home (Section II.G.2.b.iv).

The Concurrent Planning Model as described meets nearly all of the requirements for a permanency planning process laid out in the Modified Settlement Agreement (Section II.G.2a-f). State policy requires that the consent package for the adoption of children by foster or relative parents be completed within 90 days after parental rights are terminated (Section II.G.2.e).15 Further, DCF is required to hold monthly reviews with the adoption worker, supervisor and Area Office to evaluate the progress on identifying an adoptive family (Section II.G.2.f). The requirements are included in the job descriptions of the adoption specialists, concurrent planning

14 DYFS Draft Concurrent Planning Handbook, December 2006. 15 Field Operations Casework Policy and Procedures Manual, Sections 1208.10 and 1209.1.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 71

specialists and child-specific recruiters for the 100 longest-waiting children. They are not yet established in policy as the Department is anticipating that changes will be made as a result of the pilot sites’ experience. After the concurrent planning model is tested and refined, DYFS intends to locate all of the relevant requirements and responsibilities in one document (e.g., the concurrent planning policy manual) and in relevant policy.
The Monitor has encouraged DCF to review the concurrent planning processes for congruence with the newly developed Case Practice Model. The concurrent planning model specifically involves families at three different reviews (the pre-placement, 5-Month, and 10-Month). The demonstration sites should be encouraged to hold family team meetings at all key decision points in addition to the specified reviews.
Ten demonstration sites were selected for implementation of the new permanency practices based on the local leadership’s interest, a strong foundation for family engagement, and geographic diversity. These demonstrations sites are Bergen South, Passaic North, Hudson Central, Sussex, Essex North, Somerset, Monmouth North, Mercer North, Atlantic and Salem counties.
Because the concurrent planning model represents a significant change in practice for staff, DYFS leadership intends to work intensively with participating offices. DYFS has filled all the concurrent planning and adoption positions in these sites. Further, DYFS has contracted with two of the concurrent planning trainers to serve as coaches to the concurrent planning specialists to help build skills in areas such as having “full disclosure” conversations with parents. The progress of these 10 demonstration sites will be evaluated in six months. Expanding the implementation of the model to the rest of the State will happen after the model is evaluated and refined.
DCF and DYFS leadership plan to meet with judges and resource family constituencies about the revised permanency planning practices and the expectations of demonstration sites. Additional resources will be allocated to these sites to be used for local contracts, which will provide

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 72

support to staff on clinical skills necessary for good family engagement. The contract agency may also be responsible for some family team meetings and provide increased visitation services for families.
VIII. ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF ACCURATE DATA
Throughout this report, a consistent theme is the Department’s work to generate timely and accurate data and to use that information for planning and management purposes. The effective use of data for communications and for accountability is a priority strategy for the Departmental leadership. The Modified Settlement Agreement reinforces this interest in several ways, including:
• The development and publication of accurate data on key indicators of system performance;
• The system-wide use of management reporting based on the “Safe Measures” reporting system; and
• Continued work to develop, test and implement New Jersey SPIRIT – the State's automated child welfare information system (SACWIS).
Each of these is discussed separately below:
1. DCF Developed and Published on Its Website an Initial Set of Performance Indicators and Continues to Expand and Refine Its Presentation of Accurate Data.
Beginning in August 2006, the Modified Settlement Agreement required the State to identify an initial set of indicators, ensure the accuracy of those indicators, and to publish the indicator data (II.J.1). It further requires the State to progressively increase the number of indicators for which it can provide accurate data to the public (II.J.3).

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 73

The DCF website (www.state.nj.us/dcf) now publishes data, at least quarterly on the following
indicators:
• Demographic Data o Licensed Foster and Adoptive Families o Child Caseload o Placement Caseload o Children in Out-of-State Placement o Families under DYFS Supervision o Comparison of Children Entering and Exiting Out-of-Home Care o Age of Children in DYFS Out-of-Home Placement o Hotline Referrals o Child Protective Referrals by Source o Family Service Requests by Source
• Child Behavioral Health Data o DCBHS Authorized Out-of-State Placements
• Workforce and Caseload Data o Staff Trained o Separation Rate for Caseload Carrying Staff o Intake Caseloads o Permanency Caseloads o Caseload by DYFS Local Office
• Outcome Data o Adoptions – Comparative Data from 2000 to 2006 o Finalized Adoptions as of January 2007 o Subsidized Adoptions – Comparative Data from 2000 to 2006 o Total Legally Free Children Awaiting Adoption o Longitudinal Data from the Chapin Hall Center for Children  Length of Stay for Children in Out-of-Home Placement  Re-entry to Out-of-Home Care  Siblings Placed Together
DCF has progressively added indicators and continues to move forward to increase the range,
accuracy and timeliness of its indicator reporting. The Monitor suggests that the next set of high
priority indicators to be added to the website include:
• Demographic Data o Children’s demographics (e.g. sex, race, age) for in-home and out-of-home cases o Reasons for entering and exiting out-of-home care o Type of placements

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 74

• State Central Register (SCR) Referral Data o Type and disposition of referrals o Outcomes of investigations/assessments o Timeliness of investigations/assessments
• IAIU Investigations Data o New investigations o Pending investigations o Backlog
Ultimately, the Department’s goal is to publish accurate and timely data not only on process
indicators but on outcomes for the children and families it serves.

2. “Safe Measures” is Accessible to All Staff and All Staff Are Trained to Use the System

By September 2006, the Department was to initiate management reporting based on the “Safe Measures” system (Section II.J.2 and II.E.4). “Safe Measures” is an automated case tracking and workflow tool that is now accessible to all staff and can be used by both staff and managers to monitor their workload and track case status and progress. Each DYFS staff member can generate reports from “Safe Measures” from their own desk-top computers. The DCF “Safe Measures’ Team trained all the existing staff in how to use the system. It can be used to look at caseload assignments and completion of key case-processing activities, such as case plan development, monthly visits with families etc. Actual use varies both by worker and by office managers. Some use it frequently and effectively; those who do use it find it to be a very userfriendly and useful tool. Workers are identifying and correcting data input errors in the SIS system as a result of using “Safe Measures.”

3. The State Is Making Progress and Is on Track for Implementation of New Jersey SPIRIT.

Over the past several years, New Jersey moved toward the development and implementation of an automated child welfare information system that meets federal SACWIS requirements and provides a case management tool for workers with greatly increased functionality for management and reporting including resource and financial management. DCF was expected to

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 75

complete Release 2 Phase 1 of NJ SPIRIT by July 2006 (Section II.J.4) and continue its work toward the full development and implementation of the system.

Release 2 Phase 1 was completed in June 2006 and includes four elements: • Litigation forms are now on-line and available to DYFS workers and Deputy Attorney Generals (DAGs); • Resource Family Recruitment events can be tracked on-line; • On-line policy is available through the NJ SPIRIT desktop; and • All staff have view-only access to NJ SPIRIT, allowing them to learn how to log on and get comfortable with navigating an on-line system.

Since the release of Phase 1, work continued toward the Phase 2 release this summer, which includes the case management, and resource and financial management components. Management for the NJ SPIRIT work shifted to a senior member of the DCF leadership team in November 2006, and DCF senior management as a whole closely tracks NJ SPIRIT progress against a detailed work plan and timetable. By the end of December 2006, much of the work focused on customization of the software to reflect DYFS case management and business practices and extensive testing of functions by potential users. Simultaneous to the development work on NJ SPIRIT, is work to ensure the accuracy of the existing data that will be converted to NJ SPIRIT once it is operational.

Given the enormity of the effort and the experience of multiple States who have now implemented SACWIS systems, New Jersey made several important decisions. First, is ensuring that end users (meaning front-line staff and policy and program staff) are closely involved in all of the application development and testing. Second is the decision to roll out the system initially in one area of the State as an operational pilot. This deployment will begin in April 2007. (It was originally scheduled for March 2007 but was moved back one month to avoid any possible disruptions in end of the quarter fiscal and programmatic reporting). During the pilot period from April to June, 2007, it is inevitable, based on other States’ experiences, that additional problems will be identified. The Department anticipates that the pilot experience will result in

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 76

modifications that can be more easily made before full deployment to the remainder of the State in July 2006.
While the work goes on to develop and test the system, the Department is also taking steps to get workers ready to accept the new technology. This is being done in part through worker training and access now to “Safe Measures” which is teaching them how to manage their caseload activities through a computerized system. It is also being supported through the NJ SPIRIT knowledge web, which is already operational, keeps staff informed about progress, and is working to improve staff readiness to use NJ SPIRIT.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page 77

APPENDIX A: New Jersey Department of Children and Families*

* Table of Organization at http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/DCF_TO_2.16.07_M.pdf.
Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page A-1

APPENDIX B Caseload and Supervisory Ratio Detail for Local Offices Appendix B contains four tables with local office detail for caseloads of permanency, intake and adoption workers and the number of Local Office supervisors.

Table B-1:
Number of Families,* Children Placed and Assignments Permanency Workers December 2006

Local Office

Number of Available Permanency Workers

Atlantic

34

Bergen Central

18

Bergen South

30

Burlington East

30

Burlington West

24

Camden Central

37

Camden East

33

Camden North

42

Camden South

27

Cape May

23

Cumberland West

35

Essex Central

47

Essex North

21

Essex South

29

Newark Center City

28

Newark Northeast

50

Newark South

44

Gloucester East

20

Gloucester West

20

Hudson Central

21

Hudson North

17

Hudson South

21

Families
493 231 437 449 380 330 568 455 411 307 589 595 469 432 641 536 978 226 247 435 292 361

Office Summary

Average Number of
Families
15 13 15 15 16 9 17 11 15 13 17 13 22 15 23 11 22 11 12 21 17 17

Children Placed
186 82 186 172 92 134 172 161 132 109 263 307 125 105 294 316 410 85 82 140 86 140

Average Number of Children
Placed
5 5 6 6 4 4 5 4 5 5 8 7 6 4 11 6 9 4 4 7 5 7

Office Meets Criteria
Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No No No

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page B-1

Table B-1: (Continued)
Number of Families,* Children Placed and Assignments Permanency Workers December 2006

Office Summary

Local Office

Number of Available Permanency Workers

Families

Average Number of
Families

Children Placed

Average Number of Children
Placed

Office Meets Criteria

Hudson West

15

168

11

73

5

Yes

Hunterdon

6

57

10

40

7

Yes

Mercer North

27

443

16

154

6

No

Mercer South

29

347

12

127

4

Yes

Middlesex Central

14

126

9

42

3

Yes

Middlesex Coastal

59

611

10

222

4

Yes

Middlesex West

42

449

11

179

4

Yes

Monmouth North

24

422

18

255

11

No

Monmouth South

28

334

12

192

7

Yes

Morris

22

418

19

105

5

No

Ocean North

31

592

19

251

8

No

Ocean South

30

335

11

125

4

Yes

Passaic Central

30

345

12

232

8

Yes

Passaic North

14

209

15

92

7

Yes

Salem

22

277

13

108

5

Yes

Somerset

10

205

21

86

9

No

Sussex

9

145

16

58

6

No

Union Central

25

439

18

143

6

No

Union East

35

419

12

156

4

Yes

Union West

22

336

15

186

8

Yes

Warren

10

227

23

73

7

No

Statewide Total

1,155

16,766

15

6,678

6

Yes

Percentage of Offices that meet the caseload average of 15 or fewer families and 10 or fewer children

placed criteria.

60%

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy & Planning, February 6, 2007.

*Family counts include both Primary & Secondary families. Trainees are excluded.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page B-2

Table B-2:
Number of Families,* Children Placed and Assignments Intake Workers December 2006

Office Summary

Local Office

Number of Available Workers

Average Assignments Number of
Assignments

Families

Average Number of
Families

Office Meets Criteria

Atlantic

21

140

7

185

9

Yes

Bergen Central

11

77

7

171

16

No

Bergen South

21

129

6

221

11

Yes

Burlington East

13

70

5

284

22

No

Burlington West

14

128

9

234

17

No

Camden Central

15

65

4

83

6

Yes

Camden East

19

76

4

178

9

Yes

Camden North

12

40

3

86

7

Yes

Camden South

16

73

5

265

17

No

Cape May

9

51

6

123

14

Yes

Cumberland West

21

90

4

461

22

No

Essex Central

17

88

5

216

13

Yes

Essex North

13

57

4

127

10

Yes

Essex South

14

47

3

96

7

Yes

Newark Center City

13

48

4

269

21

No

Newark Northeast

20

56

3

257

13

Yes

Newark South

11

41

4

147

13

Yes

Gloucester East

9

58

6

216

24

No

Gloucester West

11

53

5

115

10

Yes

Hudson Central

10

42

4

178

18

No

Hudson North

13

74

6

189

15

Yes

Hudson South

14

74

5

285

20

No

Hudson West

12

53

4

166

14

Yes

Hunterdon

4

18

5

49

12

Yes

Mercer North

13

67

5

182

14

Yes

Mercer South

13

71

5

103

8

Yes

Middlesex Central

6

38

6

85

14

Yes

Middlesex Coastal

18

103

6

123

7

Yes

Middlesex West

26

150

6

175

7

Yes

Monmouth North

20

105

5

268

13

Yes

Monmouth South

15

94

6

283

19

No

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page B-3

Table B-2: (continued)
Number of Families,* Children Placed and Assignments Intake Workers December 2006

Office Summary

Local Office

Number of Available Workers

Average Assignments Number of
Assignments

Families

Average Number of
Families

Office Meets Criteria

Morris

21

144

7

458

22

No

Ocean North

21

130

6

320

15

Yes

Ocean South

17

69

4

322

19

No

Passaic Central

20

100

5

277

14

Yes

Passaic North

20

118

6

277

14

Yes

Salem

11

39

4

158

14

Yes

Somerset

12

75

6

360

30

No

Sussex

9

74

8

129

14

Yes

Union Central

10

39

4

170

17

No

Union East

13

80

6

156

12

Yes

Union West

14

67

5

149

11

Yes

Warren

12

95

8

294

25

No

Statewide Total

624

3,306

5

8,890

14

Yes

Percentage of Offices that meet the caseload average of 10 or fewer new assignments and 15 and fewer family criteria.

65%

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy & Planning February 6, 2007.

Family counts include both Primary and Secondary families. Trainees are excluded.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page B-4

Table B-3:

Local Office
Atlantic Bergen Central Bergen South Burlington East Burlington West Camden Central Camden East Camden North Camden South Cape May Cumberland West Essex Central Essex North Essex South Newark West Gloucester East Gloucester West Hudson Central Hudson North Hudson South Hudson West Hunterdon Mercer North Mercer South Middlesex Central Middlesex West Monmouth North Monmouth South Morris Ocean North Ocean South Passaic Central Passaic North Salem Somerset Sussex Union Central Union East Union West Warren
Statewide Total

Available Workers
7 4 5 2 3 6 4 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 37 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 5 4 10 5 5 5 5 6 5 4 2 6 3 2 4 7 8 2 202

Adoption Workers December 2006

Children Children

under

w/Goal of

Supervision Adoption

Children w/NonAdoption
Goal

102

95

7

79

72

7

99

98

1

56

50

6

75

73

2

60

59

1

37

35

2

65

53

12

46

42

4

56

50

6

96

65

31

152

112

40

88

80

8

40

30

10

652

556

96

21

17

4

61

56

5

87

44

43

41

41

0

39

24

15

41

31

10

20

14

6

119

100

19

59

44

15

160

138

22

47

39

8

89

80

9

51

46

5

88

68

20

95

85

10

99

88

11

67

61

6

62

28

34

104

93

11

35

30

5

34

20

14

64

58

6

115

108

7

134

124

10

32

28

4

3467

2935

532

Children Placed
95 74 99 54 69 57 33 57 44 53 71 130 75 34 577 18 58 64 40 32 40 19 109 52 141 39 86 46 78 87 89 64 38 88 31 32 61 105 126 31 3096

Assignments
0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19

Average Number of Children
under Supervision
15 20 20 28 25 10 9 16 12 19 24 30 18 10 18 21 20 29 14 13 14 20 24 15 16 9 18 10 18 16 20 17 31 17 12 17 16 16 17 16 17

Office Met Standard
Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Percentage of offices that meet the caseload average of 18 or fewer children.

65%

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy & Planning, February 6, 2007.

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page B-5

Table B-4: Number of Supervisors, By Local Office, December 2006

Supervisory Staff
Atlantic Bergen Central Bergen South Burlington East Burlington West Camden Central Camden East Camden North Camden South Cape May Cumberland Essex Central Essex South Essex North Newark Center City Newark Northeast Newark South Newark West Gloucester East Gloucester West Hudson Central Hudson North Hudson South Hudson West Hunterdon Mercer North Mercer South Middlesex Central Middlesex Coastal Middlesex West Monmouth North Monmouth South Morris Ocean North Ocean South Passaic Central Passaic North Salem Somerset Sussex Union East Union West Union Central Warren

Supervising Family Service Specialist 2
(SFSS2) 13 9 12 12 11 13 14 14 13 7 13 11 7 11 11 12 14 11 6 8 9 8 9 9 4 9 11 6 13 12 12 11 10 14 11 13 9 9 8 5 10 11 8 5

SFSS2 on leave 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Supervising Family Service Specialist 1
(SFSS1) 5 3 4 3 3 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 5 4 3 4 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 1 4 4 5 4 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 2 2 2 3 5 4 2

SFSS1 on leave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 18 12 15 15 14 17 19 19 17 10 17 15 11 15 14 16 17 15 9 10 12 11 12 12 5 12 15 11 15 15 16 15 12 19 16 18 12 11 10 7 13 15 12 6

STATEWIDE

443

10

158

0

591

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy & Planning, February 9, 2007.

Active & Trainees
68 39 64 54 50 64 64 61 54 39 70 72 52 58 61 78 62 40 36 43 44 42 41 38 15 56 57 36 85 78 60 57 67 70 64 62 54 48 38 28 44 61 51 28
2353

Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine Period 1 Monitoring Report, February 26, 2007

Page B-6

 
 Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
Embargoed – Not for Release Until October 11, 2007
PROGRESS OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
MONITORING REPORT FOR
CHARLIE AND NADINE H. v. CORZINE
JANUARY 1—JUNE 30, 2007
Center for the Study of Social Policy 1575 Eye Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 October 2007

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
PROGRESS OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
MONITORING REPORT FOR CHARLIE AND NADINE H. v. CORZINE
JANUARY 1 – JUNE 30, 2007
Table of Contents
I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1
II. SUMMARY OF PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES AHEAD .............................. 3
III. CONTINUING TO BUILD A HIGH QUALITY WORKFORCE AND MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................................13
A. Caseloads ..........................................................................................................13 B. Training.............................................................................................................19 C. Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU) ................................................26 D. Accountability through the Production and Use of Accurate Data...................27
IV. CHANGING PRACTICE TO SUPPORT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES...................................................................................31
A. Implementing the New Case Practice Model....................................................31 B. Improving Results for Permanency and Adoption............................................35
V. APPROPRIATE PLACEMENTS AND SERVICES FOR CHILDREN ..............41
A. Resource Families.............................................................................................41 B. Division of Child Behavioral Health Services (DCBHS).................................47 C. Services and Supports for Youth ......................................................................50
VI. MEETING THE HEALTH AND MENTAL NEEDS OF CHILDREN ................53
A. Building a New System for the Provision of Health Care to Children in Out-of-Home Placements ..............................................................53
APPENDIX A. Caseload and Supervisory Level Detail for Local Offices B. New Jersey Department of Children and Families Implementation Plan

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1:
Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Table 6:
Figure 7: Table 8:
Figure 9: Table 10: Figure 11:
Table 12:
Figure 13: Figure 14: Table 15: Table 16: Table 17:

Summary of State Progress on Modified Settlement Agreement Requirements (January – June 2007) .............................................8-12
NJ DCF DYFS Permanency Worker Caseloads Compliance by Office ..........15
NJ DCF DYFS Intake Worker Caseloads.........................................................16
NJ DCF DYFS Adoption Worker Caseloads....................................................17
NJ DSCF DYFS Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios......................................18
DCF Child Welfare Training Academy MSA Compliance Data January 1, 2007 – June 30, 2007.......................................................................20
New Jersey Pre-Service Training Curriculum ..................................................21
Supervisory Training: Total Number of Supervisors Trained January 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007 .........................................................24
IAIU Source of Referrals – January – June 2007 .............................................26
Progress on Permanency for “100 Longest Waiting Teens” ............................39
NJ DCF Resource Families – Number of New Non-Kin Families Licensed .............................................................................................41
New Licensed Family Resource Homes – July 2006 – June 2007.......................................................................................42
NJ DCF Resource Families – Net Gain by Month ...........................................43
Resource Family 150-Day Flow Chart (revised as of August 2007)................44
DYFS Approved Resource Family Rates, Effective January 1, 2007 ..............46
Out-of-State Authorizations – January – June 2007 .........................................47
Youth under DYFS custody in juvenile detention post-disposition awaiting placement.................................................................49

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Table 18: Table 19: Table 20: Table 21:
Table 22:

Youth Transitional and Supported Housing Grants..........................................52
Youth Permanency Demonstration Project.......................................................52
Health Care Coordination Function of Child Health Unit ................................57
Completion of Pre-Placement Health Assessments (PPA) And Use of Emergency Rooms for Assessments January – July 2007 ..........................................................................................59
Health Care Baseline and Targets (June 2007 – December 2011) ..........................................................................61

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
PROGRESS OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
MONITORING REPORT FOR CHARLIE AND NADINE H. v. CORZINE
JANUARY 1 – JUNE 30, 2007

I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of this Report In July, 2006 the Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) was appointed by the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for the Third Circuit as Monitor of Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine. As Monitor, CSSP is to assess independently the State’s compliance with the goals, principles and outcomes of the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) of the class action litigation aimed at improving the State’s child welfare system.1 CSSP released its Period I Monitoring Report in February 2007 describing progress New Jersey had made towards compliance with the MSA as of December 31, 2006.2 This is the second Monitoring report under the MSA and covers the period of January through June 2007.
The MSA structures the State’s commitments into two phases of work. Phase I (through December 2008) is primarily directed to building a strong infrastructure within the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to ensure that children are healthy and safe, achieve permanency and stability, and that resource and service delivery systems meet children’s health, mental health, educational and developmental needs. This second Monitoring report reflects the State’s continued work in and commitment to these foundational elements of a successful reform, and also describes the State’s efforts towards implementing its new Case Practice Model (CPM), which will ultimately guide New Jersey’s practice change and is intended to yield improved results for children and families.
Methodology The primary source of information for this Period II Report is the Department of Children and Families (DCF). DCF provides the Monitor with extensive aggregate and back up data as well as access to staff at all levels to enable the Monitor to verify DCF data and report on actions taken and progress made. During this Monitoring period, the Monitor also visited seven Division of

1 Charlie and Nadine H . et al. v. Corzine, Modified Settlement Agreement, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civ. Action No. 99-3678 (SRC), July 18, 2006. To see the full Agreement, go to http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/home/Modified_Settlement_Agreement_7_17_06.pdf.
2 Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period I Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H . v. Corzine – July 2006 through December 31, 2006. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy. February 26, 2007.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 1

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
Youth and Family Services (DYFS) offices across the State: Warren, Ocean South, Atlantic West, Salem, Camden North, Essex North, and Somerset. The Monitor spoke with all levels of DYFS staff. The Monitor also spoke with various stakeholders of New Jersey’s child welfare system, including foster and adoptive parents, relatives and birth parents, providers, advocacy organizations, attorneys and the Office of the Child Advocate.
Section II of the report provides overall conclusions and a summary of the State’s progress in meeting the MSA through June 30, 2007.
Other sections of the report provide specific information on the requirements of the MSA as follows:
Section III: Continuing to Build a High Quality Workforce and Management Infrastructure
Section IV: Changing Practice to Support Children and Families
Section V: Appropriate Placements and Services for Children
Section VI: Meeting the Health and Mental Health Needs of Children

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 2

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
II. SUMMARY OF PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES AHEAD
Summary of Accomplishments The past six months have been demanding for the relatively new Department of Children and Families (DCF) as it has moved to expand the range, scope and pace of its reform initiatives. Despite the complexity of the challenges and demands of widespread growth and change, DCF has built considerably upon its accomplishments from the previous monitoring period. As shown in summary fashion in Table 1 on pages 8 to 12 and discussed in more detail in this report, DCF fulfilled and often exceeded the expectations of the MSA in each area in which the MSA called for activity.
This monitoring period covers additional Phase I commitments in which DCF continued to focus on the development of leadership throughout the organization and on the fundamental building blocks which are the foundation of the overall reform effort. While keeping that focus, DCF has thoughtfully planned and begun to implement several major initiatives in this monitoring period which have promise to move the Department beyond building infrastructure and toward lasting systemic change and better outcomes for children and families.
Highlights of the Monitor’s assessment of progress include:
The Department has continued to make progress in developing the infrastructure necessary to create lasting reform. Examples include:
• DCF achieved or exceeded the June 2007 caseload targets set for Permanency, Intake and Adoption staff. In site visits in different parts of the State, staff consistently confirm that their caseloads have improved markedly and that this reduction, in turn, has improved their ability to perform their jobs.
• DCF exceeded the benchmark for the ratio of supervisors to workers. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of offices are in compliance with the requirement of a five to one supervisory ratio. Having an adequate cadre of skilled supervisors is absolutely essential to the work ahead to improve direct practice with children and families.
• DCF continued to improve its ability to use data to monitor performance and expanded the data provided to the public on its website.
• Following a pilot deployment in Ocean County beginning in April 2007, DCF initiated Phase II of New Jersey SPIRIT in August—launching statewide a comprehensive automated child welfare information system. In preparation for the deployment, DCF trained over 5000 employees on how to use the system. Since deployment, DCF has been operating an extensive help desk and support system to identify and trouble-shoot problems and to alleviate the steep learning curve that is typically associated with the introduction of these complex data systems.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 3

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
• The Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU) achieved the June 2007 target for timely completion of investigations. By June 2007, IAIU was expected to complete 80 percent of its investigations within 60 days of referral. On June 30, 2007, the State reported that IAIU had 373 open investigations. Of those, 332 (89%) had been open less than 60 days. These open cases reflect investigations in-progress on referrals from May and June.
• The Department succeeded in reaching or exceeding all of the expectations in the MSA pertaining to training. o The Pre-Service training curriculum was modified to incorporate principles from the Case Practice Model (CPM);
o Newly hired workers continue to be enrolled in Pre-Service training within two weeks of their start date;
o All newly promoted supervisors have taken Supervisory Training;
o All case carrying staff were trained in concurrent planning;
o 5,025 staff were trained on New Jersey SPIRIT; and
o All existing DYFS and IAIU staff were trained on Intake and Investigations, and new staff will now receive Intake training as part of the Pre-Service training curriculum
Simultaneously to focusing on fundamentals, the Department took important steps to fundamentally change the way it works with families in New Jersey. For example:
• DCF developed a thoughtful and ambitious Case Practice Model Implementation Plan to guide the Department’s multi-year reform work.
• DCF developed a comprehensive plan to improve the health care delivery system for children in out-of-home placement. When fully implemented, this plan creates and resources Child Health Units in every DYFS office in order to coordinate care and provide information and supports to parents and Resource Parents so that children are healthy and able to thrive. The plan also expands access to medical and mental health providers to ensure that each child’s developmental, health and mental health needs are appropriately assessed and met.
Finding appropriate placements for children, while still a major challenge, was a significant focus of the Department in the past six months and it achieved solid results.
• DCF exceeded its mandate to license 1030 non-kin Resource Family homes, licensing 1287 new non-kin families between July 2006 and June 2007.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 4

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
• At the same time, more children than ever before are placed permanently with appropriate relatives, allowing them to maintain important family connections. The number of children placed through subsidized kinship legal guardianship grew by 26 percent from 2,002 in 2006 to 2,515 by June 2007.
• DCF directed significant resources to new programs to support adolescents, funding a youth permanency demonstration project and adding 112 transitional living beds for older youth.
• DCF contracted for additional in-state capacity to meet the treatment needs of severely troubled children and youth that have in the past necessitated out-of-state placement by the Division of Child Behavioral Health Services (DCBHS). When all of the programs are functioning, an additional 86 “specialty” treatment beds will be available in the State of New Jersey.
While there is a long way to go, there are promising data on some outcomes as the Department matures and meets or exceeds expectations in the MSA.
• The number of children supported in permanent families through adoption subsidies or kinship guardianship arrangements (13,244) as of August, 2007 exceeds the number of children in state custody in out-of-home placement (9,978).
• The Department finalized 634 adoptions as of June 30, 2007 and is on target to meet its 2007 goal of 1400 adoptions.
• There is a consistent net increase in the number of Resource Families licensed each month, fueled by new resources and departmental improvements in the recruitment and licensing processes. In the first half of 2007, the net gain of Resource Families (a total of 667 families) tripled compared to FY 2006.
• As of July 2007, 92 percent of children entering out-of-home care received preplacement assessments conducted in non-emergency room settings.
Challenges Ahead In structuring Phase I and II of the MSA, the parties deliberately attempted to recognize that system reform is a long-term process. Pressures for a “quick fix” come from all fronts, and are felt acutely by leadership, management, and the front lines of the workforce as well as by children and families. Despite the many accomplishments cited above, the state’s child welfare system does not consistently function well and the urgency of the reforms remains. At a number of site visits, the Monitor listened to staff’s understandable difficulty with the rapid pace of change. Different offices are at different places in terms of readiness for system change depending on how swiftly they have added staff, how new the staff are to the work, the strength of local leadership, and whether they have benefited from being one of the demonstration sites of

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 5

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
a new initiative. At the same time that some staff experience the changes as too much and too fast, some advocates and families wonder why problems remain and the reform is taking so long.
The Commissioner has made a conscious effort to expand and strengthen the leadership team in Trenton and at the Area and Local Office Manager level in this monitoring period, but this is still a work in progress. The leadership team is exceedingly strong in some areas, while there are other areas of weakness that continue to require attention as the Department’s reform work continues and accelerates. There have been two major leadership changes during this period with the departure of the Director of the Child Welfare Training Academy (NJCWTA) and the Director of the Division of Child Behavioral Health Services (DCBHS). The Director of Administration has assumed responsibility for the management of the NJCWTA and an Acting Director has been appointed to DCBHS while the search for a permanent Director is completed.
A major challenge of the past year, which continues going forward, is completing the implementation and user acceptance of New Jersey SPIRIT. During the past six months, the daily demands to keep the project on track, respond to crises and ensure that the full deployment was as positive as possible for both workers in the field and the public occupied an enormous amount of leadership time and attention. The experience of most public child welfare systems implementing data systems like SPIRIT suggests that the months following deployment are typically as challenging as the months leading up to it. While it is true that staff have been trained and that the information system is functioning generally well in most areas of the State, realizing the intended benefits of SPIRIT will require consistent work over the next year or two. There are system bugs to be worked out, processes and reports to be modified, glitches to be unstuck, workers to be retrained and most importantly, consistent attention by managers at all levels on the need for proper data entry and on the use of the information for more effective case management and performance monitoring. Implementing a new data system is an enormous undertaking. Constant attention will be required over the next several months in order for SPIRIT’s potential for management, data analysis and tracking to be fully realized.
As is clear from the Case Practice Model Implementation Plan discussed in detail in this report, implementing the new CPM is another formidable challenge, but a fundamentally necessary one in order to produce lasting change. In the Monitor’s site visits, the inexperience of the workforce is readily apparent. Corroborated by the data on the number of new workers hired in the past year to 18 months, many offices are filled with workers who are either just completing training or have recently moved out of trainee status. The importance of their attachment to high quality Training Supervisors in their first few months was underscored by the workers who viewed the mentoring they received from those staff as essential for their successful transition to the job. As the Department moves forward to operationalize a practice model which demands new ways of working with families and with the community, training, support, coaching and mentoring will be necessary for not only the new and inexperienced workers but also for veteran workers. The demand for this kind of help is significant but it is hard to imagine the case practice transformations taking root and flourishing without such investments. Further, in implementing the Case Practice Model, the Department will need to consistently engage with and rely heavily on its partners in the community and across the State.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 6

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
Another challenge the Department will face in the coming months is implementing its newly created Health Care Plan—moving quickly to deploy the resources of the Health Care Units to the field, ensuring that the provider capacity for comprehensive assessments and follow-up treatment and care is developed, resourced and connected, and putting in place the data systems to track successful implementation. The shortage of willing providers for dental care must be addressed through both changed relationships and commitments and will also likely require a change in Medicaid reimbursement.
A significant challenge for the Department in implementing both the Health Care Plan and the Case Practice Model is space constraints. At each site visit, the Monitor heard from every level of staff that more space is necessary to carry out the Department’s new initiatives. More space is needed for nurses, for health care visits, for parent/child visits, for family team meetings and the like. Further, as the Department has expanded so quickly, many of the newer local offices are located in places that are inaccessible by public transportation and sometimes far from the children and families the Department serves. The challenges of space (both the lack of appropriate space and the poor conditions of some offices sites) need to be approached with both short-term and longer term solutions. This is an issue which DCF cannot solve on its own; it will require assistance from other parts of state government.
An additional challenge is the Department’s work with older adolescents. The Department has made notable progress in directing attention and resources to older youth in out-of-home care. However, this is a population that has been long neglected by system efforts. The Department has amended policies and procedures, but will need to move beyond plans to action to ensure real change for youth.
DCF has a lot of hard work ahead to realize the vision of an integrated agency that meets the needs of children and families in less categorical ways. While beginning steps have occurred to link the work of the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), the Division of Child Behavioral Health Services (DCBHS) and the Division of Prevention and Community Partnerships (DPCP), much more will be required to move beyond artificial boundaries and distinctions to better serve children and families. Further, in every site visit and despite the fact that the Department has moved aggressively in this last year to increase contracted resources for community-based services for families and children, staff report the difficulties they experience in gaining access to the services that families need in their communities. These include such basic services as substance abuse treatment, help to secure safe housing, in-home counseling and family preservation services, mental health services and family support. The Governor and the Legislature should be commended for providing DCF sufficient resources to begin the work to expand necessary community services and supports. Developing and sustaining an appropriate and complete service array across the State is likely however to require consistent and additional resource commitments over the next several years.
In summary, the Department’s work in this monitoring period has been focused and productive. Many promising strategies have been introduced, which will need to be consistently translated into new practices and accessible services on the ground for the Department to succeed in its mission of fundamentally changing how it works with children and families in New Jersey.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 7

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Table 1: Summary of State Progress on Modified Settlement Agreement Requirements
(January – June 2007)

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

Fulfilled (Yes/No)3

Comments

New Case Practice Model
II.A.3 Begin implementation of the case model practice.

Development of CPM--December 2006 Ongoing implementation

Yes

Case Practice Model Implementation Plan completed in August 2007. Implementation underway.

Training

Pre-Service Training

II.B.1.a Institute Pre-Service Training

program to include training on intakes and

January 2007

investigations and the new case practice model

II.B.1.b 100% of all new case carrying workers shall be enrolled in Pre-Service Training
II.B.1.c No case carrying worker shall assume a full caseload until completing Pre-Service training and until after she has passed competency exams

September 2006 September 2006

In-Service Training

II.B.2.a Develop and institute In-Service Training program for case carrying staff, supervisors and case aides

April 2007

II.B.2.d Implement in-service training on concurrent planning for all existing staff

September 2006

Pre-Service training modified to

Yes

reflect case practice model and First Responder curriculum on

intake and investigation.

412 workers completed Pre-

Yes

Service training 01/07 – 06/30/07. 94% were enrolled within two

weeks of starting date

Yes

New protocols for competency assessment developed.

By agreement of parties, training

on New Jersey SPIRIT and

Yes

concurrent planning meet In-

Service training requirements for

this monitoring period.

3,251 staff trained in Concurrent

Yes

Planning. 729 staff trained between

01/07 - 06/30/07.

3 “Yes” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment based on presently available information, DCF has substantially fulfilled its obligations regarding the requirement under the Modified Settlement Agreement for the January-June 2007 monitoring period; or is substantially on track to fulfill an obligation expected to have begun during this period and be complete in a subsequent monitoring period. “No” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment, DCF has not fulfilled its obligation regarding the requirement.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 8

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

II.B.2.e 100% of caseworkers, supervisors and case aides not previously trained on the new case practice model shall have received this training.

Beginning April 2007 Continued through December 2007

Investigations/Intake Training

II.B.3.a All new staff responsible for conducting intake or investigations shall receive specific, quality training on intake and investigations process, policies and investigations techniques and pass competency exams before assuming responsibility for cases.

September 2006

II.B.3.b All staff responsible for intake or investigation not previously trained shall receive specific training on intake and investigations process, policies, and investigation techniques.

June 2007

Supervisory Training

II.B.4.b 100% of all staff newly promoted to supervisory positions shall complete their 40 hours of supervisory training and shall have passed competency exams within 3 months of assuming their supervisory positions
II.B.4.c 100% of supervisors promoted to supervisor before December 2006 shall receive their 40 hours of the supervisory training and have passed competency exams.

December 2006 June 2007

Services for Children and Families
II.C.2 Seek approval from federal government for Medicaid structure to support the use of community and evidence-based, informed or support practices for children and families. II.C.3 Permit the utilization of flexible funds for birth families involved with DYFS to better promote family preservation and reunification.

June 2007 June 2007

II.C.4 Develop and thereafter implement a plan for appropriate service delivery for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning (GLBTQ) youth.

June 2007

Fulfilled (Yes/No)3
Yes

Comments
By agreement of parties, training on New Jersey SPIRIT and concurrent planning meet training requirements for this period. Case practice model training commences 1/08 and continues through 12/08.

Yes

Incorporated in Pre-Service training.

769 DYFS and

Yes

64 IAIU staff trained 01/01/07 –

06/30/07.

Yes

114 new supervisors trained 01/01/07 – 06/30/07.

Yes

138 previously hired supervisors trained 01/01/07 – 06/30/07.

Not applicable

DCF was able to meet this requirement without needing to seek approval from the federal government.

Yes

$1 million increase budgeted for FY08.

GLBTQ plan developed;

implementation is ongoing.

Yes

Monitor views plan as preliminary

and to be refined as case practice

model is implemented.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 9

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

II.C.5 Promulgate and implement policies designed to ensure continuous services to youth between ages 18 and 21 similar to services previously available.
II.C.11 Add 18 transitional living program beds for youth between the ages of 16 and 21.

June 2007 June 2008

Finding Children Appropriate Placements

II.D.3 Evaluate the needs of children in out-of state congregate placements to determine and develop action steps with timetables to serve children with these needs in-state.

June 2007

II.D.8 DYFS will eliminate the inappropriate use of shelters as an out-of-home placement for children in its custody.

June 2007

Caseloads

II.E.9 79% of offices shall have average caseloads at the standard of 15 families or less and 10 children in out-of-home care or less for the permanency staff.

June 2007

II.E.10 58% of offices shall have average caseloads for the intake staff at an interim caseload standard of 15 families or less and 10 new referrals or less.

June 2007

II.E.11 85% of offices shall have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a 5 worker to 1 supervisor ratio.

June 2007

Provision of Health (Medical and Mental Health)

II.F.5 and II.F.6 Set health care baselines and targets. Methodology for tracking compliance January 2007 decided.

II.F.7 90% of children entering out-of-home custody shall have pre-placement assessments

June 2007

in a setting other than an emergency room.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)3

Comments

Yes

Implementation is ongoing.

DCF met this requirement early

Yes

and far exceeded the number of

beds, adding 112 transitional beds.

Evaluation has been completed.

Conferences to develop strategies

Yes

for children’s return have been scheduled through October 2007

for 119 children involved with

DYFS and placed out of state.

Yes

Policy has been issued.

Yes

84% of offices met this requirement.

Yes

82% of offices met this requirement.

Yes

87% of offices met this requirement.

Baselines have been set for June

2007 and the staging of targets

Yes

agreed upon. The methodology for

measuring all health care indicators

is still under negotiation.

Yes

Requirement met as of July 2007 (92% in non-emergency settings).

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 10

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

II.F.8 Identify a statewide coordinated system of health care including a provision to develop a medical passport for children in out-of-home care.

June 2007

Permanency Planning and Adoption
II.G.12 Complete the adoption case transfer process across 100% of offices.
II.G.13 60% of offices for the adoption staff will have average caseloads consisting of 18 or fewer children.
II.G.14 Implementation of the adoption process tracking system.

June 2007 June 2007 June 2007

Resource Families

II.H.9 Create an accurate and quality tracking and target setting system for ensuring there is a real time list of current and available Resource Families.

June 2007

II.H.10 1,030 Non-kin Resource Family homes are licensed.
II.H.15 Continue to further close by 25% the gap between current Resource Family support rates and the USDA’s estimated cost of raising a child.

June 2007 January 2007

Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU)

II.I.3 Completed 80% of IAIU investigations within 60 days.

June 2007

II.I.4 All IAIU investigators provided with specific training on intake and investigations June 2007 process, policies, and investigative techniques.

Data

II.J.5 Identify, ensure accuracy, and publish additional indicators.
II.J.6 DCF agency performance reports produced with a set of measures approved by the Monitor.

February 2007 February 2007

Fulfilled (Yes/No)3
Yes

Comments
State has developed an ambitious plan which, among other things, expands the number of comprehensive medical exam providers and creates Child Health Units. Plan for Medical Passport developed.

Yes

Yes

90% of offices have average caseloads at or below the standard.

Tracking system is used in the 10

Yes

Concurrent Planning demonstration sites and is expected

to be expanded statewide.

Yes

Capacity developed in New Jersey SPIRIT

Yes

1,287 non-kin family resource homes licensed.

Yes

New rates effective January 1, 2007.

Yes

89% of investigations completed within 60 days.

Yes

64 IAIU workers trained 01/01/07 – 06/30/07.

Yes

DCF continues to expand data published on website.

Yes

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 11

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

II.J.7 New Jersey SPIRIT Release 2, Phase II February 2007

II.J.8 All case carrying workers trained on New Jersey SPIRIT.

May 2007

Fulfilled (Yes/No)3
Yes
Yes

Comments
State roll out beginning with Ocean County (pilot site) and full State deployment August 2007.
From April – August 2007, 5025 staff trained on New Jersey SPIRIT.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 12

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
III. CONTINUING TO BUILD A HIGH QUALITY WORKFORCE AND MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE
A. Caseloads
New Jersey’s child welfare system cannot be expected to be successful unless and until it has a sufficient, stable and well-trained workforce. During this monitoring period, the Department continued to make exceptional progress toward achieving this goal. For years, excessively high caseloads in DYFS were a visible problem and source of controversy. While there was unanimity that caseloads were too high, the accuracy of data tracking and the high turnover of staff made it difficult to assess and tackle the problem. A high priority for the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) is the accuracy and transparency of caseload data and steady and rapid progress toward reducing worker caseloads across the State. The Department continued to demonstrate progress in both of these areas in the past six months. As discussed below, the State has met or exceeded each of the staffing commitments of the MSA for this monitoring period. The support from the Governor and the Legislature for the additional funds needed to hire the large number of case workers and supervisors required to reduce caseloads has been critical to DCF’s success in this area. Continued support will be needed in subsequent monitoring periods to comply with additional caseload reductions before the end of Phase I in December 2008.
The Monitor took several steps to verify independently the reported caseload information. First, the Monitor and Department staff reviewed previous draft reports and the methodology used to compute the caseloads as well as the process put in place for verifying and refining the caseload reporting. This included reviewing examples of communication between central office and local managers regarding the exception reporting. This review identified an average of 10 corrections per office that were needed to improve the accuracy of the caseload data. Types of corrections needed included:
• Updating the appropriate program and personnel systems with worker leave information, updated trainee status, name spelling corrections, worker program area (i.e., intake, adoptions, permanency) Each of these corrections affect the “available pool” of workers by which the caseload averages are calculated.
• Correcting case assignments.
In addition to assessing the Department’s internal quality assurance on the accuracy of caseload data, the Monitor collected information from the seven site visits and telephone interviews with local office managers in ten randomly selected offices. All personnel interviewed confirmed the accuracy of the Department’s reporting on caseload and the vast majority of staff highlighted the positive effects of recently reduced caseloads. This independent review confirmed the accuracy of the State’s caseload reporting for June 2007. The principal accomplishments regarding caseloads include:

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 13

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
1. The State has continued to track and publicly report caseload information.
DCF can now accurately track and report on worker and supervisor caseloads. The tracking system allows the Department to provide accurate and increasingly more detailed caseload information quarterly on its website (www.state.nj.us/dcf). March 31, 2007 caseload data was posted on the website in May 2007 and June 30, 2007 caseload data was posted in September 2007. Additionally, caseloads for trainees in each unit are reported separately (MSA, Section II.E.2) and both levels of supervisory staff (SFSS1 and SFSS2) are separately counted and shown.
2. DCF exceeded the June 2007 caseload target for average caseloads of Permanency staff.
Permanency workers are assigned to provide case management of services to families whose children remain at home under the protective supervision of DYFS and those families whose children are removed from home due to safety concerns. To ensure staff has the time to devote to children and families with diverse needs and circumstances, the State agreed to achieve a caseload standard that has two intertwined components. One component is the number of families per worker and the other component is the number of children placed in out-of–home care per worker. This has been referred to as a “two prong” standard. Permanency workers are to serve no more than 15 families and 10 children in out-of-home care. If either of these standards is higher, the caseload is not compliant with the Modified Settlement Agreement standard (MSA, Section II.E).
During Phase I, caseload compliance is measured by average caseloads in an office. Ultimately, the Phase I goal is for 95 percent of all offices to have permanency workers that meet the twopronged standard for average caseloads. This goal is to be achieved over a period of time with targets starting in 2006, and with the final target of 95 percent to be achieved by December 2008. As of June 2007, average caseloads in 79 percent of all local offices4 are to meet the caseload standard. (MSA, Section II.E.9.)
As displayed in Figure 2, the State exceeded this target with 84 percent of the offices having average caseloads for available Permanency workers of 15 families or fewer and 10 or fewer children in placement. The State also reported to the Monitor that less than one percent of all case workers had caseloads of more than 30 families in June 2007. This data was independently verified by the Monitor as previously described. Appendix A contains a table with supporting detail on caseloads for each local office.

4 On June 30, 2007, there were 46 local offices.
Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 14

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

100%

Figure 2: NJ DCF DYFS Permanency Worker Caseloads* Compliance by Office

90%

80% 70% 60% 50%

60%

60%

71%

79%

84%

40% 30%

40%

20%

10%

0%

Mar 2006 Actual Dec. 2006 Target Dec. 2006 Actual Mar 2007 Actual June 2007 Target June 2007 Actual

% of DYFS Offices Meeting Standard

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Office of Policy and Planning *Permanency caseload standard is 15 families and no more than 10 children in placement. Note: DCF reports caseload data quarterly and the targets in the MSA were set at 6-month intervals (December and June).

3. DCF exceeded the June 2007 caseload target for average caseloads of Intake staff.
DYFS Intake staff is responsible for responding to community concerns regarding child safety and well-being. They take referrals from the State Central Registry and depending on the nature of the allegation, have 2 hours to 5 days to visit the home and begin their investigation and assessment under the MSA. They are to complete their investigation and assessment within 60 days. The caseload standard for Intake staff also has two components. One component is the number of families under investigation or assessment at any given time and the other component is the number of new referrals assigned to a worker each month. When fully implemented in Phase II, intake workers are to have caseloads of 12 families or less and 8 new referrals or less per month. (MSA, Section III.E). The interim standard in Phase I is caseloads of 15 families or less and 10 or fewer new referrals per month.
As with the Permanency caseloads, the Phase I standard for Intake staff is based on average caseloads in an office and by December 2008, the goal is for 74 percent of all offices to have average caseloads for intake workers that meet the two-pronged standard. As of June 2007, 58

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 15

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

percent of all local offices were to have average caseloads for Intake staff of 15 families or less and 10 or fewer new referrals per month. (MSA, Section II.E.10)

As displayed in Figure 3, the State has exceeded this second target with Intake staff since December 2006. As of June 2007, 82 percent of the offices had average caseloads for Intake staff at or below the standard. This data was independently verified by the Monitor as part of the previously described process. Appendix A contains a table with supporting detail for each office.

100%

Figure 3: NJ DCF DYFS Intake Worker Caseloads*

90%

80% 70%

82%

60% 50%

65%

60%

58%

40% 30%

42%

20%

10%

17%

0% Mar 2006 Actual Dec. 2006 Target Dec. 2006 Actual Mar 2007 Actual June 2007 Target June 2007 Actual % of DYFS offices meeting interim standard
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Office of Policy and Planning *Interim Intake worker caseload standard is 15 families and 10 new referrals per month.

4. DCF exceeded the June 2007 caseload target for average caseloads of Adoption staff.
Adoption staff are responsible for moving children to permanency by developing adoptive resources and performing the work needed to finalize adoptions. The MSA requires the State to assign children with a goal of adoption to designated adoption workers (except in the small number of cases where there is a previously established relationship with a permanency caseworker or other acceptable reason) (MSA, Section II.G).
As with the Permanency caseloads, by June 2008, the goal is for 95 percent of offices to have average caseloads for Adoption staff of 18 or fewer children with a subset of 60 percent of the offices achieving average caseloads of 15 or fewer families (MSA, Section II.G.18). As of June

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 16

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

2007, 60 percent of local offices are to meet an interim standard of average caseloads for Adoption staff of 18 or fewer children (MSA, Section II.G.13).

As displayed in Figure 4, the State far exceeded the June 2007 target with 90 percent of the offices having average caseloads for Adoption staff at or below the interim standard. This information was verified by the Monitor using the previously described approach. Appendix A contains a table with supporting detail for each office.

100%

Figure 4: NJ DCF DYFS Adoption Worker Caseloads*

90% 80%

90%

70% 60% 50%

65%

68%

60%

40%

30% 20%

35%

10%

0%

Dec. 2006 Target

Dec. 2006 Actual

March 2007

Target June 2007

% of DYFS offices meeting interim adoption standard

June 2007

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Office of Policy and Planning *Interim Adoption caseload standard is 18 or fewer children. Note: Prior to December 2006, adoption staff and cases were included in permanency caseload data.

5. DCF exceeded the benchmark for ratio of supervisors to workers.

Supervision is a critical role in practice with children and families and the span of supervisor responsibility should be limited to allow more effective individual supervision of workers. Therefore the MSA established standards for supervisory ratios. By December 2008, 95 percent of all offices should be able to maintain a five worker to one supervisor ratio (MSA, Section II.E.17). Like the caseload standards, this standard was to be phased in starting in December 2006. As of June 2007, 85 percent of the offices were to have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a five worker to one supervisor ratio. (MSA, Section II.E.11)

As displayed in Figure 5, the State exceeded the second target with 87 percent of the offices having 5 to 1 supervisory ratios. This ratio is calculated using only the SFSS2 staff.5

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 17

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Appendix A contains a table with supporting detail for each office, including the number of supervisors in each level.

100%

Figure 5: NJ DCF DYFS Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios

90% 80%

85%

95%

85%

87%

70%

60% 50%

65%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

1 to 5 (CW Sups & Sups)
Target Dec. 2006

1 to 5 (CW Sups & 1 to 5 (Sups only) Sups)

1 to 5 (Sups only)

Dec. 2006

March 2007

Target June 2007

% of DYFS offices meeting standard

1 to 5 (Sups only) June 2007

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Office of Policy and Planning

5 The Department has two supervisor levels. One level, Supervising Family Service Specialist 2 (SFSS2), is a direct frontline supervisor position responsible for supervising a casework unit. The field refers to this position as “supervisor” or “unit supervisor.” The second level is Supervising Family Service Specialist 1 (SFSS1). In the field, this position is referred to as “Casework Supervisor.” In general, five unit supervisors typically report to a Casework Supervisor. Prior to the March 31, 2007 reporting, DCF had combined both casework supervisors and frontline supervisors in the generic category of “supervisors” in the reported supervisor ratios. The web site posting now reflects the effect of disaggregating the supervisors. For purposes of meeting the Modified Settlement Agreement Standards of Supervisory ratios, only the number of unit supervisors (SFSS2) will be used going forward.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 18

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
6. Local Office Insights and Comments about Caseloads
In-person and telephone interviews with casework staff, supervisors and area and local office management confirm that caseload sizes have substantially improved since March 2006 and highlight caseload reduction as an area of significant progress. Even those offices that were not yet in compliance with all or some of the caseload standards have experienced notable reductions. When asked about the largest individual caseloads in June 2007, local office management indicated some Permanency and Intake workers might have had caseloads as high as 18 to 28 families. Some individual adoption caseloads were as high as 20 children in some offices. Local office personnel also cited individual caseloads as low as 13 families and adoption caseloads with no more than 9 or 14 children. Staff at many of the local offices visited commented on caseloads being more manageable, producing less stress and allowing more contact and better practice with children and families. Likewise, those workers who continue to have higher caseloads report that they don’t have time “to do what we’re supposed to do.”
B. Training
As shown in Table 6, the State met each of its MSA obligations for training during this monitoring period. Given the large numbers of new staff added to the workforce, this has not been an easy accomplishment. The state’s Director of the New Jersey Child Welfare Training Academy (NJCWTA) resigned during this period. Until a new permanent Director is selected, the NJCWTA is being managed by DCF’s Director of Administration.
Highlights of the Department’s work this monitoring period in training are:
• Modification of the Pre-Service training to incorporate principles from the Case Practice Model;
• All newly promoted supervisors have taken Supervisory Training; • All staff were trained on concurrent planning; • All case carrying staff, supervisors and others (5,025 staff) were trained on the State’s
new automated Child Welfare Information System, New Jersey SPIRIT; and • Nearly all existing staff members were trained in Intake and Investigations; new staff
members will henceforth receive Intake training as part of Pre-Service training.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 19

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Training

Table 6:

DCF Child Welfare Training Academy MSA Compliance Data

January 1, 2007 – June 30, 2007

# of Staff

Settlement Commitment Description

# of Staff Trained in 1st

Trained in 6 months

2006

2007

Total # of Staff Trained (Cumulative)

Pre-Service Ongoing: New caseworkers shall have 160

class hours, including intake and

investigations training; be enrolled within

711

412

1,123

two weeks of start date; complete training

and pass competency exams before

assuming a full caseload.

In-Service

Ongoing: Training on concurrent planning; may be part of 20 hours in-service training

2,522

729

by December 2007.

3,251

Investigations Ongoing: New staff conducting intake or

& Intake:

investigations shall have investigations

0

650

650

New Staff

training and pass competency exams before

assuming cases.

Investigations & Intake: Prior Staff

Between September 2006 and June 2007, staff currently responsible for intake and investigations who has not received investigations training shall have that training.

150

DYFS 769 IAIU 64

DYFS 919 IAIU 64

Supervisory: As of December 2006 and ongoing, newly

New Supervisors

promoted supervisors to complete 40 hours of supervisory training; pass competency

0

114

114

exams within 3 months of assuming

position.

Supervisory: By June 2007, supervisors promoted before

Prior Supervisors

December 2006 who had not previously received supervisory training shall have 40

44

138

182

hours of that training and pass competency

exams.

Adoption

As of December 2006, adoption training

91

140

231

Worker

shall be provided for adoption workers.

New Jersey New Jersey SPIRIT training for all case

SPIRIT

carrying workers by May 2007; may be part

0

of 20 hours in-service training.

5,025

5,025

Source: DCF data, verified by Monitor August 2007.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 20

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

1. Pre-Service Training

a. DYFS revised its Pre-Service training to incorporate the new Case Practice Model and continues to provide a minimum of 160 hours of classroom training to newly hired staff.

The New Jersey Child Welfare Training Academy (NJCWTA) revised its Pre-Service training curriculum in this monitoring period to reflect the newly developed CPM. (MSA, II B.1.a) The new Pre-Service curriculum, entitled Family and Community Engagement Training, contains concepts, strategies and skills building exercises on engaging families and communities. The Department will be working with consultants to review these initial modifications to ensure they are consistent with changes to its In-Service and other training curricula and New Jersey’s new CPM is the organizing principle of all training offerings. The Monitor will be involved in this change process, and will evaluate revisions to the Pre-Service and the In-Service training curricula in upcoming monitoring periods.

The Pre- Service curriculum as revised consists of 162 hours of training, 27 classroom days and 21 field instruction days. Figure 7 below shows the 11 modules that comprise the revised curriculum.

Figure 7: New Jersey Pre-Service Training Curriculum

Module 1 Module 2 Module 3 Module 4 Module 5 Module 6 Module 7 Module 8 Module 9 Module 10 Module 11

Orientation – Welcome to DCF Understanding Child Welfare in New Jersey Taking Care of Yourself Computer Applications Self-Aware Practitioner Focusing on Families: From Screening to Closing Engagement and Interpersonal Helping Skills Child Development and Identification of Child Abuse and Neglect Assessing Strengths and Needs of Families Facilitating Change Structured Decision Making (SDM) Simulation

Source: NJCWTA as of June 2007

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 21

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

b. All new case-carrying workers are enrolled in Pre-Service training within two weeks of their start date (MSA, II.B.1.b).
During the monitoring period, the Department hired 392 staff as Family Service Specialists. These 392 staff members as well as staff hired at the end of 20066 were required to take Pre-Service training. A total of 412 staff was enrolled in Pre-Service training between January and June 2007. The Monitor reviewed training logs of PreService training participation for the months of January 2007 to June 2007 and crossreferenced human resource records with rosters of participants in Pre-Service training sessions conducted in the same period. This review established that 94 percent of Department trainees are enrolled in Pre-Service training within two weeks of their start date as required by the MSA. The Monitor’s discussions with staff at various local offices throughout the State reveal that the Pre-Service training is generally well received.
c. DYFS revised and standardized its competency exams to better assess when new workers are ready to assume a full case load (MSA, II.B.1.c).
The MSA requires the Department to have standardized exams to assess worker competency before assuming a full caseload. Trainees take competency exams associated with each module of the Pre-Service training. In the first Monitoring Report, the Monitor recommended the Department revise its protocol for certifying when a trainee can assume a full case load. The NJCWTA developed a comprehensive tool to make this assessment, and has begun implementing it during this monitoring period. The new tool allows Field Training Unit Supervisors and others to more effectively evaluate a trainee’s strengths and weaknesses, and make suggestions for areas of improvement. The Department will continue to evaluate whether the new assessment tool meets its need to effectively evaluate the competence of a new trainee.7
2. In-Service Training
a. The State has trained its staff on New Jersey SPIRIT as part of the requirement to begin an In Service training program (MSA, II.b.2.a).
At the conclusion of the last monitoring period, the parties agreed to permit the Department’s training of staff in New Jersey SPIRIT to satisfy the MSA requirement to institute In-Service training by April 2007. As discussed on page 29 of this Report, the Division began training on New Jersey SPIRIT in April 2007 in Ocean County and with web-based training throughout the State. By the end of August 2007 the State had trained 5,025 staff on its new information technology system, including all of its 2,026 workers and 500 supervisors.
6 412 staff includes 20 staff hired at the end of 2006 who were required to take Pre-Service training within two weeks of their start so were trained in the current monitoring period. 7 The Monitor recommended that this instrument include a scaled grade rather than a pass/fail assessment in order to assist in evaluating staff development needs. The Department agreed re-evaluate this recommendation after gaining some initial experience with the assessment process.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 22

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

b. DYFS has provided in-service training on concurrent planning for existing staff (MSA, II.B.2.d).
The focus of concurrent planning is the development of permanency plans that incorporate reunification and long term planning in the event reunification is not possible. The Department has implemented In-Service training on concurrent planning through its contract with Rutgers University School of Social Work (Rutgers). In response to staff requests, the Department conducted the Concurrent Planning training in a variety of different locations and in local offices. As of June 30, 2007 the NJCWTA had recorded a total of 3,251 staff that Rutgers had trained. The Department reports all existing staff has now been trained on concurrent planning. The Monitor cross referenced a random sample of 37 staff transcripts with human resource data and found that all existing staff had taken Concurrent Planning training.
The Monitor attended the Department’s Concurrent Planning training in Hunterdon, N.J. Staff were engaged and responded with enthusiasm to the training. Particularly useful to staff, as reported to the Monitor during site visits, was the consultant’s use of case handlers’ real cases (without names) as learning tools to construct permanency plans and tasks. Moving forward, the Department will need to ensure that the presentation and subject matter of the Concurrent Planning training conforms with more consistency and specificity to the new CPM.
3. Intake and Investigations
a. DYFS has trained nearly all existing staff members responsible for Intake and Investigations and has incorporated Intake into its Pre-Service training for new staff (MSA, II.B.3.a,b).
As indicated in Table 6 above, the NJCWTA reports that it trained 1483 DYFS staff on Intake and Investigations, including 64 IAIU investigators between January and June 2007. Now that training of existing Intake staff is complete, all staff newly responsible for Intake and Investigations will be trained in these skills as part of their Pre-Service training. The Monitor cross referenced a random sample of 84 staff transcripts with human resource data and concluded that the State has complied with the MSA.
b. DYFS developed and implemented a competency examination for all workers performing Intake and Investigations, and has incorporated that material into its PreService testing (MSA, II.B.3.a).
Based on pilot testing of competency exams with Intake and Investigations staff, the NJCWTA developed a competency examination for staff that complete the 3-day Intake and Investigations course. The Monitor has taken and reviewed the exam. Starting in January 2007, the NJCWTA incorporated this exam into its testing of Modules 6, 9 and part of 8 of Pre-Service training, which cover Intake and Investigations. Supervisors

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 23

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
review the results of the competency exams and are notified if a trainee fails the exam after taking it a second time. The Department reports that there have been no second failures of competency exams.
4. Supervisory Training
Table 8: Supervisory Training: Total Number of Supervisors
Trained January 1, 2006 – June 30, 2007

Category

# Trained

Percent of Staff Needing Training*

Supervisors Appointed Pre- 12/06
• Trained in 2006 • Trained by 6/30/07 • Scheduled for Training

44 138
5 ____
187

24% 74%
3% ____ 100%**

Supervisors appointed

114

1/1/07 – 06/30/07

Source: DCF, verified by Monitor *Data excludes two supervisors on extended leave. **Percentages add to greater than 100 due to rounding.

100%

a. 100 percent of newly promoted supervisors have taken NJCWTA’s Supervisory Training; 93 percent had taken 40 class hours within 3 months of their promotion.(MSA, B.II.4.b,c).
Newly-appointed supervisors DYFS reports that 141 new supervisors were appointed during the monitoring period, 114 of whom required supervisory training. The remaining 27 appointments had prior experience and training as supervisors. To verify this data, the Monitor cross referenced a random sample of 15 staff transcripts with human resource data and concluded that the State has met the MSA requirement. It will be important for the Department to schedule those supervisors who took their supervisory training in 2004-2005 for training on the new CPM as soon as possible.8
8 Based on the Monitor’s random sample review of 15 staff, 4 staff took supervisory training in 2005 or earlier.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 24

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
Supervisors appointed before December 2006 As indicated in Tables 6 and 8, the Department reports that 138 supervisors appointed prior to December 2006 have taken supervisory training during this monitoring period; 5 supervisors have not yet completed supervisory training but have been scheduled. The Monitor cross referenced a random sample of 21staff transcripts with human resources data and concluded that the State has met the MSA requirement. It will be important for the Department to schedule those supervisors who took supervisory training in 20042005 for training on the new CPM.9 Further, the Monitor’s independent review of class rosters for supervisory training against human resources reports of newly appointed supervisors indicates that NJCWTA is providing supervisory training within 3 months of the supervisor’s promotion.
At the conclusion of the training, supervisors are expected to pass competency examinations. During the last monitoring period, the Monitor reviewed samples of portions of supervisory competency examinations of varying quality and was not able to satisfactorily assess how the results were evaluated and used. The Monitor has recommended and is in discussion with DCF about the development of a more structured and standardized assessment of supervisory skills and the use of a more clearly defined protocol for how the results of the exam are used to develop individual staff competency. The Monitor will reevaluate this expectation in the next six-month period.

9 Based on the Monitor’s random sample review of 21 staff, 3 staff appear to have received supervisory training in January 2003.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 25

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
C. Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (“IAIU”)
The Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU) is responsible for investigating allegations of abuse and neglect in any out-of-home care setting. This includes, but is not limited to foster care placement settings. It also includes correctional facilities, detention facilities, treatment facilities, schools (public or private), residential schools, shelters, hospitals, camps or day care centers that are licensed or should be licensed, Resource Family homes and registered family day care homes.10 In the first half of 2007, IAIU received 1730 referrals. Figure 9 displays the source of these referrals.
Figure 9: IAIU Source of Referrals
January – June 2007 Total = 1,730
Legal & Court 0%

Police 7%

Facility 8%

Parent 12%

DYFS 16%

Relative 2%

Health 7%

School 26%

Other Gov't Agency 8%

Anonymous 8%

Self

Friend/Neighbor/

1%

Community

7%

Source: DCF September 2007

10 DYFS (7-1-1992). IAIU Support Operations Manual, III E Institutional Abuse and Neglect, 302.
Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 26

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
1. The IAIU achieved the June 2007 target for timeliness of IAIU Investigations.
The purpose of IAIU’s investigative effort is to determine whether children in out-of-home care settings have been abused or neglected11 and to ensure their safety by requiring corrective actions to eliminate the risk of future harm. By June 2007, IAIU was expected to complete 80 percent of its investigations within 60 days of referral. (MSA, II.I.3)
On June 30, 2007, the State reported that IAIU had 373 open investigations, 332 (89%) of which had been open less than 60 days. These open cases reflect investigations still in process based on May and June referrals. The remaining 11 percent had been open for more than 60 days. According to the State, a significant number of the cases that were open more than 60 days involve criminal investigations and the IAIU investigations were on hold until staff are given clearance from law enforcement or prosecution to proceed.
In addition to the month-end report supplied by the State, the Monitor reviewed randomly selected IAIU daily work-flow reports for ten days between July 1 and August 31, 2007. The trend shown in these reports indicates that IAIU was able to maintain the performance achieved on June 30, 2007 throughout July and August for all open reports. The proportion of cases open less than 60 days ranged from 83 percent to 88 percent. During the next period, the Monitor will review a selection of investigation records to further validate the State’s performance.
2. By June 30, 2007 all IAIU investigators had received appropriate training.
All IAIU investigators are to have had specific training on the Intake and Investigations process, policies, and investigative techniques. (MSA, III.I.4.)
Sixty-four IAIU staff statewide received the “First Responder” investigative training between January and July 2007. DCF reports that this includes all IAIU supervisors.

D. Accountability through the Production and Use of Accurate Data
One of the principal accomplishments of the Department in its first year is its progress in producing timely and accurate data, making that data available to the field and to the public and increasingly using the data for planning, management and accountability.The importance of data for planning and accountability has been consistently identified as a high leadership priority. The Department has begun to move from one which could not rely on or be relied on for accurate data to one which has steadily improved its internal capacity and external communication through performance and outcome data. This has been the result of diligent work by the DCF Office of Planning and Policy and the entire DCF leadership team.
During this monitoring period, the MSA required further development of data capacity in two major ways:
11 As defined by statute at N.J.S.A. 30:40C-12 or 9:6-8.21.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 27

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

• The expansion of production and publication of accurate data on key indicators of system performance and
• The deployment of New Jersey SPIRIT, the State’s Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS).
Each of these is discussed separately below.
1. DCF continues to expand and refine its data on performance indicators and its presentation of data to the public through its website.
With the full deployment of New Jersey SPIRIT (discussed in more detail below), the State is poised to significantly expand the number and range of indicators on which it routinely collects and can report data. It is important to note that it will take time to achieve the expanded data reporting capacity of SPIRIT since producing accurate reports through a new data system require that staff learn to properly use the system to its full potential. Nevertheless, in this monitoring period and prior to full deployment of SPIRIT, DCF was able to continue to expand its data capacities and has made several modifications and additions that satisfy the MSA requirement to continue to expand performance reporting (MSA, II.J.5).
Important additions in DCF’s Quarterly Data Update include:
• Demographic Data o Children in DYFS Placement by Placement Type (with separate delineation of treatment home placements) o Race/Ethnicity of Children Receiving DYFS Services (broken out by Placement and In-Home) o Age and Gender of Children Receiving DYFS Services (broken out by Placement and In-Home) o Age, Race/Ethnicity and Gender of Children Served by DCBHS (broken out by CMOs, and DCBHS placements
• Caseload Data o Staff with more than 30 Families o Caseload Data by Local Office
• Recruiting Foster and Adoptive Families o Data on Licensed Resource Homes (Kin and Non-Kin separately) o Net Gain on Resource Families (Kin and Non-Kin)
• Health Care for Children in Placement o Performance on Pre-Placement Assessments
Over the next year, it is the Monitor’s expectation that the range of data elements that can be accurately collected and reported will substantially increase. Moreover, the monitoring requirements related to implementation of the CPM will require tracking of additional indicators and case processing functions that are not now captured. The Monitor will be working with DCF

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 28

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
staff to identify a timetable and plan for additional data measurement and reporting. Discussions between the Monitor, Plaintiffs and State will occur by December 2007 to reach agreement on a plan for additional data rollout beginning in 2008.
2. Deployment of Phase II of New Jersey SPIRIT
The MSA required the deployment of Release 2, Phase II of New Jersey SPIRIT by February 2007 (MSA, II.J.7). In the last monitoring report, the release date for SPIRIT was modified to April 2007 in order to avoid possible disruptions in end of fiscal quarter and programmatic reporting. The State then wisely decided to implement SPIRIT by first piloting the deployment in Ocean County and using the experience there to identify and fix problems that would cause major disruption if the system was initially implemented statewide. Postponement of full deployment to the summer of 2007 also enabled the Department to have sufficient time to provide initial training for each of its staff.
The decision to pilot test the release in Ocean County was a good one. The Monitor visited Ocean County during the pilot phase and heard from staff about the promises, irritations, and challenges of SPIRIT. During the pilot phase, many, many case processing and system problems were identified by users and fixed. In addition, the Department gained critical insight into the level of on-site and on-line support that would be needed for full deployment. During the pilot period, data were double entered into the new SPIRIT system and into the old legacy system so as to avoid the possibility of lost data.
New Jersey SPIRIT was deployed statewide on August 22, 2007. Department leadership approached the deployment with both careful planning and some understandable trepidation. In advance of the deployment, all staff was trained in how to log onto and use SPIRIT for case processing functions, thus meeting the MSA requirement to train all case carrying workers (MSA, II.J.8). In addition, DCF established a centralized help desk consisting of 13 employees and put 176 “production support staff” in the field throughout all 46 local offices and in central office units. The need for this kind of intensive on-site help is well documented in other States’ experiences with information system deployment. In the period between August 22 and September 5, the Department reports that the Helpdesk responded to 1905 different requests for assistance, reflecting the ongoing challenge of acclimating staff to a new system, making sure that all system problems are identified and resolved and the need for continuous implementation monitoring and training. However, implementation problems still remain and significant on-site help will continue to be needed in some areas of the State for the foreseeable future.
A second hurdle for the new system was the processing of its first set of monthly payments. This task was also approached with trepidation but it appears that the payment processing parts of SPIRIT are functioning. DCF implemented back up systems to process manual payments when needed to supplement automatic payments through SPIRIT. A hotline was established for providers and Resource Parents in the event that payments were improperly made. In the first run of payments, 85% were made automatically. In the second run at the beginning of October, less than 1% of payments required manual processing.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 29

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
The deployment of New Jersey SPIRIT is a significant accomplishment. Diligent oversight and local office support will continue to be needed for the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the implementation to date reflects the enormously hard work and attention of DCF managers and SPIRIT staff in the months leading up to and immediately upon deployment. The real test of the system’s functionality will occur over the next six months to a year as workers get used to and are required to use the system and as managers learn to use SPIRIT and its data for tracking individual cases and for overall system and performance monitoring. The Monitor will more fully assess New Jersey SPIRIT implementation in the next six months.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 30

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
IV. CHANGING PRACTICE TO SUPPORT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
A. Implementing the New Case Practice Model
The Department faced significant challenges in communicating and disseminating the new Case Practice Model (CPM) to the field, but has responded to this challenge with a detailed, thoughtful and ambitious CPM Implementation Plan. The Plan incorporates broad and deep strategies that seek to use the CPM as a dynamic tool to frame and guide future work. The conceptualization of this Plan took time to develop, and the Monitor has consistently taken the position that rather than rush through a truncated version of a CPM training to meet the MSA timeframes, the State should approach the execution of the CPM Implementation Plan as a longer term and intensive process. The parties have agreed, therefore, to extend the deadline to complete staff training and mentoring on the CPM until the end of 2008 with intensive work beginning in October 2007 and continuing over the next 15 months.
In this monitoring period, the MSA (II.A.3-4) required the State to: • Begin to implement the CPM • Identify the methodology to track successful implementation of the CPM;
In reporting on the CPM for Phase I of the MSA, the Monitor is charged with focusing “primarily on the quality of the Case Practice Model and the actions taken to implement it.” (MSA, II.A.5).
After its finalization in December 2006, the work of planning for implementation of the CPM began. With the Monitor’s support, the Department took the necessary time to lay the foundation for a healthy and functioning department before it turned its attention to planning for implementation of the new CPM. These foundational steps included:
• Hiring large numbers of case-carrying staff to meet the needs of each office; • Training staff, including Pre-Service, Investigatory, Supervisory, and New Jersey
SPIRIT; • Compliance with caseload standards to meet the MSA; • Setting challenging adoption finalization targets; • Reorganization of Resource Family licensing and recruitment units to meet
aggressive new family recruitment targets.
Once these critical elements of a healthy system were underway, the Department began to focus on meeting its mandate to implement the CPM. Site visits reveal that some offices have begun to communicate and anticipate the change of practice envisioned in the CPM while others have not. In the Monitor’s site visits, many staff however expressed excitement about a new vision for the agency and the new role the agency will be expected to take in the community and in partnership with families and community stakeholders. Other staff had little to no knowledge of the Department’s CPM and its expectations for practice.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 31

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
As described in detail in the Department’s CPM Implementation Plan dated September 2007 (Appendix B), the first formal step towards implementation of the CPM began with a series of focus groups of staff, stakeholders and families. Key Department leadership, including Area Directors and Assistant Area Directors, then met in a two day retreat devoted to CPM implementation. Each division and level of DCF had an opportunity to express what it needed in order to successfully implement the new CPM, and leadership had the opportunity to hear, analyze and reflect upon those needs. The Monitor attended this retreat as an observer.
The Department’s CPM Implementation Plan articulates a six prong approach to system change: 1. Leadership Development 2. Statewide Readiness Strategy 3. Immersion 4. Service Development 5. Continued Focus on the Fundamentals 6. Enhanced Planning Between DYFS and DCBHS
Each prong is important and necessary for the overall reform effort.
1. Leadership Development
Sound reform requires a cultural change that begins with leadership engagement and development. Executive leadership made a critical determination early on to involve Area Directors, Assistant Area Directors—and later office managers—in the decision-making and leadership of the reform effort. This is not easy to do given the size of New Jersey’s child welfare system, and DCF should be commended in taking this step even before it could reap any direct benefits. In addition to regular meetings and better communication strategies generally, Central Office made critical data available to each director and manager for the first time and supported and encouraged directors and managers to make management decisions based on this data. The next step is a Leadership Summit to take place in October 2007 with key staff from DYFS, DCBHS, Prevention and Central Operations, DCF Executive Management and the Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group (CWPPG), a consultant group which was an important innovator and leader in Alabama and Utah’s model child welfare reform efforts.
2. Statewide Readiness Strategy
By December 2007, the Department will have developed training curricula consistent with the CPM and will begin to intensively provide additional training to existing staff. Concurrently, DCF will again review and modify its Pre-Service curriculum to ensure consistency and to enhance necessary skill development. This work will be shared with the New Jersey Partnership for Child Welfare Program, a partnership of four regionally diverse schools of social work facilitated by Rutgers University School of Social Work. The chosen curricula will cover the principles of family engagement, while giving the staff practical tools for beginning to practice key principles.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 32

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
Training staff on the CPM is a formidable task. DCF estimates that in 2008 at least 4000 case carrying staff will need to be trained for a minimum of 40 hours. Over 1,100 days of training— assuming a class size of 25—will need to be scheduled and delivered. To accomplish this task, the Department has developed a matrix relying on regional training teams that will include:
• the DCF Child Welfare Training Academy (NJCWTA); • the University Training Consortium, facilitated by Rutgers University
School of Social Work; • a DYFS central office CPM technical assistance group; • local providers, such as local CMOs who have experience and proven track records of
family engagement and family centered practice; and • consultant team members (CWPPG).
The regional teams will be deployed sequentially across the State as explained below and in depth in the Implementation Plan. The Department will utilize a train the trainer model so that, at the conclusion of the consultant’s work with the State, the regional teams can seamlessly continue training the workforce as needed.
3. Immersion
At the same time the regional teams are training the statewide workforce, the Department will work more intensively with staff at carefully chosen sites to more fully develop new skills and practices. As discussed in detail in the Implementation Plan, beginning in January 2008, DCF will launch this intensive immersion process in four pilot counties. This process will provide intensive training, mentoring, and coaching for staff conducted by CWPPG and DCF technical assistance partners. It will also involve an examination of services available to families and, equally important, the development of an infrastructure to schedule and facilitate family team meetings. The Monitor heard from all levels of staff at all sites that a lack of appropriate space hindered their ability to provide families with proper, dignified team meetings and visits. This issue will have to be addressed in the immersion sites and hopefully will yield creative solutions including community-based options for these sites and for other parts of the State.
The intensive coaching and mentoring of staff envisioned by the Implementation Plan takes time to implement correctly and to seed the foundation for lasting change. The process of developing immersion sites is expected to take approximately seven months to complete. DCF has committed to an evaluation process to determine efficacy and the Monitor will be a partner in that process.
As the immersion sites develop, local office leadership will conduct training and focused coaching to ready the rest of the workforce. Advanced case practice training and advanced intensive coaching will be made available to staff across the state as local training capacity and technical assistance are developed by the second half of 2008. The Department will then stagger advanced training and coaching as needed.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 33

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

4. Service Delivery and Budget Transparency
During site visits, the Monitor heard from staff about the need for more services that better align with the needs of children and families and with the vision of the CPM. Without a sufficient quantity and quality of services, a case practice model will fail; staff cannot successfully engage with families if they cannot offer them the services they need. Family teams cannot successfully assist families unless willing, trained and capable partners are members of the team.
Over this past year, DCF has begun investing in service capacity and as discussed later in the report, has been using contracts with private providers as a means to expand local capacity for services to children and families. These include investments in three pilot sites implementing new differential response systems as well as resources for flexible funds to support family services, visitation support services, family success centers, substance abuse treatment, domestic violence treatment services and other service enhancements.12 The State is also actively implementing a Strengthening Families child abuse prevention initiative which seeks to build services and supports around families through early care and education programs.
For the first time in the history of the Department, DCF is implementing a strategy of child and family-based budgeting of investments and services by immersion site. In order to create such a budget, the Department will first inventory, across all its divisions, the public and private investments it makes in each of the sites where the CPM immersion is underway. This is an innovative undertaking that will likely deliver critical information to the State to assist in developing more family centered service delivery models and for future resource planning and development.
5. Continued Focus on Fundamentals
In its CPM Implementation Plan, the Department stresses the importance of continuing to keep its attention on the fundamentals of the reform, while simultaneously rolling out major new initiatives such as the CPM. By a continued and simultaneous focus on the fundamentals, DCF will continue to devote attention and resources to actions including reducing caseloads, retaining qualified staff, improving recruitment and licensing of resource homes. Continued progress on fundamentals will require recognition, cooperation, and support from stakeholders to ensure that core elements of the reform remain center stage as the CPM implementation is underway.
6. Enhancing Planning and Coordination between DYFS and DCBHS
In 2006, the Division of Child Behavioral Health Services (DCBHS) held a series of focus groups with system partners, including Family Court judges, Mobile Response and Stabilization Services, Family Support Organizations, Youth Case Management (YCM), and Care Management Organizations (CMO) to discuss how to better serve families with the behavioral health system. A consistent message was that children’s behavioral health needs must be better integrated into the daily work of the Department.
12 The monitor intends to review the use of flexible funds in future monitoring reports.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 34

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

In response, DCF will pilot reforms to unify case practice in DYFS and DCBHS in up to three counties in Spring 2008. The purpose of the pilots will be to test the elimination of dual case management within DCBHS, between YCMs and CMOs, and between DCBHS and DYFS by transitioning youth to the most appropriate entity. DYFS will be the lead on all cases that involve safety and permanency, but will continue to be supported by DCBHS.
Another component of the plan is DCBHS case management entities will deploy clinical staff into DYFS local offices to provide technical and other assistance to DYFS staff. DCBHS will also assign staff to DYFS Area Offices to become part of the team that works to return youth from out-of-home care. Taken together, these innovations are designed to improve the coordination of services within the Department and to better serve children with behavioral health needs. The Monitor will be looking closely at these improvements and the progress the Department anticipates as a result of them in the next monitoring period.
7. Implementation Plan Evaluation
The MSA requires the Department and the Monitor to track the implementation of the CPM going forward. Specifically, during Phase I the Monitor must evaluate and report “primarily on the quality of the Case Practice Model and the actions taken to implement it.” (MSA, II.A.5). The Monitor strongly supports the Department’s decision to track the implementation of the CPM through Quality Service Reviews (QSRs). The Department will also be collecting longitudinal outcome data such as the data developed for DCF by the Chapin Hall Center for Children. Quality Service Reviews will be phased in over time according to a schedule to be developed by DCF and the Monitor. The schedule will phase in QSRs throughout the State, beginning with the immersion sites. DCF offered suggestions for monitoring the State’s CPM implementation in its CPM Implementation Plan. The Monitor will take these suggestions into consideration in developing, with DCF and Plaintiffs, a comprehensive method of measuring whether the CPM has successfully taken hold in New Jersey.
B. Improving Results for Permanency and Adoption
Over the last several months, DCF has dramatically increased its efforts to move more children out of foster care, whether through safe reunification, placement with an adoptive family or placement in the permanent legal custody of an appropriate kinship family. The MSA requires DYFS to engage in several activities to promote permanency. Adoption units have been reconstituted and appropriate cases have been assigned to these units. Specific targets were set for each local office to ensure that DYFS meets the MSA requirement of 1400 adoption finalizations. Further, in an effort to change practice at the front end of the child welfare system, DYFS developed and implemented the Concurrent Planning “Enhanced Review” Model in ten demonstration sites. Concurrent planning is a concept employed by jurisdictions throughout the country in which workers assist children who come into out-of-home placement to reunify with their family of origin safely and quickly, while simultaneously pursuing alternative permanent placements for these children should reunification efforts fail. DCF describes concurrent planning as “a child-focused practice meant to minimize placement trauma and repetitive moves

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 35

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
for children entering care.”13 As DCF prepares to implement the CPM statewide, much planning and coordination will be necessary to help offices and workers understand that concurrent planning is a critical part of the CPM. Concurrent planning practice will “roll out” statewide with the implementation of the CPM.
It is also noteworthy that DCF has organized its policies and practices to heighten attention to identifying permanent homes for older adolescents in its care. Specifically, in accordance with the MSA, DCF targeted its efforts to find permanent homes for 100 youth in care who have been waiting the longest for a permanent family. DCF also launched a Youth Permanency Project to identify permanent, life-long connections for youth who are transitioning out of the foster care system.
1. Through adoption units, DCF continues to finalize adoptions at a steady pace.
As required by the MSA (Section II.G.12), DCF reports that all local offices have transferred appropriate cases to the adoption units. Reportedly, 95 percent of all adoption cases are now with adoption workers while 5 percent of cases remain in permanency units (due to an acceptable exception such as a previously established relationship with a caseworker). From January 2007 to June 30, 2007, DCF finalized 634 adoptions.14 The MSA requires 1400 adoptions to be finalized by December 2007. (Section II.G.17). Although DCF was less than halfway to this target, the State is operating at a steady pace to reach this goal. By comparison, in 2006 DCF had finalized 586 adoptions by June and ultimately finalized 1402 adoptions by December.15
Specific adoption finalization goals now have been set for each local office based on their current placement rates.16 Currently, eight Adoption Expeditors are working in counties with high numbers of legally free children (Essex, Union, and Ocean counties) to help those offices meet these targets. Two other counties (Middlesex and Bergen) have permission to hire Expeditors should they require assistance.

13 DCF, Concurrent Planning, Enhanced Review Model, update prepared 1/3/2007. 14 New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Quarterly Update, September 5, 2007. 15 The monitor previously reported 1,387 children had finalized adoptions. Because adoption data takes time to
verify, a few more adoptions were finalized in 2006 but not reported before the monitoring report was issued. The
final number of finalized adoptions in 2006 was 1402. The Monitor believes DCF can meet the MSA requirement of
1400 cases because, according to DCF, the second half of the year is strongest for finalizing adoptions as a result of
activities during National Adoption Month in November. 16 The formula for adoption finalizations each office was: 90% of children already in adoptive placements + 80% of
children in foster homes with an adoptive interest + 70% of children in kin homes with an adoptive interest.
Additionally, 30% of children for who termination of parental rights process is underway will achieve the
completion of litigation and finalization of adoption.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 36

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
2. DCF launched 10 Concurrent Planning Enhanced Review demonstration sites and has begun to assess their progress through the use of the Adoption Process Tracking System.
The MSA requires DCF to improve concurrent permanency planning and adoption practice (Section II G.1 and 2). DCF began implementation of the concurrent planning process in ten demonstration sites this year. DYFS staff in these sites have received specific training on this new model and follow-up coaching focusing on developing appropriate case plans for families. In June 2007, a concurrent planning handbook for DYFS staff was completed. This handbook describes the concurrent planning process and provides checklists and other documents that help guide a worker’s decision-making process. Additionally, the Deputy Attorney Generals who handle DYFS cases in these demonstration sites have received training and have begun to participate in the 10-month review hearings where a decision is made to provide more time for reunification with parent(s) or to recommend the termination of parental rights (TPR).
Currently, DCF is relying on the Adoption Process Tracking System to evaluate compliance with the concurrent planning model. The tracking system records 5 and 10 month reviews, the timeliness of case transfers to adoption workers, and the termination of parental rights. It is the responsibility of the Area Concurrent Planning Specialists to ensure that case information is entered promptly into the tracking system. As concurrent planning expands statewide, the measurements currently captured by the adoption process tracking system will be captured by NJ SPIRIT and/or Safe Measures.
In the first six months of implementing the concurrent planning process, the demonstration sites have experienced a not unexpected variety of successes and challenges. In most offices, staff were able to complete the majority (90% or higher) of 5 month reviews within the necessary time frame. However, offices varied more dramatically in their ability to successfully complete the 10-month reviews. Seven offices had timely 10 month reviews for 75 percent of their cases or higher, while two offices held timely reviews in less than 40 percent of their cases. The prompt transfer of cases (within 5 days) to an adoption worker also varied by office. Five offices achieved the timely transfer 100 percent of the time, while 4 offices had rates that ranged from 11 to 50 percent. Finally, a total of 45 cases were supposed to have TPR petitions filed within 45 calendar days, but this goal was only achieved in 14 cases (31%).
3. Services to support reunification have been expanded.
Recognizing the importance of providing services to parents whose children are in out-of-home care, DCF awarded $6 million in contracted services for family engagement and therapeutic visitation across the State—$575,000 of this award was dedicated to private agencies to work with the 10 demonstration sites to facilitate family engagement meetings. Additionally, as required by the MSA, the State amended its policies and procedures to allow for the use of flexible funds to support family preservation and reunification efforts, increasing the amount of expenditures on each parent annually and extending the time period for the use of these funds (Section II.C.3). The FY 2008 budget includes an additional $1 million for flexible funds. Given the heightened effort to work with families, the Monitor recommends that DCF continue to track

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 37

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

and report on reunification rates as part of the concurrent planning process and on the use of flexible funds to support family reunification.
4. DCF has begun implementing permanency strategies for older youth in care.
a. DCF is making progress to identify permanency options for youth who are legally free for adoption and have been in care for long periods of time (“100 Longest Waiting Teens”).
Specific attention has been paid over the last six months to finding permanent homes for youth in the foster care system who are legally free with adoption as their permanency goal. The total number of legally free youth awaiting adoption has declined from 2278 in January 2006 to 1939 in January 2007 and was 1740 in August 2007. Slightly more than 400 legally free children require DYFS to locate a permanent home for them—through the work of “Impact” Recruiters and select home adoption staff. In January 2007, five Adoption Impact Recruiters were hired and trained to find permanent connections for youth who have been identified as part of the “100 Longest Waiting Teens.” These workers, skilled in working with adolescents, are supervised by the Statewide Adoption Recruitment Specialist in the Office of Adoption Operations. Over the last six months, they have received specific training on working with adolescents who have been in care for extended periods of time and on strategies for recruiting appropriate families for these youth17.
According to DCF, the 100 youth who have been waiting the longest for permanent homes and are being targeted by the Adoption Impact teams are primarily African American (89 youth), with a little over half of them boys (59 boys and 41 girls). Most of the youth are between the ages of 14-16 (72 youth)18, and 70 percent of them live in highly structured group homes, treatment homes, or residential settings. The median length of stay for youth in out-of-home care is eight years (with the length of time ranging from 3 years to 16 years). These youth have many educational and mental health challenges related to being in care for so long and experiencing multiple placement moves.
Adoption Impact Recruiters have employed many strategies for finding potential permanent placements for these youth. Recruiters have “mined” the case files of youth in care and had conversations with the youth about individuals to whom they feel connected. Workers have tracked down family members or family friends to assess them as possible permanent caregivers. Some youth have chosen to participate in the Heart Gallery, a recruitment strategy where professional photographers take pictures of children in need of adoptive homes. 115 youth were featured in the Heart Gallery this year; 29 are teens who are part of the “100 Longest Waiting” group. Eight other children have had other media exposure including newspaper articles and television appearances on
17 This training was also offered to local office recruitment and adoption staff. 18 There are some latency age youth who are part of a sibling group that includes an adolescent.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 38

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Wednesday’s Child. DCF is also in the process of developing a Speaker’s Bureau of teens who can talk to other youth and potential adoptive parents about the need for homes for older youth in care.

DCF is adapting policy and practice to be flexible and responsive to meeting the needs of youth. For example, DCF recognizes that many foster parents might be willing to serve as a permanent resource for older youth. However, foster parents currently receive a foster care board rate until the child is 21, but if they were to adopt the child, the adoption subsidy only continues until the child is 18. As a result, DCF is working to identify and eliminate barriers to extending adoption subsidies to age 21 for youth who are adopted after the age of 14.

Table 10 summarizes the progress made by the Adoption Impact Teams in finding permanent homes for the “100 Longest Waiting Teens.”

Table 10: Progress on Permanency for “100 Longest Waiting Teens”

Permanency activity Finalized Adoption

Number of youth benefited 1

Selected Home Adoption Placements

2

Foster Home Adoption Plan

7

Relative Adoption Placement

2

Relative Adoption Placements Pending

9

Kinship Legal Guardianship Plan

2

Adoption Home study in progress

2

Reconnecting with Birth Parents

2

Visiting (possible placement)

2

Other possible placement identified19

10

Match Party Matches

5

Source: DCF, Longest Waiting Teens Report, Updated 9-6-07 Children are counted in one category only.

19 “Other possible placements” is a category that encompasses viable adults who are being assessed as a possible placement for a youth.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 39

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
b. DCF is launching a Youth Permanency Demonstration Project.
DCF began a Youth Permanency Demonstration Project to address the problem of too many youth leaving the foster care system without permanent connections to caring adults. This project is “designed to combine independent living and youth development skills with extensive permanency planning.” Beginning July 1, 2007, DCF will work with three agencies to support permanency planning for approximately 60-75 youth. Youth referred to these agencies will be between the ages of 14 and 21. Some youth will be “legally free” and some “not-legally free” for adoption. The agencies’ success will be measured by the number of connections established for youth. Additional outcomes to be measured include: youth-adult connections still existing one year later, 80 percent of youth with some viable means of support (employment skills), and improvements in the youth’s sense of well being.
DCF will also begin working with youth who are at risk of aging out of the child welfare system without any permanent connection, and whose goal is neither adoption nor legal guardianship. DCF has begun using the Wendy’s Wonderful Kids model to assist with youth-specific recruitment to find permanency for these youth. This model has been used on a smaller scale in a few offices and will be expanding as services to adolescents expand. Both of these projects demonstrate the State’s commitment to finding permanent homes and/or adult connections for older youth in its custody. Further, these projects are part of a larger effort to improve practice with adolescents in DCF’s care.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 40

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

V. APPROPRIATE PLACEMENTS AND SERVICES FOR CHILDREN

A. Resource Families

Recruitment and licensure of Resource Families has improved in the past year. Many changes have been made both structurally and substantively that have begun to bear fruit in this monitoring period. Impact Teams deployed statewide have been successful in reducing the backlog of waiting applications and the Department has licensed a record number of new homes. The Department licensed 1287 new non-kin Resource Family homes, significantly exceeding the MSA requirement to have licensed 1030 non-kin Resource Family homes by June 2007. Further, the Department now routinely achieves a net gain of Resource Homes each month, demonstrating the increasing success of recruitment and licensing efforts.

1. DCF recruited and licensed 1287 new non-kin Resource Families between July 2006 and June 2007 exceeding its mandate to license 1030 non-kin Resource Family homes in this period. (MSA, II.H.10.)

The State licensed a total of 643 non-kin Resource Family homes from July 2006 through January 2007. This put the Department in very good stead to exceed its goal of licensing 1030 non-kin Resource Family homes by June 2007. Indeed, as early as April 2007, the goal of 1030 homes was met and by June 2007, a total of 1287 homes were recruited and licensed (see Figure 11).

Figure 11: NJ DCF Resource Families Number of New Non-Kin Families Licensed

1400 1200 1000

1287 1185 1059 937

802 800
690

600 508

426

400

345

260

200

161

0 0
July 2006 Aug 2006

Sep 2006

Oct 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2006

Jan 2007

Feb 2007

ar 2007 M

Apr 2007

ay 2007 M

Jun 2007

Source: New Jersey DCF, DYFS, verified by Monitor

1030 TARGET

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 41

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

The Department continues to collect and analyze data that distinguish the number of kinship and non-kinship homes licensed each month. Table 12 provides data for July 2006 through June 2007 on the total number of kin and non-kin homes newly licensed.

Table 12: New Licensed Family Resource Homes
July 2006 – June 2007

Kin

Non-Kin

July 2006

18

60

August 2006

33

101

September 2006

35

99

October 2006

27

85

November 2006

21

81

December 2006

28

82

January 2007

59

182

February 2007

29

112

March 2007

61

135

April 2007

44

122

May 2007

37

126

June 2007

32

102

TOTALS

424

1287

Source: New Jersey DCF, DYFS, verified by Monitor.

Total 78
134 134 112 102 110 241 141 196 166 163 134 1711

The Monitor reviewed a random sample of approximately 20 percent of licensing case files from January 2006 or before to verify data supporting that the Department reached its goal of licensing 1030 non-kinship Resource Families. The Resource Family Support and the Resource Family Licensing units of DCF are to be applauded for this tremendously successful effort. First, the Impact Teams established at the end of the last monitoring period moved into high gear beginning in January 2007. Working jointly with Resource Family Units first in Middlesex, Passaic and Atlantic counties, and then moving on to Union and Burlington counties, the teams vastly reduced the backlog of waiting applications and licensed a record number of homes so that there has been a consistent monthly net increase in the number of new homes. Figure 13 provides data on the net gain of licensed homes by month from July 2006 to June 2007.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 42

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Figure 13: NJ DCF Resource Families – Net Gain by Month
(n = 876)
200

180

190

Net Gain (No. New Licensed - No. Closed)

160

140

120

100

80

60 62

40

50

45

20 25

26

0
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006

Source: DCF, DYFS, verified by Monitor

52
Dec 2006

Jan 2007

90
Feb 2007

105
Mar 2007

106
Apr 2007

53
May 2007

72
Jun 2007

The Impact Teams also established new protocols and began to standardize procedures to facilitate licensing within 150 days of a Resource Family’s application. Figure 14 on the following page is a pictorial representation of the process a Resource Family application takes to become licensed within 150 days.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 43

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Figure 14: Resource Family 150 Day Flow Chart (Revised as of August 2007)

Days 1-7: After supervisory review and approval of Resource Family application, the Resource Family Worker schedules an appointment to review the home study process and the application moves to the Office of Licensing.

Days 7-30: By day 30, the Resource Family Worker briefs family on need for references, provides forms, and family begins gathering the references to provide to RFW. During the visit, the home is assessed for safety and inspected based on standards. Additionally the Resource Family Worker schedules Pre-Service training and the family begins attending.

Days 30-60: On or before day 60, the Resource Family Worker conducts the next home visit and interviews the family as outlined in the SAFE home study model. During this time the ongoing Home Study Process is completed: All adults who reside or frequent the home are scheduled for live-scan fingerprinting, the family completes the SAFE assessment, all household members are interviewed, and applicants ensure all necessary documentation and references are secured as required. The applicants also complete Pre-Service training (18 hours for kinship homes and 27 hours for non-kin). Regulatory waivers are sought at this time.

Days 120-150: The inspection report is completed. The Resource Family Worker and the family are advised of any minor regulatory violations. If a re-inspection, scheduled within 30 days, determines that the minor violations cannot be abated, the Administrative Unit determines the appropriateness of denial. If the family does not have any violations or the minor violations are abated, the OOL supervisor reviews the inspection report and the applicant is licensed. All parties are notified once a license has been issued.

Days 100-120: Within 20 days of reviewing the completed Home Study Assessment Packet, the OOL inspector and the Resource Family Worker work together to coordinate a home inspection.

Days 60-90: On or before day 90, a follow-up visit is made to the home to conduct interviews and address all potential obstacles or issues. The Resource Family Worker completes the SAFE home study report utilizing all information gathered from references, questionnaires and interviews with the applicant and all household members.
Days 90-100: Resource Family Supervisor reviews and approves the SAFE home study and sends the Home Study Assessment Packet to the Office of Licensing.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 44

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
Resource Family Impact Teams developed a protocol for Resource Family Licensing staff to join Resource Family Workers in the inspection of homes. Monthly meetings between the two units are now an expectation. At the monthly meetings, outstanding licensing issues are discussed and are moved toward resolution. Resource Family Licensing staff are now routinely assigned to geographic areas and therefore have relationships with Resource Family Workers that did not exist with the prior organizational structure. These relationships have created an expectation of cooperation and a sense of mutual accountability for the work. The Monitor saw evidence of improved communication between Resource Family Licensing and Resource Family Workers in many, though not all, of the local DYFS offices visited.
The Impact Teams will continue to be deployed to the remaining Area Offices until the majority of Resource Family applications can be resolved in 150 days.
The Impact Teams also identified areas of training for both Licensing and Resource Family staff. The Department responded to this finding by assigning high level staff to develop cross-training curricula for the two units so that Licensing and Resource Family staff will better understand their corresponding roles. The training as currently constructed begins with training on New Jersey’s new CPM and its role in work with Resource Families. Other components under consideration for intensive training are:
• Customer Service – A Brief Overview of Applicants Rights • Job Responsibilities of Office of Licensing • Job Responsibilities of Resource Family Worker • Office Structure – How local offices and Licensing are structured and the general
flow of work of each office • Foster Parent Role – What is a SAFE home evaluation? • What is an Office of Licensing Home Inspection? • One day field experience – Licensing workers spend a day with Resource Family
worker and Resource Family worker spends a day in Licensing.
The Department continues to rely on the Impact Teams to raise systemic and structural problems to leadership’s attention. For example, during site visits, staff in several offices identified some structural licensing standards as a barrier for licensing families and kin in urban areas. The Department is now reviewing these barriers to determine how modifications can be made. The Monitor looks forward to more closely examining the results of the Impact Team’s work in the next monitoring period.
The MSA requires the State to facilitate the process for potential Resource Families so that they can achieve licensure within 150 of their application (MSA, II.H.4). The Department is implementing the process and timeframes as outlined in Figure 16. However, the Department continues to evaluate, review and improve the process, and considers it a work in progress.
As evidence of its own self-evaluation, the State provided the Monitor with a breakdown of applications approved in January 2007, a month in which it received 311 applications. In

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 45

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

January, a total of 48 percent of applications were licensed within the 150-day period, and another 19 percent had issues resolved and were awaiting final licensing. The Monitor is satisfied that, given the complexity of the licensing process, the State is making significant progress towards its goal of a 150-day timeframe between application and licensure of Resource Families.

2. DCF created a tracking and target setting system for ensuring there is an accurate real time list of current and available Resource Family Homes (MSA, Section II.H.9).

In the previous monitoring period, DCF worked hard to produce an accurate baseline of available Resource Family Homes. The MSA requires the State to use this baseline information to create an accurate tracking system to determine in real time which Resource Family homes are available to staff seeking placement for a child. (MSA, II. H.9). The State has chosen to include this system as part of its New Jersey SPIRIT program, and has demonstrated to the Monitor its significant capabilities. When fully operational, a worker will have available online up-to-date and accurate information on the homes available as placement options: homes open, homes closed, family members in the homes, ages, active services available to the home, whether it is open to sibling groups, etc. The approval process for placements is clear and accessible. While this process does not supplant the need for quality case conferencing, it is a valuable tool that will greatly enhance the work of Resource Family staff, management, and leadership.

3. DCF further closed the gap by 25 percent between current Resource Family support rates and the USDA’s estimated cost of raising a child.

The MSA requires the State to close the gap between current Resource Family support rates (foster care, kinship care, and adoption subsidy) and the United States Department of Agriculture’s estimated cost of raising a child. (MSA, II. H.15). New rates sufficient to close the gap by 25 percent became effective January 1, 2007 (see Table 15).

Age of Child

Table 15:

DYFS Approved Resource Family Rates, Effective January 1, 2007

DYFS Rate 12/31/06 (STEP 0)

Revised USDA Rate CY 2005 (published April
2006)

Difference between USDA 2005 Rate and
DYFS Rate 12/31/06

Percentage of increase
required to close gap 25%
by 1/1/07

Approved Increase to
Monthly Rate

Approved DYFS Rate
1/1/07

0-5

$497

$667

$170

33%

$56

$553

6-9

$534

$718

$184

33%

$61

$595

10-12

$557

$741

$184

33%

$61

$618

13-17

$609

$786

Source: DCF, DYFS, January 1, 2007

$177

33%

$58

$667

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 46

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

B. Division of Child Behavioral Health Services (DCBHS)

DCF, through its Division of Child Behavioral Health Services (DCBHS) is responsible for finding appropriate community-based services and/or out-of-home placements for children and youth in New Jersey who experience significant emotional and behavioral challenges. Some of these youth are also involved with DYFS and the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD). Under the MSA, DCF, through DCBHS, is required to minimize the number of children in DYFS custody placed in out-of-state congregate care settings and work to bring these children placed out-of-state back to New Jersey as soon as they are ready to be “stepped down.”

DCBHS has experienced several leadership changes in this monitoring period. An interim director has been appointed with the expectation of selecting and appointing a permanent Director in the coming months. Despite the changes in Division leadership, the MSA requirements related to DCBHS’ work have been achieved for this reporting period.

1. DCF took concrete actions to minimize the number of out-of-state placements and return children placed out-of-state to New Jersey.

DCF continues to place children out-of-state. The majority of these children have significant mental health problems and are placed out-of-state following attempts to find an appropriate placement within the State. A few of the placements made out-of-state are in locations closer to the child’s community than alternative in-state placements. As of June 2007, there were 306 children placed out-of-state.20 Table 16 depicts the number of new out-of-state placements made during this reporting period.

Month January

Table 16: Out-of-State Authorizations
January – June 2007 Number of authorizations for youth in DYFS custody (total number of authorizations) 8 (28 )

February

8 (20)

March

6 (12)

April

3 (7)

May

2 (9)

June

9 (15 )

TOTAL

36 (91)

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Family Services, DCBHS

20 New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Quarterly Update, September 5, 2007. The number of authorized placements has subsequently decreased in July and August 2007 (290 children and 287 children respectively).

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 47

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
For the most part, the number of authorizations is significantly lower than the three months tracked in the last monitoring report.21 Much work, including the development of additional appropriate in-state resources, remains in order to significantly minimize out-of-state placements.
Based on the State’s analysis of the reasons youth were being placed out-of-state, DCF and DCBHS contracted with providers throughout New Jersey to add 86 “specialty beds.” These beds will serve youth with complex behavioral and mental health issues. Several of the beds are specifically for teenage girls. Currently, 34 beds are operational and filled, 22 beds will be available by the end of October 2007, 15 are scheduled to be available in January 2008, and 15 are still under negotiation.
In addition to employing strategies to prevent out-of-state placement, DCBHS in partnership with DYFS has begun to examine each child placed out-of-state and implement an individualized plan for their return to New Jersey and their specific community. DCBHS and DYFS identified 119 children under the custody of DYFS for case planning conferences. These conferences will be held with DCF partners, including the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD), and will assess each child’s current progress, feasibility of returning to the State, and appropriate programs and/or community services necessary to return the child to the State and/or step the child down to a lower level of placement. These conferences began in September 2007 and will continue through the early November 2007. In the first week, of 14 children reviewed, 7 have been identified as ready to leave their out-of-state placement and return to placement in New Jersey.
2. DCF is able to find placements within 30 days for almost all of DYFS youth who are in juvenile detention awaiting placement.
As described in the last monitoring report, DCF created a systematic process to identify and track youth in juvenile detention facilities who remain in these facilities solely because they are awaiting appropriate placement. Under the MSA, no youth in DYFS custody should wait longer than 30 days for placement (Section II.D.5). According to DCF, 18 youth in DYFS custody and in detention were awaiting placement from December 2006 to July 2007. Of these 18 youth awaiting placement post-disposition, 10 were male, 8 female.
Table 17 on the following page provides information on the length of time each of these youth waited for placement. All but two youth were placed within the 30-day time period.

21 In the last monitoring report the number of authorizations for out-of-state placements were as follows: 24 children in October 2006, 54 children in November 2006, and 39 children in December 2006.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 48

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Table 17: Youth under DYFS custody in juvenile detention post-disposition awaiting placement

Length of waiting time

Number of Youth

0-15 days

3

16-30 days

13

Over 30 days

2

Source: DCF, August 1, 2007 placement report

The two youth who were not placed in 30 days were both female—one waited 33 days, the other 37 days. Both of these teenage girls were characterized as assaultive, with severe emotional problems. DCBHS made significant efforts to find in-state placements, but after multiple rejections the girls were both placed out-of-state.

3. DCF continues to find avenues to support new services for children and their families that are “evidence-based practices.”

Under the MSA, the State was required to seek approval from the federal government for a Medicaid rate structure “to support the use of new services for children and families, including community-based and evidence-based informed, or support practices, such as Functional Family Therapy and Multi-Systemic Therapy” (Section II.C.2).

The State examined different avenues for funding this evidence-based practice. Based on the analysis, DCF decided that these services could best be supported by the Intensive InCommunity service line within the existing New Jersey Medicaid State Plan. Approval was sought from the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (DMAHS) and DMAHS determined this expenditure was appropriate and that approval from the federal government was not required. Thus, the MSA requirement is not helpful or necessary to the State in accomplishing the ultimate requirement of supporting these new services for children and families.

The State intends to issue an RFP for Evidence-Based Services by December 2007. The RFP will identify targeted populations and a menu of evidence-based practices approved by DCBHS. The goal is to select four evidence-based practice sites in FY 2008 and then expand services based on lessons learned.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 49

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
4. DCF has amended its policies to prevent the inappropriate use of shelters for children coming into out-of-home care.
The MSA requires the State to eliminate the inappropriate use of shelters as an option for youth who need to be placed out of their homes. The only appropriate use of shelters will be: “(i) as an alternative to detention, or (ii) a short-term placement of an adolescent in crisis which shall not extend beyond 45 days; or (iii) a basic center for homeless youth.” (Section II.D.8) Further, beginning in July 2007, shelters shall not be used as a placement option for children under the age of 13 (MSA, II.D.7). DCF developed the policy to support these new placement restrictions.
C. Services and Supports for Youth
Unfortunately, in jurisdictions throughout the country, the specific needs of adolescents in foster care are too often neglected. Over the last several years, child welfare agencies and foundations have brought heightened attention to adolescents’ need for permanency and well-being, especially for youth growing up in and transitioning out of the foster care system. This report has highlighted some of New Jersey’s permanency activities for older youth in Section IV.B. Additional activities DCF has taken to support youth are described below.
During this monitoring period, the State was required to report on changes to its policies and practices for youth aged 18 to 21 and for youth who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, questioning or intersex (GLBTQI). DCF spent much of this year assessing its data about youth in care, understanding where they are placed, and the current state of practice supporting them. The State has taken some preliminary steps to focus on the specific needs of this population, and the Monitor hopes that in the upcoming months, additional progress will be made in providing for the permanence and well being of adolescents.
DCF is focusing on expanding the number of youth aged 18 to 21 who receive services if they have not achieved permanency by age 18, and the range of supports available and provided to older youth. As of June 2007, DCF reported the following:
• 1250 youth ages 18-21 were receiving in home services; • 471 youth ages 18-21 were receiving out-of-home services; • 323 youth were enrolled in Chaffee Medicaid; and • 418 youth received tuition assistance, room, board and books through the New Jersey
Scholars program (an 86% increase over the previous year at a cost of $2.5 million).
1. DCF significantly revised existing policies in order to continue to provide supportive services to youth aged 18 to 21.
Upon reviewing the policies regarding the provision of support to older youth, DCF leadership discovered that there was an operating presumption in policy and practice of closing the DYFS case when youth turned 18. The information system presumptively closed a youth’s case on his/her 18th birthday unless there was a proactive request by the worker and youth to keep the case open. DCF worked with the Office of Information services to amend the SIS computer

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 50

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
system to correct the presumption of case closure. Further, DCF changed its written policies to create a presumption in favor of keeping the youth’s case open. Now, according to DYFS policy, a youth’s case is closed only upon written request of the youth or no later than his/her 21st birthday. Further, Resource Homes will continue to receive a daily board rate for youth aged 18 to 21 who have left their homes, but return for college breaks or unexpected or prolonged illness. DCF will need to continue to work with case workers and Judges to help them understand this change in policy and practice. These actions by DCF meet the MSA requirement (Section II.C.5). The Monitor will continue to investigate the State’s efforts to implement these policy changes.
2. DCF added 112 transitional living beds.
In April 2007, DCF far exceeded the MSA June 2008 requirement to establish 18 beds available to youth transitioning out of the foster care system. (Section II.C. 11). DCF established 112 transitional living beds, and dedicated a handful of these beds to youth who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and intersexual (GLBTI).22 According to DCF, “the investment by DCF of $2.7 million to support these transitional housing services will be leveraged to gain additional federal and state dollars, primarily in capital acquisition and rehabilitation funds, through New Jersey’s Department of Community Affairs, who partnered with DCF on the request for proposal (RFP) process.”23
3. DCF created a preliminary GLBTQI Plan.
DCF’s GLBTQI Plan represents its “first statement of how it intends to meet the needs of this most vulnerable population.”24 According to DCF, the plan was designed with consultation from three different workgroups looking at issues faced by GLBTQI youth. This plan is to be part of the general enhancement of services to adolescents and is an initial document that will grow as the CPM is implemented. Most of the plan will be implemented by June 2008 (meeting the MSA requirement Section II.C.4).
Highlights of the GLBTQI Plan include: • Examining screening procedures for youth and reviewing in-service training; • Providing additional training in “adolescent development, including adolescent sexual development, integrating the issues associated with GLBTQI youth”25; • Recruiting appropriate Resource Families, counseling and health services that can be sensitive to needs of GLBTQI youth; and • Analyzing policies and practices to assess the impact on GLBTQI youth.

22 These are 4 beds at Anchor House according to the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Plan for
Service Delivery for Youth who Identify as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning, or Intersexual, State
Fiscal Year 2007. (New Jersey DCF, GLBTQI plan). 23 New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Transitional Living Beds report, 2007. 24 New Jersey DCF, GLBTQI plan. 25 Ibid.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 51

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

4. DCF directed significant resources to new programs to support adolescents.

As stated previously, DCF has committed many new dollars to supporting services specifically to address the needs of adolescents under their care and supervision. Tables 18 and 19 below describe how these resources are distributed.

Table 18: Youth Transitional and Supported Housing Grants

Name

No. of Beds Award

Counties Served

Anchor House

4

$88,740 Mercer County

Cape Counseling

4

$137,440 Cape May

Catholic Charities, Diocese of Newark

8

$435,000 Hudson County

Catholic Charities, Diocese of Trenton

8

$129,299 Monmouth County

Collier Services

5

$283,274 Monmouth County

Corinthian Homes

18

$248,900 Essex County

Covenant House

15

$212,314 Essex County

Garden State Home of New Brunswick

5

$273,943 Middlesex County

Middlesex Interfaith

Partners with the Homeless (MIPH)

6

$209,666 Middlesex County

NJ Community Development Corporation

9

$198,000 Passaic County

Robin’s Nest, Inc

10

$150,000 Gloucester County

Tri-City People Corporation

6

$97,145 Essex County

Union Association Children’s Home

4

$80,000 Burlington County

Volunteers of America

10

$200,000 Hudson/Essex Counties

Total:

112

$2,743,721 9 different counties

Source: DCF, 2007

Table 19: Youth Permanency Demonstration Project*

Provider

Award

Counties Served

Robin’s Nest Family Services

$83,333 $83,333

Atlantic/Burlington/Camden/Cape May/ Cumberland/Gloucester/Salem Counties Burlington/Camden/Mercer Counties

Children’s Aid and Family Services

$83,333

Bergen/Essex/Passaic Counties

Total:

$249,999

11 different counties

Source: DCF/DYFS *See description of Youth Permanency Demonstration Project on page 46 of this Monitoring report.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 52

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
VI. MEETING THE HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF CHILDREN
A. Building a new system for the provision of health care to children in out-of-home placements
Redesigning the delivery of quality health care services to children and youth in out-of-home placement is a key obligation under the MSA (Section II.F.8). Like other MSA reform efforts, the improvement of health care service delivery requires a thoughtful and staged process. Numerous studies in the past several years, including two reports by the Office of the Child Advocate have highlighted the need for reform of the health care delivery system for children in out-of-home placement. As reported in the first monitoring report, the State fulfilled its requirement to gather and analyze health care data regarding the frequency of pre-placement assessments, Comprehensive Health Evaluations for Children (CHECs), and the provision of dental care. Based on this information, the State was required to establish baselines and targets for the delivery of health care services to children in out-of-home placement and to develop a comprehensive health care plan for these children and youth. Over the next year, DCF will be aggressively implementing this new plan and modifying it as necessary to ensure quality health care services are appropriately developed and delivered to all children and youth in an accessible and timely manner. Both DCF and the Monitor will be evaluating the effectiveness of this new model.
DCF undertook a deliberative process to build a new comprehensive health care model. DCF contacted many external partners to obtain feedback and information—including the Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Centers (RDTC), existing Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children (CHEC) providers, the Office of the Child Advocate (OCA), and the Monitor. The Plan that emerged is both comprehensive and ambitious.
As the result of deliberate work over several months to analyze data, track progress, and develop creative solutions, nearly all children entering out-of-home care received pre-placement assessments, with the majority receiving these assessments in a non-emergency room setting. DCF met the MSA requirement (Section II.F.7) in July 2007 by having 90 percent of these exams occur in a setting other than an emergency room. Additionally, DCF reached agreement with the Monitor on health care targets to be measured over the next several years.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 53

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

1. DCF designed a comprehensive, coordinated health care plan for children in out-of home placement.
On May 22, 2007, DCF released their vision for providing comprehensive coordinated health care to children and youth who are placed out of their homes.26 Specifically, this plan outlines a health care model which “emphasizes:
• Care should be provided in a manner sensitive to the child. • Continuity of care is critical and will be managed by child health units providing
health care case coordination in each of the DYFS local offices. • Children’s access to care requires expansion of existing providers statewide and
flexibility in the service delivery model which will be addressed through contracting via a public Request for Qualifications Process (RFQ) in June 2007. • Health care planning must be integrated into permanency planning for children in out-of-home care. • Success requires real partnership between state agencies, with and among providers, and with the child and family team.”27
Noteworthy changes provided for in the new “coordinated” health care plan include: • Modification of the manner in which comprehensive medical examinations can be delivered; • Building of children’s medical health units and significantly expanding the number of nurses in local DYFS offices; • Redefining the referral protocols to Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Centers (RDTC); and • Refining the definition of pre-placement assessments.
a. Rethinking Comprehensive Medical Examinations
Under the MSA, the State is required to provide all children entering out-of-home care with comprehensive medical care. Services the State has committed to providing include pre-placement assessments, a comprehensive medical examination within the first 60 days of placement, yearly medical exams in accordance with the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) guidelines, semi-annual dental exams, mental health assessments for children with suspected mental health needs, and any follow-up care needed by a child (MSA, II.F.2). Previously the State relied on the Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children (CHEC) model as the intended vehicle to comprehensively assess the health care needs of all children and youth entering out-ofhome placement. CHEC examinations require a three part examination—medical, neurodevelopmental, and mental health assessments—and in most instances took place on a single day for four to six hours. These services, which were to be completed within the
26 New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Coordinated Health Care Plan for Children in Out-of-Home Placement, May 22, 2007. http://www.nj.gov/dcf/DCFHealthCarePlan_5.22.07.pdf 27 Ibid, Executive Summary, p.2.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 54

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
first 60 days of placement, were provided once a year primarily by a limited number of medical facilities who contracted with DCF.
After careful analysis, DCF determined there were many challenges to the CHEC approach. Many regions of the State had no facilities available to provide CHEC examinations and as a result children were either exempt from this examination or traveled a great distance to be seen by a CHEC provider. Further, case workers experienced great frustration because these exams were difficult to schedule due to the limited number of CHEC examination slots available and CHEC providers were frustrated by the high rates of cancellations or “no shows” of children. Because the existing structure prevented efficient coordination of CHEC schedules, children experienced long waits to be seen by CHEC providers and CHEC providers were not providing services at their full capacity. A final concern was that the CHEC model was developed with essentially no provisions for follow-up care or for linking children and their families with a “medical home.”
A CHEC audit in 2005, lead by the Office of the Child Advocate, similarly found that CHEC examinations were not occurring on a timely basis, children were attending CHEC appointments with individuals that had little or no knowledge of their health history or current needs, and follow-up care was insufficient.28 On October 3, 2007, the current Child Advocate released another CHEC audit that re-examined this service and found similar challenges.29 Specifically, the report found that the CHEC program provided an invaluable service, but only to a select number of children. Less than one-third of children entering care received a CHEC evaluation, and those that received these evaluations did not receive them within the 30 day recommended time period. Few children received the identified follow-up care and vital medical information was not always shared with caregivers and other medical providers.30
Obviously, thoughtful health care reform is necessary and crucial for children entering out-of-home care. In developing its reform plan, DCF set to accomplish two goals; to ensure: 1) that more children in the State of New Jersey who are placed out of their homes receive timely comprehensive medical examinations upon coming into out-ofhome care and 2) that providers of these exams have the ability to serve as an ongoing medical home for the children they see. This model is promoted by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The comprehensive medical examinations the State has proposed for implementation differ from the current CHEC model. These health examinations require a comprehensive physical examination as well as an initial mental health screening. Should a child be found to have a mental health need, a full mental health evaluation will then be conducted.

28 Office of the Child Advocate, Needs and Assets Assessment of the Comprehensive Health Evaluation for
Children (CHEC) Program, December 19, 2005. 29Office of the Child Advocate, Health Matters: A Study of the Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children
(CHEC) Program, October 3, 2007. 30 Ibid.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 55

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
DCF leadership met with some federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and other qualified providers in areas of New Jersey where children were not receiving CHEC exams due to a lack of a CHEC provider to determine their interest and availability to become “medical homes” for children in out-of-home placement and what, if any, impediments they might face in meeting the comprehensive medical examination requirements. Based on these conversations, it was determined that some FQHCs and other providers had the capacity to serve these children, but that the comprehensive medical exam may require them to partner with additional providers for particular parts of the exam (such as mental health assessments). Thus, the Request for Proposal that DCF published in June 2007 provided for this flexibility. A bidders’ conference was held on July 25, 2007 and additional questions emailed to DCF were answered publicly on the DCF website. DCF is now reviewing provider responses to the health care RFP. When new contracts are in place, all children in DYFS custody in New Jersey will receive a comprehensive medical examination from a FQHC, CHEC, or other qualified medical provider.
Under the MSA requirement, DCF is required to provide comprehensive medical exams within the first 60 days of a child entering out-of-home placement. DCF is working with staff and providers to meet the more rigorous American Academy of Pediatrics standard of comprehensive exams being conducted within 30 days of placement. The Monitor supports this goal, but in keeping with the MSA requirement, will measure the completion of comprehensive medical exams within 60 days of placement. Over the next few months, the Monitor will be working with DCF and other partners in the State to design an effective means of measuring the timeliness and quality of health care services provided to children in out-of-home placement.
b. Building Child Health Units
After examining different States’ models of coordinating health care service delivery for children in foster care, DCF leadership decided that the responsibility for coordinating the health care of children in out-of-home placement must lie with DCF. Therefore, each local DYFS office will have a Child Health Unit (CHU) consisting of at least a nurse and a scheduler. Eventually, each office will have one nurse for every 50 children in out-ofhome placement, with appropriate administrative supports. These units will be responsible for medical case management—compiling medical records and documentation and providing key information and documentation to appropriate service providers. Schedulers will be responsible for coordinating all comprehensive medical exam appointments for the local office and assuring the maximum use of these health care facilities by filling cancellations with other eligible children. Nurses will provide medical consultation to workers and pre-placement assessments as necessary.31

31 A flow chart delineating the responsibilities of the Child Health Unit is included in DCF’s Coordinated Health Plan. New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Coordinated Health Care Plan for Children in Out-of-Home Placement, p. 16.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 56

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
DCF identified the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey(UMDMJ)’s Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center (FXB) to provide appropriate nursing support to local DYFS offices throughout the State. With a Memorandum of Understanding beginning July 1, 2007, DCF is working with FXB on a phased roll-out of the CHU throughout fiscal year 2008. The first phase begins December 2007 in Sussex, Hunterdon, Bergen, and Passaic counties (there will be one unit in each area except for Bergen which will begin with two CHUs). DCF intends to evaluate the roll-out with FXB on a regular basis to adjust the roles and responsibilities of the CHU.
Table 20 below identifies the care coordination functions of the proposed CHUs.
Table 20: Health Care Coordination Functions of Child Health Unit
• Performing Pre-placement assessments • Initial full health examinations scheduled • Children received CHEC or initial full health examination • Children received annual EPSDT examination • Children ages 3 and older receive semi-annual dental exams • Children receive appropriate follow-up care • Creation of Health Care Plan for children in out-of-home placement • Participation in Case Review conferences • Participation in Family Team Meetings (or equivalent) • Participation in the Case plan implementation in the pilot local offices
and ongoing as new local offices come on-line
Source: DCF, The Child Health Program, Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Fiscal Year 2008.
Local office workers are enthusiastic about the creation of Child Health Units and the expanded services of nurses and schedulers. Site visits revealed that space will be a constraint in the planned roll-out but the pressure to make these units available and operational in every office as soon as possible is significant. Integrating this comprehensive health model into the developing CPM will be another challenge which the Monitor will continue to follow over the next several months. Several of the targets DCF will be tracking will also be incorporated into monitoring of the CPM and of the delivery of quality health care to children in out-of-home placement. Over the next several months, as the CHUs are established, DCF must balance a rapid roll-out plan with ensuring quality medical care for children in their custody.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 57

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
c. Clarifying the use of Regional Diagnostic Treatment Centers (RDTCs)
Currently, DCF works with four Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Centers (RDTCs) and one satellite office to assist in the evaluation of severe cases of child abuse and neglect. This is a specialized service that requires highly trained physicians (who are a limited resource in New Jersey). DCF spent several months meeting with the staff at the RDTCs to discuss their current capacity to meet the needs of children who have experienced severe abuse and neglect. According to DCF, many children who require this service are not able to be seen by RDTCs. DCF believes that the reason for this gap in service is due to inappropriate referrals of children to RDTCs and, similar to the CHEC exams, high cancellation and “no show” rate for appointments. As a result of these discussions, DCF and the RDTCs agreed that new protocols were necessary to prioritize and target their services to youth most in need of their services. On May 3, 2007,DCF issued new referral protocols to address these concerns. DCF will assess the effectiveness of the dual strategies of clarifying the protocol for referrals to RDTCs and using schedulers at the local office Child Health Units to coordinate filling spots for cancelled appointments and reducing no show rates. The combination of these strategies will be assessed to determine if the RDTCs as currently resourced are capable of fully meeting the needs of children requiring this service, or if the capacity of RDTCs will ultimately need to increase.
d. Refining the definition of pre-placement assessments
Over the last year, DCF has worked with local offices to assess their ability to provide pre-placement assessments in a non-emergency room setting for all children entering outof-home care. Under the MSA, all children entering out of home care are required to have this assessment and beginning in June 2007, 90 percent of children entering out-of-home placements must have pre-placement assessments in a setting that is not an emergency room (Section II.F.7). DCF is to be commended for achieving nearly 100 percent of preplacement exams, with 92 percent of all children in out-of-home care in July 2007 receiving their pre-placement health assessments in a non-emergency room setting (see Table 21).

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 58

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Table 21: Completion of Pre-Placement Health Assessments (PPA)
and Use of Emergency Rooms for Assessments January – July 2007

Month

No. of children Entering care

No. PPA Completed

Percent PPA Completed

Percent completed in Non-ER Setting

Jan-07

420

420

100%

66%

Feb-07

380

379

100%

59%

Mar-07

419

418

100%

63%

Apr-07

301

301

100%

58%

May-07

442

442

100%

70%

June-07

328

328

100%

78%

July-07

377

377

100%

92%

TOTAL

2667

2665

100%

Source: DCF, Healthcare Pre-placement Assessment Update, August 2007 and September 5, 2007 NJ Department of Children and Families Quarterly Data Update

DCF worked with local offices to identify barriers to receiving pre-placement assessments outside of an emergency room and tailored strategies to achieve this goal. For example, in both Camden and Essex counties, new after-hours pre-placement assessment resources were created. Additionally, nurses in local offices had their job responsibilities reorganized to prioritize providing pre-placement assessments. Some local offices staggered the hours nurses worked so that pre-placement assessments could be provided outside of traditional office hours. Further, DYFS caseworkers were encouraged by leadership to prioritize pre-placement assessments when they recognized the need to remove a child. Workers were urged to contact a child’s current primary care provider to determine if a pre-placement assessment could be conducted; if that was not possible, the local office nurse, or medical provider partner were to be contacted for an appointment. 32 Finally, DYFS still requires a pre-placement assessment to be conducted before a child is placed out of his/her home, but has added the caveat that under exceptional circumstances a child may receive a pre-placement assessment within 24 hours of placement if it is determined that it is in the child’s best interest (For example, a child is removed late at night and has no noticeable and immediate health concerns. The worker would be responsible for ensuring that child be seen the next day, rather than take the child to an emergency room and wait that night.)33

32 See New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Coordinated Health Care Plan for Children in Out-of-
Home Placement, p. 8. for pre-placement assessment flow chart. 33 Exceptional circumstances are detailed in the policy guidelines.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 59

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
As a result of these strategies, DCF reports that it was able to decrease the use of emergency rooms, particularly during evening hours. DCF increased the percentage of pre-placement assessments completed during the day and reduced the number completed in the evenings. Pre-placement assessment data will continue to be monitored moving forward, especially in light of the proposed coordinated health care delivery system.
e. Creating a Medical Passport for all children in out-of-home placement
Under the MSA, all children entering out-of-home placement are to have a Medical Passport created for them. This passport will gather all relevant medical information in a single place and be made available to parents, children (if old enough), and any other caregivers. The CHU nurses will be responsible for ensuring that the passports are created, given to children, families, and providers, and updated regularly. The information for the passport will be entered into New Jersey SPIRIT by the nurses, and then exported to a “passport” form. Items included in the passport are: medication of child, immunizations, hospitalizations, chronic health issues, practitioners and contact information, key mental health and developmental milestones, last EPSDT, dental information, and any special transportation needs. These passports will be tested in Hunterdon and Sussex counties first, adjusted as needed, and then rolled out to other CHUs.
DCF decided to launch this Passport Plan now rather than wait for the Medicaid project, eMedic, to be finalized. The Medicaid project will pull together all existing medical information from electronic records from Medicaid and Health databases.34 When Medicaid has created eMedic, DCF will revisit the current Medical passports for compatibility and/or merger with the Medicaid documents.
2. DCF set health care baseline and targets to be measured over the next several years.
The DCF Child Health Unit staff conducted two studies of DYFS and Medicaid data to assess current status of health care delivery and inform the setting of health care baselines and targets. The studies were of a small, but significant sample size. Based on this information and after discussion with the Monitor, the following health care baselines and targets were agreed upon in August and September 2007 (MSA, II.F.5-6).

34 Medicaid is in the process of developing this integrated medical information database. DCF is involved in the planning and will use that database to populate the Medical Passport system once it becomes available. (Target date is Fall 2008).

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 60

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Table 22: Health Care Baseline and Targets

(June 2007 – December 2011)

Baseline

as of June Dec. June Dec. June Dec. June Dec.

6/30/07 2008 2008 2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011

Indicator 1:

Pre-Placement

Exam Completed;

90% of which

90%

95% 95% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98%

shall be in a non-

emergency room

setting.

Indicator 2:

Comprehensive

medical exams

75%

75% 80% 85% 95% 98% 98% 98% 98%

completed in 60

days of child entry

into care

Indicator 3:

Annual medical

examinations in

compliance with 75%

75% 80% 90% 95% 98% 98% 98% 98%

EPSDT guidelines

for children in

care for one year

or more

Indicator 4:

Annual Annual Annual Semi- Semi- Semi- Semi- Semi- Semi-

Children ages 3 60%

60% 65% annual annual annual annual annual annual

and older in care 6

70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 98%

months or more

receive semi

Semi-

Semi- Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual Annual

annual dental

Annual

Annual

examinations.* 33%

50% 90% 95% 95% 98% 98% 98%

Indicator 5:

Mental health

assessments for

children with a

TBD

75% 80% 85% 95% 98% 98% 98% 98%

suspected mental

health need.

Indicator 6:

Children receive

timely accessible

and appropriate TBD

60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 98%

follow-up care

and treatment to

meet health care

and mental health

needs.

*Due to need to ramp up dental service capacity, this standard is phased in, beginning with requirements

for annual dental examinations.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 61

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
The Monitor has proposed that DCF add two additional health care targets: • Children are current with immunizations; and • Children’s caregivers receive up-to-date health passport upon placement or following completion of the 72-hour Family Team Meeting.
DCF and the Monitor have agreed to review these indicators by December 2007, determine how and when data can be collected to measure them and make a decision about their inclusion in the health care targets to be monitored.
3. DCF is pursuing other health-related strategies
Psychiatrist Many children and youth who come into contact with DCF have significant behavioral and mental health challenges. DCF recognized the need to have the help of a child/adolescent psychiatrist as they implement the new health care plan, begin reforming the children’s behavioral health system, and develop prevention services for children and families. Further, DCF staff require clinical consultation on the use of psychotropic medications and understanding psychiatric diagnoses of children in their care. Thus, DCF has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to obtain the assistance of a qualified psychiatrist to help meet these needs. While not required by the Modified Settlement Agreement, using the expertise of a psychiatrist at a senior leadership level should help DCF with its reform efforts.
Dental Care Provider Capacity New Jersey still faces significant challenges in building capacity for dental care for children in its custody. The lack of dentists willing to accept Medicaid patients is one of the resounding themes identified by the seven sites visited by the Monitor in the spring 2007. Workers described spending significant time transporting children across the State in order to receive dental care. In upcoming months, DCF leadership will meet with dentists across the State to discuss the gap of services and will work with the Child Health Units to identify additional providers. Adequate and timely dental care is an area that requires new state partnerships with the dental community. The State must also consider raising Medicaid reimbursement rates so that more dentists are willing to see children and youth involved with DYFS.

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 62

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007 APPENDIX A Caseload and Supervisory Level Detail for Local Offices

Local Office

Table A-1: Permanency Caseloads by Local Office
June 2007

Perm Children in Care

Perm Families

Perm Avg Children in Care

Atlantic East

90

186

6

Atlantic West

63

188

5

Bergen Central

77

220

5

Bergen South

144

409

5

Burlington East

160

378

6

Burlington West

113

309

4

Camden Central

146

329

4

Camden East

160

511

5

Camden North

137

369

3

Camden South

128

433

4

Cape May

88

207

6

Cumberland East

70

100

8

Cumberland West

115

243

5

Essex Central

268

489

7

Essex North

108

399

4

Essex South

94

308

3

Newark Center City

283

589

7

Newark Northeast

275

432

6

Newark South

262

487

7

Newark West/Adoption

Gloucester East

63

215

4

Gloucester West

52

170

4

Hudson Central

109

331

5

Hudson North

91

335

6

Hudson South

99

237

7

Hudson West

80

194

5

Hunterdon

16

43

3

Mercer North

191

353

6

Mercer South

118

331

3

Middlesex Central

53

148

4

Middlesex Coastal

168

541

3

Middlesex West

155

381

4

Monmouth North

216

366

7

Perm Avg Families

Perm (Jun 07)

12

Yes

16

No

15

Yes

15

Yes

14

Yes

12

Yes

9

Yes

16

No

9

Yes

14

Yes

14

Yes

11

Yes

12

Yes

13

Yes

13

Yes

11

Yes

15

Yes

10

Yes

14

Yes

13

Yes

13

Yes

16

No

21

No

16

No

11

Yes

9

Yes

11

Yes

10

Yes

11

Yes

9

Yes

11

Yes

11

Yes

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 63

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Local Office
Monmouth South Morris
Ocean North Ocean South Passaic Central Passaic North
Salem Somerset Sussex Union Central Union East Union West Warren
Totals

Table A-1: Permanency Caseloads by Local Office (continued)
June 2007

Perm Children in Care

Perm Families

Perm Avg Children in Care

Perm Avg Families

177

289

6

10

111

345

4

12

235

458

7

13

136

331

4

10

188

312

5

9

117

299

6

14

68

199

3

10

92

242

6

16

57

162

5

15

113

307

4

11

113

305

4

10

165

290

6

10

61

175

6

18

5,825

13,945

5

12

Perm (Jun 07)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
84%

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 64

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Office

Table A-2:

Intake Caseloads by Local Office

June 2007

Intake

Intake Intake Avg

Assignments Families Assignments

Intake Avg Intake Families (Jun 07)

Atlantic East

96

171

6

Atlantic West

77

155

8

Bergen Central

91

163

6

Bergen South

137

195

7

Burlington East

94

181

7

Burlington West

103

142

8

Camden Central

78

89

5

Camden East

109

216

6

Camden North

54

103

5

Camden South

116

171

6

Cape May

66

146

7

Cumberland East

57

71

6

Cumberland West

79

207

6

Essex Central

109

116

7

Essex North

69

73

6

Essex South

71

102

5

Newark Center City

58

201

3

Newark Northeast

100

176

6

Newark South

51

106

6

Newark West/Adoption

Gloucester East

79

135

7

Gloucester West

90

138

6

Hudson Central

52

188

5

Hudson North

75

176

6

Hudson South

76

248

8

Hudson West

63

145

5

Hunterdon

32

71

5

Mercer North

90

139

7

Mercer South

97

116

7

Middlesex Central

77

153

7

Middlesex Coastal

91

148

5

Middlesex West

101

118

4

Monmouth North

131

278

7

Monmouth South

110

276

7

Morris

154

307

6

Ocean North

156

233

7

Ocean South

118

233

6

11

Yes

16

No

11

Yes

10

Yes

13

Yes

11

Yes

6

Yes

12

Yes

9

Yes

10

Yes

15

Yes

8

Yes

15

Yes

7

Yes

6

Yes

7

Yes

12

Yes

10

Yes

13

Yes

12

Yes

9

Yes

19

No

14

Yes

25

No

12

Yes

10

Yes

11

Yes

9

Yes

14

Yes

8

Yes

5

Yes

15

Yes

18

No

11

Yes

11

Yes

12

Yes

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 65

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Table A-2: Intake Caseloads by Local Office (continued)
June 2007

Office

Intake

Intake Intake Avg

Assignments Families Assignments

Intake Avg Families

Passaic Central

159

352

8

19

Passaic North

155

246

9

14

Salem

56

95

5

9

Somerset

105

375

8

29

Sussex

59

114

8

16

Union Central

70

170

6

14

Union East

75

141

5

9

Union West

76

114

5

8

Warren

82

220

6

16

Totals

4044

7713

6

12

Intake (Jun 07) No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No
82%

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 66

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Office

Table A-3: Adoption Caseloads by Local Office
June 2007
Adoption Children Adoption Avg Children

Adoption (Jun 07)

Atlantic East

71

14

Yes

Atlantic West

23

12

Yes

Bergen Central

64

13

Yes

Bergen South

130

19

No

Burlington East

67

17

Yes

Burlington West

70

18

Yes

Camden Central

81

14

Yes

Camden East

57

14

Yes

Camden North

71

14

Yes

Camden South

71

24

No

Cape May

48

24

No

Cumberland East

93

16

Yes

Cumberland West

Essex Central

135

17

Yes

Essex North

86

17

Yes

Essex South

53

11

Yes

Newark Center City

Newark Northeast

Newark South

Newark West/Adoption

568

18

Yes

Gloucester East

31

16

Yes

Gloucester West

34

17

Yes

Hudson Central

70

12

Yes

Hudson North

59

15

Yes

Hudson South

42

14

Yes

Hudson West

46

12

Yes

Hunterdon

22

11

Yes

Mercer North

93

16

Yes

Mercer South

67

13

Yes

Middlesex Central

51

13

Yes

Middlesex Coastal

106

18

Yes

Middlesex West

40

13

Yes

Monmouth North

83

17

Yes

Monmouth South

50

10

Yes

Morris

71

14

Yes

Ocean North

117

17

Yes

Ocean South

88

15

Yes

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 67

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Table A-3: Adoption Caseloads by Local Office (continued)
2007

Office

Adoption Children Adoption Avg Children

Adoption (Jun 07)

Passaic Central

78

16

Yes

Passaic North

59

20

No

Salem

115

16

Yes

Somerset

42

14

Yes

Sussex

42

14

Yes

Union Central

65

13

Yes

Union East

128

13

Yes

Union West

128

16

Yes

Warren

46

15

Yes

Totals

3,461

15

90%

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 68

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Local Office
Atlantic East Atlantic West Bergen Central Bergen South Burlington East Burlington West Camden Central Camden East Camden North Camden South Cape May Cumberland East Cumberland West Essex Central Essex North Essex South Newark Center City Newark Northeast Newark South Newark Adoption Gloucester East Gloucester West Hudson Central Hudson North Hudson South Hudson West Hunterdon Mercer North Mercer South Middlesex Central Middlesex Coastal Middlesex West Monmouth North Monmouth South Morris Ocean North Ocean South Passaic Central

Table A-4: June 2007

Total Number of Workers

Total Number of Supervisors

44

9

27

6

44

10

60

12

52

11

54

9

63

14

62

11

59

14

62

13

39

8

27

6

49

9

73

14

53

11

50

11

67

13

75

18

64

15

40

9

35

8

36

7

51

11

41

9

39

11

34

8

16

4

54

13

57

11

34

7

88

17

71

12

67

13

55

11

75

15

72

13

72

13

62

13

Ratio 5 to 1
5 4 4 5 5 6 4 6 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 5

Supervisory Ratio (June 07)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 69

Local Office
Passaic North Salem Somerset Sussex Union Central Union East Union West Warren
TOTAL

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Table A-4 : June 2007 (continued)

Total Number of Workers

Total Number of Supervisors

59

11

47

9

43

10

25

6

52

12

67

12

59

12

36

9

2411

500

Ratio 5 to 1
5 5 4 4 4 6 5 4 87%

Supervisory Ratio (June 07)
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 70

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007
APPENDIX B
New Jersey Department of Children and Families Implementing the Case Practice Model

September 2007
Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 71

Embargoed – Not for Release until October 22, 2007

Charlie and Nadine H. et al. v. Corzine Monitoring Report for January 1 – June 30, 2007

Page 72

 
 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT EMBARGOED UNTIL 10:00AM APRIL 16, 2008
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine
July 1— December 31, 2007
April 16, 2008
Center for the Study of Social Policy 1575 Eye Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005 202.371.1565 www.cssp.org

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine
July 1 – December 31, 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
II. SUMMARY OF PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES AHEAD......................................... 3
III. CONTINUING TO BUILD A HIGH QUALITY WORKFORCE AND MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE................................................................ 15 A. Caseloads .............................................................................................................. 15 B. Training................................................................................................................. 20 C. Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU)..................................................... 25 D. Accountability through the Production and Use of Accurate Data ............................................................................................ 28
IV. CHANGING PRACTICE TO SUPORT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ........................ 31 A. Field Launch of the New Case Practice Model..................................................... 31
V. APPROPRIATE PLACEMENTS AND SERVICES FOR CHILDREN ......................... 38 A. Resource Families ................................................................................................. 38
VI. MEETING THE HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF CHILDREN ...................................................................................................................... 48 A. Improving the Behavioral Health Services and Delivery System......................... 48 B. Building a Health Care Delivery System for Children in Placement ................... 52
APPENDIX:
A: Caseload and Supervisory Level Detail for Local Offices B: Foster Care and Subsidized Adoption Board Rates FY 2008 C: Tracking the Successful Implementation of the New Jersey Case Practice
Model and Outcomes of the Modified Settlement Agreement D: Glossary of Acronyms Used in the Monitoring Report

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine
July 1 – December 31, 2007
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 1:
Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Table 6: Figure 7: Table 8:
Table 9:
Figure 10:
Figure 11:
Figure 12:

Summary of State Progress on Modified Settlement Agreement Requirements (July 2007 – December 2007)................................................ 10 – 14
NJ DCF DYFS Permanency Caseloads ................................................................ 16
NJ DCF DYFS Intake Caseloads .......................................................................... 17
NJ DCF DYFS Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios ............................................ 18
NJ DCF DYFS Adoption Caseloads ..................................................................... 19
Training Compliance with the Modified Settlement Agreement.......................... 20
IAIU Referral Source July – December 2007 ....................................................... 25
Developing Strength-Based, Individualized Child and Family Practice Training Topics .......................................................... 32
Concurrent Planning Between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007 for Children Who Entered Placement as of September 1, 2006 ................................. 37
Number of Newly Licensed Non-Kin Resource Family Homes by Calendar Year.......................................................................... 38
New Licensed Family Resource Homes (Kinship and Non-kinship) January 2007 – December 2007............................................................................ 39
Net Gain of Resource Families January-December 2007 ....................................................................................... 40

Figure 13:
Table 14: Table 15: Figure 16: Table 17: Table 18: Table 19:

Time from Application to Completion of Licensing Review Process and Decision for Family Resource Home Applications (For Homes that Applied for Licensure In July 2007) ......................................................................................................... 41
Recruitment Licensing Categories by County For FY 2008 .......................................................................................................... 44
Out-of-State Placement Authorizations by DCBHS July – December 2007........................................................................................... 49
Children in Out-of-State Placement June 2007 through February 2008......................................................................... 50
Youth in DYFS Custody in Juvenile Detention Post-disposition Awaiting Placement................................................... 51
Nurses and Nurse Staff Assistants Hired for Child Health Units as of December 31, 2007 and Planned through December 2008 .......................... 55
Completion of Pre-Placement Health Assessments And Use of Emergency Rooms for Assessments July-December 2007 ............................................................................................. 57

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine
July 1 – December 31, 2007
I. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of this Report In July, 2006 the Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) was appointed by the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey as Monitor of Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine. As Monitor, CSSP is to independently assess New Jersey’s compliance with the goals, principles and outcomes of the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) of the class action litigation aimed at improving the State’s child welfare system.1 CSSP released its Period I Monitoring Report in February 2007 describing progress New Jersey had made towards compliance with the MSA as of December 31, 2006.2 CSSP released its Period II Monitoring Report in October 2007.3 This is the third Monitoring Report under the MSA and covers the period of July 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007.
The MSA structures the State’s commitments into two phases of work. Phase I (through December 2008) is primarily directed to building a strong infrastructure within the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to ensure children are healthy and safe; children achieve permanency and stability; and resource and service delivery systems meet children’s health, mental health, educational and developmental needs. This third Monitoring Report reflects the State’s continued work in and commitment to these foundational elements of a successful reform, and also describes the Department’s beginning efforts to train its workforce on the new Case Practice Model (CPM), a central element of New Jersey’s child welfare reforms.
Methodology The primary source of information for this Monitoring Report is information provided by DCF and verified by the Monitor. DCF provides the Monitor with extensive aggregate and
1 Charlie and Nadine H . et al. v. Corzine, Modified Settlement Agreement, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civ. Action No. 99-3678 (SRC), July 18, 2006. To see the full Agreement, go to http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/home/Modified_Settlement_Agreement_7_17_06.pdf.
2 Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period I Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H . v. Corzine – July 2006 through December 31, 2006. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy. February 26, 2007.
3 Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period I Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H . v. Corzine – January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy. October 26, 2007.
1

back up data as well as access to staff at all levels to enable the Monitor to verify DCF data
and report on actions taken and progress made. During this Monitoring period, the Monitor
observed DYFS Local Office Manager and Area Director meetings, visited DYFS Local
Offices with Child Health Units (CHUs), observed interdivisional out-of-state child
conferences and Family Team Meetings and spent a good deal of time at the State Central
Registry (SCR) reviewing operations. In addition, a telephone survey to 13 local offices was
used to validate caseload data. The Monitor also spoke with various levels of DCF staff in every Division4 and with external stakeholders of New Jersey’s child welfare system, including the New Jersey Partnership for Child Welfare Program5, foster parents, relatives
and birth parents, advocacy organizations and the Office of the Child Advocate (OCA).

Section II of the report provides overall conclusions and a summary of the State’s progress in meeting the MSA requirements through December 31, 2007.

Other sections of the report provide specific information on the requirements of the MSA as follows:

SECTION III:

Continuing to Build a High Quality Workforce and Management Infrastructure

SECTION IV:

Changing Practice to Support Children and Families

SECTION V:

Appropriate Placements and Services for Children

SECTION VI:

Meeting the Health and Mental Health Needs of Children

4 These include: Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS); Division of Child Behavioral Health Services (DCBHS); Division of Prevention and Community Partnerships; Policy and Planning; Central Operations and Training. 5 At the beginning of this monitoring period, DCF changed the name of the Child Welfare Training Consortium to the NJ Partnership for Child Welfare Program.
2

II. SUMMARY OF PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES AHEAD
Summary of Accomplishments Significant accomplishments toward meeting the requirements of the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) continued in the six month period between July 1 and December 31, 2007 – both in the work to build a solid infrastructure within the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and in launching some important and transformative changes in the ways in which child welfare is practiced in New Jersey. As shown in summary fashion in Table 1 on pages 10 to 14 and discussed in more detail in this report, DCF fulfilled and sometimes exceeded the expectations of the MSA in almost every area in which the MSA called for activity.
Highlights of the Monitor’s assessment of progress include:
The Department continued to develop the infrastructure it needs to promote and sustain reform. Examples include:
Staffing • DCF achieved or exceeded the December 2007 caseload targets for Permanency,
Intake and Adoption Staff. Caseloads in offices across the State are at or approaching levels where it is possible to begin to implement the Department’s Case Practice Model and to more effectively serve children and families.
• DCF exceeded the MSA benchmark for the ratio of supervisors to workers with 98% of offices in compliance with a five to one supervisory ratio.
Training • The Department met all of the expectations in the MSA related to training.
o In the past six months, 168 new staff (98%) completed 160 class hours of PreService training, including Intake and Investigations training, within two weeks of being hired and passed competency exams on the training content.
o In calendar year 2007, 3001 staff (99%) received the required hours of InService training which mostly focused, in this period, on learning how to use NJ SPIRIT.
o 386 staff were trained in Concurrent Planning as part of the State’s work to improve permanency outcomes for children.
o A new training team was established composed of the Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group (CWPPG) and a collaboration of New Jersey Social Work Schools led by Rutgers University School of Social Work with the DCF Training Academy. The team began the work to provide training to every Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) worker, supervisor and case
3

aide on the new Case Practice Model. (See separate discussion below on implementation of the Case Practice Model.)
o 62 new Investigators (95%) received training and passed competency exams before assuming caseloads.
o 44 new Adoption workers (100%) received adoption training in this monitoring period.
o 52 Supervisors appointed in the last monitoring period and 13 appointed in this monitoring period, for a total of 65 newly promoted supervisors (100% of supervisors requiring such training) were trained between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007.
Data • NJ SPIRIT, the State’s new automated child welfare information system, was rolled-
out statewide in August 2007. The roll-out was not without significant (and anticipated) on-the-ground implementation problems, but DCF made successful execution of NJ SPIRIT one of its highest priorities and attacked each problem with focus and urgency. Work continues to fix remaining problems with the hardware, software and its applications and interfaces. In addition, work has begun to routinely produce meaningful management reports from NJ SPIRIT and to realize the benefits to frontline workers and managers regarding documentation of case management activities and standardizing other business processes.
• For example, during this period DCF developed and began implementation of a new tracking system linked to NJ SPIRIT to find Resource Family homes available for placement. The system is designed to provide real-time information on available homes and to facilitate appropriate matching for children.
The Department continued its work to promote and support a consistent model of case practice that is intended to improve outcomes for children and families.
• Following the development of its Case Practice Model Implementation Plan, DCF has moved systematically to create and execute a schedule to train its workforce of 4,000 employees on the new Case Practice Model by the end of 2008. The training plan was developed and will be carried out with help from consultants and partners from social service schools statewide.
• The implementation process involves a “train-the-trainer” model that develops trainers for regional training teams deployed locally to provide intensive Case Practice Model training to staff and community partners. As of December 31, 2007 training teams had delivered 13 days of train-the-trainer sessions at which 38 trainers, 54 executive and senior management staff, and 108 case work supervisors were trained on the new Case Practice Model.
4

• DCF began intensive training in four selected Immersion Sites (Bergen Central, Burlington East, Gloucester West and Mercer North Local Offices) that involves coaching, practicing and partnering with families. The intensive training envisions staff and leadership working closely with Area Directors, Assistant Area Directors and local community partners to create the environment in which Family Team Meetings will become routine and will embody the critical elements of the new Case Practice Model. Each region will ultimately be designated an Immersion Site and receive this intensive training.
Significant progress was made on increasing appropriate placement and other resources for children throughout the State.
• DCF achieved its mandate to license 1,071 new non-kin Resource Family homes, licensing a total of 1,367 new non-kin foster and adoptive homes between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007, surpassing by 296 homes, the target set in the MSA.
• DCF achieved a net increase of more than 800 licensed resource homes statewide, with a net increase in all 21 counties. The largest increase was in Essex County, which represents 11% of the total net increase, and the second largest was in Camden County with 10% of the total net increase.
• DCF implemented a new Resource Family licensing tracking system as part of the NJ SPIRIT roll-out.
• DCF made significant progress in returning children to New Jersey from out-of-state congregate care placement. As of March 7, 2008, 213 children are placed out-of-state, down from 306 at the conclusion of the last monitoring period. This reduction reflects the Department’s focus on increasing the array of community-based mental health services and therapeutic placements to assist in maintaining children in their home, in their community and in New Jersey.
The State exceeded its goals for the successful adoption of children requiring permanent homes.
• 1540 children’s adoptions were finalized in calendar year 2007, exceeding the MSA target of 1400 adoptions.
• DCF reduced the number of children legally free and awaiting adoption from 2,260 on January 1, 2006 to 1,295 on December 31, 2007, a 44% decrease over two years. The Department also achieved promising results from its intensive work to find homes for youth who have been waiting for a long time.
o DCF made progress with the 100 Longest Waiting Teens (mostly aged 14 and older) in this monitoring period. Every youth in the group is paired with a
5

member of the Teen Recruitment Impact Team, staff members who have had special training on recruitment and permanency planning for adolescents.
o 3 of the longest waiting youth have been adopted and another 25 are close to permanency, whether through adoption or kinship legal guardianship.
The early work of the Differential Response pilot programs and the expanded network of Family Success Centers promises to create new avenues to support children and families and to avoid formal child welfare intervention.
• DCF awarded approximately $4.2 million to pilot sites covering Camden, Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem Counties to engage vulnerable families and provide supportive prevention services and promote healthy family functioning. The Differential Response pilot sites respond to families 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Many families are directly referred from the State’s centralized child abuse and neglect hotline (SCR) through a warm-line telephone transfer. Between September 2007 and December 31, 2007, 124 families were referred to the Differential Response initiatives.
• The Peace: A Learned Solution (PALS) violence prevention program was expanded to Atlantic, Monmouth, Ocean and Union Counties in addition to the previously-existing capacity in Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Essex, Hunterdon, Middlesex and Passiac Counties. This evidence-based program provides comprehensive assessment and treatment for children and non-offending parents exposed to domestic violence in an attempt to reduce the impact and to break the cycle of abuse for future generations.
• During the summer of 2007, DCF awarded new funding to twenty-one Family Success Centers and with some increased funding transitioned 11 FACES programs into Family Success Centers to expand the network to a total of 32 state-supported centers in 16 counties. The Family Success Centers offer primary and secondary child abuse prevention services and bring together community residents, leaders and agencies to address the problems that lead to child abuse and neglect. These services are available to any family in the community with no prerequisites. In addition, DCF continued its work as a pilot program of the national Strengthening Families Initiative, seeking to prevent child abuse and neglect through work to support families in early care and education settings.
Challenges Ahead The Department has much to be proud of in terms of its accomplishments in this monitoring period and since its creation in July 2006. Stakeholders throughout the State have observed and shared with the Monitor their views that the New Jersey child welfare system in 2008 is on the road toward positive reform. While it is equally clear that the system’s expectations for high quality, individualized and effective practice for every child and family it serves have not yet been realized, there is increasingly a shared view that this goal is possible. At the same time, the fragility of the reforms and the importance of follow-through on plans just
6

developed or only beginning to be implemented are obvious. It is for these reasons that the Monitor, the plaintiffs and other State stakeholders are concerned about the potential impact of two specific challenges on the horizon.
The first challenge is successfully managing the leadership transition necessitated by the departure, on March 14, 2008, of Kevin Ryan, the first Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families (DCF), and the impending departure of Molly Armstrong, the Director of Policy and Planning in April 2008. From the Monitor’s perspective, Commissioner Ryan provided exceptional leadership for the new Department and has succeeded in setting a direction for change, for rebuilding the workforce and for laying the groundwork for fundamental reform in the practice of child welfare in New Jersey. During the first year, much of the work was focused on stabilizing a state structure and a workforce that was confused about the mission, values and practice of child welfare in New Jersey and were demoralized by years of high caseloads, inadequate resources, poor follow-through on plans and insufficient funding. With the support of Governor Corzine and the Legislature, the Commissioner identified problems, sought advice from the field, and moved forward aggressively to secure needed internal and external resources. Across the State, significant new resources through Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), Division of Child Behavioral Health Services (DCBHS) and through the Division of Prevention and Community Partnerships have been developed to support families and serve children.
Commissioner Ryan’s successor, however, will inherit a system that has only begun the process of change, with many ambitious plans about to be implemented, pilot efforts just beginning to yield results and a score of internal and community partners that are skeptical that the work in progress will be continued and sustained. The reform process has barely begun to take root on the ground and is only just beginning to be felt in the field, by families and with the public. Successful reform will need continued support, attention and resources in order to achieve its full potential. The able Director of DYFS, Eileen Crummy, has agreed to serve as Acting Commissioner while the search for a permanent replacement is found. The Acting Commissioner is knowledgeable and experienced and can provide consistent and stable leadership during this transition period, which is essential. The Acting Commissioner will need to move forward with urgency and as importantly, will need the tangible support of the Governor and the Legislature to keep the reform on track during this transition period. The identification of a highly skilled permanent Commissioner for DCF needs to remain a top priority for Governor Corzine.
The second overall challenge in the months ahead is ensuring that the State’s FY 2009 budget provides the resources necessary to continue the child welfare, community prevention and children’s behavioral health reforms. The Governor’s proposed budget includes modest cuts for DCF, but appears to provide sufficient funding to carry out existing commitments. However, the budget that emerges from the legislative process must maintain these essential resources, for the explicit commitments within the Modified Settlement Agreement, to achieve good outcomes for children and families and for the continued development of the community-based prevention, behavioral health and other service resources that must surround and work in partnership with an effective child welfare system.
7

A related concern is the Governor’s proposal to offer early retirement options for state employees and allow agencies to replace only 10% of employees who leave as a result of exercising early retirement options. The Monitor is concerned that early retirement incentives could seriously impact management and middle management expertise in DCF. Further, the proposal to limit an agency’s ability to replace vacated positions would have devastating consequences for DCF which has only just begun to rebuild a workforce sufficient to its mission and mandated responsibilities.
Beyond these overarching issues, there are three areas of work where significant implementation challenges remain ahead.
The Monitor’s last report identified as a challenge the Department’s Health Care Plan. There has been progress in this period with an operational plan and model6 to institute Child Health Units in every local office with sufficient resources to ensure children receive pre-placement examinations, comprehensive medical and behavioral health assessments and timely followup treatment and care. The plan is both ambitious and sound and when fully implemented by the end of 2008, should have a significant positive impact on children in the Department’s care. However, establishing fully staffed Child Health Units in each local DYFS office is an enormous undertaking and will need high level management attention, further development and deployment of resources to realize its potential. Accessible and appropriate space for the Health Units remains an issue in some areas and the shortage of willing providers of specialty dental care (despite recent changes to raise Medicaid reimbursement rates) has not been fully resolved.
Another continuing challenge for the Department over the next year is completing the implementation of NJ SPIRIT. During the past six months, the Department has succeeded in rolling-out NJ SPIRIT without large-scale breakdowns or setbacks. However, as has been experienced in every State that has implemented a complex information system change like NJ SPIRIT, many staff continue to have difficulty integrating the new system into their daily work, and although the number and frequency are greatly reduced, New Jersey staff continue to discover glitches in the system that need to be fixed. Consistent and focused attention will continue to be required over the next monitoring period and beyond to make NJ SPIRIT as efficient as possible to support workers and in order to effectively utilize its enormous potential for management reporting and data analysis.
A final challenge will be the successful implementation of DCF’s new Case Practice Model. The completion of the work in the Immersion Sites and the roll-out throughout the State will require oversight, consistent management and insight to see that its potential is fulfilled. This undertaking cannot succeed if accomplished only in name or in part. To make and sustain the fundamental changes in practice statewide that are envisioned, all offices need intensive training, coaching, and supervision. The vision of a family-centered approach cannot happen without all stakeholders fully engaging in the reform effort. To date, most of the work has
6 As of March 13, 2008, fully operational Child Health Units exist in Sussex and Hunterdon Counties.
8

been focused on DYFS staff and their immediate partners, but as the work moves forward, the mental health community, Judges, the Attorney General’s office, legal representatives of parents and children and others will have to be more systematically involved. The Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) charged the Monitor with establishing the measures and methods to be used to assess implementation of the Case Practice Model. Attached as Appendix C is a matrix identifying the measures, data sources and timeframes for measuring Case Practice Model implementation going forward. This matrix was developed by the Monitor, in consultation with both DCF and plaintiffs, and when finalized, with approval of the Court, will become an enforceable part of the Modified Settlement Agreement. In some areas, the baseline, benchmarks, and ultimate performance measures are not yet finalized.7 Over the next six months, as the Department is increasingly able to provide accurate baseline data on several of the measures, the Monitor will set interim and final monitoring targets in each area.
7 Section III of the Modified Settlement Agreement requires the Monitor to set interim or final performance targets on key measures by December 2008.
9

Table 1:

Summary of State Progress on Modified Settlement Agreement Requirements

(July 2007 – December 2007)

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

Fulfilled (Yes/No)

Comments

New Case Practice Model
II.A.4. Identify the methodology used in December 2007 Yes. tracking successful implementation of the case practice model in order to create baseline data that will be available for key case practice elements.

The Monitor, in consultation with the parties, defined the measures and methodology for tracking implementation of the Case Practice Model. (Appendix C) Baseline performance is needed in some areas to set benchmarks and outcomes.

Training

Pre-Service Training

II.B.1.b. 100% of all new case carrying

workers shall be enrolled in Pre-Service

Ongoing

Yes

Training, including training on intake and

investigations, within two weeks of their

start date.

II.B.1.c. No case carrying worker shall

Ongoing

Yes

assume a full caseload until completing pre-

service training and passed competency

exams.

168 out of 172 (98%) new workers were trained between 7/1/07 and 12/31/078. All but 5 workers were enrolled in training within 2 weeks of their start date. Monitor approved new “Trainee Caseload Readiness Assessment” Tool which is being used in addition to competency exams post training modules to assess caseworker competency.

In-Service Training

II.B.2.b. 100% of all case carrying workers December 2007 Yes

and supervisors shall participate in a

and ongoing

minimum of 20 hours of In-Service

Training and shall pass competency exams.

II.B.2.e. 100% of case carrying staff, supervisors and case aides that have not been trained on the new case practice model shall have received this training.

December 2007 and ongoing

Ongoing

3,001 (99%) workers trained 7/1/07 to 12/31/07 (minimum of 20 hours training per worker). Content was primarily on NJ SPIRIT. DCF has begun implementing training for all 4,000 staff on the case practice model, employing a “train the trainer” model.

8 Three Social work students (BCWEP) had taken pre-service training during their internships, one was a returning employee who had previously received pre-service training .
10

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

Fulfilled (Yes/No)

Comments

Investigations/Intake Training

II.B.3.a All new staff responsible for

Ongoing

Yes

conducting intake or investigations shall

receive specific, quality training on intake

and investigations process, policies and

investigation techniques, and shall pass

competency exams. The staff shall pass

competency exams before assuming

responsibility for intake/investigations

cases.

62 of 65 (95%) new investigations staff were trained between 7/1/07 and 12/31/07, the remaining 3 are scheduled for training in the current monitoring period.

Supervisory Training

II.B.4.b. Beginning December 2006 and Ongoing

Yes

continuing thereafter, 100% of all staff

newly promoted to supervisory positions

shall receive their 40 hours of the

supervisory training and shall passed

competency exams within 3 months of

assuming their supervisory positions.

65 newly promoted supervisors
(100%) trained between 7/1/07 and 12/31/07.9

Services for Children and Families II.C.3. The State will amend its policies and procedures to support family preservation and reunification through the use of flexible funds for birth families. DYFS will be permitted to increase the amount of expenditures that may be made without obtaining consent for an exception to the rule from $1,500 annually to $8,634 annually. The current limitations that payments made on behalf of birth parents may not be made for a period exceeding 3 months shall be extended to 12 months. II.C.4. The State will develop a plan for appropriate service delivery for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth, and begin to implement the plan. II.C.5. The State will promulgate and implement policies for youth 18-21 to ensure the State continues to provide services preciously available.

June 2007
June 2007 June 2007

Yes

Increased funding is available

and has been allotted to

Regional Offices. DCF plans to

include specific training on the

use of flexible funds as a part of

the Case Practice Model roll-

out and immersion.

Ongoing Ongoing

Preliminary plan developed in June 2007; implementation has just begun.
Policies developed during last monitoring period; additional services for 18-21 year olds have begun to be available.

9 All supervisors requiring training in this monitoring period received it. Of 65 supervisors trained, 52 were appointed in the last monitoring period and 13 were appointed during this monitoring period. 1 additional supervisor who was appointed in this monitoring period is experienced and did not require training. 12 new supervisors were appointed at the end of the monitoring period, 3 of whom are experienced and 9 of whom began training in January 2008.

11

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

Fulfilled (Yes/No)

Comments

Finding Children Appropriate Placements II.D.3. The State shall evaluate the needs of June 2007 the children in custody, who are currently placed in out-of-state congregate care, identify additional in-state services to serve these children, and develop action steps with timetables to develop those services and placements. II.D.4. The State will assess the efficacy of September 2007 a separate division for children’s behavioral health for meeting the behavioral health needs of children in custody of the State.

II.D.7. The State shall not place a child under the age of 13 in a shelter.

July 2007 and ongoing

II.D.8. DYFS will eliminate the inappropriate use of shelters as an out-ofhome placement for children in custody.

June 2007

Yes/Ongoing
Yes Yes Partially

Number of children placed outof-state has declined from 305 in June 2007 to 213 as of March 7, 2008 due to individualized assessment of children and development of new in-state service alternatives. DCF has decided to maintain a separate Division for child behavioral health, but has been promoting stronger linkages between DCBHS and DYFS. 4 (.07%) of 6,049 children under the age of 13 in out-ofhome placement spent time in a shelter during the monitoring period. 423 children were placed in a shelter during the monitoring period. Of those 423, DCF reports that 332 (78%) children met the criteria for appropriate shelter placement.

Caseloads II.E.12. 95% of offices shall have average December 2007 Yes caseloads for the permanency staff at the caseload standard of 15 families or less and 10 children in out-of-home care or less. II.E.13. 63% of offices shall have average December 2007 Yes caseloads for the intake staff at an interim caseload standard of 15 families or less and 8 new referrals per month or less. II.E.14. 90% of offices shall have sufficient December 2007 Yes supervisory staff to maintain a 5 workers to 1 supervisor ratio. II.G.16 81% of offices will have average December 2006 Yes caseloads for the adoption staff consisting and ongoing of 18 or fewer children with a subset of 35% of total offices achieving average caseloads for adoption staff of 15 or fewer children

100% of offices met this requirement.
73% of offices met this requirement.
98% of offices met this requirement
93% of offices met this requirement with 71% of offices meeting the subset requirement of caseloads of 15 or fewer children.

12

Settlement Agreement Requirements

Due Date

Provision of Health Care II.F.7. 90% of children entering out-ofhome custody shall have pre-placement assessments in a setting other than an emergency room.

June 2007 and ongoing

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes

II.F.8. The State shall identify a statewide June 2007 and Yes coordinated system of health care including ongoing a provision to develop a medical passport for children in out-of-home care.

Permanency Planning and Adoption II.G.5. The State shall continue to provide paralegal support and child case summary writer support for adoption staff in local offices. II.G.15. The State shall issue reports based on the adoption process tracking system

December 2006 and ongoing
December 2007 and ongoing

Yes Partially

II.G.17. The State shall have finalized 1400 December 2007 Yes adoptions for calendar year 2007.

Resource Families II.H.4. The period for processing resource December 2006 No family applications through licensure will and ongoing be 150 days.

II.H.9. The State shall create an accurate June 2007 and Yes

and quality tracking and target setting

ongoing

system for ensuring there is a real time list

of current and available resource families.

II.H.11. The State shall establish new targets for numbers of new resource families to license by office.

December 2007 Yes

Comments
Between July and December 2007, an average of 90% of children entering out-of-home custody had pre-placement assessments in a setting other than an emergency room. Implementation has begun of a plan to staff a Child Health Unit in every DYFS office with nurses assuming responsibility for tracking and coordinating appropriate health care services.
The State continues to provide paralegal support and child case summary support for adoption staff. State reported on pilot sites only. Routine adoption tracking reports are not yet available from NJ SPIRIT. 1,540 adoptions were finalized in calendar year 2007, exceeding the target by 140 adoptions.
Substantial progress made in meeting 150 day timeframe. 25% of applications initiated in July 2007 were complete within 150 days; an additional 29% in 180 days. State has created and is implementing a tracking system that is designed to provide the field with real time access to information on available resource family homes. Statewide target of 1,528 new resource homes has been set; broad targets set for individual offices.

13

Settlement Agreement Requirements
II.H.12. The State shall have licensed 1071 non-kin resource family homes between January 2007 and December 2007.

Due Date December 2007

Fulfilled (Yes/No) Yes

II.H.13. The State shall have created a

December 2007 Yes

methodology for setting annualized targets

for resource family non-kin recruitment

based on a needs assessment for such

homes by county throughout the State of

New Jersey.

Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (“IAIU”) II.I.2. The State shall maintain a continuous December 2007 Yes quality improvement (CQI) unit within IAIU to screen all corrective action plans and ensure follow up.

Data II.J.9. The State shall issue regular, accurate reports from Safe Measures

August 2007

Yes

II.J.10. The State shall produce caseload reporting that tracks actual caseloads by office and type of worker and, for permanency and adoption workers, that tracks children as well as families. II.J.11. The State shall maintain an accurate worker roster.

December 2007 Yes December 2007 Yes

Comments
1,367 non-kin resource family homes licensed in calendar year 2007, exceeding the target by 296 families. State has created methodology that takes into account replacement rate, intact sibling placement rate, and incentives for licensing kin homes.
The State maintains a continuous quality improvement unit within IAIU to screen all corrective action plans and ensure follow up.
Safe Measures was not functional while NJ SPIRIT was deployed. Safe Measures has been redeployed as of November 2007. Through NJ SPIRIT, the State can produce caseload reports that track actual caseloads by office and type of worker.
The State is producing a worker roster biweekly that is updated by local offices and Human Resources.

14

III. CONTINUING TO BUILD A HIGH QUALITY WORKFORCE AND MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE
A. Caseloads
No child welfare system can be expected to be successful unless and until it has a sufficient, well-trained and stable workforce. Significantly reducing caseloads was a primary commitment of the Department of Children and Families’ (DCF) basic stabilization plan and is an essential building block for the overall success of New Jersey’s child welfare reform. The State continued to demonstrate progress in this area during this reporting period by meeting all of the staffing commitments in the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA), as discussed below. Reduction in worker caseloads across the State has created an environment conducive to moving forward with the Case Practice Model implementation and other reforms. As of December 31, 2007, the State reported that only 4% of DYFS workers had caseloads of more than 20 families. Among the 84 case managers with caseloads greater than 20 families, 75 case managers had caseloads of 21 to 30 families and nine case managers had caseloads of 31 or more families.
1. DCF DYFS exceeded the December 2007 caseload target set for Permanency staff.
Permanency workers are assigned to provide case management of services to families whose children remain at home under the protective supervision of DYFS and those families whose children are removed from home due to safety concerns. To ensure staff has the time to devote to children and families with diverse needs and circumstances, the State agreed to achieve a caseload standard that has two intertwined components. One component is the number of families and the other component is the number of children placed out of home. This has been referred to as a “two prong” standard. Permanency workers are to serve no more than 15 families and 10 children in out-of-home care. If a case manager has a caseload higher than either of these components, the caseload is not compliant with the MSA standard (Section II.E).
During Phase I (until December 2008), caseload compliance is measured by average caseloads in an office. By December 2007 and thereafter, 95% of all offices are to have average caseloads for the Permanency workers that meet the two-pronged standard (Section II.E.12).10
As displayed in Figure 2, the State exceeded this target with 100% of the offices having average caseloads for available Permanency workers of 15 or fewer families and 10 or fewer children in out-of-home placement. Appendix A-3 contains a table with supporting details for each office.
10 On December 31, 2007, there were 46 local offices.
15

Figure 2: NJ DCF DYFS Permanency Caseloads

Mar-08 6-Dec Dec-06 Jun-08 Jun-07 Dec-07 Dec-07

Actual: 15 families & 10 children in placement
Target: 15 families & 10 children in placement
Actual: 15 families & 10 children in placement
Target: 15 families & 10 children in placement
Actual: 15 families & 10 children in placement
Target: 15 families & 10 children in placement
Baseline: 15 families & 10 children in placement
0%

100% 95% 84% 79% 60% 60% 40% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% % of DYFS offices meeting standard

90% 100%

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning Note: Adoption staff and cases were included in Permanency Caseloads in March 2006 only.

The Monitor verified the caseload information by reviewing the methodology employed by DCF staff to produce the caseload report as well as the process DCF uses for verifying and refining the caseload reporting. The Monitor’s verification process included reviewing examples of communication between central office and Local Office Managers regarding exception reporting and resolution. In addition to assessing DCF’s internal quality assurance on the accuracy of DYFS caseload data, the Monitor collected information from telephone interviews with Local Office Managers in thirteen randomly selected offices. This independent review supports the accuracy of the State’s caseload reporting.

2. DCF DYFS exceeded the December 2007 caseload target set for Intake staff.

DYFS Intake staff are responsible for responding to community concerns regarding child safety and well-being. They receive referrals from the State Central Registry (SCR) and depending on the nature of the referral, they have between 2 hours and 5 days to visit the home and begin their investigation or assessment. They are to complete their investigation or assessment within 60 days.

The caseload standard for Intake staff also has two components. One component is the number of families under investigation or assessment at any given time and the other

16

component is the number of new referrals assigned to a worker each month. The standards for caseload limits become progressively lower as the MSA implementation proceeds. When fully implemented in Phase II of the MSA, Intake workers are to have caseloads of 12 families or less and 8 new referrals or less per month. (Section II.E.19)

As with the Permanency caseloads, the Phase I standard for Intake caseloads is based on average caseloads in an office. By December 2008, the goal is for 95% of all offices to have average caseloads for Intake workers that meet the two-pronged standard (MSA Section II.E.19). As of December 2007, 63% of all Local Offices were to have average caseloads for Intake staff of 15 families or less and 8 or fewer new referrals per month (MSA Section II.E.13).

As displayed in Figure 3, the State has exceeded the December 2007 target for Intake staff. As of December 2007, 76% of the offices had average caseloads for Intake staff at or below the standard. These data were independently verified by the Monitor as part of the previously described process. Appendix A-2 contains a table with supporting detail for each office.

Figure 3: NJ DYFS Intake Caseloads11

Mar-06 Dec-06 Dec-06 Jun-07 Jun-07 Dec-07 Dec-07

Actual: 15 families & 8 new referrals
Target: 15 families & 8 new referrals
Actual: 15 families & 10 new referrals
Target: 15 families & 10 new referrals
Actual: 15 families & 10 new referrals
Target: 15 families & 10 new referrals
Baseline: 15 families & 10 new referrals

73% 63%
82% 58%
65% 42% 17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% % of DYFS offices meeting standard

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning

11 At first glance, this could be read to suggest a decline from 82% compliance in June 2007 to 76% compliance in December 2007. Note, however, that this is in fact not a decline at all: the standard changed and became more difficult to meet, moving from 15 families and 10 new referrals to 15 families and 8 new referrals.

17

3. DCF DYFS exceeded the benchmark for the ratio of supervisors to workers.
Supervision is a critical role in child welfare and the span of supervisor responsibility should be limited to allow more effective individualized supervision. Therefore, the MSA also established standards for supervisory ratios. By December 2008, 95% of all offices should be maintaining a 5 worker to 1 supervisor ratio (MSA Section II.E.20). Like the caseload standards, this standard was to be phased in starting in December 2006. As of December 2007, 90% of the offices were to have sufficient field level supervisory staff (SFSS2) to maintain a 5 worker to 1 supervisor ratio (MSA Section II.E.14).
As displayed in Figure 4, the State exceeded the December 2007 target with 98% of the Local Offices having 5 to 1 supervisory ratios. Appendix A-5 contains a table with supporting detail for each office, including the number of supervisors at each level.
Figure 4: NJ DCF DYFS Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios

Actual: 1 to 5

(SFSS2 only)

98%

Dec-07 Dec-07

Target: 1 to 5

(SFSS2 only)

90%

Jun-07

Actual: 1 to 5

(SFSS2 only)

87%

Jun-07

Target: 1 to 5

(SFSS2 only)

85%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% of DYFS offices meeting standard

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning Note: 2006 data not included because casework supervisors (SFSS1) and field supervisors (SFSS2) were counted together at that time.

18

4. DCF DYFS achieved the December 2007 caseload targets set for Adoption staff.
Adoption staff are responsible for finding permanent homes for children who cannot safely return to their parents by developing adoptive resources and performing the work needed to finalize adoptions. The MSA requires the State to move away from generic permanency caseloads and to ensure that children with a permanency goal of adoption are assigned to designated Adoption workers (Section II.G).
As with the Permanency caseloads, by December 2008, the goal is for 95% of offices to have average caseloads for Adoption staff of 15 or fewer children (MSA Section II.G.19). As of December 2007, 81% of Local Offices are to have average caseloads for Adoption staff of 18 or fewer children with a subset of 35% of all offices achieving average caseloads for Adoption staff of 15 or fewer children (MSA Section II.G.16).
As displayed in Figure 5, the State far exceeded the Adoption caseload targets for December 2007 with 93% of the offices having average caseloads for Adoption staff at or below the standard of 18 children and 71% of the offices with average caseloads of 15 or fewer children. This information was verified by the Monitor using the previously described approach for all caseloads. Appendix A-4 contains a table with supporting detail for each office.

Figure 5: NJ DCF DYFS Adoption Caseloads

Dec- Dec- Mar- Jun- Jun- Dec- Dec- Dec- Dec06 06 07 08 07 08 07 08 07

Actual: 15 children

71%

Target: 15 children Actual: 18 children Target: 18 children

35%

93% 81%

Actual: 18 children

90%

Target: 18 children

60%

Actual: 18 children

68%

Actual: 18 children

65%

Target: 18 children

35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning Note: Prior to Dec 06, Adoption staff & adoption cases were included in permanency caseload data.

19

B. Training

Consistent with the past two monitoring periods, and as shown in Table 6, the State has met each of its MSA obligations for training during this monitoring period. Given that most of the hiring of new caseload-carrying staff and the associated Pre-Service training occurred in the past monitoring periods, DCF’s focus has shifted to providing In-Service training to the workforce. The most significant accomplishment, overseen by DCF’s Director of Administration and discussed on page 21, is bringing together a highly expert team to formulate and begin the implementation of a unified strategy for training on the new Case Practice Model.

Table 6: Training Compliance with the Modified Settlement Agreement

Training Type

MSA Commitment

# of Staff Trained in 2006

# of Staff Trained Jan-June
2007

# of Staff Trained July-
Dec 2007

Total # of Staff
Trained CY 2007

Pre-Service New caseworkers shall have

MSA II.B.1.a 160 class hours, including

intake and investigations

training; be enrolled within two weeks of start date;

711

412

168 (98%)

1,291

complete training and pass

competency exams before

assuming a full caseload

In-Service

Staff shall have a minimum of

MSA II.B.2.b 20 hours of in-service training N/A

annually

3,001 (99%)

3,001

Concurrent Training on concurrent

Planning

planning; may be part of 20

2,522

729

386

3,637

MSA II.B.2.d hours in-service training

Case Practice As of December 2008, case

Trainers (38)

Model

carrying staff, supervisors and

Exec Mgt (14)

MSA II.A.3

case aides that had not been trained on the new case

N/A

N/A

Senior Mgt (40) Child Welfare

200

practice model shall receive

Supervisors

this training

(108)

Investigations New staff conducting intake

& Intake

or investigations shall have

MSA II.B.3.a investigations training and

N/A

650

pass competency exams

62 (95%)

712

before assuming cases

Supervisory Newly promoted supervisors

MSA II.B.4.b to complete 40 hours of

supervisory training; pass

N/A

114

competency exams within 3

65 (100%)

179

months of assuming position

Adoption MSA II.G.9

Adoption training for adoption workers

91

140

44 (100%)

275

Source: DCF Administrative Data, March 5, 2008

20

During this monitoring period, the Training Academy12 also accomplished the following:
• Together with the Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group (CWPPG), a master schedule to train 4000 staff on the Case Practice Model between November 2007 and October 2008 was developed and implementation began.
• Training Academy staff were reorganized by regions to establish better accountability measures that more clearly define managers’ responsibilities for effective training delivery.
• A staff person whose role is to collect and monitor training data to ensure compliance with the MSA was assigned, greatly enhancing DCF’s ability to track training participation.
• DCF began utilizing the Training Academy website to register staff for training, to take attendance and to post grades.
• Human Resources and the Training Academy devised a plan to standardize hiring/appointments of Supervisors so that supervisory training groups can begin in a timely fashion.
• The backlog of training rosters was updated to ensure training records are up-to-date.
• Communication protocols between the Training Academy and the field were implemented to ensure results of examinations during the supervisory modules are more closely linked to staff development.
• Eight core competencies for frontline Supervisors were identified to be used for selection, training and evaluation of Supervisors.
1. Case Practice Model Training and Support
During Phase I of implementation, the MSA requires the Monitor to focus “primarily on the quality of the Case Practice Model and the actions taken to implement it.” (Section II.A.5). The previous Monitoring Report described the State’s ambitious Case Practice Model Implementation Plan which involves intensive training and implementation support to four Immersion Sites with simultaneous roll-out to other areas of the State.13 As previously discussed, a major focus of the past six months has been the development and implementation of training on the new Case Practice Model. By agreement of the parties, the delivery of training on the Case Practice Model did not begin until November 2007. The Department
12 The Training Academy is the DCF Division with overall responsibility for training and staff development.
13 Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period I Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H . v. Corzine – January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy. October 26, 2007, page 33.
21

reports that during this monitoring period, the training team delivered 13 days of train-thetrainer sessions at which 38 trainers, 54 executive and senior management staff, and 108 case work supervisors were trained on the new Case Practice Model. These trainers will then become the engine of the State’s roll-out strategy.
2. Pre-Service Training
Between July 1 and December 31, 2007, the State hired 172 case-carrying staff in Family Service Specialist Trainee (FSST) and Family Service Specialist 2 (FSS) positions. Table 6 lists 168 staff (98%) enrolled in New Worker and/or Pre-Service training. Five of the 172 staff did not attend Pre-Service training within two weeks of their start date, but all 172 staff (100%) have now been trained. The Monitor reviewed a random sample of 20% of the training rosters of Pre-Service training classes for the months of July 2007 to December 2007, cross-referenced Human Resources records from the same period and concluded that the State complied with the MSA (Section II.H.1.b).
In this monitoring period, the Department became almost fully staffed and the number of new appointments decreased markedly. The sharp reduction in staff to be trained led the State to implement a new plan in order to better coordinate hiring and the start of Pre-Service training to comply with the MSA (Section II H.1.a). Starting in January 2008, FSS trainees are now only able to begin employment on any one of ten monthly hiring dates and new training will commence monthly.
As part of the Pre-Service training process, trainees are assessed on knowledge acquisition at the end of each training module. In the last Monitoring Report, the Monitor recommended the development of a standardized statewide process to certify when a trainee is ready to assume a full caseload. The Training Academy developed a Trainee Caseload Readiness Assessment tool, which was subsequently approved by Human Resources, the employee union, and the Monitor. Since the tool’s implementation in October 2007, the State reports that a survey of Local Offices reveals approximately 108 trainees have been formally assessed using it, with a majority of those trainees meeting the assessment standards. Eight trainees were reported as “not ready” to assume a full caseload based on the results of the assessment tool. Those eight trainees were required to spend more time in the Local Office training units and were provided more focused supervisory oversight and conferencing. DCF reports that it continues to examine the assessment tool for improvements to ensure consistent system-wide application.
3. In-Service Training
As shown in Table 6, 3,001 workers (99%) received at least 20 hours of In-Service training during 2007. As agreed by the parties, much of the training received was tied to the deployment of NJ SPIRIT. The Monitor compared 60 staff transcripts with Human Resource data to verify the State’s data about compliance with the MSA (Section II.B.2.b).
22

The roll-out of the Case Practice Model training will become the In-Service training component for staff during the next calendar year, beginning with training sessions in January 2008.
4. Concurrent Planning
As reflected in Table 6, Rutgers University School of Social Work trained a total of 386 staff between July 1 and December 31, 2007 on Concurrent Planning. The Monitor cross referenced 10% of staff transcripts with Human Resource data to verify that the State complied with the MSA (Section II.B.3.d). The Training Academy is planning to meet with the University Partnership to seek ways in which to better integrate Concurrent Planning training with the training on the Case Practice Model.
5. Investigations Training
As reflected in Table 6, 62 new Intake and Investigations staff (95%), including 11 IAIU Investigators received or were scheduled to receive First Responders training in this monitoring period. The Monitor reviewed 32% of First Responders training rosters for this monitoring period and cross referenced them with Human Resources records to determine that the State complied with the MSA (Section II.B.3.a).
6. Supervisory Training
The State reports the number of Supervisors appointed during this monitoring period decreased significantly from the past two monitoring periods. During the months of July and August 2007, five Supervisors were appointed each month and three were appointed in September 2007. The State believes the supervisory curriculum works best with a class of at least 12 participants. DCF therefore proposed and the Monitor approved a plan to begin Supervisory training once per quarter. This plan means newly appointed Supervisors will commence training within three months of promotion and complete it within six months. The Monitor also approved the State’s proposal that if the number of new Supervisors appointed in a quarter is fewer than 12, the commitment will be delayed until such time as a class of 12 can be assembled, but in no event will any Supervisor commence training beyond six months after assuming supervisory duties.
As shown in Table 6, during this reporting period, the State trained 65 new Supervisors (100%). Of these 65 Supervisors, 52 were appointed in the last monitoring period and 13 were appointed in this monitoring period. An additional supervisor was appointed in this monitoring period who was an experienced supervisor. 12 other new Supervisors were appointed at the end of the monitoring period, 3 of whom are experienced Supervisors and 9 of whom began training in January 2008. The State provided the Monitor with a detailed list of the Supervisors and their promotion and training dates. The Monitor cross referenced 33%
23

of staff transcripts with Human Resources data and concluded that the State complied with the MSA (Section II.B.4.b).14
In response to the Monitor’s concerns about staff development, the Training Academy instituted a feedback loop that more closely links the Training Academy staff and the field to ensure that results of supervisory competency exams better assist Managers and Supervisors to develop effective supervisory strategies.
The Training Academy, in consultation with DCF executive management, identified eight core competencies that reflect the mission, vision and values of the agency, each of which are consistent with the new Case Practice Model. They are:
• Customer/Client Focus • Cultural Competence • Communication • Guiding and Developing Staff • Coaching • Facilitating Change • Technical/Professional Knowledge and Skills • Organizational Ability
The State plans to incorporate these eight core competencies into the selection, training and performance evaluation of frontline Supervisors.
7. New Adoption Worker Training
Forty-four staff members (100%) new to the Adoption units were trained during the reporting period, as shown in Table 6. In total, 184 Adoption workers were trained during the year. The Monitor cross referenced 33% of staff transcripts with Human Resources records and concluded that the State complied with the MSA (Section II.G.9).
14 The Monitor reviewed transcripts from those Supervisors who did not complete supervisory training on the Case Practice Model by the end of the last monitoring period and determined the Supervisors had completed the requisite supervisory training.
24

C. Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU)
The Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU) is responsible for investigating allegations of abuse and neglect in any out-of-home care setting. This includes correctional facilities, detention facilities, treatment facilities, schools (public or private), residential schools, shelters, hospitals, camps or day care centers that are licensed or should be licensed, Resource Family homes and registered family day care homes.15 In the last half of 2007, IAIU received 1532 referrals. Figure 7 below provides the source of referrals for July to December, excluding 122 referrals from August 2007.16
Figure 7: IAIU Referral Source July – December 2007

Legal & Court, 4, 0%

Police, 77, 5%

Facility, 178, 13%

Parent, 215, 15%

Relative, 25, 2%

Other, 91, 6%

DYFS, 54, 4%

School, 266, 19%

Health, 82, 6%

Other Gov't Agency, 187, 13%

Friend/ Anonymous, Neighbor/ 115, 8% Community, 107, 8%

Self, 9, 1%

Source: DCF Administrative Data; excludes data on August 2007 referrals.
The purpose of IAIU’s investigative effort is to determine whether children in out-of-home care settings have been abused or neglected17 and to ensure their safety by requiring corrective actions to eliminate the risk of future harm. Beginning July 1, 2007, IAIU was expected to complete 80% of its investigations within 60 days of referral (MSA Section II.I.3)

15 DYFS (7-1-1992). IAIU Support Operations Manual, III E Institutional Abuse and Neglect, 302. 16 August 2007 referrals are excluded due to issues with data conversion from the State’s previous data system (SIS) to NJ SPIRIT. 17 As defined by statute at N.J.S.A. 30:40C-12 or 9:6-8.21.
25

and by December 2007, IAIU was expected to have a continuous quality improvement (CQI) unit to screen all corrective action plans and ensure follow-up (MSA Section II.I.2).
1. The IAIU met the target for timeliness of IAIU Investigations.
DCF reported that IAIU Investigators completed 80% or more of all investigations within 60 days during this monitoring period. The Monitor verified this information by reviewing the pattern of investigations completed in less than 60 days on randomly selected days from July to December and for all days in September. Over all these days, the performance ranged from 80% to 88% of investigations completed within 60 days. For the entire month of September 2007, 81% of all referrals had investigations completed within 60 days.
Among investigations of maltreatment in foster care settings – foster homes and congregate care facilities – IAIU’s performance appears to be slightly better than overall. For example in September 2007, IAIU received 253 referrals and, as noted, completed 81% of investigations within 60 days. Among the 253, 116 (46%) referrals were of alleged maltreatment in foster homes and congregate care facilities. Of the 116 referrals of alleged maltreatment in foster homes and congregate care facilities, a slightly larger portion, 96 (83%) were completed within 60 days. The Monitor verified this information by reviewing 26 (approximately 20%) of the 116 investigations of alleged maltreatment in foster homes or congregate care facilities initiated in September 2007. Twenty-five of the 26 investigations reviewed were completed18 in an average of 33 days by February 1, 2008. All of these 25 investigations resulted in unfounded allegations. However, some had recommendations for additional training, counseling, or restrictions on the age of children to be placed in the setting. The 25 cases reviewed included three investigations that required 63, 67, and 84 days to complete.19
2. By December 31, 2007, IAIU had created a Continuous Quality Improvement unit.
IAIU’s Continuous Quality Improvement unit (CQI) has been in place since July 2006 when IAIU was located within the Department of Children and Families.20 The unit is staffed with one supervisor and four liaisons to each of the IAIU Regional Offices.
18 Two (2) of the “completed” cases did not have any approval signatures from supervisors or central office. Those cases were completed shortly after the transition to NJ SPIRIT and the supervisors apparently relied on the fact that they had electronically approved these cases and did not also sign the paper file copy.
19The one investigation still open after nearly six months involved allegations of sexual abuse in a foster home that the child began disclosing after being returned home and local prosecutors were working on a criminal investigation. In such circumstances, law enforcement requires that IAIU Investigators suspend completion of their investigation pending completion of the criminal investigation.
20 While the CQI unit is operational, overall policies providing guidance for IAIU and the rest of the Department regarding IAIU’s role need revision. DCF’s Policy Development Unit (PDU) and IAIU have already begun collaborating on the revision process and PDU has prepared a draft of the updated policies. DCF targets June 30, 2008 for the completion of the policy revision process.
26

The CQI unit currently reviews all corrective action plans and makes decisions to accept or reject the plans. Results are entered into a database that is used for continuous tracking and identification of systemic deficiencies. As of December 31, 2007, the IAIU CQI unit was monitoring 49 corrective action plans.
In addition to monitoring and ensuring corrective action plans are implemented, CQI responsibilities21 include:
• Monitoring Investigation Timeliness and Quality
The CQI unit participates in monthly reviews of every open IAIU investigation held in order to devise strategies and tactics to resolve investigation delays, reduce any existing backlog and ultimately improve the quality of investigations. This is referred to as the COMPSTAT process.
• Orientation and Training of New IAIU Staff and Feedback to Existing Staff
The CQI unit conducts an IAIU Business Orientation with all new IAIU staff within two weeks of their joining IAIU and may also retrain existing staff when deficiencies have been noted. The orientation covers the following investigative processes: the use of IAIU and DYFS forms, investigative interviews, gathering supporting documentation, timeframe expectations, collateral contacts, IAIU policy and best practice, the responsibilities of an IAIU investigator, explores observation skills and finding overview. CQI staff also shadow new investigative staff.
The CQI unit developed an IAIU Investigation Guide to emphasize investigative practice and has developed investigative tools based on case practice needs (e.g. IAIU Checklist, Supervisor Weekly Log, IAIU consultation log, Supervisor Conference Form, IAIU Reference guide, etc.). In addition, the CQI unit has drafted an investigative training manual specifically for Institutional Abuse Investigations. The draft manual is complete and has been submitted to the DYFS Training Academy for review. CQI also distributes a quarterly newsletter that captures central office communication, case practice issues, IAIU milestones, etc.
• Conducting Safety Assessments
The CQI unit participates in periodic safety assessments of congregate care facilities with the Office of Licensing (OOL). In calendar year 2007, the CQI unit participated in 3 of these safety assessments and as of March 31, 2008, the CQI unit had participated in 3 safety assessments thus far in 2008. During the next monitoring period, OOL and CQI are targeting completing these reviews on a monthly basis.
21 It is not clear whether the IAIU CQI unit currently reviews decision-making about referral to IAIU for investigation and acceptance of cases for IAIU investigation. The Monitor is currently reviewing this issue as part of a larger review of the State Central Registry (SCR).
27

• Maintaining Data Integrity in Automated Systems
The CQI unit monitors and corrects, as necessary, NJ SPIRIT information on IAIU investigations and provides supplemental training for staff regarding NJ SPIRIT data entry. The unit also corrects and updates Safe Measure information, as necessary.
D. Accountability through the Production and Use of Accurate Data
During this monitoring period, the MSA required further development of data capacity in four major ways:
• The deployment of Phase II of NJ SPIRIT (NJ SPIRIT Release 3). • The distribution of regular, accurate reports from Safe Measures. • The production of caseload reporting that tracks actual caseloads by office and
type of worker and for permanency and adoption workers that tracks children as well as families. • The maintenance of an accurate worker roster.
Each of these is discussed separately below.
1. Deployment of Phase II of NJ SPIRIT
NJ SPIRIT was deployed statewide in August 2007. The MSA required the deployment of NJ SPIRIT Release 3 by December 2007 (MSA Section II.J.12), but the State chose to include the critical functionality in Release 2 Phase 2, which, by prior agreement between DCF, the plaintiffs and the Monitor, was deployed statewide on August 22, 2007. To support the deployment, 176 staff were placed in DYFS local offices to assist field workers and 13 staff were stationed to operate a centralized Help Desk. The on-site support was originally intended to extend for a total of four weeks. Given the many challenges associated with rolling out an application of NJ SPIRIT’s size and scope, DCF extended the on-site support period to fifteen weeks to better assist field workers and mitigate the impact on their work. Additionally, DCF provided supplemental training, increased the number of staff at the Help Desk and shared video presentations to further assist workers as they transitioned to use NJ SPIRIT in their everyday work. While still considerable, the volume of Help Desk tickets opened each day has decreased from an average of approximately 200 each day in August and September 2007 to an average of approximately 50-60 each day at the end of December 2007.
Deployment of NJ SPIRIT was met with heightened anxiety in DCF central and Local Offices. Conversion to a new data system is fraught with stress. Although there have and continue to be problems with conversion and field implementation, DCF deserves credit for its focus, diligence and efforts to head off problems and then move as rapidly as possible to fix them once identified.
The deployment of NJ SPIRIT began with pre-conversion clean up of the data from the existing legacy information systems to ease the conversion process. The conversion process
28

presented a significant number of challenges which had to be triaged to address first those with the greatest impact to the frontline staff. DCF has prioritized the changes to be made to the NJ SPIRIT application and is addressing first those which have the greatest impact on clients, the field and federal claiming and reporting. Based on the Monitor’s work in other jurisdictions, these challenges are not unexpected with the roll-out of such a sophisticated system.
Creation and implementation of NJ SPIRIT provides New Jersey with increased capacity both to support the day-to-day work of the staff in the field and to collect and track data on DCF’s performance. Instead of a largely paper based system where information is handed off to clerical support staff for data entry, the overwhelming bulk of the information must now be entered by the case-carrying staff. On the whole, staff are becoming more comfortable in navigating and using NJ SPIRIT, but the benefits of NJ SPIRIT have yet to be fully realized by the field.
To position itself better for the next stages of NJ SPIRIT work, in December 2007, DCF restructured, combining several special NJ SPIRIT, technology and data analysis units into a single unit responsible for information technology (IT) and reporting for all of DCF. The single unit has five teams: the help desk, the application development group, the infrastructure unit, the application maintenance unit and the data analysis and reporting unit. DCF has approximately 90 staff employed in the IT and Reporting Unit and continues aggressive work to trouble shoot and solve problems and to realize the benefits of NJ SPIRIT for case management and data reporting. The creation of the new IT unit has also tightened the communication between IT and the field.
2. DCF met its obligation to report from Safe Measures, although that reporting was unavailable for a time due to the transition to NJ SPIRIT.
By August 2007, as required by the MSA, DCF created extensive reporting capacity through Safe Measures, a management tool that analyzes the data from DCF’s IT systems and makes the analysis available to workers, supervisors and administrators in the field. (MSA Section II.J.9). DYFS administrators have begun to rely heavily on Safe Measures as they focus on the management of caseloads and other initiatives and seek to comply with the MSA standards. There was a gap in access to Safe Measures because it had been configured to work with DCF’s former information system. After the deployment of NJ SPIRIT, Safe Measures had to be reconfigured to work with the new application. DCF and DYFS Local Office Managers report that Safe Measures is now functional, but DCF will need to continue to ensure that issues with the data are addressed in a prioritized and focused manner.
3. Caseload reporting tracks actual caseloads by office and type of worker.
DCF has been able to generate and provide data to the Monitor with regard to caseloads by office and by type of worker.
29

4. DCF maintains an accurate worker roster. NJ SPIRIT is able to create and track an accurate worker roster. This roster is the foundation for the report used by the Monitor and DCF to assess compliance with MSA caseload requirements.
30

IV. CHANGING PRACTICE TO SUPPORT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
A. Field Launch of the New Case Practice Model
One of the most significant developments of the monitoring period is the beginning implementation of the Case Practice Model. DCF views the new Case Practice Model as the cornerstone of child welfare reform in New Jersey with the potential to create lasting change in practice at every level of the Department.
The daunting challenge DCF faced was to develop a mechanism to meaningfully train the entire workforce on the Case Practice Model. The Department began by focusing on the first three prongs of its six prong approach to system change, explained in detail in the last Monitoring Report22, which involve:
1. Leadership Development 2. Statewide Readiness Strategy 3. Immersion 4. Service Development 5. Continued Focus on the Fundamentals 6. Enhanced Planning Between DYFS and DCBHS
1. Leadership Development
The Department convened a Leadership Summit in October 2007 with the its new training partners, the New Jersey Partnership for Child Welfare Program (University Partnership) and the Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group (CWPPG). The Summit provided DCF with an opportunity to experiment with the concepts in the Case Practice Model and to share its mission across Divisions within DCF.
2. Statewide Readiness Strategy
The bulk of work in this reporting period has been devoted to the second prong of the Department’s system change roadmap: the development of a Statewide Readiness Strategy. In November 2007, the expert trainers at CWPPG delivered a comprehensive multi-day training session to DCF Executive Management, Area Directors, Local Office Managers and trainers that covered the first module of the Case Practice Model training, Engaging Families and Building Trust Relationships. Simultaneously DCF, in consultation with CWPPG, developed a schedule and the infrastructure necessary to deliver the training in the four Immersion Sites and statewide.
The challenges around developing a calendar to train approximately 4000 staff and community partners are significant. The Case Practice Model training for staff statewide
22 Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period I Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H . v. Corzine – January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy. October 26, 2007, page 32.
31

begins with the module on Engaging Families and Building Trust Relationships and is intended to satisfy the Department’s commitment of 40 hours of In-Service training for each case carrying worker and supervisor to have begun in January 2008 (MSA Section II.B.2.c). In-Service training for staff statewide involves over 1100 session days of training. DCF’s goal is to have all designated DYFS staff complete this basic training on the Case Practice Model in 2008. The training plan anticipates training to be delivered by trainers who are coached, assessed and approved by CWPPG. The training process involves a “train the trainer” model which develops trainers to be part of regional training teams deployed locally to provide intensive Case Practice Model training to staff and the community. The regional training teams include representatives from the DCF Training Academy, the University Partnership (including trainers with a history of delivering family-centered training for DYFS), DYFS staff and CWPPG team members.
Monitor staff attended one of the three-part training modules entitled Engaging Families and Building Trust Relationships held in Livingston, New Jersey. The class members included Area Directors, casework supervisors, and other administrators. The Monitor found the trainers to be knowledgeable, clear and purposeful. The staff were visibly impressed with the curricula and generally spoke very positively about how they thought such trainings would improve practice.
The Department is working to link training and practice by forming a Case Practice Model Technical Assistance Group. This group consists of 12 Assistant Area Directors (each deployed locally by area) and four DYFS technical assistance staff (3 positions currently filled) under the direction of the DYFS Deputy Director. DYFS reports that this Technical Assistance Group will provide support to the field on the Case Practice Model. DCF reports that it is engaged in providing staff with the knowledge and means to apply what they are learning in training to their daily practice.
3. Immersion Sites
New Jersey selected four Immersion Sites (Bergen Central, Burlington East, Glouster West and Mercer North Local Offices) to fully develop new family engagement skills and practices through intensive training, coaching, practicing and partnering with families. DCF, together with its partners, has created an intensive training and coaching calendar for staff at these four Immersion Sites. The intensive training and coaching being employed envisions staff and leadership working closely with Area Directors, Assistant Area Directors and local community partners to routinely conduct Family Team Meetings which adhere to all critical elements (e.g., Assessment, Teaming, and Tracking) of the Case Practice Model in their work with children and families.
In November and December 2007, DCF sought additional community support for the immersion process by meeting with local judges in immersion vicinages to explain the process and to invite the judiciary to join the practice change efforts. The DCF Commissioner also met with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and discussed the new Case Practice Model and permanency for children. Additionally, the DCF Director of Policy and Planning,
32

the Deputy Director of DYFS and the Assistant Attorney General in charge of DYFS Practice convened a day long summit in December 2007 to introduce the Deputy Attorneys General who represent DYFS to the Case Practice Model and the immersion process.
The Immersion Sites will receive intensive coaching and training from a curriculum entitled Developing Strength Based, Individualized Child and Family Practice which has been adapted from Utah, a state that has successfully implemented a child welfare reform agenda. The training covers the topics listed in Table 8 below.
Table 8: Developing Strength Based, Individualized Child and Family Practice Training Topics
Developing trusting relationships with children and families • Overview of the skill for building a trusting relationship • Understanding the cycle of need, challenge model and the five stages of change • Working through resistance • Use of solution focused questions • Assessing your relationship with a family • Developing and using a plan to build a trusting relationship
The basics of creating and supporting family teams • Identifying the characteristics of a successful team • Assessing team • Conflict management, consensus building and conflict resolution • Introduction to family systems • Family focused interviewing • Family and social network mapping • Identifying and assembling the team • Prepping for the team • Facilitation • Building trust and agreement among team members • Leadership style, validation, cooperation • Five stages of creating a team • Team skills building
Assessment • Functional assessment • Self assessment • Helping families self-discover • Strengths and needs • Timeline tools • Safety/CPS assessment • Genograms, eco mapping, and family systems mapping • Dual track – assessment and investigation • Quality service reviews and assessing documentation • On-going assessment • Strength and resiliency
Using assessment to craft individual plans • Effective planning • Gathering assessments • Practice crafting plans Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning
33

Additionally, during this monitoring period, the State increased the funds available to support family preservation and reunification through the use of flexible funds for birth families. These increased resources have been allocated to the Local Offices. DCF reports that DYFS workers will be trained on the availability and use of these flexible funds as a part of the Case Practice Model Implementation roll-out and immersion
The roll-out of the new Case Practice Model will be an ongoing focus of DCF for the coming year and beyond. The Monitor will closely follow its implementation and report on its progress at the field level in the next monitoring period report.
4. Differential Response and Prevention Efforts
The MSA requires the case practice model to address the development of individualized service plans built on the strengths and needs identified in a quality assessment of family and child strengths and needs (Section II.A.2.e). To fulfill this commitment, DCF expanded its community-based resources to respond to voluntary requests for services from families experiencing a current or developing need that does not pose a safety threat to the children. This alternative response provides services to children and families prior to an allegation of child abuse or neglect.
In April 2007, DCF awarded contracts under its Differential Response Pilot Program of approximately $4.2 million to pilot sites covering Camden, Cumberland, Glouster and Salem Counties to engage vulnerable families and provide supportive, prevention services to promote healthy family functioning. During the summer of 2007, DCF worked with its community partners to train Differential Response staff. Training focused on family engagement, interviewing and communicating with families, building family teams and developing family plans and family needs assessments.
The pilot sites use a Differential Response Practice Model that is based on and consistent with the new Case Practice Model. The sites are able to respond to families in a family-centered, child-focused, community-based manner 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Referrals are generated by the State Central Registry (SCR) primarily through a live, warm-line telephone transfer. Differential Response case workers meet with families within 72 hours of referral and family team meetings are held within 10 days of the referral.
DCF reports that between September 2007 and December 31, 2007, 124 families were referred to the Differential Response initiative in the four counties. Of the 124 families, 111 (89%) families accepted services. In Cumberland, Glouster and Salem Counties, the two most identified needs were temporary or emergency financial assistance and mental health services for children. In Camden County, housing, rent, utility or emergency shelter needs were identified most often.
In addition to the Differential Response initiative, DCF has expanded the Peace: A Learned Solution (PALS) violence prevention program and the Family Success Centers to focus on primary prevention and comply with the MSA (Section II.C.9). In November 2007, well in
34

advance of the June 2008 deadline, DCF completed the expansion of the PALS program to Atlantic, Monmouth, Ocean and Union Counties as required by the MSA (Section II.C.9), in addition to the previously existing capacity in Bergen, Burlington, Camden, Essex, Hunterdon, Middlesex and Passaic Counties. The PALS program is an evidence-based comprehensive assessment and treatment program model which uses art therapy for children and non-offending parents exposed to domestic violence in an attempt to reduce the impact of domestic violence on children, improve child and family functioning and well-being and break the cycle of abuse for future generations. Each PALS program provides comprehensive assessments, child care and/or summer camp, case management, group and individual therapy and education support, follow up services and transportation. Each child and family receives intensive therapeutic and case management services for six months and follow-up services for an additional six months. The PALS caseworker meets with the parent on a weekly or biweekly basis to assist the family with daily living needs and to coordinate the therapeutic and supportive services being provided.
During the summer of 2007, DCF awarded new funding to twenty-one Family Success Centers to provide wrap-around resources and supports for families. Through the Division of Prevention and Community Partnerships, DCF also transitioned 11 of its FACES programs to Family Success Centers with a slight increase in funding from existing dollars. These actions have expanded the network to 32 state-supported Family Success Centers in 16 counties. The Family Success Centers offer primary and secondary child abuse prevention services and bring together community residents, leaders and agencies to address the problems that lead to child abuse and neglect. The core services of the Family Success Centers include access to information on child, maternal and family health services, development of strength-based plans to address challenges which threaten family stability and safety, provision of income security services, connection to other public and private resources, life skills training, parent education and home visitation. These services are available to any family in the community with no prerequisites. In addition, DCF continued its work as a pilot program of the national Strengthening Families Initiative (SFI), seeking to prevent child abuse and neglect through work to support families in early care and education settings.
5. Permanency Planning and Adoption
DCF set specific targets to ensure that the State met the MSA requirement of 1400 adoptions completed by December 2007. DCF finalized 1540 adoptions by the end of this monitoring period – 140 adoptions over the target set by the MSA (Section II.G.17). This is a tremendous accomplishment and sets a new performance bar for the State, surpassing the previous state record of 1418 adoptions finalized in 2004. The State attributes its success to the effective work and support of adoption practice units in each DYFS office. The State’s success over the last two years has resulted in a greatly reduced number of children legally free and awaiting adoption – from 2,260 on January 1, 2006 to 1,295 on December 31, 2007.
In addition, special Adoption Impact Teams, described in more detail in the last Monitoring Report, worked hard in their search for permanency for the 100 youth in foster care who have
35

been waiting the longest to be adopted.23 DCF reports that three of these youth have been successfully adopted and another twenty-five are close to permanency through adoption or kinship legal guardianship. Seventy-one of these youth are included in the exhibit created by the Heart Gallery of New Jersey, a travelling photography exhibit of youth awaiting adoption. The Department succeeded in having the exhibit profiled in People Magazine, giving the Heart Gallery a wider distribution network to attract more interest in the youth waiting to be adopted. DCF is now working with two local newspapers, the Star Ledger and the Asbury Park Press, to feature waiting children on a regular basis.
Work is also proceeding toward developing a permanency planning practice that is more consistent with the new Case Practice Model. Previous Monitoring Reports24 have described DYFS’s development and implementation of its Concurrent Planning Model which continues to be pilot-tested in 10 sites across the state. The Model, common in many jurisdictions across the country, is designed to work with families simultaneously on both a reunification strategy and a back-up strategy for permanency in the event reunification fails.
An important component of New Jersey’s Concurrent Planning Model involves permanency planning case reviews when children have been in care for 5 months and again at 10 months. Five month reviews are critical meetings with all participants in a family’s DYFS case, including parents, children, service providers and caseworkers. The focus is on how the team is progressing towards the goals of the case plan, what DYFS can do to assist the family, and whether the current goals still meet the children’s needs. Ten month reviews are similar and are held in preparation for Family Court permanency hearings. Table 9 below provides a breakdown of the number of 5 and 10 month reviews completed in the 10 pilot sites between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007 for children who entered placement as of September 1, 2006. In this monitoring period, DCF reports 87% of five month reviews due and 88% of ten month reviews due were completed timely. Table 9 also reports the number of cases transferred from a Permanency worker to an Adoption worker within 5 days of a permanency goal change to adoption, a process described in detail in the MSA (Section II.G.2). The adoption cases were transferred timely 100% of the time in half of the pilot sites, with an average compliance rate across the 10 sites of 64%.
23 Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period I Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H . v. Corzine – January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy. October 26, 2007, page 36.
24Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period I Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H . v. Corzine – January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2007. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy. October 26, 2007, page 37.
36

Table 9: Concurrent Planning in 10 Pilot Sites Between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2007 For Children Who Entered Placement as of September 1, 2006

5 Month Review

Local Total # of #

#

%

#

Office children Due Completed Completed Due

who

entered

placement

as of

9/1/2006

Atlantic

89

34

32

94%

15

East

Bergen

176

44

30

68%

32

South

Essex

88

20

19

95%

20

North

Hudson

120

38

33

87%

23

Central

Mercer

157

76

69

91%

50

North

Monmouth 189

57

50

88%

46

North

Passaic

128

46

35

76%

35

North

Salem

95

19

16

84%

16

Somerset

127

37

37

100%

23

Sussex

120

58

52

90%

22

Total

1287 429

373

87%

282

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning.

10 Month Review

#

%

Completed Completed

9

60%

31

97%

16

80%

23

100%

45

90%

36

78%

33

94%

11

69%

23

100%

20

91%

247

88%

Transferred to an Adoption Worker

# with

#

%

Goal Transferred Completed

Changed to Adoption

to

Worker

Adoption within 5

Working

Days

3

3

100%

16

12

75%

14

5

36%

8

4

50%

24

14

58%

2

2

100%

6

4

67%

1

1

100%

5

5

100%

2

2

100%

81

52

64%

37

V. APPROPRIATE PLACEMENTS AND SERVICES FOR CHILDREN
A. Resource Families
DCF has made exceptional gains in its recruitment and licensure of Resource Families (kinship, foster and adoptive caregivers) over the past year. The structural and substantive changes within the Department appear to have paid off. In 2007, DCF licensed 1367 new nonkin Resource Family homes, far exceeding the MSA requirement to license 1071 non-kin Resource homes between January 2007 and December 2007 (Section II.H.12). This resulted in a 50% increase in licensed Resource Family homes over 2006 performance and almost a 100% increase over 2005 performance.
1. DCF recruited and licensed 1367 new non-kin Resource Families in 2007, far exceeding its mandate to license 1071 non-kin Resource Family homes in this period.
The State licensed a total of 1367 non-kin Resource Family homes in 2007. The MSA required that the State license 1071 non-kin Resource Family homes between January and December 2007 (Section II.H.12).
Figure 10: Number of Newly Licensed Non-Kin Resource Family Homes by Calendar Year
1600

1400

1367

Number of Non-Kin Foster Homes

1200 1000

1067

1071

800

600

400

200

0 CY 2006

CY 2007 Target Year

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning

CY 2007

38

The State also licensed 529 Kinship Resource Family homes in CY 2007 to reach a total of 1896 new homes (kinship and non-kinship) licensed in CY 2007. Figure 10 below provides data on the number of kinship and non-kinship homes licensed each month.
Figure 11: New Licensed Family Resource Homes (Kinship and Non-kinship)
January 2007-December 2007 Total Licensed in 2007 = 1896 Homes
300

Number of Licensed Family Resource Homes

250 241

200

196

150

141

166 163

172 161

153

149

134 124

100

96

50

0 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Month
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning
In looking at data on Resource Family homes, it is also critically important to assess net gains in the number of licensed Resource Family homes. An overall net increase of homes is required to sustain DCF’s goal to ensure an increasing number of children are placed in family-based settings. In CY 2007, DCF achieved a total net gain of 829 Resource Family homes. As seen in Figure 12 below, large net gains occurred between January and July 2007. During the summer months as staff focused time and effort on training on the new data system (NJ SPIRIT) and on implementing a new licensing information system, the net gains decreased.

39

Figure 12: Net Gain of Resource Families January-December 2007
Total Net Gain = 829 Homes
195
175 175

155

135 122

115 101 102

95

86

75 58
55 41
35

78 67

15

5

-5

-4

-2

Net Gain

Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07

Month
Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning
The Monitor reviewed a random sample of approximately 20% of licensing files from January 2007 to December 2007 and verified reported DCF data. Consistent with the last monitoring period, DCF’s Resource Family Support and Resource Family Licensing units have achieved impressive results. Influenced by new targeted training, the continued work of the Resource Family Impact Teams and the changes to licensing protocols which eliminate unnecessary barriers for families, the Department has accomplished a great deal and is to be lauded for its work in this area.
2. The State made progress on timely processing of Resource Home Applications but did not meet the target to complete the licensing review process and make licensing decisions within 150 days.
The Department has continued to use Resource Family Support Impact Teams (Impact Teams), which made significant gains towards reducing the backlog of Resource Family home applications in the last monitoring period, to diagnose and develop strategies to complete the licensing review process and to make decisions on applications within 150 days (MSA Section II.H.4). This requirement was not met although improvements in the process have occurred and continue. Based on a sample of July 2007 applications for licensure, and as shown in Figure 13 below, DCF was successful in meeting the 150 day licensing requirement

40

for 25% of those homes, 29% of the homes took between 150 and 180 days to make a decision on the application and 46% of the homes took more than 180 days.
Figure 13: Time from Application to Completion of Licensing Review Process and Decision for
Family Resource Home Applications (For Homes that Applied for Licensure in July 2007)

Licensing Review Process and Decision Pending Beyond 180 Days 46%

Licensing Review Process and Decision in 150 Days
25%
Licensing Review Process and Decision in 151-180
Days 29%

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning
Beginning in April 2007 and ending in July 2007, the Impact Teams working together with Area Resource Family Specialists, Licensing Inspectors and the Office of Resource Family Supervisor, completed an intensive process in which any application statewide pending over 150 days was conferenced at least once a month.
As a result of this work, the Impact Teams recommended additional structural and practice changes which were implemented beginning in September 2007. These recommendations include:
• Assigning four Office of Resource Family Case Practice Supervisors to four different geographical areas of the state. These staff members were tasked to work intensively with each Resource Family Unit on all applications approved since January 2007 and pending 60 days or more.
41

• Continuing monthly conferences with the Licensing Inspector, Resource Family Supervisor, the Area Resource Family Specialist and all members of the unit. These conferences focused on reaching a resolution on each pending study within 150 days and identifying issues that delay the process.
The Impact Teams also concluded that some offices needed more intensive work than. Moving forward, four Local Offices and one private agency conducting home studies have been identified for more focused assistance.
DCF believes that additional progress is possible in increasing the percentage of Resource Family homes licensed within 150 days, though some families will always require more time to move through the licensing process. Other efforts the State has undertaken to increase compliance of the 150 day licensing process include enhancing its contract with Foster and Adoptive Family Services (FAFS) to provide six resource family advocates to support prospective and existing Resource Families in Monmouth/Middlesex, Camden, Essex, Union, Hudson and Bergen/Passaic areas and continuing to hold meetings of Area Resource Family Specialists and Office of Licensing Staff to review policy and discuss challenges.
3. The State has a usable database of current and available Resource Family homes.
In the last monitoring period the State, as part of its development of NJ SPIRIT, created a tracking system to provide a real time database of current and available Resource Family homes as required by the MSA (Section II.H.9). The Monitor recently observed this tracking system, and witnessed how, within minutes, staff are now able to obtain names of open homes available for placement. The system can display the number of children in prospective homes, their history with the Department, their ages and backgrounds. It can also provide staff with information on each Resource Family home and the home’s history with the Department. This tracking system has the potential to significantly improve the timeliness with which potential Resource Family homes are identified and should assist in better matching children’s needs with the capacities and skills of available resource parents.25
4. The State created a methodology for setting annualized targets for Resource Family non-kin recruitment based on a needs assessment by county.
The methodology the State has created to set targets for Resource Family non-kin recruitment takes into account many factors and is focused on recruiting homes that meet the priority identified needs of the Department to keep sibling groups together in placement and to place children closer to their home communities and schools.
25 Although an accurate database and tracking system have been developed, the use of the automated system by Local Office staff for placement matching is reportedly still inconsistent; some staff continue to rely on memory and manual card files of available Resource Family homes. Over the next monitoring period, the Monitor will examine more closely how the tracking system is used in daily operations.
42

DCF does not believe it has an overall statewide net capacity issue, but is appropriately focused on the geographic distribution of homes, the ability to keep sibling groups together and the need to continually replace homes lost to the system due to permanency decisions and attrition. As of December 2007, the existing licensed resource home capacity would accommodate 15,712 children, many more than the 9,200 children who were in placement at that time. Given these objectives, DCF established a target for newly licensed homes for 2008 of 1,528 homes, which includes newly licensed kinship and non-kinship homes.
The State’s methodology for establishing the target of 1,528 newly licensed homes takes into account four factors:
• The replacement rate (i.e. the number of homes that need to be replaced as a result of home closures);
• An analysis of Resource Family home capacity compared to sibling group placement rates, given goals for keeping sibling groups together established by Phase II of the MSA;
• An analysis by county of Resource Family home capacity and demographic factors which will impact DCF’s ability to meet MSA standards for placement proximity; and
• The state’s desire to set targets for both kinship and non-kinship homes with the result that staff will be recognized for recruiting kinship as well as non-kinship homes. The State will report on both sets of numbers.
With regard to sibling group placement, the State believes the largest need is for homes that can accommodate sibling groups of 5 or more children. As of December 2007, there were 16 homes statewide licensed for 5 or more children. The State has estimated a need for an additional 12 homes with this capacity in order to attain targets for intact sibling placements. DCF reports that its data suggest that kinship homes are the most successful source of large capacity placements. The State has set a target by December 30, 2008 for 28 homes with a capacity to serve of 5 or more children with a focus on homes in Essex, Mercer, Monmouth and Ocean counties.
With regard to geographic proximity of homes to communities from which children are coming into placement, the State examined licensed home capacity against placement population in each county, the intact sibling placement rates, non-kinship placement rates, kinship placement rates, and proximity. It concluded that while overall capacity is sufficient, best practice suggests a different distribution by county as follows:
• 8 counties have excess capacity that the State utilizes for other counties with less capacity. The State intends to maintain those numbers for placements in and out of those counties.
• 5 counties have adequate capacity, but targets will be set for a small net increase to ensure a safety net.
• 8 additional counties need a net increase of licensed homes beyond the net increase achieved in 2007 to meet the placement needs of children in that county.
43

Table 14 below lists each county and classifies them in three ways: Increase for those counties where a significant net increase in available homes is needed; Improve for those counties which currently have adequate supply, but will seek to create modest additional capacity; and Maintain for counties which currently have excess capacity but will need to recruit and license to accommodate turnover and attrition.

Table 14: Recruitment Licensing Categories by County for FY 2008

County

Status

Cape May

Cumberland

Essex

Hudson Mercer

Increase

Monmouth

Ocean

Salem

Bergen

Camden

Middlesex

Improve

Passaic

Union

Atlantic

Burlington

Gloucester

Hunterdon Morris

Maintain

Somerset

Sussex

Warren

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning

According to the State, each of the targeted counties has analyzed its own challenges and will be pursuing strategies to meet the targets the State has set.

44

5. Creating targets for both Kinship and Non-kinship Recruitment
The MSA and the State placed a primary focus in 2007 on achieving a net increase of nonkinship Resource Family homes. However, New Jersey data shows the rate of kinship placements are now declining. At the same time, national data increasingly suggests that there are improved permanency and stability outcomes for children placed with kin. The State believes that the MSA and internal targets for new non-kinship resources in 2007 may have had an unintended consequence of communicating a lower priority for the licensing of kinship homes. As a result, DCF will separately track and publish data on the number of kinship and non-kinship homes licensed, but set Area and Statewide targets that represent the total of both categories.
6. Regulatory Changes
The Monitor has observed and the State has confirmed that often unnecessarily rigid regulations delay or deny a family from becoming licensed even though that family could provide a safe and appropriate home for children in DCF’s custody. During this monitoring period, the State began to address this issue by drafting changes to the Resource Family regulations. To inform that effort, DCF conducted a series of focus groups and discussions with existing and potential Resource Families and key advocates, analyzed current practice and reviewed best practices from across the nation.
The existing Resource Family regulations were adopted in 2005 and are based on the State’s construction code from the 1970s. The most significant series of proposed changes relate to a new approach to assess a potential Resource Family home’s physical space. The changes in the regulations focus more on the quality of life provided by the space, as opposed to the rigid square footage or ceiling height restrictions from the construction code. The draft also modifies the existing regulations, which state that no person living in the house may sleep in an unfinished attic or basement to make it clear that no child may do so.26 DCF also added clarifying language needed to ensure safety. For example, the existing regulations mandate that pools meet local ordinances, but DCF found in practice that those ordinances were inconsistent. Thus, DCF added language that requires that pools be enclosed with a barrier approved by DCF licensing inspectors. All of the changes are intended to ensure safety while permitting the use of safe and appropriate homes previously barred by the existing regulations.
A draft of the regulations has been prepared and is currently in final review by DCF. The review is expected to take no more than 45 days at which time the regulations will be submitted to the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law for publication. DCF anticipates the new regulations will be published in the June 16, 2008 New Jersey Register and are expected to be effective after the conclusion of the 60-day comment period on August 15, 2008.
26 DCF had found in practice that some promising Resource Family homes were eliminated for licensure because an adult student coming home from college or an adult relative who wanted to accommodate a kinship placement was sleeping in a basement, even though the child was not impacted.
45

7. DCF continues to close the gap between current Resource Family Support rates and the USDA’s estimated cost of raising a child.
The MSA (Section II.H.15) requires the State to close the gap between current Resource Family support rates (foster care, kinship care, and adoption subsidy) and the United States Department of Agriculture’s estimated cost of raising a child over a several year period. New Resource Family support rates which move to close the gap became effective January 1, 2008 and are included as Appendix B.
8. Preventing inappropriate use of shelters for children entering foster care.
The MSA requires the State to eliminate the inappropriate use of shelters for youth entering foster care. The only appropriate uses of shelters are: “(i) as an alternative to detention, or (ii) a short-term placement of an adolescent in crisis which shall not extend beyond 45 days; or (iii) a basic center for homeless youth” or when there is a court order. (MSA Section II.D.8). Further, beginning in July 2007, shelters were not to be used as a placement option for children under the age of 13 (MSA Section II.D.7). DCF developed policy to support these placement restrictions in the late spring of 2007. Memos outlining these restrictions were sent to Area Directors and Local Office Managers on May 2, 2007 with reminders sent on June 6, 2007.
A concrete impact from the implementation of these new policies has been that a number of shelters have been forced to close and several of those which have remained open report a decrease in the number of children referred for shelter placement. DCF senior management is working to adjust the shelter capacity to meet the decreased need.
DCF reports there were a total of four children statewide under the age of 13 who spent time in a shelter during the monitoring period, less than .07% of the 6,049 children under 13 in outof-home placement as of December 31, 2007. The lengths of stay for the 4 children were 1 day (1 child), 4 days (2 children) and 16 days (1 child). Three of the four children were placed directly by the Special Response Unit (SPRU) in one county and DCF has addressed the issue to prevent reoccurrence. The fourth child was placed in a shelter due a court order.
As of February 28, 2008, DYFS had contracts with 28 shelters across the state. Currently, DCF is unable to provide the Monitor with aggregate data as to utilization and length of stay for these shelters. Additionally, according to DCF, there were 423 children over the age of 13 who spent time in a shelter placement during the monitoring period. DCF reports 332 (78%) of the 423 children met the criteria for an appropriate shelter placement under the MSA. DCF reports that the older youth, those aged 18-20, are most often being placed in shelters. DCF hopes that recent investments in expansion of transitional housing resources will help provide better placement alternatives for these youth. Due to data limitations, DCF is unable to report the length of stay of these youth in the shelter placements.
46

The Monitor visited one shelter in transition (Angel’s Wings in Trenton) and one shelter/diagnostic treatment center (Grace Hall in Newark) in preparation for this report. Angel’s Wings is licensed as a shelter placement as a part of the Anchor House Shelter Program, but has modified its program to provide family-based emergency care utilizing a houseparent model. This change occurred because of the new DCF prohibition on placing children under age 13 in a congregate setting. Angel’s Wings is now contracted for two homes to serve children, but is currently only operating one due to decreased demand. During the Monitor’s site visit, Angel’s Wings’ Director and staff commented on the advantages and challenges of providing a family setting for emergency care. They positively cited their recent ability to keep sibling groups together on an emergency basis while longer term placement options were developed for these children.27
27 Angel’s Wings reported placement of 38 children, during the monitoring period, whose lengths of stay ranged from one to 45 days. Of these 38 children, 26 were members of (12) sibling groups.
47

VI. MEETING THE HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH NEEDS OF CHILDREN
A. Improving the Behavioral Health Services and Delivery System
A new permanent Director of the Division of Child Behavioral Health Services (DCBHS) was appointed in November 2007. DCBHS is responsible for finding appropriate home and community-based services and/or out-of-home placements for all children and youth in New Jersey who are experiencing emotional and behavioral challenges and are in need of behavioral or mental health services. DCBHS continues as a free standing child behavioral health system focusing on improving access to and the quality of behavioral health care achieved in part through a redistribution of existing resources and introduction and procurement of new, high quality resources.
Some youth involved with DCBHS are also involved with other systems, such as DYFS and the Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD). Under the MSA, DCF, through DCBHS, is required to minimize the number of children in DYFS custody placed in out-of-state congregate care settings and work to transition these children back to New Jersey (Section II.D.2).
1. The number of children placed out-of-state for treatment continues to decline.
DCF has made steady progress in reducing the number of children in DYFS custody placed out-of-state.28 The majority of children placed out-of-state have experienced significant mental health challenges and are placed out-of-state following attempts to find an appropriate placement in New Jersey. As of December 31, 2007, 235 children were placed out-of-state and as of March 7, 2008, the reduction continued and DCF reports that there were 213 children placed out-of-state (See Figure 16).
In addition to implementing strategies to move children to in-state treatment options, DCBHS has dramatically reduced the number of children newly placed out-of-state. Table 15 shows the number of new out-of-state placements authorized for children and youth in DYFS custody during this reporting period.
28 In some cases placements made out-of-state are in locations closer to the child’s community than alternative in-state placements.
48

Table 15: Out-of-State Placement Authorizations by DCBHS

July - December 2007

Number of authorizations for youth in DYFS

Month

custody (total number of DCBHS

out-of-state authorizations)

July

10 (19)

August

6 (15)

September

1 (3)

October

0 (8)

November

6 (8)

December

0 (2)

TOTAL

23 (55)

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Family Services, DCBHS

The ability to reduce new out-of-state placement has been made possible by continued expansion of treatment resources within the State. The resource creation work is continuing. DCBHS reports that by June 1, 2008 additional therapeutic, community-based programs housing up to five youth each will be added to the array of services available to children, youth and families in New Jersey. DCBHS issued an RFP in November 2007 and has selected providers for approximately 43 youth; these new placement and service options will serve to prevent out-of-state placements and provide for youth who are returning to the State from more restrictive placements.

In addition to employing strategies to prevent out-of-state placement through resource creation and through careful review and service planning for new requests for out-of-state placement, DCBHS has begun to examine the circumstances of each child currently placed out-of-state and is developing and implementing individualized plans for children to return to New Jersey and their community. This initiative began with a focus on DYFS involved youth. Case conferences were scheduled, beginning in September 2007, throughout the state and conducted with significant input from DCF partners in each county to identify appropriate programs and/or community services needed to return the child to the state. The Monitor attended one of the case conferences and was impressed by the team approach to placement decision-making and the purposefulness of the participants. As a result of these conferences, as of February 20, 2008, 45 children have returned to New Jersey or have been reunited with family members out-of-state. DCBHS, DYFS and the involved county partners should be commended for their collaboration and the local relationship building achieved through this case conference process. Figure 16 depicts the reduction in out-of-state placements over time.

49

Figure 16: Children in Out-of-State Placement June 2007 through February 2008
350

300

305

292

289

282

277

250

244

235 229

220 213

200

Number of Children

150

100 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08
Month
Source: DCBHS administrative data, February 29, 2008.
Additionally, DCBHS has begun to review a small subset of non-DYFS involved youth, specifically the 16 youth residing at Kids Peace, a facility in Pennsylvania, with the longest length of stay. Five of the 16 were reviewed by February 6, 2008 and the other 11 were expected to be reviewed by the first week of March 2008. DCBHS intends to continue to use the case conference process to reduce the number of children being sent out-of-state and to reduce the length of stay for those children for whom a placement resource cannot be found in New Jersey.
2. Providing mental health expertise in DYFS offices
In October 2007, DCBHS redeployed Child Behavioral Health Team Leaders to DYFS Area Offices to serve as experts in the behavioral health system of care and on local resources. The goal of this change was to improve coordination between DYFS local staff and DCBHS in meeting the needs of DYFS-involved children with mental and behavioral health needs. This decision has drawn mixed reaction across the state. DYFS staff are generally pleased by the greater access to the knowledge of DCBHS resources. Some local system of care partners, including Care Management Organizations (CMOs) and Youth Case Management Organizations (YCMs) are worried that this organizational shift has diminished the broader system of care coordination function of the Team Leaders. Eventually, the Team Leaders will

50

assume responsibility for the case conferences discussed above on all children placed out-ofstate and for inter-divisional coordination of service provision to children. DCBHS anticipates that these planning conferences will be conducted on a quarterly basis with the third review cycle to begin in mid-March 2008.

In April 2008, additional licensed behavioral health clinicians will be hired by Care Management Organizations and deployed to DYFS’ Case Practice Model Immersion Sites in Bergen, Gloucester, Mercer, and Burlington counties. DYFS Area Office Directors will participate in the selection process for these professionals, who will work collaboratively with Child Health Units and take responsibility for supporting the development of behavioral health plans for children. DCBHS is targeting December 31, 2008 for each local office to have clinicians proportionate to the number of children served by that office.

3. Finding placements for detained DYFS youth

As described in the last Monitoring Report, DCF created a systematic process to identify and track youth in juvenile detention facilities who remain in these facilities solely because they are awaiting appropriate placement. Under the MSA, no youth in DYFS custody should wait longer than 30 days in detention post-disposition for an appropriate placement (Section II.D.5). According to DCF, 17 youth in DYFS custody and in detention were awaiting placement from July 2007 to December 2007. Of the 17 youth awaiting placement (12 male; 5 female), one youth exceeded the 30 day requirement and was not placed until 48 days postdisposition. 29

Table 17 below provides information on the length of time each of these youth waited for placement.

Table 17: Youth in DYFS Custody in Juvenile Detention Post-disposition Awaiting Placement

Length of waiting time

Number of Youth

0-15 days

5

16-30 days

11

Over 30 days

1

Source: DCF, January 2008 DCBHS summary update

29 Although DCBHS identified that the youth’s placement was available within the 30-day requirement, the court ordered that the youth remain in detention until the youth was medically cleared for transfer to placement.
51

4. Funding Evidence-Based Treatment and Services
Under the MSA, the State was required to seek approval from the federal government for a Medicaid rate structure “to support the use of new services for children and families, including community-based and evidence-based informed, or support practices, such as Functional Family Therapy and Multi-Systemic Therapy” (Section II.C.2). As previously reported, DCF determined that these practices could be funded within the existing New Jersey Medicaid State Plan and federal government approval was not required. In October 2007, DCF issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to support providers of Multi-systemic Therapy (MST) and Functional Family Therapy (FFT), both of which have proven efficacy with youth involved in the juvenile justice system in other jurisdictions and have also proven effective for youth with challenging behaviors involved with other systems. Twenty-eight responses were received. Awards are expected to be announced by the end of April 2008. Contracts are expected to be executed by June 30, 2008.
B. Building a Health Care Delivery System for Children in Placement
Redesigning the delivery system and increasing the quality of health care services to children and youth in out-of-home care are key obligations under the MSA (Section II.F.8). Like other MSA reform efforts, the improvement of health care service delivery to children and youth in foster care requires a thoughtful and staged process with continuous feedback to ensure that goals are met and to make adjustments to planning as needed. As previously reported, DCF undertook a deliberative process to build a new comprehensive health care model.
In May 2007, DCF released their vision for providing comprehensive coordinated health care to children and youth entering or in out-of-home care.30 With the new coordinated health care plan, modifications were made to the manner in which comprehensive medical examinations will be delivered; plans were made to build children’s medical health units and significantly expand the number of nurses in local DYFS offices; the intended use of Regional Diagnostic Treatment Centers was clarified; and efforts continued to ensure that pre- placement assessments were provided in non-emergency settings.
1. Providing Comprehensive Medical Examinations
Under the MSA, the State is required to provide all children entering out-of-home care with comprehensive medical care. Services the State has committed to provide include:
• pre-placement assessment, • a comprehensive medical examination within the first 60 days of placement, • medical exams in accordance with federal Early and Periodic Screening,
Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) guidelines, • semi-annual dental exams,
30 New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Coordinated Health Care Plan for Children in Out-of-Home Placement, May 22, 2007. http://www.nj.gov/dcf/DCFHealthCarePlan_5.22.07.pdf
52

• mental health assessments for children with suspected mental health needs, and • any follow-up care needed by a child (MSA, II.F.2).
DCF determined that there were many challenges to the previous Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children (CHEC) approach as the intended vehicle to comprehensively assess the health care needs of all children and youth entering out-of-home care.31
Based on a review of capabilities of federally qualified health centers (FQHCs), it was determined that some FQHCs and other providers had the capacity to comprehensively serve children and youth, but that providing all components of the desired comprehensive medical exam would require the health centers to partner with other providers for particular parts of the exam; for example, mental health assessments. A Request for Proposal (RFP) published in June 2007 provided for flexibility in such partnerships and was designed to increase the number of providers available statewide to provide comprehensive medical exams. A bidders’ conference was held in July 2007 and additional questions emailed to DCF were answered publicly on the DCF website. In September 2007 DCF received responses from nine agencies interested in providing the required services outlined in the RFP. In December 2007, DCF made initial awards to six agencies with the expectation that the centers would be operational by March 2008. These agencies will add to the provider network by offering services to children in Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic, Sussex and Union Counties thereby doubling the existing number of providers performing comprehensive medical examinations. DCF’s focus continues to be on ensuring and increasing capacity within counties lacking CHEC providers.
2. Creating Child Health Units
A key component of DCF’s strategy to improve health services and outcomes for children in its care is the creation and staffing of Child Health Units in every Local Office. This strategy has been well received by social work staff as a key support to their work.
DCF had previously contracted with the Francois Xavier Bagnoud Center (FXBC) within the School of Nursing at University of Medicine and Dentistry New Jersey to staff offices in 14 counties and Professional Nurse Consultants to staff the remaining seven counties. However, during this Monitoring Period, DCF signed a Memorandum of Understanding with FXBC to begin rolling out Child Health Units in each of the local DYFS offices; FXBC has now assumed responsibility for the entire state.
The Child Health Units will work to improve coordination, case management and documentation of health care for children in out-of-home care. These Units build on the existing nursing model, which placed a nurse in every local office to perform nursing assessments and assist DYFS caseworkers. The staffing level for each new Child Health Unit
31 For fuller discussion of problems with the CHEC approach see: Office of the Child Advocate, Needs and Assets Assessment of the Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children (CHEC) Program December 19, 2005 and Office of the Child Advocate, Needs and Assets Assessment of the Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children (CHEC) Program October 3, 2007.
53

is tied to the number of children the particular DYFS office has in out-of-home placement. In addition to the nurse already assigned to the local office, each Child Health Unit will have staff based on the following ratio: 1 Nurse Health Care Case Manager per 50 children in placement and 1 Staff Assistant per 100 children in placement.
As the Child Health Units become operational, FXBC staff conduct health audits to determine the existing health care needs and provision of care for children in placement and to inform staffing needs. In conducting the audits, nurses review each child’s DYFS case record, Medicaid claims information and immunization history to assign a child/patient acuity level. FXBC has adapted a tool utilized by the state of Utah’s Fostering Healthy Children Program32 to assess a child’s health and health care needs at the time of removal from his/her home and at regular intervals during placement to determine the level of nursing case management needed. Acuity levels range from Level 1 (well-child) to Level 6 (untreated complex health issues or unknown health history/child newly entering care). This method allows FXBC to assign balanced caseloads to its nurses and provides baseline data for DCF. DCF and FXBC anticipate that children’s acuity levels will decrease or stabilize with the provision of health care case management services by the Child Health Units. This measurement can be also be used to evaluate the efficacy of the Child Health Units. As of February 20, 2008, FXBC had completed health audits for over 1600 children and youth across 7 counties. DCF and FXBC expect to be able to share preliminary aggregate data from these audits with the Monitor by April 2008. The Monitor will report on this data in the next Monitoring Report.
Currently there are fully functional Child Health Units in Sussex and Hunterdon Counties. The CHU in the Sussex County office became functional in January 2008 and is staffed by three nurses, a Clinical Nurse Coordinator, two staff assistants, and an MSW Intern. The Monitor visited this site in February 2008 and met with CHU staff to learn about its operation. The Sussex County office is a relatively small office with approximately 100 children in placement. Most of the staff are familiar both with DYFS and outpatient pediatric and adolescent health care provision. The combination of skilled staff and a smaller office has enabled a focus on the implementation of procedures and protocols to enhance the functioning of the CHU. Some of these procedures and protocols will be adapted for use in other Local Offices. FXBC management is very involved and familiar with day-to-day planning for bringing other CHUs on-board; cognizant of what may be standardized across the state as well as what may have to be adjusted for local implementation. Current reported challenges to implementing CHUs across the state include recruiting nurses and working within a short timeframe for start-up and full implementation. DCF and FXBC provided information about plans for preliminary staffing in other counties this fiscal year and staffing projections through December 2008. (See Table 18).
32 Utah Department of Health, Fostering Healthy Children Program, http://health.utah.gov/cshcn/FHCP
54

Table 18:

Nurses and Nurse Staff Assistants Hired for Child Health Units

as of December 31, 2007 and Planned through December 2008

County Nurses as of Nurse Staff

Projected Hires through

December Assistants as of

December 2008

31, 2007

December 31,

Nurses

Nurse Staff

2007

Assistants

Atlantic

3

1

6

4

Bergen

3

5

9

5

Burlington

2

0

8

5

Camden

4

0

16

8

Cape May

1

0

3

2

Cumberland

2

0

7

4

Essex

8

9

43

22

Gloucester

2

0

5

4

Hudson

5

5

14

9

Hunterdon

2

0

1

1

Mercer

2

0

10

5

Middlesex

5

1

11

7

Monmouth

3

0

11

7

Morris

3

1

4

4

Ocean

3

0

12

7

Passaic

3

2

10

5

Salem

1

0

4

2

Somerset

1

0

3

2

Sussex

1

2

2

2

Union

4

1

16

9

Warren

3

0

3

2

TOTAL

61

27

198

116

Source: DCF administrative data, March 20, 2008

3. Supporting Regional Diagnostic Treatment Centers (RDTCs)

Currently, DCF works with four Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Centers (RDTCs) and one satellite office to assist in the evaluation of children who are or may have been victims of physical, sexual or emotional abuse or severe neglect. In the spring of 2007, DCF reached agreement with the RDTCs on revised guidelines for referrals from DYFS and RDTCs reporting back to DYFS. Processes were standardized across RDTCs such as types of cases to be referred, timeframes for scheduling appointments, and time frames for the production of reports. Program descriptions for each site were revised and individualized.

In 2007, DCF significantly expanded investment in the RDTC system, funding an additional half-time position at the Jersey Shore Medical Center, the site serving Ocean and Monmouth Counties, and offering to add physician capacity at two other RDTCs as follows: increasing a part-time position at St. Peter’s University Hospital in New Brunswick which serves Middlesex, Somerset, Mercer, Hunterdon, and Union counties to a full-time position and

55

adding a position at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center which services Essex and Union county. As of March 11, 2008, Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, St. Peter’s University Hospital and the CARES Center at UMDNJ each have a vacant physician position as the result of staff resignations.
These steps are attempting to address longstanding concerns about the financial viability of the RDTC system as well as to anticipate an increase in appropriate referrals from DYFS. Reimbursement for physical abuse/physical neglect and sexual abuse medical exams increased 100%, from $300 to $600 per exam; chart reviews increased from $400 to $600; and the reimbursement rate for psychosocial assessments is $1300. Steps have also been taken to improve communication and coordination between DYFS and the RDTCs. DYFS liaisons to the RDTC are assigned to train and provide information to DYFS staff about their RDTC, track referrals and troubleshoot issues. In the next monitoring period, the Monitor plans to meet with liaisons and staff who have contact with RDTCs and visit RDTCs to learn firsthand about the impact of improvement efforts and any outstanding concerns.
4. Conducting Pre-Placement Health Assessment
Under the MSA, all children entering out of home care are required to have a pre-placement assessment and beginning in June 2007, 90% of children entering out-of-home placements must have pre-placement assessments in a setting that is not an emergency room (Section II.F.7). Nurses in local DYFS offices continue to conduct pre-placement assessments during business hours. In Bergen and Passaic counties, nurses adjust their work hours to be available beyond business hours or “after hours” to conduct assessments. Statewide, workers also access children’s primary care providers to conduct pre-placement assessments. DCF reports that from July 1, 2007 – December 31, 2007, 11% (229 of 2113) of children entering care had a pre-placement assessment in the office of their primary care physician. In Camden and Essex counties, screenings are conducted beyond business hours or “after hours” by Youth Consultative Services and FXBC, respectively. According to DCF, emergency rooms are used to provide pre-placement assessments only under exceptional circumstances such as when the child is already at the emergency room prior to the initial report to DYFS. Combined, these strategies helped meet the goal as set forth in the MSA (Section II.F.7). As shown in Table 19, DCF reports that all children entering placement received a pre-placement assessment. In addition, on average, ninety percent of all children in out-of-home care received their preplacement health assessments in a non-emergency room setting during this monitoring period. (See Table 19). By the end of 2008, as information captured in NJ SPIRIT is mapped against Safe Measures, DCF expects to be able to present more specific data about pre-placement screenings, such as the number of assessments conducted beyond 24 hours post-placement. 33
33 Under special circumstances a child may receive a pre-placement assessment within 24 hours of placement if it is determined that this is in the child’s best interest.
56

Month July

Table 19:

Completion of Pre-Placement Health Assessments

and Use of Emergency Rooms for Assessments

July –December 2007

Number of

Number of Pre- Percentage of

Children

Placement

Pre-Placement

Entering Care

Assessments

Assessments

Completed

Completed

379

379

100%

Percentage of Pre-Placement
Assessments Completed in Non-ER Setting
92%

August

394

394

100%

92%

September

259

259

100%

90%

October

399

399

100%

88%

November

362

362

100%

90%

December

320

320

100%

85%

TOTAL

2113

2113

100%

Average: 90%

Source: DCF, Healthcare Pre-placement Assessment Update, January 2008, not independently verified by Monitor.

5. Compiling Medical Records and Creating Health Passports

All children entering placement are to have a medical record created for them. The record is a compilation of all relevant medical information. As the CHUs are rolled out across the state, the CHU nurses will be responsible for ensuring that the records are created and updated regularly. In Sussex County, for example, Staff Assistants are assigned the responsibility of assembling the CHU medical record with information gathered from numerous sources including NJ SPIRIT, DYFS records, and medical records. CHU nurses review the information assembled; obtain further necessary information; schedule initial health examinations; assist in scheduling other needed medical and related appointments; track to ensure completion of other needed medical and related appointments; ensure the appropriate flow of health information to and from providers; and provide support to the child’s medical home by coordinating and collaborating with DYFS staff, caregivers, other community-based providers, the child/youth, family members, and caregivers.

Currently, the information from the medical record is not entered into NJ SPIRIT. DCF and FXBC are in the process of updating NJ SPIRIT screens to be compatible with the forms being used by the nurses. All nurses have been trained on NJ SPIRIT, but currently use a separate electronic database for storage of information.

In addition to the medical record, a Health Passport is to be created for each child and given to parents, children (if age appropriate), and caregivers. Children’s caregivers are to receive an up-to-date Health Passport upon the child’s placement or within three days of placement. A form downloaded from NJ SPIRIT presently functions as the Health Passport. DCF is working with UMDNJ/FXBC to edit the form for better use by caregivers.

57

6. Providing For Children’s Dental Care
New Jersey still faces significant challenges in building capacity for dental care for children in its custody. The Monitor previously reported the lack of dentists willing to accept Medicaid as a barrier to DCF in providing for children’s dental care. As of January 1, 2008, New Jersey invested an additional $6 million dollars annually to increase fee-for-service Medicaid provider rates for pediatric dentistry. As a result, fee-for-service dentists will see payments jump from $18.02 per exam to $64 per exam. However, 85% of children in DYFS custody in out-of-home placements are enrolled in Medicaid HMOs, which have difficulty recruiting dentists who will accept the Medicaid managed care reimbursement rate applicable to those children. The fee for service increase does not yet significantly impact them.
Additionally, New Jersey has created a statewide “Access to Dentistry” workgroup which will focus in 2008 on determining and removing barriers to access to dental care. DCF’s participation in this work group is integral to increasing dental access for children in out-ofhome care. DCF’s expansion of CHEC providers also provides opportunities to expanded dental care capacity. Three of the CHEC new providers either have in-house dental services or referral processes in place.
7. Reporting on Additional Health Care Indicators
DCF expects to be able to provide data by April 2008 on five of the eight health care indicators agreed upon in 2007. These five indicators are:
• completion of pre-placement assessment, • completion of comprehensive medical assessments within 60 days of a child’s entry
into care, • annual medical examinations in compliance with EPSDT guidelines for children in
care for one year or more, • semi-annual dental examinations for children ages 3 or older in care 6 months or
more; and • children are current with immunizations
The Monitor and the State are in the process of determining how and when baseline and performance data will be made available on these other three indicators:
• mental health assessments for children with a suspected mental health need, and • receipt of timely, accessible and appropriate follow-up care and treatment to meet
health care and mental health needs; and • children’s caregivers receive an up-to-date Health Passport upon placement or within
three days of placement.
58

APPENDICES
A-1

APPENDIX A: CASELOAD AND SUPERVISORY LEVEL DETAIL FOR LOCAL OFFICES

Table A-1: NJ DCF DYFS Caseload Report – Summary (December 2007)

LOCAL OFFICE

Caseload Compliance Dec 2007

STANDARD

Intake
8 new referrals & 15 families

Perm 15 families
& 10 children in placement

Adoption I 18 children

Adoption II 15 children

Supervisor Ratio
1 sup for every 5 staff

TARGET

63%

95%

81%

35%

90%

ACTUAL
Atlantic East Atlantic West Bergen Central Bergen South Burlington East Burlington West Camden City Camden East Camden South Cape May Cumberland East Cumberland West Essex Central Essex North Essex South Newark Center City Newark Northeast Newark South Newark Adoption Gloucester East Gloucester West Hudson Central Hudson North Hudson South Hudson West

76%
Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

100%
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

93%
Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes NA Yes Yes Yes NA NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes

71%
Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes
Yes Yes Yes NA NA NA No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No

98%
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Mercer North

Yes

Mercer South

Yes

Middlesex Central

No

Middlesex Coastal

Yes

Middlesex West

Yes

Monmouth North

No

Source: NJDCF, 02/25/2008.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

A-1

Table A-1: NJ DCF DYFS Caseload Report – Summary (December 2007) (Continued)

LOCAL OFFICE

Caseload Compliance Dec 2007

STANDARD
Monmouth South Morris East Morris West Ocean North Ocean South Passaic Central Passaic North Salem Somerset Sussex Union Central Union East Union West Warren

Intake
8 new referrals & 15 families
Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Perm 15 families
& 10 children in placement
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Adoption I
18 children
Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Adoption II
15 children
Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Supervisor Ratio
1 sup for every 5 staff
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Total

76%

100%

93%

71%

98%

A-2

Table A-2: NJ DYFS DCF Caseload Report – Intake (December 2007)

Local Office Atlantic East Atlantic West Bergen Central

Intake Workers
17 10 17

Assignments 121 88 116

Avg. # of Assignments
(Std=8) 7
9
7

Families 233 152 189

Avg. # of Families (Std=15)
14
15
11

Bergen South

21

134

Burlington East

16

133

Burlington West

11

96

Camden City

25

138

Camden East

18

134

Camden South

18

121

Cape May

10

67

Cumberland East

11

51

6

310

15

8

281

18

9

180

16

6

206

8

7

352

20

7

197

11

7

110

11

5

126

11

Cumberland West

23

95

Essex Central

16

108

Essex North

12

62

Essex South

13

70

Gloucester East

12

78

Gloucester West

16

85

Hudson Central

16

52

Hudson North

15

87

Hudson South

17

82

Hudson West

11

83

Hunterdon

7

46

4

276

12

7

84

5

5

90

8

5

168

13

7

156

13

5

140

9

3

164

10

6

171

11

5

142

8

8

124

11

7

64

9

Mercer North Mercer South

15

89

14

89

6

221

15

6

158

11

Middlesex Central

10

61

Middlesex Coastal

18

90

Middlesex West

22

118

6

199

20

5

142

8

5

147

7

Monmouth North

20

128

6

351

18

Monmouth South

20

111

Morris East

13

61

Morris West

17

98

Source: NJDCF, 02/25/2008.

6

283

14

5

206

16

6

200

12

Office Meets Criteria Yes
No Yes
Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes
No Yes Yes
No
Yes No Yes

A-3

Table A-2: NJ DCF DYFS Caseload Report – Intake (December 2007) (Continued)

Local Office Newark Center City Newark Northeast Newark South

Intake Workers
15 19 10

Assignments 74 94 49

Avg. # of Assignments
(Std=8) 5
5
5

Families 166 170 136

Avg. # of Families (Std=15)
11
9
14

Office Meets Criteria Yes
Yes
Yes

Ocean North

20

130

7

272

14

Yes

Ocean South

22

139

6

382

17

No

Passaic Central Passaic North Salem

25

150

25

130

11

55

6

427

17

No

5

102

4

Yes

5

98

9

Yes

Somerset Sussex Union Central Union East Union West Warren

16

88

9

65

13

50

16

76

14

78

14

77

6

346

22

No

7

187

21

No

4

114

9

Yes

5

80

5

Yes

6

133

10

Yes

6

176

13

Yes

Total

710

4,147

8,611

76%

A-4

Table A-3: NJ DYFS DCF Caseload Report – Permanency (December 2007)

Local Office

Number of Permanency
Workers

Families

Average Number of
Families (Std=15)

Children Placed

Average Number of Children Placed (Std=10)

Atlantic East

22

203

9

107

5

Atlantic West

12

166

14

54

5

Bergen Central

20

261

13

78

4

Bergen South

30

393

13

151

5

Burlington East

32

336

11

143

4

Burlington West

32

263

8

87

3

Camden City

79

633

8

211

3

Camden East

41

486

12

172

4

Camden South

34

432

13

143

4

Cape May

20

262

13

91

5

Cumberland East

9

98

11

48

5

Cumberland West

26

262

10

104

4

Essex Central

45

439

10

257

6

Essex North

31

303

10

74

2

Essex South

29

269

9

94

3

Gloucester East

19

208

11

75

4

Gloucester West

19

243

13

98

5

Hudson Central

26

307

12

128

5

Hudson North

21

316

15

83

4

Hudson South

23

305

13

138

6

Hudson West

19

161

8

67

4

Hunterdon

6

59

10

18

3

Mercer North

31

317

10

243

8

Mercer South

37

319

9

154

4

Middlesex Central

14

175

13

63

5

Middlesex Coastal

55

493

9

157

3

Middlesex West

41

369

9

112

3

Monmouth North

33

351

11

211

6

Monmouth South

30

234

8

147

5

Morris East

13

95

7

49

4

Morris West

20

207

10

67

3

Newark Center City

47

584

12

269

6

Newark Northeast

45

356

8

281

6

Newark South

58

514

9

256

4

Ocean North

39

411

11

250

6

Ocean South

39

388

10

162

4

Source: NJDCF, 02/25/2008.

Office Meets Criteria Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

A-5

Table A-3: NJ DYFS DCF Caseload Report – Permanency (December 2007) (Continued)

Local Office Passaic Central Passaic North Salem Somerset Sussex Union Central Union East Union West Warren

Number of Permanency
Workers 28 24 27 22 14 28 39 32 17

Families 278 279 198 306 155 300 283 268 223

Average Number of
Families (Std=15)
10 12 7 14 11 11 7 8 13

Children Placed
168 131 66 115 50 119 123 170 78

Average Number of Children Placed (Std=10)
6 5 2 5 4 4 3 5 5

Office Meets Criteria
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Total

1,328

13,508

5,862

100%

A-6

Table A-4: NJ DYFS DCF Caseload Report – Adoption (December 2007) Adoption Workers

LOCAL OFFICE TARGET ACTUAL
Atlantic East Atlantic West Bergen Central Bergen South Burlington East Burlington West Camden City Camden East Camden South Cape May Cumberland East Essex Central Essex North Essex South Gloucester East Gloucester West Hudson Central Hudson North Hudson South Hudson West Mercer North Mercer South Middlesex Central Middlesex Coastal Middlesex West Monmouth North Monmouth South Morris East Morris West Newark Adoption Hunterdon
Source: NJDCF, 02/25/2008.

Staff
5 2 5 7 5 6 11 4 4 4 8 9 5 5 2 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 7 3 5 5 2 4 35 2

Average Number of Children Children

45

9

23

12

69

14

142

20

67

13

88

15

129

12

68

17

68

17

67

17

106

13

127

14

75

15

47

9

30

15

39

13

54

14

81

20

36

9

47

16

58

15

63

16

38

10

84

12

37

12

78

16

45

9

24

12

47

12

609

17

22

11

Office Met Standard I
81% 93% Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Office Met Standard II
35% 71% Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes

A-7

Table A-4: NJ DCF DYFS Caseload Report – Adoption (December 2007) (Continued) Adoption Workers

LOCAL OFFICE
Ocean North Ocean South Passaic Central Passaic North Salem Somerset Sussex Union Central Union East Union West Warren Total

Staff
7 6 6 3 7 3 3 5 10 9 3 237

Children
158 70 84 53 91 40 40 69 114 90 51 3,373

Average Number of Children
23 12 14 18 13 13 13 14 11 10 17

Office Met Standard I
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 93%

Office Met Standard II
No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No 71%

A-8

Table A-5: NJ DCF DYFS Caseload Report – Supervisory Ratios (December 2007)

Local Office Atlantic East Atlantic West Bergen Central Bergen South Burlington East Burlington West Camden Central Camden East Camden South Cape May Cumberland East Cumberland West Essex Central Essex North Essex South Gloucester East Gloucester West Hudson Central Hudson North Hudson South Hudson West Hunterdon Source: NJDCF, 02/25/2008.

Intake 17 10 17 21 16 11 25 18 18 10 11 23 16 12 13 12 16 16 15 17 11 7

Perm 22 12 20 30 32 32 79 41 34 20 9 26 45 31 29 19 19 26 21 23 19 6

Adoption 5 2 5 7 5 6 11 4 4 4 8 0 9 5 5 2 3 4 4 4 3 2

Trainees with Cases 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 4 1 4 1 3 6 8 0 2 3 5 2 3 2 2

Trainees without Cases
1 1 3 0 1 1 2 5 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 3 2 1

Total 47 29 47 61 55 51 118 72 58 40 30 52 77 58 47 35 42 52 42 50 37 18

Supervisors 10 6 10 14 12 10 25 15 13 8 5 11 14 13 13 8 9 12 10 12 8 4

Ratio 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 6 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 5

Compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

A-9

Table A-5: NJ DCF DYFS Caseload Report – Supervisory Ratios (December 2007) (Continued)

Local Office Mercer North Mercer South Middlesex Central Middlesex Coastal Middlesex West Monmouth North Monmouth South Morris East Morris West Newark Adoption Newark Center City Newark Northeast Newark South Ocean North Ocean South Passaic Central Passaic North Salem Somerset Sussex Union Central Union East Union West Warren

Intake 15 14 10 18 22 20 20 13 17 0 15 19 10 20 22 25 25 11 16 9 13 16 14 14

Perm 31 37 14 55 41 33 30 13 20 0 47 45 58 39 39 28 24 27 22 14 28 39 32 17

Adoption 4 4 4 7 3 5 5 2 4 34 0 0 0 7 6 6 3 7 3 3 5 10 9 3

Trainees with Cases 5 5 3 8 1 2 0 0 3 3 5 8 7 3 0 2 7 2 5 0 4 1 2 1

Trainees without Cases
0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0

Total 55 60 31 89 68 61 55 28 45 39 67 74 76 69 68 62 60 47 46 27 51 66 60 35

Supervisors 13 13 6 18 14 13 12 6 10 9 13 17 16 16 15 13 13 10 11 7 12 12 12 8

Ratio 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4

Total

710

1328

237

137

46

2458

531

5

Compliance Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
98%

A-10

APPENDIX B

Table B: Foster Care and Subsidized Adoption Board Rates FY 2008 Foster Care (Includes Relative Care and Special Home Providers)

Age 0 thru 5 6 thru 9

Step 0 $632.00 $679.00

Step 1 $682.00 $729.00

Step 2 $732.00 $779.00

Step 3 $782.00 $829.00

Step 5

10 thru 12

$703.00

$753.00

$803.00

$853.00

13 and over

$751.00

$801.00

$851.00

$901.00

Medically Fragile

HIV Asymptomatic

HIV Symptomatic

Subsidized Adoption (Finalized On Or After 1/1/2008)

$1,113.00 $1,256.00 $1,539.00

Age 0 thru 5

Step 0 $632.00

Step 1 $682.00

Step 2 $732.00

Step 3 $782.00

6 thru 9

$679.00

$729.00

$779.00

$829.00

10 thru 12

$703.00

$753.00

$803.00

$853.00

13 and over

$751.00

$801.00

$851.00

$901.00

Subsidized Adoption (Finalized 1/1/2007 Through 12/31/2007)

Age 0 thru 5 6 thru 9

Step 0 $570.00 $613.00

Step 1 $620.00 $663.00

Step 2 $670.00 $713.00

Step 3 $720.00 $763.00

10 thru 12

$637.00

$687.00

$737.00

$787.00

13 and over

$687.00

$737.00

$787.00

$837.00

Subsidized Adoption (Finalized 1/1/2006 THROUGH 12/31/2006)

Age 0 thru 5 6 thru 9 10 thru 12 13 and over

Step 0 $512.00 $550.00 $574.00 $627.00

Step 1 $562.00 $600.00 $624.00 $677.00

Step 2 $612.00 $650.00 $674.00 $727.00

Step 3 $662.00 $700.00 $724.00 $777.00

Subsidized Adoption (Finalized 1/1/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2005)

Age

Step 0

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

0 thru 5

$480.00

$530.00

$580.00

$630.00

6 thru 9

$516.00

$566.00

$616.00

$666.00

10 thru 12

$539.00

$589.00

$639.00

$689.00

13 and over

$595.00

$645.00

$695.00

$745.00

Subsidized Adoption (Finalized 3/1/1999 THROUGH 12/31/2004)

Age 0 thru 5 6 thru 9 10 thru 12 13 and over

Step 0 $459.00 $495.00 $517.00 $576.00

Step 1 $509.00 $545.00 $567.00 $626.00

Step 2 $559.00 $595.00 $617.00 $676.00

Step 3 $609.00 $645.00 $667.00 $726.00

B-1

Table B: Foster Care and Subsidized Adoption Board Rates FY 2008 (Continued) Subsidized Adoption (Finalized 1/1/1984 THROUGH 2/28/1999)

Age 0 thru 5

Step 0 ------

Step 1 ------

Step 2 ------

Step 3 ------

6 thru 9 10 thru 12

$366.00 $406.00

$406.00 $446.00

$446.00 $486.00

$486.00 $526.00

13 and over

$431.00

$471.00

$511.00

$551.00

Kinship/Legal Guardian (Finalized On Or After 1/1/2008)

Age 0 thru 5

Step 0 $632.00

Step 1 $682.00

Step 2 $732.00

Step 3 $782.00

6 thru 9 10 thru 12

$679.00 $703.00

$729.00 $753.00

$779.00 $803.00

$829.00 $853.00

13 and over

$751.00

$801.00

$851.00

$901.00

Kinship/Legal Guardian (Finalized 1/1/2007 THROUGH 12/31/2007)

Age 0 thru 5

Step 0 $570.00

Step 1 $620.00

Step 2 $670.00

Step 3 $720.00

6 thru 9

$613.00

$663.00

$713.00

$763.00

10 thru 12 13 and over

$637.00 $687.00

$687.00 $737.00

$737.00 $787.00

$787.00 $837.00

Kinship/Legal Guardian (Finalized 1/1/2006 THROUGH 12/31/2006)

Age 0 thru 5

Step 0 $512.00

Step 1 $562.00

Step 2 $612.00

Step 3 $662.00

6 thru 9

$550.00

$600.00

$650.00

$700.00

10 thru 12 13 and over

$574.00 $627.00

$624.00 $677.00

$674.00 $727.00

$724.00 $777.00

Kinship/Legal Guardian (Finalized 1/1/2005 THROUGH 12/31/2005)

Age

Step 0

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

0 thru 5 6 thru 9

$480.00 $516.00

$530.00 $566.00

$580.00 $616.00

$630.00 $666.00

10 thru 12 13 and over

$539.00 $595.00

$589.00 $645.00

$639.00 $695.00

$689.00 $745.00

Kinship/Legal Guardian (Finalized 7/1/2004 THROUGH 12/31/2004)

Age 0 thru 5 6 thru 9

Step 0 $459.00 $495.00

Step 1 $509.00 $545.00

Step 2 $559.00 $595.00

Step 3 $609.00 $645.00

10 thru 12 13 and over

$517.00 $576.00

$567.00 $626.00

$617.00 $676.00

$667.00 $726.00

Kinship/Legal Guardian (Finalized On Or Before 6/30/2004)

Age

Step 10

0 thru 18

$250.00

Source: New Jersey Department of Children and Families, Policy and Planning

B-2

Appendix C

Tracking the Successful Implementation of the New Jersey Case Practice Model and Outcomes of the Modified Settlement Agreement

Reference
A. Child Safety

Area

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure Baseline34

Benchmark35

Final Target2

Data on Reports to SCR

a. Total number of calls

b. Number of abandoned calls

c. Time frame for answering calls

1. State Central d. Number of calls screened out

CPM V.1

Registry

e. Number of referrals for CWS

NA

NA

NA

Operations

f. Number of referrals assigned for CPS

investigation and their required

response times

g. Required response times for referrals

assigned for CPS investigation

Quality of Response

a. Respond to callers promptly, with

respectful, active listening skills

2. State Central b. Essential information gathered –

CPM V.1

Registry

identification of parents and other

NA

NA

NA

Operations

important family members

c. Decision making process based on

information gathered and guided by

tools and supervision

Methodology

Comments

Data to be provided quarterly beginning 03/31/08 from SCR Phone System and SPIRIT (verified by Monitor), except g., which is targeted to be produced beginning June 30, 2008.

Periodic in-depth review/ observation of SCR conducted 02/08 (Monitor, DCF QA and OCA staff).

Report to be complete 04/08.

34 MSA Section II.4. states that baselines for key case practice model elements will be created as soon as practicable but no later than December 2007. Methodology for tracking successful implementation to be “phased in” over time. MSA Section II.5. states that during Phase 1 (July 1, 2006 to December 2008), the Monitor shall focus “primarily on the quality of the case practice model and the actions taken by the State to implement it.” 35 MSA Section III.A. states that for all measurements for which Monitor is to set interim or final performance target, they will be set no later than December 2008 with reporting on compliance by December 2009 or later.
C-1

Appendix C

Reference

Area

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure Baseline34

Benchmark35

Final Target2

Methodology

Comments

MSA III.B.2 CPM V.1

3. Quality Investigative Practice

Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be commenced within the required response time as identified at SCR, but no later than 48 hours.

Baseline to be established by June 2008.

By December 31, 2008, ___% of investigations commenced within the required response times.

For periods beginning July 1, 2009, and thereafter, 98% of investigations shall commenced within the required timeframes.

SPIRIT data to be available by June 2008.
(Verified by Monitor)

Benchmark to be set following review of baseline data.

CPM V.1 MSA III.B.3
MSA II.I.3 MSA III.B.4 CPM V.I

4. Investigative Investigations of alleged child abuse and

Practice

neglect shall be completed within 60 days.

Baseline to be established by June 2008.

By June 30, 2008, ____% of all abuse/neglect investigations shall be completed within 60 days.
By December 31, 2008, ___% of all abuse/neglect investigations shall be completed within 60 days.

By June 30, 2009, 98% of all abuse/neglect investigations shall be completed within 60 days.

5. IAIU Practice for Investigations in Placements

o Investigations in foster homes and

investigations involving group homes,

day care settings or other congregate

o

care settings shall be completed within 60 days. Monitor will review mechanisms that provide timely feedback to other division (e.g., DCBHS, DOL) and implementation of corrective action plans.

83 - 88% complete within 60 days between July and August 2007

By June 2007, the State shall complete 80% of IAIU investigations within 60 days. (MSA III.3)

By June 2007 and thereafter, 80% of investigations by IAIU shall be completed within 60 days.

o Corrective action plans developed as a

result of investigations of allegations

re: placements will be implemented.

SPIRIT/SAFE MEASURES
Verified by Monitor
Monthly data from IAIU Internal Reporting System (verified by Monitor).

Benchmark to be set following review of baseline data. Note: Parties will review/discuss outcome at end of 2008.

Monitor will review mechanisms that provide timely feedback to other divisions (e.g., DCBHS, DOL) and implementation of corrective action plans.

C-2

Appendix C

Reference

Area

CPM V.1

6. Quality of Investigative Practice

MSA III.A. 1.a

7. Outcome: Abuse and Neglect of Children in Foster Care

MSA III.A 1.b

8. Outcome: Repeat Maltreatment

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Investigations will meet measures of quality including acceptable performance on: o Locating and seeing the child and
talking with the child outside the presence of the caretaker; o Conducting appropriate interviews with caretakers and collaterals; o Using appropriate tools for assessment of safety and risk; o Analyzing family strengths and needs; o Seeking appropriate medical and mental health evaluations; and o Making appropriate decisions. Number of Children in custody in out-ofhome placement who were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member during twelve month period, divided by the total number of children who have been in care at any point during the period.
Of all children who remain in home after substantiation of abuse or neglect, the percentage who have another substantiation within the next twelve months.

Baseline34
Baseline to be established by December 2008 using Family Survey postinvestigation and QA investigation module.
0.3% as of June 2007.
7.4% as of 12/06.

Benchmark35

Final Target2

By _______, _____, ___% of investigations shall achieve qualitative measures.

To be established by December 2008 following review of baseline.

For the period beginning July 2009, no more than 0.53%
7.3% as of 06/30/08

For the period beginning July 2010 and thereafter, no more than 0.49%
For the period beginning July 2009 and thereafter, no more than 7.2%

MSA III.A 1.c

9: Outcome: Repeat Maltreatment

Of all children who are reunified during a period, the percentage who are victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within one year after the date of reunification.

B. Children Have Permanent, Stable Families

10. Outcome:

Timely

MSA III.A 2.a

permanency through reunification,

Measures to be set by Monitor in consultation with DCF and Plaintiffs.

adoption or

legal

guardianship.

6.8% as of 12/06.

5.8% as of 06/30/08.

Baseline to be established no later than December 2008.

TBD by December 2008

For the period beginning July 2009 and thereafter, no more than 4.8%
TBD by December 2008

Methodology

Comments

DCF proposes use of Family Survey post closed investigations and QA investigation module; Monitor may add case record review.

SPIRIT/Chapin Hall
Verified by Monitor
SPIRIT/ Chapin Hall
Verified by Monitor SPIRIT/ Chapin Hall
Verified by Monitor

Baseline and benchmark to be reviewed with Chapin Hall.
Baseline and benchmark to be reviewed with Chapin Hall.
Baseline and benchmark to be reviewed with Chapin Hall.

SPIRIT/Analysis Plan by June 2008.

Discussions underway on permanency measures and outcomes.

C-3

Appendix C

Reference

Area

MSA III.A 2.b

11. Outcome: Re-entry to Placement

MSA III.A 3.a

12. Outcome: Stability of Placement

MSA III.C

13. Placement Limitations

CPM V.4

14. Appropriateness of Placement

MSA III.A 3.b CPM

15. Outcome: Placing Siblings Together

MSA III.A 3.b

16. Outcome: Placing Siblings Together

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Of all children who leave custody during a period, except those whose reason for discharge is that they ran away from their placement, the percentage that re-enter custody within one year of the date of exit. Of the number of children entering care in a period, the percentage with two or fewer placements during the twelve months beginning with the date of entry.
Number/percent of resource homes in which a child has been placed if that placement will result in the home having more than four foster children, or more than two foster children under age two, or more than six total children including the resource family’s own children.
Combined assessment of appropriateness of placement based on: o Capacity of caregiver/placement to
meet child’s needs. o Placement within a 10 mile radius of
their parents’ residence unless such placement is to otherwise help the child achieve the planning goal. o Placement selection has taken into account the location of the child’s school.
Of sibling groups of 2 or 3 siblings entering custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another, the percentage in which all siblings are placed together.
Of sibling groups of 4 or more siblings entering custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another, the percentage in which all siblings are placed together.

Baseline34
Baseline to be established no later than December 2008.
By 12/08
To be established by December 2008.
As of June 2007, 68% of children placed in proximity to home. TBD for other components of appropriateness.
63% as of June 2007
30% as of June 2007

Benchmark35
For the period beginning July 2009, no more than 14%; for the period beginning July 2010, no more than 11.5%
TBD by June 2008
TBD by December 2008.
TBD.
For siblings entering custody in the period beginning July 2009, at least 65%; in the period beginning July 2010, at least 70%; in the period beginning July 2011, at least 75% For siblings entering custody in the period beginning July 2009, at least 30%; in the period beginning July 2010, at least 35%

Final Target2
For the period beginning July 2011 and thereafter, no more than 9%
By June 2009 and thereafter, at least 88%
By June 2009, no more than 5% of resource home placements may have seven or eight total children including the resource family’s own children By (date to be determined), __% of children placed in proximity to family.
By (date to be determined), __% of cases score appropriately as measured by QA Modules.
In the period beginning July 2012 and thereafter, at least 80%.
In the period beginning July 2011 and thereafter at least 40%

Methodology
SPIRIT/Analysis Plan by June 2008.
SPIRIT/Analysis Plan by June 2008.
Monitor review of foster homes or Living Arrangement QA Module.
o SPIRIT/ Chapin Hall data on proximity to family home
o QA question added changing schools as a result of placement
SPIRIT/ Chapin Hall
Verified by Monitor
SPIRIT/ Chapin Hall
Verified by Monitor

Comments
Discussion re: earliest date baseline available. SPIRIT (discussions underway re: analysis plan)
Benchmarks and final targets to be determined.

C-4

Appendix C

Reference
MSA III.A 3.c

Area
17. Outcome: Placing Children w/Families

MSA III.B.6

18. Outcome: Limiting Inappropriate Placements

MSA III.B 12(i)

19. Progress Toward Adoption

MSA III.B 12.a (ii) CPM

20. Child Specific Adoption Recruitment

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure Baseline34

The percentage of children currently in

83% as of June

custody who are placed in a family setting. 2007

The number of children under age 13 placed in shelters and the number of adolescents in crisis in shelters more than 30 days.

As of 03/07, 4 children under age 13. Baseline for children 13+ to be established by June 2008.

Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption who have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 6 weeks of the date of the goal change.

Baseline to be established by June 2008.

Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption needing recruitment who have a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the date of the goal change.

Baseline to be established by June 2008.

Benchmark35
83% as of July 2008 By December 2008 and thereafter, no children under age 13 in shelters. Benchmark re: children 13+ to be set after review of baseline.
TBD
TBD

Final Target2
Beginning July 2009 and thereafter, at least 85%
By January 1, 2009, placements of adolescents in crisis shelters shall be limited to no more than 30 days
Beginning July 1, 2009, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 90% shall have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 6 weeks of the date of the goal change. Beginning July 1, 2009, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 90% of those for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of termination of parental rights shall have a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the date of the goal change

Methodology
SPIRIT Verified by Monitor SPIRIT Verified by Monitor. Possible case record review to examine issue of court order to shelter.
New Jersey SPIRIT Verified by Monitor
New Jersey SPIRIT/Adoption Tracking System verified by Monitor.

Comments
Review baseline and target using April 2008 data.

C-5

Appendix C

Reference

Area

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure Baseline34

MSA III.B 12.a.(iii)

21. Placement in an Adoptive Home

Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption and for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of termination are placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights.

Baseline to be established by June 2008.

MSA III.B 12.b

22. Final Adoptive Placements

Number/percent of adoptions finalized within 9 months of adoptive placement.

Baseline to be established by June 2008.

CPM; MSA Permanency Outcomes

23. Adequacy of Legal representation for children in

custody.

C. Caseworker Contacts/Visits

Children in foster care shall have high quality legal representation through DAGS

2008 Staffing Plan calls for 142 DAG; 124 positions filled as of 02/01/08.

MSA III.B 7.a

24. Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody

Number/percent of children where caseworker has two visits per month (one of which is in the placement) during the first two months of an initial placement or subsequent placement for a children in state custody.

Baseline to be established by June 2008.

Benchmark35
TBD TBD

Final Target2
Beginning July 1, 2009, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 75% of the children for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of termination shall be placed in an adoptive home within 9 months of the termination of parental rights. Beginning July 1, 2009, of adoptions finalized, at least 80% shall have been finalized within 9 months of adoptive placement.
TBD

Methodology
New Jersey SPIRIT/Adoption Tracking System verified by Monitor.
NJ SPIRIT/Adoption Tracking System verified by Monitor. Monthly report on number and distribution of DAGs; DAG caseload verified by Monitor.

Comments

During the first two months of a placement, whether the child’s initial placement or a subsequent placement, ___% of children had at least two visits per month.

By (date TBD by Monitor), during the first two months of a placement, whether the child’s initial placement or a subsequent placement, 95% of children had at least two visits per month.

SPIRIT/SAFE MEASURES
Verified by Monitor

Benchmark to be set following review of baseline.

C-6

Appendix C

Reference

Area

MSA III.B 7.b

25. Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody

CPM MSA III.B 8.a

26. Caseworker Visits with Parents/ Family Members

CPM MSA III.B 8.b

27. Caseworker Visits with Parents/ Family Members

MSA III.B 9a. CPM

28. Visitation between Children in Custody and Their Parents

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Number/percent of children where caseworker has at least one caseworker visit per month in the child’s placement for all other part’s of a child’s time in placement.
The caseworker shall have at least two faceto-face visits per month with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody with a goal of reunification.
For children with other permanency goals, number/percent of children at least one faceto-face caseworker contact per month, unless parental right have been terminated
Number/percent of children who have weekly visits with their parents when the permanency goal is reunification unless clinically inappropriate and approved by the Family Court.

Baseline34
Baseline to be established by June 2008.
Baseline to be established by June 2008.
Baseline to be established by June 2008.
Baseline to be established by December 2008.

Benchmark35
By ___, ___% of children had at least one visit per month.
By _____, ___% of families have at least twice per month face-to-face contact with their caseworker when the goal is reunification.
By _____, for children with other permanency goals, at least one visit per month between caseworker and family with at least ___% of families, unless parental rights have been terminated.
By _________, at least ______% of children in custody shall have in person visits with their parent(s) or other legally responsible family member at least biweekly and at least ______% of children in custody shall have such visits at least weekly.

Final Target2
By (date TBD by Monitor), 98% of children shall have at least one caseworker visit per month during all other parts of a child’s time in out-of-home care. By (date TBD by Monitor), 95% of families have at least twice per month faceto-face contact with their caseworker when the permanency goal is reunification. By (date TBD by Monitor), 85% of families shall have at least one face-to-face caseworker contact per month, unless parental rights have been terminated. By (date TBD by Monitor), at least 85% of children in custody shall have in person visits with their parent(s) or other legally responsible family member at least biweekly and at least 60% of children in custody shall have such visits at least weekly.

Methodology
SPIRIT/SAFE MEASURES Verified by Monitor
SPIRIT/SAFE MEASURES Verified by Monitor
SPIRIT/SAFE MEASURES Verified by Monitor
SPIRIT/SAFE MEASURES Verified by Monitor Case record review

Comments
Benchmark to be set following review of baseline.
Benchmark to be set following review of baseline.
Benchmark to be set following review of baseline.
Benchmark to be set following review of baseline.

C-7

Appendix C

Reference

Area

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

MSA III.B 10 CPM

29. Visitation Between Children in Custody and Siblings Placed Apart

Number/percent of children in custody, who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with their siblings as appropriate.

D. Child Well-Being/Service Plannings and Resources

CPM V.4, 13.a.

30. Timeliness of Case Planning

For children entering care, number/percent of case plans developed within 30 days.

CPM V.4, 13.b.
CPM V.4
CPM V.4

31. Timeliness of Case Planning
32. Quality of Case Planning and Service Plans

For children entering care, number/percent of case plans shall be reviewed and modified as necessary at least every 6 months and will demonstrate appropriate supervisory review of case plan progress
The Department, with the family, will develop timely, comprehensive and appropriate case plans with appropriate permanency goals and in compliance with permanency timeframes, which reflect family and children’s needs, are updated as family circumstances or needs change.

33. Service Planning

Case plans will identify specific services, supports and timetables for providing services needed by children and families to achieve identified goals.

Baseline34
Baseline to be established by December 2008.

Benchmark35
By _____, at least ___% of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with those siblings at least monthly.

Final Target2
By (date TBD by Monitor), at least 85% of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with those siblings at least monthly.

Baseline to be established by December 2008.

TBD after review of baseline.

Baseline to be established by December 2008.

TBD after review of baseline.

TBD.

By______, ____% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QSR/QA

By (date TBD by Monitor), 95% of case plans for children and families are completed within 30 days By (date TBD by Monitor), 95% of case plans for children and families are reviewed and modified at least every 6 months.
By (date TBD by Monitor), 90% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QSR/QA.

TBD.

By______, ____% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QSR/QA

By (date TBD by Monitor), 90% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QSR/QA.

Methodology
SPIRIT/SAFE MEASURES
Verified by Monitor
Under discussion with DCF. Possible case record review.
Under discussion with DCF. Possible case record review.
QSR/QA modules on Case Planning, Case Plan Implementation and Tracking, Adjustment and Transition QSR/QA modules on Case Planning, Case Plan Implementation and Tracking, Adjustment and Transition

Comments
Benchmark to be set following review of baseline. Benchmark to be set following review of baseline.

C-8

Appendix C

Reference

Area

CPM V.4

34. Service Planning

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Service plans, developed with the family team, will focus on the services and milestones necessary for children and families to promote children’s development and meet their educational and physical and mental health needs.

Baseline34
TBD.

CPM V.4

35. Educational Needs

Resource families will be assisted in enrolling the child in school and in navigating the child’s educational needs.

TBD.

CPM V.4

36. Family Involvement

MSA II.F.5

37. PrePlacement Medical Assessment

Every reasonable effort will be made to develop case plans in partnership with youth and families, relatives, the families’ informal support networks and other formal resources working with or needed by the youth and/or family.

TBD.

Number/percent of children receiving preplacement medical assessment.

90%

MSA III.B 11

38. Medical Care

Number/percent of children entering out-ofhome care receiving full medical examinations within 60 days.

Baseline to be established by June 2008 through Health Care Audits.

Negotiated Health Outcomes

39. Annual medical examinations

Number/Percent of children in care for one

year or more who received annual medical examinations in compliance with EPSDT

75%

guidelines.

Benchmark35
By _____, ___% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QSR/QA
By _____, ___% of cases score appropriately as measured by QSR/QA.
By ______, ___% of cases shall be rated as acceptable on family involvement in case planning.
By June 2008, 95% of children will receive a preplacement assessment.
TBD after review of baseline data.
By June 2008, 75% of children in care for one year or more will receive an annual medical examination in compliance with EPSDT guidelines

Final Target2
By (date TBD by Monitor), 90% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QSR/QA
By (date to be determined by Monitor), 90% of cases score appropriately as measured by QSR.
By (date to be determined by Monitor), 90% of cases rated as acceptable on family involvement in case planning.
98%
By January 1, 2009 and thereafter, at least 85% of children shall receive full medical examinations with 30 days of entering out-of-home care and at least 98% within 60 days.
98%

Methodology
QSR/QA modules on Case Planning, Case Plan Implementation and Tracking, Adjustment and Transition QSR/QA modules on educational status; possible use of case conferencing tool on learning progress.
Post-Team Family Meeting Surveys; QSR/QA on Teaming/Family Involvement.
SPIRIT/SAFE MEASURE as of 07/08.
Hand count data available 05/2008; SPIRIT/ SAFE MEASURES
Verified by Monitor.
SPIRIT/ SAFE MEASURES

Comments
Benchmark to be set following review of baseline.
Benchmark to be set following review of baseline.
Benchmark to be set following review of baseline.

C-9

Appendix C

Reference

Area

40. Semiannual dental examinations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure Baseline34

Number/Percent of children ages 3 and older in care 6 months or more who received semi-annual dental examinations.

Annual: 60% Semi-annual: 33%

Benchmark35
By June 2008, 60% of children ages 3 and older in care 6 months or more will receive annual dental examinations

Final Target2
98%

41. Mental Health Assessments

Number/Percent of children with a suspected mental health need who receive mental health assessments.

TBD

By June 2008, 75% of

children with a suspected

mental health need will

98%

receive a mental health

assessment

42. Follow-up Care and Treatment

Number/Percent of children who received timely accessible and appropriate follow-up care and treatment to meet health care and mental health needs.

TBD

43. Immunization
44. Health Passports

Children in DCS custody are current with immunizations.

TBD

Children’s caregivers receive current Health

Passport within 5 days of a child’s

TBD

placement.

By June 2008, 60% of

children will receive timely

accessible and appropriate follow-up care and treatment

98%

to meet health care and

mental health needs

TBD

TBD

TBD

TBD

CPM

45. Continued support for Family Success

DCF shall continue to support statewide network of Family Success Centers.

NA

NA

NA

Centers

46. Statewide

Implementation

CPM

of Differential Progress toward implementation of

Response,

Differential Response statewide.

NA

NA

NA

pending

effectiveness of

pilot sites.

Methodology
SPIRIT/ SAFE MEASURES
QSR/QA modules on child behavioral health status. MH needs specific question added on MH assessments.
QSR/QA modules on child status/child behavioral health status
SPIRIT/SAFE MEASURES
Monitor survey of foster parents.
Review of DCF financial investment in Family Success Centers; site visits.
Monitor review of financial investment in differential response and implementation through site visits.

Comments

C-10

Appendix C

Reference

Area

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

E. Engaging Youth and Family Working with Family Teams

Family teams (including critical members of

the family [parents, youth, informal

supports], additional supports) will be

formed and are involved in planning and

decision making and function throughout a

case.

Number of family team meetings at key

47. Effective decision points.

CPM V.3

use of Family For concurrent planning sites:

Teams

a. Number/percent of meetings held

within one week of removal

b. Number/percent of meetings held at 5

months

c. Number/percent of meetings held at

10 months in custody

d. Number/percent of meetings held

when goal changes

F. Transition from DCF Involvement

CPM

48. Safety and Risk Assessment

Number/percent of closed cases where a safety and risk of harm assessment is done prior to transition or closure.

Baseline34
TBD
___% of cases will have a safety and risk of harm assessment completed prior to transition or closure.

CPM

49. Services to Support Transitions

The Department will provide services and supports to families to support preserve successful transitions.

TBD

CPM

50. PostAdoption Supports

The Department will make post-adoption services and subsidies available to preserve NA families who have adopted a child.

Benchmark35
o By June 30, 2008, __% of cases shall show evidence in QSR of acceptable term formation and functioning.
o By June 30, 2008, ___% of family meetings shall be held prior to or within 72 hours for ___% of new entries and ___% of replacements.
By June 30, 2008___% of cases will have a safety and risk of harm assessment completed prior to transition or closure.
TBD.
NA

Final Target2

Methodology

o By June 30, 2010. 90% of cases show evidence in QSR/QA of acceptable team formation and functioning.
o By June 30, 2010, family meetings held prior to or within 72 hours for 90% of new entries and 90% of preplacements.

QSR/QA for effective team formation and functioning.
DCF report on number and timeliness of meetings under discussion.

By July 1, 2009, 98% of cases will have a safety and risk of harm assessment completed prior to transition or closure.

TBD (Possible use of QSR/QA module with specific questions)

By (date TBD by Monitor), ___% of cases score appropriately as measured by QSR/QA
NA

QSR/QA modules on tracking, adjustment and transition.
Review of postadoption fiscal reporting site visits and focus groups.

Comments

C-11

Appendix C

Reference

Area

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure Baseline34

CPM

51. Independent Number/percent of cases where DCF

Living

Independent Living Assessment is complete TBD.

Assessments for youth 14 to 18.

CPM

52. Services to Older Youth

DCF shall provide services to youth between the ages 18 and 21 similar to services previously available to them unless the youth, having been informed of the implications, formally request that DCF close the case.

Baseline to be established by 06/2008.

CPM

53. Youth Exiting Care

Youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall have housing and be employed or in training or an educational program.

TBD

Benchmark35
By _____, ___% of youth age 14 to 18 have an Independent Living Assessment.
By_____, ___% of older youth (18-21) are receiving acceptable services as measured by the QSR/QA.
By _____, ___% of youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall have housing and be employed or in training or an educational program.

Final Target2
By _____, 90% of youth age 14 to 18 have an Independent Living Assessment.
By (date TBD by Monitor), 90% of youth are receiving acceptable services as measured by the QSR/QA. By (date TBD by Monitor), 90% of youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall have housing and be employed or in training or an educational program.

Methodology
Possible case review.
Add question on QA/QSR. Data on number of 18-21 year olds on caseload; focus Groups, QSR/QA on case plan implementation.
Focus Groups, case record review of youth exiting to nonpermanency setting.

Comments

C-12

Appendix D
Glossary of Acronyms Used in the Monitoring Report
CHEC: Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children CHU: Child Health Unit CMO: Care Management Organization CPM: Case Practice Model CQI: Continuous Quality Improvement CSSP: Center for the Study of Social Policy CWPPG: Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group DCBHS: Division of Child Behavioral Health Services DCF: Department of Children and Families DDD: Division of Developmental Disabilities DPCP: Division of Prevention and Community Partnerships DYFS: Division of Youth and Family Services EPSDT: Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment FAFS: Foster and Adoptive Family Services FFT: Functional Family Therapy FQHC: Federally Qualified Health Center FSS: Family Service Specialist FSST: Family Service Specialist Trainee FXBC: Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center IAIU: Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit IT: Information Technology MSA: Modified Settlement Agreement MST: Multi-systemic Therapy NJ SPIRIT: New Jersey Spirit OCA: Office of the Child Advocate OOL: Office of Licensing PALS: Peace: A Learned Solution QA: Quality Assurance QSR: Quality Service Review RDTC: Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Center
D-1

Appendix D RFP: Request for Proposal SACWIS: State’s Automated Child Welfare Information System SCF: State Central Registry SFI: Strengthening Families Initiative SFSS: Supervising Family Service Specialist SIS: DYFS Service Information System SPRU: Special Response Unit TPR: Termination of Parental Rights UMDNJ: University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey University Partnership: New Jersey Partnership for Child Welfare Program YCM: Youth Case Management
D-2

 
 476

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

because of the bribe DeLaurentis received creates what is at best a tangential and insufficient connection between the bribe DeLaurentis accepted and the federal funds the Hammonton Police Department received. No ‘‘particular substantive federal interest’’ is implicated by the bribe DeLaurentis allegedly received.

of the United States for reargument is DENIED.
,

II. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I hold that the Government has failed to demonstrate that ‘‘a particular substantive federal interest’’ is implicated by the alleged acceptance of a bribe by the Defendant, James V. DeLaurentis. In light of the Government’s inability to establish a relationship between the federal funds received by the Hammonton Police Department and the bribe allegedly accepted in this case, I conclude that I properly dismissed Counts Two and Six of the indictment in my Opinion & Order of January 27, 2000. Accordingly, I shall deny the Government’s motion for reargument. An appropriate order shall be entered by the Court.
ORDER
This matter having come before the Court on the motion of the Government for reargument of this Court’s January 27, 2000, Opinion & Order dismissing Counts Two and Six of the indictment, Robert J. Cleary, Esq., United States Attorney, and Mary A. Futcher, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, appearing on behalf of the United States, Louis M. Barbone, Esq., Jacobs & Barbone, P.A., appearing on behalf of Defendant, James V. DeLaurentis; and,
The Court having considered the submissions of the parties, for the reasons set forth in the OPINION filed concurrently with this ORDER;
IT IS, on this 10th day of February, 2000, hereby ORDERED that the motion

CHARLIE H. and Nadine H., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Christine Todd WHITMAN, et al., Defendants.
No. Civ.A.99–3678(GEB).
United States District Court, D. New Jersey.
Jan. 27, 2000.
Children in foster care sued state for violation of federal statutory and constitutional rights. On defendant’s motion to dismiss, the District Court, Brown, J., held that: (1) most federal funding statutes at issue did not unambiguously confer rights enforceable under § 1983; (2) statute precluding state from delaying or denying placement of child for adoption or into foster care on basis of race, color, or national origin unambiguously conferred upon such children right enforceable under § 1983; (3) complaint failed to state claim for violation of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Rehabilitation Act; (4) state child welfare plans were not ‘‘contractual’’ obligations, the breach of which could be sued for by such children as third party beneficiaries under federal common law; (5) plaintiffs had substantive due process right to reasonable protection from harm and to receive care, treatment and services consistent with competent professional judgment, but did not have such right to not remain in state custody unnecessarily or to be housed in least restrictive, most appropriate and family-like placement

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

477

while in state custody; and (6) Younger §§ 622(b)(10)(B)(ii), 671(a)(16), 675(1, 5);

abstention was not warranted.

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

Motion granted in part and denied in part.
1. Federal Civil Procedure O1773 Motion to dismiss for failure to state
claim may be granted only if, accepting all allegations in complaint as true and viewing them in light most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff is not entitled to relief. Fed. Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.A.
2. Civil Rights O108.1 In order to seek redress under
§ 1983, plaintiff must assert violation of federal right, not merely violation of federal law. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
3. Civil Rights O108.1 Factors considered in determining
whether particular statutory provision gives rise to federal right, the violation of which is redressable under § 1983, are: (1) whether Congress intended that provision in question benefit plaintiff, (2) whether right assertedly protected by statute is so ‘vague and amorphous’ that its enforcement would strain judicial competence, and (3) whether statute unambiguously imposes binding obligation on states. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

6. Civil Rights O108.1
Statute requiring state to place foster children in least restrictive, most familylike setting available did not unambiguously confer upon such children right enforceable under § 1983. Social Security Act, §§ 422(b)(10)(ii), 475(5), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 622(b)(10)(ii), 675(5); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

7. Civil Rights O108.1
Statute requiring state to place foster children in homes or institutions operated in conformity with appropriate national standards did not unambiguously confer upon such children right enforceable under § 1983. Social Security Act, § 471(a)(10), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 671(a)(10); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

8. Civil Rights O108.1

Statute requiring state to provide ade-

quate information system for foster chil-

dren did not unambiguously confer upon

such children right enforceable under

§ 1983.

Social Security Act,

§ 422(b)(10)(i), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 622(b)(10)(i); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

9. Civil Rights O201

4. Civil Rights O108.1

Statute requiring state to maintain

preplacement preventive services program

for children at risk of foster care place-

ment did not unambiguously confer upon

such children right enforceable under

§ 1983.

Social Security Act,

§ 422(b)(10)(B), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A.

§ 622(b)(10)(B); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

5. Civil Rights O108.1
Statutes requiring state to provide foster children with, and to implement, appropriate written case plans did not unambiguously confer upon such children right enforceable under § 1983. Social Security Act, §§ 422(b)(10)(B)(ii), 471(a)(16), 475(1, 5), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A.

Foster children lacked standing to sue state, under § 1983, for violation of statute precluding ethnic discrimination in selection of adoptive or foster parents. Social Security Act, § 471(a)(18)(A), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 671(a)(18)(A); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

10. Civil Rights O108.1

Statute precluding state from delaying

or denying placement of child for adoption

or into foster care on basis of race, color,

or national origin unambiguously conferred

upon such children right enforceable under

§ 1983.

Social Security Act,

§§ 471(a)(18)(B), 474(d)(3)(A), as amended,

42 U.S.C.A. §§ 671(a)(18)(B), 674(d)(3)(A);

42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.

478

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

11. Civil Rights O108.1
Statute requiring state to investigate allegations of child abuse or neglect and to protect endangered children did not unambiguously confer upon such children right enforceable under § 1983. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983; Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, § 106(b)(2)(A)(i–iii), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 5106a(b)(2)(A)(i– iii).
12. Civil Rights O108.1
Medicaid statutes requiring state to provide necessary health care for eligible children did not unambiguously confer upon such children right enforceable under § 1983. Social Security Act, §§ 1902, 1905(a, r), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 1396a, 1396d(a, r); 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
13. Civil Rights O107(1)
Allegation that state was not providing services needed for foster children to fully participate in state child welfare and foster care programs, and that needs of such children were not being reasonably accommodated, failed to state claim for violation of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Rehabilitation Act; there was no claim that disabled foster children were being treated differently than similarly situated non-disabled children or that sought accommodations existed. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, § 2 et seq., 29 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq.; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983; Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, § 2 et seq., 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq.
14. Infants O74
State foster child welfare plans, adopted pursuant to requirements of federal funding statutes, were not ‘‘contractual’’ obligations, the breach of which could be sued for by such children as third party beneficiaries under federal common law. Social Security Act, §§ 420–427, 470–479a, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 620–627, 670– 679a; Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, § 101 et seq., as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 5101 et seq.

15. Infants O72(1)
Alleged nonfeasance by state’s child welfare system with regard to children in non-custodial placements was not actionable under state-created danger doctrine; there was no allegation that state affirmatively created children’s peril, increased their risks of harm, or acted to render them more vulnerable.
16. Civil Rights O108.1
Constitutional Law O255(4)
Infants O72(2)
Allegation that state child welfare system increased risk of harm to non-custodial children by failing to comply with duty imposed by state law was not cognizable pursuant to Due Process Clause; violation of state law duty, by itself, is insufficient to state § 1983 claim. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
17. Constitutional Law O255(4)
Infants O17
Foster children in custody of state had substantive due process right to reasonable protection from harm and to receive care, treatment and services consistent with competent professional judgment, but did not have such right to not remain in state custody unnecessarily or to be housed in least restrictive, most appropriate and family-like placement while in state custody. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983.
18. Constitutional Law O255(4), 277(1)
Infants O72(1)
Foster children, who had no rights under federal funding statutes that were enforceable under § 1983, had no liberty or property interests under state statutes, imposing nearly identical requirements, that would entitle them to procedural due process. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; Social Security Act, §§ 420–427, 470–479a, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 620–627, 670– 679a; 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983; Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, § 101 et

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

479

seq., as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 5101 et David L. Harris, Jeffrey B. Gracer,

seq.

Carmela Cannistraci, Lowenstein Sandler,

19. Civil Rights O235(1) State’s alleged failure to comply with
statutory duty to strengthen families and to reunite foster children with their families did not state cause of action for viola-

PC, Roseland, New Jersey, Marcia Robinson Lowry, Susan Lambiase, Eric E. Thompson, Shirim Nothenberg, Children’s Rights, Inc., New York City, for plaintiffs, Charlie and Nadine H., et al.

tion of alleged constitutional right to family integrity. U.S.C.A. Const.Amends. 1, 9; N.J.S.A. 9:1–1 et seq., 30:1–1 et seq.

John J. Farmer, Attorney General of New Jersey, Stefanie A. Brand, Deputy Attorney General, Office of New Jersey

20. Federal Courts O47.1

Attorney General, Newark, New Jersey,

Younger abstention was not warrant- Alan C. Kessler, Dana B. Klinges, Charles

ed, in suit by foster children alleging M. Hart, Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis–

state’s statutory and constitutional viola- Cohen LLP, Camden, New Jersey, for de-

tions. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 14; Social fendants, Christine Todd Whitman, et al.

Security

Act,

§§ 471(a)(18)(B),

474(d)(3)(A), as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 671(a)(18)(B), 674(d)(3)(A); 42 U.S.C.A.

OPINION

§ 1983.

BROWN, District Judge.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

480

II. Factual Background and Procedural History TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

480

III. Discussion TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

481

A. Motion to Dismiss Standard TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

481

B. Defendants’ Motion to DismissTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

481

1. Plaintiffs’ Federal Statutory ClaimsTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

481

a. Adoption Assistance Act and MPA TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

482

i. Adoption Assistance Act TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

482

1. right to pre-placement preventive services program TTTTT

484

2. right to timely written case plans TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

485

3. right to placement in the least restrictive, most family-

like setting TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

489

4. right to nationally recommended professional standards

490

5. right to adequate information systemTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

492

ii. MPA TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

493

b. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

496

c. EPSDT TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

497

d. ADA and RHA TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

499

2. Plaintiffs’ Federal Common Law ClaimTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

502

3. Plaintiffs’ Federal Constitutional ClaimsTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

504

a. Substantive Due Process TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

504

i. non-custodial children TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

505

ii. custodial children TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

506

b. Procedural Due Process TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

508

c. First and Ninth Amendments TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

512

4. Abstention TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

514

480

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

IV. ConclusionTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

514

I. Introduction
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of Defendants, Christine Todd Whitman, as Governor of the State of New Jersey, Michele K. Guhl, as Commissioner of the Department of Human Services (hereinafter ‘‘DHS’’), and Charles Venti, as Director of the Division of Youth and Family Services (hereinafter ‘‘DYFS’’) of the State of New Jersey (hereinafter ‘‘Defendants’’), to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (hereinafter ‘‘Complaint’’ or ‘‘Compl.’’) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (hereinafter ‘‘Def. Motion’’).1 For the reasons set forth herein, the Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Counts of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Moreover, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as discussed more fully herein with respect to the First and Seventh Counts of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
II. Factual Background and Procedural History
There is no term other than tragic to summarize the facts as alleged by Plaintiffs. The Complaint discusses twenty named Plaintiffs: Charlie and Nadine H., siblings aged eleven and nine who have been in DYFS custody for over five years; Jason, Jennifer, and Patti W., siblings aged ten, eight, and six who were removed from their mother’s custody three years ago; Dennis M. and Denise R., siblings aged eight and seven who were removed from their mother’s custody in 1995; Marco and Juan C., siblings aged eight and ten who were removed from their mother’s care for the second time in 1995; Ricardo O., age thirteen-and-a-half who has been in DYFS custody since June 1997; Dolores and Anna G., siblings aged four and seven-

teen months who have been in DYFS custody since August 1998; Kyle J., age oneand-a-half who has been in foster care since birth; Ryan, Christopher, and Melissa H., siblings who currently live with their mother despite numerous reports of abuse and neglect; Ricky, Daniel, and Thomas M., siblings who currently live with their mother, but have spent most their lives in DYFS custody; and Barry M., age seventeen who has been in and out of DYFS custody since the age of four (hereinafter ‘‘Plaintiffs’’). Compl. at ¶¶ 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19. Moreover, the Complaint also seeks to maintain a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of approximately 9,250 children who are in the legal and/or physical custody of DYFS and on behalf of more than 50,000 children who currently have open DYFS cases for services. Id. at ¶¶ 34–36.
Generally speaking, Plaintiffs allege systemic failure on Defendants’ part to protect both the individual Plaintiffs and the purported class and to provide them and their families with services which failure has jeopardized their health and safety by subjecting them to significant harm. Id. at ¶ 27. Plaintiffs attribute this systemic failure on Defendants’ part to poor management and gross overburdening of the child welfare system in New Jersey. Id. at ¶ 28. Moreover, Plaintiffs generally allege that Defendants have failed to provide effective leadership or the resources and support necessary to ensure that the child welfare system provides adequate protection and services to New Jersey’s most vulnerable children. Id. at ¶ 31. Plaintiffs also allege that this failure in leadership and resources has, in turn, led to high turnover rates for front-line caseworkers, which further jeopardizes New Jersey’s

1. In opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs submitted ‘‘Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss’’ (hereinafter ‘‘Pl.Opp.’’). In response to Plain-

tiffs’ opposition, Defendants submitted a ‘‘Reply Brief in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss’’ (hereinafter ‘‘Def. Reply’’).

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

481

children. Id. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that state a claim upon which relief can be

while Defendants are well-aware of the granted.

institutional shortcomings, as documented

in a 1998 report submitted to Governor III. Discussion

Whitman by a Blue Ribbon panel of social service administrators and service provid-

A. Motion to Dismiss Standard

ers, lawyers and court personnel, chil- [1] A motion to dismiss pursuant to

dren’s advocates, and medical experts, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

they have failed to engage in aggressive may be granted only if, accepting all alle-

reform efforts. Id. at ¶¶ 31 and 32. See gations in the complaint as true and view-

also Compl. at ¶¶ 205–400.

ing them in the light most favorable to a

More specifically, the Complaint explores the circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs’ interaction with DYFS and DHS in heart-wrenching detail. For example, the Complaint alleges instances in which Plaintiffs were sexually, physically, and psychologically abused, and in at least one instance, nearly killed, while in DYFS custody. See, e.g. Compl. at ¶¶ 84, 85, 108, 127, 134, and 74. Moreover, the Complaint alleges instances in which the Plaintiffs have not received medical treatment while in DYFS custody. Id. at ¶¶ 93 and 132. Finally, the Complaint alleges instances in which the Plaintiffs’ special needs have not been addressed while in DYFS custody. Id. at ¶¶ 105, 107, 122,

plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to relief. Bartholomew v. Fischl, 782 F.2d 1148, 1152 (3d Cir.1986). The Plaintiffs’ nine causes of action may not be dismissed unless Plaintiffs can prove no set of facts which would entitle them to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45–46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Importantly, ‘‘[t]he issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims.’’ Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974). In setting forth a valid claim, a party is required only to plead ‘‘a short plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.’’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a).

131, 139, and 180.
Given all of these alleged institutional deficiencies, Plaintiff seek: i) to be allowed

B. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 1. Plaintiffs’ Federal Statutory Claims

to maintain a class action pursuant to Fed- Plaintiffs allege five causes of action

eral Rule of Civil Procedure 23; ii) a decla- pursuant to various federal statutes. Spe-

ration that Defendants’ actions and inac- cifically, Plaintiffs allege that they are be-

tions are unconstitutional and unlawful; iii) ing deprived of the rights conferred upon

a permanent injunction requiring Defen- them by the federal Adoption Assistance

dants’ to cease practices that violate Plain- and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended

tiffs’ rights; iv) appropriate remedial relief by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of

to ensure Defendants’ future compliance 1997 (hereinafter ‘‘AACWA’’ or ‘‘Adoption

with legally mandated services to Plain- Assistance Act’’) and the federal Multieth-

tiffs; v) appointment of an expert panel nic Placement Act of 1994, as amended by

with full access to Defendants, their rec- the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of

ords and their personnel, to develop and 1996 (hereinafter ‘‘MPA’’). See Compl. at

oversee the implementation of a plan for Fourth Count and Seventh Count. Plain-

reform; vi) an award of reasonable attor- tiffs also allege that they are being de-

neys’ fees; and vii) other equitable relief. prived of the rights conferred upon them

See Compl. at pp. 129–130. In response, by the federal Child Abuse Prevention and

Defendants have moved to dismiss Plain- Treatment Act (hereinafter ‘‘CAPTA’’).

tiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule Id. at Fifth Count. Plaintiffs also allege

of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to violations of the federal Early and Periodic

482

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment provisions of the of the federal Medicaid Act (hereinafter ‘‘EPSDT’’). Id. at Eighth Count. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that they are being deprived of rights conferred upon them by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter ‘‘ADA’’) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (hereinafter ‘‘RHA’’). Id. at Ninth Count.
[2, 3] Plaintiffs’ statutory claims are brought pursuant to 42 United States Code § 1983 which imposes liability on anyone who, under color of state law, deprives a person ‘‘of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.’’ Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340, 117 S.Ct. 1353, 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997). Section 1983 safeguards certain rights conferred by federal statutes. Id. (citation omitted). However, in order to seek redress under Section 1983, Plaintiffs ‘‘must assert the violation of a federal right, not merely a violation of federal law.’’ Id. (citation omitted). In order to determine whether ‘‘a particular statutory provision gives rise to a federal right,’’ courts have ‘‘traditionally looked at three factors.’’ Id.
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.
Id. (citations omitted). With this framework in mind, each of the Plaintiffs’ federal statutory claims shall be considered in turn.
a. Adoption Assistance Act and MPA
Plaintiffs’ MPA claim appears to fall within a subset of the code provisions Plaintiffs cite in support of their AACWA

claim. Specifically, Plaintiffs point to 42 U.S.C. §§ 620–627 and 670–679a in support of their Adoption Assistance Act claim and 42 U.S.C. §§ 622(b)(9), 671(a)(18), and 674(d) in support of their MPA claim. See Compl. at ¶ 39. Therefore, these claims and their respective code provisions shall be examined in conjunction with each other. However, generally speaking, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620–627 deal with the program established to supply federal funds to states for child welfare services and 42 U.S.C. §§ 670–679a deal with the program established to supply federal funds to states for foster care and adoption assistance. More specifically, these code sections fit into the larger scheme of funding established in Parts A through E of Subchapter IV of Chapter 7 of the Social Security Act, which generally deals with grants to states for aid and services to needy families with children and for childwelfare services. For example, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620–627 fall within Part B, Subpart 1 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 670–679a fall within Part E of Subchapter IV of Chapter 7 of the Social Security Act.
i. Adoption Assistance Act
Plaintiffs allege that, under the federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, states, including New Jersey, receive federal money so long as they have submitted a plan approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, certify that the plan provides the child welfare services required by the Adoption Assistance Act, and comply with the terms of the plan. See Compl. at ¶ 61. Without citing any specific statutory provisions, Plaintiffs allege that they are being deprived of the following rights conferred upon them by the Adoption Assistance Act: i) right to have Defendants implement a pre-placement preventive services program designed to help children remain with their families or be returned to their families when appropriate; ii) right to timely written case plans that contain

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

483

mandated elements and to the implemen- made to preserve and reunify families.’’

tation and review of these plans; iii) right 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)(B). The Suter

to placement in foster homes or facilities Court noted that the pertinent inquiry un-

that conform to nationally recommended der the Blessing framework with respect

professional standards; iv) right to place- to § 671(a)(15) was did ‘‘Congress, in en-

ment in the least restrictive, most family- acting the Adoption Act, unambiguously

like setting; v) right to proper care while confer upon the child beneficiaries of the

in custody; vi) right to be freed for adop- Act a right to enforce the requirement that

tion in accordance with the time frames the State make ‘reasonable efforts’ to pre-

established by law; vii) right to planning and services to secure their permanent placement at the earliest possible time; viii) right to regular judicial and administrative reviews of their foster care placements; ix) right to dispositional hearings within twelve months of entering custody and periodically thereafter; and x) right to receive services in a child welfare system with an adequate information system to permit decision-makers to make fully informed choices in the children’s best interests. Id. at ¶ 404.
With respect to each right asserted, Defendants argue that under the Blessing framework, the Adoption Assistance Act provisions at issue are not so clear and unambiguous so as to create rights enforceable under § 1983. See Def. Motion at p. 4. Plaintiffs counter that under ‘‘established standards of statutory interpretation, the statutes create specific, enforceable rights.’’ Pl.Opp. at p. 19. In their reply, Defendants reiterate their disagreement under the Blessing framework.

vent a child from being removed from his home, and once removed to reunify the child with his family.’’ Suter, 503 U.S. at 357, 112 S.Ct. 1360. The Suter Court found that § 671(a)(15) did not unambiguously confer an enforceable right on individual children within the child welfare system because only ‘‘a rather generalized duty’’ was imposed upon the state, ‘‘to be enforced not by private individuals, but by the Secretary’’ in the manner set forth in the AACWA. Id. at 363, 112 S.Ct. 1360. Thus, the Suter Court found that the subject class of plaintiffs could not use § 1983 to enforce § 671(a)(15) of the AACWA. See Suter, 503 U.S. at 363, 112 S.Ct. 1360 (holding that ‘‘[c]areful examination of the language relied upon by [plaintiffs], in the context of the entire Act, leads us to conclude that the ‘reasonable efforts’ language does not unambiguously confer an enforceable right upon the Act’s beneficiaries’’). To the extent that Suter may have intimated that § 671(a)(15), or any other section of the Adoption Assistance Act for that matter, did not confer a private right en-

Initially, Defendants argue that any forceable under § 1983 simply because of

analysis of the Adoption Assistance Act its inclusion in a section requiring a State

provisions at issue must begin with the plan or specifying the required contents of

Supreme Court’s analysis and decision in such a plan, Congress amended the Social

Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 112 S.Ct. Security Act in 1994, specifically mention-

1360, 118 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992), which reviewed ing Suter. This amendment noted

an attempt to enforce a private right pur- [i]n an action brought to enforce a provi-

suant to § 1983 for an alleged violation of sion of this chapter, such provision is not

42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15). See Def. Motion at to be deemed unenforceable because of

p. 6. Specifically, § 671(a)(15) provides that its inclusion in a section of this chapter

in order for a state to be eligible for requiring a State plan or specifying the

federal payments for foster care and adop- required contents of a State plan. This

tion assistance under § 670, the state shall section is not intended to limit or expand

have a Plan approved by the Secretary of grounds for determining the availability

Health and Human Services which pro- of private actions to enforce State plan

vides that ‘‘reasonable efforts shall be requirements other than by overturning

484

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

any such grounds applied in Suter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 112 S.Ct. 1360, 118 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992), but not applied in prior Supreme Court decisions respecting such enforceability; provided however, that this section is not intended to alter the holding in Suter v. Artist M. that section 671(a)(15) of this title is not enforceable in a private right of action.
42 U.S.C. § 1320a–2. However, this amendment did not overrule Suter. The amendment only forecloses the refusal to find a federal right enforceable under § 1983 because the statutory provision may be included in a section requiring a State plan or specifying the required contents of such a plan. See Harris v. James, 127 F.3d 993, 1002 (11th Cir.1997) (noting that 42 U.S.C. § 1320a–2 ‘‘does not purport to reject any and all grounds relied upon in Suter; it purports only to overrule certain grounds—i.e., that a provision is unenforceable simply because of its inclusion in a section requiring a state plan or specifying the contents of such a plan’’). Therefore, with this important guideline in mind, each of Plaintiffs’ asserted rights is examined in the context of whether, as noted in Suter, the provision at issue unambiguously confers a private right enforceable pursuant to § 1983 under the Blessing framework.
1. right to pre-placement preventive services program
[4] Plaintiffs allege that the Adoption Assistance Act ‘‘requires defendants, as a condition to receiving federal funds, to implement and operate in New Jersey a preplacement preventive services program designed to help children remain with their families, when safe and appropriate.’’ Compl. at ¶ 63a. See also Compl. at ¶ 63b (alleging that the Adoption Assistance Act ‘‘requires defendants, as a condition to receiving federal funds, to implement and operate in New Jersey a service program designed to help children, when safe and appropriate, return to the families from which they have been removed, and when this is not possible to be placed for adop-

tion, for legal guardianship, or in some other planned, permanent living arrangement’’). In this regard, Plaintiffs allege that as a result of Defendants’ ‘‘actions and inactions,’’ Plaintiffs are being deprived of their right ‘‘to have defendants implement a pre-placement preventive services program designed to help children remain with their families or be returned to their families when appropriate.’’ Id. at ¶ 404. In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that, to the extent Plaintiffs are relying upon 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(iii)(I) or 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(iv) in support of this right, these subsections create no right enforceable under § 1983. See Def. Motion at p. 9. Plaintiffs respond that the Complaint ‘‘alleges that the lack of an operating preplacement preventive services program is demonstrated by the fact that there are virtually no available preventive services available, that DYFS has failed to promote and secure access to such services, and that there is no coordination of preventive services at either the state or county level.’’ Pl.Opp. at p. 36 (citation omitted). Defendants reply that there is ‘‘no objective measure for the adequacy of pre-placement services contained in AACWA,’’ and therefore, 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B) does not unambiguously confer upon Plaintiffs the right enforceable pursuant § 1983 to a pre-placement preventive services program designed to help children remain with their families or be returned to their families when appropriate. Def. Reply at p. 8.
42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10) provides, in relevant part, that ‘‘[e]ach plan for child welfare services under [42 U.S.C. § 622(a) ] shall—provide assurances that the State— is operating, to the satisfaction of the Secretary—a service program designed to help children—where safe and appropriate, return to families from which they have been removed TTT; and a preplacement preventive services program designed to help children at risk of foster care placement remain safely with their families.’’ 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(iii)(I)

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

485

and 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(iv). First, added). See also Eric L. v. Bird, 848

the plain language of 42 U.S.C. F.Supp. 303, 312 (D.N.H.1994) (holding

§ 622(b)(10)(B) indicates that such pre- that ‘‘plaintiffs enjoy no enforceable

placement preventive services programs rights under’’ 42 U.S.C. § 627(a)(2)(C),

must be operating ‘‘to the satisfaction of which is the predecessor to, and contains

the Secretary.’’ Clearly, this Court does nearly the identical language as, 42

not sit to oversee New Jersey’s child wel- U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(iii)(I) and (II)).

fare system to determine whether certain Therefore, for these reasons, Plaintiffs’

components of the system are ‘‘operating, § 1983 claim under 42 U.S.C.

to the satisfaction of the Secretary.’’ See Blessing, 520 U.S. at 341 and 345, 117 S.Ct. 1353 (noting that a request by plaintiffs for a ‘‘broad injunction requiring the director of Arizona’s child support agency to achieve ‘substantial compliance’ ’’ and ‘‘[a]ttributing the deficiencies in the State’s program primarily to staff shortages and other structural defects’’ inappropriately ‘‘invited the District Court to oversee every aspect of Arizona’s Title IV–D program’’) (citation omitted).
Moreover, under the Blessing test, 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B) does not unambiguously confer upon Plaintiffs the right enforceable pursuant § 1983 to ‘‘preplacement preventive services program designed to help children remain with their families or be returned to their families when appropriate.’’ See Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1, 24–25, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981) (holding that ‘‘[i]t is difficult to know what is meant by providing ‘appropriate treatment’ in the ‘least restrictive’ setting’’); B.H. v. Johnson, 715 F.Supp. 1387, 1401 (N.D.Ill.1989) (examining purpose of Title IV–B [of the

§ 622(b)(10)(B) for a ‘‘pre-placement preventive services program designed to help children remain with their families or be returned to their families when appropriate’’ is dismissed.
2. right to timely written case plans
[5] Plaintiffs also allege that ‘‘[t]he Adoption Assistance Act and relevant regulations further require that if defendants accept federal funds, they shall take steps necessary to ensure that each foster child is provided with a written case plan, containing specified elements, that is reviewed and updated at specified intervals, and that services are provided in accordance with that plan.’’ Compl. at ¶ 64d. In this regard, Plaintiffs allege that as a result of Defendants ‘‘actions and inactions,’’ Plaintiffs are being deprived of their right ‘‘to timely written case plans that contain mandate elements and to the implementation and review of these plans.’’ Id. at ¶ 404. In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that, to the extent Plaintiffs are relying upon 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(16) in support of this right, this subsection does not create a right enforceable under

Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620– § 1983. See Def. Motion at p. 12. Specifi-

628b,] as set forth in language of 42 cally, Defendants argue that ‘‘Plaintiffs do

U.S.C. § 620(a) in light of ‘‘similar lan- not complain that New Jersey has failed to

guage [set forth in the Developmentally provide case plans.’’ Id. Instead, Plaintiffs

Disabled Assistance and Bill of Rights disagree ‘‘with the contents and ‘imple-

Act] in Pennhurst’’ and holding that mentation’ of these plans.’’ Id. For exam-

‘‘Congress intended Title IV–B to be an ple, Defendants note that Barry M. is the

expression of goals and guiding principles only Plaintiff to allege that Defendants

rather than an enactment that creates have failed to provide him a written case

enforceable federal rights ’’ and that plan. Id. However, on closer examination,

‘‘[n]othing in Title IV–B can be said to Defendants also note that Barry M. alleges

intend the creation of the kind of rights ‘‘that DYFS has failed ‘to provide a written

to which a remedy in favor of persons case plan, reviewed annually, to prepare

such as plaintiffs could attach’’) (emphasis him for self-sufficient living.’ ’’ Id. (citing

486

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

Compl. at ¶ 204) (emphasis added). Defendants argue that such disagreement is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(16) pursuant to § 1983. Plaintiffs respond that not only do Plaintiffs have a right to ‘‘an enforceable written case plan and a case review system’’ under 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(ii), 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(16), and 42 U.S.C. § 675(1) and (5), but Plaintiffs also have an ‘‘enforceable right to implementation of case plan services.’’ Pl. Opp. at pp. 22–26 and 26–29. Defendants reply that even if there is a right to a case plan and/or review system, there is no right of each individual child to enforce the particulars of his or her plan, because to do so would require a court to act without an objective measure against which to gauge a state’s actions. See Def. Reply at pp. 4–5. Therefore, Defendants argue that the AACWA does not unambiguously confer upon Plaintiffs the right enforceable pursuant § 1983 to ‘‘timely written case plans that contain mandate elements and to the implementation and review of these plans.’’ Id.
42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(ii) provides, in relevant part, that ‘‘[e]ach plan for child welfare services under [42 U.S.C. § 622(a) ] shall—provide assurances that the State—is operating, to the satisfaction of the Secretary—a case review system (as defined in section 675(5) of this title) for each child receiving foster care under the supervision of the State.’’ 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(16) provides, in relevant part, that ‘‘[i]n order for a State to be eligible for payments under [42 U.S.C. § 670], it shall have a plan approved by the Secretary which—provides for the development of a case plan (as defined in section 675(1) of this title) 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 section 675(5)(B) of this title with respect to each such child.’’ Finally, 42 U.S.C. § 675(1) and (5) define, in detail, ‘‘case plan’’ as used in 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(16) and ‘‘case review system’’ as used in 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(ii). Spe-

cifically, ‘‘case plan’’ means a written document which includes at least the following:
(A) A description of the type of home or institution in which a child is to be placed, including a discussion of the safety and appropriateness of the placement and how the agency which is responsible for the child plans to carry out the voluntary placement agreement entered into or judicial determination made with respect to the child in accordance with section 672(a)(1) of this title.
(B) 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.
(C) To the extent available and accessible, the health and education records of the child, including—
(i) the names and addresses of the child’s health and educational providers;
(ii) the child’s grade level performance;
(iii) the child’s school record;
(iv) assurances that the child’s placement in foster care takes into account proximity to the school in which the child is enrolled at the time of placement;
(v) a record of the child’s immunizations;
(vi) the child’s known medical problems;
(vii) the child’s medications; and
(viii) any other relevant health and education information concerning the child determined to be appropriate by the State agency.
(D) Where appropriate, for a child age 16 or over, a written description of the programs and services which will help

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

487

such child prepare for the transition

agency of the State in which the home

from foster care to independent living.

of the parents of the child is located,

(E) 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.
42 U.S.C. § 675(1). Moreover, ‘‘case review system’’ means a procedure for assuring that—
(A) each child has a case plan designed to achieve placement in a safe setting that is the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate setting available and in close proximity to the parents’ home, consistent with the best interest and special needs of the child, which—
(i) if the child has been placed in a foster family home or child-care institution a substantial distance from the home of the parents of the child, or in a State different from the State in

(B) the status of each child is reviewed periodically but no less frequently than once every six months by either a court or by administrative review (as defined in paragraph (6)) in order to determine the safety of the child the continuing necessity for and appropriateness of the placement, the extent of compliance with the case plan, and the extent of progress which has been made toward alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement in foster care, and to project a likely date by which the child may be returned to and safely maintained in the home or placed for adoption or legal guardianship,
(C) with respect to each such child, procedural safeguards will be applied, among other things, to assure each child in foster care under the supervision of the State of a permanency hearing to be held, in a family or juvenile court or another court (including a tribal court) of competent jurisdiction, or by an administrative body appointed or approved by the court, no later than 12 months after the date the child is considered to have entered foster care (as determined under subparagraph (F)) (and not less frequently than every 12 months thereafter during the continuation of foster care), which hearing shall determine the permanency plan for the child that in-

which such home is located, sets forth cludes whether, and if applicable when,

the reasons why such placement is in the child will be returned to the parent,

the best interests of the child, and placed for adoption and the State will

(ii) if the child has been placed in foster file a petition for termination of parental

care outside the State in which the rights, or referred for legal guardian-

home of the parents of the child is ship, or (in cases where the State agency

located, requires that, periodically, but has documented to the State court a

not less frequently than every 12 compelling reason for determining that

months, a caseworker on the staff of it would not be in the best interests of

the State agency of the State in which the child to return home, be referred for

the home of the parents of the child is termination of parental rights, or be

located, or of the State in which the placed for adoption, with a fit and willing

child has been placed, visit such child relative, or with a legal guardian) placed

in such home or institution and submit in another planned permanent living ar-

a report on such visit to the State rangement and, in the case of a child

488

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

described in subparagraph (A)(ii), whether the out-of-State placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child, and, in the case of a child who has attained age 16, the services needed to assist the child to make the transition from foster care to independent living; and procedural safeguards shall also be applied with respect to parental rights pertaining to the removal of the child from the home of his parents, to a change in the child’s placement, and to any determination affecting visitation privileges of parents;
(D) 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;
(E) 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, or, if a court of competent jurisdiction has determined a child to be an abandoned infant (as defined under State law) or has made a determination that the parent has committed murder of another child of the parent, committed voluntary manslaughter of another child of the parent, aided or abetted, attempted, conspired, or solicited to commit such a murder or such a voluntary manslaughter, or committed a felony assault that has resulted in serious bodily injury to the child or to another child of the parent, the State shall file a petition to terminate the parental rights of the child’s parents (or, if such a petition has been filed by another party, seek to be joined as a party to the petition), 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 section 671(a)(15)(B)(ii) of this title are required to be made with respect to the child;
(F) a child shall be considered to have entered foster care on the earlier of—
(i) the date of the first judicial finding that the child has been subjected to child abuse or neglect; or
(ii) the date that is 60 days after the date on which the child is removed from the home; and
(G) the foster parents (if any) of a child and any preadoptive parent or relative providing care for the child are provided with notice of, and an opportunity to be heard in, any review or hearing to be held with respect to the child, except that this subparagraph shall not be construed to require that any foster parent, preadoptive parent, or relative providing care for the child be made a party to such a review or hearing solely on the basis of such notice and opportunity to be heard.
42 U.S.C. § 675(5).
Initially, as noted above and as will be repeated herein, this Court does not sit to oversee New Jersey’s child welfare system to determine whether the implementation of case plans is ‘‘appropriate’’ or ‘‘successful.’’ See Blessing, 520 U.S. at 341 and 345, 117 S.Ct. 1353. This is especially true where ‘‘[w]hether a child has a plan satisfying [each] provision is as individual as each child’’ and ‘‘there is no way to measure the normal or average needs of a child in foster care.’’ Del A. v. Roemer, 777 F.Supp. 1297, 1309 (E.D.La.1991). Moreover, regardless of the detailed na-

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

489

ture of the definitions of ‘‘case plan’’ and confers a private right enforceable pursu-

‘‘case review system,’’ the statutory provi- ant to § 1983. Specifically, in 1996, Con-

sions relied upon by Plaintiffs in support of gress amended 42 U.S.C. § 674 by adding

their alleged right ‘‘to timely written case subsection (d) which explicitly provides

plans that contain mandate elements and that ‘‘[a]ny individual who is aggrieved by

to the implementation and review of these a violation of Section 671(a)(18) of this

plans’’ are not so unambiguous so as to title by a State or other entity may bring

confer upon Plaintiffs a right enforceable an action seeking relief from the State or

under § 1983. See Eric L. v. Bird, 848 other entity in any United States district

F.Supp. 303, 312 (D.N.H.1994) (holding court.’’ 42 U.S.C. § 674(d)(3)(A) (empha-

that ‘‘plaintiff enjoy no enforceable rights’’ sis added). That Congress recently chose

to ‘‘compel New Hampshire’s full imple- to amend 42 U.S.C. § 674 to include a

mentation of the programs’’ under 42 private right of action under § 1983 for a

U.S.C. § 627(a)(2)(B), the predecessor to state or other entity’s failure to comply

42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(ii), because the with 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(18), but did not

provision ‘‘places no direct obligation on include the other various elements enu-

the state’’); Baby Neal v. Casey, 821 merated in 42 U.S.C. § 671(a) and relied

F.Supp. 320, 328 (E.D.Pa.1993) (holding upon by Plaintiffs, is strong evidence that

that the language of § 627(a)(2)(B), the Congress did not intend these other vari-

predecessor

to

42

U.S.C. ous State plan elements in 42 U.S.C.

§ 622(b)(10)(B)(ii), ‘‘examined in the con- § 671(a) to confer rights enforceable pur-

text of the entire Adoption Act’’ does not suant to § 1983. See Wright v. Roanoke

‘‘unambiguously confer an enforceable Redevelopment and Hous. Auth., 479 U.S.

right on behalf of its beneficiaries under 42 418, 423, 107 S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed.2d 781

U.S.C. § 1983’’); Del A. v. Roemer, 777 (1987) (noting that a court may look to

F.Supp. 1297, 1308–09 (E.D.La.1991) (hold- ‘‘other specific evidence from the statute

ing 42 U.S.C. § 627(a)(2)(B), the predeces- itself’’ to determine whether § 1983 pro-

sor to 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(ii), and 42 vides a remedial cause of action). There-

U.S.C. § 671(a)(16) ‘‘so vague and amor- fore, for this and the other reasons set

phous as to evade judicial enforcement’’ of forth herein, Plaintiffs § 1983 claim to ‘‘an

plaintiffs’ claim for ‘‘case plans that ad- enforceable written case plan and a case

dress specific issues in their placements review system’’ under 42 U.S.C.

and care’’ because ‘‘[t]here is no objective § 622(b)(10)(B)(ii), 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(16),

benchmark’’ against which compliance with and 42 U.S.C. § 675(1) and (5) and an

these provisions can be measured).
Finally, as discussed below in connection with Plaintiffs’ MPA claim, both parties have failed to note the important point, which hinders Plaintiffs’ claim under 42

‘‘enforceable right to implementation of case plan services’’ is dismissed.2
3. right to placement in the least restrictive, most family-like setting

U.S.C. § 671(a)(16) with respect to case [6] Further, based upon the definition

plans, that Congress specifically examined of ‘‘case review system’’ in 42 U.S.C.

the numerous State plan elements re- § 675(5), Plaintiffs allege that, ‘‘if defen-

quired under 42 U.S.C. § 671 and deter- dants accept federal funds, they shall take

mined that only one such required element steps necessary to ensure that each child

2. For the very same reasons, Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims asserting a right to ‘‘planning and services to secure their permanent placement at the earliest possible time, including documentation of the steps taken to secure permanency’’ under 42 U.S.C. § 675(1)(E) and to ‘‘regular judicial and administrative

reviews of foster care placements’’ and to ‘‘dispositional hearings within twelve months of entering custody and periodically thereafter’’ under 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(16), 42 U.S.C. § 671(b)(10)(B)(ii), and 42 U.S.C. § 675(5), are similarly dismissed. See Compl. at ¶ 404.

490

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

in need of a foster care placement is placed in the least restrictive, most family-like setting available, consistent with her best interests and individual needs.’’ Compl. at ¶ 64b. In this regard, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ ‘‘actions and inactions’’ deprived them of the right to ‘‘placement in the least restrictive, most family-like setting.’’ Id. at ¶ 404. Having already determined that 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(ii), which incorporates the definition of ‘‘case review system’’ in 42 U.S.C. § 675(5), does not confer rights upon Plaintiffs enforceable pursuant to § 1983, it is not necessary to go further to determine whether 42 U.S.C. § 675(5), standing alone, confers a right upon Plaintiffs enforceable pursuant to § 1983. See B.H. v. Johnson, 715 F.Supp. 1387, 1401 (N.D.Ill.1989) (noting ‘‘[i]t would be strange for Congress to create enforceable rights in the definitional section of a statute’’ and holding that while the ‘‘AAA creates an enforceable right to an individualized ‘case plan’ and ‘case review system,’ TTT [b]eyond the narrow requirements of a case plan and case review system, the AAA does not impose on the state the sweeping duties alleged by plaintiffs’’ and specifically holding that ‘‘we do not believe Congress intended to create an enforceable individual right of placement in the least restrictive (most family-like) setting’’). Moreover, it is important to note that several courts have rejected similar claims under § 1983 to enforce the right to placement in the least restrictive, most family-like setting because such a right is too vague and amorphous to be judicially enforceable. See Pennhurst, 451 U.S. at 24–25, 101 S.Ct. 1531 (holding that ‘‘[i]t is difficult to know what is meant by

providing ‘appropriate treatment’ in the ‘least restrictive’ setting’’); Aristotle P. v. Johnson, 721 F.Supp. 1002, 1012 (N.D.Ill. 1989) (holding that the ‘‘right to be placed ‘in the least restrictive, most family like setting’ TTT [is] amorphous and not subject to precise definition’’) (citing Pennhurst, 451 U.S. at 24–25, 101 S.Ct. 1531). Therefore, Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(ii) and/or 42 U.S.C. § 675(5) to placement in the least restrictive, most family-like setting is dismissed.3
4. right to nationally recommended professional standards
[7] Plaintiffs allege that the Adoption Assistance Act and ‘‘relevant regulations’’ require ‘‘that if defendants accept federal funds, they shall take the steps necessary to ensure that foster family homes and child care institutions are licensed, relicensed and operated in conformity with appropriate national standards.’’ Compl. at ¶ 64a. In this regard, Plaintiffs allege that as a result of Defendants’ ‘‘actions and inactions,’’ Plaintiffs are being deprived of their right ‘‘to placement in foster homes or facilities that conform to nationally recommended professional standards.’’ Id. at ¶ 404. In their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that, to the extent Plaintiffs are relying upon 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(10) in support of this right, this Court should agree with the number of courts that have held that because the Adoption Assistance Act and any relevant regulations do not specify any such national standards, § 671(a)(10) does not support such a right. See Def. Motion at p. 14 (citations omitted). Plaintiffs respond that § 671(a)(10)

3. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim for ‘‘safe and proper care,’’ see Compl. at ¶ 63e and Pl.Opp. at p. 31, under 42 U.S.C. § 675(1)(B) and/or 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(22) is dismissed for the same reasons as set forth herein with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims for: i) a ‘‘case plan’’ and a ‘‘case review system’’ under 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(ii), 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(16), and 42 U.S.C. § 675(1) and (5); ii) ‘‘planning and services to secure their permanent placement at the earliest possible time, including documentation of the steps

taken to secure permanency’’ under 42 U.S.C. § 675(1)(E); iii) ‘‘regular judicial and administrative reviews of foster care placements’’ and to ‘‘dispositional hearings within twelve months of entering custody and periodically thereafter’’ under 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(16), 42 U.S.C. § 671(b)(10)(B)(ii), and 42 U.S.C. § 675(5); and iv) ‘‘placement in the least restrictive, most family-like setting’’ under 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(ii) and/or 42 U.S.C. § 675(5).

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

491

‘‘refers explicitly to external, objective Cir.1992) (holding that ‘‘[t]he language of

standards: ‘recommend standards of na- § 671(a)(10) by itself does not support TTT tional organizations concerned with stan- a cause of action [for a right to care in a

dards for such institutions or homes’ ’’ and foster home with standards reasonably in

that ‘‘[s]ince such standards are routinely accord with those of national organiza-

promulgated by national organizations such as the Child Welfare League of America, § 671(a)(10) is sufficiently clear to be enforceable.’’ Pl.Opp. at p. 32. Defendants reply that the plain language of § 671(a)(10) does not allow the ‘‘state [to be] subject to suit in federal court,’’ as Plaintiffs have alleged, where ‘‘a single ‘foster family home’ or ‘child care institution’ is not in compliance with the statepromulgated standards.’’ Def. Reply at p. 6.
42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(10) provides, in relevant part, that ‘‘[i]n order for a State to be eligible for payments under [42 U.S.C. § 670], it shall have a plan approved by the Secretary which—provides for the establishment or designation of a State authority TTT 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 or part B of this subchapter.’’ Plaintiffs’ alleged right to ‘‘placement in foster homes or facilities that conform to nationally recommended professional standards’’ based upon 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(10) is too vague

tions]. It only references ‘standards of national organizations concerned with standards for such institutions or [foster] homes.’ That is the type of vague and amorphous language identified in Wilder TTT and Wright TTT that cannot be judicially enforced.’’) (citations omitted) (emphasis added); Baby Neal v. Casey, 821 F.Supp. 320, 326–327 (E.D.Pa.1993) (holding that ‘‘ § 671(a)(10) fails to unambiguously confer upon [p]laintiffs a private right of enforcement under this provision’’ because ‘‘[t]he language of this section does not confer upon [p]laintiffs a ‘right’ to foster homes or institutions which are in accord with recommended standards of national organizations but clearly states that the state plan must provide for the designation of a state authority or authorities which shall establish and maintain such standards. Moreover, ‘reasonably in accord’ is as vague and ambiguous as ‘reasonable efforts’ under § 671(a)(15).’’) (emphasis added); Doe v. Johnson, 1993 WL 50845, *3 (N.D.Ill. Feb.24, 1993) (dismissing plaintiff’s action ‘‘to the extent that it seeks private relief for an alleged violation of § 671(a) of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act’’ because ‘‘the Act places its enforcement mechanism in hands other than those of private plaintiffs under § 1983’’); Del A. v. Roemer, 777 F.Supp. 1297, 1310 (E.D.La.1991) (comparing ‘‘reasonably in accord with’’ language of 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(10) with ‘‘reasonable ef-

and amorphous under the Blessing test to forts’’ language of 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)

be enforced pursuant § 1983. First, the and holding that the ‘‘provision requiring

very provision relied upon by Plaintiffs in placement in foster homes and institutions

support of their claim ‘‘to placement in that are ‘reasonably in accord with’ nation-

foster homes or facilities that conform to al standards is vague and unenforceable’’).

nationally recommended professional stan- Moreover, as discussed above, that Con-

dards’’ has been flatly rejected as the basis gress recently chose to amend 42 U.S.C.

for such a right enforceable under § 1983. § 674 to include a private right of action

See Yvonne L. v. New Mexico Dep’t of under § 1983 for a state or other entity’s

Human Serv., 959 F.2d 883, 889, 890 (10th failure to comply with 42 U.S.C.

492

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

§ 671(a)(18), but did not include the other various elements enumerated in 42 U.S.C. § 671(a) and relied upon by Plaintiffs, is strong evidence that Congress did not intend these other various State plan elements in 42 U.S.C. § 671(a) to confer rights enforceable pursuant to § 1983. Therefore, Plaintiffs § 1983 claim under 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(10) for ‘‘placement in foster homes or facilities that conform to nationally recommended professional standards’’ is dismissed.
5. right to adequate information system
[8] Plaintiffs allege that the Adoption Assistance Act requires Defendants, ‘‘as a condition to receiving federal funds, to implement and operate in New Jersey an information system from which the status, demographic characteristics, location and goal of every foster child can readily be determined.’’ Compl. at ¶ 63c. In this regard, Plaintiffs allege that as a result of Defendants’ ‘‘actions and inactions,’’ Plaintiffs are being deprived of their right ‘‘to receive services in a child welfare system with an adequate information system to permit decision-makers to make fully informed choices in the children’s best interests.’’ Id. at ¶ 404. In support of their motion to dismiss, Defendants argue that numerous courts have rejected such a right to an ‘‘information system’’ to the extent Plaintiffs are relying upon 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B) in support of this right. See Def. Motion at p. 21 (citing Eric L. v. Bird, 848 F.Supp. 303) (D.N.H. 1994); Baby Neal v. Casey, 821 F.Supp. 320 (E.D.Pa.1993)). Plaintiffs respond that the decisions relied upon by Defendants are ‘‘no longer good law’’ for various reasons, including Suter and the 1994 amendment to the Social Security Act. See Pl.Opp. at p. 35. Defendants reply that, while cases such as Eric L. and Baby Neal may have been decided prior to Suter and the 1994 amendment to the Social Security Act, such cases should still be considered for their general holdings that this section of the Adoption Assistance Act ‘‘simply

does not demonstrate a congressional intent to benefit individual children.’’ Def. Reply at p. 7.
42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B) provides, in relevant part, that ‘‘[e]ach plan for child welfare services under [42 U.S.C. § 622(a) ] shall TTT provide assurances that the State TTT is operating, to the satisfaction of the Secretary—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 TTT in foster care.’’ 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(i). Plaintiffs’ alleged right to ‘‘receive services in a child welfare system with an adequate information system to permit decisionmakers to make fully informed choices in the children’s best interests’’ based upon 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(i) is too vague and amorphous under the Blessing test to be enforced under § 1983. First, this Court does not sit to oversee New Jersey’s child welfare system and determine whether a state information system ‘‘operating, to the satisfaction of the Secretary,’’ is also ‘‘adequate.’’ See Blessing, 520 U.S. at 341 and 345, 117 S.Ct. 1353 (noting that a request by plaintiffs for a ‘‘broad injunction requiring the director of Arizona’s child support agency to achieve ‘substantial compliance’ ’’ and ‘‘[a]ttributing the deficiencies in the State’s program primarily to staff shortages and other structural defects’’ inappropriately ‘‘invited the District Court to oversee every aspect of Arizona’s Title IV–D program’’ and holding that enforcement of ‘‘such an undefined standard’’ as the right to a ‘‘sufficient staff’’ would ‘‘certainly ‘strain judicial competence’ ’’) (citation omitted). Moreover, similar attempts under § 1983 to enforce the right to information systems provided for in federal funding statutes have been flatly rejected. For example, in Blessing, Title IV–D of the Social Security Act laid out ‘‘detailed requirements for the State’s data processing system.’’ Blessing, 520 U.S. at 344, 117 S.Ct. 1353. Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 654a and implementing regulations required ‘‘[a]mong other things, [that] this

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

493

system must sort information into stan- § 622(b)(10)(B)(i) for an ‘‘adequate infor-

dardized data elements specified by the mation system’’ is dismissed.

Secretary; transmit information electronically to the State’s AFDC system to monitor family eligibility for financial assis-

For all these reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the Fourth Count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.4

tance; maintain the date necessary to meet federal reporting requirements; and provide for the electronic transfer of funds for purposes of income withholding and interstate collections.’’ Id. (citations omitted). Despite the fact that this provision and its implementing regulations ‘‘may ultimately benefit individuals who are eligible for Title IV–D services,’’ the Blessing Court found that such benefit was only achieved ‘‘indirectly,’’ and held that ‘‘these complex standards do not give rise to individualized rights to computer services.’’ Id. at 344 and 345, 117 S.Ct. 1353. Indeed, the Blessing Court held that the provision for computer services did ‘‘not fit our tra-

ii. MPA
As noted, some of the general code provisions cited by Plaintiffs in support of their claims under the Adoption Assistance Act include those provisions identified by Plaintiffs in support of their claims under the federal Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, as amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996. In this regard, Plaintiff allege that the MPA ‘‘requires that public agencies engage in aggressive efforts to recruit potential foster and adoptive parents who reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of the children for whom such foster and adoptive placements are needed.’’ Compl. at ¶ 69. Further, Plain-

ditional three criteria for identifying statu- tiffs allege that the MPA ‘‘prohibits TTT tory rights,’’ but instead, was ‘‘simply in- [the denial to] any person the opportunity

tended to improve overall efficiency of the to become an adoptive or a foster parent

States’ child support enforcement scheme.’’ on the basis of the race, color or national

Id. Finally, the very provision relied upon origin of the child or adoptive or foster

by Plaintiffs in support of their claim ‘‘to parent and prohibits the delay or denial of

receive services in a child welfare system the placement of a child for adoption or

with an adequate information system to into foster care on that same basis.’’ Id.

permit decision-makers to make fully in- Plaintiffs specifically cite 42 U.S.C.

formed choices in the children’s best inter- §§ 622(b)(9), 671(a)(18), and 674(d) in sup-

ests’’ has been flatly rejected as a basis for port of their claims under the MPA and

the ‘‘right to an information system’’ en- allege that due to Defendants’ ‘‘actions and

forceable under § 1983. See Del A. v. inactions,’’ Plaintiffs are ‘‘being deprived of

Roemer, 777 F.Supp. 1297, 1305–06 the rights conferred upon them by the

(E.D.La.1991) (holding that the ‘‘information system [under 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(10)(B)(i) ] clearly serves only an administrative tool and is not intended as a benefit to the putative plaintiffs. Thus, plaintiffs have no enforceable right to an

[MPA],’’ including, but not limited to, ‘‘the right not to have adoptive or foster placements delayed or denied on the basis of the race, color or national origin of the foster or adoptive parent or of the child.’’ Id. at ¶¶ 39 and 407.

information system.’’). Therefore, Plain- 42 U.S.C. § 622(b)(9) provides that, in

tiffs § 1983 claim under 42 U.S.C. order to be eligible for the federal funding

4. The decision to grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the Fourth Count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint includes the alleged right ‘‘to be freed for adoption,’’ see Compl. at ¶ 404, which appears to have been given little attention in the parties’ briefing. See Pl.Opp. at p. 29, n. 7 and Def. Reply at p. 3, n. 1. In this regard, Plaintiffs’ alleged right to be freed

for adoption in accordance with ‘‘the time frames established by law’’ suffers from many of the same flaws as Plaintiffs’ other claims under the AACWA, including improperly asking this Court to oversee DYFS’s compliance with state law, which although not discussed at length herein, also raises serious Eleventh Amendment concerns.

494

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

provided in 42 U.S.C. § 620 to states for ‘‘establishing, extending, and strengthening child welfare services,’’ see 42 U.S.C. § 620(a), each plan for child welfare services developed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 622(a) shall ‘‘provide for the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of the children in the State for whom such foster and adoptive homes are needed.’’ Section 671(a)(18) provides that, in order to be eligible for federal funding provided in 42 U.S.C. § 670 to states for ‘‘foster care and transitional living’’ and ‘‘adoption assistance for children with special needs.’’ each State plan for foster care and adoption assistance developed pursuant to Section 670 shall provide that ‘‘neither the State nor any other entity in the State that receives funds from the Federal Government and is involved in adoption or foster care placements’’ may ‘‘deny to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive or a foster parent, on the basis of the race, color or national origin of the person, or of the child, involved,’’ or ‘‘delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care’’ on that same basis. Finally, 42 U.S.C. § 674(d) provides that if a state is found to have failed to comply with 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(18), ‘‘the Secretary shall reduce the amount otherwise payable to the State under this part TTT until the program is found TTT to have implemented a corrective action plan with respect to such violationTTTT’’ 42 U.S.C. § 674(d)(1).5
With respect to these provisions, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring a claim under the MPA because Plaintiffs have failed to allege that: i) they have been ‘‘injured by the purported lack of adoptive parents of all races;’’ or ii) there has been discrimination in foster care placements or they have been injured as a result of discrimination in foster care

placements. See Def. Motion at p. 25. Defendants further argue that Plaintiffs cannot stand in the shoes of the Secretary and demand a reduction in the amounts otherwise payable to the State for child welfare services. Id. Plaintiffs counter that they have alleged a ‘‘quintessential violation’’ of the MPA and provide by way of example the placement of Marco and Juan C., ‘‘who are Hispanic, [and] were placed in foster home with foster parents that speak almost exclusively Spanish, despite the fact that the boys speak only English.’’ Pl. Opp. at p. 43. Given this, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made a foster placement decision ‘‘based on an ethnic ‘match’ between Juan and Marco and the foster parents.’’ Id. Defendants reply that the sections of the MPA relied upon by Plaintiffs specifically prohibit ‘‘delay or denial of placement because of race or ethnicity.’’ and Plaintiffs have not alleged that Juan and Marco C., or any other Plaintiffs, have experienced any delay or denial of foster or adoptive placement because of race or ethnicity. See Def. Reply at p. 10.
[9] With respect to 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(18)(A), which requires that a State plan provide that the State may not ‘‘deny to any person the opportunity to become an adoptive parent or a foster parent, on the basis of race, color, or national origin of the person, or of the child, involved,’’ Plaintiffs do not assert a claim on behalf of any person who was denied the opportunity to become an adoptive or foster parent because of race, color, or national origin. See Compl. at ¶ 407 (asserting claim on behalf of ‘‘the plaintiff children TTT being deprived of TTT the right not to have adoptive or foster placements delayed or denied on the basis of race, color or national origin of the foster or adoptive parent or of the child’’).6 Thus, to the extent Plaintiffs fail to allege

5. Further, although neither party mentions it, 42 U.S.C. § 674(d) also explicitly provides that ‘‘[a]ny individual who is aggrieved by a violation of section 671(a)(18) of this title by a State or other entity may bring an action seeking relief from the State or other entity in

any United States district court.’’ 42 U.S.C. § 674(d)(3)(A).
6. Even if Plaintiffs had attempted to assert such a claim, it would raise serious questions of standing. Further, with respect to 42

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN

495

Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

a cause of action on behalf of any person dividual who is aggrieved by a violation of

who was denied the opportunity to become Section 671(a)(18) of this title by a State or

an adoptive or foster parent because of other entity may bring an action seeking

race, color, or national origin, Defendants’ relief from the State or other entity in any

motion to dismiss is granted.

United States district court.’’ 42 U.S.C.

[10] However, with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim under 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(18)(B), which requires that a State plan provide that the State may not ‘‘delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care, on the basis of race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child, involved,’’ an examination of the language and structure of Part E of Subchapter IV of Chapter 7 of the Social Security Act compels a determination that Plaintiffs may assert a right under 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(18)(B) pursuant to § 1983. Spe-

§ 674(d)(3)(A). Thus, while it may present a statute of limitations question to be addressed in the future, to the extent Plaintiffs allege a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(18)(B) on behalf of Marco and Juan C., which requires that a State plan provide that the State may not ‘‘delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care, on the basis of race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child, involved,’’ under § 1983, and as permitted in 42 U.S.C. § 674(d)(3)(A), Defendants’ motion to dismiss is denied.7

cifically, as noted above, 42 U.S.C. Therefore, for these reasons, Defen-

§ 674(d) explicitly provides that ‘‘[a]ny in- dants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part

U.S.C. § 622(b)(9) which provides that, in order to be eligible for the federal funding provided in 42 U.S.C. § 620 to states for ‘‘establishing, extending, and strengthening child welfare services,’’ see 42 U.S.C. § 620(a), each plan for child welfare services developed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 622(a) shall ‘‘provide for the diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of the children in the State for whom such foster and adoptive homes are needed,’’ Plaintiffs have failed to assert a claim that there has not been diligent recruitment. See Compl. at ¶ 407 (asserting claim on behalf of ‘‘the plaintiff children TTT being deprived of TTT the right not to have adoptive or foster placements delayed or denied on the basis of race, color or national origin of the foster or adoptive parent or of the child’’). Even if Plaintiffs had asserted a claim for ‘‘diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of the children in the State for whom such foster and adoptive homes are needed,’’ under Blessing, such a claim would be too vague and amorphous to lend itself to proper judicial administration. Indeed, as was the holding in Blessing, enforcement of such undefined rights like the right to ‘‘diligent recruitment of potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of the children in the State for whom such foster and adoptive homes are needed,’’ would certainly strain the judicial competence.

7. However, to the extent Plaintiffs rely upon 42 U.S.C. § 674(d)(1), which provides that ‘‘[i]f, TTT, a State’s program operated under [Part E of Subchapter IV of Chapter 7 of the Social Security Act] is found, as a result of a review conducted under section 1320a–2a of this title, or otherwise, to have violated paragraph (18) TTT of section 671(a) of this title with respect to a person or to have failed to implement a corrective action plan within a period of time not to exceed 6 months with respect to such violation, then, TTT, the Secretary shall reduce the amount otherwise payable to the State under this part, TTT, until the program is found, TTT, to have implemented a corrective action plan with respect to such violation,’’ Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. This section of the MPA specifically provides that the federal government may reduce the funding provided pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 670. However, the Secretary cannot compel New Jersey, or any other state, to act in a certain way with respect to a certain individual. See Blessing, 520 U.S. at 344, 117 S.Ct. 1353 (noting that ‘‘even upon a finding of substantial noncompliance, the Secretary can merely reduce the State’s AFDC grant by up to five percent; she cannot, by force of her own authority, command the State to take any particular action or to provide any services to certain individuals. In short, the substantial compliance standard is designed simply to trigger penalty provisions that TTT reduce the State’s AFDC grant by a maximum of five percent. As such, it does not give rise to individual rights.’’) (emphasis added).

496

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

and denied in part to the extent as noted herein with respect to the Seventh Count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
b. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
[11] Similar to their claims under the Adoption Assistance Act and MPA, Plaintiffs also allege that under the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, states, including New Jersey, receive federal money so long as they have submitted and complied with a plan approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services which certifies that the state has in effect, and is enforcing, state law or programs relating to child abuse and neglect as required by CAPTA. See Compl. at ¶ 66. Generally, Plaintiffs cite to 42 U.S.C. §§ 5101–5106a in support of their CAPTA claim. Id. at ¶ 39. Specifically, in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs point to 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2), see Pl.Opp. at p. 38, n. 11, which provides
[a] State plan submitted under [42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(1) ] TTT shall contain an outline of the activities that the State intends to carry out using amounts received under the grant to achieve the purposes of this subchapter, including— an assurance TTT that the State has in effect and is enforcing a State law, or has in effect and is operating a Statewide program, relating to child abuse and neglect that includes—provisions and procedures for the reporting of known and suspected instances of child abuse and neglect; procedures for the immediate screening, safety assessment, and prompt investigation of such reports; [and] procedures for immediate steps to be taken to ensure and protect the safety of the abused or neglected child and any other child under the same care who may also be in danger of abuse or neglect and ensuring their placement in a safe environment.
42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(A)(i)–(iii). Given this provision, Plaintiffs allege that they are being deprived of the right, conferred

upon them by CAPTA, ‘‘to the enforcement of laws requiring prompt and professional investigations of allegations of abuse or neglect’’ and the right ‘‘to protection from those who endanger their health and welfare.’’ Id. at ¶ 405.
With respect to Plaintiffs’ CAPTA claim, Defendants argue that while CAPTA provides that states that accept federal grants for child abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs must have in place a State plan which outlines procedures for dealing with child abuse and the protection of children, every federal court to have addressed the issue, save one, has agreed ‘‘it does not mandate that particular procedures or protective steps be taken,’’ and therefore, CAPTA does not confer a private right enforceable pursuant to § 1983. Def. Motion at p. 22 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)). Plaintiffs counter that CAPTA does provide a private right enforceable under § 1983 because ‘‘plaintiffs’ allegations are that defendants are not ‘enforcing’ state law or ‘operating’ a statewide program with the required ‘provisions and procedures’ to protect abused and neglected children.’’ Pl.Opp. at p. 39. Defendants reply that regardless of Plaintiffs’ factual allegations, the provisions of CAPTA cited by Plaintiffs have been held far too vague and amorphous to create private rights enforceable under § 1983. See Def. Reply at p. 9, n. 3.
Clearly, under the Blessing test, the weight of case law dictates that 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2) ‘‘does not create a private right of action’’ under § 1983. Jordan v. City of Philadelphia, 66 F.Supp.2d 638, 648–49 (E.D.Pa.1999) (holding that ‘‘CAPTA clearly does not create a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983’’). See also Doe v. District of Columbia, 93 F.3d 861, 868 (D.C.Cir.1996) (holding that ‘‘Section 5106a(b)(2) of CAPTA fails to unambiguously confer an enforceable right upon its beneficiaries, therefore [plaintiff’s] claim under § 1983 was appropriately rejected by the district court’’); Tony L. v. Childers, 71 F.3d 1182, 1189 (6th Cir.1995)

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN

497

Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

(holding that ‘‘neither CAPTA nor the rel- health and welfare’’ simply are too vague

evant regulations mandate a particular and amorphous as to be beyond the realm

means of investigation or state what type of judicial enforcement. See Jordan, 66

of actions must be taken to protect abused F.Supp.2d at 648, n. 6 and 649 (considering

or neglected children’’), cert. denied, 517 reasoning of Marisol A. and dismissing

U.S. (1996); A.S. v. Tellus, 22 F.Supp.2d plaintiff’s claims under § 1983 that 42

1217, 1224 (D.Kan.1998) (agreeing with U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2) guaranteed ‘‘the right

‘‘the majority of courts’’ and holding that to prompt and appropriate investigation of

the requirements of 42 U.S.C. reports of abuse and neglect’’ and the right

§ 5106a(b)(2) ‘‘are too vague to create an ‘‘to protection from those who endanger

enforceable right’’); Baby Neal v. Ridge, their health and welfare’’ because ‘‘CAPTA

1995 WL 728589, *5 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 7, 1995) fails to mandate a particular means of

(reaffirming its holding on reconsideration investigation or state what type of actions

‘‘that [CAPTA] does not give rise to an must be taken to protect abused or ne-

enforceable private right of action under glected children,’’ and therefore, such

42 U.S.C. § 1983’’); Eric L. v. Bird, 848 rights were ‘‘vague and amorphous’’) (cita-

F.Supp. 303, 313 (D.N.H.1994) (holding tion omitted).8

that CAPTA does not confer a right subject to private enforcement under § 1983 to have the state’s child protection laws ‘‘effectively’’ enforced); Baby Neal v. Casey, 821 F.Supp. 320, 329 (E.D.Pa.1993)

Thus, for these reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the Fifth Count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
c. EPSDT

(holding that CAPTA ‘‘does not create en- [12] Plaintiffs allege that the Early

forceable rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983’’); and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and

Jensen v. Conrad, 570 F.Supp. 91, 112–13 Treatment provisions of the federal Medic-

(D.S.C.1983) (holding that CAPTA does aid Act, specifically, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a

not give plaintiff a ‘‘right to be unqualified- and 1396d(a) and (r), require that ‘‘all

ly protected from, or free from, abuse Medicaid-eligible children up to the age of

within the contemplation of § 1983’’), aff’d, twenty-one receive comprehensive physi-

747 F.2d 185 (4th Cir.1984), cert. denied, cal, developmental, and mental health care,

470 U.S. 1052, 105 S.Ct. 1754, 84 L.Ed.2d if the state receives Medicaid funding.’’

818 (1985). In the face of this support for Compl. at ¶¶ 39 and 70. In this regard.

the conclusion that 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2) Plaintiffs allege that ‘‘[a]ll foster children

does not confer a private right enforceable in New Jersey are Medicaid eligible and

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Plaintiffs’ reliance are entitled to receive the comprehensive

on the reasoning of Marisol A. v. Giuliani, health care required by the EPSDT pro-

929 F.Supp. 662 (S.D.N.Y.1996), see Pl. gram since New Jersey receives medicaid

Opp. at p. 39, is unconvincing. Specifical- funding.’’ Id. at ¶ 70. Plaintiffs allege

ly, under Blessing, the right to ‘‘prompt that as a result of the ‘‘actions and inac-

and professional investigations of allega- tions of the defendants,’’ Plaintiffs are be-

tions of abuse or neglect’’ and the right ‘‘to ing denied the rights conferred upon them

protection from those who endanger their by the EPSDT program, including the

8. Moreover, that Plaintiffs may allege that Defendants are not ‘‘enforcing’’ state law or ‘‘operating’’ a statewide program with the required ‘‘provisions and procedures’’ to protect abused and neglected children, see Pl. Opp. at p. 39, is of little consequence to the result under the Blessing analysis. Indeed, such a claim creates greater problems for Plaintiffs; specifically, that it would violate the Eleventh Amendment for this Court to

order the State to enforce or comply with its own laws. See Jeanine B. v. Thompson, 967 F.Supp. 1104, 1118–19 (E.D.Wis.1997) (noting that ‘‘the 11th Amendment precludes this Court from ordering the State to properly enforce or comply with its own laws, and CAPTA cannot be interpreted in a manner that effectively overrides the State’s 11th Amendment immunity in this regard’’) (citations omitted).

498

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

‘‘right to receive periodic general physical health examinations administered by competent medical professionals at age-appropriate intervals determined by a panel of independent health care experts,’’ the ‘‘right to receive periodic hearing and eye examinations, mental health examinations, dental examinations and lead blood tests, administered by competent medical professionals at age-appropriate intervals,’’ the ‘‘right to receive any and all treatments deemed necessary by a qualified medical professional conducting any of the abovementioned periodic health examinations.’’ Id. at ¶ 408.
With respect to Plaintiffs’ EPSDT claim, Defendants argue that while there is limited case law indicating that a § 1983 action may be brought ‘‘to enforce payment for specific treatments,’’ Def. Motion at p. 27, n. 14, EPSDT ‘‘does not create an openended benefit,’’ and to the extent Plaintiffs have failed to ‘‘identify the treatment plaintiffs allege they were denied,’’ Plaintiffs’ EPSDT claim should be dismissed. Id. at p. 27. Plaintiffs counter the Defendants have conceded that there is ‘‘extensive case law’’ recognizing that EPSDT creates ‘‘enforceable rights’’ and that Defendants incorrectly assert that Plaintiffs have failed to allege their EPSDT claim with specificity. See Pl.Opp. at pp. 44–45.9 Defendants respond that Plaintiffs ‘‘simply allege a list of ailments without reference to which are treated under [EPSDT] and without even saying that treatment was sought and denied.’’ Def. Reply at p. 12, n. 6.
In opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs point to 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(r) in support of their alleged right under EPSDT enforceable pursuant to

§ 1983. See Pl.Opp. at p. 44 (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396d(r)(1)(A) and (B), 1396d(r)(2), 1396d(r)(3), 1396d(r)(4), and 1396d(r)(5)). Importantly, 1396d(r) defines ‘‘early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services’’ for purposes of, inter alia, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 which makes available federal appropriations for ‘‘payments to States which have submitted, and had approved by the Secretary, State plans for medical assistance’’ and for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1396a which delineates, in painstaking detail, what constitutes such ‘‘State plans for medical assistance.’’ See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)–(z). Thus, if anything provides support for the rights Plaintiffs seek to assert under EPSDT pursuant to § 1983, it certainly is not 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(r) alone, as this only defines a term used in a much larger and more complicated statutory scheme, but that provision taken in conjunction with, at a minimum, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396 and 1396a. See B.H. v. Johnson, 715 F.Supp. 1387, 1401 (N.D.Ill.1989) (noting ‘‘[i]t would be strange for Congress to create enforceable rights in the definitional section of a statute’’).10
As has been expressed earlier, this Court cannot dispute that the individual examples offered by Plaintiffs are tragic. However, no matter how tragic, these unfortunate circumstances do not give rise to the § 1983 rights alleged by Plaintiffs, especially when the EPSDT provisions cited by Plaintiffs are examined under the Blessing test. For example, the ‘‘right to receive any and all treatments deemed necessary by a qualified medical professional conducting any of the TTT periodic health examinations, [as defined in 42

9. In support of their EPSDT claim, Plaintiffs also offer ‘‘specific allegations [where] medical screening services and treatment have been systematically denied not only to specific children, but also to the putative class as a whole.’’ Pl.Opp. at pp. 44–45. However, nowhere do Plaintiffs allege that they sought to enforce, but were denied, payment for specific treatments.

10. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs do point to §§ 1396a and 1396d(a). See Compl. at ¶ 39b. As noted, § 1396a delineates what must be provided for in a ‘‘State plan for medical assistance.’’ § 1396d(a), like § 1396d(r), is part of the definitional section for § 1396. Specifically, § 1396d(a) defines the term ‘‘medical assistance.’’

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN

499

Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

U.S.C. § 1396d(r),]’’ Compl. at ¶ 408, is not comply substantially with any such provi-

unlike the claim examined in Blessing sion [of § 1396a(a) ]; the Secretary shall

wherein the plaintiffs argued that Title notify such State agency that further

IV–D of the Social Security Act granted payments will not be made to the State

them ‘‘individual rights to all mandated TTT, until the Secretary is satisfied that services delivered in substantial compli- there will no longer be any such failure

ance with Title IV–D and its implementing regulations.’’ Blessing, 520 U.S. at 341, 117 S.Ct. 1353. As was the holding in Blessing, the ‘‘right to receive any and all treatments deemed necessary’’ is too vague and amorphous to lend itself to proper judicial administration. Indeed, to allow such a right would improperly require this Court to oversee the entire State plan developed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396a. See Blessing, 520 U.S. at 341, 117 S.Ct. 1353. Moreover, as was the holding in Blessing, enforcement of such undefined rights like the ‘‘right to receive periodic general physical health examinations administered by competent medical professionals at age-appropriate intervals,’’ as well as the ‘‘right to receive periodic hearing and eye examinations, mental health examinations, dental examinations and lead blood tests, administered by competent medical professionals at age-appropriate intervals,’’ would certainly strain the judicial competence.11 Thus, under the Blessing framework, EPSDT does not confer the § 1983 rights alleged by Plaintiffs.
Moreover, the Supreme Court’s exami-

to comply.’’ 42 U.S.C. § 1396c. Thus, EPSDT specifically provides that the federal government may revoke the funding provided to the states pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396. However, the Secretary cannot compel New Jersey, or any other state, to act in a certain way. Thus, as was the finding in Blessing, the federal funding scheme established in EPSDT does not give rise to an individual right enforceable pursuant to § 1983. See Blessing, 520 U.S. at 344, 117 S.Ct. 1353 (noting that ‘‘even upon a finding of substantial noncompliance, the Secretary can merely reduce the State’s AFDC grant by up to five percent; she cannot, by force of her own authority, command the State to take any particular action or to provide any services to certain individuals. In short, the substantial compliance standard is designed simply to trigger penalty provisions that TTT reduce the State’s AFDC grant by a maximum of five percent. As such, it does not give rise to individual rights.’’) (emphasis added).

nation of the language and structure of Therefore, for the foregoing reasons,

Title IV–D of the Social Security Act also Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted

compels a determination that EPSDT with respect to the Eighth Count of Plain-

does not confer the § 1983 rights alleged tiffs’ Complaint.

by Plaintiffs. Importantly, ‘‘[i]f the Secretary, after reasonable notice and oppor-

d. ADA and RHA

tunity for hearing to the State agency [13] Plaintiffs also allege that the ADA

administering or supervising the adminis- and RHA ‘‘require that programs such as

tration of the State plan approved under child welfare and foster care be adminis-

[§ 1396a(b) ], finds—that in the adminis- tered to enable children with handicaps or

tration of the plan there is a failure to disabilities to participate fully in, and re-

11. In an apparent effort to avoid the argument that the rights Plaintiffs seek to enforce under EPSDT are standardless, Plaintiffs offer that the ‘‘age-appropriate intervals’’ sought may be ‘‘determined by a panel of independent health care experts.’’ Compl. at ¶ 408. However, as noted above, this Court does not sit to oversee every aspect of the State plans

as enunciated in 42 U.S.C. § 1396a, including supplanting the State’s determination with respect to ‘‘reasonable standards of medical and dental practice’’ reached ‘‘after consultation with recognized medical and dental organizations involved in child health care.’’ 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(r).

500

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

ceive all the benefits of, the programs and to be placed in the least restrictive setting appropriate.’’ Compl. at ¶ 72. In this regard, Plaintiffs argue that as a result of Defendants’ ‘‘actions and inactions’’ Plaintiffs are being deprived of rights conferred upon them by the ADA and RHA including, but not limited to, the ‘‘right to participate fully and receive the benefits of the state child welfare and foster care programs; to be placed in the least restrictive placement; and to receive any and all services necessary for them to participate fully in the state foster care program despite their handicaps or disabilities.’’ Id. at ¶ 409.
With respect to these allegations, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ Complaint seeks ‘‘additional programs and services and therefore fails to state a claim under the ADA or RHA.’’ Def. Motion at p. 28. In this regard, Defendants argue that the provisions of the ADA and RHA applicable to public entities, Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., and Section 504 of the RHA, 29 U.S.C. § 794, do not require Defendants ‘‘to provide or develop special services or programs to assist the disabled.’’ Id. at pp. 28 and 30.12 Specifically, Defendants assert that Plaintiffs cannot claim a violation of the ADA or RHA for Defendants’ failure to provide ‘‘any and all services necessary [for Plaintiffs] to participate fully in the foster care in the state foster care program,’’ Compl. at ¶ 409, because such a claim does not allege that any Plaintiff ‘‘has been excluded from any program because of his or her disability,’’ as is required under either of the applicable sections of the ADA or RHA. Def. Motion at p. 31. Plaintiffs respond that the Complaint ‘‘[f]airly construed, TTT alleges that defendants are failing to accommodate the needs of disabled children by placing them

in foster homes and the either not providing them with services or providing services that are less effective than those provided to non-disabled children.’’ Pl. Opp. at p. 48. For example, Plaintiff allege that Defendants ‘‘are unnecessarily segregating disabled children by maintaining them in settings that are more restrictive than is necessary to meet their needs, or by sending them out of state’’ and ‘‘fail to challenge the rejection of disabled children by residential treatment centers, thereby protracting their confinement and segregation.’’ Id. Defendants reply that Plaintiffs’ response demonstrates the inappropriateness of Plaintiffs’ ADA and RHA claims. Specifically, Defendants argue that ‘‘Plaintiffs themselves characterize their claim as one that ‘[f]airly construed, TTT alleges that defendants TTT are not providing services’ which they contend would ameliorate these unidentified disabilities.’’ Def. Reply at p. 11.
While not so limited as Defendants would suggest, Plaintiffs’ argument with respect to their claims under the ADA and RHA is a novel approach to say the very least. Specifically, while the ADA defines discrimination as encompassing not only adverse actions motivated by prejudice and fear of disabilities, but also failing to make reasonable accommodations of disabilities, see Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 306 (3d Cir.1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(a), (b)(5)(A)), there is a clear lack of support for the type of accommodation sought here. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek ‘‘to receive any and all services necessary for them to participate fully in the state foster care program despite their handicaps or disabilities.’’ Compl. at ¶ 409. Plaintiffs are not simply seeking access to the foster care system, but in-

12. In this regard, Title II of the ADA provides that ‘‘no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.’’ 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Section 504 of the RHA similarly provides

that ‘‘[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States TTT shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.’’ 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

501

stead, are seeking ‘‘to participate fully’’ in However, Plaintiffs’ view of what is ac-

New Jersey’s foster care system. Id. To tionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for al-

highlight Plaintiffs’ inability ‘‘to participate leged violations of the ADA and RHA is

fully’’ in the foster care system, Plaintiffs not sustainable. For example, if, in order

offer the following examples:

‘‘to participate fully’’ in the foster care

Dennis and Denise M. ‘‘have learning disabilities and severe emotional and behavioral problems.’’ The ‘‘current foster parent is unable to meet their needs.’’ While ‘‘DYFS has recently acknowledged that the children should be in a therapeutic foster home that could provide specialized care, DYFS has failed to secure such a home for them or to otherwise provide adequately for the children’s special needs.’’
Marco and Juan C. ‘‘suffer from neurological and behavioral problems.’’ Marco’s foster parents ‘‘have no training in

system, Plaintiffs seek special services or affirmative assistance to the disabled, this is not actionable under the ADA or RHA. See, e.g. Bowen v. American Hosp. Ass’n, 476 U.S. 610, 640, 106 S.Ct. 2101, 90 L.Ed.2d 584 (1986) (noting that ‘‘ ‘neither the language, purpose, nor history of [the RHA] reveals an intent to impose an affirmative obligation’ on recipients of federal financial assistance’’). Thus, that children with learning disabilities or neurological and behavior problems may be placed in ‘‘regular foster homes,’’ does not support a cause of action under the ADA or RHA, especially where Plaintiffs have not alleged

caring for children with [his] neurologi- that they are treated any differently than

cal and behavioral problems.’’

similarly situated non-disabled foster chil-

Ricky, Daniel, and Thomas M. are dis- dren. See Doe v. Pfrommer, 148 F.3d 73,

abled and have severe special needs. 83 (2d Cir.1998) (noting that ‘‘the central

Ricky ‘‘is hearing impaired,’’ has been purpose of the ADA and § 504 of the

diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Post–Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and Intermittent Explosive Disorder. Daniel has a spastic bladder, sleep apnea, epilepsy with a seizure disorder, is neurologically impaired, has been diagnosed with severe APHD [sic], PTSD, is learning disabled and developmentally delayed. Thomas is vision and hearing impaired, is being tested for a seizure disorder, and is learning disabled and developmentally delayed. Defendants have repeatedly rejected pleas for services by their mother, Ms. M.
‘‘Disabled children are placed in regular foster homes with foster parents lacking any specialized training as to how to care for them, and suffer harm as a result. Such disabled children receive lower quality foster care services than is provided to non-disabled foster children in similar placements.’’

Rehabilitation Act is to assure that disabled individuals receive ‘evenhanded treatment’ in relation to the able-bodied’’). Moreover, if, in order ‘‘to participate fully’’ in the foster care system, Plaintiffs are challenging ‘‘the substance of services provided,’’ this is not actionable under the ADA or RHA. See Rodriguez v. City of New York, 197 F.3d 611, 618 (2d Cir.1999) (noting that appellees’ challenge to ‘‘the substance of the services provided’’ not actionable under the ADA or RHA, as compared to ‘‘illegal discrimination against the disabled’’). Thus, that foster parents of children with neurological and behavioral problems ‘‘have no training in caring for children with neurological and behavioral problems,’’ does not support a cause of action under the ADA or RHA, especially where Plaintiffs have not alleged that parents of non-disabled children are provided with training for caring for their children, and therefore, are treated differently than foster parents of children with neurological

Pl.Opp. at pp. 47–48 (citations to Compl. or behavioral problems or learning disabili-

omitted).

ties, or any other disabilities for that mat-

502

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

ter. Id. (noting that a state ‘‘cannot unlawfully discriminate against [the disabled] by denying a benefit it provides to no one’’). Finally, Plaintiffs have not alleged that the accommodations sought exist. Thus, that ‘‘DYFS has recently acknowledged that the children should be in a therapeutic foster home that could provide specialized care, [but] failed to secure such a home for them or to otherwise provide adequately for the children’s special needs’’ or ‘‘Defendants have repeatedly rejected pleas for services’’ by foster parents, does not state a cause of action under the ADA or RHA, especially where Plaintiffs have not alleged that such services exist or are available and were not offered because of the Plaintiffs’ disabilities. See P.C. v. McLaughlin, 913 F.2d 1033, 1042 (2d Cir.1990) (noting that ‘‘[n]o proof has been offered to suggest that more suitable accommodations were available and not offered to [plaintiff]’’).
For these reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted with respect to the Ninth Count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
2. Plaintiffs’ Federal Common Law Claim
[14] In the Sixth Count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Plaintiffs assert ‘‘a separate cause of action for breach of the ‘State Plans’ agreed to by New Jersey pursuant to the Adoption Assistance Act and CAPTA under established federal common law principles governing third party beneficiary rights.’’ Pl.Opp. at p. 49 (citations omitted). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that ‘‘[a]s a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of the defendants, the plaintiff children, as third-party beneficiaries to the Adoption Assistance Act and CAPTA contractual agreements entered into between the defendant[s] and Congress, are being denied their rights under the federal common law to the services and benefits that New Jersey is contractually obligated

to provide to them under these federal funding statutes.’’ Compl. at ¶ 406. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ federal common law claim is faulty in two respects: 1) that a funding statute constitutes a contract; and 2) Plaintiffs are third-party beneficiaries who may enforce such a contract. See Def. Motion at p. 34. Plaintiffs counter that any determination of Plaintiffs’ rights as third-party beneficiaries under the Adoption Assistance Act and/or CAPTA constitutes a ‘‘mixed question of law and fact,’’ and therefore, cannot be addressed on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Pl.Opp. at pp. 49–50 (citing Thomas v. New York City, 814 F.Supp. 1139, 1152 (S.D.N.Y.1993)).13 Defendants respond that the Court should never get to the ‘‘mixed question’’ of Plaintiffs’ rights as third-party beneficiaries because Plaintiffs’ Sixth Count is not cognizable as a matter of law. See Def. Reply at p. 12. Specifically, Defendants argue that there is no precedent offered by Plaintiffs for the assertion that a ‘‘ ‘State plan’ formulated under AACWA and CAPTA and approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services pursuant to those statutes somehow constitutes a contract.’’ Id.
Defendants are correct. First, Plaintiffs have failed to offer any support for the proposition that New Jersey’s State plans formulated under the Adoption Assistance Act or CAPTA and approved by the Secretary of Health and Human Services pursuant to these statutes constitute a contract. Second, Plaintiffs have not offered support for their contention that New Jersey may be sued in contract for an alleged failure to appropriately carry out a State plan drafted under the Adoption Assistance Act or CAPTA. For example, Plaintiffs cite Davis v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 121 F.3d 92, 100 (3d Cir.1997) for the proposition that Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of the State plans agreed to by New Jersey pursuant to the Adoption As-

13. Thomas was decided in the Eastern District of New York, not the Southern District

as cited by Plaintiffs.

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

503

sistance Act and CAPTA may be brought otherwise, under the Adoption Assistance

against the State under established federal Act. See Thomas, 814 F.Supp. at 1152

common law principles governing third (noting ‘‘[t]he City defendants next argue,

party beneficiary rights. See Pl.Opp. at p. and plaintiffs concede, that there is no

49. However, the Third Circuit in Davis private right of action under the Federal

clearly noted the limited scope of its hold- Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare

ing:

Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 670 et seq.’’) (citing Su-

At the outset, we note the limited scope ter v. Artist M., 503 U.S. 347, 112 S.Ct.

of the issue we are asked to review; 1360, 118 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992)). Thus, neither

namely, whether the district court erred Davis, nor Thomas, stand for the proposi-

by dismissing the Davis’s claims for lack tion that Plaintiffs may sue New Jersey in

of standing. This issue is analytically contract for an alleged failure to appropri-

distinct from the related question of ately carry out a State plan drafted under

whether the Lead Act provides Section 8 the Adoption Assistance Act or CAPTA.

participants or their successor tenants The other cases cited by Plaintiffs also fail

with either an express or implied cause to support Plaintiffs contentions with re-

of action against the Housing Authority spect to their third-party beneficiary claim.

for an alleged breach of its duties to For example, Plaintiffs cite D’Amato v.

inspect for lead-based hazards and to Wisconsin Gas Company, 760 F.2d 1474,

ensure removal of such hazards in 1479 (7th Cir.1985) for the proposition that

apartment units which are, or at some a ‘‘claim as third party beneficiary to con-

time were, part of the Section 8 pro- tract entered into pursuant to federal stat-

gram. [W]e [have] explicitly noted the ute is governed by federal common law.’’

distinction between a dismissal of a Pl.Opp. at p. 49. However, D’Amato,

claim for lack of standing based upon a while noting that ‘‘[t]his case concededly

failure to satisfy the zone of interest test implicates federal common law rather than

and a dismissal for failure to state a state common law, because rights allegedly

cause of action.

arising out of a federal statute are at

Davis, 121 F.3d at 94 (citations omitted) issue,’’ D’Amato, 760 F.2d at 1478–79, also

(emphasis added). Plaintiffs also cite found that not only could the plaintiff not

Thomas v. New York City, 814 F.Supp. enforce a private right under Section 503

1139, 1152 (E.D.N.Y.1993) as an example of the Rehabilitation Act, the plaintiff

of a situation where the Eastern District of could not circumvent this conclusion by

New York denied ‘‘defendants’ motion to asserting a common law cause of action as

dismiss plaintiffs’ claim as third party ben- a third-party beneficiary. Id. (holding

eficiaries to contracts between city and that ‘‘plaintiff seeks to avoid the well-set-

foster care contractors under Fed.R.Civ.P. tled rule TTT that no private right of action

12(b)(6) or (c), because claim was ‘mixed arises under Section 503’’). Therefore,

question of law and fact’ and contracts given that Plaintiffs cannot state a § 1983

were not before the Court.’’ See Pl.Opp. cause of action upon which relief may be

at pp. 49–50. However, given the Suter granted under the Adoption Assistance

holding, the Thomas court clearly indicat- Act or CAPTA, Plaintiffs cannot circum-

ed that it did not address any claim by the vent the Court’s holding by asserting a

plaintiffs as third party beneficiaries, or third-party beneficiary claim.14

14. Plaintiffs also cite McNeill v. New York City Housing Authority, 719 F.Supp. 233, 248 (S.D.N.Y.1989), and Concerned Tenants of Father Panik Village v. Pierce, 685 F.Supp. 316, 323 (D.Conn.1988). Both cases, however, are limited by the facts which supported their holdings and will not be extended to support

Plaintiffs’ contention that State plans formulated by New Jersey constitute a contract. Indeed, McNeill specifically noted that ‘‘[i]n finding that plaintiffs are intended third-party beneficiaries, the Court does not open the door to all beneficiaries of government contracts to attempt to enforce such contracts.

504

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

For these reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted with respect to the Sixth Count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
3. Plaintiffs’ Federal Constitutional Claims
Plaintiffs also allege three constitutional causes of action. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they ‘‘are being deprived of their substantive due process rights conferred upon them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.’’ See Compl. at First Count. Plaintiffs also allege that they ‘‘are being deprived of state created liberty or property rights without due process of law’’ in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Id. at Second Count. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that they ‘‘are being deprived of their right conferred upon them by the First and Ninth Amendments to the United States Constitution not to be deprived of a family relationship absent compelling reasons.’’ Id. at Third Count.
a. Substantive Due Process
Plaintiffs allege that the ‘‘Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees to each child in state custody the substantive due process right to be free from harm and the right to conditions of custody reasonably related to the purpose of custody.’’ Compl. at ¶ 57. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the ‘‘right to be free from harm encompasses the right to treatment in accordance with reasonable professional standards, and the right to the services necessary to prevent children from deteriorating physically, psychologically or otherwise while in state care, including but not limited to safe, secure foster care placements, appropriate monitoring and supervision, case planning and management, permanency planning and medical, psychiatric, psychological and educational services.’’ Id. In this regard,

Plaintiffs allege that the ‘‘actions and inactions of the defendants are inconsistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment and also amount to a pattern, practice and custom of deliberate indifference to plaintiff children’s constitutional rights.’’ Id. at ¶ 401. Consequently, Plaintiffs allege that they ‘‘are being deprived of their substantive due process rights conferred upon them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.’’ Id. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege the deprivation of the following rights: i) right to protection from harm; ii) right not to be harmed, ‘‘physically, emotionally, developmentally, or otherwise—while in state custody;’’ iii) right not to remain in state custody ‘‘unnecessarily;’’ iv) right to be housed in the ‘‘least restrictive, most appropriate and family-like placement’’ while in state custody; v) right to treatment; vi) right to treatment related to the cause of their confinement; and vii) right to receive care, treatment and services consistent with ‘‘competent professional judgment.’’ Id.
With respect to Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim, Defendants first argue that only those children in state custody can assert a substantive due process constitutional claim. See Def. Motion at p. 42 (citations omitted). Thus, Defendants assert that the substantive due process claims by Ryan, Christopher, and Melissa H. and Ricky, Daniel, and Thomas M. must be dismissed because these Plaintiffs ‘‘allege that they are in the custody of their families.’’ Id. In this regard, Defendants note that ‘‘over 40,000 of the alleged 50,000 [children in the putative class] fall into this category of non-custodial cases,’’ and therefore, any such substantive due process claim on behalf of this group must also be dismissed. Id. (citing Compl. at ¶ 36 (noting that ‘‘approximately 9,250 children [are] in the custody of DYFS’’)).15

This case is limited to the facts at hand.’’ McNeill, 719 F.Supp. at 249.

15. With respect to the 9,250 children in state custody, Defendants also argue that a distinction must be drawn between those children voluntarily placed in foster care and those

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

505

Defendants next argue that Plaintiffs are the ‘‘laundry list of rights’’ asserted by

merely trying to bootstrap state statutory Plaintiffs. Id.

provisions onto the Constitution and the Constitution does not guarantee the broad services demanded by Plaintiffs. Id. at p.

Initially, as noted, Plaintiffs begin their discussion of their substantive due process claim by asserting that the Fourteenth

42. Plaintiffs respond first that Defen- Amendment ‘‘guarantees to each child in

dants concede that Plaintiffs who are in state custody the TTT right to be free from state custody have properly alleged sub- harm and the right to conditions of custo-

stantive due process violations. See Pl. dy reasonable related to the purpose of

Opp. at p. 6. Plaintiffs next argue that the custody.’’ Compl. at ¶ 57. However, later

non-custodial Plaintiffs have stated a in the Complaint, Plaintiffs do not draw as

§ 1983 cause of action under the ‘‘state- clear a distinction between custodial and

created danger doctrine.’’ Id. at pp. 6–7 non-custodial children with respect to

(citations omitted). Finally, with respect Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim.

to the number of substantive due process See Compl. at ¶ 401. Any analysis of

rights asserted by Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs ar- Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim

gue that ‘‘[t]he exact parameters of plain- must begin by drawing a clear distinction

tiffs’ substantive due process rights will be between custodial and non-custodial chil-

developed at trial,’’ but ‘‘[t]he Complaint dren. See DeShaney v. Winnebago Coun-

contains specific allegations that plaintiff ty Dep’t of Social Serv., 489 U.S. 189, 201,

children who are in the state’s custody 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989) (not-

have been harmed by the defendants’ fail- ing that ‘‘Estelle–Youngberg’’ line of cases

ure to exercise reasonable professional had ‘‘no applicability in the present case’’

judgment and their pattern and practice of deliberate indifference to plaintiffs’ needs.’’ Id. at p. 8.16 Defendants reply that ‘‘none of the allegations by the non-custodial plaintiffs suggests a state-created danger,’’ and therefore, the substantive due process claims of Plaintiffs like Ryan, Christopher, and Melissa H. and Ricky, Daniel, and Thomas M. must be dismissed. See Def. Reply at p. 13. Further, with respect to

because plaintiffs ‘‘concede that the harms Joshua suffered occurred not while he was in the State’s custody, but while he was in the custody of his natural father, who was in no sense a state actor’’ and noting ‘‘[t]hat the State once took temporary custody of Joshua does not alter the analysis’’). Thus, Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim will be analyzed in light of this distinction.

the remaining Plaintiffs, Defendants argue

i. non-custodial children

that Plaintiffs are incorrect in asserting [15] With respect to Plaintiffs’ sub-

that ‘‘[t]he exact parameters of plaintiffs’ stantive due process claims on behalf of

substantive due process rights will be de- the over 40,000 non-custodial children,

veloped at trial,’’ because the parameters Plaintiffs argue that these children have

of such rights are a matter of law, not fact the ‘‘right to be protected from harm when

to be determined at trial, and as a matter the state places them in a situation that

of law, Plaintiffs’ substantive due process the state knows to be dangerous.’’ Pl.Opp.

rights are rather limited, as compared to at pp. 7–8 (citations omitted). While on its

placed involuntarily. See Def. Motion at p. 42, n. 19 (citations omitted). However, Defendants argue that this distinction cannot be drawn based upon the face of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and therefore, ‘‘[s]hould any of plaintiffs’ substantive due process claims survive, defendants will address this issue at a later date when the record is more fully developed.’’ Id.

16. With respect to these allegations regarding Defendants’ failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment, Plaintiffs argue that this standard is fact-sensitive, and therefore, cannot be determined on Defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Pl.Opp. at p. 10.

506

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

face, such a claim may have some appeal because of the tragic circumstances alleged by Plaintiffs, a closer examination of the ‘‘state-created danger doctrine’’ reveals that what is required is something much more than being ‘‘aware of the dangers that [non-custodial children] face[ ] in the free world.’’ D.R. v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical Sch., 972 F.2d 1364, 1373 (3d Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1079, 113 S.Ct. 1045, 122 L.Ed.2d 354 (1993) (citing DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 201, 109 S.Ct. 998). Instead, what is required is that the state ‘‘affirmatively acted to create plaintiff’s danger, or to render him or her more vulnerable to it.’’ Id. (citation omitted). Indeed, ‘‘[l]iability under the state-created danger theory is predicated upon the states’ affirmative acts which work to plaintiffs’ detriments in terms of exposure to danger.’’ Id. at 1374. Thus, there must be a ‘‘level of intermingling of state conduct with private violence’’ in order to support liability under the statecreated danger doctrine for the harm alleged by Plaintiffs to non-custodial children. Id. at 1375.
[16] In support of their claim that Defendants violated a constitutional duty by creating or exacerbating a danger to noncustodial children, Plaintiffs offer the following example:
Dennis M. and Denise R. were placed by defendants with their grandparents even though the grandparents were mentally ‘‘low functioning’’ and ‘‘incapable of protecting’’ the children. The defendants did not remove the children from that home or seek formal custody until two years later, when they finally concluded the children were unsafe, poorly supervised and being neglected. Dennis and Denise ‘‘remain seriously emotionally disturbed due to the Division’s failure to protect them.’’
Pl.Opp. at p. 9 (citations to Compl. omitted). However, such alleged nonfeasance on Defendants’ part is not actionable under the state-created danger doctrine. See D.R., 972 F.2d at 1376 (holding that show-

ing of nonfeasance does ‘‘not rise to the level of a constitutional violation’’). Moreover, no matter how tragic the circumstances as alleged, or that children may be involved, see Pl.Opp. at pp. 6–7 (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976) and arguing that ‘‘even incarcerated criminals are entitled to protection against deliberate indifference to their medical needs’’), this does not suffice to show that the Defendants affirmatively ‘‘create[d][P]laintiffs’ peril, increase[d] their risks of harm, or act[ed] to render them more vulnerable.’’ See D.R., 972 F.2d at 1374 (holding that ‘‘[a]lthough we find this to be TTT a tragedy,’’ the facts did not support liability under state-created danger doctrine). Finally, to the extent Plaintiffs may argue that Defendants increased the risk of harm to non-custodial children by failing to comply with a duty imposed by state law, such a claim is not cognizable pursuant to the Due Process Clause. Id. at 1375 (holding that ‘‘a violation of a state law duty, by itself, is insufficient to state a § 1983 claim’’). For these reasons, to the extent Plaintiffs’ seek to assert a substantive due process claim on behalf of non-custodial children in the First Count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.
ii. custodial children
[17] Initially, with respect to the approximately 9,250 children in state custody, a distinction must be drawn between those children involuntarily within state custody and those voluntarily within state custody, if such children exist. DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 201, 109 S.Ct. 998 (holding that ‘‘[i]n the substantive due process analysis, it is the State’s affirmative act of restraining the individual’s freedom to act on his own behalf—through incarceration, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty—which is the ‘deprivation of liberty’ triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause, not its failure to act to protect his liberty interest against

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN

507

Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

harms by other means’’). See also Mil- ever, this right to freedom from harm

burn v. Anne Arundel County Dep’t of under the Due Process Clause of the Four-

Social Serv., 871 F.2d 474, 476 (4th Cir.) teenth Amendment does not entitle Plain-

(noting that ‘‘[t]he State of Maryland by tiffs to an ‘‘optimal level of care and treat-

the affirmative exercise of its power had ment.’’ B.H. v. Johnson, 715 F.Supp.

not restrained the plaintiff’s liberty; he 1387, 1397–98 (N.D.Ill.1989). Moreover,

was voluntarily placed in the foster home by his natural parents’’), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 850, 110 S.Ct. 148, 107 L.Ed.2d 106 (1989). It is not clear from the face of Plaintiffs’ Complaint whether there are children in state custody voluntarily. However, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the First Count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint to the extent Plaintiffs’ allege a substantive due process claim on behalf of children voluntarily in state custody.
With respect to those children involuntarily in state custody, although DeShaney ‘‘express[ed] no view on the validity of [the] analogy’’ that ‘‘[h]ad the State by the affirmative exercise of its power removed [plaintiff] from free society and placed him in a foster home operated by its agents, we might have a situation sufficiently analogous to incarceration or institutionalization to give rise to an affirmative duty to protect,’’ DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 201, n. 9, 109 S.Ct. 998, other courts have recognized that the analogy is appropriate. See, e.g. Taylor v. Ledbetter, 818 F.2d 791, 796 (11th Cir.1987) (holding that the ‘‘such similarities exist between a prisoner’s situation and the situation of a minor forced into a foster home that we are justified in holding that the situations are sufficiently analogous to support a section 1983 action’’), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1065, 109

this right to freedom from harm is not without boundaries. Specifically, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the State is required to provide to individuals within state custody their ‘‘basic human needs,’’ such as ‘‘food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety.’’ DeShaney, 489 U.S. at 200, 109 S.Ct. 998 (citations omitted). Thus, Plaintiffs do not have a substantive due process right to ‘‘not remain in state custody unnecessarily,’’ nor do Plaintiffs have a substantive due process right ‘‘to be housed in the least restrictive, most appropriate and family-like placement while in state custody.’’ See Baby Neal, 821 F.Supp. at 335 (dismissing plaintiffs’ claims for ‘‘permanent placements or placement in preadoptive homes pending their adoption’’). Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the First Count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint to the extent Plaintiffs assert a substantive due process claim on behalf of children involuntarily in state custody to ‘‘not remain in state custody unnecessarily’’ or ‘‘to be housed in the least restrictive, most appropriate and family-like placement while in state custody.’’ See Compl. at ¶ 401. With respect to Plaintiffs’ remaining substantive due process claims in the First Count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint on behalf of children involuntarily in state

S.Ct. 1337, 103 L.Ed.2d 808 (1989). In- custody, specifically, Plaintiffs’ substantive

deed, courts have recognized the right of due process claim based upon the right not

children ‘‘who have been involuntarily to be harmed, which includes the right to

placed in the custody of [the state] may reasonable protection from harm and

state a claim for violation of their substan- Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim to

tive due process rights based upon their the right to treatment, which includes the

right to freedom from harm under the right to receive care, treatment and ser-

fourteenth amendment of the United vices consistent with competent profession-

States Constitution.’’ Baby Neal v. Casey, al judgment, Defendants’ motion to dis-

821 F.Supp. 320, 335 (E.D.Pa.1993). How- miss is denied.17

17. Of course, as to what exactly these due process rights encompass may be the subject

508

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as noted herein with respect to the First Count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
b. Procedural Due Process
[18] Plaintiffs also allege that the ‘‘Fourteenth Amendment further guarantees the right not to be deprived of statecreated liberty or property interests [arising from Title Nine and Title Thirty of New Jersey’s statutes] without due process of law.’’ Compl. at ¶ 58. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Title Nine and Title Thirty of the New Jersey statutory code confer certain benefits upon them, and as such, may not be deprived without due process of law, in that the said statutory schemes require Defendants to:
operate, on a twenty-four daily basis, a system for receiving allegations of child abuse or neglect; initiate investigations into screened reports of child abuse and neglect within the mandated time frame (either immediately, within twenty-four hours, seventy-two hours or up to ten days, depending on the nature of the report); conduct a full investigation, including face-to-face interview with, among others, the child, the parent or caretaker responsible for the child at the time of the incident, any other child who resides in the home and each alleged perpetrator, and obtain information from collateral sources who might have relevant information regarding the child or family; forward all reports of abuse and neglect to the central registry within seventy-two hours; and unless good cause is shown, make a final determination within forty-five days as to whether the allegation is substantiated, not substantiated, or unfounded;
take immediate steps, upon receipt of a report of abuse or neglect, necessary to ensure the safety of the child; initiate a judicial proceeding by the next business

day if a child determined to be in imminent danger is taken into custody;
provide an immediate medical examination to each child taken into custody pursuant to an emergency removal or temporary removal with consent;
begin a search for relatives willing and able to care for a child within thirty days of taking the child into custody, and make their best effort to place the child who has been removed with a relative;
provide each child determined to be eligible for pre-placement services, or services while in foster care, with a comprehensive assessment and case plan that includes all required elements within thirty days from the date the child enters placement or forty-five days from the date of referral, and a reassessment and case plan review with all required elements within six months from the completion of the initial case and assessment plans and [sic] every six months thereafter;
make reasonable efforts, in the circumstances articulated by statute, prior to placing a child outside of the home to preserve the family in order to prevent the need for removing the child from the home, and make reasonable efforts after placement to make it possible for the child to safely return home;
provide each child placed outside of the home with a placement plan; provide each child who is placed outside of the home, returned home, and then once again removed, with a repeated placement plan within thirty days of the repeated placement;
provide each child placed outside of the home with a visitation plan, and ensure than a child placed outside of the home is accorded visitation with parents and siblings, and contact with the caseworker in accordance with visitation and case plans;

of future motion practice. For example, the Court questions the extent to which Plaintiffs may claim a substantive due process right to ‘‘treatment related to the cause of their con-

finement’’ within the right to medical treatment. Compl. at ¶ 401. However, issues such as this may be visited in future.

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

509

identify and provide each child and with an administrative review every six

family with services in accordance with months; and

the child’s case plan, including, but not limited to, case planning and case management services, casework contacts, clothing allowances, day care services, homemaker services, emergency main-

provide each child 16 years of age or older with a written plan, reviewed annually, to prepare the youth for selfsufficient living.

tenance services, clinical services, fami- Compl. at ¶ 60a–p. In this regard, Plain-

ly preservation services, transportation tiffs allege that the ‘‘actions and inactions

services, shelter care, and maintenance of defendants are inconsistent with the

services;

exercise of reasonable professional judg-

ensure that the type or level of foster ment and also amount to a pattern, prac-

care placement in which a child resides tice and custom of deliberate indifference

is the least restrictive and appropriate to plaintiff children’s procedural due pro-

to the individualized needs of the child; cess rights.’’ Id. at ¶ 402. Consequently,

ensure that a child placed outside of the Plaintiffs allege that they are being de-

home receives services of a high quality prived of the following liberty or property

that are designed to maintain and ad- rights created by state statute without due

vance the child’s mental and physical process of law: i) the right to have allega-

well being, an educational program that tions of child abuse or neglect investigated

will maximize the child’s potential, and within specified time frames and in a speci-

safe and appropriate food, clothing and fied manner; ii) the right of each child who

medical care;

is determined to be eligible for pre-place-

adequately investigate potential foster ment services or who is in foster care to be

homes in the manner required by law provided with a service assessment and a

before approving foster parents and service plan within specified time frames

placing children in their homes, and ap- and in a specified manner; iii) the right of

propriately evaluate and review the fos- each child and her family to receive ser-

ter homes annually;

vices in accordance with the child’s service

ensure that all foster children achieve assessment and plan, including case con-

permanency either by being returned to tact, case planning and case management

their families at the earliest date on services; iv) the right of children in foster

which it is safe to do so, or, when reuni- care to reside in a placement appropriate

fication is not appropriate, by petitioning to her particular needs and to receive nec-

for long-term foster care or terminating essary supportive and rehabilitative ser-

parental rights and arranging for adop- vices; v) the right to a visitation plan and

tion within the time frames established visits with family members in accordance

by law;

with that plan; vi) the right to have all

provide each child with a permanency potential foster homes, foster parents and

hearing within 30 days after a determi- other placements investigated and moni-

nation that reasonable efforts to reunify tored in a specified manner before any

the family are not required or no later children are placed in them; vii) the right

than 12 months after the child has en- to have those homes and placements su-

tered placement in all other cases;

pervised, visited and inspected periodically

provide children placed in foster care in a specified manner; viii) the right of all

with annual judicial reviews as well as foster children to either be returned to

annual administrative reviews; provide their families or freed for adoption and

children who have been freed for adop- adopted so as not to languish in foster

tion and who are in a pre-adoptive home care; and ix) the right to have their cases

when no adoption petition has been filed judicially and administratively reviewed at

510

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

specified intervals and in specified manners. Id.
With respect to Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim, Defendants argue that: i) Plaintiffs may not enforce New Jersey law against the State in federal court; ii) the provisions of New Jersey law in question do not create liberty or property interests such as traditionally protected under the Fourteenth Amendment; and iii) even if Plaintiffs could point to an entitlement, they have not sufficiently pled a deprivation of their rights without due process. See Def. Motion at p. 36. Plaintiffs respond that: i) Plaintiffs are not attempting to enforce state law, but instead, are attempting to enforce federal interests created by state law; ii) New Jersey law creates legal entitlements for children in foster care under the Fourteenth Amendment; and iii) the Complaint properly alleges systematic deprivation of procedural due process protections. See Pl.Opp. at pp. 13–17. Defendants reply that ‘‘[a]ssuming, without conceding, that New Jersey law creates one or more entitlements in children in foster care,’’ Plaintiffs never set forth how these entitlements are being denied without due process of law. See Def. Reply at p. 13.
Initially, the due process rights alleged by Plaintiffs mirror, almost identically, the rights asserted by Plaintiffs under CAPTA and AACWA, even though such alleged rights were apparently lifted from New Jersey statutes. See Compl. at ¶ 60. For example, Plaintiffs allege that they are being deprived of the right, without due process of law, ‘‘to have allegations of child abuse or neglect investigated within specified time frames and in a specified manner.’’ Compl. at ¶ 402. This mirrors the right alleged by Plaintiffs under CAPTA, ‘‘to the enforcement of laws requiring prompt and professional investigations of allegations of abuse or neglect’’ and the right ‘‘to protection from those who endanger their health and welfare.’’ Id. at ¶ 405. Also, Plaintiffs allege that they are being deprived of the right, without due

process of law, ‘‘to be provided with a service assessment and a service plan within specified time frames and in a specified manner.’’ Id. at ¶ 402. This language is nearly identical to the right alleged by Plaintiffs under AACWA to have Defendants ‘‘implement a pre-placement preventive services program designed to help children remain with their families or be returned to their families when appropriate’’ and the right to ‘‘timely written case plans that contain mandated elements.’’ Id. at ¶ 404. Similarly, Plaintiffs further allege that they are being deprived of the right, without due process of law, ‘‘to receive services in accordance with the child’s service assessment and plan, including case contact, case planning and case management services.’’ Id. at ¶ 402. This right is nearly identical to the right alleged by Plaintiffs under AACWA to ‘‘the implementation and review of [timely written case plans that contain mandated elements]’’ and to ‘‘planning and services to secure their permanent placement at the earliest possible time.’’ Id. at ¶ 404. Moreover, Plaintiffs claim that they are being deprived of the right, without due process of law, ‘‘to reside in a placement appropriate to her particular needs and to receive necessary supportive and rehabilitative services.’’ Id. at ¶ 402. This is no different than the right alleged by Plaintiffs under AACWA to ‘‘placement in the least restrictive, most family-like setting.’’ Id. at ¶ 404. Similarly, Plaintiffs allege that they are being deprived of the right, without due process of law, ‘‘to a visitation plan and visits with family members in accordance with that plan.’’ Id. at ¶ 402. However, this is simply another way to describe the right alleged by Plaintiffs under AACWA to ‘‘placement in the least restrictive, most family-like setting.’’ Id. at ¶ 404. Further, Plaintiffs allege that they are being deprived of the right, without due process of law, ‘‘to have all potential foster homes, foster parents and other placements investigated and monitored in a specified manner before any children are placed in them’’ and ‘‘to have those homes

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

511

and placements supervised, visited and in- mination of Defendants’ motion to dismiss

spected periodically in a specified man- with respect to Plaintiffs’ procedural due

ner.’’ Id. at ¶ 402. This right is nearly process claim because Plaintiffs have

identical to the right alleged by Plaintiffs based their procedural due process claim

under AACWA to ‘‘placement in foster on interests identical to those asserted un-

homes or facilities that conform to nationally recommended professional standards.’’ Id. at ¶ 404. Plaintiffs also allege that they are being deprived of the right, without due process of law, ‘‘to either be returned to their families or freed for adoption and adopted so as not to languish in foster care.’’ Id. at ¶ 402. This is identical to the right alleged by Plaintiffs to exist under AACWA to ‘‘be freed for adoption in accordance with the time frame established by law.’’ Id. at ¶ 404. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that they are being deprived of the right, without due process of law, ‘‘to have their cases judicially and administratively reviewed at specified intervals and in specified manners.’’ Id. at ¶ 402. This is no different than the rights asserted by Plaintiffs under AACWA to ‘‘regular judicial and administrative reviews of their foster care placements’’ and ‘‘dispositional hearings within twelve months of entering custody and periodically thereafter.’’ Id. at ¶ 404.
This somewhat mechanical exercise is extremely important to the analysis of Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim because in order for Plaintiffs to properly assert a claim for deprivation of a protected interest without due process of law, a protected interest must exist under either state or federal law. See Pl.Opp. at pp. 13–14 (citing Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249, 103 S.Ct. 1741, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983) and Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 471–72, 103 S.Ct. 864, 74 L.Ed.2d 675

der AACWA and CAPTA. Indeed, many of the state statutes cited by Plaintiffs in support of their alleged liberty or property interests simply mirror the language of AACWA and CAPTA. Compare, e.g. N.J.S.A. 9:6B–4g (listing one of the ‘‘[r]ights of child placed outside the home’’ as the right to ‘‘placement in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the child’s needs and conducive to the health and safety of the child’’) with 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(A) (defining ‘‘case review system’’ as a ‘‘procedure for assuring that—each child has a case plan designed to achieve placement in a safe setting that is the least restrictive (most family like) and most appropriate setting available’’). Thus, it is easy to understand why Plaintiffs’ alleged procedural due process rights are identical to Plaintiffs’ alleged rights enforceable pursuant to § 1983 under AACWA and CAPTA. For the numerous reasons discussed above, including that the statutory provisions relied upon by Plaintiffs are too vague and amorphous to lend themselves to judicial enforcement, it has already been determined that Plaintiffs have no enforceable rights under either AACWA or CAPTA or the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. Because of this resolution, and because the test to determine whether rights exist under § 1983 and the test to determine whether liberty or property rights exist requiring procedural due process are so similar, compare Blessing v.

(1983) for the proposition that ‘‘[s]tatutory Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340, 117 S.Ct.

language creates a legitimate claim to [an] 1353, 137 L.Ed.2d 569 (1997) with Olim v.

entitlement if it contains (1) particularized Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249, 103 S.Ct.

substantive standards or criteria to guide 1741, 75 L.Ed.2d 813 (1983) and Hewitt v.

official discretion’’ and ‘‘(2) mandatory lan- Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 471–72, 103 S.Ct. 864,

guage which obligates state officials to fol- 74 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983), and because the

low the standards or criteria’’). Whether liberty and property rights alleged by

Plaintiffs cite to certain state statutes in Plaintiffs are nearly mirror images of the

support of their procedural due process § 1983 rights alleged by Plaintiffs because

claim is of little consequence to the deter- such rights are based on nearly identical

512

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

statutory language, whether it be state or federal, Plaintiffs cannot establish the existence of any liberty or property interests that would entitle them to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the Second Count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.18
c. First and Ninth Amendments
[19] Plaintiffs allege that the ‘‘First and Ninth Amendments of the United States Constitution guarantee the rights to privacy and family integrity, and grant children the right not to be removed from their families absent a showing of compelling necessity.’’ Compl. at ¶ 59. In this regard, Plaintiffs allege that the ‘‘actions and inactions of defendants are inconsistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment and also amount to a pattern, practice and custom of deliberate indifference to plaintiff children’s constitutional rights.’’ Id. at ¶ 403. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that they ‘‘are being deprived of their right conferred upon them by the First and Ninth Amendments of the United States Constitution not to deprived of a family relationship absent compelling reasons.’’ Id.
With respect to Plaintiffs’ First and Ninth Amendment claim, Defendants note that the facts alleged with regard to many of the individual Plaintiffs, specifically, Charlie and Nadine H., Dennis M. and Denise R., Ricardo O., Delores and Anna G., Christopher and Melissa H., Ricky, Daniel and Thomas M., and Barry M., fail to state a claim under Plaintiffs’ First and Ninth Amendment claim for violation of the right to family integrity because ‘‘[f]ar from seeking to be reunited with their parents, many of children are seeking faster and more permanent separation from them.’’ Def. Motion at p. 39 and 40. Fur-

ther, Defendants argue that, with respect to Jason, Jennifer and Patti W., Plaintiffs cannot assert a right to family integrity by arguing that DYFS has failed to provide services to the children’s father, because ‘‘the Constitution does not guarantee the right to services necessary to reunite children with their biological parents.’’ Def. Motion at p. 40. Moreover, Defendants argue that, with respect to Marco and Juan C., there is no ‘‘constitutional right [for siblings] to be placed together,’’ and that there is little support for a constitutional right to ‘‘contact and visitation.’’ Id. at p. 41 (citations omitted). Plaintiffs counter that their ‘‘fundamental right not to be deprived of a family relationship absent compelling reasons is rooted in the First Amendment’s broad right of association and the Ninth Amendment’s right to privacy’’ and ‘‘the right to family integrity extends to children who are denied visitation with siblings or parents.’’ Pl.Opp. at pp. 17–18 (citing Aristotle P. v. Johnson, 721 F.Supp. 1002, 1007–08 (N.D.Ill.1989) and Marisol A., 929 F.Supp. at 676–77). In this regard, Plaintiffs specifically note that: i) ‘‘Marco and Juan C. allege that defendants separated them after failing to provide training to their foster parents on how to care for their ‘neurological and behavioral problems[,]’ ’’ and ‘‘fail[ed] to ensure contact and visitation between them when they were placed separately;’’ ii) ‘‘Barry M. alleges that because DYFS did not have an appropriate residential treatment program in-state he was twice placed out of state, and remains in Georgia, far from his grandfather, who is his guardian and is the only family he has left. As a result, Barry’s contact with his father is limited;’’ and iii) ‘‘Jason, Jennifer and Patti W. allege that DYFS is arbitrarily denying their right to family integrity by

18. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief highlights the inappropriateness of Plaintiffs’ procedural due process clause claim. Specifically, Plaintiffs request that this Court ‘‘[d]eclare TTT unlawful TTT defendants’ TTT failure to comply with Titles 9 and 30 of the New Jersey State Statutes.’’ Compl. at p. 129.

However, such a request to enforce state law against a state in federal court raises serious Eleventh Amendment concerns which need only be mentioned at this juncture to note a further problem with Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claim.

CHARLIE H. v. WHITMAN

513

Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 476 (D.N.J. 2000)

keeping them from their father’s custody fare system, ‘‘[c]ontact with his grandfa-

even though the Division has now ‘placed ther, the only family he has left, is now

another child—the siblings’ cousin—with limited.’’ Compl. at ¶ 202. Clearly, the

[their] father.’’ Id. at p. 18 (citations to case law cited by Plaintiffs in support of

Compl. omitted). Defendants reply that their claim under the First and Ninth

Plaintiffs concede that ‘‘with respect to a Amendment does not establish an absolute

great majority of the named plaintiffs, right to family integrity. See, e.g. Marisol

they can allege no impact whatsoever on any family relations.’’ Def. Reply at p. 16. Further, Defendants argue that, with respect to Plaintiffs’ argument regarding Barry M., the Complaint fails to state a claim under the First and Ninth Amendments, and even if it did, no such right to grand-parental visitation exists. Id. at pp. 16–17. Finally, with respect to the W. children and Marco and Juan C., Defendants reiterate their earlier arguments that there is no constitutional right to cer-

A., 929 F.Supp. at 676 (noting that ‘‘the only courts to apply the concept of family integrity to the child welfare context have done so when children in foster care were denied visitation with siblings and parents ’’) (emphasis added). Thus, given the limited breadth of holdings in this area, the so-called right to family integrity will not be extended to situations where a plaintiff, such as Barry M., alleges limited familial contact, as compared to no contact.

tain services, Plaintiff deem necessary, in More importantly, with respect to the

order to preserve, or reunite, the family. general nature of Plaintiffs’ claim under

Id. at p. 16.

the First and Ninth Amendments, as high-

Initially, a majority of individual Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for relief under Plaintiffs’ theory of liability under the First and Ninth Amendments. Thus, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted with respect to those Plaintiffs. With respect to Barry M., the Complaint fails to allege a deprivation of the ‘‘right to family integri-

lighted by Plaintiffs’ allegations with respect to the W. children, even the case most relied upon by Plaintiffs recognizes that ‘‘[c]ourts have held TTT that plaintiffs ‘do not have a constitutional right to rely on an agency to strengthen and reunite their families even if that agency has a statutory duty to do so.’ ’’ Marisol A., 929

ty’’ on behalf of Barry M. See Compl. at F.Supp. at 677 (rejecting plaintiffs’ chal-

¶ 204.19 Moreover, even if the Complaint lenge of defendants’ ‘‘general failure to

alleged such a deprivation, putting aside provide services that function to preserve

for the moment whether a right to grand- the family unit’’ under the First, Ninth,

parental visitation exists, the facts as al- and Fourteenth Amendments) (citation

leged by Plaintiffs would not support such omitted). Therefore, that Plaintiffs may

a claim. Specifically, Barry M. has not allege that Defendants have failed to pro-

alleged that his grandfather has been de- vide training to the foster parents of Mar-

nied visitation, but instead alleges that due co and Juan C. or failed to take ‘‘steps to

to inadequacies in New Jersey’s child wel- assist the father [of the W. children] in

19. Specifically, with respect to Barry M., the Complaint alleges that ‘‘defendants have violated Barry’s constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect him from harm; by failing to provide an appropriate placement that can manage Barry’s psychiatric and behavioral problems; by failing to provide him with a written plan, reviewed annually, to prepare him for self-sufficient living; by failing to ensure that the services he received were designed to maintain and advance his mental and physical well-being; and by leaving him for months without adequate psychi-

atric and other care in a secure detention facility which was not the least restrictive placement to which Barry was entitled and which was inappropriate for his individual needs; failing to provide Barry, who has a disability, with the least restrictive placement and services appropriate to his particular needs; and by failing to ensure Barry receives all the benefits of the Division’s child welfare program without discrimination for his handicap or disability, all of which are required by law and by reasonable professional standards.’’

514

83 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, 2d SERIES

securing housing for his children,’’ Compl. at ¶¶ 91 and 119, does not state a cause of action under the First and Ninth Amendments. Thus, for this and the other reasons set forth above, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted with respect to the Third Count of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
4. Abstention
[20] Giving the foregoing, the majority of Plaintiffs’ claims have been dismissed. However, the following claims remain: i) Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim on behalf of Marco and Juan C. to the extent Plaintiffs allege Defendants violated 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(18)(B), which requires that a State plan provide that the State may not ‘‘delay or deny the placement of a child for adoption or into foster care, on the basis of race, color, or national origin of the adoptive or foster parent, or the child, involved,’’ and 42 U.S.C. § 674(d)(3)(A), which explicitly provides that ‘‘[a]ny individual who is aggrieved by a violation of Section 671(a)(18) of this title by a State or other entity may bring an action seeking relief from the State or other entity in any United States district court;’’ and ii) Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim on behalf of children involuntarily in state custody not to be harmed, which includes the right to reasonable protection from harm, and the right to treatment, which includes the right to receive care, treatment and services consistent with competent professional judgment. With respect to these claims, Defendants argue that the Court should abstain from hearing Plaintiffs’ claims under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971). See Def. Motion at p. 46. With respect to Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim on behalf of Marco and Juan C., as explicitly provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 674(d)(3)(A), Younger abstention is not appropriate. Moreover, with respect to the remaining substantive due process claims, which are similar in nature to substantive due process claims brought of behalf on incarcerated and institutional-

ized individuals, Younger abstention is not appropriate.20 Thus, at this juncture, abstention is not warranted.
IV. Conclusion
It would be the height of federal judicial arrogance for this Court to supplant the efforts of New Jersey’s legislative, executive, and judicial branches with respect to the everyday functioning of the child welfare system in the broad, over-reaching way suggested by Plaintiffs. A review of the relief sought by Plaintiffs confirms this sentiment. For example, Plaintiffs seek the appointment of ‘‘an expert panel with full access to defendants, their records and their personnel, to develop and oversee the implementation of a plan for reform, to ensure that defendants protect the constitutional and federal statutory rights of the plaintiff class.’’ Compl. at pp. 129–30. However, this Court has not been named the Commissioner or Director of any state agency charged with the task of administering what, admittedly, is a troubled child welfare system. Moreover, this Court is not a cure-all elixir for the many ills of society, even if it appears to some members of the public that the state governmental units charged with curing these ills do not move fast enough. Indeed, while some may describe the situation of many of the children in New Jersey’s welfare system as a ‘‘plight,’’ this Court cannot ease this plight under many of the theories offered by Plaintiffs.
For these reasons, and for the reasons set forth throughout this Opinion, Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is granted with respect to the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Counts of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Moreover, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as discussed herein with respect to the First and Seventh Count of Plaintiffs’ Com-

20. This does not foreclose, however, the possibility that other abstention doctrines may

apply. Consideration of this issue, if appropriate, is left for the future.

U.S. v. VAN WYK
Cite as 83 F.Supp.2d 515 (D.N.J. 2000)

515

plaint. An appropriate form of Order is

filed herewith.

UNITED STATES of America,

ORDER
This matter having come before the Court on the motion of Defendants, Christine Todd Whitman, as Governor of the State of New Jersey, Michele K. Guhl, as Commissioner of the Department of Human Services, and Charles Venti, as Director of the Division of Youth and Family Services of the State of New Jersey, to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; the Court having heard oral argument in this matter on November 15, 1999; for the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed in the above-captioned matter on this date; and for good cause shown;
IT IS on this 27th day of January, 2000;
ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted be and hereby is GRANTED with respect to the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Counts of Plaintiffs’ Complaint; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted be and hereby is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART with respect to the First and Seventh Counts of Plaintiffs’ Complaint; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs be and hereby are directed to initiate a telephonic conference call with all parties and the Court on Monday, February 7, 2000 at 11:00 a.m. for a scheduling conference to discuss the further progress of this action.
,

v.
Roy VAN WYK, Defendant.
No. Crim. 99–217(WGB).
United States District Court, D. New Jersey.
Feb. 8, 2000.
In prosecution for making threatening communications, defendant filed motion in limine to exclude proposed testimony of forensic stylistics expert. the District Court, Bassler, J., held that: (1) FBI agent qualified as expert on subject; (2) expert could not testify as to authorship of unknown writings; but (3) expert could testify as to similarities between defendant’s known writings and unknown writings.
Motion granted in part, and denied in part.
1. Criminal Law O478(1) Proposed expert must possess knowl-
edge, skill, experience, training or education in area of his or her testimony greater than average layperson. Fed. Rules Evid.Rule 702, 28 U.S.C.A.
2. Criminal Law O469.1, 478(1) Expert need not have complete knowl-
edge about field in question, need not be certain, and need not be unbiased; expert must only be able to aid jury in resolving relevant issue. Fed.Rules Evid.Rule 702, 28 U.S.C.A.
3. Criminal Law O486(2) In making preliminary assessment of
whether reasoning or methodology underlying proposed expert testimony is scientifically valid, court should consider: (1) whether method consists of testable hypothesis; (2) whether method has been subject to peer review; (3) known or potential rate of error; (4) existence and maintenance of standards controlling tech-

 
 ·, ' f . \

\

.....

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW
/"

Document 175

Filed 03/20/03

Page 1 of 24 PageID: 967

.~.

• • FlLED ~ '. '-·

FOR PUBLICATION

MAR 20•

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NRW JERSEY

WIWAM T. WALSH CLERK

CHARLIR and NADINE H., ct al.,

Civil Action No.: 99-3678 (SRC)

Plaintiffs,

v.
CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, et al.,
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
ilruce R. Rosen, Esq uirc McCusker, Anselmi, Rosen, Carvclli & Walsh, P.A. 127 rvlain Street Chatham, New Jersey 07928 Attorney for The New York Times, Intervener
Marcia Robin~on Lowry, Esquire Susan Lambiase, Esquire Eric Thompson, Esquire Children's Rights, Inc. 404 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10016 Attorneys for the PlaintitTs
David L. Harris, Esquire Patrkk J. Whalen, Esquire Michele Renee Nance, Esquire Lowenstein Sandler, P.C. 65 Livingston Avenue Roseland, New Jersey 07068 Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

MEMORANDUM OPINION
ENTIAID . on TW3I~9;&;.<ef~ro]
~IUJAMT. All ·3i0_f!K
Donald A. Rohins01i; ~-~quite (Deputy.Cierkl
Robinson & Livelli Two Penn Plaza East Newark, New Jersey 07105 Attorney for The Star-Ledger, Intervener
Alan C. Kessler, Esquire Dana B. Klinges, Esquire Charles M. Hart, Esquire Robyn D. Levitan, Esquire Wolf, Block, Schorr, Solis-Cohen, L.L.P. 1970 Route 70 East, Suite 200 ChetTy Hill, New Jersey 08003 Attorneys for the Defendants
Stefanie A. Brand, Esquire Deputy Attorney General in Charge of Litigation Department of Law and Public Safety Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex 25 West Market Streel, P.O. Box 093
. Trenton, New Jersev 08625-0093 .
Attorney for the Defendants

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 2 of 24 PageID: 968
HUGHES. U.S.M.,I.
This matter comes beti.1re the Court upon Motion oi'Thc New York Time8 Company, publisher of The New York Times ("The Times") f(Jr leave to intervene in the above captioned matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) for the limited purpose of clarifying and/or modifying the current Confidentiality Order and Stipulation dated June 25. 2002. Plaintiffs Charlie and Nadine H, as class representatives, have no objection, and in fact, have filed a Brief in support of The Tim(ls' Motion to Intervene. Additionally, the Coutt received a letter application dated February 12, 2003 from the Newark Morning Ledger Company, publisher or The Star-Ledger ("The Ledger"), a New Jersey newspaper, requesting permission to join the Motion to Intervene filed by The Times. 1 Defendants Christine Todd Whitman'\ as Governor of the State of New .Jersey; Michde K. Guhl, as Commissioner of the Department of Human Services; Charles V.:nti, a~ Director or the Division of Youth and Family Services of the State of New Jersey ("Defendants"), however, oppose the Motion and have filed a separate Motion for a Protective Order.'1 On February 14, 2003, the Court granted pem1ission to The Ledga to join the Motion to Intervene filed by The Times. On March 3, 2003, the Court granted the The Times'
1As per letlcr application by The !.edger, it will join in !he Motion to Intervene without !I ling separate papers and will rely on The Tim,•s' papers for purposes of simplicity pursuant to Local Civil Rule 1.1 (h). (Robinson Letter dated February 12, 2003 at 1).
"The current docket rcnects Christine Todd Whitman as tl1e Governor of New Jersey and while there has been no .substitution of her as a defendant, the present Governor of New Jersey is James E. McGreevey. The parties have, on their own, substituted the prior namc<.l defendants with the individuals currently occupying the positions oi' the then Jofcndants. However, the Court will use the names of the def\mdants as it appears on the cun'tlnl docket.
:~Defendants~ lirgumcnts Ln support of a Prokctive Order arc essentially the same as their arguments for opposing The Times' Motion to intervene. Similarly, Plaintiffs' arguments in oppositi.on to Defendants' Motion for a Protective Order >tre the same, a.< they llled only one llricl"as both in suppn11 of 'llle 'times' Motion and in opposition to LJefendants' Motion. Therefore, the Court will address both Motions in this Opinion in the context of the Motion to Intervene.
2

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 3 of 24 PageID: 969
'· ,. 1
Motion to Intervene and The Ledger's application for intervention for purposes of bei11g heard on
issues relating to obtaining <tccess to Defendants' documents.4 The Motion ofthe Interveners seck to permit public disclosure of certain records
produced in discovery by the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services ("DYFS"). The Motion for a Protective Onlt'r, citing a variety of stale and federal statutes addressing confidentiality ol" such records and the agreed upon confidentiality order in place, seeks to preclude disclosure. The Collt·t has reviewed the wri!len submissions of the parties and
conducted oral argument on March 3, 2003 and March 14, 2003.
For the reasons that follow, the Motion of the Interveners to disclose Defendants' documents is granted in part and denied in part, and the Interveners will be provided limited access to the DYFS records after certain reasonable limitations have been met.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 4, 1999, Plaintiffs, Charlie and Nadine H., siblings aged eleven and nine, who have been in the custody and care of Division of Youth and Family Services for over l.ive years,
commenced this action by filing a 131 page, 409 paragraph Complaint. In their Complaint,
Plaintiffs named and discussed twenty other plaintil"fs, who also have been or are still under the custody and care of DYJ•S. The Plaintiff Class has been ccrtiticd by the District Court and the class representatives are: Jason, Jennifer, and Patti W., siblings aged ten, eight, and six who were removed from their mother's custody three years ago; D•mnis M. And Denise R., siblings aged eight and seven who were removed from their mother's custody in 1995; Marco and Juan C.,
4 For case or discussion, the Court will refer to The Times and The Ledger as Interveners and their Motion and application for intervention as a MotlOtl for Intervention.
3

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 4 of 24 PageID: 970
siblings aged eight and ten who were removed from their mother's (:are for the second time in 1995; Dolores and Atma G., siblings aged four and seventeen months who have been in DYFS's custody since August 1998; Kyle J., age one-and-half who has been in roster care since birth; Ryan, Chri~tophcr, and Melissa H., sibling~ who currently live with their mother despite numerous reports of abuse and neglect; Ricky, Daniel, and Thomas M., siblings who currently live with thdr mother, but have spent most their lives in DYFS custody; and Barry M., age seventeen who has been in and out ofDYFS custody since the age of four ("Plaintiffs or Plaintiti Class") as well as many others who, according to Plaintill's, continue to live under abusive and neglectful enviromnents. Charlie Hand Nadine H v. Whitman, 83 F.Supp.2d 476, 480 (O.N.J.
2000), Plaintill's describe the details ol'thc lives of other class members in DYFS'~ care to
illu~tratc and allege a systemic failure on the part oflhe Defendants to protect the Plaintiffs fi·oJn harm and to provide their l'amilics with support and services in order to maintain adequate health and safely. (Compl. ~ 27). Additionally, Plaintiffs allege atid argue that the failure of the child welfare system is a result of poor management ofDYFS. (Campi. ~]28). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the overburdening of DYI'S causes high turnover rates of caseworkers who provide direct services to the children in care. (Compl.~ 31 ). In turn, the turnovers have resulted in gaps in providing services to the children in DYFS who eventually fall through the cracks. Again, Plaintiffs' Complaint goes on to describe the effects of these gaps in heart-wrenching detail by providing details of the abuses that the children have endured while in the custody oi'DYFS. For example, Pl;lintiffs allege sexual, physical and psychological abuses where in one instance, a plaintiff was nearly killed. (See Compl. ~~ 84, 85, !OS, 127, 134, and 74). Furthermore,
4

. . • • ''' Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 5 of 24 PageID: 971
Plaintitfs allege the lack of medical services and other special needs that Defendants have failed to address. (See Compl. ~'1]93, 105, 107, 122, 131-32, 139, and180). As the District Court noted, "there is no other term than tragic to summarize the facts as alleged by Plaintiffs."
Charlie H and Nadine H, 83 F.Supp.2d at 480.
Most recently, the tragic death of Faheem Williams and the abuse of his sibli11gs, who were familiar to DYFS, have encouraged the Plaintirli:; and the Interveners to request a modification ol" the existing Confidentiality Order, which governs disclosure of discovery in this class action. Plaintiffs argue that in light of the ongoing institutional deficiencies, it is !heir hope that informing the puhlic would place DYFS under public scrutiny and thereby encourage or facilitate a overhaul of the child wellare system to improve the lives of the state's most vulnerable children. T11e Interveners assert the public's right to know in support of their Motion and application tor modiiication of!he Confidentiality Order.
Plaintiffs and the Interveners contend that the existing Conl1dentiality Order is too broad. Specifically, the Interveners seek !o penni! disdosure of the following: (I) public disclosure of all discovery materials pertaining to child fatality and near fatality vases without redaction and (2) public disclosure of all discovery materials pertaining to living children subject to the redaction ofthe names or other identifying in linmalion pertaining to the children and their families. Moreover, the Interveners argue that Defendants have ~ burden or demonstrating that there is good cause to maintain the current Confidentiality Order especially when it involves issues of great public concern as here.
Defendants counter the Jnterveners by slating that disclosure of such sensitive and confidential information will compromise the anonymous reporting of abuse or neglect and
5

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 6 of 24 PageID: 972 impact the privacy of the children and ramilies involved with DYFS. Defendants argue that the infc>rmation sought by the Plaintiffs and Jntcrveners will only further sensationalize the tragic death of Faheem Williams rather than to inform the public and lead to meaningful compromise in the current system. The Interveners reply that it is precisely these potential failures that the public is concerned about and has a right to know before another tragic death occurs. The Interveners argue that the modification they seek will not jeopardize the privacy interests of the children and fiunilies involved in DYFS but balances those interests and the interests of the public's right to the information. Finally, Defendants argue that the infbrmation sought by the Jntervencrs is protected by New Jersey statutes and therefore, simply cannot be compromised unless it is for research purposes of individuals involwd in academia or proCessionals it1 the child
welfare system.
TT. DISCUSSION
A. Motion to Intervene 1. Standing to Intervene
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has held that "third parties have standing to challenge protective orders and confidentiality orders in an effort to obtain access to information or judicial
proceedings." Pam:y v. Borough ofStroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 777 (3d Cir. 1994) (footnote
omitted). The Third Circuit has explained that third parties have standing to intervene even though "they assert rights that 111ay belong to a broad portion of the public at large. So long as the 'injury in fact' alleged by each intervener is a 'distinct and palpable injury to himself,' standing should no! he denied 'even if it is an injury shar\ld by a larg<' cla~s of other possible
litigants."' United States v. C'ianjrani, 573 f.2d 835, 845 (3d Cir. 1978) (quoting Warth v. Seldin,
6

''

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 7 of 24 PageID: 973

422 U.S. 490, 508 (1975)), see al.w Pansy, 23 F.3d at 777. i\s national newspapers reporting on news to the country, as well as, to issttes specific to New Jersey, The Times and The Ledg~r have demonstrated that they have an interest in reporting to the cilLr.ens of New Jersey the state of its child we! Care system in light of the abuse of Fahcem Williams and his brothers.

2. Permissive Intervention
Pursuant to Federal Rule oi'Civil Procedure 24, a person or an entity, who is not a named party in an action, may intervene in lhc interested litigation by serving a motion as provided in Federal Rule oi'Civil Procedure 5. See FED. R. CJV. P. 24(c). Intervention of right is inapplicable here as no statutes confer such a right nor do the Interveners have any requisite
interest in the subject oflhe litigation as required by Rule 24(a). FED. R. CIV. P. 24(a). Accordingly, the Court will discuss whether The Timrts' and The [,edger's application~ for intervention satisfies the requirement~ of FED. R. Ctv. P. 24(b) which allows permissive intervention by an applicant. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) provides in relevant part:
[u]pon timely application anyone may be permilled to intervene in an action ... when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question o!'law or fact in common .... In exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original pa11ies. F12D. R. Ctv. P. 24(b). The rhird Circuit Comt of Appeals held that Rule 24(b)'s requirement of a "question of law or fact i11 common" with the main action is satis±icd when a "litigant who was not an original party to an action [seeks] to challenge protective or confidentiality orders entered in that action." Pansy v. Borough olStroudshurg, 23 F.3d at 778. In support or this condusion, the Pansy Court adopted the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Beckman

7

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 8 of 24 PageID: 974
lnduslries, inc. v. international lns. Co , where that Comt fom1d that "'when interveners are not becoming parties to the litigation[,] [t]here is no reason to require such a strong nexus of fact or law when a party seeks to intervene only for the purpose of modifying a protective order.'" !d. (quoting Beckman industries, Inc. v. Tnlernationalins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 474 (9'" Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 UX 868 (1992)).
Under Rule 24(b), the Court must first balance the prejudice a11d undue delay a potential intervener may cause when considering whether an application for intervention is timely. Mountain Top Condo. Ass 'n v. Dave Stabbert Master Builder, lm:., 72 F.3d 361, 369 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing in reFine Paper Anlilrusl Utigalion, 695 F.2d 494, 500 (3d Cir. 1982)). Although Defendants do not oppose The Times' and The Ledger's intervention for its failure to meet the requirements ofRul<! 24(b), they do oppose the Motion onth~ basis of futility. (Dels.['] Opp'n. Br. at3). Clearly, The Times and The Ledger have timely filed a Motion to Intervene in the present matter as it relates to the tragic death ofFaheem Williams which sparked further public interest in the welta.re ofNew Jersey's most vulnerable children. Additionally, in balancing the public's interest to know the status of the children under DYFS' care with any prejudice and undue delay The Times' and The LtJdger 's intervention may cause to the parties here, the Court is satislied that there will be minimal, if any prejudice or undue delay as a result of their intervention.
In addition to liling a timely application for intervention, the Court must consider whether The Times and The Ledger, who arc not parties to the litigation, have a claim or defense that has a common question of law or fact as the main action. As publications, The Times' and The !.edger's interests arc to disseminate news to the public and they do not have any claim or
8

. .. . • • ''

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 9 of 24 PageID: 975

defense that has a common question of law or fact as the present action between Charlie II. <!11d DYFS. However, as the Third Circuit has interpreted it, Rule 24(b)'s requirement that an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common may he satisfied if its intervention is for the purpose of challenging a confidentiality or protective order. Here, 1'he Times and The Ledger seek to intervene to do just that, to challenge the existing confidentiality order and to modify it Essentially, The Times' and The LedJJer 's purpose for intervention is to gain greater access to Defendants' case records, and to provide the public with
a more comprehensive view of DYFS, and specifically, the children in its care. As such, The Times and The Ledger satisfy the Third Circuit's interpretation of Rule 24(h)'s requirement that a
"question of law or !act in common" with the main action is not necessary when the applicant is not an original party to the action and is seeking to challenge the confidentiality order.

B. Confidentiality Orders

1. Good Cause Analysis
District Conrts retain the power to modifY or vacate con lldentiality orders that it has
entered. See Pansy, 23 F.3d at 7H4-H5, and cases cited therein. The l'an1y Court explained that
when a party seeks to modify an order of confidentiality, the party "must come liJrward with a
reason to modifY the order." See id. at 790. Once the Court is satist1cd that a reason exists to
modify the order, the District Court must then "use the same balancing test that is used in determining whether to grant such orders in the first instance, with one ditierence: one of the factors the court should consider in determining whether to modifY the order is the reliance by
the original parties on the confidentiality order." Td. However, the Pansy Court made clear that
or the original parties' reliance on the protective order or order confidentiality, is not outcome

9

. • • ,· r • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 10 of 24 PageID: 976 ., '
determinative, but simply, one ol'thc factors the Court is to consider in making its modification
determination. !d. Also, the burden of showing good cause rests with the party seeking continued
confidentiality when the confidentiality order sough! to be modified is an ''umbrella" confidentiality order. See Cipollone v. Uggett Group, Inc., 785 P.2d 1108, 1122 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 976 (1987). The Third Circuit explained that
[ijt is corred that the burden of'justifying the confidentiality of each and every document so~tght to b<: covered by a protective ordef remains on the party seeking the protective order; any other conclusion would turn Rule 26(c) on its head. That do<lS not mean, however, that the party seeking the protective order must necessarily demonstrate to the court in the tirst instance on a document-by-document basis that each item should be protected. II' is equally consistent with the proper allocation of evidentiary burdens for the court to construct a broad ''umbrella" protective order upon a threshold showing by one party (the movant) of good cause. Under this approach, the umbrella order would initially protect all documents that the producing party designated in good faith as confidential. After the documents fare] delivered ~mdcr this ~tmbrella order, the opposing party could indicated precisely which documents it believed to be not confidential, and the movant would have the burden of proof of justifying the protective order with respect to those documents.
!d.; see also Pansy, 23 F.3d at 787 n.l7. In this case, under the tenns of the Confidentiality
Order, parties are allowed access to the DYFS case reeords and may disc.Jose them only to parties designated under paragraph five of the Order. (Interim Con11dcntialily Order a11d Stipulation~ 5). Furthermore, should Plaintiffs wish to disclose any confidential materials to outside parties,
they were to provide written notice to Defendants. (!d. ,\7). In addition, if the parties disagreed

require

5A~ the 'l'hird Circuit ~tatedt HfpJrotcctive similar balancing ... and good cause must

orders atld orders of eonfidentiality are functionally s·irnllar, and be demonstrated to justify the order." Pansy, 23 F.3d at 7R6.

10

.. ..

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 11 of 24 PageID: 977

regarding the disclosure, Del\mdants would have the option of seeking a protective order !'rom
the Court within eight days of Plaintiffs' written notice to disclo~e. (!d.). As the final paragraph of the Interim Confidentiality Order and Stipulation states, parties
negotiated in good i:1ith but "failed to reach an agreement as to the form of a protective order" and as a result, Plaintiffs stipulated to the terms of the Order to quickly obtain case records. (!d.
"if 11 ). Moreover, Plainti !'Is stipulated to the terms with a provision regarding possible future
modification of the Order (!d.) <md shortly thereafter Jlled a Motion for modification on May 19,
2000. At that time, the District Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion stating that "pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26, good cause exists for a protective order in this mater to 'protect a
party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or cxpenset.l'"
(Order filed July 21, 2000). Once again, the burden is upon the party seeking to maintain the
Confidentiality Order, in this instance, Defendants, to demonstrate why infonnation sought
should remain confidential.
The Third Circuit in Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson summarized the Pansy factors to
be weighed in making a good cause determination as follows:
I) whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests; 2) whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper purpose; 3) whether disclosure of the inl(>mmtion will cause a party embarrassment; 4) whether confidentiality is being sought over information important to public health and safety; 5) whether the sharing or information among litigants will promote faimess and efficiency; 6) whether a party benefitting from the order of conlidentiality is a public entity or official; and 7) whether the case involves issues important to the public.

II

tt >

• • I C• ase 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 12 of 24 PageID: 978

56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing and summarizing Pamy, 23 F.3d at 787-91 ). As noted abovt!, in addition to these l'actors, which the Third Circuit has made clear are neither "mandatory nor exhaustive," see id, the court must weigh the original parties' reliance on the order of confidentiality to determine whether good cause still exists.
In its Pansy analysis, the Interveners contend that when privacy interests of the concerned parties are balanced against the benefits of public disclosure, there arc mechanisms provided by Rule 26(c) that will favor disclosure. (The Times' Br. at 14). For example, the Interveners argue that redacting the identifYing information from the case records will be one way to protect the privacy interest but at the same time allow public disclosure. (!d). More importantly, the Interveners argue that when public entities are involved, such as here, the balance tips in the public favor for obtaining access to the practices and policies of agencies like DYFS. (!d. at 15· 16). Furthermore, Intervener~ argue that public's acce~s to the information they seek arc important to the health and safely of the children, and to the public that DYfS serve~. (/d. at 16). Additionally, the Interveners argue that this case deals with matters that directly affect public policy which tip~ the balance in tl1e public's favor to gain access to the internal workings of DYFS and the children and the families they serve. (ld).
On the contrary, the Defendants argue that New Jersey law does not recognize a public's right to kl1ow when it involves children under the care of DYFS. (Defs.['] Mot. for a Protective Order at 6). In this vain, the Defendants contend that New Jersey statutes allow disclosure of DYFS information only to specified individuals, specifically, professionals who are conducting research in the field or police onlcers investigating a child abuse or neglect. (/d.) (citing NJ.S.A.

12

'' .

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 13 of 24 PageID: 979

9:6-8.1 O(an. Similarly, Defendants argue that the New Jersey Administrative Code bars '"informitig the public regarding DYFS deficiencies leading to abuse and neglect of children in fi>ster care[.]'" (Jd. at 8). In addition to the statutes that Defendants cite as reasons why this Court should not provido: access to the public of DYFS case records, they arguo: throughout their Brief in Opposition for Modi llcation ol' the Conl!dcntialily Order and in their Brief in support of
their Motion Cor a Protective Order that they, nor do the Plaintiffs, have a legitimate purpose for releasing such confidential information to the public. (See Dcfs.['] Opp'n Br.; see also Defs.l' I
Mot. for a Protective Order). Therelbre, the Defendants argue that under the law of New Jersey, the proposed information that Interveners seck to release to the public is illegal and the lntctveners should be prevented from doing so in the interest ofjustice.
As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Interveners have met its burden of showing that a sut1icient reason exists to modifY the existing Conlldentiality Order and Stipulation in light of the uniquely tragic death or Faheem Williams and the horrendous abuse of his surviving siblings. The Comt finds that the lntcrveners' need for DYFS' case records in order to make a comprehensive report to the public of the status of certain children currently under DYFS' care constitutes a sufficient reason lo modify the Confidentiality Order and Stipulation, given reasonable limitations. Therefore, the Court will conduct a balancing of the respective interests
and the Pansy factors. Jt is clear that the iavolvement of a public entity in the litigation is a factor weighing
greatly in lavor of disclosure. The Pansy Court stated that

6Thc various N..J.S.A. statutes that the Detendants cite as authority for why case records should remain conrldontial and protected are mentioned later in the Opinion. See lf!fi·a n. 7, p, 17.
13

''

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 14 of 24 PageID: 980

It is appropriate for courts to order COillldcntiality to prevent the infliction ol' unnecessary or seriou~ pain on parties who the court reasonably finds are entitled 10 such protection. In this vein, a Iactor to consider is whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpo~e or for an improper purpose. However, privacy interests are diminished when the party seeking protection is a public per~on subject to kgitimatc public sCnltiny. Cf United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d ll 04, 1114 (3d Cir. 1985) ("[T)he public has a substantial interest in the integrity or lack of integrity or those who serve them in public omcc.'')
Pan.~v. 23 F.3d at 787 (footnote omitted).
Ilere, Defendants arc clearly public entities and ptlblic figures and specifically, DYFS is
an entity established by the govemmcnt to provide public services to abused and neglected
children. DYFS is controlled by the Slate in all aspects. Accordingly, the Court finds that
DYFS' privacy interests arc diminished and certain information is subject to disclosure.
Furlhennorc, the Court is awtely aware that the subjects of the DYFS' case records are children,
and indeed, New Jersey'~ most V1linerable children. The Court in no way wants to subject these
children to more pain or embarrassment than they may have already suffered. However, the
Court finds thallhe Interveners seek DYFS case records for a legitimate purpose, and not as the
Defendants contend to compromise their confidential reporting system as well as the privacy
interests of the parties involved. In order i()r the Interveners to thoroughly investigate and report
comprehensively to the public, it is imperative that the Interveners obtain as much relevant
inl(mnation as possible. In this regard, certain discreet inlhrmation in DYFS case records is
dearly relevant.
Defendants rc!y on the Third Circuit's decision in !'earson v. Miller and that it is
compelling authority f()l' granting their reque~l l'or a protective order. Pearson v. Miller, 211

14

.''. ~

• Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175
'

• Filed 03/20/03 Page 15 of 24 PageID: 981

F.3d 57 (3d Cir. 2000). However, the Court lind~ thi~ reliance to be misplaced. Tn Pearson v.
Miller, th~ Court did recognize the compelling interest of the stale in maintaining the various
agency records confidential. However, that interest was diminished when Defendant Bruce Miller waived his right to confidentiality by signing an authorization for release of infonmt!ion.
Jd at 61. More impo1tantly, the Third Cin.•uit in Pearson stated that "a federal court 'may sec fit for special reasons !o give the law of a particular state highly persuasive or even controlling
effect, but in the last analysis its decision turns upon the law of the United States, no! that of any
state."' P~arson, 211 F.3d at 67 (quoting D 'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447, 471, S.Ct. 616, 86 L.Ed. 956 (1942)) (emphasis omitted).
Thus, the Court finds that the Defendants need to do more than assert non-binding state confidentiality statutes to support their contention that release of case records may compromise the privacy interests. As the Third Circuit has repeatedly stated, ''' [h]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning,,' do not support a good cause
showing." Pansy, 23 F. 3d at 786 (quoting, Cipollone, 7R5 F.2d at 1121). The Court in Pansy
also held that "good cause is established on a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined and serious injury to the party seeking closure. The injury must he shown with specificity." !d.
(quoting Publicker indus., inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1071 (3d Cir. 1984)). Good cause cannot ordinarily be demonstrated on this basis of some speculative harm. See Fanelli v. Centenm:y College, 211 F.R.D. 268,270 (D.NJ. 2002). Finally, litigants should always be
mindful that good cause is a fluid consideration. For example, good cause for non-disclosure of certain infonnation may be demonstrated at the early discovery stage of a case but may not later be able to be justified d~tring the course of a public trial.

15

. • • .. :' 1 C,: ase 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 16 of 24 PageID: 982 •
ln addition, the Court n~eds to consider whether the case involves issues important to the
public. See Pansy, 23 F.3d at 788. "If a [confidentiality ordcrl involves issues or parties of a
public nature, and involves matters of legitimate public concem, that should be a factor weighing against entering or maintaining an order of conlldentiality." !d. The Court agrees with the Interveners and Plaintiffs that this issue is of great public interest, impacting on the health and safety concerns of the children not only under the care of DYFS but others who may one day come into contact with DYFS. The only way for the public to know of the state of allairs of our child weliarc system is to have reasonable access to care records that chronicle both DYFS'
dellcicneies and improvements, its '"defeats" as well as its "victori<Js." Furthermore, it is
important that governmental cntiti~s be held accountable for their actions tiot only to prevent l"urthcr tragedies like the case of Faheem Williams, but to answer to its citizenry, whose taxpaying dollar~ support DYFS. Of course, attempts to ensure this accountability have nationwide application and should not be limited by ru1y fair analysis to New Jersey's child wellarc system.
Next, the Court must consider the original parties' reliru1ce on the Confidentiality Order and Stipulation. '"The extent to which a party can rely on a [contidentiality order] should depend on the extent to which the order induced the party to allow discovery or to settle the
case."' l'cmsy, 23 F.3d at 790 (quoting &c:kman, 966 F.2d at 475-76). Defendants argue that
they relied in good faith ofthe Cotifidcntiality Order to protect its case records from disclosure. Clearly, as a public agency, Defendants must have hecn aware that, at some point, they may be required to provide public access to its records produced dming discovery, given a legitimate reason to do so.
16

.; f

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 17 of 24 PageID: 983

Finally, the Pansy Court held that "where it is likely that infom1ation is accessible under a
relevant freedqm of infonnution law, a strong presumption exists against granting or maintaining an order of contidentiality whose scope would prevent disclosure of that infom1ation pursuant to
the relevant freedom ol' information law." Pansy, 23 P.3d at 791. Defendants contend that this
factor weighs against modi(ying the confidentiality order because Ullder various New Jersey statutes7, it is the stale's mandate that the DYFS case records he kept confidential and not be made public unless it is for research purposes by professionals in the field. The Court agrees that
the DYFS case records are not "pubic records." However, the Court in Glenm~d~ made it clear
that the Pat1sy factors are neither ''mandatory nor exhaustive" 56 F.3d at 483, and in view of the
Court's other findings in this Opinion, this particular Pamy factor is no! determinative. 2. The Current Confidentiality Order
Tlw Interim Confidentiality Order and Stipulation was filed on May 11, 2000 and broadly
protected DYFS' case records from disclosure.' Subsequently, the Court filed a Confidentiality

7Dcfcndants cite New Jersey Statutes Annotated ("N.J.S.A.") 9:6-S.lO(a); New Jersey Administrative Code

(N.J.A.C.) I0:1330-2.1 right to know. (Dds.['] Interveners] would have

as authority for mandating confidentiality of its case records and not recognizing a public's Opp'n. Rr. at 7). Furthermore, Defendants argue that "[t]he proper course of amion for [the been to file a request for the inl(>mlation [they] seek[] pursuant to the state's Open Public

Records Act ("OPRA")" under N.J.S.A. Defendants refer to N.J.S.A. 9:3·54.2 as

47: lA· I.• authority

et seq.. Additionally, in tor protecting their case

their Motion rccot·ds from

for a Protective Order, disclosure. (Dcfs.['] Mot.

for Protective Order at 6).

1The information that was deemed confidential and thus were protected ftom disclosure are as follows: (I) Any information which identities hy name or address, or could reasonably lead to the disclosure of the name or address of any applicant for or recipient of child welfare, t(,stcr

care or adoption assistance services; [42 lJ.S.C. 671(a)(8), 45 C.~'.R. 1355.21];

(2) Any inHmnation related to the social and economic condition.s or circumst1nccs of a particular individual applicant for or recipient of child welfare, foster care or adoption

assistance services; (45 C.F.R. 205.50];

(3)

Any information related to the social and economic conditions or circumstances of a

particular individual applicant for or recipi~nt of child welfare. foster care (lT adoption

assistance .~erviccs; [45 C.F.R. 205.50];

(4)

Agency evaluations or information about a particular individual applicant for or recipient

of child wclfar·e, foster care or adoption assistance service.s; [45 C.F.R. 205.50];

17

•

• Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175

• Filed 03/20/03 Page 18 of 24 PageID: 984

Order and Stipulation on June 26, 2002 which is currently in efti.lct, essentially reinforcing all of the terms and conditions of the Int~rim Order of May, 2000. Only certain persons were allowed access to these documents, including, "experts retained 1\.)r purposes of assisting counsel in this action." (Interim Confidentiality Order <md Stipulation flied May 11, 2000 ~ 5). Not surprisingly, the Interveners, Plaintiffs, and Defendants, differ with respect to the scope of the Confidentiality Order as it relates to the release ofDYPS' case records.
The Interveners argue that the present Confidentiality Order and Stipulation is overly broad and thus should be modified to allow them to obtain information about the children
currently under care and custody ofDYFS. Originally, The Times requested access to the
following: (I) public disclosure of all discovery materials pertaining to child fatality and near fatality cases without redaction and (2) public disclosure of all discovery materials pertaining to

(5)

Medical data concerning a particular individual applicant for or recipient of child welfare,

(5)

foster care or Medical data

adoption assistance services; [45 C.F.R. 205.50); C<Jt\cerning a particular individual applicant for or

recipient

of

child

welfare,

(6)

foster care or adoption assistance All record' of child abu•e reports

services; [45 C.P.R. 205.50); and all infonnation obtained

in

investigating

reports

of

(7)

child abuse and All intbrmation

neglect; [45 C.F.R. 1340.14, N.J.S.A. 9:6-S.!Oaj; obtained through an investigation of report.• of child

abLtse

and

neglect;

(N.J.S./1. 9 6-8.10a];

(8) (9)

All reports ofllndings reported to the Central Registry; [N.J.S.A. 9:6-S.IOaj; sPueprspoonrateldfabcytsgorar11ctierdcuamwsatardnecdesunabdoeur tthiendCivhiidlduaAlsbuisntv:oPlvre~vdeinntipornojaencdtsTorreaptrmogernatmAsct,

unless such facts are presemed in a summary or statistical form; [45 C.F.R. 1340.20];

(I 0) (ll)

Third party reports; [N.J.A.C. I0: 133G-2.3]; Any records containing inl(mnation identifying a third-part:y source of information, includir>g but not limited to a referral source, other family members, and collateral

contacts; [N.J .A. C. 133G-2.3];

(12) (13)

Information about persons other than the client; [N.J.A.C. l33G-2.3]; Information which if disclosed would likely cr>danger any person'slife or safety;

(14)

[N..l.A.C. l33G-2Jj; Information provided

to

approved

agencies

regarding

the

suitability

of

proposed

adoptive

parems or members of their households 18 yeat·s of age or older. [N.J.S.A. 9:3-54.2].

Interim Confidentiality Order and Stipulation was to remain

and Stipulation tiled on May in filii force and eftect in an

II, 2000. Order lllcd

The terms ofthe Interim Conlidentiality Order on June 26, 2002 as "Confidentiality Order

and Stipulation" by this Cou1~.

18

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 19 of 24 PageID: 985
living children subject to the redaction of' the names or other identifying information pertaining to the children and !heir lhmilies. However. since oral argument on March 3, 2003, the Interveners have modified their request to the following: "(1) all Child Death Reports; (2) all Criticallncident Reports; (3) other documents, including intra-agency memoranda, reviewing DYFS actions in [Child Death and Critical Incident ReportsJ; (4) any underlying case files involving children in DYFS custody or lormerly in DYFS custody that would be considered
death or near-death cases under the statute.'' (The Times' Supplemental Submission dated March
6, 2003 at 3). Subsequent to its March 6, 2003 Supplemental Submission and during oral argument on March 14, 2003, the Interveners have further pared down their request of documents. At this junc!ure, the Interveners are requesting only a small review of the lollowing types of case files Jhm1 DYFS: ( 1) Child Death Reports; (2) Critieallncident Reports; (3) Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit ("!AlU") Reports.
lt is the Interveners' contention that a modification of the existing Order will assist in their endeavor to enlighten the public as to the current status of D\'FS. Moreover, the Interveners argue that such a modification will identifY other children who may he at risk under DYFS' care. On the other hand, Defendants argue that the provisions of the Confidentiality Order are necessary to preserve the integrity of its abuse and neglect reporting system and the privacy interests of children, parents, and foster parents. Specifically, Defendants vehemently contend that all ol' the current provisions of the Confidentiality Order arc necessary to protect the identities of the reporting parties, the children and their biological and fbster families who may be involved. Furthermore, Defendants argue that the request by the Interveners is "extremely broad" and would thus jeopardize many individuals involved with DYFS f~,r no apparent
19

• • . I ~ " , . ' tCase 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 20 of 24 PageID: 986 "· ....
p~lrpose. (Defs.['] Opp'n.l3r. at 1-2).
The original records sought by the Interveners, supra at 5, particularly number two or the
Interveners' rcquest9, was breathtaking in its scope. If modified as originally requested, the Confidentiality Order would permit all records of all children in DYFS' care (i.e., by definition, children in DYFS are abused or neglected). As The Times discussed in its Supplemental Submi~sion and during oral argument on March 14, 2003, it has substantially reduced its list of requested documents once again. Speci lically, it has modified its request of all of the Institutional Abust:l Investigation Unit ("IAHJ") Reports whether the investigation has been "substantiated10,"''unsubst<mtiated 11 ," and "unfounded12'' to only those cases where it has been "substantiated or unsubstantiated." (The Times' Supplemental Submission dated March 6, 2003 at 3; Oral Argument on March 14, 2003). Lastly, the Interveners argue that they will only be reviewing approximately ten percent of the 1300 Lt\IU Jiles that are cun-ently available. (!d.).
Defendants, on the other hand, argue that the Critical Incident Reports, Child Death Reports, and IAIU Reports should not be released pursuant to Pansy. (Dcfs.['] Response to The
9The Interveners requested the entire case records of thousands of children currently under the care of UYFS. Specilkally, they requested the following: public disclosure of all discovery matel'ials pertaining to living children subject to the redaction oftl1e names or other identifying information pertaining to the children and their families.
")According to the SUPPORT OI'HRATIONS MANUAl, written by DYFS, a case is categoriud as "substantiated" upon a preponderance of evidence >upporting a f1nding of abuse or neglect. SUL'l'OKT OPDRIITIONS MANLIAL: Findings and Recommendations§ 601(May 1, 2000) (emphasis provided).
It According to the Surro1n OPERATIONS MANUAL, the lAlU uses a tinding of"not substantiated" when a
preponderance of evidence indicates the actions of the caretaker were either unjustilied and/or inappropriate but did
not cau~~ serious harm or risk or serious harm to the child. The unjustif1ed and/or inappropriate actions would be
cause for concern and need to be addressed by the facility. /d. (emphasis provided). 12Thc third and t1nal category is "unfounded" and this category is used when no incident occun-ed and/or
the allegation is l(1und to be inherently improbable or admittedly false. !d. (emphasis provided).
20

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 21 of 24 PageID: 987
Tim~s' Supplemental Submission dated March 13, 2003 at 3). Aside From the potential violation
of the children's privacy interests, and the loss of anonymity by other pa1ties involved in a child's case, there are also practical considerations of such a production that the Court should weigh in deciding whether to release the reports to the Intcrveners. 13 (ld at 4). Lastly, Defendants argue that the Court consider the parties' reliance on the Confidentiality Order at issue as the Court in Pan.~y reviewed. Defi:ndants argue that they produced th<J documents in good faith relying on the fact that their sensitive case records would be protected ±rom disclosure. (!d.).
While the Court empathizes with the Defendants' reliance on an Order agreed to by the pmties to the litigation, public entities should be sensitive to the reality that events often change circumstances. Moreover, the Court does not need read Pan,sy as requiring wholesale disclosure
or sensitive case records during the course of a court proceeding. On th<l other hand, the Court
agrees with Plaintiffs and Interveners that the current Confidentiality Order is overly broad and should be modi tied lhr the public to have access to certain DYFS' case records.
Although the Court will limit the broad scope of the current Confidentiality Order, it is, nevertheless, mindful that confidentiality provisions established by the Slate of New Jersey have a very clear purpose • to protect vulnerable children, to encourage persons with knowledge ofthe abuse or neglect of children to report such abuse or neglect, and to invite families to openly communicate with professionals to seek the assistance they need. However, the Court must balance those interest~ with the interest of a broader group of people, the public at large, who have a right to know what is happening in its public agencies. Accordingly, the Court believes
13According to the Defendants, the number oi'rcquests for JAIU Reports, though pared down by The Times is still quite voluminous and will he an arduous task to redael as each IAIU Report is at least 100 page' (Defs.['l Response to The Timd Supplemental Submission dated March 13, 2003 at 3-4).
21

t.

+

• Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW
,I

Document 175

• Filed 03/20/03 Page 22 of 24 PageID: 988

that limited information regarding th<! status of the children under DYFS' care should be subject

to disclosure to the public. 3. Modification of the Current Confidentiality Order
The Court agrees with the parties that identifying information or children currently in
custody of DYfS and certain other family members is within the scope of the Confidentiality Order am! thus such identifying information cannot be disclosed. In addition, however, the Court
will now modi JY the Confidentiality Order to permit limited disclosure !'or the Interveners to gain
access to certain discovery already disclosed to the Plaintiffs: (I) all Child Death Reports and Critical Incident Reports, including attachments and documents contained within the reports and (2) all reports by the DYFS Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit where the IAIU findings were "substantiated" upon investigation, including any attachments and docum~nts within the reports. Any identifying information as specified in the attached Order (agreed to by all parties after discussion with the Court) will be redacted prior to dissemination.

4. Reasonable Limitations The Court has identified documents that may he released upon redaction. Courts also have the discretion to impose n:asonahle limitations upon the process and the manner in which
these documents are to be reviewed, redacted, exchanged, and disclosed. The Court in Pearson
acknowledged the right to exercise discretion witl1in reasonable limitations pursuant to Federal
Rule of Ci vii Procedure 26(c) to release highly sensitive inlbnnalion. Pearson, 211 F.3d at 72. As the Pearson Court noted, "[l]egitimate interests in privacy are among the proper subjects of
[Rule 26(c)'sJ protection." Jd. Here, the Court recognizes the need for protecting the privacy interests of' the children under the care of DYPS. Furthermore, the Court finds that the

22

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 23 of 24 PageID: 989
Defendants have demonstrated good cause for limited protection of their case records. Thus, in an cffmt to strike that balance between protecting the privacy interests with the publie's right to know, the Court will require that the release of documents subject to this Opinion take place in three phases a~ permitted by Rule 26(c). FED. R. CIY. P. 26(c).
During phase one, all Counsel shall be permitted to inspect the above referenced documents on an "attorneys eyes only" basis in the first instance. ln phase two, Defendants will be permitted to redact identifying references in the restricted discovery as embodied within the accompanying Order. The redaction ol"the tlrst 2000 pages shall be completed within len (10) days of receiving a list of requested documents from Interveners' Counsel. The time period may
or he enlarged by agreement counsel or by further Order of the Court. Finally, in phase three, the or attorneys will notify the Court in writing any dispute that they haw been unable to resolve.
Any failure to notify lh~ Court of such a dispute will be deemed a waiver of the party's rights. Public disclosure of these speci lied documents will follow. Ill. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, the Interveners' Motion for an Order modifying the current Conlldentiality Order is granted in part and denied in part. The Defendants' Cross Motion for a Protective Order, l'nr similar reasons, is granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, documents related to (1) "Death Reports," (2) "Critical Incident Reports," and (3) "substantiated
reports" in abuse cases, with identifying infornmtion redacted, will all be subject to disclosure to the public. The Tnlervt:lners' Motion in so far as it seeks other DYFS information is denied, in all
n:spects, except that the Interveners and Plaintiffs may move to permit disclosure of a relevant sub-set of"unsubstantialed reports." The Court will also require reasonable limitations on such
23

. • • ··". '~ ~ ... ·, Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 175 Filed 03/20/03 Page 24 of 24 PageID: 990 .,.,-. disclosure by establishing a three step ':failsaj~" process to insure that all identifying inlbrmation, or other specilic inform11tion harmful to DYFS children or families, will be redacted. Ordinarily, there i~ every good reason to ~bicld records of vulnerable children in foster care. But in the wake of the unimaginable death ofFahecm Williams and abuse of his brothers, that protedion should not extend to DYJiS cases involving "death," "critical incidents," and "substantiated" rcpotts of child abuse. Dedicated DYFS workers need no! fear this public scrutiny as it, undoubtedly, will highlight their hard work and, hopefully, lead to greater pllblic awareness and assistance. The ultimate basis for the Court's decision is two-fold- a concern that we all share- the safety and wdlarc of our children- and the Court's belief that letting in some reasonable sunlight on the way government works will serve tll protect the~e children by providing the resources necessary to accomplish that goaL An appropriate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. Dated: If~ C'IO I aocJ
24

 
 ,

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 200 Filed 09/02/03 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 1099 ....

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRlCT OF NEW JERSEY

CHARLiE AND NADlNE R., et al.

Civil Action No. 99·3678 (SRC)

Plaintiffs,

··v.··

JAMES McGREEVEY, as Govemor of the Stale of New Jersey, ct al.

FILED

~t'. i, ''1"·'1

h(.. "~GI,)WJ

Defendants.

"1'1:50.

'M

WILLIAM T. WALSH

CLE:flK

ORDER APPROVING FINAL SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

This matter having come before the Court on September 2,2003, on the Joint Motion of

I'laintiffs and Defendants for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, and the Court having

heard argument and considered ti1e submissions presented to it, the Court makes the following

tlndings:

1. This class action was commen~ed in August 1999. This maller was vigorously

prosecuted and vigorously defended on behalf of all parties. Substantial discovery, including

expert discovery, was completed prior to the date upon which the parties sNlght preliminary

approval oHlle Settlement.

...

2. On February 27, 2003, after a settlement conference with the Court and with the

consent of the parties, the Court entered an Order referring the matter \0 mediation before the

Honorable Stewart G. Ppllock, retired Justice ofthe Supreme Court of New Jersey.

DSH:9289i I.1INEW137-147112

,

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 200 Filed 09/02/03 Page 2 of 5 PageID: 1100

3. Over a period of several months, the parties held llLlmero\\S mediation sessions,

many lasting an entire day. During this time period, fact discovery continued and plaintiffs'

expert reports were produced.

4. The mediation process culminated in a proposed settlement (the "Settlement"),

which is memorialized in a Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement"), a copy of

which was lodged with this Court on or about June 24, 2003.

5. The parties in this class action then filed ajoint motion for preliminary approval

of the Settlement and for dissemination ofnotiec pursuant to Fed. R. eiv. P. 23(e)(1 )(B).

6. ThIs Court held a telephonic hearing on July 15, 2003, at which it granted

preliminary approval as set forth in the COUlt's Order dated .July 21,2003 (the "Notice Order").

7. Due notice of the pendency of this litigation, the substance of the proposed

Settlement, and the Fairness Hearing was ordered given to all known class members in the form

and manner approved and directed hy the Notice Order. By its Notice Order, the Court approved

a 101111 of Notice to the Class (the "Class Notice") and ordered that the Class Notice be posted in

various locations and provided to various persons, including legal representatives of members of

the Class, in both English and Spanish language versions.

8. Defendants have shown, and this Court finds, that the Class Notice was timely

provided in accordance with the NotIce Order. The dissemination of the Class Notice in this

manner was the best notice to the Class practical under the circumstances, and satisfies the

requirements 01' due process and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

9. Pursuant tothe Class Notice, all interested persons were given notice that the

Court wtmld hold a hc~ring on the joint motion for final approval on September 2, 2003 (the

"Faimess Hearing").

-2.

,
• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 200 Filed 09/02/03 Page 3 of 5 PageID: 1101 10. As established in the Notice Order, the parties tllcd their Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement of Class Action on August 22, 2003.
11. The Court held a hearing on the joint motion for final approval on September 2, 2003 (the "Fairness Hearing"), at which all interested persons had an opportunity to be heard.
AND NOW, the Court having considered the parties' Joint Motion and the papers sllbmitted and argllments made by both parties in support thereM, and the Court having considered all comments and/or objections to the settlement and all papers submitted and' arguments made in connection therewith, it is this _ " day of September, 2003:
1. ORDERED THAT the class of persons certified by the Court in its Order dated March 7, 2002 (the "Class") shall constitute the class for SeUlemcnt purposes; and it is further
2. ORDERED THAT the Notice Order having provided that any and all objections to the proposed Settlement mllst be submitted to the Court on or before August 15,2003, and the deadline for tiling any such objections having passed; all persons are hereby BARRED and ENJOINED from filing any other objections to the Settlement; and it is further
3. ORDERED THAT, having c0118idered all objections and comments, the Court declines to disapprove the Settlell1tJnt on the basis of any such objections or suggestions; and it is Ihrther
4. ORDERED THAT, the Settlement is APPROVED as fair, reasonable, and adequate and in the best interests of the Class as a whole; and it is further
5. ORDERED THAT the parties shall consummate and implement the settlement in accordance witluts tenns and conditions; and it is further
6. ORDERED rnAT neither the Settlement Agreement, nor the Settlement itself,
nor this Order, nOr allY act perfomlCd or docllmcnt executed pursuant to or in furtherance of the

DS!J.9289il. IINEWL17-141 112

- 3•

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 200 Filed 09/02/03 Page 4 of 5 PageID: 1102
Settlement Agreement is or shall be construed as or deemed to be evidence of a presumption, concession, or admission by the Defendants or the Plaintiffs, or any of them, of the tmth or untruth of any fact alleged or the validity or invalidity of any claim that has or could have been asserted in this litigation, or the deficiency or merit of any defense that has or could have been asserted in this litigation, or of any liability, fault, wrongdoing, or otherwise of the Defendants, or any of them, except under those circumstances expressly set forth in the Settlement Agreement; and itis futther
7. ORDERED THAT no class member shall hereafter sue, or bri.ng or assign allY cause of action, fOT declaratory, inj unctive, or other equitable relief, against Defendants, the Department of Human Services or the Division of Youth and Fanlily Services, OT any employee, representative or agent of Defendants, the Depattment oi'Human Services or the Division of Youth and Family Services, in this or any other Court, based upon events occurring prior to the signing of the Settlement Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided in the Settlement Agreement, and no class member shall commence any new action for systemic declaratory, injunctive or other equitable relief based on actions or omissions by defendants occurring after the signing oflhe Settlement Agreement and prior to December 31,2005 (except that this Order shall not bar future actions by an individual seeking damages or equitable relief tailored solely to that individual's specific circumstances, except to the extent set tbrth in Section V.D.2 of the Settlement Agreement regarding the inadmissibility of certain evidence, nor shall this Order bar plaintiffs, in an action for systemic declaratory, injunctivCl or other equitable relief commenced after December 31, 2005 and based on claims arising after December 31, 2005, from offering into evidence facts, events, actions or omissions which may have occurred prior to December 31, 2005); and it is further,
DSIl:9289il.ltNEW1J7-147112

. '

• • Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 200 Filed 09/02/03 Page 5 of 5 PageID: 1103

8. ORDERED THAT the parties shall comply with all terms and provisions of this

Order and the Settlement, cooperate with each other in good faith to carry out the purposes of

and effectuate the Settlement, promptly perform their respective obligations as described in the

Settlement Agreement, and promptly take any and all actions and execute and deliver any and all

additional documents reasonably necessary or appropriate to carry out the terms of or effectuate

the actions contemplated by the Setllemcnt Agreement; and it is further 9. ORDERED THAT the Clerk shall remove this ca~e from the docket of active

cases, without awarding costs or attorneys' fees in favor of or against any party (except as

provided in the Settlement Agreement or as may otherwise be provided by ±uture Order of this

Court); and it is further

10. ORDERED THAT, without in anyway affecting the finality of this Order, this Court reserves jnrisdiction for the linlitcd purposes of; (al enforcing the terms of the Settlement,

if necessary, according to the tenns of the Settlement Agreement, meluding the requirement to

exhaust the dispute resolution mechanisms set forth therein prior to seeking Court intervention;

and (ll) deciding any future application for attomeys' fees and costs as may arise in connection

with the implementation and enforcement of the Settlement.

tanley R. Chesler, U.S.DJ.
,~~ 2.:.~3

D8B:')2898 J .IINIlW 1J7, J 47112

-5-

 
 Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 305 Filed 08/07/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 6903 Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 304 Filed 08103112 Page 1 of 3 PagelD: 6900

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHARLIE and NADINE H.. era!.. Plaintiffs,

x : Civil No. 2:99-cv-03678 (SRC)

V.
CHRIS CHRISTIE. as Governor of the State of New Jersey, eta!.,

Defendants. x

STIPULATED AMENDMENTS TO THE MODIFIED SETThEMEN T AGREEMENT AND REQUEST FOR COURT APPROVAL

The Settlement Agreement in this case was approved and entered by the Court on

September 2. 2003. and the subsequent Modified Settlement Agreement (“MSA’) was approved

and entered by the Court on July 27, 2006. On April ic, 2012, the Parties met to discuss the

potential amendment of certain provisions in the MSA and certain performance benchmarks for

compliance with the MSA. The Parties ultimately agreed to propose modifications to two

provisions of the MSA by extending the required time period for filing petitions to terminate

parental rights from within six weeks to within 60 days of the date a child’s permanency goal is

changed to adoption. This amendment makes the required time period consistent with New

Jersey Family Court Practice.

Accordingly, the Parties now stipulate and agree as follows:

L Paragraph lI.G.2.d of the MSA, which currently states: “The termination of parental

rights petition shall be filed within six weeks of the permanency hearing.” will be

revised to state: The termination of parental rights petition shall be filed within 60

days of the date the goal was changed to adoptionS”

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 305 Filed 08/07/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 6904 Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 304 Filed 08/03112 Page 2 of 3 PagelD: 6901

2. Paragraph I1I.B.12(a)(i) of the MSA. xhich currently states: “at least 90% shall have a petition to tenninate parental rights filed within six weeks of the date the goal was changed to adoption,” will be revised to state: At least 90% shall have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date the goal was changed to adoption.”
Other than as set forth herein, all previous stipulations and orders in this action, including all other provisions of the MSA. shall remain in full force and effect. Dated: Auaust 3, 2012 SO ORDERED:

R. CHESLER

DATE

APPROVED FOR ENTRY:
ATTORNEYS FOR P[AINTIFFS:
s/Marion B. Cooper Marion B. Cooper Joshua D. Rinschler DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP A Delaware Limited Liability Partnership 500 Campus Drive Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 Telephone: (973) 360-1100 Facsimile: (973) 360-9831 inanon.cooperadbr.com
Marcia Robinson Lowry (pro hoc vice) Jodi Miller ‘jro hoc vice) CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 330 7th Avenue. 4th floor New York, New York 10001 Telephone: (212) 683-2210 Facsimile: (212) 683-4015 mlowry@childrensrights.org

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 305 Filed 08/07/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 6905
Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 304 Filed 08/03/12 Page 3 of 3 PagelD: 6902
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS:
s/ Lauren F. Canton Lauren F. Canton Assistant Attorney General in Charge OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Department of Law and Public Safety Division of Law P.O. Box 46022 Newark. New Jersey 07101 Telephone: (973) 565-8135 Facsimile: (973) 353-8222 lauren,carltoni’dol.lps.state.nj .us

 
 Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 1 of 186 PageID: 7098
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT EMBARGOED UNTIL OCTOBER 1, 2013 - 12:00 NOON
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Period XIII (July 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)
Monitoring Report Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie
October 1, 2013

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 2 of 186 PageID: 7099
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie
July 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
II. SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES................................... 4
III. CHILD AND FAMILY OUTCOME AND CASE PRACTICE PERFORMANCE MEASURES ..................................................... 10
IV. DCF’S INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICE ......................................................................... 42 A. New Jersey’s State Central Registry (SCR) ...................................................... 42 B. Timeliness and Quality of Investigative Practice .............................................. 45 C. Institutional Abuse Investigative Unit (IAIU): Investigations of Allegations of Child Maltreatment in Placements................. 48
V. IMPLEMENTING THE CASE PRACTICE MODEL................................................... 53 A. Activities Supporting the Implementation of the Case Practice Model ............ 53 B. Performance Measures on Family Team Meetings and Case Planning ............ 57 C. Performance Measures Related to Safety and Risk Assessments ..................... 65 D. Performance Measures on Caseworker, Parent-Child and Sibling Visits ......... 67
VI. THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE............................... 76 A. Recruitment and Licensure of Resource Family Homes................................... 79 B. Performance Measures on Placement of Children in Out-of-Home Care............................................................................................. 87
VII. REPEAT MALTREATMENT AND RE-ENTRY INTO CARE.................................. 95
VIII. TIMELY PERMANENCY THROUGH REUNIFICATION, ADOPTION OR LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP ...................................................................................... 98
IX. HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT .................. 112 A. Health Care Delivery System .......................................................................... 113 B. Health Care Performance Measures ................................................................ 113
i

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 3 of 186 PageID: 7100

X. MENTAL HEALTH CARE ......................................................................................... 127 A. Mental Health Delivery System ...................................................................... 127 B. Mental Health Performance Measures ............................................................ 130

XI. SERVICES TO PREVENT ENTRY INTO FOSTER CARE AND TO SUPPORT REUNIFICATION AND PERMANENCY......................................... 134

XII. SERVICES TO OLDER YOUTH ................................................................................ 136 A. Services for LGBTQI Population .................................................................... 140 B. Performance Measures for Services to Older Youth....................................... 146

XIII.

SUPPORTING A HIGH QUALITY WORKFORCE: CASELOADS AND TRAINING ................................................................................. 146
A. Caseloads ......................................................................................................... 146 B. Training ........................................................................................................... 157

XIV. ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH QUALITATIVE REVIEW AND THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF ACCURATE DATA ......................................... 163

XV. FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET................................................................................... 168

APPENDICES A. Glossary of Acronyms Used in Monitoring Report ............................. A-1

B. Local Office Performance on Selected Measures

1. Measure 8C: Risk Assessments/Reassessments Completed within 30 days prior to Case Closure ......................... B-1
2. Measure 25: Caseworker Visits With Children in Placement .......B-2 3. Measure 26: Caseworker Visits with Parent(s) –
Goal of Reunification ....................................................................B-3 4. Measure 30: Case Plan Developed within 30 Days
of Child Entering Placement ........................................................B-4 5. Measure 31: Case Plans Updated Every 6 Months ......................B-5

C. Case Worker Caseload Compliance by Local Office

1. Intake Caseload Compliance .........................................................C-1 2. Permanency Caseload Compliance ...............................................C-2 3. Adoption Caseload Compliance ....................................................C-3

D. DCF Organizational Chart ................................................................... D-1

ii

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 4 of 186 PageID: 7101
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1. Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Summary of Performance as of March 31, 2013) ......................................................................................................... 11
2. IAIU Investigative Timeliness: Percent of Investigations Completed within 60 days (July 2012 – March 2013).................................................................. 51
3. Number of FTM Facilitators, Coaches and Master Coaches Developed as of March 31, 2013 .................................................................................................. 54
4. Five Month Enhanced Review (July 2012 – March 2013) ........................................ 55 5. Ten Month Enhanced Review (July 2012 – March 2013) ......................................... 56 6. Assignment to Adoption Worker within 5 days of Goal Change to
Adoption (July 2012 – March 2013) .......................................................................... 56 7. Case Plans Developed within 30 days of Child Entering Placement
(July 2012 – March 2013) .......................................................................................... 61 8. Case Plans Updated Every 6 months (July 2012 – March 2013) ............................... 63 9. Selected Demographics for Children in Out-of-Home Placement as of
March 31, 2013........................................................................................................... 77 10. Resource Family Homes Licensed and Closed
(January1, 2012 – March 31, 2013) ........................................................................... 80 11. Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes Compared to County/State
Targets (January – December 2012) .......................................................................... 83 12. Total Number of Resource Family Applications Resolved in 150 and
180 Days for Applications Submitted January – September 2012............................. 84 13. Shelter Placements for Youth Aged 13 or Older
(January 2008 – March 2013) .................................................................................... 94 14. Adoption Finalizations by DCP&P Local Office
(January 1 – December 31, 2012) ............................................................................ 105 15. TPR Filing for Children with a Permanency Goal of Adoption
(July 2012 – March 2013) ........................................................................................ 106 16. Child-Specific Recruitment Plans Developed within 30 or 60 days of
Goal Change for Children without Identified Adoption Resource (July 2012 – March 2013) ........................................................................................ 108 17. Adoptions Finalized within 9 months of Child’s Placement in an Adoptive Home (July 2012 – March 2013).............................................................. 111 18. Comprehensive Medical Examinations within 30 and 60 days of Entering DCF Custody (July 2012 – March 2013) .................................................. 117 19. EPSDT for Children Ages 12-24 months (July 2012 – March 2013) ...................... 119 20. EPSDT Annual Medical Exams for Children Age 25 months and older (July 2012 – March 2013) ........................................................................................ 120 21. Provision of Required Follow-up Medical Care (December 31, 2012) ................... 123 22. Health Passport: Presence in the Record, Evidence of Sharing Records (December 31, 2012) ................................................................................................ 125
iii

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 5 of 186 PageID: 7102
23. Youth in DCP&P Custody in Juvenile Detention Post-Disposition Awaiting CSOC Placement (July 2012 – March 2013) ........................................... 129
24. Mental Health Screening and Assessments for Children Age 2 and older as of December 31, 2012 .......................................................................................... 132
25. Number of Families Served by Family Success Centers by Types of Services Provided (July 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013) ................................................ 135
26. Youth Transitional and Supported Housing as of May 20, 2013 ............................. 137 27. DCF/DCP&P Individual Caseload Standards .......................................................... 146 28. Number of DCF/DCP&P Investigations and Secondary Intake
Assignments by Month (July 2012 – March 2013) .................................................. 151 29. DCF Staff Trained (January 1, 2006 – March 31, 2013) ......................................... 158 30. DCF Staff Trained on Case Practice Model Modules
(January 1, 2009 – March 31, 2013) ........................................................................ 160 31. Qualitative Review Child and Family Status Results
(July 2012 – March 2013) ........................................................................................ 164 32. Qualitative Review Practice/System Performance Results
(July 2012 – March 2013) ........................................................................................ 165
iv

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 6 of 186 PageID: 7103
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1. Number of Calls to SCR by Month (July 2012 – March 2013) ................................. 43 2. Percentage of Investigations Received by the Field in a Timely Manner
(June 2009 – March 2013).......................................................................................... 45 3. Percentage of Investigations Commenced within Required Response Time
(June 2009 – March 2013).......................................................................................... 46 4. Percentage of Abuse/Neglect Investigations Completed within 60 days
(June 2009 – March 2013).......................................................................................... 47 5. Referral Sources for all IAIU Referrals (January – December 2012) ........................ 49 6. Percentage of IAIU Investigations Completed within 60 days
(June 2009 – March 2013).......................................................................................... 50 7. Cases Rated Acceptable on Family Involvement and Effective Use of
Family Team Meetings (July 2012 – March 2013) .................................................... 59 8. Percentage of Children Entering Care with Case Plans Developed
within 30 days (June 2009 – March 2013) ................................................................. 60 9. Percentage of Case Plans Reviewed and Modified as Necessary at least
every 6 months (June 2009 – March 2013) ................................................................ 62 10. Cases Rated Acceptable on Quality of Case and Service Planning
(July 2012 – March 2013) .......................................................................................... 64 11. Cases Rated Acceptable on Planning to Meet Educational Needs
(July 2012 – March 2013) .......................................................................................... 65 12. Performance on Safety Assessments Completed prior to Investigation
Completion, Risk Assessments Completed prior to Investigation Completion and Risk Reassessments Completed within 30 days prior to Case Closure (July 2012 – March 2013) .......................................... 67 13. Percentage of Children who had Two Visits per month during First Two months of an Initial or Subsequent Placement (December 2009 – March 2013) ................................................................................ 68 14. Percentage of Children in Out-of-Home Care who had at least One Caseworker Visit per month in his/her Placement (June 2009 – March 2013).......................................................................................... 69 15. Percentage of Families who have at least Twice per month Face-to-Face Contact with Caseworker when the Goal is Reunification (June 2009 – March 2013).......................................................................................... 70 16. Percentage of Parents who had at least One Face-to-Face Contact with Caseworker who had a Permanency Goal other than Reunification (December 2009 – March 2013) ................................................................................ 72 17. Percentage of Children with Weekly Visits with their Parent(s) (June 2009 – March 2013).......................................................................................... 73 18. Percentage of Children who had at least Two Visits per month with their Parent(s) (December 2009 – March 2013) ........................................................ 74
v

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 7 of 186 PageID: 7104
19. Percentage of Children in Custody who have at least Monthly Visits with Siblings, for Children not Placed with Siblings (December 2010 – March 2013) ................................................................................ 75
20. Children in DCP&P Out-of-Home Placement by Type of Placement as of March 31, 2013 .................................................................................................. 76
21. Children Receiving In-Home Services (January 2009 – March 2013) ...................... 78 22. Children in Out-of-Home Placement (January 2009 – March 2013) ......................... 78 23. Number of Licensed Resource Family Homes Compared to Statewide Target
(January – December 2012) ....................................................................................... 79 24. Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes (Kinship and Non-Kinship)
(January 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013) .......................................................................... 80 25. Reasons for Resource Home Closures (July 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)................... 82 26. Cases Rated Acceptable on Appropriateness of Placement
(July 2012 – March 2013) .......................................................................................... 87 27. Percentage of Children Placed in a Family Setting (June 2009 – March 2013)......... 88 28. Percentage of Sibling Groups of Two or Three Placed Together
(CY 2008 – 2012) ....................................................................................................... 89 29. Percentage of Sibling Groups of Four or More Placed Together
(CY 2008 – 2012) ....................................................................................................... 90 30. Percentage of Children Entering Care who had Two or Fewer Placements
within 12 months of Entering Care (CY 2007 – 2011) .............................................. 91 31. Percentage of Children over Age 13 Placed in Compliance with
MSA Standards (June 2008 – March 2013) ............................................................... 93 32. Percentage of Children who Re-Entered Custody within One Year of
Date of Exit (CY 2007 – 2011) .................................................................................. 97 33. Percentage of Children who Entered Foster Care in CY and were Discharged
to Permanency within 12 months from Removal (CY 2006 – 2011)......................... 99 34. Discharge to Permanency for Children in Care between 13 and 24 months............ 100 35. Discharge to Permanency for Children in Care 25 months or longer ...................... 101 36. Percentage of Children Discharged to Final Adoption in less than 12 months
from the Date of Becoming Legally Free (CY 2005 – 2011) .................................. 102 37. Percentage of Children who Exit to Adoption within 30 months of Removal
(CY 2006 – 2012) .................................................................................................... 103 38. Percentage of Children with Goal of Adoption for whom Adoptive Home had
not been identified at time of Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) who were Placed in Adoptive Home within 9 months of TPR (June 2009 – March 2013) ..... 109 39. Percentage of Adoptions Finalized within 9 months of Adoptive Placement (June 2009 – March 2013)........................................................................................ 110 40. Percentage of Children who Received Pre-Placement Assessment in a Non-Emergency Room Setting or Other Settings Appropriate to the Situation (June 2009 – March 2013)........................................................................................ 114
vi

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 8 of 186 PageID: 7105
41. Percentage of Children with Comprehensive Medical Examination (CME) within 30 days of Entering Out-of-Home Care (December 2009 – March 2013) ... 115
42. Percentage of Children with Comprehensive Medical Examination (CME) within First 60 days of Placement (June 2009 – March 2013)................................. 116
43. Percentage of Children Ages 12-24 months Up-to-Date on EPSDT Visits (June 2009 – March 2013)........................................................................................ 118
44. Percentage of Children older than 2 years Up-to-Date on EPSDT Visits (June 2009 – March 2013)........................................................................................ 118
45. Percentage of Children Current with Semi-Annual Dental Exams (June 2009 – December 2012).................................................................................. 120
46. Percentage of Children Who Received Follow-up Care for Needs Identified in CME (June 2009 – December 2012) .................................................................... 122
47. Percentage of Children in Custody Current with Immunizations (June 2009 – March 2013)........................................................................................ 123
48. Percentage of Caregivers who Received Health Passports within 5 days of Child’s Placement (December 2009 – December 2012)...................................... 124
49. Percentage of Caregivers who Received Health Passports within 30 days of Child’s Placement (December 2009 – December 2012)...................................... 125
50. Children in Out-of-State Placement (June 2011 – May 2013) ................................. 129 51. Percentage of Children with Suspected Mental Health Needs who
Received Mental Health Assessment (December 2009 – December 2012)............. 130 52. Percentage of Youth Aged 14-18 with Independent Living Assessment
(December 2009 – March 2013) .............................................................................. 141 53. Percentage of DCF/DCP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload
Standards for Intake Workers (June 2009 – March 2013) ....................................... 148 54. Percentage of DCF/DCP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload
Standards for Permanency Workers (June 2009 – March 2013).............................. 148 55. Percentage of DCF/DCP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload
Standards for Adoption Workers (June 2009 – March 2013) .................................. 149 56. Percentage of Intake Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads at or Below
the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – March 2013) ............. 150 57. Percentage of IAIU Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads at or Below
the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – March 2013) ............. 153 58. Percentage of Permanency Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads at or
Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – March 2013)........................................................................................ 154 59. Percentage of Adoption Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – March 2013)........................................................................................ 155 60. New Jersey DCP&P Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios (June 2009 – March 2013)........................................................................................ 156 61. Percentage of Allocated DAsG Positions Filled (June 2009 – March 2013)........................................................................................ 157
vii

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 9 of 186 PageID: 7106
I. INTRODUCTION
The Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) was appointed in July 2006 by the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey as Federal Monitor of the class action lawsuit Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie. As Monitor, CSSP is charged with independently assessing New Jersey’s compliance with the goals, principles and outcomes of the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) aimed at improving the state’s child welfare system.1
As is well known, in October 2012 New Jersey was severely impacted by Superstorm Sandy and the effects of the storm have reverberated throughout the state in many ways. The storm effected workers and their families, as well as resource families, children, youth and families involved with Department of Children and Family Services (DCF). For periods of time, normal life in many parts of New Jersey came to a standstill. After the worst of the storm hit, many families found their homes destroyed or damaged, some lost electrical power for extended periods of time and others lost heat and other basic necessities. DCF staff, many of whom were also experiencing these same hardships with their own families, went above and beyond to tend to the needs of their clients and their clients’ families. During as well as in the aftermath of the storm, workers continued to operate the child abuse State Central Registry (SCR) to accept and respond to reports of child abuse and neglect without any disruption. DCF staff also reached out to every resource family and placement provider to ensure that children were safe. DCF staff across the state should be applauded for this exemplary work.
In recognition of the extraordinary nature of this natural disaster, and the difficulties Superstorm Sandy created for the state and its ability to provide services in the immediate aftermath of the storm, the parties to this lawsuit agreed and the Court sanctioned extending the reporting period—which otherwise would have covered July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012—by three months to March 31, 2013. As a result, this report includes nine months of performance data for the period between July 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013. Hereafter, reporting will resume a schedule of six months increments with the next reporting period covering April 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013. It should be noted that despite the hardships Superstorm Sandy inflicted on the state, performance on MSA requirements was affected in only a small number of areas, such as in the number of children receiving Comprehensive Medical Examinations, and the timeliness of resolving resource family applications. The ability of New Jersey’s child welfare system to respond and continue to operate smoothly despite the external disruptions is indicative of a system with a solid, yet responsive infrastructure and a committed workforce.
This is the 13th monitoring report under the MSA and the seventh report that includes Phase II requirements of the MSA.2

1 To see the full Agreement, go to http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/home/Modified_Settlement_Agreement_7_17_06.pdf. 2 Copies of all previous Monitoring Reports can be found at www.cssp.org.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 10 of 186 PageID: 7107

Methodology
The primary source of information on New Jersey’s progress is data supplied by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and verified by the Monitor. DCF provides extensive aggregate and back-up data as well as access to staff at all levels to enable the Monitor to verify performance. For this report, the Monitor was involved in the following additional activities:
 Caseload Data Verification
The Monitor conducted a telephone survey of 111 caseworkers to verify their individual caseloads during this monitoring period.
 Housing, Employment and Education Status Review for Older Youth Exiting Care
The Monitor collaborated with DCF to review case records of 65 youth ages 18-21 years who exited care between July 1 and December 31, 2012 without achieving permanency. The review primarily focused on the education, housing and employment status of these youth and the transition planning activities undertaken by DCF. Findings and recommendations from the review are discussed in Section XII—Services to Older Youth —of this report.
 Investigations Practice Review
In January 2013, the Monitor collaborated with DCF to review a statistically valid sample of 324 Child Protective Services (CPS) investigations involving 688 children assigned to DCF Local Offices between September 16 and 29, 2012 to assess the overall quality of DCF’s investigative practice. Among other things, the review assessed response times of investigations, timeliness to completion of investigations and the quality of investigation decision making. Findings and key recommendations from the review are detailed in Section IV of this report.
 Family Team Meeting (FTM) Review
The Monitor reviewed case records of 40 families to verify data on FTMs held in March 2013. Reviewers examined documentation from case files in which DCF data indicated that the parent was either unavailable or declined to participate in a FTM.
 Visitation Data Review
The Monitor reviewed case records from January 2013 for 31 families to examine visitation exceptions as applied by DCF for parents who were not available or where visits were not required for parent and child weekly visits. Additionally, the Monitor reviewed case records for 42 children from March 2013 which were categorized as having the requisite two visits by the caseworker to the child during the first two months

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 2

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 11 of 186 PageID: 7108

of initial or subsequent placement. Findings from these validation reviews are discussed in Section V—Implementing the Case Practice Model—of this report.
 Other Monitoring Activities
The Monitor interviewed and/or visited multiple external stakeholders of New Jersey’s child welfare system, including contracted service providers, youth, relatives, birth parents, advocacy organizations and judicial officers. The Monitor also periodically attends DCF’s ChildStat meetings, statewide Child Fatality meetings, adolescent practice forums, Area Director meetings, Health Care Case Reviews, youth advisory board meetings and participates in statewide Qualitative Reviews.

Structure of the Report
Section II of the report provides an overview of the state’s accomplishments and challenges. Section III provides summary performance data on each of the outcomes and performance measures required by the MSA in Table 1, Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Summary of Performance as of March 31, 2013).
The remaining sections of the report provide more detailed data and discussion of performance in the following areas:
 New Jersey child protective services units which receive reports and investigate allegations of alleged child maltreatment (Section IV);
 Implementation of DCF’s Case Practice Model (Section V);  Information regarding New Jersey’s placement of children in out-of-home settings,
incidence of maltreatment of children in foster care, and abuse and neglect of children when they reunite with families (Sections VI and VII);  New Jersey’s efforts to achieve permanency for children either through reunification with family, legal guardianship or adoption (Section VIII);  Improvements in the state’s provision of health care and mental health services to children and families (Sections IX and X);  Services provided to children, youth and families involved with DCF and to prevent child welfare system involvement (Section XI);  Services to older youth (Section XII);  Staff caseloads and workforce training (Section XIII); and  Accountability through the Qualitative Review and the production and use of accurate data (Section XIV).
In order to better understand the progress DCF has made since the start of the reform, the report includes, where appropriate, trend data from the first available data, usually June 2009, through March 2013.3 In addition, for the first time in this report, Appendices B-1 through B-5 provide data by Local Office on selected key case practice measures.
3 For some Performance Measures, March 2013 data are not available. For those areas, the most recent data are cited with applicable timeframes.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 3

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 12 of 186 PageID: 7109
II. SUMMARY OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND CHALLENGES
New Jersey’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) remains focused on efforts to sustain the gains already made under the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) and to accelerate compliance with the remaining MSA Performance Measures. The significant progress documented in this report in multiple areas reflects the hard work of staff from caseworkers to administrators across the state and the accomplishments of their many partners including private agencies, health and mental health professionals, attorneys, resource parents, the courts and others.
As of March 31, 2013, 21 of the MSA’s 53 Performance Measures4 have been met and eight were partially met.5 For three of the eight partially met Performance Measures, DCF reached MSA target levels at the conclusion of the monitoring period in one or two months, indicating an upward trend in performance. There are other measures that were not met but where performance improved during the monitoring period. DCF should be proud of these accomplishments. The report also identifies challenges, most notably around the quality of case planning and case practice and increases in rates of repeat maltreatment that need to remain the priority focus for DCF improvement efforts going forward.
Two Performance Measures were newly met during this monitoring period:
 Adequacy of DAsG staffing (Performance Measure 22)  Completing Independent Living Assessment for Youth Ages 14-18 (Performance
Measure 53)
Three Performance Measures were achieved for one or two months at the conclusion of the monitoring period and therefore partially6 met MSA final targets:
 Timeliness of initial case plans (Performance Measure 10)  Timeliness of current case plans (Performance Measure 11)  Caseworker visits with parent/family members for children with a goal of
reunification (Performance Measure 18)

4 The previous monitoring report references 54 measures, however, performance for Measure 49 (Statewide Implementation of Differential Response, Pending Effectiveness of Pilot Sites) is not currently applicable as the DR pilot concluded June 30, 2012, leaving 53 measures for the current monitoring period. 5 “Partially” is used when DCF has come very close but has not substantially met the requirement, for example meeting the requirement in the final one or two months of the monitoring period or in instances where a measure has two or more sub-parts and DCF has fulfilled the requirement toward one or more of the sub-parts, but not all. See footnote 10 for a more detailed explanation of terms used in this report regarding compliance levels. Performance is based upon the most recent available data through March 31, 2013. 6 This list includes Performance Measures newly achieved for one or two months at the conclusion of the monitoring period. There are four additional Performance Measures that the Monitor deemed as partially met that are described in the report but are not included as part of this list.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 4

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 13 of 186 PageID: 7110

Ten measures not yet at compliance levels had improved performance during this monitoring period:
 Timeliness of field response to investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect (Performance Measure 3)
 Timeliness of completion of investigations (Performance Measure 4)  Holding initial and quarterly Family Team Meetings (Performance Measure 7(a) and
7(b)  Caseworker visits with children in state custody – two visits per month (Performance
Measure 16)  Caseworker visits with children in state custody – one visit per month (Performance
Measure 17)  Caseworker visits with parent/family members and between children and their parents
for children with a goal other than reunification (Performance Measure 19)  Visitation between children and their parents (Performance Measure 20)  Visitation between children in custody and siblings placed apart (Performance
Measure 21)  Placement of children in an adoptive home within nine months of termination of
parental rights (Performance Measure 37)  Provision of health passports to children’s caregivers (Performance Measure 45)
In an effort to help focus the work going forward, the remainder of this summary discusses the strengths and challenges of current performance in the major substantive areas covered by the MSA. The data on specific Performance Measures are provided in Table 1 and the remainder of the report.
Investigative Practice
There are many strengths to DCF’s investigative practice. The State Central Registry (SCR) operates professionally, efficiently and effectively; reports of alleged abuse and neglect are appropriately screened and timely forwarded to the field for investigation. Investigative staff are well trained. It is important to note that investigation caseloads rose in the previous monitoring period and although improved in the past nine months, are still higher than acceptable. The remaining areas of challenge, perhaps affected by the caseloads, are ensuring timely completion of investigations and improving the quality of investigative practices and decision making to ensure consistent quality in practice.
Implementation of the Case Practice Model
DCF’s approach to implementing a new Case Practice Model that requires better engagement with children, youth and families and more individualized service planning has been a multi-year undertaking involving multiple policy and practice change strategies as well as intensive training for new and existing staff and many partners. During this monitoring period, DCF initiated a number of new strategies to improve case practice performance that appear to have helped the state significantly improve performance and in some instances meet MSA standards by the end

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 5

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 14 of 186 PageID: 7111

of the monitoring period for the process requirements such as the timely completion of case plans; completion of safety and risk assessments; and standards for visitation between children and workers, workers and parents and children in placement and their parents and siblings. Notably, the state’s performance for all MSA visitation measures has shown demonstrated improvement during this period. To achieve these gains, strategies have included weekly conferences between DCF leadership, Area Directors and their Local Office managers to review individual performance on specific measures, including visitation, Family Team Meetings and case plan development. Additionally, the DCP&P Director held meetings with Area Directors who were required to submit performance improvement plans for specific measures where performance was low.
Despite this wide range of thoughtful approaches, DCF continues to confront significant challenges in its efforts to improve the quality of case practice. Of concern are the Quality Review (QR) scores which received very low ratings for performance on family engagement, effective use of Family Team Meetings and on the quality of case planning with children, youth and families.
While DCF leaders and supervisors have continued to emphasize that case practice improvements must occur in the measurable processes (i.e., timely visits and timely case plans), the QR results across the state show the difficulty in simultaneously reinforcing both quantity and quality expectations in accountability for worker and supervisor performance. While improvement in the completion and documentation of case plans is a significant accomplishment, DCF staff must now place equal emphasis on the consistent quality of the case plans and the case planning process. Similarly, while making sure that visits happen is step one, the task now is to make every visit an opportunity for effectively implementing appropriate case plans.
Notwithstanding the disappointing QR results, the state’s emphasis on looking closely at the quality of practice, sharing the results openly and involving staff at all levels in problem solving on effective practice improvement strategies is laudable. DCF’s use of ChildStat meetings is an example of one of the important practice improvement strategies that the state has developed and is using to identify both the strengths and areas needing improvement as well as the service delivery and policy barriers that may influence child and family outcomes. It is anticipated that as the intensive efforts to track both quantity and quality of performance continues at all levels and in each Local Office, it will provide greater insight into and adoption of successful strategies for implementing the Case Practice Model that can be replicated across the state and serve to continually improve practice.
Placement of Children in Out-of-Home Care
Performance on MSA requirements regarding the appropriate placement of children in the state’s custody remains very strong. Ninety-nine percent of cases examined through the QR were judged to be acceptable on the appropriateness of a child’s placement. DCF has continued to meet standards related to the placement of children in a family setting and within placement capacity limits. Further, as repeatedly documented, there are now almost no children placed out of state for treatment and DCF meets all of the MSA requirements regarding restrictions on the

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 6

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 15 of 186 PageID: 7112

use of inappropriate placements such as congregate care for young children and detention placements. There has been strong performance on placement of sibling groups together with the exception of the need for additional resources for sibling groups of four or more children. DCF has demonstrated consistent performance in not placing youth under age 13 in shelters and is using shelters appropriately for emergency placement for older youth. The state’s continuing efforts to appropriately recruit, license, train and retain resource parents are impressive. DCF’s compliance with the MSA standard regarding the acceptable level of substantiated abuse or neglect to a child in foster care is an important positive outcome related to the appropriateness of placement and placement supports. Also encouraging, the rate of stability for children in out-ofhome care is just short of meeting the MSA standard that at least 88 percent of children entering care will have two or fewer placements during the 12 months from the date they enter care; in CY 2011, the most recent year for which data are available, 85 percent of children entering care met the MSA standard, a significant achievement.
Repeat Maltreatment and Re-Entry into Foster Care
The MSA has several Performance Measures related to the repeat maltreatment of children who have been served by DCP&P through in-home services or in out-of-home placement. DCF’s performance on each of the repeat maltreatment outcome measures is below the acceptable Performance Standard and has declined in this latest monitoring period, raising important concerns that may be related to the quality of investigations and some of the case practice issues noted above. Also concerning is the rate of children and youth who re-enter placement within a year of leaving custody. The need for efforts to improve performance on timely and careful risk reassessments at case closure may positively impact this outcome going forward. In this monitoring period, while performance of risk re-assessments completed within 30 days of case closure improved to 59 percent, it remains below the MSA target and additional improvement is needed.
Timely Permanency through Reunification, Adoption or Legal Guardianship
The state’s performance on measures related to timely permanency through reunification, adoption or legal guardianship is based on the calendar year and the most recent data are presented in the report. These outcome data are disappointing and may reflect some of the case practice concerns noted above. Overall, DCF’s performance in timely meeting permanency goals and discharging children to permanency has remained the same or declined and does not meet the levels required by the MSA final targets. The one exception is that performance on finalizing adoptions within nine months of an adoptive placement remains strong.
Health and Mental Health Care for Children in Out-of-Home Placement
Since June 2011, DCF has maintained or improved performance on nearly all MSA Performance Measures related to health care services. As has been emphasized in the past several monitoring reports, DCF’s work through its Child Health Units and with its nurses and health and mental health providers has meant that performance on the MSA’s health and mental health indicators has been consistently strong. Further, results from the QRs on the provision of health care services were rated acceptable for 99 percent of the cases reviewed.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 7

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 16 of 186 PageID: 7113

Services to Prevent Entry into Foster Care and To Support Reunification and Permanency
As part of the state’s strategies to support families to keep children safe at home, DCF has invested substantially over the past four years in Family Success Centers (FSCs), neighborhood based centers where families can access services before falling into crisis. This investment has resulted in a network of FSCs across the state that proved critically important for many New Jersey families affected by Superstorm Sandy. FSCs served as an important community-based support and referral resource for the FEMA Disaster Recovery Centers. Some FSCs held food and clothing drives and special recovery information events. Commissioner Allison Blake identified funding to establish a FSC in Union Beach to work with and serve families affected by the storm. This investment and the work that continues to enhance the skills and resources of the FSCs is a significant system strength. Additionally, under the MSA, DCF continues to provide a range of post-adoption supports to families and has been working to increase its capacity to effectively identify families affected by domestic violence and link them to appropriate services. An area for continued improvement remains the provision of services to support successful transitions and life adjustments which was rated at least minimally acceptable for slightly more than half of the cases reviewed in recent QRs.
Services to Older Youth
DCF has made improvements to the provision of services and supports to adolescents, including those older youth transitioning from care. As is discussed later in the report, DCF has begun a number of significant strategies to better engage and serve older youth including a comprehensive review of its policies and programs. This much more intensive focus on youth has led to a notable improvement in performance. In particular, 98 percent of youth ages 14 to 18 completed Independent Living Assessments. This was the first time this measure has been met. Significant challenges remain however in ensuring that older youth in foster care are appropriately assessed, engaged and linked to needed resources and supports and that those youth exiting care without permanency have housing, are employed or in training or in an educational program. The Monitor and DCF recently completed 20 QRs of older youth with an open DCF case, the results of which are expected to be presented in October 2013. A case record review of older youth who exited care in the last six months of 2012 found significant areas for improvement with respect to stable housing, education and training, and employment outcomes for these youth.
As is clear from the discussion above, despite the challenges that must be addressed in order for the state to meet the requirements and fully achieve the objectives of the MSA, there are multiple areas of strength and the data support the significant progress that has been made on many fronts during this monitoring period. DCF’s use of data to identify where it is succeeding and where it is still struggling, both in terms of substantive areas and by local offices within the state is a sensible strategy to target improvement efforts. As mentioned, QRs continue to provide countylevel data on the state’s progress in implementing the Case Practice Model, and DCF staff at all levels are moving forward with multiple strategies to diagnose and assess barriers to quality case practice. DCF’s ChildStat meetings are effectively used to share quantitative and qualitative data from multiple contexts and with both internal staff and external partners to better understand and

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 8

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 17 of 186 PageID: 7114
improve system performance and outcomes. In the Monitor’s view, DCF continues to demonstrate its commitment to a robust, vital quality assurance and accountability process. To maximally meet DCF’s quality improvement goals, the focus of these accountability efforts must increasingly be on the quality and outcomes as well as on the quantity of the work effort.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 9

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 18 of 186 PageID: 7115
III. CHILD AND FAMILY OUTCOME AND CASE PRACTICE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Performance Measures), are 53 measures that assess the state’s performance on meeting the requirements of the MSA (see Table 1).7 These Performance Measures cover the areas of child safety, permanency, service planning, child well-being and ongoing infrastructure requirements pertaining to elements such as caseloads, training and resource family recruitment and retention.
Many of the measures are assessed using data from NJ SPIRIT, the DCP&P data management system, and SafeMeasures;8 reviewed and in many areas independently validated by the Monitor. Some data are also provided through the Department’s work with Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. that assists with data analysis.

7 The previous monitoring report references 54 measures, however, performance for Measure 49 (Statewide
Implementation of Differential Response, Pending Effectiveness of Pilot Sites) is not currently applicable as the DR pilot concluded June 30, 2012, leaving 53 measures for the current monitoring period. 8 SafeMeasures is a data warehouse and analytical tool that allows tracking of critical child welfare indicators by
worker, supervisor, Local Office area and statewide. It is used by different levels of staff to track, monitor and analyze trends in case practice and targeted measures and outcomes.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 10

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 19 of 186 PageID: 7116

Table 1: Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Summary of Performance as of March 31, 2013)

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

State Central Registry, Investigative Practice and Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU)

Direction of Change11

1. Responding to Calls to the

SCR

a. 14,388 calls

a. 14,797 calls

b. 464 abandoned calls b. 390 abandoned calls

CPM V.1

a. Total number of calls b. Number of abandoned calls

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

c. 21 seconds d. 5,399 calls screened

c. 21 seconds d. 5,359 calls screened

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

N/A

c. Time frame for answering

out

out

calls

e. 1,162 CWS referrals e. 1,345 CWS referrals

d. Number of calls screened out

e. Number of referrals for CWS

9 In some instances where March 2013 performance data are not available, the most recent performance data are cited with applicable timeframes. In other instances, the Monitor
provides a range of data over the monitoring period to better illustrate performance. More detailed information on DCF performance on specific measures is provided in subsequent sections of the report. 10 “Yes” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment based on presently available information, DCF has substantially fulfilled its obligations regarding the requirement under the
MSA for the majority of the months during July 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013 monitoring period. The Monitor has also designated “Yes” for a requirement where DCF is within one percentage point of the final target or there are a small number (less than 3) of cases causing the failure to meet the final target. “Partially” is used when DCF has come very close
but has not substantially met the requirement, for example meeting the requirement in final one or two months of the monitoring period or in instances where a measure has two or more sub-parts and DCF has fulfilled the requirement toward one or more of the sub-parts, but not all. “No” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment, DCF has not fulfilled its
obligation regarding the requirement. 11 Where applicable, “” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment based on data and an understanding of case practice, performance is trending upwards by at least three percentage points; “” indicates performance is trending downward by at least three percentage points; “↔” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment, there has been no change in
performance; “N/A” indicates a judgment regarding direction of change is not applicable to the measure during the monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 11

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 20 of 186 PageID: 7117

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

CPM V.1

2. Quality of SCR Response:
a. Respond to callers promptly, with respectful, active listening skills
b. Essential information gathered—identification of parents and other important family members
c. Decision making process based on information gathered and guided by tools and supervision

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

See Review of the New

See Review of the New

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Jersey State Central
Registry, DCF, issued July, 2012.12 Performance not

Jersey State Central
Registry, DCF, issued July, 2012.13 Performance not

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

N/A

newly assessed this period. newly assessed this period.

a. For periods beginning July

CPM V.1 MSA III.B.2

3. Timeliness of Response: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be received by the field in a timely manner and commenced within the required response time as identified at SCR, but no later than 24 hours.

1, 2009, and thereafter, 98% of investigations shall be received by the field in a timely manner. b. For periods beginning July 1, 2009, and thereafter, 98% of investigations shall be

a. 98% of investigations were received by the field in a timely manner.
b. 93% of investigations commenced within required response time.

a. 99% of investigations were received by the field in a timely manner.
b. 96% of investigations commenced within required response time.

Partially

↑

commenced within the

required response time.

CPM V.1 MSA III.B.3

4. Timeliness of Completion: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be completed

By June 30, 2010, 98% of all abuse/ neglect investigations shall be completed within 60

65% of investigations were 72% of investigations were completed within 60 days. completed within 60 days.

No

↑

within 60 days.

days.

12 For full report of review, see http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/divisions/opma/SCRReport_7%2026%2012.pdf 13 Ibid.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 12

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 21 of 186 PageID: 7118

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

CPM V.1

5. Quality Investigative Practice: Investigations will meet measures of quality including acceptable performance on:

a. Locating and seeing the child and talking with the child outside the presence of the caretaker within 24 hours of receipt by field;
b. Conducting appropriate interviews with caretakers and collaterals;
c. Using appropriate tools for assessment of safety and risk;
d. Analyzing family strengths and needs;
e. Seeking appropriate medical and mental health evaluations;
f. Making appropriate decisions; and
g. Reviewing the family’s history with DCF/DCP&P

By December 31, 2009, 90% of investigations shall meet quality standards.

To be reassessed in case record review scheduled for January 2013.

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

Data collected during a

case record review

conducted in January

2013 found that 78%.of investigations

No

N/A

reviewed met quality

standards. 14,15

14 Reviewers could select four possible responses to the question of the quality of the investigation which included completely, partially, marginally and not at all. Completely and partially responses are considered acceptable. 15 Reviewers could select four possible responses to the question of the quality of the investigation which included completely, partially, marginally and not at all.
Completely and partially responses are considered acceptable. These results have a +/- 5% marginal error with 95% confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 13

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 22 of 186 PageID: 7119

ive or Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

for lacements:

in resource estigations p homes, or te care e completed . eview at provide k to other CSOC, OOL) ation of on plans. on plans result of of allegations will be

By June 2007 and thereafter, 80% of investigations by IAIU shall be completed within 60 days.

87% of IAIU investigations involving group homes and other congregate care settings were completed within 60 days.

March 2013 Performance9
85% of IAIU investigations involving group homes and other congregate care settings were completed within 60 days.

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

Yes

↔

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 23 of 186 PageID: 7120

Reference
CPM V.3

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

7. Family Involvement and Effective use of Family Team Meetings. A family team (involving parents, youth and appropriate formal and informal supports) shall meet and plan together. The team should be involved in planning & decision making throughout a case and have the skills, family knowledge and abilities to solve and help to organize effective services for the child and family.
Number of family team meetings at key decision points. a. For children newly entering
placement, the number/percent who have a family team meeting within 30 days of entry. b. For all other children in placement, the number/percent who have at least one family team meeting each quarter. c. Family Team Formation and Functioning.

Implementation of Case Practice Model

a. By June 30, 2010, family meetings held prior to or within 30 days of entry for 90% of new entries and 90% of preplacements.
b. By June 30, 2010, family meetings held for 90% of children at least once per quarter.
c. By June 30, 2011, 90% of cases show evidence in QR of acceptable team formation and functioning.

For Immersion Sites: a. In June 2012, 35% of
children newly entering placement had a family team meeting within 30 days of entering placement. 16 From January to June 2012. Performance ranged from 35 to 47%. b. In June 2012, 33% of children had at least one family team meeting each quarter. 17 From January to June 2012 performance ranged from 27 to 33%. c. 30% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on both QR ‘Family Teamwork’ indicators: team formation and team functioning.

a. In March 2013, 56% of children newly entering placement had a family
team meeting within 30 days of entering placement. From July 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013
performance ranged from 34 to 57%.18 b. In March 2013, 46% of
children had at least one family team meeting each quarter. From July 1,
2012 to March 31, 2013 performance ranged from 30 to 46%.19
c. 24% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on both QR
‘Family Teamwork” indicators: team formation and team functioning.20

Requirement Fulfilled
(Yes/No/Ongoing)10
No

Direction of Change11
↑

16 During the July 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013 reporting period DCF initiated an effort to better capture legitimate reasons for why FTMs do not occur, either because the parent is unavailable or because the parent declined to
attend. Because the Monitor could not verify DCF’s data on this measure, reporting reflects FTMs that actually occurred and does not exclude the number of FTMs in which the parent was reported as unavailable or declined to attend the FTM, a change from previous reporting periods. Therefore the June 2012 performance data shown here differ than what was reported for December 2012 in the previous monitoring period. Using this methodology, in June 2012, out of a possible 311 FTMs, 109 (35%) occurred within 30 days of placement. During the next monitoring period, the Monitor and DCF plan to conduct a statistically valid case record review to
more fully understand the practice and documentation issues on legitimate instances where parents were unavailable or declined to participate in FTMs. 17 See footnote 16 for an explanation of change in reporting methodology. In June 2012, out of a possible 1,581 FTMs, 526 (33%) occurred in the required timeframe. 18 See footnote 16 above for explanation of change in reporting methodology. Using this methodology, in March 2013, out of 358 possible FTMs, 200 (56%) occurred. An additional number of FTMs were not held because the worker determined the parent to be unavailable or because the parent declined to attend, but the Monitor does not have sufficient confidence in the reasons provided by DCF for why the 158 FTMs did not occur.
Performance data for the monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 57%; August 2012, 51%; September 2012, 47%; October 2012, 34%; November 2012, 46%; December 2012, 43%; January 2013, 52%; February 2013, 56%; March 2013, 56%. 19 See footnote 16 for an explanation for the change in methodology. Using this methodology, in March 2013, out of 1,758 possible FTMs, 815 (46%) occurred. An additional number of FTMs were not held because the
worker determined the parent to be unavailable or because the parent declined to attend. The Monitor could not find sufficient documentation to verify the reasons why the remaining 943 FTMs did not occur. Performance data for the monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 31%; August 2012, 39%; September 2012, 33%; October 2012, 33%; November 2012, 31%; December 2012, 30%; January 2013, 34%; February 2013, 38%; March 2013, 46%. 20 26 of 107 (24%) cases rated acceptable on both indicators of Family Teamwork, team formation and team functioning; 36 of 107 cases (34 %) rated acceptable on team formation; 28 of 107 cases (26 %) cases rated acceptable on team functioning.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 15

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 24 of 186 PageID: 7121

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

a. 100% of

a. 100% of

investigations

investigations

CPM

8. Safety and Risk Assessment: Number/ percent of closed cases where a safety and risk of harm assessment is done prior to case closure.

By December 31, 2010, (a) 98% of investigations will have a safety assessment completed, (b) 98% of investigations will have a risk assessment completed, and (c) 98% of noninvestigation cases will have a risk assessment or risk reassessment completed within 30 days of case closure.

completed had a safety assessment completed prior to investigation closure. b. 100% of investigations completed had a risk assessment completed prior to investigation closure. c. 49% of applicable closed cases had a risk re-assessment

completed had a safety assessment completed prior to investigation closure. b. 100% of investigations completed had a risk assessment completed prior to investigation closure. c. 59% of applicable closed cases had a risk re-assessment

Partially

↑

completed within

completed within

30 days prior to

30 days prior to

case closure.

case closure.21

CPM V.4, 13.a.

10. Timeliness of Initial Plans: For children entering care, number/ percent of case plans developed within 30 days.

By June 30, 2010, 95% of case plans for children and families are completed within 30 days.

45% of children entering care had case plans developed within 30 days. Between January and June 2012, monthly performance ranged from 41 to 65 %.

96% of children entering care had case plans developed within 30 days. Between July 2012 and March 2013, monthly performance ranged from 45 to 99 %.22

Partially (final target was met for 2 months of this
monitoring period)

↑

21 Applicable cases include reunification and do not include adoption, kinship legal guardianship or emancipation. 22 Performance data for the monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 66%; August 2012, 53%; September 2012, 60%; October 2012, 45%; November 2012, 60%; December
2012, 49%; January 2013, 85%; February 2013, 99%; March 2013 96%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 16

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 25 of 186 PageID: 7122

Reference
CPM V.4, 13.b.
CPM V.4

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

11. Timeliness of Current Plans: For children entering care, number/ percent of case plans shall be reviewed and modified as necessary at least every six months.

By June 30, 2010, 95% of case plans for children and families will be reviewed and modified at least every six months.

63% of case plans were reviewed and modified as necessary at least every six months. From January through June 2012, monthly performance ranged from 63 to 71 %.

99% of case plans were
reviewed and modified as necessary at least every six
months. From July 2012 through March 2013, monthly performance ranged from 59 to 99 %.23

Partially (final target was met for 1 month
of this monitoring period)

12. Quality of Case and Service

Planning: The child’s/family’s case

plan shall be developed with the

family and shall be individualized

and appropriately address the child’s

needs for safety, permanency and

well-being. The case plan shall provide for the services and interventions needed by the child and family to meet identified goals, including services necessary for children and families to promote

By December 31, 2011, 90% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QR.

48% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on both QR indicators ‘Case Planning Process’ and ‘Tracking and Adjusting.’

39% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on
both QR indicators ‘Case Planning Process’ and ‘Tracking and Adjusting.’24

No

children’s development and meet

their educational, physical and

mental health needs. The case plan

and services shall be modified to

respond to the changing needs of the

child and family and the results of

prior service efforts.

Direction of Change11
↑
↓

23Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 64%; August 2012, 61%; September 2012, 65%; October 2012, 59%; November 2012, 59%; December 2012, 65%; January 2013, 67%; February 2013, 86%; March 2013, 99%. 24 42 of 107 cases rated acceptable on both the ‘Case Planning Process’ and ‘Tracking and Adjusting’ indicators; 45 of 107 cases (42%) rated acceptable on ‘Case Planning
Process’; 64 of 107 cases (60%) rated acceptable on ‘Tracking and Adjusting’.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 17

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 26 of 186 PageID: 7123

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

76% of cases rated at

77% of cases rated at

15. Educational Needs: Children By December 31, 2011,

least minimally

least minimally

CPM V.4

will be enrolled in school and

90% of cases rated

DCF will have taken appropriate acceptable as measured by

acceptable on QR indicators ‘Stability

acceptable on QR indicators ‘Stability

No

actions to ensure that their

the QR.

(school)’ and ‘Learning (school)’ and ‘Learning

educational needs will be met.

and Development - over and Development - over

age 5.’

age 5.’25

MSA III.B 7.a

16. Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody: Number/percent of children where caseworker has two visits per month (one of which is in the placement) during the first two months of an initial placement or subsequent placement for a child

By December 31, 2010, during the first two months of an initial placement or subsequent placement, 95% of children had at least two visits per month.

53% of children had two visits per month, one of which was in the placement, during the first two months of an initial or subsequent placement. Monthly range January - June

84% of children had two visits per month, one of which was in the placement, during the first two months of an initial or subsequent placement.26

No

in state custody.

2012: 53 – 62%.

17. Caseworker Visits with

By June 30, 2010, 98% of 91% of children had at 94% of children had at

Children in State Custody:

children shall have at least least one caseworker

least one caseworker

MSA III.B 7.b

Number/ percent of children where caseworker has at least

one caseworker visit per

visit per month in his/her visit per month in his/her

month during all other parts placement. Monthly

placement.27 Monthly

No

one caseworker visit per month of a child’s time in out-of- range January - June

range July 2012 – March

in the child’s placement.

home care.

2012: 91 – 92%.

2013: 85 – 94%.

↔ ↑ ↑

25 34 of 44 cases rated acceptable on both the Stability (school) and Learning and Development (age 5 and older) QR indicators; 43 of 54 cases (80%) rated acceptable on Stability
(school); 41 of 45 (91%) cases rated acceptable on Learning and Development (age 5 and older). These data reflect children in out-of-home placement. 26 Data validation by the Monitor and DCF of NJ SPIRIT reports on this measure as compared with written case documentation identified some errors in categorizing caseworkers’
visits with children. As a result, DCF conducted an internal audit of all applicable cases in March 2013 and determined the compliance data presented above. CSSP’s independent
data validation confirmed this finding. Performance data for other months during the monitoring period were not fully validated and are not presented in this report. 27 An additional 5% of children had at least one caseworker visit per month for a total of 99% of children with at least one caseworker visit per month regardless of location.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 18

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 27 of 186 PageID: 7124

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

CPM MSA III.B 8.a

18. Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members: The caseworker shall have at least two face-to-face visits per month with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody with a goal of reunification.

By December 31, 2010, 95% of families have at least twice per month faceto-face contact with their caseworker when the permanency goal is reunification.

54% of parents or other legally responsible family members of children in custody with a goal of reunification had at least two face-toface visits with a caseworker. Monthly range January - June

96% of parents or other legally responsible family members of children in custody with a goal of reunification had at least two face-toface visits with a caseworker. Monthly range July 2012 - March

Partially (final target was met for 1 month
of this monitoring period)

↑

2012: 43 – 54%.

2013: 52 – 96%.28

CPM MSA III.B 8.b

19. Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members: The caseworker shall have at least one face-to-face visit per month with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody with goals other than reunification unless parental

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of families shall have at least one face-toface caseworker contact per month, unless parental rights have been terminated.29

59% of parents or other legally responsible family members had at least one face-to-face caseworker contact per month. Monthly range January - June 2012: 55 – 59%.

78% of parents or other legally responsible family members had at least one face-to-face caseworker contact per month. Monthly range July 2012 - March 2013: 57 – 78%.

No

↑

rights have been terminated.

28 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 55%; August 2012, 57%; September 2012, 54%; October 2012, 52%; November 2012, 59%; December 2012,
66%; January 2013, 84%; February 2013, 94%; March 2013, 96%. Data from NJ SPIRIT indicate that the percentage of children’s parents who were designated by DCF as not requiring a visit due to the parent being unavailable or because contacts were not required rose from 11 percent in July 2012 to 19 percent in March 2013. The Monitor plans to
work with DCF during the next monitoring period to evaluate visitation practice and documentation for this measure. 29 Possible modification of this final target is under discussion among the Parties and the Monitor.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 19

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 28 of 186 PageID: 7125

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

59% of children had

By December 31, 2010, at 42% of children had

recorded weekly visits

20. Visitation between Children least 85% of children in

recorded weekly visits with their parents.

CPM MSA III.B 9a.

in Custody and Their Parents: Number/percent of children who have weekly visits with their parents when the permanency

custody shall have in person visits with their parent(s) or other legally responsible family member at least

with their parents 68% of children had recorded visits at least every other week.

Monthly range July
2012 – March 2013: 3759%.30,31
80% of children had

No

↑

goal is reunification unless

every other week and at

January – May 2012 data recorded visits at least

clinically inappropriate and

least 60% of children in

unavailable due to

every other week.

approved by the Family Court. custody shall have such

change in methodology. Monthly range July 2012

visits at least weekly.

– March 2013: 64-

80%.32

CPM MSA III.B 10

21. Visitation Between Children in Custody and Siblings Placed Apart: Number/percent of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with their siblings as appropriate.

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with those siblings at least monthly.

52% of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing visited with their siblings monthly. Monthly range January – June 2012: 46 – 52%.

63% of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing visited with their siblings monthly. Monthly range July 2012 – March 2013: 49 – 63%.33

No

↑

30Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 39%; August 2012, 42%; September 2012, 37%; October 2012, 38%; November 2012, 38%; December 2012,
47%; January 2013, 55%; February 2013, 52%; March 2013, 59%. 31 Performance data for this monitoring period do not exclude children who DCP&P had indicated visits were not required or the parent was unavailable. The Monitor reviewed a
small sample of cases designated with these exclusions and found that they were not consistently applied as intended. During the next monitoring period, the Monitor and DCF
plan to conduct a case record review to more fully understand the practice and documentation in this area. 32 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 64%; August 2012, 67%; September 2012, 64%; October 2012, 65%; November 2012, 64%; December 2012,
73%; January 2013, 77%; February 2013, 79%; March 2013, 80%. 33 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 54%; August 2012, 59%; September 2012, 55%; October 2012, 49%; November 2012, 55%; December 2012,
60%; January 2013, 57%; February 2013, 62%; March 2013, 63%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 20

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 29 of 186 PageID: 7126

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

CPM; MSA Permanency Outcomes

22. Adequacy of DAsG Staffing: Staffing levels at the DAsG office.

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

98% of allocated positions 130 (92%) of 142 staff 132 (99%) of 134 staff

filled plus assessment of adequacy of FTEs to

positions filled with eight staff on full time

positions filled with two staff on full time leave;

Yes

↑

accomplish tasks by June leave; 122 (86%)

132 (99%) available

30, 2012.

available DAsG.

DAsG.

Placements of Children in Out-of-Home Care

23. Combined assessment of appropriateness of placement based on:

a. Placement within appropriate

proximity of their parents’

97% of cases rated at

99% of cases rated at

CPM V.4

residence unless such placement is to otherwise help the child achieve the planning goal.

By June 30, 2010, 90% of cases score appropriately as measured by QR Modules.

least minimally acceptable on QR indicator ‘Appropriateness of

least minimally acceptable on QR indicator ‘Appropriateness of

Yes

↔

b. Capacity of caregiver/

Placement.’

Placement.’

placement to meet child’s

needs.

c. Placement selection has

taken into account the

location of the child’s

school.

MSA III.A 3.c

24. Placing Children with Families: The percentage of children currently in custody who are placed in a family

Beginning July 2009 and thereafter, at least 85% of children will be placed in a family setting.

88% of children were placed in a family setting.

89% of children were placed in a family setting.

Yes

↔

setting.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 21

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 30 of 186 PageID: 7127

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

CPM MSA III.A 3.b

25. Placing Siblings Together: Of sibling groups of two or three siblings entering custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another, the percentage in which all siblings are placed

For siblings entering custody in the period beginning July 2012 and thereafter, at least 80% will be placed together.

In CY2011, 79% of sibling groups of 2 or 3 were placed together.

In CY 2012, 82% of sibling groups of 2 or 3 were placed together.

Yes

↑

together.

26. Placing Siblings Together:

Of sibling groups of four or

For siblings entering in the In CY2011, 35% of

In CY 2012, 25% of

MSA III.A more siblings entering custody at period beginning July 2011 sibling groups of 4 or

3.b

the same time or within 30 days and thereafter, at least 40% more were placed

sibling groups of 4 or more were placed

No

↓

of one another, the percentage in will be placed together.

together.

together.34

which all siblings are placed

together.

MSA III.A 3.a

27. Stability of Placement: Of the number of children entering care in a period, the percentage with two or fewer placements during the 12 months beginning with the date of entry.

By June 2009 and thereafter, at least 88% of children entering care will have two or fewer placements during the 12 months from their date of entry.

For children entering care in CY2010, 84% of children had two or fewer placements during the 12 months from their date of entry.

For children entering care in CY2011, 85% of children had two or fewer placements during the 12 months from their date of entry.

No

↔

34 In CY2011, there were 95 sibling groups with four or more children. In CY 2012, there were 136 sibling groups with four or more children, representing a 43 percent increase over the previous calendar year.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 22

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 31 of 186 PageID: 7128

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

28. Placement Limitations:

MSA III.C

Number/percent of resource homes in which a child has been placed if that placement will result in the home having more than four foster children, or more than two foster children under age two, or more than six

By June 2009, no more than 5% of resource home placements may have seven or eight total children including the resource family’s own children.

Less than one percent of resource home placements are overcapacity.

Less than one percent of resource home placements are overcapacity.

Yes

total children including the

resource family’s own children.

↔

29. Inappropriate Placements: a. By December 2008 and

MSA III.B.6

a. The number of children under age 13 placed in shelters.
b. The number of children over age 13 placed in shelters in compliance with MSA standards on appropriate use of shelters to include: as 1) an alternative to detention; 2) a short-term placement of an adolescent in crisis not to extend beyond 45 days; or 3)

thereafter, no children under age 13 in shelters. b. By December 31, 2009, 90% of children placed in shelters in compliance with MSA standards on appropriate use of shelters to include: 1) an alternative to detention; 2) short-term placement of an adolescent in crisis not to extend beyond 30 days; or 3) a basic center

a. Between January and June 2012, 1 child under the age of 13 was placed in a shelter.
b. Between January and June 2012, 97% of children over the age of 13 who were placed in shelters were in compliance with MSA standards.

a. Between July 2012 and March 2013, no child under the age of 13 was placed in a shelter.
b. Between July 2012 and March 2013, 97% of children over the age of 13 who were placed in shelters were in compliance with MSA standards.

Yes

a basic center for homeless

for homeless youth.

youth.

↔

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 23

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 32 of 186 PageID: 7129

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Repeat Maltreatment and Re-Entry into Out-of-Home Care

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

30. Abuse and Neglect of Children

MSA III.A. 1.a

in Foster Care: Number of Children in custody in out-of-home placement who were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member during 12 month period, divided by the total number of children who

For the period beginning July 2010 and thereafter, no more than 0.49% of children will be victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.

In CY2011, 0.22% of children were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.

In CY 2012, 0.21% of children were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.

Yes

have been in care at any point during

the period.

MSA III.A 1.b

31. Repeat Maltreatment: Of all children who remain in home after substantiation of abuse or neglect, the percentage who have another substantiation within the next 12 months.

For the period beginning July 2009 and thereafter, no more than 7.2% of children who remain at home after a substantiation of abuse or neglect will have another substantiation within the next

For children who were victims of a substantiated allegation of child maltreatment in CY 2010 and remained at home, 6.3% had another substantiation within the

For children who were victims of a substantiated allegation of child maltreatment in CY 2011 and remained at home, 7.8% had another substantiation within the

No

12 months.

next 12 months.

next 12 months.

MSA III.A 1.c

32. Repeat Maltreatment: Of all children who are reunified during a period, the percentage who are victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within one year after the date of reunification.

For the period beginning July 2009 and thereafter, no more than 4.8% of children who reunified will be the victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within one year after reunification.

In CY 2010, 6% of children who reunified were victims of substantiated child maltreatment within one year after reunification.

In CY 2011, 8.4% of children who reunified were victims of substantiated child maltreatment within one year after reunification.

No

↔ ↓ ↓

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 24

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 33 of 186 PageID: 7130

Reference
MSA III.A 2.b

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

33. Re-entry to Placement: Of all children who leave custody during a period, except those whose reason for discharge is that they ran away from their placement, the percentage that re-enter custody within one year of the date of exit.

For the period beginning July 2011 and thereafter, of all children who exit, no more than 9% will re-enter custody within one year of exit.

Of all children who exited in CY 2010, 13% reentered custody within one year of the date of exit.

March 2013 Performance9
Of all children who exited in CY 2011, 13% reentered custody within one year of the date of exit. 35

Requirement Fulfilled
(Yes/No/Ongoing)10
No

Direction of Change11
↔

35 DCF has objected to the Monitor’s definition of “qualifying exits” used to analyze this measure. The Agency believes that due to the specific exclusion cited in the MSA, the definition of qualifying exits should only exclude children who run away from placement. The Monitor uses a definition of qualifying exits which excludes from the calculations runaways as well as children who are adopted. Based on the DCF recommended definition, of all children who exited in CY 2011, nine percent re-entered custody within one year of the date of exit. Using that definition, DCF calculates performance for previous years as follows: CY 2007, 12%; CY 2008, 10%; CY 2009, 10%; CY 2010, 9%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 25

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 34 of 186 PageID: 7131

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

MSA III.A 2.a

34. a., d., e. Discharged to Permanency: Percentage of children discharged from foster care to permanency (reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and/or guardianship).

a. Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in target year and who remained in foster care for eight days or longer, percentage that discharged to permanency within 12 months.
d. Of all children who were in foster care on the first day of the target year and had been in care between 13 -24 months, percentage that discharged to permanency prior to 21st birthday or by the last day of the year.

a. CY 2011: 50% d. CY 2011: 47% e. CY2011: 47%

e. Of all children who were in foster care for 25 months or
longer on the first day of the target year, percentage that
discharged to permanency prior to 21st birthday or by the last day
of the year.

June 2012 Performance
Permanency
a. CY 2010: 45% d. CY 2011: 47% e. CY 2011: 34%

March 2013 Performance9
a. CY 2011: 45%36 d. CY 2012: 42% e. CY 2012: 33%

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

No

↓

36 Data for CY 2012 will not be available until early 2014.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 26

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 35 of 186 PageID: 7132

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

MSA III.A 2.a

34.b. Adoption: Of all children who became legally free for adoption during the 12 months prior to the target year, percentage that was discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming

Of those children who become legally free in CY 2011, 60% will be discharged to a final adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free.

78% of children who became legally free in CY 2010 were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from date of becoming legally free.

80% of children who became legally free in CY 2011 were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from date of becoming legally free.

Yes

legally free.

↔

34. c. Total time to Adoption: Of all children who exit to Of all children who

Of all children who

Of all children who exited foster adoption in CY2011, 60% exited to adoption in

exited to adoption in CY

MSA III.A care to adoption in the target

2.a

year, what percentage was

will be discharged from foster care to adoption

CY2011, 48% were discharged from foster

2012, 44% were discharged from foster

No

↓

discharged from foster care to within 30 months from

care to adoption within care to adoption within

adoption within 30 months from removal from home.

30 months from removal 30 months from removal

removal from home.

from home.

from home.

In the months between In March 2013 71% of

MSA III.B 12(i)

35. Progress Toward Adoption: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption who have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change.

Beginning January 1, 2010, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 90% shall have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change.

January and June 2012, 69 to 81% of children with a permanency goal of adoption had a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change.

children with a permanency goal of adoption had a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change. Performance between July 2012 and March

No

2013 ranged from 65 to

90%.37

↔

37 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 70%; August 2012, 80%; September 2012, 65%; October 2012, 72%; November 2012, 80%; December 2012, 66%; January 2013, 90%; February 2013, 83%; March 2013, 71%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 27

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 36 of 186 PageID: 7133

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

Beginning January 1, 2010,

CPM MSA III.B 12.a (ii)

36. Child Specific Adoption Recruitment: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption needing recruitment who have a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the date of the goal change.

of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 90% of those for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of termination of parental rights shall have a childspecific recruitment plan

Between January and June 2012, 87 children required child specific recruitment plans and 47 (54%) of these plans were developed within 30 days of the date of the goal change.

Between July 2012 and March 2013, 105 children required child specific recruitment plans and 48 (46%) of these plans were developed within 30 days of the date of the goal change.38

No39

↓

developed within 30 days of

the date of the goal change.

Beginning July 1, 2009, of Between January and

Between July 2012 and

MSA III.B 12.a.(iii)

37. Placement in an Adoptive Home: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption and for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of termination are placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights.

the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 75% of the children for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of termination shall be placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights.

June 2012, 6 (35%) out of 17 children with a permanency goal of adoption for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of the termination were placed in an adoptive home within nine months of termination of parental

March 2013, 17 (59%) out of 29 children with a permanency goal of adoption for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of the termination were placed in an adoptive home within nine months of termination of parental

No

↑

rights.

rights.

MSA III.B 12.b

38. Final Adoptive Placements: Beginning July 1, 2009, of

Number/percent of adoptions

adoptions finalized, at least

finalized within nine months of 80% shall have been

88% of adoptions were finalized within nine months of adoptive

94% of adoptions were finalized within nine months of adoptive

Yes

↑

adoptive placement.

finalized within nine months placement.

placement.

of adoptive placement.

38 Performance data for the monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 35%; August 2012, 43%; September 2012, 33 %; October 2012, 31%, November 2012, 18%; December
2012, 67%; January 2013 52%; February 2013, 77%; March 2013, 40%. 39 Performance indicating decline is based on a small number of cases.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 28

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 37 of 186 PageID: 7134

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Health Care for Children in Out-of-Home Placement

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

By December 31, 2009,

98% of children will receive

a pre-placement assessment 100% of children

100% of children

39. Pre-Placement Medical

either in a non- emergency entering DCP&P custody entering DCP&P custody

Assessment: Number/percent of room setting, or in an

received a pre-placement received a pre-placement

MSA II.F.5 children receiving pre-placement emergency room (ER)

assessment (PPA). 99% assessment (PPA). 99%

Yes

medical assessment in a setting setting if the child needed of PPAs occurred in a of PPAs occurred in a

appropriate to the situation.40

emergency medical

setting appropriate for setting appropriate for

attention or the child was

the situation.

the situation.

already in the emergency

room when DCP&P

received the referral.

MSA III.B 11

40. Initial Medical Examinations: Number/percent of children entering out-of-home care receiving full medical examinations within 60 days.

By January 1, 2009 and thereafter, at least 85% of children shall receive full medical examinations within 30 days of entering out-of-home care and at least 98% within 60 days.

From January through June 2012, 87% of children received a comprehensive medical exam (CME) within the first 30 days of placement and 98% received a CME within the first 60 days of placement.

From July 2012 through March 2013 (excluding October),41 85% of children received a CME within the first 30 days of placement and 98% received a CME within the first 60 days of placement.

Yes

↔ ↔

40 By agreement of the Parties, this measure has been redrafted to combine the percentage of PPAs in a non-ER setting and those PPAs conducted in an ER that are appropriate based on the presenting medical needs of the child/youth or because the child/youth was already in the ER when DCP&P received the referral. 41After reviewing the data and discussions with DCF, the Monitor decided to exclude data for children who entered out-of-home care in the month of October 2012. DCF provided relevant information that as a direct result of Superstorm Sandy medical providers were unavailable (temporarily shut down, handling emergencies, etc.). Fifty-nine percent of children who entered out-of-home care in the month of October received a CME within 30 days of entering custody. Performance the other months ranged from 77 to91 percent, affirming that the October performance was an aberration. Notably, 94 percent of the children who entered out-of-home care in October received a CME within 60 days of entering custody, so DCF was able to ensure medical attention once medical providers were available or other providers were identified.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 29

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 38 of 186 PageID: 7135

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

Negotiated Health Outcomes

41. Required Medical Examinations: Number/percent of children in care for one year or more who received medical examinations in compliance with Early Periodic Screening and Diagnosis Treatment (EPSDT) guidelines.

By June 2010, 98% of children in care for one year or more will receive medical examinations in compliance with EPSDT guidelines.

From January through June 2012, 91% of children ages 12-24 months were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT visits and 93% of children older than two years were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT visits.

From July 2012 through March 2013, 93% of children ages 12-24 months were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT visits and 93% of children older than two years were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT visits.

Partially42

↔

MSA II.F.2 MSA II.F.2

42. Semi-Annual Dental Examinations: Number/percent of children ages three and older in care six months or more who received semi-annual dental examinations.
43. Follow-up Care and Treatment: Number/percent of children who received timely accessible and appropriate follow-up care and treatment to meet health care and mental health needs.

a. By December 2011, 98% of children will receive annual dental examinations.
b. By December 2011, 90% of children will receive semi-annual dental examinations.
By December 31, 2011, 90% of children will receive timely, accessible and appropriate follow-up care and treatment to meet health care and mental health needs.

a. 97% of children received an annual dental examination.
b. 86% of children were current with their semi-annual dental exam.
96% of children received follow-up care for needs identified in their CME.

a. 98% of children received an annual dental examination.
b. 85% of children were current with their semi-annual dental exam.43
As of December 2012, 95% of children received follow-up care for needs identified in their CME.44

Partially Yes

↔ ↔

42 While not yet meeting the final target, performance on EPSDT/well child exams represents sustained access to health care for this population and is a significant achievement. 43 Performance is as of December 31, 2012 as annual exams are measured on the calendar year. 44 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record Review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in DCP&P out-of-home
placement who were removed between May 1, 2012 and October 10, 2012 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,125 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 350
children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 % margin of error with 95% confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 30

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 39 of 186 PageID: 7136

Reference MSA II.F.8

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

44. Immunization: Children in DCF custody are current with immunizations.
45. Health Passports: Children’s parents/ caregivers receive current Health Passport within five days of a child’s placement.

By December 31, 2011, 98% of children in custody will be current with immunizations.
By June 30, 2011, 95% of caregivers will receive a current Health Passport within five days of a child’s placement.

From April through June 2012, 95% of children in out-of-home placement were current with their immunizations.
From November 2011 through April 2012, 58% of caregivers received Health Passports within five days of a child’s placements and 96% of caregivers received Health Passports within 30 days of a child’s placement.

From January through March 2013, 95% of children in out-of-home placement were current with their immunizations.
From May through October 2012, 63% of caregivers received Health Passports within five days of a child’s placements and 96% of caregivers received Health Passports within 30 days of a child’s placement.46

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

Partially45

↔

No

↑

45 While not yet meeting the final target, performance on ensuring children in out-of-home care are current with their immunizations represents sustained access to health care for
this population and is a significant achievement. 46 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record Review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in DCP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between May 1, 2012 and October 10, 2012 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,125 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 350
children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 % margin of error with 95% confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 31

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 40 of 186 PageID: 7137

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Health Care for Children in Out-of-Home Placement

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

From November 2011 to From May to October

April 2012, 99.5% of

2012, 99% of eligible

eligible children and

children and youth

MSA II.F.2

46. Mental Health Assessments: Number/percent of children with a suspected mental health need who receive mental health assessments.

By December 31, 2011, 90% of children with a suspected mental health need will receive a mental health assessment.

youth received a mental health screening. Of those screened, 53% had a suspected mental health need. Of those with a suspected mental

received a mental health screening. Of those screened, 60% had a suspected mental health need. Of those with a suspected mental health

Yes

health need (and 24

need (and 14 additional

additional youth already youth already receiving

receiving services) 92% services) 90% received a

received a mental health mental health

assessment.

assessment.47

↔

47 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record Review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in DCP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between May 1, 2012 and October 10, 2012 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,125 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 350 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 % margin of error with 95% confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 32

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 41 of 186 PageID: 7138

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

CPM

47. Provision of in-home and community-based mental health services for children and their families: CSOC shall continue to support activities of CMOs, YCMs, FSOs, Mobile Response, evidence-based therapies such as MST and FFT and crisis stabilization services to assist children and youth and their families involved with DCP&P and to prevent children and youth from entering DCP&P custody.

Final Target

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

DCF continues to

DCF continues to

support CMO, YCMs, support CMO, YCMs,

FSOs, Mobile Response, FSOs, Mobile Response,

MST, FFT and

MST, FFT and

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

community-based services to prevent

community-based services to prevent

Yes

N/A

children from being

children from being

removed and to reunify removed and to reunify

children with their

children with their

parents.

parents.48

Services to Families

48. Continued Support for

CPM

Family Success Centers:49 DCF shall continue to support

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

49 Family Success Centers statewide

51 Family Success Centers statewide

Yes

N/A

statewide network of Family

Success Centers

CPM

50. Services to Support Transitions: The Department will provide services and supports to families to support and preserve successful

By December 31, 2011, 90% of cases score appropriately as measured by QR.

56% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on QR indicator ‘Transitions and Life Adjustments.’

52% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on QR indicator ‘Transitions and Life Adjustments.’

No

↓

transitions.

48 DCF is in the beginning stages of implementing a Medicaid waiver which should provide additional mental health and behavioral supports to children, youth and their families.
The Monitor will continue to track implementation of this waiver. 49 DCF has redeployed funds previously allocated for a Differential Response Pilot program which was discontinued to increase the number of Family Success Centers statewide.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 33

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 42 of 186 PageID: 7139

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

CPM

51. Post-Adoption Supports: The Department will make postadoption services and subsidies available to preserve families who have adopted a child.

CPM

52. Provision of Domestic Violence Services. DCF shall continue to support Domestic Violence liaisons, PALS and Domestic Violence shelter programs to prevent child maltreatment and assist children and families involved with DCP&P.

Final Target
Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance
Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

June 2012 Performance

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

DCF administers an

DCF administers an

Adoption Subsidy

Adoption Subsidy

Program which

Program which

supported 13,908

supported 13,757

adopted children by the adopted children by the

end of June 2012. DCF end of March 2013.

funds a statewide

DCF funds a statewide

network of post-adoption network of post-adoption

Yes

N/A

services through contract services through contract

arrangements with eight arrangements with 11

private agencies.

private agencies.

Funding remains slightly Funding remains slightly

over $3 million and is over $3 million and is

used specifically for

used specifically for

family counseling and family counseling and

family support services. family support services.

DCF increased the

number of Domestic

Domestic Violence

Violence liaisons by 7

liaisons now available in during this reporting

each DCP&P Local

period; 31 liaisons are

Yes

N/A

Office.

now available in

DCP&P’s 47 Local

Offices.

Services to Older Youth

CPM

53. Independent Living Assessments: Number/percent of cases where DCF Independent Living Assessment is complete for youth age14-18.

By December 31, 2011, 95% of youth age 14-18 have an Independent Living Assessment.

As of June 30, 2012, 84% of youth ages14 to 18 in out-of-home placement for at least six months had a completed Independent Living

As of March 31, 2013, 98% of youth ages 14 to 18 in out-of-home placement for at least six months had a completed Independent Living

Yes

↑

Assessment.

Assessment.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 34

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 43 of 186 PageID: 7140

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

CPM

54. Services to Older Youth: DCF shall provide services to youth between the ages 18 and 21 similar to services previously available to them unless the youth, having been informed of the implications, formally request that DCF close the case.

By December 31, 2011, 90% of youth are receiving acceptable services as measured by the New Jersey Qualitative Review.

CPM

55. Youth Exiting Care: Youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall have housing and be employed or in training or an educational program.

By December 31, 2011, 95% of youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall have housing and be employed or in training or an educational program.

June 2012 Performance Data Not Available
Data Not Available

March 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

Data Not Available50 Data Not Available

N/A

Data collected during a

case record review of all

youth exiting care

between July 1 and

December 31, 2012

without achieving

permanency found that

No

86% of youth had

housing and 52% of

youth were either

employed or enrolled in

education or vocational

training program.51

52
↔

50 During this monitoring period, a methodology to determine performance was finalized and in late-July 2013, the Monitor and DCF jointly participated in specialized Quality
Reviews (QRs) to collect performance data for this measure. Findings will be provided in the next monitoring report. 51 Case records for 65 youth were reviewed. 52 In the fall of 2010, the Monitor assessed performance through a case record review of adolescents exiting care between January 1 and June 30, 2010 and found that 72 percent of
youth had housing and 60 percent of youth were employed or in some type of educational program.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 35

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 44 of 186 PageID: 7141

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
II.A.5. In reporting during Phase I on the state’s compliance, the Monitor shall focus on the quality of the Case Practice Model and the actions by the state to implement it.
II.B.1.b. 100% of all new case carrying workers shall be enrolled in Pre-Service Training, including training in intake and investigations, within two weeks of their start date.
II.B.1.c. No case carrying worker shall assume a full caseload until completing Pre-Service Training and passing competency exams.
II.B.2. c. 100% of case carrying workers and supervisors shall take a minimum of 40 hours of annual In-Service Training and shall pass competency exams.
II.B.2.d. The state shall implement In-Service Training on concurrent planning for all existing staff.

March 2013 Performance
All 47 Local Offices have completed the immersion process.
191(100%) new caseworkers (38 hired in the previous monitoring period) were enrolled in Pre-Service Training within two weeks of their start date. (8 BCWEP hires).53
191(100%) new caseworkers who are now case-carrying workers have passed competency exams (8 BCWEP hires).
2,893 (95%) out of 3,027 case carrying workers and supervisors completed 40 or more hours of training and passed competency exams.
Between July 2012 and March 2013, 206 (100%) eligible DCP&P caseworkers were trained on concurrent planning and passed competency exams before assuming caseloads.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

53 The Baccalaureate Child Welfare Education Program (BCWEP) is a consortium of seven New Jersey colleges (Rutgers University, Seton Hall University, Stockton College, Georgian Court University, Monmouth University, Century College and Ramapo College) that enables students to earn a Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) degree. The Monitor has previously determined that this course of study together with Worker Readiness Training designed by the DCF Child Welfare Training Academy satisfies the MSA requirements. All BCWEP students are required to pass the same competency exams that non-BCWEP students take before they are permitted to carry a caseload.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 36

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 45 of 186 PageID: 7142

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements

The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
II.B.3.a. All new staff responsible for conducting intake or investigations shall receive specific, quality training on intake and investigations processes, policies and investigations techniques and pass competency exams before assuming responsibility for cases.
II.B.4.b. 100% of all staff newly promoted to supervisory positions shall complete their 40 hours of supervisory training and shall have passed competency exams within six months of assuming their supervisory positions.
II.C.4 The state will develop a plan for appropriate service delivery for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth, and thereafter begin to implement this plan. II.C.5 The state shall promulgate and implement policies designed to ensure that the State continues to provide services to youth between ages 18-21 similar to services previously available to them.

March 2013 Performance
230 (100%) employees assigned to intake and investigations in this monitoring period successfully completed intake training and passed competency exams. Between July 2012 and March 2013, 53 supervisors were trained and passed competency exams; 20 of these supervisors were appointed at the end of the last monitoring period. Fortyseven supervisors were appointed during this monitoring period, 33 of whom were part of the 53 supervisors trained.
Delivery of services ongoing.
DCF continues to provide services to these youth. New policies have been developed and current policies are being revised.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 37

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 46 of 186 PageID: 7143

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements

The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
II.C.6 The state shall provide mental health services to at least 150 birth parents whose families are involved with the child system.
II.D.1. The state shall implement an accurate real time bed tracking system to manage the number of beds available from the CSOC and match those with children who need them.
II.D.2. The state shall create a process to ensure that no child shall be sent to an out-of-state congregate care facility. The process will also ensure that for any child who is sent out-of-state, an appropriate plan is developed to maintain contacts with family and return the child in-state as soon as appropriate.

March 2013 Performance
DCF continues to meet this standard by funding both inhome and office-based therapeutic interventions for over 400 birth parents (unduplicated count) in efforts to maintain children in, or return children to, the custody of their parents. The state’s approved Medicaid Waiver moves adults into a managed care system which should allow for a more comprehensive approach to patient care and treatment of both physical and mental health needs. This impacts some parents involved with DCP&P and could improve access to mental health care.
The state has implemented and utilizes a real time bed tracking system to match children with placements.
As of May 2013, there were three youth in out-of-state residential placements. All three youth are in a specialized program for the deaf or hard of hearing. DCF is currently creating a program in state to meet the needs of youth needing residential placement who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes Yes

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 38

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 47 of 186 PageID: 7144

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
II.D.5. The state shall implement an automated system for identifying youth in its custody being held in juvenile detention facilities and ensure that they are placed within 30 days of disposition.
II.G.9. The state shall provide adoption training to designated adoption workers for each Local Office.
II.G.15. The state shall issue reports based on the adoption process tracking system.
II.H.4. The period for processing resource family applications through licensure will be 150 days.
II.H.13 The state shall implement the methodology for setting annualized targets for resource family non-kin recruitment. II.H.14 The state shall provide flexible funding at the same level or higher than provided in FY’07. II.H.17 The state shall review the Special Home Service Provider (SHSP) resource family board rates to ensure continued availability of these homes and make adjustments as necessary. II.J.2. The state shall initiate management reporting based on SafeMeasures. II.J.6. The state shall annually produce DCF agency performance reports. II.J.9. The state shall issue regular, accurate reports from SafeMeasures.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

March 2013 Performance
DCF reports that from July 2012 to March 2013, 10 youth in DCP&P custody were in juvenile detention awaiting a CSOC placement. All transitioned within 30 days of disposition of their juvenile court case. 52 (100%) adoption workers were trained between July 2012 and March 2013. Adoption tracking data are now collected in NJ SPIRIT and DCF is reporting on all data required in MSA II.G.4. Of applications submitted between January and September 2012, DCF resolved 58% of applications within 150 days. DCF continues to set targets for homes targeted for recruitment by county. In FY2012, the flex fund budget was $5,639,602.
New policies implemented.
The state continues to use Safe Measures for management reporting.
DCF released FY 2012 report in December 2012.
The state has the capacity and is regularly producing reports from SafeMeasures

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes Yes
No
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
October 2013 Page 39

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 48 of 186 PageID: 7145

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements

The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
II.J.10. The state shall produce caseload reporting that tracks caseloads by office and type of worker and, for permanency and adoption workers, that tracks children as well as families.
II.E.20 95% of offices shall have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a five worker to one supervisor ratio.
III.B.1.a 95% of offices with average caseloads meeting the standard and at least 95% of individual workers with caseloads meeting the standard: permanency workers: no more than 15 families and no more than ten children in out-of-home care.
III.B.1.b 95% of offices with average caseloads meeting the standard and at least 95% of individual workers with caseloads meeting the standard: intake workers: no more than 12 open cases and no more than eight new case assignments per month. III.B.1.c 95% of offices with average caseloads meeting the standard and at least 95% of individual workers with caseloads meeting the standard: IAIU investigators: no more than 12 open cases and no more than eight new cases assignments per month. III.B.1.d 95% of offices with average caseloads meeting the standard and at least 95% of individual workers with caseloads meeting the standard: adoption workers: no more than 15 children.
III.C.2 The state shall promulgate and implement policies designed to ensure that psychotropic medication is not used as a means of discipline or control and that the use of physical restraint is minimized.

March 2013 Performance
The state has provided the Monitor with reports that provide individual caseloads of children and families for intake, permanency and adoption workers. 96% of DCP&P Local Offices have sufficient frontline supervisors, with ratios of five workers to one supervisor. 96% of offices met permanency standards. 94% of permanency workers met caseload requirements.54 98% of offices met intake standards. 86% of intake workers met caseload requirements.55
97% of IAIU workers met caseload requirements.
80% of offices met adoption standards. 87% of adoption workers met caseload requirements.56 In January 2010, DCF issued polices on psychotropic medication and continues to monitor children and youth on psychotropic medication in accordance with this policy.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes Yes Partially Yes No
Yes

54 Reported performance is the average of DCF’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during this nine month monitoring period. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 40

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 49 of 186 PageID: 7146

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements

The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
III.C.4 The state shall continue to meet the final standards for pre-licensure and ongoing training of resource families, as described in Phase I.
III.C.5 The state shall incorporate into its contracts with service providers performance standards consistent with the Principles of the MSA.
III.C.6 In consultation with the Monitor, the state shall develop and implement a well-functioning quality improvement program consistent with the Principles of the MSA and adequate to carry out the reviews of case practice in Phase II.
III.C.7 The state shall regularly evaluate the need for additional placements and services to meet the needs of children in custody and their families, and to support intact families and prevent the need for out-of-home care. Such needs assessments shall be conducted on an annual, staggered basis that assures that every county is assessed at least once every three years. The state shall develop placements and services consistent with the findings of these needs assessments. III.C.8 Reimbursement rates for resource families shall equal the median monthly cost per child calculated by the United States Department of Agriculture for middle-income, urban families in the northeast.

March 2013 Performance
DCF continues to conduct prelicensure training for DCP&P resource families and contracts with Foster and Adoptive Family Services (FAFS) to conduct ongoing in-service training.
The Monitor has previously reviewed several service provider contracts and found that such contracts incorporate performance standards consistent with the principles of the MSA.
DCF’s Office Performance Management and Accountability continues to facilitate case record reviews, ChildStat and Qualitative Reviews statewide.
DCF is in the process of reevaluating how it conducts its needs assessment process. DCF is working with the Monitor on a revised plan.
Resource family board rates continue to meet USDA standards.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Unable to Determine
Yes

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 41

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 50 of 186 PageID: 7147
IV. DCF’S INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICE
A. New Jersey’s State Central Registry (SCR)
New Jersey’s State Central Registry (SCR) is charged with receiving calls of suspected child abuse and neglect as well as calls where reporters believe the well-being of families is at risk and an assessment, support, and/or information and referral is needed, even though there is no allegation of child abuse or neglect. The SCR operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week with multiple shifts of staff and supervisors and a sophisticated call management and recording system. Screeners at SCR determine the nature of each caller’s concerns and initiate the appropriate response.
This function also includes receiving calls about and investigating allegations of abuse and/or neglect in institutional settings (e.g., resource homes, schools, shelters, detention facilities). DCP&P Local Offices employ investigative staff to follow up on the calls as appropriate and a regionally organized Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU) is responsible for investigations in institutional settings.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 42

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 51 of 186 PageID: 7148

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

1. Responding to Calls to the SCR: a. Total number of calls b. Number of abandoned calls c. Time frame for answering calls d. Number of calls screened out e. Number of referrals for CWS

Final Target

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

State Central Registry (SCR)

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
Between July 2012 and March 2013, the SCR received a total of 126,842 calls. Data from the call system show that in March 2013 callers waited approximately 21 seconds for an SCR screener to answer their calls. Of all the calls received during this monitoring period, 42,730 (34%) calls57 related to the possible need for Child Protective Services (CPS) responses. Of those, screeners classified 42,056 reports for investigation of alleged child abuse or neglect. Another 10,967 (9%) calls related to the possible need for Child Welfare Services (CWS) and assessment of service need of which 10,585 (8%) were referred for response. Figure 1 shows a month-by-month breakdown of the call volume at SCR for July 2012 through March 2013.

Figure 1: Number of Calls to SCR by Month (July 2012 – March 2013)

Number of Calls

20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000

13,951

14,535 13,148

15,401 13,250

14,993 13,170

14,797 13,597

JJuull--1122 AAuugg--1122 SeSpe-p12-12 OctO-1c2t-12 NovN-1o2v-12Dec-D12ec-12Jan-1J3an-13Feb-F1e3b-13MarM-1a3r-13

Source: DCF data

MoMntohnth

57 Calls are differentiated from reports or referrals because SCR can receive several calls related to one incident or in some cases one call can result in several separate reports.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 43

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 52 of 186 PageID: 7149

State Central Registry (SCR)

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

2. Quality of SCR Response: a. Respond to callers promptly, with respectful, active listening skills b. Essential information gathered—identification of parents and other important family members c. Decision making process based on information gathered and guided by tools and supervision
Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
Between July 2012 and March 2013, the SCR continued to implement a number of system improvements related to staffing, training and quality assurance. In July 2012, SCR completed a redesign of supervisor and screener training with DCF’s Child Welfare Training Academy. DCF employees who transfer to SCR58 currently receive up to 20 days of training with an increased emphasis on live-call training. Newly hired SCR staff spend the final week of their training period on the designated shift they are assigned. This process permits the supervisor to become an active participant in the screener's training process. Additionally, in June and July 2012, SCR supervisors participated in leadership training, as well as professional leadership projects and programs, specifically the Leadership Academy for Middle Managers (LAMM) and DCP&P Management Fellows project, among others. This leadership training is part of an ongoing effort to increase supervisors’ capacity to address complex situations, apply processes and resources to achieve accountability, measure results and assist in the implementation of sustained system change to better support screeners and improve outcomes for children and families.
Quality assurance remains a priority for the SCR. A Quality Assurance Peer Review Team completes a daily review of all reports designated as information and referral (I&R)59 generated the previous business day. SCR staff evaluate 75 percent of every I&R Intake call received the previous business day to ensure they are properly categorized. Supervisory staff more closely examine the remaining 25 percent of I&R calls for proper case practice. To account for internal bias, reports identified with concerns are reviewed by casework supervisors who were not included in the referral’s decision making process. The SCR administrator performs a daily review of randomly selected reports. SCR supervisors also review and evaluate a prescribed number of calls for their staff in order to continually assess their screeners' performance, identify areas in need of improvement and provide on-going training to strengthen staff skills.
The call management system is currently being updated to allow screeners to have access to their own calls at their desktop via email so they can listen again to the call as they write their report and to facilitate supervision. This upgrade, scheduled to be completed in January 2014, will allow for immediate evaluation of screeners’ work by supervisors and will enable prompt supervisory feedback to screeners on their performance.

58 All employees at SCR must have prior field experience. 59 A call is identified as an I & R call when (1) a caller is seeking a referral to one or more service providers, (2) a SCR screener determines that a referral is the appropriate response to the concern raised by the caller, or (3) the
matter is referred back to the caller for handling (e.g., police calling about non-abuse incident, school calling about
educational neglect).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 44

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 53 of 186 PageID: 7150

SCR responded to calls and provided uninterrupted assistance during and after Superstorm Sandy. It served as a central location for DCF staff to obtain information and SCR staff provided information to resource parents, providers, stakeholders and the general public on ways to access services and resources, including location of shelters and food pantries.

B. Timeliness and Quality of Investigative Practice

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

3. Timeliness of Response: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be received by the field in a timely manner and commenced within the required response time as identified at SCR, but no later than 24 hours.

Final Target

a. For periods beginning July 1, 2009, and thereafter, 98% of investigations shall be received by the field in a timely manner.
b. For periods beginning July 1, 2009, and thereafter, 98% of investigations shall be commenced within the required response time.

Figure 2: Percentage of Investigations Received by the Field in a Timely Manner (June 2009 – March 2013)

100%

90% 96%

97%

98%

99%

99%

99%

98%

99%

Final Target (98%)

Percentage of Investigations

80%

70%

60%

50%
JuJnuen-0-909 DeDceemcb-e0r9-09

JJuunne--1100

DeDceemc-b1e0r-10 JuJunn-e1-111

DDeceecm-b1e1r-11

JJuunne-1-122

DMecaerm-1b3er-12

Source: DCF data

Month

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 45

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 54 of 186 PageID: 7151

Figure 3: Percentage of Investigations Commenced within Required Response Time (June 2009 – March 2013)

100%

Percentage of Investigations

90%

88%

88%

80%

83%

84%

70% 67%
60%

50%
JunJ-u0n9-09
Source: DCF data

DeDc-e0c9-09

JunJu-1n0-10

DeDc-e1c0-10 JuJnu-n1-111 Month

89%
DDece-c1-111

96% 93%
JJuunn-1-122 MDaerc--1132

Final Target (98%)

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
As of March 2013, DCF exceeded the final target by reaching performance of 99 percent for the timely transmittal of referrals to the field (Figure 2). Although performance improved to 96 percent, DCF did not meet the final target of 98 percent for commencing investigations within the required response time (Figure 3), making this measure partially achieved for this monitoring period.
DCP&P policy on timeliness of investigations requires receipt by the field of a report within one hour of call completion.60 During the month of March 2013, DCF received 5,204 referrals of child abuse and neglect requiring investigation. Of the 5,204 referrals, 4,766 (91.6%) referrals were received by the field in less than an hour of call completion. An additional 405 (7.8%) referrals were received by the field between one and three hours after call completion; for a total of 99.4 percent of referrals received by the field within three hours of call completion. The number of referrals received per month ranged from 5,304 in January 2013 to 5,171 in March 2013. Between 98 and 99 percent of referrals were received by the field within three hours of call completion during the months of July 2012 through March 2013.
DCP&P policy considers an investigation “commenced” when at least one of the alleged victim children has been seen by an investigator. During the month of March 2013, there were 4,972 CPS intakes applicable to this measure.61 Of the 4,972 intakes received, 1,244 intakes were coded for an immediate response and 3,728 intakes were coded for a response within 24 hours; 4,777 (96%) intakes were commenced within their required response time. Between July 2012 and March 2013, the percentage of monthly intakes commenced within their required response
60 The Monitor currently assesses performance on receipt by the field in a timely manner with a three hour standard. 61 Intakes are differentiated from referrals because SCR can receive several referrals related to one incident or in other instances, one referral can result in several intakes.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 46

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 55 of 186 PageID: 7152

time ranged from 93 to 96 percent. The final target of 98 percent for this measure was not met although performance continues to improve.

Investigative Practice

Quantitative or

4. Timeliness of Completion: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be completed

Qualitative Measure

within 60 days.

Final Target

By June 30, 2010, 98% of all abuse/neglect investigations shall be completed within 60 days.

Figure 4: Percentage of Abuse/Neglect Investigations Completed within 60 days (June 2009 – March 2013)

Percentage of Abuse/Neglect Investigations

100%
90%
80%
70% 68%
60%
50%
Jun-09
Jun-09

71%
Dec-09
Dec-09

Source: DCF data

71%
Jun-10
Jun-10

70% 63%

Dec-10
Dec-10

Jun-11
Jun-11

Month

Final Target (98%)

72% 65% 60%

Dec-11
Dec-11

Jun-12
Jun-12

Dec-12
Mar-13

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
This Performance Measure requires that 98 percent of all abuse and neglect investigations be completed within 60 days. There were 4,979 intakes in March 2013 applicable to this measure. Of the 4,979 intakes, investigations were completed within 60 days on 3,567 (72%) intakes. An additional 881 (18%) investigations were completed between 61 and 90 days after receipt, for a total of 90 percent of investigations completed within 90 days. Between July 2012 and March 2013, monthly performance on investigation completion ranged between 58 and 74 percent. While performance on this measure does not meet requirement of the final target, it has increased by seven percent since June 2012 despite sustained high rates of referrals.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 47

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 56 of 186 PageID: 7153

A case record review of the quality of DCP&P’s investigative practice was conducted in January 2013.62 This review examined the quality of practice of 324 CPS investigations assigned to DCF Local Offices between September 16 and 29, 2012 involving 688 children.63
Overall, the reviewers found that 253 (78%) of the investigations were of acceptable quality. The findings of this review reflect some clear strengths in DCP&P investigative case practice as well as areas in need of further development. Key strengths include:64
 safety and risk assessments were completed in 100 percent of the investigations,  caseworkers interviewed the mother of the alleged child victim in 97 percent of
investigations,  caseworkers met the required response time to contact the alleged child victim in 93
percent of investigations and  pre-investigation worker/supervisor conferences took place in 86 percent of the
investigations.
Overall, recommendations for improvement include clarification through policy, training and mentoring of staff and supervisors on some key areas of investigative practice and improvement in documentation of investigative activities and events. These areas of investigative practice include:
 Reviewing and understanding a family’s prior child protection history through interviews with other DCP&P workers as well as other child protective authorities. This was of particular significance as over 70 percent of the investigations in the review had prior DCP&P history.
 Integrating collateral information into investigative decision making. Reviewers determined that all applicable collateral information was obtained in only 49 percent of investigations.
 Interviewing fathers of alleged child victims during investigations. Reviewers found that 69 percent of fathers were interviewed.

C. Institutional Abuse Investigative Unit (IAIU): Investigations of Allegations of Child Maltreatment in Placements
The Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU) is responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect in settings including correctional facilities, detention facilities, treatment facilities, schools (public or private), residential schools, shelters, hospitals, camps or child care centers that are required to be licensed, resource family homes and registered family day care

62 A full report on the findings and recommendations from the review can be found at:
http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/divisions/opma/docs/NJ%20DCF%20Investigations%20Review%20Report.pdf 63 These results have a ± 5 % margin of error with 95 % confidence. 64 Reviewers could select four possible responses to the question of quality of the investigation which included
completely, partially, marginally and not at all. Completely and partially responses were considered acceptable and
compromise the 78 percent.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 48

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 57 of 186 PageID: 7154

homes.65 From January to December 2012, IAIU received approximately 2,998 referrals.66 This is an increase of 80 referrals (3%) over the same period in 2011. Figure 5 illustrates the proportion of IAIU referrals from different sources.

Figure 5: Referral Sources for All IAIU Referrals
(January – December 2012) N= 2,99867

Facility Police 8%
4% DCP&P Less than
1%
Other 7%

Legal & Court 1% Parent 15%
Relative 2%

Health 7%
Community Agency 14%

School 24%

Friend/Neighbor/ Comnmunity 8%

Self Anonymous 1%
9%

Source: DCF Data *Percentage is greater or less than 100% due to rounding.

65 DCP&P (7-1-1992). IAIU Support Operations Manual, III E Institutional Abuse and Neglect, 200. 66 DCF reports that from January to March 2013, there were 853 IAIU reports and requests. 67 Includes two CWS referrals received in February 2012, one CWS referral received in March 2012 and one CWS
referral received in July 2012.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 49

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 58 of 186 PageID: 7155

1. Performance Measures for IAIU

IAIU Practice for Investigations in Placements

6. IAIU Practice for Investigations in Placements:

a. Investigations in resource homes and investigations involving group homes, or other

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

congregate care settings shall be completed within 60 days. b. Monitor will review mechanisms that provide timely feedback to other division (e.g., CSOC,
OOL) and implementation of corrective action plans.

c. Corrective action plans developed as a result of investigations of allegations re: placements

will be implemented.

Final Target

By June 2007 and thereafter, 80% of IAIU investigations shall be completed within 60 days.

Figure 6: Percentage of IAIU Investigations Completed within 60 days (June 2009 – March 2013)*

100%

Percentage of IAIU Investigations

90% 86%
80%
70%

89% 79%

85%

88%

86%

87% 85%

Final Target (80%)

60%

50%
JJuunne--0099

DeDceemcb-0er9-09 JJuunn-e1-100

DDeceecm-1b0er-10 JuJnu-n1e1-11

DDeecce-m11ber-11 JunJ-u1n2e-12 MDaerc-1em3 ber-12

Month

Source: DCF data *The performance percentage shown on the last month of each monitoring period (June and December) is the average of the prior six month’s performance in IAIU investigation completion within 60 days during that six month monitoring period. The performance percentage shown for March 2013 is the average of the prior nine month’s performance in completing IAIU investigations within 60 days during the nine month monitoring period.

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
DCF manages and tracks IAIU performance daily, calculating the proportion of investigations open 60 days or more statewide and within regional offices. Between July 2012 and March 2013, 83 to 87 percent of all IAIU investigations were open less than 60 days (see Table 2).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 50

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 59 of 186 PageID: 7156

The MSA does not make any distinction on the type of investigations IAIU conducts based on the allegation or location of the alleged abuse. Instead, the 60 day completion standard applies to all IAIU investigations. In reviewing IAIU performance, the Monitor requests data separately on investigations of maltreatment in foster care settings (resource family homes and congregate care facilities) as well as from other settings (e.g., schools, day care). Table 2 displays IAIU’s reported overall performance for the dates cited, in addition to the timeliness of completion of investigations in resource family homes and congregate care facilities. DCF continues to exceed the performance target for this measure.

Table 2: IAIU Investigative Timeliness: Percent of Investigations Completed within 60 days
(July 2012 – March 2013 )

Date July 31, 2012

All IAIU investigations completed within 60 days
84%

August 31, 2012

83%

September 28, 2012

87%

October 31, 2012

84%

November 30, 2012

84%

December 31, 2012

85%

January 31, 2013

84%

February 28, 2013

86%

March 29, 2013

85%

Source: DCF data, IAIU, Daily Summary Reports

Investigations in resource family homes and congregate care completed within 60 days 88%
90%
93%
89%
89%
94%
88%
86%
88%

2. Corrective Action Monitoring from IAIU Investigations
If the evidence from an investigation does not support substantiating maltreatment, the investigation is considered “unfounded.” However, during the course of an IAIU investigation, investigators may identify policy, licensing, training or other issues that require attention. These circumstances often prompt the investigators to conclude that even though the allegation of abuse or neglect was unfounded, there remain concerns that should be addressed. IAIU investigators refer to this as a finding “with concerns.” The concerns generally require some type of corrective action by the facility or resource home.
Every IAIU investigation results in a finding letter sent to a facility or resource home. This letter cites the investigative conclusion and, when applicable, concerns that are distinct from the investigative finding. The Office of Licensing (OOL) is informed of every finding letter. IAIU’s Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) staff is responsible for monitoring the development and completion of corrective actions required by concerns raised in IAIU investigations (MSA

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 51

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 60 of 186 PageID: 7157
Section II.I.2). Between July 2012 and March 2013, IAIU issued 326 corrective action requests involving resource family homes, group homes and residential facilities where foster children were placed. DCP&P policy allows 30 days to complete or accept a corrective action. Information reported from the IAIU corrective action database indicate that 204 (63%) of 326 corrective actions had been successfully completed (accepted) and 88 (37%) of corrective action requests were outstanding or pending resolution as of March 31, 2013. As of March 31, 2013, the 88 corrective action requests due had been outstanding for 31 to 260 calendar days since the date of the findings letter.
Corrective Action Reports
The Monitor reviewed ten cases randomly selected from incidents that occurred between July 2012 and March 2013 in the corrective action database to look at feedback mechanisms between IAIU and other divisions (e.g. CSOC, OOL) and to ensure corrective action plans (CAPs) are being developed. The sample included five resource family homes, two group homes, two residential facilities and one relative placement. IAIU’s CQI accepted eight of the ten CAPs. One CAP was not submitted and the other was pending while staff continued working on it beyond the monitoring period. CAPs in this sample resulted in verified re-training and termination of staff at a group home and a residential facility; re-training of resource and relative parents on DCP&P policies and procedures; rejecting the licensing application of a resource home, and closing a resource home. The CAPs reviewed appeared to adequately address the incidents which prompted the IAIU investigation. There was evidence of appropriate communication between divisions in all reports, particularly between IAIU and OOL regarding the licensure of resource homes under investigation. All communication on record occurred via email or inter-office memos. In addition, IAIU’s Corrective Action Unit hosts a Systems Partner meeting with OOL, Child Care Licensing (CCL), Residential Licensing (RL), Resource Family Licensing (RFL) and SCR once a month to ensure that issues identified during IAIU investigations are communicated to all the partners.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 52

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 61 of 186 PageID: 7158
V. IMPLEMENTING THE CASE PRACTICE MODEL
DCF continues to train and support additional staff who are expected to practice according to the Case Practice Model (CPM). The CPM is designed to guide and support staff towards a strengthbased and family-centered approach that ensures the safety, permanency and well-being of children. This practice requires engagement with children, youth and families through teamwork and crafting individualized case plans with families and children. The Performance Measures discussed below measure progress on some of these activities using data from NJ SPIRIT and data collected during the state’s Qualitative Review (QR) process.
A. Activities Supporting the Implementation of the Case Practice Model
DCP&P continues to build its capacity to coach, facilitate and supervise Family Team Meetings (FTMs), a critical element of the CPM. Each DCF Area Office now has an Implementation Specialist who is responsible for providing ongoing assistance to staff to practice according to the CPM. Implementation Specialists continue to lead case practice improvement efforts statewide by training and mentoring staff to serve as facilitators, coaches and master coaches who conduct FTMs and implement the CPM.68 The Implementation Specialists conduct on-site training tailored to the needs of each Local Office, including topics such as how to effectively engage families, building effective teams and how to identify strengths and needs in complex child protection cases. Implementation Specialists are also trained to be Quality Reviewers and to support the linkage of practice to outcomes. During the nine month reporting period the Implementation Specialists have also:
 conducted training on the appropriate use of family agreements and case plans;  led areas in developing how best to use the Child and Family Team/Family Team
Meeting pilot between DCP&P and Children's System of Care (CSOC);  conducted training focused on enhanced partnership between permanency and adoption
staff;  created a new work group, the Adolescent Round Table, to support more effective
engagement with youth age 18 to 21; and  made presentations for the Children in Court committee (CIC) and the Child Placement
Advisory Council.
As of March 31, 2013, DCF developed 2,007 staff as FTM facilitators, 288 as coaches and 110 as master coaches. Table 3 shows the number of facilitators, coaches and master coaches by DCP&P area.

68 Coaches are DCP&P staff of varying levels who are trained specifically to lead FTMs; master coaches train Local Office and area staff to become facilitators and coaches. Facilitators are trained to conduct Family Team Meetings according to protocol and the principles and values of DCF’s CPM.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 53

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 62 of 186 PageID: 7159

Table 3: Number of FTM Facilitators, Coaches and Master Coaches Developed as of March 31, 2013

County Atlantic Bergen Burlington Camden Cape May Cumberland Essex Gloucester Hudson Hunterdon Mercer Middlesex Monmouth Morris Ocean Passaic Salem Somerset Sussex Union Warren TOTAL Source: DCF

Facilitators 69 122 79 156 55 59
265 67 174 18 117 114 96 70 86 135 53 50 42 148 32 2,007

Coaches 13 32 17 15 8 14 25 9 21 14 10 12 16 11 21 15 5 6 6 14 4 288

Master Coaches
4 7 5 7 3 3 12 2 13 1 4 6 8 4 5 10 0 0 6 9 1 110

ChildStat Meetings
DCF continues to hold monthly ChildStat meetings, which have been in place since September 2010, and have been a mainstay in DCF’s continuous quality improvement processes.69 At the ChildStat meetings, Local Office leadership present practice issues, including information and data regarding cases with repeat referrals. As additional offices participate in ChildStat, more staff from many levels within DCF have become better able to use data to demonstrate Local Office performance. The Monitor continues to regularly attend DCF’s ChildStat meetings and remains encouraged by the quality of the analyses presented. DCF is now using the ChildStat process to more deeply examine cases of frequently encountered families, those families who

69 ChildStat is a process wherein organizations use quantitative and qualitative data from multiple contexts to understand and attempt to improve service delivery.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 54

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 63 of 186 PageID: 7160

have had a prior unfounded CPS investigation within 12 months of a current referral. This examination has led to suggested changes to policy that will be used statewide to improve practice. As of September 2012, DCF has invited outside stakeholders and partners to attend its ChildStat meetings. DCF’s efforts at self-examination and diagnosis continues to be a productive way to reinforce to staff and DCF partners the elements of quality case practice and the standards of practice that DCF expects for all cases.
Concurrent Planning Practice
DCF continues holding case planning meetings at five and ten months into a child’s placement to address concurrent planning, a practice used throughout the country in which caseworkers work with families with children in out-of-home placement to reunify children as quickly as possible while simultaneously pursuing alternative permanency options should reunification efforts fail. DCP&P conducts “enhanced reviews” after a child has been in placement for five and ten months to carry out its concurrent planning required by the MSA.70 Enhanced reviews occur in all 47 DCP&P Local Offices.
Statewide, in March 2013, 95 percent of applicable families had required five month reviews, and 97 percent had required ten month reviews.
As Table 4 reflects, in March 2013, 95 percent of five month reviews due that month were completed timely statewide. Between July 2012 and March 2013, monthly performance on this measure ranged from 95 to 98 percent.

Table 4: Five Month Enhanced Review (July 2012 – March 2013)

Jul-12 # %

Reviews Completed w/in 281 95% five months

Reviews Not

Completed w/in 16

5%

five months

Totals 297 100%

Source: DCF data

Aug-12 # %
305 96%
14 4% 319 100%

Sep-12 # %
276 96%
12 4% 288 100%

Oct-12 # %
322 97%
11 3% 333 100%

Nov-‘12 # %
265 95%
13 5% 278 100%

Dec-12 # %
270 98%

6

2%

276 100%

Jan-13 # %
334 95%
16 5% 350 100%

Feb-13 # %
298 98%

6

2%

304 100%

Mar-13 # %
312 95%
17 5% 329 100%

Table 5 shows that statewide in March 2013, 97 percent of ten month reviews due that month were completed timely. Between July 2012 and March 2013, monthly performance on this measure ranged from 94 to 99 percent.

70 For more information, see Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period II Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie – January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007, Washington, D.C., pg. 36.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 55

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 64 of 186 PageID: 7161

Table 5: Ten Month Enhanced Review (July 2012 – March 2013)

Jul-12

# %

Reviews Completed w/in 181 94% ten months

Reviews Not

Completed w/in 12

6%

ten months

Totals 193 100%

Source: DCF data

Aug-12 # %
244 95%

12

5%

256 100%

Sep-12 # %
218 99%

3

1%

221 100%

Oct-12 # %
206 98%

4

2%

210 100%

Nov-12 # %
221 97%
6 3% 227 100%

Dec-12 # %
199 97%

6

3%

205 100%

Jan-13 # %
228 95%

12

5%

240 100%

Feb-13 # %
243 98%

6

2%

249 100%

Mar-13 # %
222 97%

6

3%

228 100%

In March 2013, 64 percent of cases were transferred to an Adoption worker in the required five days after a change of goal to adoption.
The MSA requires DCP&P to transfer a case to an Adoption worker within five business days after a child’s permanency goal has been changed to adoption (Section II.G.2.c). As Table 6 reflects, in March 2013, 64 percent of cases were transferred to an Adoption worker within the required timeframe. Between July 2012 and March 2013, monthly performance on transfers within five days ranged from 57 to 78 percent; during these same months, performance on transfers to an Adoption worker within 30 days ranged from 79 to 93 percent of applicable cases.

Table 6: Assignment to Adoption Worker within 5 days of Goal Change to Adoption (July 2012 – March 2013)

Jul-12

Aug-12

Sep-12

# % # % # %

Within 5 days

58 57% 39 63% 89 78%

6-20 days

21 21% 11 18% 13 11%

21- 30 days

2

1% 5

8%

0

0%

31 or More days
Not Yet Assigned
Not Able to Determine
(Missing hearing date)

10 10% 1

8

8% 3

2% 4 4% 5% 7 6%

3 3% 3

5%

1 0%

Totals 102 100% 62 *99% 114 *99%

Source: DCF data *Percentage is greater or less than 100 due to rounding.

Oct-12 # %

65 58%

30 27%

6

5%

8 7%

2 2%

1 1% 112 100%

Nov-12 # %

60

68%

9 10%

4

5%

9 10%

2

2%

4

5%

88 100%

Dec-12 # %

74 59%

36 29%

3

2%

5

4%

5 4%

3 2% 126 100%

Jan-13 # %

118 73%

25 15%

8

5%

3

2%

8

5%

0

0%

162 100%

Feb-13 # %

69

68%

19

19%

4

4%

5

5%

4

4%

1

1%

102 *101%

Mar-13 # %
86 64% 25 19% 3 2%
3 2%
15 11%

2

2%

134 100%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 56

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 65 of 186 PageID: 7162

B. Performance Measures on Family Team Meetings and Case Planning
Family Team Meetings (FTMs) are intended to work in concert with individualized case planning to support improved results for children and families. Caseworkers are trained and coached to hold FTMs at key decision points in the life of a case, such as when a child enters placement, when a child has a change of placement and/or when there is a need to adjust a case plan. Working at optimal capacity, FTMs enable families, providers, formal and informal supports to exchange information that can be critical to coordinating and following up on services, examining and solving problems, and achieving positive outcomes. Meetings are to be scheduled according to the family’s availability in an effort to get as many family members and family supports as possible around the table. Engaging the family, the core of New Jersey’s CPM, is a critical component of successful family teaming.
Changing practice to include regular FTMs for every family when appropriate has been consistently challenging for the state, despite intensive efforts involving training, coaching and supervision. The state acknowledges that more work needs to be done to fully engage families and encourage participation in FTMs. Some of the difficulty in meeting this Performance Measure appears to be due to families not wanting to participate in FTMs, and DCF has struggled with how to accurately assess and document this information, while simultaneously improving engagement skills of workers. As discussed more fully below, the Monitor reviewed records from 40 families in which DCF reported that FTMs did not occur due to the parent being unavailable or unwilling to participate. The Monitor could not find documentation to support DCP&P’s data in a significant number of cases, so the Monitor assessed performance this monitoring period by counting FTMs that actually occurred and did not exclude from the universe the reported number of FTMs in which the parent was unavailable or the parent declined to attend. This is a change in how performance has been previously assessed.

Family Involvement and Effective Use of Family Team Meetings

7. Family Involvement and Effective Use of Family Team Meetings: A family team (involving

parents, youth and appropriate formal and informal supports) shall meet and plan together. The

team should be involved in planning & decision making throughout a case and have the skills,

family knowledge and abilities to solve and help to organize effective services for the child and

Quantitative or

family. Number of family team meetings at key decision points:

Qualitative Measure

a. For children newly entering placement, the number/percent who have a family team meeting

within 30 days of entry.

b. For all other children in placement, the number/percent who have at least one family team

meeting each quarter.

c. Family Teamwork

Final Target

a. By June 30, 2010, family meetings held prior to or within 30 days of entry for 90% of new entries and 90% of pre-placements.
b. By June 30, 2010, family meetings held for 90% of children at least once per quarter. c. By June 30, 2011, 90% of cases show evidence in QR of acceptable team formation and
functioning.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 57

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 66 of 186 PageID: 7163

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
DCF did not meet the final target requiring FTMs for 90 percent of families prior to or within 30 days of a child entering foster care, for re-placements, and at least once per quarter thereafter.
During this reporting period DCF initiated intensive efforts to better understand and validate the legitimate reasons why FTMs do not occur, either because the family is unavailable or because a parent declined to attend. In an effort to verify DCF’s FTM data in this reporting period, the Monitor reviewed 40 cases in which DCF reported that FTMs did not occur due to the parent being unavailable or unwilling to participate; the Monitor could not find documentation in the record to support DCP&P’s data in a number of cases.71 As a result, data reported for this monitoring period only includes information on FTMs that actually occurred and does not exclude from the universe the reported number of FTMs in which the parent was unavailable or the parent declined to attend, a change from previous reporting periods. This revised methodology was also used to recalculate Period XII data to reflect the progress that has been made in initial FTMs completed, from 35 percent in June 2012 (Period XII) to 56 percent in March 2013 (Period XIII).
According to NJ SPIRIT data, in March 2013, out of 358 possible FTMs, 200 (56%) occurred within 30 days of removal; from July 2012 to March 2013, monthly performance ranged from 34 to 57 percent. The state’s performance on FTMs that occurred (without excluding from the universe FTMs where the parent was unavailable or declined to participate) has significantly improved from the previous monitoring period, as described above.72
Performance on quarterly FTMs also improved. Using the same methodology and reporting only on FTMs that actually occurred, in March 2013, out of a possible 1,758 FTMs, 815 (46%) occurred; from July 2012 to March 2013, monthly performance ranged from 30 to 46 percent.73
During the next monitoring period, the Monitor and DCF plan to conduct a statistically valid case record review to more fully understand the practice and documentation issues concerning how to document and legitimately exclude from performance measure calculation those cases where parents were unavailable or declined to participate in FTMs. Once the Monitor is satisfied

71 The Monitor reviewed 22 cases from March 2013 in which data designated as the “parent unavailable” and 18 cases designated as “FTM declined.” Two additional cases were reviewed and determined to be incorrectly categorized: one in which the FTM had occurred and one in which DCP&P did not have custody of the youth. Of the remaining 20 cases designated as “parent unavailable,” the Monitor was able to find documentation for only four (20%) cases demonstrating they were appropriately categorized as “parent unavailable.” In 16 (80%), cases the Monitor did not find information to support the “parent unavailable” designation. Of the 18 cases designated as “FTM declined,” the Monitor found documentation that five (28%) were appropriately categorized and the remaining 13 (72%) did not have sufficient documentation to categorize them as “FTM declined.” 72 In June 2012, out of 311 possible FTMs, 109 (35%) of FTMs occurred within 30 days of removal. For the purposes of comparison, these data have been recalculated for Monitoring Period XII using the same methodology as was used for the March 2013 data; cases designated as “parent unavailable” and “parent declined” were not excluded from the universe due to the data verification issues discussed above. 73 In June 2012, out of a possible 1,581 FTMs, 526 (33%) occurred quarterly. This data differs from what was reported in the Monitoring Period XII as it does not exclude cases designated as “parent unavailable” and “parent declined” due to the data verification issues discussed above.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 58

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 67 of 186 PageID: 7164

that the exclusions are appropriate, those cases will be considered in the assessment of performance on this standard.
Figure 7: Cases Rated Acceptable on Family Involvement and Effective Use of Family Team Meetings (July 2012 – March 2013) (n=107)

100% 80%

Final Target (90%)

Percentage of Family Involvement

60%

40%

20%

24%

(26)

0% Cases Rated Acceptable

Source: DCF, QR results Reported performance based upon QR results from cases reviewed between July 2012 to March 2013.

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
DCF did not meet the target requiring that 90 percent of cases show evidence in the QR of at least minimally acceptable team formation and functioning, the indicator used to report on family involvement and effective use of FTMs. For cases rated as acceptable, there was evidence that persons who provided both formal and informal supports to children/youth and families had formed a working team that met, talked and planned together to help children/youth and families meet their goals. For cases rated as unacceptable, there was evidence in most cases of initial team formation but less effective ongoing functioning to support the case goals and/or some critical members of a necessary team were not involved.
Results of 107 cases reviewed from July 2012 to March 2013 using the QR indicate that both team formation and functioning were rated acceptable in 24 percent of cases, a decline of six percent from the previous reporting period.74

74 26 of 107 cases (24%) rated acceptable on both areas of Family Teamwork, team formation and team functioning; 36 of 107 cases (34%) rated acceptable on team formation; and 28 of 107 cases (26%) cases rated acceptable on team functioning.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 59

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 68 of 186 PageID: 7165

Timeliness of Case Planning-Initial Plans
DCF policy and the MSA require a case plan be developed within 30 days of a child entering placement. The state’s performance has demonstrated significant improvement during this reporting period. Various strategies have been employed to produce this improvement, including weekly conferences between DCF leadership, Area Directors and their Local Office managers to review individual worker and office performance on specific measures, including case plans. DCF also reports that performance improved due to clarifications to policy on how case plans are documented in NJ SPIRIT. Appendix B-4 provides performance data on initial case plan development by Local Office. Performance improved dramatically during this monitoring period; by February and March 2013, DCF met and exceeded the 95 percent performance final target for the first time (see Figure 8). Overall, the Monitor considers DCF’s performance over this monitoring period to partially fulfill the MSA requirement as the final target was met two months this monitoring period. As case plans are conducted more routinely, it will be important for DCF to emphasize their quality so that case plans more consistently meet the needs of children and families and to make sure this improvement is sustained.

Quantitative or

10. Timeliness of Initial Plans: For children entering care, number/percent of case plans developed

Qualitative Measure

within 30 days.

Final Target

By June 30, 2010, 95% of case plans for children and families are completed within 30 days.

Figure 8: Percentage of Children Entering Care with Case Plans Developed within 30 days (June 2009 – March 2013)

100% 80%

96%

Final Target (95%)

Percentage of Children

60%

40% 42%

42%

20%

50%

56%

61%

56% 45%

0%
JuJnuen-0-909 DeDceemcb-0er9-09
Source: DCF data

JJuunne--1100

DecDemecb-e1r-010 JJuunn-e1-111 Month

DeDceemc-b1e1r-11

JJuunne--1122

DMeceamr-b1e3r-12

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 60

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 69 of 186 PageID: 7166

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
In March 2013, 341 (96%) out of a total of 354 case plans were completed within 30 days. Additionally, a total of 350 (99%) cases had case plans completed within 60 days. As shown in Table 7, between July 2012 and March 2013, the timely development of case plans ranged from 45 to 99 percent each month. Beginning in January 2013, leadership clarified to staff the policy for determining when case plans are completed for the purposes of documenting them in NJ SPIRIT. This clarification appears to have greatly influenced performance, particularly in the months of January through March 2013, as shown in Table 7. Of the 44 Local Offices reported, 37 (84%) met the performance target in March 2013 (see Appendix B-4). The Monitor reviewed and verified a sample of the Local Office data reported.75

Table 7: Case Plans Developed within 30 days of Child Entering Placement (July 2012 – March 2013)

Jul-12 # %

Aug-12 # %

Sep-12 # %

Case Plans Completed in 30 days

227 66% 222 53% 226 60%

Case Plans Completed in

64 19% 112 27% 74 20%

31-60 days

Case Plans Not Completed after 60 days

52 15% 86 21% 77 20%

Totals 343 100% 420 *101% 377 100%

Source: DCF data *Percentage is greater or less than 100 due to rounding.

Oct-12 # %
172 45%
110 29%
99 26% 381 100%

Nov-12 # %
213 60%
71 20%
69 20% 353 100%

Dec-12 # %
157 49%
121 38%
40 13% 318 100%

Jan-13 # %
325 85%
51 13%
8 2% 384 100%

Feb-13 # %
329 99%
3 1%
1 0% 333 100%

Mar-13 # %
341 96%
9 3%
4 1% 354 100%

75 To validate the DCP&P Local Office data for this measure, Monitor staff reviewed a sample of 30 cases during March 2013 to assess documentation of case plans completion within 30 days of placement and determined that for each of the 30 cases, case plans were completed within 30 days.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 61

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 70 of 186 PageID: 7167

Timeliness of Case Planning-Current Plans

Quantitative or

11. Timeliness of Current Plans: For children entering care, number/percent of case plans shall be

Qualitative Measure

reviewed and modified as necessary at least every six months.

Final Target

By June 30, 2010, 95% of case plans for children and families will be reviewed and modified at least every six months.

Figure 9: Percentage of Case Plans Reviewed and Modified as Necessary at least every 6 months (June 2009 – March 2013)

100% 90%

99% Final Target (95%)

Percentage of Case Plans

80%

70% 69%
60% 64%

69%

67%

71%

70%

63%

50%
JuJnuen-0-099 DecDemebce-0r-909

JuJnuen-1-100 DeceDmebce-r1-010

JuJnuen--1111 DecDemecb-e1r-111

JJuunne--1122

DeMceamr-b1e3r-12

Source: DCF data

Month

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
DCF policy requires that case plans be reviewed and modified at least every six months. From July 2012 through March 2013, between 59 and 99 percent of case plans were modified within the required six month timeframe. In March 2013, 99 percent of case plans had been modified as necessary. The Monitor reviewed Local Office data for this measure and found that there is variation among Local Offices, as shown in Appendix B-5. Of the 47 Local Offices reported, 42 (89%) met the performance target in March 2013. DCF attributes the significant improvement in performance from January through March 2013 (shown in Table 8) to the clarification to policy on case plans described above. The Monitor considers DCF’s performance over this monitoring period to partially fulfill the MSA requirement as the final target was met one month during this monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 62

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 71 of 186 PageID: 7168

Table 8: Case Plans Updated Every 6 months (July 2012 – March 2013)

Jul-12 # %

Aug-12 # %

Sep-12 # %

Case Plans Completed within six months
Outstanding

715 64%

626

61% 770 65%

407 36%

395

39% 413 35%

Totals 1,122 100% 1,021 100% 1,183 100%

Source: DCF data *Percentage is greater or less than 100 due to rounding.

Oct-12 # %

619 59%

439 1,058

42% 100%

Nov-12 # %

630 59%

435 1,065

41% 100%

Dec-12 # %

Jan-13 # %

Feb-13 # %

Mar-13 # %

722 65% 736 67% 973 86% 1,203

99%

389 1,111

35% 360 100% 1,096

33% 153 100% 1,131

14%

18

100% 1,221

2% *101%

Quality of Case Planning and Service Plans

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

12. Quality of Case and Service Planning: The child’s/family’s case plan shall be developed with the family and shall be individualized and appropriately address the child’s needs for safety, permanency and well-being. The case plan shall provide for the services and interventions needed by the child and family to meet identified goals, including services necessary for children and families to promote children’s development and meet their educational, physical and mental health needs. The case plan and services shall be modified to respond to the changing needs of the child and family and the results of prior service efforts. (13 and 14 have been merged with 12 above)

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 90% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QR.

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
The MSA requires family involvement in case planning; plans which are appropriate and individualized to the circumstances of the child/youth and family; oversight of the plans implemented to ensure goals are being met; and course correction when needed. As Figure 10 indicates, DCF did not meet the target requiring that 90 percent of cases rate at least minimally acceptable on case planning and service plans as measured by the QR. DCF results of 107 cases reviewed from July 2012 through March 2013 indicate that 39 percent of cases were rated at least minimally acceptable on both QR indicators ‘Case Planning Process’ and ‘Tracking and Adjusting’.76 This represents a nine percent decline in performance from the previous monitoring period and is a concern. While the timely completion of case plans is a significant accomplishment, DCF staff must now focus with equal intensity on the quality of the case plans and the case planning process.

76 42 of 107 rated cases (39%) rated acceptable on both the Case Planning Process and Tracking and Adjusting indicators; 45 of 107 cases (42%) rated acceptable on Case Planning Process; and 64 of 107 cases (60%) rated acceptable on Tracking and Adjusting.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 63

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 72 of 186 PageID: 7169

Figure 10: Cases Rated Acceptable on Quality of Case and Service Planning (July 2012 – March 2013) (n=107)

Percentage of Case Planning

100%
80%
60%
40% 39% (42)
20%
0% Cases Rated Acceptable
Source: DCF, QR results Reported performance based upon QR results from cases reviewed between July 2012 to March 2013.

Final Target (90%)

Planning to Meet Children’s Educational Needs

Quantitative or

15. Educational Needs: Children will be enrolled in school and DCF will have taken appropriate

Qualitative Measure

actions to insure that their educational needs will be met.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 90% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QR.

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
Two of the QR Child and Family Status ratings, ‘Stability of School Placement’ and ‘Learning and Development’ (for children over the age of 5), are measured together on each case to assess how children are faring in their educational setting. As Figure 11 indicates, performance on this measure based on July 2012 through March 2013 QR results is 77 percent at least minimally acceptable. Thirty four of 44 cases (77%) rated acceptable on both the Stability (school) and Learning and Development (age 5 and older) QR indicators; 43 of 54 cases (80%) rated acceptable on Stability (school); 41 of 45 (91%) cases rated acceptable on Learning and Development (age 5 and older). These data are for children in out-of-home placement.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 64

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 73 of 186 PageID: 7170

Figure 11: Cases Rated Acceptable on Planning to Meet Educational Needs
(July 2012 – March 2013) (n=44)77

100%

Percentage of Case Planning

80%

77%

60%

(34)

40%

20%

0% Cases Rated Acceptable
Source: DCF, QR results Reported performance based upon QR results from cases reviewed between July 2012 to March 2013.

Final Target (90%)

C. Performance Measures Related to Safety and Risk Assessment
Individualized, comprehensive assessment is a process in which information concerning the needs, problems, circumstances and resources of the family, youth and children are collected, evaluated and updated at key points of decision-making and whenever major changes in family circumstances occur. The decision to close a case should reflect the achievement of satisfactory outcomes with regard to the children or youth's safety, permanence and well-being. An assessment of both safety and risk prior to case closure is necessary to ensure these outcomes have been achieved.

77Although 107 cases were reviewed for the QR, only 44 involved children over the age of 5 and out-of-home placement.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 65

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 74 of 186 PageID: 7171

Safety and Risk Assessment

Quantitative or

8. Safety and Risk Assessment: Number/percent of closed cases where a safety and risk of harm

Qualitative Measure

assessment is done prior to case closure.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, (a) 98% of investigations will have a safety assessment completed, (b) 98% of investigations will have a risk assessment completed and (c) 98% of non-investigation cases will have a risk assessment or risk re-assessment completed within 30 days of case closure.78

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
Performance during the months of July 2012 through March 2013 for both safety and risk assessments completed prior to investigation completion exceeded the 98 percent required by the final target. For example, in March 2013, there were 5,106 applicable79 investigation cases closed. Of these 5,106 investigations, 5,105 (100%) investigations had a safety assessment completed prior to investigation completion and 5,105 (100%) investigations had a risk assessment completed prior to investigation completion.
Performance on conducting a risk reassessment 30 days prior to case closure ranged from 45 to 59 percent (see Figure 12) between the months of July 2012 through March 2013. For example, in March 2013, there were 1,698 applicable80 cases closed. Of these 1,698 cases, 1,000 (59%) cases had a risk reassessment completed within 30 days prior to case closure; 254 (15%) cases had a risk reassessment completed within 31 to 60 days prior to case closure.81 Data by Local Office for March 2013 reflects a wide performance range between 31 and 83 percent (see Appendix B-1)82 among offices with no Local Office meeting the performance required by the final target. To address this issue in the short term, DCF added a “pop up” box to NJ SPIRIT to remind staff that the risk reassessment is required prior to case closure. This change was implemented on March 26, 2013. Subsequently, a hard edit was added to NJ SPIRIT on May 23, 2013 that now requires a risk reassessment be completed before the NJ SPIRIT system will allow staff to close a case.

78 In order to be consistent with practice expectations, in May 2012, the Parties agreed to revise the final target from, “By December 31, 2010, 98% of cases will have a safety and risk of harm assessment completed prior to case closure” to the language stated above, which allows for separate reporting on investigations and non-investigations cases. 79 In March 2013, an additional 35 investigations were closed; however, those cases were marked as “unable to make contact with children/family” and were excluded from the calculations. 80 Applicable cases include reunification and do not include adoption, kinship legal guardianship or emancipation.
81 In March 2013, 95 (6%) cases had a risk reassessment completed within 61 to 90 days prior to case closure; and 320 (19%) cases had a risk reassessment completed over 91 days prior to case closure. 82 Cases assigned to adoption workers are included in Appendix B-1 only for the few cases where the goal of the child in placement was changed from adoption to reunification. Prior to case closure, the Adoption worker is required to complete a risk reassessment for those cases when the child exits to reunification.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 66

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 75 of 186 PageID: 7172

Figure 12: Performance on Safety Assessments Completed prior to Investigation Completion, Risk Assessments Completed prior to Investigation Completion and Risk
Reassessments Completed within 30 days prior to Case Closure (July 2012 – March 2013)
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

80%

60%

52%

52%

54%

51%

55%

58%

59%

45%

47%

40%

Final Target
(98%)

20%

0%
Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13
Risk Assessment Prior to Investigation Completion Safety Assessment Prior to Investigation Completion Risk Reassessments Prior to Case Closure
Source: DCF data

D. Performance Measures on Caseworker, Parent-Child and Sibling Visits
The visits of children with their caseworkers, parents and siblings are integral to the principles of the CPM and are important events that can ensure children’s safety, maintain and strengthen family connections, and increase children’s opportunities to achieve permanency.
The state’s performance for all MSA visitation measures has demonstrated improvement, some substantial, during this nine month monitoring period. One strategy implemented by DCF which has likely contributed to these improvements are weekly conferences held between a member of DCF Commissioner’s staff, Area Directors and their Local Office managers to review individual performance on specific measures, including visitation. DCF reports that these conferences focus attention on Local Office performance and on assessing workloads to ensure adequate planning and supervision. Additionally, in early 2013, the Director of DCP&P held meetings with Area Directors who were required to submit performance improvement plans for specific measures where performance was low.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 67

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 76 of 186 PageID: 7173

The Monitor reviewed Local Office data for some of the visitation measures83 and found that there is fluctuation in performance among Local Offices.84 For applicable measures, ranges in performance among Local Offices are presented below. Additionally, as discussed more fully in this section, the Monitor validated data using a small sample of cases for two visitation measures (Measure 16—caseworker visits with children in state custody and Measure 20—visitation between children in custody and their parents) during this monitoring period. Based upon the findings, the Monitor and DCF plan to conduct a larger case record review during the next monitoring period to more fully examine specific aspects of visitation practice and documentation.

Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

16. Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody: Number/percent of children where caseworker has two visits per month (one of which is in the placement) during the first two months of an initial placement or subsequent placement for children in state custody.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, during the first two months of an initial placement or subsequent placement, 95% of children had at least two visits per month.

Figure 13: Percentage of Children who had Two Visits per month during First Two months of an Initial or Subsequent Placement (December 2009 – March 2013)

Percentage of Children

100%
80%
60%
40% 20% 18%
0%
DDece-c0-909

43%
JJuunn--1100

Source: DCF data

58% 50%

DDece-c1-100

JJuunn--1111 Month

55%

53%

84%

Final Target (95%)

DDeecc--1111

JJuunn--1122

MDaerc--1132

83 Out of six visitation measures, Local Office data were examined in four of the six visitation measures. Local Office data were not examined for Measure 19 (caseworker visits with parents/family members of children in custody with goals other than reunification) and Measure 21 (visitation between children in custody and siblings placed apart). 84 Due to differences in the number of applicable cases per Local Office, conclusions cannot be drawn regarding differences of statistical significance.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 68

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 77 of 186 PageID: 7174

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
During the month of March 2013, 84 percent of applicable children had two visits per month during the first two months of an initial or subsequent placement. Specifically, there were 488 children who were in an initial or subsequent placement and remained in the placement for a full two months; 411 (84%) had documented visits by their caseworkers twice per month with at least one visit occurring in the placement setting.
Data validation by the Monitor and DCF of NJ SPIRIT reports on this measure as compared with written case documentation identified some errors in categorizing caseworkers’ visits with children. As a result, DCF conducted an internal audit of all applicable cases in March 2013 and determined the compliance data presented above. CSSP’s independent data validation confirmed this finding. Performance data for other months during the monitoring period were not fully validated and are not presented in this report.

Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody

Quantitative or

17. Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody: Number/percent of children where caseworker

Qualitative Measure

has at least one caseworker visit per month in the child’s placement.

Final Target

By June 30, 2010, 98% of children shall have at least one caseworker visit per month during other parts of a child’s time in out-of-home care.

Figure 14: Percentage of Children in Out-of-Home Care who had at least One Caseworker Visit per month in his/her Placement (June 2009 – March 2013)

Percentage of Children

100%

90%

89%

88%

80% 82%

70%

60%

50%
JunJ-u0n9-09 DeDc-e0c9-09 JuJnu-n1-010

Source: DCF data

88%

91%

DDece-c1-010 JuJunn-1-111
Month

91%
DDeecc--1111

91%

94%

JJuunn--1122 MDare-c1-312

Final Target (98%)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 69

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 78 of 186 PageID: 7175

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
Between July 2012 and March 2013, performance ranged monthly from 85 to 94 percent of children in out-of-home placement with at least one caseworker visit per month in his/her placement.85 For example, in March 2013 there were 6,940 children in out-of-home placement for a full month; 6,550 (94%) were visited by their caseworker at least one time per month in their placement. An additional 332 (5%) children had at least one caseworker visit per month in a location other than their placement, for a total of 99 percent of children with at least one caseworker visit per month regardless of location. In March, performance on this measure by Local Office ranged from 81 to 100 percent; nine Local Offices met the MSA standard (see Appendix B-2). State performance, while strong, does not meet the 98 percent required by the MSA.
Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

18. Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members: The caseworker shall have at least two face-toface visits per month with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody with a goal of reunification.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, 95% of families have at least twice per month face-to-face contact with their caseworker when the permanency goal is reunification.

Figure 15: Percentage of Families who have at least Twice per month Face-to-Face
Contact with Caseworker when the Goal is Reunification (June 2009 – March 2013)86

Percentage of Families

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 29% 0%
JJuunn--0099
Source: DCF data

24%
DDeecc--0099

37%
JJuunn--1100

51% 39%

DDeecc--1100

JJuunn--1111

Month

96% Final Target (95%)
54% 42%
DDeecc-1-111 JuJnu-n1-212 MDaerc--1132

85 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 92%; August 2012, 92%; September 2012,
90%; October 2012, 85%; November 2012, 92%; December 2012, 93%; January 2013, 93%; February 2013, 94%; March 2013, 94%. 86 Beginning in 2011, reported performance exclude from calculations those children’s parents who did not require
visits from a caseworker due to the parent being unavailable or because contacts were not required.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 70

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 79 of 186 PageID: 7176
Performance as of March 31, 2013:
Between July 2012 and March 2013, monthly performance on this measure ranged from 52 to 96 percent of parents or other legally responsible family members visited two times per month by a caseworker when the family’s goal is reunification.87 For example, in March 2013, there were 3,701 children in custody with a goal of reunification; 721 (19%) children’s parents did not require visits from a caseworker due to the parent being unavailable or because contacts were not required, leaving 2,980 children with the goal of reunification applicable to this measure.88 Of these 2,980 children, the parents of 2,859 (96%) children were visited twice during the month. The parents of an additional 95 (3%) children had at least one contact in March and 26 (1%) had no contact with the caseworker during the month. Local Office data for March ranges between 81 and 100 percent; 38 (81%) of the 47 Local Offices met the required level of 95 percent (see Appendix B-3). The Monitor considers DCF’s performance over this monitoring period to partially fulfill the MSA requirement as the final target was met for one month during this monitoring period.

87 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 55%; August 2012, 57%; September 2012, 54%; October 2012, 52%; November 2012, 59%; December 2012, 66%; January 2013, 84%; February 2013, 94%; March 2013, 96%. 88 Data from NJ SPIRIT indicate that the percentage of children’s parents who were designated by DCF as not requiring a visit due to the parent being unavailable or because contacts were not required rose from 11 percent in July 2012 to 19 percent in March 2013. The Monitor plans to work with DCF during the next monitoring period to evaluate visitation practice and documentation for this measure.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 71

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 80 of 186 PageID: 7177

Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

19. Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members: The caseworker shall have at least one face-toface visit per month with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody with goals other than reunification unless parental rights have been terminated.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of families shall have at least one face-to-face caseworker contact per month, unless parental rights have been terminated.89

Figure 16: Percentage of Parents who had at least One Face-to-Face Contact with Caseworker who had a Permanency Goal other than Reunification (December 2009 – March 2013)

Percentage of Parents

100%
80%
60%
40% 20% 29%
0%
DDece-c0-909

42%
JJuunn--1100

Source: DCF data

54% 44%

DDece-c1-010

JuJnu-n1-111 Month

54%
DDeecc-1-111

78% 59%

Final Target (85%)

JuJnu-n1-212

MDeacr--1123

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
Between July 2012 and March 2013, monthly performance on this measure ranged from 57 to 78 percent of parents or other legally responsible family members visited monthly by a caseworker when the family’s goal is no longer reunification.90 For example, in March 2013, there were 1,947 children in custody whose goal was not reunification; 277 (14%) children’s parents did not require visits from a caseworker due to the parent being unavailable or contacts were not required, leaving 1,670 children in custody whose goal was not reunification applicable to this measure. Of these 1,670 children, the parents for 1,307 (78%) children were visited monthly.

89 Possible modification of the final target for this performance measure is under discussion among the Parties and
the Monitor. 90 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 61%; August 2012, 63%; September 2012,
62%; October 2012, 57%; November 2012, 59%; December 2012, 65%; January 2013, 73%; February 2013, 73%;
March 2013, 78%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 72

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 81 of 186 PageID: 7178

Visitation between Children in Custody and their Parents

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

20. Visitation between Children in Custody and Their Parents: Number/percent of children who have weekly visits with their parents when the permanency goal is reunification unless clinically inappropriate and approved by the Family Court.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of children in custody shall have in person visits with their parent(s) or other legally responsible family member at least every other week and at least 60% of children in custody shall have such visits at least weekly.

Figure 17: Percentage of Children with Weekly Visits with their Parent(s) (June 2009 – March 2013)

Percentage of Children

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 17%
0%
JuJnu-n0-909
Source: DCF data

2%
DeDce-0c-909

14%
JuJnu-n1-010

34%
13%
DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111
Month

59% 42% 35%
DDeecc--1111 JJuunn--1122 MDaerc-1-132

Final Target (60%)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 73

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 82 of 186 PageID: 7179

Figure 18: Percentage of Children who had at least Two Visits per month with their Parent(s) (December 2009 – March 2013)

Percentage of Children

90%
75%
60%
45%
30%
15% 0% 11%
DDece-c0-909

32%
JuJunn-1-100

Source: DCF data

61% 35%

DDeecc--1100

JuJnu-n1-111 Month

68% 61%

DeDce-c1-111

JuJunn-1-122

80%

Final Target (85%)

MDeacr--1132

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
Between July 2012 and March 2013, a monthly range of 37 to 59 percent of children had weekly visits with their parents when their permanency goal is reunification91 and a monthly range of 64 to 80 percent of children had visits at least every other week.92 For example, in March 2013, there were 3,464 children in placement with a goal of reunification; 2,029 (59%) had four visits with their parents during the month and an additional 754 (22%) children had two or three visits during the month. DCP&P reports that 339 children could not have visits because the visits were not required or the parent was unavailable. An additional 831 children had one, two or three visits during the month and for those weekly visits that did not occur, DCP&P reports that the visits were not required or the parent was unavailable. The Monitor reviewed a small sample of cases designated with these exclusions and found that they were not consistently applied as intended.93 During the next monitoring period, the Monitor and DCF plan to conduct a

91 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 39%; August 2012, 42%; September 2012, 37%; October 2012, 38%; November 2012, 38%; December 2012, 47%; January 2013, 55%; February 2013, 52%; March 2013, 59%. 92 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 64%; August 2012, 67%; September 2012, 64%; October 2012, 65%; November 2012, 64%; December 2012, 73%; January 2013, 77%; February 2013, 79%; March 2013, 80%. 93 31 cases categorized as “visits not required” or “parent unavailable” during the month of January 2013 were reviewed. One case was incorrectly designated as the child was living with the mother. Of the remaining 30 cases, seven (23%) cases did not have documentation that fully supported use of the exclusion categories during the month. Some of the issues identified in these seven cases included no documentation of efforts by DCF staff to facilitate visitation for parents who were in a treatment program or incarcerated; conflict with visitation schedule and state holidays or worker schedule; or lack of documentation regarding attempts to resolve barriers to parent’s ability to participate in visitation or child(ren)’s resistance to visitation.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 74

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 83 of 186 PageID: 7180

statistically valid case record review to more fully understand the practice and documentation in this area.
Visitation between Children in Custody and Sibling Placed Apart

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

21. Visitation Between Children in Custody and Siblings Placed Apart: Number/percent of children in custody, who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with their siblings as appropriate.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with those siblings at least monthly.

Figure 19: Percentage of Children in Custody who have at least Monthly Visits with Siblings, for Children not Placed with Siblings (December 2010 – March 2013)

Percentage of Children

100% 80% 60% 40% 41% 20%
0%
DDece-c1-010
Source: DCF data

49% 44%

JJuunn--1111

DDeecc--1111
Month

52%

Final Target (85%)
63%

JJuunn--1122

MDaerc--1132

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
Between July 2012 and March 2013, a monthly range of 49 to 63 percent of children had monthly visits with their sibling(s) when they were not placed together.94 For example, in March 2013 there were 2,600 children in placement who had at least one sibling who did not reside in the same household as them; 1,634 (63%) children had a visit with their siblings during the month. Performance has improved 11 percent since the prior monitoring period but does yet not meet the final target of 85 percent.

94 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: July 2012, 54%; August 2012, 59%; September 2012, 55%; October 2012, 49%; November 2012, 55%; December 2012, 60%; January 2013, 57%; February 2013, 62%; March 2013, 63%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 75

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 84 of 186 PageID: 7181

VI. THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE
As of March 31, 2013, a total of 51,863 children were receiving DCP&P services: 7,549 in outof-home placement and 43,814 in their own homes. Figure 20 shows the type of placement for children in DCP&P custody as of March 31, 2013: 88 percent were in resource family homes (either kinship or non-kinship), ten percent in group and residential facilities and two percent in independent living facilities.

Figure 20: Children in DCP&P Out-of-Home Placement by Type of Placement as of March 31, 2013 (n=7,549)

Independent Living 141
2%
Resource Family (non-kin) 3,956 52%

Group and Residential
724 10%
Kinship 2,728 36%

Source: DCF data
Table 9 shows selected demographics for children in out-of-home placement as of March 31, 2013. As seen in Table 9, almost half (47 percent) of the children in out-of-home care were age five or under, with the largest single group (children two or younger) comprising 27 percent of the out-of-home placement population. One quarter of the population were age six to 12, 28 percent were age 13 or older and eight percent were age 18 or older.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 76

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 85 of 186 PageID: 7182

Table 9: Selected Demographics for Children in Out-of-Home Placement as of March 31, 2013 (n=7,549)

Female Male

Gender

Age
2 years or less 3-5 years 6-9 years 10-12 years 13-15 years 16-17 years 18+ years

Total

Total
Race
Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Black or African American Hispanic Hispanic—No Race White Non-Hispanic White Hispanic Multiple Races Missing or Undetermined

Source: DCF data

Total

Percent 48% 52%
100%
Percent 27% 20% 16% 9% 11% 9% 8%
100%
Percent 43% <1% <1% <1% 2% 4% 27% 13% 5% 5%
100%

The number of children in out-of-home placement has risen slightly (< l%) from 7,484 in June 2012 to 7,549 in March 2013 (see Figure 21). Since the last monitoring period, there has been a slight decrease (1%) in the number of children receiving in-home services from 45,389 to 43,814.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 77

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 86 of 186 PageID: 7183

50,000

Figure 21: Children Receiving In-Home Services (January 2009 – March 2013)

Number of Families Children

45,000

40,000 39,847

35,000

37,054

40,115

41,121 38,037

45,867 45,389

45,037 43,814

30,000
JJuunn-0-099

DDeecc--0099

JJuunn--1100 DDeecc--1100

JJuunn--1111 Month

DDeecc--1111

JuJnu-n1-122

DeDce-1c-212

MaJur-n1-133

Source: DCF data

Figure 22: Children in Out-of-Home Placement (January 2009 – March 2013)

9,000

8,603 8,000

7,900

7,000

7,861 7,171

7,197

7,484 7,018

7,361

7,549

Number of Families Children

6,000 Jun-J0u9n-09 DeDc-e0c9-09 JunJ-u10n-10 DDece-1c0-10

JuJnu-n11-11

DDece-c1-111 JuJunn--1122

DeDce-1c-212 MaJru-n1-313

Month

Source: DCF data

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 78

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 87 of 186 PageID: 7184

A. Recruitment and Licensure of Resource Family Homes
DCF reports that it continues to maintain a resource family home placement capacity in excess of current need, allowing choices for every child in placement. At the same time, the state recognizes the need to recruit and license more specialized homes, such as large capacity resource family homes and homes for adolescents.
DCF recruited and licensed 1,345 new kinship and non-kinship resource family homes from January 1 to December 31, 2012, exceeding its target for CY 2012 by 76 families. Between January and March 2013, DCF recruited and licensed another 316 resource family homes for a total of 1,661 newly licensed homes between January 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013.

Figure 23: Number of Licensed Resource Family Homes Compared to Statewide Target (January – December 2012) Total = 1,345

1400 1350 1300 1250 1200 1150 1100
Source: DCF data

1,269 Target

1,345 Actual

DCF set a target to recruit and license 1,264 resource family homes in CY 2013; having licensed 316 homes in the first quarter of 2013, DCF is on target to reach or exceed its goal.
As indicated in Figure 24, DCF reports that 870 (52%) of 1,661 newly licensed resource family homes during this monitoring period were kinship homes, the highest percentage of kinship homes licensed since reporting began in 2007, reflecting the state’s significant progress in exploring kinship care as the preferred placement option.95

95 See Table 10 for total gross and net numbers of resource family homes.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 79

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 88 of 186 PageID: 7185

Figure 24: Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes (Kinship and Non-Kinship)
(January 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013) Total Licensed = 1,661
Total Kinship Licensed = 870

180

169

160

140

127 132 130 129

120

117

100 88

101

98 98

80 60 40

77

79

45

59 37

62 51

69

65 62 50

55

43

104 105 100 111 57 56 55

20

0
Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13

Total Number of New Homes Kinship

Source: DCF data

DCF reports that rather than focusing on increasing the pool of resource family homes, it is in the process of refining the pool to better meet specialized needs and characteristics of children requiring placement.
Between January 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013, DCF had a net gain of 137 resource family homes. Table 10 shows the number of kinship and non-kinship resource family homes licensed and the number of resource family homes closed between January 2012 and March 2013.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 80

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 89 of 186 PageID: 7186

Table 10: Resource Family Homes Licensed and Closed (January 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)

2012 – 2013 Monthly Statistics JANUARY 2012
FEBRUARY 2012
MARCH 2012
APRIL 2012
MAY 2012
JUNE 2012 Jan – Jun 2012
Totals JULY 2012
AUGUST 2012
SEPTEMBER 2012
OCTOBER 2012
NOVEMBER 2012
DECEMBER 2012 July – Dec 2012
Totals JANUARY 2013
FEBRUARY 2013
MARCH 2013 Jan. 2012 – March
2013 Totals TOTALS
Source: DCF data

Non-Kin Resource Homes Licensed
43 40 58 50 65 63 319
65 67 48 43 36 65 324
48 44 56 148
791

Kin Resource Homes Licensed
45
37
59
51
62
69 323

Total Resource Homes Licensed 88
77
117
101
127
132 642

Total Resource Homes Closed
50
78
92
86
122
110 538

65

130

112

62

129

124

50

98

98

55

98

91

43

79

96

104

169

143

379

703

664

57

105

97

56

100

88

55

111

137

168

316

322

870

1,661

1,524

Resource Homes Net
Gain 38 -1 25 15 5 22
104
18 5 0 7 -17 26 39
8 12 -26 -6
137

DCF’s commitment to placing children with kinship providers has resulted in the closing of many relative homes once the permanency goal is achieved; forty-three percent (424) of the 986 homes closed between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013 are reported as relative homes.
As reflected in Figure 25, 43 percent of all resource family homes that were closed between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013 were due to reunification (14%) and kinship legal guardianship or adoption (29%). Additional reasons for closing resource homes include a provider’s personal circumstances, such as the health/age of the provider (26%), a move out-of-state (6%), lack of

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 81

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 90 of 186 PageID: 7187

room (6%) and reaching capacity (1%). Nine percent of the resource family home providers did not disclose their reasons for closing their homes. An additional nine percent of homes were closed for other reasons: abuse or neglect (1%), death of a provider (1%), a provider’s negative experiences (1%), a provider’s dissatisfaction with DCP&P and Office of Licensing (OOL) rules (3%), unmet provider expectations (1%) and violations of licensing rules (2%).

Figure 25: Reasons for Resource Home Closures (July 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)

Adoption/Kinship Legal Guardianship Health/Age/Circumstances Reunification
Undisclosed/Lack of Response Moved Out-of-State Lack of Room
Dissatisfied with DCP&P/OOL/Agency Unmet Provider Expectations Abuse/Neglect Negative Experience Death of Provider Reached Capacity Violations

9% 6% 6% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%

0%

5%

10%

14%

15%

20%

29% 26%

25%

30%

Source: DCF data

DCF continues to recruit and retain resource family homes by county according to a needsbased geographic analysis.
As previously reported, the state regularly conducts a geographic analysis assessing capacity of resource family homes by county in order to set county-based annual targets for recruitment (MSA Section II.H.13). These targets are based on:
 total number of children in placement,  total number of licensed resource family homes statewide,  total number of sibling groups,  average number of closed homes statewide,  geographical location of resource family homes and  county of origin of children who need placement.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 82

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 91 of 186 PageID: 7188

Thirteen counties met or exceeded their annual targets for licensed resource family homes. Table 11 shows county performance in 2012 as compared to recruitment/licensure targets.

Table 11: Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes Compared to County/State Targets (January – December 2012)

County
Atlantic Burlington Cape May Camden Cumberland Gloucester Salem Essex Hudson Bergen Hunterdon Mercer Somerset Warren Middlesex Morris Sussex Passaic Ocean Monmouth Union Totals Source: DCF

Target
51 75 21 107 28 48 20 207 110 74 20 47 22 20 75 48 20 70 62 69 75 1,269

Licensed
64 84 17 128 34 43 20 228 96 89 13 28 43 22 74 50 20 70 86 64 72 1,345

Performance Against Target
13 9 -4 21 6 -5 0 21 -14 15 -7 -19 21 2 -1 2 0 0 24 -5 -3 76

DCF continues to process the majority of resource family applications within 150 days (MSA Section II.H.4).
As shown in Table 12, for resource family applications received from January to September 2012, 1070 (58%) were resolved in 150 days and 1,279 (69%) applications were resolved in 180 days. This is a slight decline from the previous monitoring period in which 64 percent of applications were resolved in 150 days and 73 percent were resolved in 180 days. Effects of Superstorm Sandy may have had an impact on performance in this area: staff and applicant

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 83

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 92 of 186 PageID: 7189

resource families were delayed in completing home study requirements due to displacement, damage to homes, training cancellations, power outages and the like. When compared to performance in 2007 of 25 percent, DCF has improved significantly in its efforts to reach the 150 day timeframe.

Table 12: Total Number of Resource Family Applications Resolved in 150 and 180 Days For Applications Submitted January – September 2012

2012 Month Applied
JANUARY FEBRUARY
MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER Total Source: DCF data

Total Applications
Number 211 227 225 190 193 194 198 185 221
1,844

Resolved in 150 Days

Number 132

Percent 63%

135

59%

140

62%

114

60%

111

58%

108

56%

110

56%

102

55%

118

53%

1,070

58%

Resolved in 180 Days

Number 150

Percent 71%

164

72%

161

72%

129

68%

131

68%

144

74%

134

68%

126

68%

140

63%

1,279

69%

DCF has continued the programs, policies and activities that have led to success in licensing quality resource family homes.
Resource Family Impact Teams
Monthly resource family impact team conferences continue to be held in all of the DCP&P Local Offices. Participants include local and area resource family unit staff, licensing inspectors and Office of Resource Families (ORF) staff. Also Office of Licensing (OOL) intake and ORF supervisors meet regularly to discuss new policies and quality case practice. DCF continues to find that this monthly conferencing model assists in identifying practice issues to resolving applications within 150 days. A new Impact Meeting Workgroup was formed during the reporting period that convenes participants from Local Office resource family units, area resource family specialists and staff from OOL and ORF. The workgroup is charged with making recommendations to improve compliance with the 150 day application process and how best to utilize resource family impact teams.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 84

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 93 of 186 PageID: 7190

Large Capacity Homes
DCF identified recruiting and licensing homes with capacity to accommodate large sibling groups as a priority in the needs assessment it conducted in 2007. As previously reported, the state developed and has been using a specialized recruitment strategy to focus attention on identifying, recruiting and licensing these homes, termed “Siblings in Best Settings” or SIBS. At the end of this reporting period, DCF had 25 SIBS homes, a net increase of one home from the previous monitoring period; fifteen SIBS homes were newly licensed between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013.96
New Jersey continues to pursue recruitment and retention strategies that seek to locate and retain quality resource parents, including a new focus on improving local capacity.
Recruitment and Retention
DCF continues to emphasize and support locally based recruitment activities in communities where children reside. Recruitment staff hold bi-monthly meetings to provide forums to discuss ideas, challenges and successful recruitment activities. DCF developed two new roles to enhance recruitment efforts: a Recruitment and Retention Specialist to focus on communication and marketing and a Statewide Retention Specialist to further support resource families and improve overall customer service. Specific statewide recruitment events were held that focused on the need for families for adolescents and sibling groups.
DCF continued its work with the National Resource Center for Recruitment and Retention of Foster and Adoptive Parents at Adopt US Kids (NRCRRFAP) using a marketing research tool that helps identify households by geographic area and select economic indicators that are most similar to those in which DCF is currently successful in placing children. The purpose of the tool is to find new ways to reach and successfully penetrate target markets. The tool was piloted in Mercer and Essex counties during this monitoring reporting period.
Staff Training and Skill Development
Over 170 resource family and licensing staff participated in training opportunities during this monitoring period, including:
 Two-Day Structured Analysis Family Evaluation (SAFE) Training—this is a two-day mandatory training required of all SAFE practitioners, resource family staff who conduct home studies using the SAFE model.

96 Fourteen homes left the SIBS program; four remain open to take additional children that are not large capacity sibling groups. The remaining ten families closed their homes; six of the families closed their homes as a result of adoption of a sibling group and one family closed their home because the resource parents were unable to commit to a permanency plan. Another family closed its home due to health reasons and an additional two families closed their homes due to IAIU investigations.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 85

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 94 of 186 PageID: 7191
 PRIDE97 Train the Trainer—this course is for all resource family trainers, supervisors, case work supervisors and resource parent co-trainers who train resource parents in the PRIDE program.
 NJ SPIRIT Resource Family Training for Facilitators—the purpose of this training is to review how facilitators locate appropriate resources in NJ SPIRIT. The focus is on the importance of reviewing and updating resource family information on a daily basis.
 New Jersey Division of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DDHH) Resources and Services —this training is for resource family licensing staff and provides information on the assistive communication device for people with serious hearing loss.
Resource Family In-Service Training
Every resource parent is required to complete In-Service training to maintain a resource family home license. The training modalities which are offered to resource parents by Foster and Adoptive Family Services (FAFS) are: on-line training, e-live webinar workshops, home correspondence courses, and county-based workshops.
DCF reports that between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013, 1,182 resource parents took a total of 2,591 in-service courses. FAFS offers a wide variety of topics, including:
 Issues in Kinship Care, new this reporting period,  Under One Roof: Keeping Siblings Together,  Gangs – The Need to Belong,  Internet Safety and Your Child and  Car Safety and Your Child in Foster Care.

97 PRIDE (Parent’s Resource for Information, Development and Education) is a 30 hour training program for all prospective foster and adoptive families.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 86

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 95 of 186 PageID: 7192

B. Performance Measures on Placement of Children in Out-of-Home Care

Appropriateness of Placement

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

23. Combined Assessment of Appropriateness of Placement: Based on: a. Placement within appropriate proximity of their parents’ residence unless such placement is to otherwise help the child achieve the planning goal. b. Capacity of caregiver/placement to meet child’s needs. c. Placement selection has taken into account the location of the child’s school.

Final Target

By June 30, 2010, 90% of children will be placed in an appropriate setting.

Figure 26: Cases Rated Acceptable Appropriateness of Placement (July 2012 – March 2013) (n=73)

100%

99% (72)

Percentage of Case Planning

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% Cases Rated Acceptable
Source: DCF, QR results Reported performance based upon QR results from cases reviewed between July 2012 to March 2013.

Final Target (90%)

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
From July 2012 through March 2013, 73 cases of children in out-of-home care were reviewed as part of the QR and included an assessment of the appropriateness of their placement. Almost all (99% / 72 of 73) of the placements were rated acceptable which meant that the placement met the child’s developmental, emotional, behavioral and physical needs. The assessment of appropriateness of placement also considered whether the placement facilitated the child maintaining connections with his/her parents and siblings and helped in meeting the child’s permanency goal.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 87

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 96 of 186 PageID: 7193

Placing Children with Families

Quantitative or

24. Placing Children with Families: The percentage of children currently in custody who are placed in

Qualitative Measure

a family setting.

Final Target

Beginning July 2009 and thereafter, at least 85% of children will be placed in a family setting.

Figure 27: Percentage of Children Placed in a Family Setting (June 2009 – March 2013)

Percentage of Investigations

100%

95%

90%

85%

80%

85%

85%

75%

70%

65%

60%

55%

50%

Jun-09 Dec-09

Source: DCF data

86%
Jun-10

86% 87%

88% 88%

89%

Dec-10
Month

Jun-11

Dec-11

Jun-12 Mar-13

Final Target (85%)

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
As of March 31, 2013, there were 7,549 children in DCP&P out-of-home placement; 6,684 (89%) of whom were placed in resource family (non-kinship or kinship placements). The remaining 865 (11%) were placed in independent living placements (141) or group and residential facilities (724). DCF continues to exceed the performance target for this outcome.
DCF also provides data on children’s out-of-home placement type at the time of initial placement. The most recent data are from CY 2012 when 4,469 children entered out-of-home placement; 4,078 (91%) of these children were placed in family settings for their first placement or within seven days of initial placement.98

98 These data were analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 88

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 97 of 186 PageID: 7194

Placing Siblings Together

Quantitative or

25. Placing Siblings Together: Of sibling groups of two or three siblings entering custody at the same

Qualitative Measure

time or within 30 days of one another, the percentage in which all siblings are placed together.

Final Target

For siblings entering custody in the period beginning July 2012 and thereafter, at least 80% will be placed together.

Figure 28: Percentage of Sibling Groups of Two or Three Placed Together (CY 2008 – 2012)

100%

Percentage of Sibling Groups

90%

80%

70%

73%

74%

77%

79%

82%

Final Target (80%)

60%

50% CY 2008

CY 2009

CY 2010

CY 2011

CY 2012

Calendar Year
Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY2006 through 2011. CY 2012 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

Performance as of Most Recent Calendar Year Available:
In CY 2012, there were 919 sibling groups that came into custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another. Of these 919 sibling groups, 783 sibling groups had two or three children in them; 643 (82%) of this subset of sibling groups were placed together. This performance exceeds the required final target.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 89

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 98 of 186 PageID: 7195

Placing Large Sibling Groups Together

Quantitative or

26. Placing Siblings Together: Of sibling groups of four or more siblings entering custody at the same

Qualitative Measure

time or within 30 days of one another, the percentage in which all siblings are placed together.

Final Target

For sibling groups of four or more entering in the period beginning July 2011 and thereafter, at least 40% will be placed together.

Figure 29: Percentage of Sibling Groups of Four or More Placed Together (CY 2008 – 2012)
60%

Percentage of Sibling Groups

40% 32%
20%

31%

34%

35%

25%

Final Target (40%)

0% CY 2008

CY 2009

CY 2010

CY 2011

CY 2012

Calendar Year
Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY2006 through 2010. CY 2012 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

Performance as of Most Recent Calendar Year Available:
In CY 2012, there were 136 sibling groups that had four or more children who came into custody at the same time or within 30 days of each other; 34 (25%) sibling groups were placed together. This represents a 10 percent decrease in performance since CY 2011; however, there has been a 43 percent increase in the number of sibling groups with four or more children.99 This performance does not meet the level required by the MSA final target.

99 In CY 2011, there were 95 siblings groups that had four or more children and DCF placed 33 of these sibling groups together.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 90

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 99 of 186 PageID: 7196

Stability of Placement

Quantitative or

27. Stability of Placement: Of the number of children entering care in a period, the percentage with

Qualitative Measure

two or fewer placements during the 12 months beginning with the date of entry.

Final Target

By June 2009 and thereafter, at least 88% of children entering care will have two or fewer placements during the 12 months from their date of entry.

Figure 30: Percentage of Children Entering Care who had Two or Fewer Placements within 12 months of Entering Care (CY 2007 – 2011)

100%

Percentage of Children

90%

80%

83%

85%

84%

84%

85%

70%

60%

50% CY 2007

CY 2008

CY 2009

CY 2010

CY 2011

Calendar Year
Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY2006 through 2010. CY2011 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

Final Target (88%)

Performance as of Most Recent Calendar Year Available:
The most recent performance data assesses the 3,952 children who entered care in CY 2011 and aggregates the number of placements each child experienced. For children entering care in CY 2011, 3,376 (85%) children had two or fewer placements during the 12 months from their date of entry. This performance is close to but does not meet the final MSA target.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 91

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 100 of 186 PageID: 7197

Placement Limitations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

28. Placement Limitations: Number/percent of resource homes in which a child has been placed if that placement will result in the home having more than four foster children, or more than two foster children under age two, or more than six total children including the resource family’s own children, but such limitations may be waived if needed and appropriate to allow a group of siblings to be placed together.

Final Target

By June 2009, no more than 5% of resource home placements may have seven or eight total children including the resource family’s own children, but such placements may be waived if needed and appropriate to allow a group of siblings to be placed together.

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
The MSA limits how many children can be placed in a resource family home at one time: no child should be placed in a resource family home if that placement will result in the home having more than four foster children, more than two foster children under the age of two, or more than six total children including the resource family’s own children (Section III.C.1). Exceptions can be made to these limits as follows: no more than five percent of resource home placements may be made into resource homes with seven or eight total children including the resource family’s own children, but such placements can be made as long as there is adherence to the other limitations referred to above. Any of the limitations may be waived if needed and appropriate to allow a group of siblings to be placed together.
The Monitor reviewed the nine waivers to population limits granted between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013. Of the nine waivers approved, six were approved for children to be placed in homes with over six children in placement; three to keep children who were siblings or cousins together and three because the children had previously been placed in the same home and it was determined to be in the children’s best interest. An additional two of the nine waivers were approved for children to be placed in a home with more than two children under the age of two; one for a fourteen month old who was insulin dependent and the resource parent had special knowledge of how to care for diabetes and another child in the home was scheduled to leave the home; a second waiver was approved for a one month period for a newborn to be placed in a home with another child who was about to turn two years old. The final waiver was granted for a child to be placed in a home with over four children in placement for a child who had previously lived in the home and another child in the home was due to leave in six weeks.
DCF continues to meet the MSA performance target for this outcome. For the past five monitoring periods, DCF waiver compliance has consistently been above 99 percent.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 92

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 101 of 186 PageID: 7198

Limiting Inappropriate Placements

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

29. Inappropriate Placements: a. The number of children under age 13 placed in shelters. b. The number of children over age 13 placed in shelters in compliance with MSA standards on appropriate use of shelters to include: 1) an alternative to detention; 2) a short-term placement of an adolescent in crisis not to extend beyond 45 days; or 3) a basic center for homeless youth.

Final Target

a. By December 2008 and thereafter, no children under age 13 in shelters. b. By December 31, 2009, 90% of children placed in shelters in compliance with MSA standards on
appropriate use of shelters to include: 1) an alternative to detention; 2) short-term placement of an adolescent in crisis not to extend beyond 30 days; or 3) a basic center for homeless youth.

Figure 31: Percentage of Children over Age 13 Placed in Compliance with MSA Standards (June 2008 – March 2013)

Percentage of Children

100%

90%

95% 98% 97% 97% 97%

89% 91%

90%

92%

80% 79%

70%

Final Target (90%)

60%

50%
JuJnu-n0-808 DDece-c0-808 JJuunn--0099 DDeecc--0099 JJuunn--1100 DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111 DDeecc--1111 JuJunn-1-122 MDare-c1-312
Month
Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 93

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 102 of 186 PageID: 7199

Table 13: Shelter Placements for Youth Aged 13 or Older (January 2008 – March 2013)

Jan–Jun

2008

Number of

youth 13 or older placed in

451

shelters

Number of

youth

358

appropriately (79%)

placed

Number of

youth

93

inappropriately (21%)

placed

Source: DCF data

Jul–Dec 2008
421
375 (89%)
46 (11%)

Jan–Jun 2009
465
423 (91%)
42 (9%)

Jul–Dec 2009

Jan–Jun 2010

Jul–Dec 2010

Jan–Jun Jul–Dec Jan-Jun Jul 2012–

2011

2011

2012 Mar 2013

393

350

303

337

315

292

411

352 (90%)

322 (92%)

287 (95%)

331

305

282

400

(98%) (97%) (97%) (97%)

41 (10%)

28 (8%)

16 (5%)

6 (2%)

10 (3%)

10 (3%)

11 (3%)

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
From July 2012 to March 2013, no child under the age of 13 was placed in a shelter. DCF continues to meet required performance on this measure.
Between July 2012 and March 2013, 411 youth ages 13 or older were placed in shelters.100 Of these youth, 400 (97%) youth were reported by DCF to have been placed in accordance with criteria on appropriate use of shelters.101 This performance exceeds the MSA final target of 90 percent.

100 In comparing the current data to previous periods, note that the current period spans nine months while the previous periods span six months. Between July and December 2012, 283 children aged 13 and older were placed in shelters, which is a decline from the January through June 2012 period when 292 children aged 13 and older were placed in shelters. 101 Monitor did not independently verify these data but has previously verified performance and found youth were placed in accordance with criteria.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 94

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 103 of 186 PageID: 7200

VII. REPEAT MALTREATMENT AND RE-ENTRY INTO CARE
The state is responsible for ensuring the safety of children who are receiving or have received services from DCP&P. This responsibility includes ensuring the safety of children who are placed in resource family homes and congregate facilities. As detailed below, the MSA includes a number of measures on repeat maltreatment, maltreatment while in care and re-entry into care. Given this is a longitudinal measure, the most recent data available for repeat maltreatment and re-entry into foster care are from CY 2011.

Abuse and Neglect of Children in Foster Care

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

30. Abuse and Neglect of Children in Foster Care: Number of children in custody in out-of-home placement who were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member during 12 month period, divided by the total number of children who have been in care at any point during the period.

Final Target

For the period beginning July 2010 and thereafter, no more than 0.49% of children will be victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.

Performance as of CY 2012 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
In CY 2012, there were 12,380 children in care at any point during the year; 26 children (0.21%) were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent, relative placement provider or facility staff member.102 This performance meets the final MSA performance target requiring that no more than 0.49 percent of children will be victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.

Repeat Maltreatment

Quantitative or

31. Repeat Maltreatment: Of all children who remain in home after substantiation of abuse or

Qualitative Measure

neglect, the percentage who have another substantiation within the next 12 months.

Final Target

For the period beginning July 2009 and thereafter, no more than 7.2% of children who remain at home after a substantiation of abuse or neglect will have another substantiation within the next 12 months.

102 Data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 95

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 104 of 186 PageID: 7201

Performance as of CY 2011 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
In CY 2011, there were 5,272 children who were victims of a substantiated allegation of abuse and/or neglect and were not placed in out-of-home care. As of December 31, 2012, of the 5,272 children, 412 (7.8%) children were the victims of a substantiated allegation of child abuse and/or neglect within 12 months of the initial substantiation. 103 Although DCF has previously met this measure consistently since CY 2007, the most recent performance for CY 2011 does not meet the MSA final target of no more than 7.2 percent.

Quantitative or

32. Repeat Maltreatment: Of all children who are reunified during a period, the percentage who are

Qualitative Measure

victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within one year after the date of reunification.

Final Target

For the period beginning July 2009 and thereafter, no more than 4.8% of children who reunified will be the victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within one year after reunification.

Performance as of CY 2011 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
In CY 2011, there were 3,202 children who were returned home or to a family member after a stay in out-of-home placement; 269 (8.4%) were the victims of a substantiated allegation of abuse and/or neglect within 12 months of their return home. This rate of repeat maltreatment continues to exceed the MSA final target, that no more than 4.8 percent of children who reunified will be victims of substantiated abuse and/or neglect within one year after reunification and represents a concerning increase of 2.4 percent since CY 2010.

103 Data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates. There has been a slight change in methodology in analyzing data for CY 2011. Performance for calendar years prior to 2011 was analyzed by assessing the date of the initial substantiated report to the date of the subsequent substantiated report. Performance for CY 2011 was analyzed by assessing the date of the initial substantiated report to the date of the subsequent incident which resulted in a substantiation of abuse or neglect. DCF has indicated that the recent decline in performance is not attributable to the methodology change.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 96

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 105 of 186 PageID: 7202

Re-entry to Placement

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

33. Re-entry to Placement: Of all children who leave custody during a period, except those whose reason for discharge is that they ran away from their placement, the percentage that re-enter custody within one year of the date of exit.

Final Target

For the period beginning July 2011 and thereafter, of all children who exit, no more than 9% will reenter custody within one year of exit.

Figure 32: Percentage of Children who Re-Entered Custody within One Year of Date of Exit (CY 2007 – 2011)

Percentage of Children

20%

15%

17%

10%

5%

15%

14%

13%

13%

Final Target – no more than (9%)

0% CY 2007

CY 2008

CY 2009

CY 2010

CY 2011

Calendar Year
Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY 2007 through 2010. CY 2011 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

Performance as of CY 2011 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
In CY 2011, there were 5,245 children who exited foster care; 3,585 (68%) children exited to qualifying exits (i.e., reunification, guardianship or to a relative placement).104,105 Of the 3,585 children who exited to qualifying exits, 459 (13%) children re-entered placement as of December 31, 2012. While the percentage of children re-entering care has slightly declined since CY 2007, recent performance does not meet the final target of no more than nine percent of children who exit will re-enter custody within one year.

104 Data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates. 105 DCF has objected to the Monitor’s definition of “qualifying exits” used to analyze this measure. The Agency believes that due to the specific exclusion cited in the MSA, the definition of qualifying exits should only exclude children who run away from placement. The Monitor uses a definition of qualifying exits which excludes from the calculations runaways as well as children who are adopted. Based on the DCF recommended definition, of all children who exited in CY 2011, nine percent re-entered custody within one year of the date of exit. Using that definition, DCF calculates performance for previous years as follows: CY 2007, 12%; CY 2008, 10%; CY 2009, 10%; CY 2010, 9%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 97

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 106 of 186 PageID: 7203
VIII. TIMELY PERMANENCY THROUGH REUNIFICATION, ADOPTION OR LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP
All children—regardless of age, gender, race or ethnicity—need and deserve a safe, nurturing family to protect and guide them. In child welfare work, this is called achieving “permanency.” Permanency can be achieved through a number of different avenues; safe family reunification is the preferred choice, but permanency also includes kinship legal guardianship and adoption. The MSA requires that children in custody achieve timely permanency through reunification, adoption or legal guardianship (Section III.A.2.a).
The MSA permanency measures reflect an expectation that children entering custody will attain permanency in a timely manner through whatever is their most appropriate permanency pathway. The measures were designed to avoid creating unintended incentives in favor of one permanency path (e.g., reunification or adoption) over another. The measures also seek to examine performance and set realistic permanency expectations and timeframes for children who have newly entered foster care and how long they remain in care as well as for those children and youth who have been in care for extended periods of time.
The state’s performance on these measures is based on the calendar year and the most recent data are presented below. Overall, DCF’s performance in discharging children to permanency has remained stable or declined and does not meet the final targets required by the MSA. Of particular concern is permanency for children in foster care for 24 months or longer where DCF’s performance for CY 2012 is 14 percentage points below the MSA target.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 98

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 107 of 186 PageID: 7204

Timely Permanency through Reunification, Adoption or Legal Guardianship

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

34. a. Discharged to Permanency: Permanency in first 12 months: Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in the target year and who remained in foster care for eight days or longer, what percentage was discharged from foster care to permanency (reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and/or guardianship) within 12 months from their removal from home.

Final Target

Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in CY 2011 and annually thereafter, 50% will have been discharged to permanency (reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and/or guardianship) within 12 months from their removal from home.

Figure 33: Percentage of Children who Entered Foster Care in CY and were Discharged to Permanency within 12 months from Removal106
(CY 2006 – 2011)

60%

Percentage of Children

50%

40%

42%

45%

46%

45%

42%

45%

30%

Final Target (50%)

20%
CY 2006

CY 2007

CY 2008

CY 2009

CY 2010

CY 2011

Calendar Year
Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY2006 through 2010. CY 2011 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

106 Small shifts in previously reported performance for prior years may be found and are attributable to on-going data management and clean-up.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 99

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 108 of 186 PageID: 7205

Performance as of CY 2011 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
The most recent data available are for children who entered foster care in CY 2011. Of the children who entered foster care in CY 2011, 45 percent discharged to permanency within 12 months from their removal from their home.107 Performance for this sub-part of this permanency outcome does not meet the final target of 50 percent.108

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

34. d. Discharged to Permanency:
Permanency for Children in Care between 13 and 24 months: Of all children who were in foster care on the first day of the target year and had been in care between 13 and 24 months,
what percentage was discharged to permanency (through reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and guardianship) prior to their 21st birthday or by the last day of the year.

Final Target

Of all children who were in care on the first day of CY 2011 and annually thereafter, and had been in care between 13 and 24 months, 47% will be discharged to permanency prior to their 21st birthday or
by the last day of year.

Figure 34: Discharge to Permanency for Children in Care between 13 and 24 months
(Of all Children in Care on the First Day of CY and had been in Care
between 13-24 months, Percentage of Children who were Discharged to Permanency prior to their 21st Birthday or by the Last Day of the Year109)
(CY 2006 – 2012)

80%

Percentage of Children

60%

40%

41%

43%

43%

45%

44%

47%

42%

20%

Final Target (47%)

0%
CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012
Calendar Year Source: DCF data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY2006 through 2011. CY 2012 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

107 Data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates. 108 Performance Measures 34.a, d. & e. are the same outcome measure and require three different performance levels
based on three cohorts of children defined by how long they have been in foster care. The Monitor considers this
permanency performance requirement met only when all three cohorts achieve the required performance. Based upon performance for the most recent data available, this outcome has not been met. 109 Small shifts in previously reported performance for prior years may be found and are attributable to on-going
data management and clean-up.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 100

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 109 of 186 PageID: 7206

Performance as of CY 2012 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
Of all children who were in care on the first day of CY 2012 and had been in care between 13 and 24 months, 42 percent discharged to permanency prior to their 21st birthday or the last day of the year.110,111 Performance for this sub-part of this permanency outcome does not meet the final target of 47 percent. This demonstrates a decline in performance since CY 2011 when DCF’s performance met the MSA requirement.

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

34. e. Discharged to Permanency:
Permanency after 25 months: Of all children who were in foster care for 25 months or longer on the first day of the target year, what percentage was discharged to permanency (through reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and guardianship) prior to their 21st birthday
and by the last day of the year.

Final Target

Of all children who were in foster care for 25 months or longer on the first day of CY 2011 and annually thereafter, 47% will be discharged to permanency prior to their 21st birthday or by the last day
of the year.

Figure 35: Discharge to Permanency for Children in Care 25 months or longer
(Of all Children who were in Foster Care for 25 months or longer on the
First Day of CY, Percentage Discharged to Permanency prior to their 21st Birthday or by the Last Day of the Year112)
(CY 2006 – 2012)

80%

Percentage of Children

60%

40%

35%

36%

34%

37%

34%

34%

33%

20%

Final Target (47%)

0%
CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012
Calendar Year Source: DCF data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY2006 through 2011. CY 2012 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

110 Data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates. 111 Performance data include all children in care within this cohort. When youth ages 18 to 21 are excluded from the
cohort, performance for this sub-part of the permanency outcome for CY 2012 was 43%. 112 Small shifts in previously reported performance for prior years may be found and are attributable to on-going
data management and clean-up.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 101

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 110 of 186 PageID: 7207

Performance as of CY 2012 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
Of all children who were in care on the first day of CY 2012 and had been in care for 25 months or longer, 33 percent discharged prior to their 21st birthday or the last day of the year.113, 114 Performance for this sub-part of this permanency outcome does not meet the final target of 47 percent.

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

34. b. Adoption: Of all children who became legally free for adoption during the 12 months prior to the target year, what percentage was discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free.

Final Target

Of those children who become legally free in CY 2011 and annually thereafter, 60% will be discharged to a final adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free.

Figure 36: Percentage of Children Discharged to Final Adoption in less than 12 months from the Date of Becoming Legally Free (CY 2005 – 2011)

100%

Percentage of Children

80%
60%
40% 36%
20%

73% 60%

43%

45%

78%

80%

0%
CY 2005 CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011
Calendar Year

Source: DCF data

Final Target (60%)

113 Data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates. 114 Performance data include all children in care within this cohort. When youth ages 18 to 21 are excluded from the
cohort, performance for this sub-part of the permanency outcome for CY 2012 was 39%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 102

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 111 of 186 PageID: 7208

Performance as of CY 2011 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available)
The most recent data available are for CY 2011. In CY 2011, 932 children became legally free for adoption; 741 (80%) children were adopted within 12 months of becoming legally free. An additional 88 (9%) of the children who became legally free in CY 2011 have been adopted with their finalizations occurring more than 12 months after they became legally free. DCF’s performance exceeds the final target for this outcome.

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

34.

c. Total time to Adoption: Of all children who exited foster care to adoption in the target year, what percentage was discharged from foster care to adoption within 30 months from removal from home.

Final Target

Of all children who exit to adoption in CY 2011 and annually thereafter, 60% will be discharged from foster care to adoption within 30 months from removal from home.

Figure 37: Percentage of Children who Exit to Adoption within 30 months of Removal (CY 2006 – 2012)

80%

Percentage of Children

60%

40%

20%

28%

46%

44%

45%

37%

48%

44%

Final Target (60%)

0%
CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012
Calendar Year Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY 2006 through 2011. CY 2012 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 103

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 112 of 186 PageID: 7209
Performance as of CY 2012 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
Of the 942 children who exited foster care to adoption in CY 2012, 419 (44%) had been in care for 30 months or less.115 An additional 153 (16%) children who exited foster care to adoption had been in care for 36 months or less. This performance does not meet the final target requirement of 60 percent and has declined slightly since CY 2011.
Permanency Through Adoption
In addition to the adoption outcome measures that rely on annual data for the previous 12 months, the Monitor analyzes DCF’s adoption practice by reviewing the number of adoptions finalized and related adoption case processes, such as the timeliness with which petitions to terminate parental rights have been filed, child-specific recruitment plans have been developed, children have been placed in an adoptive home and an adoptive home placement has been finalized.
Between January 1 and December 31, 2012 DCF finalized 943 adoptions.116
Between January 1 and December 31, 2012, 943 children were adopted, 130 more children than were targeted for the year. As of January 1, 2013, 1,020 children were legally free for adoption, and 1,171 children were legally free for adoption as of March 31, 2013.117 Table 14 shows the number of adoption finalizations by DCP&P Local Office between January 1 and December 31, 2012.

115 Data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates. 116 The number of adoption finalizations is a measure that is monitored on a calendar year basis; the target numbers
are based on the number of legally free children and an estimated number of resolved appeals. Historically the number of adoption finalizations that occur in the first quarter are lower than the rest of the year so the first quarter of the year does not accurately reflect progress. 117 Not every legally free child is eligible to move toward adoption as some court decisions that terminate parental rights are appealed.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 104

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 113 of 186 PageID: 7210

Table 14: Adoption Finalizations by DCP&P Local Office (January 1 – December 31, 2012)

Local Office
Atlantic West Cape May Bergen Central Bergen South Passaic Central Passaic North Burlington East Burlington West Mercer North Mercer South Camden Central Camden East Camden North Camden South Essex Central Essex North Essex South Newark Adoption Gloucester Cumberland Salem
Source: DCF data

Number Finalized
42

Local Office Hudson Central

26

Hudson North

13

Hudson South

35

Hudson West

24

Hunterdon

40

Somerset

31

Warren

12

Middlesex Central

31

Middlesex Coastal

20

Middlesex West

19

Monmouth North

15

Monmouth South

32

Morris East

22

Morris West

37

Sussex

15

Ocean North

19

Ocean South

121

Union Central

35

Union East

28

Union West

10

Cumberland/Gloucester/

Salem Area Office

Total-943

Number Finalized
23 10 20 11 12 16 16 11 13 10 17 15 10 25 16 19 25
9 22 15 1

DCF continues to support paralegals and child summary writers to assist in processing
adoption cases.
As required under the MSA, DCF continues to provide paralegal support to assist with the paperwork necessary to finalize adoptions (Section II.G.5). As of March 31, 2013, DCP&P had 144 paralegal positions in the Local Offices: 141 (98%) paralegal positions were filled, three were vacant. Of the three vacant positions, one was filled and two were in the process of being filled. All three vacancies have currently been filled. In addition, five paralegal positions were filled at DCF’s central office. DCF maintains a contract with Children’s Home Society to provide 23 child summary writers statewide and five part-time adoption expediters who assist with adoption paperwork in counties throughout the state. The state has consistently maintained support for these positions that support adoption practice.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 105

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 114 of 186 PageID: 7211

Adoption Performance Measures

Progress Toward Adoption

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

35. Progress Toward Adoption: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption who shall have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change to adoption.
Beginning January 1, 2010, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 90% shall have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change.

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
In March 2013, 71 percent of termination of parental rights (TPR) petitions were filed within 60 days of changing the child’s permanency goal to adoption. From July 2012 through March 2013, a monthly range of 65 to 90 percent of TPR petitions were filed within sixty days of the child’s goal change to adoption. Monthly performance on filing TPR petitions is shown in Table 15 and does not meet the MSA Standard.

Table 15: TPR Filing for Children with a Permanency Goal of Adoption (July 2012 – March 2013)

Month

Number of Children with an Adoption Goal

TPR Petitions Filed within % of TPRs Filed within

60 Days*

60 Days*

JULY 2012

99

69

70%

AUGUST 2012

61

49

80%

SEPTEMBER 2012

113

74

65%

OCTOBER 2012

108

78

72%

NOVEMBER 2012

83

66

80%

DECEMBER 2012

119

78

66%

JANUARY 2013

161

145

90%

FEBRUARY 2013

104

86

83%

MARCH 2013

130

92

71%

Total

978

737

75%

Source: DCF data Extract Date: July through September 2012 data were extracted on 12/6/12; October through December data were extracted on 3/25/13; January through March 2013 data were extracted on 6/26/13. *Final Target (90%)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 106

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 115 of 186 PageID: 7212

Child-Specific Adoption Recruitment

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

36. Child Specific Adoption Recruitment: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption needing recruitment who have a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the date of the goal change.

Final Target

Beginning January 1, 2010, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 90% of those for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of termination of parental rights shall have a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the date of the goal change.

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
DCF policy requires that a child-specific recruitment plan be developed for those children with a permanency goal of adoption for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of the change to a goal of adoption. This plan should be developed within 30 days of the change to an adoption goal.
Between July 2012 and March 2013, of the 105 children requiring child-specific recruitment plans,118 48 (46%) had a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the goal change. Twenty-five (24%) cases had a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 60 days, and 16 (15%) eligible select home adoption cases had a plan developed over 60 days of the goal change. Sixteen (15%) child-specific plans were not completed at all. DCF has not met the MSA final target which requires that child-specific recruitment plans are developed in 90 percent of eligible cases within 30 days (see Table 16).

118 Select home adoption cases are situations where no adoptive home has already been identified for the child and require the development of child-specific recruitment plans. Because of the small number of eligible cases per month, this measure is reported by aggregating the monthly data.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 107

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 116 of 186 PageID: 7213

Table 16: Child-Specific Recruitment Plans Developed within 30 or 60 days of Goal Change for Children without Identified Adoption Resource (July 2012 – March 2013) (n=105)

Month in which Plan was Due
JULY 2012

Plan developed within 30 days
6

Plan developed within 31-60 days
3

Plan developed over 60 days
1

Not completed* 7

AUGUST 2012

3

2

2

0

SEPTEMBER 2012

1

0

0

2

OCTOBER 2012

4

2

5

2

NOVEMBER 2012

2

5

1

3

DECEMBER 2012

4

2

0

0

JANUARY 2013

11

7

3

0

FEBRUARY 2013

13

1

3

0

MARCH 2013

4

3

1

2

Total

48 (46%)

25 (24%)

16 (15%)

16 (15%)

Source: DCF data *Extract Date: July through September 2012 data extracted on 11/13/12; October through December 2012 data extracted on 2/11/2013, and January through March 2013 data extracted on 5/13/2013. Plans may have been
subsequently completed after extraction date.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 108

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 117 of 186 PageID: 7214

Placement in an Adoptive Home

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

37. Placement in an Adoptive Home: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption and for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of termination are placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights.

Final Target

Beginning July 1, 2009, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 75% of the children for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of termination shall be placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights.

Figure 38: Percentage of Children with Goal of Adoption for whom Adoptive Home had not been identified at time of Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) who were Placed
in Adoptive Home within 9 months of TPR (June 2009 – March 2013)

Percentage of Children

80%

60% 63%

64%

61%

56%

40%

50%

50%

35%

20%

Final Target (75%)
59%

0%
JuJunen--0099 DeDceemcb-0er9-09 JJuunne--1100 DecDemecb-e1r-010 JJuunne--1111 DecDemecb-e1r-111 JuJunen--1122 DMecaerm-1b3er-1
Month Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure.

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
DCF policy and the MSA require that a child be placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights (TPR). DCF uses NJ SPIRIT to report on this measure.
Between July 2012 and March 2013, 29 children had a permanency goal of adoption but did not have an adoptive home identified at the time of TPR. Seventeen (59%) of the 29 children were placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the TPR. Performance on this measure remains below the final target. It is important to note that the percentages reported for this measure are based on a small number of actual children’s cases.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 109

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 118 of 186 PageID: 7215

Final Adoptive Placement

Quantitative or

38. Final Adoptive Placements: Number/percent of adoptions finalized within nine months of adoptive

Qualitative Measure

placement.

Final Target

Beginning July 1, 2009, of adoptions finalized, at least 80% shall have been finalized within nine months of adoptive placement.

Figure 39: Percentage of Adoptions Finalized within 9 months of Adoptive Placement (June 2009 – March 2013)

100% 90% 80%

95%

89%

86%

96%

92%

91%

94% 88%

70%

60%

50% Jun-09 Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10 Jun-11 Dec-11 Jun-12 Mar-13
Month

Final Target (80%)

Source: DCF data

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
In March 2013, of 50 adoptions eligible to be finalized, 47 (94%) were finalized within nine months of the adoptive placement. Between July 2012 and March 2013, 94 to 100 percent of adoptions each month were finalized within nine months of the child’s placement in an adoptive home (see Table 17). With the support of New Jersey’s judges and courts, DCF continues to exceed the final target of finalizing at least 80 percent of adoptions within the prescribed time period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 110

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 119 of 186 PageID: 7216

Table 17: Adoptions Finalized within 9 months of Child’s Placement in an Adoptive Home (July 2012 – March 2013)

Month
JULY 2012 AUGUST 2012 SEPTEMBER 2012 OCTOBER 2012 NOVEMBER 2012 DECEMBER 2012 JANUARY 2013 FEBRUARY 2013 MARCH 2013 Source: DCF data

Total number eligible to be finalized 72 84 77 44 206 76 22 31 50

Finalized within 9 months (percent of total) 72 (100%) 84 (100%) 76 (99%) 43 (98%) 203 (99%) 73 (96%) 21 (95%) 31 (100%) 47 (94%)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 111

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 120 of 186 PageID: 7217

IX. HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT
The provision of appropriate health care services to children in DCF’s custody has been a principal focus of the MSA and the DCF’s reform agenda. Since June 2011, DCF has maintained or improved performance on nearly all Performance Measures related to health care services.119 These Performance Measures track DCF’s progress in ensuring that children in outof-home placement receive:
 Pre-placement medical assessments (MSA Section II.F.5);  Full medical examinations (known as Comprehensive Medical Examinations or
CMEs) (MSA Section II.B.11);  Medical examinations in compliance with Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis
and Treatment (EPSDT) guidelines;  Semi-annual dental examinations for children ages three and older (MSA Section
II.F.2);  Mental health assessments of children with suspected mental health needs (MSA
Section II.F.2);  Timely, accessible and appropriate follow-up and treatment (MSA Section II.F.2);
and  Immunizations.
This section provides updates of ongoing efforts to improve policies, staffing and access to services, which are necessary to realize and sustain positive health outcomes for children as well as information about the health care received by children in out-of-home placement.120 The delivery of a child’s medical information (through the Health Passport) to a new caregiver within five days of placement in his/her home is also assessed.
Although not used to directly assess MSA compliance, DCF’s QR found that 99 percent of cases scored at least minimally acceptable on the provision of health care services, a finding consistent with performance on the measures discussed below.
DCF regularly carries out a Health Care Case Record Review that analyzes the follow-up care children receive for concerns identified in CMEs; mental health screenings, assessments and follow-up care; and timely delivery of the health passport to resource parents. Because these reviews are labor intensive and consistently done every six months, the Monitor did not require a special review, given the extended monitoring period, to assess performance through March 2013. The most recent case record review includes a random sample of children in out-of-home placement who were removed between May 1 and October 31, 2012 and were in care a
119 The one exception is the performance measure requiring 95 percent of caregivers receive a current Health Passport within five days of a child’s placement where performance as of December 2012 is 63 percent. 120 The Monitor has previously verified health care outcomes through a case record review. See Appendix C of Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period VI Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie- January 1 to June 30, 2009, Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy, December 22, 2009. See, http://www.cssp.org/publications/child-welfare/class-action-reform/progress-of-the-newjersey-state-department-of-children-and-families-monitoring-report-for-charlie-and-nadine-h.-v.-corzine-december2009.pdf

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 112

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 121 of 186 PageID: 7218

minimum of 60 days. Thus, for the health care Performance Measures based on case record review findings, performance is reported through December 2012.
A. Health Care Delivery System
Child Health Units
The Child Health Units are a fundamental cornerstone of the provision of health care to children in DCP&P custody. These units are in each DCP&P Local Office and are staffed with a clinical nurse coordinator, Health Care Case Managers (nurses) and staff assistants based on the projected number of children in out-of-home placement. A regional nurse administrator supervises local units for a particular region (aligned with the Area Offices). DCF worked with University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey’s School of Nursing’s François-Xavier Bagnoud Center (FXB)121 and DCP&P Local Offices to build these units. As part of their duties, these staff members are responsible for tracking and advocating for the health needs of children who enter into out-of-home care. Since the creation of health care units and assignment of nurses to children in out-of-home care, DCF has achieved and sustained substantial results.
The Child Health Units are operational in all DCP&P Local Offices. Staffing levels remain consistent. As of March 31, 2013, there were 187 Health Care Case Managers and 103 staff assistants statewide. DCF works to ensure that the ratio of Health Care Case Managers to children in out-of-home care is 1 to 50 in every Local Office.

B. Health Care Performance Measures

Pre-Placement Medical Assessment

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

39. Pre-Placement Medical Assessment: Number/percent of children receiving pre-placement medical assessment in a non-emergency room setting or other setting appropriate to the situation.122
By December 31, 2009, 98% of children will receive a pre-placement assessment either in a non emergency room setting, or in an emergency room setting if the child needed emergency medical attention or the child was already in the emergency room when DCP&P received the referral.

121 As of July 1, 2013, the University of Medicine and Dentistry merged with Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey. The UMDNJ-School of Nursing is now Rutgers School of Nursing. 122 By agreement of the Parties, this measure has been redrafted to combine the percentage of PPAs in a non-ER
setting and those PPAs conducted in an ER that are appropriate based on the presenting medical needs of the
child/youth or because the child/youth was already in the ER when DCP&P received the referral.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 113

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 122 of 186 PageID: 7219

Figure 40: Percentage of Children who Received Pre-Placement Assessment in a Non-Emergency Room Setting or Other Settings Appropriate to the Situation (June 2009 – March 2013)

100%

98%

98%

98%

99%

99%

99%

99%

90% 92%

80%

Percentage of Children

70%

60%

50%
JuJnu-n0-909

DDeecc-0-099

JuJunn-1-100

DDece-c1-010 JJuunn-1-111
Month

DDeecc--1111

JJuunn--1122 MDare-c1-312

Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure.

Final Target (98%)

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
All children entering out-of-home care are required to have a pre-placement assessment and the vast majority of these assessments should be in a non-emergency room setting (MSA Section II.F.5). Child Health Unit nurses, clinics and sometimes the child’s own pediatrician provide these assessments.
From July 2012 to March 2013, 3,924 children entered out-of-home placement and 3,912 (100%)123 of them received a pre-placement assessment (PPA). Of those 3,912 children, 3,367 (86%) received the PPA in a non-emergency room setting with the remaining 545 children (14%) receiving a PPA in an emergency room setting due to the medical needs and situation of the child.
During this period, DCF conducted an internal review of all 545 PPAs that occurred in an emergency room and determined that 496 (91%) were appropriate for the situation; that is, the child needed emergency medical attention or the child was already in the emergency room when DCP&P received the referral.124 Thus, 99 percent of children received a PPA in a setting
123 Percentage is 100 due to rounding. 124 In monitoring Period XII, the Monitor reviewed back-up data provided by DCF regarding the PPAs occurring in an emergency room setting and agreed with DCF determinations regarding appropriate or inappropriate use of the ER for PPAs. In addition, the Monitor’s previous Health Care Case Record Review found that many of the PPAs occurring in an ER were because the child had an injury requiring ER treatment or had been brought to the ER by the police or other service provider.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 114

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 123 of 186 PageID: 7220

appropriate to the situation—86 percent received PPAs in a non-ER setting and an additional 13 percent appropriately received a PPA in an ER setting.125 DCF continues to meet the MSA standard regarding appropriate settings for PPAs.

Initial Medical Examinations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

40. Initial Medical Examinations: Number/percent of children entering out-of-home care receiving full medical examinations within 60 days.
By January 1, 2009 and thereafter, at least 85% of children shall receive full medical examinations within 30 days of entering out-of-home care and at least 98% within 60 days.

Figure 41: Percentage of Children with Comprehensive Medical Examination (CME) within 30 days of Entering Out-of-Home Care (December 2009 – March 2013)

100%

Percentage of Children

90%

80% 84% 78%

80%

70%

88% 82%

87% 85%

60%

50%
DDece-c0-909

JJuunn--1100

DDeecc--1100

JJuunn--1111

DDeecc--1111

JJuunn--1122

MDaerc--1132

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure.

Final Target (85%)

125 For 49 of the 496 children who had their PPA in an ER setting, DCF’s internal review found no evidence to support that the PPA taking place in the ER was appropriate. Therefore, one percent of children received their PPA in an inappropriate setting.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 115

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 124 of 186 PageID: 7221

Figure 42: Percentage of Children with Comprehensive Medical Examination (CME) within First 60 days of Placement (June 2009 – March 2013)

100%

90% 94%

97%

96%

97%

98%

97%

98%

98%

Percentage of Children

80%

70%

60%

50%
JunJ-u0n9-09 DDeecc--0099

JJuunn-1-100

DDeecc--1100

JJuunn--1111

DDeecc--1111 JuJunn-1-122 MDaer-c1-132

Month

Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure. However, for the current monitoring period, data for children entering care in the month of October 2012 are excluded due to the impact of Superstorm Sandy on provider availability for appointments needing to occur in October or November 2012.

Final Target (98%)

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
Children entering out-of-home placement must receive a comprehensive medical examination (CME) within 60 days of entering placement (MSA Section II.F.2.ii). A CME involves a comprehensive physical, including a developmental history and evaluation, and an initial mental health screening.126 Mental health screenings determine if a child has a suspected mental health need.127 If a child is suspected to have a mental health need, a full mental health evaluation is then expected to be conducted.
After reviewing the data and discussion with DCF, the Monitor has excluded data for children who entered out-of-home care in the month of October. DCF provided relevant information that as a direct result of Superstorm Sandy medical providers were unavailable (temporarily shut
126 Previously, the state relied on the Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children (CHEC) model as the sole vehicle to comprehensively assess the health care needs of these children. CHEC examinations require a three part examination: medical, neurodevelopmental and mental health assessments, which can only be administered by a limited number of medical providers in New Jersey. CHEC examinations still take place and are considered a type of CME. CMEs are now also provided through other community-based medical providers. 127 In addition to the expectation that mental health screenings occur as part of the CME, DCF directs Health Care Case Managers to conduct mental health screenings with children in out-of-home placements who are age two and above and not already receiving mental health services. Health Care Case Managers conduct these screenings within the first two weeks of a child’s placement.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 116

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 125 of 186 PageID: 7222

down, handling emergencies, etc. Fifty-nine percent of children who entered out-of-home care in the month of October received a CME within 30 days of entering custody. Performance the other months ranged from 77-91 percent, affirming that the October performance was an aberration. Notably, 94 percent of the children who entered out-of-home care in October received a CME within 60 days of entering custody, so DCF was able to ensure medical attention once medical providers were available or other providers were identified.
When excluding the month of October, DCF sustained performance ensuring that 85 percent of children received a CME within the first 30 days of placement and 98 percent of children received a CME within the first 60 days.
Complete data from July 2012 through March 2013 show that 3,274 children required a CME; 2,687 (82%) received a CME within the first 30 days of placement (See Table 18). An additional 496 (15%) children received their CME within 60 days of placement. Table 18 shows the monthly variation in performance.

Table 18: Comprehensive Medical Examinations within 30 and 60 days of Entering DCF Custody (July 2012 – March 2013)

JULY 2012

Comprehensive Medical Examinations Data

July 2012 – March 2013

Total

Total

Total

Children Completed

Completed

Completed

requiring within 30

within 31-

within 0-

CME

days

%

60 days

%

60 days

%

350

309

88%

31

9%

340

97%

AUGUST 2012

411

346

84%

58

14%

404

98%

SEPTEMBER 2012

383

349

91%

27

7%

376

98%

OCTOBER 2012

378

224

59%

131

35%

355

94%

NOVEMBER 2012

346

291

84%

44

13%

335

97%

DECEMBER 2012

317

243

77%

59

19%

302

95%

JANUARY 2013

388

340

88%

42

11%

382

99%

FEBRUARY 2013

342

300

88%

35

10%

335

98%

MARCH 2013

359

285

79%

69

19%

354

99%

Total

3,274

2,687

82%

496

15%

3,183

97%

Source: Data produced by the Child Health Unit Note: Due to the extraordinary damage and disruption caused by Superstorm Sandy, data from the month of October are excluded for assessment of performance purposes.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 117

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 126 of 186 PageID: 7223

Required Medical Examinations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

41. Required Medical Examinations: Number/percent of children in care for one year or more who received medical examinations in compliance with EPSDT guidelines.
By June 2010, 98% of children in care for one year or more will receive medical examinations in compliance with EPSDT guidelines.

Figure 43: Percentage of Children Ages 12-24 months Up-to-Date on EPSDT Visits (June 2009 – March 2013)

100%

90% 94%

92%

80%

92%

93%

92%

92%

91%

93%

Final Target (98%)

Percentage of Children

70%

60%

50%
JuJnu-0n9-09 DDeecc--0099

JJuunn--1100

DDeecc-1-100 JuJunn-1-111
Month

DDeecc-1-111

JuJunn-1-122

MDeacr--1123

Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure.

Figure 44: Percentage of Children older than 2 years Up-to-Date on EPSDT Visits (June 2009 – March 2013)

100%

90% 94%

93%

94%

95%

94%

93%

93% 93%

Percentage of Children

80%

70%

60%

50%
JJuunn-0-099 DDeecc--0099

Jun-10

DDece-c1-010 JuJunn-1-11
Month

Dec-11

Jun-12 MDare-c1-312

Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure.

Final Target (98%)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 118

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 127 of 186 PageID: 7224

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
Between July 2012 and March 2013, 93 percent of children 12 to 24 months old received the required Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) well-child examinations. Ninety-three percent of children age two and above also received the required EPSDT well-child examinations (see Tables 19 and 20). This performance is similar to previous monitoring periods and is slightly below the MSA final target of 98 percent of children in care for one year or more receiving timely EPSDT well-child examinations.128 However, in the Monitor’s judgment, this performance demonstrates sustained access to health care for children in out-of-home care.
NJ SPIRIT and SafeMeasures provide reports on when a child receives an EPSDT examination, but neither have the ability to determine whether or not a child is clinically up-to-date with these exams. A child may be noted in NJ SPIRIT as not up-to-date if at the EPSDT visit the child was sick (children must be well for such visits to be considered EPSDT visits) or the visit was missed, but rescheduled within a close time period. Also, especially notable for younger children, once a child is off schedule, they will remain off schedule within DCF’s data system for all subsequent EPSDT exams. Therefore, in an effort to determine the actual receipt of an EPSDT exam, DCF conducted a secondary review of all the records of children noted as “not current with their EPSDT exams” and found more children were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT exam than reported in NJ SPIRIT and SafeMeasures.129

Table 19: EPSDT for Children Ages 12-24 months (July 2012 – March 2013)

Month JULY 2012

Children Requiring EPSDT
88

AUGUST 2012

104

SEPTEMBER 2012

91

OCTOBER 2012

102

NOVEMBER 2012

110

DECEMBER 2012

116

JANUARY 2013

94

FEBRUARY 2013

105

MARCH 2013

127

Total

937

Source: DCF data produced by Child Health Unit

Children Up-to-Date
82 94 83 98 102 107 86 100 117
869

% Children Up-to-Date
93% 90% 91% 96% 93% 92% 92% 95% 92%
93%

128 As the measure involves children in out-of-home placement for one year or more, performance for children under the age of 12 months is not measured by the Monitor. 129 The Monitor did not review the back-up data this monitoring period but has confidence in the review as the Monitor has previously examined the back-up data of this secondary review for children age 12 to 24 months and found DCF’s secondary review adequate to determine if children in the age range were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT exam.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 119

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 128 of 186 PageID: 7225

Table 20: EPSDT Annual Medical Exams for Children Age 25 months and older (July 2012 – March 2013)

Month
JULY 2012 AUGUST 2012 SEPTEMBER 2012 OCTOBER 2012 NOVEMBER 2012 DECEMBER 2012 JANUARY 2013 FEBRUARY 2013 MARCH 2013
Total Source: DCF data

Total Due
242 243 190 203 184 179 197 161 247 1,846

Annual Exam Completed

228

94%

233

96%

169

89%

191

94%

167

91%

167

93%

186

94%

143

89%

235

95%

1,719

93%

Annual Exam Not Completed

14

6%

10

4%

21

11%

12

6%

17

9%

12

7%

11

6%

18

11%

12

5%

127

7%

Semi-Annual Dental Examinations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

42. Semi-Annual Dental Examinations: Number/percent of children ages three and older in care six months or more who received semi-annual dental examinations.
a. By December 2011, 98% of children will receive annual dental examinations. b. By December 2011, 90% of children will receive semi-annual dental examinations.

Figure 45: Percentage of Children Current with Semi-Annual Dental Exams (June 2009 – December 2012)

Percentage of Children

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 64% 50%
JuJunn-0-099

80%
DDeecc--0099

Source: DCF data

85%
JJuunn--1100

86%

89%

87%

86%

85%

DDece-c1-010 JuJunn-1-111
Month

DDeecc--1111

JJuunn--1122

DDeecc--1122

Final Target (90%)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 120

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 129 of 186 PageID: 7226

Performance as of December 31, 2012:
As of December 31, 2012, 85 percent of children age three or older who have been in care for at least six months had evidence of receiving a semi-annual dental exam (within the last six months). DCF’s performance remains similar to the previous three monitoring periods and is below the final target by five percent. The dental care measure includes targets for annual and semi-annual dental exams. Because the performance expectation for field staff is to ensure that children age three or older receive semi-annual dental exams, DCF had been solely measuring whether children receive dental exams semi-annually. DCF also provided annual data on this measure which show that 98 percent of children three and older in care for at least six months between July 1 and December 31, 2012 had an annual dental exam.130 Thus the Monitor considers DCF to have partially fulfilled this Performance Measure.
As of December 31, 2012, DCF reports that there were 4,000 children age three or older who had been in DCP&P out-of-home placement for at least six month; 3,406 (85%) had received a dental examination within the previous six months and an additional 517 (13%) had received an annual dental examination, thus there was evidence that 98 percent of children aged three and older had at least an annual dental examination. From July through December 2012, monthly performance on current semi-annual dental examinations ranged from 85 to 88 percent. In addition, monthly performance from January through March 2013 ranged between 84 and 87 percent.

Follow-up Care and Treatment

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

43. Follow-up Care and Treatment: Number/percent of children who received timely accessible and appropriate follow-up care and treatment to meet health care and mental health needs.
By June 2011, 90% of children will receive follow-up care and treatment to meet health care and mental health needs.

130 As of March 31, 2013, 84 percent of children age three or older had evidence of a semi-annual dental exam. Because this measure is assessed annually and semi-annually, the Monitor decided to assess performance as of December 2012.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 121

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 130 of 186 PageID: 7227

Figure 46: Percentage of Children Who Received Follow-up Care for Needs Identified in CME
(June 2009 – December 2012)

100%

90%

93%

90%

80% 80%

70%

94%

94%

93%

96%

95% Final Target (90%)

Percentage of Children

60%

50%
JJuunn--0099

DDeecc--0099

JJuunn--1100

DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111

DDeecc--1111 JJuunn--1122 DDeecc-1-122

Month
Source: DCF data, Health Care Case Record Reviews, Child Health Unit Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure. Data for December 2012 represents performance for children in out-of-home placement who were removed between May 1 and October 31, 2012 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days.

Performance as of December 31, 2012:
The data on health care follow-up is based on DCF’s internal Health Care Case Record review of a random sample of children in out-of-home placement who were removed between May 1 and October 31, 2012 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. Based on multiple assessments by the Monitor of DCF’s Health Care Case Record review and the results of the statewide Qualitative Review, the Monitor believes that the medical follow-up care and treatment of children is accurately measured through DCF’s internal Health Care Case Record review.131
DCF reports that of those children identified as needing follow-up care after their CME, 95 percent received the recommended follow-up care. As stated previously, mental health screenings are not routinely documented as part of the CME, but Health Care Case Managers help to ensure that children in out-of-home placement receive needed mental health services. Therefore, the Monitor considers this follow-up care data with the caveat that mental health needs requiring follow-up may not have been fully identified or documented as part of the CME for some children.132

131 The Monitor did not independently verify the findings of DCF’s Health Care Case Record Review during this Monitoring Period. However, the Monitor did review the protocol and observe a day of the review. The methodology and analysis remain comparable to the Health Care Case Record review conducted by the Monitor in spring 2009. 132 The Monitor thus looks to performance measure 46 to measure whether children and youth receive mental health screenings, and whether those with a suspected mental health need receive assessments.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 122

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 131 of 186 PageID: 7228

Table 21: Provision of Required Follow-up Medical Care (n=350)
December 31, 2012

No CME data in record CME Records

#

%

2

0%

348

99%

No follow-up care needed

31

9%

Follow-up care required

317

91%

 Received follow-up

300

95%

 No evidence in record

17

5%

Source: DCF, Health Care Case Record Review, Child Health Unit133

Immunizations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

44. Immunization: Children in DCF custody are current with immunizations. By December 31, 2011, 98% of children in custody will be current with immunizations.

Figure 47: Percentage of Children in Custody Current with Immunizations (June 2009 – March 2013)

100%

90%

90%

93%

95%

97%

96%

95%

80% 86%

95%

Final Target (98%)

Percentage of Children

70%

60%

50%
JuJunn-0-099

DDeecc--0099

JJuunn--1100

DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111

DDeecc--1111 JJuunn-1-122 MDaer-c1-132

Month Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring
period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure. Data for March 2013 represents performance from
January through March 2013.

133 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record review in order to report on this measure. The Review examined records of a random sample of children in DCP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between May 1 and October 31, 2012 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,125 children comprise this cohort and a sample of 350 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 percent margin of error with a 95 percent confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 123

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 132 of 186 PageID: 7229

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
From January through March 2013, of the 6,545 children in out-of-home placement, 6,242 (95%) were current with their immunizations, slightly below the performance requirement of 98 percent. Performance on this measure has varied only two percentage points since December 2010. While not meeting the MSA final target, this performance represents sustained and positive results in ensuring that children are current with their immunizations. Thus, the Monitor deems this MSA requirement as partially fulfilled.134
Health Passports

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

45. Health Passports: Children’s parents/caregivers receive current Health Passport within five days of a child’s placement.135
By June 30, 2011, 95% of caregivers will receive a current Health Passport within five days of a child’s placement.

Figure 48: Percentage of Caregivers who Received Health Passports within 5 days of Child’s Placement (December 2009 – December 2012)

100% 80%

Final Target (95%)

Percentage of Caregivers

60%

63%

58%

63%

40%

50%

20% 28%

32%

30%

0%
DeDc-e0c9-09

JJuunn-1-100

DDeecc--1100

JuJunn-1-111

DDeecc--1111

JJuunn--1122

DDeecc--1122

Month
Source: DCF Health Care Case Record Review Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure. Data for December 2012 represents performance for children in out-of-home placement who were removed between May 1 and October 31, 2012 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days.

134 New Jersey’s performance on child immunizations exceeds the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s goal for the nation that states achieve immunizations rates of 90 percent for children. Further, DCF’s performance on immunization rates for children in out-of-home placement is similar to rates of immunization for all of New Jersey’s children (grades pre K-6) in public schools. See http://www.state.nj.us/health/cd/documents/status_report/2013/all_vacc13.pdf.. 135 Parties are determining if a more effective measure can be designed that assesses when meaningful medical information of children can reasonably be shared with their caregivers.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 124

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 133 of 186 PageID: 7230

Figure 49: Percentage of Caregivers who Received Health Passports within 30 days of Child’s Placement (December 2009 – December 2012)

100% 80%

92%

92%

96%

96%

60% 68%

68%

68%

Percentage of Caregivers

40%

20%

0%
DDece-c0-909

JuJnu-n1-010

DDeecc-1-100

JJuunn--1111

DDece-c1-111

JJuunn--1122

DDeecc--1122

Month
Source: DCF Health Care Case Record Review Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure. Data for December 2012 represents performance for children in out-of-home placement who were removed between May 1 and October 31, 2012 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days.

Table 22: Health Passport: Presence in the Record, Evidence of Sharing Records (n=350)
December 31, 2012

#

%

Health Passport was present in the record

350

100%

Health Passport not present in the record

0

0%

Health Passport in record shared with provider

349

100%

Evidence of being shared with resource providers

 Within 5 days

219

63%

 Between 6- 10 days

77

22%

 Between 11- 30 days

39

11%

 More than 30 days Source: DCF, Health Care Case Record Review136

14

4%

136 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in DCP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between May 1, 2012 and October 31, 2012 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,125 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 350 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 percent margin of error with a 95 percent confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 125

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 134 of 186 PageID: 7231
Performance as of December 31, 2012:
Under the MSA, all children entering out-of-home care are to have a Health Passport created for them (Section II.F.8). This Health Passport records all relevant health history and current health status of the child and is expected to be regularly updated and made available to resource parents, children (if old enough) and their parents.
Based on DCF’s internal Health Care Case Record Review of 350 cases, there is evidence that Health Passports are shared with the child’s caregiver within the first five days of placement in 63 percent of cases (see Table 22). This performance does not meet the final performance target but represents an increase over the last monitoring period when 58 percent of caregivers received Health Passports within five days. Within 30 days of the placement, DCF data show the Health Passport has been shared with 96 percent of caregivers, consistent with performance from the last monitoring period.
The Health Passport organizes health information from a range of sources including any findings of the PPA. DCF policy requires that the Health Care Case Manager complete the Health Passport, which is maintained by the DCP&P Local Office Child Health Unit, and provide it to the resource parent within 72 hours of the child’s placement. This is a more stringent policy than the MSA requirement that the Health Passport be conveyed to the child’s caregiver within five days. DCF continues to be unable to consistently meet its internal timeframe or the five day requirement set in the MSA, and there is concern that Health Passports produced within 72 hours, or even five days, frequently cannot contain meaningful medical information. The Monitor and parties have met to discuss this measure and consider whether a more effective measure can be designed that assesses how and in what timeframes meaningful medical information about children can reasonably be collected and timely shared with their caregivers. No agreement has been reached as of this time.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 126

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 135 of 186 PageID: 7232

X. MENTAL HEALTH CARE
DCF continues to work on improving its mental health delivery system. During this monitoring period, DCF expanded the number and type of children served and, through its federal Medicaid waiver, will be positioned to provide greater access to behavioral and mental health services for children and youth as discussed further below. Further, the Center for Health Care Strategies, a nonprofit health policy resource center based in New Jersey, awarded DCF a technical assistance grant to participate with five other states in a Psychotropic Medication Quality Improvement Collaborative. New Jersey’s goals in receiving this technical assistance include increasing policy compliance and developing frameworks to review the progress of individual children/youth as well as children/ youth at-risk for needing psychotropic medication. In June 2013, New Jersey presented a webinar on Models of Agency Consent for Psychotropic Medications for Children and Youth in Child Welfare.137
DCF continues to meet the MSA Performance Measures requiring that children receive timely mental health assessments and children and youth received appropriate, evidence-based mental health services that could prevent their entry into DCP&P custody.
A. Mental Health Delivery System
DCF’s Division of Children's System of Care (CSOC) serves children and adolescents with emotional, behavioral health, developmental and intellectual disabilities and co-occurring conditions. Beginning in 2012, the provision of services to children with developmental and intellectual disabilities, formerly under the purview of the Department of Human Services (DHS), transitioned to CSOC. The first phase of this transition occurred in October 2012 when approximately 450 children and youth with developmental and intellectual disabilities receiving out-of-home placement and intensive in-home services were transitioned to CSOC. Several new services were developed and implemented including awarding two contracts to expand out-ofhome treatment for children with developmental disabilities, a five bed psychiatric community home and a five bed intensive residential treatment services home.
The second phase of the transition, involving 15,000 children and youth, began on January 1, 2013 and represented the transfer of Developmental Disability (DD) Family Support Services to DCF. DD Family Support Services include respite, camp and assistive technology and support for the family to care for the child or youth within their home. Care coordination for these children and youth is provided by PerformCare and DCF’s network of Care Management Organizations (CMOs). PerformCare provides 24 hour, 7 day a week access to service requests, manages the utilization of service contracts and provides the first step in determining eligibility

137 Section III.C.2 of the MSA requires the State to promulgate and implement policies designed to ensure that psychotropic medication is not used as a means of discipline or control and that the use of physical restraint is minimized. This is a Phase I requirement that DCF has maintained since January 2010. Child Health Unit (CHU) nurses are continuing to monitor children/youth on psychotropic medication. Data that CHUs maintain include the diagnosis of the child/youth; prescription and over the counter medications; medication dosage(s); prescriber name and credentials; informed consent documentation; treatment plans; and engagement in non-pharmacological therapies. CHU psychotropic medication data are submitted to the Office of Child and Family Health on a quarterly basis for review and analysis.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 127

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 136 of 186 PageID: 7233
of youth who are new to CSOC. CSOC retains responsibility for the final determination of DD eligibility.
Also new this monitoring period, in October 2012 New Jersey received approval from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for a Comprehensive Medicaid Waiver focused, in part, on increasing supports for children and youth who have a risk of hospital level care (children/youth considered to be seriously emotionally disturbed), have a pervasive developmental disability, or are developmentally delayed and mentally ill.138 Some aspects of the waiver will be implemented in the summer and fall of 2013. CSOC believes that the waiver will permit them to improve timely access and relevant care that integrates physical as well as mental health care. The Monitor will track the implementation and effectiveness of this waiver as it relates to requirements of the MSA.
The number of children placed out-of-state for treatment continued to decline.
DCF is required to minimize the number of children in DCP&P custody placed in out-of-state congregate care settings and to work on transitioning these children back to New Jersey (Section II.D.2). As of March 2013, there were three youth in out-of-state residential placements. All three youth are in a specialized program for the deaf or hard of hearing. DCF is working collaboratively with the state’s Department of Education, primarily with staff of New Jersey’s Marie H. Katzenbach School for the Deaf, to develop an in-state program to provide residential mental health treatment for five to eight youth. Program services will be provided by St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center. The facility is undergoing updates and renovations and DCF hopes to move the three youth from out-of-state to the new facility by the end of 2013 if the renovations have been completed.
Figure 50 shows the number of children placed out-of-state from June 2011 to May 2013.

138 Other provisions of the Medicaid waiver support seniors and adults with disabilities and low income families.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 128

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 137 of 186 PageID: 7234

Figure 50: Children in Out-of-State Placement (June 2011 – May 2013)

20

Number of Children

15

Jun-11 Jul-11

13

13

10

Aug-11 9

Sep-11 9

Oct-11 9

Nov-11

9

Dec-11 7

Jan-12 6

Feb-12 Mar-12

6

6 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12

5

5

5

5

5 May-13

3

0
Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Aug-12
Month Source: DCF data, CSOC (as of the first day of each month)

Youth in detention, in DCP&P custody and awaiting CSOC placement are moved from
detention in a timely manner.
The MSA requires that no youth in DCP&P custody should wait longer than 30 days in a detention facility post-disposition for an appropriate placement (Section II.D.5). From July 2012 to March 2013, ten youth in DCP&P custody, three females and seven males ages 14 to17, were in juvenile detention awaiting a CSOC placement following disposition of their delinquency case. One youth transitioned from detention within 15 days after disposition. The remaining nine youth transitioned between 16 and 30 days following disposition of their case, thereby meeting the MSA requirement. Table 23 provides information on the length of time each of the youth waited for placement.

Table 23: Youth in DCP&P Custody in Juvenile Detention Post-Disposition Awaiting CSOC Placement (July 2012 – March 2013)

Length of Time to placement while in Detention Post-Disposition 0-15 Days
16-30 Days
Over 30 Days
Total Source: DCF data, CSOC

Number of Youth
1 9 0 10

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 129

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 138 of 186 PageID: 7235

B. Mental Health Performance Measures

Mental Health Assessments

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

46. Mental Health Assessments: Number/percent of children with a suspected mental health need who receive mental health assessments.
By December 31, 2011, 90% of children with a suspected mental health need will receive a mental health assessment.

Figure 51: Percentage of Children with Suspected Mental Health Needs who Received Mental Health Assessment
(December 2009 – December 2012)

Percentage of Children

100% 90% 89% 80% 70% 60% 50%
DeDc-e0c9-09

91%
JJuunn--1100

94%

94%

90%

DDeecc-1-100

Jun-11
Month

DDec--1111

92% 90%

Final Target (90%)

Jun-12

DDeecc-1-122

Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure. Data for December 2012 represents performance for children in out-of-home placement who were removed between May 1 and October 31, 2012 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 130

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 139 of 186 PageID: 7236
Performance as of December 31, 2012:
DCF’s internal Health Care Case Record Review found that 99 percent of eligible children and youth received the required mental health screen.139 Eligible children are over the age of two and not already receiving mental health services. As shown in Table 24, a total of 134 children in the sample required a mental health assessment.140 DCF reports that 90 percent (121) of those 134 children identified as needing a mental health assessment received one by the time of the record review. Performance slightly declined since the last monitoring period but met the MSA performance requirement.141
The data also show that of the 90 percent of youth receiving a mental health assessment, 75 percent (91) were completed in the first 30 days of out-of-home placement and another 16 percent (19) were completed in 60 days.

139 The Monitor did not independently verify the findings of DCF’s Health Care Case Record Review conducted in the winter of 2012. However, the Monitor did review the protocol, observe a day of the review and discuss the
methodology with DCF staff. The methodology and analysis are comparable to the Health Care Case Record review conducted by the Monitor in spring 2009. 140 Three hundred and fifty-two children were in the sample. One hundred twenty children (60%) were determined
to have a suspected mental health need requiring a mental health assessment. DCF also determined that 14 of 47 children already receiving mental health services required a new mental health assessment. 141 Last monitoring period, 92 percent of children in need of a mental health assessment received one by the time of
the review.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 131

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 140 of 186 PageID: 7237

Table 24: Mental Health Screening and Assessments for Children Age 2 and older (n=350)
as of December 31, 2012

MH Screening

Not reviewed already receiving services (47) or under the age of two (101)

148

Children eligible for screening

202

TOTAL RECORDS REVIEWED

350

42% 58% 100%

Children eligible screened Children eligible not screened TOTAL CHILDREN ELIGIBLE FOR SCREENING

199

99%

3

1%

202

100%

Suspected MH need identified

120

60%

Youth already receiving services were identified as needing an assessment

14*

TOTAL REQUIRING MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS

134

MH Assessment

MH assessment completed MH assessment scheduled

121

90%

2

2%

MH assessment not completed

11

8%

TOTAL

134

MH Assessment Completion Timeline

MH assessment complete w/in 30 days

91

MH assessment complete w/in 60 days

19

Greater than 60 days

6

Unable to determine

5

TOTAL

121

Recommendations made in MH Assessment

Recommendation Made

118

No Recommendation Made

3

TOTAL

121

Treatment Provided/Evidence in the Record

All Recommended Treatment Provided

77

Some Recommended Treatment Provided

19

Recommended Treatment Not Provided

22

TOTAL

118

Source: DCF data, Health Care Case Record Review142

*14 of the 47 children already receiving mental health services

100%
75% 16%
5% 4% 100%
98% 2%
100%
65% 16% 19% 100%

142 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in DCP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between May 1, 2012 and October 31, 2012 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,125 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 350 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 percent margin of error with a 95 percent confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 132

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 141 of 186 PageID: 7238

Provision of In-Home and Community-Based Mental Health Services for Children and Their Families

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

47. Provision of in-home and community-based mental health services for children and their families: CSOC shall continue to support activities of CMOs, YCMs, FSOs, Mobile Response, evidencebased therapies such as MST and FFT and crisis stabilization services to assist children and youth and their families involved with DCP&P and to prevent children and youth from entering DCP&P custody.
Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
Section II.C.2 of the MSA requires the state to have a Medicaid rate structure to reimburse evidence-based, informed or support practices such as Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST). FFT continues to be available in seven counties: Atlantic, Cape May, Burlington, Ocean, Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem. Between July 2012 and March 2013, each program’s average census was 86 percent of the program’s capacity. MST continues to be available in three counties: Camden, Essex and Hudson. The average census for the MST programs was near 53 percent of the program’s capacity. CSOC reports that there have been several discussions with the MST provider for Essex and Hudson counties (averaging 48% monthly census) regarding ways to increase program utilization.
The FFT and MST programs averaged approximately 16 successful discharges per month during this monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 133

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 142 of 186 PageID: 7239

XI. SERVICES TO PREVENT ENTRY INTO FOSTER CARE AND TO SUPPORT REUNIFICATION AND PERMANENCY

Continued Support for Family Success Centers

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

48. Continued Support for Family Success Centers: DCF shall continue to support statewide network of Family Success Centers.
Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
New Jersey began developing a network of Family Success Centers (FSCs) in 2007, initially with 21 centers. Now, in its fifth full year, New Jersey has a total of 51 FSCs, at least one in each of the 21 counties.
FSCs are neighborhood-based places where any community resident can access family support, information and services, and specialized supports that tend to vary depending on the needs and desires of the community in which they are located. Their function is to provide resources and supports before families fall into crisis. FSCs are situated in many types of settings: storefronts, houses, schools, houses of worship and public housing. Services range from life skills training, parent and child activities, advocacy, parent education and housing related activities. These services are available to any family in the community.
Since Superstorm Sandy in October 2012 FSCs have become recognized as a significant place of support for families in New Jersey. They served as referral resources for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Disaster Recovery Centers because they are located in communities where families needed assistance. Some centers held food and clothing drives and recovery information events. Additionally, Commissioner Allison Blake identified funding to establish a FSC in Union Beach to work with and service families directly affected by the storm.
In total, between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013, nine new FSCs were established in eight counties: two in Camden and one in each of the following counties: Cumberland, Essex, Gloucester, Middlesex, Monmouth, Salem and Union.
Table 25 depicts the ten core services provided by FSCs to families; the total number of services provided to these families – families can receive multiple services – increased by 72 percent from 13,285 in July 2012 to 22,868 in March 2013, reflecting the need for services brought about by Superstorm Sandy.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 134

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 143 of 186 PageID: 7240

Table 25: Number of Families Served by Family Success Centers by Types of Services Provided
(July 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)
Level of Service

FSC Unduplicated* Number of families served

Jul-12 Aug-12 5,180 5,704

Sep-12 4,881

Oct-12 5,379

Nov-12 5,348

Dec-12 4,612

Jan-13 4,459

Feb-13 4,610

Mar-13 4,959

Types of Services Provided

Core Services

Jul-12 Aug-12 Sep-12 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 Jan 13 Feb-13 Mar-13

Access to health information

2,017 1,978 2,324 3,490 5,314 5,040 7,217 6,350

5,232

Development of “Family

Success” plans

359

295

255

400

381

276

275

266

283

Economic self-reliance

1,441 1,369 1,409 1,540 2,199 2,065 1,831 1,564

1,916

Information and referral services

3,875 4,528 4,818 4,642 5,128 4,473 4,101 4,091

4,170

Life Skills

960

974 1,444 3,437 5,075 5,161 7,246 6,596

5,804

Housing-related services

557

682

816 1,694 1,490

847

904

885

812

Parent education

806 1,002 1,084

959

982

844

696

822

1,115

Parent-child activities

1,864 3,513 1,837 2,101 1,605 2,768 1,700 1,465

2,433

Advocacy

1,253 1,220 1,057 1,670 1,655

973

930

945

816

Home visits

153

169

187

178

251

220

135

202

287

Total

13,285 15,730 15,231 20,111 24,080 22,667 25,035 23,186 22,868

Source: DCF data *Unduplicated refers only to the number of families served within each month and not the services received, so a family could access more than one service more than one time.

DCF is continuing its collaboration with the Rutgers School of Social Work, Institute for Families that began on January 31, 2012 to train all FSC directors and staff on a professional development and credentialing program called the Family Development Credential (FDC). This customized program was redesigned specifically for New Jersey’s FSCs. During this monitoring period, FSC directors and front line staff completed the program. This professional development credentialing program will be offered to staff at the nine new FSCs to provide them with added skills to provide strength based support to families.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 135

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 144 of 186 PageID: 7241
XII. SERVICES TO OLDER YOUTH
During Phase I of the MSA, DCF created and promoted policies to provide continued support and services to youth aged 18 to 21, including monitoring youth in DCP&P custody until age 21. Discussed below are several current practices and strategies utilized by DCF to provide services for older youth in the following areas: housing, education, employment, general transition support and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning or Intersex (LGBTQI) services. Many of these efforts are a result of DCF’s Office of Adolescent Services (OAS) 2011-2014 strategic plan, Striving for Success in Transitions to Adulthood.143 Following the practice and strategy updates, progress toward the Phase II Performance Measures is provided.
Housing
The OAS has partnered with PerformCare to create the Adolescent Housing Hub, a real-time housing slot tracking and referral system. DCF reports that this automated system is within PerformCare’s CYBER system and allows for the identification of appropriate housing for youth by accurately matching the youth’s needs, provider information and program capacity. As indicated in Table 26, as of March 31, 2013, there were 374 transitional and supported housing operational slots and during this monitoring period, new housing programs were opened in Burlington, Salem and Atlantic counties. DCF reports that OAS is collecting data related to housing needs of youth across the state to plan and adjust existing housing programs.

143 The strategic plan can be accessed at: http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/divisions/oas/index.html

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 136

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 145 of 186 PageID: 7242

Table 26: Youth Transitional and Supported Housing as of March 31, 2013

County Atlantic Bergen
Burlington Camden Cape May
Essex
Gloucester Hudson
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth Morris Ocean Passaic Salem Somerset Union Warren
Total Source: DCF data

Current period: Operational Slots
6 12
26 29 12
57
30 30
14
12
19 5 8 19 15 14 58 8 374

Providers
Twin Oaks Bergen County Community Action Program Volunteers of America Crossroads The Children’s Home of Burlington County Garden State Homes Center For Family Services Center for Family Services CAPE Counseling
Covenant House
Corinthian Homes (Youth Build) Catholic Charities Diocese of Newark (Sanford) Tri-City Peoples Care Plus Robin’s Nest Inc. Catholic Charities Diocese of Newark (Strong Futures) Volunteers of America Lifeties Anchorline Anchorage Middlesex Interfaith Partners with the Homeless (MIPH) Garden State Homes IEP Catholic Charities Diocese of Trenton Collier Services Plaid House – Thenen House Ocean Harbor House NJ Development Corporation (Ind House/Marion) Ranch Hope (HILLS) Robin’s Nest Inc Somerset Home for Temporarily Displaced Children Community Access Unlimited Volunteers of America Catholic Charities Diocese of Metuchen

Ages Accepted
18-21 16-21 16-21 17-21 18-21 16-21 16-21 16-21 18-21 18-21 16-21 16-21 18-21 18-21 18-21
18-21
18-21 18-21 18-21 18-21
18-21
18-21 18-21 17-21 18-21 16-20 16-21 18-21 17-21 18-21 18-21 16-21 16-21 18-21

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 137

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 146 of 186 PageID: 7243
Education
DCF continues to offer the New Jersey Foster Care (NJFC) Scholars Program, overseen by the Office of Educational Support and Programs (OESP), which provides assistance with tuition and fees to current and former eligible foster youth in order to pursue post-secondary education. Between July 2012 and March 2013, 314 students participated in the Scholars program; 238 (76%) received funding through Education and Training Voucher (ETV) or tuition waiver. DCF reports the remaining youth did not utilize Scholars program funding because the financial aid provided by their educational institutions covered their expenses. The number of youth enrolled in the Scholars program has remained steady since the 2011-2012 academic year when 316 students participated and remains below expectations for potentially eligible youth. A case record review conducted by the Monitor and DCF of the 65 youth who exited care between July 1 and December 31, 2012 without achieving permanency found that documentation in the record indicated that information pertaining to the Scholars program was conveyed to 29 percent of youth and only four youth enrolled in higher education/vocational programs were enrolled in the Scholars program.
In an effort to increase participation in the Scholars program, between July 2012 and March 2013, 18 workshops were held providing assistance to 114 youth in understanding the Scholars program and to provide assistance in completing the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA). Additionally, information was presented during five “Aging Out” events, reaching approximately 270 youth, and four presentations were held for DCF staff, law guardians and resources parents with a total of 215 attendees. Reapplication events on college campuses containing high concentrations of Scholar participants were scheduled for the late spring and early summer 2013. The Monitor encourages DCF continually to assess the effectiveness of current recruitment efforts as well as enrollment requirements to ensure that youth who can benefit from the Scholars program have access to it.
Two additional supports available to youth enrolled in the Scholars program are Project MYSELF and the Summer Housing and Internship Program (SHIP). Project MYSELF is required for all youth enrolled in the Scholars program and offers a multi-service mentoring program designed to improve academic performance, increase post-secondary education retention and develop essential life skills and competencies. SHIP is a 12 week program (May through August) which offers safe and secure housing on four university campuses (Montclair University, Rutgers University-Camden, Rutgers University-Newark and Rutgers UniversityNew Brunswick/Piscataway) for youth who lack financial, family and social connections. In addition to housing, other supports are available including paid internship opportunities, counseling, seminars and social activities. During the summer of 2012, 40 students were served through SHIP. A new addition to the SHIP program, referred to as the Summer Internship Program (SIP), was created and began serving an additional 20 youth in May 2013. Youth enrolled in this program do not require housing supports but benefit from internship opportunities and access to the other supportive services available in the SHIP program.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 138

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 147 of 186 PageID: 7244

Employment
OAS has developed new partnerships with the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development and the State Employment and Training Commission (SETC) to identify, evaluate and expand access to employment programs. One component of this partnership includes resource and information sharing with One-Stop Career Centers, Workforce Investment Boards and Youth Investment Councils throughout the state. Another component of the partnership is participation in the SETC’s Shared Youth Vision Council which brings together stakeholders to construct a shared vision to guide employment and training services for youth.
General Transition Support
DCF received a sponsorship from Kearny Federal Savings Bank to partner with EverFi, an online financial literacy program, to provide services to youth in housing and life skills programs. This program was piloted in the summer of 2012 and a graduation ceremony was held in November 2012 for 40 youth who completed the course. An unlimited amount of additional slots are available for more youth to participate in the future and training is being conducted with DCP&P youth serving agencies.
On October 1, 2012, the Ansell Casey Life Skills Assessment was replaced with the Casey Life Skills Assessment (CLSA) by Casey Family Programs. OAS has provided guidance to DCP&P staff and contracted providers on changes and updates included in CLSA and on how to set up and access user accounts.
OAS has begun updating many policies pertaining to older youth. In August 2012, the policy regarding credit checks for youth was updated and after much planning and preparation this monitoring period, effective April 1, 2013, DCF updated its Independent Living Stipend policy, increasing the amount of funding available to be more comparable with current standards of living and to appropriately provide support for youth in independent living placements or receiving independent living services. The previous rate was established in 1979, providing approximately $160 a month for food and $180 a month for rent; the new policy provides eligible youth with $240 a month for food, $600 a month for rent and $100 a month for incidentals which includes household and personal care items.
In March 2013, OAS began the Adolescent Practice Forums which allow professionals across DCF an opportunity to discuss common practice concerns and receive updates on adolescent related policy, practice and workgroup and task force activities. Adolescent serving staff within the DCP&P, the Office of Education (OOE) and the Case Management Organizations (CMO) serving Children’s System of Care (CSOC) youth. These forums are offered four times a year in regional offices across the state. The first forum included an overview of resource materials for adolescents, status updates on the OAS strategic plan, services offered by OAS and a presentation on the Task Force on Helping Youth Thrive in Placement. The second series was held in June 2013.
Finally, OAS currently supports 12 Youth Advisory Boards (YABs). DCF reports that each YAB meets twice a month and is responsible for spearheading four programs per year. Some

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 139

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 148 of 186 PageID: 7245
examples of programs held during this monitoring period include a youth empowerment symposium, a youth summit, resource fairs, fundraisers and art exhibits. OAS is currently partnering with the National Resource Center for Youth Services in a significant investment to develop and implement a restructure to the YABs which would increase the number of YABs from 12 to 15, provide more standardized program components and protocols, incentivize youth leadership positions and provide internship opportunities to DCF youth alumni. Request for Proposals for the restructured YAB contracts were published on May 9, 2013 and the contract was awarded on July 23, 2013 to Rutgers University Transitions for Youth Program. DCF is currently in the process of transitioning to the new YAB structure.
A. Services for LGBTQI Population
The MSA required DCF to develop and begin to implement a plan for appropriate services to be delivered to youth who identify as LGBTQI (Section II.C.4). During this monitoring period, DCF continued to implement strategies and services to meet the needs of this population. The primary vehicle for these services is through the Safe Space Program. This program encourages and promotes a welcoming and inclusive environment within DCF for LGBTQI youth, families and staff through training, activities, resources, community partnerships, collection of LGBTQI data and through developing policies that reflect appropriate case practice with this population. DCF has increased the number of Safe Space liaisons during this monitoring period by adding an additional 24 liaisons, now offering a total of 148 for all 47 DCP&P Local Offices. DCF reports that these liaisons provided more than 200 consultations concerning case practice and community resources related to LGBTQI youth and families this monitoring period. Liaisons recently produced an updated resource guide, “TRIANGLE: Teen Resources Intended to Aid & Nurture Gays, Lesbians & Everyone”144 and continued data collection and analyses, identifying approximately 200 LGBTQI youth and approximately 130 LGBTQI families that they serve. The data are collected by OAS to identify, create and update policy, programming and practice needs to best support these youth and families.
B. Performance Measures Measuring Services to Older Youth
During March 2013, DCP&P served 3,026 youth aged 18 to 21; current information indicates that 571 (19%) youth were living in a DCP&P out-of-home placement; 1,569 (52%) youth were living in their own homes;145 and 886 (29%) youth were receiving adoption or Kinship Legal Guardianship subsidies.

144 The guide can be accessed at: http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/adolescent/lgbtqi/ 145 DCF is currently further analyzing these data to better understand the exact setting(s) indicated for the youth
categorized as “living in their own homes.”

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 140

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 149 of 186 PageID: 7246

Independent Living Assessments

Quantitative or

53. Independent Living Assessments: Number/percent of cases where DCF Independent Living

Qualitative Measure

Assessment is complete for youth 14 to 18.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 95% of youth age 14 to 18 have an Independent Living Assessment.

Figure 52: Percentage of Youth Aged 14-18 with Independent Living Assessment (December 2009 – March 2013)

100% 80%

83%

87%

83%

91%

84%

98%

Final Target (95%)

Percentage of Youth

60%

40% 47%
DDece-c0-909

JJuunn-1-010

Source: DCF data

DeDc-e1c0-10

JunJu-1n1-11 Month

DDece-1c1-11

JuJun-n1-212

MDaerc--1132

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
Performance data for this monitoring period has steadily increased from 79 percent in September 2012, to 93 percent in December 2012 and in March 2013, performance exceeded the MSA requirement by reaching 98 percent. Specifically, in March 2013, there were 954 youth aged 14 to18 in out-of-home placement for at least six months; 933 (98%) had Independent Living Assessments completed. This is the first time DCF’s performance has met the required final target.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 141

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 150 of 186 PageID: 7247

Services to Older Youth

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

54. Services to Older Youth: DCF shall provide services to youth between the ages 18 and 21 similar to services previously available to them unless the youth, having been informed of the implications, formally request that DCF close the case.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 90% of youth are receiving acceptable services as measured by the QR.

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
As indicated in the previous monitoring report, the Monitor and DCF had agreed to collect data for this measure using a case record review methodology; however, after a pilot test, consensus agreement was reached that the information collected was limited by the documentation available and did not allow for sufficient analysis of service provision. With the agreement of all parties, data for this measure will now be collected using a QR process. A review of 20 older youth cases, two from each area146 within the state, occurred in late July 2013 with the participation of staff from DCF, Plaintiffs and the Monitor. Cases will be considered acceptable for this Performance Measure if the QR ratings are acceptable for both the Child Status Indicators and Practice Performance Indicators. Baseline performance will be determined using data from the 20 cases reviewed in July 2013 as well as 24 additional older youth cases previously reviewed by DCF between March 2012 and June 2013. Data are currently being analyzed and the findings will be presented in a report issued by DCF in collaboration with the Monitor in October 2013. These performance data will also be included in the next monitoring report. Periodicity and sampling moving forward is under discussion with DCF and Plaintiffs.

Youth Exiting Care

Quantitative or

55. Youth Exiting Care: Youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall have housing and be

Qualitative Measure

employed or in training or an educational program.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 95% of youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall have housing and be employed or in training or an educational program.

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
The Monitor and DCF conducted a case record review of the 65 youth who exited care without achieving permanency between July 1 and December 31, 2012 and found that 86 percent of these youth had housing and 52 percent of youth were either employed or enrolled in education or vocational training programs. Data collected pertaining to planning and service provision identified the following:

146 Atlantic/Burlington/Cape May; Camden; Cumberland/Gloucester/Salem; Essex; Hudson/Bergen; Hunterdon/Mercer/Somerset/Warren; Middlesex; Morris/Sussex/Passaic; Ocean/Monmouth; and Union.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 142

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 151 of 186 PageID: 7248

Housing:
 81 percent of youth had worked with their caseworker prior to case closure in order to secure housing.
 The most commonly identified living arrangements following case closure were residing with relatives (31%) and friend’s home (17%).
 Reviewers were asked to identify strengths and areas needing improvement with DCF’s casework around housing. Identified strengths included: workers invested time and energy into exploring multiple resources and options for the youth; youth had supportive adults in their lives to help with the transition; and that family options and connections were explored. Areas needing improvement included documentation for the planning procedures which may have been absent or insufficient and that planning procedures for some of the youth should take a more holistic and comprehensive approach and account for all of the youths’ difficulties and challenges.
Education and Employment:
 70 percent of youth had undergone case planning specifically around their educational or vocational needs, however, only one-third were enrolled in educational or vocational training programs.
 Information pertaining to the Scholars program was conveyed to 29 percent of youth and only four youth enrolled in higher education/vocational programs were enrolled in the Scholars program.147
 51 percent of youth needed assistance and had undergone case planning specifically around their employment needs, however only 37 percent were employed full or parttime at case closure.
 Reviewers identified that some youth had particular challenges in obtaining employment due to cognitive limitations or criminal histories.
 Reviewers were asked to identify strengths and areas needing improvement with DCF’s casework around education and employment. Identified strengths included strong engagement activities with youth around their needs and that workers were resourceful in how they supported the youth. An area identified as a strength in some cases and an area needing improvement in others was the level of the caseworker’s assessment. Reviewers indicated that in some instances, a comprehensive assessment was used to focus on multiple aspects of a youths’ functioning and in other cases, workers did not use a holistic approach and planning did not include consideration of the complexities of the youths’ experiences and challenges.
Performance on this measure was last assessed during a case record review of older youth exiting care between January 1 and June 30, 2010. This review found that 72 percent of youth had housing and 60 percent of youth were employed or in some type of educational program. DCF’s current performance does not meet the level required by the MSA, however, when comparing current data to performance two years ago, some improvements have been made in youth

147 28 percent of youth reviewed were ineligible for the Scholars program due to not yet finishing high school.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 143

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 152 of 186 PageID: 7249

housing but the data indicate that there has been a decline in educational and employment performance for older youth exiting care.
The Monitor and DCF jointly developed the following recommendations and next steps in order to improve performance in these areas:
1. Approximately one-third of the youth in this review did not possess a high school diploma or GED, which likely has implications for subsequent education and employment opportunities. Thus, DCF should advance efforts to help youth acquire their high school diplomas and link youth with employment readiness and training programs with a focus on educational stability and tutoring to assist children and youth to remain on grade level and succeed. Relationships should be developed or strengthened with local school districts and vocational/employment training providers to ensure youths’ access to these needed services. If DCF finds that additional service providers are needed in certain communities, strategies should be developed to address this need.
2. Workers should continually assess barriers to educational enrollment and attainment and employment security for each individual youth with whom they work, as each youth presents with specific needs and circumstances and may require additional and unique supportive and/or accommodating services. This practice should be reinforced through training and coaching of workers to ensure that a holistic approach is used during assessment and planning with youth.
3. DCF should update, strengthen and enforce policies regarding the completion of independent living assessments and adolescent case closing agreements. Focus should be given to assisting workers and providers in understanding the practical use and benefit of independent living assessments as these tools are instrumental in developing appropriate case plans and transition plans which should include services directed toward the specific needs of the individual youth.
4. Of the youth’s records reviewed, close to one-third were living with relatives following their exits from care and had not achieved permanency prior to exiting care. This raises questions about whether DCF is proactively and continually planning for this specific population and if such relative resources were available as permanency options prior to exit from care. DCF should ensure through training and supportive coaching from supervisors and managers that permanency planning for youth in care is an ongoing process and should not cease once a youth receives a non-permanency goal.
5. In order to track performance and collect data for this Performance Measure on a more frequent basis, DCF will modify the adolescent case closing agreement and the Transitional Plan for Adolescents to include sections that will capture housing, employment and education status at case closure. In addition, upcoming reviews will include specific inquiries regarding the use of Family Team Meetings with these youth as these are a critical component of the Case Practice Model and will assist with better understanding the case planning process with a youth.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 144

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 153 of 186 PageID: 7250
6. It would be beneficial if DCF explored more fully some of the incongruous findings noted in this report. For example, several youth had case goals that may have been at odds with the realities of their actual case situations, such as Independent Living for 16-17 year olds even though the youth were beyond 18 years of age. Were the case goals the most appropriate ones for these youth? Did this have an impact on case planning or on any of their eventual outcomes?
Further, a significant obstacle youth typically face when exiting care is maintaining their health care coverage. Data regarding the number of youth receiving Medicaid health insurance148 upon exiting care has been provided by DCF. In CY 2012, of the 460 youth ages 17.9 to 20.9 who were discharged from placement and needed Medicaid, 425 (92%) received Medicaid for at least one month following discharge. Additionally, of the 281 youth ages 17.9 to 20.9 who were discharged from placement between January 1 and September 30, 2012 and who needed Medicaid, 257 (91%) received Medicaid for at least six months. This is an improvement from the 80 percent performance on this measure for youth discharged from care between July 1 and December 31, 2011.

148 This includes Chafee Medicaid, DCP&P Medicaid or non-DCP&P Medicaid.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 145

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 154 of 186 PageID: 7251

XIII. SUPPORTING A HIGH QUALITY WORKFORCE: CASELOADS AND TRAINING
DCF continues to meet office average office caseload standards for Permanency and Intake workers, and individual caseload standards for IAIU staff and Permanency workers. DCF has not met standards for office average caseload for Adoption workers, and individual caseload standards for Adoption and Intake workers, although Intake caseload performance has improved during this monitoring period.
A. Caseloads
Caseload compliance is measured by individual caseworker caseloads in each of the functional areas (Intake, Permanency, Adoption and IAIU) as well as office standards for DCP&P Local Offices. Office-wide average caseloads are to comply with the applicable functional area caseload standards in 95 percent of all DCP&P Local Offices and at least 95 percent of workers in each of the functional areas are to have individual caseloads meeting the designated standard (MSA Section III.B.1). Table 27 summarizes the caseload standards for individual workers

Table 27: DCF/DCP&P Individual Caseload Standards

Caseworker Function

Responsibility

Individual Caseload Standard

Intake
Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit
(IAIU)
Permanency
Adoption Source: DCF

Respond to community concerns regarding child safety and well-being. Specifically, receive referrals from the State Central Registry (SCR) and depending on the nature of the referral, respond between two hours and five days with a visit to the home and begin investigation or assessment. Complete investigation or assessment within 60 days.

Intake caseworkers are to have no more than 12 open families at any one time and no more than eight new referrals assigned in a month. (Section II.E and Section III.B.1).

Respond to allegations of child abuse and neglect in settings including correctional facilities, detention facilities, treatment facilities, schools (public or private), residential schools, shelters, hospitals, camps or child care centers that are required to be licensed, resource family homes and registered family day care homes.

IAIU staff workers are to have no more than 12 open cases at any one time and no more than eight new referrals assigned in a month. (Section II.E and Section III.B.1).

Provide services to families whose children remain at home under the protective supervision of DCP&P and those families whose children are removed from home due to safety concerns.

Permanency caseworkers are to serve no more than 15 families and 10 children in out-of-home care at any one time. (Section II.E and Section III.B.1).

Find permanent homes for children who cannot safely return to their parents by preparing children for adoption, developing adoptive resources and performing the work needed to finalize adoptions.

Adoption caseworkers are to serve no more than 15 children at any one time. (Section II.E and Section III.B.1).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 146

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 155 of 186 PageID: 7252
Interview Procedure to Verify Worker Caseloads
The Monitor verified caseload data supplied by DCF by conducting telephone interviews with randomly selected caseworkers across the state. One-hundred sixty caseworkers were selected from those active in March 2013. Forty-five of the 47 DCP&P Local Offices were represented in the sample. The interviews were conducted throughout the months of April and May 2013. All 160 caseworkers were called. Information was collected from 111 caseworkers (72% of the eligible sample), located in 39 Local Offices. Five caseworkers were no longer employed by DCP&P or were on extended leave during the period of the calls and were removed from the sample. Contact was attempted at least three times for each caseworker that was not interviewed.
During the interviews, caseworkers were asked if their caseloads met with caseload standards between July 2012 and March 2013 and their responses were compared to the caseload information the state supplied for the same period from NJ SPIRIT. Workers were also asked to report their specific caseload size for the month of March 2013. The Monitor is satisfied that sufficient information was gathered to verify the accuracy of the state’s caseload reporting and that, in general, NJ SPIRIT accurately reflects worker caseloads.
The following discussion describes the state’s performance in meeting the office caseload standards and the individual caseload standards.
DCP&P met the standard for average office caseloads for two of three functional areas, failing to meet the standard for Adoption workers.
Figures 53-55 summarize the Period XIII performance on meeting Local Offices average caseload standards.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 147

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 156 of 186 PageID: 7253

Figure 53: Percentage of DCF/DCP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload Standards for Intake Workers (June 2009 – March 2013)

100%

98%

98%

95%

96%

90%

89%

89%

80%

98% Final Target (95%) 87%

Percentage of DCF/DCP&P (Intake)

70%
JuJnuen-0-099 DeDceemc-b0e9r-09 June-1-100 DeDceemc-b1e0r-10 JJuunn-e1-111 DDeceecm-1b1er-11 JJuunn-e1-212 DMeacre-m13ber-1

Source: DCF data

Month

Figure 54: Percentage of DCF/DCP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload Standards for Permanency Workers (June 2009 – March 2013)

100%

98%

98%

90%

98%

99%

100% 96%

94%

96% Final Target (95%)

Percentage of DCF/DCP&P (Permanency)

80%

70%
JuJnuen-0-099 DecDeemcb-0e9r-09 JJuunne--1100 DeDceemc-b1e0r-10 JJuunn-e1-111 DDeceecm-1b1er-11JunJu-1n2e-12 MDeacre-1m3ber-

Source: DCF data

Month

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 148

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 157 of 186 PageID: 7254

Figure 55: Percentage of DCF/DCP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload Standards for Adoption Workers (June 2009 – March 2013)

Percentage of DCF/DCP&P (Adoption)

100%

98%

95% 90%

94%

92%

90%

87%

88%

80%

Final Target (95%)
80%

70%
JuJnuen-0-099 DDeceecm-0be9r-09 JuJunn-1e-010

DeDceecm-b1e0r-10 JJuunn-e1-111

DeDceemcb-1er1-11 JJuunn-e1-212

DMeacre-m1b3er-12

Source: DCF data

Month

Individual Caseload Performance
Ninety-two percent of all DCP&P caseworkers met the individual caseload standards in the period from July 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013. 149
Intake
The individual worker caseload standard for Intake workers of no more than 12 open cases at any one time and no more than eight new referrals assigned a month was not met as of March 31, 2013. The state reported an average of 933 active Intake caseworkers between July 2012 and March 2013. Among those active workers during this monitoring period, an average of 806 (86%) caseworkers had caseloads that met the caseload requirements. Specifically in March 2013, individual worker caseload compliance for Intake workers was 89 percent. For the 102 Intake workers who did not meet caseload requirements in March 2013, the highest number of new intakes during the month for any worker was 12 and the highest number of open cases for any worker in the month was 35 families.
Data by Local Office show that during March 2013, performance ranged between 29 percent and 100 percent, with 22 of 46 (48%) Local Offices having all Intake workers with caseloads in compliance (see Appendix C-1).
Among the 111 caseworkers who participated in the phone interview for caseload verification, 73 were Intake caseworkers.150 Eleven (15%) of the 73 Intake workers recalled going over the

149 This does not include IAIU staff and caseload standards. 150 CSSP over-sampled Intake workers in the telephone survey because of expressed concerns with Intake caseloads.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 149

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 158 of 186 PageID: 7255

case limits for new assignments at some point between July 2012 and March 2013. Twentyseven (37%) caseworkers reported having more than 12 total families on their caseload at some point between July 2012 and March 2013. DCF has been attempting to improve Intake caseload compliance by hiring additional Intake workers to create “impact teams”151 deployed throughout the state in offices where Intakes are unusually high. Six of the 73 (8%) Intake workers interviewed reported a positive effect from the implementation of the impact teams. The implementation of the impact teams appears to have stabilized Intake caseloads over the past year but the state has not yet reached compliance levels.

Figure 56: Percentage of Intake Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – March 2013)

Percentage of Intake Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads

100%

Final Target (95%)*

90%

91% 80%

87%

84%

86%

78% 70%

76%

76%

76%

60%

50%
JuJnuen--0099 DeDcemc-b0e9r-09 JJuunn-e1-010 DeDceemc-b1e0r-10 JJuunn-e1-11 DeDcemc-b1e1r-11 JuJnu-n1e2-12 MDeacr-e1m3ber-1
Month
Source: DCF data *The performance percentage shown on the last month of each monitoring period (June and December) is the average of the prior six month’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that six month monitoring period. The performance percentage shown for March 2013 is the average of the prior nine month’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that time.

Workers Report “Shared” Cases as a Common Occurrence
As described in the previous monitoring report for Period XII, Intake and Permanency caseworkers sometimes share responsibility for cases (families). According to DCF procedure, all CPS-Family reports are assigned to Intake workers to investigate and these reports are reflected in caseload reporting as new assignments in the month of the report and as one of their “open cases” for that month. When circumstances indicate that a permanency case needs to be opened before the investigation is complete or a family with an open permanency case is the subject of a CPS-Family report, the work with the family becomes the shared responsibility of both Intake and Permanency workers until the investigation is completed.
151 Impact teams are staff that can be assigned as a unit or individually to those offices that need additional assistance or have seen an exaggerated workload in a given period of time.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 150

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 159 of 186 PageID: 7256

Intake workers are considered secondary workers on a shared case when families had been previously assigned to a Permanency worker. DCF believes this arrangement emphasizes the primary role of the Permanency worker. It also reflects the Permanency worker’s responsibility to provide information to the Intake worker and to link the family to appropriate services and supports identified during the course of the new investigation, thus relieving the Intake worker of some, but not all, responsibility with the case. Intake workers are still responsible for the work required to complete investigative tasks and reach an investigative conclusion. The secondary designation, is not reflected in the caseload data and is not categorized as an open case for Intake workers in SafeMeasures or in NJ SPIRIT reports provided to the Monitor, although it is reflected as one of the Intake workers eight new referrals.
DCF reports that Intake supervisors in DCP&P Local Offices are expected to appropriately manage the workload of their units and consider an Intake worker’s primary and secondary responsibilities when assigning new referrals. The following table provides the reported number of secondary Intake worker assignments by month during this monitoring period.

Table 28: Number of DCF/DCP&P Investigations and Secondary Intake Assignments by Month
(July 2012 – March 2013)

2012-2103

Total Investigations

Secondary Intake Worker Investigations*

July 2012

4,926

1,119

August 2012

5,021

1,069

September 2012

5,160

1,074

October 2012

5,728

1,255

November 2012

5,220

1,141

December 2012

5,043

1,078

January 2013

6,069

1,325

February 2013

5,542

1,153

March 2013

5,770

1,194

Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT Data *Only includes assignment types of CA/N Investigation and CWS Assessment.

The Monitor asked questions during phone interviews with workers to follow-up on the topic of shared or secondary cases. Intake workers were asked how prevalent secondary cases are, what effect these cases have on their workload and how they are measured. Of the 73 Intake workers interviewed, 70 (96%) reported being assigned as a secondary worker on at least one open Permanency case between July 2012 and March 2013. Sixty-three of the 70 (90%) Intake workers confirmed that their supervisor counts secondary assignments toward their eight assignments for the month. Forty-two of the 70 (60%) Intake workers interviewed responded that the workload for an investigation on an open Permanency case designated as secondary is equivalent or sometimes more than an initial investigation. Workers explained that although

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 151

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 160 of 186 PageID: 7257
Permanency workers may have completed collateral contacts, every investigation must be approached in the same manner regardless of primary or secondary status. Fifty of the 70 (71%) Intake workers reported receiving at least one secondary assignment a month. The Monitor continues to track the incidence of shared cases as it is clear that shared cases have an impact on the true workload of Intake workers. The number and impact of these shared cases becomes particularly important for those Local Offices not in compliance with Intake caseload standards based on primary assignments.
Workers Report Non-Caseload Carrying Staff Assigned Intake Cases
As part of the interviews discussed above, Intake workers were asked if there were scenarios in their office in which non-caseload carrying staff could be assigned an investigation. Twentyseven of the 73 workers (37%) reported that there are scenarios in which this takes place. Respondents stated that non-caseload carrying staff with prior investigations experience can be assigned cases when all Intake workers in a Local Office reach their assignment limit for the month. This was the most common scenario described. The most frequently identified job titles for the non-caseload carrying staff who are assigned investigations are Litigation Specialists and Resource Development Specialists. Seventy-four percent of Intake workers interviewed with specific knowledge about the topic reported that the non-caseload carrying staff assigned investigations in their office had completed First Responder/Intake training. The remaining 26 percent of Intake workers interviewed did not know if the non-caseload carrying staff completed First Responder/Intake training. DCF agrees that the practice of assigning investigations to untrained workers should never be permissible.
Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU)
As of March 31, 2013 the individual worker caseload standard for IAIU investigators of no more than 12 open cases at any one time and no more than eight new referrals assigned in a month was met: DCF data show 97 percent compliance with the standard for IAIU caseloads.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 152

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 161 of 186 PageID: 7258

Figure 57: Percentage of IAIU Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – March 2013)

100% 100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

98%

97%

80%

Final Target (95%)

Percentage of IAIU Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads)

60%

40%

20%

0%
JuJnuen-0-099 DecDemecb-e0r9-09

JJuunne--1100 DecDemebce-r1-010

JJuunne--1111 DeDceecm-b1e1r-11 JuJnu-n1e2-12 MDaerc-e1m3ber-12

Source: DCF data

Month

Permanency
The individual worker caseload standard for Permanency workers of no more than 15 families and ten children in out-of-home care was not met as of March 31, 2013. The state reported an average of 1,179 active Permanency caseworkers between July 2012 and March 2013. Of the 1,179 caseworkers, an average of 1,107 (94%) caseworkers had caseloads that met the requirement. Specifically in March 2013, individual worker caseload compliance for Permanency workers was at 95 percent. For the 60 Permanency workers who did not meet caseload requirements in March 2013, the highest individual caseload was 34 families and the highest number of children in placement was 12.
Data by Local Office indicate that during March 2013, performance ranged between 60152 and 100 percent among offices and caseloads in 39 of 46 (85%) Local Offices met the caseload standard for Permanency workers (see Appendix C-2).
Among the 111 caseworkers who participated in phone interviews conducted by the Monitor for caseload verification, 24 were Permanency workers. Five (22%) of the 23 Permanency workers interviewed reported having exceeded the caseload standard at least once between July 2012 and March 2013.

152 One office had a performance rate of 9 percent during the month of March 2013. The Monitor did not include this outlier in the performance range and will explore this further in the next monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 153

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 162 of 186 PageID: 7259

Percentage of Permanency Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads)

Figure 58: Percentage of Permanency Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – March 2013)

100% 97%
90%

97% 96%

96%

96% 93%

92%

94%

Final Target (95%)*

80%

70%
JuJnuen--0099 DecDemecb-e0r9-09

JJuunne--1100

DecDemebce-1r-010

JJuunne--1111

DecDemecb-e1r1-11 JJuunn-e1-122

DMecaerm-1b3er-12

Month
Source: DCF data *The performance percentage shown on the last month of each monitoring period (June and December) is the average of the prior six month’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that six month monitoring period. The performance percentage shown for March 2013 is the average of the prior nine month’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that time.

Adoption
Of the 47 DCP&P Local Offices, one office in Essex County is dedicated solely to adoption work and 41 other Local Offices have Adoption workers or full Adoption units.
The individual worker caseload standard for Adoption workers of no more than 15 children was not met as of March 31, 2013. The state reported an average of 205 active Adoption caseworkers between July 2012 and March 2013. Of the 205, an average of 179 (87%) workers had caseloads that met the requirement during the monitoring period. Specifically in March 2013, individual worker caseload compliance for Adoption workers was at 90 percent. For the 21 Adoption workers who did not meet caseload requirements in March 2013, the highest caseload was 30 children.
Data by Local Office indicate that during March 2013, performance ranged between 33153 and 100 percent among offices and 31 of 41 (76%) Local Offices met the standard for this measure (see Appendix C-3).
Among the 111 caseworkers who participated in the phone interviews conducted by the Monitor for caseload verification, 15 were Adoption workers. Two (13%) of the 15 workers interviewed reported going over caseload standards at least once between July 2012 and March 2013.

153 One office had a performance rate of 0% in March 2013. The Monitor did not include this outlier in the performance range and will explore this further in the next monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 154

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 163 of 186 PageID: 7260

Figure 59: Percentage of Adoption Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – March 2013)

100% 96%
90% 91%
80%

94%

94%

92%

90%

90%

Final Target (95%)*
87%

Percentage of Adoption Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads)

70%
JJuunne--0099 DeDceemc-b0e9r-09 JJuunne--1100 DecDemecb-e1r0-10 JJuunne--1111 DeDceecm-1b1er-11 JuJnu-n1e2-12 MDeacr-e1m3ber-1
Month
Source: DCF data *The performance percentage shown on the last month of each monitoring period (June and December) is the average of the prior six month’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that six month monitoring period. The performance percentage shown for March 2013 is the average of the prior nine month’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that time.

The standard for the ratio of supervisors to workers was met for the period ending March 31, 2013.
Supervision holds a critical role in child welfare; therefore, the MSA established a standard for supervisory ratios that 95 percent of all offices should have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a ratio of five workers to one supervisor (Section II.E.20).
As shown in Figure 60, DCF reports that between July 2012 and March 2013, 96 percent of DCP&P Local Offices had sufficient supervisors to have ratios of five workers to one supervisor. The Monitor verified the state’s reported information about supervision by asking all 111 caseworkers interviewed the size of their units and 109 (98%) caseworkers reported being in units of five or fewer caseworkers with a supervisor.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 155

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 164 of 186 PageID: 7261

Figure 60: New Jersey DCP&P Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios (June 2009 – March 2013)

Percentage of dyfs Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios

100% 98%
95% 96% 90%

100%

99%

99%

99% 100%

96%

Final Target (95%)

85%

80%

75%
JJuunne--0099

DeDceemc-b0e9r-09 JJuunn-e1-100

DeDceemc-b1e0r-10 JJuunn-e1-111

DDeecce-m11ber-11 JunJ-u1n2e-12 MaDre-1ce3mber-12

Month

Source: DCF data *The performance percentage shown on the last month of each monitoring period (June and December) is the average of the prior six month’s performance in meeting supervisor to caseload staff ratios during that six month monitoring period. The performance percentage shown for March 2013 is the average of the prior nine month’s performance in meeting supervisor to caseload staff ratios during that time.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 156

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 165 of 186 PageID: 7262

Adequacy of DAsG Staffing

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

22. Adequacy of DAsG Staffing: Staffing levels at the DAsG office.
98% of allocated positions filled plus assessment of adequacy of FTE’s to accomplish tasks by June 30, 2012.

Figure 61: Percentage of Allocated DAsG Positions Filled (June 2009 – March 2013)

Percentage of Allocated DAsG Positions Filled

100% 100%

90%

94%

80%

70%

60%

50%
JunJ-u0n9-09 DDece-c0-909

92%
JJuunn--1100

Source: DCF data

92%

92%

DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111
Month

92%
DDeecc--1111

92%

99% Final Target (98%)

JuJnu-n1-212 DMeca-r1-213

Performance as of March 31, 2013:
As of March 31, 2013, 132 (99%) of 134 Deputy Attorneys General (DAsG) staff positions assigned to work with DCP&P are filled. Of those, two DAsG are on full-time leave. Thus, there are a total of 132 available DAsG. DCF reports that in addition to these positions, there are four Assistant Attorneys General who dedicate time to DCF matters, as well as 23 additional DAsG who assist with appeals. DCF also reports that during CYs 2007 to 2012, the percentage of DAsG dedicated to DCF cases has increased from 23 to 29 percent, and that DAsG’s caseloads during this period have consistently remained between 50 and 53 cases per deputy. DCF fulfilled the MSA Performance Measure in this monitoring period.

B. Training Between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013 DCF fulfilled all of its other training obligations required by the MSA, as shown in Table 29.154

154 In any monitoring month period there is not an exact correlation between number of staff trained and number of staff hired because of different points of entry, as reflected, for example, in the number of staff hired in the previous monitoring period that were trained in this monitoring period, and the number of staff hired in this monitoring period that will be trained in the next monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 157

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 166 of 186 PageID: 7263

Table 29: DCF Staff Trained (January 1, 2006 – March 31, 2013)

# of Staff Trained in 2006
# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2007
# of Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months 2007
# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2008
# of Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months 2008
# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2009
# of Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months 2009
# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2010
# of Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months 2010
# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2011
# of Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months 2011
# of Staff Trained 1st 6 months of 2012
# of Staff Trained 2nd (July 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)

Training

Settlement Commitment Description

Pre-Service

Ongoing: New

caseworkers shall

have 160 class

hours, including

intake and

investigations

training; be enrolled within

711 412 168 90 114 55 88 118 89

141

94 192 191

two weeks of start

date; complete

training and pass

competency exams

before assuming a

full caseload.

In-Service

Ongoing: Staff

Training

shall have taken a

minimum of 40

N/A

3,001

3,015

2,846

2,987

2,928

2,893

hours of in-service

training

Concurrent

Ongoing: Training

Planning

on concurrent

planning; may be

part of 20 hours

2,522 729 387 87 96 85 57

in-service training

59 out of 63(94%)

107 out 112 out of 107 of 112 109 101 (100%) (100%)

206

by December

2007.

Investigations & Ongoing: New

Intake: New Staff staff conducting intake or

investigations shall have investigations training and pass

N/A 650 62

127 104 114

95

231 (225 out of 225 or 100% + addtl 6)

227 out of 227 (100%)

98 out of 98 (100%)

159

236

230*

competency exams

before assuming

cases.

Supervisory:

As of December

New Supervisors 2006 and ongoing, newly promoted

supervisors to

complete 40 hours

of supervisory

N/A 114 65 35 16 61 25

11

18

21

17 33

53

training; pass

competency exams

within three

months of

assuming position.

Adoption Worker As of December

2006 and ongoing,

adoption training

91 140 44 38 22 31 18

46

20

30

35 18

52

for adoption

workers.

Source: DCF data

*Number of staff that complete one or more of the revised First Responders training

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 158

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 167 of 186 PageID: 7264
Pre-service Training
Two hundred and seventeen caseload carrying staff (Family Service Specialist Trainees and Family Service Specialists) were hired between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013. DCP&P trained 191 workers during this monitoring period, 38 of whom were hired in the previous monitoring period. Eight workers were trained through the Baccalaureate Child Welfare Education Program (BCWEP), for a total of 191 staff who were trained and passed competency exams.155
The Monitor reviewed a random sample of 20 percent of staff transcripts and cross-referenced them with Human Resources data and verified that the Family Service Specialist Trainees and Family Service Specialists took the training and passed competency exams. The Monitor verified that all the newly hired and/or promoted staff were enrolled in Pre-service training within two weeks of their start dates and passed competency exams as required by the MSA (Section II.B.1.b).
Case Practice Model Training
DCF continues to train its workforce on the Case Practice Model (CPM), which represents the fundamental change in practice in New Jersey.
As reflected in Table 30, between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013, the New Jersey Child Welfare Training Academy (Training Academy) trained 252 staff on Module 1 of the CPM. The Training Academy also trained 228 staff on Module 2. These are the first two training modules in the six part series.
Modules 3 through 6 of the series take place on site in DCP&P Local Offices. Between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013, 157 staff were trained in Module 3, 166 were trained in Module 4 and 122 were trained in Module 5. DCF reports that there were no Module 6 sessions during the reporting period. Staff are trained on Modules 3 through 6 by the New Jersey Child Welfare Training Partnership.156

155 BCWEP is a consortium of seven New Jersey colleges (Rutgers University, Seton Hall University, Stockton College, Georgian Court University, Monmouth University, Kean University and Ramapo College) that enables students to earn the Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) degree. As discussed in Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period V Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie – July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008, Washington, D.C., pg. 34, the Monitor previously determined that this course of study together with Worker Readiness Training designed by the DCF Child Welfare Training Academy satisfies the MSA requirements. All BCWEP students are required to pass the same competency exams that non-BCWEP students take before they are permitted to carry a caseload. 156 The New Jersey Child Welfare Training Partnership is a consortium of four New Jersey colleges and universities (Rutgers School of Social Work, Montclair State University Center for Child Advocacy and the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey) that DCF contracts with to provide In-Service training to DCP&P staff.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 159

# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2009
# of Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months 2009
# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2010
# of Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months 2010
# Staff trained in 1st 6 months 2011
# Staff Trained 2nd 6 months 2011
# Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2012
# Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months (July 1,
2012 – March 31,

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 168 of 186 PageID: 7265
The Monitor reviewed a random sample of 20 percent of staff transcripts reflecting Case Practice Model training and cross-referenced them with Human Services data and verified that staff took Case Practice Model training and passed competency exams.157
Table 30: DCF Staff Trained on Case Practice Model Modules (January 1, 2009 – March 31, 2013)

Training

Settlement Commitment Description

As of December 2008 and

Module 1 –

ongoing, case carrying staff,

Engaging Families and supervisors and case aides Building Trust-Based that had not been trained on

110

Relationships

the new case practice model shall receive this training.

As of December 2008 and

ongoing, case carrying staff,

Module 2 – Making Visits Matter

supervisors and case aides that had not been trained on

89

the new case practice model

shall receive this training.

As of December 2008 and

ongoing, case carrying staff,

Module 3 –

supervisors and case aides

Teaming with Families that had not been trained on

872

the new case practice model

shall receive this training.

Module 4 – Assessment

As of December 2008 and

ongoing, case carrying staff,

supervisors and case aides that had not been trained on

649

the new case practice model

shall receive this training.

Module 5 – Planning and Intervention

As of December 2008 and

ongoing, case carrying staff,

supervisors and case aides that had not been trained on

378

the new case practice model

shall receive this training.

Module 6 Supervising Case Practice in NJ

As of December 2008 and

ongoing, case carrying staff,

supervisors and case aides that had not been trained on

37

the new case practice model

shall receive this training.

Source: DCF data

89

176

102

132

103

147

252

112

149

128

131

99

107

228

706

560

527

669

391

142

157

640

592

464

539

551

200

166

885

455

295

437

797

349

122

207

110

113

57

154

0

0

157 Staff transcripts for CPM and Immersion Site training were pulled using the Random Integer Generator located on www.random.org.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 160

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 169 of 186 PageID: 7266

Concurrent Planning Training
Rutgers School of Social Work continues to provide concurrent planning training to all staff who complete Pre-service training or to staff who recently became case-carrying staff and are in need of concurrent planning training. Concurrent planning is the practice of simultaneously planning for more than one permanency outcome for a child in care. DCF continues to incorporate concurrent planning approaches into FTMs and other family conferences.
As reflected in Table 29, between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013, 206 (100%) out of 206 new DCP&P caseworkers were trained in concurrent planning and passed competency exams.
The Monitor reviewed a random sample of 20 percent of staff transcripts and cross-referenced them with Human Resources data and verified that the state complied with the MSA (Section II.B.2.d).
Investigation (or First Responder) Training
In September 2013 First Responders training was expanded into three separate modules covering six days of training. Between July 1 and March 31, 2013, 230 (100%) staff completed one or more modules of the revised First Responders training. DCF reports that 175 staff completed Module 1, Building Rapport with Families; 172 staff completed Module 2, Families First; and 160 staff completed Module 3, Planning and Intervening with Families.
The Monitor reviewed a random sample of 20 percent of staff transcripts and cross-referenced them with Human Resources data and verified that the state complied with the MSA (Section II.B.3.a).
Supervisory Training
As reflected in Table 29 above, a total of 53 supervisors were trained and passed competency exams between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013; 20 of these supervisors were appointed at the end of the last monitoring period. A total of 47 supervisors were appointed in this monitoring period, 14 of whom were appointed at the end of the period and are scheduled to complete supervisory training in the next monitoring period.
The state provided the Monitor with a Human Resources roster that includes promotion and training dates. The Monitor cross-referenced all 53 supervisors’ transcripts who had been trained during the monitoring period with the Human Resources rosters and verified that the state complied with the MSA (Section II.B.4.b).
New Adoption Worker Training
Fifty-two newly appointed Adoption workers were trained between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013. The Monitor reviewed all 52 staff transcripts and cross-referenced them with Human Resources data and verified that the state complied with MSA (Section II.G.9.).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 161

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 170 of 186 PageID: 7267
In-Service Training
Beginning in January 2008, the MSA required all case carrying workers and supervisors to take a minimum of 40 hours of annual In-Service training and pass competency exams (Section II.B.2.c). Between January 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013, 2,893 caseload carrying staff completed 40 hours or more of In-Service training and passed competency exams.158 The remaining 134 were either on leave or left the agency.
The Monitor reviewed a random sample of 20 percent of staff transcripts and cross-referenced them with Human Resources data and verified that the state complied with the MSA Section II.B.2.c requiring that staff annually take 40 hours of In-service training and passed competency exams.
IAIU Training
Eighty-one investigators completed IAIU training between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013. The Monitor reviewed all 81 staff transcripts and cross-referenced them with Human Resources data and verified that the state complied with MSA (Section II.I.4).

158 Although this Performance Measure is an annual requirement in the MSA, due to the extended reporting period as described in this report, DCF had until March 31, 2013 for all caseload carrying staff to complete 40 hours of InService training and pass competency exams.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 162

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 171 of 186 PageID: 7268

XIV. ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH QUALITATIVE REVIEW AND THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF ACCURATE DATA
QUALITATIVE REVIEW
DCF’s Office of Performance Management and Accountability continues to facilitate statewide Qualitative Reviews (QRs), led by the Office of Quality. During this monitoring period, DCF reviewed 107 cases from nine counties,159 typically reviewing 12 cases from each county. The reviews focus on the status of children, the status of practice and the functioning of systems in each of the counties. For children under 18, the child’s legal guardian is asked to give informed consent for participation in the QR. Trained review teams of two persons that include DCF staff, community stakeholders and Monitor staff review DCP&P case records and interview as many people as possible who are involved with the child and family. Following the QR in each county, areas of accomplishment and challenges for the system are identified and discussed to inform continued case practice improvement. Selected QR results are also used to report on several MSA requirements and are included in this report.
Of the 107 children whose cases were reviewed between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013, 53 were male and 54 were female. They ranged in age from less than one year old to 20 years old, with the majority (36%) being infants to four year olds. An equal number of the 107 children reviewed were five to nine years old (23%) and over age fourteen (23%). Eighteen percent of the children were between ten and 13 years old. The majority (44%) of the children in the sample were identified as White/Caucasian and 33 percent identified as Black/AfricanAmerican. Hispanic/Latino children represented 20 percent of the children in the sample and the remaining children were identified as Asian (1%). Children whose race was not determined represented two percent of the sample. Almost a third (31%) of the children were living with a parent at the time of the review; 69 percent of the children lived with a relative or non-relative resource parent, some with the goal of adoption.
DCF reports that across the state, 990 people were interviewed to inform the QR data for this reporting period. Those informants included DCP&P and Child Health Unit staff, biological parents, others who the youth or parent identified as supportive, relative and non-relative foster parents, education providers, mental health and legal professionals, substance abuse treatment providers, and children/youth.160 Reviewers evaluated the child and family’s status and rated whether the status was acceptable or unacceptable.161 See Table 31 for the results on each Child and Family Status indicators and overall Child Status ratings for all cases.
As shown in Table 31, the current status of children was rated at least minimally acceptable in the majority of cases in most key areas measured including safety, living arrangement, learning and development and physical health of the child. The QR scores regarding Progress towards

159 Qualitative Reviews were conducted in Middlesex, Hunterdon, Camden, Essex, Somerset, Ocean, Salem, Hudson
and Atlantic counties. 160 Interviews are usually conducted individually, either by phone or in person. All efforts are made to see
children/youth in the setting in which they reside. 161 Under the heading of acceptable, status is further described as either “optimal,” “good,” or “fair.” Unacceptable
status is further described as either “marginal,” “poor,” or “worsening.”

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 163

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 172 of 186 PageID: 7269

Permanency remain low, indicating that the achievement of permanency for children needs more attention. The QR findings on progress toward permanency are consistent with quantitative data about timely achievement of permanency.

Table 31: Qualitative Review Child and Family Status Results (July 2012 – March 2013)

Child & Family Status Indicators Safety at Home

# Cases Applicable
107

Safety in other Settings

107

Stability at Home

107

Stability in School

54

Living Arrangement

73

Family Functioning & Resourcefulness

100

Progress towards Permanency

107

Physical Health of the Child

107

Emotional Well-Being

107

Learning & Development, Under Age 5

39

Learning & Development, Age 5 & older

45

OVERALL Child & Family Status

107

Source: DCF, QR results July 2012 – March 2013

# Cases Acceptable
107 107 79 43 72 70 59 102 97 38 41 98

% Acceptable
100% 100% 74% 80% 99%
70% 55% 95% 91% 97% 91% 92%

The QR also includes an evaluation of system and practice performance on behalf of the child and family and looks for the extent to which aspects of the state’s CPM are being implemented. Table 32 represents the results for cases reviewed between July 1, 2012 and March 31, 2013. As with the status indicators, reviewers evaluated whether performance was acceptable or unacceptable.162
With the exception of Provision of Health Care Services and Supports to Resource Families, the QR results demonstrate the continuing work needed to fully implement the CPM with fidelity and highlights areas for continued practice improvement.

162 Under the heading of acceptable, status is further described as either “optimal,” “good” or “fair.” Unacceptable status is further described as either “marginal,” “poor” or “worsening.”

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 164

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 173 of 186 PageID: 7270

Table 32: Qualitative Review Practice/System Performance Results (July 2012 – March 2013)

Practice Performance Indicators

Overall

Engagement

Child/Youth Parents

Resource Family

Family Teamwork

Formation Functioning

Overall

Assessment & Understanding

Child/Youth Parents

Resource Family

Case Planning Process

Plan Implementation

Tracking & Adjusting

Provision of Health Care Services

Resource Availability

Family & Community Connections

Overall Mother Father Siblings

Overall

Family Supports

Parents

Resource Family

Long Term View

Transitions & Life Adjustments

OVERALL Practice Performance Source: DCF July 2012 – March 2013 QR results

# Cases Applicable
107 68 86 68 107 107 107 107 86 68 107 107 107 107 107 61 46 37 46 101 84 67 107 107 107

# Cases Acceptable
54 42 32 48 36 28 63 78 34 55 45 62 64 106 97 42 36 20 35 81 52 64 58 56 58

% Acceptable
50% 62% 37% 71% 34% 26% 59% 73% 40% 81% 42% 58% 60% 99% 91% 69% 78% 54% 76% 80% 62% 96% 54% 52% 54%

Certain key QR scores that are clear indicators of CPM standards such as Engagement and Family Teamwork remain low, indicating the need for increased attention. Following the QR and based on results, each county develops a plan to focus on improving practice in particular areas. The statewide QR process has become a routine part of quality improvement practice in New Jersey and QR data are regularly used to inform policy and practice changes.
DCF released an annual report on findings from 2012 QRs in July 2013 and it is available at http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/divisions/opma/2012_QRAnnualReport.pdf.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 165

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 174 of 186 PageID: 7271

NJ SPIRIT
SafeMeasures continues to be used by the DCF staff at different levels of the organization to help them track, monitor and analyze trends in case practice in their own local areas. SafeMeasures allows the staff to analyze data by area office, county, Local Office, unit supervisor and by case and provides the staff with quantitative data they can use to identify strengths and diagnose needs in case practice to improve outcomes.
DCF continues to work to improve data entry, data quality and data reporting through NJ SPIRIT. Additionally, DCF continues to fulfill the MSA requirement to produce agency performance reports with a set of measures approved by the Monitor and to post these reports on the DCF website for public viewing (MSA II.J.6).163
NJ SPIRIT functionality was again enhanced during this monitoring period. The new multiselection for contact activity notes allows users to document multiple contact activity note types on a single note within NJ SPIRIT. As a result, documentation has been simplified and duplicative data entry has been eliminated. DCF successfully implemented the training and roll out of all 430 iPad 2s to identified staff across the state in multiple offices and regions within this monitoring period. This allows workers to remotely enter data directly into NJ SPIRIT. DCF has received a subsequent workers Visitation Grant in FY 2012 and has purchased an additional 330 iPad 2s. They were scheduled to be fully operational by April 2013.
DCF continues to work in collaboration with New Jersey Office of Information Technology (OIT) to develop a new reporting tool through the inclusion of NJ SPIRIT data in OIT’s Electronic Data Warehouse (EDW). When fully developed, DCF will be able to create reports that cut across three divisions and potentially other state departments (i.e. health and education) in order to more effectively monitor child, youth and family outcomes. The state has completed Phase II “developing the Match Client process,” within the EDW environment during this monitoring period, allowing for a secure data sourcing against data elements already within EDW.
The NJ SPIRIT Help Desk has continued to produce monthly newsletters to provide workers with tips and to introduce new functionality. The monthly newsletter is emailed to field staff and posted on the DCP&P intranet. DCP reports that the Help Desk published nine monthly newsletters between the period of July 2012 and March 2013. Between July 2012 and March 2013, the Help Desk closed 17,599 tickets requesting help or NJ SPIRIT fixes. Help Desk resolved 9,955 (57%) of the 17,599 closed tickets within one work day and an additional 4,752 (27%) tickets within seven work days for a total of 84 percent resolved within seven work days.
The state received approval of the federal AFCARS Improvement Plan (AIP) in January 2012, and began the process of correcting those general requirements and foster care/adoption data elements identified in order for the state to meet full compliance with all federal requirements. The state continues to partner with the Administration for Children and Families (ACF)

163 See http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/childdata/
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 166

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 175 of 186 PageID: 7272
throughout the AIP process. According to DCF, numerous system enhancements were designed in response to specific AFCARS findings.
SafeMeasures
DCF continues to refine reporting data using SafeMeasures and has seen a sustained increase in SafeMeasures usage by staff. Data show an 11 percent increase in viewings of SafeMeasures screens by DCF staff in 2012 as compared to 2011. DCF continues to develop a number of new reports in SafeMeasures to help staff better manage caseloads and worker responsibilities.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 167

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 176 of 186 PageID: 7273
XV. FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET
The DCF budget for FY 2014, which began July 1, 2013 is slightly over a billion dollars ($1.05 billion) in appropriated state funds. The approved budget represents a decrease of $13.8 million or 1.3% less than the adjusted FY 2013 appropriation. DCF reports that the decrease in the state fund appropriation is offset by an anticipated increase in federal Medicaid revenue as a result of the state’s approved Medicaid waiver. Under the waiver, DCF is able to claim federal matching funds for certain services provided for children and youth through DCF’s Children’s System of Care (CSOC), services that were previously funded entirely with state dollars.
DCF believes that the approved budget provides sufficient resources to carry out the state’s commitment to meet all MSA requirements for staffing and service delivery and for the state’s responsibility for child protection, services to support children in their own homes and in out-ofhome placement and to achieve safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for the children and families it serves.
With respect to staffing, the FY 2014 budget provides funds for 6,643 staff positions which represents no change from FY 2013.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Page 168

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 177 of 186 PageID: 7274

APPENDIX: A-1 Glossary of Acronyms Used in the Monitoring Report

ACF: AFCARS:
AIP: AQCs: ASO: BCWEP: CAP: CCL: CCRMT: CFSR: CHEC: CHU: CIC: CIACC: CLSA: CME: CMO: CMS: CBT: CPEP: CPM: CPS: CQI: CSA: CSOC: CSSP: CWPPG: CWS: CWTA: CYBER: DAG: DCA: DCBHS: DCF: DCP&P: DD: DDD: DDHH: DFCP: DHS: DPCP:
DR: DYFS: EDW: EPSDT:
ETV: FAFS: FAFSA: FDC: FEMA: FFT: FQHC: FSC: FSO: FSS: FTE:

Administration for Children and Families Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System AFCARS Improvement Plan Area Quality Coordinators Administrative Services Organization Baccalaureate Child Welfare Education Program Corrective Action Plan Child Care Licensing Congregate Care Risk Management Team Child and Family Service Review Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children Child Health Unit Children in Court Children’s Interagency Coordinating Council Casey Life Skills Assessment Comprehensive Medical Examination Case Management Organizations Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Child Placement Enhancement Project Case Practice Model Child Protective Services Continuous Quality Improvement Contracted System Administrator Children’s System of Care Center for the Study of Social Policy Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group Child Welfare Services Child Welfare Training Academy Child Youth Behavioral Electronic Health Record Deputy Attorney General Department of Community Affairs Division of Child Behavioral Health Services Department of Children and Families Division of Child Protection and Permanency Developmental Disability Division of Developmental Disabilities Division of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Division of Family and Community Partnerships Department of Human Services Division of Prevention and Community Partnerships Differential Response Division of Youth and Family Services Electronic Data Warehouse Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Education and Training Voucher Foster and Adoptive Family Services Free Application for Federal Student Aid Family Development Credential Federal Emergency Management Agency Functional Family Therapy Federally Qualified Health Center Family Success Centers Family Support Organizations Family Service Specialist Full-Time Equivalent

FTM: FXB: HSAC: IAIU: KLG: LGBTQI:
LO: MH: MSA: MST: NCANDS:
NCIC:
NJCBW: NJFC: NJ SPIRIT: NRCRRFAP:
NYTD: OAS: OCHS: OCQI: OESP: OIT: OMPA:
OOE: OOL: ORF: PALS:
PIP: PPA: QA: QR: RDTC: RFL: RFP: RL: SAFE: SCR: SETC:
SHIP: SHSP: SIBS: SPRU: SIP: TF-CBT:
TPR: UMDNJ:
USDA: YAB: YCM:

Family Team Meeting Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center Human Services Advisory Council Institutional Abuse Investigative Unit Kinship Legal Guardian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning or Intersex Local Office Mental Health Modified Settlement Agreement Multi-systemic Therapy National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect Northeast and Caribbean Child Welfare Implementation Center New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women New Jersey Foster Care New Jersey Spirit National Resource Center for Recruitment and Retention of Foster and Adoptive Parents National Youth in Transition Database Office of Adolescent Services Office of Child Health Services Office of Continuous Quality Improvement Office of Educational Support and Programs New Jersey Office of Information Technology Office of Performance Management and Accountability Office of Education Office of Licensing Office of Resource Family Peace: A Learned Solution, New Jersey’s trauma informed program for victims of domestic violence Performance Improvement Plan Pre-placement Assessment Quality Assurance Qualitative Review Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Center Resource Family Licensing Request for Proposal Residential Licensing Structured Analysis Family Evaluation State Central Registry State Employment and Training Commission Summer Housing and Internship Program Special Home Service Providers Siblings in Best Settings Special Response Unit Summer Internship Program Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Termination of Parental Rights University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey United States Department of Agriculture Youth Advisory Board Youth Case Management

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Appendix A-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 178 of 186 PageID: 7275

APPENDIX: B-1
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES

Measure 8C Risk Assessments/Reassessments Completed within 30 days prior to Case Closure (for Cases Assigned to a Permanency Worker or Adoption Worker at the time of Case Closure
Cases Closed between January 1, 2013 and March 31, 2013)

March 2013

Local Office
Atlantic East LO Atlantic West LO Bergen Central LO Bergen South LO Burlington East LO Burlington West LO Camden Central LO Camden East LO Camden North LO Camden South LO Cape May LO Cumberland East LO Cumberland West LO Essex Central LO Essex North LO Essex South LO Gloucester East LO Gloucester West LO Hudson Central LO Hudson North LO Hudson South LO Hudson West LO Hunterdon LO Mercer North LO Mercer South LO Middlesex Central LO Middlesex Coastal LO Middlesex West LO Monmouth North LO Monmouth South LO Morris East LO Morris West LO Newark Center City LO Newark Northeast LO Newark South LO Ocean North LO Ocean South LO Passaic Central LO Passaic North LO Salem LO Somerset LO Sussex LO Union Central LO Union East LO Union West LO Warren LO

Completed within

Case Closures

30 days

%

38

19

50%

46

21

46%

26

18

69%

45

32

71%

37

28

76%

35

21

60%

37

18

49%

43

24

56%

41

14

34%

34

21

62%

20

16

80%

25

15

60%

49

33

67%

41

34

83%

21

10

48%

40

25

63%

21

15

71%

35

23

66%

30

16

53%

16

5

31%

38

28

74%

30

21

70%

11

9

82%

30

20

67%

48

24

50%

26

18

69%

55

29

53%

68

30

44%

49

33

67%

30

13

43%

24

13

54%

19

11

58%

35

23

66%

35

21

60%

45

28

62%

46

22

48%

75

45

60%

64

27

42%

54

41

76%

34

19

56%

42

26

62%

39

32

82%

32

11

34%

41

20

49%

25

13

52%

23

15

65%

Total

1,698

1,000

59%

Source: NJ SPIRIT Extract Date: 5/23/2013

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 179 of 186 PageID: 7276

APPENDIX: B-2
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES
Measure #25 Caseworker Visits With Children in Placement

Local Office
Atlantic East LO Atlantic West LO Bergen Central LO Bergen South LO Burlington East LO Burlington West LO Camden Central LO Camden East LO Camden North LO Camden South LO Cape May LO Cumberland East LO Cumberland West LO Essex Central LO Essex North LO Essex South LO Gloucester East LO Gloucester West LO Hudson Central LO Hudson North LO Hudson South LO Hudson West LO Hunterdon LO Mercer North LO Mercer South LO Middlesex Central LO Middlesex Coastal LO Middlesex West LO Monmouth North LO Monmouth South LO Morris East LO Morris West LO Newark Adoption Newark Center City LO Newark Northeast LO Newark South LO Ocean North LO Ocean South LO Passaic Central LO Passaic North LO Salem LO Somerset LO Sussex LO Union Central LO Union East LO Union West LO Warren LO
Total
SafeMeasures Extract: 5/16/2013

March 2013
Total # of Children in Placement
(In State & Out-of-State)
157 225 129 209 256 180 212 103 190 184 157 115 85 233 55 119 82 240 104 79 186 147 37 186 124 73 152 100 185 146 55 137 266 125 230 150 151 228 138 231 116 135 73 86 150 108 111 6,940

# Contacts Completed in
Placement
145 205 120 185 228 173 205 102 175 182 151 110 81 230 51 114 81 228 99 72 179 141 33 166 118 71 145 89 183 146 55 135 258 121 227 143 136 212 123 219 113 109 70 81 144 94 102 6,550

% Completed
92% 91% 93% 89% 89% 96% 97% 99% 92% 99% 96% 96% 95% 99% 93% 96% 99% 95% 95% 91% 96% 96% 89% 89% 95% 97% 95% 89% 99% 100% 100% 99% 97% 97% 99% 95% 90% 93% 89% 95% 97% 81% 96% 94% 96% 87% 92% 94%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Appendix B-2

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 180 of 186 PageID: 7277

APPENDIX: B-3
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES
Measure #26 Caseworker Visits with Parent(s) - Goal of Reunification

Local Office
Atlantic East LO Atlantic West LO Bergen Central LO Bergen South LO Burlington East LO Burlington West LO Camden Central LO Camden East LO Camden North LO Camden South LO Cape May LO Cumberland East LO Cumberland West LO Essex Central LO Essex North LO Essex South LO Gloucester East LO Gloucester West LO Hudson Central LO Hudson North LO Hudson South LO Hudson West LO Hunterdon LO Mercer North LO Mercer South LO Middlesex Central LO Middlesex Coastal LO Middlesex West LO Monmouth North LO Monmouth South LO Morris East LO Morris West LO Newark Adoption Office Newark Center City LO Newark Northeast LO Newark South LO Ocean North LO Ocean South LO Passaic Central LO Passaic North LO Salem LO Somerset LO Sussex LO Union Central LO Union East LO Union West LO Warren LO
Total
SafeMeasures Extract: 5/20/2013

March 2013
Total Children
99 50 47 86 101 106 95 55 81 83 72 46 42 110 23 50 56 100 37 45 72 79 16 77 38 30 66 42 100 71 15 33 1 82 159 83 77 79 52 112 42 51 34 32 65 47 41
2,980

# Completed
95 48 47 86 92 102 90 54 70 78 68 45 40 109 22 48 53 95 37 45 70 79 16 75 37 26 64 41 97 62 15 33 1 82 159 82 62 74 42 112 42 51 34 32 63 45 39
2,859

% Completed
96% 96% 100% 100% 91% 96% 95% 98% 86% 94% 94% 98% 95% 99% 96% 96% 95% 95% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 97% 97% 87% 97% 98% 97% 87% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 81% 94% 81% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 96% 95%
96%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Appendix B-3

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 181 of 186 PageID: 7278

APPENDIX: B-4
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES
Measure #30 Case Plan Developed within 30 Days of Child Entering Placement

Local Office
Atlantic East LO Atlantic West LO Bergen Central LO Bergen South LO Burlington East LO Burlington West LO Camden Central LO Camden East LO Camden North LO Camden South LO Cumberland East LO Cumberland West LO Essex Central LO Essex North LO Essex South LO Gloucester East LO Gloucester West LO Hudson Central LO Hudson North LO Hudson South LO Hudson West LO Hunterdon LO Mercer North LO Mercer South LO Middlesex Central LO Middlesex Coastal LO Middlesex West LO Monmouth North LO Monmouth South LO Morris East LO Morris West LO Newark Center City LO Newark Northeast LO Newark South LO Ocean North LO Ocean South LO Passaic Central LO Passaic North LO Salem LO Somerset LO Sussex LO Union Central LO Union East LO Warren LO
Total
SafeMeasures Extract: 5/20/2013

March 2013
Total Children
8 2 6 11 19 14 15 5 20 11 6 4 10 4 6 9 15 3 2 13 5 2 16 17 13 5 6 5 12 2 4 5 18 13 2 10 7 3 5 8 4 3 3 3
354

# Completed
8 2 6 11 19 14 15 5 20 11 6 4 9 4 6 9 15 2 2 13 4 2 16 15 13 5 6 5 6 2 4 5 18 12 2 10 7 3 5 8 4 3 3 2
341

% Completed
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% 100% 100% 100% 67% 100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 88% 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 67%
96%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Appendix B-4

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 182 of 186 PageID: 7279

APPENDIX: B-5
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES
Measure #31 Case Plans Updated Every 6 Months

Local Office
Atlantic East LO Atlantic West LO Bergen Central LO Bergen South LO Burlington East LO Burlington West LO Camden Central LO Camden East LO Camden North LO Camden South LO Cape May LO Cumberland East LO Cumberland West LO Essex Central LO Essex North LO Essex South LO Gloucester East LO Gloucester West LO Hudson Central LO Hudson North LO Hudson South LO Hudson West LO Hunterdon LO Mercer North LO Mercer South LO Middlesex Central LO Middlesex Coastal LO Middlesex West LO Monmouth North LO Monmouth South LO Morris East LO Morris West LO Newark Adoption Office Newark Center City LO Newark Northeast LO Newark South LO Ocean North LO Ocean South LO Passaic Central LO Passaic North LO Salem LO Somerset LO Sussex LO Union Central LO Union East LO Union West LO Warren LO
Total
SafeMeasures Extract: 5/20/2013

March 2013
Total Children
21 40 21 41 41 22 24 16 27 27 32 20 18 36 10 19 10 42 30 20 39 25 12 18 26 17 35 25 30 37 9 22 43 35 46 24 19 31 29 40 23 27 14 19 15 24 20
1,221

# Completed
21 40 21 41 41 22 24 16 27 27 32 20 18 36 8 19 9 42 30 19 39 25 12 18 24 17 34 24 29 37 9 21 43 35 46 24 19 31 24 40 23 26 14 19 14 24 19
1,203

% Completed
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 80% 100% 90% 100% 100% 95% 100% 100% 100% 100% 92% 100% 97% 96% 97% 100% 100% 96% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 83% 100% 100% 96% 100% 100% 93% 100% 95%
99%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Appendix B-5

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 183 of 186 PageID: 7280

APPENDIX: C-1
CASE WORKER CASELOAD COMPLIANCE BY LOCAL OFFICE Intake Caseload Compliance

Intake

Local Office
Atlantic East Atlantic West Bergen Central Bergen South Burlington East Burlington West Camden Central Camden East Camden North Camden South Cape May Cumberland East Cumberland West Essex Central Essex North Essex South Gloucester East Gloucester West Hudson Central Hudson North Hudson South Hudson West Hunterdon Mercer North Mercer South Middlesex Central Middlesex Coastal Middlesex West Monmouth North Monmouth South Morris East Morris West Newark Adoption Office Newark Center City Newark Northeast Newark South Ocean North Ocean South Passaic Central Passaic North Salem Somerset Sussex Union Central Union East Union West Warren
Total

Total Workers
17 15 23 31 22 19 22 23 21 19 14 12 22 22 15 13 17 20 16 19 20 17 10 21 24 14 17 26 29 24 16 23 NA 21 21 24 31 32 28 27 15 25 17 19 22 18 17
940

Workers In Complianc
e
5 13 21 30 18 9 21 23 19 19 14 11 17 22 15 13 9 15 15 19 19 11 10 18 22
12
15
25
27
12
16
20

Percent in Complianc
e
29% 87% 91% 97% 82% 47% 95% 100% 90% 100% 100% 92% 77% 100% 100% 100% 53% 75% 94% 100% 95% 65% 100% 86% 92%
86%
88%
96%
93%
50%
100%
87%

20

95%

20

95%

21

88%

29

94%

31

97%

28

100%

25

93%

13

87%

24

96%

17

100%

19

100%

22

100%

18

100%

16

94%

838

89%

Statewide Tota1

2,357

2,174

92%

Intake Standard - Percentage of workers that meet the 8 new investigation and 12 family standard (Standard = 95%) Permanency Standard - Percentage of workers that meet the 15 family and 10 children in placement standard (Standard = 95%) Adoption Standard - Percentage of workers that meet the 15 or fewer children standard (Standard = 95%) Excludes On-Leave Workers. Prepared by the Office of Research, Evaluation and Reporting - April 11, 2013 Data Extracts on April 5, 2013

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Appendix C-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 184 of 186 PageID: 7281

APPENDIX: C-2
CASE WORKER CASELOAD COMPLIANCE BY LOCAL OFFICE Permanency Caseload Compliance

Adoption

Local Office
Atlantic East Atlantic West Bergen Central Bergen South Burlington East Burlington West Camden Central Camden East Camden North Camden South Cape May Cumberland East Cumberland West Essex Central Essex North Essex South Gloucester East Gloucester West Hudson Central Hudson North Hudson South Hudson West Hunterdon Mercer North Mercer South Middlesex Central Middlesex Coastal Middlesex West Monmouth North Monmouth South Morris East Morris West Newark Adoption Office Newark Center City Newark Northeast Newark South Ocean North Ocean South Passaic Central Passaic North Salem Somerset Sussex Union Central Union East Union West Warren
Total

Total Workers
35 11 26 31 29 31 43 24 36 31 23 17 24 32 25 25 22 25 32 18 34 23 7 22 28 19 38 37 30 20 11 19
34 37 37 29 35 31 29 22 29 14 25 26 20 16
1,212

Workers In Compliance
21 1 22 30 29 24 38 24 36 30 23 17 24 32 25 25 22 24 32 18 27 23 7 22 28 19 34 35 30 18 11 19
34 36 37 29 35 31 28 22 29 14 25 26 20 16
1,152

Percent in Compliance
60% 9% 85% 97% 100% 77% 88% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 100% 100% 79% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 89% 95% 100% 90% 100% 100%
100% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
95%

Statewide Tota1

2,357

2,174

92%

Intake Standard - Percentage of workers that meet the 8 new investigation and 12 family standard (Standard = 95%) Permanency Standard - Percentage of workers that meet the 15 family and 10 children in placement standard (Standard = 95%) Adoption Standard - Percentage of workers that meet the 15 or fewer children standard (Standard = 95%) Excludes On-Leave Workers. Prepared by the Office of Research, Evaluation and Reporting - April 11, 2013 Data Extracts on April 5, 2013

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Appendix C-2

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 185 of 186 PageID: 7282

APPENDIX: C-3
CASE WORKER CASELOAD COMPLIANCE BY LOCAL OFFICE Adoption Caseload Compliance

Adoption

Local Office
Atlantic East Atlantic West Bergen Central Bergen South Burlington East Burlington West Camden Central Camden East Camden North Camden South Cape May Cumberland East Cumberland West Essex Central Essex North Essex South Gloucester East Gloucester West Hudson Central Hudson North Hudson South Hudson West Hunterdon Mercer North Mercer South Middlesex Central Middlesex Coastal Middlesex West Monmouth North Monmouth South Morris East Morris West Newark Adoption Office Newark Center City Newark Northeast Newark South Ocean North Ocean South Passaic Central Passaic North Salem Somerset Sussex Union Central Union East Union West Warren
Total

Total Workers
6 5 6 6 2 5 3 5 4 5 5
6 2 4
6 4 1 6 3 1 5 4 3 4 2 5 3 2 6 38

Workers In Compliance
0 5 6 2 1 2 3 5 2 5 5
6 2 4
5 4 1 5 3 1 5 4 3 3 2 5 3 1 6 38

Percent in Compliance
0% 100% 100% 33% 50% 40% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100%
100% 100% 100%
83% 100% 100% 83% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 75% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100%

4

4

6

6

5

4

7

7

3

3

4

4

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

5

5

205

184

100% 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
90%

Statewide Tota1

2,357

2,174

92%

Intake Standard - Percentage of workers that meet the 8 new investigation and 12 family standard (Standard = 95%) Permanency Standard - Percentage of workers that meet the 15 family and 10 children in placement standard (Standard = 95%) Adoption Standard - Percentage of workers that meet the 15 or fewer children standard (Standard = 95%) Excludes On-Leave Workers. Prepared by the Office of Research, Evaluation and Reporting - April 11, 2013 Data Extracts on April 5, 2013

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Appendix C-3

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 317 Filed 10/03/13 Page 186 of 186 PageID: 7283

Chief of Staff
Administration & Legal Affairs
Communications & Public Affairs
Advocacy
Child Welfare Training Academy
& Partnership
Information Technology
Child & Family Health
Office of Education (Regional Schools)

Assistant Commissioner Performance Management & Accountability
Quality
Research, Evaluation &
Reporting
Administrative Reviews
Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit
Child Care Youth Residential Licensing

APPENDIX D: DCF Organizational Chart
Department of Children & Families
COMMISSIONER

Assistant Commissioner

Chief Administrator

Assistant Commissioner
Legal, Regulatory &
Legislative Affairs

Adolescent Services
Adolescent Case
Practice
Employment Services
Housing & Transitional
Services
Youth Engagement
Educational Support Services

Child Protection & Permanency
Field Operations and Support
Case Practice
Adoption Operations, Resource Families & Interstate Services
State Central Registry

Children’s System of Care
Specialized Treatment Services
Community Services
Policy & Planning and
System Administration

Family & Community Partnerships
Early Childhood Services
Domestic Violence Services
School Linked Services
Family Support Services

Women
Sexual Assault Direct Services
Sexual Assault Prevention Services
Displaced Homemaker
Services

Budget
Revenue, Reporting & IV-E
Operations
DCF Contracting 5 Business Offices
Procurement

Legislative Affairs
Policy & Regulatory Development
Grants Management,
Auditing & Records

Accounting

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2013 Appendix D-1

 
 Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Period XIV (April 1 – December 31, 2013)
Monitoring Report Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie
July 17, 2014

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie
April 1 – December 31, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
II. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE ................................................................................. 4
III. CHILD AND FAMILY OUTCOME AND CASE PRACTICE PERFORMANCE MEASURES ..................................................... 11
IV. DCF’S INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICE ......................................................................... 44 A. New Jersey’s State Central Registry (SCR) ...................................................... 44 B. Timeliness and Quality of Investigative Practice .............................................. 47 C. Institutional Abuse Investigative Unit (IAIU): Investigations of Allegations of Child Maltreatment in Placements................. 51
V. IMPLEMENTING THE CASE PRACTICE MODEL................................................... 56 A. Activities Supporting the Implementation of the Case Practice Model ............ 56 B. Performance Measures on Family Team Meetings and Case Planning ............ 60 C. Performance Benchmarks Related to Safety and Risk Assessments ................ 70 D. Performance Measures on Caseworker, Parent-Child and Sibling Visits ......... 72
VI. THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE............................... 82 A. Recruitment and Licensure of Resource Family Homes................................... 85 B. Performance Measures on Placement of Children in Out-of-Home Care............................................................................................. 92
VII. REPEAT MALTREATMENT AND RE-ENTRY INTO CARE................................ 100
VIII. TIMELY PERMANENCY THROUGH REUNIFICATION, ADOPTION OR LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP .............................................................. 104
IX. HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT .................. 118 A. Health Care Delivery System .......................................................................... 119 B. Health Care Performance Measures ................................................................ 119
i

X. MENTAL HEALTH CARE ......................................................................................... 134 A. Mental Health Delivery System ...................................................................... 134 B. Mental Health Performance Measures ............................................................ 136

XI. SERVICES TO PREVENT ENTRY INTO FOSTER CARE AND TO SUPPORT REUNIFICATION AND PERMANENCY......................................... 140

XII. SERVICES TO OLDER YOUTH ................................................................................ 142 A. New Developments ......................................................................................... 142 B. Updates to Current Practice............................................................................. 143 C. Performance Measures for Services to Older Youth....................................... 147

XIII.

SUPPORTING A HIGH QUALITY WORKFORCE: CASELOADS AND TRAINING ................................................................................. 152
A. Caseloads ......................................................................................................... 152 B. Training ........................................................................................................... 164

XIV. ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH QUALITATIVE REVIEW AND THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF ACCURATE DATA ......................................... 170

XV. FISCAL YEAR 2014 AND PROPOSED 2015 BUDGET .......................................... 175

APPENDICES A. Glossary of Acronyms Used in Monitoring Report ..........................................A-1

B. Local Office Performance on Selected Measures 1. Measure 7a: Initial Family Team Meeting Held within 30 days from the Removal ....................................................................................... B-1 2. Measure 7b: Quarterly Family Team Meetings Held Every Three Months of a Child’s Placement .............................................. B-2 3. Measure 8c: Risk Assessments/Reassessments Completed within 30 days prior to Case Closure ....................................... B-3 4. Measure 17: Caseworker Visits With Children in Placement..................... B-4 5. Measure 18: Caseworker Visits with Parent(s) Goal of Reunification.................................................................................. B-5 6. Measure 20: Parent Visits with Child – Goal of Reunification .................. B-6

C. New Jersey Department of Children and Families Needs Assessment............. C-1

D. Case Worker Caseload Compliance by Local Office 1. Intake Caseload Compliance .....................................................................D-1 2. Adoption Caseload Compliance ................................................................D-2

E. DCF Organizational Chart ................................................................................ E-1

ii

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1. Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Summary of Performance as of December 31, 2013)..................................................................................................... 12
2. IAIU Investigative Timeliness: Percent of Investigations Completed within 60 days (April-December 2013) ....................................................................... 53
3. Number of FTM Facilitators, Coaches and Master Coaches Developed as of December 31, 2013 ............................................................................................. 57
4. Five Month Enhanced Review (April–December 2013) ............................................. 58 5. Ten Month Enhanced Review (April–-December 2013)............................................. 59 6. Assignment to Adoption Worker within 5 days of Goal Change to Adoption
(April–December 2013) ............................................................................................... 59 7. Family Team Meetings Held within 30 days (April–December 2013) ....................... 62 8. Quarterly Family Team Meetings Held (April–December 2013)................................ 63 9. Case Plans Developed within 30 days of Child Entering Placement
(April–December 2013) ............................................................................................... 66 10. Case Plans Updated Every 6 months (April–December 2013).................................... 67 11. Selected Demographics for Children in Out-of-Home Placement as of
December 31, 2013 ...................................................................................................... 83 12. Resource Family Homes Licensed and Closed (January–December 2013) ................ 87 13. Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes Compared to County/State
Targets (January–December 2013) .............................................................................. 89 14. Total Number of Resource Family Applications Resolved in 150 and
180 Days for Applications Submitted October 2012 through June 2013 .................... 90 15. Shelter Placements for Youth Aged 13 or Older
(January 2008 – December 2013) ................................................................................ 99 16. Adoption Finalizations by CP&P Local Office
(January–December 2013) ......................................................................................... 110 17. TPR Filing for Children with a Permanency Goal of Adoption
(April–December 2013) ............................................................................................. 112 18. Child Specific Recruitment Plans Developed within 30 or 60 days of
Goal Change for Children without Identified Adoption Resource (April–December 2013) ............................................................................................. 114 19. Adoptions Finalized within 9 months of Child’s Placement in an Adoptive Home (April–December 2013) .................................................................. 117 20. Comprehensive Medical Examinations within 30 and 60 days of Entering DCF Custody (April–December 2013) ....................................................... 123 21. EPSDT for Children Ages 12-24 months (April–December 2013)........................... 126
iii

22. EPSDT Annual Medical Exams for Children Age 25 months and older (April–December 2013) ............................................................................................. 126
23. Provision of Required Follow-up Medical Care (December 31, 2013)..................... 129 24. Health Passport: Presence in the Record, Evidence of Sharing Records
(December 31, 2013) ................................................................................................. 132 25. Youth in CP&P Custody in Juvenile Detention Post-Disposition
Awaiting CSOC Placement (April–December 2013) ................................................ 136 26. Mental Health Screening and Assessments for Children Age 2 and older
as of December 31, 2013 ........................................................................................... 138 27. Unduplicated Number of Families Served by New Jersey’s FSCs
(April–December 2013) ............................................................................................. 141 28. Ten Contracted Services Provided by FSCs Statewide between
April and August 2013............................................................................................... 141 29. Revised Contracted Services Provided to Families by FCSs between
September and December 2013 ................................................................................. 141 30. Youth Transitional and Supported Housing as of December 31, 2013 ..................... 144 31. DCF/CP&P Individual Caseload Standards............................................................... 152 32. Number Of DCF/DCP&P Investigations and Secondary Intake Assignments
By Month (April – December 2013).......................................................................... 158 33. Percentage of DCF/CP&P Investigations Assigned to Non-Caseload
Carrying Staff by Month (September–December 2013)............................................ 160 34. DCF Staff Trained (January 1, 2006 – December 31, 2013) ..................................... 165 35. DCF Staff Trained on Case Practice Model Modules
(January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2013) .................................................................... 167 36. Qualitative Review Racial Demographics (April–December 2013) ......................... 170 37. Qualitative Review Child and Family Status Results
(April–December 2013) ............................................................................................. 171 38. Qualitative Review Practice/System Performance Results
(April–December 2013) ............................................................................................. 172
iv

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1. Number of Calls to SCR by Month (April–December 2013) ...................................... 45 2. Percentage of Investigations Received by the Field in a Timely Manner
(June 2009 – December 2013) ..................................................................................... 47 3. Percentage of Investigations Commenced within Required Response Time
(June 2009 – December 2013) ..................................................................................... 48 4. Percentage of Abuse/Neglect Investigations Completed within 60 days
(June 2009 – December 2013) ..................................................................................... 49 5. Referral Sources for all IAIU Referrals (January–December 2013) ........................... 51 6. Percentage of IAIU Investigations Completed within 60 days
(June 2009 – December 2013) ..................................................................................... 52 7. Cases Rated Acceptable on Family Involvement and Effective Use of
Family Team Meetings (April–December 2013)......................................................... 63 8. Percentage of Children Entering Care with Case Plans Developed
within 30 days (June 2009 – December 2013)............................................................. 65 9. Percentage of Case Plans Reviewed and Modified as Necessary at least
every 6 months (June 2009 – December 2013) ........................................................... 66 10. Cases Rated Acceptable on Quality of Case and Service Planning
(April–December 2013) ............................................................................................... 68 11. Cases Rated Acceptable on Planning to Meet Educational Needs
(April–December 2013) ............................................................................................... 69 12. Performance on Safety Assessments Completed prior to Investigation
Completion, Risk Assessments Completed prior to Investigation Completion and Risk Reassessments Completed within 30 days prior to Case Closure (April–December 2013)............................................... 71 13. Percentage of Children who had Two Visits per month during First Two months of an Initial or Subsequent Placement (December 2009 – September 2013) ........................................................................... 73 14. Percentage of Children in Out-of-Home Care who had at least One Caseworker Visit per month in his/her Placement (June 2009 – December 2013) ..................................................................................... 74 15. Percentage of Families who have at least Twice per month Face-to-Face Contact with Caseworker when the Goal is Reunification (June 2009 – December 2013) ..................................................................................... 76 16. Percentage of Parents who had at least One Face-to-Face Contact with Caseworker who had a Permanency Goal other than Reunification (December 2009 – December 2013) ............................................................................ 77 17. Percentage of Children with Weekly Visits with their Parent(s) (June 2009 – December 2013) ..................................................................................... 78 18. Percentage of Children who had at least Two Visits per month with their Parent(s) (December 2009 – December 2013) ................................................... 79
v

19. Percentage of Children in Custody who have at least Monthly Visits with Siblings, for Children not Placed with Siblings (December 2010 – December 2013) ............................................................................ 80
20. Children in CP&P Out-of-Home Placement by Type of Placement as of December 31, 2013 ............................................................................................. 82
21. Children in Out-of-Home Placement (December 2009 – December 2013) ................ 84 22. Children Receiving In-Home Services (December 2009 – December 2013).............. 84 23. Number of Licensed Resource Family Homes Compared to Statewide Target
(January–December 2013) ........................................................................................... 85 24. Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes (Kinship and Non-Kinship)
(April–December 31, 2013) ......................................................................................... 86 25. Reasons for Resource Home Closures (April–December 2013) ................................ 88 26. Cases Rated Acceptable on Appropriateness of Placement
(April–December 2013) ............................................................................................... 92 27. Percentage of Children Placed in a Family Setting
(June 2009 – December 2013) ..................................................................................... 93 28. Percentage of Sibling Groups of Two or Three Placed Together
(CY 2008 – 2013) ........................................................................................................ 94 29. Percentage of Sibling Groups of Four or More Placed Together
(CY 2008 – 2013) ........................................................................................................ 95 30. Percentage of Children Entering Care who had Two or Fewer Placements
within 12 months of Entering Care (CY 2007 – 2012)................................................ 96 31. Percentage of Children over Age 13 Placed in Compliance with
MSA Standards (June 2008 – December 2013)........................................................... 98 32. Percentage of Children who Re-Entered Custody within One Year of
Date of Exit (CY 2007 – 2012).................................................................................. 103 33. Percentage of Children who Entered Foster Care in CY 2012 and
were Discharged to Permanency within 12 months from Removal (CY 2006 – 2012) ...................................................................................................... 105 34. Discharge to Permanency for Children in Care between 13 and 24 months (Of all Children in Care on the First Day of CY 2013 and had been in Care between 13-24 months, Percentage of Children who were Discharged to Permanency prior to their 21st Birthday or by the Last Day of the Year (CY 2006 – 2013) ...................................................................................................... 106 35. Discharge to Permanency for Children in Care 25 months or longer (Of all Children who were in Foster Care for 25 months or longer on the First Day of CY 2013, Percentage Discharged to Permanency prior to their 21st Birthday or by the Last Day of the Year) (CY 2006 – 2013) ............................. 107 36. Percentage of Children Discharged to Final Adoption in less than 12 months from the Date of Becoming Legally Free (CY 2005 – 2012) .................................... 108 37. Percentage of Children who Exit to Adoption within 30 months of Removal (CY 2006 – 2013) ...................................................................................................... 109 38. Percentage of Child Specific Recruitment Plans Developed with 30 Days of Goal Change to Adoption (December 2010 – December 2013)................................ 113
vi

39. Percentage of Children with Goal of Adoption for whom Adoptive Home Had not been identified at time of Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) who were Placed in Adoptive Home within 9 months of TPR (June 2009 – December 2013) ................................................................................... 115
40. Percentage of Adoptions Finalized within 9 months of Adoptive Placement (June 2009 – December 2013) ................................................................................... 116
41. Percentage of Children who Received Pre-Placement Assessment in a Non-Emergency Room Setting or Other Settings Appropriate to the Situation (June 2009 – December 2013) ................................................................................... 120
42. Percentage of Children with Comprehensive Medical Examination (CME) within 30 days of Entering Out-of-Home Care (December 2009 – December 2013) .......................................................................... 121
43. Percentage of Children with Comprehensive Medical Examination (CME) within First 60 days of Placement (June 2009 – December 2013) ............................ 122
44. Percentage of Children Ages 12-24 months Up-to-Date on EPSDT Visits (June 2009 – December 2013) ................................................................................... 124
45. Percentage of Children older than 2 years Up-to-Date on EPSDT Visits (June 2009 – December 2013) ................................................................................... 125
46. Percentage of Children Current with Semi-Annual Dental Exams (June 2009 – December 2013) ................................................................................... 127
47. Percentage of Children Who Received Follow-up Care for Needs Identified in CME (June 2009 – December 2013) ..................................................................... 128
48. Percentage of Children in Custody Current with Immunizations (June 2009 – December 2013) ................................................................................... 130
49. Percentage of Caregivers who Received Health Passports within 5 days of Child’s Placement (December 2009 – December 2013) ....................................... 131
50. Percentage of Caregivers who Received Health Passports within 30 days of Child’s Placement (December 2009 – December 2013) ....................................... 132
51. Children in Out-of-State Placement (June 2011 – December 2013) ......................... 135 52. Percentage of Children with Suspected Mental Health Needs who
Received Mental Health Assessment (December 2009 – December 2013) .............. 136 53. Percentage of Youth Aged 14-18 with Independent Living Assessment
(December 2009 – December 2013) .......................................................................... 148 54. Youth Existing Care with Housing and Employed or Enrolled in Educational
or Vocational Training Program (December 2009 – December 2013)...................... 150 55. Percentage of DCF/CP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload
Standards for Intake Workers (June 2009 – December 2013) ................................... 154 56. Percentage of DCF/CP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload
Standards for Permanency Workers (June 2009 – December 2013) ......................... 154 57. Percentage of DCF/CP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload
Standards for Adoption Workers (June 2009 – December 2013).............................. 155 58. Percentage of Intake Workers with Individual Caseloads at or Below
the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – December 2013)......... 156 59. Percentage of IAIU Workers with Individual Caseloads at or Below
the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – December 2013)......... 161
vii

60. Percentage of Adoption Workers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – December 2013) ................................................................................... 162
61. New Jersey CP&P Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios (June 2009 – December 2013) ................................................................................... 163
62. Percentage of Allocated DAsG Positions Filled (June 2009 – December 2013) ................................................................................... 164
viii

I. INTRODUCTION
The Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) was appointed in July 2006 by the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey as Federal Monitor of the class action lawsuit Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie. As Monitor, CSSP is charged with independently assessing New Jersey’s compliance with the goals, principles and outcomes of the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) aimed at improving the state’s child welfare system.1
As reported in the previous monitoring period, the impact of Superstorm Sandy was far-reaching. The aftereffects of the storm effected workers and their families, as well as resource families, children, youth and families involved with Department of Children and Family Services (DCF). In recognition of that, and the difficulties Superstorm Sandy created for the state and its ability to provide services in the immediate aftermath of the storm, the parties to this lawsuit agreed and the Court sanctioned extending the previous reporting period—which otherwise would have covered July to December 2012—by three months to March 31, 2013. As a result, the previous report includes nine months of performance data for the period July 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013. In order to resume a schedule of reporting based on six month periods, the parties agreed and the Court sanctioned that this report will include nine months of performance data for the period April to December 2013. Hereafter, reporting will resume a schedule of six month increments, and the next monitoring report will cover January to June 2014. The Monitor again commends DCF for its exemplary work during and after Superstorm Sandy and recognizes the fact that New Jersey’s child welfare system responded and continued to operate smoothly through a natural disaster, which is indicative of its solid infrastructure and committed workforce.
This is the 14th monitoring report under the MSA and the eighth report that includes Phase II requirements of the MSA.2
Methodology
The primary source of information on New Jersey’s progress is data supplied by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) and verified by the Monitor. DCF provides extensive aggregate and back-up data as well as access to staff at all levels to enable the Monitor to verify performance. For this report, the Monitor was involved in the following additional activities:
 Caseload Data Verification
The Monitor conducted a telephone survey of 125 workers to verify their individual caseloads during this monitoring period. Findings from this survey are discussed in Section XIII—Supporting a High Quality Workforce—of this report.

1 To see the full Agreement, go to http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/home/Modified_Settlement_Agreement_7_17_06.pdf. 2 Copies of all previous Monitoring Reports can be found at www.cssp.org.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 1

 Housing, Employment and Education Status Review for Older Youth Exiting Care
The Monitor collaborated with DCF to review case records of 106 youth ages 18-21 years who exited care between January and December 2013 without achieving permanency. The review, which took place in two parts—December 2013 and February 2014— primarily focused on the education, housing and employment status of these youth and the transition planning activities undertaken by DCF. Findings and recommendations from the review are discussed in Section XII—Services to Older Youth—of this report.
 Shelter Placement Data Review
The Monitor reviewed 17 out of 44 cases from April through December 2013 in which youth age 13 and older were placed in shelters for more than 30 days pursuant to court order to examine whether the exceptions to the 30 day limit, which permits shelter placement to extend beyond 30 days pursuant to a court order, were appropriately applied. (See Section VI – The Placement of Children in Out-of-Home Care).
 Visitation Data Review
The Monitor reviewed 50 out of 507 case records from September 2013 of families with children newly in placement to verify that the children had the requisite two visits from their caseworker during the first two months of the initial or subsequent out-of-home placement. Findings from this validation review are discussed in Section V— Implementing the Case Practice Model—of this report.
 Other Monitoring Activities
The Monitor interviewed and/or visited multiple external stakeholders of New Jersey’s child welfare system, including contracted service providers, youth, relatives, birth parents, advocacy organizations and judicial officers. The Monitor also periodically attends DCF’s ChildStat meetings, statewide Child Fatality/Near Fatality Review Board meetings, adolescent practice forums, Area Director meetings, Health Care Case Reviews, youth permanency meetings, youth advisory board meetings and participates in statewide Qualitative Reviews. DCF has fully cooperated with the Monitor in notifying them and facilitating their participation in relevant activities.
Structure of the Report
Section II of the report provides an overview of the state’s accomplishments and challenges. Section III provides summary performance data on each of the outcomes and performance measures required by the MSA in Table 1, Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Summary of Performance as of December 31, 2013).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 2

The remaining sections of the report provide more detailed data and discussion of performance in the following areas:
 New Jersey child protective services units which receive reports and investigate allegations of alleged child maltreatment (Section IV);
 Implementation of DCF’s Case Practice Model (Section V);  Placement of children in out-of-home settings, incidence of maltreatment of children in
foster care, and abuse and neglect of children when they reunite with families (Sections VI and VII);  New Jersey’s efforts to achieve permanency for children either through reunification with family, legal guardianship or adoption (Section VIII);  Provision of health care and mental health services to children and families (Sections IX and X);  Services provided to children, youth and families involved with DCF and to prevent child welfare system involvement (Section XI);  Services to older youth (Section XII);  Staff caseloads and workforce training (Section XIII); and  Accountability through the Qualitative Review and the production and use of accurate data (Section XIV).
In order to better understand the progress DCF has made since the start of the reform, the report includes, where appropriate, trend data from the first available data, usually June 2009 through December 2013.3 In addition, Appendices B-1 through B-6 provide data by Local Office on selected key case practice measures.

3 For some Performance Measures, December 2013 data are not available. For those areas, the most recent data are cited with applicable timeframes.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 3

II. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
The progress documented in this report covering April through December 2013 represents a statewide effort to improve outcomes for children and families involved with New Jersey’s Department of Children and Families (DCF), and reflects the committed work of staff and administrators, as well as their partners in private agencies, the courts, resource parents and other service providers.
DCF continues to make significant progress toward meeting the requirements of the Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) including demonstrating improved implementation of New Jersey’s Case Practice Model (CPM), specifically meeting standards on timeliness of case planning and increasing performance on Family Team Meetings (FTMs), a critical component of the CPM. Further, as the report makes clear, the state has sustained compliance on a number of MSA performance measures, sometimes for several years. DCF is also demonstrating their increased capacity and efforts to effectively collect and use quantitative and qualitative data for management and practice improvements, an important and potentially enduring achievement.
In January 2014, DCF appointed the former Director of Family and Community Partnerships (FCP) who led the statewide expansion of Family Success Centers and Early Childhood Programs, including the Home Visitation Program and the Strengthening Families initiative, to be the new Assistant Commissioner directly responsible for CP&P. Chosen for her extensive expertise, including being the former Deputy Director of case practice at DYFS, she is expected to increase the focus throughout the state on the consistency of quality case practice. Additionally, in February 2014 the former Area Director of Camden County was appointed the new DCF Director of Family and Community Partnerships. DCF also made leadership changes in some Area Offices during this monitoring period, many involving supervisors and managers DCF has been training and cultivating to move into leadership positions.
Other noteworthy accomplishments include:
 The commencement of child protective services investigations within one hour of the hotline call’s completion for 97 percent of referrals;
 Consistent, solid performance on nearly all the MSA health care measures, indicating that children in out-of-home placement have dependable access to health care;
 Routine recruitment and licensing of kinship homes with the result that more children in placement are living with kin;
 Good Qualitative Review (QR) ratings on how children’s out-of-home placement meets their developmental, emotional, behavioral and physical needs;
 Ongoing work to consistently implement the CPM by improving and deepening the quality of workers’ case planning skills. New training models are in use to assist supervisors on site as they pursue practice improvement strategies;
 Expansion of DCF’s policies and practices to support adolescents, including older youth transitioning out of care; and
 An approved Needs Assessment plan, developed after consultation with the Monitor and Plaintiffs, which involves a multi-year process to identify the strengths and address the

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 4

needs of children and youth in out-of-home placement and children at risk of entering care. By the end of CY 2014 DCF will have completed its first interim report on the northern region of the state, including Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Passaic, Sussex and Union counties. (See Appendix C).
During the monitoring period DCF continued to make progress toward meeting the Performance Measures in the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA). As of December 31, 2013, 23 of the MSA’s 53 Performance Measures4 have been met and seven were partially met.5 There are additional measures that were not met but where performance improved during the monitoring period.
Three Performance Measures were newly met during this monitoring period:
 Timeliness of Response to Investigations (Performance Measure 3)  Timeliness of Initial Case Plans (Performance Measure 10)  Timeliness of Current Case Plans (Performance Measure 11)
Four measures substantially improved during this monitoring period but are not yet at compliance levels:
 Holding initial and quarterly Family Team Meetings (Performance Measure 7a and 7b and Family Teamwork 7)6
 Visitation between children in custody and siblings placed apart (Performance Measure 21)
 Risk Re-assessment Prior to Case Closure (Performance Measure 8c)  Youth Exiting Care (Performance Measure 55)
The report also includes findings on the Child and Family Status portion of the Qualitative Review conducted in the monitoring period indicating that the overall status of children and
4 Monitoring reports prior to Period XIII referenced 54 measures, however, performance for Measure 49 (Statewide Implementation of Differential Response, Pending Effectiveness of Pilot Sites) is not currently applicable as the DR pilot concluded June 30, 2012, leaving 53 measures. 5 “Partially” is used when DCF has come very close but has not substantially met the requirement, for example meeting the requirement in the final one or two months of the monitoring period or in instances where a measure has two or more sub-parts and DCF has fulfilled the requirement toward one or more of the sub-parts, but not all. See footnote 10 for a more detailed explanation of terms used in this report regarding compliance levels. Performance is based upon the most recent available data through December 31, 2013. 6 During the previous monitoring period and continuing from April through December 2013, DCF was engaged in an effort to better capture legitimate reasons for why FTMs do not occur, either because the parent is unavailable or because the parent declined to attend. The parties agreed that, consistent with the previous monitoring period, while the state was involved in this self-diagnosis, the Monitor would continue to assess performance on FTMs by counting only those FTMs that actually occurred. After the conclusion of the monitoring period DCF provided the Monitor with additional data indicating that after successfully clarifying and implementing policy, it had confidence that staff were properly using and documenting exceptions. Given the timing, the Monitor has not yet been able to take steps necessary to validate this data. The Monitor and DCF will conduct a statistically valid case record review to validate the new data and issue a supplemental letter on this measure prior to the next full monitoring report.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 5

families rated acceptable in 90 percent of cases reviewed, including a rating of 98 percent for safety in the home and 97 percent for physical health of the child reviewed. (See Section XIV).
The report also identifies challenges, most notably within the following adoption measures:
 The percentage of children who exit foster care to adoption within 30 months from removal;
 The placement of children in an adoptive home when there is not an identified home at the time of termination of parental rights; and
 The timely completion of child specific recruitment plans when necessary for children with a permanency goal of adoption.
Other areas identified as challenges are:
 Stability measures for children in placement;  The quality of FTMs, case planning and case practice, including providing services to
support transitions out of placement; and  Increased rates of repeat maltreatment of children within one year of reunification.
The remainder of this summary discusses the strengths and challenges of current performance in the major substantive areas covered by the MSA. The data on specific Performance Measures are provided in Table 1 and the remainder of the report.
Investigative Practice
DCF continues to have a strong investigative practice. The State Central Registry (SCR) operates professionally, efficiently and effectively; reports of alleged abuse and neglect continue to be appropriately screened and timely forwarded to the field for investigation. Investigative staff are well trained. New developments at SCR include an update of the call management system to allow screeners and supervisors access to calls at their desktop via email, facilitating review of calls and timely supervision.
Investigation caseloads, while improved over the previous two consecutive monitoring periods, remain higher than acceptable. High intake caseloads may be affecting other areas of practice, particularly the timely completion of investigations, which decreased in performance by nine percent this monitoring period. The Monitor has not reassessed the quality of investigative practice this period but anticipates conducting a joint review with DCF of the quality of investigative practice and decision-making during the next monitoring period.
Implementation of the Case Practice Model
During this monitoring period, DCF continued to implement a number of approaches to improve case practice performance that appear to have been effective for the following Performance Measures: the timely completion of initial and current case plans; completion of risk reassessments; and holding initial and quarterly Family Team Meetings (FTMs). One strategy is holding weekly conferences among DCF leadership, Area Directors and their Local Office

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 6

managers to review individual performance on specific key indicators, including visitation, FTMs and case plan development. Additionally, the CP&P Director continued to hold meetings with Area Directors who were required to submit performance improvement plans for specific measures where performance was low. These approaches, having already demonstrated success, are projected to accelerate the pace of change and lead to additional positive outcomes as measured by the MSA and for children and families in New Jersey.
The Quality Review (QR) ratings for Practice and for System Performance, one indicator of the quality of case practice statewide, have improved overall and notably in a few important areas such as family engagement and effective use of FTMs. However, while improved, the QR ratings remain below levels expected by both DCF leadership and the MSA and underscore the need for DCF to continue its efforts to bolster the quality of supervision and its focus on the quality of timely case plans and the case planning process. Similarly, work remains to ensure that caseworker visits with families happen consistently and to ensure that every visit is used as an opportunity to assess and effectively implement case plans that promote child safety, permanency and well-being.
DCF leadership throughout the state continue to demonstrate a solid commitment to transparent, inclusive practice improvement strategies. The faithful implementation of the QR process is one example. DCF maximizes the utility of ChildStat meetings by holding them monthly with staff and stakeholders to identify strengths, areas needing improvement and the service delivery and policy barriers that influence child and family outcomes. DCF also continues to develop leadership skills among its staff through its New Jersey Fellows Program; from its inception in 2012, as many as 178 staff, including supervisors and managers, have participated in the program. Designed specifically for staff to learn how to better use data to support improved case practice and outcomes for children and families, the project uses live lectures, data analysis skill building, team projects, coaching, mentoring and conference presentations to enhance the leadership skills of DCF staff all across the state.
Placement of Children in Out-of-Home Care
DCF’s performance on MSA requirements regarding the appropriate placement of children in the state’s custody remains strong overall. Consistent with the previous monitoring period, 99 percent of cases examined through the QR were judged to be acceptable on the appropriateness of a child’s placement. DCF has also continued to meet standards related to the placement of children in a family setting and within placement capacity limits. Further, as repeatedly reported, there are now almost no children placed out of state for treatment and DCF meets all of the MSA requirements regarding restrictions on the use of inappropriate placements such as congregate care and shelter placement for young children and detention placements, an accomplishment met early in the reform and sustained over time. The state has continued to appropriately recruit, license, train and retain resource parents; this monitoring period more than 50 percent of the newly licensed families were relatives of children in care, a notable achievement. Recruitment for homes for large sibling groups and adolescents remains a DCF priority.
While the state’s performance on the placement of sibling groups of four or more children together improved slightly, performance on placement of sibling groups of two or three together

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 7

fell from 82 percent in CY 2012—exceeding the MSA standard of 80 percent—to 77 percent in CY 2013, a return to CY 2010 levels. The state’s performance on the rate of stability for children in out-of-home care also declined: in CY 2011, 85 percent of children who entered care that year and had two or fewer placements within the next 12 months; in CY 2012, the most recent year for which data are available, performance declined to 82 percent: the MSA standard is that 88 percent of children will have two or fewer placements in the first 12 months of entering care.
Repeat Maltreatment and Re-Entry into Foster Care
The MSA has several Performance Measures related to the repeat maltreatment of children who have been served by CP&P through in-home services or in out-of-home placement. The two performance measures that remain to be met relate to repeat maltreatment of children within one year of reunification and the percentage of children and youth who re-enter placement within one year of leaving custody.
Timely Permanency through Reunification, Adoption or Legal Guardianship
The state’s performance on measures related to timely permanency through reunification, adoption or legal guardianship is based on calendar year data and the most recent data are presented in the report. Overall, DCF’s performance in timely meeting permanency goals and discharging children to permanency has improved slightly from the previous monitoring period but does not meet the levels required by the MSA final targets. While performance on adoption measures is generally positive, despite new strategies for improvement, DCF’s current performance on timely completion of child specific recruitment plans demonstrates a continued decline as well as an increase in the percentage of child specific recruitment plans never completed. There has also been a decline in performance for the small cohort of children without an identified adoptive home at the time of termination of parental rights and DCF continues to perform below the required MSA target on percentage of children who discharge from foster care to adoption within 30 months of their removal from home. On a positive note, performance on finalizing adoptions within nine months of an adoptive placement remains strong.
Health and Mental Health Care for Children in Out-of-Home Placement
Since June 2011, DCF has demonstrated consistently solid performance on nearly all MSA Performance Measures related to health care services. As the Monitor has previously reported, DCF’s work through its Child Health Units and with its nurses and health and mental health providers has meant that performance on the MSA’s health and mental health indicators remains strong. Further, results from the QRs on the provision of health care services were rated acceptable for 96 percent of the cases reviewed.
Services to Prevent Entry into Foster Care and To Support Reunification and Permanency
As part of the state’s strategies to support families to keep children safe at home, over the past five years DCF has developed 51 Family Success Centers (FSCs), neighborhood based centers

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 8

where families can access services before falling into crisis. Since Superstorm Sandy in October 2012, these FSCs have become gateways to reach families in the counties that were hardest hit by the storm. In addition to providing families with assistance immediately following the storm, the FSCs offer dependable support and a place to build and restore communities. New Jersey’s families have taken advantage of this resource as described in the report, and FSCs continue to be a significant system strength. Additionally, under the MSA, DCF continues to provide a range of post-adoption supports to families and has been working to increase its capacity to effectively identify families affected by domestic violence and link them to appropriate services. An area for continued improvement remains the provision of services to families and youth to support successful transitions and life adjustments which was rated acceptable in just under half of the cases reviewed in recent QRs.
Services to Older Youth
DCF has put significant energy and resources towards improving the provisions of services and supports to adolescents, including to those older youth transitioning out of care. The state’s comprehensive review of its policies and programs has been one result of the focus on older youth. The Office of Educational Support (OES) moved under the Office of Adolescent Services (OAS) on July 1, 2013. This move has created opportunities for educating staff and resource parents about educational supports youth may need. DCF has also developed new partnerships with stakeholders that have led to expanded access to employment programs. An important change to policy pertaining to older youth that became effective April 1, 2013 is the updated Independent Living stipend policy, increasing the amount of funding available to be more comparable with current standards of living and to appropriately provide support for youth in independent living placements or receiving independent living services.
The state’s work with older youth continues to positively affect performance on MSA measures. In December 2013, 96 percent of youth ages 14 to 18 completed Independent Living Assessments. A QR conducted between January 2012 and July 2013 of 44 cases of youth ages 18 to 21 found significant areas of strength, including the youth’s safety, living arrangement, physical health and emotional well-being. Challenges remain, however, around appropriately planning with the youth for upcoming transitions and life changes.
The Monitor and DCF recently completed a case record review of 106 youth who exited care without achieving permanency between January and December 2013. Ninety-three percent of the youth had a plan for housing upon exiting care; however, a third of applicable youth were neither employed nor enrolled in education or vocational training programs at the time of their exit.
Continuous Quality Improvement
DCF’s use of data to identify areas needing more attention, both in terms of areas of practice and geographically, is demonstrating progress. DCF leaders consistently review performance indicators with Local Office management. New Jersey’s QRs also continue to provide countylevel data on the state’s progress in implementing the Case Practice Model with quality, and DCF staff at all levels are becoming increasingly comfortable with using data to diagnose and assess barriers to quality case practice. DCF’s ChildStat meetings and the DCF Fellows Program

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 9

are both innovative strategies that promote the increased use of quantitative and qualitative data to better understand and improve system performance and outcomes.
While there remain areas requiring further progress to meet MSA outcomes, the Monitor believes that DCF’s continued growth in its robust quality assurance and accountability processes will serve to enhance the quality of case practice and advance positive outcomes for New Jersey’s children and families.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 10

III. CHILD AND FAMILY OUTCOME AND CASE PRACTICE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Performance Measures) are 53 measures that assess the state’s performance on meeting the requirements of the MSA (see Table 1).7 These Performance Measures cover the areas of child safety, permanency, service planning, child well-being and ongoing infrastructure requirements pertaining to elements such as caseloads, training and resource family recruitment and retention.
Many of the measures are assessed using data from NJ SPIRIT (the CP&P data management system) and SafeMeasures,8 reviewed and in many areas independently validated by the Monitor. Some data are also provided through the Department’s work with Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. that assists with data analysis. Data provided in the report are as of December 2013, or the most current data available.

7 The previous monitoring report references 54 measures, however, performance for Measure 49 (Statewide Implementation of Differential Response, Pending Effectiveness of Pilot Sites) is not currently applicable as the DR pilot concluded June 30, 2012, leaving 53 measures. 8 SafeMeasures is a data warehouse and analytical tool that allows tracking of critical child welfare indicators by worker, supervisor, Local Office area and statewide. It is used by different levels of staff to track, monitor and analyze trends in case practice and targeted measures and outcomes.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 11

Table 1: Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Summary of Performance as of December 31, 2013)

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

State Central Registry, Investigative Practice and Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU)

Direction of Change11

1. Responding to Calls to the

SCR

a. 14,797 calls

a. 12,568 calls

b. 390 abandoned calls b. 281 abandoned calls

CPM V.1

a. Total number of calls b. Number of abandoned calls

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

c. 21 seconds d. 5,359 calls screened

c. 15 seconds d. 4,500 calls screened

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

N/A

c. Time frame for answering

out

out

calls

e. 1,345 CWS referrals e. 1,222 CWS referrals

d. Number of calls screened out

e. Number of referrals for CWS

9 In some instances where December 2013 performance data are not available, the most recent performance data are cited with applicable timeframes. In other instances, the Monitor provides a range of data over the monitoring period to better illustrate performance. More detailed information on DCF performance on specific measures is provided in
subsequent sections of the report. 10 “Yes” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment based on presently available information, DCF has substantially fulfilled its obligations regarding the requirement under the MSA for the majority of the months during April 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 monitoring period. The Monitor has also designated “Yes” for a requirement where DCF is within
one percentage point of the final target or there are a small number (less than 3) of cases causing the failure to meet the final target. “Partially” is used when DCF has come very close but has not substantially met the requirement, for example meeting the requirement in final one or two months of the monitoring period or in instances where a measure has
two or more sub-parts and DCF has fulfilled the requirement toward one or more of the sub-parts, but not all. “No” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment, DCF has not fulfilled
its obligation regarding the requirement. 11 Where applicable, “” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment based on data and an understanding of case practice, performance is trending upwards by at least three percentage points; “” indicates performance is trending downward by at least three percentage points; “↔” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment, there has been no change in
performance; “N/A” indicates a judgment regarding direction of change is not applicable to the measure during the monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 12

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

2. Quality of SCR Response:

a. Respond to callers promptly,

with respectful, active

See Review of the New

CPM V.1

listening skills b. Essential information
gathered—identification of parents and other important

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Jersey State Central
Registry, DCF, issued July, 2012.12
Performance not newly

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

N/A

family members

assessed this period.

c. Decision making process

based on information

gathered and guided by tools

and supervision

a. For periods beginning

CPM V.1 MSA III.B.2

3. Timeliness of Response: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be received by the field in a timely manner and commenced within the required response time as identified at SCR, but no later than 24 hours.

July 1, 2009, and thereafter, 98% of investigations shall be received by the field in a timely manner. b. For periods beginning July 1, 2009, and thereafter, 98% of investigations shall be

a. 99% of investigations were received by the field in a timely manner.
b. 96% of investigations commenced within required response time.

a. 100% of investigations were received by the field in a timely manner.
b. 97% of investigations commenced within required response time.

Yes

↑

commenced within the

required response time.

CPM V.1 MSA III.B.3

4. Timeliness of Completion: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be

By June 30, 2010, 98% of all abuse/ neglect investigations shall be

72% of investigations were completed within 60 days.

63% of investigations
were completed within 60 days.13

No

↓

completed within 60 days.

completed within 60 days.

12 For full report of review, see http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/divisions/opma/SCRReport_7%2026%2012.pdf 13 Performance data for the monitoring period are as follows: April 2013, 70%; May 2013, 68%; June 2013, 71%; July 2013, 68%; August 2013, 69%; September 2013, 69%;
October 2013, 66%; November 2013, 62%; December 2013, 63%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 13

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

CPM V.1

5. Quality Investigative Practice: Investigations will meet measures of quality including acceptable performance on:

a. Locating and seeing the child and talking with the child outside the presence of the caretaker within 24 hours of receipt by field;
b. Conducting appropriate interviews with caretakers and collaterals;
c. Using appropriate tools for assessment of safety and risk;
d. Analyzing family strengths and needs;
e. Seeking appropriate medical and mental health evaluations;
f. Making appropriate decisions; and
g. Reviewing the family’s history with DCF/CP&P

By December 31, 2009, 90% of investigations shall meet quality standards.

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

Data collected during a

case record review

conducted in January 2013 found that 78% of investigations

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance14

Data Not Available

N/A

reviewed met quality

standards.

14 The Monitor anticipates conducting a joint review with DCF of the quality of investigative case practice for the next monitoring report.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 14

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

6. IAIU Practice for Investigations in Placements:

CPM V.I MSA II.I.3 MSA III.B.4

a. Investigations in resource homes and investigations involving group homes, or other congregate care settings shall be completed within 60 days.
b. Monitor will review mechanisms that provide timely feedback to other divisions (e.g., CSOC, OOL) and implementation of corrective action plans.
c. Corrective action plans developed as a result of investigations of allegations re: placements will be implemented.

By June 2007 and thereafter, 80% of investigations by IAIU shall be completed within 60 days.

85% of IAIU investigations involving group homes and other congregate care settings were completed within 60 days.

December 2013 Performance9
85% of IAIU investigations involving group homes and other congregate care settings were completed within 60 days.

Requirement Fulfilled
(Yes/No/Ongoing)10
Yes

Direction of Change11
↔

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 15

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Implementation of Case Practice Model

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

7. Family Involvement and

a. In March 2013, 56% of a. In December 2013,

Effective use of Family Team

children newly

69% of children newly

Meetings. A family team (involving

entering placement had

entering placement had

parents, youth and appropriate

a family team meeting

a family team meeting

formal and informal supports) shall

within 30 days of

within 30 days of

CPM V.3

meet and plan together. The team should be involved in planning & decision making throughout a case and have the skills, family knowledge and abilities to solve and help to organize effective services for the child and family.
Number of family team meetings at key decision points. a. For children newly entering
placement, the number/percent who have a family team meeting within 30 days of entry.

a. By June 30, 2010, family meetings held prior to or within 30 days of entry for 90% of new entries and 90% of pre-placements.
b. By June 30, 2010, family meetings held for 90% of children at least once per quarter.
c. By June 30, 2011, 90% of cases show evidence in QR of acceptable team formation and functioning.

entering placement. From July 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013 performance ranged from 34 to 57%. b. In March 2013, 46% of children had at least one family team meeting each quarter. From July 1, 2012 to March 31, 2013 performance ranged from 30 to 46%. c. 24% of cases rated at

entering placement. From April 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 performance ranged from 43 to 69%.15 b. In December 2013 2013, 54% of children had at least one family team meeting each quarter. From April 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 performance ranged from 43 to 54%.16

No

↑

b. For all other children in

least minimally

c. 32% of cases rated

placement, the number/percent

acceptable on both QR

acceptable on both QR

who have at least one family

‘Family Teamwork”

‘Family Teamwork”

team meeting each quarter.

indicators: team

indicators: team

c. Family Team Formation and

formation and team

formation and team

Functioning.

functioning.

functioning.17

15 During the previous monitoring period and continuing from April through December 2013, DCF was engaged in an effort to both improve documentation and data entry to account for legitimate reasons for why FTMs do not occur, either because the parent is unavailable or because the parent declined to attend. The parties agreed that, consistent with the previous monitoring period, while the state was involved in this self-diagnosis and corrective action, the Monitor would continue to assess performance on FTMs by counting only those FTMs that actually occurred. The report’s documented progress therefore includes the number of FTMs that have occurred. Performance data for the monitoring period are as follows: April 2013, 49%; May 2013, 43%; June 2013, 46%; July 2013, 51%; August 2013, 47%; September 2013, 46%; October 2013 56%; November 2013, 63%; December 2013 69%. After the conclusion of the monitoring period DCF provided the Monitor with additional data indicating that after successfully clarifying and implementing policy, it had confidence that staff were properly using and documenting exceptions. Given the timing, the Monitor has not yet been able to take steps necessary to validate this data. The Monitor and DCF will conduct a statistically valid case record review to validate the new data and issue a supplemental letter on this measure prior to the next full monitoring report.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 16

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

a. 100% of

a. 100% of

investigations

investigations

CPM

8. Safety and Risk Assessment: Number/ percent of closed cases where a safety and risk of harm assessment is done prior to case closure.

By December 31, 2010, (a) 98% of investigations will have a safety assessment completed, (b) 98% of investigations will have a risk assessment completed, and (c) 98% of noninvestigation cases will have a risk assessment or risk reassessment completed within 30 days of case closure.

completed had a safety assessment completed prior to investigation closure. b. 100% of investigations completed had a risk assessment completed prior to investigation closure. c. 59% of applicable closed cases had a risk re-assessment

completed had a safety assessment completed prior to investigation closure. b. 100% of investigations completed had a risk assessment completed prior to investigation closure. c. 92% of applicable closed cases had a risk re-assessment

Partially

↑

completed within

completed within

30 days prior to

30 days prior to

case closure.18

case closure.19

16 See above footnote for an explanation of methodology. Using this methodology, in December 2013, out of 1,854 possible FTMs, 1,005 (54%) occurred. Performance data for
the monitoring period are as follows: April 2013, 47%; May 2013, 48%; June 2013, 44%; July 2013, 43%; August 2013, 47%; September 2013, 46%; October 2013, 47%;
November 2013, 50%; December 2013, 54%. 17 43 of 133 (32%) in and out-of home cases rated acceptable on both indicators of Family Teamwork, team formation and team functioning; 62 of 133 cases (47%) rated
acceptable on team formation; 50 of 133 cases (38%) cases rated acceptable on team functioning. 18 Applicable cases include reunification and do not include adoption, kinship legal guardianship or emancipation. 19 Applicable cases include reunification and do not include adoption, kinship legal guardianship or emancipation.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 17

Reference
CPM V.4, 13.a.
CPM V.4, 13.b.

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

10. Timeliness of Initial Plans: For children entering care, number/ percent of case plans developed within 30 days.

By June 30, 2010, 95% of case plans for children and families are completed within 30 days.

11. Timeliness of Current Plans: For children entering care, number/ percent of case plans shall be reviewed and modified as necessary at least every six months.

By June 30, 2010, 95% of case plans for children and families will be reviewed and modified at least every six months.

March 2013 Performance
96% of children entering care had case plans developed within 30 days. Between July 2012 and March 2013, monthly performance ranged from 45 to 99%.

December 2013 Performance9
97% of children entering care had case plans developed within 30 days. Between April 2013 and December 2013, monthly performance ranged from 92 to 97%.20

Requirement Fulfilled
(Yes/No/Ongoing)10
Yes

99% of case plans were reviewed and modified as necessary at least every six months. From July 2012 through March 2013, monthly performance ranged from 59 to 99%.

98% of case plans were reviewed and modified as necessary at least every six months. From April 2013 through December 2013, monthly performance ranged from 94 to 99%.21

Yes

Direction of Change11
↑
↑

20 Performance data for the monitoring period are as follows: April 2013, 96%, May 2013, 94%; June 2013, 94%; July 2013, 95%; August 2013, 92%; September 2013, 94%;
October 2013, 96%; November 2013, 94%; December 2013, 97%. Because performance meets or is within one percentage point of the standard for all but one month during the monitoring period, the Monitor considers DCF to have met the final target. 21Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: April 2013, 99%; May 2013, 99%; June 2013, 98%; July 2013, 98%; August 2013, 97%; September 2013, 95%; October
2013, 96%; November 2013, 94%; December 2013, 98%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 18

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

CPM V.4 CPM V.4

12. Quality of Case and Service Planning: The child’s/family’s case plan shall be developed with the family and shall be individualized and appropriately address the child’s needs for safety, permanency and wellbeing. The case plan shall provide for the services and interventions needed by the child and family to meet identified goals, including services necessary for children and families to promote children’s development and meet their educational, physical and mental health needs. The case plan and services shall be modified to respond to the changing needs of the child and family and the results of prior service efforts.

By December 31, 2011, 90% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QR.

15. Educational Needs: Children will be enrolled in school and DCF will have taken appropriate actions to ensure that their educational needs will be met.

By December 31, 2011, 90% of cases rated acceptable as measured by the QR.

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

39% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on both QR indicators ‘Case Planning Process’ and ‘Tracking and Adjusting.’

41% of cases rated acceptable on both QR indicators ‘Case Planning Process’ and ‘Tracking and Adjusting.’22

No

↔

77% of cases rated acceptable on QR indicators ‘Stability (school)’ and ‘Learning and Development - over age 5.’

67% of cases rated acceptable on QR
indicators ‘Stability
(school)’ and ‘Learning and Development - over age 5.’23

No

↓

22 133 in and out-of-home cases were reviewed as part of the Quality Reviews (QRs) conducted from April to December 2013. 54 of the133 (41%) cases rated acceptable on both the ‘Case Planning Process’ and ‘Tracking and Adjusting’ indicators; 62 of 133 cases (47%) rated acceptable on ‘Case Planning Process’; 79 of 133 cases (59%) rated acceptable on ‘Tracking and Adjusting. 23 133 in and out-of-home cases were reviewed as part of the Quality Reviews (QRs) conducted from April to December 2013. Of the 133 only 49 involved children over the age of 5 and were in out-of-home placement. Of the 49 applicable cases, 33 rated acceptable on both the Stability (school) and Learning and Development (age 5 and older) QR indicators; 57 of 67 (85%) cases rated acceptable on Stability (school); 42 of 52 (81%) cases rated acceptable on Learning and Development for children over age 5.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 19

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

MSA III.B 7.a

16. Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody: Number/percent of children where caseworker has two visits per month (one of which is in the placement) during the first two months of an initial placement or subsequent placement for a child

By December 31, 2010, during the first two months of an initial placement or subsequent placement, 95% of children had at least two visits per month.

84% of children had two visits per month, one of which was in the placement, during the first two months of an initial or subsequent placement.24

In September 2013, 89% of children had two visits per month, one of which was in the placement, during the first two months of an initial or subsequent placement.25

No

↑

in state custody.

17. Caseworker Visits with

By June 30, 2010, 98% of 94% of children had at 94% of children had at

MSA III.B 7.b

Children in State Custody: Number/ percent of children where caseworker has at least

children shall have at least one caseworker visit per month during all other parts

least one caseworker
visit per month in his/her placement.26 Monthly

least one caseworker
visit per month in his/her placement. 27 Monthly

Partially29

↑

one caseworker visit per month of a child’s time in out-of- range July 2012 – March range April – December

in the child’s placement.

home care.

2013: 85 – 94%.

2013: 93 – 95%.28

24 Data validation by the Monitor and DCF of NJ SPIRIT reports on this measure as compared with written case documentation identified some errors in categorizing workers’
visits with children. As a result, DCF conducted an internal audit of all applicable cases in March 2013 and determined the compliance data presented above. CSSP’s independent
data validation confirmed this finding. Performance data for other months during the monitoring period were not fully validated and are not presented in this report. 25 Performance data presented were determined through internal audit conducted by DCF of all applicable cases in September 2013. The Monitor conducted a secondary review of
50 cases. Performance data for other months during the monitoring period were not fully validated and are not presented in this report. 26 An additional 5% of children had at least one caseworker visit per month for a total of 99% of children with at least one caseworker visit per month regardless of location. 27 Ibid. 28 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: April 2013, 95%; May 2013, 94%; June 2013, 94%; July 2013, 94%; August 2013, 95%; September 2013, 94%; October
2013, 94%; November 2013, 93%; December 2013, 94%. 29 The Monitor considers this performance measure to be partially met as performance is close to meeting the final target for caseworker monthly visits in placement and has
demonstrated 99% of children in out-of-home placement were visited at least once by a caseworker regardless of location.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 20

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

CPM MSA III.B 8.a

18. Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members: The caseworker shall have at least two face-to-face visits per month with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody with a goal of reunification.

By December 31, 2010, 95% of families have at least twice per month faceto-face contact with their caseworker when the permanency goal is reunification.

77% of parents or other legally responsible family members of children in custody with a goal of reunification had at least two face-toface visits with a caseworker. Monthly range July 2012 - March

74% of parents or other legally responsible family members of children in custody with a goal of reunification had at least two face-toface visits with a caseworker. Monthly range April – December

No

2013: 45 – 77%.30

2013: 70 – 77%. 31,32

↔

CPM MSA III.B 8.b

19. Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members: The caseworker shall have at least one face-to-face visit per month with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody with goals other than reunification unless parental

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of families shall have at least one face-toface caseworker contact per month, unless parental rights have been terminated.33

67% of parents or other legally responsible family members had at least one face-to-face caseworker contact per month. Monthly range July 2012 - March 2013: 51 – 67%.34

66% of parents or other legally responsible family members had at least one face-to-face caseworker contact per month. Monday range April – December 2013: 63 – 71%. 35, 36

No

rights have been terminated.

↔

30 For comparison purposes, cited performance does not exclude from calculations those instances where visits did not occur because the parent was unavailable or because
contacts were not required. Therefore, cited performance is different than previously reported performance. 31 Actual performance is likely to be better than reported because reported performance does not exclude instances where a parent is unavailable or contacts are not required due to
concerns regarding appropriate use of these exceptions. 32 Performance data for monitoring period for twice monthly visitation between caseworker and parent when the permanency goal is reunification are as follows: April 2013, 77%;
May 2013, 77%; June 2013, 76%; July 2013, 76%; August 2013, 76%; September 2013, 73%; October 2013, 75%; November 2013, 70%; December 2013, 74%. 33 Possible modification of this final target has been discussed among the Parties and the Monitor with no resolution. 34 For comparison purposes, cited performance does not exclude from calculations those instances where visits did not occur because the parent was unavailable or because
contacts were not required. Therefore, cited performance is different than previously reported performance. 35 Actual performance is likely to be better than reported because reported performance does not exclude instances where a parent is unavailable or contacts are not required due to
concerns regarding appropriate use of these exceptions. 36 Performance data for monitoring period for monthly visitation between caseworker and parent with permanency goal other than reunification are as follows: April 2013, 68%;
May 2013, 67%; June 2013, 69%; July 2013, 71%; August 2013, 70%; September 2013, 69%; October 2013, 67%; November 2013, 63%; December 2013, 66%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 21

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

CPM MSA III.B 9a.

20. Visitation between Children in Custody and Their Parents: Number/percent of children who have weekly visits with their parents when the permanency goal is reunification unless clinically inappropriate and approved by the Family Court.

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of children in custody shall have in person visits with their parent(s) or other legally responsible family member at least every other week and at least 60% of children in custody shall have such visits at least weekly.

80% of children had recorded visits at least every other week. Monthly range July 2012 – March 2013: 64-80%.
59% of children had recorded weekly visits with their parents. Monthly range July 2012 – March 2013: 3759%. 37

78% of children had recorded visits at least every other week. Monthly range April – December 2013: 76 – 80%.38
56% of children had recorded weekly visits with their parents. Monthly range April – December 2013: 54 – 61%.39

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

No

↔

21. Visitation Between

By December 31, 2010, at 63% of children in

71% of children in

CPM MSA III.B 10

Children in Custody and Siblings Placed Apart: Number/percent of children in custody who have siblings with

least 85% of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with

custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing visited with their siblings

custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing visited with their siblings

No

↑

whom they are not residing shall those siblings at least

monthly. Monthly range monthly. Monthly range

visit with their siblings as

monthly.

July 2012 – March 2013: April – December 2013:

appropriate.

49 – 63%.

61 – 71%.40

37 Performance data for July 2012 and later do not exclude children who CP&P had indicated visits were not required or the parent was unavailable. 38 Performance data for monitoring period for visits at least every other week between parent and child are as follows: April 2013, 80%; May 2013, 80%; June 2013, 78%; July
2013, 78%; August 2013, 78%; September 2013, 76%; October 2013, 77%; November 2013, 78%; December 2013, 78%. 39 Performance data for monitoring period for weekly visits between parent and child are as follows: April 2013, 61%; May 2013, 60%; June 2013, 56%; July 2013, 56%; August
2013, 57%; September 2013, 54%; October 2013, 57%; November 2013, 55%; December 2013, 56%. 40 Performance data for monitoring period for monthly sibling visits are as follows: April 2013, 61%; May 2013, 64%; June 2013, 65%; July 2013, 62%; August 2013, 67%;
September 2013, 67%; October 2013, 64%; November 2013, 66%; December 2013, 71%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 22

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

CPM; MSA Permanency Outcomes

22. Adequacy of DAsG Staffing: Staffing levels at the DAsG office.

98% of allocated positions filled plus assessment of adequacy of FTEs to accomplish tasks by June 30, 2012.

132 (99%) of 134 staff positions filled with two staff on full time leave; 132 (99%) available DAsG.

131 (98%) of 134 staff
positions filled with eight staff on full time
leave; 123 (92%) available DAsG.41

Placements of Children in Out-of-Home Care

CPM V.4
MSA III.A 3.c

23. Combined assessment of appropriateness of placement based on:

a. Placement within appropriate proximity of their parents’ residence unless such placement is to otherwise help the child achieve the planning goal.
b. Capacity of caregiver/ placement to meet child’s needs.
c. Placement selection has taken into account the location of the child’s school.

By June 30, 2010, 90% of cases score appropriately as measured by QR Modules.

99% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on QR indicator ‘Appropriateness of Placement.’

24. Placing Children with Families: The percentage of children currently in custody who are placed in a family setting.

Beginning July 2009 and thereafter, at least 85% of children will be placed in a family setting.

89% of children were placed in a family setting.

99% of cases rated acceptable on QR indicator ‘Appropriateness of Placement.’
89% of children were placed in a family setting.

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

Yes

↔

Yes

↔

Yes

↔

41 DCF reports that during this monitoring period it added two full time law assistants and 5.4 DAsG external to their Practice Group who dedicate time to DCF matters.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 23

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

CPM MSA III.A 3.b

25. Placing Siblings Together: Of sibling groups of two or three siblings entering custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another, the percentage in which all siblings are placed

For siblings entering custody in the period beginning July 2012 and thereafter, at least 80% will be placed together.

In CY 2012, 82% of sibling groups of 2 or 3 were placed together.

In CY 2013, 77% of
sibling groups of 2 or 3 were placed together.42

No

↓

together.

26. Placing Siblings Together:

Of sibling groups of four or

For siblings entering in the In CY 2012, 25% of

In CY 2013, 26% of

MSA III.A more siblings entering custody at period beginning July 2011 sibling groups of 4 or

3.b

the same time or within 30 days and thereafter, at least 40% more were placed

sibling groups of 4 or more were placed

No

of one another, the percentage in will be placed together.

together.

together.43

which all siblings are placed

together.

↔

27. Stability of Placement: Of By June 2009 and

For children entering

For children entering

the number of children entering thereafter, at least 88% of care in CY 2011, 85% of care in CY 2012, 82% of

MSA III.A 3.a

care in a period, the percentage with two or fewer placements

children entering care will have two or fewer

children had two or

children had two or

fewer placements during fewer placements during

No

↓

during the 12 months beginning placements during the 12

the 12 months from their the 12 months from their

with the date of entry.

months from their date of date of entry.

date of entry.

entry.

42 In CY 2012 there were 783 sibling groups of two or three children. In CY 2013 there were 842 sibling groups of two or three, representing an 8 percent increase over the previous year. 43 In CY 2012, there were 136 sibling groups with four or more children. In CY 2013, there were 103 sibling groups with four or more children, representing a 24 percent decrease
in large sibling groups over the previous calendar year.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 24

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

28. Placement Limitations:

MSA III.C

Number/percent of resource homes in which a child has been placed if that placement will result in the home having more than four foster children, or more than two foster children under age two, or more than six

By June 2009, no more than 5% of resource home placements may have seven or eight total children including the resource family’s own children.

Less than one percent of resource home placements are overcapacity.

Less than one percent of resource home placements are overcapacity.

Yes

total children including the

resource family’s own children.

↔

29. Inappropriate Placements:

MSA III.B.6

a. The number of children under age 13 placed in shelters.
b. The number of children over age 13 placed in shelters in compliance with MSA standards on appropriate use of shelters to include: as 1) an alternative to detention; 2) a short-term placement of an adolescent in crisis not to extend beyond 45 days; or 3) a basic center for homeless

a. By December 2008 and thereafter, no children under age 13 in shelters.
b. By December 31, 2009, 90% of children placed in shelters in compliance with MSA standards on appropriate use of shelters to include: 1) an alternative to detention; 2) short-term placement of an adolescent in crisis not to extend beyond 30 days; or 3) a basic center

a. Between July 2012 and March 2013, no child under the age of 13 was placed in a shelter.
b. Between July 2012 and March 2013, 97% of children over the age of 13 who were placed in shelters were in compliance with MSA standards.

a. Between April 2013 and December 2013, no child under the age of 13 was placed in a shelter.
b. Between April 2013 and December 2013, 96% of children over the age of 13 who were placed in shelters were in compliance with MSA standards.44

Yes

youth.

for homeless youth.

↔

44The Monitor conducted a review of 17 out of the 44 cases in which DCF reported that youth age 13 or older were placed in shelters for 30 days or more by court orders. The Monitor found that in those 17 cases court orders were present. However, the Monitor and DCF are in discussions regarding the appropriate use of court orders for placement of children age 13 and older in shelters.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 25

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Repeat Maltreatment and Re-Entry into Out-of-Home Care

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

30. Abuse and Neglect of

MSA III.A. 1.a

Children in Foster Care: Number of Children in custody in out-of-home placement who were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member during 12 month period, divided by the total number of children

For the period beginning July 2010 and thereafter, no more than 0.49% of children will be victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.

In CY 2012, 0.21% of children were victims of
substantiated abuse or
neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.45

In CY 2013, 0.32% of children were victims of
substantiated abuse or
neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.46

Yes

who have been in care at any

point during the period.

For the period beginning

For children who were For children who were

31. Repeat Maltreatment: Of July 2009 and thereafter, no victims of a substantiated victims of a

all children who remain in home more than 7.2% of children allegation of child

substantiated allegation

MSA III.A after substantiation of abuse or who remain at home after a maltreatment in CY 2011 of child maltreatment in

1.b

neglect, the percentage who have substantiation of abuse or and remained at home, CY 2012 and remained

No

another substantiation within the neglect will have another

7.8% had another

at home, 7.6% had

next 12 months.

substantiation within the

substantiation within the another substantiation

next 12 months.

next 12 months.

within the next 12

months.

32. Repeat Maltreatment: Of For the period beginning

In CY 2011, 8.4% of

In CY 2012, 8.5% of

all children who are reunified

July 2009 and thereafter, no children who reunified children who reunified

MSA III.A during a period, the percentage more than 4.8% of children were victims of

1.c

who are victims of substantiated who reunified will be the

substantiated child

were victims of substantiated child

No

abuse or neglect within one year victims of substantiated

maltreatment within one maltreatment within one

after the date of reunification.

abuse or neglect within one year after reunification. year after reunification.

year after reunification.

↔ ↔ ↔

45 In CY2012, of the 12,380 children who were in care at any point during the year, 26 (.21%) were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent, relative placement provider or facility staff member. 46 In CY2013, of the 12,668 children who were in care at any point during the year, 40 (.32%) were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent, relative
placement provider or facility staff member.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 26

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

MSA III.A 2.b

33. Re-entry to Placement: Of all children who leave custody during a period, except those whose reason for discharge is that they ran away from their placement, the percentage that re-enter custody within one year

For the period beginning July 2011 and thereafter, of all children who exit, no more than 9% will re-enter custody within one year of exit.

Of all children who exited in CY 2011, 13% re-entered custody within one year of the date of exit.

Of all children who exited in CY 2012, 13%
re-entered custody within one year of the date of exit. 47

No

of the date of exit.

↔

47 DCF has objected to the Monitor’s definition of “qualifying exits” used to analyze this measure. The Agency believes that due to the specific exclusion cited in the MSA, the definition of qualifying exits should only exclude children who run away from placement. The Monitor uses a definition of qualifying exits which excludes from the calculations runaways as well as children who are adopted. Based on the DCF recommended definition, of all children who exited in CY 2012, 10 percent re-entered custody within one year of the date of exit. Using that definition, DCF calculates performance for previous years as follows: CY 2007, 12%; CY 2008, 10%; CY 2009, 10%; CY 2010, 9%, CY 2011 9%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 27

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

MSA III.A 2.a

34. a., d., e. Discharged to Permanency: Percentage of children discharged from foster care to permanency (reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and/or guardianship).

a. Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in target year and who remained in foster care for eight days or longer, percentage that discharged to permanency within 12 months.
d. Of all children who were in foster care on the first day of the target year and had been in care between 13 -24 months, percentage that discharged to permanency prior to 21st birthday or by the last day of the year.

a. CY 2011: 50% d. CY 2011: 47% e. CY 2011: 47%

e. Of all children who were in foster care for 25 months or
longer on the first day of the target year, percentage that discharged to permanency prior to 21st birthday or by the last day of the year.

March 2013 Performance
Permanency
a. CY 2011: 45% d. CY 2012: 42% e. CY 2012: 33%

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

a. CY 2012: 46% d. CY 2013: 46% e. CY 2013: 36%

Partially48

↑

48 The Monitor considers this performance measure to be partially met as performance for sub-part d. of this measure is within one percent of the final target.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 28

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

MSA III.A 2.a

34.b. Adoption: Of all children who became legally free for adoption during the 12 months prior to the target year, percentage that was discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming

Of those children who become legally free in CY 2011, 60% will be discharged to a final adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free.

80% of children who became legally free in CY 2011 were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from date of becoming legally free.

74% of children who became legally free in CY 2012 were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from date of becoming legally free.

Yes

↓

legally free.

34.c. Total time to Adoption:

Of all children who exit to Of all children who

Of all children who

Of all children who exited foster adoption in CY 2011, 60% exited to adoption in CY exited to adoption in CY

MSA III.A care to adoption in the target

2.a

year, what percentage was

will be discharged from foster care to adoption

2012, 44% were discharged from foster

2013, 45% were discharged from foster

No

discharged from foster care to within 30 months from

care to adoption within care to adoption within

adoption within 30 months from removal from home.

30 months from removal 30 months from removal

removal from home.

from home.

from home.

↔

In March 2013 71% of In December 2013, 74%

MSA III.B 12(i)

35. Progress Toward Adoption: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption who have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change.

Beginning January 1, 2010, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 90% shall have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change.

children with a permanency goal of adoption had a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change. Performance between July 2012 and March

of children with a permanency goal of adoption had a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change. Performance between April and December

No

↑

2013 ranged from 65 to 2013 ranged from 69 to

90%.

83%.49

49 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: April 2013, 74%; May 2013, 83%; June 2013, 75%; July 2013, 76%; August 2013, 69%; September 2013, 83%; October 2013, 77%; November 2013, 81%; December 2013, 74%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 29

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

CPM MSA III.B 12.a (ii)

36. Child Specific Adoption Recruitment: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption needing recruitment who have a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the date of the goal change.

Beginning January 1, 2010, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 90% of those for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of termination of parental rights shall have a childspecific recruitment plan

Between July 2012 and March 2013, 105 children required child specific recruitment plans and 48 (46%) of these plans were developed within 30 days of the date of goal change.

Between April and December 2013, 147 children required child specific recruitment plans and 55 (37%) of these plans were developed within 30 days of the date of goal change. 50

No

↓

developed within 30 days of

the date of the goal change.

MSA III.B 12.a.(iii)

37. Placement in an Adoptive Home: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption and for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of termination are placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights.

Beginning July 1, 2009, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 75% of the children for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of termination shall be placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights.

Between July 2012 and March 2013, 17 (59%) out of 29 applicable children with a permanency goal of adoption for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of the termination were placed in an adoptive home within nine months of termination of parental

Between April and December 2013, 5 (24%) out of 21 applicable children with a permanency goal of adoption for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of the termination were placed in an adoptive home within nine months of termination of parental

No

↓

rights.

rights.

MSA III.B 12.b

38. Final Adoptive Placements: Number/percent of adoptions finalized within nine months of adoptive placement.

Beginning July 1, 2009, of adoptions finalized, at least 80% shall have been finalized within nine months of adoptive placement.

In March 2013, 94% of adoptions were finalized within nine months of adoptive placement.

In December 2013, 100% of adoptions were finalized within nine months of adoptive placement.

Yes

↑

50 Performance data for the monitoring period are as follows: April 2013, 42%; May 2013, 44%, June 2013, 32%; July 2013, 31%; August 2013, 14%; September 2013, 8%; October 2013, 44%; November 2013, 53%; December 2013, 80%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 30

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Health Care for Children in Out-of-Home Placement

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

By December 31, 2009,

98% of children will receive

a pre-placement assessment 100% of children

100% of children

39. Pre-Placement Medical

either in a non- emergency entering CP&P custody entering CP&P custody

Assessment: Number/percent of room setting, or in an

received a pre-placement received a pre-placement

MSA II.F.5 children receiving pre-placement emergency room (ER)

assessment (PPA). 99% assessment (PPA). 52

Yes

medical assessment in a setting setting if the child needed of PPAs occurred in a

99% of PPAs occurred in

appropriate to the situation.51

emergency medical

setting appropriate for a setting appropriate for

attention or the child was

the situation.

the situation.

already in the emergency

room when CP&P received

the referral.

MSA III.B 11

40. Initial Medical Examinations: Number/percent of children entering out-of-home care receiving full medical examinations within 60 days.

By January 1, 2009 and thereafter, at least 85% of children shall receive full medical examinations within 30 days of entering out-of-home care and at least 98% within 60 days.

From July 2012 through March 2013 (excluding October),53 85% of children received a CME within the first 30 days of placement and 98% received a CME within the first 60 days of

From April through December 2013, 85% of children received a CME within the first 30 days of placement and 98% received a CME within the first 60 days of placement.

Yes

placement.

↔ ↔

51 By agreement of the Parties, this measure has been redrafted to combine the percentage of PPAs in a non-ER setting and those PPAs conducted in an ER that are appropriate
based on the presenting medical needs of the child/youth or because the child/youth was already in the ER when CP&P received the referral. 52 Percentage reflected as 100 due to rounding. 53After reviewing the data and discussions with DCF, the Monitor decided to exclude data for children who entered out-of-home care in the month of October 2012. DCF provided
relevant information that as a direct result of Superstorm Sandy medical providers were unavailable (temporarily shut down, handling emergencies, etc.). Fifty-nine percent of children who entered out-of-home care in the month of October received a CME within 30 days of entering custody. Performance the other months ranged from 77 to 91 percent,
affirming that the October performance was an aberration. Notably, 94 percent of the children who entered out-of-home care in October received a CME within 60 days of
entering custody, so DCF was able to ensure medical attention once medical providers were available or other providers were identified.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 31

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

Negotiated Health Outcomes
MSA II.F.2

41. Required Medical Examinations: Number/percent of children in care for one year or more who received medical examinations in compliance with Early Periodic Screening and Diagnosis Treatment (EPSDT) guidelines.
42. Semi-Annual Dental Examinations: Number/percent of children ages three and older in care six months or more who received semi-annual dental examinations.

By June 2010, 98% of children in care for one year or more will receive medical examinations in compliance with EPSDT guidelines.
a. By December 2011, 98% of children will receive annual dental examinations.
b. By December 2011, 90% of children will receive semi-annual dental examinations.

From July 2012 through March 2013, 93% of children ages 12-24 months were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT visits and 93% of children older than two years were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT visits.
a. 98% of children received an annual dental examination.
b. 85% of children were current with their semi-annual dental exam.55

From April through December 2013, 92% of children ages 12-24 months were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT visits and 92% of children older than two years were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT visits.
a. By December 2013, 99% of children received an annual dental examination.
b. By December 2013, 84% of children were current with their semi-annual dental exam.

Partially54 Partially

↔ ↔

43. Follow-up Care and

By December 31, 2011,

Treatment: Number/percent of 90% of children will receive 95% of children received 95% of children received

MSA II.F.2

children who received timely accessible and appropriate

timely, accessible and

follow-up care for needs follow-up care for needs

appropriate follow-up care identified in their

identified in their

Yes

follow-up care and treatment to and treatment to meet health CME.56

CME.57

meet health care and mental

care and mental health

health needs.

needs.

↔

54 While not yet meeting the final target, performance on EPSDT/well child exams represents sustained access to health care for this population and is a significant achievement. 55 Performance is as of December 31, 2012 as annual exams are measured on the calendar year. 56 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record Review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home
placement who were removed between May 1, 2012 and October 10, 2012 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,125 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 350
children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5% margin of error with 95% confidence. 57 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record Review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home
placement who were removed between November 1, 2012 and July 31, 2013 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,997 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 366
children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5% margin of error with 95% confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 32

Reference MSA II.F.8

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

44. Immunization: Children in DCF custody are current with immunizations.

By December 31, 2011, 98% of children in custody will be current with immunizations.

From January through March 2013, 95% of children in out-of-home placement were current with their immunizations.

45. Health Passports: Children’s parents/ caregivers receive current Health Passport within five days of a child’s placement.

By June 30, 2011, 95% of caregivers will receive a current Health Passport within five days of a child’s placement.

63% of caregivers received Health Passports within five days of a child’s placements and 96% of caregivers received Health Passports within 30 days of a child’s placement.59

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

From October through December 2013, 94% of children in out-of-home placement were current with their immunizations.

Partially58

65% of caregivers

received Health

Passports within five

days of a child’s placements and 98% of

No

caregivers received

Health Passports within

30 days of a child’s

placement.60

Direction of Change11
↔
↔

58 While not yet meeting the final target, performance on ensuring children in out-of-home care are current with their immunizations represents sustained access to health care for
this population and is a significant achievement. 59 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record Review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home
placement who were removed between May 1, 2012 and October 10, 2012 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,125 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 350
children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5% margin of error with 95% confidence. 60 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record Review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home
placement who were removed between November 1, 2012 and July 31, 2013 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,997 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 366
children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5% margin of error with 95% confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 33

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Health Care for Children in Out-of-Home Placement

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

From May to October 2012, From November 2012 to

99% of eligible children

July 2013, 99% of eligible

and youth received a mental children and youth received

MSA II.F.2

46. Mental Health Assessments: Number/percent of children with a suspected mental health need who receive mental health assessments.

By December 31, 2011, 90% of children with a suspected mental health need will receive a mental health assessment.

health screening. Of those screened, 60% had a suspected mental health need. Of those with a suspected mental health

a mental health screening. Of those screened, 64% had a suspected mental health need. Of those with a suspected mental health

Yes

↑

need (and 14 additional

need (and 22 additional

youth already receiving

youth already receiving

services) 90% received a

services) 93% received a

mental health assessment.61 mental health assessment.62

47. Provision of in-home and

CPM

community-based mental health services for children and their families: CSOC shall continue to support activities of CMOs, YCMs, FSOs, Mobile Response, evidencebased therapies such as MST and FFT and crisis stabilization services to assist children and youth and their families involved with CP&P and to

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

DCF continues to support CMO, YCMs, FSOs, Mobile Response, MST, FFT and community-based services to prevent children from being removed and to reunify children with their parents.

DCF continues to support CMO, YCMs, FSOs, Mobile Response, MST, FFT and community-based services to prevent children from being removed and to reunify children with their parents.

Yes

N/A

prevent children and youth from

entering CP&P custody.

61 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record Review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between May 1, 2012 and October 10, 2012 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,125 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 350 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5% margin of error with 95% confidence. 62 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record Review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between November 1, 2012 and July 31, 2013 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,997 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 366 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5% margin of error with 95% confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 34

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

Services to Families

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

CPM

48. Continued Support for Family Success Centers: DCF shall continue to support statewide network of Family Success Centers

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

51 Family Success Centers statewide

51 Family Success Centers statewide

Yes

N/A

CPM

50. Services to Support Transitions: The Department will provide services and supports to families to support and preserve successful

By December 31, 2011, 90% of cases score appropriately as measured by QR.

52% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on QR indicator ‘Transitions and Life Adjustments.’

49% of cases rated acceptable on QR indicator ‘Transitions and Life Adjustments.’

No

↓

transitions.

DCF administers an

DCF administers an

Adoption Subsidy

Adoption Subsidy

Program which

Program which

supported 13,757

supported 13,890

adopted children by the adopted children by the

51. Post-Adoption Supports:

end of March 2013.

end of CY 2013. DCF

CPM

The Department will make postadoption services and subsidies available to preserve families

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

DCF funds a statewide funds a statewide network of post-adoption network of post-adoption services through contract services through contract

Yes

N/A

who have adopted a child.

arrangements with 11

arrangements with 11

private agencies.

private agencies.

Funding remains slightly Funding remains slightly

over $3 million and is

over $3 million and is

used specifically for

used specifically for

family counseling and family counseling and

family support services. family support services.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 35

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

CPM

52. Provision of Domestic Violence Services. DCF shall continue to support Domestic Violence liaisons, PALS and Domestic Violence shelter programs to prevent child maltreatment and assist children and families involved with CP&P.

Final Target
Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

DCF increased the

number of Domestic Violence liaisons by 7 during this reporting period; 31 liaisons are now available in all

31 liaisons are available
in all 47 CP&P’s Local Offices,63 one in each
county.

Yes

N/A

CP&P’s Local Offices.

Services to Older Youth

CPM

53. Independent Living Assessments: Number/percent of cases where DCF Independent Living Assessment is complete for youth age14-18.

By December 31, 2011, 95% of youth age 14-18 have an Independent Living Assessment.

As of March 31, 2013, 98% of youth ages 14 to 18 in out-of-home placement for at least six months had a completed Independent Living

96% of youth ages 14 to 18 in out-of-home placement for at least six months had a completed Independent Living Assessment.

Yes

Assessment.

54. Services to Older Youth:

DCF shall provide services to

By December 31, 2011,

CPM

youth between the ages 18 and 21 similar to services previously available to them unless the

90% of youth are receiving acceptable services as measured by the New Jersey

Data Not Available64

66% of youth received acceptable services.65

No

youth, having been informed of Qualitative Review.

the implications, formally

request that DCF close the case.

↔
N/A

63 The Newark Adoption office was phased out as of October 2013 and adoption units were assigned to each Local Office. As of October 2013, there were 46 CP&P offices. 64 A methodology to determine performance was finalized and in late-July 2013, the Monitor and DCF jointly participated in specialized Quality Reviews (QRs) to collect
performance data for this measure. 65 Reported performance based upon QR findings from 44 cases of youth ages 18 to 21 whose cases were reviewed between January 2012 and July 2013. Cases were considered
acceptable if acceptable ratings were determined for overall Child (Youth)/Family Status and Practice Performance.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 36

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

March 2013 Performance

December 2013 Performance9

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)10

Direction of Change11

Data collected during a Data collected during a

case record review of all case record review of all

CPM

55. Youth Exiting Care: Youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall have housing and be employed or in training or an educational program.

By December 31, 2011, 95% of youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall have housing and be employed or in training or an educational program.

youth exiting care between July 1 and December 31, 2012 without achieving permanency found that 86% of youth had housing and 52% of youth were either

youth exiting care between January and December 2013 without achieving permanency found that 93% of youth had a plan for housing upon exiting care and 65% of youth were either

No

↑

employed or enrolled in employed or enrolled in

education or vocational education or vocational

training program.66

training program.67

66 Case records for 65 youth were reviewed. 67 Case records for 106 youth were reviewed.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 37

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
II.A.5. In reporting during Phase I on the state’s compliance, the Monitor shall focus on the quality of the Case Practice Model and the actions by the state to implement it.
II.B.1.b. 100% of all new case carrying workers shall be enrolled in Pre-Service Training, including training in intake and investigations, within two weeks of their start date.
II.B.1.c. No case carrying worker shall assume a full caseload until completing Pre-Service Training and passing competency exams.
II.B.2. c. 100% of case carrying workers and supervisors shall take a minimum of 40 hours of annual In-Service Training and shall pass competency exams.

December 2013 Performance
All Local Offices68 have completed the immersion process.
Between April 1, 2013 and December 2013, 122 (100%) new workers (106 hired in the previous monitoring period) were enrolled in Pre-Service Training within two weeks of their start date (25 BCWEP hires).69
Between April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013, 122 (100%) new workers (106 hired in the previous monitoring period) were enrolled in Pre-Service Training within two weeks of their start date and passed competency exams (25 BCWEP hires).
Between April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013, 2,931 (97%) out of 3,008 case carrying workers and supervisors completed 40 or more hours of training and passed competency exams.70

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes

68 The Newark Adoption office was phased out as of October 2013 and adoption units were assigned to each Local Office. As of October 2013, there were 46 CP&P offices. 69 The Baccalaureate Child Welfare Education Program (BCWEP) is a consortium of seven New Jersey colleges (Rutgers University, Seton Hall University, Stockton College,
Georgian Court University, Monmouth University, Century College and Ramapo College) that enables students to earn a Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) degree. The Monitor
has previously determined that this course of study together with Worker Readiness Training designed by the DCF Child Welfare Training Academy satisfies the MSA
requirements. All BCWEP students are required to pass the same competency exams that non-BCWEP students take before they are permitted to carry a caseload. 70 The remaining 77 workers completed some In-service training but were either on leave or left the agency during the reporting period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 38

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements

The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
II.B.2.d. The state shall implement In-Service Training on concurrent planning for all existing staff.
II.B.3.a. All new staff responsible for conducting intake or investigations shall receive specific, quality training on intake and investigations processes, policies and investigations techniques and pass competency exams before assuming responsibility for cases.
II.B.4.b. 100% of all staff newly promoted to supervisory positions shall complete their 40 hours of supervisory training and shall have passed competency exams within six months of assuming their supervisory positions.
II.C.4 The state will develop a plan for appropriate service delivery for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth, and thereafter begin to implement this plan. II.C.5 The state shall promulgate and implement policies designed to ensure that the State continues to provide services to youth between ages 18-21 similar to services previously available to them.

December 2013 Performance
Between April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013, 174 (100%) eligible CP&P workers were trained on concurrent planning and passed competency exams before assuming caseloads. Between April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013, 304 (100%) employees assigned to intake and investigations in this monitoring period successfully completed one or more modules of intake training and passed competency exams. Between April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013, 10 (100%) newly promoted supervisors were trained and passed competency exams; two more supervisors were appointed during the monitoring period: one is on leave and one began supervisory training in January 2014 and is scheduled to complete it in the next monitoring period.
Delivery of services ongoing.
DCF continues to provide services to these youth. New policies have been developed and current policies are being revised.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 39

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements

The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
II.C.6 The state shall provide mental health services to at least 150 birth parents whose families are involved with the child system.
II.D.1. The state shall implement an accurate real time bed tracking system to manage the number of beds available from the CSOC and match those with children who need them.
II.D.2. The state shall create a process to ensure that no child shall be sent to an out-of-state congregate care facility. The process will also ensure that for any child who is sent out-of-state, an appropriate plan is developed to maintain contacts with family and return the child in-state as soon as appropriate.

December 2013 Performance
DCF continues to meet this standard by funding both inhome and office-based therapeutic interventions for over 400 birth parents (unduplicated count) in efforts to maintain children in, or return children to, the custody of their parents. The state’s approved Medicaid Waiver moves adults into a managed care system which should allow for a more comprehensive approach to patient care and treatment of both physical and mental health needs. This impacts some parents involved with CP&P and could improve access to mental health care.
The state has implemented and utilizes a real time bed tracking system to match children with placements.
As of December 2013, there were four youth in out-of-state residential placements. All four youth are in a specialized program for the deaf or hard of hearing. DCF is currently finalizing a program in state to meet the needs of youth needing residential placement who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes Yes

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 40

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
II.D.5. The state shall implement an automated system for identifying youth in its custody being held in juvenile detention facilities and ensure that they are placed within 30 days of disposition.
II.G.9. The state shall provide adoption training to designated adoption workers for each Local Office. II.G.15. The state shall issue reports based on the adoption process tracking system.
II.H.4. The period for processing resource family applications through licensure will be 150 days.
II.H.13 The state shall implement the methodology for setting annualized targets for resource family non-kin recruitment. II.H.14 The state shall provide flexible funding at the same level or higher than provided in FY’07. II.H.17 The state shall review the Special Home Service Provider (SHSP) resource family board rates to ensure continued availability of these homes and make adjustments as necessary. II.J.2. The state shall initiate management reporting based on SafeMeasures.
II.J.6. The state shall annually produce DCF agency performance reports.

December 2013 Performance
DCF reports that from April 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 eight youth in CP&P custody were in juvenile detention awaiting a CSOC placement. All transitioned within 30 days of disposition of their juvenile court case. 50 (100%) adoption workers were trained between April 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013. Adoption tracking data are now collected in NJ SPIRIT and DCF is reporting on all data required in MSA II.G.4. Of applications submitted between October, 2012 and June 2013, DCF resolved 57% of applications within 150 days. DCF continues to set targets for homes targeted for recruitment by county. In FY2014, the flex fund budget was $5,714,602.
New policies implemented.
The state continues to use Safe Measures for management reporting. DCF released FY2012 in December 2012. DCF released a report entitled DCF Today Accomplishments 2011-2013 in May 2014.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes Yes
No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 41

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements

The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
II.J.9. The state shall issue regular, accurate reports from SafeMeasures.
II.J.10. The state shall produce caseload reporting that tracks caseloads by office and type of worker and, for permanency and adoption workers, that tracks children as well as families.
II.E.20 95% of offices shall have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a five worker to one supervisor ratio.
III.B.1.a 95% of offices with average caseloads meeting the standard and at least 95% of individual workers with caseloads meeting the standard: permanency workers: no more than 15 families and no more than ten children in out-of-home care.
III.B.1.b 95% of offices with average caseloads meeting the standard and at least 95% of individual workers with caseloads meeting the standard: intake workers: no more than 12 open cases and no more than eight new case assignments per month. III.B.1.c 95% of individual workers with caseloads meeting the standard: IAIU investigators: no more than 12 open cases and no more than eight new cases assignments per month. III.B.1.d 95% of offices with average caseloads meeting the standard and at least 95% of individual workers with caseloads meeting the standard: adoption workers: no more than 15 children.

December 2013 Performance
The state has the capacity and is regularly producing reports from SafeMeasures
The state has provided the Monitor with reports that provide individual caseloads of children and families for intake, permanency and adoption workers.
97% of CP&P Local Offices have sufficient frontline supervisors, with ratios of five workers to one supervisor.
98% of offices met permanency standards. 95% of permanency workers met caseload requirements.71
91% of offices met intake standards. 87% of intake workers met caseload requirements.72
100% of IAIU workers met caseload requirements.
95% of offices met adoption standards. 87% of adoption workers met caseload requirements.73

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No Yes Partially

71 Reported performance is the average of DCF’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during this nine month monitoring period. 72 Ibid. 73 Ibid.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 42

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements

The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
III.C.2 The state shall promulgate and implement policies designed to ensure that psychotropic medication is not used as a means of discipline or control and that the use of physical restraint is minimized.
III.C.4 The state shall continue to meet the final standards for pre-licensure and ongoing training of resource families, as described in Phase I.
III.C.5 The state shall incorporate into its contracts with service providers performance standards consistent with the Principles of the MSA.
III.C.6 In consultation with the Monitor, the state shall develop and implement a well-functioning quality improvement program consistent with the Principles of the MSA and adequate to carry out the reviews of case practice in Phase II.
III.C.7 The state shall regularly evaluate the need for additional placements and services to meet the needs of children in custody and their families, and to support intact families and prevent the need for out-of-home care. Such needs assessments shall be conducted on an annual, staggered basis that assures that every county is assessed at least once every three years. The state shall develop placements and services consistent with the findings of these needs assessments. III.C.8 Reimbursement rates for resource families shall equal the median monthly cost per child calculated by the United States Department of Agriculture for middle-income, urban families in the northeast.

December 2013 Performance
In January 2010, DCF issued polices on psychotropic medication and continues to monitor children and youth on psychotropic medication in accordance with this policy. DCF continues to conduct prelicensure training for CP&P resource families and contracts with Foster and Adoptive Family Services (FAFS) to conduct ongoing in-service training. The Monitor has previously reviewed several service provider contracts and found that such contracts incorporate performance standards consistent with the principles of the MSA. DCF’s Office of Performance Management and Accountability continues to facilitate case record reviews, ChildStat and Qualitative Reviews statewide. DCF completed a Needs Assessment plan, developed after consultation with the Monitor and Plaintiffs (see Appendix C). Resource family board rates continue to meet USDA standards.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Ongoing Monitoring74
Yes

74 By the end of CY 2014 DCF will have completed its first interim report on the northern region of the state, including Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Morris, Passaic, Sussex and Union counties.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 43

IV. DCF’S INVESTIGATIVE PRACTICE
A. New Jersey’s State Central Registry (SCR)
New Jersey’s State Central Registry (SCR) is charged with receiving calls of suspected child abuse and neglect as well as calls where reporters believe the well-being of families is at risk and an assessment, support, and/or information and referral is needed, even though there is no allegation of child abuse or neglect. The SCR operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week with multiple shifts of staff and supervisors and a sophisticated call management and recording system. Screeners at SCR determine the nature of each caller’s concerns and initiate the appropriate response.
This function also includes receiving calls about and investigating allegations of abuse and/or neglect in institutional settings (e.g., resource homes, schools and residential facilities). CP&P Local Offices employ investigative staff to follow up on the calls as appropriate and a regionally organized Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU) is responsible for investigations in institutional settings.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 44

State Central Registry (SCR)

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

1. Responding to Calls to the SCR: a. Total number of calls b. Number of abandoned calls c. Time frame for answering calls d. Number of calls screened out e. Number of referrals for CWS

Final Target

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
Between April and December 2013, the SCR received a total of 127,163 calls. Data from the call system show that in December 2013 callers waited approximately 15 seconds for an SCR screener to answer their calls. Of all the calls received during this monitoring period, 44,271 (35%) calls75 related to the possible need for Child Protective Services (CPS) responses. Of those, screeners classified 43,369 (98%) reports for investigation of alleged child abuse or neglect. Another 12,140 (10%) calls related to the possible need for Child Welfare Services (CWS) and assessment of service need, of which 11,672 (96%) were referred for response. Figure 1 shows a month-by-month breakdown of the call volume at SCR for April through December 2013.
Figure 1: Number of Calls to SCR by Month (April–December 2013)

Number of Calls

20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000

14,925
Apr-13

16,373 14,230
May-13 Jun-13

12,870
Jul-13

12,375
Aug-13 Month

14,201

15,671 13,950

Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13

12,568
Dec-13

Source: DCF data

75 Calls are differentiated from reports or referrals because SCR can receive several calls related to one incident or in some cases one call can result in several separate reports.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 45

2. Quality of SCR Response:

a. Respond to callers promptly, with respectful, active listening skills

Quantitative or

b. Essential information gathered—identification of parents and other

Qualitative Measure

important family members

c. Decision making process based on information gathered and guided by

tools and supervision

Final Target

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
Between April 2013 and December 2013, the SCR continued to make system improvements related to staff training and quality assurance which the Monitor believes has enhanced the overall quality of SCR response. SCR improved the internal training of newly hired staff by implementing a new component to the training process that requires skilled SCR screeners to complete training status notes on trainee performance related to timeliness of response, information collection, documentation and decision making. This process assists with assessing the newly hired staff’s areas of strength and improvements, enabling the training to be tailored to the new hire’s individual skill level. DCF employees who transfer to SCR76 continue to receive up to 20 days of training with an emphasis on live-call training. Newly hired SCR staff spend the final week of their training period on the designated shift they are assigned. This process permits the supervisor to become an active participant in the screener’s training process.
In June 2013, two SCR supervisors graduated from professional leadership programs: the DCF Fellows Program and New Jersey Certified Public Manager’s (CPM) Program. These leadership trainings are part of an ongoing effort to increase supervisors’ capacity to address complex situations, measure results and assist in the implementation of sustained system change to better support screeners and improve outcomes for children and families. Additionally, in September 2013 three SCR screeners were accepted into the DCF/Rutgers School of Social Work Violence Against Women Program. This program is part of DCF’s effort to increase screeners’ knowledge about violence and its impact on children and families.
Quality assurance remains a priority for the SCR. As previously reported, a Quality Assurance Peer Review Team completes a daily review of all reports designated as information and referral (I&R)77 generated the previous business day. SCR staff evaluate 75 percent of all I&R calls received the previous business day to ensure they are properly categorized. Supervisory staff more closely examine the remaining 25 percent of I&R calls for proper case practice. To account for internal bias, reports identified with concerns are reviewed by casework supervisors who were not included in the referral’s decision making process. The SCR administrator performs a

76 All employees at SCR must have prior field experience. 77 A call is identified as an I&R call when it has been determined that CP&P intervention is not warranted, and (1) a caller is seeking a referral to one or more service providers, (2) a SCR screener determines that a referral is the
appropriate response to the concern raised by the caller or (3) the matter is referred back to the caller for handling
(e.g., police calling about non-abuse incident, school calling about educational neglect).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 46

daily review of randomly selected reports. SCR supervisors also review and evaluate a prescribed number of calls for their staff in order to continually assess their screeners' performance, identify areas in need of improvement and provide on-going training to strengthen staff skills.
During this monitoring period, work continued to update the call management system to allow screeners access to their own calls at their desktop via email so they can listen to the call as many times as they need as they write their report and to facilitate supervision. This upgrade, scheduled to be completed as of October 2014, will allow for immediate evaluation of screeners’ work by supervisors and will enable prompt supervisory feedback to screeners on their performance. In June 2013, NJ SPIRIT was updated allowing SCR to attach screening calls to summary intakes. In July 2013, SCR began attaching calls to CPS and CWS screening summary intakes allowing field staff the opportunity to hear first-hand what the caller reported. The Monitor anticipates that this will further enhance the overall quality of SCR practice.

B. Timeliness and Quality of Investigative Practice

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

3. Timeliness of Response: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be received by the field in a timely manner and commenced within the required response time as identified at SCR, but no later than 24 hours.

Final Target

a. For periods beginning July 1, 2009, and thereafter, 98% of investigations shall be received by the field in a timely manner.
b. For periods beginning July 1, 2009, and thereafter, 98% of investigations shall be commenced within the required response time.

Figure 2: Percentage of Investigations Received by the Field in a Timely Manner (June 2009 – December 2013)

100%

90% 96%

97%

98%

99% 99%

99% 98%

99%

100% Final Target (98%)

Percentage of Investigations

80%

70%

60%

50%
JJuunn--0099 DDeecc--0099
Source: DCF data

JJuunn--1100

DDeecc--1100

JJuunn--1111 DDeecc--1111 Month

JJuunn--1122 DMeacr--1123 DJuenc--1133

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 47

Figure 3: Percentage of Investigations Commenced within Required Response Time (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Investigations

100% 90% 80%

83% 84%

88% 88%

93% 89%

96%

Final Target (98%)
97%

70% 67%
60%

50%
JuJnu-n09-09 DDece-c0-909 JJuunn--1100

DDeecc--1100 JuJnu-n1-111 DeDce-c1-111

JuJunn-1-122 MDaerc-1-132 DeJcu-n1-313

Source: DCF data

Month

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
As of December 2013, DCF exceeded the final target by reaching performance of 100 percent for the timely transmittal of referrals to the field (Figure 2). DCF met the final target for commencing investigations within the required response time (Figure 3), for the first time this monitoring period78.
CP&P policy on timeliness of investigations requires receipt by the field of a report within one hour of call completion.79 During the month of December 2013, DCF received 4,281 referrals of child abuse and neglect requiring investigation. Of the 4,281 referrals, 3,941 (92%) referrals were received by the field in less than an hour of call completion. An additional 323 (8%) referrals were received by the field between one and three hours after call completion; for a total of 100 percent of referrals received by the field within three hours of call completion. The number of referrals received per month ranged from 5,813 in May 2013 to 4,165 in August 2013. The number of referrals in May and October 2013 (which are typically months of high referral for child protection agencies) were reported by DCF to be even higher than in the previous year. Between 97 and 100 percent of referrals were received by the field within three hours of call completion during the months of April through December 2013.
CP&P policy considers an investigation “commenced” when at least one of the alleged victim children has been seen by an investigator. During the month of December 2013, there were

78 The Monitor has determined that a requirement is met when DCF performance is within one percentage point of
the final target. 79 The Monitor currently assesses performance of receipt by the field in a timely manner with a three hour standard.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 48

4,119 CPS intakes applicable to this measure.80 Of the 4,119 intakes received, 1,031 intakes were coded for an immediate response and 3,088 intakes were coded for a response within 24 hours; 3,999 (97%) intakes were commenced within their required response time. Between April and December 2013, the percentage of monthly intakes commenced within their required response time ranged from 94 to 97 percent. For the first time, DCF has fully met the performance standard for this measure in this monitoring period.
Investigative Practice

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

4. Timeliness of Completion: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be completed within 60 days.
By June 30, 2010, 98% of all abuse/neglect investigations shall be completed within 60 days.

Figure 4: Percentage of Abuse/Neglect Investigations Completed within 60 days (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Abuse/Neglect Investigations

100%

90%

80%

70% 68%

71%

71%

60%

50%
JJuunn-0-909 DDeecc--0099

JJuunn--1100

70%

63%

60%

DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111 DDeecc--1111

Final Target (98%)

72%

65%

63%

JJuunn--1122 MDaer-c1-132 DecJu-1n-313

Source: DCF data

Month

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
This MSA Performance Measure requires that 98 percent of all abuse and neglect investigations be completed within 60 days. There were 4,135 intakes in December 2013 applicable to this measure. Of the 4,135 intakes, investigations were completed within 60 days on 2,609 (63%) intakes. An additional 1,005 (24%) investigations were completed between 61 and 90 days after receipt, for a total of 87 percent of investigations completed within 90 days. Between April and December 2013, monthly performance on investigation completion ranged between 62 and 71

80 Intakes are differentiated from referrals because SCR can receive several referrals related to one incident or in other instances, one referral can result in several intakes.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 49

percent. Performance on this measure does not meet the final target and has declined by nine percent since March 2013.
As reported in the prior monitoring period, a case record review of the quality of CP&P’s investigative practice was conducted in January 2013.81 This review examined the quality of practice of 324 CPS investigations assigned to DCF Local Offices between September 16 and September 29, 2012 involving 688 children.82
Overall, the reviewers found that 253 (78%) of the investigations were of acceptable quality. The findings of this review reflect some clear strengths in CP&P investigative case practice as well as areas in need of further development. To improve the quality of investigative practice and address recommendations from the review, CP&P has taken the following steps:
 Reviewing and Understanding a family’s prior child protection history: Through its use of the statewide ChildStat, the Focus on Supervision83 initiative and supervisory conferences, DCF has continued to highlight the importance of understanding a family’s child protection history when assessing a family’s overall functioning, prior interventions attempted and patterns of behaviors. During this monitoring period, CP&P changed NJ SPIRIT to allow for more concise family history information to be included at the end of the screening summary document, making it easily accessible to staff. This change is expected to go into effect in July 2014.
 Integrating collateral information into investigative decision making: CP&P issued a memo to all staff clarifying the policy for contacting collaterals84. The policy is also discussed with all staff during supervisory conferences. DCF has expressed concern that the Allegation Based System85 may be guiding practice too narrowly in determining which collaterals are most appropriate for which kind of allegations, and that as a result, staff are not appropriately assessing the family. To improve on the process of gathering information from collaterals, in December 2013, CP&P initiated a work group that was tasked with reviewing the Allegation Based System and determining what changes need to be made.
 Timeliness of investigation completion: During the previous monitoring period, CP&P instituted weekly key performance indicators phone calls with Area Directors, Local Office managers, and casework supervisors facilitated by a staff from the Office of Performance Management and Accountability. During these calls, technical assistance and support is provided to directly address barriers to the timeliness of investigation completion. Additionally, CP&P leadership has continued to encourage staff to complete

81 A full report on the findings and recommendations from the review can be found at:
http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/divisions/opma/docs/NJ%20DCF%20Investigations%20Review%20Report.pdf 82 These results have a ± 5% margin of error with 95% confidence. 83 Focus on Supervision is a case conferencing model that utilizes DCF contracted provider agency clinicians to co-
facilitate case conferences with CP&P casework supervisors. 84 Collaterals are defined as individuals having pertinent information regarding the family. 85 In an Allegation Based System, policy directs specific activities based on the identified allegation(s) of
maltreatment.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 50

and submit investigations at the 45 day mark thereby allowing supervisors time to review and ask for additional information as needed.
CP&P has not specifically addressed case record review recommendations related to interviewing fathers of alleged child victims or interviewing subject children alone.
On April 1, 2013, DCF instituted a new regulation that modified the system used to designate findings following completion of an investigation.86 Previously, DCF had a two tier system in which a finding was designated as either substantiated or unfounded. The new regulation adopts a four tier system in which a finding can be designated as either substantiated, established, not established or unfounded. This change has resulted in DCF’s ability to maintain the records of children in which the investigation determined that they were harmed or exposed to risk of harm, even where the statutory definition of child abuse or neglect could not be met. Maintaining these records provides workers with a more accurate history of families that can inform their assessments when new referrals are received.

C. Institutional Abuse Investigative Unit (IAIU): Investigations of Allegations of Child Maltreatment in Placements

The Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU) is responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect in child care facilities, detention centers, schools, and residential facilities, resource family care homes and other out-of-home care settings.87 From January to December 2013, IAIU received 3,182 referrals. This is an increase of 184 referrals (6%) over the same period in 2012. Figure 5 illustrates the proportion of IAIU referrals from different sources.

Figure 5: Referral Sources for All IAIU Referrals (January – December 2013) (n=3,182)

Facility 9%
Police 6%
Other 7%

Legal & Court Less than <1% Parent 16%
Relative 2%

Health 7%
Community Agency 12%
Friend/Neighbor/Comnmunity 8%

Self Anonymous 1%
8%

School 25%

Source: DCF Data *Percentage is greater or less than 100% due to rounding.
86 A detailed explanation of the four tier finding system can be found at http://www.nj.gov/dcf/families/dcpp/4Tier.pdf 87 CP&P (4-1-2013). IAIU Support Operations Manual, III E Institutional Abuse and Neglect, 200.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 51

1. Performance Measures for IAIU

IAIU Practice for Investigations in Placements

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

6. IAIU Practice for Investigations in Placements: a. Investigations in resource homes and investigations involving group homes, or other congregate care settings shall be completed within 60 days. b. Monitor will review mechanisms that provide timely feedback to other division (e.g., CSOC, OOL) and implementation of corrective action plans. c. Corrective action plans developed as a result of investigations of allegations re: placements will be implemented.
By June 2007 and thereafter, 80% of IAIU investigations shall be completed within 60 days.

Figure 6: Percentage of IAIU Investigations Completed within 60 days (June 2009 – December 2013)*

100%

Percentage of IAIU Investigations

90%
86% 80%
79% 70%

89% 85%

88%

86%

87% 85%

83%

Final Target (80%)

60%

50%
JuJnu-n0-909 DDeecc--0099

JJuunn--1100 DDeecc--1100 JuJunn-1-111 DDeecc--1111

JJuunn--1122 MDaerc--1132 DJuenc--1133

Month
Source: DCF data *The performance percentage shown on the last month of each monitoring period (June, March and December) is the average of the prior six month’s performance in IAIU investigation completion within 60 days during that six month monitoring period. The performance percentage shown for December 2013 is the average of the prior nine month’s performance in completing IAIU investigations within 60 days during the nine month monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 52

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
DCF manages and tracks IAIU performance daily, calculating the proportion of investigations open 60 days or more statewide and within regional offices. Between 79 and 88 percent of all IAIU investigations were open less than 60 days (see Table 2) during the months of April through December 2013.
The MSA does not make any distinction on the type of investigations IAIU conducts based on the allegation or location of the alleged abuse. Instead, the 60 day completion standard applies to all IAIU investigations. In reviewing IAIU performance, the Monitor requests data separately on investigations of maltreatment in foster care settings (resource family homes and congregate care facilities) as well as from other settings (e.g., schools, day care). Table 2 displays IAIU’s reported overall performance for the dates cited, in addition to the timeliness of completion of investigations in resource family homes and congregate care facilities. DCF continues to exceed the performance target for this measure.

Table 2: IAIU Investigative Timeliness: Percent of Investigations Completed within 60 days
(April–December 2013)*

Date APRIL

All IAIU investigations completed within 60 days
82%

MAY

81%

JUNE

81%

JULY

79%

AUGUST

83%

SEPTEMBER

83%

OCTOBER

88%

NOVEMBER

85%

DECEMBER

81%

Source: DCF data, IAIU, Daily Summary Reports *Data as of last date in each month.

Investigations in resource family homes and congregate care completed within 60 days
88%
84%
85%
85%
92%
88%
89%
90%
85%

2. IAIU Investigations Corrective Action Monitoring
Every IAIU investigation results in a finding letter which is sent to a facility or resource home. This letter cites the investigative conclusion and, when applicable, identifies concerns and makes a request for corrective action. Every finding letter is sent to DCF’s Office of Licensing (OOL). When a request for corrective action is made, DCF policy is that the facility administrator or the resource home unit responsible for supervising the resource home is required to develop and

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 53

submit a corrective action plan (CAP) within 30 calendar days of the date on the IAIU finding letter.88 IAIU’s Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) staff is responsible for monitoring the development and implementation of corrective action plans to assure satisfactory resolution of all concerns identified in the finding letter. CQI staff are also responsible for determining whether the CAP is successfully completed and whether it is approved, disapproved or will remain open and pending. All CAPs require the submission of supporting documentation to confirm the plan was implemented and completed. As a result, CAPs remain open until all documentation is received. DCF policy does not stipulate time frames for when CQI staff must approve successfully completed CAPs. Time frames for the successful completion of CAPs vary according to the elements of the plan. For example, a CAP may include intensive monitoring of a resource home for a six month period. In that instance, IAIU’s CQI staff will review documentation of the six month monitoring to determine whether the identified concerns have been addressed and, once they are addressed, will approve the CAP as successfully completed.
Between April and December 2013, IAIU issued 449 corrective action requests involving resource family homes, group homes, and residential facilities where children were placed. Information reported from the IAIU corrective action database indicate that 276 (61%) of 449 CAPs had been approved as successfully completed and 175 (39%) corrective action requests were outstanding or pending resolution as of December 31, 2013. Of the 175, 19 CAPS are not yet due.
Review of Corrective Action Plans (CAPs)
The Monitor reviewed ten randomly selected corrective action requests that resulted from investigation findings between April and December 2013 to look at feedback processes between IAIU and other divisions (e.g. OOL) and to ensure CAPs are being developed and implemented. The sample included three resource family homes, two kinship resource homes, three group homes and two residential facilities. CAPs were developed and submitted for eight of the ten requests; four of the eight were developed and submitted within 30 days from the date of the finding letter. IAIU’s CQI staff accepted six of the eight CAPs as successfully implemented. The remaining two of the eight CAPs were pending while staff awaited supporting documentation. CAPs from this sample resulted in the removal of children from resource homes, the monitoring of resource homes, the reduction of a resource home’s capacity, the suspension of resource homes, the closing of a resource home, the re-training of resource parents and facility staff on CP&P policies and procedures, the training of a resource parent and facility staff and the termination of staff at a group home and at a residential facility.
Additionally, the Monitor reviewed five randomly selected corrective action requests resulting from investigation finding letters dated between April and December 2013 which were pending approval as successfully completed by IAIU CQI staff ninety days and beyond. The CAPs pending approval were reviewed to determine the reasons why they remained pending and if IAIU staff were following up appropriately on the identified concerns. The sample included four resource family homes and one kinship family home. CAPs were developed and submitted for three of the five requests; one of the three was submitted within 30 days from date of the finding

88 CP&P (4-1-2013). IAIU Support Operations Manual, III E Institutional Abuse and Neglect, 704.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 54

letter. IAIU’s CQI staff did not accept any of the three CAPs as of December 31, 2013 for varying reasons. CAPs in this sample were not accepted because OOL violations remained open and unabated, the CAP did not comprehensively address all concerns identified and documentation verifying that a resource parent completed training was missing. For the two CAPs in the sample that had not been developed and submitted as of December 31, 2013, there was evidence that IAIU staff’ had sent letters and emails to supervisors of resource home units to follow up on the CAP.
The CAPs reviewed appeared to adequately address the incidents which prompted the IAIU investigation. There was evidence of appropriate communication between divisions in all cases reviewed, particularly between IAIU and OOL regarding the licensure of resource homes and facilities under investigation. All communication on record occurred via email or inter-office memos. In addition, IAIU hosts monthly “systems partners” meetings with OOL and SCR to ensure that concerns identified during IAIU investigations are communicated to all the system partners. The Monitor plans on attending these meetings during the next monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 55

V. IMPLEMENTING THE CASE PRACTICE MODEL
DCF continues to train on and reinforce high quality case practice according to New Jersey’s Case Practice Model (CPM). The CPM is designed to guide and support staff towards a strengthbased and family-centered approach that ensures the safety, permanency and well-being of children. This practice requires engagement with children, youth and families through teamwork and crafting individualized case plans with families and children.
DCF is holding weekly conference calls among DCF leadership, Area Directors and their Local Office manager to review individual performance on specific key indicators, including visitation, Family Team Meetings (FTMs) and case plan development. These weekly calls have led to more consistent use of quantitative and qualitative data to support positive outcomes for children and families.
The Performance Measures discussed below measure progress on some of the CPM activities using data from NJ SPIRIT and data collected during the state’s QR process, a case review process led by DCF’s Office of Quality discussed in more detail in Section XIV.
A. Activities Supporting the Implementation of the Case Practice Model
A critical component of CP&P’s CPM is its focus on coaching, facilitating and supervising Family Team Meetings (FTMs), where families and their formal and informal supports meet to discuss the families’ progress. CP&P continues to build its capacity to hold FTMs, primarily through its Implementation Specialists. CP&P has ten Implementation Specialists, one in each area. Their primary responsibility is to provide ongoing assistance to staff to practice according to the CPM. Implementation Specialists train and mentor staff to serve as facilitators, coaches and master coaches who conduct FTMs and implement the CPM.89 They also conduct training at Local Offices tailored to staff needs, particularly on topics related to effective engagement of families and building appropriate and functioning teams that support families.
As of December 31, 2013, DCF developed 2,211 staff as FTM facilitators, 324 as coaches and 142 as master coaches. Table 3 shows the number of facilitators, coaches and master coaches by CP&P area.

89 Coaches are CP&P staff of varying levels who are trained specifically to lead FTMs; master coaches train Local Office and Area staff to become facilitators and coaches. Facilitators are trained to conduct Family Team Meetings according to protocol and the principles and values of DCF’s CPM.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 56

Table 3: Number of FTM Facilitators, Coaches and Master Coaches Developed as of December 31, 2013

County Atlantic Bergen Burlington Camden Cape May Cumberland Essex Gloucester Hudson Hunterdon Mercer Middlesex Monmouth Morris Ocean Passaic Salem Somerset Sussex Union Warren
Total Source: DCF

Facilitators 69 116 116 193 57 59
278 80
190 22 108 141 93 81 111 135 46 64 36 166 50 2,211

Coaches 14 34 17 23 10 12 28 11 25 4 13 13 18 15 24 21 7 6 7 19 3 324

Master Coaches
7 9 8 9 3 4 15 2 15 0 5 7 9 6 9 13 1 0 4 14 2 142

ChildStat Meetings
Since September 2010, DCF has held monthly ChildStat meetings, which have become central to DCF’s continuous quality improvement processes.90 The ChildStat process encourages learning through self-diagnosis and data analyses. At the ChildStat meetings Local Office leadership present practice issues, including data on key performance indicators from the most recent two fiscal quarters compared with statewide data. As additional offices participate in ChildStat, more staff from many levels within DCF have become better able to use data to assess Local Office performance. During this monitoring period DCF’s focus for the ChildStat process was cases involving families who had a prior unfounded CPS investigation within 12 months of a current

90 Drawn from CompStat in New York City, ChildStat is a process wherein organizations use quantitative and qualitative data from multiple contexts to understand and attempt to improve service delivery.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 57

referral. During the next monitoring period, DCF will shift its focus to include cases involving families whose children have been reunited with them between three and six months prior to the ChildStat meeting. The focus will be on the quality of the case practice and services offered to families in their own home to encourage and promote engagement with service providers in the community, frequently an important feature of successful reunification. DCF has expanded the number of outside stakeholders and partners who now attend its ChildStat meetings. The Monitor continues to regularly attend DCF’s ChildStat meetings and supports DCF’s progress in promoting self-examination and diagnosis through quality data.
Concurrent Planning Practice
DCF workers hold case reviews at five and ten months into a child’s placement for staff to address concurrent planning, a practice used throughout the country in which workers work with families with children in out-of-home placement to reunify children as quickly as possible while simultaneously pursuing alternative permanency options should reunification efforts fail. Staff also conduct “enhanced reviews” after a child has been in placement for five and ten months to carry out its concurrent planning required by the MSA. Enhanced reviews occur in all CP&P Local Offices.
Statewide, in December 2013, 99 percent of applicable families had required five month reviews, and 94 percent had required ten month reviews.
As Table 4 reflects, in December 2013, 99 percent of five month reviews due that month were completed timely statewide. Between April and December 2013, monthly performance on this measure ranged from 93 to 100 percent.

Table 4: Five Month Enhanced Review (April–December 2013)

Apr-13 # %

Reviews Completed w/in 254 98% five months

Reviews Not

Completed w/in

6

2%

five months

Totals 260 100%

Source: DCF data

May-13 # %
259 100%
1 0% 260 100%

Jun-13 # %
289 100%

1

0%

290 100%

Jul-13 # %
267 98%

6

2%

273 100%

Aug-13 # %
295 99%

2

1%

297 100%

Sep-13 # %
288 93%

23

7%

311 100%

Oct-13 # %
367 98%

7

2%

374 100%

Nov-13 # %
299 99%

3

1%

302 100%

Dec-13 # %
273 99%

4

1%

277 100%

Table 5 shows that statewide in December 2013, 94 percent of ten month reviews due that month were completed timely. Between April and December 2013, monthly performance on this measure ranged from 90 to 96 percent.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 58

Table 5: Ten Month Enhanced Review (April–December 2013)

Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13

# % # %# %

Reviews Completed w/in 256 ten months
Reviews Not Completed w/in 17 ten months

94% 210 6% 9

96% 206 95% 4% 12 6%

Totals 273 100% 219 100% 218 101%*

Source: DCF data *Percentage is greater than 100 due to rounding.

Jul-13 # %
263 93%

21

7%

284 100%

Aug-13 # %
222 93%
17 7% 239 100%

Sep-13 # %
234 90%
25 10% 259 100%

Oct-13 # %
198 95%

10

5%

208 100%

Nov-13 # %
173 92%

15

8%

188 100%

Dec-13 # %

215

94%

15

7%

230 101%*

In December 2013, 72 percent of cases were transferred to an Adoption worker in the required five days after a change of goal to adoption.
The MSA requires CP&P to transfer a case to an Adoption worker within five business days after a child’s permanency goal has been changed to adoption (Section II.G.2.c). As Table 6 reflects, in December 2013, 72 percent of cases were transferred to an Adoption worker within the required timeframe. Between April and December 2013, monthly performance on transfers within five days ranged from 59 to 80 percent; during these same months, performance on transfers to an Adoption worker within 30 days ranged from 79 to 97 percent of applicable cases.

Table 6: Assignment to Adoption Worker within 5 days of Goal Change to Adoption (April–December 2013)

Apr-13 # %

May-13 # %

Jun-13 # %

Jul-13 # %

Aug-13 # %

Sep-13 # %

Oct-13 # %

Nov-13 # %

Dec-13 # %

Within 5 days
6-20 days

98 80% 94 74% 82 77% 84 69% 76 68% 65 59% 87 70% 61 69% 100 72%

8

7%

15 12%

3 3% 18 15% 12 11% 19 17% 24 19% 13 15% 29 21%

21- 30 days

0

0%

0 0%

2 2%

1 1% 8

7%

3

3%

5

4% 6

7% 6 4%

31 or More days

9

7%

10 8%

9 9% 15 12% 9 8%

3

3%

9

7%

8

9% 3

2%

Not Yet Assigned**

8

7%

8 6% 10 9%

3 3%

7 6% 21 19%

0

0%

0

0% 1

1%

Not Able to

Determine (Missing

0

0%

hearing date)

0 0%

0 0%

0 0%

0 0%

0 0%

1

1%

0

0% 0

0%

Totals 123 101%* 127 100% 106 100% 121 100% 112 100% 111 101%* 126 101%* 88 100% 139 100%

Source: DCF data *Percentage is greater than 100 due to rounding. **April – June 2013 data were extracted on 9/12/13; July – September 2013 data were extracted on 10/28/13; October – November were extracted on 1/5/14; and December 2013 data were extracted on 3/31/14.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 59

B. Performance Measures on Family Team Meetings and Case Planning
Family Team Meetings (FTMs) are intended to work in concert with individualized case planning to support improved results for children and families. Workers are trained and coached to hold FTMs at key decision points in the life of a case, such as when a child enters placement, when a child has a change of placement and/or when there is a need to adjust a case plan. Working at optimal capacity, FTMs enable families, providers, formal and informal supports to exchange information that can be critical to coordinating and following up on services, examining and solving problems, and achieving positive outcomes. Meetings are to be scheduled according to the family’s availability in an effort to get as many family members and family supports as possible around the table. Engaging the family, the core of New Jersey’s CPM, is a critical component of successful family teaming.
There has been improvement in performance on incorporating FTMs as a consistent part of DCF’s case practice. The improvement has been slower than desired despite intensive efforts to train, coach and supervise staff over the past several years. During this monitoring period, DCF focused on diagnosing the root cause of some of these challenges, including how to accurately assess and document those families that do not want to or are unavailable to participate in FTMs. Two implementation specialists and 23 Master Coaches conducted an “FTM Focus Pilot” in Hudson and Bergen counties for families requiring FTMs between December 13, 2013 and January 31, 2014. The pilot was designed to explore whether the assignment of a designated facilitator would positively impact the quality, rate of completion and documentation of FTMs. DCF hopes to learn from the FTM Focus Pilot whether to modify its current model of conducting FTMs.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 60

Family Involvement and Effective Use of Family Team Meetings

7. Family Involvement and Effective Use of Family Team Meetings: A family

team (involving parents, youth and appropriate formal and informal supports)

shall meet and plan together. The team should be involved in planning &

decision making throughout a case and have the skills, family knowledge and

Quantitative or

abilities to solve and help to organize effective services for the child and family. Number of family team meetings at key decision points:

Qualitative Measure

a. For children newly entering placement, the number/percent who have a

family team meeting within 30 days of entry.

b. For all other children in placement, the number/percent who have at least

one family team meeting each quarter.

c. Family Teamwork

Final Target

a. By June 30, 2010, family meetings held prior to or within 30 days of entry for 90% of new entries and 90% of pre-placements.
b. By June 30, 2010, family meetings held for 90% of children at least once per quarter.
c. By June 30, 2011, 90% of cases show evidence in QR of acceptable team formation and functioning.

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
While performance improved, DCF did not meet the final target requiring FTMs for 90 percent of children prior to or within 30 days of a child entering foster care, for pre-placements, and at least once per quarter thereafter.
During the previous monitoring period and continuing from April through December 2013, DCF was engaged in an effort with Area Directors, Local Office managers and line staff to both improve engagement with parents to encourage participation in FTMs and to improve documentation and data entry to account for legitimate reasons why FTMs do not occur, either because the parent is unavailable or because the parent declined to attend. The parties agreed that, consistent with the previous monitoring period, while the state was involved in this selfdiagnosis and corrective action, the report’s documented progress would include only the number of FTMs that have actually occurred. After the conclusion of the monitoring period, DCF provided the Monitor with additional data indicating that after successfully clarifying and implementing policy, it had confidence that workers were properly using and documenting exceptions and with that information had approached reaching the final target on this performance measure. Given the timing, the Monitor has not yet been able to conduct the case review needed to validate this data. The Monitor and DCF will conduct a statistically valid case record review to validate the data and issue a supplemental letter on this measure prior to the next full monitoring report.

According to NJ SPIRIT data, and counting only those FTMs that actually occurred, in December 2013, out of 295 possible FTMs, 202 (69%) occurred within 30 days of removal; from April to December 2013, monthly performance ranged from 43 to 69 percent. Appendix B-1 provides performance data on FTMs held within 30 days by Local Office for the month of December 2013. The state’s performance on FTMs that occurred (even without excluding from

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 61

the universe FTMs where the parent was unavailable or declined to participate) has significantly improved from the previous monitoring period.91

Table 7: Family Team Meetings Held within 30 days (April – December 2013)

Month APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Source: DCF data

Total Number of Applicable
Children 403
439 374
338
379 386
398
331 295

Number of Children with Initial FTMs Held within 30 days
199
187
173
171
177
178
224
207
202

Percent 49% 43% 46% 51% 47% 46% 56% 63% 69%

Performance on quarterly FTMs also improved. Using the same methodology and reporting only on FTMs that actually occurred, in December 2013, out of a possible 1,854 quarterly FTMs, 1,005 (54%) occurred; from April to December 2013, monthly performance ranged from 43 to 54 percent.92 Appendix B-2 provides performance data on quarterly FTMs by Local Office for the month of December 2013.

91 Using the same methodology, in March 2013, out of 358 possible FTMs, 200 (56%) of FTMs occurred within 30 days of removal. As shown in Appendix B-1, there is wide variation in Local Office compliance, with one third of
Local Offices meeting the final target for FTMs, and another 9 percent were within 10 percent of the final target. 92 Using the same methodology, in March 2013, out of a possible 1,758 FTMs, 815 (46%) occurred quarterly.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 62

Table 8: Quarterly Family Team Meetings Held (April–December 2013)

Month APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Source: DCF data

Total Number of Applicable Children 1,823 1,780
1,747 1,806
1,837
1,744 1,759
1,844
1,854

Number of Children with Quarterly FTMs
Held 858 857
766 776
858
793 829
928
1,005

Percent 47% 48% 44% 43% 47% 46% 47% 50% 54%

Figure 7: Cases Rated Acceptable on Family Involvement and Effective Use of Family Team Meetings (April–December 2013) (n=133)

100% 80%

Final Target (90%)

Percentage of Family Involvement

60%

40%

32%

20%

(43)

0% Cases Rated Acceptable
Source: DCF, QR results Reported performance based upon QR results from cases reviewed between April to December 2013.
Performance as of December 31, 2013:
DCF did not meet the target requiring that 90 percent of cases show evidence in the QR of acceptable team formation and functioning, the quality indicator used to report on family involvement and effective use of FTMs. For cases rated as acceptable, there was evidence that

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 63

persons who provided both formal and informal supports to children/youth and families had formed a working team that met, talked and planned together to help children/youth and families meet their goals. For cases rated as unacceptable, there was evidence in most cases of initial team formation but less effective ongoing team functioning to support the case goals and/or some critical members of a necessary team were not involved.
Results of 133 cases reviewed from April to December 2013 using the QR indicate that both team formation and functioning were rated acceptable in 32 percent of cases, an eight percent improvement from the previous monitoring period, but still far below required performance.93
Timeliness of Case Planning-Initial Plans
DCF policy and the MSA require a case plan be developed within 30 days of a child entering placement. For the first time, the state has met the final target on this measure (see Figure 8), a significant accomplishment, representing a dramatic improvement from prior periods.94

Quantitative or

10. Timeliness of Initial Plans: For children entering care, number/percent of case

Qualitative Measure

plans developed within 30 days.

Final Target

By June 30, 2010, 95% of case plans for children and families are completed within 30 days.

93 133 cases were reviewed as part of the Quality Reviews (QRs) conducted from April to December 2013. 43 of
133 cases (32%) rated acceptable on both areas of Family Teamwork, team formation and team functioning; 62 of 133 cases (47%) rated acceptable on team formation; and 50 of 133 cases (38%) cases rated acceptable on team functioning. 94 While the state met the standard for this measure in the previous monitoring period in the months of February and March 2013, it did not meet the final target for the remaining seven months.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 64

Figure 8: Percentage of Children Entering Care with Case Plans Developed within 30 days
(June 2009 – December 2013)

100% 80%

96%

97%

Final Target (95%)

Percentage of Children

60% 40% 42% 42%

50%

56%

61%

56%

45%

20%

0%
JJuunn-0-099 DDeecc--0099

JuJnu-n1-010 DDece-c1-010 JJuunn-1-111 DDeecc--1111 Month

JuJnu-n12-12 DMeca-1r-213 JuDne-1c3-13

Source: DCF data

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
In December 2013, 289 (97%) out of a total of 297 case plans were completed within 30 days. Additionally, a total of 295 (99%) cases had case plans completed within 60 days.
As shown in Table 9, between April and December 2013, the timely development of case plans ranged from 92 to 97 percent each month. Because performance meets or is within one percentage point of the standard for all but one month during the monitoring period, the Monitor considers DCF to have met the final target of 95 percent for the first time.95

95 While the state met the standard for this measure in the previous monitoring period in the months of February and March 2013, it did not meet the final target for the remaining seven months of the monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 65

Table 9: Case Plans Developed within 30 days of Child Entering Placement (April–December 2013)

Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 Jul-13

# % #%# % # %

Case Plans Completed in 30 377
days

Case Plans

Completed in

13

31-60 days

Case Plans Not

Completed after

2

60 days

96% 415 94% 351 3% 25 6% 18 1% 0 0% 3

94% 319 95% 5% 8 2% 1% 8 2%

Totals 392 100% 440 100% 372 100% 335 99%*

Source: DCF data *Percentage is greater or less than 100 due to rounding.

Aug-13 # %
346 92%
31 8%
0 0% 377 100%

Sep-13 # %
362 94%
14 4%
8 2% 384 100%

Oct-13 # %
373 96%
14 4%
2 1% 389 101%*

Nov-13 # %
315 94%

20

6%

1

0%

336 100%

Dec-13 # %
289 97%

6

2%

2 1% 297 100%

Timeliness of Case Planning-Current Plans

Quantitative or

11. Timeliness of Current Plans: For children entering care, number/percent of case

Qualitative Measure

plans shall be reviewed and modified as necessary at least every six months.

Final Target

By June 30, 2010, 95% of case plans for children and families will be reviewed and modified at least every six months.

Figure 9: Percentage of Case Plans Reviewed and Modified as Necessary at least every 6 months (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Case Plans

100% 80% 60% 64% 69% 40%

99%

69%

67%

71%

70% 63%

98% Final Target (95%)

20%

0%
JJuunn-0-909 DDeecc--0099

JJuunn--1100

DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111 DDeecc--1111 JJuunn--1122 MDare-c1-312 DeJcu-n1-313

Month

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 66

Source: DCF data
Performance as of December 31, 2013:
DCF policy requires that case plans be reviewed and modified at least every six months. From April through December 2013, between 94 and 99 percent of case plans were modified within the required six month timeframe. In December 2013, 98 percent of case plans had been modified as necessary. Notably, DCF met or exceeded the final target of 95 percent for each month of this monitoring period and as a result the Monitor considers the final target of 95 percent to be met for the first time.96 This is a significant accomplishment.

Table 10: Case Plans Updated Every 6 months (April–December 2013)

Apr-13 # %

May-13 # %

Jun-13 # %

Case Plans Completed within six months
Outstanding

1,150 99% 1,151

15

1%

13

99% 1,115

98%

1%

29

3%

Totals 1,165 100% 1,164 100% 1,144 101%*

Source: DCF data *Percentage is greater than 100 due to rounding.

Jul-13 # %

1,170

98%

29 1,199

2% 100%

Aug-13 # %

Sep-13 # %

Oct-13 # %

Nov-13 # %

Dec-13 # %

1,136

97% 1,161

95% 1,120 96% 1,158 94% 1,106 98%

39 1,175

3% 100%

56 1,217

5% 45 100% 1,165

4%

74

100% 1,232

6%

21

100% 1,127

2% 100%

Quality of Case Planning and Service Plans

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

12. Quality of Case and Service Planning: The child’s/family’s case plan shall be developed with the family and shall be individualized and appropriately address the child’s needs for safety, permanency and well-being. The case plan shall provide for the services and interventions needed by the child and family to meet identified goals, including services necessary for children and families to promote children’s development and meet their educational, physical and mental health needs. The case plan and services shall be modified to respond to the changing needs of the child and family and the results of prior service efforts. (13 and 14 have been merged with 12 above)

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 90% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QR.

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
DCF policy and the MSA requires family involvement in case planning; plans that are appropriate and individualized to the circumstances of the child/youth and family; oversight of the plans implemented to ensure case goals are being met; and course correction when needed.

96 In the previous monitoring period the state met this performance measure in the month of March, but not for the remaining eight months.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 67

As Figure 10 indicates, DCF did not meet the target requiring that 90 percent of cases rate as acceptable for case planning and service plans as measured by the QR. Cases rated as acceptable demonstrate evidence that the child and families’ needs are addressed in the case plan, the plan directly addresses the needs and risks that brought the child to DCF’s attention, appropriate family members were included in the plan and the implementation of the service process is being tracked and adjusted when necessary. DCF results of 133 cases reviewed from April through December 2013 indicate that 41 percent of cases were rated as acceptable on both QR indicators ‘Case Planning Process’ and ‘Tracking and Adjusting’.97 To specifically address concerns about the quality of the case planning process, DCF’s Office of Training and Professional Development partnered with Area and Local Office leadership to pilot a new, customized, on site Transfer of Learning (TOL) training model on case planning that features “real time” evaluation tools and strategies for supervisors and workers.

Figure 10: Cases Rated Acceptable on Quality of Case and Service Planning (April–December 2013) (n=133)

100%

Percentage of Case Planning

80%

60%

40%

41%

(54)

20%

0% Cases Rated Acceptable
Source: DCF, QR results Reported performance based upon QR results from cases reviewed between April to December 2013.

Final Target (90%)

97 54 of 133 (41%) in and out-of-home cases rated acceptable on both the Case Planning Process and Tracking and Adjusting indicators; 62 of 133 cases (47%) rated acceptable on Case Planning Process; and 79 of 133 cases (59%) rated acceptable on Tracking and Adjusting.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 68

Planning to Meet Children’s Educational Needs

Quantitative or

15. Educational Needs: Children will be enrolled in school and DCF will have

Qualitative Measure

taken appropriate actions to insure that their educational needs will be met.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 90% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QR.

Figure 11: Cases Rated Acceptable on Planning to Meet Educational Needs
(April–December 2013) (n=49)98

100%

Percentage of Case Planning

80%

60%

67% (33)

40%

20%

0% Cases Rated Acceptable
Source: DCF, QR results Reported performance based upon QR results from cases reviewed between April to December 2013.

Final Target (90%)

Performance as of December 31, 2013: The QR Child and Family Status ratings, ‘Stability of School Placement’ and ‘Learning and Development’ (for children over the age of 5), are measured together on each case to assess how children are faring in their educational setting. As Figure 11 indicates, performance on this measure based on April through December 2013 QR results is 67 percent acceptable. Forty-nine cases were applicable for this performance measure because cases must involve children five and older and in out-of-home placement. For cases rated as acceptable, there was evidence of few disruptions of school settings and a low risk of such disruptions as well as evidence that the children were achieving key development milestones. Thirty-three of 49 applicable cases (67%) rated acceptable on both the Stability (school) and Learning and Development (age 5 and older) QR indicators99.
98 As noted, although 133 cases were reviewed for the QR, only 49 involved children over the age of 5 and in outof-home placement. 99 Fifty-seven of 67 cases (85%) rated acceptable on Stability (school); 42 of 52 (81%) cases rated acceptable on Learning and Development (age 5 and older).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 69

C. Performance Benchmarks Related to Safety and Risk Assessment
Individualized, comprehensive assessment is a process in which information concerning the needs, problems, circumstances and resources of the family, youth and children are collected, evaluated and updated at key points of decision-making and whenever major changes in family circumstances occur. The decision to close a case should reflect the achievement of satisfactory outcomes with regard to the children or youth's safety, permanence and well-being. An assessment of both safety and risk prior to case closure is necessary to ensure these outcomes have been achieved.

Safety and Risk Assessment

Quantitative or

8. Safety and Risk Assessment: Number/percent of closed cases where a safety

Qualitative Measure

and risk of harm assessment is done prior to case closure.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, (a) 98% of investigations will have a safety assessment completed, (b) 98% of investigations will have a risk assessment completed and (c) 98% of non-investigation cases will have a risk assessment or risk re-assessment completed within 30 days of case closure.100

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
Performance during the months of April through December 2013 for both safety and risk assessments completed prior to investigation completion exceeded the 98 percent required by the MSA final target. For example, in December 2013, there were 4,519 applicable101 investigation cases closed. Of these 4,519 investigations, 4,518 (100%) investigations had a safety assessment completed prior to investigation completion and 4,519 (100%) investigations had a risk assessment completed prior to investigation completion.
Performance on conducting a risk reassessment 30 days prior to non-investigative case closure ranged from 61 to 94 percent (see Figure 12) between the months of April through December 2013. For example, in December 2013, there were 675 applicable102 cases closed. Of these 675 cases, 623 (92%) cases had a risk reassessment completed within 30 days prior to case closure; 17 (3%) cases had a risk reassessment completed within 31 to 60 days prior to case closure. Data by Local Office for December 2013 reflects a performance range between 72 and 100 percent

100 In order to be consistent with practice expectations, in May 2012, the Parties agreed to revise the final target from, “By December 31, 2010, 98% of cases will have a safety and risk of harm assessment completed prior to case closure” to the language stated above, which allows for separate reporting on investigations and non-investigations cases. 101 In December 2013, an additional 23 investigations were closed; however, those cases were marked as “unable to make contact with children/family” and were excluded from the calculations. 102Applicable cases include reunification and do not include adoption, kinship legal guardianship or emancipation.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 70

(see Appendix B-3)103 among offices with many Local Offices meeting the performance required by the final target. DCF added a hard edit to NJ SPIRIT on May 23, 2013 that requires a risk assessment to be complete before the NJ SPIRIT system will allow staff to close a case. This hard edit has resulted in a significant improvement in performance.
Figure 12: Performance on Safety Assessments Completed prior to Investigation Completion, Risk Assessments Completed prior to Investigation Completion and Risk
Reassessments Completed within 30 days prior to Case Closure (April–December 2013)

100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

89%

92%

92%

93%

92%

94%

92%

80% 75%

61% 60%

Final Target (98%)

40%

20%

0% Apr-13

May-13

Jun-13

Jul-13

Aug-13

Sep-13

Oct-13

Risk Assessment Prior to Investigation Completion Safety Assessment Prior to Investigation Completion Risk Reassessments Prior to Case Closure

Nov-13

Dec-13

Source: DCF data

103 Cases assigned to adoption workers are included in Appendix D-2 only for the few cases where the goal of the child in placement was changed from adoption to reunification. Prior to case closure, the Adoption worker is required to complete a risk reassessment for those cases when the child exits to reunification.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 71

D. Performance Measures on Caseworker, Parent-Child and Sibling Visits
The visits of children with their workers, parents and siblings are integral to the principles of the CPM and are important events that can ensure children’s safety, maintain and strengthen family connections, and increase children’s opportunities to achieve permanency.
The state’s performance for most MSA visitation measures remained relatively unchanged, with the exception of visits between siblings who are not placed together, which improved by eight percent. Local Office data were reviewed for several measures and as stated in the previous monitoring period, variations in performance are evident. Local Office data for those measures are discussed below and can be found in Appendices B-4 through B-6.
During this monitoring period, the Monitor and DCF agreed to use a new methodology to determine performance for caseworker visits with parents. The previous methodology excluded instances where a caseworker documented that a parent was unavailable or did not require a visit. Analysis of a sample of these cases found that these exceptions were not consistently applied in an appropriate manner. Performance for the current monitoring period does not exclude these instances and only reports compliance for those visits that actually occurred. Due to this change, current performance is not comparable with previously reported performance when the exceptions were applied.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 72

Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

16. Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody: Number/percent of children where caseworker has two visits per month (one of which is in the placement) during the first two months of an initial placement or subsequent placement for children in state custody.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, during the first two months of an initial placement or subsequent placement, 95% of children had at least two visits per month.

Figure 13: Percentage of Children who had Two Visits per month during First Two months of an Initial or Subsequent Placement (December 2009 – September 2013)

Percentage of Children

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 18% 0%
Dec-09

43% Jun-10

50% Dec-10

Source: DCF data

58%

55%

Jun-11 Dec-11 Month

84%

Final Target (95%)
89%

53%

Jun-12 MDaerc--1132 SeJpu-n1-313

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 73

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
Performance data presented below were determined through an internal audit conducted by DCF of all applicable cases in September 2013. The Monitor conducted a secondary review of a small sample of these cases. Performance data for other months during the monitoring period were not fully validated and are not presented in this report.
During the month of September 2013, 89 percent of applicable children had two visits per month during the first two months of an initial or subsequent placement. Specifically, there were 507 children who were in an initial or subsequent placement and remained in the placement for a full two months; 452 (89%) had documented visits by their workers twice per month with at least one visit occurring in the placement setting.

Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

17. Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody: Number/percent of children where caseworker has at least one caseworker visit per month in the child’s placement.

Final Target

By June 30, 2010, 98% of children shall have at least one caseworker visit per month during other parts of a child’s time in out-of-home care.

Figure 14: Percentage of Children in Out-of-Home Care who had at least One Caseworker Visit per month in his/her Placement (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Children

100%

90%

89%

88%

80% 82%

70%

60%

50%
JunJu-0n-909 DDece-c0-099 JJuunn--1100

88%

91%

91%

91%

94% 94%

DeDce-c1-010

JuJnu-n1-111 Month

DeDce-c1-111 JuJnun-1-122

DeMc-a1r-213 DJuecn--1133

Final Target (98%)

Source: DCF data

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 74

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
Between April and December 2013, performance ranged monthly from 93 to 95 percent of children in out-of-home placement with at least one caseworker visit per month in his/her placement.104 For example, in December 2013 there were 6,774 children in out-of-home placement for a full month; 6,382 (94%) were visited by their caseworker at least one time per month in their placement. An additional 310 (5%) children had at least one caseworker visit per month in a location other than their placement, for a total of 99 percent of children with at least one caseworker visit per month regardless of location. The Monitor considers this performance measure to be partially met.
In December, performance on this measure by Local Office ranged from 87 to 99 percent; five Local Offices met the MSA standard and over half of the Local Offices performed at 95 percent or higher (see Appendix B-4).
Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

18. Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members: The caseworker shall have at least two face-to-face visits per month with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody with a goal of reunification.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, 95% of families have at least twice per month face-to-face contact with their caseworker when the permanency goal is reunification.

104 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: April 2013, 95%; May 2013, 94%; June 2013, 94%; July 2013, 94%; August 2013, 95%; September 2013, 94%; October 2013, 94%; November 2013, 93%; December 2013, 94%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 75

Figure 15: Percentage of Families who have at least Twice per month Face-to-Face
Contact with Caseworker when the Goal is Reunification (June 2009 – December 2013)105

Percentage of Parents

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 29% 24%

37% 39%

50% 40%

Final Target (95%)

77%

74%

48%

0%
JuJnu-0n9-09 DDeecc-0-099 JJuunn--1100

Dec-10

JuJnu-n1-11 DDeecc-1-111 JuJnu-n1-212 DMeca-r1-213 DJeucn--1133

Source: DCF data

Month

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
Between April and December 2013, monthly performance on this measure ranged from 70 to 77 percent of parents or other legally responsible family members visited two times per month by a caseworker when the family’s goal is reunification.106 For example, in December 2013, there were 3,633 children in custody with a goal of reunification; the parents of 2,678 (74%) children were visited twice during the month and the parents of an additional 95 (3%) children had at least one contact in December. Local Office data for December ranges between 58 and 100 percent; only one of the 46 Local Offices met the required level of 95 percent (see Appendix B-5). Statewide performance does not meet the required MSA level.
Reported performance at this time understates actual performance because the data do not exclude instances where a parent is unavailable or contacts are not required due to concerns regarding appropriate use of these exceptions. The Monitor will be working with DCF to validate recently available data which account for these exclusions.

105 Previously reported performance for June 2011 through March 2013 excluded from calculations those instances where the parent was unavailable or because contacts were not required. Due to concerns regarding appropriate use of these exceptions and for comparison purposes, performance data in this Figure for June 2011 through December 2013 do not exclude from calculations those instances where the parent was unavailable or because contacts were not required. Therefore, cited performance is different than previously reported performance. 106 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: April 2013, 77%; May 2013, 77%; June 2013, 76%; July 2013, 76%; August 2013, 76%; September 2013, 73%; October 2013, 75%; November 2013, 70%; December 2013, 74%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 76

Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

19. Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members: The caseworker shall have at least one face-to-face visit per month with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody with goals other than reunification unless parental rights have been terminated.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of families shall have at least one face-to-face caseworker contact per month, unless parental rights have been terminated.107

Figure 16: Percentage of Parents who had at least One Face-to-Face Contact with
Caseworker who had a Permanency Goal other than Reunification (December 2009 – December 2013) 108

Percentage of Parents

100%

80%

60%

40%

42%

20% 29%

0%
DeDce-c0-909 Jun-10

Source: DCF data

44%

53%

49%

DDeecc--1100

JJuunn--1111 DDeecc--1111 Month

67% 54%
JJuunn--1122 MDaerc--1132

66%
DJuenc--1133

Final Target (85%)

107 Possible modification of this final target has been discussed among the Parties and the Monitor with no resolution. 108 Previously reported performance for June 2011 through March 2013 excluded from calculations those instances where visits did not occur because the parent was unavailable or because contacts were not required. Due to concerns regarding appropriate use of these exceptions and for comparison purposes, performance data in this Figure for June 2011 through December 2013 do not exclude from calculations those instances where visits did not occur because the parent was unavailable or because contacts were not required. Therefore, cited performance is different than previously reported performance.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 77

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
Between April and December 2013, monthly performance on this measure ranged from 63 to 71 percent of parents or other legally responsible family members visited monthly by a caseworker when the family’s goal is no longer reunification.109 For example, in December 2013, there were 1,951 children in custody whose goal was not reunification; the parents for 1,293 (66%) children were visited monthly. As stated for the previous measure, reported performance at this time understates actual performance because reported performance does not exclude instances where a parent is unavailable or contacts are not required due to concerns regarding appropriate use of these exceptions. The Monitor will be working with DCF to validate recently available data which account for these exclusions.
Visitation between Children in Custody and their Parents

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

20. Visitation between Children in Custody and Their Parents: Number/percent of children who have weekly visits with their parents when the permanency goal is reunification unless clinically inappropriate and approved by the Family Court.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of children in custody shall have in person visits with their parent(s) or other legally responsible family member at least every other week and at least 60% of children in custody shall have such visits at least weekly.

Figure 17: Percentage of Children with Weekly Visits with their Parent(s) (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Children

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% 17%

10%

2%

0%
JuJnu-n0-909 DDeecc--0099

14%
JJuunn--1100

13%
DDeecc--1100

34% 35%
JuJunn-1-111 DDeecc--1111

42%
JJuunn--1122

59%

56%

MDeacr--1132 DJeucn--1133

Final Target (60%)

Source: DCF data

Month

109 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: April 2013, 68%; May 2013, 67%; June 2013, 69%; July 2013, 71%; August 2013, 70%; September 2013, 69%; October 2013, 67%; November 2013, 63%; December 2013, 66%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 78

Figure 18: Percentage of Children who had at least Two Visits per month with their Parent(s)
(December 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Children

90%

75%

60%

45%

30%
15% 0% 11%
DeDce-0c9-09

32%
JJuunn--1100

35%
DDeecc--1100

Source: DCF data

61%

61%

JJuunn-1-111 DDeecc--1111 Month

68%
JJuunn--1122

80%

78%

Final Target (85%)

DMeacr--1123 DJeucn--1133

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
Between April and December 2013, a monthly range of 54 to 61 percent of children had weekly visits with their parents when their permanency goal is reunification110 and a monthly range of 76 to 80 percent of children had visits at least every other week.111 For example, in December 2013, there were 3,455 children in placement with a goal of reunification; 1,930 (56%) had four visits with their parents during the month and an additional 774 (22%) children had two or three visits during the month. CP&P reports that 459 children could not have any visits because the visits were not required or the parent was unavailable. Of the 1,035 children who had one, two or three visits during the month, CP&P reports that for 815 (79%) children, the remaining visits did not occur because the visits were not required or the parent was unavailable. Performance during the entire monitoring period did not meet the level required by the MSA, although, it is encouraging that for the first time, DCF met the required level of performance for two months during the monitoring period.

110 Performance data for monitoring period for weekly visits between parent and child are as follows: April 2013, 61%; May 2013, 60%; June 2013, 56%; July 2013, 56%; August 2013, 57%; September 2013, 54%; October 2013, 57%; November 2013, 55%; December 2013, 56%. 111 Performance data for monitoring period for visits at least every other week between parent and child are as follows: April 2013, 80%; May 2013, 80%; June 2013, 78%; July 2013, 78%; August 2013, 78%; September 2013, 76%; October 2013, 77%; November 2013, 78%; December 2013, 78%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 79

In December 2013, Local Office data for weekly visits between children and parents when their permanency goal is reunification ranges between 39 and 79 percent; 18 of the 46 Local Offices met the required level of 60 percent (see Appendix B-6).
During the next monitoring period, the Monitor will be working with DCF to validate recently available data which account for instances where a parent is unavailable or visits are not required and findings from this validation will be discussed in the next report.

Visitation between Children in Custody and Sibling Placed Apart

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

21. Visitation Between Children in Custody and Siblings Placed Apart: Number/percent of children in custody, who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with their siblings as appropriate.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with those siblings at least monthly.

Figure 19: Percentage of Children in Custody who have at least Monthly Visits with Siblings, for Children not Placed with Siblings (December 2010 – December 2013)

Percentage of Children

100%
80%
60%
40% 41%
20%
0%
DDece-c1-010

44%
JJuunn--1111

Source: DCF data

49%

52%

DDeecc--1111

JJuunn--1122

Month

63%

71%

Final Target (85%)

DMeca-r1-123

DJeucn-1-133

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 80

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
Between April and December 2013, a monthly range of 61 to 71 percent of children had monthly visits with their sibling(s) when they were not placed together.112 For example, in December 2013 there were 2,372 children in placement who had at least one sibling who did not reside in the same household as them; 1,677 (71%) children had a visit with their siblings during the month. Performance on this measure continues to steadily improve but does yet not meet the final target of 85 percent.

112 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: April 2013, 61%; May 2013, 64%; June 2013, 65%; July 2013, 62%; August 2013, 67%; September 2013, 67%; October 2013, 64%; November 2013, 66%; December 2013, 71%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 81

VI. THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE
As of December 31, 2013, a total of 52,255 children were receiving CP&P services: 7,330 in outof-home placement and 44,925 in their own homes. Figure 20 shows the type of placement for children in CP&P custody as of December 31, 2013: 89 percent were in resource family homes (either kinship or non-kinship), nine percent in group and residential facilities and two percent in independent living facilities. As shown in Figure 20, the number of children placed with kin is now substantial, representing 38 percent of the children in out-of-home placement. One of the state’s accomplishments since the start of the MSA has been the significant reduction of children in out-of-home care.

Figure 20: Children in CP&P Out-of-Home Placement by Type of Placement as of December 31, 2013 (n=7,330)

Group and Residential
689 9%

Independent Living 123 2%

Kinship Care 2,760 38%

Resource Family (Non-Kin) 3,758
51%

Source: DCF data
Table 11 shows selected demographics for children in out-of-home placement as of December 31, 2013. As seen in Table 11, almost half (46 percent) of the children in out-of-home care were age five or under, with the largest single group (children two or younger) comprising 26 percent of the out-of-home placement population. Over one quarter (27 percent) of the population were age six to 12, 20 percent were age 13 to 17 and seven percent were age 18 or older.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 82

Table 11: Selected Demographics for Children in Out-of-Home Placement as of December 31, 2013 (n=7,330)

Female Male

Gender

Age
2 years or less 3-5 years 6-9 years 10-12 years 13-15 years 16-17 years 18+ years

Total

Total
Race
Black or African American American Indian or Alaska Native Asian Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Black or African American Hispanic Hispanic—No Race White Non-Hispanic White Hispanic Multiple Races Missing or Undetermined

Source: DCF data

Total

Percent 49% 51%
100%
Percent 26% 20% 17% 10% 11% 9% 7%
100%
Percent 43% <1% <1% <1% 2% 3% 28% 12% 5% 6%
100%

The number of children in out-of-home placement has dropped by three percent from 7,549 in March 2013 to 7,330 in December 2013 (see Figure 21). Since the previous monitoring period, there has been a two and a half percent (2.5%) increase in the number of children receiving inhome services from 43,814 to 44,925 (see Figure 22).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 83

Figure 21: Children in Out-of-Home Placement (December 2009 – December 2013)

8,000 7,800

7,900

7,861

Number of Children

7,600 7,400 7,200 7,000

7,484

7,171

7,197

7,018

7,361

7,549 7,330

6,800 Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10 Jun-11

Dec11

Jun-12 Dec-12 Mar-13 Dec-13

Source: DCF data

Month

Figure 22: Children Receiving In-Home Services (December 2009 – December 2013)

50,000

Number of Children

45,000 40,000 35,000

40,115 37,054

45,867 41,121

45,389

45,037

44,925

43,814

38,037

30,000 Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10 Jun-11 Dec-11 Jun-12 Dec-12 Mar-13 Dec-13

Source: DCF data

Month

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 84

A. Recruitment and Licensure of Resource Family Homes
DCF reports that it maintains a resource family home placement capacity in excess of the current number of children in out-of-home placement, but in order to meet the specific needs of children and youth coming into placement, DCF is seeking to recruit and license more large capacity resource family homes and homes for adolescents.
DCF recruited and licensed 1,449 new kinship and non-kinship resource family homes from January to December 2013, exceeding its target for CY 2013 by 185 families. More than 50 percent of the newly licensed families were relatives of children in care.

Figure 23: Number of Licensed Resource Family Homes Compared to Statewide Target (January–December 2013) Total = 1,449

1500 1450 1400 1350 1300 1250 1200 1150 1100
Source: DCF data

1,264 Target

1,449 Actual

As indicated in Figure 24, 605 (53%) of 1,132 newly licensed resource family homes during this monitoring period were kinship homes. In the most recent three reporting periods DCF has licensed more kinship homes than non-kinship homes, reflecting the state’s significant progress in exploring kinship care as the preferred placement option. 113

113 See Table 12 for total gross and net numbers of resource family homes.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 85

Figure 24: Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes (Kinship and Non-Kinship) (April–December 2013) Total Licensed = 1,132 Total Kinship Licensed = 605

180

160

140

120

114

100

80 66 60

40

20

0 April

122 60 May

Source: DCF data

101 56

139 69

119 57

129 67

118 65

126 76

164 89

June

July

August September October November December

Kinship Total Number of New Homes

Table 12 shows the number of kinship and non-kinship resource family homes licensed and the number of resource family homes closed between January and December 2013. Between April and December 2013 DCF had a net gain of 127 resource family homes. Of the 1,005 homes that closed during the monitoring period, DCF reports that 46 percent were homes of relatives. The vast majority of these homes closed when the children achieved permanency, either through adoption, kinship legal guardianship, or reunification with the biological parents.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 86

Table 12: Resource Family Homes Licensed and Closed (January 1 –December 31, 2013)

2013 Monthly Statistics
JANUARY FEBRUARY
MARCH Jan – Mar 2013
Totals APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Apr – Dec 2013 Totals (Monitoring Period XIV) TOTALS
Source: DCF data

Non-Kin Resource Homes Licensed
48 44 56 148
48 62 45 70 62 62 53 50 75 527
675

Kin Resource Homes Licensed
57 56 56 169
66 60 56 69 57 67 65 76 89 605
774

Total Resource Homes Licensed
105 100 112 317
114 122 101 139 119 129 118 126 164 1,132
1,449

Total Resource Homes Closed
96 88 137 321
112 103 80 105
59 45 129 185 187 1,005
1,326

Resource Homes Net
Gain
9 12 -25 -4
2 19 21 34 60 84 -11 -59 -23 127
123

As reflected in Figure 25, 44 percent of all resource family homes that were closed between April and December 2013 were due to reunification (20%), kinship legal guardianship (5%) or adoption (19%). Additional reasons for closing resource homes include a provider’s personal circumstances, such as the health/age of the provider (26%), a move out-of-state (5%) and lack of room for the placement (6%). Nine percent of the resource family home providers did not disclose their reasons for closing their homes. An additional ten percent of homes were closed for other reasons: abuse or neglect (2%), death of a provider (1%), a provider’s negative experiences (1%), a provider’s dissatisfaction with CP&P and Office of Licensing (OOL) rules (2%), unmet provider expectations (1%) and violations of licensing rules (3%).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 87

Figure 25: Reasons for Resource Home Closures (April 1 –December 31, 2013)

Provider's Health/Age/Circumstances Reunification Adoption Undisclosed
No Room for Placements Kinship Legal Guardianship
Moved out-of-state Violations
Abuse/Neglect Dissatisfied with DCPP/OOL/Contract
Provider Deceased Negative Experience with Placement
Unmet Placement Expectations

9% 6% 5% 5% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1%

26% 20% 19%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Source: DCF data

DCF continues to recruit and retain resource family homes by county according to a needsbased geographic analysis.
As previously reported, the state regularly conducts a geographic analysis assessing capacity of resource family homes by county in order to set county-based annual targets for recruitment (MSA Section II.H.13). These targets are based on:
 Total number of children in placement,  Total number of licensed resource family homes statewide,  Total number of sibling groups,  Average number of closed homes statewide,  Geographical location of resource family homes, and  County of origin of children who need placement.
For CY 2013, 16 of 21 counties met or exceeded their annual targets for licensed resource family homes. Table 13 shows county performance in 2013 as compared to recruitment/licensure targets.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 88

Table 13: Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes Compared to County/State Targets (January–December 2013)

County

Atlantic Burlington Cape May Camden Cumberland Gloucester Salem Essex Hudson Bergen Hunterdon Mercer Somerset Warren Middlesex Morris Sussex Passaic Ocean Monmouth Union
Source: DCF

Totals

Target
47 64 22 115 32 48 20 217 100 79 20 48 36 20 64 45 22 60 70 55 80 1,264

Licensed
56 65 25 128 42 75 27 196 100 99 14 27 33 21 125 41 28 69 104 94 80 1,449

Performance Against Target 9 1 3 13 10 27 7 -21 0 20 -6 -21 -3 1 61 -4 6 9 34 39 0 185

DCF continues to process the majority of resource family applications within 150 days (MSA
Section II.H.4).
As shown in Table 14, for resource family applications received from October to June 2013, 1,018 (57%) were resolved within 150 days and 1,196 (67%) applications were resolved within 180 days. When compared to performance in 2007 (25% of applications resolved in 150 days), DCF has improved significantly in its efforts to reach the 150 day timeframe. DCF has taken steps to further improve this performance, including forming an Impact Team Workgroup comprised of staff from Local Office resource family units, area resource family specialists and staff from the Office and Resource Families (ORF) and Office of Licensing (OOL). Based on findings from the Workgroup that kinship applications tend to encounter more challenges and delays than non-kinship applications, DCF implemented a new Resource Family Impact Team process that more intensely monitors kinship applications. Under the new system, monthly Impact Team conferences now focus on pending non-kinship applications after day 50 of the 150 day timeframe, unless there is an identified problem that surfaces earlier. All kinship

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 89

applications continue to be conferenced by the Impact Team and four of the most challenging kinship applications per month from each Local Office are selected for intensive review by the Impact Team, together with Local Office case management and supervisory staff. The expectation is that this new process will improve practice and assist in expediting the 150 day application process.

Table 14: Total Number of Resource Family Applications Resolved in 150 and 180 Days for Applications Submitted October 2012 through June 2013

Month Applied October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013
Total Source: DCF data

Total Applications
Number 197 161 182 176 214 253 208 181 200
1,772

Resolved in 150 Days

Number

Percent

106

54%

88

55%

109

60%

99

56%

125

58%

134

53%

131

63%

109

60%

117

59%

1,018

57%

Resolved in 180 Days

Number

Percent

116

59%

107

66%

129

71%

120

68%

146

68%

161

64%

149

72%

127

70%

141

71%

1,196

67%

Resource Family Recruitment and Retention Strategies
Large Capacity Homes
DCF identified recruiting and licensing homes with capacity to accommodate large sibling groups as a priority in the needs assessment it conducted in 2007. As previously reported, the state developed and has been using a specialized recruitment strategy to focus attention on identifying, recruiting and licensing these homes, termed “Siblings in Best Settings” or SIBS. At the end of this reporting period, DCF had 29 SIBS homes, a net increase of four homes from the previous monitoring period; eleven SIBS homes were newly licensed between April and December 2013.114 Recruiting homes for large sibling groups continues to be a priority need.

114 Seven homes left the SIBS program: three homes closed upon adoption finalization, one closed due to the
provider’s health circumstances, one home closed due to the reunification of the children with their biological parents, one home closed due to the court determining that placement with other relatives was preferred as the parents had not sufficiently complied with licensing requirements. Another home downgraded from SIBS status when the resource parents determined the large number of siblings was too difficult to manage.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 90

Assistance from the National Resource Center for Recruitment and Retention of Foster and Adoptive Parents (NRCRRFAP)
DCF’s work with the National Resource Center for Recruitment and Retention of Foster and Adoptive Parents at Adopt US Kids (NRCRRFAP) continued this monitoring period. Eleven counties115 were identified to participate in NRCRRFAP’s “market segmentation” approach using a marketing research tool that helps identify households by geographic area and lifestyle characteristics that are most similar to those in which DCF is currently successful in placing children. Recruiters have used the data obtained from this “market segmentation” approach to inform local recruitment plans and strategies. Recognizing the need to increase the pool of families willing to accept large sibling groups, DCF is requiring all recruiters to identify large sibling groups as a primary objective in their 2014 Local Office Recruitment Plans. The next step planned for the “market segmentation” approach is using the data to determine effective messaging targeted to potential resource families for adolescents and large sibling groups.
Staff Training and Skill Development
Resource family and licensing staff participated in training opportunities during this monitoring period, including:
 PRIDE (Parent Resources for Information, Development and Education) Train the Trainer—this course is a four day training for all resource family trainers.
 PRIDE and Traditions of Caring (TOC) Pre-service training for prospective resource parents.
 Joint OOL and Resource Family Support Workers (RFSWs)—this course is a two day training designed for new OOL and RFSW staff so they understand the practice and processes of their respective departments and what is involved in licensing a home.
Resource Family In-Service Training
Every resource parent is required to complete In-Service training to maintain a resource family home license. The training modalities which are offered to resource parents by Foster and Adoptive Family Services (FAFS) are: on-line training, home correspondence courses, countybased workshops and, new this monitoring period, e-live webinars.
Between April and December 2013, 686 resource parents took a total of 1,488 in-service courses. FAFS offers a wide variety of topics, including:
 The Child Health Program,  The Educational Stability Act,  Suicide and Depression,  Discipline, and  Working with DCF.

115 Mercer, Sussex, Camden, Monmouth, Morris, Essex, Cumberland, Ocean, Middlesex, Gloucester and Salem.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 91

B. Performance Measures on Placement of Children in Out-of-Home Care

Appropriateness of Placement

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

23. Combined Assessment of Appropriateness of Placement: Based on: a. Placement within appropriate proximity of their parents’ residence unless such placement is to otherwise help the child achieve the planning goal. b. Capacity of caregiver/placement to meet child’s needs. c. Placement selection has taken into account the location of the child’s school.

Final Target

By June 30, 2010, 90% of children will be placed in an appropriate setting.

Figure 26: Cases Rated Acceptable Appropriateness of Placement (April–December 2013) (n=88)

100% 80%

99% (87)

Percentage of Case Planning

60%

40%

20%

0% Cases Rated Acceptable
Source: DCF, QR results Reported performance based upon QR results from cases reviewed between April and December 2013.

Final Target (90%)

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
From April through December 2013, out of 133 QR cases, 88 cases of children in out-of-home care were reviewed and were assessed for appropriateness of their placement. Almost all (99% / 87 of 88) of the placements were rated acceptable which meant that the placement met the child’s developmental, emotional, behavioral and physical needs. The assessment of appropriateness of placement also considered whether the placement facilitated the child maintaining connections with his/her parents and siblings and helped in meeting the child’s

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 92

permanency goal. This is a very significant accomplishment and one that DCF has sustained for several years.
Placing Children with Families

Quantitative or

24. Placing Children with Families: The percentage of children currently in custody

Qualitative Measure

who are placed in a family setting.

Final Target

Beginning July 2009 and thereafter, at least 85% of children will be placed in a family setting.

Figure 27: Percentage of Children Placed in a Family Setting (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Investigations

100%

95%

90%

85% 85% 85%

86%

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%

55%

50%
JunJu-0n9-09 DeDce-0c9-09 JJuunn--1100

86% 87%
DDeecc-1-100 JJun-1111

88%

88%

89%

89%

Deecc--1111 Jun--1122 MDeacr-1123 DJeucn--13

Final Target (85%)

Source: DCF data

Month

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
As of December 31, 2013, there were 7,330 children in CP&P out-of-home placement; 6,518 (89%) of whom were placed in resource family placements (non-kinship or kinship). The remaining 812 (11%) were placed in independent living placements (123) or group and residential facilities (689). DCF has met or exceeded the performance target for placing children in a family setting since 2009.
DCF also provides data on children’s out-of-home placement type at the time of initial placement. The most recent data are from CY 2013 when 4,313 children entered out-of-home

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 93

placement; 3,968 (92%) of these children were placed in family settings for their first placement or within seven days of initial placement, an important accomplishment.116
Placing Siblings Together

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

25. Placing Siblings Together: Of sibling groups of two or three siblings entering custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another, the percentage in which all siblings are placed together.

Final Target

For siblings entering custody in the period beginning July 2012 and thereafter, at least 80% will be placed together.

Figure 28: Percentage of Sibling Groups of Two or Three Placed Together (CY 2008 – 2013)

100%

90%

Percentage of Sibling Groups

80%

70%

73%

74%

77%

79%

82%

77%

60%

50%
CY 2008

CY 2009

CY 2010

CY 2011

CY 2012

CY 2013

Calendar Year

Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY 2006 through 2011. CY 2012 and 2013 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

Final Target (80%)

Performance as of CY 2013:
In CY 2013, there were 945 sibling groups that came into custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another. Of these 945 sibling groups, 842 sibling groups had two or three children in them; 645 (77%) of this subset of sibling groups were placed together. This performance does not meet the final target and shows a decline from CY12 performance, which met the MSA standard. 117

116 These data were analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates. 117 In CY 2012 there were 783 sibling groups of two or three children. In CY 2013 there were 842 sibling groups of
two or three, representing an 8 percent increase over the previous year.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 94

Placing Large Sibling Groups Together

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

26. Placing Siblings Together: Of sibling groups of four or more siblings entering custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another, the percentage in which all siblings are placed together.

Final Target

For sibling groups of four or more entering in the period beginning July 2011 and thereafter, at least 40% will be placed together.

Figure 29: Percentage of Sibling Groups of Four or More Placed Together (CY 2008 – 2013)
60%

Percentage of Sibling Groups

40% 32%
20%

31%

34%

35%

25%

26%

Final Target (40%)

0%
CY 2008

CY 2009

CY 2010

CY 2011

CY 2012

CY 2013

Calendar Year

Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY 2006 through 2010. CY 2012 and 2013 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

Performance as of CY 2013:
In CY 2013, there were 103 sibling groups that had four or more children who came into custody at the same time or within 30 days of each other; 27 (26%) sibling groups were placed together. While the number of large sibling groups has decreased since CY 2012118, performance has remained relatively unchanged and does not meet the level required by the MSA final target. As previously mentioned, recruitment of resource homes to accommodate large sibling groups is a DCF priority.

118 In CY 2012, there were 136 sibling groups with four or more children. In CY 2013, there were 103 sibling groups with four or more children, representing a 24 percent decrease in large sibling groups over the previous calendar year.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 95

Stability of Placement

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

27. Stability of Placement: Of the number of children entering care in a period, the percentage with two or fewer placements during the 12 months beginning with the date of entry.

Final Target

By June 2009 and thereafter, at least 88% of children entering care will have two or fewer placements during the 12 months from their date of entry.

Figure 30: Percentage of Children Entering Care who had Two or Fewer Placements within 12 months of Entering Care (CY 2007 – 2012)

100%

Percentage of Children

90%

80%

83%

85%

84%

84%

85%

82%

Final Target (88%)

70%

60%

50%
CY 2007

CY 2008

CY 2009

CY 2010

CY 2011

CY 2012

Calendar Year

Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY 2006 through 2010. CY 2011 and 2012 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

Performance as of Most Recent Calendar Year Available:
The most recent performance data assesses the 4,456 children who entered care in CY 2012 and aggregates the number of placements each child experienced. For children entering care in CY 2012, 3,658 (82%) children had two or fewer placements during the 12 months from their date of entry. This performance shows a slight decline from CY 2011 and does not meet the final MSA target.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 96

Placement Limitations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

28. Placement Limitations: Number/percent of resource homes in which a child has been placed if that placement will result in the home having more than four foster children, or more than two foster children under age two, or more than six total children including the resource family’s own children, but such limitations may be waived if needed and appropriate to allow a group of siblings to be placed together.

Final Target

By June 2009, no more than 5% of resource home placements may have seven or eight total children including the resource family’s own children, but such placements may be waived if needed and appropriate to allow a group of siblings to be placed together.

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
The MSA limits how many children can be placed in a resource family home at one time: no child should be placed in a resource family home if that placement will result in the home having more than four foster children, more than two foster children under the age of two, or more than six total children including the resource family’s own children (Section III.C.1). Exceptions can be made to these limits as follows: no more than five percent of resource home placements may be made into resource homes with seven or eight total children including the resource family’s own children, but such placements can be made as long as there is adherence to the other limitations referred to above. Any of the limitations may be waived if needed and appropriate to allow a group of siblings to be placed together.
Each reporting period the Monitor reviews the waivers to population limits DCF granted for the monitoring period to validate that they fall within the designated capacity limitations. During this monitoring period less than one percent of resource home placements were over capacity.
The Monitor reviewed the five waivers to populations limits granted between April and December 2013 and each of these waivers were deemed appropriate. Of the five waivers granted, three were approved for children to be placed in homes with over four children; one for a child who was related to the resource parent; one for a child with behavioral issues who had previously been placed in the home, and another to keep a sibling group together. Another waiver was approved for a child to be placed in a home with more than two children under two because the placement was anticipated to be short term; the child was reunited with his father in less than one month. A final waiver was granted during the monitoring period for a child to be placed in a home with six children because the child was attending the resource parent’s daycare prior to being placed in the resource parent’s home and was comfortable with the resource parent.
DCF continues to meet the MSA performance target for this outcome.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 97

Limiting Inappropriate Placements

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

29. Inappropriate Placements: a. The number of children under age 13 placed in shelters. b. The number of children over age 13 placed in shelters in compliance with MSA standards on appropriate use of shelters to include: 1) an alternative to detention; 2) a short-term placement of an adolescent in crisis not to extend beyond 45 days; or 3) a basic center for homeless youth.

Final Target

a. By December 2008 and thereafter, no children under age 13 in shelters. b. By December 31, 2009, 90% of children placed in shelters in compliance with
MSA standards on appropriate use of shelters to include: 1) an alternative to detention; 2) short-term placement of an adolescent in crisis not to extend beyond 30 days; or 3) a basic center for homeless youth.

Figure 31: Percentage of Children over Age 13 Placed in Compliance with MSA Standards (June 2008 – December 2013)

Percentage of Children

100%

90%
80% 79%
70%

89% 91%

98% 95%

97%

97%

97%

90% 92%

96% Final Target (90%)

60%

50%
JuJnu-n0-808 DDeecc-0-088 JJuunn-0-099 DDeecc-0-099 JuJnu-n1-010 DDece-c1-010 JuJunn-1-111 DDeecc-1-111 JJuunn--1122 DMeacr--1123 DJuenc--1133

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 98

Table 15: Shelter Placements for Youth Aged 13 or Older (January 2008 – December 2013)

Jan–Jun 2008

Number of

youth 13 or older placed in

451

shelters

Number of youth appropriately placed
Number of youth inappropriately placed
Source: DCF data

358 (79%)
93 (21%)

Jul–Dec 2008
421
375 (89%)
46 (11%)

Jan–Jun 2009
465
423 (91%)
42 (9%)

Jul–Dec 2009
393
352 (90%)
41 (10%)

Jan–Jun 2010
350
322 (92%)
28 (8%)

Jul–Dec 2010
303
287 (95%)
16 (5%)

Jan–Jun 2011
337
331 (98%)
6 (2%)

Jul–Dec 2011
315
305 (97%)
10 (3%)

Jan-Jun 2012
292
282 (97%)
10 (3%)

Jul 2012– AprilMar 2013 Dec 2013

411

439

400 (97%)

421 (96%)

11 (3%)

18 (4%)

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
From April to December 2013, no child under the age of 13 was placed in a shelter. DCF has met the required performance on this measure since 2009.
Between April and December 2013, 439 youth ages 13 or older were placed in shelters. Of these youth, 421 (96%) youth were reported by DCF to have been placed in accordance with criteria on appropriate use of shelters.119 This performance exceeds the MSA final target of 90 percent.

119 The Monitor conducted a review of 17 out of the 44 cases in which DCF reported that youth age 13 or older were placed in shelters for 30 days or more by court orders. The Monitor found that court orders were present in those 17 cases. However, the Monitor and DCF are in discussions regarding the appropriate use of court orders for placement of children age 13 and older in shelters.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 99

VII. REPEAT MALTREATMENT AND RE-ENTRY INTO CARE
The state is responsible for ensuring the safety of children who are receiving or have received services from CP&P. This responsibility includes ensuring the safety of children who are placed in resource family homes and congregate facilities. As detailed below, the MSA includes a number of measures on repeat maltreatment, maltreatment while in care and re-entry into care. Given this is a longitudinal measure, the most recent data available for repeat maltreatment and re-entry into foster care are from CY 2012.
In the previous monitoring report, CY 2011 data (the most recent calendar year available) indicated that CP&P’s performance for repeat maltreatment of children within one year of reunification and re-entry of children within one year of their exit from care did not meet the MSA standards. In fact, repeat maltreatment data showed a concerning rise in the number of children with substantiated abuse or neglect within one year of reunification. CP&P recognized the need for data analysis and strategy development to address performance for these measures and beginning this monitoring period, they implemented the following activities to better understand factors associated with repeat maltreatment:
 Analyzing data to look for trends by Local Office, age of child, allegation type and other variables to assist leadership in understanding the trends in their counties and what action may be needed to address performance. Additionally, CP&P is partnering with Rutgers University to conduct a multivariate analysis of repeat maltreatment to better understand the factors most related to this outcome.
 Constructing area and Local Office level datasets with individual cases of repeat maltreatment within 12 months of exit for children who exited between January and June 2012. Local Offices will be required to conduct a qualitative case record review of these cases to identify the precipitating factors that lead to the repeat maltreatment and identify case practice themes for targeted improvement.
 Focusing the work of the current cohort of DCF Fellows on statewide increases in out-ofhome placements which include children re-entering care after reunification. DCF anticipates that this analysis will identify risk factors that lead to initial entries as well as re-entries into care.
 Changing the focus of ChildStat to review cases that have recently reunified within three to six months of reunification to better understand CP&P’s role in supporting families when children return home.
The current data demonstrate a small increase in CY 2013 in the percent of children who were victims of abuse or neglect while in out-of-home care (although performance continues to meet the MSA standard). Consistent with CY 2011, DCF has not met the measure related to repeat maltreatment of children within one year of reunification. The state’s performance for children who re-enter out-of-home care within one year of discharge has remained constant at 13 percent since CY 2010 and does not meet the final target of no more than nine percent of children reentering care.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 100

Abuse and Neglect of Children in Foster Care

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

30. Abuse and Neglect of Children in Foster Care: Number of children in custody in out-of-home placement who were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member during 12 month period, divided by the total number of children who have been in care at any point during the period.

Final Target

For the period beginning July 2010 and thereafter, no more than 0.49% of children will be victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.

Performance as of CY 2013:
In CY 2013, there were 12,668 children in care at any point during the year; 40 children (0.32%) were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent, relative placement provider or facility staff member.120 This performance, while an increase of 0.11 percent of children with substantiated abuse from CY 2012, meets the final MSA performance target requiring that no more than 0.49 percent of children will be victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.

Repeat Maltreatment

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

31. Repeat Maltreatment: Of all children who remain in home after substantiation of abuse or neglect, the percentage who have another substantiation within the next 12 months.

Final Target

For the period beginning July 2009 and thereafter, no more than 7.2% of children who remain at home after a substantiation of abuse or neglect will have another substantiation within the next 12 months.

Performance as of CY 2012 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
In CY 2012, there were 5,675 children who were victims of a substantiated allegation of abuse and/or neglect and were not placed in out-of-home care. As of December 31, 2013, of the 5,675 children, 430 (7.6%) children were the victims of a substantiated allegation of child abuse and/or neglect within 12 months of the initial substantiation. 121 Although DCF had previously met this

120 Data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates. 121 Data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates. There was a slight change in methodology in analyzing data in CY 2011 and later. Performance for calendar years prior to 2011 was analyzed by assessing the date of the initial
substantiated report to the date of the subsequent substantiated report. Performance for CY 2011 and 2012 was
analyzed by assessing the date of the initial substantiated report to the date of the subsequent incident which resulted

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 101

measure for three years (CY 2007 to 2010), the most recent performance for CY 2012 does not meet the MSA final target of no more than 7.2 percent.

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

32. Repeat Maltreatment: Of all children who are reunified during a period, the percentage who are victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within one year after the date of reunification.

Final Target

For the period beginning July 2009 and thereafter, no more than 4.8% of children who reunified will be the victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within one year after reunification.

Performance as of CY 2012 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
In CY 2012, there were 3,474 children who were returned home or to a family member after a stay in out-of-home placement; 295 (8.5%) were the victims of a substantiated allegation of abuse and/or neglect within 12 months of their return home. This rate of repeat maltreatment continues to exceed the MSA final target that no more than 4.8 percent of children who reunified will be victims of substantiated abuse and/or neglect within one year after reunification. DCF and the Monitor continue to be concerned about these occurrences and the reasons that the repeat maltreatment rate remains high.

Re-entry to Placement

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

33. Re-entry to Placement: Of all children who leave custody during a period, except those whose reason for discharge is that they ran away from their placement, the percentage that re-enter custody within one year of the date of exit.

Final Target

For the period beginning July 2011 and thereafter, of all children who exit, no more than 9% will re-enter custody within one year of exit.

in a substantiation of abuse or neglect. DCF has indicated that this decline in performance is not attributable to the methodology change.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 102

Figure 32: Percentage of Children who Re-Entered Custody within One Year of Date of Exit (CY 2007 – 2012)

20%

15%

17%

10%

15%

14%

13%

13%

13%

Percentage of Children

5%

0%
CY 2007

CY 2008

CY 2009

CY 2010

CY 2011

CY 2012

Calendar Year
Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY 2007 through 2010. CY 2011 and 2012 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

Final Target – no more than (9%)

Performance as of CY 2012 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
In CY 2012, there were 5,335 children who exited foster care; 3,883 (73%) children exited to qualifying exits (i.e., reunification, guardianship or to a relative placement).122,123 Of the 3,883 children who exited to qualifying exits, 518 (13%) children re-entered placement as of December 31, 2013. While the percentage of children re-entering care has declined since CY 2007, performance has leveled off at 13 percent since CY 2010 and does not meet the final target of no more than nine percent of children re-entering custody within one year of exit.

122 Data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates. 123 DCF has objected to the Monitor’s definition of “qualifying exits” used to analyze this measure. The Agency believes that due to the specific exclusion cited in the MSA, the definition of qualifying exits should only exclude children who run away from placement. The Monitor uses a definition of qualifying exits which excludes from the calculations runaways as well as children who are adopted. Based on the DCF recommended definition, of all children who exited in CY 2012, 10 percent re-entered custody within one year of the date of exit. Using that definition, DCF calculates performance for previous years as follows: CY 2007, 12%; CY 2008, 10%; CY 2009, 10%; CY 2010, 9% CY 2011 9%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 103

VIII. TIMELY PERMANENCY THROUGH REUNIFICATION, ADOPTION OR LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP
All children—regardless of age, gender, race or ethnicity—need and deserve a safe, nurturing family to protect and guide them. In child welfare work, this is called “permanency.” Permanency can be achieved through a number of different avenues; safe family reunification is the preferred choice, but permanency also includes kinship legal guardianship and adoption. The MSA requires that children in custody achieve timely permanency through reunification, adoption or legal guardianship (Section III.A.2.a).
The MSA permanency measures reflect an expectation that children entering custody will attain permanency in a timely manner through whatever is their most appropriate permanency pathway. The measures were designed to avoid creating unintended incentives in favor of one permanency path (e.g., reunification or adoption) over another. The measures also seek to examine performance and set realistic permanency expectations and timeframes for children who have newly entered foster care and how long they remain in care as well as for those children and youth who have been in care for extended periods of time.
The permanency measures discussed below include timeframe to permanency for different cohorts of children—discharged within 12 months of removal, between 13 and 24 months from removal and 25 months or longer from removal. Performance is based on calendar year and the most recent data are presented. This section also includes the state’s performance on timely discharge specific to adoption as well as several process measures related to adoption practice including timeliness with which petitions to terminate parental rights have been filed, childspecific recruitment plans have been developed, children have been placed in an adoptive home and an adoptive home placement has been finalized.
Overall, DCF’s performance in discharging children to permanency has improved slightly but does not meet the final targets required by the MSA. While DCF’s adoption practice demonstrates strengths, the report also identifies challenges, most notably around the goal of achieving permanency for children who exit to adoption within 30 months of their removal. DCF also declined in performance in identifying adoptive homes at the time of termination of parental rights and completion of child specific recruitment plans for applicable children. The Monitor acknowledges that adoption work is complex and that delays in court processing and appeal processes can impact the time to finalize an adoption. The Monitor encourages DCF to closely examine performance in this area to identify barriers and strategies for improvement.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 104

Timely Permanency through Reunification, Adoption or Legal Guardianship

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

34. a. Discharged to Permanency: Permanency in first 12 months: Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in the target year and who remained in foster care for eight days or longer, what percentage was discharged from foster care to permanency (reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and/or guardianship) within 12 months from their removal from home.

Final Target

Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in CY 2011 and annually thereafter, 50% will have been discharged to permanency (reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and/or guardianship) within 12 months from their removal from home.

Figure 33: Percentage of Children who Entered Foster Care in CY 2012 and were Discharged to Permanency within 12 months from Removal124
(CY 2006 – 2012)

60%

Percentage of Children

50%

40%

42%

30%

45%

46%

45%

42%

45%

46%

20%

CY 2006

CY 2007

CY 2008

CY 2009

CY 2010

CY 2011

CY 2012

Calendar Year
Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY 2006 through 2010. CY 2011 and 2012 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

Final Target (50%)

Performance as of CY 2012 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
The most recent data available are for children who entered foster care in CY 2012. Of the children who entered foster care in CY 2012, 46 percent discharged to permanency within 12

124 Small shifts in previously reported performance for prior years may be found and are attributable to on-going data management and clean-up.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 105

months from their removal from their home.125 Performance for this sub-part of this permanency outcome does not meet the final target of 50 percent.126

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

34. d. Discharged to Permanency:
Permanency for Children in Care between 13 and 24 months: Of all children who were in foster care on the first day of the target year and had been in
care between 13 and 24 months, what percentage was discharged to
permanency (through reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and guardianship) prior to their 21st birthday or by the last day of the year.

Final Target

Of all children who were in care on the first day of CY 2011 and annually thereafter,
and had been in care between 13 and 24 months, 47% will be discharged to permanency prior to their 21st birthday or by the last day of year.

Figure 34: Discharge to Permanency for Children in Care between 13 and 24 months
(Of all Children in Care on the First Day of CY 2013 and had been in Care between 13-24 months, Percentage of Children who were Discharged to Permanency
prior to their 21st Birthday or by the Last Day of the Year)127
(CY 2006 – 2013)

60%

Percentage of Children

50%

40% 41%

43%

43%

45%

44%

47% 42%

46%

30%

20%
CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013
Calendar Year
Source: DCF data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY 2006 through 2011. CY 2012 and 2013 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

Final Target (47%)

125 Data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates. 126 Performance Measures 34.a, d. & e. are the same outcome measure and require three different performance levels
based on three cohorts of children defined by how long they have been in foster care. The Monitor considers this
permanency performance requirement met only when all three cohorts achieve the required performance. Based upon performance for the most recent data available, this outcome has not been met. 127 Small shifts in previously reported performance for prior years may be found and are attributable to on-going
data management and clean-up.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 106

Performance as of CY 2013:
Of all children who were in care on the first day of CY 2013 and had been in care between 13 and 24 months, 46 percent discharged to permanency prior to their 21st birthday or the last day of the year.128 Performance for this sub-part of this permanency outcome significantly improved from 42 percent in CY 2012 and, because it is within one percentage point of the final target, the Monitor considers the final target to have been reached for this subpart of the measure.

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

34. e. Discharged to Permanency:
Permanency after 25 months: Of all children who were in foster care for 25 months or longer on the first day of the target year, what percentage was
discharged to permanency (through reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and guardianship) prior to their 21st birthday and by the last day of the year.

Final Target

Of all children who were in foster care for 25 months or longer on the first day of
CY 2011 and annually thereafter, 47% will be discharged to permanency prior to their 21st birthday or by the last day of the year.

Figure 35: Discharge to Permanency for Children in Care 25 months or longer
(Of all Children who were in Foster Care for 25 months or longer on the
First Day of CY 2013, Percentage Discharged to Permanency prior to their 21st Birthday or by the Last Day of the Year)129
(CY 2006 – 2013)

60%

Percentage of Children

50%

40%

30%

35%

36%

34%

37%

34%

34%

33%

36%

Final Target (47%)

20%
CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013
Calendar Year
Source: DCF data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY 2006 through 2011. CY 2012 and 2013 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.
128 Data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates. 129 Small shifts in previously reported performance for prior years may be found and are attributable to on-going data management and clean-up.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 107

Performance as of CY 2013:
Of all children who were in care on the first day of CY 2013 and had been in care for 25 months or longer, 36 percent discharged prior to their 21st birthday or the last day of the year. 130 Performance for this sub-part of this permanency outcome does not meet the final target of 47 percent.
Permanency Through Adoption

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

34. b. Adoption: Of all children who became legally free for adoption during the 12 months prior to the target year, what percentage was discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free.

Final Target

Of those children who become legally free in CY 2011 and annually thereafter, 60% will be discharged to a final adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free.

Figure 36: Percentage of Children Discharged to Final Adoption in less than 12 months from the Date of Becoming Legally Free (CY 2005 – 2012)

100%

Percentage of Children

80%

73%

78%

80%

74%

60% 60%

40% 20%

43%

45%

36%

CY 2005 CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012

Source: DCF data

Calendar Year

Final Target (60%)

130 Data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 108

Performance as of CY 2012 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available)
The most recent data available are for CY 2012. In CY 2012, 814 children became legally free for adoption; 606 (74%) children were adopted within 12 months of becoming legally free. This performance exceeds MSA standards. An additional 125 (15%) of the children who became legally free in CY 2012 have been adopted with their finalizations occurring more than 12 months after they became legally free.

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

34. c. Total time to Adoption: Of all children who exited foster care to adoption in the target year, what percentage was discharged from foster care to adoption within 30 months from removal from home.

Final Target

Of all children who exit to adoption in CY 2011 and annually thereafter, 60% will be discharged from foster care to adoption within 30 months from removal from home.

Figure 37: Percentage of Children who Exit to Adoption within 30 months of Removal (CY 2006 – 2013)

80%

Percentage of Children

60%

40%

46%

44%

45%

48%

44% 45%

37%

20% 28%

Final Target (60%)

0%
CY 2006 CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013
Calendar Year
Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Chapin Hall for CY 2006 through 2011. CY 2012 and 2013 data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.
Performance as of CY 2013:
Of the 1,015 children who exited foster care to adoption in CY 2013, 461 (45%) had been in care for 30 months or less.131 An additional 150 (15%) children who exited foster care to adoption

131 Data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 109

had been in care for 36 months or less. This performance does not meet the final target requirement of 60 percent.
Finalized Adoptions
Between January and December 2013, DCF finalized 1,021 adoptions. 132 This is an increase over CY 2012 when 943 adoptions were finalized. As of December 31, 2013, 1,047 children in the state’s custody remained legally free for adoption. 133 Table 16 below shows the number of adoption finalizations by CP&P Local Office between January and December 2013.

Table 16: Adoption Finalizations by CP&P Local Office (January–December 2013)

Local Office
Atlantic West Cape May Bergen Central Bergen South Passaic Central Passaic North Burlington East Burlington West Mercer North Mercer South Camden Central Camden East Camden North Camden South Essex Central Essex North Essex South Newark Adoption134 Newark Northeast Newark Center City Newark South Gloucester
Source: DCF data

Number

Finalized

Local Office

41

Cumberland

29

Salem

24

Hudson Central

33

Hudson North

23

Hudson South

41

Hudson West

32

Hunterdon

11

Somerset

16

Warren

36

Middlesex Central

24

Middlesex Coastal

17

Middlesex West

34

Monmouth North

27

Monmouth South

25

Morris East

8

Morris West

31

Sussex

87

Ocean North

6

Ocean South

16

Union Central

22

Union East

37

Union West

Total-1,021

Number Finalized
24 16 15 10 33 25 13 23 17 14 16 8 21 15 17 29 15 16 31 13 13 17

132 The number of adoption finalizations is a measure that is monitored on a calendar year basis; the target numbers
are based on the number of legally free children and an estimated number of resolved appeals. 133 Not every legally free child is eligible to move toward adoption as some court decisions that terminate parental
rights are appealed. 134 As of November 1, 2013, the Newark Adoption Office was dismantled and the adoption units transferred into the
following three Local Offices: Newark Northeast, Newark Center City and Newark South.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 110

Paralegal Support
As required under the MSA, DCF continues to provide paralegal support to assist with the paperwork necessary to finalize adoptions (Section II.G.5). As of December 31, 2013, CP&P had 143 paralegal positions in the Local Offices: 139 (97%) paralegal positions were filled, four were vacant. All four vacant positions were approved for new hires to fill the vacancy. In addition, seven paralegal positions were filled at DCF’s central office.
Additionally, DCF continues to contract with Children’s Home Society to provide 23 child summary writers statewide and up to six part-time adoption expediters who assist with adoption paperwork in counties throughout the state.

Progress Toward Adoption

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

35. Progress Toward Adoption: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption who shall have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change to adoption.

Final Target

Beginning January 1, 2010, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 90% shall have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change.

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
In December 2013, 74 percent of termination of parental rights (TPR) petitions were filed within 60 days of changing the child’s permanency goal to adoption. From April through December 2013, a monthly range of 69 to 83 percent of TPR petitions were filed within 60 days of the child’s goal change to adoption (see Table 17). Performance during this monitoring period on filing TPR petitions, while improved, does not meet the MSA Standard.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 111

Table 17: TPR Filing for Children with a Permanency Goal of Adoption (April–December 2013)

Month APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Total Source: DCF data *Final Target (90%)

Number of Children with an Adoption Goal
121 122 102 131 114 126 133 101 139
1,089

TPR Petitions Filed within 60 Days* 89 101 77 99 87 104 102 82 103
844

% of TPRs Filed within 60
Days* 74% 83% 75% 76% 69% 83% 77% 81% 74%
78%

TPR Petitions Filed within
90 Days 104 110 84 114 101 110 117 86 113
939

% of TPRs Filed within
90 Days 86% 90% 82% 87% 89% 87% 88% 85% 81%
86%

Child-Specific Adoption Recruitment

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

36. Child Specific Adoption Recruitment: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption needing recruitment who have a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the date of the goal change.

Final Target

Beginning January 1, 2010, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 90% of those for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of termination of parental rights shall have a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the date of the goal change.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 112

Figure 38: Percentage of Child Specific Recruitment Plans Developed within 30 Days of Goal Change to Adoption (December 2010 – December 2013)

Percentage of Children

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 32% 20%
DeDc-e1c0-10

67%
JJuunn--1111

63%
DDeecc--1111

54%
JJuunn--1122

Final Target (90%)

46%
MDaerc--1132

37%
DJeucn--1133

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the figure.

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
DCF policy requires that a child-specific recruitment plan be developed for those children with a permanency goal of adoption for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of the change to a goal of adoption. This plan should be developed within 30 days of the change to an adoption goal.
Between April and December 2013, of the 147 children requiring child-specific recruitment plans,135 55 (37%) had a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the goal change (see Table 18). An additional 29 (20%) cases had a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 60 days, and 13 (9%) eligible select home adoption cases had a plan developed over 60 days from the goal change. Fifty (34%) child-specific plans were not completed by the time the data were provided.136 Current performance demonstrates a continued steady decline in timely completion of child specific recruitment plans (see Figure 38 above) and an increase in the percentage of plans not completed. During the previous monitoring period (July 2012 through March 2013), 15 percent of plans were not completed and, as shown above, this doubled to 34 percent this period.

135 Due to the small number of eligible cases per month, this measure is reported by aggregating the monthly data. 136 April-June 2013 data were extracted on August 1, 2013; July-September 2013 data were extracted as of
October 22, 2013; and October-December 2013 data were extracted on March 5, 2014.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 113

Table 18: Child Specific Recruitment Plans Developed within 30 or 60 days of Goal Change for Children without Identified Adoption Resource (April – December 2013) (n=147)

Month in which Plan was Due
APRIL

Plan developed within 30 days
8

Plan developed within 31-60 days
6

Plan developed over 60 days
1

Not completed* 4

MAY

14

8

1

9

JUNE

6

3

0

10

JULY

4

0

3

6

AUGUST

2

2

3

7

SEPTEMBER

1

6

1

4

OCTOBER

7

1

2

6

NOVEMBER

9

3

1

4

DECEMBER

4

0

1

0

Total

55 (37%)

29 (20%)

13 (9%)

50 (34%)

Source: DCF data * Data are pulled on a quarterly basis and these plans were not complete at the time data were extracted.

DCF reports several strategies for improving performance toward completion of child specific recruitment plans, including:

 Regular statewide meetings between adoption operations, area and contracted child specific recruiters to coordinate recruitment efforts and focus on fundamentals of identifying connections through mining case records and partnering with the child, caretakers, community partners and significant adults in the child’s life.
 In March 2014, DCF increased supervision by assigning responsibilities for area Child Specific Recruiters to central office Adoption Operations who work in collaboration with the area Concurrent Planning Specialists and field support staff to identify children needing recruitment and strategize on recruitment efforts.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 114

Placement in an Adoptive Home

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

37. Placement in an Adoptive Home: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption and for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of termination are placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights.

Final Target

Beginning July 1, 2009, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 75% of the children for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of termination shall be placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights.

Figure 39: Percentage of Children with Goal of Adoption for whom Adoptive Home had not been identified at time of Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) who were Placed
in Adoptive Home within 9 months of TPR (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Children

80%

60% 63%

64%

61%

56%

50% 40%

20%

59% 50%
35%

Final Target (75%)
24%

0%
JunJ-u0n9-09 DDeecc--0099 JuJnun-1-100

DDeecc--1100

JuJunn--1111

DDeecc--1111 JuJnu-n1-212 MDaerc-1-132

DJuenc--1133

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure.

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
DCF policy and the MSA require that a child be placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the TPR. Most children are already residing in an adoptive home at the time of TPR and this measure focuses on those children not already in an adoptive home at the time they become legally free for adoption.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 115

Between April and December 2013, 21 children were applicable to this measure. Five (24%) of the 21 children were placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the TPR. Current performance, while based on a small number of cases, is significantly below the required level of 75 percent and is the lowest reported performance in the past five years. Timely placement of children in an adoptive home is a critical component of overall timely permanency and the Monitor encourages DCF to closely examine performance in this area to identify barriers and strategies for improvement.
Final Adoptive Placement

Quantitative or

38. Final Adoptive Placements: Number/percent of adoptions finalized within nine

Qualitative Measure

months of adoptive placement.

Final Target

Beginning July 1, 2009, of adoptions finalized, at least 80% shall have been finalized within nine months of adoptive placement.

Figure 40: Percentage of Adoptions Finalized within 9 months of Adoptive Placement (June 2009 – December 2013)

100%

90%

95%

89%

86%

92%

91%

80%

100%

96%

94%

88%

Percentage of Adoptions

70%

60%

50%
JunJu-0n9-09 DDeecc--0099

JJuunn--1100

DDeecc-1-100 Junn--1111

Decc--1111 JJuunn-12 MDaerc--1132 DeJcu-n1-133

Source: DCF data

Month

Final Target (80%)

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
In December 2013, of the 57 adoptions eligible to be finalized, 57 (100%) were finalized within nine months of the adoptive placement. Between April and December 2013, 96 to 100 percent of adoptions each month were finalized within nine months of the child’s placement in an adoptive home (see Table 19). This performance continues to exceed the final target of 80 percent.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 116

Table 19: Adoptions Finalized within 9 months of Child’s Placement in an Adoptive Home (April–December 2013)

Month APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Source: DCF data

Total number eligible to be finalized 68 91 76 65 108 82 58 300 57

Finalized within 9 months (percent of total) 65 (96%) 89 (98%) 75 (99%) 65 (100%) 107 (99%) 81 (99%) 56 (97%) 297 (99%) 57 (100%)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 117

IX. HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT
The provision of appropriate health care services to children in DCF’s custody has been a principal focus of the MSA and the DCF’s reform agenda. Since June 2011, DCF has maintained or improved performance on nearly all Performance Measures related to health care services.137 These Performance Measures track DCF’s progress in ensuring that children in outof-home placement receive:
 Pre-placement medical assessments (MSA Section II.F.5);  Full medical examinations (known as Comprehensive Medical Examinations or
CMEs) (MSA Section II.B.11);  Medical examinations in compliance with Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis
and Treatment (EPSDT) guidelines;  Semi-annual dental examinations for children ages three and older (MSA Section
II.F.2);  Mental health assessments of children with suspected mental health needs (MSA
Section II.F.2);  Timely, accessible and appropriate follow-up and treatment (MSA Section II.F.2);
and  Immunizations.
Although not used to directly assess MSA compliance, DCF’s QR found that 96 percent of cases138 scored at least minimally acceptable on the provision of health care services, a very positive finding consistent with performance on the measures discussed below.
This section provides updates of ongoing efforts to improve policies, staffing and access to services, which are necessary to realize and sustain positive health outcomes for children as well as information about the health care received by children in out-of-home placement.139 The delivery of a child’s medical information (through the Health Passport) to a new caregiver within five days of placement in his/her home is also assessed.
DCF regularly carries out a Health Care Case Record Review that analyzes the follow-up care children receive for concerns identified in CMEs; mental health screenings, assessments and follow-up care; and timely delivery of the health passport to resource parents. Because these reviews are labor intensive and consistently done every six months, the Monitor did not require a special review, given the extended monitoring period, to assess performance through December

137 The one exception is the performance measure requiring 95 percent of caregivers receive a current Health Passport within five days of a child’s placement where performance as of July 2013 is 65 percent. 138 Out of 133 cases reviewed through the QR during the monitoring period, 127 (96%) scored at least minimally acceptable on the provision of health care services. 139 The Monitor has previously verified health care outcomes through a case record review. See Appendix C of
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period VI Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie – January 1 to June 30, 2009, Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy, December 22, 2009. See, http://www.cssp.org/publications/child-welfare/class-action-reform/progress-of-the-newjersey-state-department-of-children-and-families-monitoring-report-for-charlie-and-nadine-h.-v.-corzine-december2009.pdf

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 118

2013. The most recent case record review includes a random sample of children in out-of-home placement who were removed between November 1, 2012 and July 31, 2013 and were in care a minimum of 60 days. Thus, for the health care Performance Measures based on case record review findings, performance is reported through July 31, 2013.
A. Health Care Delivery System
Child Health Units
The Child Health Units are a fundamental cornerstone of the provision of health care to children in CP&P custody. These units are in each CP&P Local Office and are staffed with a clinical nurse coordinator, Health Care Case Managers (nurses) and staff assistants based on the projected number of children in out-of-home placement. A regional nurse administrator supervises local units for a particular region (aligned with the Area Offices). DCF worked with University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey’s School of Nursing’s François-Xavier Bagnoud Center (FXB)140 and CP&P Local Offices to build these units. As part of their duties, these staff members are responsible for tracking and advocating for the health needs of children who enter into out-of-home care. Since the creation of health care units and assignment of nurses to children in out-of-home care, DCF has achieved and sustained substantial results.
The Child Health Units are operational in all CP&P Local Offices. Staffing levels remain consistent. As of December 31, 2013, there were 163 Health Care Case Managers and 103 staff assistants statewide. DCF works to ensure that the ratio of Health Care Case Managers to children in out-of-home care is 1 to 50 in every Local Office.

B. Health Care Performance Measures

Pre-Placement Medical Assessment

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

39. Pre-Placement Medical Assessment: Number/percent of children receiving pre-
placement medical assessment in a non-emergency room setting or other setting appropriate to the situation.141

Final Target

By December 31, 2009, 98% of children will receive a pre-placement assessment either in a non-emergency room setting, or in an emergency room setting if the child needed emergency medical attention or the child was already in the emergency room when CP&P received the referral.

140 As of July 1, 2013, the University of Medicine and Dentistry merged with Rutgers, The State University of New
Jersey. The UMDNJ-School of Nursing is now Rutgers School of Nursing. 141 By agreement of the Parties, this measure has been redrafted to combine the percentage of PPAs in a non-ER
setting and those PPAs conducted in an ER that are appropriate based on the presenting medical needs of the
child/youth or because the child/youth was already in the ER when CP&P received the referral.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 119

Figure 41: Percentage of Children who Received Pre-Placement Assessment in a Non-Emergency Room Setting or Other Settings Appropriate to the Situation (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Children

100% 98% 98%
90% 92%

98% 99%

99%

99%

99%

99% Final Target (98%)

80%

70%

60%

50%
JunJ-u0n9-09 DeDce-0c9-09 JuJnu-n1-010 DDeecc--1100

JJuunn--1111

DDeecc--1111 JuJunn--1122 MDare-c1-312 DecJu-1n-313

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure.

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
All children entering out-of-home care are required to have a pre-placement assessment and the vast majority of these assessments should be in a non-emergency room setting (MSA Section II.F.5). Child Health Unit nurses, clinics and sometimes the child’s own pediatrician provide these assessments.
From April to December 2013, 4,014 children entered out-of-home placement and 4,000 (100%)142 of them received a pre-placement assessment (PPA). Of those 4,000 children, 3,378 (84%) received the PPA in a non-emergency room setting. Six hundred and twenty-two children received a PPA in an emergency room setting. During this period, DCF conducted an internal review of all 622 PPAs that occurred in an emergency room and determined that 605 were appropriate for the situation; that is, the child needed emergency medical attention or the child was already in the emergency room when CP&P received the referral.143 Thus, 99 percent of children received a PPA in a setting appropriate to the situation—84 percent received PPAs in a

142 Percentage is 100 due to rounding. 143 In monitoring Period XII, the Monitor reviewed back-up data provided by DCF regarding the PPAs occurring in an emergency room setting and agreed with DCF determinations regarding appropriate or inappropriate use of the ER for PPAs. In addition, the Monitor’s previous Health Care Case Record Review found that many of the PPAs occurring in an ER were because the child had an injury requiring ER treatment or had been brought to the ER by the police or other service provider.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 120

non-ER setting and an additional 15 percent appropriately received a PPA in an ER setting.144 DCF continues to meet the MSA standard regarding appropriate settings for PPAs.

Initial Medical Examinations

Quantitative or

40. Initial Medical Examinations: Number/percent of children entering out-of-home

Qualitative Measure

care receiving full medical examinations within 60 days.

Final Target

By January 1, 2009 and thereafter, at least 85% of children shall receive full medical examinations within 30 days of entering out-of-home care and at least 98% within 60 days.

Figure 42: Percentage of Children with Comprehensive Medical Examination (CME) within 30 days of Entering Out-of-Home Care (December 2009 – December 2013)

100%

Percentage of Children

90%

80% 84%

78%

80%

70%

88% 82%

87% 85%

85% Final Target (85%)

60%

50%
JuDn-e1c0-09

DJeucn-1-100

JuDne-1c1-10 DJeucn--1111

DJuenc-1-121

DJeuc-n1-212 MJuanr--1133 DeDc-e1c-313

Month

Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure.

144 Of 4,000 children receiving PPAs, 3,378 (84%) were in a nonemergency room setting and 605 (15%) were appropriately seen in an ER. In addition, for 17 of the 622 children who had their PPA in an ER setting, DCF’s internal review found no evidence to support that the PPA taking place in the ER was appropriate. Thus, one percent of children received their PPA in an inappropriate setting.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 121

Figure 43: Percentage of Children with Comprehensive Medical Examination (CME) within First 60 days of Placement (June 2009 – December 2013)

100%

90% 94%

97%

96%

97% 98%

97%

98% 98% 98%

Percentage of Children

80%

70%

60%

50%
Jun-0J9un-09 DeDc-e0c9-09 JJuunn-1-010 DDece-c1-010 JuJnu-1n1-11 DeDc-e1c1-11 JuJun-n1-212 DMeca-r1-213 DJeucn--1133

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure. However, for the monitoring period ending March 2013, data for children that entered care in the month of October 2012 are excluded due to the impact of Superstorm Sandy on provider availability for appointments needing to occur in October or November 2012.

Final Target (98%)

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
Children entering out-of-home placement must receive a comprehensive medical examination (CME) within 60 days of entering placement (MSA Section II.F.2.ii). A CME involves a comprehensive physical, including a developmental history and evaluation, and an initial mental health screening.145 Mental health screenings determine if a child has a suspected mental health need.146 If a child is suspected to have a mental health need, a full mental health evaluation is then expected to be conducted.
DCF sustained performance ensuring that 85 percent of children received a CME within the first 30 days of placement and 98 percent of children received a CME within the first 60 days.

145Another type of CME is the Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children (CHEC) model which requires a three part examination: medical, neurodevelopmental and mental health assessments and can only be administered by a limited number of medical providers in New Jersey. 146 In addition to the expectation that mental health screenings occur as part of the CME, DCF directs Health Care Case Managers to conduct mental health screenings with children in out-of-home placements who are age two and above and not already receiving mental health services. Health Care Case Managers conduct these screenings within the first two weeks of a child’s placement.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 122

Data from April through December 2013 show that 3,288 children required a CME; 2,785 (85%) received a CME within the first 30 days of placement (See Table 20). An additional 427 (13%) children received their CME between 31-60 days of placement. Table 20 shows the monthly variation in performance.

Table 20: Comprehensive Medical Examinations within 30 and 60 days of Entering DCF Custody (April–December 2013)

APRIL

Comprehensive Medical Examinations Data

April–December 2013

Total

Total

Children Completed

Completed

requiring within 30

within 31-

CME

days

%

60 days

%

384

346

90%

30

8%

MAY

436

371

85%

56

13%

JUNE

371

330

89%

37

10%

JULY

332

290

87%

32

10%

AUGUST

373

310

83%

56

15%

SEPTEMBER

379

324

88%

47

12%

OCTOBER

384

325

85%

54

14%

NOVEMBER

336

266

79%

54

16%

DECEMBER

293

223

76%

61

21%

Total

3,288

2,785

Source: Data produced by the Child Health Unit

85%

427

13%

Total Completed within 0-
60 days 376
427
367
322
366
371
379
320
284
3,212

% 98% 98% 99% 97% 98% 98% 99% 95% 97% 98%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 123

Required Medical Examinations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

41. Required Medical Examinations: Number/percent of children in care for one year or more who received medical examinations in compliance with EPSDT guidelines.

Final Target

By June 2010, 98% of children in care for one year or more will receive medical examinations in compliance with EPSDT guidelines.

Figure 44: Percentage of Children Ages 12-24 months Up-to-Date on EPSDT Visits (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Children

100%

90% 94%

92%

92%

80%

93% 92%

92%

91%

93%

92%

Final Target (98%)

70%

60%

50%
JJuunn-0-099

DDeecc--0099 JJuunn--1100

DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111 DeDce-c1-111 JuJnu-n1-212 MDare-c1-132 DecJ-u1n3-13 Month

Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 124

Figure 45: Percentage of Children older than 2 years Up-to-Date on EPSDT Visits (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Children

100% 90% 94% 93% 94%

95% 94%

93%

93%

93%

92%

Final Target (98%)

80%

70%

60%

50%
JuJnu-0n9-09 DDece-c0-909 JJuunn--1100

DDeecc--1100

JJuunn--1111 DDecec-1-111

JuJnu-n1-122 MDaer-c1-132 DecJu-1n-313

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure.

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
Between April and December 2013, 92 percent of children 12 to 24 months old received the required Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) well-child examinations (see Figure 44 and Table 21). Similarly, 92 percent of children age two and above also received the required EPSDT well-child examinations (see Figure 45 and Table 22). This performance is similar to previous monitoring periods and is below the MSA final target of 98 percent of children in care for one year or more receiving timely EPSDT well-child examinations.147 However, in the Monitor’s judgment, this performance demonstrates sustained access to health care for children in out-of-home care.
NJ SPIRIT and SafeMeasures provide reports on when a child receives an EPSDT examination, but neither have the ability to determine whether or not a child is clinically up-to-date with these exams. A child may be noted in NJ SPIRIT as not up-to-date if at the EPSDT visit the child was sick (children must be well for such visits to be considered EPSDT visits) or the visit was missed, but rescheduled within a close time period. Also, especially notable for younger children, once a child is off schedule, they will remain off schedule within DCF’s data system for all subsequent EPSDT exams. Therefore, in an effort to determine the actual receipt of an EPSDT exam, DCF conducted a secondary review of all the records of children noted as “not

147 As the measure involves children in out-of-home placement for one year or more, performance for children under the age of 12 months is not measured by the Monitor.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 125

current with their EPSDT exams” and found more children were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT exam than reported in NJ SPIRIT and SafeMeasures.148

Table 21: EPSDT for Children Ages 12-24 months (April–December 2013)

Month APRIL

Children Requiring EPSDT
99

MAY

89

JUNE

118

JULY

109

AUGUST

102

SEPTEMBER

105

OCTOBER

100

NOVEMBER

101

DECEMBER

124

Total

947

Source: DCF data produced by Child Health Unit

Children Up-to-Date
90 79 111 102 97 97 92 91 112
871

% Children Up-to-Date
91% 89% 94% 94% 95% 92% 92% 90% 90%
92%

Table 22: EPSDT Annual Medical Exams for Children Age 25 months and older (April–December 2013)

Month
APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Total Source: DCF data

Total Due
197 214 239 239 223 220 220 187 160 1,899

Annual Exam Completed

186

94%

196

92%

216

90%

217

91%

210

94%

202

92%

197

90%

175

94%

139

87%

1,738

92%

Annual Exam Not Completed

11

6%

18

8%

23

10%

22

9%

13

6%

18

8%

23

10%

12

6%

21

13%

161

8%

148 The Monitor did not review the back-up data this monitoring period but has confidence in the review as the Monitor has previously examined the back-up data of this secondary review for children age 12 to 24 months and found DCF’s secondary review adequate to determine if children in the age range were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT exam.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 126

Semi-Annual Dental Examinations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

42. Semi-Annual Dental Examinations: Number/percent of children ages three and older in care six months or more who received semi-annual dental examinations.
a. By December 2011, 98% of children will receive annual dental examinations. b. By December 2011, 90% of children will receive semi-annual dental
examinations.

Figure 46: Percentage of Children Current with Semi-Annual Dental Exams (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Children

100%

90%

80%

85%

86% 89%

80%

70%

60% 64%

50%
JunJ-u0n9-09 DDece-c0-909

JJuunn-1-100

DDeecc--1100 JuJunn--1111

87%

86%

85%

84%

Final Target (90%)

DDeecc--1111 JJuunn--1122 MDare-c1-312 DecJu-1n-313

Source: DCF data

Month

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
As of December 31, 2013, 84 percent of children age three or older who have been in care for at least six months had evidence of receiving a semi-annual dental exam (within the last six months). DCF’s performance remains similar to the previous three monitoring periods and is below the final target by five percent. The dental care measure includes targets for annual and semi-annual dental exams. Because the performance expectation for field staff is to ensure that children age three or older receive semi-annual dental exams, DCF had been solely measuring whether children receive dental exams semi-annually. DCF also provided annual data on this measure which show that 98 percent of children three and older in care for at least six months in calendar year 2013 had an annual dental exam as of December 31, 2013. Thus the Monitor considers DCF to have partially fulfilled this Performance Measure.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 127

As of December 31, 2013, DCF reports that there were 4,168 children age three or older who had been in CP&P out-of-home placement for at least six month; 3,484 (84%) had received a dental examination within the previous six months and an additional 627 (15%) had received an annual dental examination, thus there was evidence that 99 percent of children aged three and older had at least an annual dental examination. From April through December 2013, monthly performance on current semi-annual dental examinations ranged from 81 to 87 percent.

Follow-up Care and Treatment

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

43. Follow-up Care and Treatment: Number/percent of children who received timely accessible and appropriate follow-up care and treatment to meet health care and mental health needs.

Final Target

By June 2011, 90% of children will receive follow-up care and treatment to meet health care and mental health needs.

Figure 47: Percentage of Children Who Received Follow-up Care for Needs Identified in CME
(June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Children

100%

90%

93% 90%

94% 94%

93%

96%

95%

95% Final Target (90%)

80% 80%

70%

60%

50%
JJuunn-0-099

DDeecc--0099

JJuunn-1-010

DDece-c1-010 JJuunn-1-111

DDeecc--1111 JJuunn--1122

MDaerc--1132 DeJcu-n1-313

Month
Source: DCF data, Health Care Case Record Reviews, Child Health Unit Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure. Data for December 2013 represents performance for children in out-of-home placement who were removed between November 1, 2012 and July 31, 2013 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 128

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
The data on health care follow-up is based on DCF’s internal Health Care Case Record review of a random sample of children in out-of-home placement who were removed between November 1, 2012 and July 31, 2013 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. Based on multiple assessments by the Monitor of DCF’s Health Care Case Record review and the results of the statewide Qualitative Review, the Monitor believes that the medical follow-up care and treatment of children is accurately measured through DCF’s internal Health Care Case Record review.149
DCF reports that of those children identified as needing follow-up care after their CME, 95 percent received the recommended follow-up care. As stated previously, mental health screenings are not routinely documented as part of the CME, but Health Care Case Managers help to ensure that children in out-of-home placement receive needed mental health services. Therefore, the Monitor considers these follow-up care data with the caveat that mental health needs requiring follow-up may not have been fully identified or documented as part of the CME for some children.150

Table 23: Provision of Required Follow-up Medical Care (n=366)
December 31, 2013

No CME data in record CME Records

#

%

1

>1%

365

100%

No follow-up care needed

23

6%

Follow-up care required

342

94%

 Received follow-up

326

95%

 No evidence in record

16

5%

Source: DCF, Health Care Case Record Review, Child Health Unit151

149 The Monitor did not independently verify the findings of DCF’s Health Care Case Record Review during this
Monitoring Period. However, the Monitor did review the protocol and observe a day of the review. The methodology and analysis remain comparable to the Health Care Case Record review conducted by the Monitor in
spring 2009. 150 The Monitor thus looks to Performance Measure 46 to measure whether children and youth receive mental health
screenings, and whether those with a suspected mental health need receive assessments. 151 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record review in order to report on this measure. The Review examined records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between November 1,
2012 and July 31, 2013 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,997 children comprise this cohort and a
sample of 366 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 percent margin of error with 95 percent confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 129

Immunizations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

44. Immunization: Children in DCF custody are current with immunizations.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 98% of children in custody will be current with immunizations.

Figure 48: Percentage of Children in Custody Current with Immunizations (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Children

100%

Final Target (98%)

90%

90%

93%

95% 97%

96%

95% 95% 94%

80% 86%

70%

60%

50%
JJuunn-0-909

DDeecc-0-099

JJuunn--1100

DDeecc--1100

JJuunn--1111 DDecec-1-111 JuJnun-1-122 MaDre-c1-312 DecJ-u1n3-13

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the last quarter of the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure. Data for December 2013 represents performance from October – December 2013.

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
From October through December 2013, of the 6,649 children in out-of-home placement, 6,276 (94%) were current with their immunizations, below the performance requirement of 98 percent. Performance on this measure has varied only two percentage points since December 2011. While not meeting the MSA final target, this performance represents sustained and positive results in ensuring that children are current with their immunizations. Thus, the Monitor deems this MSA requirement as partially fulfilled.152

152 New Jersey’s performance on child immunizations exceeds the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s goal for the nation that states achieve immunizations rates of 90 percent for children. Further, DCF’s performance on immunization rates for children in out-of-home placement is similar to rates of immunization for all of New Jersey’s children (grades pre K-6) in public schools. See, http://www.state.nj.us/health/cd/documents/status_report/2013/all_vacc13.pdf.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 130

Health Passports

Quantitative or

45. Health Passports: Children’s parents/caregivers receive current Health Passport

Qualitative Measure

within five days of a child’s placement.153

Final Target

By June 30, 2011, 95% of caregivers will receive a current Health Passport within five days of a child’s placement.

Figure 49: Percentage of Caregivers who Received Health Passports within 5 days of Child’s Placement (December 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Caregigers

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 28% 0%
Dec-09

32% Jun-10

30% Dec-10

63% 50%

Jun-11

Dec-11

Month

Final Target (95%)
63% 65% 58%
Jun-12 MDare-1c3-12 DecJ-u1n3-13

Source: DCF Health Care Case Record Review Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure. Data for December 2013 represents performance for children in out-of-home placement who were removed between November 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days.

153 Parties are determining if a more effective measure can be designed that assesses when meaningful medical information of children can reasonably be shared with their caregivers.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 131

Figure 50: Percentage of Caregivers who Received Health Passports within 30 days of Child’s Placement (December 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Caregigers

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 68% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Dec-09

68% Jun-10

68% Dec-10

92%

92%

Jun-11

Dec-11

Month

96% Jun-12

96%

98%

DMeacr--1123 DecJ-u1n3-13

Source: DCF Health Care Case Record Review Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure. Data for December 2013 represents performance for children in out-of-home placement who were removed between November 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days.

Table 24: Health Passport: Presence in the Record, Evidence of Sharing Records (n=366)
December 31, 2013

#

%

Health Passport was present in the record

365

100%

Health Passport not present in the record

1

>1%

Health Passport in record shared with provider

364

100%

Evidence of being shared with resource providers

 Within 5 days

237

65%

 Between 6- 10 days

73

20%

 Between 11- 30 days

47

13%

 More than 30 days Source: DCF, Health Care Case Record Review154

7

2%

154 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record review in order to report on this measure. The Review examined records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between November 1, 2012 and July 31, 2013 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,997 children comprise this cohort and a sample of 366 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 percent margin of error with a 95 percent confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 132

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
Under the MSA, all children entering out-of-home care are to have a Health Passport created for them (Section II.F.8). This Health Passport records all relevant health history and current health status of the child and is expected to be regularly updated and made available to resource parents, children (if old enough) and their parents.
Based on DCF’s internal Health Care Case Record Review of 366 cases, there is evidence that Health Passports are shared with the child’s caregiver within the first five days of placement in 65 percent of cases (see Table 24). This performance does not meet the final performance target. However, within 30 days of the placement, DCF data show the Health Passport has been shared with 98 percent of caregivers, consistent with performance from the last two monitoring period.
The Health Passport organizes health information from a range of sources including any findings of the PPA. DCF policy requires that the Health Care Case Manager complete the Health Passport, which is maintained by the CP&P Local Office Child Health Unit, and provide it to the resource parent within 72 hours of the child’s placement. This is a more stringent policy than the MSA requirement that the Health Passport be conveyed to the child’s caregiver within five days. DCF continues to be unable to consistently meet its internal timeframe or the five day requirement set in the MSA, and there is concern that Health Passports produced within 72 hours, or even five days, frequently cannot contain meaningful medical information. The Monitor and parties have met to discuss this measure and consider whether a more effective measure can be designed that assesses how and in what timeframes meaningful medical information about children can reasonably be collected and timely shared with their caregivers. No agreement has been reached as of this time.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 133

X. MENTAL HEALTH CARE
DCF continues to work on improving its mental health delivery system by expanding the services and supports under the Division of Children’s System of Care. DCF also has maintained achievement of MSA Performance Measures requiring that children receive timely mental health assessments and children and youth received appropriate, evidence-based mental health services to prevent their entry into CP&P custody.
A. Mental Health Delivery System
DCF’s Division of Children's System of Care (CSOC) serves children and adolescents with emotional, behavioral health, developmental and intellectual disabilities and co-occurring conditions. Beginning in 2012, the provision of services to children with developmental and intellectual disabilities, formerly under the purview of the Department of Human Services (DHS), transitioned to CSOC.
In October 2012 New Jersey received approval from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for a Comprehensive Medicaid Waiver focused, in part, on increasing supports for children and youth who have a risk of hospital level care (children/youth considered to be seriously emotionally disturbed). This waiver has two pilot programs—one that focuses on children and youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder and one that focuses on increasing services for youth with a developmental disability and a behavioral health concern. Some aspects of the waiver were implemented in the summer and fall of 2013.
The number of children placed out-of-state for treatment remains low.
DCF is required to minimize the number of children in CP&P custody placed in out-of-state congregate care settings and to work on transitioning these children back to New Jersey (Section II.D.2). As of December 2013, there were four youth in out-of-state residential placements. All four youth are in a specialized program for the deaf or hard of hearing. DCF has worked collaboratively with the state’s Department of Education, primarily with staff of New Jersey’s Marie H. Katzenbach School for the Deaf, to develop an in-state program to provide residential mental health treatment for five to eight youth. Program services will be provided by St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center. The facility is undergoing updates and renovations and DCF hopes to move the youth from out-of-state to the new facility in the summer of 2014 if the renovations have been completed.
Figure 51 shows the number of children placed out-of-state from June 2011 to December 2013.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 134

Figure 51: Children in Out-of-State Placement (June 2011 – December 2013)

20

Number of Children

15 13 13

10 5

9999

7

6

6

6

5

5

5

5

3

4

0
Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 AMuagr--1123 SeDp-e1c2-13

Source: DCF data, CSOC (as of the first day of each month)

Month

Youth in detention, in CP&P custody and awaiting CSOC placement are moved from
detention in a timely manner.
The MSA requires that no youth in CP&P custody should wait longer than 30 days in a detention facility post-disposition for an appropriate placement (Section II.D.5). From April to December 2013, eight youth in CP&P custody, four females and four males ages 13 to 17, were in juvenile detention awaiting a CSOC placement following disposition of their delinquency case. Two youth transitioned from detention within 15 days after disposition. The remaining six youth transitioned between 16 and 30 days following disposition of their case, thereby meeting the MSA requirement. Table 25 provides information on the length of time each of the youth waited for placement.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 135

Table 25: Youth in CP&P Custody in Juvenile Detention Post-Disposition
Awaiting CSOC Placement (April–December 2013)

Length of Time to placement while in Detention Post-Disposition 0-15 Days 16-30 Days Over 30 Days
Total Source: DCF data, CSOC

Number of Youth
2 6 0 8

B. Mental Health Performance Measures Mental Health Assessments

Quantitative or

46. Mental Health Assessments: Number/percent of children with a suspected mental

Qualitative Measure

health need who receive mental health assessments.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 90% of children with a suspected mental health need will receive a mental health assessment.

Figure 52: Percentage of Children with Suspected Mental Health Needs who Received Mental Health Assessment
(December 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Children

100% 90%
89% 80% 70% 60% 50%
DeDc-e0c9-09

91%
JuJnu-n1-010

94%
DDeecc--1100

94%
JJuunn--1111

90%
DDeecc--1111

92%
JJuunn--1122

90%
DMeacr--1123

93% Final Target (90%)
JDuenc-1-133

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this Figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the Figure. Data for December 2013 represents performance

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 136

for children in out-of-home placement who were removed between November 1, 2012 and July 31, 2013 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days.
Performance as of December 31, 2013:
DCF’s internal Health Care Case Record Review found that 99 percent of eligible children and youth received the required mental health screening.155 Eligible children are over the age of two and not already receiving mental health services. As shown in Table 26, a total of 165 children in the sample required a mental health assessment.
DCF reports that 93 percent (154) of those 165 children identified as needing a mental health assessment received one by the time of the record review. Performance met the MSA performance requirement.
The data also show that of the 93 percent of youth receiving a mental health assessment, 74 percent (114) were completed in the first 30 days of out-of-home placement and another 13 percent (21) were completed in 60 days.

155 The Monitor did not independently verify the findings of DCF’s Health Care Case Record Review. However, the Monitor did review the protocol, observe a day of the review and discuss the methodology with DCF staff. The methodology and analysis are comparable to the Health Care Case Record review conducted by the Monitor in spring 2009.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 137

Table 26: Mental Health Screening and Assessments for Children Age 2 and older as of December 31, 2013 (n=366)

MH Screening

Not reviewed already receiving services (51) or under the age of two (90)

141

39%

Children eligible for screening

225

61%

TOTAL RECORDS REVIEWED

366

100%

Children eligible screened Children eligible not screened TOTAL CHILDREN ELIGIBLE FOR SCREENING

222

99%

3

1%

225

100%

Suspected MH need identified

143

64%

Youth already receiving services were identified as needing an assessment

22*

TOTAL REQUIRING MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS

165

MH Assessment

MH assessment completed

154

93%

MH assessment scheduled

1

>1%

MH assessment not completed/not scheduled

10

6%

TOTAL

165

MH Assessment Completion Timeline

MH assessment complete w/in 30 days

114

MH assessment complete w/in 60 days

21

Greater than 60 days

14

Unable to determine

5

TOTAL

154

Recommendations made in MH Assessment

Recommendation Made

147

No Recommendation Made

7

TOTAL

154

Treatment Provided/Evidence in the Record

All Recommended Treatment Provided

90

Some Recommended Treatment Provided

29

Recommended Treatment Not Provided

28

TOTAL

147

Source: DCF data, Health Care Case Record Review156

*22 of the 51 children already receiving mental health services

100%
74% 14%
9% 3% 100%
95% 5%
100%
61% 20% 19% 100%

156 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between November 1, 2012 and July 31, 2013 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 2,997 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 366 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 percent margin of error with a 95 percent confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 138

Provision of In-Home and Community-Based Mental Health Services for Children and Their Families

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

47. Provision of in-home and community-based mental health services for children and their families: CSOC shall continue to support activities of CMOs, YCMs, FSOs, Mobile Response, evidence-based therapies such as MST and FFT and crisis stabilization services to assist children and youth and their families involved with CP&P and to prevent children and youth from entering CP&P custody.
Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
Section II.C.2 of the MSA requires the state to have a Medicaid rate structure to reimburse evidence-based, informed or support practices such as Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST). FFT continues to be available in seven counties: Atlantic, Cape May, Burlington, Ocean, Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem. For the last quarter of the monitoring period, each program’s average census was 76 percent of the program’s capacity. Two FFT programs operated above capacity. MST continues to be available in three counties: Camden, Essex and Hudson. The MST provider for Essex and Hudson counties operated well below capacity (averaging 33% monthly census) due to the departure of a number of therapists.
The FFT and MST programs averaged approximately 22 successful discharges per month during the last quarter (October-December 2013) of this monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 139

XI. SERVICES TO PREVENT ENTRY INTO FOSTER CARE AND TO SUPPORT REUNIFICATION AND PERMANENCY

Continued Support for Family Success Centers

Quantitative or

48. Continued Support for Family Success Centers: DCF shall continue to support a

Qualitative Measure

statewide network of Family Success Centers.

Final Target

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
New Jersey began developing a network of Family Success Centers (FSCs) in 2007, initially with 21 centers. Now, in its sixth year, New Jersey has a total of 51 FSCs, at least one in each of the 21 counties.157
FSCs are neighborhood-based places where any community resident can access family support, information and services, and specialized supports that tend to vary depending on the needs and desires of the community in which they are located. Their function is to provide resources and supports before families fall into crisis. FSCs are situated in many types of settings: storefronts, houses, schools, houses of worship and public housing. Services range from life skills training, parent and child activities, advocacy, parent education and housing related activities.
Since Superstorm Sandy in October 2012, New Jersey’s FSCs have become gateways to reach families in the counties that were hit the hardest by the storm. In addition to providing families with assistance immediately following the storm, the FSCs offer day to day support and a place to build and restore community.
In September 2013, the Office of Family Support Services (OFSS) redefined the FSC’s contracted services; “parent education” and “parent/child activity” were collapsed into one service and “home visiting” was removed from a contracted service to an expanded service that each FSC can choose to provide depending on need. Table 27 shows the unduplicated number of families served by New Jersey’s FSCs from April to December 2013. Table 28 shows the ten contracted services provided by FSCs statewide to individuals, families or groups between April and August 2013.158 Table 29 shows the revised contracted services provided by FSCs statewide to individuals, families or groups between September and December 2013.

157 During the monitoring period the new Meadowlands FSC replaced a FSC in Lodi that closed, the Palisades FSC replaced the West Hudson FSC, and the Bayshore FSC was added after a privately funded FSC closed in Essex
county. 158 Families can receive more than one service at any one time.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 140

Table 27: Unduplicated Number of Families Served by New Jersey’s FSCs (April–December 2013)*

FSC Unduplicated Apr-13 Number of
Families Served 5,539

May-13 4,859

Jun-13 4,384

Jul-13 4,703

Aug-13 4,266

Sep-13** 3,526

Oct-13 3,581

Nov-13 3,417

Dec-13 3,088

*Unduplicated refers only to the number of families served within each month and not the services received, so a

family could access more than one service more than one time.

**OFSS changed its definition of contracted services on September 1, 2013.

Table 28: Ten Contracted Services Provided by FSCs Statewide between April and August 2013159

Contracted Service Access to Health Development of Family Success Plans Economic Self Sufficiency Information & Referral Services Life Skills Training Housing-Related Services Parent Education Parent–Child Activities Advocacy Home Visiting
Total

April 6,187
283 2,619 4,406 7.130
944 1,258 3,232
823 296
27,178

May 6,481
282 2,501 3,803 6,354
782 1,091 2,387 1,028
263
24,972

2013 June 3,660
283 2,222 3,479 3,540
744 1,078 2,976
874 243
19,099

July 3,028
375 1,907 3,031 3,463
900 782 3,139 792 220
17,637

August 2,750 364 2,043 4,057 3,240 971 994 4,381 775 276
19,851

Table 29: Revised Contracted Services Provided by FSCs between September and December 2013*

Contracted Service Family Health Parent Education/Parent-Child Activity Employment Related Housing Related Life Skills Advocacy Family Success Plans General I&R/Linkage

September 1,824 3,496 896 827 2,566 1,014 392 4,752

2013 October
2,631 6,171 1,376
784 4,038 1,299
323 5,096

November 1,840 3,722 1,059 852 3,296 1,333 253 4,756

December 1,970 5,345 1,083 844 2,891 1,607 256 4,295

Total

15,767

21,718

17,111

18,291

*Table 29 shows data after DCF revised its definition of contracted services beginning in September 2013.

159 Table 28 and 29 refer to individual, family and group sessions, whereas Table 27 refers to the number of families served.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 141

XII. SERVICES TO OLDER YOUTH
During Phase I of the MSA, DCF created and promoted policies to provide continued support and services to youth aged 18 to 21, including extending the option for CP&P custody until age 21. During this monitoring period, DCF has continued to expand and deepen its policies and practices to support adolescents. DCF increased attention to permanency for older youth through the implementation of Permanency Roundtables, reorganized Youth Advisory Boards and awarded new contracts to support homeless youth and youth who are the victims of human trafficking. Also, new this monitoring period, DCF was awarded a federal planning grant to conduct data analysis and a needs assessment and develop a framework for improving educational, employment, well-being and permanency outcomes for CP&P involved youth. These new developments are discussed below.
Also, discussed below are new developments and updates to current practices and strategies utilized by DCF to provide services for older youth in the following areas: housing, education, employment, financial literacy, increasing staff skills and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning or Intersex (LGBTQI) services. Following the practice updates, progress toward the Phase II Performance Measures is provided.
A. New Developments
In this monitoring period, DCF awarded two contracts that focused on: preventing human trafficking; providing rescue interventions in cases of human trafficking of youth; providing stabilization, resources and supportive services needed by these youth; and preparing youth for independence. These contracts were awarded to Homeless Youth Outreach Programs in designated hurricane impacted counties. In addition to these efforts, DCF regularly and widely distributed a newsletter to educate all staff about information, tips and resources related to human trafficking. In August 2013, DCF hired a new staff member within OAS to manage efforts on addressing human trafficking case practice issues as well as immigration and expungement of juvenile records.
DCF also made efforts to enhance supports for youth involved with Youth Advisory Boards (YAB). DCF released a Request for Proposals in May 2013 to support a new Youth Advisory Board model. Rutgers University School of Social Work was awarded the contract and will be creating 15 YABs statewide as well as one Youth Advisory Council. By September 2013, the existing YABs had been recognized for their accomplishments and notified of the transition. Since then, the Transitions for Youth (TFY) at Rutgers School of Social Work hired staff and built much of the infrastructure to support these boards. The majority of new YABs had their first meetings in mid-January 2014.
With support from Casey Family Programs, CP&P and OAS launched Permanency Roundtables (PRT) Case Consultation in November 2013. The PRT began with a kickoff event emphasizing the value of permanency of older youth. In November, 40 cases statewide were reviewed by five teams. These cases involved youth between the ages of 14 and 17 who had been in care for 50 months or more with a current case goal of independent living, other long term specialized care, kinship legal guardianship or individual stabilization. During the PRT, teams created a

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 142

Permanency Action Plan and 28 of those plans recommended goals of adoption, reunification or kinship legal guardianship. DCF intends to create a tracking process to measure progress towards these recommended goals.
On September 26, 2013, the Administration for Children, Youth and Families awarded DCF a two year planning grant to gather and analyze data and develop an intervention framework that will improve educational, employment, permanency and well-being outcomes for older youth involved with CP&P. The intervention framework will be evidence-based and focus on addressing trauma, improving protective and promotive capacities and comprehensive life skills of older youth.
Finally, this monitoring period, OAS began working with the Office of Child and Family Health to provide information to youth and providers on the extension of Medicaid coverage for eligible youth until the age of 26 pursuant to the Federal Affordable Care Act. In preparation for the January 1, 2014 implementation date, DCF created system changes and processes to identify and link coverage for youth within the 18 to 26 year old population who are determined eligible. Prior to implementation of the new Medicaid coverage extension, during CY 2013, DCF has continued to ensure that the majority of youth exiting care who need Medicaid health insurance160 receive it. Specifically, in CY 2013, of the 375 youth ages 17.9 to 20.9 who were discharged from placement and needed Medicaid, 353 (94%) received Medicaid for at least one month following discharge. Additionally, of the 249 youth ages 17.9 to 20.9 who were discharged from placement between October 1, 2012 and June 31, 2013 and who needed Medicaid, 231 (93%) received Medicaid for at least six months.
B. Updates to Current Practices
Housing
The OAS partners with PerformCare to maintain and operate the Adolescent Housing Hub, a real-time, automated housing slot tracking and referral system housed within PerformCare’s CYBER system. DCF reports that the Hub allows for the identification of appropriate housing for youth by accurately matching the youth’s needs, provider information and program capacity. OAS is assessing data to determine housing needs across the state and is currently in the process of removing youth from the Hub who no longer have a need for housing or who have aged out. DCF reports having a total of 371 housing slots for homeless youth and DCF involved youth ages 16 to 21. From October 2012 through October 2013, DCF reports a total of 2,867 calls to the Hub for housing assistance, with the highest number of calls occurring in the summer months of May through August. The Hub also allows OAS to gather information on youth’s housing, employment and educational status at admission and discharge.
DCF continues to support transitional and supported housing for older youth. As indicated in Table 30, as of December 31, 2013, there were 390 transitional and supported housing operational units contracted for, with 385 slots in use. In September 2013, DCF funded a new

160 This includes Chafee Medicaid, CP&P Medicaid or non-CP&P Medicaid.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 143

five-bed transitional living housing program in Essex County for young women ages 18 to 21, with one bed for a pregnant or parenting youth.

County Atlantic Bergen
Burlington Camden Cape May
Essex
Gloucester Hudson
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth Morris Ocean Passaic Salem
Somerset
Union Warren
Total Source: DCF data

Table 30: Youth Transitional and Supported Housing as of December 31, 2013

Current period: Operational Slots
6 16
31 31 12
57
30 25
14
12
19 5 8 19 16
15
66 8 390

Providers
Twin Oaks Bergen County Community Action Program Volunteers of America Crossroads Garden State Homes The Children’s Home of Burlington County Center For Family Services CAPE Counseling Center For Family Services Care Plus (Strive For Independence I) Care Plus (Strive For Independence II) Corinthian Homes (Youth Build) Covenant House Covenant House Tri-City Peoples Robin’s Nest Inc. Catholic Charities Diocese of Newark (Strong Futures) Volunteers of America Anchorage Anchorline Lifeties Garden State Homes Middlesex Interfaith Partners with the Homeless (MIPH) Catholic Charities Diocese of Trenton Collier Services IEP Plaid House – Thenen House Ocean Harbor House NJ Development Corporation (Ind House/Marion) Ranch Hope (HILLS) Robin’s Nest Inc Somerset Home for Temporarily Displaced Children Somerset Home for Temporarily Displaced Children Somerset Home for Temporarily Displaced Children Community Access Unlimited Volunteers of America Catholic Charities Diocese of Metuchen

Ages Accepted
18-21 16-21 16-21 17-21 16-21 16-21 16-21 18-21 18-21 18-21 18-21 16-21 18-21 18-21 18-21 18-21
18-21
18-21 18-21 18-21 18-21 18-21
18-21
17-21 18-21 18-21 16-20 16-21 18-21 17-21 18-21 18-21 18-21 18-21 16-21 16-21 18-21

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 144

Education
The Office of Educational Support (OESP) moved under the OAS on July 1, 2013. OESP provides a number of supports to DCF staff, including, for example:
 piloting a training for Educational Stability Liaisons;  holding an education workshop for resource parents and DCF workers about supporting
youth’s engagement and progression in their education; and  supporting CP&P case managers on their individual cases to ensure that youth are on
target to graduate and get the education supports they may need.
OESP also oversees the New Jersey Foster Care (NJFC) Scholars Program, which provides assistance with tuition and fees to current and former eligible foster youth in order to pursue post-secondary education. Foster and Adoptive Family Services (FAFS) administers the NJ Scholars program. For the 2012-2013 academic year ending in June 2013, 327 students participated in the Scholars program and 274 (84%) received funding through Education and Training Voucher (ETV) or tuition waiver. DCF reports the remaining youth did not utilize Scholars program funding because the financial aid provided by their educational institutions covered their expenses. For the 2013-2014 academic year, 312 youth participated in the Scholars program and 223 (72%) received funding or tuition waiver. The number of youth enrolled in the Scholars program has remained steady since the 2011-2012 academic year when 316 students participated.
DCF continues to make efforts to increase participation in the Scholars program. Between April and June 2013, 25 outreach efforts occurred to provide assistance to 111 youth in understanding the Scholars program. Additional outreach efforts throughout the monitoring period included: two trainings for CASA volunteers in Mercer and Burlington counties on the Scholars Program, four events with Rutgers Transitions for Youth Summer Housing and Internship program to assist Scholars in completing 2013-2014 Scholars Program applications, and presentations at two “Aging Out” events that reached approximately 42 youth.
DCF reports that all youth enrolled in the Scholars program receive support services through Project MYSELF. These services are designed to improve the youth’s academic performance, increase post-secondary education retention and develop essential life skills and competencies. A support coach works with each student involved with Project MYSELF to provide mentoring, crisis intervention, and referrals to academic community and other resources as needed, with more intensive involvement from the coach for those students with a low grade point average.161
The OESP also provides Ward of the Court letters for youth who were in foster care with CP&P after the age of 13. These letters allow the adolescent to file as an independent student on the FAFSA and thus the youth does not have to provide their parents/ tax information for financial aid eligibility review. The OESP provided these letters for 73 students during this monitoring period.

161 DCF reports that in the 2012-2013 academic year, Project MYSELF served 321 students and of those, 191 received the more intensive support coach contact.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 145

Employment
OAS is working with the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development and the State Employment and Training Commission (SETC) to identify, evaluate and expand access to employment programs. One component of this partnership includes resource and information sharing with One-Stop Career Centers, Workforce Investment Boards and Youth Investment Councils throughout the state. Another component of the partnership is participation in the SETC’s Shared Youth Vision Council which brings together stakeholders to construct a shared vision to guide employment and training services for youth.
Also during this monitoring period, OAS, Casey Family Programs and the Rutgers University School of Social Work partnered together and strategized about best practices and models used by other child welfare systems in supporting youth employment. As a result, OAS in cooperation with these partners and OESP developed and delivered staff training that focused on supporting engagement activities with youth to support employment. Topics included working with youth on employment planning, career assessment, training, job seeking and retention.
Financial literacy
DCF continues to offer EverFi, an online financial literacy program, to provide services to youth in housing and life skills programs.162 As of August 2013, 86 youth were either actively engaged in or completed the course. An unlimited amount of additional slots are available for more youth to participate in the future and training is being conducted with CP&P as well as Care Management Organization (CMO) youth serving agencies.
Increasing staff skills
Beginning in September 2012, OAS offers quarterly training on adolescent policy, practice and resources. The training is mandatory for adolescent supervisors and workers and other CP&P staff who work with youth are encouraged to attend.
The OAS provides a variety of technical assistance to the field on adolescent policy and practice. During the monitoring period, OAS hosted regional practice forums for cross agency staff in June, September, and December on topics relevant to adolescent practice.163 Topics included Medicaid Extension to age 26, the role out of Youth Advisory Boards, permanency initiatives, educational initiatives and employment practices. In addition, these forums provide the opportunity for OAS to receive feedback about current policies and new potential initiatives that will improve services, resources and case practice tools. OAS also visits with Outreach to AtRisk Youth (OTARY) programs quarterly and provides on-site technical assistance and consultation. Meetings were held in April and August 2013 for the 21 OTARY programs and trainings were provided on youth employment opportunities, housing services, mandatory reporting laws, adolescent abuse and neglect, case management and developing youth leadership

162 EverFi is underwritten by Kearny Federal Savings Bank. 163 Staff are from CP&P, the DCF Office of Education and the Children’s System of Care Care Management
Organizations.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 146

opportunities. Finally, in August 2013, 28 CP&P staff completed the first year of the Adolescent Advocacy program—a post-B.A. 15 credit certificate through Montclair State University focused on adolescent advocacy and case practice. Forty new students are now participating in the second year of the program.
Services for LGBTQI Population
The MSA required DCF to develop and begin to implement a plan for appropriate service delivery to youth who identify as LGBTQI (MSA Section II.C.4). During this monitoring period, DCF continued to implement strategies and services to meet the needs of this population. The primary vehicle for these services is through the Safe Space Program. This program encourages and promotes a welcoming and inclusive environment within DCF for LGBTQI youth, families and staff through training, activities, resources, community partnerships, collection of LGBTQI data and through developing policies that reflect appropriate case practice with this population. DCF has increased the number of Safe Space liaisons during this monitoring period by adding an additional 12 liaisons, now offering a total of 160 for all 47164 CP&P Local Offices. Liaisons continue to produce LGBTQI inclusive newsletters, make presentations on local and national LGBTQI resources, update the LGBTQI Resource Guide, and collect data on the number of LGBTQI youth and families that they serve. The data are collected by OAS to identify, create and update policy, programming and practice needs to best support these youth and families. To date, DCF reports that these liaisons provided 351 consultations concerning case practice and community resources related to LGBTQI youth and families. Also during this monitoring period, the New Jersey Office of Training and Professional Development changed their Cultural Competency I and II trainings to include a focus on LGBTQ issues in the workforce and key concepts on how best to work with LGBTQI youth and families.
C. Performance Measures Measuring Services to Older Youth
As of December 31, 2013, CP&P served 2,858 youth aged 18 to 21; current information indicates that 520 (18%) youth were living in a CP&P out-of-home placement; 1,633 (57%) youth were living in their own homes;165 and 705 (25%) youth were receiving adoption or Kinship Legal Guardianship subsidies.

164 The Newark Adoption office was phased out as of October 2013 and adoption units were assigned to each Local Office. As of October 2013, there were 46 CP&P offices. 165 DCF is further analyzing these data to better understand the exact setting(s) indicated for the youth categorized as
“living in their own homes.”

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 147

Independent Living Assessments

Quantitative or

53. Independent Living Assessments: Number/percent of cases where DCF

Qualitative Measure

Independent Living Assessment is complete for youth 14 to 18.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 95% of youth age 14 to 18 have an Independent Living Assessment.

Figure 53: Percentage of Youth Aged 14-18 with Independent Living Assessment (December 2009 – December 2013)

100% 80%

98%

83%

87%

91%

83%

84%

96% Final Target (95%)

Percentage of Youth

60%

40% 47%
DeDce-0c9-09

JJuunn--1100

Source: DCF data

DDeec-c1-010

JJuunn--1111

DDeecc--1111

Month

JJuunn-1-212

DMeca-1r-213 DJuenc-1-133

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
CP&P reached the final target for this measure for the first time the previous monitoring period and strong performance continued this monitoring period.166 Specifically, in December 2013, there were 929 youth aged 14 to18 in out-of-home placement for at least six months; 894 (96%) had an Independent Living Assessment completed.

166 June 2013 performance was 93% and September 2013 performance was 95%.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 148

Services to Older Youth

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

54. Services to Older Youth: DCF shall provide services to youth between the ages 18 and 21 similar to services previously available to them unless the youth, having been informed of the implications, formally request that DCF close the case.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 90% of youth are receiving acceptable services as measured by the QR.

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
Performance data for this measure were collected through QR reviews conducted between January 2012 and July 2013 of 44 cases of youth ages 18 to 21. The standard NJ protocol was utilized and for the 20 reviews conducted in July 2013, reviewers were given a list of additional considerations to apply in reviewing cases which asked reviewers to consider the youth’s overall global well-being and functioning taking into consideration, for example, youth who identify as LGBTQ, are victims of domestic violence, are pregnant or parenting or are developmentally disabled. By agreement between the Monitor and CP&P, cases were considered acceptable for this measure if the QR ratings were within the acceptable range (4-6) for both the overall Child/Youth and Family Indicator and Practice Performance Indicator.
Twenty-nine (66%) of the 44 cases reviewed were rated acceptable on both the Child/Youth and Family Indicator and Practice Performance Indicator. This is the first time performance data has been available on this measure and findings from these reviews identify areas of strength to build upon as well as areas needing improvement to support provision of services to older youth.
Below are QR indicators within each overall domain where acceptable ratings were provided by reviewers for the majority of cases:
 Safety of the youth in their home setting (98% acceptable),  Safety of the youth in other settings (98% acceptable),  Living arrangement (98% acceptable),  Physical health of the youth (93% acceptable),  Emotional well-being (82% acceptable),  Learning and development (87% acceptable),  Provision of health care services (91% acceptable) and  Resource availability (93% acceptable).
Overall acceptable ratings for the following QR indicators identify areas needing improvement:  Progress toward permanency (68% acceptable),  Family teamwork – formation (57% acceptable),  Family teamwork – functioning (52% acceptable),  Case planning process (66% acceptable),  Plan implementation (66% acceptable),

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 149

 Long term view (57% acceptable) and  Transitions and life adjustments (55% acceptable).
DCF has analyzed the data collected through these reviews and is in the process of compiling a report with further detail of the findings. Data will continue to be collected during scheduled QRs of older youth moving forward and will be compiled and presented for this performance measure in future reports.
Youth Exiting Care

Quantitative or

55. Youth Exiting Care: Youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall

Qualitative Measure

have housing and be employed or in training or an educational program.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 95% of youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall have housing and be employed or in training or an educational program.

Figure 54: Youth Exiting Care with Housing and Employed or Enrolled in Educational or Vocational Training Program January 2010 – December 2013

100%

80%

86%

72% 60%
60% 52%
40%

93% 65%

Final Target (95%)

20%

JaJna-nJ-uJnun20210010

Jul-Dec 2012

Jan-Dec-2013

Housing

Employed or Educational/Vocational Training Program

Source: Data from DCF and CSSP Case Record Reviews

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
The Monitor and DCF conducted a case record review of the 106 youth who exited care without achieving permanency between January and December 2013 and found that 93 percent of these youth had documentation of a housing plan upon exiting CP&P care and 65 percent of applicable youth were either employed or enrolled in education or vocational training programs. Current performance demonstrates an improvement on this measure since the last case record review which assessed youth who exited care without permanency between July and December 2012. That review found that 86 percent of those youth had housing and 52 percent were either employed or enrolled in education or vocational training programs.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 150

Data collected in the current review of youth exiting in 2013 identified the following pertaining to planning and service provision:
Planning and Assessment:  The reason for case closure for 42 percent of youth reviewed was the youth turned 21 years old and 28 percent of youth reviewed declined further services.  51 percent of youth signed an adolescent closing agreement at the time their case closed.  77 percent of youth had an Independent Living Assessment completed, and of those with a completed assessment, 54 percent were completed within 12 months of case closure and 46 percent were completed over 12 months prior to case closure.  All youth (100%) had a case plan.  42 percent of youth had a Transitional Living Plan completed and included in their record.
Housing:  All but one youth (99%) had documented housing prior to case closure.  Documentation in the case record indicated that 81 percent of youth had worked with their caseworker prior to case closure in order to secure housing.  Reviewers were asked to identify strengths and areas needing improvement with DCF’s casework around housing. Some of the more commonly identified strengths included: engagement with youth and family (80 cases), identification of resources and programs for the youth (71 cases) and caseworker-supervisory conferences were held (52 cases). Areas needing improvement included: more community resources needed to achieve the goal (35 cases), assessments not completed or only partially completed (36 cases), plans not completed or only partially completed (34 cases) and improvements needed in caseworker-supervisory conferencing (36 cases).
Education and Employment:  At the time of case closure, 50 percent of the youth had at least completed a high school level of education.  87 percent of applicable youth had undergone case planning specific to their educational or vocational needs; 77 percent of applicable youth had undergone planning related to employment.  Reviewers were asked to identify strengths and areas needing improvement with DCF’s casework around education and employment. Some of the more commonly identified strengths included: engagement of youth and family (75 cases), resources and programs identified for the youth (60 cases) and caseworker-supervisory conferences were held (43 cases). Areas needing improvement included: assessments not completed or only partially completed (38 cases), plans not completed or only partially completed (38 cases), improvements needed in caseworker-supervisory conferencing (35 cases) and improved follow-up by caseworker (35 cases).
CP&P is in the process of finalizing a full report on the findings from this review and the Monitor anticipates this will be available on their website in the near future.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 151

XIII. SUPPORTING A HIGH QUALITY WORKFORCE: CASELOADS AND TRAINING
DCF continues to meet average office caseload standards for Permanency and Adoption workers, and individual caseload standards for IAIU staff and Permanency workers. DCF has not met standards for office average caseload for Intake workers, and individual caseload standards for Adoption and Intake workers, although Intake caseload performance has slightly improved during this monitoring period.
A. Caseloads
Caseload compliance is measured by individual caseworker caseloads in each of the functional areas (Intake, Permanency, Adoption and IAIU) as well as office standards for CP&P Local Offices. Office-wide average caseloads are to comply with the applicable functional area caseload standards in 95 percent of all CP&P Local Offices and at least 95 percent of workers in each of the functional areas are to have individual caseloads meeting the designated standard (MSA Section III.B.1). Table 31 summarizes the caseload standards for individual workers.

Table 31: DCF/CP&P Individual Caseload Standards

Caseworker Function

Responsibility

Individual Caseload Standard

Intake
Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit
(IAIU)
Permanency
Adoption Source: DCF

Respond to community concerns regarding child safety and well-being. Specifically, receive referrals from the State Central Registry (SCR) and depending on the nature of the referral, respond between two hours and five days with a visit to the home and begin investigation or assessment. Complete investigation or assessment within 60 days.

Intake workers are to have no more than 12 open families at any one time and no more than eight new referrals assigned in a month. (Section II.E and Section III.B.1).

Respond to allegations of child abuse and neglect in settings including correctional facilities, detention facilities, treatment facilities, schools (public or private), residential schools, shelters, hospitals, camps or child care centers that are required to be licensed, resource family homes and registered family day care homes.

IAIU staff workers are to have no more than 12 open cases at any one time and no more than eight new referrals assigned in a month. (Section II.E and Section III.B.1).

Provide services to families whose children remain at home under the protective supervision of CP&P and those families whose children are removed from home due to safety concerns.

Permanency workers are to serve no more than 15 families and 10 children in out-of-home care at any one time. (Section II.E and Section III.B.1).

Find permanent homes for children who cannot safely return to their parents by preparing children for adoption, developing adoptive resources and performing the work needed to finalize adoptions.

Adoption workers are to serve no more than 15 children at any one time. (Section II.E and Section III.B.1).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 152

Interview Procedure to Verify Worker Caseloads
The Monitor verified caseload data supplied by DCF by conducting telephone interviews with randomly selected workers across the state. One-hundred sixty workers were selected from those active in September 2013. All of the 46 CP&P167 Local Offices were represented in the sample. The interviews were conducted throughout the months of November and December 2013 and January 2014. All 160 workers were called. Information was collected from 125 workers (82% of the eligible sample), located in all 46 Local Offices. Five workers were no longer employed by CP&P or were on extended leave during the period of the calls and were removed from the sample. One caseworker declined to participate and another was an interim supervisor who did not carry a caseload for a large portion of the monitoring period (April through July 2013) were also removed from the sample. Contact was attempted at least three times for each caseworker.
During the interviews, workers were asked if their caseloads met caseload standards between April 2013 and September 2013 and their responses were compared to the caseload information the state supplied for the same period from NJ SPIRIT. Workers were also asked to report their specific caseload size for the month of September 2013. The Monitor is satisfied that sufficient information was gathered to verify the accuracy of the state’s caseload reporting and that, in general, NJ SPIRIT accurately reflects worker caseloads.
The following discussion describes the state’s performance in meeting the office caseload standards and the individual caseload standards.
CP&P met the standard for average office caseloads for two of three functional areas, failing to meet the standard for Intake workers.
Figures 55-57 summarize the Period XIV performance on meeting Local Offices average caseload standards.

167 The Newark Adoption office was phased out as of October 2013 and adoption units were assigned to each Local Office. As a result, as of October 2013, the number of CP&P Local Offices were reduced to 46.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 153

Figure 55: Percentage of DCF/CP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload Standards for Intake Workers (June 2009 – December 2013)

100% 98% 98%
90%
80%

89%

95% 96%

89%

87%

98% 91%

Final Target (95%)

Percentage of DCF/DYFS (Intake)

70%
JuJnu-0n9-09 DDeecc--0099

JJuunn--1100

DDeecc-1-100 JJuunn--1111 DDeecc-1-111 JJuunn--1122 MDeacr--1123 DeJucn-1-133

Source: DCF data

Month

Figure 56: Percentage of DCF/CP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload Standards for Permanency Workers (June 2009 – December 2013)

100% 98% 98%

98%

99% 100%

96%

94%

96%

98%

Final Target (95%)

90%

Percentage of DCF/DYFS (Permanency

80%

70%
JuJnu-0n9-09 DDece-c0-909

JJuunn--1100

DDeecc--1100

JJuunn--1111 DDecec-1-111 JuJnu-n1-212

MDaerc--1132 DeJcu-n1-313

Source: DCF data

Month

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 154

Figure 57: Percentage of DCF/CP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload Standards for Adoption Workers (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of DCF/DYFS (Adoption)

100% 98%
95% 90%
80%

94% 92% 90%
87% 88%

Final Target (95%)
95% 80%

70%
JuJnu-0n9-09 DDeecc--0099

JJuunn--1100

DDeecc-1-100 JJuunn--1111 DDeecc--1111 JJuunn--1122

MDeacr--1123 DJeucn--1133

Source: DCF data

Month

Intake
The individual worker caseload standard for Intake workers of no more than 12 open cases at any one time and no more than eight new referrals assigned a month was not met as of December 31, 2013. The state reported an average of 946 active Intake workers between April and December 2013. Among those active Intake workers, an average of 823 (87%) workers had caseloads that met the caseload requirements. Specifically in December 2013, individual worker caseload compliance for Intake workers was also 87 percent. For the 122 Intake workers who did not meet caseload requirements in December 2013, the highest number of new intakes during the month for any worker was 9 and the highest number of open cases for any worker in the month was 25 families.
Data by Local Office show that during December 2013, performance ranged between 19 percent and 100 percent, with 24 of 46 (52%) Local Offices having all Intake workers with caseloads in compliance (see Appendix D-1).
Among the 125 workers who participated in the phone interview for caseload verification, 57 were Intake workers. Seven (12%) of the 57 Intake workers reported going over the caseload limits for new assignments at some point between April and September 2013. Twenty-three (40%) Intake workers reported having more than 12 total families on their caseload at some point between April and September 2013.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 155

DCF has continued to implement efforts to improve Intake caseload compliance through the Ready Work Pool (RWP) initiative and deployment of “impact teams.” The RWP initiative was developed to enhance DCF’s capacity to quickly deploy staffing resources to designated Local Offices experiencing increases in referrals and caseloads in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy by hiring individuals with previous child protective services experience with CP&P. As of December 31, 2013, 13 RWP workers were hired, trained and assigned to Superstorm impacted counties, ten of whom were assigned caseloads while the remaining three await assignment. Impact teams consist of a supervisor, and three workers that can be assigned to a unit or an office throughout the state where Intakes are unusually high and assist in maintaining caseload standards by taking any overflow of investigations. There are ten impact teams, one per Area Office.
Figure 58: Percentage of Intake Workers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – December 2013)*

Percentage of Intake Workers with Individual Casweloads

100%

Final Target (95%)

90% 91%
80%

87% 84%

86% 87%

78% 70%

76%

76% 76%

60%

50%
JuJnu-n0-909 DDeecc--0099

JJuunn--1100

DDece-c1-010 JJuunn--1111 Month

DDeecc--1111 JJuunn--1122 MDeacr--1123 DeJucn-1-133

Source: DCF data *The performance percentage shown on the last month of each monitoring period (June and December) is the average of the prior six month’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that six month monitoring period. The performance percentage shown for December 2013 is the average of the prior nine month’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that time.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 156

Workers Report “Shared” Cases as a Common Occurrence
As described in the Period XIII monitoring report, Intake and Permanency workers sometimes share responsibility for families with open permanency cases where there are new allegations of abuse or neglect. According to DCF procedure, all CPS Family Reports and CWS Family Referrals are assigned to Intake workers to investigate and these reports are reflected in caseload reporting as one of the eight referrals in the month of the report and as one of the Intake worker’s 12 open families for that month. However, when circumstances indicate that a family with an already open permanency case is the subject of a new CPS Family report, the work with the family becomes the shared responsibility of both Intake and Permanency workers until the investigation is completed.
Intake workers are assigned a secondary worker designation in NJ SPIRIT on a shared case for a family who had been previously assigned to a Permanency worker. According to DCF, this arrangement emphasizes the primary role of the Permanency worker in securing placement, facilitating visits, supporting the family to implement the case plan and coordinating services. It also reflects the Permanency worker’s responsibility to provide information to the Intake worker and to link the family to appropriate services and supports identified during the course of the new investigation, thus relieving the Intake worker of the case management responsibility for the case. Intake workers continue to be responsible for the work required to complete investigative tasks and to reach and document an investigative finding. The designation as a secondary worker is not reflected as an open family for the Intake worker’s caseload and is not categorized as an open family in monthly caseload reports. Thus, these secondary assignments are counted as one of the Intake workers’ eight new referrals assigned in a month, but are not counted as part of their 12 open families in a month.
DCF reports that Intake supervisors in CP&P Local Offices are expected to appropriately manage the workload of staff in their units and consider an Intake worker’s primary and secondary responsibilities when assigning new referrals. The following table provides the reported number of secondary assignments to Intake workers by month for this monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 157

Table 32: Number of DCF/DCP&P Investigations and Secondary Intake Assignments by Month (April – December 2013)

Month

Total Investigations for the Month

April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT Data

6,333 6,848 5,494 5,228 5,000 5,609 6,489 5,461 5,226

Secondary Intake Worker Assignments of CPS and CWS
Investigations

1,360

21%

1,446

21%

1,176

21%

1,170

22%

1,125

23%

1,210

22%

1,220

19%

1,099

20%

1,034

20%

The Monitor reviewed monthly Local Office data on secondary assignments and found that the average number of secondary assignments per Intake worker over the monitoring period is 1.3. The Monitor also found that an average of 34 percent of Intake workers received two or more secondary case assignments each month during the monitoring period. Specifically, in the month of December 2013, 291 (30%) Intake workers received two or more secondary assignments. Of those 291 workers, 202 (69%) had a total of 12 open families or less for the month, including their secondary case assignments.
During phone interviews with caseworkers, the Monitor inquired about the prevalence of secondary assignments and their impact on a worker’s workload. Intake workers were asked how prevalent secondary assignments are, what effect these assignments have on their workload and how they are measured. Of the 57 Intake workers interviewed, 55 (97%) reported receiving an assignment to investigate a new report on an open permanency case as a secondary worker at least once in the six month period between April and September 2013 and 23 (40%) reported receiving at least one secondary assignment per month. Forty-eight of the 57 (84%) Intake workers confirmed that their supervisor appropriately counts secondary assignments toward their eight new referrals for the month. Thirty-three of the 57 (58%) Intake workers interviewed responded that in their opinion, the workload for an investigation on an open Permanency case in which they are designated as secondary is equivalent to, or sometimes more than, the workload for an initial investigation. Workers explained that although Permanency workers may have completed collateral contacts or are able to provide information about the family’s

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 158

circumstances, every investigation must be approached in the same manner regardless of primary or secondary status.
In response to these findings, DCF conducted an analysis regarding the prevalence and distribution of secondary assignments and potential workload implications. DCF found that practice related to the division of labor between the Intake and Permanency workers for shared cases varied considerably across the state. Consequently, DCF issued a policy, effective April 7, 2014 further clarifying the division of responsibilities between Intake and Permanency workers upon receipt of a new allegation of abuse or neglect involving a family with an open permanency case. The new policy makes clear that the Permanency worker is responsible for all noninvestigative duties, including securing a placement setting, coordination of services, visits with and between parents and children and coordination of medical care168.
DCF’s internal review led leadership to conclude that the vast majority of Intake workers have one or two secondary assignments in any given month, and the variation in workload associated with any investigation needs to be managed by supervisors at the local level to ensure a balanced workload for each Intake worker. DCF has agreed to further examine the process by which secondary assignments are generated, as well as workflow management practices across Local Offices to ensure that intake workload is appropriately managed regardless of the combination of primary and secondary assignments.
Plaintiffs and DCF have expressed to the Monitor different opinions about how secondary assignments should be counted in assessing caseload compliance. DCF’s view is that secondary assignments should continue to be reflected as one of an Intake worker’s eight new referrals each month but should not be counted as part of an Intake worker’s caseload of 12 open families per month. Plaintiffs have asked that all new referrals are included in both parts of an Intake worker’s caseload count.
The Monitor will continue to track the incidence of secondary assignments to Intake workers and continue its work to determine whether the impact a shared case on the Intake worker’s workload is significant. The Monitor will also examine whether the new policy has helped to clarify the division of labor for secondary assignments between Intake and Permanency workers. DCF has identified Local Offices struggling with intake caseload compliance generally, some of which may also be managing a high number of secondary assignments. They will be focusing their efforts in supporting these offices. The Monitor will specifically track outcomes for these offices and will also look at this issue in greater depth as part of an upcoming case record review that DCF and the Monitor will conduct on the quality of investigative practice.

168 CP&P (4-7-2014). Child Protection and Permanency Manual, III C Case Management, 400.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 159

Assignment of Investigations to Non-caseload Carrying Staff
Table 33: Percentage of DCF/CP&P Investigations Assigned to Non-Caseload Carrying Staff by Month (September–December 2013)169

Month

Total Investigations for the Month

SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER
Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT Data

5,836 6,783 5,668 5,408

Total Investigations Assigned to Non-Caseload Carrying Staff and Percentage of Investigation
Assignments to Non-Caseload Carrying Staff

63

1%

114

2%

73

1%

48

1%

On occasion, in order to handle the flow of referrals for investigation, trained non-caseload carrying staff are assigned to an investigation. The Monitor’s review of DCF data found that two percent of investigations were assigned to non-caseload carrying staff between the months of September through December 2013. DCF reports that their policy requires completion of First Responder training for all staff prior to intake assignment and that non-caseload carrying staff who are assigned investigations have been trained and receive supervision by the Intake supervisor as they carry out these investigations.
As part of the interviews discussed above, Intake workers were asked if there were scenarios in their office in which non-caseload carrying staff could be assigned an investigation. Twenty-two of the 57 workers (39%) reported that there are scenarios in which this takes place. Respondents stated that non-caseload carrying staff with prior investigations experience can be assigned cases when all Intake workers in a Local Office reach their assignment limit for the month. This was the most common scenario described. The most frequently identified job titles for the noncaseload carrying staff who are assigned investigations are Administrative Assistant, Case Practice Specialist, Litigation Specialists and Resource Development Specialists.
Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU)
As of December 31, 2013 the individual worker caseload standard for IAIU investigators of no more than 12 open cases at any one time and no more than eight new referrals assigned in a month was met: DCF data show 100 percent compliance with the standard for IAIU caseloads.

169 Data are provided for investigations assigned within five days of intake receipt date and does not reflect additional assignments to an investigation after those first five days. DCF conducted a review of assignments to noncaseload carrying staff in NJ SPIRIT and found that some investigations had been re-assigned to caseload carrying workers after the initial five days. As a result, there is potential for the percentage of investigations assigned to noncaseload carrying staff to be lower than 1%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 160

Figure 59: Percentage of IAIU Workers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of IAIU Workers with Individual Caseloads

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

98%

97%

100% Final Target (95%)

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%
JuJnu-n0-909 DDeecc--0099

JJuunn--1100

DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111 DDeecc--1111 JuJnu-n1-122 MDare-c1-132 DeJcu-n1-313

Source: DCF data

Month

Permanency
The individual worker caseload standard for Permanency workers of no more than 15 families and ten children in out-of-home care was met as of December 31, 2013. The state reported an average of 1,172 active Permanency workers between April and December 2013. Of the active Permanency workers, an average of 1,115 (95%) workers had caseloads that met the requirement. Specifically in December 2013, individual worker caseload compliance for Permanency workers was at 95 percent. For the 53 Permanency workers who did not meet caseload requirements in December 2013, the highest individual caseload was 21 families and the highest number of children in placement was 12.

Among the 125 workers who participated in phone interviews conducted by the Monitor for caseload verification, 50 were Permanency workers. Two (4%) of the 50 Permanency workers interviewed reported having exceeded the caseload standard at least once between April and September 2013.
Adoption
Prior to October 2013, of the 47 CP&P Local Offices, one office in Essex County was dedicated solely to adoption work and 40 other Local Offices had Adoption workers or full Adoption units. In October 2013, the Essex Adoptions office was phased out and adoption units were assigned to each of the 46 Local Offices.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 161

The individual worker caseload standard for Adoption workers of no more than 15 children was not met as of December 31, 2013. The state reported an average of 207 active Adoption workers between April and December 2013. Of the active Adoption workers, an average of 180 (87%) workers had caseloads that met the requirement during the monitoring period. Specifically in December 2013, individual worker caseload compliance for Adoption workers was at 91 percent. For the 19 Adoption workers who did not meet caseload requirements in December 2013, the highest caseload was 25 children.
Data by Local Office indicate that during December 2013, performance ranged between 25170 and 100 percent among offices and 32 of 41 (78%) Local Offices met the standard for this measure (see Appendix D-2).
Among the 125 workers who participated in the phone interviews conducted by the Monitor for caseload verification, 18 were Adoption workers. Two (11%) of the 18 workers interviewed reported going over caseload standards at least once between April and September 2013.

Figure 60: Percentage of Adoption Workers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – December 2013)*

Percentage of Adoption Workers with Individual Caseloads

100%

96% 90% 91%

94%

92%

80%

94%

90%

90%

87%

Final Target (95%)
87%

70%
JuJnu-n0-909 DDeecc--0099 JJuunn--1100

DDeecc--1100

JJuunn--1111 DDeecc--1111 Month

JJuunn--1122 MDaerc--1132 DeJucn-1-133

Source: DCF data *The performance percentage shown on the last month of each monitoring period (June and December) is the average of the prior six month’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that six month monitoring period. The performance percentage shown for December 2013 is the average of the prior nine month’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that time.

170 One office had a performance rate of 0% in December 2013. The Monitor did not include this outlier in the performance range and will explore this further in the next monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 162

The standard for the ratio of supervisors to workers was met for the period ending December 31, 2013.
Supervision holds a critical role in child welfare; therefore, the MSA established a standard for supervisory ratios that 95 percent of all offices should have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a ratio of five workers to one supervisor (Section II.E.20).
As shown in Figure 62, DCF reports that between April and December 2013, 97 percent of CP&P Local Offices had sufficient supervisors to have ratios of five workers to one supervisor. The Monitor verified the state’s reported information about supervision by asking all 125 workers interviewed the size of their units for the month of September 2013 and 117 (94%) workers reported being in units of five or fewer workers with a supervisor.
Figure 61: New Jersey CP&P Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios (June 2009 – December 2013)*

Percentage of CP&P Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios

100%

100% 98%

99%

99%

100% 99%

95% 96%

96%

90%

97%

Final Target (95%)

85%

80%

75%
JuJun-n0-909 DDeecc--0099 JuJunn-1-100

DDeecc--1100

JJuunn-1-111 DDeecc--1111 JuJnun-1-122 Month

MDaerc--1132

DJeucn--1133

Source: DCF data *The performance percentage shown on the last month of each monitoring period (June and December) is the average of the prior six month’s performance in meeting supervisor to caseload staff ratios during that six month monitoring period. The performance percentage shown for December 2013 is the average of the prior nine month’s performance in meeting supervisor to caseload staff ratios during that time.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 163

Adequacy of DAsG Staffing

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

22. Adequacy of DAsG Staffing: Staffing levels at the DAsG office.
98% of allocated positions filled plus assessment of adequacy of FTE’s to accomplish tasks by June 30, 2012.

Figure 62: Percentage of Allocated DAsG Positions Filled (June 2009 – December 2013)

Percentage of Allocated DAsG Positions Filled

100% 100%

95%

90%

94%

85%

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%

55%

50% Jun-09 Dec-09

Source: DCF data

92% 92%

92%

Jun-10 Dec-10 Jun-11 Month

92% Dec-11

92% Jun-12

98% 98% MDeacr-132 DJeucn-1-133

Final Target (98%)

Performance as of December 31, 2013:
As of December 31, 2013, 131 (98%) of 134 Deputy Attorneys General (DAsG) staff positions assigned to work with DCF are filled. Of those, eight DAsG are on full-time leave. Thus, there are a total of 123 (92%) available DAsG. DCF reports that in addition to these positions, they have assigned two full time law assistants to their Practice Group as well as 5.4 DAsG outside of the DCF Practice Group who dedicate their time to DCF matters. DCF met the final target in this monitoring period.

B. Training Between April and December 2013 DCF fulfilled all of its training obligations required by the MSA, as shown in Table 34.171

171 In any monitoring month period there is not an exact correlation between number of staff trained and number of staff hired because of different points of entry, as reflected, for example, in the number of staff hired in the previous

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 164

Table 34: DCF Staff Trained (January 1, 2006 – December 31, 2013)

# of Staff Trained in 2006
# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2007
# of Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months 2007
# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2008
# of Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months 2008
# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2009
# of Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months 2009
# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2010
# of Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months 2010
# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2011
# of Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months 2011
# of Staff Trained 1st 6 months of 2012
# of Staff Trained (July 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)
# Staff trained (April 1, 2013 – Dec. 31, 2103)

Training

Settlement Commitment Description

Pre-Service

In-Service Training

Concurrent Planning

Ongoing: New workers shall have 160 class hours, including intake and investigations training; be enrolled within two weeks of start date; complete training and pass competency exams before assuming a full caseload.
Ongoing: Staff shall have taken a minimum of 40 annual hours of inservice training
Ongoing: Training on concurrent planning; may be part of 20 hours in-service training by December 2007.
Ongoing: New staff conducting intake or investigations shall have investigations training and pass competency exams before assuming cases.
As of December 2006 and ongoing, newly promoted supervisors to complete 40 hours of supervisory training; pass competency exams within three months of assuming position.
As of December 2006 and ongoing, adoption training for adoption workers.

711 N/A 2,522 N/A N/A 91

412 168 90 114 55 88

3,001

3,015

2,846

729 387 87 96 85 57

650 62 127 104 114 95

114 65 35 16 61 25 140 44 38 22 31 18

118 89

141

94

2,987

2,928

59 out of 63(94%)

107 out 112 out of 107 of 112 109 (100%) (100%)

231 (225 out of 225 or 100% + addtl 6)

227 out of 227 (100%)

98 out of 98 (100%)

159

11

18

21

17

46

20

30

35

192 191 2,893
101 206 236 230*

33

53

18

52

Investigations & Intake: New Staff

Supervisory: New Supervisors

New Adoption Worker

Source: DCF data *Number of staff who complete one or more of the revised First Responders training. **This Performance Measure is an annual requirement in the MSA. For this performance measure, the reporting period refers to January 1 through December 31, 2013.

122 2,931**
174 304*
10 50

monitoring period that were trained in this monitoring period, and the number of staff hired in this monitoring period that will be trained in the next monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 165

Pre-service Training
One hundred and sixty-two caseload carrying staff (Family Service Specialist Trainees and Family Service Specialists) were hired between April and December 2013. CP&P trained 122 workers during this monitoring period, 106 of whom were hired in the previous monitoring period. Twenty-five of the 122 workers were trained through the Baccalaureate Child Welfare Education Program (BCWEP).172
The Monitor verified that the state complied with the MSA (Section II.B.1.b).
Case Practice Model Training
DCF continues to train its workforce on the Case Practice Model (CPM), which represents the fundamental change in practice in New Jersey. At this stage in the implementation of the CPM, the only staff who receive CPM training are staff who did not receive CPM training at an earlier date because they were not yet on staff, were on leave when the training was conducted, or not yet appointed as supervisors in the case of Module 6.
As reflected in Table 35, between April and December 2013, the New Jersey Office of Training and Special Development (Training Academy) trained 225 staff on Module 1 of the CPM. The Training Academy also trained 215 staff on Module 2. These are the first two training modules in the six part series.
Modules 3 through 6 of the series take place on site in CP&P Local Offices and is conducted by the New Jersey Child Welfare Training Partnership. 173 Between April and December 2013, 256 staff were trained in Module 3, 200 were trained in Module 4 and 196 were trained in Module 5. A total of seven staff were trained in Module 6.174
The Monitor verified that staff took Case Practice Model training and passed competency exams.

172 BCWEP is a consortium of seven New Jersey colleges (Rutgers University, Seton Hall University, Stockton College, Georgian Court University, Monmouth University, Kean University and Ramapo College) that enables students to earn the Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) degree. As discussed in Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period V Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie – July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008, Washington, D.C., pg. 34, the Monitor previously determined that this course of study together with Worker Readiness Training designed by the DCF Child Welfare Training Academy satisfies the MSA requirements. All BCWEP students are required to pass the same competency exams that non-BCWEP students take before they are permitted to carry a caseload. 173 The New Jersey Child Welfare Training Partnership is a consortium of three New Jersey colleges and universities (Rutgers School of Social Work, Montclair State University Center for Child Advocacy and the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey) that DCF contracts with to provide In-Service training to CP&P staff. 174 Seven staff took Module 6 either as make-ups or because they were newly appointed supervisors.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 166

Table 35: DCF Staff Trained on Case Practice Model Modules (January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2013)

# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2009
# of Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months 2009
# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2010
# of Staff Trained in 2nd 6 months 2010
# Staff trained in 1st 6 months 2011
# Staff Trained 2nd 6 months 2011
# Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2012 # Staff Trained (July 1, 2012 – March 31, 2013) # Staff trained (April 1, 2013 – Dec. 31, 2013)

Training

Settlement Commitment Description

Module 1 –

As of December 2008 and

Engaging

ongoing, case carrying staff,

Families and

supervisors and case aides

Building Trust- that had not been trained on

110

89

176

102

132

103

147

252

225

Based

the new case practice model

Relationships shall receive this training.

As of December 2008 and

Module 2 – Making Visits

ongoing, case carrying staff, supervisors and case aides that had not been trained on

89

112

149

128

131

99

107

228

215

Matter

the new case practice model

shall receive this training.

As of December 2008 and

Module 3 – Teaming with

ongoing, case carrying staff, supervisors and case aides that had not been trained on

872

706

560

527

669

391

142

157

256

Families

the new case practice model

shall receive this training.

As of December 2008 and

ongoing, case carrying staff,

Module 4 – Assessment

supervisors and case aides that had not been trained on

649

640

592

464

539

551

200

166

200

the new case practice model

shall receive this training.

As of December 2008 and

Module 5 – Planning and

ongoing, case carrying staff, supervisors and case aides that had not been trained on

378

885

455

295

437

797

349

122

196

Intervention

the new case practice model

shall receive this training.

As of December 2008 and

Module 6 -

ongoing, case carrying staff,

Supervising Case Practice

supervisors and case aides that had not been trained on

37

207

110

113

57

154

0

0

7

in NJ

the new case practice model

shall receive this training.

Source: DCF data

Concurrent Planning Training
Rutgers School of Social Work continues to provide concurrent planning training to all staff who complete Pre-service training or to staff who recently became case-carrying staff and are in need of concurrent planning training. Concurrent planning is the practice of simultaneously planning for more than one permanency outcome for a child in care. DCF incorporates concurrent planning approaches into FTMs and other family conferences.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 167

As reflected in Table 33, between April and December 2013, 174 (100%) out of 174 new CP&P workers were trained in concurrent planning and passed competency exams.
The Monitor verified that the state complied with the MSA (Section II.B.2.d).
Investigation (or First Responder) Training
In September 2013 First Responders training was expanded into three separate modules covering six days of training. Between April and December 2013, 304 (100%) staff completed one or more modules of the revised First Responders training. DCF reports that 262 staff completed Module 1, Building Rapport with Families; 210 staff completed Module 2, Assessment of Families; and 220 staff completed Module 3, Planning and Intervening with Families.175
The Monitor verified that the state complied with the MSA (Section II.B.3.a).
Supervisory Training
As reflected in Table 34, a total of 10 supervisors were trained and passed competency exams between April and December 2013. Two more supervisors were appointed during the monitoring period: one is on leave and one began supervisory training in January 2014 and is scheduled to complete it in the next monitoring period.
The Monitor verified that the state complied with the MSA (Section II.B.4.b).
New Adoption Worker Training
Fifty newly appointed Adoption workers were trained between April and December 2013.
The Monitor verified that the state complied with MSA (Section II.G.9).
In-Service Training
Beginning in January 2008, the MSA required all case carrying workers and supervisors to take a minimum of 40 hours of annual In-Service training and pass competency exams (Section II.B.2.c). Between January and December 2013,176 2,931 out of 3,008 (97%) caseload carrying staff completed 40 hours or more of In-Service training and passed applicable competency exams. The remaining 77 completed some In-service training but were either on leave or left the agency during the reporting period.
The Monitor verified that the state complied with the MSA (Section II.B.2.c).

175 Numbers are not totaled because staff complete one or more modules within the reporting period. 176 The Monitor reported In-Service training in monitoring period XIII for January 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013.
The parties agreed to return to reporting In-service training annually for monitoring period XIV.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 168

IAIU Training
Eighty-three investigators completed one or more IAIU training modules between April and December 2013.
The Monitor verified that the state complied with MSA (Section II.I.4).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 169

XIV. ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH QUALITATIVE REVIEW AND THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF ACCURATE DATA
QUALITATIVE REVIEW
DCF’s Office of Performance Management and Accountability continues to facilitate statewide Qualitative Reviews (QRs), led by the Office of Quality. During this monitoring period, DCF reviewed 133 cases from eleven counties,177 typically reviewing 12 cases from each county. The reviews focus on the status of children, the status of practice and the functioning of systems in each of the counties. For children under 18, the child’s legal guardian is asked to give informed consent for participation in the QR. Trained review teams of two persons that include DCF staff, community stakeholders and Monitor staff review CP&P case records and interview as many people as possible who are involved with the child and family. Following the QR in each county, areas of accomplishment and challenges for the system are identified and discussed to inform continued case practice improvement. Selected QR results are also used to report on several MSA requirements and are included in this report.
Of the 133 children whose cases were reviewed between April and December 2013, 66 were male and 67 were female. They ranged in age from less than one year old to 20 years old, with the majority (42%) being infants to four year olds. Of the remainder, eighteen percent of the children were five to nine years old, nineteen percent were between ten and 13 years old and twenty-one percent were over age fourteen. Over a third (34%) of the children were living with a parent at the time of the review; 66 percent of the children lived with a relative or non-relative resource parent, some with the goal of adoption. Table 36 provides the racial demographics of the 133 children reviewed.

Table 36: Qualitative Review Racial Demographics178 (April–December 2013)

Race

#

White/Caucasian

85

African American

49

Hispanic

32

Native Hawaiian

1

American Indian

0

Asian

1

Unable to Determine/Unknown

5

Total

173

Source: DCF, QR Demographics April 2013 – December 2013 *Percentage is greater than 100 due to rounding

% 49% 28% 19%
<1% 0% <1% 3%
101*

177 Qualitative Reviews were conducted in Union, Warren, Passaic, Monmouth, Gloucester, Cape May, Middlesex,
Cumberland, Sussex, Essex and Camden counties. 178 Percentages are calculated from a total of 173; some children are identified by more than one race.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 170

DCF reports that across the state, 1,257 people were interviewed to inform the QR data for this reporting period. Those informants included CP&P and Child Health Unit staff, biological parents, others who the youth or parent identified as supportive, relative and non-relative resource parents, education providers, mental health and legal professionals, substance abuse treatment providers, and children/youth.179 Reviewers evaluated the child and family’s status and rated whether the status was acceptable or unacceptable.180 See Table 37 for the results on each Child and Family Status indicators and overall Child Status ratings for all cases.
As shown in Table 37, the current status of children was rated as acceptable in the majority of cases in most key areas measured including safety, living arrangement, learning and development and physical health of the child. The QR scores regarding Family Functioning and Resourcefulness and Progress towards Permanency remain low, indicating a need for attention to these areas of practice.

Table 37: Qualitative Review Child and Family Status Results (April–December 2013)

Child & Family Status Indicators Safety at Home

# Cases Applicable
133

Safety in other Settings

133

Stability at Home

133

Stability in School

67

Living Arrangement

88

Family Functioning & Resourcefulness

127

Progress towards Permanency

133

Physical Health of the Child

133

Emotional Well-Being

133

Learning & Development, Under Age 5

58

Learning & Development, Age 5 & older

52

OVERALL Child & Family Status

133

Source: DCF, QR results April 2013 – December 2013

# Cases Acceptable
128 130 105 57 87 79 74 129 112 55 42 120

% Acceptable
96% 98% 79% 85% 99% 62% 56% 97% 84% 95% 81% 90%

179 Interviews are usually conducted individually, either by phone or in person. All efforts are made to see children/youth in the setting in which they reside. 180 In previous monitoring reports, under the heading of acceptable, status was further described as either “optimal,” “good,” or “fair.” Unacceptable status was further defined as either “marginal,” “poor,” or “worsening.” Beginning this monitoring period, under the heading of acceptable, status is changed to be further described as either "refine” or “maintain.” Unacceptable status is changed to be further described as either “refine” or “improve.” By agreement between the Monitor and CP&P, cases were considered acceptable if the QR ratings were within 4 – 6 and unacceptable if ratings were within 1 – 3.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 171

The QR also includes an evaluation of system and practice performance on behalf of the child and family and looks for the extent to which aspects of the state’s CPM are being implemented. Table 38 represents the results for cases reviewed between April and December 2013. As with the status indicators, reviewers evaluated whether performance was acceptable or unacceptable.181

With the exception of Provision of Health Care Services and Supports to Resource Families, the QR results demonstrate that continuing work is needed to fully implement the CPM with fidelity and emphasizes areas where further skill development is needed. Overall, 59 percent of cases scored acceptably on Practice Performance.

Table 38: Qualitative Review Practice/System Performance Results

(April–December 2013)

Practice Performance Indicators

# Cases Applicable

# Cases Acceptable

% Acceptable

Overall

132

75

57%

Engagement

Child/Youth

71

Parents

111

53

75%

40

36%

Resource Family

78

65

83%

Family Teamwork

Formation

133

Functioning

133

62

47%

50

38%

Overall

133

85

64%

Assessment & Understanding

Child/Youth

133

Parents

112

101

76%

51

46%

Resource Family

78

73

94%

Case Planning Process

133

62

47%

Plan Implementation

133

77

58%

Tracking & Adjusting

133

79

59%

Provision of Health Care Services

133

127

96%

Resource Availability

133

109

82%

Family & Community Connections

Overall

79

Mother

64

Father

57

Siblings

56

56

71%

51

80%

29

51%

38

68%

Overall

127

103

81%

Family Supports

Parents

112

76

68%

Resource Family

76

56

74%

Long Term View

133

65

49%

Transitions & Life Adjustments

133

65

49%

OVERALL Practice Performance

133

78

59%

Source: DCF April 2013 – December 2013 QR results

181 Ibid.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 172

QR scores that are clear indicators of CPM standards such as Engagement and Case Planning remain low, though others show an improvement from the previous monitoring period. For example, Family Team formation showed a 13 percent improvement and Family Team functioning improved by 12 percent from the previous monitoring period. Following the QR and based on results, each county develops a plan to focus on improving practice in particular areas. The statewide QR process has become a routine part of quality improvement practice in New Jersey and QR data continue to be used to inform policy and practice changes.
DCF is expected to release its annual report on findings from 2013 QRs in the fall of 2014.
NJ SPIRIT
DCF continues to work to improve data entry, data quality and data reporting through NJ SPIRIT. Additionally, DCF continues to fulfill the MSA requirement to produce agency performance reports with a set of measures approved by the Monitor and to post these reports on the DCF website for public viewing (MSA II.J.6).182
NJ SPIRIT functionality was again enhanced during this monitoring period. In June 2013, a new feature was added to NJ SPIRIT that provided all field staff responsible for investigating allegations the ability to listen to the audio of the report to the SCR. Additionally, changes were made to NJ SPIRIT requiring that workers complete a family risk re-assessment 30 days before closing an in-home case to reinforce policy.
The NJ SPIRIT Help Desk has continued to support workers in resolving issues. Between April and December 2013 the Help Desk closed 21,456 tickets requesting help or NJ SPIRIT fixes. The Help Desk resolved 12,659 (59%) of the 21,456 closed tickets within one work day and an additional 5,364 (25%) tickets within seven work days for a total of 84 percent resolved within seven work days.
SafeMeasures
SafeMeasures continues to be used by DCF staff at all levels of the organization to help them track, monitor and analyze trends in case practice in their own local areas. SafeMeasures allows staff to analyze data by Area Office, county, Local Office, unit supervisor and by case and provides the staff with quantitative data they can use to identify strengths and diagnose needs to improve outcomes.
DCF continues to work with the Children’s Research Center (CRC) to develop new SafeMeasures screens as well as refine reporting data. During this monitoring period, CRC has upgraded SafeMeasures application to a new version: version five. This version has more functionality with customizable views and menus to meet the continuing needs of users. DCF has seen a sustained increase in SafeMeasures usage by staff. According to DCF, while this increase occurred among all users, supervisors were the highest group of users followed by

182 See http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/childdata/
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 173

office managers. DCF continues to develop new reports in SafeMeasures to help staff better manage caseloads and worker responsibilities.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 174

XV. FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET
DCF’s FY 2014 budget included a supplemental appropriation of $22.3 million of new state funding for the Children’s System of Care (CSOC) and supplemental state funding of $8.2 million to support adoption subsidies, family support services and independent living programs.
The proposed DCF budget for FY 2015, which begins July 1, 2014, remains slightly over a billion dollars ($1.09 billion) in appropriated state funds. This represents an increase of $2.7 million more than the adjusted FY 2014 appropriation. The FY 2015 budget provides funds for 6,643 staff positions which represents no change from FY 2014.
DCF reports that a total of $34.5 million in state funds are invested in DCF services and programs, which includes FY 2014 supplemental resources of $30.6 million as well as FY 2015 growth of $3.9 million. DCF’s proposed FY 2015 budget also includes a supplemental appropriation of $2.1 million of new state funding for CSOC and a supplemental state funding of $1.8 million for CP&P programming.
DCF reports that the proposed budget, if approved by the legislature, provides sufficient resources to carry out the state’s commitment to meet all MSA requirements for staffing and service delivery and for the state’s responsibility for child protection, CSOC, services to support children in their own homes and in out-of-home placement and to achieve safety, permanency and well-being outcomes for the children and families it serves.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Page 175

APPENDIX: A Glossary of Acronyms Used in the Monitoring Report

ACF: AFCARS:
AIP: AQCs: ASO: BCWEP: CAP: CCL: CCRMT: CFSR: CHEC: CHU: CIC: CIACC: CLSA: CME: CMO: CMS: CBT: CPEP: CPM: CPS: CQI: CSA: CSOC: CSSP: CWPPG: CWS: CWTA: CYBER: DAG: DCA: DCBHS: DCF: CP&P: DD: DDD: DDHH: DFCP: DHS: DPCP:
DR: DYFS: EDW: EPSDT:
ETV: FAFS: FAFSA: FDC: FEMA: FFT: FQHC: FSC: FSO: FSS: FTE:

Administration for Children and Families Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System AFCARS Improvement Plan Area Quality Coordinators Administrative Services Organization Baccalaureate Child Welfare Education Program Corrective Action Plan Child Care Licensing Congregate Care Risk Management Team Child and Family Service Review Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children Child Health Unit Children in Court Children’s Interagency Coordinating Council Casey Life Skills Assessment Comprehensive Medical Examination Case Management Organizations Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Child Placement Enhancement Project Case Practice Model Child Protective Services Continuous Quality Improvement Contracted System Administrator Children’s System of Care Center for the Study of Social Policy Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group Child Welfare Services Child Welfare Training Academy Child Youth Behavioral Electronic Health Record Deputy Attorney General Department of Community Affairs Division of Child Behavioral Health Services Department of Children and Families Division of Child Protection and Permanency Developmental Disability Division of Developmental Disabilities Division of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Division of Family and Community Partnerships Department of Human Services Division of Prevention and Community Partnerships Differential Response Division of Youth and Family Services Electronic Data Warehouse Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Education and Training Voucher Foster and Adoptive Family Services Free Application for Federal Student Aid Family Development Credential Federal Emergency Management Agency Functional Family Therapy Federally Qualified Health Center Family Success Centers Family Support Organizations Family Service Specialist Full-Time Equivalent

FTM: FXB: HSAC: IAIU: KLG: LGBTQI:
LO: MH: MSA: MST: NCANDS:
NCIC:
NJCBW: NJFC: NJ SPIRIT: NRCRRFAP:
NYTD: OAS: OCHS: OCQI: OESP: OIT: OMPA:
OOE: OOL: ORF: PALS:
PIP: PPA: QA: QR: RDTC: RFL: RFP: RL: SAFE: SCR: SETC:
SHIP: SHSP: SIBS: SPRU: SIP: TF-CBT:
TPR: UMDNJ:
USDA: YAB: YCM:

Family Team Meeting Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center Human Services Advisory Council Institutional Abuse Investigative Unit Kinship Legal Guardian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning or Intersex Local Office Mental Health Modified Settlement Agreement Multi-systemic Therapy National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect Northeast and Caribbean Child Welfare Implementation Center New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women New Jersey Foster Care New Jersey Spirit National Resource Center for Recruitment and Retention of Foster and Adoptive Parents National Youth in Transition Database Office of Adolescent Services Office of Child Health Services Office of Continuous Quality Improvement Office of Educational Support and Programs New Jersey Office of Information Technology Office of Performance Management and Accountability Office of Education Office of Licensing Office of Resource Family Peace: A Learned Solution, New Jersey’s trauma informed program for victims of domestic violence Performance Improvement Plan Pre-placement Assessment Quality Assurance Qualitative Review Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Center Resource Family Licensing Request for Proposal Residential Licensing Structured Analysis Family Evaluation State Central Registry State Employment and Training Commission Summer Housing and Internship Program Special Home Service Providers Siblings in Best Settings Special Response Unit Summer Internship Program Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Termination of Parental Rights University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey United States Department of Agriculture Youth Advisory Board Youth Case Management

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix A-1

APPENDIX: B-1
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES

Measure #7a

Initial Family Team Meeting Held within 30 days from the Removal

SafeMeasures Screen "Initial Family Team Meeting Timeliness"

December 2013

Not Held

Initial FTM Initial FTM Not Held

Local Office

Total Within 30 Days Declined - Parent Unavailable

Atlantic East LO

15

0

1

2

Atlantic West LO

11

0

7

0

Bergen Central LO

6

0

0

0

Bergen South LO

9

0

0

0

Burlington East LO

14

0

1

2

Burlington West LO

11

0

3

0

Camden Central LO

9

1

1

2

Camden East LO

2

0

0

0

Camden North LO

4

0

0

2

Camden South LO

15

2

0

4

Cape May LO

6

0

0

0

Cumberland East LO

3

0

0

1

Cumberland West LO

12

0

0

0

Essex Central LO

17

0

12

2

Essex North LO

6

0

0

3

Essex South LO

3

0

2

0

Gloucester East LO

10

0

3

0

Gloucester West LO

7

0

2

5

Hudson Central LO

7

0

0

1

Hudson North LO

1

0

0

0

Hudson South LO

5

0

0

1

Hudson West LO

5

0

0

2

Hunterdon LO

7

0

0

4

Mercer North LO

8

0

0

0

Mercer South LO

9

0

0

2

Middlesex Central LO

2

0

0

1

Middlesex Coastal LO

8

0

1

2

Middlesex West LO

7

0

0

0

Monmouth North LO

3

0

2

0

Monmouth South LO

1

0

1

0

Morris East LO

1

1

0

0

Morris West LO

4

0

1

0

Newark Center City LO

1

0

0

0

Newark Northeast LO

6

0

0

2

Newark South LO

7

0

0

0

Ocean North LO

9

0

0

1

Ocean South LO

10

0

0

5

Passaic Central LO

3

1

0

0

Passaic North LO

5

0

1

1

Salem LO

2

0

0

1

Somerset LO

1

0

0

0

Sussex LO

2

0

0

0

Union Central LO

10

0

3

1

Union East LO

6

0

0

0

Union West LO

2

0

0

0

Warren LO

3

0

0

0

Total 295

5

41

47

SafeMeasures Extract: 3/23/2014

Held Within 30 Days 12 4 6 9 11 8 5 2 2 9 6 2 12 3 3 1 7 0 6 1 4 3 3 8 7 1 5 7 1 0 0 3 1 4 7 8 5 2 3 1 1 2 6 6 2 3 202

% Compliance
80% 36% 100% 100% 79% 73% 56% 100% 50% 60% 100% 67% 100% 18% 50% 33% 70% 0% 86% 100% 80% 60% 43% 100% 78% 50% 63% 100% 33% 0% 0% 75% 100% 67% 100% 89% 50% 67% 60% 50% 100% 100% 60% 100% 100% 100% 69%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix B-1

APPENDIX: B-2
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES

Measure #7b

Quarterly Family Team Meetings Must be Held every 3 months during the Child's Time in Placement

SafeMeasures Screen "Quarterly Family Team Meeting Timeliness"

December 2013

FTM

FTM Not Held -

Local Office

Total

Outstanding

Declined

Parent Unavailable Completed

Atlantic East LO

33

1

2

2

28

Atlantic West LO

54

6

9

11

28

Bergen Central LO

27

0

0

0

27

Bergen South LO

70

0

0

12

58

Burlington East LO

66

0

2

21

43

Burlington West LO

45

2

6

11

26

Camden Central LO

35

4

4

12

15

Camden East LO

29

3

7

6

13

Camden North LO

44

5

23

7

9

Camden South LO

53

0

6

29

18

Cape May LO

45

2

3

8

32

Cumberland East LO

20

1

1

10

8

Cumberland West LO

32

2

0

7

23

Essex Central LO

57

0

13

26

18

Essex North LO

15

0

1

7

7

Essex South LO

36

0

14

20

2

Gloucester East LO

24

0

3

8

13

Gloucester West LO

64

0

20

26

18

Hudson Central LO

27

0

8

0

19

Hudson North LO

19

0

1

1

17

Hudson South LO

63

3

6

13

41

Hudson West LO

30

0

1

0

29

Hunterdon LO

6

1

0

0

5

Mercer North LO

48

3

3

12

30

Mercer South LO

38

0

8

2

28

Middlesex Central LO

22

0

1

3

18

Middlesex Coastal LO

45

1

1

9

34

Middlesex West LO

32

1

2

10

19

Monmouth North LO

51

0

17

14

20

Monmouth South LO

48

0

16

14

18

Morris East LO

7

0

0

2

5

Morris West LO

23

0

2

5

16

Newark Center City LO

76

1

14

34

27

Newark Northeast LO

101

2

20

33

46

Newark South LO

81

1

24

20

36

Ocean North LO

31

1

9

3

18

Ocean South LO

68

2

13

21

32

Passaic Central LO

25

1

4

9

11

Passaic North LO

51

0

9

9

33

Salem LO

23

0

3

4

16

Somerset LO

41

1

11

16

13

Sussex LO

25

0

12

1

12

Union Central LO

21

0

3

13

5

Union East LO

40

0

2

5

33

Union West LO

30

1

3

3

23

Warren LO

32

1

4

11

16

Total 1,853

46

311

490

1,006

SafeMeasures Extract 3/23/2014

% Compliance
85% 52% 100% 83% 65% 58% 43% 45% 21% 34% 71% 40% 72% 32% 47% 6% 54% 28% 70% 90% 65% 97% 83% 63% 74% 82% 76% 59% 39% 38% 71% 70% 36% 46% 44% 58% 47% 44% 65% 70% 32% 48% 24% 83% 77% 50% 54%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix B-2

APPENDIX: B-3
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES

Measure #8c

Risk Assessments/Reassessments Completed within 30 days prior to Case Closure for Cases Assigned to a

Permanency Worker or Adoption Worker at the time of Case Closure

December 2013

Local Office

Total # of Closed Cases

Assessments Completed within 30 Days of Case Closure

%

Atlantic East LO

44

44

100%

Atlantic West LO

1

1

100%

Atlantic-Burlington-Cape May Area Office

1

1

100%

Bergen Central LO

26

24

92%

Bergen South LO

8

8

100%

Burlington East LO

20

19

95%

Burlington West LO

15

15

100%

Camden Central LO

14

14

100%

Camden East LO

27

26

96%

Camden North LO

18

18

100%

Camden South LO

19

19

100%

Cape May LO

11

11

100%

Cumberland East LO

13

12

92%

Cumberland West LO

11

11

100%

Essex Central LO

15

14

93%

Essex North LO

11

11

100%

Essex South LO

16

16

100%

Gloucester East LO

15

12

80%

Gloucester West LO

8

8

100%

Hudson Central LO

11

9

82%

Hudson North LO

10

9

90%

Hudson South LO

27

25

93%

Hudson West LO

11

11

100%

Mercer North LO

14

12

86%

Mercer South LO

18

15

83%

Middlesex Central LO

21

17

81%

Middlesex Coastal LO

31

28

90%

Middlesex West LO

17

15

88%

Monmouth North LO

15

11

73%

Monmouth South LO

9

9

100%

Morris East LO

5

4

80%

Morris West LO

9

8

89%

Newark Center City LO

6

5

83%

Newark Northeast LO

10

8

80%

Newark South LO

14

12

86%

Ocean North LO

18

17

94%

Ocean South LO

24

21

88%

Passaic Central LO

28

27

96%

Passaic North LO

20

20

100%

Salem LO

6

5

83%

Somerset LO

18

13

72%

Sussex LO

9

8

89%

Union Central LO

10

9

90%

Union East LO

9

9

100%

Union West LO

11

10

91%

Warren LO

3

3

100%

Total

677

624

92%

Extract Date: 3/24/2014

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix B-3

APPENDIX: B-4
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES
Measure #17 Caseworker Visits With Children in Placement

Local Office
Atlantic East LO Atlantic West LO Bergen Central LO Bergen South LO Burlington East LO Burlington West LO Camden Central LO Camden East LO Camden North LO Camden South LO Cape May LO Cumberland East LO Cumberland West LO Essex Central LO Essex North LO Essex South LO Gloucester East LO Gloucester West LO Hudson Central LO Hudson North LO Hudson South LO Hudson West LO Hunterdon LO Mercer North LO Mercer South LO Middlesex Central LO Middlesex Coastal LO Middlesex West LO Monmouth North LO Monmouth South LO Morris East LO Morris West LO Newark Center City LO Newark Northeast LO Newark South LO Ocean North LO Ocean South LO Passaic Central LO Passaic North LO Salem LO Somerset LO Sussex LO Union Central LO Union East LO Union West LO Warren LO Total
SafeMeasures Extract: 3/30/2014

December 2013 Total # of Children in
Placement (In State & Out-of-State)
172 232 108 194 266 171 174 92 162 204 149 107 111 238 57 112 81 248 128 72 234 109 36 194 125 54 155 115 160 136 36 137 227 293 229 164 260 99 182 94 126 88 81 141 90 129 6,772

# Contacts Completed in
Placement
160 213 102 181 240 169 159 87 152 199 136 100 106 223 55 107 77 232 123 69 204 100 35 189 124 47 151 111 156 131 35 136 218 274 218 156 253 90 170 91 114 85 75 125 82 120 6,380

% Completed
93% 92% 94% 93% 90% 99% 91% 95% 94% 98% 91% 93% 95% 94% 96% 96% 95% 94% 96% 96% 87% 92% 97% 97% 99% 87% 97% 97% 98% 96% 97% 99% 96% 94% 95% 95% 97% 91% 93% 97% 90% 97% 93% 89% 91% 93% 94%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix B-4

APPENDIX: B-5
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES
Measure #18 Caseworker Visits with Parent(s) - Goal of Reunification

Local Office
Atlantic East LO Atlantic West LO Bergen Central LO Bergen South LO Burlington East LO Burlington West LO Camden Central LO Camden East LO Camden North LO Camden South LO Cape May LO Cumberland East LO Cumberland West LO Essex Central LO Essex North LO Essex South LO Gloucester East LO Gloucester West LO Hudson Central LO Hudson North LO Hudson South LO Hudson West LO Hunterdon LO Mercer North LO Mercer South LO Middlesex Central LO Middlesex Coastal LO Middlesex West LO Monmouth North LO Monmouth South LO Morris East LO Morris West LO Newark Center City LO Newark Northeast LO Newark South LO Ocean North LO Ocean South LO Passaic Central LO Passaic North LO Salem LO Somerset LO Sussex LO Union Central LO Union East LO Union West LO Warren LO Total
SafeMeasures Extract: 3/26/2014

December 2013
Total Children
140 75 49 91
155 92 91 61 94 122 51 41 95 137 29 69 68 128 75 36 138 74 20 89 72 34 80 73 102 79 16 51
143 140 110 84 162 37 80 42 56 44 19 82 44 63 3,633

# Completed
102 57 42 76
113 79 70 53 75 75 42 24 55 97 19 48 53 91 69 31 102 57 20 64 66 21 50 49 73 56 14 40
115 108 82 53 95 28 56 28 41 32 15 64 31 47 2,678

% Completed
73% 76% 86% 84% 73% 86% 77% 87% 80% 62% 82% 59% 58% 71% 66% 70% 78% 71% 92% 86% 74% 77% 100% 72% 92% 62% 63% 67% 72% 71% 88% 78% 80% 77% 75% 63% 59% 76% 70% 67% 73% 73% 79% 78% 71% 75% 74%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix B-5

APPENDIX: B-6
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES

Measure #20

Parent Visits with Child – Goal of Reunification

December 2013

No Contacts – No Contacts – Four or

Three

Two

One

No

Visit Not

Parent

More

%

Local Office

Total Contacts Contacts Contact Contacts Required

Unavailable Contacts

Atlantic East LO

132

21

7

10

0

1

14

79 60%

Atlantic West LO

66

12

8

4

4

1

5

32 49%

Bergen Central LO

49

2

3

5

0

2

1

36 74%

Bergen South LO

83

10

10

5

0

1

3

54 65%

Burlington East LO

144

19

8

6

0

0

18

93 65%

Burlington West LO

88

14

3

11

0

1

8

51 58%

Camden Central LO

88

10

16

14

1

5

8

34 39%

Camden East LO

56

1

4

7

0

3

7

34 61%

Camden North LO

86

5

12

1

0

3

12

53 62%

Camden South LO

110

4

13

10

0

3

19

61 56%

Cape May LO

47

11

4

4

0

1

1

26 55%

Cumberland East LO

39

2

4

5

0

3

6

19 49%

Cumberland West LO

93

17

12

8

0

4

7

45 48%

Essex Central LO

132

18

13

18

0

3

26

54 41%

Essex North LO

25

2

0

1

1

1

4

16 64%

Essex South LO

63

11

16

1

0

0

7

28 44%

Gloucester East LO

62

2

7

1

0

3

3

46

74%

Gloucester West LO

125

13

18

8

0

1

13

72 58%

Hudson Central LO

70

10

5

2

0

4

0

49 70%

Hudson North LO

36

4

0

3

0

1

4

24 67%

Hudson South LO

137

12

13

12

8

3

8

81 59%

Hudson West LO

67

7

4

6

2

4

5

39 58%

Hunterdon LO

19

2

2

0

0

0

0

15 79%

Mercer North LO

84

8

5

6

0

8

12

45 54%

Mercer South LO

72

7

6

4

0

0

4

51 71%

Middlesex Central LO

33

8

3

1

0

2

6

13 39%

Middlesex Coastal LO

70

5

6

5

0

5

3

46 66%

Middlesex West LO

70

4

5

5

0

3

8

45 64%

Monmouth North LO

99

10

13

7

0

8

9

52 53%

Monmouth South LO

77

14

4

7

3

8

8

33 43%

Morris East LO

16

0

2

0

0

2

0

12 75%

Morris West LO

50

8

2

6

0

5

1

28 56%

Newark Center City LO

131

24

25

13

5

1

10

53 41%

Newark Northeast LO

139

22

11

12

1

4

2

87 63%

Newark South LO

108

19

8

7

3

0

15

56 52%

Ocean North LO

83

4

8

9

0

11

7

44 53%

Ocean South LO

156

18

20

9

0

7

22

80 51%

Passaic Central LO

36

5

5

2

0

5

3

16 44%

Passaic North LO

76

10

5

8

1

0

12

40 53%

Salem LO

39

6

4

3

0

2

2

22 56%

Somerset LO

56

11

10

3

0

1

6

25 45%

Sussex LO

42

1

4

3

0

1

4

29 69%

Union Central LO

19

1

2

1

0

2

3

10 53%

Union East LO

78

8

4

4

0

3

4

55 71%

Union West LO

45

11

4

0

2

5

4

19 42%

Warren LO

59

11

12

4

0

1

3

28 48%

Total

3,455

424

350

261

31

132

327

1,930 56%

SafeMeasures Extract: 3/25/2014

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix B-6

APPENDIX: C
New Jersey Department of Children and Families Needs Assessment
I. Overview and Purpose of the Needs Assessment
As part of the ongoing requirements under the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA), and as a key component of a learning organization, the NJ Department of Children and Families (DCF) is committed to understanding the needs and service gaps of those it serves. Specifically, the MSA requires that:
“The state shall regularly evaluate the need for additional placements and services to meet the needs of children in custody and their families, and to support intact families and prevent the need for out-of-home care. Such needs assessments shall be conducted on an annual, staggered basis that assures that every county is assessed at least once every three years. The state shall develop placements and services consistent with the findings of these needs assessments.”
With this in mind, DCF will implement a multi-year needs assessment that focuses on identifying the strengths and needs for children and youth in out of home placement through the Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCP&P) as well as for children at risk of entering out of home placement. DCF proposes that the focus of the DCF Needs Assessment be narrow in scope in order to have the ability to delve deeply into areas identified through a mixed-methods approach to gathering and assessing information from a variety of sources. This needs assessment will not only provide the data for DCF to understand the needs of children, youth, and families, but will prioritize needs for implementing actionable change to enhance the current service array. Using data to drive the focus of the needs assessment will ensure that the results and recommendations are germane to the geographic area and subpopulations subject to the needs assessment. Appendix A outlines the timeline for the completion of the multi-year DCF Needs Assessment.
II. Approach
Using a mixed-methods approach of both quantitative and qualitative data, DCF will collaborate with stakeholders including youth in care, families, external providers (i.e. court system, service providers, etc.), other key community informants, and internal staff members to create a responsive approach that focuses on the safety, permanency, and well-being of children and youth in out-ofhome care and families with children at risk of placement. The goals of this needs assessment are to:
 Identify and prioritize the placement and service needs183 (as identified by the familyserving professionals) and the service demands (as identified by families themselves) of the target population;

183 DCF recognizes the importance of the family voice in determining their needs and acknowledges that there may be differences between that family voice and the assessment of family needs from the professionals working with the family. Professional assessments for services are needed to account for underlying needs and the presenting behavior.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix C-1

 Identify and evaluate the current service array within DCP&P through contracted and community based resources focusing on the availability, accessibility, utilization, and quality of services;
 Identify gaps in services and placement resources needed to support children in out-ofhome placement and their families;
 Partner with external stakeholders to develop targeted, prioritized recommendations based on the findings of the needs assessment;
 Provide recommendations to DCF leadership to enhance and/or develop services to improve the permanency, safety, and well-being of children and youth in out of home placement or at risk of placement and their families.
DCF proposes to form an internal workgroup responsible to carry out the DCF Needs Assessment planning, implementation, recommendation, and follow-up. The internal workgroup will be headed by Assistant Commissioner of Performance Management and Accountability (PMA), and includes additional staff from across the Department, including representation from the Office of Strategic Development, the Office of Quality, the Office of Research, Evaluation and Reporting (RER), the Office of Contracting, as well as staff in key roles across the DCP&P, CSOC and FCP. This group will be comprised of leaders with authority to ensure discussions are productive and decisions are made timely.
In an effort to better collaborate and receive feedback from stakeholders, the creation of an external stakeholder board is imperative. This group will be comprised of a broad range of individuals representing community based agencies, the court system, families, youth, and other key participants from all three regions. This board will be charged with reviewing, interpreting, and validating findings from the DCF Needs Assessment and working with DCF’s internal workgroup to formulate recommendations for action. Recommendations will then be incorporated into a final report and utilized by DCF’s internal workgroup to strategically plan regional or local service improvements and, when appropriate, statewide enhancements.
While the external stakeholders function as an intermediary that ensures community feedback is incorporated, it is the internal workgroup that is accountable to ensure appropriate and meaningful steps are taken to strengthen the overall system.
Since the DCF Needs Assessment is designed to identify the placement and service needs for children and youth in out of home settings, as well as service demands of at risk families, the process must be positioned to identify local variation among needs. In order to address the array of service needs across the state, DCF will divide the state into three regions (North, Central, and South) focusing on one region each year over a three-year period to ensure each region is assessed every three years. The regions consist of seven counties each and are identified below:
Northern Region: Bergen County, Essex County, Hudson County, Morris County, Passaic County, Sussex County, and Union County

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix C-2

Central Region: Hunterdon County, Mercer County, Middlesex County, Monmouth County, Ocean County, Somerset County, and Warren County
Southern Region: Atlantic County, Burlington County, Cape May County, Camden County, Cumberland County, Gloucester County, and Salem County
The DCF needs assessment will take a systematic and comprehensive approach based on the framework outlined by McKenzie, Neiger, and Thackeray (2012) in Planning, Implementing, and Evaluating Health Promotion Programs. DCF’s needs assessment will include four phases including I) gather, analyze and summarize existing data available across a variety of quantitative and qualitative data sources; II) collect and analyze new data from stakeholders to identify and prioritize needs across specific subpopulations; III) identify and evaluate current services; and IV) validate needs identified and make recommendations. Each of the four phases in the needs assessment is discussed in more detail below and will be implemented by DCF staff and key partners. By utilizing this robust, mixed-methods approach, DCF can expand its reach and understanding of current service needs, existing services, and gaps.
To ensure accountability and timelines for this process, DCF will generate interim reports at the conclusion of each phase of the needs assessment to be reviewed by both internal and external workgroups in order to inform the next phase of the needs assessment. Analysis of all data will culminate in a final report, informed by the external stakeholder board, that summarizes a prioritized list of needs, gaps in services for the specific region under review, and provide recommendations for action to improve the overall system. The final report will have a broad distribution as it is anticipated to heavily impact service delivery, contracting, budgeting, and programmatic decision-making.
III. Implementation
Phase I: Gather, Analyze and Summarize Existing Data
The first phase of the DCF needs assessment is to review, analyze and summarize all sources of data currently available to DCF through a variety of sources. Using the attached chart (Appendix B), DCF staff will collect an accounting of the variety of different needs assessment-like processes occurring across the department. DCF regularly collects both quantitative and qualitative data for case and performance management purposes. In order to leverage all of the processes underway at DCF, the full scope of the available data must be clear.
For example, Family and Community Partnerships (FCP) has partnered with the NJ Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect, Prevention Committee to design and implement a new Statewide Prevention Plan. The Prevention Plan was created based on the results of a similar needs assessment process conducted by an outside entity with a focus on intact families who are considered at risk. Similarly, the Office of Adolescent Services (OAS) is also engaged in a needs assessment process for older youth involved184 with DCP&P and has planned a needs assessment as part of a recently awarded federal planning grant. Another example is the data collected through
184 The OAS processes look at youth living independently, living in out of home placements, or family.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix C-3

other continuous quality improvement efforts across the Department such as Qualitative Reviews (QR), targeted record reviews, and other existing surveys that generate reports summarizing findings on a variety of subpopulations and topics. Therefore, DCF proposes that the needs assessment begins with a thorough review of existing reports and publications that assess needs from across the Department.
As a second step, DCF will analyze existing administrative data from New Jersey SPIRIT (NJS), the child welfare case management system, as well as SafeMeasures, a performance management system available to all staff. In addition to the Key Performance Indicators (KPI) tracked through SafeMeasures, DCF tracks data on placement of children and youth in out-of-home care, repeat maltreatment and re-entry into care, permanency outcomes, educational stability, physical and mental health care, services to families, and services to older youth. The DCF data system allows for tracking information at the macro and micro levels with data available by child, family, caseworker, local office, region, and/or state levels.
The administrative data will be used to understand the basic placement and service needs of the entire out-of-home population. This analysis will begin with understanding the demographics and descriptive factors (i.e. age, race, geography, type of abuse, type of placement, placement stability, length of stay) of the out-of-home target population and the regional variation that exists across the State.
The next step will be to look at the data available through the Standard Decision Making (SDM) tools used by caseworkers to assess families. Each family that is investigated for a CPS report has a Safety and a Risk Assessment conducted during the investigation. These assessments can provide information about identified risk factors for families as one indication of potential service needs. Although there are some limitations in using this data to draw conclusions as to the needs of families, it provides additional points of reference when analyzed in aggregate. Additionally, when a case is open for services with DCP&P, the caseworker is required to do a Strengths and Needs Assessment for both the child and the caregiver every six months as part of the planning process. These assessments contain information on physical and mental health, coping skills, substance use, relationships, parenting skills, and financial resources. Again, while this data may have some limitations in its utility, an analysis of the Strengths and Needs data will be the best source of information to take a broad look at all children placed in out-of-home care across the State as well as the needs of intact families at risk.
In addition to the SDM tools, DCF will aggregate data of professional and diagnostic assessments (i.e. psychological or psychiatric assessments) being requested and paid for by DCP&P as a proxy for the type of referral services needed for children and families. This analysis will look at the frequency of services secured to support the needs of a family; such as childcare, transportation, family preservation services, individual and family therapy, homemaker services and others. The focus will rely heavily on services that DCF pays for on a fee-for-service185 basis to increase the likelihood of quality data. The data when taken in aggregate can provide an accounting of the frequency and types of services children, youth and their families are receiving. This will be

185 Services provided to families on a fee-for-service basis, require casework staff to enter payment information into NJS thereby increasing the likelihood of accurate information because if there is no payment, the family cannot access the service timely.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix C-4

incorporated into DCF’s larger inventory of contracted services for a complete picture of available resources regardless of payment type and matched with identified needs and service demands in Phase III of the needs assessment.
When results of all these data sources outlined above are combined through the DCF needs assessment, the Department will have a comprehensive, multi-source understanding of the placement and service needs of all children and youth in out of home placement and families whose children may be at risk for entry into out of home placement. Understanding the results of completed and ongoing assessments across the Department will allow DCF to synthesize all that is known about the current needs of children, youth and families served by Department. Additionally, given the timing and similarities of the other needs assessments, this work will maximize understanding to avoid duplication of efforts, and leverage a multitude of resources and expertise to sufficiently assess the needs of both the out-of-home population as well as intact families in order to fully satisfy the MSA requirements.
In turn, understanding what story the exiting data tells, leads to decisions about what populations and topics need further exploration in phase II of the needs assessment. In phase II, DCF will collect additional data to improve our in-depth knowledge of the specific placement and service needs of certain subpopulations. The deliverables due to both internal and external workgroups at the conclusion of Phase I are as follows:
 Meta Analysis of the array of needs assessments within DCF;
 Summary of the analysis of DCF administrative data at the statewide and when available at the county/DCP&P Local Office level;
 Guidance to DCP&P leadership about using the analyses completed to inform decisionmaking broader than for the DCF Needs Assessment process, and;
 Areas to focus on in primary data collection processes.
Phase II: Collect and Analyze New Data and Prioritize Needs
Primary data collection strategies will be used in the DCF Needs Assessment to delve more deeply into understanding aspects of the findings from Phase I. In order to achieve this, DCF will create structured interview guides and surveys to conduct informational interviews, focus groups, and population based surveys to yield a more in-depth analysis of targeted subpopulations of interest. For example, much is known about the need for additional services for parents with a substance use disorder. However, the administrative data will not be able to answer questions about the level of care needed, the type of substance used by the participant in the program, the quality and accessibility of the service, or whether the service provided meets the current need. This data collection process provides the opportunity to interview DCP&P local office staff about referred services for families, anticipated outcomes, and insight into the decision making process that leads to a referral for services.
DCF will conduct structured informational interviews with external providers, key community informants, and DCP&P leadership located in the region being assessed as needed. Administered by PMA staff, these discussions will provide expert opinions on the needs of the community to

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix C-5

assist DCF with better understanding the placement and service needs children and families are encountering. Providers will be chosen based on their presence in the community (i.e. they serve a wide variety of DCP&P families in their region) as well as through discussions with local DCP&P leadership to ensure that key information is received from the most knowledgeable individuals who are deeply engaged in providing children, youth and their families with quality care. Once completed, interview responses will be analyzed in order to identify themes and trends. These responses will inform the development of questions for the population-based survey as well as to inform the structured interview guide for focus group.
DCF will conduct focus groups with approximately four target groups: provider agencies, youth, families, and DCP&P staff. Each group will consist of 6-10 individuals invited through a formal process and meetings will last approximately 45-90 minutes. Utilizing 8-10 targeted open-ended questions, DCF will lead discussions in an opportunity to identify broad and sweeping issues affecting youth in out-of-home placements and families with children at risk of placement and the type of services needed to address these issues. Focus group meetings will take place in an area that is convenient for members in the relevant region to help enable consistent attendance. Once completed, focus group responses will be analyzed in order to identify themes and trends. These responses will also inform the development of questions for the population-based survey.
Surveys are a key component to any needs assessment as they allow us to target a larger population than focus groups and informational interviews. Three parallel surveys will be created to capture the responses of providers, youth/families, and DCP&P staff members. All will be similar but adapted to respondent’s roles.
Each survey will focus on understanding the placement and service needs of the target population, as well as the current services available to address those needs. The questions will be constructed based on the information gathered during the informational interviews and focus groups to ask specific questions that focus not only on the service needs, but also on the availability, effectiveness, and accessibility of services in the designated area. Broad areas of services will be defined as opposed to individual service agencies. For example, substance abuse screening, case management services, and therapeutic services may each be part of a broader array of service needs analyzed.
DCF will conduct approximately 25 surveys within each target group (i.e. provider agencies, youth, families, and DCP&P staff) that contain a mixture of open and closed ended questions. This will allow opportunities for individuals to leave more substantial comments. Key questions include: What are the most useful services? How do you use this service? How helpful are these services? The majority of the questions will be close-ended allowing individuals to rate each question to the best of their abilities using a Likert scale. Additional surveys of up to 200 per target group that are entirely closed-ended will be conducted using a similar question format. All surveys will be available both online and in paper format to accommodate families who do not have internet access.
After all data is collected, DCF staff will analyze all data from both existing data sources and newly collected data to identify and prioritize placement and service needs as well as service demands as outlined by the stakeholders. The analysis will focus on understanding the needs

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix C-6

among the entire population but also on targeted subpopulations when possible as there will likely be variation in need across various subgroups (e.g. geography, age, placement type, stakeholder type, etc.). The ultimate goal of the analysis is to develop a prioritized list of needs for review. Each identified need will be ranked using the priority ranking process as outlined by McKenzie et al. This process allows each identified need to be ranked across four different components to generate a priority score. These components are as follows:
A. size of the problem (0 to 10)
B. seriousness of the problem (0 to 20)
C. effectiveness of the possible interventions (0 to 10)
D. feasibility or the ability to conduct an intervention based on economics, resources, and legality (0 or 1)
Basic priority rating (BPR) = [(A + B) * C ] / 3 * D
DCF in consultation with the external stakeholder board will assign a priority score to each need identified. These priority ratings will serve as a guide for DCF and its partners to make decisions on where to invest resources. There are likely to be many needs that arise from this process and the priority rating will provide some quantitative metric by which to make decisions based on the volume and seriousness of the need. Ultimately, decisions will be made based on the totality of the needs assessment, but the priority score will inform the decision making.
There will likely be a myriad of needs identified from this needs assessments across a variety of topic areas. With limited available resources, DCF must prioritize the needs of the children and families of the State based on the charge of the Department. A priority score would be given a “0” if the need falls outside DCF’s scope of work. This need would still be reported out in the regional and final reports, however, DCF would work with the external stakeholder group to identify appropriate State and community partners that would be better suited to address these needs directly. For example, should community or gang violence be identified as a high priority need from our focus group and survey data collection, that is an important piece of actionable information. However, DCF may do a “warm transfer” of this knowledge to another State agency or community provider to focus on this need as it more squarely fits within their strategic priorities. A priority score of “0” would never be given based solely on the availability of DCF resources, especially if the need falls within the mission and scope of work of the Department.
At the conclusion of Phase II, the following deliverables will be available to the workgroups for review:
 Results and summary of themes from informational interviews and focus groups
 Summary of findings from population-based survey outlining both general needs and needs of specific subpopulations, and;
 Summary of the highest priority of needs.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix C-7

Phase III: Identify and Evaluate Current Services
Once needs are defined and prioritized for a region, DCF will identify the existing landscape and utilization levels of contracted and community based resources available to children, youth and families in the region geared toward addressing the highest priority needs identified. DCF will rely on content analysis of Business/Area/Local Office information (i.e. contracts and provider quarterly reports) as well as data available through DCF Central Office supports (i.e. financial downloads). Through this process, DCF will also make a determination if contracted services are offering best practice; evidence based, or evidence informed programs.
DCF will match the service landscape and utilization data against findings from Phase II above on the availability and effectiveness/satisfaction with existing services in the region to assist with identifying gaps or barriers that need to be addressed. This analysis will provide DCF with a better understanding of what programs are available to the target population; which programs are being utilized; how effective/satisfied stakeholders are with programming, and an overall understanding if the identified needs of the target population are being served. The Phase III process and deliverables will inform the recommendation process and/or prioritize recommendations if there are competing priorities.
Phase III deliverables are as follows:  Inventory of contracted and community based services relevant to the areas of need explored in the DCF needs assessment;
 Summary on the frequency existing services are accessed and/or the levels of service contracted providers are providing.
 Identification of potential gaps in identified needs and existing service array.
Phase IV: Validate Needs Identified and Make Recommendations
After all needs are identified and prioritized, and after the existing service array is examined for gaps, a summary of the findings will be shared with the external stakeholder board. Together, DCF’s internal workgroup and the external stakeholder board will validate and prioritize the identified placement and service needs identified by professional stakeholders along with the service demands identified by youth and families to create a blended list of priorities for DCF. These groups together will use the list of prioritized needs to develop recommendations for change. DCF’s internal workgroup will be responsible for turning these recommendations into an actionable plan. This plan will be comprised of practical steps that can be measured and evaluated over time.
Upon completing all data collection, analysis, and stakeholder engagement, a summary will be written by DCF forming an easily understandable report that will highlight key statistics and findings from each area of need as well as emphasize any regional trends. After the completion of the DCF Needs Assessment in the primary region, a preliminary report will be drafted highlighting the trends in service, strengths, and challenges associated with youth in out-of-home placements and families with children at risk of out of home placement. This report will also incorporate recommendations for action for each specific region along with introductory plans to be

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix C-8

implemented. The report will be given to DCF leadership providing recommendations on necessary changes to the system and services.
IV. Conclusion
Once the statewide data collection and analysis is completed in the first year of the DCF Needs Assessment, this process will be repeated for the other two regions culminating in the entire state being completed in three years. The deliverables at the end of each phase will serve as interim updates to keep the internal and external workgroups appraised of progress made, decision-making processes and to provide overall accountability for the DCF Needs Assessment.
Preliminary reports such as this will be written for all three regions. Upon completing analysis of the third and final region, a comprehensive report will be drafted focusing on both regional and statewide system issues, recommendations for change, and subsequent tasks to mitigate these challenges. Reports, available by county, will be disseminated broadly on an annual basis, posted on the DCF website as well as shared with community based organizations, staff, and a broad array of stakeholders.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix C-9

APPENDIX: D-1 CASE WORKER CASELOAD COMPLIANCE BY LOCAL OFFICE
Intake Caseload Compliance

Measure III.B.1.b

December 2013

Intake

Total

Workers In

Percent in

Local Office

Workers

Compliance

Compliance

Atlantic East

19

10

53%

Atlantic West

15

7

47%

Bergen Central

21

18

86%

Bergen South

29

28

97%

Burlington East

22

20

91%

Burlington West

23

21

91%

Camden Central

21

21

100%

Camden East

21

20

95%

Camden North

20

20

100%

Camden South

20

19

95%

Cape May

13

12

92%

Cumberland East

13

12

92%

Cumberland West

26

25

96%

Essex Central

21

21

100%

Essex North

15

15

100%

Essex South

16

16

100%

Gloucester East

17

16

94%

Gloucester West

19

16

84%

Hudson Central

16

6

38%

Hudson North

18

18

100%

Hudson South

18

4

22%

Hudson West

20

14

70%

Hunterdon

8

8

100%

Mercer North

19

19

100%

Mercer South

22

22

100%

Middlesex Central

16

14

88%

Middlesex Coastal

21

20

95%

Middlesex West

21

20

95%

Monmouth North

28

16

57%

Monmouth South

25

14

56%

Morris East

17

17

100%

Morris West

21

20

95%

Newark Center City

20

20

100%

Newark Northeast

20

16

80%

Newark South

22

15

68%

Ocean North

32

30

94%

Ocean South

34

32

94%

Passaic Central

24

23

96%

Passaic North

33

33

100%

Salem

14

13

93%

Somerset

23

23

100%

Sussex

16

3

19%

Union Central

23

23

100%

Union East

23

23

100%

Union West

19

19

100%

Warren

18

18

100%

Total

942

820

87%

Statewide Tota1

2,288

2,094

92%

Intake Standard - Percentage of workers that meet the 8 new intake and 12 family standard (Standard = 95%) Excludes On-Leave Workers. Prepared by the Office of Research, Evaluation and Reporting – January 15, 2014 Data Extracts on January 6, 2014

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix D-1

APPENDIX: D-2 CASE WORKER CASELOAD COMPLIANCE BY LOCAL OFFICE
Adoption Caseload Compliance

Measure III.B.1.d

December 2013

Intake

Total

Workers In

Percent in

Local Office

Workers

Compliance

Compliance

Atlantic East

Atlantic West

7

0

0%

Bergen Central

5

5

100%

Bergen South

6

5

83%

Burlington East

7

6

86%

Burlington West

4

1

25%

Camden Central

4

3

75%

Camden East

2

2

4100%

Camden North

4

4

100%

Camden South

5

4

80%

Cape May

6

5

83%

Cumberland East

6

6

100%

Cumberland West

Essex Central

5

4

80%

Essex North

2

2

100%

Essex South

4

4

100%

Gloucester East

Gloucester West

8

7

88%

Hudson Central

3

3

100%

Hudson North

2

2

100%

Hudson South

6

6

100%

Hudson West

3

3

100%

Hunterdon

1

1

100%

Mercer North

6

6

100%

Mercer South

4

4

100%

Middlesex Central

3

3

100%

Middlesex Coastal

5

5

100%

Middlesex West

3

3

100%

Monmouth North

4

4

100%

Monmouth South

3

2

67%

Morris East

2

2

100%

Morris West

6

6

100%

Newark Center City

8

8

100%

Newark Northeast

9

9

100%

Newark South

9

9

100%

Ocean North

5

5

100%

Ocean South

6

6

100%

Passaic Central

5

5

100%

Passaic North

6

5

83%

Salem

4

4

100%

Somerset

5

5

100%

Sussex

4

4

100%

Union Central

3

3

100%

Union East

4

4

100%

Union West

4

4

100%

Warren

4

4

100%

Total

202

183

91%

Statewide Tota1

2,288

2,094

92%

Adoption Standard - Percentage of workers that meet the 15 or fewer children standard (Standard = 95%) Excludes On-Leave Workers. Prepared by the Office of Research, Evaluation and Reporting – January 15, 2014 Data Extracts on January 6, 2014

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

July 2014 Appendix D-2

APPENDIX E: DCF Organizational Chart Department of Children and Families

Chief of Staff
Administration
Communications & Public Affairs
Advocacy
Child Welfare Training
Academy & Partnership
Information Technology
Child & Family Health
Office of Education (Regional Schools)

Assistant Commissioner Performance Management & Accountability
Quality
Research, Evaluation &
Reporting
Administrative Reviews
Institutional Abuse
Investigation Unit
Child Care Youth
Residential Licensing

Assistant Commissioner
Child Protection & Permanency
Field Operations and Support
Case Practice
Adoption Operations, Resource Families & Interstate
Services
State Central Registry

COMMISSIONER

Adolescent Services

Children’s System of Care

Family & Community Partnerships

Adolescent Case Practice
Employment Services
Housing & Transitional
Services
Youth Engagement
Educational Support Services

Specialized Treatment Services
Community Services
Policy & Planning and System Administration
Substance Abuse Services
for Adolescents
DD/ID Services

Early Childhood Services
Domestic Violence Services
School Linked Services
Family Support Services

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XIV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

Women

Chief Administrator

Sexual Assault Direct Services
Sexual Assault Prevention Services
Displaced Homemaker
Services

Budget
Revenue, Reporting &
IV-E Operations
DCF Contracting 5 Business
Offices
Procurement

Assistant Commissioner
Legal, Regulatory &
Legislative Affairs
Legislative Affairs
Policy & Regulatory Development
Grants Management, Auditing &
Records
Legal Affairs

Accounting

May 15, 2014
July 2014 Appendix E-1

 
 Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 201 PageID: 7535
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Period XV (January 1 – June 30, 2014) Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie
January 9, 2015

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 201 PageID: 7536

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 201 PageID: 7537
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie
January 1 – June 30, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
II. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE ................................................................................. 5
III. CHILD AND FAMILY OUTCOME AND CASE PRACTICE PERFORMANCE MEASURES ..................................................... 11
IV. INVESTIGATIONS of ALLEGED CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT ....................... 45 A. New Jersey’s State Central Registry (SCR) ...................................................... 46 B. Timeliness and Quality of Investigative Practice .............................................. 49 C. Institutional Abuse Investigative Unit (IAIU): Investigations of Allegations of Child Maltreatment in Placements................. 53
V. IMPLEMENTING THE CASE PRACTICE MODEL................................................... 58 A. Activities Supporting the Implementation of the Case Practice Model ............ 58 B. Performance Measures on Family Team Meetings and Case Planning ............ 62 C. Performance Benchmarks Related to Safety and Risk Assessments ................ 74 D. Performance Measures on Caseworker, Parent-Child and Sibling Visits ......... 76
VI. THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE............................... 90 A. Recruitment and Licensure of Resource Family Homes................................... 93 B. Performance Measures on Placement of Children in Out-of-Home Care........................................................................................... 101
VII. REPEAT MALTREATMENT AND RE-ENTRY INTO CARE................................ 108
VIII. TIMELY PERMANENCY THROUGH REUNIFICATION, ADOPTION OR LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP .............................................................. 110
IX. HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT .................. 120 A. Health Care Delivery System .......................................................................... 121 B. Health Care Performance Measures ................................................................ 122
i

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 4 of 201 PageID: 7538

X. MENTAL HEALTH CARE ......................................................................................... 137 A. Mental Health Delivery System ...................................................................... 137 B. Mental Health Performance Measures ............................................................ 139

XI. SERVICES TO PREVENT ENTRY INTO FOSTER CARE AND TO SUPPORT REUNIFICATION AND PERMANENCY......................................... 143

XII. SERVICES TO OLDER YOUTH ................................................................................ 145 A. Updates to Current Practice............................................................................. 145 B. Performance Measures Measuring Services to Older Youth .......................... 151

XIII.

SUPPORTING A HIGH QUALITY WORKFORCE: CASELOADS AND TRAINING ................................................................................. 157
A. Caseloads ......................................................................................................... 158 B. Training ........................................................................................................... 171

XIV. ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH QUALITATIVE REVIEW AND THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF ACCURATE DATA ......................................... 177

XV. FISCAL YEAR 2014 AND PROPOSED 2015 BUDGET .......................................... 181

APPENDICES A. Glossary of Acronyms Used in Monitoring Report ..........................................A-1

B. Local Office Performance on Select Measures 1. Measure 7a: Initial Family Team Meeting Held within 30 days from the Removal ....................................................................................... B-1 2. Measure 7b: Quarterly Family Team Meetings Held Every Three Months of a Child’s Placement .............................................. B-2 3. Measure 17: Caseworker Visits With Children in Placement..................... B-3 4. Measure 18: Caseworker Visits with Parent(s) Goal of Reunification.................................................................................. B-4

C. Case Worker Caseload Compliance by Local Office 1. Intake Caseload Compliance ..................................................................... C-1 2. Adoption Caseload Compliance ................................................................ C-2

D. DCF Organizational Chart as of October 2014.................................................D-1

ii

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 5 of 201 PageID: 7539
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1. Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Summary of Performance as of June 30, 2014) .............................................................................................................. 12
2. IAIU Investigative Timeliness: Percent of Investigations Completed within 60 days (January – June 2014).......................................................................... 55
3. Number of FTM Facilitators, Coaches and Master Coaches Developed as of June 30, 2014....................................................................................................... 59
4. Five Month Enhanced Review (January – June 2014) ................................................ 60 5. Ten Month Enhanced Review (January – June 2014) ................................................. 61 6. Assignment to Adoption Worker within 5 days of Goal Change to Adoption
(January – June 2014) .................................................................................................. 61 7. Family Team Meetings Held within 30 days (January – June 2014) .......................... 63 8. Quarterly Family Team Meetings Held (January – June 2014)................................... 65 9. Case Plans Developed within 30 days of Child Entering Placement
(January – June 2014) .................................................................................................. 69 10. Case Plans Updated Every 6 months (January – June 2014)....................................... 71 11. Selected Demographics for Children in Out-of-Home Placement as of
June 30, 2014 ............................................................................................................... 91 12. Resource Family Homes Licensed and Closed (January – June 2014) ....................... 95 13. Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes Compared to County/State
Targets (January – June 2014) ..................................................................................... 97 14. Total Number of Resource Family Applications Resolved in 150 and
180 Days for Applications Submitted July 2013 through December 2013 ................. 98 15. Total Number of Kinship Family Applications Resolved in 150 and
180 Days for Applications Submitted July 2013 through December 2013 ................. 99 16. Total Number of Non-Kinship Family Applications Resolved in 150 and
180 Days for Applications Submitted July 2013 through December 2013 ................. 99 17. Shelter Placements for Youth Aged 13 or Older
(January 2008 – June 2014) ....................................................................................... 107 18. Adoption Finalizations by CP&P Local Office
(January – June 2014) ................................................................................................ 112 19. TPR Filing for Children with a Permanency Goal of Adoption
(January – June 2014) ................................................................................................ 114 20. Child Specific Recruitment Plans Developed within 30 or 60 days of
Goal Change for Children without Identified Adoption Resource (January – June 2014) ................................................................................................ 116 21. Adoptions Finalized within 9 months of Child’s Placement in an Adoptive Home (January – June 2014) ..................................................................... 119 22. Comprehensive Medical Examinations within 30 and 60 days of Entering DCF Custody (January – June 2014) .......................................................... 126 23. EPSDT for Children Ages 12-24 months (January – June 2014) .............................. 129
iii

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 6 of 201 PageID: 7540
24. EPSDT Annual Medical Exams for Children Age 25 months and older (January – June 2014) ................................................................................................ 129
25. Provision of Required Follow-up Medical Care (June 30, 2014) .............................. 132 26. Health Passport: Presence in the Record, Evidence of Sharing Records
(June 30, 2014)........................................................................................................... 135 27. Mental Health Screening and Assessments for Children Age 2 and older
as of June 30, 2014..................................................................................................... 141 28. Unduplicated Number of Families Served by New Jersey’s FSCs
(January – June 2014) ................................................................................................ 144 29. Number of Contracted Services Provided by FSCs Statewide between
January and June 2014 ............................................................................................... 144 30. Youth Transitional and Supported Housing as of June 30, 2014 .............................. 146 31. DCF/CP&P Individual Caseload Standards............................................................... 158 32. Number of DCF/CP&P Investigations and Secondary Intake Assignments
By Month (January – June 2014)............................................................................... 164 33. Percentage of DCF/CP&P Investigations Assigned to Non-Caseload
Carrying Staff by Month (January – June 2014) ....................................................... 166 34. DCF Staff Trained (January 1, 2006 – June 30, 2014 ............................................... 172 35. DCF Staff Trained on Case Practice Model Modules
(January 1, 2009 – June 30, 2014) ............................................................................. 174 36. Qualitative Review Gender and Age Demographics (January – June 2014)............. 177 37. Qualitative Review Child and Family Status Results
(January – June 2014) ................................................................................................ 178 38. Qualitative Review Practice/System Performance Results
(January – June 2014) ................................................................................................ 179
iv

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 7 of 201 PageID: 7541
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1. Number of Calls to SCR by Month (January – June 2014) ......................................... 46 2. Percentage of Investigations Received by the Field in a Timely Manner
(June 2009 – June 2014) .............................................................................................. 49 3. Percentage of Investigations Commenced within Required Response Time
(June 2009 – June 2014) .............................................................................................. 50 4. Percentage of Abuse/Neglect Investigations Completed within 60 days
(June 2009 – June 2014) .............................................................................................. 51 5. Referral Sources for all IAIU Referrals (January – June 2014)................................... 52 6. Percentage of IAIU Investigations Completed within 60 days
(June 2009 – June 2014) .............................................................................................. 54 7. Family Team Meetings Held within 30 days (March 2013 – June 2014) ................... 64 8. Quarterly Family Team Meetings Held (March 2013 – June 2014)............................ 66 9. QR Cases Rated Acceptable on Family Involvement and Effective Use of
Family Team Meetings (January – June 2014)............................................................ 67 10. Percentage of Children Entering Care with Case Plans Developed
within 30 days (June 2009 – June 2014)...................................................................... 68 11. Percentage of Case Plans Reviewed and Modified as Necessary at least
every 6 months (June 2009 – June 2014) .................................................................... 70 12. Cases Rated Acceptable on Quality of Case and Service Planning
(January – June 2014) .................................................................................................. 72 13. Cases Rated Acceptable on Planning to Meet Educational Needs
(January – June 2014) .................................................................................................. 73 14. Performance on Safety Assessments Completed prior to Investigation
Completion, Risk Assessments Completed prior to Investigation Completion and Risk Reassessments Completed within 30 days prior to Case Closure (January – June 2014).................................................. 75 15. Percentage of Children who had Two Visits per month during First Two months of an Initial or Subsequent Placement (December 2009 – June 2014) ..................................................................................... 77 16. Percentage of Children who had Two Visits per month during First Two months of an Initial or Subsequent Placement (January – June 2014) ........................ 78 17. Percentage of Children in Out-of-Home Care who had at least One Caseworker Visit per month in his/her Placement (June 2009 – June 2014) .............................................................................................. 79 18. Percentage of Children in Out-of-Home Care who had at least One Caseworker Visit per month in his/her Placement (January – June 2014) .................................................................................................. 80 19. Percentage of Families who have at least Twice per month Face-to-Face Contact with Caseworker when the Goal is Reunification (June 2009 – June 2014) .............................................................................................. 81
v

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 8 of 201 PageID: 7542
20. Percentage of Families who have at least Twice per month Face-to-Face Contact with Caseworker when the Goal is Reunification (January – June 2014) .................................................................................................. 82
21. Percentage of Parents who had at least One Face-to-Face Contact with Caseworker who had a Permanency Goal other than Reunification (December 2009 – June 2014) ..................................................................................... 83
22. Percentage of Parents who had at least One Face-to-Face Contact with Caseworker who had a Permanency Goal other than Reunification (January – June 2014) .................................................................................................. 84
23. Percentage of Children who had at least Two Visits per month with their Parent(s) (December 2009 – June 2014) ............................................................ 85
24. Percentage of Children with Weekly Visits with their Parent(s) (January – June 2014) .................................................................................. 86
25. Percentage of Children who had at least Two Visits per month with their Parent(s) (January – June 2014) ......................................................................... 87
26. Percentage of Children in Custody who have at least Monthly Visits with Siblings, for Children not Placed with Siblings (December 2010 – June 2014) ..................................................................................... 88
27. Percentage of Children in Custody who have at least Monthly Visits with Siblings, for Children not Placed with Siblings (January – June 2014) .................................................................................................. 89
28. Children in CP&P Out-of-Home Placement by Type of Placement as of June 30, 2014....................................................................................................... 90
29. Children in Out-of-Home Placement (December 2009 – June 2014).......................... 92 30. Children Receiving In-Home Services (December 2009 – June 2014) ....................... 92 31. Number of Licensed Resource Family Homes Compared to Statewide Target
(January – June 2014) .................................................................................................. 93 32. Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes (Kinship and Non-Kinship)
(January – June 2014) .................................................................................................. 94 33. Reasons for Resource Home Closures (January – June 2014) ................................... 96 34. Cases Rated Acceptable on Appropriateness of Placement
(January – June 2014) ................................................................................................ 103 35. Percentage of Children Placed in a Family Setting
(June 2009 – June 2014) ............................................................................................ 104 36. Percentage of Children over Age 13 Placed in Compliance with
MSA Standards (June 2008 – June 2014).................................................................. 106 37. Percentage of Children with TPR Filed within 60 Days of
Goal Change to Adoption (December 2011 – June 2014) ......................................... 113 38. Percentage of Child Specific Recruitment Plans Developed within 30
Days of Goal Change to Adoption (December 2010 – June 2014) ........................... 115 39. Percentage of Children with Goal of Adoption for whom Adoptive Home
Had not been identified at time of Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) who were Placed in Adoptive Home within 9 months of TPR (June 2009 – June 2014) ............................................................................................ 117 40. Percentage of Adoptions Finalized within 9 months of Adoptive Placement (June 2009 – June 2014) ............................................................................................ 118
vi

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 9 of 201 PageID: 7543
41. Percentage of Children who Received Pre-Placement Assessment in a Non-Emergency Room Setting or Other Settings Appropriate to the Situation (June 2009 – June 2014) ............................................................................................ 122
42. Percentage of Children with Comprehensive Medical Examination (CME) within 30 days of Entering Out-of-Home Care (December 2009 – June 2014) ........ 124
43. Percentage of Children with Comprehensive Medical Examination (CME) within First 60 days of Placement (June 2009 – June 2014) ..................................... 125
44. Percentage of Children Ages 12-24 months Up-to-Date on EPSDT Visits (June 2009 – June 2014) ............................................................................................ 127
45. Percentage of Children older than 2 years Up-to-Date on EPSDT Visits (June 2009 – June 2014) ............................................................................................ 128
46. Percentage of Children Current with Semi-Annual Dental Exams (June 2009 – June 2014) ............................................................................................ 130
47. Percentage of Children Who Received Follow-up Care for Needs Identified in CME (June 2009 – June 2014) .............................................................................. 131
48. Percentage of Children in Custody Current with Immunizations (June 2009 – June 2014) ............................................................................................ 133
49. Percentage of Caregivers who Received Health Passports within 5 days of Child’s Placement (December 2009 – June 2014) ................................................ 134
50. Percentage of Caregivers who Received Health Passports within 30 days of Child’s Placement (December 2009 – June 2014) ................................................ 135
51. Children in Out-of-State Placement (June 2011 – June 2014) .................................. 138 52. Percentage of Children with Suspected Mental Health Needs who
Received Mental Health Assessment (December 2009 – June 2014) ....................... 139 53. Percentage of Youth Aged 14-18 with Independent Living Assessment
(December 2009 – June 2014) ................................................................................... 152 54. Youth Existing Care with Housing and Employed or Enrolled in Educational
or Vocational Training Program (January 2010 – June 2014)................................... 155 55. Percentage of DCF/CP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload
Standards for Intake Workers (June 2009 – June 2014) ............................................ 160 56. Percentage of DCF/CP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload
Standards for Permanency Workers (June 2009 – June 2014) .................................. 160 57. Percentage of DCF/CP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload
Standards for Adoption Workers (June 2009 – June 2014) ....................................... 161 58. Percentage of Intake Workers with Individual Caseloads at or Below
the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – June 2014) .................. 162 59. Percentage of IAIU Workers with Individual Caseloads at or Below
the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – June 2014) .................. 167 60. Percentage of Permanency Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads at or
Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – June 2014) ............................................................................................ 168 61. Percentage of Adoption Workers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – June 2014) ............................................................................................ 169
vii

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 10 of 201 PageID: 7544 62. New Jersey CP&P Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios (June 2009 – June 2014) ............................................................................................ 170 63. Percentage of Allocated DAsG Positions Filled (June 2009 – June 2014) ............................................................................................ 171
viii

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 11 of 201 PageID: 7545

I. INTRODUCTION
The Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) was appointed in July 2006 by the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey as Federal Monitor of the class action lawsuit Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie. As Monitor, CSSP is charged with independently assessing New Jersey’s compliance with the goals, principles and outcomes of the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) 1 aimed at improving the state’s child welfare system.2
This report is the 15th monitoring report under the MSA and includes performance data for the period January 1 through June 30, 2014.
Methodology
The primary source of information on New Jersey’s progress are the extensive aggregate and back-up data supplied by the DCF and verified by the Monitor. DCF also provides access to staff at all levels to enable the Monitor to verify activities and performance. For this report, the Monitor was involved in the following additional activities:
 Caseload Data Verification
The Monitor conducted a telephone survey of 128 workers to verify their individual caseloads during this monitoring period. Findings from this survey are discussed in Section XIII—Supporting a High Quality Workforce—of this report.
 Investigations Review In September 2014, the Monitor collaborated with DCF to review a statistically valid sample of 313 Child Protective Services (CPS) investigations involving 477 alleged child victims assigned to DCF Local Offices between February 1 and 14, 2014 to assess the overall quality of investigative practice. Findings and key recommendations are discussed in Section IV—DCF’s Investigative Practice – of this report.
 Housing, Employment and Education Status Review for Older Youth Exiting Care
In August 2014, the Monitor collaborated with DCF to review case records of 73 youth ages 18 to 21 years who exited care between January and June 2014 without achieving permanency. The review focused on the education, housing and employment status of these youth to determine if performance met the level required by the MSA. Findings from the review are discussed in Section XII—Services to Older Youth—of this report.

1 Copies of all previous Monitoring Reports can be found at www.cssp.org. 2 To see the full Agreement, go to http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/documents/home/Modified_Settlement_Agreement_7_17_06.pdf .
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 12 of 201 PageID: 7546

 Family Team Meeting Data Review
The Monitor reviewed 37 cases from February 2014 to verify that workers were properly using and documenting legitimate reasons why the required FTMs did not occur. Further discussion of current performance is included in Section V – Implementing the Case Practice Model – of this report.
 Visitation Data Review
The Monitor reviewed a small sample of 25 case records from February 2014 of children newly in placement to verify that the children had the requisite two visits from their caseworker during the first two months of the initial or subsequent out-of-home placement. The purpose of the review was to compare data from the case records with administrative data on visits produced by NJ SPIRIT (the CP&P data management system). The findings from CSSP’s manual audit of these cases was comparable to the performance reported by SafeMeasures version 5 (v5). The Monitor has concluded that reporting on the visitation measures can occur using aggregate data from NJ SPIRIT. Further discussion of current performance is included in Section V—Implementing the Case Practice Model—of this report.
 Other Monitoring Activities
The Monitor interviewed and/or visited multiple external stakeholders of New Jersey’s child welfare system, including contracted service providers, youth, relatives, birth parents, advocacy organizations and judicial officers. The Monitor also periodically attends DCF’s ChildStat meetings, statewide Child Fatality/Near Fatality Review Board meetings, adolescent practice forums, Area Director meetings, youth permanency meetings, and participates in statewide Qualitative Reviews. DCF has fully cooperated with the Monitor in notifying them and facilitating their participation in relevant activities.
Structure of the Report
Section II of the report provides an overview of the state’s accomplishments and challenges. Section III provides summary performance data on each of the outcomes and performance measures required by the MSA in Table 1, Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Summary of Performance as of June 30, 2014).
The remaining sections of the report provide more detailed data and discussion of performance in the following areas:
 Child protective services activities; including receiving reports and investigating allegations of alleged child maltreatment (Section IV);
 Implementation of DCF’s Case Practice Model (Section V);

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 2

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 13 of 201 PageID: 7547
 Placement of children in out-of-home settings, incidence of maltreatment of children in foster care, and abuse and neglect of children when they reunite with families (Sections VI and VII);
 Efforts to achieve permanency for children either through reunification with family, legal guardianship or adoption (Section VIII);
 Provision of health care and mental health services to children and families (Sections IX and X);
 Services provided to children, youth and families involved with DCF and to prevent child welfare system involvement (Section XI);
 Services to older youth (Section XII);  Staff caseloads and workforce training (Section XIII); and  Accountability through the Qualitative Review and the production and use of accurate
data (Section XIV).
In order to better understand the progress DCF has made since the start of the court ordered reform, the report includes, where appropriate, trend data from the first available data, usually June 2009 through June 2014.3 In addition, Appendices B-1 through C-2 provide data by Local Office on selected key case practice measures

3 For some performance measures, June 2014 data are not available. For those areas, the most recent data are cited with applicable timeframes.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 3

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 14 of 201 PageID: 7548

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 15 of 201 PageID: 7549
II. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE
During this monitoring period, the state has maintained good performance in many areas of the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA) and improved in some essential measures of case practice. There are other practice measures, as discussed below, where performance did not show significant change this period despite the state’s efforts to implement improvement strategies and track results.
The MSA is structured in two phases. The first phase, focused on building infrastructure and standardizing caseloads while Phase II focuses on quality case practice and outcome measures. The thrust of current monitoring is on Phase II continued with close monitoring of caseload standards and needs assessment measures from Phase I. DCF has fully met 29 of the 34 Phase I measures and partially met three measures.
Phase II of the MSA requires the state to meet 53 performance measures, 4 10 measures require that performance be assessed annually using calendar year data and thus the 2014 performance on those measures will be included in the next monitoring report.5 (Based on the data from 2012 and 2013 calendar years, the State had met two of these and partially met a third measure). Of the 43 performance measures assessed this monitoring period, as of June 30, 2014, 19 have been met and 8 were partially met.6 In total, DCF has now met 21 of the 53 Phase II MSA performance measures and partially met an additional ten measures. Importantly, DCF has also been able to maintain performance for nearly all previously met performance measures. 7
One performance measure was newly met during this monitoring period:
 Risk Reassessment Within 30 Days of Case Closure in Non-investigative Cases (Performance Measure 8c) which requires that in order to ensure safe case closure workers reassess the risk to a child(ren) prior to ending a case.
Also noteworthy during this monitoring period is the improvement in performance for visitation and adoption measures. While the MSA performance levels have not yet been met, DCF’s improvement strategies are having a positive effect in these areas. For example:

4 Monitoring reports prior to Period XIII referenced 54 measures, however, performance for Measure 49 (Statewide Implementation of Differential Response, Pending Effectiveness of Pilot Sites) is not currently applicable as the DR
pilot concluded June 30, 2012, leaving 53 measures. 5 These measures include placing of sibling groups together (Measures 25and 26 - MSA III.A.3.b.), stability of placement (Measure 27 -MSA III.A.3.a.), abuse and neglect of children in foster care - met (Measure 30 - MSA
III.A.1.a.), repeat maltreatment (Measures 31 and 32- MSA III.A.1.b&c.), re-entry to placement (Measure 33- MSA
III.A.2.b.) and discharge from foster care to permanency- partially met (Measure 34a,d,e t) including specific targets for adoption - met (Measure 34(b) - MSA III.A.2.a.). 6 “Partially” is used when DCF has come very close but has not substantially met the requirement, for example meeting the requirement in the final one or two months of the monitoring period or in instances where a measure has
two or more sub-parts and DCF has fulfilled the requirement toward one or more of the sub-parts, but not all. See
footnote 10 for a more detailed explanation of terms used in this report regarding compliance levels. Performance is based upon the most recent available data through June 30, 2014. 7 Timeliness of initial case plans (Measure 10) and Independent Living Assessments (Measure 53) declined from
‘yes’ to ‘partially.’

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 5

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 16 of 201 PageID: 7550
 Caseworker visits to children within the first two months of an initial or subsequent placement has improved this period and now partially meets the required level of performance. These visits are important to support safety, service delivery and placement stability and CP&P has shown substantial progress in this area since we have been tracking visits as part of the MSA. In December 2009, performance was 18 percent and by June 2014, 92 percent of applicable children had the required number of visits by their caseworker in the first two months after an initial placement or replacement in a new resource home.
 Performance for visits between children and their parents when the permanency goal is reunification is also partially met this monitoring period. Due to new capabilities of SafeMeasures v5, DCF is now able to more precisely report on completion of weekly visits between parents and their children and data indicate that in June 2014, 68 percent of children had weekly visits with their parents, exceeding the final MSA target of 60 percent for that month. Performance on visits at least every other week was also improved. Since 2009, there has been pronounced improvement on documented visits between children in foster care and their parents, an activity that is supported by research evidence as important to safe family reunification. Specifically, in December 2009, 11 percent of children that month had at least two visits with their parent. By June 2014, performance was 83 percent.
 Improvements are also noted in completion of child specific adoption recruitment plans for children within 30 days of a goal change to adoption. During the previous monitoring period, only 37 percent of the 147 plans required were completed within 30 days. For this period, 67 percent of the 78 required plans were completed within 30 days; although not at the final target level of 90 percent, performance has moved significantly in the right direction.
 Improvements were also noted in placement of children with a permanency goal of adoption in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights. The final target requires this timeframe be met for 75 percent of applicable children and current performance for the 21 applicable children is now at 62 percent.
Qualitative Review (QR) data for the first six months of CY2014 also indicate improved case practice. The overall safety and well-being of children and families were rated as acceptable in 91 percent of cases reviewed, including a rating of 99 percent for safety in the home and 95 percent for physical health of the child reviewed.
In addition, the Monitor is encouraged by the first six months of QR data for 2014 which is also showing improved system performance in some important measures including the quality of case and service planning and meeting the educational needs of children.
Other accomplishments this monitoring period include:
 The commencement of child protective services investigations within the required response time for 98 percent of investigations;

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 6

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 17 of 201 PageID: 7551
 Increased performance on the timely completion of child protective investigations ( 76% were completed within 60 days in the first six months of 2014, up from 63 percent in the previous nine month monitoring period);
 Consistent quality performance on nearly all the MSA health care measures that assess whether children in out-of-home placement have dependable access to health care;
 Solid QR ratings on how children’s out-of-home placement meets their developmental, emotional, behavioral and physical needs; and
 Expansion of DCF’s policies and practices to support adolescents, including older youth transitioning out of care.
The monitoring report also identifies ongoing challenges and areas of practice where improvements have been slower. Of concern is the increase this period in both intake and adoption worker caseloads, which are now higher than acceptable. Also there remains a continuing issue with quality ratings on team formation and functioning, and providing services to support transitions out of placement. An area that DCF has targeted for more in-depth review and for improvement strategies is the high rate of repeat maltreatment of children and their family’s re-involvement with CP&P within one year of reunification. Assessing both statewide and local office data on this measure has prompted agency leaders and workers to reassess what additional steps and services may be needed to reduce the rate of repeat child welfare involvement.
Although there remain important MSA outcomes still to be achieved, DCF has demonstrated that it is a system that is continually trying to improve itself, as evidenced in no small part by the opportunities it has successfully sought to leverage new federal dollars to strengthen its adoption practice and to support highly vulnerable sub-populations such as runaway and homeless youth. The state leadership has emphasized and continues its work to further its capacity to effectively collect and use quantitative and qualitative data to access practices and outcomes and adjust or develop new strategies as needed.
DCF has made a number of new appointments and changes to DCF’s management structure during this monitoring period. In September 2014, DCF appointed Joseph Ribsam as Deputy Commissioner. A previous member of the DCF leadership team, Ribsam will continue to oversee legislative, policy and regulatory work as well as be responsible for the Department’s legal and public affairs, grants management, auditing and communications work. Charmaine Thomas was appointed Assistant Commissioner for Community Partnerships. Most recently the Division Director of Family and Community Partnerships, she will oversee the Division on Women (DOW), which will now include the Office of Domestic Violence. DCF also consolidated the Middlesex Area Office and the Union Area Office into one office. Additionally, a high volume of recent retirements has provided the state with the opportunity for new staff to move into leadership positions as Area Directors and Local Office Managers.
The remainder of this summary discusses the strengths and challenges of current performance in the major substantive areas covered by the MSA. The data on specific performance measures are provided in Table 1 and the full report.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 7

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 18 of 201 PageID: 7552

Investigation of Alleged Abuse and Neglect
The State Central Registry (SCR) continues to operate professionally, efficiently and effectively; reports of alleged abuse and neglect are appropriately screened and timely forwarded to the field for investigation. Investigative staff are well trained. In September 2014, the Monitor with DCF assessed the quality of investigative practice in a random sample of 313 CPS investigations assigned to DCF Local Offices between February 1 and 14, 2014. Seventy-eight percent of the investigations were rated as meeting quality standards. The findings of the review reflect clear strengths in practice around conducting safety and risk assessments, interviewing the mothers of alleged child victims and holding both pre and post-investigation caseworker supervisory conferences. As noted in the report, investigations caseloads have risen beyond compliance levels and the Monitor is concerned that unless intake caseloads are reduced, the workload will have a deleterious impact on a worker’s ability to conduct a timely and quality investigation.
Implementation of the Case Practice Model
DCF continued to focus on improving case practice performance and succeeded in significantly improving performance on holding initial and quarterly Family Team Meetings (FTMs) during this monitoring period. The state’s strategy of holding bi-weekly conferences among DCF leadership, Area Directors and their Local Office managers to review individual performance on specific key indicators has shown results, particularly in improvement in FTM documentation and performance and worker visits to children during the first two months of initial or subsequent placement. Current data also demonstrate that DCF is performing better on worker visits with parents when the permanency goal is reunification, while DCF is also continuing to assess its data collection and analysis methods in an attempt to accelerate documented improvements in this area.
Notably, the QR overall ratings for January through June of 2014 for practice and system performance, one indicator of the quality of case practice statewide, show improvement. However, certain key QR ratings such as engagement with parents and family teamwork remain below levels expected by both DCF leadership and the MSA and more work is needed to raise ratings to anticipated levels and fully realize the principles of New Jersey’s Case Practice Model.
Placement of Children in Out-of-Home Care
DCF’s current performance on MSA requirements regarding the appropriate placement of children in the state’s custody meets many of the MSA targets. Importantly, 96 percent of cases examined through the QR were judged to be acceptable on the appropriateness of a child’s placement. DCF continued to meet standards on the placement of children in a family-like setting and within placement capacity limits. Sixty-six percent of newly licensed families are relatives of children in care, illustrating sustained improvement in this area.
Timely Permanency through Reunification, Adoption or Legal Guardianship
DCF continues to exceed the MSA target to finalize adoptions within nine months of an adoptive placement. DCF has also shown improvement since the previous monitoring period in completion of child specific recruitment plans for applicable children within 30 days of goal

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 8

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 19 of 201 PageID: 7553
change and in placement of children in an adoptive home within nine months of termination of parental rights, although performance still does not meet the required MSA targets.
Health and Mental Health Care for Children in Out-of-Home Placement
As the Monitor has reported consistently over the past three years, DCF’s work through its Child Health Units and with its nurses and health and mental health providers has meant that performance on the MSA’s health and mental health indicators remains strong and that children and youth in out-of-home placement have timely access to healthcare services. The one continued challenge is ensuring that resource parents receive a child’s health passport within five days of placement. Performance on this measure is 62 percent, well below the final target of 95 percent. However, in 98 percent of cases, the health passport was provided to resource parents within 30 days of a child entering out-of-home care.
Services to Prevent Entry into Foster Care and To Support Reunification and Permanency
Over the past six years, DCF has successfully expanded its use of Family Success Centers (FSCs), one of its core strategies to support children in their families and communities. FSCs are neighborhood-based centers where families can access services when needed and before falling into crisis. There are currently 52 FSCs statewide, and they continue to be a significant system strength for children, youth and families in New Jersey. DCF’s Office of Family Support Services (OFSS) has provided additional funding to some FSCs in the areas of highest need (many of which suffered the effects from Superstorm Sandy) to offer psychosocial and family strengthening events and community building activities. DCF is also continuing to strengthen its work in the area of domestic violence prevention and treatment.
Services to Older Youth
DCF continues to allocate significant energy and resources towards improving the provision of services and supports to adolescents, including those for older youth transitioning out of care. The state has revised policies and practices to support and improve well-being and permanency outcomes for these youth. DCF continues to contract for 390 transitional and supportive housing slots statewide for youth seeking housing, aging out of care or who are homeless. Further, new programs and improvements to existing educational strategies have been developed to enhance academic performance, attainment and accessibility.
Despite consistent efforts to improve services for older youth, performance on one MSA measure pertaining to older youth has declined slightly and for two other measures, no improvements were found this monitoring period. The percentage of youth between the ages of 14 and 18 who completed Independent Living Assessments dropped slightly below the MSA target of 95 percent this monitoring period. Also data for the first six months of 2014 determined that 70 percent of older youth cases reviewed using the QR protocol were rated acceptable on services to older youth, below the MSA target of 90 percent. Moderate declines in performance for required services and supports to youth exiting care without achieving permanency were noted as well: although current data are only available for January through June 2014, the number of youth exiting care with a plan for housing fell compared to data for CY2013, and the number of youth

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 9

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 20 of 201 PageID: 7554
exiting care either with employment or enrollment in an educational or vocational training program remains below the required level.
Continuous Quality Improvement
Continuous quality improvement strategies are central to DCF’s efforts to comply with the MSA. A highlight of DCF’s improvements in recent years has been its focus on using regional and statewide data to identify areas of practice that need improvement. Its weekly reviews of performance with Local Office management are noteworthy, as are its regular QRs which provide county-level data on the state’s progress in implementing the Case Practice Model. As further detailed in the report, DCF’s monthly ChildStat meetings model for staff the importance of the increased use of quantitative and qualitative data to better understand and improve system performance and outcomes.
The Monitor continues to support DCF’s development of its quality assurance and accountability processes and believes its quality improvement efforts have already demonstrated significant improvement in the quality of care for children, youth and families in New Jersey.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 10

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 21 of 201 PageID: 7555
III. CHILD AND FAMILY OUTCOME AND CASE PRACTICE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Performance Measures) are 53 measures that assess the state’s performance on meeting the requirements of the MSA (see Table 1).8 These performance measures cover the areas of child safety, permanency, service planning, child well-being and ongoing infrastructure requirements pertaining to elements such as caseloads, training and resource family recruitment and retention.
Many of the measures are assessed using data from NJ SPIRIT and SafeMeasures,9 reviewed and in many areas independently validated by the Monitor. Some data are also provided through the Department’s work with Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. that assists with data analysis. Data provided in the report are as of June 2014, or the most current data available.

8 The previous monitoring report references 54 measures, however, performance for Measure 49 (Statewide Implementation of Differential Response, Pending Effectiveness of Pilot Sites) is not currently applicable as the DR pilot concluded June 30, 2012, leaving 53 measures. 9 SafeMeasures is a data warehouse and analytical tool that allows tracking of critical child welfare indicators by worker, supervisor, Local Office area and statewide. It is used by different levels of staff to track, monitor and analyze trends in case practice and targeted measures and outcomes.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 11

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 22 of 201 PageID: 7556

Table 1: Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Summary of Performance as of June 30, 2014)

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

June 2014 Performance

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

State Central Registry, Investigative Practice and Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU)

Direction of Change12

1. Responding to Calls to the

SCR

a. 12,568 calls

a. 13,809 calls

b. 281 abandoned calls b. 465 abandoned calls

CPM V.1

a. Total number of calls b. Number of abandoned calls

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

c. 15 seconds d. 4,500 calls screened

c. 27 seconds d. 5,092 calls screened

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

N/A

c. Time frame for answering

out

out

calls

e. 1,222 CWS referrals e. 1,466 CWS referrals

d. Number of calls screened out

e. Number of referrals for CWS

10 In some instances where December 2013 performance data are not available, the most recent performance data are cited with applicable timeframes. In other instances, the Monitor provides a range of data over the monitoring period to better illustrate performance. More detailed information on DCF performance on specific measures is provided in subsequent sections of the report. 11 “Yes” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment based on presently available information, DCF has substantially fulfilled its obligations regarding the requirement under the MSA for the majority of the months during January 1 through June 30, 2014 monitoring period. The Monitor has also designated “Yes” for a requirement where DCF is within one percentage point of the final target or there are a small number (less than 3) of cases causing the failure to meet the final target. “Partially” is used when DCF has come very close but has not substantially met the requirement, for example meeting the requirement in final one or two months of the monitoring period or in instances where a measure has two or more sub-parts and DCF has fulfilled the requirement toward one or more of the sub-parts, but not all. “No” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment, DCF has not fulfilled its obligation regarding the requirement. 12 Where applicable, “” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment based on data and an understanding of case practice, performance is trending upwards by at least three percentage points; “” indicates performance is trending downward by at least three percentage points; “↔” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment, there has been no change in performance; “N/A” indicates a judgment regarding direction of change from the previous monitoring period to the current monitoring period cannot be made. The Monitor is comparing performance to the previous monitoring period and has taken into consideration that the previous monitoring period was nine months long (April –December 2013) while the current one is six months long.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 12

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 23 of 201 PageID: 7557

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

CPM V.1

2. Quality of SCR Response:
a. Respond to callers promptly, with respectful, active listening skills
b. Essential information gathered—identification of parents and other important family members
c. Decision-making process based on information gathered and guided by tools and supervision

Final Target
Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

December 2013 Performance10

June 2014 Performance

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

N/A

a. For periods beginning

CPM V.1 MSA III.B.2

3. Timeliness of Response: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be received by the field in a timely manner and commenced within the required response time as identified at SCR, but no later than 24 hours.

July 1, 2009, and thereafter, 98% of investigations shall be received by the field in a timely manner. b. For periods beginning July 1, 2009, and thereafter, 98% of investigations shall be

a. 100% of investigations were received by the field in a timely manner.
b. 97% of investigations commenced within required response time.

a. 99% of investigations were received by the field in a timely manner.
b. 98% of investigations commenced within required response time.

Yes

commenced within the

required response time.

CPM V.1 MSA III.B.3

4. Timeliness of Completion: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be completed within 60 days.

By June 30, 2010, 98% of all abuse/ neglect investigations shall be completed within 60 days.

63% of investigations
were completed within 60 days13.

76% of investigations
were completed within 60 days14.

No

↔
↑

13 Performance data for the monitoring period are as follows: April 2013, 70%; May 2013, 68%; June 2013, 71%; July 2013, 68%; August 2013, 69%; September 2013, 69%;
October 2013, 66%; November 2013, 62%; December 2013, 63%. 14 Performance data for the monitoring period are as follows: January 2014, 72%; February 2014, 77%; March 2014, 79%; April 2014, 76%; May 2014, 75%; June 2014, 76%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 13

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 24 of 201 PageID: 7558

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

CPM V.1

5. Quality Investigative Practice: Investigations will meet measures of quality including acceptable performance on:

a. Locating and seeing the child and talking with the child outside the presence of the caretaker within 24 hours of receipt by field;
b. Conducting appropriate interviews with caretakers and collaterals;
c. Using appropriate tools for assessment of safety and risk;
d. Analyzing family strengths and needs;
e. Seeking appropriate medical and mental health evaluations;
f. Making appropriate decisions; and
g. Reviewing the family’s history with DCF/DCP&P

By December 31, 2009, 90% of investigations shall meet quality standards.

December 2013 Performance10

June 2014 Performance

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

Data collected during a

case record review

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

conducted in September 2014 found that 78% of

No

investigations met

quality standards.15

↔16

15 Reviewers could select four possible responses to the question of the quality of the investigation which included completely, substantially, marginally and not at all. Completely
and substantially responses are considered as having met quality standards. The results have a +/- 5% marginal error with 95% confidence. 16 A case record review conducted in January 2013 found that 78 percent of investigations met quality standards.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 14

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 25 of 201 PageID: 7559

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

6. IAIU Practice for Investigations in Placements:

CPM V.I MSA II.I.3 MSA III.B.4

a. Investigations in resource homes and investigations involving group homes, or other congregate care settings shall be completed within 60 days.
b. Monitor will review mechanisms that provide timely feedback to other divisions (e.g., CSOC, OOL) and implementation of corrective action plans.
c. Corrective action plans developed as a result of investigations of allegations re: placements will be implemented.

By June 2007 and thereafter, 80% of investigations by IAIU shall be completed within 60 days.

81% of IAIU investigations involving group homes and other congregate care settings were completed within 60 days.

June 2014 Performance
85% of IAIU investigations involving group homes and other congregate care settings were completed within 60 days.17

Requirement Fulfilled
(Yes/No/Ongoing)11
Yes

Direction of Change12
↑

17 Performance data for the monitoring period are as follows: January 2014, 82%; February 2014, 88%; March 2014, 89%, April 2014, 90%; May 2014, 90%; June 2014, 85%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 15

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 26 of 201 PageID: 7560

Reference CPM V.3

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
7. Family Involvement and Effective use of Family Team Meetings. A family team (involving parents, youth and appropriate formal and informal supports) shall meet and plan together. The team should be involved in planning & decisionmaking throughout a case and have the skills, family knowledge and abilities to solve and help to organize effective services for the child and family.
Number of family team meetings at key decision points. a. For children newly entering
placement, the number/percent who have a family team meeting within 30 days of entry. b. For all other children in placement, the number/percent who have at least one family team meeting each quarter. c. Family Team Formation and Functioning.

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

June 2014 Performance

Implementation of Case Practice Model

a. By June 30, 2010, family meetings held prior to or within 30 days of entry for 90% of new entries and 90% of preplacements.
b. By June 30, 2010, family meetings held for 90% of children at least once per quarter.
c. By June 30, 2011, 90% of cases show evidence in QR of acceptable team formation and functioning.

a. In December 2013, 69% of children newly entering placement had a family team meeting within 30 days of entering placement. From April 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 performance ranged from 43 to 69%.
b. In December 2013 2013, 54% of children had at least one family team meeting each quarter. From April 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013 performance ranged from 43 to 54%.
c. 32% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on both QR ‘Family Teamwork” indicators: team formation and team functioning.

a. In June, 2014, 74% of children newly entering placement had a family team meeting within 30 days of entering placement. From January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014 performance ranged from 68 to 80%.18
b. In June 2014, 60% of children had at least one family team meeting each quarter. From January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014 performance ranged from 60 to 80%.19
c. 37% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on both QR ‘Family Teamwork” indicators: team formation and team functioning.20, 21

Requirement Fulfilled
(Yes/No/Ongoing)11
No

Direction of Change12
↑

18 During the previous monitoring period and continuing from January through June 2014, DCF has been engaged in an effort to both improve documentation and data entry to account for legitimate reasons for why FTMs do not occur, either because the parent is unavailable or because the parent declined to attend. The parties agreed that, consistent with the previous monitoring period, while the state is involved in this self-diagnosis and corrective action, the Monitor will continue to assess performance on FTMs by counting only those FTMs that actually occurred. The report’s documented progress therefore includes the number of FTMs that have actually occurred. Performance data for the monitoring

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 16

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 27 of 201 PageID: 7561

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

June 2014 Performance

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

a. 100% of

a. 100% of

investigations

investigations

CPM

8. Safety and Risk Assessment: Number/ percent of closed cases where a safety and risk of harm assessment is done prior to case closure.

By December 31, 2010, (a) 98% of investigations will have a safety assessment completed, (b) 98% of investigations will have a risk assessment completed, and (c) 98% of noninvestigation cases will have a risk assessment or risk reassessment completed within 30 days of case closure.

completed had a safety assessment completed prior to investigation closure. b. 100% of investigations completed had a risk assessment completed prior to investigation closure. c. 92% of applicable closed cases had a risk reassessment

completed had a safety assessment completed prior to investigation closure. b. 100% of investigations completed had a risk assessment completed prior to investigation closure. c. 98% of applicable closed cases had a risk reassessment

Yes

↑

completed within

completed within

30 days prior to

30 days prior to

case closure.22

case closure.

period are as follows: January 2014, 68%; February 2014, 74%; March 2014, 77%; April 2014, 76%; May 2014, 80%; June 2014, 74%. Note that the FTM data likely understates
compliance because due to documentation and validation issues, it does not yet account for instances where FTMs may appropriately be excluded. DCF provided the Monitor with
additional data indicating that after successfully clarifying and implementing policy, it had confidence that staff were properly using and documenting exceptions. In July 2014 the
Monitor reviewed a random sample of cases and was not able to validate the state’s data.
19 See above footnote for an explanation of methodology. Using this methodology, in June 2014, out of 1,854 possible FTMs, 1,504 (79%) occurred. Performance data for the
monitoring period are as follows: January 2014, 60%; February 2014, 63%; March 2014, 69%; April 2014, 75%; May 2014, 80%; June 2014, 79%. 20 120 cases were reviewed as part of the Qualitative Reviews (QRs) conducted from January to June 2014. 44 of 120 cases (37%) rated acceptable on both areas of Family
Teamwork: team formation and team functioning; 63 of 120 cases (53%) rated acceptable on team formation; and 53 of 120 cases (44%) cases rated acceptable on team
functioning. 21 Direction of change for subpart C. cannot be assessed until December 2014 as previously reported performance was based upon data for 12 months and current data are only
available for the first six months of CY2014. 22 Applicable cases include reunification and do not include adoption, kinship legal guardianship or emancipation.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 17

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 28 of 201 PageID: 7562

Reference
CPM V.4, 13.a.
CPM V.4, 13.b.

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

10. Timeliness of Initial Plans: For children entering care, number/ percent of case plans developed within 30 days.

By June 30, 2010, 95% of case plans for children and families are completed within 30 days.

11. Timeliness of Current Plans: For children entering care, number/ percent of case plans shall be reviewed and modified as necessary at least every six months.

By June 30, 2010, 95% of case plans for children and families will be reviewed and modified at least every six months.

December 2013 Performance10
97% of children entering care had case plans developed within 30 days. Between April 2013 and December 2013, monthly performance ranged from 92 to 97 %. 98% of case plans were reviewed and modified as necessary at least every six months. From April 2013 through December 2013, monthly performance ranged from 94 to 99 %.

June 2014 Performance
92% of children entering care had case plans developed within 30 days. Between January 2014 and June 2014, monthly performance ranged from 92 to 98 %.23 98% of case plans were reviewed and modified as necessary at least every six months. From January 2014 through June 2014, monthly performance ranged from 97 to 99 %.24

Requirement Fulfilled
(Yes/No/Ongoing)11
Partially
Yes

Direction of Change12
↓
↔

23 Performance dipped slightly below final target; data for the monitoring period are as follows: January 2014, 93%; February 2014, 95%; March 2014, 97%; April 2014, 98%;
May 2014, 92%; June 2014, 92%. The Monitor considers this measure as in partial compliance because only three of the six months met the standard. 24Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: January 2014, 97%; February 2014, 98%; March 2014, 98%; April 2014, 98%; May 2014, 99%; June 2014, 98%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 18

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 29 of 201 PageID: 7563

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

CPM V.4

12. Quality of Case and Service Planning: The child’s/family’s case plan shall be developed with the family and shall be individualized and appropriately address the child’s needs for safety, permanency and wellbeing. The case plan shall provide for the services and interventions needed by the child and family to meet identified goals, including services necessary for children and families to promote children’s development and meet their educational, physical and mental health needs. The case plan and services shall be modified to respond to the changing needs of the child and family and the results of prior service efforts.

By December 31, 2011, 90% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QR.

December 2013 Performance10
41% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on both QR indicators ‘Case Planning Process’ and ‘Tracking and Adjusting.’

June 2014 Performance
56% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on both QR indicators ‘Case Planning Process’ and ‘Tracking and Adjusting.’25

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

No

N/A26

25 120 in and out-of-home were reviewed as part of the Qualitative Review (QRs) conducted from January to June 2014. 67 of 120 (56%) in and out-of-home cases rated
acceptable on both the Case Planning Process and Tracking and Adjusting indicators; 75 of 120 cases (63%) rated acceptable on Case Planning Process; and 82 of 120 cases (68%) rated acceptable on Tracking and Adjusting. 26 Direction of change cannot be assessed until December 2014 as previously reported performance was based upon data for nine months and current data are only available for the
first six months of CY2014.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 19

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 30 of 201 PageID: 7564

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

CPM V.4

15. Educational Needs: Children will be enrolled in school and DCF will have taken appropriate actions to ensure that their educational needs will be met.

By December 31, 2011, 90% of cases rated acceptable as measured by the QR.

December 2013 Performance10
67% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on QR indicators ‘Stability (school)’ and ‘Learning and Development - over age 5.’

June 2014 Performance
88% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on QR indicators ‘Stability (school)’ and ‘Learning and Development - over age 5.’27

Requirement Fulfilled
(Yes/No/Ongoing)11
No

Direction of Change12
N/A28

16. Caseworker Visits with

In June 2014, 92% of

MSA III.B 7.a

Children in State Custody: Number/percent of children where caseworker has two visits per month (one of which is in the placement) during the first two months of an initial placement or subsequent placement for a child

By December 31, 2010, during the first two months of an initial placement or subsequent placement, 95% of children had at least two visits per month.

In September 2013, 89% of children had two visits per month, one of which was in the placement, during the first two months of an initial or subsequent placement.

children had two visits per month, one of which was in the placement, during the first two months of an initial or subsequent placement.29 Monthly range January –

Partially30

↑

in state custody.

June 2014: 92 – 96%.

MSA III.B 7.b

17. Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody: Number/ percent of children where caseworker has at least one caseworker visit per month in the child’s placement.

By June 30, 2010, 98% of children shall have at least one caseworker visit per month during all other parts of a child’s time in out-ofhome care.

94% of children had at least one caseworker visit per month in his/her placement. Monthly range April – December 2013: 93 – 95%.

93% of children had at least one caseworker visit per month in his/her placement.31 Monthly range January – June 2014: 93 – 94%.

Partially32

↔

27 120 cases were reviewed as part of the Qualitative Reviews (QRs) conducted from January to June 2014. Of the 120 cases, only 52 involved children over the age of 5 and in
out-of-home placement. Of the 52 applicable cases, 46 (88%) rated acceptable on both the Stability (school) and Learning and Development (age 5 and older) QR indicators; 56 of
61 applicable cases (92%) rated acceptable on Stability (school); 55 of 59 (93%) applicable cases rated acceptable on Learning and Development for children over age 5. 28 Direction of change cannot be assessed until December 2014 as previously reported performance was based upon data for nine months and current data are only available for the
first six months of CY2014. 29 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: January 2014, 95%; February 2014, 96%; March 2014, 95%; April 2014, 95%; May 2014, 94%; June 2014, 92%. 30 The Monitor considers this performance measure to be partially met as DCF met the required level of performance for four of the six months this period. 31 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: January 2014, 94%; February 2014, 93%; March 2014, 94%; April 2014, 94%; May 2014, 94%; June 2014, 93%. 32 The Monitor considers this performance measure to be partially met as performance is close to meeting the final target for caseworker monthly visits in placement and has
demonstrated a monthly range of 98 to 99% of children in out-of-home placement were visited at least once by a caseworker regardless of location.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 20

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 31 of 201 PageID: 7565

Reference
CPM MSA III.B 8.a

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

18. Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members: The caseworker shall have at least two face-to-face visits per month with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody with a goal of reunification.

By December 31, 2010, 95% of families have at least twice per month faceto-face contact with their caseworker when the permanency goal is reunification.

December 2013 Performance10
74% of parents or other legally responsible family members of children in custody with a goal of reunification had at least two face-toface visits with a caseworker. Monthly range April – December 2013: 70 – 77%. 33

June 2014 Performance
78% of parents or other legally responsible family members of children in custody with a goal of reunification had at least two face-toface visits with a caseworker. Monthly range January – June 2014: 72 – 80%. 34, 35

Requirement Fulfilled
(Yes/No/Ongoing)11
No

Direction of Change12
↑

19. Caseworker Visits with

CPM MSA III.B 8.b

Parents/Family Members: The caseworker shall have at least one face-to-face visit per month with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody with goals other than reunification unless parental

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of families shall have at least one face-toface caseworker contact per month, unless parental rights have been terminated.36

66% of parents or other legally responsible family members had at least one face-to-face caseworker contact per month. Monthly range April – December 2013: 63 – 71%. 37

65% of parents or other legally responsible family members had at least one face-to-face caseworker contact per month. Monthly range January – June 2014: 59 – 66%. 38, 39

No

rights have been terminated.

↔

33 Actual performance is likely to be better than reported because reported performance does not exclude instances where a parent is unavailable or contacts are not required. 34 Ibid. 35 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: January 2014, 73%; February 2014, 72%; March 2014, 79%; April 2014, 79%; May 2014, 80%; June 2014, 78%. 36 Possible modification of this final target has been discussed among the parties and the Monitor with no resolution. 37 Actual performance is likely to be better than reported because reported performance does not exclude instances where a parent is unavailable or contacts are not required. 38 Ibid. 39 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: January 2014, 61%; February 2014, 59%; March 2014, 65%; April 2014, 66%; May 2014, 63%; June 2014, 65%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 21

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 32 of 201 PageID: 7566

Reference
CPM MSA III.B 9a.

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
20. Visitation between Children in Custody and Their Parents: Number/percent of children who have weekly visits with their parents when the permanency goal is reunification unless clinically inappropriate and approved by the Family Court.

Final Target
By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of children in custody shall have in person visits with their parent(s) or other legally responsible family member at least every other week and at least 60% of children in custody shall have such visits at least weekly.

December 2013 Performance10
78% of children had recorded visits at least every other week. Monthly range April – December 2013: 76 – 80%.40
56% of children had recorded weekly visits with their parents. Monthly range April – December 2013: 54 – 61%.

June 2014 Performance
83% of children had recorded visits at least every other week. Monthly range January – June 2014: 75 – 83%. 41,
42
68% of children had recorded weekly visits with their parents. Monthly range January – June 2014: 55 – 68%. 43,
44

Requirement Fulfilled
(Yes/No/Ongoing)11
Partially45

Direction of Change12
N/A46

40Actual performance is likely to be better than reported because reported performance does not exclude instances where a parent is unavailable or contacts are not required. 41 Ibid. 42 Performance data for monitoring period for visits at least every other week between parent and child are as follows: January 2014, 75%; February 2014, 75%; March 2014, 80%;
April 2014, 82%; May 2014, 82%; June 2014, 83%. 43 Actual performance is likely to be better than reported because reported performance does not exclude instances where a parent is unavailable or contacts are not required. 44 Performance data for monitoring period for weekly visits between parent and child are as follows: January 2014, 55%; February 2014, 59%; March 2014, 65%; April 2014, 66%;
May 2014, 65%; June 2014, 68%. 45 The Monitor considers this performance measure to be partially met as DCF met the required level of performance for one sub-part of the measure (weekly visits) for four of the
six months this period. 46 Due to the new capabilities of SafeMeasures v5, DCF is now able to more precisely report on completion of weekly visitation between parents and children on a week to week
basis. Current performance is reported by the average percentage of children who had visits with their parent each week during the month. This is different than previous periods
when performance was based upon the percentage of children who had four visits during the month with their parent. Due to this change in methodology, direction of change is
not assessed.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 22

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 33 of 201 PageID: 7567

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

CPM MSA III.B 10

21. Visitation Between Children in Custody and Siblings Placed Apart: Number/percent of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with their siblings as appropriate.

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with those siblings at least monthly.

CPM; MSA Permanency Outcomes

22. Adequacy of DAsG Staffing: Staffing levels at the DAsG office.

98% of allocated positions filled plus assessment of adequacy of FTEs to accomplish tasks by June 30, 2012.

December 2013 Performance10

June 2014 Performance

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

71% of children in

68% of children in

custody who have

custody who have

siblings with whom they siblings with whom they

are not residing visited with their siblings

are not residing visited with their siblings

No

monthly. Monthly range monthly. Monthly range

April – December 2013: January – June 2014: 66

61 – 71%.

– 69%.47,48

↔

131 (98%) of 134 staff 131 (100%) of 131 staff

positions filled with

positions filled with four

eight staff on full time leave; 123 (92%)

staff on full time leave; 127 (97%) available

Yes

available DAsG.

DAsG.49

↔

47 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: January 2014, 66%; February 2014, 68%; March 2014, 69%; April 2014, 67%; May 2014, 69%; June 2014, 68%. 48 DCF has recently indicated that NJ SPIRIT data may undercount sibling visits by five to six percent each month. The Monitor has not yet verified this information. 49 DCF reports that during this monitoring period it added two full time law assistants and 15.5 DAsG external to their Practice Group who dedicate time to DCF matters.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 23

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 34 of 201 PageID: 7568

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

June 2014 Performance

Placements of Children in Out-of-Home Care

CPM V.4
MSA III.A 3.c

23. Combined assessment of appropriateness of placement based on:

a. Placement within appropriate proximity of their parents’ residence unless such placement is to otherwise help the child achieve the planning goal.
b. Capacity of caregiver/ placement to meet child’s needs.
c. Placement selection has taken into account the location of the child’s school.

By June 30, 2010, 90% of cases score appropriately as measured by QR Modules.

99% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on QR indicator ‘Appropriateness of Placement.’

24. Placing Children with Families: The percentage of children currently in custody who are placed in a family setting.

Beginning July 2009 and thereafter, at least 85% of children will be placed in a family setting.

89% of children were placed in a family setting.

96% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on QR indicator ‘Appropriateness of Placement.’
91% of children were placed in a family setting.

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

Yes

N/A50

Yes

↔

50 Direction of change cannot be assessed until December 2014 as previously reported performance was based upon data for nine months and current data are only available for the first six months of CY2014.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 24

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 35 of 201 PageID: 7569

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

June 2014 Performance

CPM MSA III.A 3.b

25. Placing Siblings Together: Of sibling groups of two or three siblings entering custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another, the percentage in which all siblings are placed together.

For siblings entering custody in the period beginning July 2012 and thereafter, at least 80% will be placed together.

In CY2013, 77% of
sibling groups of 2 or 3 were placed together.51

CY2014 data not yet available.

MSA III.A 3.b

26. Placing Siblings Together: Of sibling groups of four or more siblings entering custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another, the percentage in which all siblings are placed together.

For siblings entering in the period beginning July 2011 and thereafter, at least 40% will be placed together.

In CY2013, 26% of sibling groups of 4 or
more were placed together.52

CY2014 data not yet available.

MSA III.A 3.a

27. Stability of Placement: Of the number of children entering care in a period, the percentage with two or fewer placements during the 12 months beginning with the date of entry.

By June 2009 and thereafter, at least 88% of children entering care will have two or fewer placements during the 12 months from their date of entry.

For children entering care in CY2012, 82% of children had two or fewer placements during the 12 months from their date of entry.

CY2013 data not yet available.

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

No based on CY2013 data
N/A CY2014 data not yet
available

No based on CY2013 data
N/A CY2014 data not yet
available
No based on CY2012 data
N/A CY2013 data not yet
available

51 In CY2012 there were 783 sibling groups of two or three children. In CY2013 there were 842 sibling groups of two or three, representing an 8 percent increase over the previous year. 52 In CY2012, there were 136 sibling groups with four or more children. In CY2013, there were 103 sibling groups with four or more children, representing a 24 percent decrease
over the previous calendar year.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 25

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 36 of 201 PageID: 7570

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

June 2014 Performance

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

28. Placement Limitations:

Number/percent of resource

homes in which a child has been By June 2009, no more than

placed if that placement will

5% of resource home

Less than one percent of Less than one percent of

MSA III.C

result in the home having more than four foster children, or

placements may have seven resource home

or eight total children

placements are over-

resource home placements are over-

Yes

more than two foster children

including the resource

capacity.

capacity.

under age two, or more than six family’s own children.

total children including the

resource family’s own children.

↔

29. Inappropriate Placements:

a. By December 2008 and

thereafter, no children

a. Between April 2013 a. Between January

a. The number of children

under age 13 in shelters.

and December 2013,

2014 and June 2014,

under age 13 placed in

b. By December 31, 2009,

no child under the

four children under

shelters.

90% of children placed

age of 13 was placed

the age of 13 were

b. The number of children over

in shelters in compliance

in a shelter.

placed in shelters.53

age 13 placed in shelters in

with MSA standards on b. Between April 2013 b. Between January

MSA III.B.6

compliance with MSA standards on appropriate use

appropriate use of shelters to include: 1) an

and December 2013, 96% of children

2014 and June 2014 98% of children

Partially

↓

of shelters to include: as 1)

alternative to detention;

over the age of 13

over the age of 13

an alternative to detention; 2) 2) short-term placement

who were placed in

who were placed in

a short-term placement of an

of an adolescent in crisis

shelters were in

shelters were in

adolescent in crisis not to

not to extend beyond 30

compliance with

compliance with

extend beyond 45 days; or 3) days; or 3) a basic center

MSA standards.

MSA standards.

a basic center for homeless

for homeless youth.

youth.

53 There were a total of 5,713 children under 13 in placement in this monitoring period; three out of the four children under 13 years old placed in shelter in this monitoring period were in shelter for one day.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 26

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 37 of 201 PageID: 7571

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

June 2014 Performance

Repeat Maltreatment and Re-Entry into Out-of-Home Care

MSA III.A. 1.a

30. Abuse and Neglect of Children in Foster Care: Number of Children in custody in out-of-home placement who were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member during 12 month period, divided by the total number of children who have been in care at any point during the period.

For the period beginning July 2010 and thereafter, no more than 0.49% of children will be victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.

In CY2013, 0.32% of children were victims of
substantiated abuse or
neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.54

CY2014 data not yet available

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

Yes, based on CY2013 data
N/A CY2014 data not yet
available

MSA III.A 1.b

31. Repeat Maltreatment: Of all children who remain in home after substantiation of abuse or neglect, the percentage who have another substantiation within the next 12 months.

For the period beginning July 2009 and thereafter, no more than 7.2% of children who remain at home after a substantiation of abuse or neglect will have another substantiation within the next 12 months.

For children who were victims of a substantiated allegation of child maltreatment in CY2012 and remained at home, 7.6% had another substantiation within the next 12 months.

CY2013 data not yet available

No, based on CY2012 data
CY2013 data not yet available

N/A

MSA III.A 1.c

32. Repeat Maltreatment: Of all children who are reunified during a period, the percentage who are victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within one year after the date of reunification.

For the period beginning July 2009 and thereafter, no more than 4.8% of children who reunified will be the victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within one

In CY2012, 8.5% of children who reunified were victims of substantiated child maltreatment within one year after reunification.

CY2013 data not yet available

No, based on CY2012 data
CY2013 data not yet available

N/A

year after reunification.

54 In CY2013, of the 12,668 children who were in care at any point during the year, 40 (.32%) were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent, relative placement provider or facility staff member.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 27

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 38 of 201 PageID: 7572

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

MSA III.A 2.b

33. Re-entry to Placement: Of all children who leave custody during a period, except those whose reason for discharge is that they ran away from their placement, the percentage that re-enter custody within one year of the date of exit.

For the period beginning July 2011 and thereafter, of all children who exit, no more than 9% will re-enter custody within one year of exit.

Of all children who
exited in CY2012, 13%
re-entered custody within one year of the date of exit. 55

June 2014 Performance

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

No, based on

CY2013 data not yet available

CY2012 data CY2013 data not yet

N/A

available

55 DCF has objected to the Monitor’s definition of “qualifying exits” used to analyze this measure. The Agency believes that due to the specific exclusion cited in the MSA, the definition of qualifying exits should only exclude children who run away from placement. The Monitor uses a definition of qualifying exits which excludes from the calculations runaways as well as children who are adopted. Based on the DCF recommended definition, of all children who exited in CY2012, 10 percent re-entered custody within one year of the date of exit. Using that definition, DCF calculates performance for previous years as follows: CY2007, 12%; CY2008, 10%; CY2009, 10%; CY2010, 9%, CY2011 9%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 28

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 39 of 201 PageID: 7573

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

MSA III.A 2.a

34.a., d., e. Discharged to Permanency: Percentage of children discharged from foster care to permanency (reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and/or guardianship).

a. Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in target year and who remained in foster care for eight days or longer, percentage that discharged to permanency within 12 months.
d. Of all children who were in foster care on the first day of the target year and had been in care between 13 -24 months, percentage that discharged to permanency prior to 21st birthday or by the last day of the year.

a. CY2011: 50% d. CY2011: 47% e. CY2011: 47%

e. Of all children who were in foster care for 25 months or longer on the first day of the target year, percentage that discharged to permanency prior to 21st birthday or by the last day of the year.

56 Data for CY2013 will not be available until early 2015.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

December 2013 Performance10
Permanency
a. CY2012: 46% d. CY2013: 46% e. CY2013: 36%

June 2014 Performance

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

a. CY2013 data not yet

available 56

Partially, based on

d. CY2014 data not yet available

CY2012 and 2013 data;57 more recent
data not yet

N/A

e. CY2014 data not yet available.

available

January 2015 Page 29

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 40 of 201 PageID: 7574

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

MSA III.A 2.a

34.b. Adoption: Of all children who became legally free for adoption during the 12 months prior to the target year, percentage that was discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free.

Of those children who become legally free in CY2011, 60% will be discharged to a final adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free.

December 2013 Performance10

June 2014 Performance

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

74% of children who

became legally free in CY2012 were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from date of becoming legally

CY2013 data not yet available 58

Yes, based on CY2012 data
CY2013 data not yet available

N/A

free.

MSA III.A 2.a

34.c. Total time to Adoption: Of all children who exited foster care to adoption in the target year, what percentage was discharged from foster care to adoption within 30 months from removal from home.

Of all children who exit to adoption in CY2011, 60% will be discharged from foster care to adoption within 30 months from removal from home.

Of all children who exited to adoption in CY2013, 45% were discharged from foster care to adoption within 30 months from removal from home.

CY2014 data not yet available

No, based on CY2013 data
CY2014 data not yet available

N/A

In December 2013, 74% In June 2014, 68% of

MSA III.B 12(i)

35. Progress Toward Adoption: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption who have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change.

Beginning January 1, 2010, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 90% shall have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change.

of children with a permanency goal of adoption had a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change. Performance between April and December

children with a permanency goal of adoption had a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change. Performance between January and June 2014

No

2013 ranged from 69 to ranged from 68 to

83%.

85%.59

↔

57 The Monitor considers this performance measure to be partially met as performance for sub-part d. of this measure is within one percent of the final target. 58 Data for CY2013 will not be available until early 2015. 59 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: January 2014, 79%; February 2014, 85%; March 2014, 73%; April 2014, 82%; May 2014, 78%; June 2014, 68%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 30

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 41 of 201 PageID: 7575

Reference
CPM MSA III.B 12.a (ii)
MSA III.B 12.a.(iii)
MSA III.B 12.b

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
36. Child Specific Adoption Recruitment: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption needing recruitment who have a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the date of the goal change.

Final Target
Beginning January 1, 2010, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 90% of those for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of termination of parental rights shall have a childspecific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the date of the goal change.

37. Placement in an Adoptive Home: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption and for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of termination are placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights.

Beginning July 1, 2009, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 75% of the children for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of termination shall be placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights.

38. Final Adoptive Placements: Number/percent of adoptions finalized within nine months of adoptive placement.

Beginning July 1, 2009, of adoptions finalized, at least 80% shall have been finalized within nine months of adoptive placement.

December 2013 Performance10
Between April and December 2013, 147 children required child specific recruitment plans and 55 (37%) of these plans were developed within 30 days of the date of goal change.
Between April and December 2013, 5 (24%) out of 21 applicable children with a permanency goal of adoption for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of the termination were placed in an adoptive home within nine months of termination of parental rights.
In December 2013, 100% of adoptions were finalized within nine months of adoptive placement.

June 2014 Performance
Between January and June 2014, 78 children required child specific recruitment plans and 52 (67%) of these plans were developed within 30 days of the date of goal change.
Between January and June 2014, 13 (62%) out of 21 applicable children with a permanency goal of adoption for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of the termination were placed in an adoptive home within nine months of termination of parental rights.
In June 2014, 97% of adoptions were finalized within nine months of adoptive placement.

Requirement Fulfilled
(Yes/No/Ongoing)11 No
No
Yes

Direction of Change12
↑
↑
↔

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 31

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 42 of 201 PageID: 7576

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

June 2014 Performance

Health Care for Children in Out-of-Home Placement

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

By December 31, 2009,

98% of children will receive

a pre-placement assessment 100% of children

100% of children

39. Pre-Placement Medical

either in a non- emergency entering DCP&P custody entering DCP&P custody

Assessment: Number/percent of room setting, or in an

received a pre-placement received a pre-placement

MSA II.F.5 children receiving pre-placement emergency room (ER)

assessment (PPA). 99% assessment (PPA).61

Yes

medical assessment in a setting setting if the child needed of PPAs occurred in a

99% of PPAs occurred in

appropriate to the situation.60

emergency medical

setting appropriate for a setting appropriate for

attention or the child was

the situation.

the situation.

already in the emergency

room when DCP&P

received the referral.

MSA III.B 11

40. Initial Medical Examinations: Number/percent of children entering out-of-home care receiving full medical examinations within 60 days.

By January 1, 2009 and thereafter, at least 85% of children shall receive full medical examinations within 30 days of entering out-of-home care and at least 98% within 60 days.

From April through December 2013, 85% of children received a CME within the first 30 days of placement and 98% received a CME within the first 60 days of placement.

From January through June 2014, 84% of children received a CME within the first 30 days of placement and 97% received a CME within the first 60 days of placement.

Yes

↔ ↔

60 By agreement of the parties, this measure has been redrafted to combine the percentage of PPAs in a non-ER setting and those PPAs conducted in an ER that are appropriate
based on the presenting medical needs of the child/youth or because the child/youth was already in the ER when CP&P received the referral. 61 Percentage reflected as 100 due to rounding.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 32

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 43 of 201 PageID: 7577

Reference
Negotiated Health Outcomes
MSA II.F.2

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
41. Required Medical Examinations: Number/percent of children in care for one year or more who received medical examinations in compliance with Early Periodic Screening and Diagnosis Treatment (EPSDT) guidelines.
42. Semi-Annual Dental Examinations: Number/percent of children ages three and older in care six months or more who received semi-annual dental examinations.

Final Target
By June 2010, 98% of children in care for one year or more will receive medical examinations in compliance with EPSDT guidelines.
a. By December 2011, 98% of children will receive annual dental examinations.
b. By December 2011, 90% of children will receive semi-annual dental examinations.

December 2013 Performance10
From April through December 2013, 92% of children ages 12-24 months were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT visits and 92% of children older than two years were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT visits. a. By December 2013,
99% of children received an annual dental examination. b. By December 2013, 84% of children were current with their semi-annual dental exam.

June 2014 Performance
From January through June 2014, 89% of children ages 12-24 months were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT visits and 91% of children older than two years were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT visits.
a. By June 2014, 98% of children received an annual dental examination.
b. By June 2014, 83% of children were current with their semi-annual dental exam.

Requirement Fulfilled
(Yes/No/Ongoing)11
Partially62
Partially

Direction of Change12
↔
↔

43. Follow-up Care and

By December 31, 2011,

MSA II.F.2

Treatment: Number/percent of children who received timely accessible and appropriate follow-up care and treatment to meet health care and mental

90% of children will receive timely, accessible and appropriate follow-up care and treatment to meet health care and mental health

95% of children received follow-up care for needs identified in their CME.

94% of children received
follow-up care for needs identified in their CME.63

Yes

health needs.

needs.

↔

62 While not yet meeting the final target, performance on EPSDT/well child exams represents sustained access to health care for this population and is a significant achievement. 63 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record Review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home
placement who were removed between August 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 3,023 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 362
children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 % margin of error with 95% confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 33

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 44 of 201 PageID: 7578

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

June 2014 Performance

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

44. Immunization: Children in DCF custody are current with immunizations.

By December 31, 2011, 98% of children in custody will be current with immunizations.

From October through December 2013, 94% of children in out-of-home placement were current with their immunizations.

From April through June 2014, 95% of children in out-of-home placement were current with their immunizations.

Partially64

↔

65% of caregivers

62% of caregivers

MSA II.F.8

45. Health Passports: Children’s parents/ caregivers receive current Health Passport within five days of a child’s placement.

By June 30, 2011, 95% of caregivers will receive a current Health Passport within five days of a child’s placement.

received Health Passports within five days of a child’s placements and 98% of caregivers received Health Passports within

received Health Passports within five days of a child’s placements and 98% of caregivers received Health Passports within

No

30 days of a child’s

30 days of a child’s

placement.

placement.65

↔

64 While not yet meeting the final target, performance on ensuring children in out-of-home care are current with their immunizations represents sustained access to health care for
this population and is a significant achievement. 65DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record Review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between August 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 3,023 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 362
children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 % margin of error with 95% confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 34

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 45 of 201 PageID: 7579

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

June 2014 Performance

Health Care for Children in Out-of-Home Placement

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

99% of eligible children 99% of eligible children

and youth received a

and youth received a

MSA II.F.2

46. Mental Health Assessments: Number/percent of children with a suspected mental health need who receive mental health assessments.

By December 31, 2011, 90% of children with a suspected mental health need will receive a mental health assessment.

mental health screening. Of those screened, 64% had a suspected mental health need. Of those with a suspected mental health need (and 22

mental health screening. Of those screened, 44% had a suspected mental health need. Of those with a suspected mental health need (and 9

Yes

additional youth already additional youth already

receiving services) 93% receiving services) 94%

received a mental health received a mental health

assessment.

assessment.66

47. Provision of in-home and

community-based mental health

services for children and their

DCF continues to

DCF continues to

families: CSOC shall continue

support CMO, YCMs, support CMO, YCMs,

to support activities of CMOs,

FSOs, Mobile Response, FSOs, Mobile Response,

YCMs, FSOs, Mobile Response,

MST, FFT and

MST, FFT and

CPM

evidence-based therapies such as MST and FFT and crisis

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

community-based services to prevent

community-based services to prevent

Yes

stabilization services to assist

children from being

children from being

children and youth and their

removed and to reunify removed and to reunify

families involved with DCP&P

children with their

children with their

and to prevent children and

parents.

parents.

youth from entering DCP&P

custody.

↔
N/A

66 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record Review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between August 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 3,023 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 362 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 % margin of error with 95% confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 35

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 46 of 201 PageID: 7580

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

CPM

48. Continued Support for Family Success Centers: DCF shall continue to support statewide network of Family Success Centers.

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

Services to Families

June 2014 Performance

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

51 Family Success Centers statewide

52 Family Success Centers statewide

Yes

N/A

CPM

50. Services to Support Transitions: The Department will provide services and supports to families to support and preserve successful transitions.

By December 31, 2011, 90% of cases score appropriately as measured by QR.

49% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on QR indicator ‘Transitions and Life Adjustments.’

55% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on QR indicator ‘Transitions and Life Adjustments.’

No

N/A67

DCF administers an

DCF administers an

Adoption Subsidy

Adoption Subsidy

Program which

Program which

supported 13,890

supported 14,025

adopted children by the adopted children as of

51. Post-Adoption Supports:

end of CY2013. DCF June 2014. DCF funds a

CPM

The Department will make postadoption services and subsidies available to preserve families

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

funds a statewide

statewide network of

network of post-adoption post-adoption services

services through contract through contract

Yes

N/A

who have adopted a child.

arrangements with 11

arrangements with 11

private agencies.

private agencies.

Funding remains slightly Funding remains slightly

over $3 million and is

over $3 million and is

used specifically for

used to provide adoption

family counseling and specific counseling and

family support services. supports to families.

67 Direction of change cannot be assessed until December 2014 as previously reported performance was based upon data for nine months and current data are only available for the first six months of CY2014.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 36

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 47 of 201 PageID: 7581

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

CPM

52. Provision of Domestic Violence Services. DCF shall continue to support Domestic Violence liaisons, PALS and Domestic Violence shelter programs to prevent child maltreatment and assist children and families involved with DCP&P.

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

31 liaisons are available in DCP&P’s 46 Local Offices, one in each county.

Services to Older Youth

June 2014 Performance

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

39 liaisons are available

in DCP&P’s 46 Local

Offices, one in each

county. DCF also

supports the Domestic Violence Legal

Yes

Advocacy Program and

the other programs

targeted to assist eligible

victims of domestic

violence.

Direction of Change12
N/A

CPM

53. Independent Living Assessments: Number/percent of cases where DCF Independent Living Assessment is complete for youth age14-18.

By December 31, 2011, 95% of youth age 14-18 have an Independent Living Assessment.

96% of youth ages 14 to 18 in out-of-home placement for at least six months had a completed Independent Living

90% of youth ages 14 to 18 in out-of-home placement for at least six months had a completed Independent Living

No

↓

Assessment.

Assessment.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 37

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 48 of 201 PageID: 7582

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Final Target

December 2013 Performance10

CPM

54. Services to Older Youth: DCF shall provide services to youth between the ages 18 and 21 similar to services previously available to them unless the youth, having been informed of the implications, formally request that DCF close the case.

By December 31, 2011, 90% of youth are receiving acceptable services as measured by the New Jersey Qualitative Review.

66% of youth received acceptable services.68

June 2014 Performance

Requirement
Fulfilled (Yes/No/Ongoing)11

Direction of Change12

70% of youth received acceptable services.69

No

N/A70

Data collected during a Data collected during a

case record review of all case record review of all

By December 31, 2011,

youth exiting care

youth exiting care

55. Youth Exiting Care: Youth 95% of youth exiting care between January and

between January and

exiting care without achieving without achieving

December 2013 without June 2014 without

CPM

permanency shall have housing permanency shall have

achieving permanency achieving permanency

No

and be employed or in training housing and be employed or found that 93% of youth found that 84% of youth

or an educational program.

in training or an educational had housing and 65% of had housing and 63% of

program.

youth were either

youth were either

employed or enrolled in employed or enrolled in

education or vocational education or vocational

training program.71

training program.72

↔

68 Reported performance based upon QR findings from 44 cases of youth ages 18 to 21 whose cases were reviewed between January 2012 and July 2013. Cases were considered
acceptable if acceptable ratings were determined for overall Child (Youth)/Family Status and Practice Performance. 69 Reported performance based upon QR findings from 20 cases of youth ages 18 to 21 whose cases were reviewed between January and June 2014. Cases were considered
acceptable if acceptable ratings were determined for overall Child (Youth)/Family Status and Practice Performance. 19 (95%) of cases rated acceptable on overall Child
(Youth)/Family Status and 15 (75%) of cases rated acceptable on Practice Performance. 70 Direction of change cannot be assessed until December 2014 as previously reported performance was based upon data for cases reviewed during a 19 month period and current
data are only available for the first six months of CY2014. 71 Case records for 106 youth were reviewed. 72 Case records for 73 youth were reviewed.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 38

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 49 of 201 PageID: 7583

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements

The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
II.A.5. In reporting during Phase I on the state’s compliance, the Monitor shall focus on the quality of the Case Practice Model and the actions by the state to implement it.
II.B.1.b. 100% of all new case carrying workers shall be enrolled in Pre-service Training, including training in intake and investigations, within two weeks of their start date.
II.B.1.c. No case carrying worker shall assume a full caseload until completing Pre-service Training and passing competency exams.
II.B.2. c. 100% of case carrying workers and supervisors shall take a minimum of 40 hours of annual In-service Training and shall pass competency exams.
II.B.2.d. The state shall implement In-service Training on concurrent planning for all existing staff.

June 2014 Performance
All Local Offices have completed the immersion process.
Between January 1 and June 30, 2014, 85 (100%) new caseworkers (40 hired in the previous monitoring period) were enrolled in Pre-service Training within two weeks of their start date. (10 BCWEP hires).73
Between January 1 and June 30, 2014, 85 (100%) new caseworkers (40 hired in the previous monitoring period) were enrolled in Pre-service Training within two weeks of their start date. (10 BCWEP hires).
DCF expects to reach this annual obligation by December 31, 2014.
Between January 1 and June 30, 2014, 89 (100%) eligible CP&P caseworkers were trained on concurrent planning and passed competency exams before assuming caseloads.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes

73 The Baccalaureate Child Welfare Education Program (BCWEP) is a consortium of seven New Jersey colleges (Rutgers University, Seton Hall University, Stockton College, Georgian Court University, Monmouth University, Century College and Ramapo College) that enables students to earn a Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) degree. The Monitor has previously determined that this course of study together with Worker Readiness Training designed by the DCF Child Welfare Training Academy satisfies the MSA requirements. All BCWEP students are required to pass the same competency exams that non-BCWEP students take before they are permitted to carry a caseload.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 39

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 50 of 201 PageID: 7584

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements

The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
II.B.3.a. All new staff responsible for conducting intake or investigations shall receive specific, quality training on intake and investigations processes, policies and investigations techniques and pass competency exams before assuming responsibility for cases.
II.B.4.b. 100% of all staff newly promoted to supervisory positions shall complete their 40 hours of supervisory training and shall have passed competency exams within six months of assuming their supervisory positions. II.C.4 The state will develop a plan for appropriate service delivery for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth, and thereafter begin to implement this plan. II.C.5 The state shall promulgate and implement policies designed to ensure that the State continues to provide services to youth between ages 18-21 similar to services previously available to them.
II.C.6 The state shall provide mental health services to at least 150 birth parents whose families are involved with the child system.

June 2014 Performance
Between January 1 and June 30, 2014, 135 (100%) employees assigned to intake and investigations in this monitoring period successfully completed one or more modules of intake training and passed competency exams. Between January 1 and June 30, 2014, 35 supervisors were trained and passed competency exams. Delivery of services ongoing.
DCF continues to develop and revise policies and provide services to older youth. DCF continues to meet this standard by funding both inhome and office-based therapeutic interventions for over 400 birth parents (unduplicated count) in efforts to maintain children in, or return children to, the custody of their parents. The state’s approved Medicaid Waiver moves adults into a managed care system which should allow for a more comprehensive approach to patient care and treatment of both physical and mental health needs. This impacts some parents involved with CP&P and could improve access to mental health care.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes Yes Yes
Yes

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 40

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 51 of 201 PageID: 7585

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements

The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
II.D.1. The state shall implement an accurate real time bed tracking system to manage the number of beds available from the CSOC and match those with children who need them.
II.D.2. The state shall create a process to ensure that no child shall be sent to an out-of-state congregate care facility. The process will also ensure that for any child who is sent out-of-state, an appropriate plan is developed to maintain contacts with family and return the child in-state as soon as appropriate.
II.D.5. The state shall implement an automated system for identifying youth in its custody being held in juvenile detention facilities and ensure that they are placed within 30 days of disposition.
II.G.9. The state shall provide adoption training to designated adoption workers for each Local Office.
II.G.15. The state shall issue reports based on the adoption process tracking system.
II.H.4. The period for processing resource family applications through licensure will be 150 days.
II.H.13 The state shall implement the methodology for setting annualized targets for resource family non-kin recruitment. II.H.14 The state shall provide flexible funding at the same level or higher than provided in FY’07.

June 2014 Performance
The state has implemented and utilizes a real time bed tracking system to match children with placements.
As of June 30, 2014, there were three youth in out-of-state residential placements. DCF is nearing completion of a program in state to meet the needs of youth needing residential placement who are deaf or hard of hearing.
DCF reports that from January through June 2014, three youth in DCP&P custody were in juvenile detention awaiting a CSOC placement. All transitioned within 30 days of disposition of their juvenile court case.
43 (100%) adoption workers were trained between January 1 and June 30, 2014.
Adoption tracking data are now collected in NJ SPIRIT and DCF is reporting on all data required in MSA II.G.4.
Of applications submitted between July 2013 and December 2013, DCF resolved 57% of applications within 150 days.
DCF continues to set targets for homes targeted for recruitment by county.
In FY2015, the flex fund budget is $5,714,602.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 41

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 52 of 201 PageID: 7586

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements

The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
II.H.17 The state shall review the Special Home Service Provider (SHSP) resource family board rates to ensure continued availability of these homes and make adjustments as necessary. II.J.2. The state shall initiate management reporting based on SafeMeasures.
II.J.6. The state shall annually produce DCF agency performance reports.
II.J.9. The state shall issue regular, accurate reports from SafeMeasures.
II.J.10. The state shall produce caseload reporting that tracks caseloads by office and type of worker and, for permanency and adoption workers, that tracks children as well as families.
II.E.20 95% of offices shall have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a five worker to one supervisor ratio. III.B.1.a 95% of offices with average caseloads meeting the standard and at least 95% of individual workers with caseloads meeting the standard: permanency workers: no more than 15 families and no more than ten children in out-ofhome care.

June 2014 Performance
Resource family board rates sufficient to ensure continued availability of resource family homes.
The state continues to use SafeMeasures for management reporting.
DCF’s 2013 Annual Report is available at: http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/docu ments/about/NJDCF%20Today %20Accomplishments%20Rep ort.pdf DCF’s 2014 Annual Report is expected to be available Spring of 2015.
The state has the capacity and is regularly producing reports from SafeMeasures
The state has provided the Monitor with reports that provide individual caseloads of children and families for intake, permanency and adoption workers.
95% of DCP&P Local Offices have sufficient frontline supervisors, with ratios of five workers to one supervisor.
98% of offices met permanency standards. 96% of permanency workers met caseload requirements.74

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes Yes

74 Reported performance is the average of DCF’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during this six month monitoring period.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 42

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 53 of 201 PageID: 7587

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements

The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
III.B.1.b 95% of offices with average caseloads meeting the standard and at least 95% of individual workers with caseloads meeting the standard: intake workers: no more than 12 open cases and no more than eight new case assignments per month. III.B.1.c 95% of individual workers with caseloads meeting the standard: IAIU investigators: no more than 12 open cases and no more than eight new cases assignments per month. III.B.1.d 95% of offices with average caseloads meeting the standard and at least 95% of individual workers with caseloads meeting the standard: adoption workers: no more than 15 children.
III.C.2 The state shall promulgate and implement policies designed to ensure that psychotropic medication is not used as a means of discipline or control and that the use of physical restraint is minimized.
III.C.4 The state shall continue to meet the final standards for pre-licensure and ongoing training of resource families, as described in Phase I.
III.C.5 The state shall incorporate into its contracts with service providers performance standards consistent with the Principles of the MSA.

June 2014 Performance
98% of offices met intake standards. 85% of intake workers met caseload requirements.75
92% of IAIU workers met caseload requirements.
95% of offices met adoption standards. 83% of adoption workers met caseload requirements.76
In January 2010, DCF issued polices on psychotropic medication and continues to monitor children and youth on psychotropic medication in accordance with this policy.
DCF continues to conduct prelicensure training for DCP&P resource families and contracts with Foster and Adoptive Family Services (FAFS) to conduct ongoing In-service training.
The Monitor has previously reviewed several service provider contracts and found that such contracts incorporate performance standards consistent with the principles of the MSA.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Partially No
Partially
Yes
Yes
Yes

75Ibid. 76 Ibid.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 43

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 54 of 201 PageID: 7588

Ongoing Phase I and Phase II Requirements

The following are additional MSA requirements that DCF must meet:
III.C.6 In consultation with the Monitor, the state shall develop and implement a well-functioning quality improvement program consistent with the Principles of the MSA and adequate to carry out the reviews of case practice in Phase II.
III.C.7 The state shall regularly evaluate the need for additional placements and services to meet the needs of children in custody and their families, and to support intact families and prevent the need for out-of-home care. Such needs assessments shall be conducted on an annual, staggered basis that assures that every county is assessed at least once every three years. The state shall develop placements and services consistent with the findings of these needs assessments. III.C.8 Reimbursement rates for resource families shall equal the median monthly cost per child calculated by the United States Department of Agriculture for middle-income, urban families in the northeast.

June 2014 Performance
DCF’s Office Performance Management and Accountability continues to facilitate case record reviews, ChildStat and Qualitative Reviews statewide. DCF’s Needs Assessment Plan was completed; Phase I work is nearly complete.
Resource family board rates continue to meet USDA standards.

Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Partially Yes

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 44

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 55 of 201 PageID: 7589
IV. INVESTIGATIONS of ALLEGED CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
A. New Jersey’s State Central Registry (SCR)
New Jersey’s State Central Registry (SCR) is charged with receiving calls of suspected child abuse and neglect and calls where reporters believe the well-being of families is at risk and an assessment, support, and/or information and referral is needed, even though there is no allegation of child abuse or neglect. The SCR operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week with multiple shifts of staff and supervisors and a sophisticated call management and recording system. Screeners at SCR determine the nature of each caller’s concerns and initiate the appropriate response. This function also includes receiving calls about and investigating allegations of abuse and/or neglect in institutional settings (e.g., resource homes, schools and residential facilities). CP&P Local Offices employ investigative staff to follow up on the calls as appropriate. A regionally organized Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU) is responsible for follow-up to investigate allegations of abuse and/or neglect in institutional settings.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 45

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 56 of 201 PageID: 7590

State Central Registry (SCR)

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

1. Responding to Calls to the SCR: a. Total number of calls b. Number of abandoned calls c. Time frame for answering calls d. Number of calls screened out e. Number of referrals for CWS

Final Target

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
Between January and June 2014, the SCR received a total of 86,974 calls.77 Data from the call system show that in June 2014 callers waited 27 seconds for an SCR screener to answer their call. Of all the calls received during this monitoring period, 30,312 (35%) calls related to the possible need for Child Protective Services (CPS) responses. Of those, screeners classified 29,718 (98%) reports for investigation of alleged child abuse or neglect. Another 8,912 (10%) calls related to the possible need for Child Welfare Services (CWS) and an assessment of service needs, of which 8,616 (97%) were referred for response. The call, CPS report and CWS assessment volumes are similar to those of the same time period in 2013. Figure 1 shows a month-by-month breakdown of the call volume at SCR for January through June 2014.
Figure 1: Number of Calls to SCR by Month (January – June 2014)

Number of Calls

20,000 19,000 18,000 17,000 16,000 15,000 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 10,000

15,091
Jan-14

Source: DCF data

15,236 13,092

14,056

15,690

13,809

Feb-14

Mar-14

Apr-14

Month

May-14

Jun-14

77 Calls are differentiated from reports or referrals because SCR can receive several calls related to one incident or in some cases, one call can result in several separate reports.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 46

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 57 of 201 PageID: 7591

2. Quality of SCR Response:

a. Respond to callers promptly, with respectful, active listening skills

Quantitative or

b. Essential information gathered—identification of parents and other

Qualitative Measure

important family members

c. Decision-making process based on information gathered and guided by

tools and supervision

Final Target

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
Between January and June 2014, the SCR continued to conduct staff training and quality assurance which the Monitor believes has contributed to the overall quality of SCR response. SCR enhanced the internal training of newly hired staff by requiring skilled SCR screeners to complete training status notes on trainee performance related to timeliness of response, information collection, documentation and decision-making. This process assists with assessing the newly hired staff’s areas of strength and improvement, enabling the training to be tailored to the new hire’s individual skill level. DCF employees who transfer to SCR continue to receive up to 20 days of training with an emphasis on live-call training.78 Newly hired SCR staff spend the final week of their training period on the designated shift they are assigned. This process permits the supervisor to become an active participant in the screener’s training process.
DCF continues to focus efforts on leadership training to increase SCR supervisors’ capacity to address complex situations, measure results and assist in the implementation of sustained system change to better support screeners and improve decision-making. In June 2014, three SCR screeners successfully graduated from the DCF/Rutgers School of Social Work’s Violence Against Women Program. This program is part of DCF’s efforts to increase screeners’ knowledge about violence and its impact on children and families.
Quality assurance remains a priority for the SCR. As previously reported, a Quality Assurance Peer Review Team completes a daily review of all reports designated as information and referral (I&R)79 generated the previous business day. SCR staff evaluate 75 percent of all I&R calls received the previous business day to ensure they are properly categorized. Supervisory staff more closely examine the remaining 25 percent of I&R calls for proper decision making and case practice. To account for internal bias, reports identified with concerns are reviewed by casework supervisors who were not included in the referral’s decision-making process. The SCR administrator also performs a daily review of randomly selected reports. SCR supervisors also review and evaluate a prescribed number of calls of their staff in order to continually assess the screeners' performance, identify areas in need of improvement and provide on-going training to
78 All employees at SCR must have prior field experience. 79 A call is identified as I&R when it has been determined that CP&P intervention is not warranted, and (1) a caller is seeking a referral to one or more service providers, (2) a SCR screener determines that a referral is the appropriate response to the concern raised by the caller or (3) the matter is referred back to the caller for handling (e.g., police calling about non-abuse incident, school calling about educational neglect).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 47

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 58 of 201 PageID: 7592
strengthen staff skills. During this monitoring period, SCR’s administrative team analyzed trends related to requests where the intake call was originally coded as I&R, but upon administrative review, was determined that CP&P intervention was warranted, upgrading the call to either a CWS or CPS. The result of this review revealed a need to refocus on and enhance screener practices for referrals related to child-on-child sexual activity, requests for services from youth ages 18 to 21 and requests from out-of-state CPS agencies. A system was put in place requiring each screener to conference these types of referrals with a supervisor prior to coding the call. Additionally, SCR instituted case practice forums with supervisory staff to further discuss and strengthen practice for these specific case situations.
Work also continued on updating the call management system to allow screeners access to their own calls at their desktop via email, enabling them to listen to the call as many times as they need as they write their report and to facilitate supervision. This upgrade allows supervisors to immediately evaluate screeners’ work and supports prompt supervisory feedback to screeners on their performance.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 48

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 59 of 201 PageID: 7593

Investigative Practice

B. Timeliness and Quality of Investigative Practice

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

3. Timeliness of Response: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be received by the field in a timely manner and commenced within the required response time as identified at SCR, but no later than 24 hours.

Final Target

a. For periods beginning July 1, 2009, and thereafter, 98% of investigations shall be received by the field in a timely manner.
b. For periods beginning July 1, 2009, and thereafter, 98% of investigations shall be commenced within the required response time.

Figure 2: Percentage of Investigations Received by the Field in a Timely Manner (June 2009 – June 2014)

100% 90% 96% 97% 98% 99% 99% 99% 98%

99%

100% 99%

Percentage of Investigations

80%

70%

60%

50%
JuJunn-0-099 DDeecc--0099 JuJnu-n10-10 DDece-c1-010 JuJnu-n1-111 DeDce-1c1-11JunJ-1u2n-12Dec-M12ar-1Ju3n-13DecD-e1c3-13 JJuunn--1144 Month
Source: DCF data

Final Target (98%)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 49

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 60 of 201 PageID: 7594

Figure 3: Percentage of Investigations Commenced within Required Response Time (June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Investigations

100% 90% 80%

83% 84%

88% 88% 89% 93%

96%

97% 98%

70% 67%
60%

50%
JuJnu-0n9-09 DeDc-e0c9-09 JuJnu-1n0-10 DDece-c1-010 JJuunn-1-111 DDece-c1-111 JuJun-n1-212 Dec-M12ar-1J3un-13 DecD-e1c3-13 JuJnu-n1-414 MoMnothnth

Source: DCF data

Final Target (98%)

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
As of June 2014, 99 percent of referrals were timely transmitted to the field (Figure 2) and 98 percent of investigations were commenced within the required response time (Figure 3). This level of performance meets the MSA standards.
CP&P policy on timeliness of investigations requires receipt by the field of a report within one hour of call completion.80 During the month of June 2014, DCF received 4,661 referrals of child abuse and neglect requiring investigation. Of the 4,661 referrals, 4,335 (93%) referrals were received by the field in less than an hour of call completion. An additional 301 (6%) referrals were received by the field between one and three hours after call completion; for a total of 99 percent of referrals received by the field within three hours of call completion. The number of referrals received per month ranged from 4,359 in February 2014 to 5,345 in May 2014.
CP&P policy considers an investigation “commenced” when at least one of the alleged victim children has been seen by an investigator. During the month of June 2014, there were 4,474 CPS intakes applicable to this measure.81 Of the 4,474 intakes received, 1,216 intakes were coded for an immediate response and 3,258 intakes were coded for a response within 24 hours; 4,385 (98%) intakes were commenced within their required response time.

80 The Monitor currently assesses performance of receipt by the field in a timely manner with a three hour standard. 81 Intakes are differentiated from referrals because SCR can receive several referrals related to one incident or in
other instances, one referral can result in several intakes.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 50

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 61 of 201 PageID: 7595

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

4. Timeliness of Completion: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be completed within 60 days.
By June 30, 2010, 98% of all abuse/neglect investigations shall be completed within 60 days.

Figure 4: Percentage of Abuse/Neglect Investigations Completed within 60 days (June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Abuse/Neglect Investigations

100%

90%

80% 70% 68% 71% 60% 50%
JJuunn--0099 DDeecc--0099

71% 70%
JJuunn--1100 DDeecc--1100

63%
JJuunn--1111

60%
DDeecc--1111 Month

72% 65%

76% 63%

JuJun-n1-212 Dec-1M2 ar-J1u3n-13 DDeecc--1133 JunJu-1n-414

Final Target (98%)

Source: DCF data

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
The MSA requires that 98 percent of all abuse and neglect investigations be completed within 60 days. There were 4,492 intakes in June 2014 that were applicable to this measure. Of the 4,492 intakes, investigations were completed within 60 days on 3,430 (76%) intakes. An additional 560 (13%) investigations were completed between 61 and 90 days after receipt, for a total of 89 percent of investigations completed within 90 days. Between January and June 2014, monthly performance on investigation completion ranged between 72 and 79 percent. Although at its highest performance level since measurement began in 2009, performance on completions of investigations within 60 days does not meet the final target.
A case record review of the quality of CP&P’s investigative practice was conducted in September 2014. This review examined the quality of practice in 313 CPS investigations involving 477 alleged child victims assigned to DCF Local Offices between February 1 and February 14, 2014. 82

82 These results have a ± 5% margin of error with 95% confidence.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 51

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 62 of 201 PageID: 7596
The reviewers found that 244 (78%) of the investigations were of acceptable quality.83 The review findings show some clear strengths in CP&P investigative case practice as well as areas in need of further development. Key strengths include:
 Safety and risk assessments were completed in 100 percent of the investigations,  Caseworkers interviewed the mother of the alleged child victim in 97 percent of the
investigations and  Pre and post-investigation worker/supervisor conference took place in 97 percent of the
investigations.
Overall, recommendations for improvement include clarification through policy, training and coaching of staff and supervisors on some areas of investigative practice and improvement in documentation of investigative activities and events. The areas for improvement of investigative practice found in the review include:
 Reviewing and integrating a family’s prior child protection history through interviews with other CP&P workers as well as other protective authorities. This was of particular significance since the family had prior CP&P history in 66 percent of the investigations reviewed.
 Securing and integrating significant collateral information into investigative decisionmaking. Reviewers determined that all applicable collateral information was obtained in 53 percent of investigations.
 Interviewing the fathers of alleged child victims during investigations. Reviewers found that 65 percent of fathers where contact information was available were interviewed.

83 Reviewers could select four possible responses to the question of the quality of the investigation which included completely, substantially, marginally and not at all. Completely and substantially responses are considered as having met quality standards. The results have a +/- 5% marginal error with 95% confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 52

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 63 of 201 PageID: 7597

C. Institutional Abuse Investigative Unit (IAIU): Investigations of Allegations of Child Maltreatment in Placements
The Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU) is responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect in child care facilities, detention centers, schools, residential facilities, resource family care homes and other out-of-home care settings.84 From January to June 2014, IAIU received 1,629 referrals. This is a decrease of 85 referrals (5%) over the same period in 2013. Figure 5 illustrates the proportion of IAIU referrals from different sources.
Figure 5: Referral Sources for All IAIU Referrals (January – June 2014) (n=1,629)

Facility Police 7% Other 5% 7%
Health 7%

Legal & Court Less than <1%
Parent 16%
Relative 2%

Community Agency 12%

Friend/Neighbor/Comnmunity 8%

Self Anonymous 1%
8%

Source: DCF Data *Percentage is greater or less than 100% due to rounding.

School 28%

84 CP&P Policy Manual (4-1-2013). Introduction to IAIU, I, A, 100.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 53

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 64 of 201 PageID: 7598

1. Performance Measures for IAIU

IAIU Practice for Investigations in Placements

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

6. IAIU Practice for Investigations in Placements: a. Investigations in resource homes and investigations involving group homes, or other congregate care settings shall be completed within 60 days. b. Monitor will review mechanisms that provide timely feedback to other division (e.g., CSOC, OOL) and implementation of corrective action plans. c. Corrective action plans developed as a result of investigations of allegations re: placements will be implemented.
By June 2007 and thereafter, 80% of IAIU investigations shall be completed within 60 days.

Figure 6: Percentage of IAIU Investigations Completed within 60 days (June 2009 – June 2014)

100%

Percentage of IAIU Investigations

90% 86% 80%

89% 85%

88%

86%

87%

85%

79%

70%

83% 85%

Final Target (80%)

60%

50%
JJuunn--0099 DDeecc--0099 JJuunn--1100 DDeec-c1-010 JuJnu-n1-111 DDece-1c1-11 JuJnu-n12-12 Dec-1M2 ar-J1u3n-13 DDeecc--1133 JJuunn-1-414

Source: DCF data

Month

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 54

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 65 of 201 PageID: 7599

Performance as of June 30, 2014:

DCF manages and tracks IAIU performance daily, calculating the proportion of investigations open 60 days or more statewide and within regional offices. Between 79 and 87 percent of all IAIU investigations were open less than 60 days (see Table 2) during the months of January through June 2014.

The MSA does not make any distinction on the type of investigations IAIU conducts based on the allegation or location of the alleged abuse and the 60 day completion standard applies to all IAIU investigations. In reviewing IAIU performance, the Monitor requests data separately on investigations of maltreatment in foster care settings (resource family homes and congregate care facilities) as well as from other settings (e.g., schools, day care). Table 2 displays IAIU’s reported overall investigative timeliness performance for the dates cited and specific performance for resource family homes and congregate care facilities. DCF continues to exceed the final target for this measure.

Table 2: IAIU Investigative Timeliness: Percent of Investigations Completed within 60 days
(January – June 2014)*

Date JANUARY

All IAIU investigations completed within 60 days
79%
(367 of 463)

FEBRUARY

86% (378 of 442)

MARCH

86% (422 of 493)

APRIL

87% (421 of 483)

MAY

85% (441 of 519)

JUNE

83% (444 of 538)

Source: DCF data, IAIU, Daily Summary Reports *Data as of last date in each month.

Investigations in resource family homes and congregate care completed within 60 days
82% (162 of 198)
88% (154 of 176)
89% (160 of 179)
90% (168 of 187)
90% (173 of 192)
85% (159 of 188)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 55

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 66 of 201 PageID: 7600
2. IAIU Investigations Corrective Action Monitoring
Every IAIU investigation results in a “finding” letter which is sent to a facility or resource home. This letter cites the investigative conclusion and, if applicable, identifies concerns and requests corrective action. Finding letters pertaining to resource homes, congregate care facilities, licensed child care centers and unregistered child care are all sent to DCF’s Office of Licensing (OOL).When a request for corrective action is made, DCF policy requires the facility administrator or the resource home unit responsible for supervising the resource home to develop and submit a corrective action plan (CAP) within 30 calendar days of the date on the IAIU finding letter.85 IAIU’s Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) staff are responsible for monitoring the development and implementation of CAPs to assure satisfactory resolution of all concerns identified in the finding letter. CQI staff are also responsible for determining whether the CAP is successfully completed and whether it is approved, disapproved or will remain open and pending. All CAPs require the submission of supporting documentation to confirm the plan was implemented and completed. As a result, CAPs remain open until all documentation is received. DCF policy does not stipulate time frames for when CQI staff must approve successfully completed CAPs. Time frames for the successful completion of CAPs vary according to the elements of the plan. For example, a CAP may include intensive monitoring of a resource home for a six month period. In that instance, IAIU’s CQI staff will review documentation of the six month monitoring to determine whether the identified concerns have been addressed and, if they are addressed, will approve the CAP as successfully completed.
Between January and June 2014, IAIU issued 265 CAP requests involving resource family homes, group homes and residential facilities where children were placed. Information reported from the IAIU corrective action database indicate that 192 (72%) of 265 CAPs had been approved as successfully completed and 73 (28%) corrective action requests were outstanding or pending resolution as of June 30, 2014.
Review of Corrective Action Plans
The Monitor reviewed 10 randomly selected CAP requests that resulted from investigation findings between January and June 2014 to look at feedback processes between IAIU and other divisions (e.g. OOL) and to ensure CAPs are being developed and implemented. The sample included four resource family homes, two kinship resource homes, one group home, one contracted shelter and two residential facilities. CAPs were developed and submitted to the IAIU CQI unit for eight of the 10 requests86; seven of the eight were developed and submitted within 30 days from the date of the finding letter. IAIU’s CQI staff accepted all eight CAPs as successfully implemented. CAPs from this sample included the following corrective actions: monitoring of resource homes, closing of a resource home, training and re-training of resource parents and facility staff on CP&P policies and procedures.

85 CP&P Policy Manual (4-1-2013). IAIU Remedial Action, Corrective Action and Monitoring, I, A, 700. 86 For the two CAPS in the sample that had not been developed and submitted as of June 30, 2014, there was
evidence of follow-up and subsequent requests by IAIU CQI staff for their development.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 56

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 67 of 201 PageID: 7601
Additionally, the Monitor reviewed five randomly selected CAP requests resulting from investigation finding letters dated between January and June 2014 which were pending approval as successfully completed by IAIU CQI staff 90 days and after the date of the findings letter. The CAPs pending approval were reviewed to determine the reasons why they remained pending and if IAIU staff were following up appropriately on the identified concerns. The sample included three resource family homes, one residential facility and one group home. CAPs were developed and submitted for two of the five requests. IAIU’s CQI staff did not accept either of the two CAPs as of June 30, 2014 for varying reasons, indicating that the CAP did not comprehensively address all concerns identified and documentation was missing to verify that a staff member was no longer employed with the agency and that a resource home was closed. For the three CAPs in the sample that had not been developed and submitted as of June 30, 2014, there was evidence that IAIU staff had sent letters and emails to supervisors of resource home units and a group home to follow up on the requests for a CAP.
The CAPs reviewed appeared to adequately address the incidents which prompted the IAIU investigation. There was evidence of appropriate communication between divisions in all cases reviewed, particularly between IAIU and OOL regarding the licensure of resource homes and facilities under investigation. In addition, IAIU hosts monthly “systems partners” meetings with OOL and SCR to ensure that concerns identified during IAIU investigations are communicated to all system partners. The Monitor will observe at some of these meetings during the next monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 57

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 68 of 201 PageID: 7602
V. IMPLEMENTING THE CASE PRACTICE MODEL
DCF continues to train on and reinforce high quality case practice according to New Jersey’s Case Practice Model (CPM). The CPM is designed to guide and support staff towards a strengthbased and family-centered approach that ensures the safety, permanency and well-being of children. This practice requires engagement with children, youth and families through teamwork and crafting individualized case plans with families and children.
During this period, DCF continued its practice of holding weekly conference calls among DCF leadership, Area Directors and their Local Office managers to review individual performance on specific key indicators, including visitation, Family Team Meetings (FTMs) and case plan development. These weekly calls encourage more consistent use of quantitative and qualitative data to support positive outcomes for children and families.
The performance measures discussed below measure progress on some of the CPM activities using data from NJ SPIRIT and data collected during the state’s Qualitative Review (QR) process, a case review process led by DCF’s Office of Quality discussed in more detail in Section XIV.
A. Activities Supporting the Implementation of the Case Practice Model
A critical component of CP&P’s CPM is its focus on coaching, facilitating and supervising FTMs, where families and their formal and informal supports meet to discuss the families’ strengths and needs and progress toward accomplishing their case plan. CP&P continues to build its capacity to hold FTMs, primarily through its Implementation Specialists. CP&P has ten Implementation Specialists, one in each area. Their primary responsibility is to provide ongoing assistance to staff on FTMs and on the CPM. Implementation Specialists train and mentor staff to serve as facilitators, coaches and master coaches who conduct FTMs and implement the CPM.87 They also conduct training at Local Offices tailored to staff needs, particularly on topics related to effective engagement of families and building appropriate and functioning teams that support families.
As of June 30, 2014, DCF had developed 2,315 staff as FTM facilitators, 328 as coaches and 164 as master coaches. Table 3 shows the number of facilitators, coaches and master coaches by CP&P area.

87 Facilitators are trained to conduct Family Team Meetings according to protocol and the principles and values of DCF’s CPM. Coaches are CP&P staff of varying levels who are trained specifically to lead FTMs; master coaches train Local Office and Area staff to become facilitators and coaches.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 58

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 69 of 201 PageID: 7603

Table 3: Number of FTM Facilitators, Coaches and Master Coaches Developed as of June 30, 2014

County Atlantic Bergen Burlington Camden Cape May Cumberland Essex Gloucester Hudson Hunterdon Mercer Middlesex Monmouth Morris Ocean Passaic Salem Somerset Sussex Union Warren
Total Source: DCF

Facilitators 80 118 114 226 57 73
302 86
205 13 107 158 88 79 138 133 41 47 39 167 44 2,315

Coaches 15 34 18 25 11 16 33 11 22 4 13 16 18 15 24 16 6 6 9 13 3 328

Master Coaches
9 11 10 12
4 6 16 2 17 1 4 9 10 7 11 14 1 1 4 13 2 164

ChildStat Meetings
Since September 2010, DCF has held monthly ChildStat meetings, which have become central to DCF’s continuous quality improvement processes.88 The ChildStat process encourages learning through self-diagnosis and data analyses. At the ChildStat meetings, Local Office leadership present practice issues, including data on key performance indicators from the most recent two fiscal quarters compared with statewide data. As additional offices participate in ChildStat, more staff from many levels within DCF have become better able to use data to assess Local Office performance. During each ChildStat, the Local Offices also present the history and current progress on a case selected for review by the Office of Quality. During this monitoring period,

88 Drawn from CompStat in New York City, ChildStat is a process wherein organizations use quantitative and qualitative data from multiple contexts to understand and attempt to improve service delivery.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 59

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 70 of 201 PageID: 7604

ChildStat cases were permanency cases with families whose children have been reunited between three and six months prior to the ChildStat meeting. A revised ChildStat format features a focus on the quality of case practice with families where the children remain in the home, the assessment and case planning skill of workers, as well as the extent of collaboration with formal and informal resources available to support families. The Monitor continues to regularly attend DCF’s ChildStat meetings as an observer and is impressed with the leadership attention to and the high quality of the ChildStat process.

Concurrent Planning Practice
DCF workers hold case reviews at five and 10 months into a child’s placement for staff to address concurrent planning, a practice commonly used throughout the country in which workers engage with families with children in out-of-home placement to reunify children as quickly as possible while simultaneously pursuing alternative permanency options should reunification efforts fail. Staff also conduct “enhanced reviews” after a child has been in placement for five and 10 months to carry out its concurrent planning as required by the MSA. Enhanced reviews occur in all CP&P Local Offices.

Statewide, in June 2014, 91 percent of applicable families had the required five month reviews, and 90 percent had the required 10 month reviews.
As Table 4 reflects, in June 2014, 91 percent of five month reviews due that month were completed timely statewide. Between January and June 2014, monthly performance on this measure ranged from 91 to 98 percent.
Table 4: Five Month Enhanced Review (January – June 2014)

Reviews Completed w/in Five Months
Reviews Not Completed w/in Five Months

JANUARY

#

%

FEBRUARY

#

%

301

98%

333 97%

7

2%

10 3%

Totals 308 100%

343 100%

Source: DCF data

MARCH

#

%

308

95%

15

5%

323 100%

APRIL

#

%

MAY

#

%

JUNE

#

%

271 97% 235

95% 308

91%

7

3%

12

5%

32

9%

278 100% 247 100% 340 100%

Table 5 shows that statewide in June 2014, 90 percent of 10 month reviews due that month were completed timely. Between January and June 2014, monthly performance on this measure ranged from 90 to 98 percent.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 60

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 71 of 201 PageID: 7605

Table 5: Ten Month Enhanced Review (January – June 2014)

JANUARY

#

%

Reviews Completed w/in Ten months

190

93%

Reviews Not

Completed w/in Ten

14

7%

Months

Totals 204

100%

Source: DCF data

FEBRUARY

#

%

208

94%

13

6%

221

100%

MARCH

#

%

251

94%

16

6%

267

100

APRIL

#

%

MAY # %

273

96% 242 98%

JUNE

#

%

203

90%

10

4%

4 2%

22

10%

283 100% 246 100%

225

100%

In June 2014, 70 percent of cases were transferred to an Adoption worker within five days after a change of goal to adoption.
The MSA requires CP&P to transfer a case to an Adoption worker within five business days after a child’s permanency goal has been changed to adoption (Section II.G.2.c). As Table 6 reflects, in June 2014, 70 percent of cases were transferred to an Adoption worker within the required timeframe. Between January and June 2014, monthly performance on transfers within five days ranged from 61 to 76 percent; during these same months, performance on transfers to an Adoption worker within 30 days ranged from 79 to 92 percent of applicable cases.
Table 6: Assignment to Adoption Worker within 5 days of Goal Change to Adoption (January – June 2014)

JANUARY FEBRUARY

MARCH

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

#

%

Within 5 days

103

76%

55

63%

75

61%

85 68%

85 69%

92 70%

6-20 days

9

7%

20

23%

24

20%

23 18%

20 16%

11

8%

21- 30 days

1

1%

5

6%

11

9%

3

2%

2

2%

1

1%

31 or more days

6

4%

4

5%

3

2%

5

4%

3

2%

2

2%

Unable to Determine
(missing hearing date)
Not yet Assigned or Pending Assignment**

1

1%

16

12%

0

0%

4

5%

0

0%

9

7%

0

0%

0

0%

0

0%

9

7%

14 11%

26 20%

Totals 136 101%*

88 102%*

122 99%*

125 99%* 124 100%*

132 101%*

Source: DCF data *Percentage is greater or less than 100 due to rounding. **This category was renamed from “Not Yet Assigned” as some children could potentially be assigned after the extract date; January – March extracted on 6/11/14; April – June extracted on 8/3/14.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 61

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 72 of 201 PageID: 7606

B. Family Team Meetings and Case Planning
Family Team Meetings (FTMs) are intended to work in concert with individualized case planning to support improved results for children and families. Workers are trained and coached to hold FTMs at key decision points in the life of a case, such as when a child enters placement, when a child has a change of placement and/or when there is a need to adjust a case plan. Working at optimal capacity, FTMs enable families, providers, formal and informal supports to exchange information that can be critical to coordinating and following up on services, examining and solving problems and achieving positive outcomes. Meetings are to be scheduled according to the family’s availability in an effort to get as many family members and family supports as possible around the table. Engaging the family, the core of New Jersey’s CPM, is a critical component of successful family teaming.
Family Involvement and Effective Use of Family Team Meetings

7. Family Involvement and Effective Use of Family Team Meetings: A family

team (involving parents, youth and appropriate formal and informal supports)

shall meet and plan together. The team should be involved in planning &

decision-making throughout a case and have the skills, family knowledge and

Quantitative or

abilities to solve and help to organize effective services for the child and family. Number of family team meetings at key decision points:

Qualitative Measure

a. For children newly entering placement, the number/percent who have a

family team meeting within 30 days of entry.

b. For all other children in placement, the number/percent who have at least

one family team meeting each quarter.

c. Family Teamwork

Final Target

a. By June 30, 2010, family meetings held prior to or within 30 days of entry for 90% of new entries and 90% of pre-placements.
b. By June 30, 2010, family meetings held for 90% of children at least once per quarter.
c. By June 30, 2011, 90% of cases show evidence in QR of acceptable team formation and functioning.

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
Initial FTMs
DCF performance on holding initial FTMs is steadily improving although DCF has not yet met targets requiring FTMs for 90 percent of children prior to or within 30 days of a child entering foster care, for pre-placements, and at least once per quarter thereafter.
For the past several monitoring periods, DCF leaders have worked with Area Directors, Local Office managers and line staff to both improve worker engagement with parents, to encourage participation in FTMs, and to improve documentation and data entry to account for legitimate reasons why FTMs do not occur (either because the parent is unavailable or because the parent

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 62

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 73 of 201 PageID: 7607

declined to attend). The parties agreed that due to data validation challenges, reported documented progress would include only the number of FTMs that have actually occurred. DCF previously provided the Monitor with data intended to demonstrate its confidence that workers were properly using and documenting legitimate reasons for why the required FTMs are not occurring. In July 2014, the Monitor reviewed a random sample of cases and was not able to validate that workers were appropriately using the exceptions.89 By agreement, as soon as the state determines that workers are properly using and documenting exceptions, the Monitor and DCF will conduct a statistically valid case record review and will report on the findings. Consequently, the report continues to show the progress that has been made in the number of FTMs actually held, recognizing that the data on these MSA measures understate performance because it does not yet reflect legitimate exceptions.

According to NJ SPIRIT, and counting only those FTMs that actually occurred, in June 2014, out of 346 possible FTMs, 257 (74%) occurred within 30 days of a child’s removal; from January to June 2014, monthly performance ranged from 68 to 80 percent. The state’s performance on FTMs that occurred has improved from the previous monitoring period, but does not yet meet the required level of 90 percent. Figure 7 shows DCF’s performance on holding FTMs since March 2013, the first year in which documented progress includes only the number of FTMs that have actually occurred.90 Appendix B-1 provides performance data on FTMs held within 30 days by Local Office for the month of June 2014.

Table 7: Family Team Meetings Held within 30 days (January – June 2014)

Month JANUARY FEBRUARY
MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE Source: DCF data

Total Number of Applicable
Children 390
341
401
357
368
346

Number of Children with Initial FTMs Held within 30 days
265
254
308
273
294
257

Percent 68% 74% 77% 76% 80% 74%

89 The Monitor reviewed 37 cases from February 2014 and determined that three (30%) of the 10 initial FTMs and 12 (44%) of the 27 quarterly FTMs demonstrated appropriate use of the exceptions. 90 The data likely understates compliance because due to documentation and validation issues, it does not yet
account for instances where FTMs were appropriately excluded.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 63

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 74 of 201 PageID: 7608

Percentage of Family Team Meetings Held

Figure 7: Family Team Meetings Held within 30 days (June 2012 – June 2014)91

100%
80%
60%
40% 35%
20%
0%
Jun 12

74%
69% 56%

Mar-13

Month

Dec-13

Jun-14

Source: DCF data

Final Target (90%)

91 Data in this figure reflect the change in methodology for FTMs that began in March 2013 and were recalculated retroactive to June 2012. FTM practice was incrementally introduced to local offices with extensive training; statewide implementation on and data collection occurred later. Prior to June 2012, the Monitor only received data and reported on those Local Offices that had implemented the Case Practice Model.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 64

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 75 of 201 PageID: 7609

Quarterly FTMs

Performance on quarterly FTMs substantially improved during this monitoring period. Reporting only on FTMs that actually occurred, in June 2014, out of a possible 1,894 quarterly FTMs, 1,504 (79%) occurred; from January to June 2014, monthly performance ranged from 60 to 80 percent. Figure 8 shows DCF’s performance on holding quarterly FTMs since March 2013, the first year in which documented progress includes only the number of FTMs that have actually occurred.92 Appendix B-2 provides performance data on quarterly FTMs by Local Office for the month of June 2014.

Table 8: Quarterly Family Team Meetings Held (January – June 2014)

Month JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH
APRIL MAY JUNE Source: DCF data

Total Number of Applicable Children 1,832
1,837
1,819
1,893
1,822
1,894

Number of Children with Quarterly FTMs
Held 1,100
1,164
1,256
1,424
1,452
1,504

Percent 60% 63% 69% 75% 80% 79%

92 The data likely understate compliance because due to documentation and validation issues, it does not yet account for instances where FTMs were appropriately excluded.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 65

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 76 of 201 PageID: 7610

Figure 8: Quarterly Family Team Meetings Held (June 2012 – June 2014)93

100%

Percentage of Quarterly Family Team Meetings Held

80%

60%

54%

40%

46%

33% 20%

0%
Jun 12
Source: DCF data

Mar-13

Month

Dec-13

79%
Jun-14

Final Target (90%)

93 Data in this figure reflect the change in methodology for FTMs that began in March 2013 and were recalculated retroactive to June 2012. FTM practice was incrementally introduced to local offices with extensive training; statewide implementation on and data collection occurred later. Prior to June 2012, the Monitor only received data and reported on those Local Offices that had implemented the Case Practice Model.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 66

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 77 of 201 PageID: 7611

Team Formation and Functioning
Figure 9: QR Cases Rated Acceptable on Family Involvement and Effective Use of Family Team Meetings (January – June 2014) (n=120)

Percentage of Family Involvement

100%
80%
60%
40% 37% (44)
20%
0% Cases Rated Acceptable
Source: DCF, QR results Reported performance based upon QR results from cases reviewed between January to June 2014.

Final Target (90%)

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
DCF did not meet the target requiring that 90 percent of cases show evidence in the QR of acceptable team formation and functioning, the quality indicator used to report on family involvement and effective use of FTMs. Results of 120 cases reviewed from January to June 2014 using the QR indicate that both team formation and functioning were rated acceptable in 37 percent of cases, far below required performance.94 For cases rated as acceptable, there was evidence that persons who provided both formal and informal supports to children/youth and families had formed a working team that met, talked and planned together to help children/youth and families meet their goals. For cases rated as unacceptable, there was evidence in most cases of initial team formation but less effective ongoing team functioning to support the case goals and/or some critical members of a necessary team were not effectively engaged.

94 120 cases were reviewed as part of the Qualitative Reviews (QRs) conducted from January to June 2014. 44 of
120 cases (37%) rated acceptable on both areas of Family Teamwork, team formation and team functioning; 63 of 120 cases (53%) rated acceptable on team formation; and 53 of 120 cases (44%) cases rated acceptable on team functioning.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 67

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 78 of 201 PageID: 7612

Timeliness of Case Planning-Initial Plans
DCF policy and the MSA require that a case plan be developed within 30 days of a child entering placement. After meeting this performance measure in the previous monitoring period, performance fell slightly below the 95 percent target during three months of this monitoring period (see Table 9).95

Quantitative or

10. Timeliness of Initial Plans: For children entering care, number/percent of case

Qualitative Measure

plans developed within 30 days.

Final Target

By June 30, 2010, 95% of case plans for children and families are completed within 30 days.

Figure 10: Percentage of Children Entering Care with Case Plans Developed Within 30 days (June 2009 – June 2014)

100% 80%

96%

97%

92%

Final Target (95%)

Percentage of Children

60% 40% 42% 42%

50% 56% 61% 56%

45%

20%

0%
JuJnu-n0-909 DDeecc-0-909 JJuun-n1-010 DDece-c1-010 JJuunn-1-11 DDece-c1-111 JuJun-n1-212 Dec-M12ar-1J3un-13 DeDce-c1-313 JJuunn-144 Month
Source: DCF data

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
In June, 2014, 320 (92%) out of a total of 347 case plans were completed within 30 days. A total of 345 (99%) cases had case plans completed within 60 days.

95 The Monitor determined this performance measure to have been partially met in monitoring period XIII because the final target was met for two of the nine months of the reporting period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 68

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 79 of 201 PageID: 7613

As shown in Table 9, between January and June 2014, the timely development of initial case plans ranged from 92 to 98 percent each month. While DCF met the 95 percent target for the months of February, March and April, it came close but did not meet the standard for January, May or June.
Table 9: Case Plans Developed Within 30 days of Child Entering Placement (January – June 2014)

Case Plans Completed in 30 days

JANUARY

#

%

FEBRUARY

#

%

MARCH

#

%

APRIL # %

358

93%

324 95%

386 97%

358 98%

MAY # %

JUNE # %

343 92% 320 92%

Case Plans Completed in 31-60
days

27

7%

16

5%

10 3%

8 2%

28 8%

25

7%

Case Plans Not Completed after 60 days

0

0%

Totals 385
Source: DCF data

100%

0

0%

340 100%

1 <1%

0 0%

0 0%

2

1%

397 100%

366 100%

371 100% 347 100%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 69

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 80 of 201 PageID: 7614

Timeliness of Case Planning-Current Plans

Quantitative or

11. Timeliness of Current Plans: For children entering care, number/percent of case

Qualitative Measure

plans shall be reviewed and modified as necessary at least every six months.

Final Target

By June 30, 2010, 95% of case plans for children and families will be reviewed and modified at least every six months.

Figure 11: Percentage of Case Plans Reviewed and Modified as Necessary at Least Every 6 Months (June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Case Plans

100%

99%

98% 98%

80% 60% 64% 69% 69% 67% 71% 70% 63% 40%

20%

0%
JuJnu-n09-09 DDeecc--0099 JJuunn--1100 DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111 DDeec-c1-111 JuJnu-n1-212 Dec-1M2 ar-J1u3n-13 DeDce-c1-313 JJuunn--1144

Final Target (95%)

Source: DCF data

Month

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
DCF policy requires that case plans be reviewed and modified at least every six months. From January through June 2014, between 97 and 99 percent of case plans were modified within the required six month timeframe. In June 2014, 98 percent of case plans had been modified as required. This is the second monitoring period in which DCF met or exceeded the final target of 95 percent for each month of the monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 70

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 81 of 201 PageID: 7615

Table 10: Case Plans Updated Every 6 months (January – June 2014)

JANUARY

#

%

Case Plans

Completed within Six

1,058 97%

Months

Outstanding

35

3%

Totals 1,093 100%

Source: DCF data

FEBRUARY

#

%

1,133 98%

24 1,157

2% 100%

MARCH

#

%

APRIL

#

%

MAY

#

%

1,217 98% 1,164 98% 1,184 99%

29 1,246

2% 100%

20 1,184

2% 100%

14 1,198

1% 100%

JUNE

#

%

1,066

98%

17 1,083

2% 100%

Quality of Case Planning and Service Plans

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

12. Quality of Case and Service Planning: The child’s/family’s case plan shall be developed with the family and shall be individualized and appropriately address the child’s needs for safety, permanency and well-being. The case plan shall provide for the services and interventions needed by the child and family to meet identified goals, including services necessary for children and families to promote children’s development and meet their educational, physical and mental health needs. The case plan and services shall be modified to respond to the changing needs of the child and family and the results of prior service efforts. (measures 13 and 14 have been merged with this measure)

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 90% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QR.

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
DCF policy and the MSA require family involvement in case planning; plans that are appropriate and individualized to the circumstances of the child/youth and family; oversight of the plans implementation to ensure case goals are being met; and course correction when needed. As Figure 12 indicates, DCF did not meet the target requiring that 90 percent of cases rate as acceptable for case planning and service plans as measured by the QR. Cases rated as acceptable demonstrate evidence that the child and families’ needs are addressed in the case plan, the plan directly addresses the needs and risks that brought the child to DCF’s attention, appropriate family members were included in the plan and the implementation of the service process is being tracked and adjusted when necessary. Of 120 cases reviewed from January through June 2014, 56 percent were rated as acceptable on both QR indicators ‘Case Planning Process’ and ‘Tracking and Adjusting’.96

96 67 of 120 (56%) in and out-of-home cases rated acceptable on both the Case Planning Process and Tracking and Adjusting indicators; 75 of 120 cases (63%) rated acceptable on Case Planning Process; and 82 of 120 cases (68%) rated acceptable on Tracking and Adjusting.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 71

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 82 of 201 PageID: 7616

To specifically address challenges in consistent high quality case planning, DCF’s Office of Training and Professional Development partnered with Area and Local Office leadership to pilot a new, customized, on-site Transfer of Learning (TOL) training protocol on case planning that provides “real time” evaluation tools and strategies for supervisors and workers. Between January and June 2014, 24 TOL training sessions were held at six Local Offices. DCF’s expectation is that on site evaluation of staff will assist supervisors in improving staff engagement skills.

Percentage of Case Planning

Figure 12: Cases Rated Acceptable on Quality of Case and Service Planning (January – June 2014) (n=120)
100%
80%
60% 56% (67)
40%
20%
0% Cases Rated Acceptable
Source: DCF, QR results Reported performance based upon QR results from cases reviewed between January to June 2014.

Final Target (90%)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 72

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 83 of 201 PageID: 7617

Planning to Meet Children’s Educational Needs

Quantitative or

15. Educational Needs: Children will be enrolled in school and DCF will have

Qualitative Measure

taken appropriate actions to insure that their educational needs will be met.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 90% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the QR.

Figure 13: Cases Rated Acceptable on Planning to Meet Educational Needs
(January – June 2014) (n=52)97

100%

Percentage of Case Planning

80%

88%

(46)

60%

40%

20%

0% Cases Rated Acceptable
Source: DCF, QR results Reported performance based upon QR results from cases reviewed between January to June 2014.

Final Target (90%)

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
The QR Child and Family Status ratings, ‘Stability of School Placement’ and ‘Learning and Development’ (for children over the age of five), are measured together on each case to assess how children are faring in their educational setting. Fifty-two cases were applicable for this performance measure because cases must involve children five and older and in out-of-home placement. As Figure 13 indicates, 46 of 52 applicable cases (88%) rated acceptable on both the Stability (school) and Learning and Development (age five and older) QR indicators, up from 67 percent in the previous monitoring period.98 For cases rated as acceptable, there was evidence of few disruptions of school settings and a low risk of such disruptions as well as evidence that the

97 As noted, although 120 cases were reviewed for the QR, only 52 involved children over the age of 5 and in outof-home placement. 98 Fifty-six of 61 applicable cases (92%) rated acceptable on Stability (school); 55 of 59 applicable (93%) cases
rated acceptable on Learning and Development (age 5 and older).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 73

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 84 of 201 PageID: 7618

children were achieving key development milestones. This is a substantial improvement over the last monitoring period and a great accomplishment.

C. Performance Benchmarks Related to Safety and Risk Assessment
Individualized, comprehensive assessment is a process by which information concerning the needs, problems, circumstances and resources of the family, youth and children are collected, evaluated and updated at key decision points and whenever major changes in family circumstances occur. The decision to close a case should reflect the achievement of satisfactory outcomes with regard to the child(ren) or youth's safety, permanence and well-being. An assessment of both safety and risk prior to case closure is necessary to ensure these outcomes have been achieved.
Safety and Risk Assessment

Quantitative or

8. Safety and Risk Assessment: Number/percent of closed cases where a safety

Qualitative Measure

and risk of harm assessment is done prior to case closure.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, (a) 98% of investigations will have a safety assessment completed, (b) 98% of investigations will have a risk assessment completed and (c) 98% of non-investigation cases will have a risk assessment or risk reassessment completed within 30 days of case closure.99

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
Performance during January through June 2014 for both safety and risk assessments completed prior to investigation completion exceeded the 98 percent MSA final target. For example, in June 2014, there were 4,761 applicable100 investigation cases closed; all 4,761 (100%) investigations had a safety assessment completed prior to investigation closure and all 4,761 (100%) investigations had a risk assessment completed prior to investigation completion.
Performance on conducting a risk reassessment 30 days prior to non-investigative case closure was newly met this monitoring period (see Figure 14). In June 2014, there were 529 applicable101 cases closed. Of these 529 cases, 521 (98%) cases had a risk reassessment completed within 30 days prior to case closure; the remaining eight (2%) cases had a risk reassessment completed within 31 to 60 days prior to case closure. This is an important accomplishment.

99 In order to be consistent with practice expectations, in May 2012, the parties agreed to revise the final target from, “By December 31, 2010, 98% of cases will have a safety and risk of harm assessment completed prior to case closure” to the language stated above, which allows for separate reporting on investigations and non-investigations cases. 100 In June 2014, an additional 15 investigations were closed; however, those cases were marked as “unable to make contact with children/family” and were excluded from the calculations. 101Applicable cases include reunification and do not include adoption, kinship legal guardianship or emancipation.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 74

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 85 of 201 PageID: 7619

Figure 14: Performance on Safety Assessments Completed Prior to Investigation Completion, Risk Assessments Completed Prior to Investigation Completion and Risk
Reassessments Completed within 30 days Prior to Case Closure (January – June 2014)

100% 100%

100%

97%

100% 100%

100% 100%

99%

98%

100% 100% 98%

100% 100% 98%

100% 100% 98%

80%

Final Target (98%)

Percent Completed

60%

40%

20%

0% Jan-14

Feb-14

Mar-14

Risk Assessment Prior to Investigation Completion

Risk Reassessments Prior to Case Closure

Source: DCF data

Apr-14

May-14

Jun-14

Safety Assessment Prior to Investigation Completion

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 75

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 86 of 201 PageID: 7620
D. Performance Measures on Caseworker, Parent-Child and Sibling Visits
The visits of children in foster care with their workers, parents and siblings are integral to the principles of the CPM and are important events to ensure children’s safety, maintain and strengthen family connections, and increase children’s opportunities to achieve permanency.
DCF’s performance on visits this monitoring period showed important improvements. DCF partially met the requirement for monthly caseworker visits to children in out-of-home placement and improvements were demonstrated in visits between parents and caseworkers. Additionally, due to the new capabilities of SafeMeasures v5 which was implemented this monitoring period, DCF is able to more precisely report on completion of weekly visitation between parents and children on a week to week basis for the six month period. Therefore, compliance can now be measured by the average percentage of children who had weekly visits with their parent each week during the month, not just the number of children who had four visits a month with their parent. Due to this change in methodology, it is difficult to make comparisons with previous periods.
Per agreement with DCF, performance measures related to parent visits with caseworkers and parent visits with children do not exclude from calculations those instances where the parent was unavailable or because contacts were not required due to documentation concerns. Thus, current data understate actual performance on these measures.
In recognition of the importance of visits between parents and their children and between siblings, the Children in Court Improvement Committee with membership from DCF, CP&P, SCOC, offices of the Law Guardian, the Public Defender, the Attorney General, Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and other advocacy organizations developed a Visitation Bench Card that is intended to be used by judges as guidance at hearings and reviews. The Bench Card, which was distributed by the AOC to judges statewide in July 2014, highlights relevant regulations regarding supervision, frequency and duration, location and additional methods of contact as well as questions a Judge can ask during a court hearing to make decisions regarding visits.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 76

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 87 of 201 PageID: 7621

Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

16. Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody: Number/percent of children where caseworker has two visits per month (one of which is in the placement) during the first two months of an initial placement or subsequent placement for children in state custody.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, during the first two months of an initial placement or subsequent placement, 95% of children had at least two visits per month.

Figure 15: Percentage of Children who had Two Visits per month during First Two months of an Initial or Subsequent Placement (December 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100%

80%

89%

92%

84%

60%

40%

50% 58%

55%

53%

43%

20% 18%
0%
DDecec-0-099 JJuunn--1100

DDece-c1-100 JJuunn--1111

DDeecc--1111

JuJnu-n1-122 Dec-M12ar-13Jun-13Sep-D13ec-13

JJuunn--1144

Final Target (95%)

Source: DCF data

Month

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
Due to concerns regarding SafeMeasures data quality for this measure, performance data were previously reported based on the findings of a manual audit of NJ SPIRIT data for one month during the monitoring period. Examination of February 2014 data obtained through a manual audit and SafeMeasures reporting for the same month indicate that the discrepancy between compliance performance is within three percent; given this finding, the Monitor has decided that SafeMeasures data can be appropriately used to report performance for each month this period and in the future.
Between January and June 2014, performance ranged monthly from 92 to 96 percent of children in out-of-home placement with at least one caseworker visit per month in his/her placement (see

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 77

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 88 of 201 PageID: 7622

Figure 16 below). During the month of June 2014, 92 percent of applicable children had two visits per month during the first two months of an initial or subsequent placement. Specifically, there were 501 children who were in an initial or subsequent placement and remained in the placement for a full two months; 459 (92%) had documented visits by their workers twice per month with at least one visit occurring in the placement setting. DCF met the required level of performance for four of the six months this period, and thus the Monitor considers this measure to be partially met this period. As demonstrated in Figure 15, progress since 2009 has been dramatic from 18 percent performance in December 2009 to 92 percent in June 2014.
Figure 16: Percentage of Children who had Two Visits per month during First Two months of an Initial or Subsequent Placement (January – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100%

90%

95%

96%

95%

95%

94%

80%

92%

Final Target (95%)

70%

60%

50%

January February March

April

May

June

Source: DCF data

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 78

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 89 of 201 PageID: 7623

Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

17. Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody: Number/percent of children where caseworker has at least one caseworker visit per month in the child’s placement.

Final Target

By June 30, 2010, 98% of children shall have at least one caseworker visit per month during other parts of a child’s time in out-of-home care.

Figure 17: Percentage of Children in Out-of-Home Care who had at least One Caseworker Visit per month in his/her Placement (June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100%

90%

89% 88% 88% 91% 91% 91%

80% 82%

70%

94%

94% 93%

Final Target (98%)

60%

50%
JuJnu-n0-909 DeDce-c0-909 JuJnu-n1-010 DeDce-c1-010 JuJnu-n1-111 DeDc-e1c1-11 JunJu-1n2-12 Dec-1M2 ar-J1u3n-13DecD-1e3c-13 JuJnu-n1-414
Month

Source: DCF data

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
Between January and June 2014, performance ranged monthly from 93 to 94 percent of children in out-of-home placement with at least one caseworker visit per month in his/her placement (see Figure 18 below). For example, in June 2014 there were 6,950 children in out-of-home placement for a full month; 6,451 (93%) were visited by their caseworker at least one time per month in their placement. An additional 389 (6%) children had at least one caseworker visit per month in a location other than their placement, for a total of 98 percent of children with at least one caseworker visit per month regardless of location. The Monitor considers this performance measure to be partially met.
In June 2014, performance on this measure by Local Office ranged from 79 to 100 percent; nine Local Offices met the MSA standard and 20 Local Offices performed at 95 percent or higher (see Appendix B-3).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 79

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 90 of 201 PageID: 7624

Figure 18: Percentage of Children in Out-of-Home Care who had at least One Caseworker Visit per month in his/her Placement (January – June 2014)

100%

80%

Percentage of Children

60%
94% 40%

93%

94%

94%

20%

0% January

February

Source: DCF data

March

April

Month

94% May

93% June

Final Target (98%)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 80

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 91 of 201 PageID: 7625

Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

18. Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members: The caseworker shall have at least two face-to-face visits per month with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody with a goal of reunification.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, 95% of families have at least twice per month face-to-face contact with their caseworker when the permanency goal is reunification.

Figure 19: Percentage of Families who have at least Twice per month Face-to-Face
Contact with Caseworker when the Goal is Reunification (June 2009 – June 2014)102

Percentage of Parents

100%

80%

77%

74% 78%

60%

40%

50%

48%

37% 39%

40%

20% 29% 24%

0%
JuJnu-n0-909 DDece-c0-909 JunJu-1n0-10 DeDc-e1c0-10JunJ-1u1n-11Dec-D1e1c-1J1un-J1u2n-1D2ec-1M2 arJ-u1n3-13 Dec-13 Jun-14

Month

Final Target (95%)

Source: DCF data

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
Between January and June 2014, monthly performance on this measure ranged from 72 to 80 percent of parents or other legally responsible family members visited two times per month by a caseworker when the family’s goal is reunification (see Figure 20 below).103 For example, in June 2014, there were 3,773 children in custody with a goal of reunification; the parents of 2,948 (78%) children were visited twice during the month and the parents of an additional 131 (3%)
102 Previously reported performance for June 2011 through March 2013 excluded from calculations those instances where the parent was unavailable or because contacts were not required. Due to concerns regarding appropriate use of these exceptions and for comparison purposes, performance data in this figure for June 2011 through June 2014 do not exclude from calculations those instances where the parent was unavailable or because contacts were not required. Therefore, cited performance is different than previously reported performance. 103 Reported performance at this time understates actual performance because the data do not exclude instances where a parent is unavailable or contacts are not required.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 81

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 92 of 201 PageID: 7626

children had at least one contact in June. The monthly range of performance has improved this monitoring period, however, does not yet demonstrate the level required by the MSA. As indicated, the data likely understates compliance because due to validation issues, it does not yet account for instances where visitation is legitimately not possible or appropriate.
Local Office data for June 2014 ranges between 42 and 94 percent; none of the Local Offices met the required level of 95 percent (see Appendix B-4).
Figure 20: Percentage of Families who have at least Twice per month Face-to-Face Contact with Caseworker when the Goal is Reunification (January – June 2014)104

100%

80%

Percentage of Families

60%

40%

73%

20%

72%

79%

79%

0% January

February

Source: DCF data

March

April

Month

80% May

78% June

Final Target (95%)

104 Previously reported performance for June 2011 through March 2013 excluded from calculations those instances where the parent was unavailable or because contacts were not required. Due to concerns regarding appropriate use of these exceptions and for comparison purposes, performance data in this figure for June 2011 through June 2014 do not exclude from calculations those instances where the parent was unavailable or because contacts were not required. Therefore, cited performance for June 2011 through March 2013 is different than previously reported performance.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 82

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 93 of 201 PageID: 7627

Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

19. Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members: The caseworker shall have at least one face-to-face visit per month with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody with goals other than reunification unless parental rights have been terminated.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of families shall have at least one face-to-face caseworker contact per month, unless parental rights have been terminated.105

Figure 21: Percentage of Parents who had at least One Face-to-Face Contact with
Caseworker who had a Permanency Goal other than Reunification (December 2009 – June 2014) 106

100%

80%

Percentage of Parents

60%

67%

66%

65%

40%

53% 49%

54%

42% 44%

20% 29%

0%
DeDce-0c-909 JuJnu-n1-010 DDece-c1-010 JJuunn-1-111 DDeecc--1111 JunJu-1n2-12 Dec-M12ar-1J3un-13 DDece-c1-133 Jun-14
Month
Source: DCF data

Final Target (85%)

105 Possible modification of this final target has been discussed among the parties and the Monitor with no resolution. 106 Previously reported performance for June 2011 through March 2013 excluded from calculations those instances where visits did not occur because the parent was unavailable or because contacts were not required. Due to concerns regarding appropriate use of these exceptions and for comparison purposes, performance data in this figure for June 2011 through June 2014 do not exclude from calculations those instances where visits did not occur because the parent was unavailable or because contacts were not required. Therefore, cited performance is different than previously reported performance.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 83

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 94 of 201 PageID: 7628

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
Between January and June 2014, monthly performance on this measure ranged from 59 to 66 percent of parents or other legally responsible family members visited monthly by a caseworker when the family’s goal is no longer reunification (see Figure 22 below).107 For example, in June 2014, there were 2,089 children in custody whose goal was not reunification; the parents for 1,356 (65%) children were visited monthly. Performance does not meet the level required by the MSA.
Figure 22: Percentage of Parents who had at least One Face-to-Face Contact with Caseworker who had a Permanency Goal other than Reunification (January – June 2014)

100%

80%

Percentage of Parents

60%

40% 61%
20%

59%

65%

66%

0% January

February

Source: DCF data

March

April

Month

63% May

65% June

Final Target (85%)

107 Reported performance at this time understates actual performance because the data do not exclude instances where a parent is unavailable or contacts are not required.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 84

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 95 of 201 PageID: 7629

Visits between Children in Custody and their Parents

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

20. Visitation between Children in Custody and Their Parents: Number/percent of children who have weekly visits with their parents when the permanency goal is reunification unless clinically inappropriate and approved by the Family Court.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of children in custody shall have in person visits with their parent(s) or other legally responsible family member at least every other week and at least 60% of children in custody shall have such visits at least weekly.

Figure 23: Percentage of Children who had at least Two Visits per month with their Parent(s) (December 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%

80% 68% 61% 61%
35% 32%

78%

83%

Final Target (85%)

0% 11%
DeDc-e0c9-09 JuJunn-1-100 DeDce-c1-010 JuJnu-n1-111 DeDce-1c-111 Jun-J1u2n-12Dec-12Mar-J1u3n-13 DeDc-e1c3-13 JunJ-u1n4-14

Source: DCF data

Month

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
As indicated earlier in this section, due to the new capabilities of SafeMeasures v5, DCF is able to more precisely report on completion of weekly visits between parents and children for the six month period. Therefore, compliance can be measured by the average percentage of children who had weekly visits each week during the month, not just the number of children who had four visits a month with their parent (which was the methodology that was previously used to report on this measure).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 85

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 96 of 201 PageID: 7630

Between January and June 2014, a monthly range of 55 to 68 percent of children had weekly visits with their parents when their permanency goal is reunification (see Figure 24 below) 108 and a monthly range of 75 to 83 percent of children had visits at least every other week (see Figure 25 below).109 For example, for the four weeks in June 2014, there were an average of 3,770 children in placement with a goal of reunification that required weekly visits. Of these children in placement during that month, 68 percent had weekly visits. Additionally, of the 3,582 children applicable to this measure during the month of June 2014, 2,960 (83%) children had two or three visits during the month. Performance on parent/child visits continued to improve; the Monitor considers this performance measure to be partially met as DCF met the required level of performance for one sub-part of the measure (weekly visits) for four of the six months this period.
Figure 24: Percentage of Children with Weekly Visits with their Parent(s) (January – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

55%
JJaannu-a1r4y

59%
February

Source: DCF data

65%

66%

March

April

Month

65%
May

68%

Final Target (85%)

June

108 Reported performance at this time understates actual performance because the data do not exclude instances
where a parent is unavailable or contacts are not required. 109 Ibid.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 86

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 97 of 201 PageID: 7631

Figure 25: Percentage of Children who had at least Two Visits per month with their Parent(s) (January – June 2014)

100%

80%

Percentage of Children

60%

40%

75%

20%

75%

80%

82%

0% January

February

Source: DCF data

March

April

Month

82% May

83% June

Final Target (85%)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 87

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 98 of 201 PageID: 7632

Visits between Children in Custody and Sibling Placed Apart

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

21. Visitation Between Children in Custody and Siblings Placed Apart: Number/percent of children in custody, who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with their siblings as appropriate.

Final Target

By December 31, 2010, at least 85% of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with those siblings at least monthly.

Figure 26: Percentage of Children in Custody who have at least Monthly Visits with Siblings, for Children not Placed with Siblings (December 2010 – June 2014)

100%

80%

Percentage of Children

60%

63%

40% 41%

44%

49%

52%

20%

0%
DDeecc--1100

JJuunn-1-111

DDece-c1-111 JuJnu-n1-212 Dec-12Mar-13Jun-13

Source: DCF data

Month

71%

68%

Final Target (85%)

DeDce-1c-313 JJuunn--1144

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
Between January and June 2014, a monthly range of 66 to 69 percent of children had monthly visits with their sibling(s) when they were not placed together.110, 111 For example, in June 2014 there were 2,587 children in placement who had at least one sibling who did not reside in the same household as them; 1,761 (68%) children had a visit with their siblings during the month.

110 Performance data for monitoring period are as follows: January, 66%; February, 68%; March, 69%; April, 67%; May, 69%; June, 68%. 111 DCF has recently indicated that NJ SPIRIT data may undercount sibling visits by five to six percent each month.
The Monitor has not yet verified this information.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 88

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 99 of 201 PageID: 7633

Figure 27: Percentage of Children in Custody who have at least Monthly Visits with Siblings, for Children not Placed with Siblings (January – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100%
80% 66%
60%
40%
20%
0%
DeJac-n1u0ary

68%
FJuenb-r1u1ary

69%
DMeca-r1c1h

Source: DCF data

67%

69%

AJupnr-i1l 2 Month

Dec-12 May Jun-13

68%

Final Target (85%)

JDuence-13

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 89

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 100 of 201 PageID: 7634

VI. THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME CARE
As of June 30, 2014, a total of 51,412 children were receiving services from CP&P: 7,660 in outof-home placement and 43,752 in their own homes. Figure 28 shows the type of placement for children in CP&P custody as of June 30, 2014: 91 percent were in resource family homes (either kinship or non-kinship), 8 percent in group and residential facilities and one percent in independent living facilities.
Figure 28: Children in CP&P Out-of-Home Placement by Type of Placement as of June 30, 2014 (n=7,660)

Group and Residential
608 8%

Independent Living 100 1%

Kinship Care 2,863 37%

Resource Family (Non-Kin) 4,089 54%

Source: DCF data
Table 11 shows selected demographics for children in out-of-home placement as of June 30, 2014. Forty-six percent of children in out-of-home care were age five or under, with the largest single group (children two or younger) comprising 26 percent of the out-of-home placement population. Twenty-six percent of the population were age 13 or older and six percent were age 18 or older.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 90

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 101 of 201 PageID: 7635

Table 11: Selected Demographics for Children in Out-of-Home Placement as of June 30, 2014 (n=7,660)

Female Male

Gender

Percent
51% 49%

Total

100%

Age
2 years or less 3-5 years 6-9 years 10-12 years 13-15 years 16-17 years 18+ years

Percent
26% 20% 19% 10% 11% 9% 6%

Race
Black or African American White Hispanic Other Missing or Undetermined

Total

101%*
Percent 41% 29% 21% 4% 4%

Total

99%*

Source: DCF data *Percentage is greater or less than 100 due to rounding.
**DCF includes American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander and
multiple races into the category of “other” because of the small numbers in this designation. “Missing” is used when race or ethnicity is not documented in NJ Spirit and “Undetermined” is used when DCF cannot identify race or ethnicity. DCF combines these two categories due to the small numbers.

The number of children in out-of-home placement is 7,660 as of June 30, 2014, approaching numbers not seen since June 2010. (See Figure 29). The number of children receiving in-home services is 43,752 as of June 30, 2014.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 91

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 102 of 201 PageID: 7636

Figure 29: Children in Out-of-Home Placement (December 2009 – June 2014)

Number of Children

8,000 7,800

7,900

7,600

7,400

7,200

7,000

7,861

7,171

7,197

7,484 7,018

7,549

7,660

7,361

7,330

6,800 Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10 Jun-11 Dec11 Jun-12 Dec-12 Mar-13 Dec-13 Jun-14

Source: DCF data

Month

Figure 30: Children Receiving In-Home Services (December 2009 – June 2014)

50,000

Number of Children

45,000 40,000 35,000

40,115 37,054

45,867 45,389 41,121

45,037

44,925

43,814

43,752

38,037

30,000 Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10 Jun-11 Dec-11 Jun-12 Dec-12 Mar-13 Dec-13 Jun-14

Source: DCF data

Month

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 92

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 103 of 201 PageID: 7637

A. Recruitment and Licensure of Resource Family Homes
DCF’s recruitment and licensure work is designed to provide a sufficient number of familybased settings in which to appropriately place children who need to enter placement. Its focus is currently on recruiting and licensing more large capacity resource family homes and homes for adolescents and for youth who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning or Intersex (LGBTQI). The large gains the state has achieved in licensing and placing children in kinship homes creates a new challenge: since kinship homes often close once permanency is achieved through adoption, kinship legal guardianship status and reunification, DCF must focus on retention of quality homes and recruiting to more narrowly meet the specific needs of children who cannot be placed with kin.
DCF recruited and licensed 670 new kinship and non-kinship resource family homes from January to June 2014, missing its recruitment target for this period by 18 homes. Sixty-six percent of the newly licensed families were relatives of children in care.
Figure 31: Number of Licensed Resource Family Homes Compared to Statewide Target (January – June 2014) Total = 670

750
700
688 670
650

Number of Homes

600

550

500
Source: DCF data

Target

Actual

As indicated in Figure 31, 440 (66%) of the 670 newly licensed resource family homes during this monitoring period were kinship homes, up from 28 percent in 2007 and reflecting the state’s commitment to exploring kinship care as the preferred placement option. 112

112 See Table 12 for total gross and net numbers of resource family homes.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 93

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 104 of 201 PageID: 7638

Figure 32: Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes (Kinship and Non-Kinship) (January – June 2014) Total Licensed = 670 Total Kinship Licensed = 440

Number of Homes

180

160

140

120

100

94

80

60

57

40

20

0 January

Source: DCF data

81 51

106 68

136 88

120 88

February

March

April

May

Total Kinship Licensed Total Licensed

133 88
June

Table 12 shows the number of kinship and non-kinship resource family homes licensed and the number of resource family homes closed between January and June 2014. DCF reported a net loss of 172 resource family homes, the first time the state has reported more homes closed than licensed within a monitoring period since the start of the reform effort. DCF attributes this change to increased licensing of kinship resource family homes that tend to close when children achieve permanency through adoption, kinship legal guardianship or reunification. Despite the reported net loss this monitoring period, DCF reports that its capacity of resource family homes continues to exceed the rate of out of home placement needs. The Monitor will be closely monitoring recruitment and licensing to ensure that DCF maintains sufficient capacity of resource family homes, given the recent rise in out-of-home placements.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 94

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 105 of 201 PageID: 7639

Month
JANUARY FEBRUARY
MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE Jan – June 2014 Totals
Source: DCF data

Table 12: Resource Family Homes Licensed and Closed (January – June 2014)

Non-Kin Resource Homes Licensed
37
30
38
48
32
45

Kin Resource Homes Licensed
57 51 68 88 88 88

Total Resource Homes Licensed
94
81
106
136
120
133

Total Resource Homes Closed
117
130
121
185
153
136

230

440

670

842

Resource Homes Net
Gain
-23 -49 -15 -49 -33 -3
-172

As reflected in Figure 33, 43 percent of all resource family homes that were closed between January and June 2014 were due to permanency exits of the children placed, specifically reunification (18%), kinship legal guardianship (3%) or adoption (22%). Additional reasons for closing resource homes include a provider’s personal circumstances, such as the health/age of the provider (26%), a move out-of-state (4%) and lack of room for the placement (6%). Nine percent of the resource family home providers did not disclose their reasons for closing their homes. An additional 12 percent of homes were closed for other reasons: abuse or neglect (1%), death of a provider (1%), a provider’s negative experiences (2%), a provider’s dissatisfaction with CP&P and Office of Licensing (OOL) rules (5%), unmet placement expectations (1%), a provider reaching capacity limitations (1%) and violations of licensing rules (1%).
DCF is implementing several strategies to reduce resource home closures and to improve retention. Working with Rutgers University, DCF is developing tools to use with its resource families to identify areas of concern. With the assistance of Adopt Us Kids, a national organization supporting foster and adoptive families, DCF is also developing a Resource Family Retention Model for workers to use with families.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 95

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 106 of 201 PageID: 7640

Figure 33: Reasons for Resource Home Closures (January – June 2014) (n=842)

Reason for Home Closure

Provider's Health/Age/Circumstances Reunification Adoption Undisclosed
No Room for Placements Kinship Legal Guardianship
Moved out-of-state Violations
Abuse/Neglect Dissatisfied with DCPP/OOL/Contract
Provider Deceased Negative Experience with Placement
Capacity Limitations Unmet Placement Expectations

9% 6% 3% 4% 1% 1% 5% 1% 2% 1% 1%

0%

5% 10%

26% 18%
22%
15% 20% 25% 30%

Source: DCF data

Percent of Homes Closed

DCF continues to recruit and retain resource family homes by county according to a needsbased geographic analysis.
As previously reported, the state regularly conducts a geographic analysis assessing capacity of resource family homes by county in order to set county-based annual targets for recruitment (MSA Section II.H.13). These targets are based on:
 Total number of children in placement,  Total number of licensed resource family homes statewide,  Total number of sibling groups,  Average number of closed homes statewide,  Geographical location of resource family homes, and  County of origin of children who need placement.
Between January and June 2014, most counties did not meet their licensure targets; only seven out of 21 counties met or exceeded their targets for newly licensed resource family homes. Table 13 shows county performance between January and June 2014 as compared to licensure targets.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 96

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 107 of 201 PageID: 7641

DCF’s plan to change its target setting methodology in 2015 will be reported on in the next monitoring report.

Table 13: Newly Licensed Resource Family Homes Compared to County/State Targets (January – June 2014)

County

Target

Licensed

Atlantic

25

30

Burlington

35

29

Cape May

12

13

Camden

65

64

Cumberland

18

16

Gloucester

27

36

Salem

11

6

Essex

108

86

Hudson

54

48

Bergen

40

36

Hunterdon/Warren*

18

17

Mercer

20

31

Somerset

18

20

Middlesex

43

40

Morris

23

13

Sussex

12

14

Passaic

35

34

Ocean

42

63

Monmouth

42

33

Union

42

41

Totals

690

670

Source: DCF

*DCF combines Hunterdon and Warren counties for the purpose of setting targets.

Performance Against Target 5 -6 1 -1 -2 9 -5 -22 -6 -4 -1 11 2 -3 -10 2 -1 21 -9 -1 -20

DCF continues to process the majority of resource family applications within 150 days despite a demonstrated increase in time to resolution for kinship family applications (MSA Section II.H.4).
As shown in Table 14, 1,209 resource family applications were received between July 2013 to December 2013, 694 (57%) were resolved within 150 days and 808 (67%) applications were resolved within 180 days. When compared to performance in 2007 (25% of applications resolved in 150 days), DCF has sustained improvement in its efforts to reach the 150 day timeframe.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 97

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 108 of 201 PageID: 7642

Table 14: Total Number of All Resource Family Home Applications Resolved in 150 and 180 Days for Applications Submitted July 2013 through December 2013 (n=1,209)

2013 Month Applied JULY
AUGUST SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER
Total Source: DCF data

Total Applications
Number 251 230 192 194 185 157
1,209

Resolved in 150 Days

Number

Percent

152

61%

136

59%

105

55%

103

53%

116

63%

82

52%

694

57%

Resolved in 180 Days

Number

Percent

174

69%

148

64%

122

64%

124

64%

134

72%

106

68%

808

67%

DCF has previously reported that in their experience, kinship applications tend to encounter more challenges and delays than non-kinship applications. Tables 15 and 16 demonstrate that, consistent with its commitment to license relatives whenever possible, DCF receives more applications from kinship family homes than non-kinship homes and that those applications take longer to resolve than the non-kinship family home applications for reasons described in previous reports: once children are placed with relatives there is not as much incentive for relatives to conform to the rigors of the application process. During the period, for the 773 resource family home kinship applications received from July 2013 to December 2013, 386 (50%) were resolved within 150 days and 465 (60%) were resolved in 180 days. For the 436 non-kinship family home applications received during the same period, 308 (71%) of nonkinship homes were resolved in 150 days and 343 (79%) were resolved in 180 days. DCF continues to use Resource Family Impact Teams to more intensely monitor kinship applications to assist in expediting the 150 day application process.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 98

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 109 of 201 PageID: 7643

Table 15: Total Number of Kinship Family Home Applications Resolved in 150 and 180 Days for Applications Submitted July 2013 through December 2013 (n=773)

2013 Month Applied JULY
AUGUST SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER
Total Source: DCF data

Total Applications
Number 162 147 125 116 122 101
773

Resolved in 150 Days

Number

Percent

84

52%

75

51%

61

49%

55

47%

69

57%

42

42%

386

50%

Resolved in 180 Days

Number

Percent

100

62%

83

56%

71

57%

68

59%

82

67%

61

60%

465

60%

Table 16: Total Number of Non-Kinship Family Home Applications Resolved in 150 and 180 Days for Applications Submitted July 2013 through December 2013 (n=436)

2013 Month Applied JULY
AUGUST SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER
Total Source: DCF data

Total Applications
Number 89 83 67 78 63 56 436

Resolved in 150 Days

Number

Percent

68

76%

61

73%

44

66%

48

62%

47

75%

40

71%

308

71%

Resolved in 180 Days

Number

Percent

74

83%

65

78%

51

76%

56

72%

52

83%

45

80%

343

79%

Resource Family Recruitment and Retention Strategies
Organizational Improvements
DCF restructured its recruitment staff during this monitoring period; beginning in May 2014 the Office of Resource Families (ORF) began direct supervision of local recruitment staff. The expectation is that this change will yield improvements in targeted recruitment efforts and will provide ORF with a greater degree of oversight around training and professional development.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 99

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 110 of 201 PageID: 7644

Large Capacity Homes
DCF is committed to recruiting and licensing homes with capacity to accommodate large sibling groups. Foster and Adoptive Family Services113 (FAFS) assisted DCF by raising awareness of the need for homes for large sibling groups through its website and other social media outlets. DCF conducted a special project to help recruit for homes for large sibling groups from its existing pool of licensed resource homes from each Resource Family Unit; all local Resource Family Units reached out to licensed families with a capacity of four to discuss their willingness to care for large sibling groups.
The state has been using a specialized recruitment strategy to focus attention on identifying, recruiting and licensing these homes, termed “Siblings in Best Settings” or SIBS, which are defined as homes with five or more children or youth. At the end of this reporting period, DCF had 29 SIBS homes, an equivalent number of homes reported at the end of the previous reporting period; eight SIBS homes were newly licensed between January and June 2014, and eight homes left the SIBs program.114 Recruiting homes for large sibling groups continues to be a priority need.
Assistance from the National Resource Center for Recruitment and Retention of Foster and Adoptive Parents (NRCRRFAP)
DCF continued its work with the National Resource Center for Recruitment and Retention of Foster and Adoptive Parents at Adopt US Kids (NRCRRFAP) and phased in a market segmentation approach to the remaining nine counties.115 NRCRRFAP’s market segmentation approach uses a marketing research tool that helps identify households by geographic area and lifestyle characteristics that are most similar to those in which DCF is currently successful in placing children. Local recruiters were trained in the approach and how to apply it to their recruitment efforts and strategies. DCF is at the beginning stages of quantifying how the market segmentation approach has improved its overall recruitment efforts.
Staff Training and Skill Development
Resource family and licensing staff participated in training opportunities during this monitoring period, including:
 PRIDE (Parent Resources for Information, Development and Education) Presentation Skills for PRIDE Trainers—this workshop provides the basic skills for developing and delivering effective presentations.
 PRIDE Presentation Skills for Recruiters – similar to the workshop for trainers, this workshop provides basic skills for delivering effective presentations for recruiters.
113 Foster and Adoptive Family Services is an organization in New Jersey that provides supports and advocacy for foster, adoptive and kinship families. 114 Eight homes left the SIBS program: six homes downgraded from SIBS status when the children were reunited with their biological parents, one home closed and one home downgraded from SIBS status when the resource parents determined the large number of siblings was too difficult to manage. 115 Bergen, Hudson, Atlantic, Cape May, Union, Hunterdon, Somerset, Warren and Passaic.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 100

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 111 of 201 PageID: 7645

 Office of Licensing Pool Training – The Department of Community Affairs trains staff on code requirements of barriers for private swimming pools and bathing areas.
 Structured Analysis Family Evaluation (SAFE) training for practitioners who conduct SAFE training. Courses include a two day training covering the practice values of SAFE, a one day training to build or refresh interviewing skills and a course designed to train supervisors.
Resource Family In-service Training
Every resource parent is required to complete In-service training to maintain a resource family home license. The training modalities which are offered to resource parents by FAFS are: online training, home correspondence courses, county-based workshops and webinars. Between January and June 2014 1,314 resource parents took a total of 3,952 In-service courses. FAFS offers a wide variety of topics, including:
 Loss and Separation,  Post Adoption Issues,  Child Safety,  Parenting Through Puberty,  Understanding Anger in Children and Adolescents, and  Chew on This: A Guide to Diet and Nutrition.

B. Performance Measures on Placement of Children in Out-of-Home Care
For several of the outcomes related to placement of children in out-of-home care, the final targets are measured at the end of each calendar year. Consequently, the state’s performance on the following placement outcomes is not newly assessed in this report and the most recent performance is from CY 2013 outcomes.
 Performance Measure 25 – Placing Siblings Together: Of sibling groups of two or three siblings entering custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another, the percentage in which all siblings are placed together.
Final Target – For siblings entering custody in the period beginning July 2012 and thereafter, at least 80% will be placed together.
Most Recent Performance – In CY2013, of the 842 sibling groups of two or three children that came into custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another, 77% were placed together.
 Performance Measure 26 – Placing Siblings Together: Of sibling groups of four or more siblings entering custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another, the percentage in which all siblings are placed together.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 101

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 112 of 201 PageID: 7646
Final Target – For sibling groups of four or more entering in the period beginning July 2011 and thereafter, at least 40% will be placed together.
Most recent performance – In CY2013, of the 103 sibling groups that had four or more children who came into custody at the same time or within 30 days of each other, 26% were placed together.
 Performance Measure 27 – Stability of Placement: Of the number of children entering care in a period, the percentage with two or fewer placements during the 12 months beginning with the date of entry.
Final Target – By June 2009 and thereafter, at least 88% of children entering care will have two or fewer placements during the 12 months from their date of entry.
Most recent performance – For children entering care in CY2012, the most recent year for which data is available, 82% had two or fewer placements during the 12 months from their date of entry.
The state’s more recent performance will be assessed in the next monitoring report.116
The remaining performance measures in this section examine appropriateness of children and youth in placement, placement of children in most family-like setting, DCF’s compliance with limiting over-placement of children in resource homes and limiting the use of shelter as placements.

116 For performance measures 25 and 26, CY2014 data will not be available until early 2015. For performance
measure 27, data on performance for CY2013 will not be available until early 2015 as performance is measured on the stability of placement for the first 12 months of children who entered care anytime in 2013.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 102

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 113 of 201 PageID: 7647

Appropriateness of Placement

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

23. Combined Assessment of Appropriateness of Placement: Based on: a. Placement within appropriate proximity of their parents’ residence unless such placement is to otherwise help the child achieve the planning goal. b. Capacity of caregiver/placement to meet child’s needs. c. Placement selection has taken into account the location of the child’s school.

Final Target

By June 30, 2010, 90% of children will be placed in an appropriate setting.

Percentage of Case Planning

Figure 34: Cases Rated Acceptable Appropriateness of Placement (January – June 2014) (n=90)
100%
80%
96% (86)
60%
40%
20%
0% Cases Rated Acceptable
Source: DCF, QR results Reported performance based upon QR results from cases reviewed between January and June 2014.

Final Target (90%)

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
From January through June 2014, of the 120 cases reviewed using the QR protocol, 90 cases of children in out-of-home care were reviewed and were assessed for appropriateness of their placement. Eighty-six of the 90 (96%) child placements were rated acceptable, which is exceptional performance. This assessment considers the child’s needs for family relationships, connections, age, ability, special needs and peer group and whether the living arrangement is consistent with the child’s language and culture. The assessment of appropriateness of placement also considers whether the placement met the child’s needs for emotional support, supervision and socialization and addresses special and other basic needs. This is a very significant accomplishment for DCF and one that it has sustained for several years.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 103

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 114 of 201 PageID: 7648

Placing Children with Families

Quantitative or

24. Placing Children with Families: The percentage of children currently in custody

Qualitative Measure

who are placed in a family setting.

Final Target

Beginning July 2009 and thereafter, at least 85% of children will be placed in a family setting.

Figure 35: Percentage of Children Placed in a Family Setting (June 2009 – June 2014)

100%

90%

88% 88%

80% 85% 85% 86% 86% 87%

89%

89%

91%

Final Target (85%)

Percentage of Investigations

70%

60%

50%
JJuunn--0099 DDecec-0-099 JunJu-1n-010 DeDce-c1-010 JuJnu-n1-111 DDeecc--1111
Month

JuJun-n1-212 Dec-1M2 ar-1Ju3n-13 DDeecc--1133 JuJunn--1144

Source: DCF data

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
As of June 30, 2014, there were 7,660 children in CP&P out-of-home placement; 6,952 (91%) of whom were placed in resource family placements (non-kinship or kinship). The remaining 708 (9%) children/youth were placed in independent living placements (100) or group and residential facilities (608). DCF has met or exceeded the performance target for placing children in a family setting since 2009.
DCF also provides data on children’s out-of-home placement type at the time of initial placement. The most recent data are from CY2013 when a total of 4,313 children entered out-of-

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 104

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 115 of 201 PageID: 7649

home placement; 3,968 (92%) of these children were placed in family settings for their first placement or within seven days of initial placement, an important accomplishment.117

Placement Limitations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

28. Placement Limitations: Number/percent of resource homes in which a child has been placed if that placement will result in the home having more than four foster children, or more than two foster children under age two, or more than six total children including the resource family’s own children, but such limitations may be waived if needed and appropriate to allow a group of siblings to be placed together.
By June 2009, no more than 5% of resource home placements may have seven or eight total children including the resource family’s own children, but such placements may be waived if needed and appropriate to allow a group of siblings to be placed together.

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
The MSA limits how many children can be placed in a resource family home at one time: no child should be placed in a resource family home if that placement will result in the home having more than four foster children, more than two foster children under the age of two, or more than six total children including the resource family’s own children (Section III.C.1). Exceptions can be made to these limits as follows: no more than five percent of resource home placements may be made into resource homes with seven or eight total children including the resource family’s own children, but such placements can be made as long as there is adherence to the other limitations referred to above. Any of the limitations may be waived if needed and appropriate to allow a group of siblings to be placed together.
The Monitor reviews the waivers to population limits DCF has granted during each monitoring period to validate that they meet the designated capacity limitations. During this monitoring period less than one percent of resource home placements were over capacity.
The Monitor reviewed the three waivers to populations limits granted between January and June 2014 and each of these waivers were deemed appropriate. Two waivers were approved for children to be placed in homes with over four children: one for a child who was related to the resource parent and another for a child who had previously been placed in the home and returned again when reunification with family didn’t succeed. Another waiver was approved for a child to be placed in a home with six children because the resource parent’s grandchild had a baby and both were imminently scheduled to leave the home.
DCF continues to meet the MSA performance target for this outcome.

117 These data were analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 105

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 116 of 201 PageID: 7650

Limiting Inappropriate Placements

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

29. Inappropriate Placements: a. The number of children under age 13 placed in shelters. b. The number of children over age 13 placed in shelters in compliance with MSA standards on appropriate use of shelters to include: 1) an alternative to detention; 2) a short-term placement of an adolescent in crisis not to extend beyond 45 days; or 3) a basic center for homeless youth.

Final Target

a. By December 2008 and thereafter, no children under age 13 in shelters. b. By December 31, 2009, 90% of children placed in shelters in compliance with
MSA standards on appropriate use of shelters to include: 1) an alternative to detention; 2) short-term placement of an adolescent in crisis not to extend beyond 30 days; or 3) a basic center for homeless youth.

Figure 36: Percentage of Children over Age 13 Placed in Compliance with MSA Standards (June 2008 – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100% 90% 80%

89% 91% 90% 92%

98% 95%

97%

97%

97%

96%

98%

Final Target (90%)

79% 70%

60%

50%
Jun-08 Dec-08 Jun-09 Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10 Jun-11 Dec-11 Jun-12 Mar-13

Dec-13 Jun-14

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the figure.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 106

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 117 of 201 PageID: 7651

Table 17: Shelter Placements for Youth Aged 13 or Older (January 2008 – June 2014)

Jan– Jun 2008

Jul– Dec 2008

Jan– Jun 2009

Jul– Dec 2009

Jan– Jun 2010

Jul– Dec 2010

Jan– Jun 2011

Jul– Dec 2011

JanJun 2012

Jul 2012– Mar 2013

AprilDec 2013

JanJun 2014

Number of

youth 13 or

451 421 465 393 350 303 337 315 292

411

older placed in

shelters

439 256

Number of youth appropriately placed

358 375 423 352 322 287 331 305 282

400

(79%) (89%) (91%) (90%) (92%) (95%) (98%) (97%) (97%) (97%)

421 250 (96%) (98%)

Number of youth inappropriately

93 (21%)

placed

Source: DCF data

46 (11%)

42 (9%)

41 (10%)

28 (8%)

16 (5%)

6 (2%)

10 (3%)

10 (3%)

11 (3%)

18

6

(4%) (2%)

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
From January to June 2014, four children under the age of 13 were placed in a shelter.118 Although three of the four children were moved out of the shelter within one day, this is the first time since 2009 that DCF placed a child under 13 in a shelter. The MSA standard is no child and thus DCF has not met the required performance on this measure for this period.
Between January and June 2014, 256 youth ages 13 or older were placed in shelters. Of these youth, 250 (98%) youth were reported by DCF to have been placed in accordance with criteria on appropriate use of shelters. This performance exceeds the MSA final target of 90 percent.

118 No children under the age of 13 were reported placed in a shelter between January and March 2014. In April 2014 two siblings under the age of 13 were placed for one night when caregiver requested their immediate removal after an altercation at school and a placement that had been identified fell through. The next day the children were moved from the shelter and placed in separate resource treatment homes, but were reunited into the same treatment home in June 2014. Two additional children were placed in June 2014: one child by an after-hours investigator who did not verify the child’s age and the child was placed into a resource home the next day. A second child under 13 was placed in a shelter in June 2014 when the child refused to return home and DCF could not find a resource home that would meet the family court’s strict conditions of placement for the child, such as no access to the telephone or internet and no male in the home. The child was reunified by court order following a twelve day placement in the all-female setting. It should be noted that there were a total of 5,713 children under 13 in placement in this monitoring period and that three out of the four children under 13 years old placed in shelter were in shelter for one day.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 107

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 118 of 201 PageID: 7652

VII. REPEAT MALTREATMENT AND RE-ENTRY INTO CARE
The state is responsible for ensuring the safety of children who are receiving or have received services from CP&P. This responsibility includes ensuring the safety of children who are placed in resource family homes and congregate facilities. The state’s performance on MSA outcomes related to abuse and neglect of children while in foster care, repeat maltreatment and re-entry into care is not newly assessed in this report as performance is measured at the end of each calendar year; more recent performance will be assessed in the next monitoring report when these data are available.119 DCF’s most recent performance for each of these measures is bulleted below:
 Performance Measure 30 – Abuse and Neglect of Children in Foster Care: Number of children in custody in out-of-home placement who were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member during 12 month period, divided by the total number of children who have been in care at any point during the period.
Final Target – For the period beginning July 2010 and thereafter, no more than 0.49% of children will be victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent of facility staff member.
Most Recent Performance (previously reported) – In CY2013, 0.32% of children were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.
 Performance Measure 31 – Repeat Maltreatment: Of all children who remain in home after substantiation of abuse or neglect, the percentage who have another substantiation within the next 12 months.
Final Target – For the period beginning July 2009 and thereafter, no more than 7.2% of children who remain at home after a substantiation of abuse or neglect will have another substantiation within the next 12 months.
Most Recent Performance (previously reported) – For children who were victims of substantiated allegation of child maltreatment in CY2012 and remained at home, 7.6% had another substantiation within the next 12 months.
 Performance Measure 32 – Repeat Maltreatment: Of all children who are reunified during a period, the percentage who are victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within one year after the date of reunification.
Final Target – For the period beginning July 2009 and thereafter, no more than 4.8% of children who reunified will be the victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within one year after reunification.

119 In early 2015, CY2014 data for will be available for Performance Measure 30 and CY2013 data will be available for Performance Measures 31, 32 and 33.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 108

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 119 of 201 PageID: 7653
Most Recent Performance (previously reported) – In CY2012, 8.5% of children who reunified were victims of substantiated child maltreatment within one year after reunification.
 Performance Measure 33 – Re-entry to Placement: Of all children who leave custody during a period, except those whose reason for discharge is that they ran away from their placement, the percentage that re-enter custody within one year of the date of exit.
Final Target – For the period beginning July 2011 and thereafter, of all children who exit, no more than 9% will re-enter custody within one year of exit.
Most Recent Performance (previously reported) – Of all children who exited in CY2012, 13% re-entered custody within one year of exit.120
The Monitor has previously noted concern with DCF’s performance on repeat maltreatment within one year after children exit to reunification. DCF shares this concern and has been examining the issue. Information is being collected through NJ SPIRIT and local reviews of children who experienced repeat maltreatment are being conducted in order to determine common themes or practice issues and develop strategies to reduce these occurrences.

120 DCF has objected to the Monitor’s definition of “qualifying exits” used to analyze this measure. The Agency believes that due to the specific exclusion cited in the MSA, the definition of qualifying exits should only exclude children who run away from placement. The Monitor uses a definition of qualifying exits which excludes from the calculations runaways as well as children who are adopted. Based on the DCF recommended definition, of all children who exited in CY2012, 10 percent re-entered custody within one year of the date of exit.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 109

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 120 of 201 PageID: 7654
VIII. TIMELY PERMANENCY THROUGH REUNIFICATION, ADOPTION OR LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP
All children—regardless of age, gender, race or ethnicity—need and deserve a safe, nurturing family to protect and guide them. In child welfare work, this is called achieving “permanency” and can be achieved through a number of different avenues: safe family reunification is the preferred choice, but permanency also includes kinship/guardianship and adoption. As required by the MSA, the Monitor, in consultation with the parties, developed specific measures and final targets to determine whether children in custody achieve timely permanency through reunification, adoption or legal guardianship (Section III.A.2.a).
During this monitoring period, although not yet at compliance levels, DCF demonstrated improved performance in the development of child specific recruitment plans within 30 days of goal change to adoption and placement of children in adoptive homes within nine months of termination of parental rights (TPR). Performance fluctuated month to month on filing for TPR within 60 days of goal change to adoption (this may be attributable to the small number of applicable children) and performance does not meet the required target level. DCF continued to meet the MSA target on finalization of adoptions within nine months of placement in an adoptive home.
In an effort to further advance adoption practices and outcomes, on September 30, 2014 DCF was awarded a federal grant from the Administration on Children, Youth and Families to secure permanent families for children and youth who have waited over 18 months to be adopted. The program builds on existing adoption expertise within DCF and will be a collaboration with other partner agencies in New Jersey. For example, the Institute for Families at the Rutgers University School of Social Work will partner with DCF to evaluate and document project outcomes.
The state’s performance on the remaining permanency outcomes is not newly assessed in this report as final targets are measured at the end of each calendar year; more recent performance will be assessed in the next monitoring report when these data are available.121 DCF’s most recent performance for each of the MSA five permanency outcomes are bulleted below:
 Performance Measure 34.a. – Discharged to Permanency: Permanency in first 12 months: Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in the target year and who remained in foster care for eight days or longer, what percentage was discharged from foster care to permanency (reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and/or guardianship) within 12 months from their removal from home.
Final Target – Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in CY2011, 50% will have been discharged to permanency (reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and/or guardianship) within 12 months from their removal from home.

121 These data are not available until early 2015.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 110

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 121 of 201 PageID: 7655

Most Recent Performance (previously reported) – Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in CY2012, 46% discharged to permanency (reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and/or guardianship) within 12 months from their removal from home.
 Performance Measure 34.d. – Discharged to Permanency: Permanency for Children in Care between 13 and 24 months: Of all children who were in foster care on the first day of the target year and had been in care between 13 and 24 months, what percentage was discharged to permanency (through reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and guardianship) prior to their 21st birthday or by the last day of the year.
Final Target – Of all children who were in care on the first day of CY2011 and had been in care between 13 and 24 months, 47% will be discharged to permanency prior to their 21st birthday or by the last day of the year.
Most Recent Performance (previously reported) – Of all children who were in care on the first day of CY2013 and had been in care between 13 and 24 months, 46% were discharged to permanency prior to their 21st birthday or by the last day of the year.
 Performance Measure 34.e. – Discharged to Permanency: Permanency after 25 months: Of all children who were in foster care for 25 months or longer on the first day of the target year, what percentage was discharged to permanency (through reunification, permanent relative care, adoption and guardianship) prior to their 21st birthday and by the last day of the year.
Final Target – Of all children who were in foster care for 25 months or longer on the first day of CY2011, 47% will be discharged to permanency prior to their 21st birthday and by the last day of the year.
Most Recent Performance (previously reported) – Of all children who were in foster care for 25 months or longer on the first day of CY2013, 36% discharged to permanency prior to their 21st birthday and by the last day of the year.
 Performance Measure 34.b. – Adoption: Of all children who became legally free for adoption during the 12 months prior to the target year, what percentage was discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free.
Final Target – Of those children who become legally free in CY2011, 60% will be discharged to a final adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free.
Most Recent Performance (previously reported) – 74% of children who became legally free in CY2012 were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 111

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 122 of 201 PageID: 7656

 Performance Measure 34.c. – Total time to Adoption: Of all children who exited foster care to adoption in the target year, what percentage was discharged from foster care to adoption within 30 months from removal from home.
Final Target – Of those children who become legally free in CY2011, 60% will be discharged to a final adoption within 30 months from the date of becoming legally free.
Most Recent Performance (previously reported) – Of all children who exited to adoption in CY2013, 45% were discharged from foster care to adoption within 30 months from removal from home.

Finalized Adoptions

Between January 1 and June 30, 2014, DCF finalized 359 adoptions. Table 18 below shows the number of adoption finalizations by CP&P Local Office between January and June 2014. By way of comparison, in CY2013, there were a total of 1,021 adoptions finalized. As of June 30, 2014, 1,269 children in the state’s custody remained legally free for adoption. 122

Table 18: Adoption Finalizations by CP&P Local Office (January – June 2014)

Local Office
Atlantic West Cape May Bergen Central Bergen South Passaic Central Passaic North Burlington East Burlington West Mercer North Mercer South Camden Central Camden East Camden North Camden South Essex Central Essex North Essex South Newark Northeast Newark City Center Newark South Gloucester West Cumberland
Source: DCF data

Number

Finalized

Local Office

15

Salem

4

Hudson Central

5

Hudson North

10

Hudson South

10

Hudson West

11

Hunterdon

14

Somerset

6

Warren

16

Middlesex Central

2

Middlesex Coastal

12

Middlesex West

2

Monmouth North

12

Monmouth South

10

Morris East

17

Morris West

7

Sussex

5

Ocean North

14

Ocean South

18

Union Central

25

Union East

13

Union West

4

Total-359

Number Finalized
3 14
6 6 2 2 7 9 1 13 3 5 5 6 9 12 8 5 3 2 6

122 Not every legally free child is eligible to move toward adoption as some court decisions that terminate parental rights are appealed.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 112

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 123 of 201 PageID: 7657

Paralegal Support

DCF continues to provide paralegal support as required under the MSA to assist with the paperwork necessary to finalize adoptions (Section II.G.5). As of June 30, 2014, CP&P had 144 paralegal positions in the Local Offices: 140 (97%) paralegal positions were filled and three of the four vacant positions were approved for new hires to fill the vacancy. In addition, nine of the 11 paralegal positions at DCF’s central office were filled and the two vacant positions were approved to be filled.

DCF continues to contract with Children’s Home Society to provide 23 child summary writers statewide and five part-time adoption expediters who assist with adoption paperwork in counties throughout the state.

Progress Toward Adoption

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

35. Progress Toward Adoption: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption who shall have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change to adoption.
Beginning January 1, 2010, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 90% shall have a petition to terminate parental rights filed within 60 days of the date of the goal change.

Figure 37: Percentage of Children with TPR Filed within 60 Days of Goal Change to Adoption (December 2011 – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

89%
DeDc-e1c1-11

Source: DCF data

69%
Jun-12

71% 66%

Dec-12

Mar-13

Month

74%
Dec-13

68%
Jun-14

Final Target (90%)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 113

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 124 of 201 PageID: 7658

Performance as of June 30, 2014:

In June 2014, 68 percent of termination of parental rights (TPR) petitions were filed within 60 days of changing the child’s permanency goal to adoption. From January through June 2014, a monthly range of 68 to 85 percent of TPR petitions were filed within 60 days of the child’s goal change to adoption (see Table 19). Performance during this monitoring period on filing TPR petitions within 60 days of goal change to adoption does not meet the final target of 90 percent.

Table 19: TPR Filing for Children with a Permanency Goal of Adoption (January – June 2014)

Month JANUARY
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE Source: DCF data *Final Target (90%)

Number of Children with an Adoption Goal
132
88
122
119
122
136

TPR Petitions Filed within 60 Days* 104
75
89
98
95
93

% of TPRs Filed within 60
Days* 79%
85%
73%
82%
78%
68%

TPR Petitions Filed within
90 Days 113
77
92
109
100
109

% of TPRs Filed within
90 Days 86%
88%
75%
92%
82%
80%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 114

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 125 of 201 PageID: 7659

Child-Specific Adoption Recruitment

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

36. Child Specific Adoption Recruitment: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption needing recruitment who have a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the date of the goal change.

Final Target

Beginning January 1, 2010, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 90% of those for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of termination of parental rights shall have a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the date of the goal change.

Figure 38: Percentage of Child Specific Recruitment Plans Developed within 30 Days of Goal Change to Adoption (December 2010 – June 2014)

Percentage of Plans

100%

90%

80%

70%

67%

60%

50%

40% 30% 32%

20%
DeDc-e1c0-10 JJuunn--1111

63% 54% 46%

DDeecc--1111

JJuunn--1122

MDeacr--1132

67%

Final Target (90%)

37%
JDune-c1-133 Dec-13 JuJunn-1-144

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the figure.

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
DCF policy requires that a child-specific recruitment plan be developed for those children with a permanency goal of adoption for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of the change to a goal of adoption. This plan should be developed within 30 days of the change to an adoption goal.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 115

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 126 of 201 PageID: 7660

Between January and June 2014, of the 78 children requiring child-specific recruitment plans,123 52 (67%) had a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of the goal change (see Table 20). An additional 18 (23%) cases had a child-specific recruitment plan developed within 60 days and five (6%) eligible select home adoption cases had a plan developed over 60 days from the goal change. Three (4%) child-specific plans were not completed by the time the data were provided.124 Current performance demonstrates substantial improvement since the previous monitoring period in timely completion of child specific recruitment plans.
Table 20: Child Specific Recruitment Plans Developed within 30 or 60 days of Goal Change for Children without Identified Adoption Resource (January – June 2014) (n=78)

Month in which Plan was Due
JANUARY

Plan developed within 30 days
5

Plan developed within 31-60 days
2

Plan developed over 60 days
1

Pending completion*
0

FEBRUARY

4

2

2

3

MARCH

5

10

1

0

APRIL

12

1

0

0

MAY

20

1

1

0

JUNE

6

2

0

0

Total

52 (67%)

18 (23%)

5 (6%)

3 (4%)

Source: DCF data * Data are pulled on a quarterly basis and these plans were not complete at the time data were extracted.

123 Due to the small number of eligible cases per month, this measure is reported by aggregating the monthly data. 124 January through March 2014 data were extracted on 5/27/2014 and April through June 2014 data were extracted
on 8/7/2014.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 116

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 127 of 201 PageID: 7661

Placement in an Adoptive Home

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

37. Placement in an Adoptive Home: Number/percent of children with a permanency goal of adoption and for whom an adoptive home had not been identified at the time of termination are placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights.

Final Target

Beginning July 1, 2009, of the children in custody whose permanency goal is adoption, at least 75% of the children for whom an adoptive home has not been identified at the time of termination shall be placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the termination of parental rights.

Figure 39: Percentage of Children with Goal of Adoption for whom Adoptive Home
had not been identified at time of Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) who were Placed
in Adoptive Home within 9 months of TPR (June 2009 – June 2014)125

100%

Percentage of Children

80%

63%

64%

61%

60%

56% 40%

50%

50%

20%

59% 35%

62%

Final Target (75%)

24%

0%
JJuunn--0099 DDeecc--0099 JuJunn-1-100 DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111 DDeecc-1-111 JuJun-n1-212 DMeca-1r-213 JuDn-e1c3-13 Dec-13 JuJunn--1144

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the figure.

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
DCF policy and the MSA require that a child be placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the TPR. Most children are already residing in an adoptive home at the time of TPR and this

125 Due to the small number of applicable children each period, performance has varied considerably.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 117

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 128 of 201 PageID: 7662

measure focuses on those children not already in an adoptive home at the time they become legally free for adoption.
Between January and June 2014, 21 children were applicable to this measure; 13 (62%) children were placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the TPR. Performance does not meet the level required by the final target; however, although based upon a small number of applicable children, current performance demonstrates an improvement over the previous monitoring period. 126

Final Adoptive Placement

Quantitative or

38. Final Adoptive Placements: Number/percent of adoptions finalized within nine

Qualitative Measure

months of adoptive placement.

Final Target

Beginning July 1, 2009, of adoptions finalized, at least 80% shall have been finalized within nine months of adoptive placement.

Figure 40: Percentage of Adoptions Finalized within 9 months of Adoptive Placement (June 2009 – June 2014)

100%

95%

100%

80% 89%

92% 91% 96% 86%

88% 94%

97%

60%

Percentage of Adoptions

40%

20%

0%
JJuunn-0-099 DDeecc--0099 JuJnu-n1-100 DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111 DDeec-c1-111 JuJnu-n1-212 DeMc-1a2r-13Jun-D13ec-13Dec-13 JJuunn--1144

Source: DCF data

Month

Final Target (80%)

126 Between April and December 2013, 21 children were applicable to this measure; five (24%) were placed in an adoptive home within nine months of the TPR.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 118

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 129 of 201 PageID: 7663

Performance as of June 30, 2014:

In June 2014, of the 77 adoptions eligible to be finalized, 75 (97%) were finalized within nine months of the adoptive placement. Between January and June 2014, 96 to 100 percent of adoptions each month were finalized within nine months of the child’s placement in an adoptive home (see Table 21). Performance continues to exceed the final target of 80 percent.

Table 21: Adoptions Finalized within 9 months of Child’s Placement in an Adoptive Home (January – June 2014)

Month JANUARY FEBRUARY
MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE Source: DCF data

Total number eligible to be finalized 26 25 53 68 106 77

Finalized within 9 months (percent of total) 26 (100%) 24 (96%) 51 (96%) 67 (99%) 103 (97%) 75 (97%)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 119

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 130 of 201 PageID: 7664
IX. HEALTH CARE FOR CHILDREN IN OUT-OF-HOME PLACEMENT
The provision of appropriate health care services to children in DCF’s custody has been a principal focus of the MSA and the DCF’s reform agenda. Since June 2011, DCF has generally maintained or improved performance on nearly all performance measures related to health care services.127 These performance measures track DCF’s progress in ensuring that children in outof-home placement receive:
 Pre-placement medical assessments (MSA Section II.F.5);  Full medical examinations (known as Comprehensive Medical Examinations or
CMEs) (MSA Section II.B.11);  Medical examinations in compliance with Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis
and Treatment (EPSDT) guidelines;  Semi-annual dental examinations for children ages three and older (MSA Section
II.F.2);  Mental health assessments of children with suspected mental health needs (MSA
Section II.F.2);  Timely, accessible and appropriate follow-up and treatment (MSA Section II.F.2);
and  Immunizations.
This section provides updates of ongoing efforts to improve policies, staffing and access to services, which are necessary to realize and sustain positive health outcomes for children as well as information about the health care received by children in out-of-home placement.128 The delivery of a child’s medical information (through the Health Passport) to a new caregiver within five days of placement in his/her home is also assessed.
DCF regularly carries out a Health Care Case Record Review that analyzes the follow-up care children receive for concerns identified in CMEs; mental health screenings, assessments and follow-up care; and timely delivery of the health passport to resource parents. The most recent case record review includes a random sample of children in out-of-home placement who were removed between August 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014 and were in care a minimum of 60 days.

127 The notable exception is the performance measure requiring 95 percent of caregivers receive a current Health Passport within five days of a child’s placement where performance has consistently been below the final tartget. As of April 30, 2014, performance is 62 percent. 128 The Monitor has previously verified health care outcomes through a case record review. See Appendix C of
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period VI Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie – January 1 to June 30, 2009, Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy, December 22, 2009. See, http://www.cssp.org/publications/child-welfare/class-action-reform/progress-of-the-newjersey-state-department-of-children-and-families-monitoring-report-for-charlie-and-nadine-h.-v.-corzine-december2009.pdf

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 120

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 131 of 201 PageID: 7665
A. Health Care Delivery System
Child Health Units
The Child Health Units are a fundamental cornerstone of the provision of health care to children in CP&P custody. These units are in each CP&P Local Office and are staffed with a managing Clinical Nurse Coordinator, nurse Health Care Case Managers and staff assistants based on the projected number of children in out-of-home placement. A regional nurse administrator supervises local units for a particular region (aligned with the Area Offices). DCF worked with University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey’s School of Nursing’s François-Xavier Bagnoud Center (FXB)129 and CP&P Local Offices to build these units. As part of their duties, these staff members are responsible for tracking and advocating for the health needs of children who enter into out-of-home care. Since the creation of health care units and assignment of nurses to children in out-of-home care, DCF has achieved and sustained substantial results.
The Child Health Units are operational in all CP&P Local Offices. DCF reports that as of June 2014, staffing goals of the Child Health Units allow for 236 nurses and nurse supervisors and 100 support staff. DCF reports that each Local Office is generally fully staffed. Every child in a resource home continues to have a nurse assigned for health care management.

129 As of July 1, 2013, the University of Medicine and Dentistry merged with Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. The UMDNJ-School of Nursing is now Rutgers School of Nursing.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 121

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 132 of 201 PageID: 7666

B. Health Care Performance Measures Pre-Placement Medical Assessment

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

39. Pre-Placement Medical Assessment: Number/percent of children receiving pre-
placement medical assessment in a non-emergency room setting or other setting appropriate to the situation.130

Final Target

By December 31, 2009, 98% of children will receive a pre-placement assessment either in a non-emergency room setting, or in an emergency room setting if the child needed emergency medical attention or the child was already in the emergency room when CP&P received the referral.

Figure 41: Percentage of Children who Received Pre-Placement Assessment in a Non-Emergency Room Setting or Other Settings Appropriate to the Situation
(June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100%

98% 98% 98% 99% 99% 99%

99%

90% 92%

80%

99% 99%

70%

60%

50%
JuJnu-0n9-09 DeDc-e0c9-09 JuJnu-1n0-10 DeDce-1c0-10 JuJnu-n11-11 DDece-c1-111 JJuunn--1122 DecM-1a2r-13Jun-13 DDece-c1-133 JunJu-1n4-14

Final Target (98%)

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the figure.

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
All children entering out-of-home care are required to have a pre-placement assessment and the vast majority of these assessments should be in a non-emergency room setting (MSA Section II.F.5). Child Health Unit nurses, clinics and sometimes the child’s own pediatrician provide these assessments.

130 By agreement of the parties, this measure has been redrafted to combine the percentage of PPAs in a non-ER setting and those PPAs conducted in an ER that are appropriate based on the presenting medical needs of the child/youth or because the child/youth was already in the ER when CP&P received the referral.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 122

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 133 of 201 PageID: 7667
From January through June 2014, 2,622 children entered out-of-home placement and 2,619 (100%)131 of them received a pre-placement assessment (PPA). Of those 2,619 children, 2,223 (85%) received the PPA in a non-emergency room setting. Three hundred and ninety-six (15%) received a PPA in an emergency room setting. During this period, DCF conducted an internal review of all 396 PPAs that occurred in an emergency room and determined that 375 were appropriate for the situation; that is, the child needed emergency medical attention or the child was already in the emergency room when CP&P received the referral.132 Thus, 99 percent of children received a PPA in a setting appropriate to the situation—85 percent received PPAs in a non-ER setting and an additional 14 percent appropriately received a PPA in an ER setting.133 DCF continues to meet the MSA standard regarding appropriate settings for PPAs.

131 Percentage is 100 due to rounding. 132 In monitoring Period XII, the Monitor reviewed back-up data provided by DCF regarding the PPAs occurring in an emergency room setting and agreed with DCF determinations regarding appropriate or inappropriate use of the
ER for PPAs. In addition, the Monitor’s previous Health Care Case Record Review found that many of the PPAs occurring in an ER were because the child had an injury requiring ER treatment or had been brought to the ER by
the police or other service provider. 133 Of 2,619 children receiving PPAs, 2,223 (85%) were in a nonemergency room setting and 375 (14%) were appropriately seen in an ER. In addition, for 21 of the 396 children who had their PPA in an ER setting, DCF’s
internal review found no evidence to support that the PPA taking place in the ER was appropriate. Thus, less than
one percent of children received their PPA in an inappropriate setting.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 123

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 134 of 201 PageID: 7668

Initial Medical Examinations

Quantitative or

40. Initial Medical Examinations: Number/percent of children entering out-of-home

Qualitative Measure

care receiving full medical examinations within 60 days.

Final Target

By January 1, 2009 and thereafter, at least 85% of children shall receive full medical examinations within 30 days of entering out-of-home care and at least 98% within 60 days.

Figure 42: Percentage of Children with Comprehensive Medical Examination (CME) within 30 days of Entering Out-of-Home Care (December 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100%

90%

88%

80% 84%

78%

80%

87% 82%

85%

85%

84%

Final Target (85%)

70%

60%

50%
DeDc-e0c9-09 JuJun-n1-010 DeDce-1c0-10 JJuunn-1-111 DDece-c1-111 JuJnu-n1-212 Dec-1M2 ar-1J3un-13 DeDce-c1-313 JunJu-1n4-14
Month
Source: DCF data Data in this figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the figure.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 124

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 135 of 201 PageID: 7669

Figure 43: Percentage of Children with Comprehensive Medical Examination (CME) within First 60 days of Placement (June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100% 90% 80% 70%

91%

87%

84%

83%

83%

98%

96%

90%

60%

50%
Jun-09 Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10 Jun-11 Dec-11 Jun-12 Month

Mar-13

Dec-13 Jun-14

Source: DCF data Data in this figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the figure.

Final Target (98%)

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
Children entering out-of-home placement must receive a comprehensive medical examination (CME) within 60 days of entering placement (MSA Section II.F.2.ii). A CME involves a comprehensive physical, including a developmental history and evaluation, and an initial mental health screening.134 Mental health screenings determine if a child has a suspected mental health need.135 If a child is suspected to have a mental health need, a full mental health evaluation is then expected to be conducted.
DCF sustained performance ensuring that 84 percent of children136 received a CME within the first 30 days of placement and 97 percent of children received a CME within the first 60 days.

134Another type of CME is the Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children (CHEC) model which requires a three part examination: medical, neurodevelopmental and mental health assessments and can only be administered by a limited number of medical providers in New Jersey. 135 In addition to the expectation that mental health screenings occur as part of the CME, DCF directs Health Care
Case Managers to conduct mental health screenings with children in out-of-home placements who are age two and above and not already receiving mental health services. Health Care Case Managers conduct these screenings within the first two weeks of a child’s placement. 136 Monitor considers performance met if it is within one percentage point of final target. Final target for this measure is that 85% of children receive a CME within the first 30 days of placement.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 125

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 136 of 201 PageID: 7670

Data from January through June 2014 show that 2,201 children required a CME; 1,844 (84%) received a CME within the first 30 days of placement (see Table 22). An additional 301 (14%) children received their CME between 31-60 days of placement. Table 22 shows the monthly performance.
Table 22: Comprehensive Medical Examinations within 30 and 60 days of Entering DCF Custody (January – June 2014)

Comprehensive Medical Examinations Data January- June 2014

JANUARY

Total

Total

Total

Children Completed

Completed

Completed

requiring within 30

within 31-

within 0-

CME

days

%

60 days

%

60 days

391

314

80%

65

17%

379

FEBRUARY

339

298

88%

36

11%

334

MARCH

399

344

86%

46

12%

390

APRIL

370

301

81%

58

16%

359

MAY

370

308

83%

54

15%

362

JUNE

332

279

84%

42

13%

321

Total

2,201

1,844

84%

301

Source: Data produced by the Office of Child and Family Health

14% 2,145

% 97% 99% 98% 97% 98% 97% 97%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 126

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 137 of 201 PageID: 7671

Required Medical Examinations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

41. Required Medical Examinations: Number/percent of children in care for one year or more who received medical examinations in compliance with EPSDT guidelines.

Final Target

By June 2010, 98% of children in care for one year or more will receive medical examinations in compliance with EPSDT guidelines.

Figure 44: Percentage of Children Ages 12-24 months Up-to-Date on EPSDT Visits (June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100%

90% 94% 92% 92% 93% 92% 92% 91%

93%

92%

89%

80%

70%

60%

50%
JJuunn-0-099 DDece-c0-909 JunJ-u1n0-10DeDc-e1c0-10JuJnu-1n1-11 DeDc-e1c1-11JunJ-1u2n-12Dec-1M2ar-1Ju3n-13 DeDce-c1-313 JuJunn--1144 Month

Final Target (98%)

Source: DCF data Data in this figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the figure.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 127

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 138 of 201 PageID: 7672

Figure 45: Percentage of Children older than 2 years Up-to-Date on EPSDT Visits (June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100%

90% 94% 93% 94%

95% 94%

93%

93%

93%

92% 91%

80%

70%

60%

50%
JuJun-n0-909 DDece-0c9-09 JuJnu-n1-010 DDece-c1-010 JJuunn-1-111 DDeecc--1111 JJuunn--1122 Dec-M12ar-1J3un-13 DeDc-e1c-313 JunJu-1n-414

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the figure.

Final Target (98%)

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
Between January through June 2014, 89 percent of children 12 to 24 months old received the required Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) well-child examinations (see Figure 44 and Table 23). Ninety-one percent of children age two and above also received the required EPSDT well-child examinations (see Figure 45 and Table 24). This performance is a slight decline as compared to previous monitoring periods and is below the MSA final target of 98 percent of children in care for one year or more receiving timely EPSDT well-child examinations.137 However, this slight decline does not negate the sustained access to medical care that children in out-of-home placement are able to receive in the state of New Jersey. The Monitor continues to assess compliance with this performance measure as partially met.
NJ SPIRIT and SafeMeasures provide reports on when a child receives an EPSDT examination, but neither have the ability to determine whether or not a child is clinically up-to-date with these exams. A child may be noted in NJ SPIRIT as not up-to-date if at the EPSDT visit the child was sick (children must be well for such visits to be considered EPSDT visits) or the visit was missed, but rescheduled within a close time period. Also, especially notable for younger children, once a child is off schedule, they will remain off schedule within DCF’s data system for all subsequent EPSDT exams. Therefore, in an effort to determine the actual receipt of an
137 As the measure involves children in out-of-home placement for one year or more, performance for children under the age of 12 months is not measured by the Monitor.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 128

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 139 of 201 PageID: 7673

EPSDT exam, DCF conducted a secondary review of all the records of children noted as “not
current with their EPSDT exams” and found more children were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT exam than reported in NJ SPIRIT and SafeMeasures.138

Table 23: EPSDT for Children Ages 12-24 months (January – June 2014)

Month JANUARY

Children Requiring EPSDT
49

Children Up-to-Date
42

FEBRUARY

38

36

MARCH

51

43

APRIL

30

27

MAY

38

32

JUNE

47

44

Total

253

224

Source: DCF data produced by Child Health Program

% Children Up-to-Date
85% 95%
84% 90%
84% 94%
89%

Table 24: EPSDT Annual Medical Exams for Children Age 25 months and older (January – June 2014)

Month JANUARY FEBRUARY
MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE Total Source: DCF data

Total Due 197 199 273 198 258 236 1361

Annual Exam Completed

174

88%

185

93%

238

87%

186

94%

239

93%

218

92%

1240

91%

Annual Exam Not Completed

23

12%

14

7%

35

13%

12

6%

19

7%

18

8%

121

9%

138 The Monitor did not review the back-up data this monitoring period but has confidence in the review as the Monitor has previously examined the back-up data of this secondary review for children age 12 to 24 months and found DCF’s secondary review adequate to determine if children in the age range were clinically up-to-date on their EPSDT exam.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 129

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 140 of 201 PageID: 7674

Semi-Annual Dental Examinations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

42. Semi-Annual Dental Examinations: Number/percent of children ages three and older in care six months or more who received semi-annual dental examinations.
a. By December 2011, 98% of children will receive annual dental examinations. b. By December 2011, 90% of children will receive semi-annual dental
examinations.

Figure 46: Percentage of Children Current with Semi-Annual Dental Exams (June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100%

90%

80%

85% 86% 89% 87% 86%

80%

70%

60% 64%

85%

84%

83%

Final Target (90%)

50%
JuJnu-n09-09 DDece-c0-909 JuJnu-n10-10 DDece-1c0-10 JuJnu-n11-11 DeDc-e1c1-11 JunJ-u1n2-12 Dec-M12ar-1J3un-13 DeDc-e1c3-13 JuJnu-n1-414

Source: DCF data

Month

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
As of June 30, 2014, 83 percent of children age three or older who have been in care for at least six months had evidence of receiving a semi-annual dental exam (within the last six months) and 98 percent of these children had at least an annual exam completed. DCF’s performance remains similar to the previous three monitoring periods. The Monitor continues to consider DCF to have partially fulfilled this performance measure.
As of June 30, 2014, DCF reports that there were 4,343 children age three and older who had been in CP&P out-of-home placement for at least six month; 3,605 (83%) had received a dental examination within the previous six months and an additional 647 (15%) had received an annual dental examination, thus there was evidence that 98 percent of children aged three and older had at least an annual dental examination. From January through June 2014, monthly performance on current semi-annual dental examinations ranged from 82 to 84 percent.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 130

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 141 of 201 PageID: 7675

Follow-up Care and Treatment

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

43. Follow-up Care and Treatment: Number/percent of children who received timely accessible and appropriate follow-up care and treatment to meet health care and mental health needs.

Final Target

By June 2011, 90% of children will receive follow-up care and treatment to meet health care and mental health needs.

Figure 47: Percentage of Children Who Received Follow-up Care for Needs Identified in CME (June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100%

90%

94% 94%

96%

93% 90%

93%

80% 80%

70%

95%

94% 95%

Final Target (90%)

60%

50%
JJuunn-0-099 DDeecc--0099 JJuunn--1100 DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111 DDeecc--1111 JJuunn--1122 DMec-a1r2-13 Jun-13DecD-1e3c-1J3un-1J4un-14

Month
Source: DCF data, Health Care Case Record Reviews, Child Health Program Data in this figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the figure. Data for June 2014 represents performance for children in out-of-home placement who were removed between August 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days.

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
The data on health care follow-up is based on DCF’s internal Health Care Case Record review of a random sample of children in out-of-home placement who were removed between August 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. Based on multiple assessments by the Monitor of DCF’s Health Care Case Record review and the results of the statewide Qualitative Review, the Monitor believes that the medical follow-up care and

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 131

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 142 of 201 PageID: 7676

treatment of children is accurately measured through DCF’s internal Health Care Case Record review.139
DCF reports that of those children identified as needing follow-up care after their CME, 94 percent received the recommended follow-up care. As stated previously, mental health screenings are not routinely documented as part of the CME, but Health Care Case Managers help to ensure that children in out-of-home placement receive needed mental health services. Therefore, the Monitor considers these follow-up care data with the caveat that mental health needs requiring follow-up may not have been fully identified or documented as part of the CME for some children.140
Table 25: Provision of Required Follow-up Medical Care (June 30, 2014) (n=362) 141

No CME data in record CME Records

#

%

0

0%

362

100%

No follow-up care needed

18

5%

Follow-up care required

344

95%

 Received follow-up

323

94%

 No evidence in record

21

6%

Source: DCF, Health Care Case Record Review, Child Health Unit

139 The Monitor did not independently verify the findings of DCF’s Health Care Case Record Review during this
Monitoring Period. However, the Monitor did review the protocol and observe a day of the review. The methodology and analysis remain comparable to the Health Care Case Record review conducted by the Monitor in
spring 2009. 140 The Monitor thus looks to Performance Measure 46 to measure whether children and youth receive mental health
screenings, and whether those with a suspected mental health need receive assessments. 141 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record review in order to report on this measure. The Review examined records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between August 1,
2013 and April 30, 2014 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 3,023 children comprise this cohort and a
sample of 362 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 percent margin of error with 95 percent confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 132

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 143 of 201 PageID: 7677

Immunizations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

44. Immunization: Children in DCF custody are current with immunizations.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 98% of children in custody will be current with immunizations.

Figure 48: Percentage of Children in Custody Current with Immunizations (June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Children

100%

Final Target

90%

90% 93%

95% 97%

96%

95%

95%

94%

95%

(98%)

80% 86%

70%

60%

50%
JuJnu-n09-09 DeDc-e0c9-09 JuJnu-1n0-10 DeDc-e1c0-10 JunJ-u1n1-11 DeDc-1e1c-11JunJ-1u2n-12Dec-1M2 ar-1Ju3n-13 DeDc-e1c3-13 JunJu-1n-414

Month
Source: DCF data Data in this figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the last quarter of the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the figure. Data for June 2014 represents performance from April through June 2014.

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
From April through June 2014, of the 6,947 children in out-of-home placement, 6,579 (95%) were current with their immunizations, below the performance requirement of 98 percent. Performance on this measure has varied only two percentage points since December 2011. While not meeting the MSA final target, this performance represents sustained and positive results in ensuring that children are current with their immunizations. Thus, the Monitor deems this MSA requirement as partially fulfilled.142

142 New Jersey’s performance on child immunizations exceeds the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s goal for the nation that states achieve immunizations rates of 90 percent for children. Further, DCF’s performance on immunization rates for children in out-of-home placement is similar to rates of immunization for all of New Jersey’s children (grades pre K-6) in public schools.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 133

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 144 of 201 PageID: 7678

Health Passports

Quantitative or

45. Health Passports: Children’s parents/caregivers receive current Health Passport

Qualitative Measure

within five days of a child’s placement.143

Final Target

By June 30, 2011, 95% of caregivers will receive a current Health Passport within five days of a child’s placement.

Figure 49: Percentage of Caregivers who Received Health Passports within 5 days of Child’s Placement (December 2009 – June 2014)

100%

80%

Percentage of Caregivers

60%
40% 20% 28% 32% 30%

63% 58%
50%

63%

65%

62%

0%
Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10 Jun-11

Dec-11

Jun-12

Mar-13

Dec-13 Jun-14

Month
Source: DCF Health Care Case Record Review Data in this figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the figure. Data for June 2014 represents performance for children in out-of-home placement who were removed between August 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days.

Final Target (95%)

143 Parties are determining if a more effective measure can be designed that assesses when meaningful medical information of children can reasonably be shared with their caregivers.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 134

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 145 of 201 PageID: 7679

Figure 50: Percentage of Caregivers who Received Health Passports within 30 days of Child’s Placement (December 2009 – June 2014)

100% 80% 60% 68% 68% 68%

96% 92% 92%

96%

98% 98%

Final Target (95%)

Percentage of Caregivers

40%

20%

0%
Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10

Jun-11 Dec-11
Month

Jun-12

Mar-13

Dec-13 Jun-14

Source: DCF Health Care Case Record Review Data in this figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the figure. Data for June 2014 represents performance for children in out-of-home placement who were removed between August 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days.

Table 26: Health Passport: Presence in the Record, Evidence of Sharing Records (June 30, 2014) (n=362) 144

Health Passport was present in the record Health Passport in record shared with provider
Evidence of being shared with resource providers
 Within 5 days  Between 6- 10 days  Between 11- 30 days  More than 30 days Source: DCF, Health Care Case Record Review

#

%

362

100%

362

100%

226

62%

89

25%

40

11%

7

2%

144 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record review in order to report on this measure. The Review examined records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between August 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 3,023 children comprise this cohort and a sample of 362 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 percent margin of error with a 95 percent confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 135

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 146 of 201 PageID: 7680
Performance as of June 30, 2014:
Under the MSA, all children entering out-of-home care are expected to have a Health Passport created for them (Section II.F.8). This Health Passport records all relevant health history and current health status of the child and should be regularly updated and made available to resource parents, children (if old enough) and their parents.
Based on DCF’s internal Health Care Case Record Review of 362 cases, there is evidence that Health Passports are shared with the child’s caregiver within the first five days of placement in 62 percent of cases (see Table 26) which does not meet the MSA final target. However, within 30 days of the placement, DCF data show the Health Passport has been shared with 98 percent of caregivers, consistent with performance from the last two monitoring period.
The Health Passport organizes health information from a range of sources including any findings of the PPA. DCF policy requires that the Health Care Case Manager complete the Health Passport, which is maintained by the CP&P Local Office Child Health Unit, and provide it to the resource parent within 72 hours of the child’s placement. This is a more stringent policy than the MSA requirement that the Health Passport be conveyed to the child’s caregiver within five days. However, DCF continues to be unable to consistently meet its internal timeframe or the five day requirement set in the MSA. Further, evidence suggests that Health Passports produced within 72 hours, or even five days, frequently cannot contain meaningful medical information. The Monitor and parties have met to discuss this measure and consider whether a more effective measure can be designed that assesses how and in what timeframes meaningful medical information about children can reasonably be collected and timely shared with their caregivers. No agreement has been reached as of this time.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 136

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 147 of 201 PageID: 7681
X. MENTAL HEALTH CARE
DCF continues to work on improving its mental health delivery system by expanding the services and supports under the Division of Children’s System of Care. DCF also has maintained performance meeting the MSA performance measures requiring that children receive timely mental health assessments and children and youth received appropriate, evidence-based mental health services to prevent their entry into CP&P custody.
A. Mental Health Delivery System
DCF’s Division of Children's System of Care (CSOC) serves children and adolescents with emotional, behavioral health, developmental and intellectual disabilities and co-occurring conditions. Beginning in 2012, the provision of services to children with developmental and intellectual disabilities, formerly under the purview of the Department of Human Services (DHS), transitioned to CSOC. DCF reports an increased use in case management services in part due to the long-term impact of Super Storm Sandy and the expansion of services to youth with the dual diagnosis of developmental and intellectual disabilities and youth with co-occurring substance abuse challenges.
In October 2012 New Jersey received approval from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for a Comprehensive Medicaid Waiver focused, in part, on increasing supports for children and youth who have a risk of hospital level care (children/youth considered to be seriously emotionally disturbed). This waiver has two pilot programs—one that focuses on children and youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD pilot) and one that focuses on increasing services for youth with a developmental disability and a behavioral health concern (DD/MI pilot). The ASD pilot has rolled out and now Applied Behavioral Analysis, an evidenced based practice for youth with Autism, is available for 200 youth receiving Medicaid. The DD/MI pilot is intended to provide 200 individuals with care management and intensive inhome services. DCF reports still working on several components of this pilot.
The number of children placed out-of-state for treatment remains low.
DCF continues to be successful in minimizing the number of children in CP&P custody placed in out-of-state congregate care settings. (MSA Section II.D.2). As of June 30, 2014, there were three youth in out-of-state residential placements. All three youth were in a specialized program for the deaf or hard of hearing. DCF worked collaboratively with the state’s Department of Education, primarily with staff of New Jersey’s Marie H. Katzenbach School for the Deaf, to develop an in-state program to provide residential mental health treatment for five to eight youth. Program services will be provided by St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center. DCF reports that during the monitoring period the facility underwent updates and renovations. In November 2014, renovations were completed and the facility was licensed. As of late-December 2014, DCF reports that two of the three youth have been relocated to the new program.
Figure 51 shows the number of children placed out-of-state from June 2011 to June 2014.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 137

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 148 of 201 PageID: 7682

Figure 51: Children in Out-of-State Placement (June 2011 – June 2014)

20

Number of Children

15 13 13

9999

10 5

7

6

6

6

5

5

5

5

4

3

3

0
Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 Jul-12 Mar-13 Dec-13 Jun-14
Month Source: DCF data, CSOC (as of the first day of each month)

Youth in detention, in CP&P custody and awaiting CSOC placement are moved from detention in a timely manner.
The MSA requires that no youth in CP&P custody should wait longer than 30 days in a detention facility post-disposition for an appropriate placement (Section II.D.5). From January through June 2014, three girls in CP&P custody, ages 14 to 17, were in juvenile detention awaiting a CSOC placement following disposition of their delinquency case. One youth transitioned from detention within 15 days after disposition. The remaining two girls transitioned between 16 and 30 days following disposition of their case, thereby meeting the MSA requirement.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 138

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 149 of 201 PageID: 7683

B. Mental Health Performance Measures Mental Health Assessments

Quantitative or

46. Mental Health Assessments: Number/percent of children with a suspected mental

Qualitative Measure

health need who receive mental health assessments.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 90% of children with a suspected mental health need will receive a mental health assessment.

Figure 52: Percentage of Children with Suspected Mental Health Needs who Received Mental Health Assessment
(December 2009 – June 2014)

100%

90%

91%

80% 89%

94%

94%

90%

92%

90%

93%

94%

Final Target (90%)

Percentage of Children

70%

60%

50%
DDece-c0-099 JJuunn--1100

DDeecc--1100

JJuunn-1-111 DDece-c1-111

JJuunn--1122

Month

Dec-M12ar-13Jun-13 DeDce-c1-313 JJuunn--1144

Source: DCF data Data in this figure are not point in time for the month but represent performance over the monitoring period which ends in the month indicated in the figure. Data for June 2014 represents performance for children in out-of-home placement who were removed between August 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days.

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
DCF’s internal Health Care Case Record Review found that 99 percent of eligible children and youth received the required mental health screening.145 Eligible children are over the age of two and not already receiving mental health services. As shown in Table 27, as a result of the screening, a total of 94 children in the sample required a mental health assessment.

145 The Monitor did not independently verify the findings of DCF’s Health Care Case Record Review. However, the Monitor did review the protocol, observe a day of the review and discuss the methodology with DCF staff. The methodology and analysis are comparable to the Health Care Case Record review conducted by the Monitor in spring 2009.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 139

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 150 of 201 PageID: 7684
DCF reports that 94 percent (88) of those 94 children identified as needing a mental health assessment received one by the time of the record review. Performance met the MSA performance requirement.
The data also show that of the 88 youth receiving a mental health assessment, 77 percent (68) were completed in the first 30 days of out-of-home placement and another 13 percent (11) were completed in 60 days.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 140

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 151 of 201 PageID: 7685

Table 27: Mental Health Screening and Assessments for Children Age 2 and older as of June 30, 2014 (n=362) 146

MH Screening

Not reviewed already receiving services (57) or under the age of two (109)

166

Children eligible for screening

196

TOTAL RECORDS REVIEWED

362

46% 54% 100%

Children eligible screened Children eligible not screened TOTAL CHILDREN ELIGIBLE FOR SCREENING

194

99%

2

1%

196

100%

Suspected MH need identified

85

Youth already receiving services were identified as needing an assessment

9*

TOTAL REQUIRING MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENTS

94

MH Assessment

88 MH assessment completed

MH assessment scheduled

1

MH assessment not completed/not scheduled

5

TOTAL

94

MH Assessment Completion Timeline

MH assessment complete w/in 30 days

68

MH assessment complete w/in 60 days

11

Greater than 60 days

6

Unable to determine

3

TOTAL

88

Recommendations made in MH Assessment

Recommendation Made

84

No Recommendation Made

4

TOTAL

88

Treatment Provided/Evidence in the Record

All Recommended Treatment Provided

53

Some Recommended Treatment Provided

17

Recommended Treatment Not Provided

14

TOTAL

84

Source: DCF data, Health Care Case Record Review *9 of the 57 children already receiving mental health services

43%
94%
1% 65 100%
77% 13%
7% 3% 100%
95% 5%
100%
63% 20% 17% 100%

146 DCF conducted a Health Care Case Record review in order to report on this measure. The Review examines records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between August 1, 2013 and April 30, 2014 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 3,023 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 362 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 percent margin of error with a 95 percent confidence.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 141

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 152 of 201 PageID: 7686

Provision of In-Home and Community-Based Mental Health Services for Children and Their Families

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

47. Provision of in-home and community-based mental health services for children and their families: CSOC shall continue to support activities of CMOs, YCMs, FSOs, Mobile Response, evidence-based therapies such as MST and FFT and crisis stabilization services to assist children and youth and their families involved with CP&P and to prevent children and youth from entering CP&P custody.
Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
Section II.C.2 of the MSA requires the state to have a Medicaid rate structure to reimburse evidence-based, informed or support practices such as Functional Family Therapy (FFT) and Multi-Systemic Therapy (MST). FFT continues to be available in seven counties: Atlantic, Cape May, Burlington, Ocean, Cumberland, Gloucester and Salem. For the last quarter of the monitoring period, each program’s average census was 81 percent of the program’s capacity, a five percent increase since the last monitoring period. MST continues to be available in three counties: Camden, Essex and Hudson. The MST provider for Essex and Hudson counties operated below capacity – averaging 43 percent monthly census, however, this performance represents a 10 percent increase over last monitoring period.
The FFT and MST programs averaged approximately 15 successful discharges per month during the monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 142

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 153 of 201 PageID: 7687

XI. SERVICES TO PREVENT ENTRY INTO FOSTER CARE AND TO SUPPORT REUNIFICATION AND PERMANENCY
Continued Support for Family Success Centers

Quantitative or

48. Continued Support for Family Success Centers: DCF shall continue to support a

Qualitative Measure

statewide network of Family Success Centers.

Final Target

Ongoing Monitoring of Compliance

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
New Jersey began developing a network of Family Success Centers (FSCs) in 2007, initially with 21 centers. Now, in its seventh year, New Jersey has a total of 52 FSCs, at least one in each of the 21 counties.
FSCs are neighborhood-based places where any community resident can access family support, information and services, and specialized supports that tend to vary depending on the needs and desires of the community in which they are located. Their function is to provide resources and supports before families fall into crisis. FSCs are situated in many types of settings: storefronts, houses, schools, houses of worship and public housing. Services, which are available to any family free of charge, range from life skills training, parent and child activities, advocacy, parent education and housing related activities.
Since Superstorm Sandy in October 2012, New Jersey’s FSCs have become gateways to reach families in the counties that were hit the hardest by the storm. FSCs now offer day to day support and a place to build and restore community. With the addition of post Sandy federal support, DCF’s Office of Family Support Services (OFSS) has provided additional funding to some FSCs in the areas of highest need to offer psychosocial and family strengthening events and community building activities.147
Between January and June 2014, DCF’s OFSS funded the opening of Oceanside FSC in Atlantic City, one of the areas most severely affected by the storm. Oceanside FSC, which became operational in July 2014, is an example of one of the centers that offers individuals and families enhanced services, including those mentioned above.
DCF collects data on the number of individuals and families served by the FSCs. Table 28 shows the unduplicated number of people served by New Jersey’s FSCs from January to June 2014. Table 29 shows the contracted services provided by FSCs statewide to people between January and June 2014. General information and referral and linkage to other services is the most frequently used service, followed by services related to life skills and advocacy.

147 OFSS provided additional funding to Atlantic, Bergen, Cape May, Cumberland, Essex, Hudson, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean and Union counties.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 143

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 154 of 201 PageID: 7688

Table 28: Unduplicated Number of Participants Served by New Jersey’s FSCs (January – June 2014)*

2014

January February March

April

May

June

FSC Unduplicated Number of Participants Served

5,266

4,699

5,230

6,154

3,822

3,661

Source: DCF data *Unduplicated refers only to the number of participants served within each month and not the services received, so a person can access more than one service more than one time.

Table 29: Number of Contracted Services Provided by FSCs Statewide between January and June 2014

Contracted Service Family Health Parent Education/Parent-Child Activity Employment Related Housing Related Life Skills Advocacy Family Success Plans General I&R/Linkage
Total Services
Source: DCF data

January 886
687
839 776 1,564 1,130 434 4,247 10,563

February 1,018

2014

March

April

1,122

984

735

717

1,249

787 661 1,385 1,074 296 3,790
9,746

918 706 1,299 1,259 300 4,291
10,612

818 587 1,336 1,392 301 4,531
11,198

May 907
971
956 716 1,514 1,284 458 4,414 11,220

June 650
965
930 811 1,028 1,315 234 3,928 9,861

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 144

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 155 of 201 PageID: 7689
XII. SERVICES TO OLDER YOUTH
During Phase I of the MSA, DCF created and promoted policies to provide continued support and services to youth aged 18 to 21. Beginning in CY2013 and continuing throughout this monitoring period, DCF has been updating policies and practices to provide appropriate guidance to workers and other staff to support well-being and permanency for youth while involved with DCF as well as to achieve better outcomes for youth after they exit care.
Discussed below are new developments and updates to current practices and strategies utilized by DCF to provide services for older youth in the following areas: housing; education; employment; financial literacy; health care; expectant and parenting youth; LGBTQI services; and increasing staff skills. Following the practice updates, progress toward the Phase II performance measures is provided.
A. Updates to Current Practices
Housing
During this monitoring period, DCF contracted for 390 transitional and supported housing slots for older youth who are seeking housing, aging out of care or are homeless; 385 of these slots were used during the monitoring period (see Table 30). The Office of Adolescent Services (OAS) reports that data are being collected across the state related to youth housing needs in order to plan and make necessary adjustments to existing housing programs. OAS is continuing to work with providers listed on the Adolescent Housing Hub (AHH), a real-time automated housing slot tracking and referral system, to determine how to strengthen use of the system. In May 2014, three AHH provider focus groups were conducted to identify strategies to improve utilization of this system.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 145

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 156 of 201 PageID: 7690

Table 30: Youth Transitional and Supported Housing as of June 30, 2014

County Atlantic Bergen
Burlington Camden Cape May

Contracted Slots 6
16
31 31 12

Essex

57

Gloucester

30

Hudson

25

Mercer

14

Middlesex

12

Monmouth

19

Morris

5

Ocean

8

Passaic

19

Salem

16

Somerset

15

Union

66

Warren

8

Total

390

Source: DCF data

Operational Slots 6 16
31 34 12
55
30 25
14
12
19 5 8 19 10
15
66 8 385

Providers
Twin Oaks Bergen County Community Action Program Volunteers of America Crossroads Garden State Homes The Children’s Home of Burlington County Center For Family Services CAPE Counseling Center for Family Services Care Plus (Strive for Independence I) Care Plus (Strive for Independence II) Corinthian Homes (Youth Build) Covenant House Covenant House Tri-City Peoples Robin’s Nest Inc. Catholic Charities Diocese of Newark (Strong Futures) Volunteers of America Anchorage Anchorline Lifeties
Garden State Homes
Middlesex Interfaith Partners with the Homeless (MIPH) Catholic Charities Diocese of Trenton Collier Services IEP Plaid House - Thenen House Ocean Harbor House NJ Development Corporation (Ind House/Marion) Ranch Hope (Hills) Robin’s Nest, Inc. Somerset Home for Temporarily Displaced Children Somerset Home for Temporarily Displaced Children Somerset Home for Temporarily Displaced Children Community Access Unlimited Volunteers of America Catholic Charities Diocese of Metuchen

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 146

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 157 of 201 PageID: 7691
Education
DCF has developed and implemented numerous strategies and programs to support older youth with their educational goals. Some of these strategies and programs are discussed below.
DCF continues to offer the New Jersey Foster Care (NJFC) Scholars Program, which provides assistance with tuition and fees to eligible current and former foster youth148 in order to pursue post-secondary education at an accredited two or four year college, university, trade or career school. Data for recent participation are bulleted below:
 Between January and June 2014 (spring 2014 semester), 349 youth participated in the NJFC program; 251 (72%) youth utilized funding. DCF reports the remaining youth did not utilize Scholars program funding because the financial aid provided by their educational institutions covered their expenses.
 For the entire 2013-2014 academic year (July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014), DCF reports that 367 unduplicated youth participated in the NJFC program; 296 (81%) youth utilized funding during the academic year and the remaining youth did not utilize Scholars program funding because the financial aid provided by their educational institutions covered their expenses.
The number of youth enrolled in the Scholars program has increased since the 2011-2012 academic year when 316 students participated. Outreach efforts continue by Foster and Adoptive Family Services (FAFS), the agency which administers the Scholars program. Between January and June 2014, FAFS hosted or participated in 38 outreach events which were attended by a total of 268 youth and 131 adults.
DCF reports that all youth enrolled in the Scholars program received support services through Project MYSELF which is administrated by the Transitions for Youth at the Institute for Families through the Rutgers School of Social Work. Project MYSELF is a multi-service mentoring program designed to improve academic performance, increase post-secondary education retention and completion and develop life skills and competencies. Recently, the “tier-system” used by the program to identify youth in need of increased support was updated. The update defines the two tiers as follows:
 “Tier-One” students are first-year NJFC scholars with below a 2.0 GPA for the previous semester, enrolled in remedial courses and who have had appeals granted to re-enter the program. These students receive a minimum of bi-weekly contact with at least one faceto-face meeting per month.

148 Eligible youth must have a high school diploma or GED and be admitted to a degree or certificate granting postsecondary institution that has been accredited to receive Title IV funding. Additional eligibility requirements, including length of time in out-of-home placement or age at adoption, can be found at http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/adolescent/involved/scholars/

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 147

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 158 of 201 PageID: 7692

 “Tier-Two” students are all returning students who are in good academic standing with a GPA of 2.0 or above from the previous semester. These students receive a minimum of monthly contact from their support coach by telephone or email. If needed, crisis intervention services can be provided and support coach contact can be increased.
Of the 367 students served in the 2013-2014 academic year, 227 were “Tier-One” and 140 were “Tier-Two” students.
DCF continues to fund the Summer Housing Internship (SHIP) and Summer Internship Programs (SIP) which provide academic, social and cultural opportunities for 60 youth who attend post-secondary educational institutions. SHIP also provides housing for youth involved in the child welfare system during the summer school break. The programs extend 11 weeks over the summer months and offer paid internships, skill building groups, recreational activities, oneon-one mentoring and coaching and a three-credit academic research course through Rutgers University. OAS reports an increased demand for this program with almost 100 applications received for the 60 slots (40 SHIP slots and 20 SIP slots) available the previous registration period.
Finally, the DCF Scholarship Fund was established to provide scholarships to eligible youth who have a high school diploma or GED and have had at least six cumulative months of CP&P placement after age 12. Scholarships provide up to $2,500 per academic year and are intended to assist youth who do not qualify for the NJFC Scholars program or youth who participate in the NJFC Scholars program and are in need of additional assistance to cover the expense of their post-secondary education. Scholarship applications were initially made available in May 2013 and between January and June 2014, 11 students were awarded scholarships through this fund.
Employment
New this monitoring period, the Youth Employment Coordinator (YEC) within OAS organized training to staff and providers on utilizing the New Jersey Career Assistance Navigator (NJCAN). Training was delivered by the NJ Department of Education in collaboration with the John J. Heldrich Center. NJCAN is a free, web-based career guidance system that can assist youth in exploring different career paths and planning for necessary educational and skill development tasks for these careers. YEC facilitated additional presentations and trainings on NJCAN at the Quarterly Networking Meeting, Adolescent Practice Forums, Union County Youth Recognition Day and Outreach to At-Risk Youth (OTARY) program providers meeting.
The YEC assisted with efforts to incorporate youth voice into workforce policy planning and formation and drafted a proposal for Casey Family Programs Technical Assistance regarding youth employment practices. Additionally, the YEC collaborated with the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Apprenticeship to conduct presentations to Local Office staff and providers on apprenticeship programs.
OTARY programs continue to provide at-risk youth with enhanced educational, vocational and recreational services at 21 sites throughout New Jersey. DCF reports that OAS continues to visit these programs and provide technical assistance and consultation.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 148

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 159 of 201 PageID: 7693

Financial Literacy
DCF continues to offer EverFi, an online financial literacy program, to youth in housing and life skills programs. As of June 30, 2014, 172 youth were either actively engaged in or completed the course. During the 2013-2014 school year, 96 students were fully certified.
Medicaid Extension for Youth Adults
The Office of Child and Family Health (OCFH) administers the Medicaid Extension for Youth Adults (MEYA) and adjusted the program based upon the new federal health care law which became effective January 1, 2014. OCFH continues to work with the Division of Medical Assistance and Health Services (NJ’s single state Medicaid agency), the DCF Office of Information Technology, OAS and CP&P to design the program and develop a plan for implementation. Work to date includes:
 development of a new Medicaid code to identify youth between the ages of 18 to 26 who are eligible for continued Medicaid;
 eligibility determinations for former foster youth and youth who are turning 18 years old in the month are completed by NJ SPIRIT;
 informational flyer and wallet sized cards with MEYA information have been developed and are distributed to Local Offices, provider agencies and other community partners;
 presentations on the Medicaid extension were made to Area Directors, Local Office Managers, adolescent unit workers and provider agencies; and
 MEYA support line is available for caseworkers, youth, relatives of youth, provider agencies and others.
Recent data indicate that the majority of youth who exit care needing Medicaid receive Medicaid for at least one month following discharge. Specifically, of the 157 youth ages 17.9 to 20.9 who were discharged from placement between January and June 2014 and needed Medicaid, 149 (95%) youth had Medicaid for at least one month. Additionally, between July 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013, 181 youth ages 17.9 to 20.9 were discharged from placement and needed Medicaid; 154 (85%) of these youth received Medicaid for at least six months.
Expectant and Parenting Youth
In March 2014, OAS hired an Expectant and Parenting Youth Specialist to identify statewide community resources and services gaps for pregnant and parenting teens. A resource guide is being developed which will include resources for fatherhood programs, nutrition and food support, child support, home visitation, social services and housing programs.
Services for LGBTQI Population
The MSA requires DCF to develop and begin to implement a plan for appropriate service delivery to youth who identify as LGBTQI (MSA Section II.C.4). DCF has continued to implement strategies and services to meet the needs of this population, primarily through the

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 149

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 160 of 201 PageID: 7694

Safe Space Program. DCF has identified 160 Safe Space liaisons for all CP&P Local and Area Offices. Activities this monitoring period focused on identification of LGBTQI youth and families, services and resources, addressing LGBTQI case practice concerns, educating the public, improving Safe Space programming, developing draft policy and a proposal for cultural competency training for DCF staff. Additionally, OAS has a LGBTQI Coordinator who provides education and consultation to staff and community partners.
Increasing Staff Skills
In September 2012, OAS began offering quarterly training on adolescent policy, practice and resources to staff. The one-day training is mandatory for adolescent supervisors and workers and other CP&P staff who work with youth are encouraged to attend. As part of continuous quality improvement efforts, OAS determined during this monitoring period that enhancements and updates to the training curriculum were needed and training was not offered this period. DCF reports that training sessions resumed in August 2014.
In September 2013, 40 staff were enrolled in the Adolescent Advocacy program—a post-B.A., 15 credit certificate through Montclair State University focused on adolescent advocacy and case practice. DCF reports that the program continued to operate as scheduled during this monitoring period.
The OAS provides a variety of technical assistance to the field on adolescent policy and practice. During the monitoring period, OAS hosted regional practice forums for cross agency staff in March and June on topics relevant to adolescent practice.149 Approximately 40 staff attended each of the eight forums offered. Topics discussed at the practice forums included Medicaid extension to the age of 26, new structure of the Youth Advisory Boards, permanency initiatives, educational initiatives, trauma-informed care, youth engagement, updates on the Children’s System of Care (CSOC) and employment resources. These forums also provide an opportunity for OAS to receive feedback from staff on policies and to strategize on efforts to improve services, resources and case practice tools.
Other Developments
Beginning in mid-2013, DCF developed a new structure for its Youth Advisory Board (YAB) model and has been working with the Rutgers School of Social Work for implementation. Fifteen YABs have been created statewide as well as one Youth Advisory Council which is composed of youth from CP&P, CSOC, the Division of Family and Community Partnerships and the Office of Education. The YABs meet twice a month and activities include identifying topics or policy for further study and impact, performing service activities and participation in cultural events. During this monitoring period, YAB youth created a Facebook page; presented at several meetings and forums; and met with the Commissioner and DCF leadership to share policy and practice concerns and recommendations including ensuring visitation rooms are warm and

149 Staff are from CP&P, the DCF Office of Education and the Children’s System of Care, Care Management Organizations.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 150

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 161 of 201 PageID: 7695
welcoming, creating a resource family matching tool and youth obtaining information regarding their time in care.
In September 2013, the Administration for Children, Youth and Families awarded DCF a two year planning grant to conduct data analysis, complete a needs assessment and develop an intervention framework to address ongoing service gaps related to serving older youth through CP&P. The goal of this grant is to improve educational, employment, permanency and wellbeing outcomes for older youth involved with CP&P. DCF is currently working on the data analysis and needs assessment component of this project. Specifically, on June 26, 2014, a Systems Mapping Event was held with 80 stakeholder participants, including youth with a history in care, to outline gaps in services and proposed interventions. As part of the data analysis work, a MOU was signed to receive data from NJ’s Housing, Mortgage Finance Agency in order to secure Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) data.
B. Performance Measures Measuring Services to Older Youth
As of June 30, 2014, CP&P served 3,018 youth aged 18 to 21; current information indicates that 465 (15%) youth were living in a CP&P out-of-home placement; 1,549 (51%) youth were living in their own homes;150 and 1,004 (33%) youth were receiving adoption or kinship legal guardianship subsidies.

150 DCF is further analyzing these data to better understand the exact setting(s) indicated for the youth categorized as “living in their own homes” which can include, among other things, youth living with family, youth in independent living.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 151

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 162 of 201 PageID: 7696

Independent Living Assessments

Quantitative or

53. Independent Living Assessments: Number/percent of cases where DCF

Qualitative Measure

Independent Living Assessment is complete for youth 14 to 18.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 95% of youth age 14 to 18 have an Independent Living Assessment.

Figure 53: Percentage of Youth Aged 14-18 with Independent Living Assessment (December 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Youth

100% 90% 80% 70%

87%

83%

83%

91%

98%

84%

60%

50%
47%
40%
Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10

Jun-11 Dec-11 Month

Jun-12

Mar-13

Source: DCF data

96%

90%

Dec-13 Jun-14

Final Target (95%)

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
In June 2014, there were 1,026 youth aged 14 to18 in out-of-home placement for at least six months; 925 (90%) had an Independent Living Assessment completed. Although DCF met the required final target for the previous two monitoring periods, current performance dropped below the target level.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 152

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 163 of 201 PageID: 7697

Services to Older Youth

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

54. Services to Older Youth: DCF shall provide services to youth between the ages 18 and 21 similar to services previously available to them unless the youth, having been informed of the implications, formally request that DCF close the case.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 90% of youth are receiving acceptable services as measured by the QR.

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
Performance data for this measure were collected through QR reviews conducted between January and June 2014 of 20 cases of youth ages 18 to 21. In rating these cases, reviewers utilize the standard QR protocol and a list of additional considerations to enhance the protocol to examine additional needs such as planning and supports for youth who identify as LGBTQI, are victims of domestic violence, are pregnant or parenting or are developmentally disabled. By agreement between the Monitor and CP&P, cases were considered acceptable for this measure if the QR ratings were within the acceptable range (4-6) for both the overall Child/Youth and Family Indicator and Practice Performance Indicator.
Fourteen (70%) of the 20 cases reviewed were rated acceptable on both the Child/Youth and Family Indicator and Practice Performance Indicator. Additional cases are scheduled to be reviewed in CY2014 and ratings for all cases reviewed during the year will be included in the next monitoring report.
DCF analyzed the data collected through reviews completed in 2012 and 2013 and developed recommendations and next steps for practice.151 These recommendations and updates provided by DCF on implementation are bulleted below:
1. DCF should reinforce with its caseworkers the use of the Transition Plans through supervision and practice forums, ensuring that they are reflective of the youth’s needs, voice and provide realistic and developmentally attainable goals for success.
DCF Update: OAS has been working with CP&P, OIT and Policy to update the existing transition plan to include more specific information around certain domains, including housing, education and employment. The updated plan is called Transitional Plan for YOUth Success was launched in September 2014 and will be added to NJ Spirit in January 2015.
2. DCF should strengthen the use of teaming for older youth through supervision, case conferencing and coaching, acknowledging different techniques and formats may be necessary.

151 Specific findings and recommendations are included in a report released in July 2014. See, http://nj.gov/dcf/about/divisions/opma/docs/Measure.54_2013.pdf
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 153

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 164 of 201 PageID: 7698
DCF Update: OAS is updating the Got Adolescents trainings and creating a training for the new Transitional Plan for YOUth Success. The emphasis on teaming, conferencing and flexible approaches and techniques for engagement will be included in these trainings.
3. CP&P staff must integrate both the formal and informal assessment of the needs of the older youth into case planning and reinforce it through supervision and case conferencing.
DCF Update: OAS reports that the trainings which are currently being updated will include information on utilizing available assessments to identify and address youth needs. The Transitional Plan for YOUth Success training will also specifically outline the use of the Independent Living Assessment to drive this planning and goal setting process.
4. CP&P must pay particular attention to planning with older youth for the upcoming transition of living independently from the child welfare system.
DCF Update: DCF reports that the updated transitional plan will assist staff in having conversations and planning with youth around education, employment, housing, life skills, health, and connections.
5. Lifelong and sustaining relationships with committed adults must be strengthened to create permanency for older youth.
DCF Update: OAS reports contracting with several community agencies to provide permanency services to youth. These services work with youth ages 14 to 21 to help the youth achieve relational or legal permanency. Planning around implementing Permanency Roundtables on a more consistent basis has occurred as well.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 154

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 165 of 201 PageID: 7699

Youth Exiting Care

Quantitative or

55. Youth Exiting Care: Youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall

Qualitative Measure

have housing and be employed or in training or an educational program.

Final Target

By December 31, 2011, 95% of youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall have housing and be employed or in training or an educational program.

Figure 54: Youth Exiting Care with Housing and Employed or Enrolled in Educational or Vocational Training Program (January 2010 – June 2014)

Percentageof Youth

100%

93%

80%

86%

84%

72% 60%
60% 52%
40%

65%

63%

20%

JanJ-aJnu-nJu2n0210010

Jul-Dec 2012

Jan-Dec 2013

Jan-Jun 2014

Housing

Employed or Educational/Vocational Training Program

Source: Data from DCF and CSSP Case Record Reviews

Final Target
(95%)

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
The Monitor and DCF conducted a case record review of the 73 youth who exited care without achieving permanency between January and June 2014 and found that 61 (84%) of these youth had documentation of a housing plan upon exiting CP&P care and 38 of 60 (63%) of applicable152 youth were either employed or enrolled in education or vocational training programs. While DCF was previously making progress on the housing component of this measure, current performance indicates that additional strategies may be necessary. Data collected during this review should be carefully reviewed by DCF to determine whether

152 Thirteen youth were not applicable for one or more of the following reasons: youth declined or not interested in employment or educational/vocational program, youth in the process of enrolling, youth was employed or enrolled in school prior to moving out-of-state when case closed, youth was missing or youth had mental impairment which prevented employment or educational/vocational program.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 155

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 166 of 201 PageID: 7700
additional strategies are necessary; whether there are geographical locations within the state where additional resources are needed; whether enhanced or modified assessment and planning tools would be useful, and if engagement strategies should be strengthened to assist youth in achieving positive outcomes.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 156

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 167 of 201 PageID: 7701

XIII. SUPPORTING A HIGH QUALITY WORKFORCE: CASELOADS AND TRAINING
DCF continued to meet average office caseload standards for Permanency and Adoption workers and individual caseload standards for permanency workers, and has met the average office caseload standard for Intake workers during this monitoring period. DCF continued to meet individual caseload standards for Permanency workers but did not meet individual caseload standards for Intake, IAIU and Adoption workers.
Although not in this monitoring period, in mid-November 2014, a caseworker was severely injured in an attack by a CP&P client with a knife at the DCF office in the city of Camden. Fortunately, the worker is recovering but the attack elevated concerns by DCF managers, frontline staff and union officials about safety issues for workers in their offices and when they are in the field. DCF leaders responded quickly in terms of meeting with workers and launching efforts to fully understand and address the magnitude of existing challenges to worker safety. A contractor expert in providing trauma support to first responders was immediately deployed to meet with groups of staff. Since the incident, DCF reports that it has also deployed security officers with metal detecting wands at all Local Offices and in some offices has installed panic buttons in meeting rooms and increased the availability of shuttles to transport staff to court. DCF policy also includes a buddy system which allows workers with supervisory approval to be accompanied by a colleague when they are concerned about going into the field on their own. Although line workers have reported inconsistent processes for approval for use of buddies, DCF leaders have indicated willingness to increase the use of the buddy system to address worker security concerns. DCF leadership has also launched a more systematic review of worker safety issues statewide.
The child welfare workers union and some outside advocates have called for rescinding a recent change that occurred in mid-November 2014 to centralize the dispatch of Human Services Police (employed by the State Department of Human Services (DHS)), who had previously been housed in many DCF Local Offices including Camden, but are now dispatched from three central locations in the state. The assignment of Human Services Police Officers to selected Local Offices was one of the early steps taken by the state as part the child welfare reform efforts to recruit and retain a high quality workforce. Prior to this most recent change, the state had 27 Human Services Police Officers stationed during business hours at approximately 20 Local Offices. Under the new policy, Human Services Police are assigned to one of three dispatch offices located on state hospital facility grounds and are centrally dispatched via phone and fax requests by Local Offices workers. These officers are also now expected to be accessible 24 hours a day. DHS believes that this change will promote efficiency and provide better overall service. Some local staff however believe that the presence of these officers at Local Offices was an important support that will be missed.
Given the critical importance of addressing safety issues in order to ensure a stable and qualified workforce, DCF officials have launched a review of safety issues at each Local Office and have indicated to the Monitor that they will closely track the impact of the recent change in the deployment of Human Services Police. The Monitor has expressed concern that worker safety is inextricably related to DCF’s ability to maintain a stable and high quality workforce and that all

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 157

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 168 of 201 PageID: 7702

workers must be provided with adequate supports to ensure their safety and well-being. The state is now developing a process to track and assess the impact of these recent changes to the deployment of Human Services Police and the effect of new safety initiatives that are being put in place. The Monitor will be closely assessing all of the actions taken over the next few months to address the issues raised.
A. Caseloads
Caseload compliance is measured by individual caseworker caseloads in each of the functional areas (Intake, Permanency, Adoption and IAIU) as well as office standards for CP&P Local Offices. Office-wide average caseloads are to comply with the applicable functional area caseload standards in 95 percent of all CP&P Local Offices and at least 95 percent of workers in each of the functional areas are to have individual caseloads meeting the designated standard (MSA Section III.B.1). Table 31 summarizes the caseload standards for individual workers.

Table 31: DCF/CP&P Individual Caseload Standards

Caseworker Function

Responsibility

Individual Caseload Standard

Intake
Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit
(IAIU)
Permanency
Adoption Source: DCF data

Respond to community concerns regarding child safety and well-being. Specifically, receive referrals from the State Central Registry (SCR) and depending on the nature of the referral, respond between two hours and five days with a visit to the home and begin investigation or assessment. Complete investigation or assessment within 60 days.

Intake workers are to have no more than 12 open families at any one time and no more than eight new referrals assigned in a month. (Section II.E and Section III.B.1).

Respond to allegations of child abuse and neglect in settings including correctional facilities, detention facilities, treatment facilities, schools (public or private), residential schools, shelters, hospitals, camps or child care centers that are required to be licensed, resource family homes and registered family day care homes.

IAIU staff workers are to have no more than 12 open cases at any one time and no more than eight new referrals assigned in a month. (Section II.E and Section III.B.1).

Provide services to families whose children remain at home under the protective supervision of CP&P and those families whose children are removed from home due to safety concerns.

Permanency workers are to serve no more than 15 families and 10 children in out-of-home care at any one time. (Section II.E and Section III.B.1).

Find permanent homes for children who cannot safely return to their parents by preparing children for adoption, developing adoptive resources and performing the work needed to finalize adoptions.

Adoption workers are to serve no more than 15 children at any one time. (Section II.E and Section III.B.1).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 158

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 169 of 201 PageID: 7703
Interview Procedure to Verify Worker Caseloads
The Monitor verified caseload data supplied by DCF by conducting telephone interviews with randomly selected workers across the state. One-hundred sixty workers were selected from those active in June 2014. All of the 46 CP&P Local Offices were represented in the sample. The interviews were conducted throughout the months of July and August 2014. All 160 workers were called. Information was collected from 128 workers (86% of the eligible sample), located in all 46 Local Offices. Six workers were on extended leave during the period of the calls, and were removed from the sample. Two workers who declined to participate and another four who were newly assigned to their position for less than half of the monitoring period were also removed from the sample. The Monitor attempted contact at least three times for each worker.
During the interviews, workers were asked if their caseloads met caseload standards between January and June 2014 and their responses were compared to the caseload information the state supplied for the same period from NJ SPIRIT. Workers were also asked to report their specific caseload size for the month of June 2014. The Monitor is satisfied that sufficient information was gathered to verify the accuracy of the state’s caseload reporting and that, in general, NJ SPIRIT accurately reflects worker caseloads.
The following discussion describes the state’s performance in meeting the office caseload standards and the individual caseload standards.
DCF met the standard for average office caseloads for all three functional areas during this monitoring period. Figures 55-57 summarize the Period XV performance on meeting Local Offices average caseload standards.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 159

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 170 of 201 PageID: 7704

Figure 55: Percentage of DCF/CP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload Standards for Intake Workers (June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of DCF/DYFS (Intake)

100% 98%

98%

98%

90%

95% 96%

89% 80%

89% 87%

98% 91%

Final Target
(95%)

70%

60%

50%
JJuunn--0099 DDeecc--0099 JJuunn--1100 DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111 DDeecc--1111 JuJnu-n1-212 DecM-12ar-13Jun-13DecD-e1c3-13 JunJu-1n-414 Month

Source: DCF data

Figure 56: Percentage of DCF/CP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload Standards for Permanency Workers (June 2009 – June 2014)

100%

99% 100% 96%

96%

90% 98% 98% 98%

94%

80%

98%

98%

Final Target (95%)

Percentage of DCF/DYFS (Permanency)

70% 60% 50%
JuJunn--0099 DeDce-c0-909 JuJnu-n1-100 DDeecc--1100 JJuunn-1-111 DDeecc-1-111 JuJnu-n1-212 Dec-1M2ar-1J3un-13 DeDc-e1c3-13 JunJ-u1n4-14

Source: DCF data

Month

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 160

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 171 of 201 PageID: 7705

Figure 57: Percentage of DCF/CP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload Standards for Adoption Workers (June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of DCF/DYFS (Adoption)

100%

98%

90% 95% 80%

90% 92% 94%

87% 88%

95%

95%

Final Target
(95%)

80% 70%

60%

50%
JuJnu-n0-909 DDeecc--0099 JJuunn--1100 DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111 DDeecc--1111 JuJun-n1-212 Dec-12MarJ-u1n3-13 DDecec-1-133 JuJunn-1-144

Source: DCF data

Month

Intake
The individual worker caseload standard for Intake workers of no more than 12 open cases at any one time and no more than eight new referrals assigned a month was not met as of June 30, 2014. The state reported an average of 944 active Intake workers between January and June 2014. Among those active Intake workers, an average of 807 (85%) workers had caseloads that met the caseload requirements. Specifically, in June 2014, individual worker caseload compliance for Intake workers was 88 percent. For the 113 Intake workers who did not meet caseload requirements in June 2014, the highest number of new intakes during the month for any worker was 11 and the highest number of open cases for any worker in the month was 23 families.
Data by Local Office show that during June 2014, performance ranged between 15 and 100 percent, with 25 of 46 (54%) Local Offices having all Intake workers with caseloads in compliance (see Appendix C-1).
Among the 128 workers who participated in the phone interview for caseload verification, 77 were Intake workers. Thirteen (17%) of the 77 Intake workers reported going over the caseload limits for new assignments at some point between January and June 2014. Thirty-two (42%) Intake workers reported having more than 12 total families on their caseload at some point between January and June 2014.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 161

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 172 of 201 PageID: 7706

DCF has discontinued the Ready Work Pool (RWP) which was developed to enhance capacity to quickly deploy staffing resources to designated Local Offices experiencing increases in referrals and caseloads in the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy. As of May 16, 2014, all cases that were assigned to the RWP staff were reassigned to staff within the respective Local Offices. Impact teams remain and consist of a supervisor, and three workers that can be assigned to a unit or an office throughout the state where Intakes are unusually high in order to assist in maintaining caseload standards by taking any overflow of investigations. There are ten impact teams, one per Area Office.
Figure 58: Percentage of Intake Workers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – June 2014)*

Percentage of Intake Workers with Individual Casweloads

100%

90%

91% 80%

87% 84%

86%

78% 70%

76%

76% 76%

87% 85%

Final Target
(95%)

60%

50%
JJuunn--0099 DDeecc--0099 JuJunn-1-100 DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111 DDeecc--1111 JJuunn-1-122 Dec-M12ar-1J3un-13 DDece-c1-133 JuJnun-1-144
Month
Source: DCF data * The performance percentage shown on the last month of each monitoring period (June and December) is the average of the prior six month’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that six month monitoring period. The performance percentage shown for June 2014 is the average of the prior six month’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that time.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 162

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 173 of 201 PageID: 7707
Workers Report “Shared” Cases as a Common Occurrence
As described in the Period XIV monitoring report, Intake and Permanency workers sometimes share responsibility for families with open permanency cases where there are new allegations of abuse or neglect. According to DCF procedure, all CPS family reports and CWS family referrals are assigned to Intake workers to investigate and these reports are reflected in caseload reporting as one of the eight referrals in the month of the report and as one of the Intake worker’s 12 open families for that month. However, when circumstances indicate that a family with an already open permanency case is the subject of a new CPS family report, the work with the family becomes the shared responsibility of both Intake and Permanency workers until the investigation is completed.
Intake workers are assigned a secondary worker designation in NJ SPIRIT on a shared case for a family who is currently assigned to a Permanency worker. According to DCF, this arrangement emphasizes the primary role of the Permanency worker in securing placement, facilitating visits, supporting the family to implement the case plan and coordinating services. It also reflects the Permanency worker’s responsibility to provide information to the Intake worker and to link the family to appropriate services and supports identified during the course of the new investigation, thus relieving the Intake worker of the case management responsibility for the case. Intake workers continue to be responsible for the work required to complete investigative tasks and to reach and document an investigative finding. The designation as a secondary worker is not reflected as an open family for the Intake worker’s caseload and is not categorized as an open family in monthly caseload reports. Thus, these secondary assignments are counted as one of the Intake workers’ eight new referrals assigned in a month, but are not counted as part of their 12 open families in a month.
DCF reports that Intake supervisors in CP&P Local Offices are expected to appropriately manage the workload of staff in their units and consider an Intake worker’s primary and secondary responsibilities when assigning new referrals. The following table (Table 32) provides the reported number of secondary assignments to Intake workers by month for this monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 163

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 174 of 201 PageID: 7708

Table 32: Number of DCF/CP&P Investigations and Secondary Intake Assignments by Month (January – June 2014)

Month JANUARY

Total Investigations for the Month
5,969

FEBRUARY

5,355

MARCH

6,279

APRIL

5,955

MAY

6,436

JUNE

5,883

Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT Data *Total excluded intakes assigned to Impact workers. *Total includes intakes assigned to On Leave workers

*Secondary Intake Worker Assignments of CPS and CWS
Investigations

1,183

20%

1,084

20%

1,177

19%

1,171

20%

1,199

19%

1,125

19%

The Monitor reviewed monthly Local Office data on secondary assignments and found that the average number of secondary assignments per Intake worker over the monitoring period is 1.3. The Monitor also found that an average of 34 percent of Intake workers received two or more secondary case assignments each month during the monitoring period. Specifically, in the month of June 2014, 306 (33%) Intake workers received two or more secondary assignments. Of those 306 workers, 136 (44%) had a total of 12 open families or less for the month, including their secondary case assignments.
During phone interviews with caseworkers, the Monitor inquired about the prevalence of secondary assignments and their impact on a worker’s workload. Intake workers were asked how prevalent secondary assignments are, what effect these assignments have on their workload and how they are measured. Of the 77 Intake workers interviewed, 71 (92%) reported receiving an assignment to investigate a new report on an open permanency case as a secondary worker at least once in the six month period between January and June 2014 and 45 (58%) reported receiving at least one secondary assignment per month. Sixty-eight of the 71 (96%) Intake workers confirmed that their supervisor appropriately counts secondary assignments toward their eight new referrals for the month. Forty-three of the 71 (61%) Intake workers interviewed responded that in their opinion, the workload for an investigation on an open Permanency case in which they are designated as secondary worker is equivalent to, or sometimes more than, the workload for an initial investigation. Workers explained that although Permanency workers may have completed collateral contacts or are able to provide information about the family’s circumstances, every investigation must be approached in the same manner regardless of primary or secondary status.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 164

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 175 of 201 PageID: 7709
Additionally, during the phone interviews with caseworkers, the Monitor inquired whether the new DCF policy153, effective April 7, 2014 has helped to clarify the division of labor for secondary assignments between Intake and Permanency workers. Both Intake and Permanency workers were asked if they received clear policy guidance on their role and on the division of labor for these shared cases. Of the 71 Intake workers who reported receiving an assignment to investigate a new report on an open permanency case as a secondary worker, 61 (86%) reported receiving clear policy guidance and 44 (62%) found the division of labor to be clear. Twenty-one (68%) of the 31 Permanency workers interviewed reported receiving clear policy guidance and 20 (65%) found the division of responsibilities to be clear. The most frequently cited reason by both Intake and Permanency workers for the lack of clarity in the division of responsibilities was the inconsistent application of the policy which varied by supervisor.
The Monitor further examined secondary case assignments during a case record review on the quality of investigative practice conducted in September 2014. This review examined the quality of practice of 313 CPS investigations assigned to DCF Local Offices between February 1 and 14, 2014. Fifty (16%) of the 313 CPS investigations were intakes on CP&P cases already open for services. Of those 50 investigations, 32 (64%) were of acceptable quality, which is slightly below the quality rating of 81 percent for all investigations excluding these 50 cases with shared responsibility.
DCF continues to further examine the process by which secondary assignments are generated, as well as workflow management practices across Local Offices to ensure that intake workload is appropriately managed regardless of the combination of primary and secondary assignments.
The Monitor remains concerned about the additional workload of these shared cases and will continue to track incidences of secondary assignments to Intake workers and conduct interviews with workers to determine how significant the impact of a shared case is on an Intake worker’s workload.

153 CP&P Manual (4-7-2014). Child Protection and Permanency Manual, II C Case Management, 400. (DCF policy that clarifies the division of responsibilities between Intake and Permanency workers for shared cases).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 165

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 176 of 201 PageID: 7710

Assignment of Investigations to Non-caseload Carrying Staff
Table 33: Percentage of DCF/CP&P Investigations Assigned to Non-Caseload Carrying Staff by Month (January – June 2014)154

Month

Total Investigations for the Month

JANUARY FEBRUARY
MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT Data

6,092 5,503 6,419 6,102 6,562 5,991

Total Investigations Assigned to Non-Caseload Carrying Staff and Percentage of Investigation
Assignments to Non-Caseload Carrying Staff

81

1%

99

2%

73

1%

73

1%

79

1%

63

1%

On occasion, in order to handle the flow of referrals for investigation, trained non-caseload carrying staff are assigned to an investigation. The Monitor’s review of DCF data found that overall, two percent of investigations were assigned to non-caseload carrying staff between the months of January through June 2014. DCF reports that its policy requires completion of First Responder training for all staff prior to intake assignment and that non-caseload carrying staff who are assigned investigations have been trained and receive supervision by the Intake supervisor as they carry out these investigations.
As part of the interviews discussed above, Intake workers were asked if there were scenarios in their office in which non-caseload carrying staff could be assigned an investigation. Twenty-six of the 77 workers (34%) reported that there are scenarios in which this takes place. Respondents stated that non-caseload carrying staff with prior investigations experience can be assigned cases when all Intake workers in a Local Office reach their assignment limit for the month. This was the most common scenario described. The most frequently identified job titles for the noncaseload carrying staff who are assigned investigations are Administrative Assistant and Resource Development Specialist.

154 Data are provided for investigations assigned within five days of intake receipt date and does not reflect additional assignments to an investigation after those first five days. DCF conducted a review of assignments to noncaseload carrying staff in NJ SPIRIT and found that some investigations had been re-assigned to caseload carrying workers after the initial five days. As a result, there is potential for the percentage of investigations assigned to noncaseload carrying staff to be lower than 1%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 166

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 177 of 201 PageID: 7711

Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU)
As of June 30, 2014 the individual worker caseload standard for IAIU investigators of no more than 12 open cases at any one time and no more than eight new referrals assigned in a month was not met: DCF data show 92 percent compliance with the standard for IAIU caseloads of 12 open cases at any one time. This represents a decline from consistent performance of meeting the MSA since December 2009.
Figure 59: Percentage of IAIU Workers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of IAIU Workers with Individual Caseloads

100% 100% 100%

100%

100%

100%

98% 100%

97%

100%

90%

92%

80%

70%

60%

50%
JJuunn--0099 DDeecc--0099 JuJun-n1-010 DDece-c1-010 JuJun-n1-111 DDece-c1-111 JJuunn-1-122 DecM-1a2r-13Jun-1D3ec-1D3ec-13Jun-1Ju4n-14

Final Target (95%)

Source: DCF data

Month

Permanency
The individual worker caseload standard for Permanency workers of no more than 15 families and ten children in out-of-home care was met as of June 30, 2014. The state reported an average of 1,166 active Permanency workers between January and June 2014. Of the active Permanency workers, an average of 1,119 (96%) workers had caseloads that met the requirement. Specifically in June 2014, individual worker caseload compliance for Permanency workers was also at 96 percent. For the 41 Permanency workers who did not meet caseload requirements in June 2014, the highest individual caseload was 24 families and the highest number of children in placement was 12.
Among the 128 workers who participated in phone interviews conducted by the Monitor for caseload verification, 31 were Permanency workers. Three (10%) of the 31 Permanency workers interviewed reported having exceeded the caseload standard of no more than 15 families in any month at least once between January and June 2014. One (3%) of the 31 Permanency workers interviewed reported having exceeded the caseload standard of no more than 10 children in outof-home care in any month at least once between January and June 2014.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 167

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 178 of 201 PageID: 7712

Figure 60: Percentage of Permanency Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – June 2014)*

Percentage of Permanency Caseworkers with Individual Caseloads

100% 97% 97% 90% 80%

96% 96% 96% 93% 92%

94%

95%

96%
Final Target (95%)*

70%

60%

50%
JJuunn--0099 DDeecc--0099 JJuunn--1100 DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111 DDeecc--1111 JJuunn-1-212 DeMc-1a2r-13 Jun-13 DeDce-1c-313 JunJu-n1-414

Month
Source: DCF data *The performance percentage shown on the last month of each monitoring period (June, March and December) is the average performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that monitoring period. All periods consist of six months expect for March 2013 and December 2013 which were nine month periods.

Adoption
The individual worker caseload standard for Adoption workers of no more than 15 children was not met as of June 30, 2014 and demonstrates the lowest performance to date. The state reported an average of 208 active Adoption workers between January and June 2014. Of the active Adoption workers, an average of 173 (83%) workers had caseloads that met the requirement during the monitoring period. Specifically in June 2014, individual worker caseload compliance for Adoption workers was at 87% percent. For the 28 Adoption workers who did not meet caseload requirements in June 2014, the highest caseload was 28 children.
Data by Local Office indicate that during June 2014, performance ranged between 25 and 100 percent among offices and 30 of 43 (70%) Local Offices met the standard for this measure (see Appendix C-2).
Among the 128 workers who participated in the phone interviews conducted by the Monitor for caseload verification, 20 were Adoption workers. Two (10%) of the 20 workers interviewed reported going over caseload standards at least once between January and June 2014.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 168

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 179 of 201 PageID: 7713

Figure 61: Percentage of Adoption Workers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – June 2014)*

Percentage of Adoption Workers with Individual Caseloads

100%

90% 91% 96% 94% 92% 94% 90% 90% 80%

87%

70%

87% 83%

60%

50%
JJuunn--0099 DDeecc--0099 JJuunn--1100 DDeecc-1-100 JJuunn--1111 DDece-c1-111 JJuunn-1-212 DecM-1a2r-13Jun-13 DeDce-c1-313 JuJunn--1144

Month

Final Target (95%)

Source: DCF data * The performance percentage shown on the last month of each monitoring period (June, March and December) is the average performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that monitoring period. All periods consist of six months expect for March 2013 and December 2013 which were nine month periods.

The standard for the ratio of supervisors to workers was met for the period ending June 30, 2014.
Supervision holds a critical role in child welfare; therefore, the MSA established a standard for supervisory ratios that 95 percent of all offices should have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a ratio of five workers to one supervisor (MSA Section II.E.20).
As shown in Figure 62, DCF reports that between January and June 2014, 95 percent of CP&P Local Offices had sufficient supervisors to have ratios of five workers to one supervisor. The Monitor verified the state’s reported information about supervision by asking all 128 workers interviewed the size of their units for the month of June 2014 and 121 (95%) workers reported being in units of five or fewer workers with a supervisor.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 169

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 180 of 201 PageID: 7714

Figure 62: New Jersey CP&P Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios (June 2009 – June 2014)*

Percentage of CP&P Supervisor to Caseload Staff Ratios

100%

98% 100% 99% 99% 99% 100%

90% 96%

96%

97% 95%

80%

70%

60%

50%
JuJnu-n0-909 DDece-0c9-09 JuJnu-n10-10 DeDc-e1c0-10JuJnu-1n1-11DeDce-1c1-11 JuJnu-n12-12 DecM-12ar-1J3un-13 DeDc-e1c-313 JunJu-1n4-14 Month

Source: DCF data * The performance percentage shown on the last month of each monitoring period (June, March and December) is the average performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that monitoring period. All periods consist of six months expect for March 2013 and December 2013 which were nine month periods.

Final Target
(95%)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 170

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 181 of 201 PageID: 7715

Adequacy of DAsG Staffing

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Final Target

22. Adequacy of DAsG Staffing: Staffing levels at the DAsG office.
98% of allocated positions filled plus assessment of adequacy of FTE’s to accomplish tasks by June 30, 2012.

Figure 63: Percentage of Allocated DAsG Positions Filled (June 2009 – June 2014)

Percentage of Allocated DAsG Positions Filled

100% 100%

98%

90%

94% 92% 92% 92% 92% 92%

80%

98%

100%

Final Target
(98%)

70%

60%

50%
JJuunn-0-099 DDeecc--0099 JJuunn--1100 DDeecc--1100 JJuunn-1-111 DDece-c1-111 JuJnu-n1-212 Dec-M12ar-1J3un-13 DecD-e1c3-13 JuJnu-n1-414 Month

Source: DCF data

Performance as of June 30, 2014:
As of June 30, 2014, 131 (100%) of 131 Deputy Attorneys General (DAsG) staff positions assigned to work with DCF are filled. Of those, four DAsG are on temporary full-time leave and expected to return. Thus, there are a total of 127 (97%) available DAsG. DCF reports that in addition to these positions, they have assigned one full-time law assistant to their Practice Group as well as the equivalent of 15.5 DAsG outside of the DCF Practice Group who dedicate their time to DCF matters. DCF has met the final target for several monitoring periods.
B. Training
January and June 2014 DCF fulfilled all of its training obligations required by the MSA, as shown in Table 34.155

155 In any monitoring month period there is not an exact correlation between number of staff trained and number of staff hired because of different points of entry, as reflected, for example, in the number of staff hired in the previous

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 171

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 182 of 201 PageID: 7716

Table 34: DCF Staff Trained (January 1, 2011 – June 30, 2014)156

Pre-service

Training

Settlement Commitment Description
Ongoing: New workers shall have 160 class hours, including intake and investigations training; be enrolled within two weeks of start date; complete training and pass competency exams before assuming a full caseload.

# of Staff Trained in 1st 6 months 2011
141

# of Staff
Trained in 2nd 6 months
2011

# of Staff Trained in 1st
6 months
2012

# of Staff Trained (July
1, 2012 – March 31, 2013)

# of Staff Trained (April 1, 2013 – Dec.
31, 2103)

# of Staff Trained in 1st
6 months
2014

94

192

191

85 162

In-service Training

Ongoing: Staff shall have taken a minimum of 40 annual hours of In-service training

2,928

2,893

2,931**

N/A

Concurren t Planning

Ongoing: Training

on concurrent

planning; may be 107 out 112 out

part of 20 hours

of 107 of 112

109

101

206

In-service training by December

(100%)

(100%)

2007.

174

89

Investigations & Intake: New Staff

Ongoing: New

staff conducting

intake or

investigations shall have investigations

227 out of 227

98 out of 98

159

236

training and pass

(100%) (100%)

competency

exams before

assuming cases.

230*

304*

135**

Supervisory: New Supervisors

As of December

2006 and ongoing,

newly promoted

supervisors to

complete 40 hours

of supervisory

18

21

17

33

53

training; pass

competency

exams within

three months of

assuming position.

35 11

New Adoption Worker

As of December

2006 and ongoing,

adoption training

20

30

35

18

52

for adoption

workers.

50

43

Source: DCF data * Number of staff that completed one or more module of the revised First Responders training. **This performance measure is an annual requirement in the MSA. The Monitor will report on annual In-service training performance in the monitoring period XVI report.

monitoring period that were trained in this monitoring period, and the number of staff hired in this monitoring period
that will be trained in the next monitoring period. 156 Data on training from prior years can be found in previous monitoring reports.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 172

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 183 of 201 PageID: 7717
Pre-service Training
One hundred and fifteen caseload carrying staff (Family Service Specialist Trainees and Family Service Specialists) were hired between January and June 2014. CP&P trained 85 workers during this monitoring period, 40 of whom were hired in the previous monitoring period. Ten of the 85 workers were trained through the Baccalaureate Child Welfare Education Program (BCWEP).157
The Monitor verified that the state complied with the MSA (Section II.B.1.b) regarding Preservice training for workers.
Case Practice Model Training
DCF continues to train its workforce on the Case Practice Model (CPM), which represents the fundamental change in practice in New Jersey. At this stage in the implementation of the CPM, the only staff who receive CPM training are staff who did not receive CPM training at an earlier date because they were not yet on staff, were on leave when the training was conducted, or not yet appointed as supervisors in the case of Module 6, a training for supervisors discussed below.
As reflected in Table 35, between January and June 2014, the New Jersey Office of Training and Professional Development (Training Academy) trained 81 staff on Module 1 of the CPM. The Training Academy also trained 99 staff on Module 2. These are the first two training modules in the six part series.
Modules 3 through 6 of the series take place on site in CP&P Local Offices and are conducted by the New Jersey Child Welfare Training Partnership. 158 Between January and June 2014, 93 staff were trained in Module 3, 59 were trained in Module 4 and 47 were trained in Module 5. A total of 16 staff were trained in Module 6.159
The Monitor verified that staff took CPM training and passed relevant competency exams.

157 BCWEP is a consortium of seven New Jersey colleges (Rutgers University, Seton Hall University, Stockton College, Georgian Court University, Monmouth University, Kean University and Ramapo College) that enables students to earn a Bachelor of Social Work (BSW) degree. As discussed in Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families: Period V Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie – July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008, Washington, D.C., pg. 34, the Monitor previously determined that this course of study together with Worker Readiness Training designed by the DCF Child Welfare Training Academy satisfies the MSA requirements. All BCWEP students are required to pass the same competency exams that non-BCWEP students take before they are permitted to carry a caseload. 158 The New Jersey Child Welfare Training Partnership is a consortium of three New Jersey colleges and universities (Rutgers School of Social Work, Montclair State University Center for Child Advocacy and the Richard Stockton College of New Jersey) that DCF contracts with to provide In-service Training to CP&P staff. 159 Sixteen staff took Module 6 either as make-ups or because they were newly appointed supervisors.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 173

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 184 of 201 PageID: 7718

Table 35: DCF Staff Trained on Case Practice Model Modules (January 1, 2011 – June 30, 2014)160

Training

Settlement Commitment Description

# Staff
Trained in 1st 6 months
2011

# Staff Trained 2nd
6 months
2011

# Staff
Trained in 1st 6 months
2012

# Staff Trained (July 1, 2012 – March 31,
2013)

# Staff Trained (April 1, 2013
– Dec. 31, 2013)

# Staff Trained in 1st
6 months of
2014

Module 1 –

As of December 2008 and

Developing

ongoing, case carrying staff,

Trusting

supervisors and case aides

132

103

147

252

225

81

Relationships that had not been trained on

with Children the new case practice model

and Families

shall receive this training.

As of December 2008 and

Module 2 –

ongoing, case carrying staff,

Making Visits supervisors and case aides

131

99

107

228

215

99

Matter

that had not been trained on

the new case practice model

shall receive this training.

As of December 2008 and

Module 3 –

ongoing, case carrying staff,

Teaming with supervisors and case aides

669

391

142

157

256

93

Families

that had not been trained on

the new case practice model

shall receive this training.

As of December 2008 and

Module 4 – Assessment

ongoing, case carrying staff, supervisors and case aides that had not been trained on

539

551

200

166

200

59

the new case practice model

shall receive this training.

As of December 2008 and

Module 5 –

ongoing, case carrying staff,

Planning and supervisors and case aides

437

797

349

122

196

47

Intervention

that had not been trained on

the new case practice model

shall receive this training.

Module 6 Supervising Case Practice in NJ

As of December 2008 and ongoing, case carrying staff, supervisors and case aides that had not been trained on the new case practice model

57

154

82

0

7

16

shall receive this training.

Source: DCF data

160 Data on training from prior years can be found in previous monitoring reports.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 174

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 185 of 201 PageID: 7719

Concurrent Planning Training
Rutgers School of Social Work continues to provide concurrent planning training to all staff who complete Pre-service training or to staff who recently became case carrying staff and are in need of concurrent planning training. Concurrent planning is the practice of simultaneously planning for more than one permanency outcome for a child in care. DCF incorporates concurrent planning approaches into FTMs and other family conferences.
As reflected in Table 34, between January and June 2014, all 89 (100%) out of 89 new CP&P workers were trained in concurrent planning and passed competency exams.
The Monitor verified that the state complied with the MSA (Section II.B.2.d) regarding concurrent planning.
Investigation (or First Responder) Training
In September 2013 First Responders training was expanded into three separate modules covering six days of training. Between January and June 2014 a total of 135 staff completed one or more modules of the revised First Responders training.
The Monitor verified that the state complied with the MSA (Section II.B.3.a) regarding First Responder training.
Supervisory Training
As reflected in Table 35, 32 supervisors appointed in the monitoring period and three supervisors from the previous monitoring period were trained and passed competency exams between January and June 2014. An additional 29 newly appointed supervisors completed supervisory training and passed competency exams in July 2014.
The Monitor verified that the state complied with the MSA (Section II.B.4.b) regarding supervisory training.
New Adoption Worker Training
Forty-three newly appointed Adoption workers were trained between January and June 2014.
The Monitor verified that the state complied with MSA (Section II.G.9) regarding new adoption worker training.
In-service Training
Beginning in January 2008, the MSA required all case carrying workers and supervisors to take a minimum of 40 hours of annual In-service training and pass competency exams (MSA Section II.B.2.c). The Monitor will report on annual In-service training performance for CY2014 in the monitoring period XVI report.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 175

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 186 of 201 PageID: 7720
IAIU Training Fifty-nine investigators completed one or more IAIU training modules between January and June 2014. The Monitor verified that the state complied with MSA (Section II.I.4) regarding IAIU training.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 176

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 187 of 201 PageID: 7721

XIV. ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH QUALITATIVE REVIEW AND THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF ACCURATE DATA

QUALITATIVE REVIEW
DCF’s Office of Performance Management and Accountability continues to facilitate statewide Qualitative Reviews (QRs), led by the Office of Quality. During this monitoring period, DCF reviewed 120 cases from ten counties,161 typically reviewing 12 cases from each county. The reviews focus on the status of children, the status of practice and the functioning of systems in each of the counties. For children under 18, the child’s legal guardian is asked to give informed consent for participation in the QR. Trained review teams of two persons that include DCF staff, community stakeholders and Monitor staff review CP&P case records and interview as many people as possible who are involved with the child and family. Following the QR in each county, areas of accomplishment and challenges for the system are identified and discussed to inform continued case practice improvement. Selected QR results are also used to report on several MSA requirements and are included in this report.
Table 36 provides the gender and age of the 120 children reviewed between January and June 2014. One third (30%) of the children were living with a parent at the time of the review; 70 percent of the children lived with a relative or non-relative resource parent.
Table 36: Qualitative Review Gender and Age Demographics (January – June 2014)

Gender

#

Male

54

Female

66

Total

120

Age

#

4 years or less

47

5-9 years

21

10-13 years

19

14 -17 years

13

18-21 years

20

Total

120

Source: DCF, QR Demographics January 2014 – June 2014

% 45% 55%
100%
% 39% 17% 16% 11% 17%
100%

DCF reports that across the state, 1,223 people were interviewed to inform the QR data for this reporting period. Those informants included CP&P and Child Health Unit staff, biological parents, others who the child, youth or parent identified as supportive, relative and non-relative resource parents, education providers, mental health and legal professionals, substance abuse

161 Qualitative Reviews were conducted in Burlington, Somerset, Morris, Ocean, Hudson, Salem, Mercer, Union, Atlantic, and Bergen counties.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 177

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 188 of 201 PageID: 7722

treatment providers, and children/youth.162 Reviewers evaluated the child and family’s status and rated whether the status was acceptable or unacceptable.163 See Table 37 for the results on each Child and Family Status indicators and overall Child Status ratings for all cases.

As shown in Table 37, the current status of children was rated as acceptable in the majority of cases in most key areas measured including safety, living arrangement, learning and development and physical health of the child. The QR scores regarding Family Functioning and Resourcefulness and Progress towards Permanency, while improved, are lagging behind the overall status and remained essentially unchanged.

Table 37: Qualitative Review Child and Family Status Results (January – June 2014)

Child & Family Status Indicators

# Cases Applicable

# Cases Acceptable

% Acceptable

Safety at Home

120

119

99%

Safety in other Settings

120

118

98%

Stability at Home

120

93

78%

Stability in School

77

70

91%

Living Arrangement

120

115

96%

Family Functioning & Resourcefulness

117

85

73%

Progress towards Permanency

120

69

58%

Physical Health of the Child

120

114

95%

Emotional Well-Being

120

110

92%

Learning & Development, Under Age 5

45

40

89%

Learning & Development, Age 5 & older

75

69

92%

OVERALL Child & Family Status

120

109

91%

Source: DCF, QR results January 2014 – June 2014

162 Interviews are usually conducted individually, either by phone or in person. All efforts are made to see children/youth in the setting in which they reside. 163 In previous monitoring reports, under the heading of acceptable, status was further described as either “optimal,” “good,” or “fair.” Unacceptable status was further defined as either “marginal,” “poor,” or “worsening.” Beginning the previous monitoring period, under the heading of acceptable, status was changed to be further described as either "refine” or “maintain.” Unacceptable status was changed to be further described as either “refine” or “improve.” By agreement between the Monitor and CP&P, cases were considered acceptable if the QR ratings were within 4 – 6 and unacceptable if ratings were within 1 – 3.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 178

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 189 of 201 PageID: 7723

The QR also includes an evaluation of system and practice performance on behalf of the child and family and looks for the extent to which aspects of the state’s CPM are being implemented. Table 38 represents the results for cases reviewed between January and June 2014. As with the status indicators, reviewers evaluated whether performance was acceptable or unacceptable.164

With the exception of Provision of Health Care Services and Supports to Resource Families, the QR results on system performance while improved since December 2013, are lower than those for family status and demonstrate that continuing work is needed to fully implement the CPM with fidelity. Overall, 69 percent of cases scored acceptably on Practice Performance.

Table 38: Qualitative Review Practice/System Performance Results (January – June 2014)

Practice Performance Indicators Overall

# Cases Applicable
120

Engagement

Child/Youth

71

Parents

91

Resource Family

74

Family Teamwork

Formation

120

Functioning

120

Overall

120

Assessment & Understanding

Child/Youth

120

Parents

91

Resource Family

73

Case Planning Process

120

Plan Implementation

120

Tracking & Adjusting

120

Provision of Health Care Services

120

Resource Availability

120

Family & Community Connections

Overall

67

Mother

56

Father

41

Siblings

41

Overall

101

Family Supports

Parents

86

Resource Family

70

Long Term View

120

Transitions & Life Adjustments

120

OVERALL Practice Performance

120

Source: DCF January 2014 – June 2014 QR results

# Cases Acceptable
81 58 33 61 63 53 92 104 48 66 75 83 82 117 105 52 44 25 34 86 60 69 68 66 83

% Acceptable
68% 82% 36% 82% 53% 44% 77% 87% 53% 90% 63% 69% 68% 98% 88% 78% 79% 61% 83% 85% 70% 99% 57% 55% 69%

164 Ibid.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 179

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 190 of 201 PageID: 7724
QR scores that are clear indicators of CPM standards such as Engagement with parents and Family Teamwork remain low. Following the QR and based on results, each county develops a plan to focus on improving practice in particular areas. The statewide QR process has become a routine part of quality improvement practice in New Jersey and QR data continue to be used to inform policy and practice changes.
NJ SPIRIT
DCF continues to work to improve data entry, data quality and data reporting through NJ SPIRIT. Additionally, DCF continues to fulfill the MSA requirement to produce agency performance reports with a set of measures approved by the Monitor and post these reports on the DCF website for public viewing (MSA II.J.6).165
NJ SPIRIT functionality was again enhanced during this monitoring period. A new feature was added to NJ SPIRIT that provided all supervisors the ability to search for and access an individual staff member’s pending work. Enhancements were also made to allow supervisors to reroute pieces of work from one worker to another when a worker is inactive. Additionally, NJ SPIRIT allows for the extension of Medicaid coverage for qualifying young adults between the age of 18 and 26. Qualified candidates with existing DCF Medicaid in NJ SPIRIT are automatically transferred to the new Federal Medicaid program in their 18th or 21st birthday month.
The NJ SPIRIT Help Desk continues to support workers in resolving technical issues. Between January and June 2014 the Help Desk closed 15,243 tickets requesting help or NJ SPIRIT IT support. The Help Desk resolved 7,317 (48%) of the 15,243 closed tickets within one work day and an additional 5,945 (39%) tickets within seven work days for a total of 87 percent resolved within seven work days.
SafeMeasures
SafeMeasures continues to be used by DCF staff at all levels of the organization to help them track, monitor and analyze trends in case practice in their own local areas. SafeMeasures allows staff to analyze data by Area Office, county, Local Office, unit supervisor and by case and also provides the staff with quantitative data they can use to identify strengths and diagnose needs to improve outcomes.
During this monitoring period, DCF rolled out an enhanced version of SafeMeasures. The new SafeMeasures v5 provides more functionality with customized views and menus to meet the continuing needs of users. Effective August 1, 2014, staff will use the new version exclusively. DCF has seen a sustained usage of SafeMeasures by staff at all levels. SafeMeasures is also used by executive management to track and monitor targeted outcomes. DCF continues to develop new reports in SafeMeasures to help staff better manage caseloads and worker responsibilities.

165 See http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/childdata/
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 180

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 191 of 201 PageID: 7725
XV. FISCAL YEAR 2015 BUDGET
The approved FY 2015 state appropriation for the Department of Children and Families, effective July 1, 2014, totals $1,095,861,000 and the total budget including federal funds is slightly over $1.6 billion. For the most part, the legislature accepted Governor Christie’s proposed budget which includes a slight increase from the 2014 budget (including amounts that had been provided in 2014 supplemental funding). There are relatively small increases and reductions in identified areas within the budget, mostly reflecting budget adjustments from prior years due to utilization patterns. For example, budgeted funds for foster care were increased by $314,000 based on the recent increases in the number of children in foster care. The legislature also increased funding for Domestic Violence Services, Sexual Assault Services and the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program. DCF reports that the budget allows for 6,643 staff positions which represents no change from FY 2014. DCF also reports that the FY 2015 budget provide sufficient funds to carry out the state’s responsibilities for child protection, children’s mental health (CSOC), services to support children in their own homes and in out-ofhome placement and to achieve the MSA outcomes related to children’s safety, permanency and well-being.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Page 181

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 192 of 201 PageID: 7726

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 193 of 201 PageID: 7727

APPENDIX: A-1 Glossary of Acronyms Used in the Monitoring Report

ACF: AFCARS:
AIP: AQCs: ASO: BCWEP: CAP: CCL: CCRMT: CFSR: CHEC: CHU: CIC: CIACC: CLSA: CME: CMO: CMS: CBT: CPEP: CPM: CPS: CQI: CSA: CSOC: CSSP: CWPPG: CWS: CWTA: CYBER: DAG: DCA: DCBHS: DCF: CP&P: DD: DDD: DDHH: DFCP: DHS: DPCP: DR: DYFS: EDW: EPSDT:
ETV: FAFS: FAFSA: FDC: FEMA: FFT: FQHC: FSC: FSO: FSS: FTE: FTM: FXB: HMIS:

Administration for Children and Families Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System AFCARS Improvement Plan Area Quality Coordinators Administrative Services Organization Baccalaureate Child Welfare Education Program Corrective Action Plan Child Care Licensing Congregate Care Risk Management Team Child and Family Service Review Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children Child Health Unit Children in Court Children’s Interagency Coordinating Council Casey Life Skills Assessment Comprehensive Medical Examination Case Management Organizations Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Child Placement Enhancement Project Case Practice Model Child Protective Services Continuous Quality Improvement Contracted System Administrator Children’s System of Care Center for the Study of Social Policy Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group Child Welfare Services Child Welfare Training Academy Child Youth Behavioral Electronic Health Record Deputy Attorney General Department of Community Affairs Division of Child Behavioral Health Services Department of Children and Families Division of Child Protection and Permanency Developmental Disability Division of Developmental Disabilities Division of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Division of Family and Community Partnerships Department of Human Services Division of Prevention and Community Partnerships Differential Response Division of Youth and Family Services Electronic Data Warehouse Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Education and Training Voucher Foster and Adoptive Family Services Free Application for Federal Student Aid Family Development Credential Federal Emergency Management Agency Functional Family Therapy Federally Qualified Health Center Family Success Centers Family Support Organizations Family Service Specialist Full-Time Equivalent Family Team Meeting Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center Homeless Management Information System

HSAC: IAIU: KLG: LGBTQI:
LO: MEYA: MH: MSA: MST: NCANDS:
NCIC:
NJCAN: NJCBW: NJFC: NJ SPIRIT: NRCRRFAP:
NYTD: OAS: OCHS: OCQI: OESP: OIT: OMPA:
OOE: OOL: ORF: OTARY: PALS:
PIP: PPA: QA: QR: RDTC: RFL: RFP: RL: SAFE: SCR: SETC: SHIP: SHSP: SIBS: SPRU: SIP: TF-CBT: TPR: UMDNJ:
USDA: YAB: YCM: YEC:

Human Services Advisory Council Institutional Abuse Investigative Unit Kinship Legal Guardian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning or Intersex Local Office Medicaid Extension for Youth Adults Mental Health Modified Settlement Agreement Multi-systemic Therapy National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect Northeast and Caribbean Child Welfare Implementation Center New Jersey Career Assistance Navigator New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women New Jersey Foster Care New Jersey Spirit National Resource Center for Recruitment and Retention of Foster and Adoptive Parents National Youth in Transition Database Office of Adolescent Services Office of Child Health Services Office of Continuous Quality Improvement Office of Educational Support and Programs New Jersey Office of Information Technology Office of Performance Management and Accountability Office of Education Office of Licensing Office of Resource Family Outreach to At-Risk Youth Peace: A Learned Solution, New Jersey’s trauma informed program for victims of domestic violence Performance Improvement Plan Pre-placement Assessment Quality Assurance Qualitative Review Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Center Resource Family Licensing Request for Proposal Residential Licensing Structured Analysis Family Evaluation State Central Registry State Employment and Training Commission Summer Housing and Internship Program Special Home Service Providers Siblings in Best Settings Special Response Unit Summer Internship Program Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Termination of Parental Rights University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey United States Department of Agriculture Youth Advisory Board Youth Case Management Youth Employment Coordinator

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Appendix A-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 194 of 201 PageID: 7728

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 195 of 201 PageID: 7729

APPENDIX: B-1
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES
Measure #7a Initial Family Team Meeting Held within 30 days from the Removal
SafeMeasures Screen "Initial Family Team Meeting Timeliness"

Local Office Atlantic East LO Bergen Central LO Bergen South LO Burlington East LO Burlington West LO Camden Central LO Camden East LO Camden North LO Camden South LO Cape May LO Cumberland East LO Cumberland West LO Essex Central LO Essex North LO Essex South LO Gloucester East LO Gloucester West LO Hudson Central LO Hudson North LO Hudson South LO Hudson West LO Mercer North LO Mercer South LO Middlesex Central LO Middlesex Coastal LO Middlesex West LO Monmouth North LO Monmouth South LO Morris East LO Morris West LO Newark Center City LO Newark Northeast LO Newark South LO Ocean North LO Ocean South LO Passaic Central LO Passaic North LO Salem LO Somerset LO Sussex LO Union Central LO Union East LO Union West LO Warren LO
SafeMeasures Extract: 8/25/2014

Total 8 2 13 19 13 17 6 21 11 5 1 6 4 1 5 11 10 11 1 7 7 6 14 6 4 4 5 13 2 5 4 15 7 4 11 5 13 9 10 6 6 9 3 6

June 2014

Not Held

Initial FTM

Within 30 Days Declined

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

3

3

0

0

0

0

9

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Initial FTM Not Held - Parent Unavailable
0 0 0 12 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 4 1 0 4 3 0 0 2 0 2

Held Within 30 Days 8 2 13 6 8 10 4 11 10 4 0 3 3 1 0 10 10 11 1 2 7 6 13 3 3 3 3 13 2 5 2 15 6 3 6 4 11 5 7 5 6 7 3 2

% Compliance
100% 100% 100%
32% 62% 59% 67% 52% 91% 80% 0% 50% 75% 100% 0% 91% 100% 100% 100% 29% 100% 100% 93% 50% 75% 75% 60% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 86% 75% 55% 80% 85% 56% 70% 83% 100% 78% 100% 33%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 196 of 201 PageID: 7730

APPENDIX: B-2
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES
Measure #7b Quarterly Family Team Meetings Must be Held every 3 months during the Child's Time in Placement
SafeMeasures Screen "Quarterly Family Team Meeting Timeliness"

Local Office

Total

Atlantic East LO

44

Atlantic West LO

35

Bergen Central LO

39

Bergen South LO

75

Burlington East LO

78

Burlington West LO

52

Camden Central LO

33

Camden East LO

26

Camden North LO

37

Camden South LO

59

Cape May LO

48

Cumberland East LO

20

Cumberland West LO

49

Essex Central LO

61

Essex North LO

19

Essex South LO

40

Gloucester East LO

35

Gloucester West LO

68

Hudson Central LO

29

Hudson North LO

14

Hudson South LO

61

Hudson West LO

26

Hunterdon LO

15

Mercer North LO

44

Mercer South LO

39

Middlesex Central LO

16

Middlesex Coastal LO

42

Middlesex West LO

39

Monmouth North LO

48

Monmouth South LO

39

Morris East LO

10

Morris West LO

27

Newark Center City LO

66

Newark Northeast LO

95

Newark South LO

71

Ocean North LO

34

Ocean South LO

82

Passaic Central LO

29

Passaic North LO

43

Salem LO

18

Somerset LO

41

Sussex LO

19

Union Central LO

26

Union East LO

51

Union West LO

27

Warren LO

25

SafeMeasures Extract 8/26/2014

Outstanding 0 1 0 2 4 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 7 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 5 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 7

June 2014 FTM
Declined 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 0 6 2 0 1 1 0 0 6 1 10 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
12 2 0 0 2 1 0 3 6 3 0 1 2 6 1 0 1 2

FTM Not Held Parent Unavailable
1 5 0 1 2 2 5 9 4 11 1 13 8 26 7 11 2 12 2 0 9 6 0 0 0 0 2 8 11 14 0 0 13 20 8 1 15 6 2 1 2 3 0 6 2 4

Completed 43 28 39 72 71 49 23 16 27 46 46 6 40 35 9 23 32 46 26 14 37 17 15 44 38 15 40 29 25 22 10 25 46 74 63 29 58 20 41 16 36 9 24 45 23 12

% Compliance
98% 80% 100% 96% 91% 94% 70% 62% 73% 78% 96% 30% 82% 57% 47% 58% 91% 68% 90% 100% 61% 65% 100% 100% 97% 94% 95% 74% 52% 56% 100% 93% 70% 78% 89% 85% 71% 69% 95% 89% 88% 47% 92% 88% 85% 48%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Appendix B-2

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 197 of 201 PageID: 7731

APPENDIX: B-3
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES
Measure #17 Caseworker Visits With Children in Placement

Local Office
Atlantic East LO Atlantic West LO Bergen Central LO Bergen South LO Burlington East LO Burlington West LO Camden Central LO Camden East LO Camden North LO Camden South LO Cape May LO Cumberland East LO Cumberland West LO Essex Central LO Essex North LO Essex South LO Gloucester East LO Gloucester West LO Hudson Central LO Hudson North LO Hudson South LO Hudson West LO Hunterdon LO Mercer North LO Mercer South LO Middlesex Central LO Middlesex Coastal LO Middlesex West LO Monmouth North LO Monmouth South LO Morris East LO Morris West LO Newark Center City LO Newark Northeast LO Newark South LO Ocean North LO Ocean South LO Passaic Central LO Passaic North LO Salem LO Somerset LO Sussex LO Union Central LO Union East LO Union West LO Warren LO
SafeMeasures Extract: 10/28/2014

June 2014 Total # of Children in
Placement (In State & Out-of-State)
161 227 116 223 285 167 172 108 184 207 150 129 100 215 75 126 97 265 122 56 236 114 35 195 136 53 172 115 182 152 29 142 200 314 210 176 279 98 179 94 130 78 81 159 90 116

# Contacts Completed in
Placement
139 215 109 206 247 147 156 101 169 198 146 126 94 205 69 119 91 253 116 55 226 100 31 178 125 45 157 113 174 144 29 140 185 278 187 164 267 88 175 93 125 77 79 138 80 92

% Completed
86% 95% 94% 92% 87% 88% 91% 94% 92% 96% 97% 98% 94% 95% 92% 94% 94% 95% 95% 98% 96% 88% 89% 91% 92% 85% 91% 98% 96% 95% 100% 99% 93% 89% 89% 93% 96% 90% 98% 99% 96% 99% 98% 87% 89% 79%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Appendix B-3

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 198 of 201 PageID: 7732

APPENDIX: B-4
LOCAL OFFICE PERFORMANCE ON SELECTED MEASURES
Measure #18 Caseworker Visits with Parent(s) - Goal of Reunification

Local Office
Atlantic East LO Atlantic West LO Bergen Central LO Bergen South LO Burlington East LO Burlington West LO Camden Central LO Camden East LO Camden North LO Camden South LO Cape May LO Cumberland East LO Cumberland West LO Essex Central LO Essex North LO Essex South LO Gloucester East LO Gloucester West LO Hudson Central LO Hudson North LO Hudson South LO Hudson West LO Hunterdon LO Mercer North LO Mercer South LO Middlesex Central LO Middlesex Coastal LO Middlesex West LO Monmouth North LO Monmouth South LO Morris East LO Morris West LO Newark Center City LO Newark Northeast LO Newark South LO Ocean North LO Ocean South LO Passaic Central LO Passaic North LO Salem LO Somerset LO Sussex LO Union Central LO Union East LO Union West LO Warren LO
SafeMeasures Extract: 8/19/2014

June 2014
Total Children
139 61 64
108 162 107
92 70 101 113 43 41 100 125 38 67 89 128 68 37 148 74 30 99 100 29 83 69 130 77 12 51 110 157 92 90 166 51 86 45 55 33 38 89 46 60

# Completed
109 45 55 88
125 95 66 60 92 80 34 17 82 91 29 50 66 107 46 33 121 58 26 82 83 24 67 50 92 59 11 44 77 129 67 66
123 37 66 37 45 27 34 71 43 39

% Completed
78% 74% 86% 82% 77% 89% 72% 86% 91% 71% 79% 42% 82% 73% 76% 75% 74% 84% 68% 89% 82% 78% 87% 83% 83% 83% 81% 73% 71% 77% 92% 86% 70% 82% 73% 73% 74% 73% 77% 82% 82% 82% 90% 80% 94% 65%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Appendix B-4

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 199 of 201 PageID: 7733

APPENDIX: C-1 CASE WORKER CASELOAD COMPLIANCE BY LOCAL OFFICE
Intake Caseload Compliance

Measure III.B.1.b

June 2014

Intake

Total

Workers In

Percent in

Local Office

Workers

Compliance

Compliance

Atlantic East

19

9

47%

Atlantic West

13

2

15%

Bergen Central

22

22

100%

Bergen South

30

29

97%

Burlington East

21

11

52%

Burlington West

22

20

91%

Camden Central

17

15

88%

Camden East

22

22

100%

Camden North

20

15

75%

Camden South

17

17

100%

Cape May

13

13

100%

Cumberland East

10

9

90%

Cumberland West

29

29

100%

Essex Central

20

20

100%

Essex North

15

15

100%

Essex South

15

15

100%

Gloucester East

17

14

82%

Gloucester West

21

20

95%

Hudson Central

18

16

89%

Hudson North

18

18

100%

Hudson South

22

21

95%

Hudson West

18

17

94%

Hunterdon

6

6

100%

Mercer North

19

18

95%

Mercer South

23

23

100%

Middlesex Central

15

14

93%

Middlesex Coastal

21

12

57%

Middlesex West

24

22

92%

Monmouth North

26

20

77%

Monmouth South

25

12

48%

Morris East

16

16

100%

Morris West

22

22

100%

Newark Center City

20

20

100%

Newark Northeast

19

17

89%

Newark South

22

20

91%

Ocean North

33

31

94%

Ocean South

31

30

97%

Passaic Central

25

9

36%

Passaic North

28

24

86%

Salem

15

14

93%

Somerset

28

27

96%

Sussex

16

16

100%

Union Central

19

18

95%

Union East

23

23

100%

Union West

18

18

100%

Warren

19

18

95%

Intake Standard - Percentage of workers that meet the 8 new intake and 12 family standard (Standard = 95%) Excludes On-Leave Workers. Prepared by the Office of Research, Evaluation and Reporting – July 15, 2014 Data Extracts on July 7, 2014

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Appendix C-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 200 of 201 PageID: 7734

APPENDIX: C-2 CASE WORKER CASELOAD COMPLIANCE BY LOCAL OFFICE
Adoption Caseload Compliance

Measure III.B.1.d

June 2014

Adoption

Total

Workers In

Percent in

Local Office

Workers

Compliance

Compliance

Atlantic East

Atlantic West

10

3

30%

Bergen Central

4

4

100%

Bergen South

10

9

90%

Burlington East

7

4

57%

Burlington West

5

4

80%

Camden Central

4

1

25%

Camden East

3

3

100%

Camden North

4

4

100%

Camden South

5

4

80%

Cape May

7

5

71%

Cumberland East

6

4

67%

Cumberland West

Essex Central

6

6

100%

Essex North

3

3

100%

Essex South

4

4

100%

Gloucester East

Gloucester West

10

10

100%

Hudson Central

3

3

100%

Hudson North

2

2

100%

Hudson South

6

6

100%

Hudson West

3

3

100%

Hunterdon

1

1

100%

Mercer North

6

6

100%

Mercer South

3

3

100%

Middlesex Central

2

2

100%

Middlesex Coastal

5

3

60%

Middlesex West

3

3

100%

Monmouth North

4

4

100%

Monmouth South

5

5

100%

Morris East

1

1

100%

Morris West

6

6

100%

Newark Center City

9

9

100%

Newark Northeast

9

8

89%

Newark South

9

9

100%

Ocean North

6

4

67%

Ocean South

7

7

100%

Passaic Central

3

3

100%

Passaic North

7

5

71%

Salem

4

4

100%

Somerset

5

5

100%

Sussex

4

3

75%

Union Central

3

3

100%

Union East

3

3

100%

Union West

4

4

100%

Warren

4

4

100%

Adoption Standard - Percentage of workers that meet the 15 or fewer children standard (Standard = 95%) Excludes On-Leave Workers. Prepared by the Office of Research, Evaluation and Reporting – July 15, 2014 Data Extracts on July 7, 2014

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Appendix C-2

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 332 Filed 01/23/15 Page 201 of 201 PageID: 7735

Chief of Staff
Administration
Advocacy
Child Welfare Training
Academy & Partnership
Information Technology
Clinical Services Office of Education (Regional Schools) Strategic Development

Assistant Commissioner Performance Management & Accountability
Quality
Research, Evaluation &
Reporting
Administrative Reviews
Institutional Abuse
Investigation Unit
Child Care Youth
Residential Licensing
Federal Reporting

Assistant Commissioner
Child Protection & Permanency
Field Operations and Support
Case Practice
Adoption Operations, Resource Families & Interstate
Services
State Central Registry

APPENDIX: D-1 DCF Organizational Chart Department of Children and Families

COMMISSIONER

Assistant Commissioner

Adolescent Services

Children’s System of Care

Family & Community Partnerships

Women

Adolescent Case Practice
Employment Services
Housing & Transitional
Services
Youth Engagement
Educational Support
Services & Scholarship Programs

Specialized Treatment Services
Community Services
Policy & Planning and System Administration
Substance Abuse Services
for Adolescents
DD/ID Services

Early Childhood Services
School Linked Services
Family Support Services

Sexual Assault Direct Services
Sexual Assault Prevention Services
Displaced Homemaker
Services
Domestic Violence Services

Chief Administrator
Budget
Revenue, Reporting &
IV-E Operations
DCF Contracting 5 Business
Offices
Procurement
Accounting

Deputy Commissioner
Legislative Affairs
Policy & Regulatory Development
Grants Management, Auditing &
Records
Legal Affairs
Communications & Public Affairs
October 2014

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XV Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

January 2015 Appendix D-1

 
 Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 19 PageID: 7963

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

CHARLIE AND NADINE H., et a!.,

Hon. Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J.

Plaintiffs,

Civ. Action No. 99-3678 (SRC)

v.

CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, as Governor of the State ofNew Jersey, and ALLISON BLAKE, as Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families,

Defendants.

SUSTAINABILITY AND EXIT PLAN (SECOND MODIFIED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT)
PREAMBLE
This Second Modified Settlement Agreement (hereinafter the "Agreement") supersedes all previous agreements, oral and written, and resolves all disputes in the case captioned Charlie and Nadine H., et a!., v. Christie, eta!., Civil Action Number 99-3678 (SRC) (the "Action") including, without limitation, the claims of the named plaintiffs and the plaintiff classes as of the dates of (I) the September 2, 2003 Settlement Agreement, (2) the December I, 2005 Motion for Contempt and Noncompliance, and (3) the July I8, 2006 Modified Settlement Agreement.
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has subject-matter jurisdiction over the claims set forth in the Amended Complaint filed in the Action, personal jurisdiction over parties to the Action, and the authority to approve and enter this Agreement as a fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement of the Action. Unless otherwise noted, the terms ofthis Agreement will not take effect until the Court approves and enters the Agreement. Unless otherwise noted, the terms of this Agreement referred to as the Sustainability and Exit Plan, will not take effect until the Court approves and enters the Agreement.
The United States District Court for the District ofNew Jersey will have continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreement, and any documents incorporated herein, until such time as the parties agree to terminate this Agreement or the Court terminates this Agreement.
This Agreement is not, nor will it be construed to be, an admission of liability on the part of Defendants, or any of them, as to the truth of any fact alleged or the validity of any claim which has or could have been asserted in the Action, or of the deficiency of any defense which has or could have been asserted in the Action or of any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever, nor will this Agreement be construed as an acknowledgment by Plaintiffs of the absence of such liability.

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 2 of 19 PageID: 7964
As set forth above, it is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that the Court retain jurisdiction over this Agreement and that this Agreement will be enforceable by the Court as provided herein. It is also the intent of the parties that, notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the parties will apply their best efforts to effectuate the purposes of this Agreement and make every reasonable effort to resolve disputes prior to seeking court intervention. Plaintiffs agree not to seek relief for isolated or minor violations, nor for violations relating solely to an individual child, unless that child is a named plaintiff in this litigation.
Unless otherwise specifically stated in a provision ofthis Agreement, all provisions of this Agreement will be enforceable as provided herein and will apply to all children in custody, regardless of whether they are in a placement made by the State or by a contract agency, and regardless of the type of placement.
All references to "the State" within this Agreement refer to and specifically apply to the Defendants, the Governor of the State ofNew Jersey as supervisor of the Department of Children and Families ("DCF"), and the Commissioner ofDCF, acting in their official capacities.
I. PRINCIPLES OF THE SUSTAINABILITY AND EXIT PLAN
IheJnterpretation_of_the provjsiQ11s oLthi_s_Agreement will be gyjded by the followiQ.g principles:
A. Children in out-of-home care should be protected from harm.
1. Foster care should be as temporary an arrangement as possible, with its goal being to provide to children in out-of-home placements a safe, nurturing, and permanent home quickly.
2. If at all possible, children in out-of-home placements should be quickly and safely reunified with their biological families. If this cannot be accomplished, children need to be placed with an adoptive family, or in the permanent legal custody of an appropriate kinship family, in a timely fashion.
3. Families should be provided with the services they need to keep them together whenever possible. Families should be provided with the services they need to allow for safe and speedy reunification whenever possible.
4. In making determinations about plans and services, the child's interests are paramount.
5. Children in out-of-home placement should be in the least restrictive, most family-like setting appropriate for their needs.
6. Children in out-of-home placement should be placed in settings that promote the continuity of critical relationships: together with their
2

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 3 of 19 PageID: 7965
siblings; with capable relatives whenever possible; and in their own communities.
7. Children in out-of-home placement should have stable placements that meet their needs, and should be protected from the harm caused by multiple placement moves.
8. Children in out-of-home placement should have the services necessary to address their medical and psychological needs, including those services needed to address problems arising from the child's removal from his or her biological family.
9. Children in out-of-home placement must have timely decision-making about where and with whom they will spend their childhood, and timely implementation of whatever decisions have been made.
10. Children in out-of-home placement should be protected from abuse and neglect and, to this end, investigations of allegations of abuse and neglect in out-of-home placements should be timely, thorough and complete.
11. Adolescents in out-of-home placements should be provided with the skills, opportunities, housing and permanent connections with caring adults they need to successfully make the transition to adulthood.
12. The State shall make every effort to ensure that all children shall receive equal and appropriate access to services without regard to race, religion, sexual identity or ethnic origin.
B. Decisions about children in out-of-home placement should be made with meaningful participation of their families and of the youth themselves to the extent they are able to participate.
C. In order to protect children and support families, New Jersey's child welfare system should operate in partnership with the neighborhoods and communities from which children enter care.
D. New Jersey's child welfare system should be accountable to the public; to other stakeholders; and to communities throughout the State.
E. Services to children in care and their families should be provided with respect for and understanding of their culture. No child or family should be denied a needed service or placement because of race, ethnicity, or special language needs.
F. New Jersey's child welfare system should have the infrastructure, resources, and policies needed to serve the best interests of the children in its care.
3

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 4 of 19 PageID: 7966
The list of principles outlined above is not intended to be exhaustive. Rather, the parties acknowledge that the shared goal of improving outcomes for children will require commitments to principles and outcome measures that are broader than the subject matter of this Action.
II. FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS
The Parties acknowledge that elements in this Section provide the foundation for a healthy child welfare system. At the Monitor's discretion, based on a concern that a foundational element has not been sustained, the Monitor may request additional data. If the data demonstrate a persistent problem, in the Monitor's discretion, the State will propose and implement corrective action. The elements in this category are enforceable if the Monitor determines that a foundational element has not been sustained.
A. DATA TRANSPARENCY
DCF will continue to maintain a case management information and data collection system that allows for the assessment, tracking, posting or web-based publishing, and utilization of key data indicators. The data indicators, including definitions and methodology will be developed in consultation and agreement with the.Monitot:...Eublished.data.w.illbe.made..available..on_worker_caseloads_by_ worker type and office. DCF will ensure the accuracy of published data and will maintain its definitions and methodology. DCF will continue to collect and publish, at appropriate intervals determined in consultation with the Monitor, both process and outcome data related to the requirements of this Agreement.
B. CASE PRACTICE MODEL
DCF will continue to implement and sustain a Case Practice Model that is reflective of the principles of this Agreement and DCF's values. The model is a continuous set of activities that emphasizes quality investigation and assessment, including safety and risk assessment and risk reassessment, and engagement with youth and families; working with family teams; individualized planning and relevant services; continuous review and adaptation; and safe and sustained transition from DCF.
C. STATE CENTRAL REGISTRY OPERATIONS
Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be received by the field in a timely manner and investigation commenced within the required response time as identified at SCR but no later than 24 hours.
D. APPROPRJATE PLACEMENTS
When out-of-home placement is necessary, DCF will provide the most appropriate and least restrictive placements, allowing children to remain in their own communities, be placed with or maintain contact with siblings and relatives, and have their educational needs met. Children under age 13 shall not be placed in
4

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 5 of 19 PageID: 7967

shelters, and no child shall be placed out-of-state in a behavioral health facility without written approval of the Director of the Children's System of Care. The State shall maintain an adequate number and array of family-based placements to appropriately place children in family settings.

E. SERVICE ARRAY
DCF will provide comprehensive, culturally responsive services to address the identified needs of the children, youth, and families it serves. These services shall include but not be limited to services for: youth age 18-21, LGBTQI services, mental health and domestic violence services for birth parents whose families are involved with the child welfare system, and preventive home visitation programs. The State shall maintain an adequate statewide network of Family Success Centers.
F. MEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES
The State will continue to provide medical care to children and youth including appropriate medical assessment and treatment, pre-placement and entry medical assessments under..EESDI.guidelines.- dental examinations, up to date immunizations, follow-up care and treatment and mental health assessment and treatment, where appropriate. The State will continue to provide behavioral health treatment in the least restrictive setting for children and youth.

G. TRAINING
DCF will maintain a comprehensive training program for child welfare staff and supervisors including specialized training for investigators and IAIU staff. The training shall minimally include: pre-service training covering such areas as the case practice model and permanency planning, including concurrent planning, and adoption and NJ SPIRIT training. Staff completing training shall demonstrate competency on required areas of training.

H. FLEXIBLE FUNDING

DCF will continue to make flexible funds available for use by workers in crafting individualized service plans for children, youth and families to meet the needs of children and families, to facilitate family preservation and reunification where appropriate, and to ensure that families are able to provide appropriate care for children and to avoid the disruption of otherwise stable and appropriate placements.

I.

RESOURCE FAMILY CARE SUPPORT RATES

The State will continue to adjust the resource family care support rates to maintain them at the USDA estimates for the cost of raising a child for the following State fiscal year. The State will continue to adjust the Independent Living Stipend considering the USDA estimate rates for raising an adolescent, the

5

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 6 of 19 PageID: 7968
HUD Fair Market Value for average rent in New Jersey, and IRS estimates for monthly food and household expenses.
J. PERMANENCY
Consistent with the principles of this agreement, DCF will continue to strengthen and sustain appropriate permanency and adoption practices for the children and youth it serves, recognizing that DCF's permanency work begins at intake and is encompassing of the elements of the Case Practice Model.
K. ADOPTION PRACTICE
The process of freeing a child for adoption and seeking and securing an adoptive placement shall begin as soon as the child's permanency goal becomes adoption but no later than as required by federal law. The State will conduct 5- and 10month placement reviews for children in custody. DCF shall commence the adoption process as soon as a diligent search process has been completed and has failed to identify the location of both parents or a suitable family placement. DCF shall develop a child specific recruitment plan for all children with a permanency goal of-adoption-needing-the-recruitment of-an-adoptive-family.
III. TO BE MAINTAINED
This category will include all requirements within this Agreement for which the State has satisfied the outcomes and specified targets in this Agreement during at least the previous six-month period. Ifthe State's performance for a review period falls below the designated outcomes and standards in this Agreement, the Monitor has discretion to advise the State, and the State will have the opportunity to propose corrective action. If the State's performance for a subsequent review period remains below the designated outcomes and standards in this Agreement, the Monitor will have the discretion to determine if the decline in performance is temporary, insubstantial and/or caused by reasonably unforeseen circumstances or that the State's corrective actions are sufficient to remedy the decline or to re-designate the standard as an "Outcome to be Achieved."
In reviewing the status of measures in the "To Be Maintained" category, the Monitor will first look to the data published by DCF. For any measures for which public data are not available and where necessary for verification, DCF will provide data to the Monitor so that the Monitor can verify performance and continued compliance with the standards in this Agreement for each review period. The Monitor shall have access to all information it deems necessary as provided in Section V. of this Agreement.
If either party objects to the Monitor's designation of a requirement into the "To Be Maintained" category, either party may trigger the dispute resolution process for redesignation of measures as described in Section VI, the Dispute Resolution section concerning re-designation of measures.
6

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 7 of 19 PageID: 7969
A. INVESTIGATIONS 1. 80% of IAIU investigations will be completed within 60 days.
B. CASELOADS 2. Supervisor/Worker Ratio: 95% of offices will have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a 5 worker to 1 supervisor ratio. 3. IAIU Investigators: 95% ofiAIU investigators will have (a) no more than 12 open cases, and (b) no more than eight new case assignments per month. 4. Permanency Workers (Local Offices): 95% of local offices will have average caseloads for permanency workers of(a) no more than 15 families, and (b) no more than 10 children in out-of-home care. 5. Permanency Workers: 95% of permanency workers will have (a) no more than 15 families, and (b) no more than 10 children in out-of-home care.
C. CASE PLANS 6. 95% of case plans for children and families will be reviewed and modified no less frequently than every six months.
D. DAsG STAFFING 7. The State will maintain adequate DAsG staff positions and keep positions filled.
E. CHILD HEALTH UNITS 8. The State will continue to maintain its network of child health units, adequately staffed by nurses in each local office.
F. VISITATION 9. Caseworker Contacts with Children- New Placement/Placement Change: 93% of children shall have at least twice-per-month face to face contact with their caseworker within the first two months of placement, with at least one contact in the placement. 10. Caseworker Contacts with Children in Placement: During the remainder of the placement, 93% of children shall have at least one caseworker visit per month, in the placement.
7

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 8 of 19 PageID: 7970
G. EDUCATION
11. Children will be enrolled in school and DCF will have taken appropriate actions to ensure that their educational needs are being met. 80% of cases will be rated acceptable as measured by the QR in stability (school) and learning and development. The Monitor, in consultation with the parties, shall determine the standards for school stability and quality learning and development.
H. MALTREATMENT
12. Abuse and Neglect of Children in Foster Care: No more than 0.49% of children will be victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.
IV. TO BE ACHIEVED
Measures in this category are those that remain to be achieved after execution of this Agreement. At the conclusion o(each six-month monitoring period, the Monitor will determine whether DCF's performance..during the..monitoring peri.oclsatisfies eacluneasure.Jf_it_does, theManito....__ _ _ _ __ will certify the measure as "To be Maintained"; if not, the Monitor will continue to designate the measure as "To be Achieved." In making that determination, the Monitor will have the discretion to determine that any variations in performance are insubstantial.
All measures in this category will be subject to monitoring pursuant to Section V of this Agreement. If plaintiffs or defendants object to the Monitor's designation of a measure, either party may trigger the dispute resolution process for re-designation of measures as described in Section VI, the Dispute Resolution section.
A. INVESTIGATIONS
13. Timeliness of Completion: 85% of all investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be completed within 60 days. Cases with documented acceptable extensions in accordance with policy are considered compliant.
14. Timeliness of Completion: 95% of all investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be completed within 90 days. Cases with documented acceptable extensions in accordance with policy are considered compliant.
15. Quality of Investigations: 85% of investigations shall meet the standards for quality investigations. The Monitor, in consultation with the parties, shall determine appropriate standards for quality investigations.
B. FAMILY TEAM MEETINGS
16. Initial FTM: 80% of children newly entering placement shall have a family team meeting before or within 45 days of placement.
8

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 9 of 19 PageID: 7971
17. Subsequent FTMs within 12 Months: 80% of children will have three additional FTMs within the first 12 months of the child coming into placement.
18. Subsequent FTMs after 12 Months- Reunification Goal: After the first 12 months of a child being in care, 90% ofthose with a goal of reunification will have at least three FTMs each year.
19. Subsequent FTMs after 12 Months- Other than Reunification Goal: After the first 12 months of a child being in care, for those children with a goal other than reunification, 90% shall have at least two FTMs each year.
20. Quality of Teaming: 75% of cases involving out-of-home placements that were assessed as part of the QR process will show evidence of both acceptable team formation and acceptable team functioning. The Monitor, in consultation with the parties, shall determine the standards for quality team formation and functioning.
C. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
21. The State shall regularly evaluate the need for additional placements and services to meet the needs of children in custody and their families, and to support intact families and prevent the need for out-of-home care. Such needs assessments shall be conducted on an annual, staggered basis that assures that every county is assessed at least once every three years. The State shall develop placements and services consistent with the findings of these needs assessments.
D. QUALITY OF CASE AND SERVICE PLANNING
22. Initial Case Plans: 95% of initial case plans for children and families shall be completed within 30 days.
23. Quality of Case Plans: 80% of case plans shall be rated acceptable as measured by the QR process. The Monitor, in consultation with the parties, shall determine the standards for quality case planning.
E. CASELOADS
24. Intake Workers (local offices): 95% of local offices will have average caseloads for intake workers of no more than 12 families and no more than eight new case assignments per month.
25. Intake Workers: 90% of individual intake workers shall have no more than 12 open cases and no more than eight new case assignments per month.
9

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 10 of 19 PageID: 7972
No intake worker with 12 or more open cases can be given more than two secondary assignments per month. 26. Adoption Workers (local offices): 95% of local offices will have average caseloads for adoption workers of no more than 12 adoptive families per worker. 27. Adoption Workers: 95% of individual adoption worker caseloads shall be no more than 12 adoptive families per worker. F. VISITATION 28. Caseworker Contacts with Family When Goal is Reunification: 90% of families will have at least twice-per-month, face-to-face contact with their caseworker when the permanency goal is reunification. 29. Parent-Child Visits- weekly: 60% of children in custody with a return home goal will have an in-person visit with their parent(s) or other legally responsible family member at least weekly, excluding those situations -where a courrorderprohibits-orTegulates-visits-orthereis-supervisory approval of a decision to cancel a visit because it is physically or psychologically harmful to a child. 30. Parent-Child Visits- bi-weekly: 85% of children in custody will have an in-person visit with their parent(s) or other legally responsible family member at least every other week, excluding those situations where a court order prohibits or regulates visits or there is supervisory approval of a decision to cancel a visit because it is physically or psychologically harmful to a child. 31. Child Visits with Siblings: 85% of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing will visit those siblings at least monthly, excluding those situations where a court order prohibits or regulates visits or there is supervisory approval of a decision to cancel a visit because it is physically or psychologically harmful to a child.
10

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 11 of 19 PageID: 7973

G. PLACEMENT

32. Sibling Placements: At least 80% of siblings groups of two or three children entering custody will be placed together.

33. Sibling Placements of four or more children: All children will be placed with at least one other sibling 80% of the time.

34. Recruitment for Sibling Groups of Four or More: DCF will continue to recruit for resource homes capable of serving sibling groups of four or more.

35. Placement Stability, First 12 Months in Care: At least 84% of children entering out-of-home placement for the first time in a calendar year will have no more than one placement change during the 12 months following
their date of entry.

36. Placement Stability, 13-24 Months in Care: At least 88% of these children will have no more than one placement change during the 13-24 month-following-their date of-entry:

H. MALTREATMENT

37. Repeat Maltreatment (In-home): No more than 7.2% of children who remain at home after a substantiation of abuse or neglect will have another substantiation within the next 12 months.

38. Maltreatment Post-Reunification: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period for the first time who are discharged within 24 months to reunification or living with a relative(s), no more than 6.9% will be the victims of abuse or neglect within 12 months of their discharge.

39. Re-entry to Placement: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12 month period for the first time who are discharged within 12 months to reunification, living with a relative(s), or guardianship, no more than 9 percent will re-enter foster care within 12 months of their discharge.

I.

TIMELY PERMANENCY

40. Permanency within 12 Months: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 42% will be discharged to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or adoption) within 12
months of entering foster care.

41. Permanency within 24 Months: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 66% will be discharged to permanency

1 1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 12 of 19 PageID: 7974
(reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or adoption) within 24 months of entering foster care.
42. Permanency within 36 Months: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 80% will be discharged to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or adoption) within 36 months of entering foster care).
43. Permanency within 48 Months: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 86% will be discharged to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or adoption) within 48 months of entering foster care.
J. SERVICES TO SUPPORT TRANSITION
44. 80% of cases will be rated acceptable for supporting transitions as measured by the QR. The Monitor, in consultation with the parties, shall determine the standards for quality support for transitions.
K. OLDER YOUiH
45. Independent Living Assessments: 90% ofyouths age 14 to 18 will have an Independent Living Assessment.
46. Quality of Case Planning and Services: 75% of youth aged 18 to 21 who have not achieved legal permanency shall receive acceptable quality case management and service planning.
47. Housing: 95% of youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall have housing.
48. Employment/Education: 90% of youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall be employed, enrolled in or have recently completed a training or an education program or there is documented evidence of consistent efforts to help the youth secure employment or training.
V. MONITORING
A. The parties agree that the Center for the Study of Social Policy, under the direction of Judith Meltzer, shall be the Monitor of the State's compliance with the goals and principles of this Agreement.
B. The Monitor's duties shall be to confirm independently the data reports and statistics provided pursuant to this Agreement, including: conduct independent case record and other qualitative reviews; review all plans and documents agreed to be developed and produced by the State pursuant to this Agreement; and report on the State's progress in implementing the terms of this Agreement and the
12

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 13 of 19 PageID: 7975
achievement of the improved outcomes set forth herein. Among the Monitor's responsibilities, the Monitor shall review whether case practice reflects the components of the Case Practice Model referred to throughout this Agreement.
C. The Monitor shall prepare reports that will address these issues and be released periodically, but no less than every six months, unless the parties and the Monitor agree otherwise. To avoid duplication and to build capacity within the agency, the Monitor will look first to the State's data and data analysis. Accordingly, the State shall provide the Monitor with copies of all regular data reports respecting measures contained in this Agreement. The State also agrees to provide all data and reports requested by the Monitor, whether or not that data is already compiled for use on the State's website or in any of its web-based or other publications, respecting measures contained in this Agreement.
D. Respecting measures contained in this Agreement, notwithstanding the existence of State data, data analysis, and reports, the Monitor will have the authority to prepare new reports on outcome measures and all other enforceable measures contained in this Agreement.
E. The-State-agrees to pro:v.ide-the-Monitor with -fr-ee-access to all individuals within DCF and its Divisions, any successor agencies or divisions, and persons within the Executive Branch, as the Monitor chooses; to assist the Monitor in gaining free access to other stakeholders in the child welfare system (including but not limited to the staff of contract providers); and to provide the Monitor with free access to all documents and data the Monitor deems relevant to its work (including but not limited to documents and data from contract agencies). The Monitor agrees to respect the confidentiality of all information related to individually identifiable clients of the Department and its Divisions, subject to applicable law. The Monitor further agrees to respect the confidentiality of any documents that are in draft form or otherwise privileged, subject to applicable law.
F. The reports of the Monitor shall be public documents, except that any individually identifiable information (as that term is understood under New Jersey law) and any other confidential information protected from disclosure by law, including without limitation any protected health information and/or individually identifiable health information (as those terms are understood under HIPAA) shall be redacted or otherwise removed from any public report. The Monitor shall have a sufficient, reasonable budget (the funding of which shall be the responsibility of the State), staff, and access to information, including access to State employees, that the Monitor deems necessary to fulfill his or her duties. Any such information received by the Monitor, unless already public, will not be made public without the State's prior written permission, except as incorporated into a public report of the Monitor.
G. Plaintiffs shall have access, through the Monitor, to all information made available to the Monitor, and to all information related to ensuring compliance
13

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 14 of 19 PageID: 7976

with and enforcing this Agreement, subject to any confidentiality order(s) in effect in this case.

H. The parties' intent is that the Monitor, in collaboration with the State, will develop a plan to transfer the primary monitoring function to DCF's Office of Performance Management and Accountability upon the termination of this Agreement, or at such earlier time as the parties may agree. The Monitor will work in collaboration with the State to build DCF's quality-assurance capacity and will reasonably ensure that monitoring is supportive ofDCF's good-faith
effort and need to absorb primary monitoring within DCF.

I.

The Monitor may periodically meet privately with the Court concerning issues

related to this case, provided the parties are made aware of the occurrence of such

a meeting.

J.

If at any point the Monitor can no longer serve, the parties shall agree on another

Monitor, with input and recommendations from the outgoing Monitor.

VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION

A. Dispute Resolution regarding Non-compliance

In the event that Plaintiffs believe that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with an enforceable provision of this Agreement:

I. Plaintiffs shall notify Defendants and the Monitor in writing of the compliance issue prior to seeking any judicial relief.

2. Within I 0 calendar days of such notification, the State may respond in writing to Plaintiffs and the Monitor regarding the compliance issue raised and what actions, if any, it proposes to take with regard to the alleged
issue of non-compliance.

3. Within 30 calendar days of the original notification, the parties shall meet with the Monitor, unless extended by agreement of the parties and the Monitor. The purpose of the meeting will be for the parties to engage in good-faith negotiations with the assistance of the Monitor to determine what, if any, actions are necessary to address the issues raised in the dispute. The parties shall engage in negotiations for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties and
the Monitor.

4. At the conclusion of the dispute resolution, if the parties have not come to a resolution, the Monitor shall analyze the issues raised by Plaintiffs and the State's response and shall prepare and issue a written report with recommendations concerning the dispute. The Monitor's report shall be issued no later than I5 calendar days after the conclusion of dispute

14

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 15 of 19 PageID: 7977
resolution. The report shall be provided to the parties and the Court and shall be considered a public document.
5. If, at the conclusion of the dispute resolution process and following the receipt ofthe Monitor's report, Plaintiffs determine that judicial action is necessary, Plaintiffs may seek further relief from the Court.
6. If Plaintiffs believe that Defendants have violated this Agreement and the alleged violations have caused or are likely to cause immediate or irreparable harm to the well-being of children in the State's custody, they make seek judicial relief following an expedited dispute resolution process. Plaintiffs must provide Defendants and the Monitor with written notice with respect to any such harm, including documentation that Plaintiffs believe supports their decision to invoke the provisions of this paragraph. Defendants will respond to this notice, in writing, within 3 business days. The Parties and the Monitor will then engage in the mediation process outlined in sections 3 and 4 above, provided that the entire mediation process is completed within I0 business days of Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' notice, unless extended by mutual agreement of the-parties and the-Monitor.
7. In an action in federal court to remedy an alleged failure to comply with any terms of this Agreement, Plaintiffs shall have the burden to demonstrate that Defendants have failed to comply with the specific terms of the Agreement and that they are entitled to relief. Factors that may be considered by the Court, but are not dispositive, are:
a. Conclusions and findings in the independent monitoring reports; b. Constraints, including legal constraints, upon Defendants' ability
to comply; c. The interests at stake; and d. The progress that has been made towards achieving compliance
with the specific terms in dispute.
B. Dispute Resolution regarding Re-designation of Measures
I. Concurrent with the Monitor's Report for each reporting period, the Monitor shall inform the parties of any measures that they will recommend to the Court be re-categorized as either an "Outcome to be Maintained" or an "Outcome to be Achieved."
2. If either party objects to the Monitor's designation of a measure as being categorized as either To Be Maintained or To Be Achieved, that party may invoke the dispute resolution procedure described in this section.
3. Within I0 calendar days of such notification, either party may provide written notification to the Monitor and to the other party that they disagree
15

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 16 of 19 PageID: 7978
with a recommendation for categorization and provide their reasons for such disagreement.
4. Within 15 calendar days of the Monitor's receipt of written notification of objection from either party, the Monitor will engage in discussions with both parties to understand the nature of any objections and the evidence for accepting/disputing the Monitor's recommendation.
5. Within 30 days of the Monitor's discussions with each party, the Monitor shall determine the category designation and provide both parties and the Court with a written statement of its decision and the evidence that supports it.
6. The Monitor's decision shall be final and binding on the parties.
7. Once a requirement has been included in the "Outcome to Be Maintained" category, it will remain in that category for the duration of court jurisdiction of this matter, unless the Monitor determines that the State's performance during the immediately preceding six-month period has fallen below the desi_goated outcomes and standards in this Agreement. In making this determination, the Monitor shall have the discretion to determine whether the decline in performance is insubstantial, temporary and/or caused by reasonably unforeseen circumstances; or that the State's corrective action(s) are sufficient to remedy the decline; or to re-designate the measure as an "Outcome to Be Achieved."
8. If the performance fails to meet the performance standard for a subsequent period, the Monitor shall determine whether to re-designate the performance measure as an "Outcome to Be Achieved." In making this determination, the Monitor shall have the discretion to determine whether the decline is insubstantial or caused by reasonably unforeseen circumstances and/or whether there is evidence that the State's actions to remedy the decline demonstrate sound implementation of sufficient corrective action(s), CQI efforts to examine the effectiveness of the corrective action and progress toward meeting the designated performance measure.
VII. TERMINATION AND EXIT
A. Defendants may seek a ruling from the Court terminating the Court's jurisdiction over this Agreement based on Defendants demonstrating that they have achieved compliance with this Agreement for a continuous period of at least 12 months. A determination by the Monitor that all provisions are in the "To Be Maintained" category and have remained in that category for at least 12 months is prima facie evidence that this standard has been met.
B. Defendants may not, however, seek such a ruling if there are any pending motions before the Court, if there are then in effect any orders based on
16

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 17 of 19 PageID: 7979
noncompliance with any enforceable provisions of this Agreement, or there are any notices of non-compliance or action plans still in effect pursuant to the dispute resolution section of this Agreement. If, in response to such an application by Defendants, Plaintiffs can show that Defendants have failed to satisfy their burden outlined above, the Court shall retain jurisdiction. If Plaintiffs can show continued Court jurisdiction is necessary to accomplish the purposes of this Agreement the Court may also retain jurisdiction.
C. During the first six months following the Court's entry of an order terminating the Court's jurisdiction over this Agreement pursuant to section VILA, the State shall continue to publish accountability data and make additional data available to the Monitor if the Monitor requests it to validate continued performance. Ifthere is a serious, systemic decrease in Defendants' performance that is not temporary or insubstantial, Plaintiffs have the right to file a motion seeking to vacate the order and restore Court jurisdiction based on that change in performance.
D. Neither party may argue that any change in the exit standard from the Settlement Agreement of September 2, 2003, or the Modified Settlement Agreement of July 18, 2006, is intended to reflect agreement that there has been a substantive change to the- legal standard applicable-to the-termination or modification-o£.this- - - - - - - - - agreement when the Settlement Agreement was first executed.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF AND INTENDING TO BE LEGALLY BOUND HEREBY, the parties, by and through their duly authorized representatives, execute this Agreement, intending that it will become effective upon its approval and entry by the Court as provided herein.
DATED:

Allison Blake, Commissioner for Defendants

Marcia Robinson Lowry, for Plaintiffs

/Vov~e/

DATED:

~,=20~1=5_________

17

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 18 of 19 PageID: 7980

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. PRINCIPLES OF THE SUSTAINABILITY AND EXIT PLAN................................. 2

II. FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS .................................................................................... 4

A. DATA TRANSPARENCY..................................................................................... 4

B. CASE PRACTICE MODEL ................................................................................... 4

C. STATE CENTRAL REGISTRY OPERATIONS .................................................. 4

D. APPROPRIATE PLACEMENTS .......................................................................... 4

E. SERVICE ARRAY ................................................................................................. 5

F. MEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES ..................................... 5

G. TRAINING ............................................................................................................. 5

H. FLEXIBLE FUNDING ........................................................................................... 5

I.

RESOURCE FAMILY CARE SUPPORT RATES ............................................... 5

J. PERMANENCY ..................................................................................................... 6

K. ADOPTION PRACTICE ........................................................................................ 6

III. TO BE MAINTAINED ..................................................................................................... 6

A. INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................... 7

B. CASELOADS ......................................................................................................... 7

C. CASE PLANS ........................................................................................................... 7

D. DAsG STAFFING .................................................................................................... 7

E. CHILD HEALTH UNITS .......................................................................................... 7

F. VISITATION ............................................................................................................... 7

G. EDUCATION ............................................................................................................... 8

H. MALTREATMENT....................................................................................................... 8

IV. TO BE ACHIEVED .......................................................................................................... 8

18

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 340 Filed 11/04/15 Page 19 of 19 PageID: 7981

A. INVESTIGATIONS ............................................................................................... 8

B. FAMILY TEAM MEETINGS ................................................................................ 8

C. NEEDS ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................... 9

D. QUALITY OF CASE AND SERVICE PLANNING .............................................. 9

E. CASELOADS ........................................................................................................... 9

F. VISITATION ........................................................................................................ 10

G. PLACEMENT....................................................................................................... 11

H. MALTREATMENT ............................................................................................. 11

I. TIMELY PERMANENCY ................................................................................... 11

J. SERVICES TO SUPPORT TRANSITION .......................................................... 12

K.

OLDERYOUI~Hu---------·--------------------------~

V. MONITORING ............................................................................................................... 12

VI. DISPUTE RESOLUTION.............................................................................................. 12

VII. TERMINATION AND EXIT ........................................................................................ 12

19

 
 Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 1 of 142 PageID: 7982
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Period XVII (January 1 – December 31, 2015) Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie
June 8, 2016

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 2 of 142 PageID: 7983

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 3 of 142 PageID: 7984
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families
Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie
January 1 – December 31, 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
II. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE ................................................................................. 7
III. CHILD AND FAMILY OUTCOMES AND CASE PRACTICE PERFORMANCE MEASURES ................................................................................................................... 10
IV. FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS ................................................................................... 44 A. DATA TRANSPARENY .................................................................................. 44 B. CASE PRACTICE MODEL ............................................................................. 44 C. STATE CENTRAL REGISTRY OPERATIONS............................................. 45 D. APPROPRIATE PLACEMENTS ..................................................................... 46 E. SERVICE ARRAY ........................................................................................... 47 F. MEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES ............................... 50 G. TRAINING........................................................................................................ 52 H. FLEXIBLE FUNDING ..................................................................................... 52 I. RESOURCE FAMILY CARE SUPPORT RATES .......................................... 53 J. PERMANENCY ............................................................................................... 53 K. ADOPTION PRACTICE .................................................................................. 54
V. TO BE ACHIEVED AND TO BE MAINTAINED ....................................................... 55 A. INVESTIGATIONS .......................................................................................... 55 B. FAMILY TEAM MEETINGS .......................................................................... 59 C. QUALITY OF CASE SERVICE PLANNING................................................. 69 D. EDUCATION.................................................................................................... 73 E. VISITATION .................................................................................................... 74 F. PLACEMENT ................................................................................................... 81 G. MALTREATMENT .......................................................................................... 86 H. TIMELY PERMANENCY ............................................................................... 89 I. CHILD HEALTH UNITS ................................................................................. 94 J. OLDER YOUTH............................................................................................... 95 K. SERVICES TO SUPPORT TRANSITION ...................................................... 99 L. CASELOADS ................................................................................................. 100 M. DAsG STAFFING........................................................................................... 107
i

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 4 of 142 PageID: 7985 N. ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH THE QUALITATIVE REVIEW AND THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF ACCURATE DATA .................................... 108 O. NEEDS ASSESSMENT.................................................................................. 111 P. FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET ..................................................................... 113
APPENDICES A. Glossary of Acronyms Used in Monitoring Report ..........................................A-1 B. Sustainability and Exit Plan .............................................................................. B-1 C. DCF Organizational Chart as of October 2015 ................................................. C-1
ii

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 5 of 142 PageID: 7986
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Summary of Performance as of December 31, 2015)..................................................................................................... 12 2. Family Team Meetings Held within 45 days (January – November 2015) ................. 61 3. Family Team Meetings Held within the first 12 months (January – December 2015) ......................................................................................... 63 4. Family Team Meetings Held After 12 Months in Placement with a Goal of Reunification (January – December 2015) .................................................................. 65 5. Family Team Meetings Held After 12 Months in Placement with a Goal other than Reunification (January – December 2015) .................................................................. 67 6. Case Plans Developed within 30 and 60 days of Child Entering Placement (January – December 2015) .......................................................................................................... 71 7. CP&P Individual Caseload Standards ....................................................................... 101 8. Qualitative Review Gender and Age Demographics (January – December 2015) ....................................................................................... 109 9. Qualitative Review Race and Ethnic Demographics (January – December 2015) ....................................................................................... 109 10. Qualitative Review Child and Family Status Results (January – December 2015) ....................................................................................... 110 11. Qualitative Review Practice/System Performance Results (January – December 2015) ....................................................................................... 111
iii

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 6 of 142 PageID: 7987
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1. Percentage of Abuse/Neglect Investigations Completed within 60 days (June 2009 – November 2015)..................................................................................... 56
2. Percentage of Abuse/Neglect Investigations Completed within 90 days (January – November 2015)......................................................................................... 57
3. Family Team Meetings Held within 45 days of Entry into Care (January – December 2015) ........................................................................................................................... 62
4. Family Team Meetings Held within the First 12 months in Placement (January – December 2015) ........................................................................................ 64
5. Family Team Meetings Held After 12 months in Placement with a Goal of Reunification (January – December 2015) ................................................................. 66
6. Family Team Meetings Held After 12 months in Placement with a Goal other than Reunification (January – December 2015) ................................................................. 68
7. Qualitative Review (QR) Cases Rated Acceptable on Family Teamwork (January – December 2015)........................................................................................................... 69
8. Qualitative Review (QR) Cases Rated Acceptable on Quality of Case Plans and Components of Planning (January – December 2015) ......................................... 73
9. Percentage of Families who had at least Twice per month Face-to-Face Contact with Caseworker when the Goal is Reunification (January – December 2015) .................. 76
10. Average Monthly Percentage of Children who had Weekly Visits with their Parent(s) (January – December 2015) ......................................................................................... 78
11. Percentage of Children who had at least Twice Monthly Visits with their Parent(s) (January – December 2015) ......................................................................................... 79
12. Percentage of Children in Custody who had at least Monthly Visits with Siblings, for Children not Placed with Siblings (December 2010 – December 2015) ............................................................................ 80
13. Percentage of Children in Custody who had at least Monthly Visits with Siblings, for Children not Residing with Siblings (January – December 2015) ......................................................................................... 81
14. Percentage of Sibling Groups of Two or Three Placed Together (CY 2008 – CY 2015).................................................................................................. 82
15. Percentage of Sibling Groups of Four or More Placed with at Least One Other Sibling (CY 2010 – CY 2015).................................................................................................. 83
16. Percentage of Children Entering care who have No More than One Placement Change during the 12 months Following their Date of Entry (CY 2007 – CY 2014) ............. 85
17. Percentage of Children Entering Case who have No More than One Placement Change during the 13 to 24 Months Following their Date of Entry (CY 2009 – CY 2013).................................................................................................. 86
18. Percentage of Children who Re-Entered Custody within One year of Date of Exit (CY 2007 – CY 2013) ....................................................................................................... 89
19. Percentage of Children who Entered Care in a 12 Month Period who Discharged to Permanency within 12 months of Entering Foster Care (CY 2007 – CY 2014) ........ 91
iv

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 7 of 142 PageID: 7988
20. Percentage of Children Who Entered Foster Care in a 12 Month Period Who Discharged to Permanency within 24 months of Entering Foster Care (CY 2007 – CY 2013) ........................................................................................................................... 92
21. Percentage of Children who Entered Foster Care in a 12 Month Period Who Discharged to Permanency within 36 months of Entering Foster Care (CY 2007 – CY 2012) .... 93
22. Percentage of Children Who Entered Foster Care in a 12 Month Period who Discharged to Permanency within 48 months of Entering Foster Care (CY 2007 – CY 2011) .... 94
23. Percentage of Youth Aged 14 – 18 with Independent Living Assessments (December 2009 – December 2015) .............................................................................................. 96
24. Qualitative Review (QR) Cases Rated Acceptable for Services to Older Youth (January – December 2015) ....................................................................................................... 97
25. Youth Exiting Care with Housing (January 2010 – December 2015) ......................... 98 26. Youth Exiting Care without Who are Employed or Enrolled in Educational or
Vocational Training Program (January 2010 – December 2015) ............................... 99 27. Qualitative Review (QR) Cases Rated Acceptable for Services to Support Transitions
(January – December 2015) ...................................................................................... 100 28. Percentage of CP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload Standards for Adoption
Workers (June 2009 – December 2015) .................................................................... 104 29. Average Percentage of Adoption Workers with Individual Caseloads at or
Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – December 2015) ................................................................................... 105
v

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 8 of 142 PageID: 7989

I. INTRODUCTION
The Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) was appointed in July 2006 by the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey as Federal Monitor of the class action lawsuit Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie. As Monitor, CSSP is charged with independently assessing New Jersey’s compliance with the goals, principles and outcomes of the original Court Order and the Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA)1 aimed at improving the state’s child welfare system. The MSA was structured in two phases: Phase I focused on building infrastructure and standardizing caseloads, and Phase II focused on quality case practice and outcome measures.
On November 4, 2015, the court approved a new Sustainability and Exit Plan (SEP)2 that supersedes the MSA, attached as Appendix B. The SEP, which is the product of a year of productive negotiations between the parties, intentionally recognizes and accounts for the significant progress the state has made since the lawsuit began, while at the same time mandates a continued focus on those areas where additional improvements are needed.
This is the first monitoring report measuring progress under the SEP and includes performance data for the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.3 Under both the MSA and the SEP, the Monitor is to issue a report every six months on the state’s performance in meeting the agreed upon performance measures. However, by agreement of the parties, this report – because it covers the period during which the parties were in negotiations on the SEP – covers performance from January to December 2015 or calendar year 2015 (CY 2015). The next monitoring report will resume reporting on six month intervals and will cover the state’s progress from January 1 to June 30, 2016.
The SEP includes three enforceable categories of requirements. All the requirements are to be guided by the same important principles that guided the original Court Order and the MSA:
 Foundational Elements: The SEP includes as Foundational Elements many of the MSA’s Phase 1 accomplishments, particularly those related to DCF’s infrastructure and preserves and solidifies the state’s commitment to maintain these as Foundational Elements of a high quality child welfare system. These Foundational Elements, including such things as maintaining a high quality training program for staff and a functional management information system (NJ SPIRIT), remain enforceable in the unanticipated event that the state fails to maintain them. The Foundational Elements are described in further detail and included within Section IV of this report.
 Outcomes To Be Maintained: This category includes all requirements in the SEP for which the state has satisfied the outcomes and specified performance targets for at least the most recent six-month period. The state is expected to maintain these performance levels as verified by the Monitor. The SEP establishes criteria for modest fluctuation and

1 To see the full Agreement, go to:http://nj.gov/dcf/documents/home/Modified_Settlement_Agreement_7_17_06.pdf 2 To see the full SEP, go to: http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/welfare/Sustainability-and-Exit-Plan-110415.pdf 3 Copies of all Monitoring Reports can be found at: http://www.cssp.org/publications/child-welfare

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 9 of 142 PageID: 7990
a corrective action/dispute resolution process if performance on an item in Maintenance falls below expectations in ways that are substantial and not temporary. As additional measures currently designated as To Be Achieved are met, they will be re-designated as To Be Maintained. There are currently 12 performance measures in the To Be Maintained category. Outcomes To Be Maintained are described in further detail and included within Section V of this report.
 Outcomes To Be Achieved: This category includes all items for which DCF has not yet met the required level of performance. There are currently 36 performance measures in the To Be Achieved category. If, at the conclusion of any six month monitoring period the Monitor determines that the state has satisfied a performance measure in this category, the Monitor will designate the measure To Be Maintained; if the Monitor determines the state has not satisfied the performance measure, it will continue as To Be Achieved. Outcomes To Be Maintained are described in further detail and included within Section V of this report.
The SEP also modified some MSA outcomes and performance measures, reflecting the parties’ understanding and agreement that some of the MSA’s original targets were either not feasible, created negative, unintended consequences, or failed to reflect what is now considered child welfare best practice. For example, staff and stakeholders consistently reported that there are circumstances where workers need additional time to gather pertinent information in determining investigative findings (e.g., investigations involving the prosecutor’s offices and sexual abuse cases). In those cases, adhering to a 60-day closure timeframe could compromise the quality of the investigation. Parties therefore agreed to modify the target and methodology to support best practice; the modifications provide a mechanism to include investigations that have documented, acceptable extension requests to complete investigations beyond the 60-day timeframe as compliant. DCF’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (CP&P) policy4 outlines acceptable reasons for extension requests and the supervisory approval process.
Refinements were also made in several SEP performance measures related to permanency timeliness and outcomes. The SEP continues to include both process as well as outcome measures and performance standards related to the quality of case practice and the MSA’s caseload measures.
The Monitor’s access to data and its responsibilities to confirm and verify data reports and statistics provided by the state remain unchanged under the SEP. Subsequent to the current monitoring period that covers the full CY 2015, the Monitor will continue to produce reports for the court and the public based upon six month monitoring periods. In order to build capacity within DCF, the Monitor will look first to the state’s data for analysis, but retains the authority to engage in independent data collection and analysis where needed. The state has committed to expanding the data that it publishes on its public website.5

4 CP&P Policy Manual 5-28-2013, Intake Investigation and Response, II.C.5.125 5 To see DCP&P public website, go to: http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/about/
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 2

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 10 of 142 PageID: 7991

Reports that the state currently publishes on its website and the schedule for production of those reports include:
 Commissioner’s Monthly Report6 – Produced monthly. This report gives a broad data snapshot of various DCF services. The report includes information from CP&P, Adolescent Services, Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU), Children’s System of Care (CSOC), Family & Community Partnerships and the Division on Women.
 Screening and Investigations Report7 – Produced monthly. This report details State Central Registry activity including data regarding calls to the Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline, assignments to CP&P offices and trends in Child Protective Services (CPS) Reports and Child Welfare Services (CWS) Referrals.
 Workforce Report8 – Produced annually. This report provides information regarding the demographics and characteristics of current workers, as well as a variety of indicators of workforce planning and development.
 Demographics Report9 – Produced quarterly. This report provides demographic data on children and youth receiving in-home and out-of-home services.
 Abuse and Neglect Report10 – Produced annually. This report provides data on abuse and neglect findings including type of maltreatment, age of victim and county. The report also includes institutional abuse reported by facility type and county.
 Qualitative Review Report11 – Produced annually. This report assesses the status of children in care throughout the state, as well as the overall performance of DCF systems and practice models. The qualitative data is used to uncover trends and provide insight on issues within the state. Information previously included in Qualitative Review (QR) Reports will now be included in the Work with Children, Youth and Families Reports.
 Children’s InterAgency Coordinating Council Report12 – Produced monthly. This summary details call and service activity for the Children’s System of Care. It also includes the demographics of the youth, caller types, reasons for calls, resolutions to calls and services provided.

6 To see the February 2016 Commissioner’s Monthly Report, go to: http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/childdata/continuous/Commissioners.Monthly.Report_2.16.pdf 7 To see the December 2015 Screening and Investigations Report, go to: http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/childdata/continuous/Screening.and.Investigation.report_12.15.pdf 8 To see the 2015 Workforce Report, go to: http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/childdata/orgdev/NJ.DCF.Workforce.Report_2015.pdf 9 To see the 4th Quarter 2015 Demographics Report, go to: http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/childdata/continuous/Demo.2015_Q4.pdf 10 To see the 2014 Abuse and Neglect Report, go to:
http://nj.gov/dcf/childdata/protection/2014_AnnualAbuseNeglectReport.pdf 11 To see the 2014 Qualitative Report, go to: http://www.nj.gov/dcf/about/divisions/opma/Qualitative%20Review%20-
%202014%20Annual%20Report.pdf
12 To see January 2016 Children’s InterAgency Coordinating Council Report, go to: http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/childdata/continuous/CIACC_Dashboard_AllCounty_1.16.pdf

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 3

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 11 of 142 PageID: 7992

 New Jersey Youth Resource Spot13 – Ongoing and updated as relevant. The website offers the latest resources, opportunities, news and events for young people. This site includes a list of current Youth Advisory Boards, as well as additional resources available in each county and statewide.
 DCF Needs Assessment14 – DCF will produce an annual report on its website and will report twice annually to the Monitor. The annual report presents interim findings on DCF’s three year multi-phase needs assessment process to identify the resources needed to serve families with children at risk for entering out-of-home placements and those already in placement.
Reports the state has committed to publishing on DCF’s website include:
 Our Work with Children, Youth and Families Report – Produced annually. This report will be an analysis of DCF’s implementation of the Case Practice Model, largely utilizing annual data from the QRs as well as selected qualitative data sets. The first of these reports is expected to be published in fall of 2016.
 CP&P Outcomes Report – Produced annually. This report will review all of the longitudinal outcome data identified in the SEP. This report will be based on CY data. The first of these reports is expected to be published in fall of 2016.
 Healthcare of Children in Out-of-Home Placement – Produced annually. This report will be a review of the health indicators identified in the SEP and will be based on state FY (July 1 - June 30) data. The first of these reports is expected to be published by December 2016.
 Adoptions Report – Produced annually. This report will be a review of CP&P adoption data and practice related to SEP requirements and will be based on CY data. The first of these reports is expected to be published in fall of 2016.
Additionally, the SEP establishes a fair and open dispute resolution process through which the Monitor will consider information from all parties when making determinations about To Be Maintained or To Be Achieved designations. The ultimate authority for those designations remain with the Monitor after consideration of evidence. The SEP also establishes a process for addressing non-compliance with enforceable provisions of the SEP that requires the parties to negotiate in good faith to design and implement corrective action before resorting to litigation.
Finally, the SEP creates a clear path toward exiting the lawsuit based on the state demonstrating that it has achieved compliance with all provisions of the SEP and sustained performance for a continuous period of at least 12 months.

13 To see the New Jersey Youth Resource Spot, go to: http://www.njyrs.org/
14 To see the CP&P Needs Assessment, go to: http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/childdata/protection/DCF.Needs.Assessment.Interim.Report_3.16.pdf
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 4

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 12 of 142 PageID: 7993

Methodology
The primary sources of information on New Jersey’s progress are quantitative and qualitative aggregate and back-up data supplied by DCF and independently validated by the Monitor.15 DCF provides back-up data and access to staff at all levels to enable the Monitor to verify performance. For this report, the Monitor was involved in the following additional verification activities:
 Caseload Data Verification
The Monitor conducted a telephone survey of 257 workers to verify their individual caseloads during the periods of January to June 2015 and July to December 2015. Findings from this survey are discussed in Section V.L – Caseload – of this report.
 Housing, Employment and Education Status Review for Older Youth Exiting Care
The Monitor collaborated with DCF to review case records of 81 youth ages 18 to 21 years who exited care between January and June 2015 without achieving permanency and 72 youth ages 18 to 21 who exited care between July and December 2015 without achieving permanency. The review focused on the education, housing and employment status of these youth to determine if performance met the level required by the SEP. Findings from the review are discussed in Section V.J – Older Youth – of this report.
 Visitation Data Review
The Monitor conducted a review of a statistically significant sample of 160 cases requiring caseworker visits with parents and 181 cases requiring parent visits with children in which documentation indicated that the parent was unavailable or the visit was not required during the months of March, June and August 2015. This is discussed in Section V.E – Visitation – of this report.
 Investigation Extension Data Review
The Monitor conducted a review of a statistically significant sample of 158 cases where an extension request to complete investigations beyond the 60 day time frame was submitted and approved by a supervisor during the months of March, June and August 2015. This is discussed in Section V.E – Visitation – of this report.
 Family Team Meeting Data Review
The Monitor reviewed 30 cases from March, June and August 2015 to verify how workers were using and documenting legitimate reasons when the required Family Team Meetings (FTMs) did not occur. Further discussion of the current performance is included in Section V.B – Family Team Meetings – of this report.

15 Not all data are verified for each monitoring period.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 5

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 13 of 142 PageID: 7994

 Site Visits

Between January and December 2015, the Monitor visited seven Local Offices and met with leadership and staff to discuss current case practice strategies and to hear directly from frontline staff and some local providers.

 Other Monitoring Activities

The Monitor interviewed and/or visited multiple internal and external stakeholders of New Jersey’s child welfare system, including staff at all levels, contracted service providers, youth, relatives, birth parents, advocacy organizations and judicial officers. The Monitor also periodically attends DCF’s ChildStat meetings, statewide Child Fatality/Near Fatality Review Board meetings, adolescent practice forums, Area Director meetings, youth permanency meetings, Youth Advisory Board meetings and participates in statewide Qualitative Reviews.

DCF has fully cooperated with the Monitor in notifying Monitor staff and facilitating their participation in relevant activities.

Structure of the Report

Section II of the report provides an overview of the state’s accomplishments and challenges. Section III provides summary performance data on each of the outcomes and performance measures required by the SEP in Table 1, Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Summary of Performance as of December 31, 2015). Section IV provides details and discussion of the Foundational Elements.

Section V of the report provides more detailed data and discussion of performance on measures To Be Maintained and Measures To Be Achieved in the following areas:

 Investigations of alleged child maltreatment (Section V.A);  Implementation of DCF’s Case Practice Model; including Family Team Meetings, case
planning and visitation (Sections V.B, V.C & V.E);  Placement of children in out-of-home settings, incidence of maltreatment of children in
foster care and abuse of children when they reunite with families (Sections V.F & V.G)  Efforts to achieve permanency for children either through reunification with family, legal
guardianship or adoption (Section V.H);  Provision of health care services to children and families (Section V.I)  Services to older youth (Sections V.J & V.K);  Caseloads (Section V.L)  DAsG Staffing (Section V.M);  Accountability through the Qualitative Review and the production and use of accurate
data (Section V.N)  Needs Assessment (Section V.O); and  Fiscal Year 2015 budget (Section V.P).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 6

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 14 of 142 PageID: 7995

II. SUMMARY OF PERFORMANCE

This is the first report measuring progress under the SEP and includes performance data for the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015.

During this period, DCF continued to maintain acceptable performance on each Foundational Element included in the SEP. Examples of continued performance on Foundational Elements include:

 Quality performance on nearly all of the SEP health care measures that assess whether the children in out-of-home placement have dependable access to health care;
 Efficient and effective operation of the State Central Registry (SCR) that receives and triages reports of alleged child abuse or neglect and maintenance of quality assurance mechanisms to support good SCR practice; and
 A comprehensive and reliable training program for child welfare staff and supervisors on pre-service, in-service and other training needs.

Between January and December 2015, DCF also maintained performance on the 12 measures the SEP defines as Outcomes To Be Maintained. Examples of areas To Be Maintained that were sustained include the timeliness of institutional abuse investigations (IAI), meeting ongoing case planning requirements and caseworker visits with children in custody.

DCF’s focus for improvement is now on the SEP Outcomes To Be Achieved. In order to successfully make progress in the remaining areas of the SEP yet to be achieved, the state has been steadily building its continuous quality improvement capacity. In CY 2015, it refined and strengthened its Qualitative Review (QR) protocol and process, intensified efforts that support quality supervision and made significant strides towards becoming a more transparent and continuous learning organization.

This monitoring report demonstrates the state’s continued progress during CY 2015. Nine of the 36 SEP performance measures designated as To Be Achieved have been met for all of CY 2015 and an additional five were achieved for the six month period between July and December 2015.16 Three performance measures were partially met during this monitoring period.17

In accordance with the SEP, based on its review of the evidence, the Monitor is to determine whether DCF’s performance during the monitoring period satisfies each measure. If it does, the Monitor will certify the measure as To Be Maintained. In separate correspondence, the Monitor

16 Measures met for CY 2015 (or most recent data available) include: IV.A.14 Timeliness of Completion (90 days); IV.B.16 Initial Family Team Meeting; IV.F.29 Parent-Child Visits – weekly; IV.F.30 Parent-Child Visits – biweekly; IV.G.32, Placing Siblings; IV.G.33 Sibling Placements of Four or More Children; IV.G.36 Placement Stability, 13-24 Months in Care; IV.I.40, Permanency within 12 Months; and IV.K.45 Independent Living Assessments. Measures met for July through December 2015 include: IV.B.18, Subsequent FTMs after 12 months – Reunification Goal; IV.E.26 Adoption Local Office Caseload; IV.G.34 Recruitment for Sibling Groups of Four or More; IV.H.37 Repeat Maltreatment (In-home); and IV.K.46; Quality of Case Planning and services. 17 Measures partially met during this monitoring period include: IV.C.21, Needs Assessment; IV.D.22, Initial Case Plans; and IV.I.43, Permanency within 48 Months.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 7

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 15 of 142 PageID: 7996

will be providing information to the parties and the court on those measures the Monitor intends to certify as To Be Maintained.

A summary of the achievements, strengths and challenges of current performance on outcomes designated in the SEP as To Be Achieved follows. Data on all performance measures are provided in Table 1 and the remaining sections of this report.

Implementation of the Case Practice Model

The SEP places an emphasis on the quality of New Jersey’s case practice, measured in large part by the state’s QR. Between January and December 2015, DCF’s Office of Performance Management and Accountability (OPMA) consulted with other states, national experts, the Monitor and community-based providers to update key portions of the QR process and protocol and to create a more user-friendly protocol with a common language for the workforce on DCF’s practice expectations. Beginning in January 2016, DCF revised the QR protocol to align with case practice. Using a new sampling strategy based on the number of children served in each CP&P Local Office, between 10 and 30 cases will be reviewed in each county, every other year, with cases drawn from each Local Office. Local Office supervisors will be included as reviewers in order to better integrate the QR process and ratings into case practice at the local level.

In the QRs conducted from January to December 2015, using the original QR protocol, the status of children and families continued to be rated as acceptable in the majority of cases in most key areas including safety, living arrangement, learning and development and physical health of the child, a significant achievement for the state. Overall, in CY 2015 key QR results on practice performance indicators, while improved, remain below acceptable levels expected by the Monitor and DCF in areas such as family teamwork, case planning and engagement with parents (See Section V.N).

A critical component of the Department’s Case Practice Model (CPM) is the use of Family Team Meetings (FTMs) to engage families and their formal and informal supports to discuss the families’ strengths and needs, craft individualized service plans and track progress toward accomplishing case plan goals. There are five performance measures in the SEP pertaining to FTMs; DCF met the SEP requirement that FTMs be held within 45 days of a child’s removal, as well as the SEP standard requiring children with a goal of reunification to have at least three FTMs each year, but has yet to meet the remaining three SEP performance measures in this area.

Performance on completing case plans remains strong; DCF continues to meet the standard for reviewing and modifying case plans within the required six month time frame and is close to meeting the standard for completing case plans within 30 days of a child’s placement.

The Monitor staff are impressed with the Agency’s commitment to the CPM and quality case practice in site visits conducted to three Local Offices in December 2015 in diverse geographic areas of the state. Monitor staff also heard about the need for more resource families willing to care for large sibling groups and adolescents; transportation and capacity challenges in rural communities for families trying to access services and the need for more Spanish speaking service providers. DCF leaders continue to use their continuous quality improvement (CQI)

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 8

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 16 of 142 PageID: 7997

processes, including ChildStat and the QRs, to communicate that quality of work and attention to performance metrics are both important.
Visitation
DCF’s performance on weekly visits between parents and children in out-of-home care exceeded the required SEP target every month during CY 2015 and performance on bi-weekly visits exceeded the standard for most months. The required SEP levels of performance for frequency of caseworker visits with parents when the goal is reunification and for visits between siblings who were placed apart were not met.
Placement of Children in Out of Home Care
DCF met each of the SEP requirements for placing sibling groups together, a significant achievement. According to the most recent data available (from children entering foster care in CY 2013), DCF also met the SEP performance target that children in care between 13 and 24 months have no more than one placement change. The stability of children during their first year in out-of-home placement is within reach, however it remains slightly below the SEP standard.
Repeat Maltreatment
DCF showed significant improvement in the rate of repeat maltreatment of children who remain in their homes and met the SEP target for this performance measure. However, an area that continues to challenge the state is the maltreatment of children after reunification and re-entry to care within one year of reunification. DCF leadership continues to target this area in its CQI processes.
Permanency for Children in Out-of-Home Care
The SEP modified the way in which permanency outcomes are measured to reflect advances in the field’s understanding of how best to assess permanency progress. The SEP includes four Outcomes To Be Achieved related to timely permanency, each measured through entry cohorts of children and youth. The measures look at their achievement of permanency with specific timeframes including permanency within 12 months, 24 months, 36 months and 48 months. Data for the most recent calendar years available show that DCF’s performance meets the required performance level for permanency within 12 months and partially meets the required level for permanency within 48 months. DCF is close to meeting the required levels for the remaining two cohorts, permanency within 24 and 36 months.
Services to Older Youth
DCF’s work with older youth has been steadily improving; the state met the requirements for two standards this monitoring period – 1) completing Independent Living Assessments for youth and 2) providing acceptable quality case management and service planning as measured by the QR.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 9

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 17 of 142 PageID: 7998
DCF continues to update and modify policies and practices to support well-being and permanency for youth involved with DCF and to achieve better outcomes for youth after they exit care. For example, in March 2015, the Office of Adolescent Services (OAS) received 100 Project Based Section 8 housing vouchers from New Jersey’s Department of Community Affairs to provide long-term, stable and supportive housing opportunities for young people aging out of foster care. In August 2015, the federal government awarded DCF funding to begin implementation of its Youth at Risk of Homelessness initiative. The grant will be used to focus on four outcome areas of housing stability, permanency, well-being and education/employment to prevent and address youth homelessness. In the previous six months, DCF finalized new policies related to its LBGTQI population, with input from its LGBTQI Youth Committee, a group of community advocates.
III. CHILD AND FAMILY OUTCOMES AND CASE PRACTICE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The Child and Family Outcomes and Case Practice Performance Measures are 48 measures and Foundational Elements that assess the state’s performance on meeting the requirements of the SEP (see Table 1). These performance measures cover the areas of child safety, permanency, service planning, child well-being and ongoing infrastructure requirements pertaining to elements such as caseloads and appropriate staffing.
Many of the measures are assessed using data from NJ SPIRIT and SafeMeasures,18 reviewed and in some areas independently validated by the Monitor. Some data are also provided through DCF’s work with Hornby Zeller Associates, Inc. who assist with data analysis. Data provided in the report are as of December 2015, or the most current data available.

18 SafeMeasures is a data warehouse and analytical tool that allows tracking of critical child welfare indicators by worker, supervisor, Local Office area and statewide. It is used by different levels of staff to track, monitor and analyze trends in case practice and targeted measures and outcomes.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 10

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 18 of 142 PageID: 7999

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 19 of 142 PageID: 8000

Table 1: Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie Child and Family Outcome and Case Practice Performance Measures (Summary of Performance as of December 31, 2015)

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

Investigations

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

85% of all investigations of

IV.A. 13

Timeliness of Investigation Completion (60 days)

alleged child abuse and neglect shall be completed within 60 days. Cases with documented acceptable extensions in accordance with policy are considered

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

In June 2015, 83% of all investigations were completed within 60 days. Monthly range January – June 2015: 78-81%23

In November 2015,24 83%
of all investigations were
completed within 60 days. 25 Monthly range July – November 2015: 83-85%26

No

compliant.22

19 In some instances where the Monitor does not have June 2015 data, the Monitor has included the most recent data available. 20 In some instances, where the Monitor does not have December 2015 data, the Monitor has included the most recent data available. 21 “Yes” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment based on presently available information, DCF has fulfilled its obligations regarding the requirement under the SEP. The
Monitor has also designated “Yes” for a requirement where DCF has met or is within one percentage point of the final SEP standard or there are a small number of cases causing
the failure to meet the SEP standard. “Partially” is used when DCF has come very close but, in the Monitor’s judgement, has not met the SEP standard, for example when
performance is met during at least three of six months for at least one six month period. “No” indicates that, in the Monitor’s judgment, DCF has not fulfilled its obligation
regarding the requirement. 22 Under the MSA standard, 98% of all abuse/neglect investigations were to have been within 60 days. 23 Monthly performance is as follows: January, 78%; February, 80%; March 79%; April, 79%; May 81%; June, 83%. 24 November 2015 was the most current data available at the time of writing of this report. December 2015 data will be included in the next monitoring report. 25 This is a new provision of the SEP. The Monitor was unable to validate appropriate use of investigation extension requests and thus cannot determine performance for this
monitoring period using the new reporting methodology. Data on this measure understates performance because they do not yet reflect acceptable extension requests. 26 Monthly performance is as follows: July, 83%; August, 84%; September 85%; October, 83%; November, 83%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 12

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 20 of 142 PageID: 8001

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

95% of all investigations of

IV.A. 14

Timeliness of Investigation Completion (90 days)

alleged child abuse and neglect shall be completed within 90 days. Cases with documented acceptable extensions in accordance with policy are considered

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

In June 2015, 95% of all investigations were completed within 90 days. Monthly range January – June 2015: 93-95%27

In November 2015,28 95%
of all investigations were completed within 90 days. 29 Monthly range January – November 2015: 95-96%30

Yes

compliant.

27 Monthly performance is as follows: January, 93%; February, 94%; March 95%; April, 94%; May 95%; June, 95%. 28 November 2015 was the most current data available at the time of writing of this report. December 2015 data will be included in the next monitoring report. 29 This is a new provision of the SEP. The Monitor was unable to validate appropriate use of investigation extension requests and thus cannot determine performance for this
monitoring period using the new reporting methodology. Data on these measures understate performance because they do not yet reflect acceptable extension requests. 30 Monthly performance is as follows: July, 95%; August, 95%; September, 96%; October, 95%; November, 95%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 13

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 21 of 142 PageID: 8002

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

85% of investigations shall

IV.A. 15

Quality Investigations

meet the standards for quality investigations. The Monitor, in consultation with the parties, shall determine appropriate standards for quality

Investigation Case Record Review Data
Investigation Report

In September 2014, data collected in a case record review found that 78% of investigations met quality standards.

N/A
Investigation Case Record Review to be conducted in Fall 2016. 32

No33

investigations.31

Family Teaming

In June 2015, 84% of

In December 2015, 85% of

80% of children newly

children newly entering children newly entering

IV.B. 16

Initial Family Team Meeting

entering placement shall have a family team meeting before or within

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

placement had a FTM

placement had a FTM

within 45 days of entering within 45 days of entering

placement. Monthly range placement. Monthly range

Yes

45 days of placement.34

January – June 2015: 73 July – December 2015: 80

to 87%.35

to 88%.36

31 Under the MSA standard, 90% of investigations were to have met quality rating of acceptable. 32 Investigation Case Record Review is conducted every two years. 33 Based on findings from DCF’s report released in May 2015. 34 Under the MSA standard, 90% of children newly entering placement were to have had a FTM before or within 30 days of placement. 35 Monthly performance on Initial FTMs is as follows: January, 73%; February, 84%; March, 80%; April, 81%; May, 87%; June, 84%. 36 Monthly performance on Initial FTMs is as follows: July, 86%; August, 83%; September, 85%; October, 80%; November, 88%; December, 85%.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 14

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 22 of 142 PageID: 8003

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

In June 2015, 73% of

In December 2015, 77% of

80% of children will have

children had an additional children had an additional

IV.B. 17

Subsequent FTMs within 12 months

three additional FTMs within the first 12 months of the child coming into

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

three or more FTMs

three or more FTMs within

within the first 12 months the first 12 months of

of placement. Monthly placement. Monthly range

No

placement.37

range January – June

July – December 2015: 74

2015: 68 to 81%.38

to 78%.39

IV.B. 18

Subsequent FTMs after 12 months – Reunification Goal

After the first 12 months of a child being in care, 90% of those with a goal of reunification will have at least three FTMs each year.

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

In June 2015, 95% of children with a goal of reunification had three or more FTMS after 12 months in placement. Monthly range January – June 2015: 62 to 95%.40

In December 2015, 100% of children with a goal of reunification had three or more FTMs after 12 months of placement. Monthly range July – December 2015: 83 to 100%.41

Yes

37 Under the MSA standard, 90% of children were to have had at least one family team meeting per quarter. 38 Monthly performance on FTMs held within the first 12 months in placement is as follows: January, 75%; February, 78%; March, 80%; April, 68%; May 81%; June, 73%. 39 Monthly performance on FTMs held within the first 12 months in placement is as follows: July, 78%; August, 77%; September, 78%; October, 74%; November, 78%;
December, 77%. 40 Monthly performance on FTMs held after the first 12 months in placement with a goal of reunification is as follows: January, 62%; February, 79%; March, 91%; April, 90%;
May, 68%; June, 95%. Monthly fluctuations in performance percentages in part reflect the small numbers of applicable children each month. 41 Monthly performance on FTMs held after the first 12 months in placement with a goal of reunification is as follows: July, 100%; August, 90%; September, 83%; October, 92%;
November, 87%; December, 100%. Monthly fluctuations in performance percentages in part reflect the small numbers of applicable children each month.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 15

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 23 of 142 PageID: 8004

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

IV.B. 19

Subsequent FTMs after 12 months – Other than Reunification Goal

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

After the first 12 months of a child being in care, for those children with a goal other than reunification, 90% shall have at least two FTMs each year.

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

June 2015 Performance19

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

In June 2015, 67% of children with a goal other than reunification had two or more FTMs after 12 months in placement. Monthly range January – June 2015: 64 to 78%.42

In December 2015, 78% of children with a goal other than reunification had two or more FTMs after 12 months of placement. Monthly range July – December 2015: 63 to 78%.43

No

42 Monthly performance on FTMs held after the first 12 months in placement with a goal other than reunification is as follows: January, 65%; February, 78%; March, 64%; April, 67%; May, 73%; June, 67%. 43 Monthly performance on FTMs held after the first 12 months in placement with a goal other than reunification is as follows: July, 63%; August, 68%; September, 65%; October, 70%; November, 65%; December, 78%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 16

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 24 of 142 PageID: 8005

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

75% of cases involving

out-of-home placements

IV.B. 20

Quality of Teaming

that were assessed as part of the QR process will show evidence of both acceptable team formation and acceptable functioning. The Monitor, in consultation with the parties, shall determine the

Data are currently provided by DCF directly to the Monitor45

35% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on both QR ‘Family Teamwork’ indicators: ‘Team Formation’ and ‘Team Functioning’.46 (CY 2014)

40% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on both QR ‘Family Teamwork’ Indicators: ‘Team Formation’ and ‘Team Functioning’.47 (CY 2015)

No

standards for quality team

formation and

functioning.44

44 Under the MSA standard, 90% of cases assessed as part of the QR process were to have shown acceptable on team formation and functioning. 45 Going forward, the following new reports will be published as data sources for this measure: DCF Report on Our Work with Children, Youth & Families and the Qualitative
Review Report. 46 180 cases were reviewed as part of the QRs conducted from January to December 2014. Sixty-three of 180 (35%) in and out-of-home cases rated acceptable on both areas of
Family Teamwork, team formation and team functioning; 94 of 180 (52%) rated acceptable on team formation; and 75 of 180 cases (42%) rated acceptable on team functioning. 47 191 cases were reviewed as part of the QRs conducted from January to December 2015; Seventy-seven of 191 (40%) in and out-of-home cases rated acceptable on both areas of
Family Teamwork, team formation and team functioning; 103 of 191 (54%) rated acceptable on team formation; and 83 of 191 cases (42%) rated acceptable on team functioning.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 17

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 25 of 142 PageID: 8006

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

Needs Assessment

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

The state shall regularly

evaluate the need for

additional placements and

services to meet the needs

of children in custody and

IV.C. 21

Needs Assessment

their families, and to support intact families and prevent the need for out-ofhome care. Such needs assessments shall be conducted on an annual, staggered basis that assures that every county is assessed at least once every

March 2016 – New Jersey DCF Needs Assessment Interim Report48

N/A

DCF has completed Phase I and II of a three part Needs Assessment process. In April 2016, DCF published its March 2016 – New Jersey DCF Needs Assessment Interim Report.

Partially

three years. The State shall

develop placements and

services consistent with the

findings of these needs

assessments.

48 This report is available on DCF’s website: http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/childdata/protection/DCF.Needs.Assessment.Interim.Report_3.16.pdf
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 18

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 26 of 142 PageID: 8007

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

Case And Service Planning

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

IV.D. 22

Initial Case Plans

95% of initial case plans for children and families shall be completed within 30 days.

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

94% of children entering care had case plans developed within 30 days. Monthly range January – June 2015: 91 to 94%.49

100% of children entering care had case plans developed within 30 days. Monthly range July – December 2015: 88 to 100%.50

Partially

49 Monthly performance on case plans developed within 30 days of placement is as follows: January, 91%; February, 93%; March, 93%; April, 92%; May, 93%; June, 94%. 50 Monthly performance on case plans developed within 30 days of placement is as follows: July, 95%; August, 92%; September, 93%; October, 88%; November, 96%; December,
100%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 19

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 27 of 142 PageID: 8008

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

80% of case plans shall be

rated acceptable as

51% of cases rated at least 53% of cases rated at least

IV.D. 23

Quality of Case Plans

measured by the QR process. The Monitor, in consultation with the parties, shall determine that standards for quality case

Data are currently provided by DCF directly to the Monitor.52

minimally acceptable on both QR indicators ‘Case Planning Process’ and ‘Tracking and Adjusting’.53 (CY 2014)

minimally acceptable on both QR indicators ‘Case Planning Process’ and ‘Tracking and Adjusting’.54 (CY 2015)

No

planning.51

IV.E. 24

Intake Workers (Local Offices) Caseload

Caseloads

95% of local offices will have average caseloads for intake workers of no more than 12 families and no more than eight new case assignments per month.

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

Unable To Determine55

Unable To Determine55

Unable To Determine55

51 Under the MSA standard, 90% of case plans assessed as part of the QR process were to have been rated as acceptable standard. 52 Going forward, the following new reports will be published as data sources for this measure: DCF Report on Our Work with Children, Youth and Families and the Qualitative Review Report. 53 180 cases were reviewed as part of the QRs conducted from January to December 2014. 92 of 180 (51%) in and out-of-home cases rated acceptable on both the Case Planning Process and Tracking and Adjusting indicators; 104 of 180 cases (58%) rated acceptable on Case Planning Process; and 115 of 180 cases (64%) rated acceptable on Tracking and Adjusting. 54 191 cases were reviewed as part of the QRs conducted from January to December 2015. One-hundred-and-two of 191 (53%) in and out-of-home cases rated acceptable on both the case planning process and tracking and adjusting indicators; 115 of 191 cases (60%) rated acceptable on case planning process; and 131 of 191 cases (69%) rated acceptable on tracking and adjusting. 55 See discussion on pages 101 to 102.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 20

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 28 of 142 PageID: 8009

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

IV.E. 25

Intake Workers Caseload

90% of individual intake works shall have no more than 12 open cases and no more than eight new case assignments per month. No intake worker with 12 or more open cases can be given more than two secondary assignments per month.56

Commissioner’s Monthly Report
Caseload Report

Unable To Determine58

December 2015 Performance20
Unable to Determine58

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21
Unable To Determine57

IV.E. 26

Adoption Workers (Local Offices) Caseload

95% of local offices will have average caseloads for adoption workers of no more than 15 children per worker

Commissioner’s Monthly Report
Caseload Report

95% of Local Offices met adoption standards. Monthly range January – June 2015: 84-95%58

98% of Local Offices met adoption standards. Monthly range July – December 2015: 95-98%59

Yes

95% of individual adoption Commissioner’s

90% of Adoption workers 92% of Adoption workers

IV.E. 27

Adoption Workers Caseload

worker caseloads shall be Monthly Report no more than 15 children

met caseload standards. met caseload standards. Monthly range January – Monthly range July –

No

per worker.

Caseload Report June 2015: 88-91%60

December 2015: 88-94%61

56 Under the MSA standard, 95% of individual Intake workers were to have no more than 12 open cases and no more than eight new case assignments per month. 57 See discussion on pages 101 to 102. 58 Monthly performance for average office adoption caseloads is as follows: January, 84%; February, 93%; March, 91%; April, 88%; May, 93%; June, 95%. 59 Monthly performance for average office adoption caseloads is as follows: July, 95%; August, 98%; September, 95%; October, 98%; November, 95%; December, 98%. 60 Monthly performance for individual adoption worker caseloads is as follows: January, 91%; February, 89%; March, 91%; April, 88%; May, 89%; June, 90%. 61 Monthly performance for individual adoption worker caseloads is as follows: July, 90%; August, 94%; September, 92%; October, 88%; November, 93%; December, 92%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 21

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 29 of 142 PageID: 8010

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

IV.F. 28

Caseworker Contacts with Family When Goal is Reunification

IV.F. 29

Parent-Child Visits – weekly

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

Visitation

In June 2015, 80% of

In December 2015, 77% of

90% of families will have

applicable parents of

applicable parents of

at least twice-per-month,

children in custody with a children in custody with a

face-to-face contact with Commissioner’s their caseworker when the Monthly Report

goal of reunification had goal of reunification had at at least two face-to-face least two face-to-face visits

No

permanency goal is

visits with a caseworker. with a caseworker.

reunification.62

Monthly range January – Monthly range July –

June 2015: 77-80%.63

December 2015: 76-80%.64

60% of children in custody

with a return home goal

will have an in-person visit

with their parent(s) at least

weekly, excluding those

79% of applicable

81% of applicable children

situations where a court order prohibits or regulates visits or there is a

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

children had weekly visits had weekly visits with their

with their parents.

parents. Monthly range

Monthly range January – July – December 2015: 76

Yes

supervisory approval of a

June 2015: 73 – 81%.65

– 81%.66

decision to cancel a visit

because it is physically or

psychologically harmful to

a child.

62 Under the MSA standard, 95% of families were to have at least twice-per-month face-to-face contact with their caseworker when the permanency goal is reunification. 63 Monthly performance on twice-per-month caseworker visits with parents are as follows: January, 77%; February, 78%; March, 80%; April, 80%; May, 77%; June, 80%. 64 Monthly performance on twice-per-month caseworker visits with parents are as follows: July, 80%; August, 79%; September, 76%; October, 79%; November, 76%; December,
77%. 65 Monthly performance on weekly visits between parents and children are as follows: January, 73%; February, 81%; March, 78%; April, 79%; May, 77%; June, 79%. 66 Monthly performance on weekly visits between parents and children are as follows: July, 76%; August, 77%; September, 79%; October, 79%; November, 80%, December, 81%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 22

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 30 of 142 PageID: 8011

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

IV.F 30

Parent-Child Visits – biweekly

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

85% of children in custody will have an in-person visit with their parent(s) or legally responsible family member at least every other week, excluding those situations where a court order prohibits or regulates visits or there is supervisory approval of a decision to cancel a visit because it is physically or psychologically harmful to a child.

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

June 2015 Performance19
89% of applicable children had bi-weekly visits with their parents. Monthly range January – June 2015: 86-89%.67

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

86% of applicable children

had bi-weekly visits with

their parents. Monthly

Yes

range July – December

2015: 85-87%.68

67 Monthly performance on bi-weekly visits between parents and children are as follows: January, 86%; February, 88%; March, 89%; April, 88%; May, 87%; June, 89%. 68 Monthly performance on bi-weekly visits between parents and children are as follows: July, 87%; August, 87%; September, 86%; October, 86%; November, 85%, December,
86%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 23

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 31 of 142 PageID: 8012

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

IV.F 31

Child Visits with Siblings

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

85% of children in custody

who have siblings with

whom they are not residing will visit those siblings at least monthly, excluding those situations where a court order prohibits or regulates visits or there is supervisory approval of a decision to cancel a visit because it is physically or

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

In June 2015, 77% of children in custody who have sibling with whom they are not residing visited with their siblings monthly. Monthly range January – June 2015: 76 – 78%.69

In December 2015, 77% of children in custody who have sibling with whom they are not residing visited with their siblings monthly. Monthly range July – December 2015: 73 – 78%.70

No71

psychologically harmful to

a child.

Placement

IV.G 32

Placing Siblings

At least 80% of siblings groups of two or three children entering custody will be placed together.

Data are currently
provided directly to the Monitor.72

In CY 2014, 82% of sibling groups of two or three were placed together.

In CY 2015, 79% of sibling groups of 2 or 3 were placed together.

Yes73

69 Performance data for the monitoring period for monthly sibling visits are as follows: January, 76%; February, 77%; March, 77%; April, 77%; May, 78%; June, 77%. 70 Performance data for the monitoring period for monthly sibling visits are as follows: July, 78%; August, 78%; September, 74%; October, 75%; November, 73%, December,
77%. 71 Reported performance understates actual performance because data do not exclude instances where a visit is not required based on a new provision in the SEP that defines
appropriate exclusions. These exclusions were not applied or documented in CY 2015. The Monitor will validate data for this measure during the next monitoring period and
include findings in the next monitoring report. 72 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this measure: CP&P Outcome Report. 73 The SEP designates this measure as To Be Achieved. However, it was actually achieved in CY 2014 prior to the finalization of the SEP. Since current performance is within one
percentage point of the standard, this measure, in the Monitor’s discretion, has been met.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 24

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 32 of 142 PageID: 8013

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

IV.G 33

Sibling Placements of Four or More Children

All children will be placed
with at least one other sibling 80% of the time.74

Data are currently
provided directly to the Monitor.75

In CY 2014, 87% of applicable children were placed with at least one other sibling.

In CY 2015, 87% of applicable children were placed with at least one other sibling.

Yes

DCF is focusing

recruitment efforts on

targeted needs, including

IV.G.34

Recruitment for Sibling Groups of Four or More

DCF will continue to recruit for resource homes capable of serving sibling groups of four or more.

DCF manual Data to Monitor

large sibling groups. DCF

began and ended CY 2015

N/A

with a total of 24 SIBS

homes: 16 SIBS homes

were newly licensed during

Yes

CY 2015 and 16 SIBS

homes left the program.

IV.G 35

Placement Stability, First 12 Months in Care

At least 84% of children entering out-of-home placement for the first time in a calendar year will have no more than one placement change during the 12 months following their date of entry.76

Data are currently
provided directly to the Monitor.77

N/A

Of all children who entered out-of-home care for the first time in CY 2014, 82% had no more than one placement change in the 12 months following their date of entry.

No

74 Under the MSA standard, 40% of sibling groups of four or more sibling entering custody at the same time shall be placed together. 75 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this measure: CP&P Outcome Report. 76 Under the MSA standard, 88% of children entering care shall have two or fewer placements during the 12 months following their date of entry. 77 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this measure: CP&P Outcome Report.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 25

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 33 of 142 PageID: 8014

SEP Reference
IV.G 36
IV.H 37

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Placement Stability, 13 – 24 Months in Care
Repeat Maltreatment (In-home)

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

At least 88% of these children will have no more than one placement change during the 13 – 24 months following their date of entry.
No more than 7.2% of children who remain at home after a substantiation of abuse or neglect will have another substantiation within the next 12 months.

Data are currently
provided directly to the Monitor.78

Of all children entering care for the first time in CY 2012 who remained in care for at least 12 months, 98% had no more than one placement change during the 13 – 24 months following their date of entry.

Maltreatment

Data are currently
provided directly to the Monitor.79

Of all children with a substantiated investigation within CY 2013 who remained in their home, 7.9% had another substantiation within the next 12 months.

December 2015 Performance20
Of all children entering care for the first time in CY 2013 who remained in care for at least 12 months, 97% had no more than one placement change during the 13 – 24 months following their date of entry.
Of all children with a substantiated investigation within CY 2013 who remained in their home, 6.9% had another substantiation within the next 12 months.

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21
Yes
Yes

78 Ibid 79 Ibid
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 26

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 34 of 142 PageID: 8015

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

IV.H 38

Maltreatment PostReunification

Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period for the first time who are discharged within 24 months to reunification or living with a relative(s), no more than 6.9% will be the victims of abuse or neglect within 12 months of their discharge.80

Data are currently
provided directly to the Monitor.81

Of all children entering care for the first time in CY 2011 who discharged to reunification or living with a relative within 24 months, 7.2% were victims of abuse or neglect within 12 months after their discharge.82

Of all children entering care for the first time in CY 2012 who discharged to reunification or living with a relative within 24 months, 7.7% were victims of abuse or neglect within 12 months after their discharge.

No

IV.H 39

Re-entry to Placement

Of all children who enter foster care in a 12 month period for the first time who are discharged within 12 months to reunification, living with a relative(s), or guardianship, no more than 9% will re-enter foster care within 12 months of their discharge.

Data are currently
provided directly to the Monitor.83

Of all children entering care for the first time in CY 2012 who discharged to reunification, living with a relative or guardianship within 12 months, 11.5% re-entered foster care within 12 months of their discharge.84

Of all children entering care for the first time in CY 2013 who discharged to reunification, living with a relative or guardianship within 12 months, 11.5% re-entered foster care within 12 months of their discharge.

No

80 Under the MSA standard, no more than 4.8% of children who reunified shall be victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within one year after reunification. 81 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this measure: CP&P Outcome Report. 82 Performance data were calculated using the revised SEP entry cohort methodology and are therefore not comparable to previously reported data using the MSA methodology. 83 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this measure: CP&P Outcome Report. 84 Performance data were calculated using the revised SEP entry cohort methodology and are therefore not comparable to previously reported data using the MSA methodology.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 27

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 35 of 142 PageID: 8016

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

IV.I 40

Permanency within 12 Months

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 42% will be discharged to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or adoption) within 12 months of entering foster care.85

Timely Permanency

Data are currently
provided directly to the Monitor.86

Of all children who entered foster care in CY 2013, 42% discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care.87

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

Of all children who entered foster care in CY 2014,88 41% discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster
care.

Yes89

85 Under the MSA standard, 50% of all children who entered foster care for the first time in the target year and remained in care for eight days or longer were to be discharged to
permanency within 12 months. 86 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this measure: CP&P Outcome Report. 87 Performance data were calculated using the revised SEP methodology and therefore are not comparable to previously reported data using the MSA methodology. 88 CY 2015 data will not be available until early CY 2017. 89 The SEP designates this measure as To Be Achieved. However, it was actually achieved in CY 2013, prior to the finalization of the SEP. Since current performance is within one
percentage point of the standard, this measure, in the Monitor’s discretion, has been met.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 28

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 36 of 142 PageID: 8017

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

Of all children who enter

IV.I 41

Permanency within 24 Months

foster care in a 12-month period, at least 66% will be discharged to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or adoption) within 24 months of entering foster

Data are currently
provided directly to the Monitor.91

Of all children who entered foster care in CY 2012, 63% discharged to permanency within 24 months of entering foster care.92

Of all children who entered foster care in CY 2013,93 64% discharged to permanency within 24 months of entering foster care.

No

care.90

90 Under the MSA standard, 47% of all children who were in foster care on the first day of the target year and remained in care between 12 – 24 months were to be discharged to permanency prior to their 21st birthday. 91 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this measure: CP&P Outcome Report. 92 Performance data were calculated using the revised SEP methodology and are not comparable to previously reported data using the MSA methodology. 93 CY 2014 data will not be available until early CY 2017.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 29

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 37 of 142 PageID: 8018

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

Of all children who enter

IV.I 42

Permanency within 36 Months

foster care in a 12-month period, at least 80% will be discharged to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or adoption) within 36 months of entering foster

Data are currently
provided directly to the Monitor.94

Of all children who entered foster care in CY 2011, 78% discharged to permanency within 36 months of entering foster care.95

Of all children who entered foster care in CY 2012,96 78% discharged to permanency within 36 months of entering foster care.

No

care.

IV.I 43

Permanency within 48 Months

Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, at least 86% will be discharged to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or adoption) within 48 months of entering foster care.

Data are currently
provided directly to the Monitor.97

Of all children who entered foster care in CY 2010, 83% discharged to permanency within 48 months of entering foster care.

Of all children who entered foster care in CY 2011,98 85% discharged to permanency within 48 months of entering foster care.

Partially

94 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this measure: CP&P Outcome Report. 95 Performance data were calculated using the revised SEP methodology and therefore are not comparable to previously reported data using the MSA methodology. 96 CY 2013 data will not be available until early CY 2017. 97 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this measure: CP&P Outcome Report. 98 CY 2012 data will not be available until early CY 2017.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 30

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 38 of 142 PageID: 8019

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

Services To Support Transition

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21

80% of cases will be rated

IV.J 44

Services to Support Transitions

acceptable for supporting transitions as measured by the QR. The Monitor, in consultation with the parties, shall determine the standards for quality

Data are currently
provide directly to the Monitor.100

69% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on QR indicator “Transitions and Life Adjustments’. (CY 2014)

68% of cases rated at least minimally acceptable on QR indicator “Transitions and Life Adjustments’.101 (CY 2015)

No

support for transitions.99

Older Youth

IV.K 45

Independent Living Assessments

90% of youth ages 14 to18
have an Independent Living Assessment.102

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

94% of youth ages 14 to 18 in out-of-home placement for at least six months had a completed Independent Living Assessment.

93% of youth ages 14 to 18 in out-of-home placement for at least six months had a completed Independent Living Assessment.

Yes

99 Under the MSA standard, 90% of cases were to have been rated as acceptable for supporting transitions as measured by the QR. 100 Going forward, the following new reports will be published as data sources for this measure: DCF Report on Our Work with Children, Youth & Families and the Qualitative
Review Report. 101 One-hundred and ninety-one cases were reviewed as part of the QRs conducted from January to December 2015.One-hundred and thirty of the 191 cases (68%) rated acceptable
for services to support transitions. 102 Under the MSA standard, 95% of youth age 14 to 18 were to have had an Independent Living Assessment.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 31

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 39 of 142 PageID: 8020

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

December 2015 Performance20

IV.K 46

Quality of Case Planning and Services

75% of youth aged 18 to 21 who have not achieved legal permanency shall receive acceptable quality case management and service planning.103

Data are currently 59% of youth cases

provided directly to reviewed rated

the Monitor.104

acceptable.105 (CY 2014)

74% of youth cases
reviewed rated acceptable.106 (CY 2015)

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21
Yes

IV.K 47

Housing

88% of youth exiting care 91% of youth exiting care

95% of youth exiting care Case Record

without achieving

without achieving

without achieving permanency shall have

Review conducted permanency had

by CP&P and

documentation of a

permanency had documentation of a

No

housing.

Monitor

housing plan upon exiting housing plan upon exiting

care.107

care.108

103 Under the MSA standard, 90% of youth were to have been receiving acceptable services as measured by the QR 104 Going forward, the following new reports will be published as data sources for this measure: DCF Report on Our Work with Children, Youth & Families and the Qualitative
Review Report. 105 Reported performance based upon QR findings from 39 cases of youth ages 18 to 21 whose cases were reviewed in CY 2014. Cases were considered acceptable if acceptable
ratings were determined for both overall Child(Youth)/Family Status and Practice Performance. Of the 39 reviewed, 34 (87%) cases rated acceptable on overall Child
(Youth)/Family Status and 24 (62%) cases rated acceptable on Practice Performance. 106 Reported performance based upon QR findings from 42 cases of youth ages 18 to 21 whose cases were reviewed in CY 2015. Cases were considered acceptable if acceptable
ratings were determined for both Child (Youth)/Family Status and Practice Performance. Of the 42 cases reviewed, 36 (86%) rated acceptable on overall Child (Youth)/Family
Status, 36 (86%) rated acceptable on Practice Performance and 31 (74%) cases were rated acceptable for both categories. 107 Case records for 81 youth were reviewed. 108 Case records for 72 youth were reviewed.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 32

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 40 of 142 PageID: 8021

SEP Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

IV.K 48

Employment/Education

Table 1A: To Be Achieved

Sustainability and Exit Plan Standard
90% of youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall be employed, enrolled in or have recently completed a training or an educational program or there is documented evidence of consistent efforts to help the youth secure employment or training.109

Data Source
Case Record Review conducted by CP&P and Monitor

June 2015 Performance19

December 2015 Performance20

50% of youth exiting care without achieving permanency were either employed or enrolled in education or vocational training programs.110

85% of youth exiting care without achieving permanency were either employed or enrolled in education or vocational training programs.111

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No/Partially)21
No

109 Under the MSA standard, 95% of youth were to have been employed, enrolled in, or completing a training or an educational program or have documented evidence of
consistent efforts to help the youth secure employment or training. 110 Case records for 81 youth were reviewed. 111 Case records for 72 youth were reviewed.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 33

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 41 of 142 PageID: 8022

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1B: To Be Maintained

Sustainability and Exit Plan
Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

Investigations

December 2015 Performance20

III.A. 1

Institutional Abuse Investigations (IAI)

80% of IAI will be completed within 60 days.

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

88% of IAI were

86% of IAI

completed within 60 Were completed within

days.

60 days.

Caseloads

III.B. 2

Supervisor/Worker Ratio

95% of offices will have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a 5 worker to 1 supervisor ratio.

Commissioner’s Monthly Report
Caseload Report

97% of Local Offices have sufficient supervisory staff.

98% of Local Offices have sufficient supervisory staff.

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes

95% of IAIU

investigators will have

III.B. 3

IAIU Investigators Caseload

(a) no more than 12 open cases, and (b) no more than eight new

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

98% of IAIU investigators met caseload standards.

100% of IAIU investigators met caseload standards.

Yes

case assignments per

month.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 34

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 42 of 142 PageID: 8023

Reference
III.B. 4

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Permanency Workers (Local Offices) Caseload

Table 1B: To Be Maintained

Sustainability and Exit Plan
Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

95% of local offices will have average caseloads for permanency workers of (a) no more than 15 families, and (b) no more than 10 children in out-of-home care.

Commissioner’s Monthly Report;
Caseload Report

100% of Local Offices met permanency standards.

December 2015 Performance20
100% of Local Offices met permanency standards.

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes

III.B. 5

Permanency Workers Caseload

95% of permanency workers will have (a) no more than 15 families, and (b) no more than 10 children

Commissioner’s Monthly Report;
Caseload Report

99% of Permanency 100% of Permanency

workers met

workers met caseload

caseload standards. standards.

Yes

in out of home care.

Case Plans

95% of case plans

III. C. 6

Timeliness of Current Plans

95% of case plans for children and families will be reviewed and modified no less frequently than every six months.

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

were reviewed and modified as necessary at least every six months. From January through June 2015 monthly performance ranged

97% of case plans were reviewed and modified as necessary at least every six months. From July through December 2015 monthly performance ranged from 95 to 97%.

Yes

from 95 to 98%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 35

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 43 of 142 PageID: 8024

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1B: To Be Maintained

Sustainability and Exit Plan
Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

DAsG

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No)

III.D. 7

Adequacy of DAsG Staffing

The State will maintain adequate DAsG staff positions and keep positions filled.

DAsG Staffing Data

131(100%) of 131 staff positions filled with six staff on leave; 125 (95%) available DAsG.

132 (100%) of 132 staff positions filled with seven staff on leave; 125 (95%) available DAsG.112

Yes

Child Health Units

III.E. 8

Child Health Units

The State will continue to maintain its network of child health unites, adequately staffed by nurses in each local

Report on the Healthcare of Children in Out-ofHome Placement in NJ

As of June 30, 2015, DCF had 162 health care case managers and 84 staff assistants.

As of December 31, 2015, DCF had 168 health care case managers and 84 staff assistants.113

Yes

office.

112 DCF reported that during this monitoring period, 3.9 DAsG outside of the DCF Practice Group have dedicated their time to DCF matters. 113 Of the 168 health care case managers (HCCM), 162 were available for coverage for a ratio of one HCCM to every 43 children in out-of-home care. A ratio of one HCCM to 50
children in out-of-home care or less is considered adequately staffed.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 36

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 44 of 142 PageID: 8025

Reference
III.F. 9 III.F. 10

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Caseworker Contacts with Children – New Placement/Placement Change
Caseworker Contact with Children in Placement

Table 1B: To Be Maintained

Sustainability and Exit Plan
Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

Visitation

93% of children shall have at least twiceper-month face-to-face contact with their caseworker within the first two months of placement, with at least one contact in the placement.114

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

In June 2015, 95% of children had two visits per month, one of which was in the placement, during the first two months of an initial or subsequent placement. Monthly range January – June 2015: 94 – 95%.115

December 2015 Performance20
In November 2015, 94% of children had two visits per month, one of which was in the placement, during the first two months of an initial or subsequent placement. Monthly range July – November 2015:116 90 – 94%.117

During the remainder of the placement, 93% of children shall have at least one caseworker visit per month, in the placement.118

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

In June 2015, 95% of children had at least one caseworker visit per month in his/her placement. Monthly range January – June 2015: 95 – 96%.119

In December 2015, 97% of children had at least one caseworker visit per month in his/her placement. Monthly range July – December 2015: 96 – 97%.120

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes
Yes

114 Under the MSA standard, 95% of children were to have had at least twice-per-month face-to-face contact with their caseworker within the first two months on a new or
subsequent placement. 115 Performance data for the monitoring period for caseworker visits with children after a new placement are as follows: January, 94%; February, 95%; March, 94%; April, 94%;
May, 94%; June, 95%. 116 Data for December 2015 was not available at the time of this report. This data will be included in the next monitoring report. 117 Performance data for the monitoring period for caseworker visits with children after a new placement are as follows: July, 93%; August, 91%; September, 90%; October, 93%;
November, 94%. . 118 Under the MSA standard, 98% of children were to have had at least one caseworker visit per month during the child’s time in out-of-home placement. 119 Performance data for the monitoring period for caseworker visits with children are as follows: January, 95%; February, 95%; March, 95%; April, 96%; May, 96%; June, 95%. 120 Performance data for the monitoring period for caseworker visits with children are as follows: July, 97%; August, 97%; September, 97%; October, 97%; November, 96%;
December, 97%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 37

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 45 of 142 PageID: 8026

Reference

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

Table 1B: To Be Maintained

Sustainability and Exit Plan
Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

Education

December 2015 Performance20

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No)

80% of cases will be

rated acceptable as

measured by the QR in

III.G. 11

Educational Needs

stability (school) and learning and development. The Monitor, in consultation with the parties, shall determine the

Data are currently
provided directly to the Monitor.122

85% of cases rated acceptable for both QR indicators: ‘Stability (school)’ and ‘Learning and Development’.123 (CY 2014)

86% of cases rated acceptable for both QR indicators: ‘Stability (school)’ and ‘Learning and Development’.124 (CY 2015)

Yes

standards for school

stability and quality

learning and

development.121

121 Under the MSA standard, 90% of cases were to have been rated as acceptable as measured by the QR 122 Going forward, the following new reports will be published as data sources for this measure: DCF Report on Our Work with Children, Youth & Families and the Qualitative Review Report. 123 Eighty-four of the total 180 QR cases reviewed from January to December 2014 were applicable for this performance measure because cases must involve children five and older and in out-of-home placement. Seventy-one of 84 applicable cases (85%) rated acceptable on both the Stability (school) and Learning and Development (age 5 and older) QR indicators. Seventy-two of 84 applicable cases (86%) rated acceptable on Stability (school) alone and 79 of 84 applicable (94%) cases rated acceptable on Learning and Development (age 5 and older) alone. 124 Eighty-three of the total 191 QR cases reviewed from January to December 2015 were applicable for this performance measure because cases must involve children five and older and in out-of-home placement. Seventy-one of 83 applicable cases (86%) rated acceptable on both the Stability (school) and Learning and Development (age 5 and older) QR

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 38

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 46 of 142 PageID: 8027

Reference
III.H. 12

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Abuse and Neglect of Children in Foster Care

Table 1B: To Be Maintained

Sustainability and Exit Plan
Standard

Data Source

June 2015 Performance19

Maltreatment

No more than 0.49% of children will be victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member.

Data are currently
provided directly to the Monitor.125

In CY 2014, 0.17% of applicable children in foster care were victims of substantiated abuse or repeat by resource parent or facility staff.

December 2015 Performance20
CY 2015, 0.16% of applicable children in foster care were victims of substantiated abuse or repeat by resource parent or facility staff.

Requirement Fulfilled (Yes/No)
Yes

indicators. Seventy-six of 83 applicable cases (92%) rated acceptable on Stability (school) alone; Seventy-six of 84 applicable (92%) cases rated acceptable on Learning and
Development (age 5 and older) alone. 125 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this measure: CP&P Outcome Report.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 39

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 47 of 142 PageID: 8028

Reference
A. Data Transparency
B. Case Practice Model

Table 1C: Foundational Elements

Additional SEP Requirements That DCF Must Meet:
DCF will continue to maintain a case management information and data collections system that allows for the assessment, tracking, posting or webbased publishing, and utilization of key data indicators.
Implement and sustain a Case Practice Model

Data Source
Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor and published by DCF in reports and on its website.126
QR Data Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.127

Quality investigation and assessment

Investigation Report May 2015

Safety and risk assessment and risk reassessment Engagement with youth and families
Working with family teams
Individualized planning and relevant services
Safe and sustained transition from DCF
Continuous review and adaptations

Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.128
QR Data Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.129
QR Data Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.130
QR Data Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.131
QR Data Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.132
Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.133

December 2015 Fulfilled (Yes/No) Yes
Yes

126 Going forward, the following reports will be published as data sources for this Foundational Element: Report on Our Work with Children, Youth & Families; CP&P Outcome
Report; Report on the Healthcare of Children in Out-of-Home Placement in NJ; Adoption Report; DCF Needs Assessment; and the DCF Workforce Report. 127 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this Foundational Element: Report on Our Work with Children, Youth & Families. 128 Ibid 129 Ibid 130 Ibid 131 Ibid 132 Ibid 133 Ibid

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 40

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 48 of 142 PageID: 8029

Reference
C. State Central Registry
D. Appropriate Placements

Table 1C: Foundational Elements

Additional SEP Requirements That DCF Must Meet:

Data Source

Received by the field in a timely manner Commissioner’s Monthly Report

Investigation commenced within required response time
Appropriate placements of children
Resource family homes licensed and closed (kinship/non-kinship)

Commissioner’s Monthly Report
QR data Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.134
Commissioner’s Monthly Report

Number of children in home/out of home demographic data

Quarterly Demographic Report

Placed in a family setting

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

Placement proximity

Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.135

No children under 13 years old in shelters Commissioner’s Monthly Report

Children over 13 in shelters no more than 30 days

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

No behavioral health placements out of state without approval
Adequate number of resource placements

Commissioner’s Monthly Report
CP&P Needs Assessment Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.136

December 2015 Fulfilled (Yes/No) Yes
Yes

134 Ibid 135 Ibid 136 Ibid
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 41

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 49 of 142 PageID: 8030

Reference
E. Service Array
F. Medical and Behavioral Health Services

Table 1C: Foundational Elements

Additional SEP Requirements That DCF Must Meet:
Services for youth age 18-21, LGBTQI, mental health and domestic violence for birth parents with families involved with the child welfare system

Data Source
Services for older youth can be found at NJYRS.org DCF Website will be updated with information on services for youth (e.g. Safe Space Liaison Program) CP&P Needs Assessment

Preventive home visitation programs

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

Family Success Centers

Commissioner’s Monthly Report

Appropriate medical assessment and treatment Pre-placement and entry medical assessments
Dental examinations

Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.137
Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.138 Commissioner’s Monthly Report
Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.139 Commissioner’s Monthly Report

Immunizations

Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.140
Commissioner’s Monthly Report

Follow-up care and treatment

Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.141

Mental health assessment and treatment

Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.142

Behavioral health

CIACC Monthly Report

December 2015 Fulfilled (Yes/No) Yes
Yes

137 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this Foundational Element: Report on the Healthcare of Children in Out-of-Home Placement
in NJ. 138 Going forward, the following new reports will be published as data sources for this Foundational Element: Report on Our Work with Children, Youth & Families, CP&P
Outcome Report, Report on the Healthcare of Children in Out-of-Home Placement in NJ and Adoption Report. 139 Ibid 140 Ibid 141 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this Foundational Element: Report on the Healthcare of Children in Out-of-Home Placement in
NJ. 142 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this Foundational Element: Report on the Healthcare of Children in Out-of-Home Placement in
NJ.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 42

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 50 of 142 PageID: 8031

Reference
G. Training
H. Flexible Funding
I. Resource Family Care Support Rates J. Permanency K. Adoption Practice

Table 1C: Foundational Elements

Additional SEP Requirements That DCF Must Meet:

Data Source

Pre-service training

Case practice model

Permanency planning Concurrent planning

Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.143

Adoption

Demonstration of competency DCF will continue to make flexible funds available for use by workers in crafting individualized service plans for children, youth and families to meet the needs of children and families, to facilitate family preservation and reunification where appropriate, and to ensure that families are able to provide appropriate care for children and to avoid the disruption of otherwise stable and appropriate placements.
Family care support rates
Independent Living Stipend

Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor DCF Online Policy Manual Budget Report
DCF Online Policy Manual DCF Website144 DCF Online Policy Manual Youth Website

Permanency practices Adoption practices

Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.145

5- and 10-month placement reviews Child specific recruitment

Data are currently provided directly to the Monitor.146

December 2015 Fulfilled (Yes/No) Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes

143 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this Foundational Element: Workforce Report 144 USDA has altered its schedule for producing its Annual Report on costs of raising a child. By agreement, DCF will update the rates within 30 days of the USDA annual report’s
release to meet the SEP standards and will provide written confirmation to the Monitor. 145 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this Foundational Element: Report on Our Work with Children, Youth & Families 146 Going forward, the following new report will be published as the data source for this Foundational Element: Adoption Report

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 43

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 51 of 142 PageID: 8032

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 52 of 142 PageID: 8033

IV. FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS
The Foundational Elements section of the SEP (SEP II) intentionally recognizes accomplishments the state achieved and sustained in early implementation of the MSA. These Foundational Elements remain enforceable and the state is required to continue to collect and publish information on them. The state will be producing and disseminating through its website a series of reports as described in the Introduction and in Table 1C of this report. These reports will be grouped by areas and published according to an established schedule at different times of the year; at the time of the writing of this report, not all of these reports had been produced. Until such time as these reports are all produced, DCF will continue to provide data directly to the Monitor for verification. For any measure designated as a Foundational Element, the Monitor will look first to the state’s data for analysis and perform periodic examinations to ensure that continued performance is maintained at the required level. At the Monitor’s discretion, if there is any concern that a Foundational Element has not been sustained, the Monitor may request additional information. Further, if problems are identified, the state may propose and implement corrective action, although this is not anticipated by either party.
A. DATA TRANSPARENCY
Section II.A of the SEP requires “DCF will continue to maintain a case management information and data collection system that allows for the assessment, tracking, posting or web-based publishing and utilization of key data indicators.”
DCF has embraced a commitment to using qualitative and quantitative data for both management and continuous quality improvement (CQI). Their CQI capacity has been developing over the past several years and has helped leaders, managers and frontline staff better assess strengths and weakness of practice and develop targeted improvements. DCF continues to work to improve data entry, quality and reporting through NJ SPIRIT. SafeMeasures v5, a data warehouse and analytical tool, continues to be used by DCF staff at all levels of the organization to help track, monitor and analyze trends in case practice in their own local areas. Additionally, DCF continues to regularly produce and publish agency performance reports on their website for public viewing. The Commissioner’s Monthly Report, now includes key data on systems performance indicators.147
B. CASE PRACTICE MODEL
Section II.B of the SEP requires the state to continue to implement and maintain a Case Practice Model (CPM) that is reflective of quality investigation and assessment, working with family teams, individualized planning and relevant services, continuous review and adaptation and safe and sustained transition from DCF involvement.
The CPM was developed to guide and support staff towards a strength-based and familycentered approach that ensures the safety, permanency and well-being of children, youth and families. The CPM describes expected casework practice that requires engagement with children,

147 To see Commissioner’s Monthly Reports, go to: http://nj.gov/dcf/childdata/continuous/

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 44

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 53 of 142 PageID: 8034

youth and families through teamwork and crafting individualized case plans with families and children.
New Jersey’s CPM is reflected in requirements in many parts of the SEP, however, the parties will be measuring the state’s progress in infusing the principles and elements of the CPM into daily casework practice primarily through the results of its Qualitative Review (QR) process, as discussed in Section V.N of this report. In the future, and in addition to reporting QR data to the Monitor, the state will report on its progress in this area through its annual Report on Work with Children, Youth and Families and annually in its QR report (see Table 1C).
The state continues to hold monthly ChildStat meetings and has been doing so since September 2010.148 The ChildStat process encourages skill development through self-diagnosis and data analysis. At the ChildStat meetings, Local Office leadership present practice issues, including data on key performance indicators from the most recent two fiscal quarters and compares their data to statewide data. The Monitor regularly attends DCF’s ChildStat meetings and is always impressed by its usefulness in engaging staff throughout DCF as well as community partners to review and assess the quality of case practice. In addition, the state is engaging in an effort to deepen and reinvigorate staff’s supervisory skills through a number of statewide case practice initiatives.
Performance during the months of January through December 2015 for safety and risk assessment prior to an investigation completion and risk reassessment prior to non-investigative case closure continues to be met during this monitoring period. Under the MSA the Monitor reported these data semi-annually. The parties have agreed that in the future, these data will be reported annually in DCF’s Report on Our Work the Children, Youth & Families. According to DCF data, 100 percent of safety and risk assessments were completed prior to investigation completion and 100 percent of risk reassessments were completed 30 days prior to noninvestigative case closure.149
C. STATE CENTRAL REGISTRY OPERATIONS
Section II.C of the SEP requires the state to continue to implement and maintain a system for receiving, screening and timely response by the field to calls of suspected child abuse and neglect.
DCF continues to operate its State Central Registry (SCR) in a professional, efficient and effective manner with quality assurance mechanisms to support good practice. Reports of alleged abuse and neglect continue to be appropriately screened and forwarded within 24 hours of receipt to the field for investigation. Performance during the months of January through December 2015 for timely transmission to the field and commencement of investigations continues to be met during this monitoring period. Under the MSA the Monitor reviewed these data semi-annually.

148 Drawn from CompStat in New York City, ChildStat is a process wherein organizations use quantitative and qualitative data from multiple contexts to understand and attempt to improve service delivery. 149 NJ SPIRIT now has guardrails that require workers complete the appropriate assessments prior to completing an investigation and prior to closing a case.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 45

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 54 of 142 PageID: 8035

The parties have agreed that in the future, these data will be reported monthly in DCF’s Commissioner’s Monthly Report, currently available on the DCF website.
According to the February 2016 Commissioner’s Monthly Report, 100 percent of referrals were timely transmitted to the field and 100 percent of investigations were commenced within the required response time.
D. APPROPRIATE PLACEMENTS
Section II.D of the SEP provides that “when out-of-home placement is necessary, DCF will provide the most appropriate and least restrictive placements, allowing children to remain in their own communities, be placed with or maintain contact with siblings and relatives, and have their educational needs met. Children under age 13 shall not be placed in shelters, and no child shall be placed out-of-state in a behavioral health facility without written approval of the Director of the Children’s System of Care. The State shall maintain an adequate number and array of familybased placements to appropriately place children in family settings.”
Since the lawsuit began, DCF has been successfully building and maintaining a pool of placement resource homes and group settings that meets the needs of children in out-of-home care. DCF continues to keep pace with placement demands and is actively improving its process to recruit and license family resource homes in which to appropriately place children when they enter DCF custody. As of December 31, 2015, a total of 6,955 children were in out-of-home placement; 6,329 (91%) in family-like settings, with 53 percent placed in non-kinship resource family homes and 39 percent in kinship homes. Seven percent of children were placed in group and residential settings and two percent were in independent living programs.
Between January and December 2015 DCF recruited and licensed 1,244 new kinship and nonkinship family homes; 795 (64%) of the 1,244 newly licensed homes were kinship homes, reflecting the state’s continued commitment to licensing relatives.
A total of 1,648 resource family homes closed between January and December 2015, resulting in a net loss of 404 resource family homes during the 12 months. DCF cites the growing number of licensed kinship homes as the primary reason for the net loss of resource homes, as kinship homes tend not to remain open at the same rate as non-kinship homes. This trend reflects good case practice because kinship homes that close do so primarily because children are achieving permanency. The state has begun shifting its emphasis from the total number of homes licensed to a focus on targeted needs, such as homes for large sibling groups and adolescents. For example, an effort is currently underway to engage the existing pool of resource families about the need for homes that will accept large sibling groups. Another potential factor in the net loss of homes may be that from July to December 2015, DCF transitioned 210 contract agency homes to Local Offices, which diverted staff time from recruiting new resource homes to making sure the new resource families were appropriately engaged and supported.
While DCF reports that it continues to have a more than adequate supply of resource family homes for children in out-of-home care across the state, the Monitor will continue to examine

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 46

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 55 of 142 PageID: 8036
DCF’s capacity to maintain an adequate pool of such homes and its progress towards increasing the number of family-like placements for the specific populations discussed above. The assessment of appropriate placement is made through data collected in the QR process. This assessment considers whether the child or youth is residing in the least restrictive setting to meet their needs. This includes whether the placement allows a child or youth to remain in his or her own community, maintain contact with siblings and relatives and whether caregivers are supportive of the child or youth’s education. Other considerations include whether the living arrangement is consistent with the child’s language and culture and whether the placement meets the child’s basic needs, including his or her need for emotional support, supervision, and socialization. DCF met the performance standard in this area from January through December 2015.
Overall, DCF has maintained its practice this monitoring period of keeping children under age 13 out of shelters.150 Beginning in January 2015, DCF began publishing data on shelter placements in the Commissioner’s Monthly Report. The Monitor will continue to receive DCF’s back-up data on shelter placements and conduct periodic assessments of practice in this area.
E. SERVICE ARRAY
Section II.E of the SEP requires the state to provide comprehensive, culturally responsive services to address the identified needs of the children, youth and families it serves, and maintain an adequate statewide network of Family Success Centers. These services shall include but not be limited to services for: youth age 18 to 21, LGBTQI services, mental health and domestic violence services for birth parents whose families are involved with the child welfare system and preventive home visitation programs.
Youth Age 18 to 21 Services
DCF continues to provide services to older youth in the areas of housing, education, employment, general transition support, youth engagement and permanency and familial support. Services available by county and type can be found on the NJ Youth Resource Spot website.151 Bulleted below are additional highlights for services to youth:
 The Adolescent Housing Hub (HUB) is a real time bed tracking and referral process system designed to assist youth with placement in transitional or permanent housing programs. In CY 2015, DCF had a total of 368 housing slots for homeless and aging out youth.

150 Between January and December 2015 two children under 13 were placed in shelters: one for one day in February 2015 on an emergency basis after his father refused to permit him back in the home at midnight, and the other in August 2015 over a weekend prior to transferring to relative custody in Delaware. This shelter placement was in error in that the workers assumed the placement was in a family resource home run by the shelter provider and were not informed at the time of placement that the family resource program at the shelter had closed. The resource records have since been updated to prevent a similar mistake going forward. 151 To see the NJ Youth Resource Spot website, go to: http://www.njyrs.org/

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 47

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 56 of 142 PageID: 8037

 In March 2015, the Office of Adolescent Services (OAS) received 100 Project Based Section 8 Housing Vouchers from New Jersey’s Department of Community Affairs to provide long-term, stable and supportive housing opportunities for young people aging out of care. The housing programs created through these vouchers will include support services and will be targeted for youth age 18 to 20 who are involved with or have experience in the child welfare system and at risk of homelessness. Youth will be coached to move on from the program by age 26.
 New Jersey continues to provide educational support through the NJ Scholars program152 and Project MYSELF.153
 The Youth Employment Specialist with the OAS has focused on identifying regional and statewide employment resources; collaborating with the Department of Labor and the State Employment and Training Commission to build partnerships and increase access to existing programs, networks and practices; and educating and providing resource training to DCF staff, providers and youth.
 Adolescent Practice Forums, facilitated by OAS, are held twice yearly and provide attendees with updates on changes and improvements to DCF youth-specific policy, practice and resources.
 DCF held a second round of Permanency Roundtables in January 2016, targeting youth between the ages of 14 and 17. Permanency Roundtables is a process developed by Casey Family Programs to help staff strategize about potential permanency options for older youth.
 The 15 Youth Advisory Boards (covering 21 counties) meet twice a month and are open to youth between the ages of 14 and 22 who have experience with CP&P or homelessness. The purpose is to discuss ways to improve policies, procedures and services provided by DCF.
 On August 30, 2015, DCF learned they were awarded national funding to begin implementation of their Youth At-Risk of Homelessness work. The implementation will focus on the four outcomes areas of housing stability, permanency, well-being and education/employment to prevent and address homelessness. Services will be piloted in Burlington, Mercer and Union counties.

152 NJ Scholars provides assistance with tuition and fees to eligible current and former foster youth in order to pursue post-secondary education at an accredited two or four year college, university, trade or career school. Eligible youth must have a high school diploma or GED. 153 Project MYSELF is a multi-service mentoring program designed to improve academic performance, increase post-secondary education retention and completion and develop life skills and competencies.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 48

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 57 of 142 PageID: 8038

LGBTQI Services
DCF continues to operate Safe Space Programs in the north, south and central regions of the state with representation from all Local Offices, IAIU and school-based programs. Each region meets three times a year and provides opportunities for trainings: a work group focused on case practice; LBGTQI resources; and data analysis, reporting and tracking. The LGBTQI Youth Committee, comprised of LGBTQI community advocates, meets quarterly and provides feedback to DCF on practice and services issues. The Committee provided feedback on the draft LGBTQI policy, which was finalized in late 2015.154 DCF launched its statewide Safe Space Training at a meeting in December 2015 attended by over 100 participants.
Information on specific LGBTQI services and supports are available by county on the NJ Youth Resources Spot website.
Domestic Violence Services
In October 2014, the Office of Domestic Violence Services transferred from DCF’s Family and Community Partnerships to DCF’s Division on Women (DOW). Thirty-two domestic violence liaisons are available in CP&P’s 46 Local Offices, at least one in each county, to provide CP&P with on-site consultation, support and advocacy for the non-offending parent and children. Data on DOW’s domestic violence programs, including data on residential programs that are over capacity, are available on the Commissioner’s Monthly Report. Between January and December 2015, DCF served 13,312 clients, the majority of services in non-residential settings.
Home Visitation Programs
Since 2007 the state has doubled its support for home visiting programs, an evidence-based initiative that provides information on health and parenting and links health and social services to families with young children during pregnancy, infancy and until the child is age two or three, depending on the model. New Jersey currently serves families of infants and young children through three home visiting models available to families in 21 counties statewide: Healthy Families, Nurse-Family Partnerships and Parents as Teachers, as well as Home Instruction to Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) in Bergen County. Data on home visitation programs are available on the Commissioner’s Monthly Report. Between January and December 2015, DCF served 7,188155 families in its home visiting programs.
Family Success Centers
New Jersey began developing Family Success Centers (FSCs) in 2007, initially with 21 centers. Currently there are 54 FSCs, with at least one located in each of the state’s 21 counties. FSCs are neighborhood-based places where any community resident can access family support, information and services and specialized supports that vary depending on the needs and desires of the community in which they are located. Their function is to provide resources and supports

154 To see the LGBTQI policy, go to: http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/policy_manuals/CPP-I-A-1-500_issuance.shtml 155 As of November 2015, both new and ongoing clients are reported for Home Visiting Programs.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 49

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 58 of 142 PageID: 8039
before families fall into crisis. FSCs are situated in many types of settings: storefronts, houses, schools, places of worship and public housing. Services, which are available to any family free of charge, include life skills training, parent and child activities, advocacy, parent education and housing related activities. Data on Family Success Centers and families served are available on the Commissioner’s Monthly Report. Between January and December 2015, 30,177 families were served by FSCs statewide.
F. MEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES
Medical Health Services
SEP Section II.F requires DCF to “continue to provide medical care to children and youth including appropriate medical assessment and treatment, pre-placement and entry medical assessments under EPSDT guidelines, dental examinations, up to date immunizations, follow-up care and treatment and mental health assessments and treatment, where appropriate.”
As part of the MSA, DCF successfully built child health units to facilitate and ensure the timely provision of health care to children in CP&P custody. These units are operational in each CP&P Local Office and are staffed with a managing Clinical Nurse Coordinator, Nurse Health Care Case Manager and staff assistants based on the projected number of children in out-of-home placement. Each child in a resource home continues to have a nurse assigned for health care case management. These child health units are a fundamental cornerstone of the reform effort, and as a result of this investment, since June 2011 DCF has maintained or improved performance on all measures related to health care services.
From January through December 2015, DCF continued to demonstrate sustained access to health care for children in out of home placement. In this monitoring period between 97 and 100 percent of children and youth entering out-of-home care received a pre-placement assessment (PPA) in an appropriate setting, considered to be a non-emergency room setting or in an ER, based on the presenting medical needs of the child/youth. The state also met its responsibility to conduct comprehensive medical examinations (CME) within 30 days of children entering out-ofhome care. These examinations involve a comprehensive physical, including a developmental history and evaluation, and an initial mental health screening. From January through December 2015, between 81 and 91 percent of children entering out-of-home placement received a CME within 30 days and between 98 and 100 percent had received this exam within 60 days of entering care.
The state also continues to provide children in out-of-home placements with timely immunizations and annual dental exams: from January through December 2015, between 96 and 98 percent of children and youth were current with their immunizations. As of December 30, 2015, 99 percent of children and youth had received an annual dental exam.
DCF continues to conduct a biannual review to determine if children in out-of-home care receive timely follow-up care for identified medical needs and if children are receiving mental health

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 50

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 59 of 142 PageID: 8040

screening, assessment and recommended treatment. For the period January through June 2015,156 data show that 96 percent of children in out-of-home care received some or all follow-up care for identified medical needs, 62 percent of children in out-of-home care who needed further treatment following a mental health assessment received all of the recommended treatment and another 29 percent had received some of the recommended treatment. For the period July through December 2015,157 data show that 86 percent of children in out-of-home care received some or all follow-up care for identified medical needs, 77 percent of children in out-of-home care who needed further treatment following a mental health assessment received all of the recommended treatment and another nine percent had received some of the recommended treatment.
Finally, NJ SPIRIT and SafeMeasures provide reports on when a child receives a required Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) well-child examination. However, these reports do not account for whether or not a child is clinically up-to-date with these exams. That is, a child may be noted in NJ SPIRIT as not up to date if the child was sick at the EPSDT visit or if the visit was missed but rescheduled within a close time period. Also, especially for younger children, once a child is off schedule, he or she will remain off schedule within DCF’s data system for all subsequent EPSDT exams. Therefore, the Child Health Program conducts a secondary review of all the records of children noted as “not current with their EPSDT exams.” As of December 2015, 90 percent of children under the age of two and 93 percent of children age two and older were up-to-date with these exams.158
Most of the health care tracking described above are currently available through the Commissioner’s Monthly Report and all health care data are anticipated to be available in the future in DCF’s Report on the Healthcare of Children in Out-of-Home Placement in New Jersey.
Behavioral Health Services
SEP II.F also requires the state to “continue to provide behavioral health treatment in the least restrictive setting for children and youth.”
DCF’s Children’s System of Care (CSOC) serves children and adolescents with emotional, behavioral health, developmental and intellectual disabilities and co-occurring conditions. Beginning in 2012, the provision of services to children with developmental and intellectual

156 The Health Care Case Record Review conducted by DCF to report on the above indicators for January-June 2015 was done by reviewing records of a random sample of children in CP&P out-of-home placement who were removed between November 1, 2014 and April 30, 2015 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 1,768 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 332 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 percent margin of error. 157 The Health Care Case Record Review conducted by DCF to report on the above indicators for July-December 2015 was done by reviewing records of a random sample of children in CP&P out of home placement who were removed between May 1 and October 31, 2015 and were in care for a minimum of 60 days. 1,795 children comprise this cohort. A sample of 320 children was reviewed. The results have a ± 5 percent margin of error. 158 For children under the age of two, performance on ensuring EPSDT between July and December 2015 ranged from 90 to 99 percent. For children over the age of two, performance ranged between 91 to 98 percent during the same six month time period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 51

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 60 of 142 PageID: 8041

disability, formerly under the purview of the Department of Human Services (DHS), transitioned to CSOC.
CSOC continues to seek new opportunities to best serve such a large and diverse population. For example, in 2015, the CSOC concluded its participation in a Developmentally Disabled (DD)/Mentally Ill (MI) Learning Collaborative facilitated by Georgetown Technical Assistance Center which supported CSOC in focusing on skill development for both the CSOC team and system partners. CSOC also continued implementation of the Comprehensive Medicaid Waiver focused, in part, on increasing supports for children and youth who have a risk of hospital level care (i.e., seriously emotionally disturbed). Two pilots programs have begun -- one focused on children and youth with autism spectrum disorder and one focused on increasing services to youth with a developmental disability and a behavioral health concern. Each of the two pilot programs can accommodate 200 individuals.
The Commissioner’s Monthly Report provides utilization and other descriptive data on the CSOC. Data from the Commissioner’s February 2016 Monthly Report show that DCF continues to serve an increasing population of children through community based care management and that the number of children in out-of-home treatment settings in 2015 had declined since 2013. New Jersey’s system of behavioral health services for children is impressive.
G. TRAINING
Section II.G of the SEP requires the state to continue to maintain a comprehensive training program for child welfare staff and supervisors, and report training data for in-service, preservice, permanency planning, concurrent planning and adoption training, as well as competency testing. From January through December 2015, DCF continued to meet this measure as it has since early in the litigation.
Under the MSA, the Monitor reported these data semi-annually through a review of a statistically significant sample of staff transcripts. The parties have agreed that in the future, these data will be reported annually in DCF’s Workforce Report, currently available on the DCF website. However, the Monitor will perform periodic checks of training academy operations to validate that continued performance is maintained at the required level.
According to DCF’s annual Workforce Report, data from July 2014 through June 2015 show that 100 percent of DCF’s caseload carrying staff and supervisors completed at least 40 hours of annual in-service training. In addition, DCF reports that from January 1 to December 31, 2015, 269 staff were trained and passed competency exams in pre-service; 316 staff participated in concurrent planning training; 316 were trained and passed competency exams in investigations and intake; 30 supervisors completed supervisory training; and 61 staff were trained in adoption practice.
H. FLEXIBLE FUNDING
Under Section II.H of the SEP, DCF is required to maintain availability of flexible funds for use by workers in “crafting individualized service plans for children, youth and families to meet the

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 52

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 61 of 142 PageID: 8042

needs of children and families, to facilitate family preservation and reunification where appropriate, and to ensure that families are able to provide appropriate care for children and to avoid the disruption of otherwise stable and appropriate placements.” Flexible funds are a source of money accessible to casework staff to meet the individualized short term needs of a child, birth family or resource family. The fund is meant to assist families to purchase needed items, goods or services that they cannot otherwise afford in order to provide appropriate care for children, promote family preservation, avoid the disruption of otherwise stable placements and to facilitate family reunification. DCF will be reporting data on flexible funding in its Annual Budget Report. As the Monitor reported in the previous monitoring period, in FY 2015 the flexible fund budget was $5,714,602. From January to June 2015, total flexible fund expenditures were $2,897,269.00 and from July to December 2015, these funds totaled $2,490,853.53, for a total of $5,388,122.53 in CY 2015.
I. RESOURCE FAMILY CARE SUPPORT RATES
SEP Section II.I requires that DCF “continue to adjust the resource family care support rates to maintain them at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates for the cost of raising a child for the following State fiscal year. The State will continue to adjust the Independent Living Stipend considering the USDA estimate rates for raising an adolescent, the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Fair Market Value for average rent in New Jersey, and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimates for monthly food and household expenses.”
Historically the USDA’s Center for Nutritional Policy and Promotion reports annually on the cost of raising a child. The most recent USDA report was issued in August 2014 for CY 2013. The USDA’s report for CY 2014 has not yet been issued. DCF will be adjusting its resource family care support rates and its independent living stipend based on receipt of the USDA’s annual reports and will be reporting the adjusted rates to the Monitor.159 DCF’s resource family support rates are also found in the DCF Online Policy Manual and in its budget report.
J. PERMANENCY
Section II.J of the SEP requires, “Consistent with the principles of this agreement, DCF will continue to strengthen and sustain appropriate permanency and adoption practices for the children and youth it serves, recognizing that DCF’s permanency work begins at intake and is encompassing of the elements of the Case Practice Model.”
Permanency is a cornerstone of child welfare work and DCF’s continued training and implementation of the CPM provides a framework for staff to focus on permanency outcomes for children and families. The monitoring reports will continue to include outcome data for those permanency measures which are categorized as Outcomes To Be Achieved and Outcomes To Be Maintained, and the state will also be reporting more thoroughly on progress in this area through its annual Report on Work with Children, Youth and Families.

159 USDA has altered its schedule for producing its Annual Report on costs of raising a child. By agreement, DCF will update the rates within 30 days of the USDA report’s release each year to meet the SEP standards and will provide written confirmation to the Monitor.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 53

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 62 of 142 PageID: 8043
K. ADOPTION PRACTICE
Section II.K of the SEP requires the state maintain the “process of freeing a child for adoption and seeking and securing an adoptive placement shall begin as soon as the child’s permanency goal becomes adoption but no later than as required by federal law. The State will conduct five and 10 month placement reviews for children in custody. DCF shall commence the adoption process as soon as a diligent search process has been completed and has failed to identify the location of both parents or a suitable family placement. DCF shall develop a child specific recruitment plan for all children with a permanency goal of adoption needing the recruitment of an adoptive family.” DCF will report on these data in the annual Adoption Report, which will be available on DCF’s website. Specific performance data for five and 10 month placement reviews and child specific adoption recruitment plans for January through December 2015 are discussed below.
Five and 10 month placement reviews are routinely occurring. DCF reports that between January and December 2015, 90 to 98 percent of applicable families each month had the required five month reviews and between 79 and 95 percent of applicable families each month had the required 10 month reviews.
DCF workers hold these enhanced reviews in CP&P Local Offices for staff to engage families in concurrent planning, a child welfare practice in use throughout the country that requires workers to simultaneously engage with families on reunifying children as quickly as possible while also pursuing alternative permanency options should reunification efforts fail.
The majority of child specific adoption recruitment plans are being completed in a timely manner. It is CP&P’s practice to develop a child specific recruitment plan for children with a permanency goal of adoption who do not have an adoptive home identified at the time of termination of parental rights. These plans should be developed within 30 days of a child’s goal change. Of the 66 children requiring a child specific plan between January and June 2015, 56 (85%) had a child specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of goal change.160 Of the 51 children requiring a child specific plan between July and December 2015, 46 (90%) had a child specific recruitment plan developed within 30 days of goal change.161

160 Of the 10 cases where the plan not completed within 30 days of goal change, seven (11%) had a plan developed within 60 days of goal change, two (3%) had a plan developed within 90 days of goal change and the remaining child had a plan developed over 91 days. 161 Of the five cases where the plan was not completed within 30 days of goal change, three (6%) had a plan developed within 60 days of goal change and two (4%) had a plan completed within 90 days.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 54

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 63 of 142 PageID: 8044

V. TO BE ACHIEVED AND TO BE MAINTAINED
The remaining items in this report are areas in the SEP for which the state has satisfied the specified performance targets for at least six months -- designated as To Be Maintained -- or areas of performance that the state still needs to achieve -- designated in the SEP as To Be Achieved. The state will continue to provide the Monitor with primary and backup data and will be publishing reports as described in the introduction to this report and in Table 1A and 1B.
A. INVESTIGATIONS
Investigative Practice
Section IV of the SEP includes four measures related to investigative practice.162 Section III.A of the SEP includes one measure designated as an Outcome To Be Maintained, timeliness of IA investigations. The remaining three measures are designated as Outcomes To Be Achieved: 1) timeliness of alleged child abuse and neglect investigation completion within 60 days; 2) timeliness of alleged child abuse and neglect investigation completion within 90 days, and 3) quality of investigations.
The MSA required that 98 percent of investigations of child abuse and neglect be completed within 60 days. The SEP, responding to feedback from staff and stakeholders that there are circumstances where workers need additional time to gather pertinent information in determining investigative findings, modified the performance target and methodology (e.g., investigations involving the prosecutor’s offices and sexual abuse cases). The modifications to the methodology include the addition of investigations with documented acceptable extension requests in increments of 30 calendar days to complete investigations beyond the 60 day time frame. CP&P policy outlines acceptable reasons for extension requests and the supervisory approval process.163
To assess performance for timeliness of investigation completion, the Monitor conducted a review of a statistically significant sample164 of investigations where an extension request was submitted and approved by a supervisor during the months of March, June and August 2015. Overall, the review determined that 32 percent of the cases165 demonstrated appropriately documented extensions. These findings were shared with CP&P to verify the Monitor’s conclusion. Given the results of the review, the Monitor was unable to validate appropriate use of investigation extension requests and thus cannot determine performance for this monitoring period using the new reporting methodology. Data provided in this report on these measures therefore understate performance by some unverifiable amount because it does not yet reflect acceptable extension requests.

162 Some of the measures were modified in the SEP with respect to performance target and/or methodology as
described in the text. 163 CP&P Policy Manual 5-28-2013, Intake Investigation and Response, II.C.5.125 164 95% confidence level with ± 5 percent of error 165 51 of the 158 cases reviewed.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 55

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 64 of 142 PageID: 8045

Timeliness of Investigation Completion

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Performance Target

13. Timeliness of Investigation Completion: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be completed within 60 days.
85% of all abuse/neglect investigations shall be completed within 60 days. Cases with documented acceptable extensions in accordance with policy are considered compliant.

Performance as of November 30, 2015:
In June 2015, there were 4,582 investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect and 3,791 (83%) were completed within 60 days. Performance between January and June 2015 ranged from a low of 78 percent to a high of 83 percent. In November 2015,166 there were 4,109 investigations of child abuse and neglect and 3,406 (83%) were completed within 60 days. From July through November 2015, performance ranged from a low of 83 percent to a high of 85 percent. Performance for timeliness of investigation completion within 60 days although close to the final target was not met for the period of January through June 2015 nor for the period of July through November 2015.
Figure 1: Percentage of Abuse/Neglect Investigations Completed within 60 days (June 2009 – November 2015)167

Percentage of Abuse/Neglect Investigations

100%

90%

Performance

Target (85%)

80%

76%

72%

73% 83% 83%

70% 71%
68%

71% 70%

63%

63%

60%

65%

60%

50%
JuJunn-0-099 DDece-c0-909JuJnu-1n0-10DeDce-1c0-10JuJnu-1n1-11 DDeecc--1111 JunJu-1n2-12Dec-1M2 aJr-u1n3-13 DDeecc--1133 JuJnu-n1-414 DDece-c1-414 JuJnu-n1-515 Nov-15

Month

Source: DCF data Data does not include as compliant investigations with documented accepted extensions.168
166 November 2015 was the most current data available at the time of writing of this report. 167Ibid. 168 The Monitor was unable validate appropriate use of investigation extension requests and thus cannot determine performance using the new reporting methodology.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 56

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 65 of 142 PageID: 8046

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Performance Target

14. Timeliness of Investigation Completion: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect shall be completed within 90 days.
95% of all abuse/neglect investigations shall be completed within 90 days. Cases with documented acceptable extensions in accordance with policy are considered compliant.

Performance as of November 30, 2015:
In June 2015, there were 4,582 investigations of child abuse and neglect and 4,356 (95%) were completed within 90 days. Performance between January and June 2015 ranged from a low of 93 percent in January 2015 to a high of 95 percent in March, May and June 2015 (See Figure 2). In November 2015, there were 4,109 investigations of child abuse and neglect and 3,918 (95%) were completed within 90 days.169 From July through November 2015, performance ranged from a low of 95 percent to a high of 96 percent (See Figure 2). Performance for timeliness of investigation completion within 90 days met or exceeded SEP standards for period of January through June 2015 and the period of July through November 2015.
Figure 2: Percentage of Abuse/Neglect Investigations Completed within 90 days (January - November 2015)170

100%

Percentage of Timeliness of Completion

98%

96%

96%

95%

95% 95% 95% 95%

95% 95%

Performance

Target (95%)

94%

94%

94%

92% 93%

90%
Jan

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Months

Source: DCF data.
Data does not include as compliant investigations with documented accepted extensions.171

169 November 2015 was the most current data available at the time of writing of this report. 170 Ibid 171 The Monitor was unable validate appropriate use of investigation extension requests and thus cannot determine
performance using the new reporting methodology.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 57

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 66 of 142 PageID: 8047

Quality of Investigations

Quantitative or

15. Quality of Investigations: Investigations of alleged child abuse and neglect

Qualitative Measure

shall meet standards of quality.

Performance Target 85% of all abuse/neglect investigations shall meet standards of quality.
A case record review of the quality of CP&P’s investigative practice was conducted in September 2014. The review examined the quality of practice of 313 randomly selected CPS investigations assigned to DCF Local Offices between February 1 and February 14, 2014 involving 477 alleged child victims.172 Overall, reviewers found that 244 (78%) of the investigations were of acceptable quality.173 The findings of this review reflect some clear strengths in CP&P investigative case practice as well as areas in need of further development. A report of the findings was released in May 2015.174

DCF and the Monitor will conduct a subsequent case record review to examine the quality of investigative practice in the fall of 2016. Findings from that review will be included in the next monitoring report.

Institutional Abuse Investigations

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Performance Target

1. Timeliness of Completion: IAI of allegations of Child maltreatment in placements shall be completed within 60 days
80% of IAI shall be completed within 60 days.

The Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU) is responsible for investigating allegations of child abuse and neglect in resource family homes and other out-of-home care settings, as well as in child care facilities, detention centers, schools and residential facilities.175 From January to December 2015, IAIU received 2816 referrals. This is a decrease of 179 referrals (6%) over the same time period in 2014.
Performance as of December 31, 2015
Between January and December 2015, monthly performance for this measure ranged from 83 and 91 percent of all IA investigations completed within 60 days. DCF exceeded the final target for this measure for the period of January through June 2015 and continued to do so for the period of July through December 2015. Under the MSA, the Monitor reviewed these data semi-

172 These results have a ± 5% margin of error with 95% confidence. 173 Reviewers could select four possible responses to the question of quality of the investigation which included
completely, substantially, marginally and not at all. Investigations determined to be completely and substantially of
quality were considered acceptable. 174 A full report on the findings and recommendations from the review can be found at:
http://nj.gov/dcf/about/divisions/opma/DCF_InvestigationsReviewReport_2014.pdf 175 CP&P Policy Manual (4-1-2013). Introduction to IAIU, I, A, 100.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 58

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 67 of 142 PageID: 8048
annually. The parties have agreed that in the future, these data will be publically reported monthly in the DCF’s Commissioner’s Report currently available on the DCF website.
B. FAMILY TEAM MEETINGS
Family Team Meetings (FTMs) are intended to support and promote individualized case planning. Workers are trained and coached to hold FTMs at key decision points in the life of a case, such as when a child enters placement, when a child has a change of placement and/or when there is a need to adjust a case plan to achieve permanency or meet a child’s needs. Working at optimal capacity, FTMs enable families, providers, formal and informal supports to exchange information that can be critical to coordinating and following up on services, examining and solving problems and achieving positive outcomes. Meetings should be scheduled according to the family’s availability in an effort to involve as many family members and family supports as possible. Engaging the family, the core of New Jersey’s CPM, is a critical component of successful family teaming.
Engagement with families to support shared goals continues to be a primary focus of DCF leadership, Area Directors, Local Office managers and frontline staff. Efforts continue to be targeted at improving practice in this area as well as documenting and entering data on FTMs and also to account for legitimate reasons when FTMs do not occur (either because the parent is unavailable or the parent declined to attend). Due to continued challenges in verifying data on legitimate reasons why FTMs do not occur, performance data on FTMs include only the number of FTMs that have actually occurred. During this monitoring period, DCF provided the Monitor with data intended to account for legitimate reasons when the required FTMs are not occurring; in those cases workers are to document the reasons for the legitimate exceptions. In January 2016, the Monitor reviewed a random sample of cases and was not able to validate that workers were appropriately using the exceptions.176 By agreement with DCF, as soon as the state determines that workers are properly using and documenting exceptions, the Monitor and DCF will conduct a review of statistically significant sample of cases with exception documentation and will report on the findings. Consequently, the report continues to show the progress that has been made in the number of FTMs actually held.
There are five performance measures pertaining to FTMs in the SEP; DCF met the SEP requirement that FTMs be held within 45 days of a child’s removal for July through December 2015. DCF also met the SEP requirement that children with the goal of reunification have at least three FTMs each year, but has yet to meet the remaining three SEP final targets in this area.

176 The Monitor reviewed a non-statistically valid but random sample of 30 cases that required an initial FTM from the data DCF provided for March, June and August 2015 to assess if the exceptions were being applied according to policy. Nine of the 30 cases reviewed were designated as “parent declined” and the remaining 21 cases were designated as “parent unavailable.” NJ SPIRIT documentation indicates that three of the nine (33%) cases coded as “parent declined” demonstrated appropriate utilization of the exception criteria and 16 (76%) of the 21 cases coded as “parent unavailable” demonstrated appropriate utilization of that exception criteria.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 59

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 68 of 142 PageID: 8049

Initial FTMs Held within 45 Days of Entry

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure Performance Target

16. For children newly entering placement, the number/percent who have a family team meeting within 45 days of entry.
80% of children newly entering placement shall have a family team meeting before or within 45 days of placement.

Responding to feedback from staff and stakeholders that the timeframe for preparing families and conducting an initial FTM was too limited to meaningfully involve parents and their supports in many cases, the SEP modifies the MSA methodology and timeframe to require that 80 percent of children have FTMs within 45 days of removal.177

Performance as of December 31, 2015:
According to NJ SPIRIT, and including only those FTMs that actually occurred, in June 2015, out of 285 possible FTMs, 238 (84%) occurred within 45 days of a child’s removal from his or her home. Performance from January to June 2015 ranged from a low of 73 percent in January 2015 to a high of 87 percent in May 2015, with five of the six months either meeting or exceeding the final performance target. In December 2015 out of 244 possible FTMs, 207 (85%) occurred within 45 days of a child’s removal. From July to December 2015, performance ranged from a low of 80 percent to a high of 88 percent, meeting the final target in each of the six months. Figure 3 shows DCF’s performance on holding initial FTMs from January to December 2015.178 DCF met the SEP performance measure for July through December 2015.

177 Under the MSA the state required that 90 percent of children entering placement have FTMs within 30 days of a child’s placement. 178 Reported performance understates actual performance because data do not exclude instances where an FTM is not required.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 60

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 69 of 142 PageID: 8050

Table 2: Family Team Meetings Held within 45 days of Entry into Placement (January – December 2015) Performance Target 80%

Month JANUARY FEBRUARY
MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER
Source: DCF Data

Total Number of Applicable
Children 259 315 369 357 294 285 308 263 364 316 223 244

Number of Initial FTMs Held within
45 days 190 264 295 290 257 238 265 218 310 252 196 207

Percent 73% 84% 80% 81% 87% 84% 86% 83% 85% 80% 88% 85%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 61

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 70 of 142 PageID: 8051

Figure 3: Family Team Meetings Held within 45 days of Entry into Placement (January – December 2015)
100%

Percent of FTMs Held within 12 Months

80%

Performance Target (80%)

60%

84% 80% 81% 87% 84% 86% 83% 85% 80% 88% 85%

73%

40%

Months

Source: DCF data

FTMs Held within the First 12 Months

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Performance Target

17. For all other children in placement, the number/percent who have three additional FTMs within the first 12 months of the child coming into placement.
80% of children will have three additional FTMs within the first 12 months of the child coming to placement.

Section IV.B requires that for children in out-of-home placement, at least three additional FTMs after the initial FTM be held within the first 12 months of placement. Leadership, staff and stakeholders have argued for some time that the MSA requirement to hold quarterly FTMs did not provide enough flexibility for staff to conduct FTMs when good case practice required it; the SEP standards relating to FTMs are a direct response to that feedback.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 62

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 71 of 142 PageID: 8052

Performance as of December 31, 2015:179

Based upon data from NJ SPIRIT, and including only those FTMs that actually occurred, in June 2015, out of 203 applicable children, 149 (73%) had an additional three or more FTMs within the first 12 months of entering placement. Performance from January to June 2015 ranged from a low of 68 percent in April 2015 to a high of 81 percent in May 2015 (see Table 3). In December 2015, out of 175 applicable children, 135 (77%) had an additional three or more FTMs within the first 12 months of a child coming into placement. From July to December 2015, performance ranged from a low of 74 percent to a high of 78 percent. Figure 4 shows DCF’s performance on holding FTMs within the first 12 months from January to December 2015.

DCF has not yet met this SEP performance measure.

Table 3: Family Team Meetings Held within the First 12 Months (January – December 2015) Performance Target 80%

Month JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH
APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Source: DCF data

Total Number of Applicable Children 256 200 221 203 224 203 263 203 215 219 160 175

Number of 3 or More FTMs Held within 12
Months 193 156 176 138 182 149 205 157 167 163 125 135

Percent 75% 78% 80% 68% 81% 73% 78% 77% 78% 74% 78% 77%

179 Children eligible for Measure 17 are all children who have been in out-of-home placement for 12 months who entered care in the specified month. For example, in January 2015, 256 children entered care in January 2014. Compliance is based on whether at least three FTMs were held for these children during the 12 month period they were in care.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 63

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 72 of 142 PageID: 8053

Figure 4: Family Team Meetings Held within the First 12 Months (January – December 2015)
90%
80%

Performance Target (80%)

Percent of FTMs Held within 12 Months

70%

78% 80% 75%

81%

78% 77% 78%

78% 77%

73%

74%

60%

68%

50%

Source: DCF data

Months

FTMs Held After 12 Months in Placement with a Goal of Reunification

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure Performance Target

18. For all children in placement with a goal of reunification, the number/percent who have at least three FTMs each year.
After the first 12 months of a child being in care, 90% of those with a goal of reunification will have at least three FTMs each year.

Performance as of December 31, 2015:180

Based on data from NJ SPIRIT, and including only those FTMs that actually occurred, in June 2015, out of 37 applicable children with goals of reunification, 35 (95%) had three or more FTMs after 12 months in out-of-home placement. Performance from January to June 2015 ranged from a low of 62 percent in January 2015 to a high of 95 percent in June 2015 (see Table 4). In December 2015, all 11 (100%) applicable children had three or more FTMs after 12 months in placement. From July to December 2015 performance ranged from a low of 83 percent

180 Children eligible for Measure 18 are all children who have been in care for at least 24 months who entered care in the specified month each year and have a goal of reunification. For example, in January 2015, a combined total of 26 children entered care in January 2013, January 2012, January 2011, etc. and are still in placement with a goal of reunification. Compliance is based on whether at least three FTMs were held for these children during the most recent 12 months in care.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 64

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 73 of 142 PageID: 8054

in September 2015 to a high of 100 percent in July and December 2015, with four of the six months meeting or exceeding the SEP final target. Figure 5 shows DCF’s performance from January to December 2015 on convening FTMs after the first 12 months in placement for children with a goal of reunification.

Performance improved over the year and in the Monitor’s judgment DCF has met this SEP performance measure for the period of July through December 2015.181

Table 4: Family Team Meetings Held After 12 Months in Placement with a Goal of Reunification
(January – December 2015) Performance Target 90%

Month JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH
APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Source: DCF data

Total Number of Applicable Children 26 28 35 38 31 37 31 20 47 24 31 11

Number of 3 or More FTMs Held After 12 Months in Placement
with a Goal of Reunification
16 22 32 34 21 35 31 18 39 22 27 11

Percent 62% 79% 91% 90% 68% 95% 100% 90% 83% 92% 87% 100%

181 The SEP performance level was met four of the six months in the monitoring period. Further, the monthly percentages are based on a small number of applicable cases. If monthly numbers are aggregated over the six month period, the compliance is at 90%

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 65

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 74 of 142 PageID: 8055

Figure 5: Family Team Meetings Held After 12 Months in Placement with a Goal of Reunification
(January – December 2015)

100%

90%

Performance Target (90%)

Percent of FTMs Held after 12 Months- Goal of Reunification

80%

100%

100%

70%

91% 90%

95%

90%

92% 87%

83%

79%

60% 62%

68%

50%

Source: DCF data

Months

FTMs Held After 12 Months in Placement with a Goal Other than Reunification

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure Performance Target

19. For all children in placement with a goal other than reunification, the number/percent who have at least two FTMs each year.
After the first 12 months of a child being in care, for those children with a goal other than reunification, 90% shall have at least two FTMs each year.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 66

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 75 of 142 PageID: 8056

Performance as of December 31, 2015:182

Based upon data from NJ SPIRIT, and including only those FTMs that actually occurred, in June 2015, out of 210 children with goals other than reunification, 140 (67%) had two or more FTMs after 12 months in out-of-home placement. Performance from January to June 2015 ranged from a low of 64 percent in March 2015 to a high of 78 percent in February 2015. In December 2015, 116 out of 149 (78%) applicable children had two or more FTMs after 12 months in placement. From July to December 2015, performance ranged from a low of 63 percent in July 2015 to a high of 78 percent in December 2015. Table 5 and Figure 6 show DCF’s performance from January to December 2015 on holding FTMs after the first 12 months in placement for children with a goal other than reunification.

DCF has not yet met this performance measure.

Table 5: Family Team Meetings Held After 12 Months in Placement with a Goal other than Reunification
(January – December 2015) Performance Target 90%

Month JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH
APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER Source: DCF data

Total Number of Applicable Children 161 163 210 186 243 210 182 189 225 195 194 149

Number of 2 or More FTMs Held After 12 Months in Placement with a Goal Other than
Reunification 104 127 134 125 178 140 115 128 146 136 126 116

Percent 65% 78% 64% 67% 73% 67% 63% 68% 65% 70% 65% 78%

182 Children eligible for Measure 19 are all children who have been in care for at least 24 months who entered care in the month specified each year and have a goal other than reunification. For example, in January 2015, a combined total of 161 children entered care in January 2013, January 2012, January 2011, etc. and are still in placement with a goal other than reunification. Compliance is based on whether at least two FTMs were held for these children during the most recent 12 months in care.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 67

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 76 of 142 PageID: 8057

Percent of FTMs Held after 12 Months- Goal Other Than Reunification

Figure 6: Family Team Meetings Held After 12 Months in Placement with a Goal other than Reunification
(January – December 2015)

100% 90%

Performance Target (90%)

80%

70%

78%

78%

60% 65%

64% 67% 73% 67% 63% 68% 65% 70% 65%

50%

Source: DCF data

Months

Quality of Teaming

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Performance Target

20. Cases involving out-of-home placement show evidence of family teamwork.
75% of cases involving out-of-home placements that were assessed as part of the Quality Review (QR) process will show evidence of both acceptable team formation and acceptable functioning. The Monitor, in consultation with the parties, shall determine the standards for quality team formation and functioning.

In order to assess the quality of collaborative teamwork with children, youth and family members, results from two QR indicators, team formation and team functioning are used. In assigning a rating, the reviewer considers a range of questions for these two indicators, including whether the family’s team is composed of the providers and informal supports needed to meet the child and family’s needs and the extent to which team members, family members included, work together to meet goals.

Performance as of December 31, 2015:

Overall results from the 191 cases reviewed from January to December 2015 using the QR process and protocol showed that 40 percent (77 of 191) of cases rated acceptable for Family Teamwork. Figure 7 below reflects the overall January to December 2015 findings: cases rated acceptable for both team formation and team functioning. Figure 7 also reflects that 54 percent

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 68

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 77 of 142 PageID: 8058

(103 of 191) of cases rated acceptable for team formation only and 42 percent (83 of 191) of cases rated acceptable for team functioning only.
DCF has not met the SEP performance target of 90 percent.
Figure 7: Qualitative Review (QR) Cases Rates Acceptable on Family Teamwork (January – December 2015) (n=191)

100%

Percentage of Family Involvement

80%

60%

54%

40%

(103)

20%

42% (83)

40% (77)

Performance Target (75%)

0% Team Formation

Team Functioning

Cases Rated Acceptable on Both Indicators

Source: DCF data

C. QUALITY OF CASE AND SERVICE PLANNING

The SEP incorporates the requirements related to case plans established in the MSA. In recognition of the state meeting the MSA requirement that a case plan be reviewed and modified every six months, SEP Section III.C.VI designated this measure as an outcome To Be Maintained. The remaining two measures – timeliness of the initial case plan and the quality of case planning – were designated as Outcomes To Be Achieved. The SEP measure related to quality of case planning reflects a change in the final performance target to require that 80 percent of case plans rate acceptable as measured by the QR. DCF reports publically on case planning in its Commissioner’s Monthly Reports.

Timeliness of Case Planning – Initial Case Plans

Quantitative or

22. Timeliness of Initial Plans: For children entering care, number/percent of case

Qualitative Measure

plans developed within 30 days.

Performance Target 95% of case plans for children and families are completed within 30 days.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 69

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 78 of 142 PageID: 8059
Performance as of December 31, 2015
In June 2015, 288 (94%) out of a total of 307 initial case plans were completed within 30 days of a child entering placement. As shown in Table 6, between January and June 2015 the timely development of initial case plans ranged from 91 percent in January 2015 to 94 percent in June 2015. In December 2015, 267 (100%) out of 268 initial case plans were completed within 30 days of a child entering placement. Between July and December 2015, performance ranged from 88 percent in October 2015 to 100 percent in December 2015, with performance during three of the six months meeting or exceeding the final performance target.
DCF has met this performance measure three of the months between July and December 2015 and in the Monitor’s judgment has partially met this performance measure.183

183 The Monitor reviews monthly performance data to determine if the performance target was met for each monitoring period.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 70

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 79 of 142 PageID: 8060

Table 6: Case Plans Developed within 30 and 60 days of Child Entering Placement (January – December 2015) Performance Target 95%

JANUARY

#

%

FEBRUARY

#

%

MARCH

#

%

Case Plans Completed 250 91% 307 93% 362 93%
in 30 days

APRIL

#

%

341

92%

MAY

#

%

296

93%

JUNE

#

%

288

94%

Case Plans

Completed

24 9%

21 6% 23

6%

26

7%

20

in 31-60

days

6%

16

5%

Case Plans

Not

Completed

2 <1%

4 1%

5

1%

4

1%

1

<1%

3

1%

after 60

days

Totals

276 100%*

JULY

#

%

332 100%

AUGUST

#

%

390 100%

SEPTEMBER

#

%

371

100%

OCTOBER

#

%

317

100%*

NOVEMBER

#

%

307 100%

DECEMBER

#

%

Case Plans Completed 330 95% 257 92%
in 30 days

355 93% 306

88%

228

96% 267

100%

Case Plans

Completed 15

4%

20 7%

23 6%

38

11%

9

4%

1

<1%

in 31-60

days

Case Plans

Not

Completed 2

<1%

2 <1%

3 <1%

2

after 60

days

Totals 347 100%* 279 100%* 381 100%* 371
Source: DCF data *Percentage is greater or less than 100 due to rounding.

<1%

0

100%* 237

0

0

0

100% 268

100%*

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 71

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 80 of 142 PageID: 8061

Timeliness of Case Planning-Every Six Months

Quantitative or

6. Case Plans: Case plans for children and families will be reviewed and modified

Qualitative Measure

no less frequently than every 6 months.

Performance Target

95% of case plans for children and families will be reviewed and modified no less frequently than every six months.

Performance as of December 31, 2015:
The MSA required that 95 percent of case plans be reviewed and modified no less frequently than every six months. Because of the state’s success in meeting this measure, the SEP designated it as To Be Maintained (SEP Section III.C). In June 2015, 95 percent of case plans had been modified as required; in December 2015, 97 percent of case plans met the SEP standard. From January through December 2015, between 95 and 98 percent of case plans were modified within the required six month timeframe. DCF continues to exceed the performance target of 95 percent for each month of the monitoring period.
Quality of Case Plans

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

23. Quality of Case Plans: The child’s/family’s case plan shall be developed with the family and shall be individualized and appropriately address the child’s needs for safety, permanency and well-being. The case plan shall provide for the services and interventions needed by the child and family to meet identified goals, including services necessary for children and families to promote children’s development and meet their educational, physical and mental health needs. The case plan and services shall be modified to respond to the changing needs of the child and family and the results of prior service efforts.

Performance Target 80% of case plans rated acceptable as measured by the Quality Review (QR).

DCF policy and the SEP require family involvement in case planning, that plans are appropriate and individualized to the circumstances of the child/youth and family and that there is oversight of plan implementation to ensure case goals are being met and that plans are modified when necessary. Results from two QR indicators, case planning process and tracking and adjusting, are used to assess performance on this measure. Cases rated as acceptable demonstrate evidence that the child and families’ needs are addressed in the case plan, appropriate family members were included in the development of the plan and interventions are being tracked and adjusted when necessary.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 72

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 81 of 142 PageID: 8062

Performance as of December 31, 2015:
Results from 191 cases reviewed from January to December 2015 indicate that 53 percent (102 of 191) of cases were rated acceptable on both the case planning and tracking and adjusting indicators.184 From CY 2013 to CY 2014, there was notable improvement in the QR results for this measure.185 Results remained relatively unchanged from CY 2014 to CY 2015 and DCF did not meet the SEP performance target. The QR process and findings are discussed in more detail in Section V.N.
Figure 8: Qualitative Review (QR) Cases Rated Acceptable for Quality of Case Plans and Components of Planning (January – December 2015) (n=191)

100% 80% 60% 40% 20%
0%

60% (115)
Case Planning

69% (131)

53% (102)

Performance Target (80%)

Tracking & Adjusting

Cases Rated Acceptable on Both Indicators

Source: DCF data
D. EDUCATION
The SEP requires that “children will be enrolled in school and DCF will have taken appropriate actions to ensure that their educational needs are being met,” and designates this performance measure as To Be Maintained (SEP Section III.G.11). The SEP requires that 80 percent of cases be rated acceptable on stability in school and learning and development as measured by the QR. Reviewers report on whether a child or youth is stable in their school placement and whether their educational needs are being met.

184 From January to December 2015, 115 of 191 cases (60%) rated acceptable on case planning process indicator and 131 of 191 cases (69%) rated acceptable on tracking and adjusting indicator. 185 In CY 2013, 78 of 192 (41%) cases rated acceptable on both the case planning process and tracking and adjusting QR indicators and in CY 2014, 92 of 180 (51%) cases rated acceptable on both the case planning process and tracking and adjusting QR indicators.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 73

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 82 of 142 PageID: 8063

Quantitative or

11. Educational Needs: Children will be enrolled in school and DCF will have taken

Qualitative Measure

appropriate actions to ensure that their educational needs are being met.

Performance Target

80% of cases will be rated acceptable as measured by the Quality Review (QR) in stability (school) and learning and development. The Monitor, in consultation with the parties, shall determine the standards for school stability and quality learning and development.

Performance as of December 31, 2015:
From January to December 2015, reviewers found that 86 percent (71 of 83) of children in applicable cases were stable in their education setting and having their learning and development needs met.186
The QR process and findings are discussed in more detail in Section V.N of this report.
E. VISITATION
The ability of children in foster care to visit with their workers, parents and siblings is integral to the principles of the CPM and important to ensure children’s safety, placement stability, maintain and strengthen family connections and increase children’s opportunities to achieve permanency.
The SEP includes six measures related to visitation and include changes to either the final target or methodology from similar measures in the MSA. Two measures are designated as Outcomes To Be Maintained – 1) caseworker contacts with children newly placed or after a placement change and 2) caseworker contacts with children in placement. The remaining four measures are designated as Outcomes To Be Achieved – 1) caseworker contacts with parent when goal is reunification; 2) parent and child weekly visits; 3) parent and child bi-weekly visits; and 4) sibling visits. Each of these measures were modified in the SEP to specify that there are legitimate performance exclusions when a court order prohibits or regulates visits or there is supervisory approval of a decision to cancel a visit because it is physically or psychologically harmful to a child. Monthly performance data on these measures are now provided on the Commissioner’s Monthly Report.187
Caseworker Visits with Children in State Custody
Both performance measures pertaining to caseworker visits with children in placement are Outcomes To Be Maintained in the SEP and required performance was maintained during this monitoring period.

186 Children must be school-aged and in placement to be applicable for this measure. 187 Currently, the Commissioner’s Monthly Report reflects only instances where visits occurred and does not account for valid exclusions. Therefore, the data discussed in this section are different than those included in the Commissioner’s Monthly Report.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 74

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 83 of 142 PageID: 8064

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Performance Target

9. Caseworker Contacts with Children – New Placement/Placement Change: The caseworker shall have at least twice-per-month face to face contact with the children within the first two months of placement, with at least one contact in the placement.
93% of children shall have at least twice-per-month face to face contact with their caseworker during the first two months of placement, with at least one contact in the placement.

Performance as of November 30, 2015:

SEP citation III.F.9 requires that 93 percent of children have at least twice-per-month face-toface contact with their caseworker within the first two months of placement, with at least one contact in placement. Between January and November 2015, monthly performance ranged from 90 and 95 percent.188

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure
Performance Target

10. Caseworker Contacts with Children in Placement: During the remainder of placement, children will have at least one caseworker visit per month, in placement.
93% of children will have at least one caseworker visit per month in placement, for the remainder of placement.

Performance as of December 31, 2015:
SEP citation III.F.10 requires that during the remainder of a child’s out-of-home placement, 93 percent of children have at least one caseworker visit per month in their placement. Between January and December 2015, monthly performance ranged between 95 and 97 percent each month, exceeding the target.
Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

28. Caseworker Visits with Parents/Family Members with Goal of Reunification: The caseworker shall have at least two face-to-face visits per month with the parent(s) or other legally responsible family member of children in custody with a goal of reunification.

Performance Target

90% of families will have at least twice-per-month face-to-face contact with their caseworker when the permanency goal is reunification.189

Performance as of December 31, 2015:
In assessing performance for this measure, the Monitor conducted a review of a statistically significant sample of cases190 requiring caseworker visits with parents in which documentation

188 November 2015 was the most current data available at the time of writing of this report. 189 The MSA final target for this measure was 95%. Current performance was calculated using findings from review
of statistically significant sample of cases where exclusions were noted. 190 95% confidence level with +/-5% margin of error

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 75

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 84 of 142 PageID: 8065

indicated that the parent was unavailable or the visit was not required during the months of March, June and August 2015. These findings were shared with CP&P to verify the Monitor’s conclusion. Overall, the review determined that 88 percent of the cases191 had appropriate documentation that the visit requirement for that case should be excluded in the applicable timeframe. The Monitor uses that data to calculate the acceptable performance percentage for this report. As there is a five percent margin of error with the sample, the Monitor calculated performance conservatively by excluding from the universe of applicable cases 83 percent of the cases for which documentation indicated the parent was unavailable or the visit was not required.
Between January and December 2015, monthly performance on this measure ranged from 76 to 80 percent of applicable parents or other legally responsible family members were visited at least two times per month by a caseworker when the family’s goal is reunification (see Figure 9 below). For example, in December 2015, there were 2,979 children in custody with a goal of reunification for which an exclusion did not apply;192 the parents of 2,280 (77%) children were visited at least twice during the month and the parents of an additional 512 (17%) children had one contact in December. Current performance does not yet meet the level required by the SEP.
Figure 9: Percentage of Families who have at least Twice per month Face-to-Face Contact with Caseworker when the Goal is Reunification (January – December 2015)

Percentage of Children

100% 80% 60% 77% 78% 80% 80% 77% 80% 80% 79% 76% 79% 76% 77% 40% 20%
0%

Performance Target (90%)

Source: DCF data

Months

191 140 of the 160 cases reviewed. 192 In December 2015, there were a total of 3,180 children with a goal of reunification. Data from NJ SPIRIT indicated that the parents of 242 children had two or more events with unavailable parents or the visit was not required. The Monitor excluded from the universe 201 children or 83% of the 242. The universe of applicable children was 2,979 (3,180-201).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 76

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 85 of 142 PageID: 8066

Visits between Children in Custody and their Parents

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

29. Weekly Visitation between Children in Custody and Their Parents: Number/percent of children who have weekly visits with their parents when the permanency goal is reunification unless a court order prohibits or regulates visits or there is a supervisory approval of a decision to cancel a visit because it is physically or psychologically harmful to a child.

Performance Target

60% of children in custody with a return home goal will have an in-person visit with their parent(s) or other legally responsible family member at least weekly, excluding those situations where a court order prohibits or regulates visits or there is a supervisory approval of a decision to cancel a visit because it is physically or psychologically harmful to a child.193

Performance as of December 31, 2015:
Similar to the information detailed above for the previous measure, the Monitor conducted a review of a statistically significant sample of cases (95% confidence level with 5% margin of error) requiring parent visits with their children in which documentation indicated that the parent was unavailable or the visit was not required during the months of March, June and August 2015. These findings were shared with CP&P to verify the Monitor’s conclusion. Overall, the review determined that 88 percent of the cases194 had appropriate documentation that the visit requirement for that case should be excluded in the applicable timeframe. The Monitor uses that data to calculate the acceptable performance percentage for this report. As there is a five percent margin of error with the sample, the Monitor calculated performance conservatively by excluding from the universe of applicable cases 83 percent of the cases for which documentation indicated the parent was unavailable or the visit was not required.
Between January and December 2015, a monthly range of 73 to 81 percent of children with a permanency goal of reunification had a weekly visit with their parents (see Figure 10 below). For example, for the four weeks in December 2015, there were an average of 2,616 children in placement with a goal of reunification that required weekly visits and an exclusion did not apply;195 an average of 2,107 (81%) had a weekly visit. DCF met or exceeded the SEP required level of performance every month in CY 2015.

193 The MSA final target for this measure was 60% and did not explicitly provide for the exclusions currently part of the SEP. 194 160 of the 181 cases reviewed. 195 In December 2015, there was an average of 3,297 children each week that required visits with their parent. NJ SPIRIT data indicate that an average of 820 children did not require visits for an exclusion reason allowed by the SEP. The Monitor excluded from the universe 681 children or 83% of the 820. The universe of applicable children was 2,616 (3,297-681).

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 77

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 86 of 142 PageID: 8067

Figure 10: Average Monthly Percentage of Children who had Weekly Visits with their Parent(s) (January – December 2015)

100%

80% 73%

81% 78% 79% 77% 79% 76% 77% 79% 79% 80% 81%

60%

Performance Target (60%)

40%

Percentage of Children

Source: DCF data

Month

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

30. Bi-Weekly Visitation between Children in Custody and Their Parents: Number/percent of children who have weekly visits with their parents when the permanency goal is reunification unless a court order prohibits or regulates visits or there is a supervisory approval of a decision to cancel a visit because it is physically or psychologically harmful to a child.

Performance Target

85% of children in custody with a return home goal will have an in-person visit with their parent(s) or other legally responsible family member at least every other week, excluding those situations where a court order prohibits or regulates visits or there is a supervisory approval of a decision to cancel a visit because it is physically or psychologically harmful to a child.196

Performance as of December 31, 2015:
Performance was calculated for this measure using the same validation findings discussed above for weekly visits between parents and their children.
Between January and December 2015, a monthly range of 85 to 89 percent of children with a permanency goal of reunification had visits at least twice a month with their parents (see Figure 11 below). For example, during the month of December 2015, there were 2,850 children in

196 The MSA final target for this measure was 85% and did not explicitly provide for the exclusions currently part of the SEP.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 78

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 87 of 142 PageID: 8068

custody with a goal of reunification for which an exclusion did not apply;197 2,444 (86%) children had at least two visits during the month. DCF met the SEP required level of performance every month in CY 2015.
Figure 11: Percentage of Children who had at least Twice Monthly Visits with their Parent(s)
(January – December 2015)

Percentage of Children

100%
80% 86% 88% 89% 88% 87% 89% 87% 87% 86% 86% 85% 86%
60%

Performance Target (85%)

40%

20%

0%
Month

Source: DCF data
Visits between Children in Custody and Sibling Placed Apart

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

31. Visitation Between Children in Custody and Siblings Placed Apart: Number/percent of children in custody, who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with their siblings as appropriate.

Performance Target

85% of children in custody who have siblings with whom they are not residing shall visit with those siblings at least monthly, excluding those situations where a court order prohibits or regulates visits or there is a supervisory approval of a decision to cancel a visit because it is physically or psychologically harmful to a child.198

197 In December 2015, there were a total of 3,180 children with a goal of reunification. NJ SPIRIT data indicate that the parents of 398 children had two or more events with unavailable parents or children, the visit was not required or the child declined. The Monitor excluded from the universe 330 children or 83% of the 398.The universe of applicable children was 2,850 (3,180-330). 198 The MSA final target for this measure was 85% and did not explicitly provide for the exclusions currently part of the SEP.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 79

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 88 of 142 PageID: 8069

Figure 12: Percentage of Children in Custody who had at least Monthly Visits with
Siblings, for Children not Placed with Siblings (December 2010 – December 2015)199

Percentage of Children

100%

Performance

80%

Target (85%)

60%

71%

81% 77% 77% 68%

63%

40% 41% 44% 49% 52%

20%

0%
DeDce-c1-010 JJuunn--1111 DDece-c1-111 JJuunn--1122 Dec-1M2 ar-J1u3n-13 DDeecc--1133 JJuunn--1144 DDeecc--1144 JJuunn-1-155 DDeecc--1155
Month

Source: DCF data
Performance as of December 31, 2015:
The SEP changed the previous MSA requirement to allow for exceptions to sibling visit requirements when a court order prohibits or regulates visits or there is supervisory approval of a decision to cancel a visit because it is physically or psychologically harmful to a child. Thus, data on appropriate exclusions were not validated for this monitoring period, and actual performance is likely to be better than the data reported below.
Between January and December 2015, a monthly range of 73 to 78 percent of children had at least monthly visits with their sibling(s) when they were not placed together. For example, in December 2015 there were 2,231 children in placement who had at least one sibling who did not reside in the same household as them; 1,711 (77%) children had at least one visit with their siblings during the month.

199 Reported performance understates actual performance because data do not exclude instances where a visit is not required. The Monitor will validate data for this measure during the next monitoring period and include the findings in the next monitoring report.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 80

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 89 of 142 PageID: 8070

Figure 13: Percentage of Children in Custody who had at least Monthly Visits with Siblings, for Children not Residing with Siblings (January – December 2015)

100%

Percentage of Children

90%

80%

78% 74% 75% 73% 77%

76% 77% 77% 77% 78% 77% 78% 70%

Performance Target (85%)

60%

50%
Jan Feb Mar
Source: DCF data

Apr May

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Month
Month

Nov Dec

F. PLACEMENT

DCF policy requires siblings to be placed together whenever possible, and that children experience as few placement changes as possible while in out-of-home placement. The SEP includes three measures related to the placement of sibling groups (Sections IV.G. 32 – 34) and two measures related to placement stability (Sections 35 – 36), all of which are designated as To Be Achieved and discussed in further detail below.

The SEP requires that at least 80 percent of sibling groups of two or three children entering custody be placed together (SEP Section IV.G.32) and that for sibling groups of four or more, children will be placed with at least one other sibling in 80 percent of cases (Section IV.G.33). Finally, the SEP requires DCF to continue to recruit for resource homes capable of serving sibling groups of four or more (Section IV.G.34). As discussed below, DCF met each of the three performance measures related to sibling placements.

Multiple placement changes for children in foster care often create long term negative consequences: increasing social, emotional and behavioral problems; reducing school stability and achievement; and threatening children’s overall mental health and stability. There are two performance measures in the SEP discussed below related to placement stability: one is similar to the MSA standard but changes the final target to require that at least 84 percent of children entering care will have no more than one placement change in the 12 months following entry into care (SEP Section IV.G.35). A second performance measure related to placement stability requires that 88 percent of children in care have no more than one placement change during the

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 81

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 90 of 142 PageID: 8071

13 to 24 months following their date of entry (SEP Section IV.G.36). DCF met one of the two performance measures pertaining to placement stability.
Performance data discussed below are the most recent data available and are analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates with DCF.
Placing Siblings Together

Quantitative or

32. Placing Siblings Together: The percentage of sibling groups of two or three

Qualitative Measure

siblings entering custody be placed together.

Performance Target

At least 80% of siblings groups of two or three children entering placement will be placed together.

Performance as of CY 2015:
In CY 2015, there were 740 sibling groups that came into custody at the same time or within 30 days of one another; 637 (86%) sibling groups were comprised of two or three children. Of the 637 subset of sibling groups, 503 (79%) were placed together. In CY 2014, 82 percent of sibling groups of two or three were placed together. In the Monitor’s judgment, DCF met the SEP standard.
Figure 14: Percentage of Sibling Groups of Two or Three Placed Together (CY 2008 – CY 2015)

Percentage of Sibling Groups

100%

90%

80%

70% 73% 60%

74%

77%

79%

82%

77%

82%

79%

50%
CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014 CY 2015

Performance Target (80%)

Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 82

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 91 of 142 PageID: 8072

Placing Large Sibling Groups Together

Quantitative or

33. Placing Siblings Together: The percentage of sibling groups of four or more

Qualitative Measure

placed together.

Performance Target For sibling groups of four or more 80% will be placed with at least one other sibling.

Performance as of CY 2015:
In CY 2015, there were 476 children who were part of a sibling group of four or more children in placement. Of those 476 children, 413 (87%) were placed with at least one other sibling.200 DCF met and exceeded this performance measure for each of the previous six years.
Figure 15: Percentage of Sibling Groups of Four or More Placed with at Least One Other Sibling
(CY 2010 – CY 2015)
100%

Percentage of Sibling Groups

90%

89%

89%

88%

87%

87%

80%

83%

Performance

Target (80%)

70%

60% CY 2010

CY 2011

CY 2012

CY 2013

Calendar Year

Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

CY 2014

CY 2015

200 All performance data included in this Figure were calculated using the SEP methodology and are therefore different than previously reported data using the MSA methodology.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 83

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 92 of 142 PageID: 8073

Recruitment of Sibling Groups of Four or More

Quantitative or

34. Recruitment of Sibling Groups of Four or More

Qualitative Measure

Performance Target

DCF will continue to recruit for resource homes capable of serving sibling groups of four or more.

SEP Section IV.G.34 requires the state to continue to recruit for resource homes capable of serving sibling groups of four or more children. As discussed in the Foundational Elements section of this report related to Appropriate Placements, the state is shifting its recruitment practice from an emphasis on the total number of homes licensed to a focus on recruitment for targeted needs, such as the need for more homes for large sibling groups. Part of this change in emphasis is a strategy to engage the existing pool of resource families about the need for homes that will accept large sibling groups. Additionally, DCF continues to use market segmentation to strategically identify and target geographic areas and local communities and venues where data show successful resource families tend to live. During this monitoring period, and to enhance existing networks in which to recruit families for large sibling groups, recruiters have expanded their relationships with faith-based communities around the state and with government entities, such as the Camden City Mayors Council, the Mercer County Council for Young Children and the Cumberland County Council for Young Children.
DCF continues to identify, recruit and license resource family homes with capacity to accommodate large sibling groups, termed “Siblings in Best Settings” or SIBS, which the state defines as homes with the capacity for five or more children or youth. DCF began and ended CY 2015 with a total of 24 SIBS homes: 16 SIBS homes were newly licensed during the calendar year and 16 SIBS homes left the program.201
Stability of Placement

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

35. Stability of Placement: The percentage of children entering out-of-home placement for the first time in a calendar year who have no more than one placement change during the 12 months following their date of entry.

At least 84% of children entering care for the first time in a calendar year will have
Performance Target no more than one placement change during the 12 months following their date of
entry.

201 Of the 16 homes that left the SIBS program, six homes closed when children were adopted or granted kinship legal guardianship; three homes closed when the children were reunited with their parents; one home closed when children were reunited with grandparents; one home closed as a result of action taken by DCF to close the home when children were left alone in a car; and five homes were downgraded due to children being placed with relatives or other personal reasons.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 84

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 93 of 142 PageID: 8074

Performance as of CY 2014 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
The most recent performance data assesses the 3,933 applicable children who entered care for the first time in CY 2014 and aggregates the number of placements each child experienced within one year of entry. For children entering care in CY 2014, 3,241 (82%) had no more than one placement change during the 12 months from their date of entry. This performance reflects no change from CY 2013 and remains below the SEP performance level.
Figure 16: Percentage of Children Entering Care who have No More Than One Placement Change during the 12 Months Following their Date of Entry (CY 2007 – CY 2014)

Percentage of Children

100%

90%

80%
83% 70%

85%

84% 84%

85%

82%

82%

82%

60%
CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014

Performance Target (84%)

Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed Hornby Zeller Associates.

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

36. Stability of Placement: The percentage of children in out-of-home placement who have no more than one placement change during the 13 to 24 months following their date of entry.

Performance Target

At least 88% of children in out-of-home placement will have no more than one placement change during the 13 to 24 months following their date of entry.

Performance as of CY 2013 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
The most recent performance data assesses the 1,913 applicable children who entered care for the first time in CY 2013 and aggregates the number of placements each child experienced in the second year of their removal period. For children entering care in CY 2013, 1,850 (97%) children had no more than one placement change during the 13 to 24 months following their date

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 85

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 94 of 142 PageID: 8075
of entry. DCF performance met and in fact surpassed the SEP final required target in CY 2013, the most recent data available. Figure 17: Percentage of Children Entering Care who have No More than One Placement
Change during the 13 to 24 Months Following their Date of Entry (CY 2009 – CY 2013)
100%

Percentage of Children

90%

Performance Target (88%)

98%

97%

97%

98%

97%

80%

70% CY 2009

CY 2010

CY 2011

Calendar Year

Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed Hornby Zeller Associates.

CY 2012

CY 2013

G. MALTREATMENT

The state is responsible for ensuring the safety of children who are receiving or have received services from CP&P. This responsibility includes ensuring the safety of children who are placed in resource family homes and congregate facilities and preventing future maltreatment. There are four performance measures included in this section.

The prior MSA measure related to abuse and neglect of children in foster care is designated as an Outcome To Be Maintained in the SEP. Specifically, SEP III.H.12 requires that no more than 0.49 percent of children will be victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent or facility staff member. 202 Performance data for this measure for CY 2015 show that of the 11,822 children in care at any point in time during the year, 19 (0.16%) children were victims of substantiated abuse or neglect by a resource parent, relative placement provider or facility staff member. Current performance continues to meet the SEP requirement.

202 This measure is unchanged from the MSA.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 86

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 95 of 142 PageID: 8076

Three other SEP measures are designated as Outcomes To Be Achieved; they include repeat maltreatment for children who remain home after substantiation, maltreatment post-reunification and re-entry into care.203
Repeat Maltreatment (In-Home)

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

37. Repeat Maltreatment (In-Home): Of all children who remain in home after substantiation of abuse or neglect, the percentage who have another substantiation within the next 12 months.

No more than 7.2% of children who remain at home after a substantiation of abuse
Performance Target or neglect will have another substantiation within the next 12 months.204

Performance as of CY 2014 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):205
Reviewing this performance measure requires examination of the experiences of an entry cohort206 of children and following their experiences over the next 12 months. In these instances, the data are from a cohort of children with substantiated maltreatment in CY 2014, allowing for a full 12 months from the incident of maltreatment to determine if another substantiation occurs
In CY 2014, there were 7,135 children who were victims of a substantiated allegation of abuse and/or neglect and were not placed in out-of-home care; 492 (6.9%) of these children were the victims of a substantiated allegation of child abuse and/or neglect within 12 months of the initial substantiation. In-home repeat maltreatment rates have declined since CY 2013 and meet the requirement of no more than 7.2 percent of children.
Maltreatment Post-Reunification

Quantitative or

38. Maltreatment Post-Reunification: Of all children who are reunified during a period, the percentage who are victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within

Qualitative Measure

one year after the date of reunification.

Performance Target

Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period for the first time who are discharged within 24 months to reunification or living with relative(s), no more than 6.9% will be the victims of substantiated abuse or neglect within 12 months after reunification.207

203 The target and methodology for repeat maltreatment for children who remain in home is unchanged from the
MSA. The methodology used to measure performance for maltreatment post-reunification and re-entry into care
were changed to provide for use of entry cohort data. 204 The SEP final target for this measure was not changed from the MSA. 205 Data for CY 2015 will not be available until early CY 2017. 206 An entry cohort is defined by the year they enter care (or enter a certain category) and follow all of the members
of the cohort forward in time. 207 The MSA final target for this measure was 4.8% and examined of all children who reunified within a given
calendar year, the percentage who were victims of substantiated child maltreatment within one year of reunification.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 87

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 96 of 142 PageID: 8077

Performance as of CY 2012 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):208
Similar to above, this measure analyzes the experience of children who enter and leave foster care within a certain year and to determine longitudinal performance on repeat maltreatment within 12 months of being reunified with their families. Since children within the entry cohort can be followed for up to 36 months after entering care, the most recent calendar year data available is from 2012.
In CY 2012, 2,298 children entered care for the first time and discharged to reunification or living with a relative within 24 months; 177 (7.7%) of these children were victims of a substantiated allegation of abuse and/or neglect within 12 months of their return home. Performance exceeds the performance expectation of no more than 6.9 percent and this does not meet the SEP requirement.
Re-entry to Placement

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

39. Re-entry to Placement: Of all children who leave custody during a period, except those whose reason for discharge is that they ran away from their placement, the percentage that re-enter custody within one year of the date of exit.

Performance Target

Of all children who enter foster café in a 12 month period for the first time who are discharged within 12 months to reunification, living with relative(s), or guardianship, no more than 9% will re-enter foster care within 12 months of their discharge.209

Performance as of CY 2013 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):210
This measure analyzes the experience of children who enter and leave foster care within a certain year and timeframe to determine longitudinal performance on re-entry. Since children within the cohort can be followed for up to 24 months after entering care, the most recent calendar year data available is from 2013.
In CY 2013, 1,607 children entered care for the first time and discharged to reunification, living with relative or guardianship within 12 months; 185 (11.5%) children re-entered placement within 12 months of their discharge. As shown in Figure 19 below, DCF performance on this requirement has steadily improved but has not reached the level allowed by the SEP of no more than nine percent of children re-entering custody within 12 months of exit.

208 Data for CY 2013 will not be available until early CY 2017. 209 The SEP final target for this measure was not changed from the MSA. 210 Data for CY 2014 will not be available until early CY 2017.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 88

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 97 of 142 PageID: 8078

Figure 18: Percentage of Children who Re-Entered Custody within One Year of Date of Exit (CY 2007 – CY 2013)

Percentage of Children

20% 17%

15%

15%

14%

13%

13%

13%

11.5%

10%

5%

0%
CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013

Performance Target – No more than (9%)

Calendar Year
Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.
H. TIMELY PERMANENCY
All children—regardless of age, gender, race or ethnicity—need and deserve a safe, nurturing family to protect and guide them. In child welfare work, this is called achieving “permanency” and can occur through a number of different avenues: safe family reunification is the preferred choice, but permanency also includes living with other relatives, kinship/guardianship and adoption.
The MSA included measures related to timely discharge from foster care to permanency as well as a number of specific adoption processes measures. The SEP now includes four permanency measures designated as To Be Achieved and all of these measures include a slight change in methodology from the MSA reflective of methodological advances in the field in recent years regarding more accurate methods to assess permanency, primarily through the use of entry cohorts of children. Performance data discussed below are from NJ SPIRIT as analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.
All of the measures discussed in this section are longitudinal measures and the most current performance available is discussed below. Additionally the foundational elements of the SEP include permanency and adoption practice which encompass elements of the CPM and requirements regarding freeing children for adoption, securing adoptive placements and developing child specific recruitment plans that were previously discussed in Section IV of this report.211

211 See Section IV of this report for discussion of the Foundational Elements.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 89

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 98 of 142 PageID: 8079

Timely Permanency through Reunification, Adoption or Guardianship

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

40. Permanency within 12 months: Of all children who entered foster care in a 12 month period, what percentage were discharged from foster care to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or adoption) within 12 months of entering foster care.

Of all children who enter foster care in a 12 month period, at least 42% will be
Performance Target discharged to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or
adoption) within 12 months of entering foster care.212

Performance as of CY 2014 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
The most recent data available are for children who entered foster care in CY 2014.213 Of the 4,378 children who entered foster care in CY 2014, 1,794 (41%) discharged to permanency within 12 months from their removal from their home. The current SEP performance measure was met in CY 2013.214 Since current performance is within one percentage point, this measure, in the Monitor’s discretion, has been met.

212 The MSA final target for this measure was 50% and the methodology only included initial entries into care. The SEP includes initial entries and re-entries. 213 Data for CY 2015 will not be available until early CY 2017. 214 The SEP designates this measure as To Be Achieved. However, it was actually met in CY 2013 prior to the finalization of the SEP. Since current performance is within one percentage point of the standard, this measure, in the Monitor’s discretion, has been met.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 90

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 99 of 142 PageID: 8080

Figure 19: Percentage of Children Who Entered Foster Care in a 12 Month Period Who Discharged to Permanency within 12 months of Entering Foster Care (CY 2007 – CY 2014) 215
60%

Percentage of Cases

50% 43%
40% 39%

44%

43% 42%

44% 42% 41%

Performance Target (42%)

30%
CY 2007 CY 2008 CY 2009 CY 2010 CY 2011 CY 2012 CY 2013 CY 2014
Calendar Year
Source: DCF NJ SPIRIT data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

41. Permanency within 24 months: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12 month period, what percentage were discharged to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or adoption) within 24 months of entering care.

Of all children who enter foster care in a 12 month period, at least 66% will be
Performance Target discharged to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or
adoption) within 24 months of entering care.216

215 All performance data included in this Figure were calculated using the SEP methodology and are therefore different than previously reported data using the MSA methodology. 216 The MSA methodology for a similar measure did not use entry cohorts, which is now reflected in the SEP methodology.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 91

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 100 of 142 PageID: 8081

Performance as of CY 2013 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
The most recent data available for this measure are for children who entered foster care in CY 2013.217 Of the 4,617 children who entered foster care in CY 2013, 2,968 (64%) discharged to permanency within 24 months from their removal from their home. Current performance is close but does not yet meet the SEP required target.
Figure 20: Percentage of Children Who Enter Foster Care in a 12 Month Period Who Discharged to Permanency within 24 months of Entering Foster Care (CY 2007 – CY 2013)218

Percentage of Children

70% 65% 60%
61% 55%

65%

66%

64%

64%

64%

63%

Performance Target (66%)

50%

CY 2007

CY 2008

CY 2009

CY 2010

CY 2011

CY 2012

CY 2013

Calendar Year
Source: DCF data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

42. Permanency within 36 months: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12 month period, what percentage were discharged to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or adoption) within 36 months of entering care.

Of all children who enter foster care in a 12 month period, at least 80% will be
Performance Target discharged to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or
adoption) within 36 months of entering care.219

217 Data for CY 2014 will not be available until early CY 2017. 218 All performance data included in this Figure were calculated using the SEP methodology and are therefore different than previously reported data using the MSA methodology. 219 The MSA methodology for a similar measure did not use entry cohorts, which is now reflected in the SEP
methodology.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 92

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 101 of 142 PageID: 8082

Performance as of CY 2012 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
The most recent data available for this measure are for children who entered foster care in CY 2012.220 Of the 4,704 children who entered foster care in CY 2012, 3,664 (78%) discharged to permanency within 36 months of the removal from their home. Current performance is close to but does not yet met the SEP required target.
Figure 21: Percentage of Children Who Enter Foster Care in a 12 Month Period Who Discharged to Permanency within 36 months of Entering Foster Care (CY 2007 – CY 2012)221

100%

90%

Percentage of Children

80% 70% 74%

80%

77%

77%

60%

50%
CY 2007

CY 2008

CY 2009

CY 2010

Calendar Year

Source: DCF data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.

78%
CY 2011

78%
CY 2012

Performance Target (80%)

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

43. Permanency within 48 months: Of all children who enter foster care in a 12 month period, what percentage were discharged to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or adoption) within 48 months of entering care.

Of all children who enter foster care in a 12 month period, at least 86% will be
Performance Target discharged to permanency (reunification, living with relatives, guardianship or
adoption) within 48 months of entering care.

220 Data for CY 2013 will not be available until early CY 2017. 221 All performance data included in this Figure were calculated using the SEP methodology and are therefore
different than previously reported data using the MSA methodology.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 93

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 102 of 142 PageID: 8083

Performance as of CY 2011 (Most Recent Calendar Year Available):
The most recent data available for this measure are for children who entered foster care in CY 2011.222 Of the 4,245 children who entered foster care in CY 2011, 3,585 (85%) discharged to permanency within 48 months from their removal from their home. DCF has partially met the SEP required standard.
Figure 22: Percentage of Children Who Entered Foster Care in a 12 Month Period Who Discharged to Permanency within 48 months of Entering Foster Care (CY 2007– CY 2011)

Percentage of Children

100% 90% 80% 70% 60%

80%
CY 2007

84%
CY 2008

85%
CY 2009

85% 83%

CY 2010

CY 2011

Performance Target (86%)

Source: DCF data analyzed by Hornby Zeller Associates.
I. CHILD HEALTH UNITS
As part of the MSA Phase I requirement, DCF built Child Health Units to facilitate and ensure the timely provision of health care to children in CP&P custody. These units are operational in each CP&P Local Office and are staffed with a managing Clinical Nurse Coordinator, Nurse Health Care Case Manager (HCCM) and staff assistants based on the projected number of children in out-of-home placement. Section III.E of the SEP requires the state to “maintain its network of child health units, adequately staffed by nurses in each local office.” Each child in a resource home continues to have a nurse assigned for health care case management. Since the developed of the Child Health Units, the Monitor has requested and received data to assess the staffing adequacy and has found the Child Health Units to generally be fully staffed.

222 Data for CY 2012 will not be available until early CY 2017.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 94

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 103 of 142 PageID: 8084

Quantitative or

8. Child Health Units: The State will continue to maintain its network of child

Qualitative Measure

health unites, adequately staffed by nurses in each Local Office.

Performance Target DCF will maintain adequate staffing levels in Local Offices.

Performance as of December 31, 2015:
As of June 30, 2015, DCF had 162 health care case managers (HCCM) and 84 staff assistants. As of December 31, 2015, DCF had 168 HCCM and 84 staff assistants. Of the 168 HCCM, 162 were available for coverage for a ratio of one HCCM to every 43 children in out-of-home care. A ratio of one HCCM to 50 children in out-of-home care or less is considered adequately staffed. This is a new SEP requirement that is being met.
J. OLDER YOUTH
The MSA included several measures related to older youth, including creating policies and providing continued support and services to youth aged 18 to 21, completing independent living assessments for youth aged 14 to 18 and ensuring youth who exit care without achieving permanency have housing and are employed or enrolled in an educational/vocational program. The SEP includes four measures designated as To Be Achieved related to older youth which are adapted from the MSA and discussed in further detail below.
Independent Living Assessments

Quantitative or

45. Independent Living Assessments: Percentage of youth aged 14 and 18 with a

Qualitative Measure

completed Independent Living Assessment.

Performance Target 90% of youth ages 14 to 18 will have an Independent Living Assessment.223

Performance as of December 31, 2015:
In the second quarter of 2015, there were 915 youth aged 14 to 18 in out-of-home placement for at least six months; 860 (94%) had an Independent Living Assessment (ILA) completed. In the fourth quarter of 2015, of the 870 youth ages 14 to 18 in out-of-home placement for at least six months, 808 (93%) had an ILA completed. DCF’s performance has improved since the previous monitoring period and meets the SEP target (see Figure 23).

223 The MSA final target for this measure was 95%.
Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 95

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 104 of 142 PageID: 8085

Figure 23: Percentage of Youth Aged 14 – 18 with Independent Living Assessment (December 2009 – December 2015)

100% 80%

96%

91%
83% 87%

98%

90%

94% 93%

Performance Target (90%)

83%

84%

85%

Percentage of Youth

60%

40% 47%
DDeecc--0099 JJuunn--1100 DDeecc--1100 JJuunn--1111 DDeecc--1111 JJuunn-1-122 DeMc-1a2r-13Jun-13DeDc-e1c3-13JunJu-1n4-14 DDeecc--1144 JJuunn--1155 DDece-c1-515
Month

Source: DCF data

Quality of Case Planning and Services for Older Youth

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

46. Quality of Case Planning and Services: DCF shall provide case management and services to youth between the ages 18 and 21 who have not achieved legal permanency.

Performance Target

75% of youth aged 18 to 21 who have not achieved legal permanency shall receive acceptable quality case management and service planning.224

Performance as of December 31, 2015:
Performance data for this measure were collected through QRs conducted from January to December 2015 of 42 cases of youth ages 18 to 21. In rating these cases, reviewers use both the standard QR protocol and a list of additional considerations relevant to this population, such as DCF’s efforts to plan and support youth who identify as LGBTQ, are victims of domestic violence, are expectant or parenting and/or are developmentally disabled.
Of the 42 cases reviewed, 31 (74%) cases were rated acceptable overall for both the Child (Youth)/Family Status and Practice Performance indicators. Looking at each area separately, 36 (86%) cases rated acceptable overall for Child (Youth)/Family Status and 36 (86%) cases rated acceptable for Practice Performance. Based on the small number of applicable cases, in the Monitor’s discretion, DCF met the SEP final standard.

224 The MSA final target for this measure was 90%.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 96

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 105 of 142 PageID: 8086

Figure 24: Qualitative Review (QR) Cases Rated Acceptable for Services to Older Youth (January – December 2015) (n=42)

90%

80%

86%

70%

(36)

60%

86% (36)

74% (31)

Performance Target (75%)

50% Acceptable Child/Youth & Family Status

Acceptable Practice Performance

Acceptable Status and Practice

Source: DCF data

Housing

Quantitative or

47. Housing: Youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall have housing.

Qualitative Measure

Performance Target 95% of youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall have housing.

Performance as of December 31, 2015:
The Monitor and DCF conducted a case record review of the 81 youth who exited care without achieving permanency between January and June 2015; 77 youth were applicable225 to this measure and 68 (88%) youth had documentation of a housing plan upon exiting CP&P care. Another case record review was conducted of the 72 youth who exited care without achieving permanency between July and December 2015; 70 youth were applicable226 to this measure and 64 (91%) youth had documentation of a housing plan upon exiting care. DCF’s performance showed improvement during the year and is near reaching the level required by the SEP.

225 Four youth were not applicable either because the youth declined to provide this information or, despite efforts by CP&P, the youth was unable to be located to confirm housing plan. 226 Two youth were not applicable either because the youth declined to provide this information or, despite efforts by CP&P, the youth was unable to be located to confirm housing plan.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 97

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 106 of 142 PageID: 8087

Figure 25: Youth Exiting Care with Housing (January 2010 – December 2015)

100% 90% 80%

93% 86%

84%

89%

88%

91%

Performance Target (95%)

Percentage of Youth

70% 72%

60% Jan-Jun 2010

Jul-Dec 2012

Jan-Dec 2013

Jan-Jun 2014

Month

Source: Data from DCF and CSSP Case Record Reviews

Jul-Dec 2014

Employment/Education

Jan-Jun 2015

Jul-Dec 2015

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

48. Employment/Education: Youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall be employed, enrolled in or have recently completed a training or an educational program or there is documented evidence of consistent efforts to help the youth secure employment or training.

Performance Target

90% of youth exiting care without achieving permanency shall be employed, enrolled in or have recently completed a training or an educational program or there is documented evidence of consistent efforts to help the youth secure employment or training.

Performance as of December 31, 2015:
The Monitor and DCF conducted a case record review of the 81 youth who exited care without achieving permanency between January and June 2015; 72 youth were applicable227 to this measure and 36 (50%) youth were either employed or enrolled in education or vocational training programs. Another case record review was conducted of the 72 youth who exited care without achieving permanency between July and December 2015; 59 youth were applicable228 to

227 Nine youth were not applicable for one or more of the following reasons: youth was incarcerated, youth was missing, youth declined or not interested in employment or educational/vocational program, youth in the process of enrolling or youth had mental impairment which prevented employment or educational/vocational program. 228 Thirteen youth were not applicable for one or more of the following reasons: youth was incarcerated, youth was missing, youth declined or not interested in employment or educational/vocational program, youth had recently completed school or youth was in the process of enrolling.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 98

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 107 of 142 PageID: 8088

this measure and 50 (85%) youth were either employed or enrolled in education or vocational training program. Performance has improved over the previous period but does not yet meet the SEP required level of performance.
Figure 26: Youth Exiting Care Who are Employed or Enrolled in Educational or Vocational Training Program (January 2010 – December 2015)

100%

90%

80%

85%

Percentage of Youth

70%

60% 60%

65% 63%

50% 52%

40%

Jan-Jun 2010

Jul-Dec 2012

Jan-Dec 2013

Jan-Jun 2014
Month

Source: Data from DCF and CSSP Case Record Reviews

74%
Jul-Dec 2014

50%
Jan-Jun 2015

K. SERIVCES TO SUPPORT TRANSITION

Services to Support Transition

Jul-Dec 2015

Performance Target (90%)

Quantitative or

44. Services to Support Transition: DCF will provide services and supports to

Qualitative Measure

families to support and preserve successful transitions.

Performance Target

80% of cases will be plans rated acceptable for supporting transitions as measured by the Quality Review (QR).

Performance as of December 31, 2015:

While involved with DCF, families and children may face several transitions, including changes in family relationships, living arrangements, service providers, or schools. Some transitions are more critical than others but all require recognition and often planning in order to be smooth and successful. DCF uses the QR process to measure case practice that supports families to make successful transitions. The SEP requires that 80 percent of cases be rated acceptable for

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 99

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 108 of 142 PageID: 8089

supporting transitions as measured by the QR (SEP Section IV.J. 44). Results from 191 cases reviewed from January to December 2015 indicate that 68 percent (130 of 191) of cases were rated acceptable for supporting transitions.
DCF has not met the required SEP performance target.
Figure 27: Qualitative Review (QR) Cases Rated Acceptable for Services to Support Transitions
(January to December 2015)

100% 80%

Performance Target (90%)

60%

68%

(130)

40%

20%

0%
Source: DCF data

Cases Rated Acceptable

L. CASELOADS

Caseload compliance is measured by individual caseworker caseloads in each of the functional areas (Intake, Permanency, Adoption and IAIU) as well as office standards for CP&P Local Offices. Table 7 summarizes the caseload standards for individual workers.

The SEP includes eight measures related to caseloads and reflects changes to either the final target and/or methodology from similar measures in the MSA. Section III.B of the SEP includes four measures designated as Outcomes To Be Maintained: 1) Permanency office caseloads 2) Permanency individual worker caseloads, 3) IAIU investigators individual caseloads and 4) supervisory/worker ratio. The remaining four measures are designated as Outcomes To Be Achieved: 1) Intake office caseloads, 2) Intake individual worker caseloads, 3) Adoption office caseloads and 4) Adoption individual worker caseloads are within Section IV.E of the SEP.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 100

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 109 of 142 PageID: 8090

Table 7: CP&P Individual Caseload Standards

Caseworker Function

Responsibility

Individual Caseload Standard (MSA Sections II.E and III.B.1)

Intake
Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit
(IAIU)
Permanency
Adoption Source: DCF

Respond to community concerns regarding child safety and well-being. Specifically, receive referrals from the State Central Registry (SCR) and depending on the nature of the referral, respond between two hours and five days with a visit to the home and begin investigation or assessment. Complete investigation or assessment within 60 days.

Intake workers are to have no more than 12 open cases at any one time and no more than eight new referrals assigned in a month. No Intake worker with 12 or more open cases can be given more than two secondary assignments229 per month.

Respond to allegations of child abuse and neglect in settings including correctional facilities, detention facilities, treatment facilities, schools (public or private), residential schools, shelters, hospitals, camps or child care centers that are required to be licensed, resource family homes and registered family day care homes.

IAIU staff workers are to have no more than 12 open cases at any one time and no more than eight new referrals assigned in a month.

Provide services to families whose children remain at home under the protective supervision of CP&P and those families whose children are removed from home due to safety concerns. Find permanent homes for children who cannot safely return to their parents by preparing children for adoption, developing adoptive resources and performing the work needed to finalize adoptions.

Permanency workers are to serve no more than 15 families and 10 children in out-of-home care at any one time.
Adoption workers are to serve no more than 15 children at any one time.

Verifying Worker Caseloads

DCF caseload data are collected and analyzed through NJ SPIRIT. As in previous monitoring periods, the Monitor verifies caseload data supplied by DCF by conducting telephone interviews with randomly selected workers across the state. Telephone interviews were conducted for two six month periods in CY 2015. For each of the six month periods, 170 workers were randomly selected from a list of all active workers in June and December 2015, for a total of 340 workers in CY 2015. All 46 CP&P Local Offices were represented in the sample. The interviews were conducted during the months of July and August 2015 and January and February 2016. All 340 workers were called and information was collected from 257 workers (78% of the eligible sample).230

During the interviews, the Monitor asked each caseworker whether their caseloads met caseload standards during the applicable six month period; responses were compared to the caseload information from NJ SPIRIT on identified workers for the same period. Workers were also asked

229 Secondary assignments refer to shared cases between Intake and Permanency workers for families who have a case open with a permanency worker where there are new allegations of abuse or neglect that require investigation. 230 Five workers were on extended leave during the period of the calls and were removed from the sample. Two additional workers refused to participate and two caseworkers newly assigned to the position for less than half of the monitoring period were also removed from the sample. The Monitor made at least three attempts to contact all other caseworkers.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 101

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 110 of 142 PageID: 8091
to report their specific caseload size for the last month in the six month period and their reports were compared with NJ SPIRIT data. The caseload verification involves looking at workers in all areas in which previously the MSA and currently the SEP had set caseload standards: Intake, Permanency and Adoption. For the past several years, the Monitor has weighted the sample with Intake workers to examine in more depth the impact of shared cases between Intake and Permanency workers. Among the 257 workers who participated in the caseload verification interviews, 147 were Intake workers.
In CY 2015 and during the caseload verification process, the Monitor received reports from Intake workers in a small number of local offices citing concerns with the way in which highintake caseload volumes are managed in their offices and irregularities with caseload assignment and data. The Monitor shared these concerns with DCF leaders. The Monitor’s review did not identify how extensive these issues were but is assured that actions that may have been taken by a small number of staff are in no way sanctioned by DCF leadership. To the contrary, DCF leadership responded immediately and appropriately once the concerns were identified by outlining and implementing meaningful corrective action steps. Nevertheless, the Monitor has determined that 2015 intake caseload data cannot be validated by the Monitor and a report on intake-caseload data should wait until the next report, covering the first six months of CY 2016. DCF leaders have agreed with this decision.
DCF leaders have already initiated a robust internal process to assess the caseload data issues, including a comprehensive action plan focused on clarification of misconceptions with managers, supervisors and staff at all levels related to caseload standards; development of an internal caseload verification process to identify and address case assignment and data irregularities on an ongoing basis; and the creation of a safe space where workers can confidentially report caseload concerns about case assignment and data entries in NJ SPIRIT. Over the past year, DCF has also assigned additional FTE positions to the intake function. In the Monitor’s view, DCF’s response to these raised concerns appropriately targets early identification, remediation, and ongoing monitoring, and it demonstrates DCF’s actions as a selfcorrecting organization.
It is important to emphasize that at the writing of this report, the Monitor’s concerns are limited to Intake caseload data and do not extend to other categories of DCF data as included in the Monitoring Report, including the caseload data for permanency and adoptions workers. The Monitor will be working closely with DCF leadership as it implements corrective actions and will conduct an additional intake-caseload verification in the summer of 2016 with the expectation that any case assignment and data irregularities will have been resolved, and that verified intake caseload data can be included in the next monitoring report.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 102

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 111 of 142 PageID: 8092

Intake

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

24. Intake Local Office Caseloads: Local Offices will have an average caseloads for Intake workers of (a) no more than 12 families, and (b) no more than eight new assignments per month. No Intake worker with 12 or more open cases can be given more than two secondary assignments per month.

95% of Local Offices will have an average caseload of (a) no more than 12 families,
Performance Target and (b) no more than eight new assignments per month. No Intake worker with 12
or more open cases can be given more than two secondary assignments per month.

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

25. Individual Intake Caseloads: individual Intake workers shall have (a) no more than 12 open cases, and (b) no more than eight new assignments per month. No Intake worker with 12 or more open cases can be given more than two secondary assignments per month.

90% of individual Intake workers shall have (a) no more than 12 open cases, and (b)
Performance Target no more than eight new assignments per month. No Intake worker with 12 or more
open cases can be given more than two secondary assignments per month.

Performance of December 31, 2016:

Unable to determine; intake caseload data not verified.

Adoption

Quantitative or

26. Adoption Local Office Caseloads: Local offices will have an average caseloads

Qualitative Measure

for Adoption workers of no more than 15 children per worker.

Performance Target

95% of Local Offices will have an average caseload of no more than 15 children per Adoption worker.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 103

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 112 of 142 PageID: 8093

Figure 28: Percentage of CP&P Local Offices Meeting Average Caseload Standards for Adoption Workers (June 2009 – December 2015)

Percentage of DCF/DYFS (Adoption)

100% 90% 80% 70%

98% 95%

95% 95%

90% 92% 94% 87% 88%
80%

98% 95% 88%

Performance Target (95%)

60%
Jun-09 Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10 Jun-11 Dec-11 Jun-12 Mar-13 Dec-13 Jun-14 Dec-14 Jun-15 Dec-15
Month
Source: DCF data
Performance as of December, 31 2015:
Figure 28 summarizes performance on meeting average Local Office Adoption caseload standards. DCF has met this standard for the period of January through June 2015 and exceeded it for the period of July through December 2015.

Quantitative or

27. Individual Worker Adoption Caseloads: individual Adoption worker caseloads

Qualitative Measure

shall be no more than 15 children per worker.

Performance Target

95% of individual Adoption workers shall have a caseload of no more than 15 children per month.

Performance as of December, 31 2015:
The state reported an average of 225 active Adoption workers between July and December 2015. Of the active Adoption workers, an average of 207 (92%) workers had caseloads that met the requirement during the monitoring period. Specifically in December 2015, individual worker caseload compliance for Adoption workers was at 94 percent. For the 13 Adoption workers who did not meet caseload requirements in December 2015, the highest caseload was 27 children. The individual worker caseload standard for Adoption workers of no more than 15 children was not met for the period of January through June 2015 nor was it met for the period of July through December 2015.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 104

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 113 of 142 PageID: 8094

Data by Local Office indicate that during December 2015, performance ranged between 71 and 100 percent among offices and 33 of 43 (77%) Local Offices met the standard for this measure (see Appendix C-1).
Among the 257 workers who participated in the phone interviews conducted by the Monitor for caseload verification, 33 were Adoption workers. Four (12%) of the 33 workers interviewed reported going over caseload standards at least once between in CY 2015.
Figure 29: Average Percentage of Adoption Workers with Individual Caseloads at or Below the Applicable Individual Caseload Standards (June 2009 – December 2015)*

Percentage of DCF/DYFS (Adoption)

100%

94%

94%

90%

96%

87% 87%

88%

91%

92%

90% 90%

84%

90% 92%

80%

Performance Target (95%)

70%

60%
JuJnu-n01-909 DDece-c0-909 JuJnu-n1-010 DDeecc-1-100 JunJ-u1n1-11DeDc-e1c1-11JunJ-1u2n7-12MarM-13ar-D13ec-D13ec-1J3un-J1u4n-1D4ec-D1e4c-1J4unJ-1u5n-15DecD-1e15c3-15

Month

Source: DCF data *The performance percentage shown on the last month of each monitoring period (June and December) is the average of the prior six month’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that six month monitoring period. The performance percentage shown for March and December 2013 is the average of the prior nine month’s performance in meeting individual caseload standards during that time.

Permanency

Quantitative or

4. Permanency Local Office Caseloads: Local offices will have an average

caseloads for Permanency workers of (a) no more than 15 families, and (b) no

Qualitative Measure

more than 10 children in out-of-home placement per worker.

Performance Target

95% of Local Offices will have an average caseload of (a) no more than 15 families, and (b) no more than 10 children in out-of-home placement per worker.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 105

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 114 of 142 PageID: 8095

Quantitative or

5. Individual Worker Permanency Caseloads: individual Permanency worker

caseloads shall be (a) no more than 15 families, and (b) no more than 10

Qualitative Measure

children in out-of-home placement per worker.

Performance Target

95% of individual Permanency workers shall have a caseload of (a) no more than 15 families, and (b) no more than 10 children in out-of-home placement per worker.

Performance as of December, 31 2015:

Performance July through December 2015 shows that 100 percent of Local Offices and 100 percent of individual workers met the permanency caseload standard. CP&P has met the standard for Permanency office and individual caseload standards for the period of January through June 2015 and July through December 2015.

Among the 257 workers who participated in phone interviews conducted by the Monitor for caseload verification, 60 were Permanency workers. One (2%) of the 60 Permanency workers interviewed reported exceeding the caseload standard of no more than 15 families and no more than 10 children in out-of-home placement in CY 2015.

Under the MSA, the Monitor reviewed these data semi-annually. The parties have agreed that in the future, these data will be updated and reported to the public monthly in DCF’s Commissioner’s Report currently available on the DCF website.

Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU)

Quantitative or

3. Individual Worker IAIU Caseloads: individual IAIU worker caseloads shall be

(a) no more than 12 open cases, and (b) no more than eight new case

Qualitative Measure

assignments per month.

Performance Target

95% of individual IAIU workers shall have a caseload (a) no more than 12 open cases, and (b) no more than eight new case assignments per month.

Performance as of December, 31 2015:
DCF data shows 98 percent on individual workers met the IAIU caseload standard for the period of January through June 2015 and 100 percent of workers met the standard for the period of July through December 2015. Performance for this standard was met for the period of January through June 2015 and July through December 2015.
Under the MSA the Monitor reviewed these data semi-annually. The parties have agreed that in the future, these data will be reported monthly in DCF’s Commissioner’s Report currently available on the DCF website.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 106

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 115 of 142 PageID: 8096

Supervisory Ratio

Quantitative or

2. Supervisor/Worker Ratio: Local Offices shall have sufficient supervisory staff

Qualitative Measure

to maintain a five worker to one supervisor ration.

Performance Target

95% of Local Offices shall have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a five worker to one supervisor ration.

Performance as of December, 31 2015:
Supervision holds a critical role in child welfare; therefore, the SEP includes a standard for supervisory ratios that 95 percent of all offices should have sufficient supervisory staff to maintain a ratio of five workers to one supervisor (Section III.B). Performance between July and December 2015, shows that 97 percent of CP&P Local Offices had sufficient supervisors to have ratios of five workers to one supervisor. DCF has met this standard for the periods of January through June 2015 and July through December 2015.
The Monitor verified the state’s reported information about supervisor/worker ratios by asking all 257 workers who participated in the phone interviews about the size of their units for the month of June 2015 and December 2015; 252 (98%) workers reported being in units of five or fewer workers with a supervisor.
Under the MSA the Monitor reviewed these data semi-annually. The parties have agreed that in the future, these data will be reported monthly to the public in DCF’s Commissioner’s Report currently available on the DCF website.
M. DAsG STAFFING
Section III.D of the SEP requires the state to continue to maintain adequate Deputy Attorney General (DAsG) staffing.

Quantitative or

7. DAsG Staffing: The State will maintain adequate DAsG staff potions and keep

Qualitative Measure

positions filled.

Performance Target DCF will maintain adequate staffing levels at the DAsG office.

Performance as of December 31, 2015:
As of December 31, 2015, all 132 (100%) DAsG staff positions assigned to work with DCF were filled. Of those, seven DAsG are on full time leave. Thus, there are a total of 125 (95%) available DAsG. DCF reports that in addition to these positions, 3.9 DAsG outside of the DCF Practice Group have dedicated their time to DCF matters.
DCF continues to meet this measure.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 107

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 116 of 142 PageID: 8097

N. ACCOUNTABILITY THROUGH QUALITATIVE REVIEW AND THE PRODUCTION AND USE OF ACCURATE DATA
QUALITATIVE REVIEW
New Jersey’s Qualitative Review (QR) is an assessment of the status of children, the status of practice and the functioning of systems in each of the counties. The protocol and process used for the QR are aligned with DCF’s CPM. Select QR results related to both Child (Youth)/Family Status and Practice Performance are also used to report on several SEP requirements included in this report. Between January and December 2015, DCF’s Office of Performance Management and Accountability (OPMA) consulted with other states, national experts, the Monitor and outside community-based providers to update key portions of New Jersey’s QR process and protocol. An important goal of this work was to create a more user friendly protocol with language that is consistent with DCF’s other practice improvement efforts with the workforce. This reinforces the state’s efforts to embed the CPM into everyday practice.
In order to conduct the reviews, the child’s legal guardian is asked to give informed consent for participation in the QR. Trained review teams of two persons including DCF staff, community stakeholders and staff from the Monitor’s office review CP&P case records and interview as many people as possible who are involved with the child and family. The team uses a standardized protocol to report findings. The results from reviews provide critical qualitative data on child and family status and system performance.
Since 2010, DCF has reviewed the cases of 12 children over a one week period in 16 of the 21 counties across the state annually. Immediately following the review in each county, areas of accomplishment and challenges for the system are identified and discussed to inform continued case practice improvement. Beginning in January 2016, DCF moved to conducting the QR in each county every other year. QRs will now be conducted in 10 or 11 counties each year. Using a sampling strategy based on the number of children served in each Local Office, 10 to 30 cases will be reviewed in each county. The sampling plan was also adjusted so that the demographic characteristics of case reviewed will overall better match the demographics of children and families served by DCF. The purpose behind staggering the reviews is to allow counties to develop and implement performance improvement plans between reviews. Supervisors and additional providers will be recruited to serve as reviewers. Findings from the QR will be incorporated into existing training and supervisory tools.
Between January and December 2015, DCF reviewed 191 cases from 16 counties.231 Table 8 provides the gender and age of the 191 children. Fifty-three of the children were living with a parent at the time of the review and 138 of the children lived with a relative or non-relative resource parent.

231 Qualitative Reviews were conducted in Somerset, Cumberland, Sussex, Hudson, Mercer, Union, Monmouth, Morris, Cape May, Bergen, Atlantic, Middlesex, Warren, Gloucester, Essex and Camden counties.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 108

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 117 of 142 PageID: 8098

Table 8: Qualitative Review Gender and Age Demographics (January – December 2015)

Gender

#

Male

99

Female

92

Total

191

Age

#

4 years or less

71

5-9 years

40

10-13 years

29

14 -17 years

21

18-21 years

30

Total

191

Source: DCF data

% 52% 48%
100%
% 37% 21% 15% 11% 16%
100%

Table 9 provides the racial and ethnic demographics of the 191 children whose cases was reviewed.

Table 9: Qualitative Review Racial and Ethnic Demographics232 (January – December 2015) (N=191)

Race White/Caucasian African American Hispanic Native Hawaiian American Indian Asian Unable to Determine/Unknown Source: DCF data

#

%

115

45%

89

35%

45

18%

1

>0.01%

0

0%

1

>0.01%

4

>0.01%

The informants for the QR include CP&P and Child Health Unit staff, biological parents, others who the youth or parent identified as supportive, relative and non-relative resource parents, education providers, mental health and legal professionals, substance abuse treatment providers and children/youth.233 Reviewers evaluate the child and family’s status on a range of indicators

232 Percentages are calculated from a total of 191; some children are identified by more than one race. 233 Interviews are usually conducted individually with participants, either by phone or in person. All efforts are made
to see children/youth in the setting in which they reside.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 109

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 118 of 142 PageID: 8099

and rate whether the status was acceptable or unacceptable.234 See Table 10 for the results on each Child and Family Status indicator and overall Child and Family Status ratings for all cases. As shown in Table 10, the status of children was rated as acceptable in the majority of cases including key areas of safety, stability in school, living arrangement, learning and development and physical health of the child, a significant achievement.

Table 10: Qualitative Review Child and Family Status Results (January- December 2015)

Child & Family Status Indicators Safety at Home

# of Applicable Cases # of Acceptable Cases % of Acceptable Cases

191

187

98%

Safety in other Settings

191

187

98%

Stability at Home

191

156

82%

Stability in School

129

118

91%

Living Arrangement

191

183

96%

Family Functioning & Resourcefulness

188

138

73%

Progress towards Permanency

191

118

62%

Physical Health of the Child

191

184

96%

Emotional Well-Being

191

168

88%

Learning & Development, Under Age 5

71

71

100%

Learning & Development, Age 5 & older

120

107

89%

OVERALL Child & Family Status

191

Source: DCF data

180

94%

Table 11 shows the results of assessments of system and practice performance indicators from reviews conducted in CY 2015. As with the status indicators, reviewers evaluated whether performance was acceptable or unacceptable.235 The QR results identify where further work is needed to fully implement the CPM. Reviewers found acceptable Practice/System Performance in 72 percent (138 of 191) of cases. This is an increase from 2014 when reviewers found acceptable Practice/System Performance ratings in 66 percent (119 of 180) of cases.

The percentage of cases with acceptable Practice/System Performance in the majority of the indicators representing DCF’s core CPM functions – engaging, teaming, assessing, planning, intervening and tracking and adjusting - also continues to increase. DCF expects that efforts to streamline the QR protocol, make the QR protocol more accessible to frontline staff, add supervisors to the pool of reviewers and connect QR results to other CQI efforts will positively impact performance reported each year through these reviews.

234 Cases are considered acceptable if the overall QR rating based on a standardized protocol is a 4, 5 or 6 and
unacceptable if the overall rating is a 1, 2 or 3. 235 Ibid.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 110

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 119 of 142 PageID: 8100

Table 11: Qualitative Review Practice/System Performance Results (January – December 2015)

Practice Performance Indicators

Engagement
Family Teamwork

Overall Child/Youth
Parents Resource Family
Formation Functioning

Assessment & Understanding

Overall Child/Youth
Parents

Case Planning Process

Resource Family

Plan Implementation

Tracking & Adjusting

Provision of Health Care Services

Resource Availability

Family & Community Connections

Overall Mother Father Siblings

Overall

Family Supports

Parents

Resource Family

Long Term View

Transitions & Life Adjustments

OVERALL Practice/System Performance

Source: DCF data

O. NEEDS ASSESSMENT

# Cases Applicable
191 114 141 117 191 191
191
191 141 116 191 191 191 191 191 103
85 69 57 165 138 115 191 191 191

# Cases Acceptable
134 93 73 94 103 83
142
159 68 98 115 134 131 184 175 89 73 45 48 132 87 107 124 130 138

% Acceptable
70% 82% 56% 80% 54% 43%
74%
83% 48% 84% 60% 70% 69% 96% 92% 86% 86% 65% 84% 80% 63% 93% 65% 68% 72%

SEP Section IV.C.21 requires the state to “regularly evaluate the need for additional placements and services to meet the needs of children in custody and their families, and to support intact families and prevent the need for out-of-home care.” The Needs Assessment, designated in the SEP as To Be Achieved, is to be conducted on an annual, staggered basis “that assures that every county is assessed at least once every three years.” The state is required to “develop placements and services consistent with the findings of these needs assessments.”

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 111

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 120 of 142 PageID: 8101

Quantitative or Qualitative Measure

21. Needs Assessment: The State shall regularly evaluate the needs for additional placements and services to meet the needs of children in custody and their families, and to support intact families and prevent the needs for out-of-home care. Such needs assessments shall be conducted on an annual, staggered basis that assures that every county is assessed at least once every three years.

Final Target

The State shall develop placements and services consistent with the findings of these needs assessments.

DCF, in partnership with the Institute for Families at Rutgers University School of Social Work, is in Phase III of developing a Needs Assessment process to identify the strengths and needs of children and youth at risk for and those already entering out-of-home placement.
Phase I of the DCF’s Needs Assessment process involved a review of DCF internal reports and assessments completed by the Department and its partners from CY 2008 to CY 2014 to identify common needs across practice areas, including child maltreatment reporting as well as the provision of services for families with children in the home and in out-of-home placement. Phase I also involved the formation of an internal workgroup to inform the assessment process, to identify child and family needs and to prioritize service gaps. DCF published a detailed description of its Phase I activities in its Needs Assessment: Interim Report completed in December 2014 and available on DCF’s website (See Table 1B).236 In sum, DCF determined from its Phase I activities that families that encounter the child welfare system have difficulty acquiring safe, stable housing and accessing consistent, affordable transportation, employment and vocational opportunities and affordable food. The report highlights the need for accessible substance abuse and mental health treatment statewide.
DCF published its Phase II activities and findings in its DCF Needs Assessment 2015: Interim Report on its website in April 2016 (See Table 1B).237 As part of Phase II, DCF used New Jersey’s state administered child welfare information system, NJSPIRIT – the state’s client level case management system --- to determine categories of need for children and families served by DCF from 2009 to 2013. The seven categories the state identified as areas of need are: caregiver mental health, caregiver substance abuse, child mental health, child substance abuse, poverty, housing and domestic violence.
Key findings of DCF’s Phase II client level data analysis for the years 2009 to 2013 are:
 The areas of greatest need involve caregiver substance abuse and caregiver mental health.  Caregiver substance abuse and mental health issues often co-occur with other needs, such
as poverty, domestic violence and children’s mental health needs.
236 DCF’s Needs Assessment: Interim Report 2015 can be found here: http://www.state.nj.us/dcf/childdata/continuous/DCF_Needs_Assessment_Interim-Report.pdf 237 DCF’s Needs Assessment: Interim Report can be found here: http://nj.gov/dcf/childdata/protection/DCF.Needs.Assessment.Interim.Report_3.16.pdf

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 112

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 121 of 142 PageID: 8102
 Between 2011 and 2013 reports to DCF of domestic violence in homes with children increased by 22 percent.
 Mental health issues and substance abuse among children decreased between 2009 and 2013.
DCF also analyzed the seven areas of need across counties in order to examine regional variation. County level data show, for example, that between 2009 and 2013 caregiver substance abuse was less likely to be identified in northeastern counties, with the exception of Essex and Hudson, and more likely to be prevalent in Sussex, Warren, Salem, Gloucester and Atlantic counties. DCF’s Needs Assessment 2015 Interim Report provides an analysis of each of the seven identified categories of need, by county, for CY 2013.
Phase II of the Needs Assessment process also involved identifying secondary data on the current range of services available in the state. The three primary sources for determining the state’s range of services are (1) the service modules in NJSPIRIT, (2) the Department’s review of service provider contracts by Area Office, and (3) forms used with DCF’s contract providers. DCF reports that there are limitations to its review of secondary data due to data entry issues and the generality of the information furnished by service providers about geographic areas served and types of services listed. The expectation is that DCF will be able to supplement its findings from Phase II with information obtained through the collection of primary data in Phase III.
In Phase III of the Needs Assessment process DCF will be examining primary qualitative data through focus groups and interviews with key internal and external stakeholders, including caseworkers, service providers and families. DCF will also continue to analyze client level data to better understand the needs of subpopulations of children, youth and families. DCF anticipates that it will complete Phase III on the Needs Assessment process in the fall of 2016.
P. FISCAL YEAR BUDGET
The Governor’s proposed FY 2017 state appropriation for DCF, effective July 1, 2016, is $1.12 billion in state funds, an increase of 0.6 percent over the FY 2016 adjusted appropriation of $1.112 billion. With the addition of federal funding, the total DCF FY 2017 budget will be $1.7 billion.
The budget includes approximately $28.3 million of new state funding for CSOC based on projected increased utilization of behavioral health services, including $12.7 million for out-ofhome treatment services, $8.4 million for intensive in-home behavioral assistance and $6.1 million for Care Management Organizations.
DCF leadership has indicated that the FY 2017 budget provides sufficient funds to carry out the state’s responsibilities for child protection; children’s mental health; services to support children in their own homes and in out-of-home placement; and to achieve the SEP outcomes related to children’s safety, permanency and well-being. The budget allows for 6,660 staff positions; reflecting an increase of 17 positions over FY 2016 to meet SEP requirements.

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Page 113

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 122 of 142 PageID: 8103

APPENDIX: A-1 Glossary of Acronyms Used in the Monitoring Report

ACF: AFCARS:
AIP: AQCs: ASO: BCWEP: CAP: CCL: CCRMT: CFSR: CHEC: CHU: CIC: CIACC: CLSA: CME: CMO: CMS: CBT: CPEP: CPM: CPS: CQI: CSA: CSOC: CSSP: CWPPG: CWS: CWTA: CYBER: DAG: DCA: DCBHS: DCF: CP&P: DD: DDD: DDHH: DD/MI DFCP: DHS: DPCP: DR: DYFS: EDW: EPSDT:
ETV: FAFS: FAFSA: FDC: FEMA: FFT: FQHC: FSC: FSO: FSS: FTE: FTM: FXB: HMIS:

Administration for Children and Families Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System AFCARS Improvement Plan Area Quality Coordinators Administrative Services Organization Baccalaureate Child Welfare Education Program Corrective Action Plan Child Care Licensing Congregate Care Risk Management Team Child and Family Service Review Comprehensive Health Evaluation for Children Child Health Unit Children in Court Children’s Interagency Coordinating Council Casey Life Skills Assessment Comprehensive Medical Examination Case Management Organizations Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Child Placement Enhancement Project Case Practice Model Child Protective Services Continuous Quality Improvement Contracted System Administrator Children’s System of Care Center for the Study of Social Policy Child Welfare Policy and Practice Group Child Welfare Services Child Welfare Training Academy Child Youth Behavioral Electronic Health Record Deputy Attorney General Department of Community Affairs Division of Child Behavioral Health Services Department of Children and Families Division of Child Protection and Permanency Developmental Disability Division of Developmental Disabilities Division of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Developmental Disability/Mental Illness Division of Family and Community Partnerships Department of Human Services Division of Prevention and Community Partnerships Differential Response Division of Youth and Family Services Electronic Data Warehouse Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment Education and Training Voucher Foster and Adoptive Family Services Free Application for Federal Student Aid Family Development Credential Federal Emergency Management Agency Functional Family Therapy Federally Qualified Health Center Family Success Centers Family Support Organizations Family Service Specialist Full-Time Equivalent Family Team Meeting Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center Homeless Management Information System

HSAC: IAI: IAIU: KLG: LGBTQI:
LO: MEYA: MH: MSA: MST: NCANDS:
NCIC:
NJCAN: NJCBW: NJFC: NRCRRFAP:
NYTD: OAS: OCHS: OCQI: OESP: OIT: OMPA:
OOE: OOL: ORF: OTARY: PALS:
PIP: PPA: QA: QR: RDTC: RFL: RFP: RL: SAFE: SCR: SETC: SHIP: SHSP: SIBS: SPRU: SIP: TF-CBT: TPR: UMDNJ:
USDA: YAB: YCM: YEC:

Human Services Advisory Council Institutional Abuse Investigative Institutional Abuse Investigative Unit Kinship Legal Guardian Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning or Intersex Local Office Medicaid Extension for Youth Adults Mental Health Modified Settlement Agreement Multi-systemic Therapy National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect Northeast and Caribbean Child Welfare Implementation Center New Jersey Career Assistance Navigator New Jersey Coalition for Battered Women New Jersey Foster Care National Resource Center for Recruitment and Retention of Foster and Adoptive Parents National Youth in Transition Database Office of Adolescent Services Office of Child Health Services Office of Continuous Quality Improvement Office of Educational Support and Programs New Jersey Office of Information Technology Office of Performance Management and Accountability Office of Education Office of Licensing Office of Resource Family Outreach to At-Risk Youth Peace: A Learned Solution, program for victims of domestic violence Performance Improvement Plan Pre-placement Assessment Quality Assurance Qualitative Review Regional Diagnostic and Treatment Center Resource Family Licensing Request for Proposal Residential Licensing Structured Analysis Family Evaluation State Central Registry State Employment and Training Commission Summer Housing and Internship Program Special Home Service Providers Siblings in Best Settings Special Response Unit Summer Internship Program Trauma Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Termination of Parental Rights University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey United States Department of Agriculture Youth Advisory Board Youth Case Management Youth Employment Coordinator

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix A-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 123 of 142 PageID: 8104
APPENDIX B-1 Sustainability and Exit Plan

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 124 of 142 PageID: 8105

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 125 of 142 PageID: 8106

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 126 of 142 PageID: 8107

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 127 of 142 PageID: 8108

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 128 of 142 PageID: 8109

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 129 of 142 PageID: 8110

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 130 of 142 PageID: 8111

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 131 of 142 PageID: 8112

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 132 of 142 PageID: 8113

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 133 of 142 PageID: 8114

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 134 of 142 PageID: 8115

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 135 of 142 PageID: 8116

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 136 of 142 PageID: 8117

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 137 of 142 PageID: 8118

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 138 of 142 PageID: 8119

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 139 of 142 PageID: 8120

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 140 of 142 PageID: 8121

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 141 of 142 PageID: 8122

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Period XVII Monitoring Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

June 8, 2016 Appendix B-1

Case 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW Document 341 Filed 06/08/16 Page 142 of 142 PageID: 8123
Appendix: C-1 DCF Organizational Chart Department of Children and Families

Progress of the New Jersey Department of Children and Families Monitoring Period XVII Report for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Christie

October 2015
June 8, 2016 Appendix C-1

 
 U.S. District Court District of New Jersey [LIVE] (Newark) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:99-cv-03678-SRC-CLW

H., et al v. CHRIS CHRISTIE, et al Assigned to: Judge Stanley R. Chesler Referred to: Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 08/04/1999 Date Terminated: 08/10/2012 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
CHARLIE H. by and through his next friend, Ellen Koehler

represented by DAVID L. HARRIS LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC 65 LIVINGSTON AVENUE ROSELAND, NJ 07068-1791 (973) 597-2500 Email: dharris@lowenstein.com TERMINATED: 12/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JESSICA ANN BURT DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH 600 CAMPUS DRIVE FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932 973-549-7136 Email: jessica.burt@dbr.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PATRICIA A. CULLEN DRINKER, BIDDLE, & REATH, LLP 105 COLLEGE ROAD EAST, SUITE 300 PO BOX 627 PRINCETON, NJ 08542-0627 (609) 716-6500 Email: patricia.cullen@dbr.com TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER

Plaintiff
NADINE H. by and through her next friend, Ellen Koehler

DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 500 CAMPUS DRIVE FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932 973-549-7064 Email: joshua.rinschler@dbr.com TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER TIERNO AND ASSOCIATES, LLC 1045 MORRIS AVENUE UNION, NJ 07083 908-258-0311 Fax: 908-686-2571 Email: marion.cooper@dbr.com TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON E. HALPER HDLOGIX, INC. 26 MAYFIELD AVENUE EDISON, NJ 08837 (732) 765-6424 TERMINATED: 12/01/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address)

Plaintiff JASON W. by and through his next friend, Yvonne Mitchell TERMINATED: 04/14/2003
Plaintiff JENNIFER W. by and through his next friend, Yvonne Mitchell TERMINATED: 04/14/2003

TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON E. HALPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff
PATTI W. by and through his next friend, Yvonne Mitchell TERMINATED: 04/14/2003

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DENNIS M. by and through his next friend, Christine Posluszny
Plaintiff DENISE R. by and through his next friend, Christine Posluszny

MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON E. HALPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT

Plaintiff
MARCO C. by and through his next friend, Dr. George Bigge

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON E. HALPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013

Plaintiff JUAN C. by and through his next friend, Dr. George Bigge
Plaintiff

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON E. HALPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON E. HALPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

RICARDO O. by and through his next friend, Rosanne Maraziti
Plaintiff DOLORES G. by and through her next friend, Susan Dargay, Esq. TERMINATED: 04/14/2003

represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JASON E. HALPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/01/2005 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address)

Plaintiff ANNA G. by and through her next friend, Susan Dargay, Esq. TERMINATED: 04/14/2003
Plaintiff KYLE J. by and through his next friend, the Reverend Doctor Warren Bouton

TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003

TERMINATED: 04/14/2003
Plaintiff RYAN H. TERMINATED: 04/14/2003

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CHRISTOPHER H. TERMINATED: 04/14/2003
Plaintiff MELISSA H. TERMINATED: 04/14/2003

MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff RICKY M. TERMINATED: 04/14/2003
Plaintiff DANIEL M.

PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS

TERMINATED: 04/14/2003
Plaintiff THOMAS M. TERMINATED: 04/14/2003

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address)

Plaintiff
BARRY M. by and through his next friend, Constance McManus, Esq. TERMINATED: 04/14/2003

TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JESSICA ANN BURT (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/03/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY TERMINATED: 04/14/2003

represented by JEFFREY JOHN MILLER MILLER & LAMASTRA 3 MOUNTAIN VIEW ROAD PO BOX 1622 WARREN, NJ 07061 (908) 903-5700

Defendant MICHELE K. GUHL AS COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TERMINATED: 04/14/2003
Defendant CHARLES VENTI AS DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY TERMINATED: 04/14/2003

Fax: (908) 903-5798 Email: jjmiller@millerlamastra.com TERMINATED: 10/04/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFANIE A. BRAND OFFICE OF THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL R.J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX 25 W. MARKET STREET PO BOX 112 TRENTON, NJ 08625-0093 (609) 984-4987 Email: stefanie.brand@dol.lps.state.nj.us TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JEFFREY JOHN MILLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFANIE A. BRAND (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by JEFFREY JOHN MILLER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/04/1999 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFANIE A. BRAND (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant JAMES E. MCGREEVEY TERMINATED: 12/21/2010
Defendant GWENDOLYN L. HARRIS

represented by LAUREN F. CARLTON OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 33 WASHINGTON STREET 9TH FLOOR NEWARK, NJ 07102 973-565-8137 Email: lauren.carlton@dol.lps.state.nj.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFANIE A. BRAND (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
HOWARD J. MCCOACH OFFICE OF THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARD J. HUGHES JUSTICE COMPLEX PO BOX 112 TRENTON, NJ 08625 (609) 984-9504 Email: howard.mccoach@dol.lps.state.nj.us TERMINATED: 09/22/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANN A. HUBER OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 283-299 MARKET STREET 8TH FLOOR GATEWAY II NEWARK, NJ 07101 973-565-8146 Email: ann.huber@dol.lps.state.nj.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant DORIS JONES

CHRISTIAN A. ARNOLD OFFICE OF THE NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL DIVISION OF LAW 2 GATEWAY CENTER 283-299 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 46022 NEWARK, NJ 07101 (973) 565-8137 Email: christian.arnold@dol.lps.state.nj.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAUREN F. CARLTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFANIE A. BRAND (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
HOWARD J. MCCOACH (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/20/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANN A. HUBER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHRISTIAN A. ARNOLD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAUREN F. CARLTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant CHRIS CHRISTIE
Amicus COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO
Intervenor Plaintiff SHARON K. by and through her next friend, Dr. Barbara Fleischer TERMINATED: 04/14/2003

STEFANIE A. BRAND (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/16/2008 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
HOWARD J. MCCOACH (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/22/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by CHRISTIAN A. ARNOLD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANN A. HUBER (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANNMARIE PINARSKI WEISSMAN & MINTZ, LLC ONE EXECUTIVE DRIVE SUITE 200 SOMERSET, NJ 08873 (732) 563-4565 Email: apinarski@weissmanmintz.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DAVID L. HARRIS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/14/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PATRICIA A. CULLEN (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/17/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY
Intervenor NEWARK MORNING LEDGER CO.

MARION B. COOPER (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/19/2014 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BRUCE S. ROSEN MCCUSKER, ANSELMI, ROSEN & CARVELLI, PC 210 PARK AVENUE, SUITE 301 PO BOX 240 FLORHAM PARK, NJ 07932 (973) 635-6300 Fax: (973) 635-6363 Email: brosen@marc-law.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DONALD A. ROBINSON ROBINSON MILLER LLC ONE NEWARK CENTER 19TH FLOOR NEWARK, NJ 07102 (973) 690-5400 Fax: (973) 466-2760 Email: drobinson@rwmlegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/04/1999 08/04/1999 08/04/1999 08/05/1999

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed FILING FEE $150.00 RECEIPT #265788 (MS) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/04/1999)
SUMMONS issued for CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, MICHELE K. GUHL, CHARLES VENTI (20 Days) (Handed to Counsel) (MS) (Entered: 08/04/1999)
2 NOTICE of Allocation and Assignment filed. Magistrate Judge Hughes (Trenton-Brown) (MS) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/04/1999)
3 Notice of MOTION for class certification by plaintiffs. Motion set for 10:00 9/7/99 on [3-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (eh) Additional

08/10/1999 08/12/1999 08/12/1999
08/12/1999 08/12/1999 08/12/1999 08/12/1999 08/12/1999 08/30/1999 08/30/1999 08/30/1999

attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/05/1999)
4 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to all defendants 8/4/99. Answer due on 8/24/99. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/10/1999)
5 APPLICATION by ALL DEFENDANTS and Clerk's Order extending time to answer to 9/8/99. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/12/1999)
6 Notice of MOTION for MARCIA ROBINSON LOWRY, SUSAN LAMBIASE, SHIRIM NOTHENBERG & ERIC THOMPSON to appear pro hac vice for plaintiffs. Motion set for 10:00 9/7/99 on [6-1] motion . (PO Subm) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/12/1999)
7 AFFIDAVIT of JEFFREY B. GRACER on behalf of pltfs Re: [6-1] motion to appear pro hac vice. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/12/1999)
8 AFFIDAVIT of MARCIA ROBINSON LOWRY on behalf pltfs Re: [6-1] motion to appear pro hac vice. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/12/1999)
9 AFFIDAVIT of SUSAN LAMBIASE on behalf of pltfs Re: [6-1] motion to appear pro hac vice. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/12/1999)
10 AFFIDAVIT of ERIC THOMPSON on behalf of pltfs Re: [6-1] motion to appear pro hac vice. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/12/1999)
11 AFFIDAVIT of SHIRIM NOTHENBERG on behalf pltfs Re: [6-1] motion to appear pro hac vice. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/12/1999)
12 Notice of MOTION for ALAN C. KESSLER & DANA B. KLINGES to appear pro hac vice for dfts. Motion set for 10:00 10/4/99 on [12-1] motion . (PO Subm) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/30/1999)
13 CERTIFICATION of STEFANIE A. BRAND on behalf of dfts in support Re: [12-1] motion for ALAN C. KESSLER & DANA B. KLINGES to appear pro hac vice for dfts. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/30/1999)
14 CERTIFICATION of ALAN C. KESSLER on behalf of dfts in support Re: [12-1] motion for ALAN C. KESSLER & DANA B. KLINGES to appear pro hac for dfts. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/30/1999)

08/30/1999 08/31/1999 08/31/1999 08/31/1999 08/31/1999 09/07/1999
09/23/1999 09/23/1999 09/23/1999 09/24/1999

15 CERTIFICATION of DANA B. KLINGES on behalf of dfts in support Re: [12-1] motion for ALAN C. KESSLER & DANA B. KLINGES to appear pro hac vice for dfts. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/30/1999)
16 ORDER granting [6-1] motion for MARCIA ROBINSON LOWRY to appear pro hac vice for plaintiffs. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.)(nm) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/31/1999)
17 ORDER granting [6-1] motion for SUSAN LAMBIASE to appear pro hac vice for plaintiffs, etc. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.)(nm) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/31/1999)
18 ORDER granting [6-1] motion for ERIC THOMPSON to appear pro hac vice for plaintiffs, etc. (signed Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.)(nm) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/31/1999)
19 ORDER granting [6-1] motion for SHIRIM NOTHENBERG to appear pro hac vice for plaintiffs, etc. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.)(nm) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/31/1999)
20 Minute entry: Proceedings NOT recorded; Minutes of: 9/7/99; The following actions were taken, mooting [6-1] motion for MARCIA ROBINSON LOWRY, SUSAN LAMBIASE, SHIRIM NOTHENBERG & ERIC THOMPSON to appear pro hac vice for plaintiffs. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/10/1999)
21 ORDER granting [12-1] motion for ALAN C. KESSLER to appear pro hac vice for dfts. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.)(nm) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/24/1999)
22 ORDER granting [12-1] motion for DANA B. KLINGES to appear pro hac vice for dfts. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.)(nm) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/24/1999)
24 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct-Reporter: Wright; Minutes of: 9/23/99; The following actions were taken; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL: Hrn. set for 11/15/99 at 11:00 a.m. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (lk) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/29/1999)
Tele-conference held before Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 9/24/99.

09/28/1999 10/04/1999 10/04/1999
10/12/1999 11/15/1999 01/27/2000 01/27/2000 02/08/2000 02/08/2000
02/10/2000

(femp) (Entered: 09/28/1999)
23 SCHEDULING ORDER setting deadline for certain motion, etc. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.)(nm) (femp) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/28/1999)
25 Substitute attorney for defendants; Terminated attorney JEFFREY JOHN MILLER; Added, STEFANIE A. BRAND (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 10/04/1999)
26 Minute entry: Proceedings NOT recorded; Minutes of: 10/4/99; The following actions were taken, granting [12-1] motion for ALAN C. KESSLER & DANA B. KLINGES to appear pro hac vice for dfts. By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 10/07/1999)
27 Notice of MOTION to dismiss by DEFENDANTS. Motion set for 10:00 11/15/99 on [27-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (PER CHAMBERS) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 10/13/1999)
28 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 11/15/99; The following actions were taken under advisement: [27-1] motion to dismiss. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 11/17/1999)
29 OPINION (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/27/2000)
30 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [27-1] motion to dismiss certain counts of pltfs' complaint; and setting telephone conference for 11:00 2/7/00. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/27/2000)
Tele-conference held before Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 2/8/00. (eh) (Entered: 02/09/2000)
31 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 2/8/00; The following actions were taken, Tele-conference held. Briefing schedule set. Status conference call set for 1:00 2/24/00. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 02/09/2000)
32 Notice of MOTION FOR ENTRY OF OF FINAL JUDGMENT ON DISMISSED CLAIMS AND PARTIES or for certification of certain questions for interlocutory appeal by ALL PLAINTIFFS. Motion set for 10:00 3/6/00 on [32-1] motion, set for 10:00 3/6/00 on [32-2] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 02/10/2000)

02/23/2000 03/08/2000 03/10/2000
03/20/2000
04/03/2000
05/11/2000 05/11/2000 05/11/2000
05/18/2000 05/18/2000

33 Notice of modified MOTION to certify class action by plaintiffs. Motion set for 10:00 3/20/00 on [33-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 02/24/2000)
34 ORDER mooting [3-1] motion for class certification. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/08/2000)
35 DECLARATION of CHARLES M. HART on behalf of dfts in opposition Re: [32-1] motion FOR ENTRY OF OF FINAL JUDGMENT ON DISMISSED CLAIMS AND PARTIES, [32-2] motion for certification of certain questions for interlocutory appeal (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/13/2000)
36 DECLARATION of RICHARD O'GRADY on behalf of defendants in opposition Re: [32-1] motion FOR ENTRY OF OF FINAL JUDGMENT ON DISMISSED CLAIMS AND PARTIES, [32-2] motion for certification of certain questions for interlocutory appeal (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/20/2000)
37 Minute entry: Proceedings NOT recorded; Minutes of: 4/3/00; The following actions were taken under advisement: [32-1] motion FOR ENTRY OF OF FINAL JUDGMENT ON DISMISSED CLAIMS AND PARTIES, and [32-2] motion for certification of certain questions for interlocutory appeal. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 04/04/2000)
38 INTERIM CONFIDENTIALITY STIPULATION and ORDER. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 05/11/2000)
39 MEMORANDUM OPINION (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 05/11/2000)
40 ORDER denying [32-1] motion FOR ENTRY OF OF FINAL JUDGMENT ON DISMISSED CLAIMS AND PARTIES; denying [32-2] motion for certification of certain questions for interlocutory appeal; and setting telephone conference for 1:00 5/17/00. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 05/11/2000)
Tele-conference held before Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 5/18/00. (eh) Modified on 06/14/2000 (Entered: 05/18/2000)
41 ORDER, resetting answer due for 6/1/00 for ALL DEFENDANTS ; setting discovery schedule ; and setting telephone conference for 1:00 6/5/00. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 05/18/2000)

05/19/2000
05/26/2000 05/26/2000 05/26/2000
05/26/2000 06/01/2000 06/05/2000 06/06/2000 06/13/2000
06/19/2000
06/29/2000

42 Notice of MOTION to modify interim confidentiality order by ALL PLAINTIFFS. Motion set for 10:00 6/19/00 on [42-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 05/19/2000)
Tele-conference held before Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 05/26/00. (SA) (Entered: 05/26/2000)
43 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER setting Teleconference 1:00 6/22/00; setting certain discovery deadlines (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.)(NM) (SA) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 05/26/2000)
44 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 5/26/00; The following actions were taken, Tele-conference held. Briefing scheule set. Hrn set for 6/22/00 at 1pm. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 05/30/2000)
Tele-conference held before Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 5/26/00. (eh) (Entered: 05/30/2000)
45 ANSWER to Complaint by defendants. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 06/02/2000)
46 DECLARATION of RICHARD O'GRADY on behalf of dfts. in opposition to [42-1] motion to modify interim confidentiality order (femp) (Entered: 06/06/2000)
47 Notice of MOTION to strike as surplusage certain portions of [1-1] complaint by DEFENDANTS. Motion set for 10:00 7/17/00 on [47-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 06/06/2000)
48 ORDER, setting telephone conference for 1:00 6/22/00 ; extending time to repsond to [42-1] motion to modify the interim confidientiality order, and directing said motion will be considered on the papers. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 06/13/2000)
49 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 6/19/00; The following actions were taken, set scheduling conference for 1:00 6/29/00. [42-1] motion 7/17/00. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 06/21/2000)
Tele-conference held before Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 6/29/00. (eh)

06/29/2000
07/06/2000 07/06/2000 07/11/2000 07/14/2000 07/17/2000
07/20/2000 07/20/2000 07/31/2000
08/21/2000 09/05/2000

(Entered: 06/29/2000)
50 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 6/29/00; The following actions were taken, Tele-conference held. , Status conference held. Pltfs' motion to add 2 new pltfs; to modify class action; modify interim confidentiality order. Motions ret'ble 7/17/00. Telephone conference set for 9:00 7/5/00. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 06/29/2000)
51 Notice of MOTION to intervene by SHARON K. Motion set for 10:00 9/5/00 on [51-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/10/2000)
52 Notice of MOTION to substitute two next friends by pltfs. Motion set for 10:00 9/5/00 on [52-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/10/2000)
53 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Dfts's Reply Brief. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/11/2000)
54 TRANSCRIPT of telephone cnf taken on 7/5/00. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/14/2000)
55 Minute entry: Proceedings NOT recorded; Minutes of: 7/17/00; The following actions were taken under advisement: [42-1] motion to modify interim confidentiality order. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/17/2000)
56 CORRECTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by dfts re: opposition to SHARON K.'s motion to intervene. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/24/2000)
57 DECLARATION of NANCY MCNEIL DRUM on behalf of dfts in opposition Re: [51-1] motion to intervene by SHARON K. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/24/2000)
58 ORDER denying [42-1] motion to modify interim confidentiality order as to modifications sought by pltfs. in paragraphs 3 and 7 and stating good cause exists for a protective order in this matter (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.)(nm) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/31/2000)
59 DEFICIENT MOTION filed by pltfs. to withdraw appearance of Shirin Nothenberg, Esq. as pro hac vice attorney . (NO Brief and return date) (SA) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/22/2000)
60 Minute entry: Proceedings NOT recorded; Minutes of: 9/5/00; The

09/18/2000 09/18/2000
10/03/2000 10/04/2000 10/06/2000 10/17/2000 10/18/2000
10/18/2000 11/01/2000

following actions were taken under advisement: [51-1] motion to intervene by SHARON K., and [52-1] motion to substitute two next friends. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/05/2000)
61 MEMORANDUM OPINION (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/18/2000)
62 ORDER granting in part, denying in part [47-1] motion to strike as surplusage certain portions of [1-1] complaint; granting [51-1] motion to intervene by SHARON K.; granting [52-1] motion to substitute two next friends; denying as moot [33-1] motion to certify class action; denying w/o prejudice as moot dfts' request for depositions; and setting telephone conference for 1:00 10/2/00. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/18/2000)
63 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded: ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of 10/3/00; This action taken: TELE-STATUS CONF. Telecnf set for 10/18/00 1PM. (By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (SA) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 10/04/2000)
65 Notice of Second Modified MOTION to certify class action by ALL PLAINTIFFS. Motion set for 10:00 11/6/00 on [65-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 10/10/2000)
64 AMENDED COMPLAINT by ALL PLAINTIFFS; amending [1-1] complaint (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 10/06/2000)
66 ANSWER by defts. to amended complaint (SA) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 10/18/2000)
67 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 10/18/00; The following actions were taken, Tele-conference held. Status conference held. Dfts response to be served by 12/6/00. Pltfs reply by 12/20/00, motion ret'ble 1/2/01. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 10/20/2000)
Tele-conference held before Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 10/18/00. (eh) (Entered: 10/20/2000)
68 CONSENT ORDER granting [52-1] motion to substitute two next friends. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 11/01/2000)

11/27/2000 11/27/2000
12/13/2000 12/14/2000 01/09/2001
01/09/2001 01/09/2001 01/19/2001 01/19/2001
02/01/2001
03/07/2001 03/07/2001 03/07/2001

Tele-conference held before Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 11/27/00. (eh) (Entered: 11/28/2000)
69 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 11/27/00; The following actions were taken, Tele-conference held. Hrn set for 1/24/01 at 1pm. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 11/28/2000)
70 DECLARATION of NANCY MCNEIL on behalf of dfts in opposition Re: [65-1] motion to certify class action (SEALED) (eh) (Entered: 12/13/2000)
71 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by dfts re: opposition to [65-1] motion. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 12/14/2000)
72 CERTIFICATION of MARCIA ROBINSON LOWRY on behalf of pltfs in support Re: [65-1] motion to certify class action. (filed 1/8/1) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/09/2001)
73 CERTIFICATION of SUSAN LAMBIASE on behalf of pltfs in support Re: [65-1] motion to certify class action. (filed 1/8/1) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/09/2001)
74 CERTIFICATION of ERIC THOMPSON on behalf of pltfs in support Re: [65-1] motion to certify class action. (filed 1/8/1) (eh) (Entered: 01/09/2001)
Tele-conference held before Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 1/19/1. (eh) (Entered: 01/22/2001)
75 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 1/19/1; The following actions were taken, Tele-conference held. Hrn adj to 1/31/1 at 1pm. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/22/2001)
76 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 2/1/1; The following actions were taken under advisement: [65-1] motion to certify class action. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 02/02/2001)
77 CERTIFICATION of DONALD ANDERSON on behalf of pltfs in support RE: appl for OTSC. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/07/2001)
78 CERTIFICATION of RACHEL MERRILL on behalf of pltfs in support RE: appl for OTSC. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/23/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/07/2001)
79 AFFIDAVIT of IRA SCHWARTZ on behalf of pltfs in support RE: appl

03/07/2001 03/09/2001
03/09/2001 03/14/2001
03/16/2001 03/16/2001
03/19/2001 03/20/2001 03/20/2001
03/21/2001 03/21/2001
03/22/2001 03/22/2001
03/26/2001

for OTSC. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/07/2001)
80 CERTIFICATION of REGINALD JONES on behalf of pltfs in support RE: appl for OTSC. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/07/2001)
81 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Directing dfts Show Cause on 3/14/01 at 8:30am & 1pm why a preliminary injunction should not be entered; and setting certain response schedule. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) (Entered: 03/09/2001)
82 TRANSCRIPT of motion for TRO on 3/7/1 (eh) (Entered: 03/09/2001)
83 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 3/14/1; The following actions were taken, hrn re: OTSC. Adj to 3/16/1. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/15/2001)
84 TRANSCRIPT of hrn on 3/14/1. (eh) (Entered: 03/16/2001)
86 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 3/16/1; The following actions were taken, hrn re: OTSC. Adj to 3/20/1 at 1pm. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/19/2001)
85 TRANSCRIPT of motion heard on 2/1/1. (eh) (Entered: 03/19/2001)
87 TRANSCRIPT of motion hrn on 3/16/1. (eh) (Entered: 03/21/2001)
90 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 3/20/1; The following actions were taken, cont hrn re: OTSC. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/22/2001)
88 TRANSCRIPT of hrn on 3/20/1. (eh) (Entered: 03/21/2001)
89 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 3/21/1; The following actions were taken, continued hrn re: OTSC. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/22/2001)
91 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings taken on 3/21/1 (eh) (Entered: 03/22/2001)
92 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 3/22/1; The following actions were taken, cont hrn re: OTSC. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/23/2001)
93 TRANSCRIPT of Trial taken on 03/22/01 (SA) (Entered: 03/26/2001)

03/26/2001
03/27/2001 03/27/2001
03/27/2001
03/28/2001 03/28/2001
03/29/2001 03/29/2001
03/30/2001 03/30/2001 04/02/2001 04/03/2001 04/17/2001 05/08/2001
05/31/2001

95 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ECR: WRIGHT; Minutes of 3/26/01; This action taken: CONTINUED HEARING. (By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/27/2001)
94 TRANSCRIPT of Trial taken on 03/26/01 (SA) (Entered: 03/27/2001)
96 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ECR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 3/27/01; This action taken: CONTINUED HEARING (By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/27/2001)
99 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of 3/27/01; This action taken: Continued Hearing. (By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/30/2001)
97 TRANSCRIPT of Trial Proceedings taken on 03/27/01 (afternoon session) (SA) (Entered: 03/28/2001)
100 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of 3/28/01; This action taken: Continued Hearing. (By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/30/2001)
98 TRANSCRIPT of Trial taken on 03/28/01 (SA) (Entered: 03/29/2001)
104 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 3/29/1; The following actions were taken, cont hrn re: OTSC. Briefing schedule set. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 04/02/2001)
101 TRANSCRIPT of Trial taken on 03/28/01 (afternoon session) (SA) (Entered: 03/30/2001)
102 TRANSCRIPT of trial taken on 03/29/01 (SA) (Entered: 03/30/2001)
103 TRANSCRIPT of trial taken on 3/29/1. (eh) (Entered: 04/02/2001)
105 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings taken on 3/29/1 (eh) (Entered: 04/03/2001)
106 CERTIFICATION of CARMELA CANNISTRACCI, ESQ. for pltfs supporting unfiled application for injunction. (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 04/17/2001)
107 Minute entry: Proceedings NOT recorded; Minutes of 5/7/01; This action taken under advisement: [81-1] OTSC for preliminary injunction. (By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 05/08/2001)
108 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings taken on 9/24/99 (eh) (Entered:

06/06/2001 06/06/2001 06/06/2001 06/06/2001 06/06/2001 06/06/2001 06/06/2001 06/28/2001
06/28/2001
07/30/2001
07/30/2001
07/30/2001
07/30/2001
07/30/2001
07/30/2001

05/31/2001)
109 TRANSCRIPT of tele cnf on 2/8/00. (eh) (Entered: 06/06/2001)
110 TRANSCRIPT of tele cnf on 2/25/00. (eh) (Entered: 06/06/2001)
111 TRANSCRIPT of tele cnf on 5/18/00. (eh) (Entered: 06/06/2001)
112 TRANSCRIPT of tele cnf on 6/19/00. (eh) (Entered: 06/06/2001)
113 TRANSCRIPT of tele cnf on 6/29/00. (eh) (Entered: 06/06/2001)
114 TRANSCRIPT of tele cnf on 10/2/00. (eh) (Entered: 06/06/2001)
115 TRANSCRIPT of tele cnf on 10/18/00. (eh) (Entered: 06/06/2001)
116 MEMORANDUM OPINION (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 06/28/2001)
117 ORDER denying [65-1] motion to certify class action. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 06/28/2001)
118 Notice of Third Modified MOTION for class certification by pltfs. Motion set for 10:00 9/4/01 on [118-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/30/2001)
119 Notice of MOTION for Michael S. Schuster, Robert M. Kelly & Mark A. Berube to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. Motion set for 10:00 9/4/01 on [119-1] motion . (PO Subm) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/30/2001)
120 AFFIDAVIT of CARMELA CANNISTRACI on behalf of pltfs in support Re: [119-1] motion for Michael S. Schuster, Robert M. Kelly & Mark A. Berube to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/30/2001)
121 AFFIDAVIT of MICHAEL S. SHUSTER on behalf of pltfs in support Re: [119-1] motion for Michael S. Schuster, Robert M. Kelly & Mark A. Berube to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/30/2001)
122 AFFIDAVIT of ROBERT M. KELLY on behalf of pltfs in support Re: [119-1] motion for Michael S. Schuster, Robert M. Kelly & Mark A. Berube to appear pro vice for pltfs. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/30/2001)
123 AFFIDAVIT of MARK A. BERUBE on behalf of pltfs in support Re: [119-1] motion for Michael S. Schuster, Robert M. Kelly & Mark A. Berube to appear pro vice for pltfs. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on

08/10/2001 08/17/2001 09/05/2001 09/05/2001
09/06/2001 09/13/2001 09/13/2001 09/14/2001
09/28/2001 09/28/2001

6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/30/2001)
124 ORDER staying discovery pending determination of motion to certify class action & directing parties to prepare for Case Management Conf. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/10/2001)
125 SCHEDULING ORDER directing dfts to file response to the motion for class cert by 9/6/1; pltfs to reply by 9/17/1; and motion ret'ble 9/24/1 at 1pm. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/23/2001)
126 ORDER granting [119-1] motion for Michael S. Schuster, Robert M. Kelly & Mark A. Berube to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/05/2001)
127 Minute entry: Proceedings NOT recorded; Minutes of 9/5/01; This action taken: granting [119-1] motion for Michael S. Schuster, Robert M. Kelly & Mark A. Berube to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. (By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/06/2001)
128 DECLARATION of MARGARET A. ROVNER on behalf of dfts in opposition Re: [118-1] motion for class certification by pltfs. (SEALED) (eh) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
Tele-conference held before Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 9/13/1. (eh) (Entered: 09/14/2001)
129 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 9/13/1; The following actions were taken, Tele-conference held. Any reply to be subm by 9/19/01, etc. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/14/2001)
130 ORDER staying discovery pending the decision on [118-1] motion; directing parties to confer by 9/28/01 as to scope of discovery if class certification is not granted, and directing case management cnf. will be held within 30 days after decision on [118-1] motion . (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ij) Modified on 09/25/2001 Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/17/2001)
131 MEMORANDUM OPINION (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/28/2001)
132 ORDER denying pltf's motion & [81-1] OTSC for preliminary injunction. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/28/2001)

11/05/2001
11/13/2001 03/07/2002 03/07/2002 03/08/2002 03/14/2002 04/11/2002 04/19/2002
04/29/2002 06/26/2002 07/08/2002 07/17/2002 07/17/2002 07/24/2002

133 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct-Reporter: ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 11/5/1; The following actions were taken under advisement: [118-1] motion for class certification by pltfs. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 11/05/2001)
134 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings taken on 11/5/01. (eh) (Entered: 11/14/2001)
135 MEMORANDUM OPINION (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/07/2002)
136 ORDER granting [118-1] motion for class certification by pltfs. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/07/2002)
137 ORDER, set scheduling conference for 11:30 3/28/02 ( signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes ) (NM) (dg) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/08/2002)
Deadline updated; scheduling conference for 2:00 4/11/02 (dg) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
Scheduling conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 4/11/02. (ij) (Entered: 04/22/2002)
138 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Discovery cutoff 4/30/02; & setting case management cnf for 7/3/02. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (ij) Modified on 04/30/2002 Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 04/22/2002)
Deadline updated; status conference for 10:00 7/3/02 (dg) (Entered: 04/29/2002)
139 STIPULATION and ORDER, for confidentiality . (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (eh) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 06/28/2002)
Deadline updated; status conference for 10:00 7/17/02 (dg) (Entered: 07/08/2002)
Deadline updated; status conference for 2:00 1/15/03 (dg) (Entered: 07/17/2002)
140 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Proceedings taken on 7/3/02 before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes. (ij) (Entered: 07/19/2002)
141 ORDER directing Dfts to produce the original DYFS case files of the 500 members of the pltf classes, dfts to deliver selected files on rolling basis

09/19/2002 09/19/2002 10/01/2002 10/03/2002 10/25/2002 10/25/2002 11/08/2002 11/18/2002
11/19/2002 11/27/2002

for pltfs' review; liason to be appointed by parties to coordinate such deliveries and setting reading procedure. (signed by Judge JOHN J. HUGHES) (NM) (ij) Modified on 07/24/2002 Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/24/2002)
Status conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 9/17/02. (ij) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
142 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Status conference 2:00 1/15/03; (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (ij) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/19/2002)
143 ORDER directing defts produce "Medicaid information" under Confidentiality . (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 10/01/2002)
144 Notice of Intent to submit a Dispositive motion for judgment on the pleadings by dfts. (ij) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 10/09/2002)
145 Notice of MOTION for judgment on the pleadings dismissing pltfs' claim for educational services by dfts. Motion set for 10:00 11/18/02 on [144-1] notice & [145-1] motion . (Briefs/PO Subm) (ij) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 10/28/2002)
146 CERTIFICATION of MICHELE RENEE NANCE, ESQ. on behalf of dfts in opposition to: [145-1] motion for judgment on the pleadings. (ij) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/22/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 10/28/2002)
147 DECLARATION of CHARLES M. HART on behalf of CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, MICHELE K. GUHL, CHARLES VENTI in support of: [145-1] motion (ij) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 11/12/2002)
148 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by ESR: WRIGHT; Minutes of: 11/18/02; The following actions were taken: granting [145-1] motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing pltfs' claim for educational services. By Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. (ij) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 11/18/2002)
149 ORDER granting [145-1] motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing pltfs' claim for educational services. (signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr.) (NM) (ij) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 11/19/2002)
150 ORDER directing pltfs to produce to dft's a list containing the entire sample of 500 cases for review. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)

11/27/2002 11/27/2002
12/20/2002
01/02/2003 01/03/2003 01/03/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003
01/24/2003 01/24/2003 01/24/2003
01/24/2003

(NM) (ij) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 11/27/2002)
Scheduling conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 11/22/02. (ij) (Entered: 11/27/2002)
151 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Pretrial conference 10:00 8/15/03; Status conference 2:00 1/15/03; and setting schedule for service of certain reports. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (ij) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 11/27/2002)
152 ORDER reassigning case from Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr to Judge Stanley R. Chesler. (signed by Chief Judge John W. Bissell) (NM) (ij) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 12/27/2002)
153 CLERK'S ORDER, setting telephone conference for 9:30 1/15/03 (NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/03/2003)
Tele-conference held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 12/23/02. (SA) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
154 ORDER, granting defts.' request to quash certain deposition notices (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (SA) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/03/2003)
Deadline updated; settlement conference for 11:00 2/14/03 (dg) (Entered: 01/24/2003)
155 Notice of MOTION for PAMELA J. DAVIS, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. [155-1] motion referred to Mag. Judge John J. Hughes, Motion set for 10:00 2/18/03 on [155-1] motion . (PO Subm) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)
156 AFFIDAVIT of PAMELA J. DAVIS supporting [155-1] motion for PAMELA J. DAVIS, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)
157 AFFIDAVIT of MICHELE RENEE NANCE supporting [155-1] for PAMELA J. DAVIS, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)
158 Notice of MOTION to compel discovery by pltfs. [158-1] motion referred to Mag. Judge John J. Hughes, Motion set for 10:00 2/18/03 on [158-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)
159 CERTIFICATION of MICHELE RENEE NANCE, ESQ. supporting [1581] motion to compel discovery by pltfs. (ss) Additional attachment(s)

01/24/2003
01/24/2003 01/27/2003 01/27/2003 01/27/2003 02/03/2003 02/06/2003 02/06/2003 02/06/2003 02/11/2003 02/20/2003 02/26/2003

added on 6/27/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/27/2003)
160 Notice of MOTION by dfts. for protective order of certain files and records of DYFS obtained by pltfs. in discovery [160-1] motion referred to Mag. Judge John J. Hughes, Motion set for 10:00 2/18/03 on [160-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/28/2003)
161 DECLARATION of CHARLES M. HART supporting [160-1] motion by dfts. for protective order of certain files and records of DYFS obtained by pltfs. in discovery (SEALED) (ss) (Entered: 01/28/2003)
162 Notice of MOTION to intervene by NEW YORK TIMES CO Motion set for 10:00 2/18/03 on [162-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/28/2003)
163 DECLARATION of BRUCE S. ROSEN supporting [162-1] motion to intervene by NEW YORK TIMES CO (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/27/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/28/2003)
164 DECLARATION of LESLIE KAUFMAN supporting [162-1] motion to intervene by NEW YORK TIMES CO (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/27/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 01/28/2003)
Deadline updated; status conference for 3:00 3/3/03 (dg) (Entered: 02/03/2003)
Status conference call held before Mag. Judge John J. Hughes on 1/15/03. (ss) (Entered: 02/06/2003)
165 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Settlement conference 11:00 2/14/03 and setting date for certain proposals (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 02/06/2003)
166 ORDER granting [155-1] motion for PAMELA J. DAVIS, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 02/06/2003)
167 DECLARATION of RAYMOND WOLFINGER for defts opposing [1621] motion to intervene by NEW YORK TIMES CO. (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 02/19/2003)
168 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of BRUCE S. ROSEN, ESQ. supporting [162-1] motion to intervene by NEW YORK TIMES CO (ss) Modified on 02/25/2003 Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 02/24/2003)
169 LETTER REQUEST and ORDER, permitting DONALD A. ROBINSON

02/27/2003 02/27/2003 03/03/2003 03/04/2003 03/05/2003 03/14/2003 03/17/2003 03/17/2003
03/20/2003

to be heard on behalf of the STAR-LEDGER at the hearing of 3/3/03 (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 02/26/2003)
170 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER setting Final Pretrial conference 10:00 8/15/03; Pretrial order to be submitted on or before 8/13/03 and setting dates for certain reports (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 02/27/2003)
171 ORDER referring case to Mediation (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(nm) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 02/27/2003)
173 Minute entry: Proceeding NOT recorded; Minutes of 3/3/03; These actions GRANTED: [155-1] motion for PAMELA J. DAVIS, ESQ. to appear pro hac vice for pltfs. and [158-1] motion to compel discovery. (By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/06/2003)
172 ORDER granting [162-1] motion to intervene by NEW YORK TIMES CO and granting application by NEWARK MORNING LEDGER to intervene for purposes of being heard on certan issues (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/04/2003)
Deadline updated; status conference for 10:30 3/14/03 (dg) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
174 ORDER granting [158-1] motion to compel discovery by pltfs., and compelling defts. to provide access to certain DYFS employees for deposition by 4/15/03 (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ss) (Entered: 03/14/2003)
177 Minute entry: Proceedings not reported.; Minutes of: 3/17/03; The following actions were taken, granting in part, denying in part [162-1] motion to intervene by NEW YORK TIMES CO. (By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (DS) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/24/2003)
178 Minute entry: Proceedings not reported; Minutes of: 3/17/03; The following actions were taken, granting in part, denying in part [160-1] motion by dfts for protective order of certain files and records of DYFS obtained by pltfs in discovery. (By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (DS) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/24/2003)
175 Memorandum Opinion (by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(nm) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered:

03/20/2003 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 04/14/2003
04/24/2003 05/05/2003 05/09/2003 05/12/2003 06/02/2003 06/09/2003

03/24/2003)
176 ORDER granting [162-1] motion to intervene by NEW YORK TIMES CO and modifying certain Confidentiality Orders( signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes ) (NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 03/24/2003)
179 ORDER, amending [175-1] memorandum (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 04/01/2003)
180 Memorandum Opinion for Publication (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(nm) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 04/01/2003)
181 ORDER, substituting dfts. JAMES E. MCGREEVEY, GWENDOLYN L. HARRIS and DORIS JONES for dfts. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, MICHELE K. GUHL and CHARLES VENTI and, dismissing pltfs. RYAN, CHRISTOPHER, MELISSSA H., RICKY, DANIEL, THOMAS M., JASON, JENNIFER, PATTI W., DOLORES, ANA G., KYLE J., BARRY M., and SHARON K. from the docket and amending caption to reflect change ( signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes ) (NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 04/14/2003)
182 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER setting Pretrial conference 2:00 9/16/03; Pretrial order to be submitted on or before 9/12/03 and setting dates for certain reports (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes)(NM) (ss) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
Deadline updated; telephone conference for 2:30 5/6/03 (dg) (Entered: 05/05/2003)
183 Notice of MOTION to modify certain order by NEW YORK TIMES CO. [183-1] motion referred to Mag. Judge John J. Hughes, Motion set for 6/2/03 on [183-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 05/13/2003)
184 Notice of MOTION to join [183-1] motion by NEWARK MORNING. [184-1] motion referred to Mag. Judge John J. Hughes, Motion set for 6/2/03 on [184-1] motion . (PO) (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 05/13/2003)
185 ORDER, extending time to submit certain report by 6/20/03 (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 06/02/2003)
189 ORDER granting [184-1] motion to join [183-1] motion by intervenor Newark Morning Ledger ( signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes ) (NM)

06/16/2003 06/16/2003 06/16/2003
06/16/2003 06/27/2003 07/11/2003 07/18/2003 07/21/2003
08/20/2003

(ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 06/16/2003)
186 Minute entry: Proceedings not recorded by Ct-Reporter: ; Minutes of: 6/2/03; The following actions were taken, granting [184-1] motion to join [183-1] motion By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes (ss) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
187 Minute entry: Proceedings recorded by Ct-Reporter: GLYNN; Minutes of: 6/9/03; The following actions were taken, [183-1] motion to modify certain order taken under advisement By Mag. Judge John J. Hughes (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 06/16/2003)
188 AMENDED ORDER granting [183-1] motion to modify certain order by NEW YORK TIMES and NEWARK STAR LEDGER and permitting release of certain redacted information; denying all other requests for DYFS information. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ss) Modified on 06/17/2003 Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 06/16/2003)
190 ORDER, for supplemental protective order (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 06/16/2003)
191 ORDER modifying Confidentiality Orders & setting certain conditions. (signed by Mag. Judge John J. Hughes) (NM) (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 06/27/2003)
192 Notice of JOINT MOTION for preliminary approval of settlement , and for order directing distribution of notice of proposed settlement agreement by all parties. Motion set for 9/2/03 on [192-1] motion, set for 9/2/03 on [192-2] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (DS) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/16/2003)
193 ORDER approving distribution of Notice of Proposed settlement (signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler) (NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/18/2003)
194 ORDER granting joint motion [192-1] motion for preliminary approval of settlement and granting [192-2] motion for order directing distribution of notice of proposed settlement agreement by all parties; setting dates for submissions of supporting pleadings for Motion for final approval of Settlement Agreement and setting hearing date to discuss if Settlement Agreement is fair . ( signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler ) (NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 07/22/2003)
195 LETTER from non-party, COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL ADVOCATES OF NEW JERSEY, INC. supporting certain Settlement

08/22/2003 08/22/2003 08/22/2003 09/02/2003 09/02/2003 09/08/2003 10/31/2003
02/26/2004
02/26/2004 02/26/2004 03/10/2004

Agreement filed 8/15/03. (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/20/2003)
196 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of pltfs. Memo in support of joint motion for final approval of settlement agreement (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/25/2003)
197 Notice of JOINT MOTION for final approval of settlement . Motion set for 10/6/03 on [197-1] motion . (Brief/PO Subm) (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/29/2003)
198 DECLARATION of CHARLES M. HART for defts supporting [197-1] motion for final approval of settlement. (ms) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 08/29/2003)
199 NOTICE and ORDER of SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler) (NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 1/19/2005 (DH, ). (Entered: 09/02/2003)
200 ORDER granting [197-1] motion for final approval of settlement (signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler) (NM) (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 09/02/2003)
201 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings taken on 9/2/03 (ss) (Entered: 09/10/2003)
202 Minute entry: Proceedings not recorded; Minutes of: 10/31/03; The following actions were taken, granting [192-1] motion for preliminary approval of settlement, granting [192-2] motion for order directing distribution of notice of proposed settlement agreement by all parties., By Judge Stanley R. Chesler (ss) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/26/2006 (mc, ). (Entered: 11/03/2003)
203 MOTION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem by pltfs. CHARLIE H., NADINE H.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in support# 2 proposed order# 3 certification of service) (PLEASE BE ADVISED MOTION TO BE HEARD ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE COURT)(ss, ) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
Set date as to 203 MOTION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem. Motion set for 4/5/2004 - before Judge Stanley R. Chesler. (PLEASE BE ADVISED MOTION TO BE HEARD ON THE PAPERS UNLESS DIRECTED BY THE COURT) (ss, ) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
204 Certification of JASON E. HALPER on behalf of CHARLIE H., NADINE H. supporting 203 Motion to Appoint Guardian ad Litem,. (Attachments: # 1part II of certification)(ss, ) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
Motions No Longer Referred: 203 MOTION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem (dg, ) (Entered: 03/10/2004)

03/22/2004 03/29/2004
04/05/2004 04/07/2004 09/27/2004
09/28/2004 10/07/2004 10/07/2004 11/05/2004 12/15/2004

206 BRIEF in Opposition to 203 MOTION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem filed by GWENDOLYN L. HARRIS, DORIS JONES, JAMES E. MCGREEVEY. (SA, ) (Entered: 04/02/2004)
205 REPLY to Response to Motion re 203 MOTION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem filed by JUAN C., MARCO C., ANNA G., DOLORES G., CHARLIE H., CHRISTOPHER H., MELISSA H., NADINE H., RYAN H., KYLE J., SHARON K., BARRY M., DANIEL M., DENNIS M., RICKY M., THOMAS M., RICARDO O., DENISE R., JASON W., JENNIFER W., PATTI W.. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Kevin Ryan# 2 Proposed Order# 3 Certification of Service)(HALPER, JASON) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
207 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler : Motion Hearing held on 4/5/2004 re 203 MOTION to Appoint Guardian ad Litem filed by CHARLIE H., NADINE H.. (Court Reporter J. Kashmer.) (DS) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
208 ORDER denying pltfs. 203 Motion to Appoint guardian ad Litem . Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 4/5/04. (ss, ) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
209 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses by JUAN C., MARCO C., CHARLIE H., NADINE H., DENNIS M., RICARDO O., DENISE R.. (Attachments: # 1 Brief# 2 Certification of Marcia Robinson Lowry, Part I# 3 Certification of Marcia Robinson Lowry, Part II# 4 Certification of Marcia Robinson Lowry, Part III# 5 Proposed Order# 6 Legal Notice of Approval of Fees# 7 Proposed Order# 8 Certification of Service)(HALPER, JASON) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
Set Deadlines as to 209 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses. Motion set for 11/1/2004 - before Judge Stanley R. Chesler. (PLEASE BE ADVISED MOTION TO BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE COURT) (ss, ) (Entered: 09/28/2004)
210 ORDER approving & directing distribution of certain notice. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 10/5/04. (ms) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
211 ORDER re: Notice; directing any objection be filed by 11/1/04. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 10/5/04. (ms) (Entered: 10/07/2004)
212 ORDER granting 209 Motion for Attorney Fees and entering partial final judgment in favor of pltfs. CHARLIE AND NADINE H. against dft. JAMES E. MCGREEVEY in the sum of $150,000.00 Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 11/1/2004. (ss, ) (Entered: 11/12/2004)
213 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler : Miscellaneous Hearing held on 12/15/2004. (Court Reporter J. KASHMER.) (DS) (Entered: 12/16/2004)

03/30/2005 10/06/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/18/2005 10/25/2005 10/26/2005
10/26/2005 10/26/2005 10/26/2005 10/26/2005

214 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler : Status hearing Hearing held on 3/30/2005. (Court Reporter J. KASHMER.) (DS) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
215 LETTER ORDER re: Hearing date as to progress made of implementing the Settlement Agreement set for 10/11/05 @ 11:00 A.M. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 10/03/2005. (ss, ) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
216 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler : Status hearing held on 10/11/2005. (Court Reporter J. KASHMER.) (DS) Modified on 10/18/2005 (DS). (Entered: 10/18/2005)
217 Certification of TARA S. CREAN on behalf of RICARDO O., CHARLIE H., NADINE H., DENNIS M., DENISE R., MARCO C., JUAN C. in support of pro hac vice application. (ss, ) (Entered: 10/19/2005)
218 CONSENT ORDER granting Pro Hac Vice admission of Tara S. Crean, Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 10/17/05 (DH) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
219 Certification of Francine Vlantes in support of pltf's application for admission pro hac vice of Tara S. Crean (DH) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
Pro Hac Vice fee: as to Tara S. Crean (Children Rights, Inc.) $ 150, receipt number 332279 (cs, ) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
220 PROPOSED INTERVENOR COMPLAINT, filed by COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Part two)(PINARSKI, ANNMARIE) Modified on 10/31/2005 to show this is a PROPOSED INTERVENOR COMPLAINT, which should have been attached to 221 Motion for Leave to Intervene. See CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE on 10/31/05 for further information. (ms). (Entered: 10/26/2005)
221 MOTION to Intervene by COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit In support of motion# 2 # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(PINARSKI, ANNMARIE) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
222 Certification on behalf of COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO Re 221 Motion to Intervene. (PINARSKI, ANNMARIE) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
223 Certification on behalf of COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO Re 221 Motion to Intervene. (PINARSKI, ANNMARIE) (Entered: 10/26/2005)
224 MOTION to Intervene by COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(PINARSKI, ANNMARIE) (Entered: 10/26/2005)

10/27/2005 10/28/2005 10/31/2005
10/31/2005 10/31/2005

225 AFFIDAVIT re 221 MOTION to Intervene, 224 MOTION to Intervene by COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix # 2 Appendix # 3 Appendix)(PINARSKI, ANNMARIE) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
226 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 10/11/2005 before Judge Chesler. Court Reporter: Kashmer. PLEASE NOTE: The complete transcript of these proceedings is maintained in paper format on file in the Clerks Office. To request copies of this transcript, contact the Official Court Reporter or Transcription Service who prepared the transcript. (ss) Modified on 12/15/2005 to show Proceedings held on 10/11/05 not 10/28/2005. (ms). (Entered: 11/09/2005)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE:. ANMARIE PINARSKI, ESQ. filed 220 Intervenor Complaint for COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, and then filed 221 Motion for leave to Intervene. Counsel should not have filed the Intervenor Complaint, but should have attached it the Motion pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(e)(2). Counsel is also advised a party is not an Intervenor until the Court grants the motion, until then the parties are to be listed as MOVANTS. The Clerk's Office has corrected the party role of COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO. The Clerk?s Office has also modified the Intervenor Complaint to read that is it a PROPOSED INTERVENOR COMPLAINT. If the Court grants the Motion to Intervene counsel will have to re-file the Intervenor Complaint and if they are adding new defendants, same must be ADDED AS Intervenor Defendants in UPPER CASE LETTERS pursuant to the Policies and Procedures of this Court. For further information on how to Add New Parties see our User Guide, presently pages 32 thru 35, on our website, www.njd.uscourts.gov. PLEASE NOTE, if the motion is granted the clerk?s office will change the role of COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO to Intervenor Plainitff. This message is for informational purposes only. It will remain on the docket unless otherwise Ordered by the Court. (ms) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE:. ANMARIE PINARSKI, ESQ. filed 224 Motion for leave to Intervene on behalf of the Movant, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO. This I not a Motion, but a Proposed Order that should have been filed as an Attachment to document 221 , the actual Motion to Intervene. Document 224 has been terminated. This message is for informational purposes only. It will remain on the docket unless otherwise Ordered by the Court. (ms) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
Set Deadlines as to 221 MOTION to Intervene. Motion set for 12/5/2005 before Magistrate Judge John J. Hughes. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO

11/01/2005 11/15/2005 11/15/2005 11/17/2005 11/17/2005 11/18/2005
11/18/2005
11/21/2005 11/23/2005

ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.) (ms) Modified on 11/1/2005 to reflect correct Magistrate Judge. (ms). (Entered: 10/31/2005)
Reset assignment as to 221 MOTION to Intervene. Motion (Return Date) set for 12/5/2005 before Judge Stanley R. Chesler. (dg, ) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
227 NOTICE of Appearance by PATRICIA A. CULLEN on behalf of all plaintiffs (CULLEN, PATRICIA) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
228 NOTICE of Appearance by MARION B JOHNSON on behalf of all plaintiffs (JOHNSON, MARION) (Entered: 11/15/2005)
229 MOTION for Leave to Appear Amicus Curiae by COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support# 2Text of Proposed Order # 3 Certificate of Service # 4 Certification in Support)(PINARSKI, ANNMARIE) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
230 Certification of Hetty Rosenstein on behalf of COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO Re 229 Appear Amicus Curiae. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit)(PINARSKI, ANNMARIE) (Entered: 11/17/2005)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: Document 229 MOTION for leave to appear by Annmarie Pinarski, Esq. filed 11/17/05 regarding the attachment #4 CERTIFICATION IN SUPPORT can not be s/ by M. Catherine Danatos. Counsel is advised, pursuant to the Policies and Procedures of this Court, the e-filer is the attorney that can use the s/ as a proper signature all others must actually sign the document. COUNSEL MUST RESUBMIT THE CERTIFICATION IN SUPPORT of M. CATHERINE DANATOS BY 11/23/05. This message is for informational purposes only. (lk) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
Set Deadlines as to 229 MOTION for Leave to Appear Amicus Curiae. Motion Hearing set for 12/19/2005 before Magistrate Judge John J. Hughes. (PLEASE NOTE THAT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1(B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT.)(lk) (Entered: 11/18/2005)
231 ORDER withdrawing 221 Motion to Intervene . Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 11/21/05. (ck) (Entered: 11/21/2005)
232 Certification on behalf of COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO Re 229 Appear Amicus Curiae, Docket

12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/01/2005
12/01/2005 12/01/2005 12/02/2005

Annotation,,. (PINARSKI, ANNMARIE) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
233 Substitution of Attorney - Attorney PATRICIA A. CULLEN and PATRICIA A. CULLEN for RICARDO O. and CHARLIE H. added. Attorney JASON E. HALPER and DAVID L. HARRIS terminated.. (CULLEN, PATRICIA) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
234 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT and Noncompliance with Consent Decree by RICARDO O., CHARLIE H., NADINE H., DENNIS M., DENISE R., MARCO C., JUAN C.. (CULLEN, PATRICIA) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
235 BRIEF in Support re 234 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT and Noncompliance with Consent Decree filed by RICARDO O., CHARLIE H., NADINE H., DENNIS M., DENISE R., MARCO C., JUAN C.. (CULLEN, PATRICIA) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
236 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 234 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT and Noncompliance with Consent Decree (Cullen Affidavit) filed by RICARDO O., CHARLIE H., NADINE H., DENNIS M., DENISE R., MARCO C., JUAN C.. (CULLEN, PATRICIA) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
237 AFFIDAVIT in Support re 234 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT and Noncompliance with Consent Decree (Lambiase Cert with Exhibits 1-23) filed by RICARDO O., CHARLIE H., NADINE H., DENNIS M., DENISE R., MARCO C., JUAN C.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhs 1-3 to Lambiase Cert# 2 Exhibit Exh 4 to Lambiase Cert# 3 Exhibit Exhs 5-6 to Lambiase Cert# 4 Exhibit Exhs 7-9 to Lambiase Cert# 5 Exhibit Exhs 10-11 to Lambiase Cert# 6 Exhibit Exhs 12-18 to Lambiase Cert# 7 Exhibit Exhs 19-21 to Lambiase Cert# 8 Errata Exhs 22-23 to Lambiase Cert)(CULLEN, PATRICIA) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
238 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT re 234 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT and Noncompliance with Consent DecreePROPOSED FORM OF ORDER by RICARDO O., CHARLIE H., NADINE H., DENNIS M., DENISE R., MARCO C., JUAN C.. (CULLEN, PATRICIA) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
239 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by RICARDO O., CHARLIE H., NADINE H., DENNIS M., DENISE R., MARCO C., JUAN C. re 234 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT and Noncompliance with Consent Decree (CULLEN, PATRICIA) (Entered: 12/01/2005)
Set Deadlines as to 234 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT and Noncompliance with Consent Decree. Motion set for 1/3/2006 - before Judge Stanley R. Chesler. (PLEASE NOTE THAT

12/02/2005
12/05/2005 12/05/2005 12/06/2005 12/06/2005 12/13/2005 12/13/2005 12/20/2005

PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 78 AND LOCAL RULE 7.1 (B)(4), NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE HELD IN THIS MATTER AND PARTIES SHOULD NOT APPEAR UNLESS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO DO SO BY THE COURT) (ss, ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
CLERKS OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - The # 238 PROPOSED ORDER submitted by P. CULLEN on 12/01/2005 must be executed by a Judicial Officer before filing. Please forward to the appropriate Judicial Officer in accordance with his/her preferred practice. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. This message is for informational purposes only. (ss, ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
240 BRIEF in Opposition re 229 MOTION for Leave to Appear Amicus Curiae filed by CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, MICHELE K. GUHL, JAMES E. MCGREEVEY, GWENDOLYN L. HARRIS. (WOOD, MARY) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
241 BRIEF in Support re 229 MOTION for Leave to Appear Amicus Curiae filed by RICARDO O., CHARLIE H., NADINE H., DENNIS M., DENISE R., MARCO C., JUAN C.. (CULLEN, PATRICIA) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
242 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 9/2/2005 before Judge Chesler. Court Reporter: Kashmer. PLEASE NOTE: The complete transcript of these proceedings is maintained in paper format on file in the Clerks Office. To request copies of this transcript, contact the Official Court Reporter or Transcription Service who prepared the transcript. (ss, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
243 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 10/11/2005 before Judge Chesler. Court Reporter: Kashmer. PLEASE NOTE: The complete transcript of these proceedings is maintained in paper format on file in the Clerks Office. To request copies of this transcript, contact the Official Court Reporter or Transcription Service who prepared the transcript. (ss, ) (Entered: 12/08/2005)
244 AMENDED DOCUMENT by RICARDO O., CHARLIE H., NADINE H., DENNIS M., DENISE R., MARCO C., JUAN C.. Amendment to 237Affidavit in Support of Motion,, (Amended Exhibit 9 to Lambiase Certification). (CULLEN, PATRICIA) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
Motions No Longer Referred: 229 MOTION for Leave to Appear Amicus Curiae, 234 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT and Noncompliance with Consent Decree (dg, ) (Entered: 12/13/2005)
245 Letter from Howard J. McCoach, AAG. (JORDAN, KAREN) (Entered: 12/20/2005)

12/20/2005 12/22/2005 12/23/2005 12/23/2005
12/23/2005
01/04/2006 01/09/2006

247 ORDER resetting deadline date for reply brief from pltf. from 1/4/2006 to 1/11/2006 Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 12/20/2005. (ss, ) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
246 OPINION and ORDER granting in part and denying in part 229 Motion to Appear Amicus Curiae Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 12/22/2005. (ss, ) (Entered: 12/22/2005)
248 NOTICE of Appearance by HOWARD J. MCCOACH on behalf of JAMES E. MCGREEVEY, GWENDOLYN L. HARRIS, DORIS JONES (MCCOACH, HOWARD) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
249 BRIEF in Opposition re 234 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT and Noncompliance with Consent Decree filed by CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, MICHELE K. GUHL, CHARLES VENTI, JAMES E. MCGREEVEY, GWENDOLYN L. HARRIS, DORIS JONES. (Attachments: # 1Affidavit of Gerald Suozzo# 2 Exhibit A to F of the Affidavit of Gerald Suozzo# 3 Affidavit of Kathryn Way# 4 Exhibit A to J to the Affidavit of Kathryn Way# 5 Exhibit K Part I to the Affidavit of Kathryn Way# 6 Exhibit K Part II and L to the Affidavit of Kathryn Way# 7 Exhibit M to the Affidavit of Kathryn Way# 8 Exhibit N to W to the Affidavit of Kathryn Way# 9 Exhibit X to BB to the Affidavit of Kathryn Way# 10 Exhibit CC to the Affidavit of Kathryn Way# 11 Exhibit DD to FF to the Affidavit of Kathryn Way# 12 Certification of Stefanie A. Brand# 13 Exhibit 1 to 5 to the Certification of Stefanie A. Brand# 14 Certificate of Service)(BRAND, STEFANIE) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
250 BRIEF in Opposition re 234 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT and Noncompliance with Consent Decree filed by CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN, MICHELE K. GUHL, CHARLES VENTI, JAMES E. MCGREEVEY, GWENDOLYN L. HARRIS. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of Kathryn Way# 2 Exhibit A-J to Way Affidavit# 3 Exhibit K Part I to Way Affidavit# 4 Exhibit K Part II to L of Way Affidavit# 5 Exhibit M to Way Affidavit# 6Exhibit N to W of Way Affidavit# 7 Exhibit X to BB of Way Affidavit# 8 Exhibit CC to Way Affidavit# 9 Exhibit DD to FF of Way Affidavit# 10Affidavit of Gerald Suozzo# 11 Exhibit A to F of Suozzo Affidavit# 12 Certification of Stefanie A. Brand# 13 Exhibit 1 to 5 of Brand Affidavit# 14Certificate of Service)(BRAND, STEFANIE) (Entered: 12/23/2005)
251 ORDER granting CWA's request for an extension of time to file their amicus brief to and including 1/18/2006 and all parties have until 1/30/2006 to file responses Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 1/3/2006. (ss, ) (Entered: 01/04/2006)
252 ORDER granting pltfs leave to exceed page limitation on certain brief. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 1/9/06 (ij, ) Modified on 1/9/2006

01/09/2006 01/11/2006 01/11/2006 01/11/2006 01/18/2006 01/18/2006 01/19/2006
01/19/2006 01/25/2006 04/03/2006 04/18/2006

(ij, ). (Entered: 01/09/2006)
CLERK'S OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE: The 252 Notice was incorrectly filed as a Notice but is actually an Order. (ij, ) (Entered: 01/09/2006)
253 RESPONSE in Support re 234 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT and Noncompliance with Consent Decree (Reply Brief) filed by RICARDO O., CHARLIE H., NADINE H., DENNIS M., DENISE R., MARCO C., JUAN C.. (CULLEN, PATRICIA) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
254 Certification of Susan Lambiase II on behalf of RICARDO O., CHARLIE H., NADINE H., DENNIS M., DENISE R., MARCO C., JUAN C. Re 253Response in Support of Motion. (CULLEN, PATRICIA) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
255 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by RICARDO O., CHARLIE H., NADINE H., DENNIS M., DENISE R., MARCO C., JUAN C. re 253 Response in Support of Motion (CULLEN, PATRICIA) (Entered: 01/11/2006)
256 BRIEF filed by COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFLCIO. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service Certificate of Service)(PINARSKI, ANNMARIE) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
257 AFFIDAVIT of Hetty Rosenstein re 256 Brief by COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit #3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 Exhibit)(PINARSKI, ANNMARIE) (Entered: 01/18/2006)
CLERKS OFFICE QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - The #256 LETTER filed by A. PINARSKI on 1/18/2006 was submitted incorrectly as a BRIEF. PLEASE RESUBMIT THE LETTER BY 1/24/2006 USING LETTER. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. This message is for informational purposes only. (ss, ) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
258 Letter. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(PINARSKI, ANNMARIE) (Entered: 01/19/2006)
259 ORDER continuing # 234 Motion to Hold Defendants in Contempt and Noncompliance with Consent Decree Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 1/25/2006. (ss, ) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
260 LETTER SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 4/18/2006 02:00 AM in Trenton - Courtroom 5E before Judge Stanley R. Chesler Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 4/3/2006. (ss, ) (Entered: 04/03/2006)
261 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler : Status Conference HEARING held on 4/18/2006. (Court Reporter J.

05/16/2006 07/06/2006 07/18/2006
07/27/2006 02/09/2007
02/13/2007 02/16/2007 02/23/2007 02/26/2007

KASHMER.) (DS) (Entered: 04/28/2006)
262 LETTER REQUEST and ORDER extending stay of pltf's. motion for contempt to 6/12/2006 Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 5/16/2006. (ss, ) (Entered: 05/16/2006)
263 ORDER reallocating civil action from TRENTON to NEWARK and remain assigned to JUDGE STANLEY R. CHESLER. Signed by Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. on 7/5/06. (ck, ) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
265 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler : Motion Hearing held on 7/18/2006 re 238 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT re 234 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT and Noncompliance with Consent Decree PROPOSED FORM OF ORDER filed by CHARLIE H., NADINE H., DENNIS M.,DENISE R., MARCO C., JUAN C.,RICARDO O., 234 MOTION to hold Defendants IN CONTEMPT and Noncompliance with Consent Decree filed by CHARLIE H., NADINE H.,DENNIS M., DENISE R., MARCO C., JUAN C., RICARDO O. (Court Reporter Ira Rubenstein.) (DS, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/27/2006 (DS, ). (Entered: 07/27/2006)
264 ORDER & MODIFIED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT . Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 07/18/06. (nr, ) (Entered: 07/27/2006)
266 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by CHARLIE H., NADINE H.. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Marion B. Johnson in Support of Application of Counsel to Appear Pro Hac Vice# 2 Certification of Jeremiah Frei-Pearson in Support of Application of Counsel to Appearl Pro Hac Vice#3 Certificate of Service # 4 Text of Proposed Order)(JOHNSON, MARION) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
Set Deadlines as to 266 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Motion Hearing set for 3/12/2007 10:00 AM before Judge Stanley R. Chesler. (nr, ) (PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS MOTION WILL BE DECIDED ON THE PAPERS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTIFIED BY THE COURT) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
267 ORDER granting 266 Motion for Jeremiah Frei-Pearson to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 02/15/2007. (nr, ) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
278 Monitoring report (July 2006 through December 31, 2006) (mn, ) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
268 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler : Status Conference held on 2/26/2007. MONITOR'S REPORT PLACED ON THE RECORD. (Court Reporter KASHMER.) (tt, ) (Entered: 02/26/2007)

03/05/2007 04/02/2007
09/27/2007 09/27/2007 10/19/2007 10/25/2007 10/29/2007 04/10/2008 04/16/2008
04/16/2008
04/16/2008 06/25/2008
10/24/2008

Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number 200344085 re Jeremiah FreiPearson (nr, ) (Entered: 03/06/2007)
269 ORDER withdrawing the appearance of the following individuals pursuant to L.Civ. R. 102.1: (1) Shirim Nothenberg; (2) Eric Thompson; and (3) Tara S. Crean. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 4/2/07. (nc, ) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference ON THE RECORD set for 10/25/2007 01:00 PM before Judge Stanley R. Chesler. (tt, ) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 10/25/2007 02:00 PM-TIME CHANGE- before Judge Stanley R. Chesler. (tt, ) (Entered: 09/27/2007)
279 Monitoring Report (January 1-June 30, 2007) (mn, ) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
270 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler : Status Conference held on 10/25/2007-Monitor's Report placed on the record. (Court Reporter KASHMER.) (tt, ) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
Judge Michael A. Shipp added. Judge Claire C. Cecchi no longer assigned to case. (cs, ) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status/Settlement/Hearing Conference set for 4/16/2008 10:00 AM before Judge Stanley R. Chesler. (tt, ) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
271 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status Conference held on 4/16/2008-Court-appointed Monitor placed statements on the record regarding progress. (Court Reporter KASHMER.) (tt, ) (Entered: 04/16/2008)
272 Substitution of Attorney - Attorney LAUREN F. CARLTON for JAMES E. MCGREEVEY, GWENDOLYN L. HARRIS and DORIS JONES added. Attorney STEFANIE A. BRAND terminated.. (nr, ) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
280 Monitoring Report (July 1-December 31, 2007) (mn, ) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
273 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4/16/08 before Judge Chesler. Court Reporter: Jacqueline Kashmer. PLEASE NOTE: The complete transcript of these proceedings is maintained in paper format on file in the Clerks Office. To request copies of this transcript, contact the Official Court Reporter or Transcription Service who prepared the transcript. (jgb) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
281 Monitoring Report (January 1-June 30, 2008) (mn, ) (Entered: 05/24/2010)

10/30/2008 02/27/2009 04/27/2009 12/02/2009 12/03/2009 12/22/2009 01/07/2010 02/19/2010
05/26/2010 06/01/2010

274 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status Conference held on 10/30/2008. Monitor's Findings placed on tape (CD #10:00.0 to 10:45.26 FALK.) (tt, ) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
282 Monitoring Report (July 1-December 31, 2008) (mn, ) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
275 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status Conference held on 4/27/2009. Monitor's Report placed on the record. (Court Reporter/Recorder KASHMER.) (tt, ) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference regarding MONITOR'S REPORT ON THE RECORD set for 1/4/2010 12:00 PM before Judge Stanley R. Chesler. (tt, ) (Entered: 12/02/2009)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference Monitor's Report on the record set for 1/7/2010 11:00 AM before Judge Stanley R. Chesler. (tt, ) (Entered: 12/03/2009)
283 Monitoring Report (January 1-June 30, 2009) (Attachments: # 1 Appendix-E) (mn, ) (Entered: 05/24/2010)
276 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status Conference held on 1/7/2010. MONITOR'S REPORT PLACED ON THE RECORD (Court Reporter/Recorder KASHMER.) (tt, ) (Entered: 01/07/2010)
277 Transcript of Proceedings held on January 7, 2010, before Judge Chesler. Court Reporter/Transcriber Jacqueline Kashmer, Telephone number 908229-6496. Tape Number: Monitor's Report. NOTICE REGARDING REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this Transcript. If no such notice is filed, the transcript will be made remotely available in electronic format to the public without redaction after ninety(90) calendar days. The redaction policy is located on our website at www.njd.uscourts.gov. Transcripts 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 3/12/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/22/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/20/2010. (ji, ) (Entered: 02/19/2010)
284 Letter from Marion Johnson. (JOHNSON, MARION) (Entered: 05/26/2010)
285 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status Conference held on 6/1/2010 MONITOR'S REPORT READ INTO THE RECORD (Court Reporter/Recorder KASHMER.) (tt, ) (Entered: 06/01/2010)

06/14/2010 12/13/2010 12/16/2010 12/16/2010 12/20/2010 03/16/2011 06/13/2011 09/28/2011 09/29/2011
09/30/2011 11/15/2011 12/14/2011

286 Monitoring Report for July1-December 31, 2009 (mn, ) (Entered: 06/14/2010)
287 APPLICATION/PETITION for Amend and Correct Caption and Docket for by NADINE H.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(JOHNSON, MARION) (Entered: 12/13/2010)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status Conference held on 12/16/2010. MONITOR'S REPORT PLACED ON THE RECORD. (Court Reporter/Recorder KASHMER.) (tt, ) (Entered: 12/20/2010)
288 Monitoring Report for January 1 - June 30, 2010 (mn, ) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
289 ORDER directing the Clerk's Office to amend the caption to substitute Chris Christie as a deft. in place of former Governor James McGreevey. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 12/17/2010. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/21/2010)
290 Letter from Marion B. Johnson, Esq.. (JOHNSON, MARION) (Entered: 03/16/2011)
291 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status Conference held on ON THE RECORD 6/13/2011. -Monitors Report placed on the record. (Court Reporter/Recorder KASHMER.) (tt, ) (Entered: 06/13/2011)
292 Letter from Marion B. Cooper, Esq. to Honorable Michael A. Shipp. (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Certification, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4Motion for Withdrawal)(JOHNSON, MARION) (Entered: 09/28/2011)
CLERK'S QUALITY CONTROL MESSAGE - The Certification Doc. #292-1 submitted by M. JOHNSON on 9/28/2011 contains an improper signature. Only Registered Users are permitted to sign electronically filed documents with an s/. PLEASE RESUBMIT THE DOCUMENT WITH A PROPER ELECTRONIC OR SCANNED SIGNATURE. This submission will remain on the docket unless otherwise ordered by the court. (nr, ) (Entered: 09/29/2011)
293 Certification of Marion B. Johnson, Esq. in Support of Application to Permit Jodie Miller, Esq. to appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of CHARLIE H.. (JOHNSON, MARION) (Entered: 09/30/2011)
294 ORDER granting application for pro hac admission of Jodi Miller. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael A. Shipp on 11/15/2011. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
295 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status

12/14/2011 12/14/2011 04/19/2012 07/18/2012 07/18/2012 07/19/2012
07/19/2012 07/24/2012 07/24/2012 07/24/2012 07/31/2012 08/03/2012
08/07/2012

Conference held on 12/14/2011. Monitor's Report placed on the record (Court Reporter/Recorder kashmer.) (tt, ) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
296 Final Period IX Monitoring Report.(July 1-December 31, 2010) (mn, ) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
297 Final NJ Period X Monitoring Report. (January 1 - June 30, 2011) (mn, ) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number TRE021098 Re Jodi Miller (nr, ) (Entered: 04/24/2012)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference on the MONITORS REPORT **time change**set for 7/19/2012 11:30 AM before Judge Stanley R. Chesler. (tt, ) (Entered: 07/18/2012)
298 NOTICE of Appearance by JOSHUA DAVID RINSCHLER on behalf of All Plaintiffs (RINSCHLER, JOSHUA) (Entered: 07/18/2012)
299 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status Conference held on 7/19/2012. Monitors Report placed on the record by Judith Meltzer (Court Reporter/Recorder KASHMER.) (tt, ) (Entered: 07/19/2012)
300 Final NJ Monitoring Report Period XI-July 19.2012 (mn, ) (Entered: 07/20/2012)
301 NOTICE of Appearance by ANN A. HUBER on behalf of All Defendants (HUBER, ANN) (Entered: 07/24/2012)
302 NOTICE of Appearance by ANN A. HUBER on behalf of All Defendants (HUBER, ANN) (Main Document 302 replaced on 7/26/2012) (nr). (Entered: 07/24/2012)
303 NOTICE of Appearance by ANN A. HUBER on behalf of All Defendants (HUBER, ANN) (Entered: 07/24/2012)
Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor added. Magistrate Judge M. A. Shipp no longer assigned to case. (ma) (Entered: 07/31/2012)
304 STIPULATION of amendments to the modified settlement agreement and request for court approval by JUAN C., MARCO C., ANNA G., DOLORES G., CHARLIE H., CHRISTOPHER H., MELISSA H., NADINE H., RYAN H., KYLE J., BARRY M., DANIEL M., DENNIS M., RICKY M., THOMAS M., RICARDO O., DENISE R., JASON W., JENNIFER W., PATTI W.. (COOPER, MARION) (Entered: 08/03/2012)
305 STIPULATED AMENDMENTS TO THE MODIFIED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 8/7/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/08/2012)

08/10/2012 09/05/2012
09/05/2012
09/20/2012 10/23/2012
10/23/2012 11/21/2012
12/19/2012 12/20/2012 12/20/2012

306 ORDER DISMISSING CASE administratively. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 8/10/12. (dc, ) (Entered: 08/13/2012)
307 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by JUAN C., MARCO C., ANNA G., DOLORES G., CHARLIE H., CHRISTOPHER H., MELISSA H., NADINE H., RYAN H., KYLE J., BARRY M., DANIEL M., DENNIS M., RICKY M., THOMAS M., RICARDO O., DENISE R., JASON W., JENNIFER W., PATTI W.. (RINSCHLER, JOSHUA) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
308 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by JUAN C., MARCO C., ANNA G., DOLORES G., CHARLIE H., CHRISTOPHER H., MELISSA H., NADINE H., RYAN H., KYLE J., BARRY M., DANIEL M., DENNIS M., RICKY M., THOMAS M., RICARDO O., DENISE R., JASON W., JENNIFER W., PATTI W.. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Marion B. Cooper, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(RINSCHLER, JOSHUA) (Entered: 09/05/2012)
309 Substitution of Attorney (HUBER, ANN) Modified on 9/22/2012 (nr). (Entered: 09/20/2012)
310 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by JUAN C., MARCO C., ANNA G., DOLORES G., CHARLIE H., CHRISTOPHER H., MELISSA H., NADINE H., RYAN H., KYLE J., BARRY M., DANIEL M., DENNIS M., RICKY M., THOMAS M., RICARDO O., DENISE R., JASON W., JENNIFER W., PATTI W.. (Attachments: # 1 Certification, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(RINSCHLER, JOSHUA) (Entered: 10/23/2012)
311 CONSENT ORDER granting application for Sarah Teresa Russo to appear pro hac vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on 10/23/2012. (nr, ) Modified on 10/25/2012 (mn). (Entered: 10/23/2012)
312 MOTION to Withdraw the appearance of Sarah Russo as counsel to Plaintiffs by JUAN C., MARCO C., ANNA G., DOLORES G., CHARLIE H., CHRISTOPHER H., MELISSA H., NADINE H., RYAN H., KYLE J., BARRY M., DANIEL M., DENNIS M., RICKY M., THOMAS M., RICARDO O., DENISE R., JASON W., JENNIFER W., PATTI W.. (RINSCHLER, JOSHUA) (Entered: 11/21/2012)
315 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status Conference REGARDING MONITORS REPORT PLACED ON THE RECORD on 12/19/2012. (Court Reporter/Recorder KASHMER.) (tt, ) (Entered: 12/27/2012)
313 Final NJ Monitoring Report Period XII-December 19,2012 (mn, ) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
314 CONSENT ORDER granting application for pro hac vice admission of

01/03/2013 01/18/2013 10/01/2013
10/03/2013 10/29/2013
11/20/2013 11/25/2013 07/17/2014 07/17/2014 08/18/2014 08/18/2014

Julia Lucia Davis. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 12/20/2012. (nr, ) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
316 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by CHARLIE H., CHRISTOPHER H., MELISSA H., NADINE H., RYAN H.. (COOPER, MARION) (Entered: 01/03/2013)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number TRE029255 Re Julia Davis (nr, ) (Entered: 01/22/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status Conference held on 10/1/2013 MONITORS REPORT PLACED ON THE RECORD. (Court Reporter/Recorder KASHMER.) (tt, ) (Entered: 10/01/2013)
317 Final NJ Monitoring Report Period XIII- October 1, 2013. (mfr) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
318 Transcript of Proceedings held on October 1, 2013, before Judge STANLEY R. CHESLER. Court Reporter/Transcriber Jackie Kashmer (908-200-1040). MONITOR'S REPORT. NOTICE REGARDING REDACTION OF TRANSCRIPTS: The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the Court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this Transcript. Redaction Request due 11/19/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/2/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/27/2014. (ek) (Entered: 10/29/2013)
319 Letter from Judith Meltzer regarding modifying the settlement agreement, etc. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/21/2013)
320 ORDER that the next monitoring report to be submitted in this action shall cover the period of 4/1/2013 to 12/31/2013, etc.. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 11/25/2013. (nr, ) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
321 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status Conference held on 7/17/2014. MONITORS REPORT PLACED ON THE RECORD (Court Reporter/Recorder kashmer.) (tt, ) (Entered: 07/17/2014)
322 "Final NJ Monitoring Report Period XIV - July 17, 2014" (nr, ) (Entered: 07/22/2014)
323 NOTICE of Appearance by JESSICA ANN BURT on behalf of All Plaintiffs (BURT, JESSICA) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
324 MOTION to Withdraw the appearance of Marion B. Cooper as counsel to Plaintiffs by JUAN C., MARCO C., ANNA G., DOLORES G., CHARLIE H., CHRISTOPHER H., MELISSA H., NADINE H., RYAN H., KYLE J., BARRY M., DANIEL M., DENNIS M., RICKY M., THOMAS M., RICARDO O., DENISE R., JASON W., JENNIFER W., PATTI W.. (BURT, JESSICA) (Entered: 08/18/2014)

08/28/2014 09/05/2014
09/05/2014
09/08/2014 09/29/2014 09/29/2014 09/30/2014
10/02/2014 01/16/2015 01/22/2015 01/23/2015

325 ORDER withdrawing Marion B. Cooper from this matter. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 8/28/2014. (nr, ) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
326 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice of Sara Robinson-Glasser by JUAN C., MARCO C., ANNA G., DOLORES G., CHARLIE H., CHRISTOPHER H., MELISSA H., NADINE H., RYAN H., KYLE J., BARRY M., DANIEL M., DENNIS M., RICKY M., THOMAS M., RICARDO O., DENISE R., JASON W., JENNIFER W., PATTI W.. (Attachments: # 1 Certification of Jessica A. Burt, # 2 Text of Proposed Order granting pro hac vice admission of Sara Robinson-Glasser)(BURT, JESSICA) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
327 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Julia Davis by JUAN C., MARCO C., ANNA G., DOLORES G., CHARLIE H., CHRISTOPHER H., MELISSA H., NADINE H., RYAN H., KYLE J., BARRY M., DANIEL M., DENNIS M., RICKY M., THOMAS M., RICARDO O., DENISE R., JASON W., JENNIFER W., PATTI W.. (BURT, JESSICA) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
328 CONSENT ORDER granting application for Sara Robinson-Glasser to appear pro hac vice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on 9/8/2014. (nr, ) (Entered: 09/09/2014)
329 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (BURT, JESSICA) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
330 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice Sara Robinson-Glasser, Esq. to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (BURT, JESSICA) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
Pro Hac Vice counsel, MARCIA ROBINSON LOWRY and SARA ROBINSON-GLASSER, has been added to receive Notices of Electronic Filing. Pursuant to L.Civ.R. 101.1, only local counsel are entitled to sign and file papers, enter appearances and receive payments on judgments, decrees or orders. (nr, ) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150, receipt number NEW021433 Re Sara RobinsonGlasser (nr, ) (Entered: 10/02/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: MONITORS REPORT on the record set for 1/22/15 at 10:00 a.m. (tt, ) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
331 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status Conference held on 1/22/2015. Monitors Report read into the record. The Court directed parties to meet and confer further after these proceedings (Court Reporter/Recorder KASHMER.) (tt, ) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
332 Final NJ Monitoring Report Period XV (January 1 to June 30, 2014) of New Jersey Department of Children and Families by CHARLIE H., NADINE H. (nr, ) Modified on 1/28/2015 (tt). Modified on 1/28/2015 (tt).

06/17/2015 06/22/2015 06/23/2015 06/26/2015 06/30/2015 06/30/2015
09/02/2015 11/04/2015
11/04/2015 11/04/2015 06/08/2016 06/08/2016

Modified on 1/28/2015 (tt). (Entered: 01/26/2015)
333 NOTICE of Appearance by CHRISTIAN A. ARNOLD on behalf of All Defendants (ARNOLD, CHRISTIAN) (Entered: 06/17/2015)
334 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice by CHRIS CHRISTIE. (ARNOLD, CHRISTIAN) (Entered: 06/22/2015)
335 CONSENT ORDER granting pro hac vice admission of John J. Bursch. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor on 6/23/2015. (nr, ) (Entered: 06/24/2015)
Pro Hac Vice fee: $ 150.00, receipt number NEW026500 Re John J. Bursch (nr, ) (Entered: 06/26/2015)
336 Notice of Request by Pro Hac Vice John J. Bursch to receive Notices of Electronic Filings. (ARNOLD, CHRISTIAN) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
Pro Hac Vice counsel, JOHN J. BURSCH, has been added to receive Notices of Electronic Filing. Pursuant to L.Civ.R. 101.1, only local counsel are entitled to sign and file papers, enter appearances and receive payments on judgments, decrees or orders. (anr) (Entered: 06/30/2015)
337 Letter from Bruce Rosen. (ROSEN, BRUCE) (Entered: 09/02/2015)
338 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status Conference held on 11/4/2015. -MONITORS REPORT READ INTO THE RECORD(July 1 thru December 31, 2014) (Court Reporter/Recorder KASHMER.) (tt, ) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
339 FINAL Monitoring Report Period XVI of NJ Department of Children and Families by Charles H., Nadine H (nr, ) (Entered: 11/04/2015)
340 SECOND MODIFIED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (nr, ) (Entered: 11/05/2015)
341 STATUS REPORT by CHRIS CHRISTIE. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Re-categorization of Measures)(ARNOLD, CHRISTIAN) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
342 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Stanley R. Chesler: Status Conference held on 6/8/2016. Monitor's Report given (Court Reporter/Recorder KASHMER.) (tt, ) (Entered: 06/08/2016)

 
 The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment
Center for the Study of Social Policy 1575 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005 July 30, 2008

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The federal court-appointed Monitor (the Center for the Study of Social Policy) would like to thank the Department of Children and Families (DCF), specifically Arburta Jones, Diane Milan, Gabriel Spiler and the staff at the State Central Registry (SCR), for its help with conducting this review. Additionally, the Monitor would like to thank the members of the Study Team: Cheryl MacDougal from DCF’s Quality Analysis and Information unit and Vinette Tate, Nancy Parello and Nicole Hellriegel from the New Jersey Office of the Child Advocate (OCA).

THE NEW JERSEY CENTRAL STATE REGISTRY: AN ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction and Purpose of the Assessment .......................................................... 1
II. Methodology ............................................................................................................... 4
III. Current Hotline Functioning ................................................................................... 5
A. Volume and Sources of Calls to the SCR..................................................... 5 B. SCR Call Flow ................................................................................................ 7 C. Operations .................................................................................................... 11 D. Quality Assurance........................................................................................ 12 E. SCR Workload: Call Type and Duration ................................................. 13
IV. Findings..................................................................................................................... 16
A. Decision-Making .......................................................................................... 16 B. Information Collection and Documentation.............................................. 26 C. Timeliness ..................................................................................................... 32 D. Professionalism and Competence of SCR Screeners ................................ 34 E. The Effect of Screener Certification .......................................................... 37
V. Factors Affecting Performance............................................................................... 43
A. Strengths of the SCR ................................................................................... 43 B. Opportunities for Improvement ................................................................. 43
VI. Recommendations .................................................................................................... 46
A. Policy ............................................................................................................. 46 B. SCR Operations ........................................................................................... 47 C. Staff Development........................................................................................ 48
Appendix A: Methodology
Appendix B: 1. SCR Call Review Data Collection Instrument 2. SCR Focus Group Questions

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Number of Calls to the SCR by Month - July 2006 – July 2007............................... 5
2. Referral Sources for All Reports and Requests For Calendar Year 2007............... 6
3. SCR Call Classification and Flow ............................................................................. 10
4. Percent of Calls by Type............................................................................................. 13
5. Distribution of Call Duration..................................................................................... 14
6. Distribution of CWS Calls in Study Sample by Response Priority........................ 15
7. Distribution of CPS Calls in Study Sample by Response Priority ......................... 15
8. Information Collected by SCR Screeners in Calls coded CPS Reports - Related to Call Classification ................................................ 26
9. Information Collected by SCR Screeners in Calls coded CWS Referrals Related to Call Classification .............................................. 27
10. Information Collected by SCR Screeners in Calls coded CPS Reports Related to Response Priority.......................................... 28
11. Information Collected by SCR Screeners in Calls coded CPS Reports Related to Providing Additional Information to the Field ........................................................ 29
12. Information Collected by SCR Screeners in Calls coded CWS Referrals Related to Call Classification ..................................... 30
13. Information Collected by SCR Screeners on CPS Calls by Certified Screeners ................................................................................................ 39
14. Information Collected by SCR Screeners on CPS Calls by Uncertified Screeners .......................................................................... 40

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. 2. 3. 4.
5. 6. 7. 8.
9.

Average and Median Call Duration by Call Type .................................... 14
Nature of Study Team Disagreement with the SCR Screeners’ Coding Decision......................................................................... 17
Nature of Study Team Disagreement with The SCR Screeners’ Response Priority Decision...................................... 24
Time between End of Call and Transmittal to Field Office For Calls Coded CPS Reports or CWS Referrals......................................................................................... 33
Time between End of Call and Transmittal to Field Office for Calls Coded CPS Reports ............................................ 33
Screener Response to Calls ......................................................................... 35
Call Duration by Type of Call Resolution and Screener Certification Status .............................................................. 38
Time between End of Call and Transmittal to Field Office for Calls Coded CPS Reports Comparison of Certified and Uncertified the Screeners .......................... 41
Screener Response to Calls ......................................................................... 42

THE NEW JERSEY STATE CENTRAL REGISTRY: AN ASSESSMENT

I. Introduction and Purpose of the Assessment

One of the most important child protective services functions of a public child welfare agency is to receive and to promptly and appropriately respond to reports of suspected child abuse or neglect. Commonly referred to as a State’s child abuse and neglect hotline, the unit responsible for receiving and responding to reports of child abuse and neglect is often the most visible face of public child protection. With every call, decisions are made which could potentially affect the safety, well-being and chance for a stable, permanent future of a child and his or her family. The manner, speed and clarity with which a public child welfare system receives, screens and acts on calls to its hotline greatly influences how the community interacts with and perceives a State’s overall child protection performance.
As part of statewide reforms designed to more effectively protect children from abuse or neglect, New Jersey created the State Central Registry (SCR) in July 2004. The SCR , now part of the Department of children and Families (DCF) replaced a system of locally operated child abuse hotlines in the counties and was intended to provide statewide consistency in receiving, classifying, and dispatching reports of suspected child abuse or neglect and assessments for child welfare services.
Since its inception, the SCR has received a growing number of calls necessitating increased staff and support. The SCR start-up and early implementation were not without problems as the State developed the staff capacity, the policy, and the training and technology supports for the SCR. The SCR Administrator changed five times in nearly four years, with the current leader in place now for the past one and a half years.
As with any such operation that controls the “front door” to the receipt of child welfare services, the public has little tolerance for error. There have been periodic reports that too few calls are accepted for follow-up, thus leaving some children at risk. Conversely, the DYFS case managers responsible for investigating allegations or assessing families needs often express concern that SCR decisions send too many reports and referrals to the field, with limited distinction between those children that are at true risk of maltreatment from those situations that do not rise to a level requiring an investigation or referral. In addition, over the past year and a half, DYFS case managers frequently have reported to the Monitor that the documentation they receive from the SCR is inadequate or inaccurate and sometimes both. This in turn, they believe, impedes their timely initiation of investigations.
This report is the result of an independent assessment of the SCR conducted by the federal courtappointed Monitor of New Jersey’s child welfare reforms under the Charlie and Nadine v. Corzine Modified Settlement Agreement (MSA). In order to determine the functioning and quality of the SCR’s practice, the Monitor undertook a special study of its operation using a variety of methods as described in Appendix A. The Monitor was joined in the assessment by

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 1

representatives of the New Jersey Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) and the Department of Children and Families (DCF) Quality Analysis and Information unit.
This in-depth assessment of the SCR was conducted as part of the Monitor’s responsibility to assess how the State is making progress in its overall operations and delivery of services to the children and families of New Jersey. The goal is to provide an objective assessment and to make recommendations to DCF for ongoing improvement of the functioning of the SCR. Specifically, the assessment was designed to answer the following three questions:
1. Are SCR screening decisions appropriate?
2. Is SCR screening documentation accurate and sufficiently complete to enable the DYFS field office case managers to respond appropriately?
3. Is complete and accurate information reaching the DYFS field office case managers in a timely manner?
This assessment is the second formal assessment completed on the New Jersey’s SCR. In 2005, shortly after the SCR was created, the independent Child Welfare Panel created by the original Charlie and Nadine H. v. McGreevey Settlement Agreement reviewed SCR operations.1 In contrast to the 2005 review, which found multiple policy, management and operational problems with the SCR, this review found the SCR operations to be well managed, professional and appropriately focused on the timeliness and the quality of the response to the public’s reports of child maltreatment. Much has been accomplished in the past three years. Overall, the assessment found that:
• SCR decision-making is sound and the vast majority of screening decisions are appropriate. The Study Team concurred with the SCR call classification in 92 percent of the calls reviewed and with the assigned response priority for 93 percent of the calls. After listening to tape recordings of calls and reviewing written documentation, the number of cases in which the Study Team came to a different conclusion than the SCR was small. The findings however suggest several areas in which additional policy guidance and clarification is needed, particularly with respect to handling calls alleging maltreatment in institutions which require a referral to the Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU) and for those reports that need a child welfare assessment, not an investigation, but in a urgent time frame.
• For the vast majority of calls, screeners collect the information that DYFS case managers need in order to appropriately investigate complaints and assess families in need of services, although in some cases the documentation forwarded to the field offices needs to be more accurate and complete. Over 80 percent of the NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries contained sufficient information to support the screening and priority decisions.

1 New Jersey Child Welfare Panel, Period I Monitoring Report, March 2005 and Period II Monitoring Report, October 2005.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 2

• The SCR completes its work in a timely fashion and the vast majority of reports or referrals reach the field within three hours of a call to the SCR. Eighty (80) percent of the Child Protective Services (CPS) reports and Child Welfare Services (CWS) referrals were sent to the field offices within 3 hours of the conclusion of the call.
• The majority of calls were handled thoroughly and professionally by SCR screeners. The SCR has established protocols for training and supervising its workers and has developed processes for continuous quality assurance. These are far more developed and effective than were evident in 2005, although there is still room for continued improvement.
• In addition to using the SCR to receive and process reports of maltreatment and requests for child welfare services, the SCR call and data tracking system is currently used to keep track of after hours employees (SPRU workers) and their schedules. This use of SCR staff time and resources for administrative purposes that are not integral to the functions of the SCR should be reconsidered.
In addition to the findings, the report includes recommendations for change.
The report is organized into five sections as follows:
Section II. Methodology provides an overview of the Study Team, the types of information collected and how the information was analyzed as part of the assessment. A more detailed description of the Methodology is in Appendix A.
Section III. Current Hotline Functioning describes the SCR operations as context for the assessment.
Section IV. Findings provides key findings related to decision-making, documentation, timeliness and Screener professionalism
Section V. Factors Affecting Performance provides additional discussion of supervision, training and other issues affecting SCR performance.
Section IV. Recommendations enumerate the Study Team’s recommendations for how the SCR can build on its strengths to make the needed improvements.
Appendix A provides more detail on the methodology.
Appendix B contains copies of the data collection instrument and focus group questions.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 3

II. Methodology
The SCR assessment was conducted in January 2008. The Study Team consisted of staff of the Charlie and Nadine H. federal court-appointed Monitor (The Center for the Study of Social Policy), three representatives from New Jersey’s Office of the Child Advocate (OCA), and a representative of the DYFS Quality Analysis and Information Unit. A total of nine professionals were involved in the intensive review.
The assessment had multiple components. The primary component involved using a structured data collection instrument to listen to approximately 300 phone calls to the SCR from October and November 2007. The sample of 300 was randomly selected from the 34,114 NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries generated during those months. The SCR maintains a call recording system of all calls which permitted this kind of review. The sample size was designed to produce no more than a 6 percent margin of error with 95 percent confidence in its results. The Study Team ultimately listened to 294 calls because six of the randomly selected NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries were generated from correspondence rather than phone calls. The calls associated with an additional 28 NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries were excluded from all of the analysis because call quality was poor, it was an internal administrative call, or it was an outgoing call. The reduction from 300 to 266 was not great enough to affect the statistical margin of error.
For each of the remaining 266 NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries, the Study Team listened to the taped call and reviewed the documentation in NJ SPIRIT, the State’s automated case processing system. The data collection instrument allowed reviewers to compare what they heard to written documentation, to assess whether decisions were made in accordance with law and policy and to evaluate the competency and professionalism of the SCR Screener. Appendix B is a copy of the data collection instrument. The data were analyzed using Excel and SPSS2.
In addition, the Study Team reviewed SCR policy, training materials, Screener job aides and other material designed to support the effective operation of the SCR; interviewed senior management; conducted focus groups of SCR Supervisors and Screeners; and observed daily peer review efforts and supervisory interactions. A more detailed description of the methodology is in Appendix A.
Decision-making at the SCR involves an element of judgment and these judgments are sometimes made with incomplete information. A limitation of the methodology is that individual judgment could vary and people could come to different conclusions for the cases with which the Study Team disagreed. The quality assurance mechanisms applied to the review as outlined in Appendix A should resolve concerns about variance in judgment.

2 SPSS was formerly known as the Statistical Package for Social Science
The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 4

III. Current Hotline Functioning
New Jersey’s State Central Registry (SCR) is a unit of the DCF Division of Central Operations. The SCR is charged with receiving calls of both suspected child abuse and neglect as well as calls where reporters believe the well-being of families is at risk and needs an assessment, support, and/or information and referral. To effectively execute this responsibility, the SCR has established a 24 hour per day, 7 days per week operation that requires multiple shifts of staff and Supervisors and a sophisticated call management and recording system. “Call agents” or “Screeners”3 determine the nature of each caller’s concerns and initiate the appropriate response. Quality assurance protocols are in place to evaluate the performance of individual Screeners and the decisions made in response to calls.
A. Volume and Sources of Calls to the SCR
The calls received by the SCR cover a wide range of issues. Specifically, individual calls may relay information about the possibility of a child being abused or neglected and/or that a family is in need of services. Allegations can be received via the toll-free hotline number of 877-NJAbuse or in writing. The SCR is also contacted by the general public, family members, DYFS field office staff, and others to request information and service referrals. DCF data indicate that the monthly volume of calls ranged from 15,121 to 18,267 in state fiscal year 2007. Figure 1 illustrates the monthly pattern of calls received in that year (from July 2006 through July 2007.)

Figure 1: Number of Calls to the SCR by Month July 2006-July 2007
19000

18500 18000 17500 17000 16500

18291

16830

17135

18124

17947

18267 16676

Number of Calls

16000 15500 15000

15714 15589

15523

15121

15782

15551

14500

14000

Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Month

Source: DCF Administrative Data

3 Through out the remainder of this report, the term “Screener” will be used to refer to the staff who answer the incoming calls to SCR and make a determination about the action to be taken.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 5

Figure 2 illustrates the referral sources for all child protective services and child welfare services calls received in calendar year 2007. The principal referral sources are schools (22%), the police (13%) and health professionals (12%), all mandated reporters of alleged child abuse or neglect. Sixteen percent of calls are made anonymously as is permitted by law.
Figure 2: Referral Sources for All Child Protective Services Reports and Child Welfare Services Requests for Calendar Year 2007 n = 59,228

DYFS, 4% Other, 2% Health, 12%
Other Gov't Agency, 5%
Community, 8%

Police, 13% Facility, 2% Legal & Court, 1% Parent, 9%
Relative, 5%

Anonymous, 16%

Self, 1%

Source: DCF Administrative Data

School, 22%

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 6

B. SCR Call Flow
Screeners are responsible for accurately obtaining information necessary to decide what action(s), if any, should be taken in response to the caller’s information and/or concern. Screeners are not required to obtain information sufficient to determine veracity or to conduct an investigation; that responsibility is assigned to investigators at the field level in the DYFS field offices.
After the Screeners listen to a call and makes a determination as to the appropriate coding to classify the call, they are required to complete a Screening Summary in NJ SPIRIT. The Screening Summary is to include information sufficient for an investigator to know the type and extent of maltreatment to investigate, information to transmit, or services or concerns with which a family requires assistance and/or a referral.
As shown in Figure 3, depending on the information or request the caller presents, SCR Screeners must determine which classification best reflects the following circumstances conveyed in the call:
• a report of abuse or neglect in a family that should be accepted for investigation (CPS- Family)4 and sent to the appropriate DYFS field office; or
• a report of abuse or neglect in an institutional setting that should be accepted for investigation (CPS- IAIU) and sent to the appropriate regional office of the Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU); or
• a referral for child welfare services that should be accepted for assessment for requested services and sent to the DYFS field office (CWS)5; or
• a report about an existing DYFS case that should be referred to the case manager(s) already staffing the case (RI); or
• a person seeking a referral to one or more service providers (I&R) or a Screener determines that a referral is the appropriate response to the concern raised by the caller, or the matter is referred back to the caller for handling (i.e. police calling about non abuse, school calling about educational neglect but have yet failed to take appropriate action themselves to address the issue); or
• individuals seeking information only (IO); or • a person contacting DYFS who needs information about DYFS operations; or • a report that requires no further action by the SCR coded as No Action Required
(NAR).6

4 These calls are broken down even further based on against whom the allegation is made and where the alleged abuse or neglect may have taken place. 5 A call considered to be a CWS referral that is to be transmitted to one of three counties –Mercer, Passaic, and Middlesex—is sent to those counties as “CWS pending” as part of a pilot program to look at the efficacy of having a community agency, rather than DYFS, conduct the assessment of family needs. In these three counties, the counties have the option of making some additional collateral phone calls within 72 hours before deciding to assign it to one of its own Intake staff or refer the family to a community agency. These CWS referrals, therefore, are considered “pending” and the screening is not considered complete until the field office in these counties makes the decision about referral assignment. 6 Four counties (Cumberland, Gloucester, Camden and Salem) were chosen to participate in a pilot called “Differential Response” (DR). The pilot is intended to provide supportive prevention services and promote healthy family functioning. For those counties, persons calling for Information and Referral and information about family

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 7

General criteria for accepting a report of child abuse or neglect include the following7: • the alleged child(ren) victim is less than 18 years of age; • the alleged perpetrator is the child’s parent or guardian, or other person in a care giving role who had custody or control of the child(ren); • there is a specific incident or set of circumstances that suggest the harm or substantial risk of harm to the child(ren) was caused by the child’s parent, guardian or other person in a care giving role who had custody or control of the child(ren); • the alleged child victim(s) has been harmed or is at substantial risk of harm.
Reports of child abuse and/or neglect are investigated by DYFS case managers in the field offices to determine if further protective action is required. If DYFS believes abuse or neglect is determined to have occurred, subsequent decisions are made about the kinds of services that need to be put in place to ensure a child’s safety, including the possibility of legal action to remove a child from his or her home. Field offices respond to child welfare service (CWS) referrals with an assessment of the family’s strengths and needs and an offer of services which the family may accept or refuse.
If the call is classified as a Child Protective Services (CPS) report or Child Welfare Services (CWS) referral, the Screener must also determine the urgency of the situation and assign a “response priority.” The response priority establishes the time frame in which DYFS case manager in the field offices are expected to respond. In either case, DYFS field offices may determine a more urgent response is needed and act accordingly.
Reports of allegations with the greatest urgency are coded as CPS Immediate. If a report requiring an immediate response time is taken during normal business hours, DYFS case managers in the field offices are required to respond by the close of the business day. If the report is created after normal business hours or on weekends, the assigned Special Response Unit (SPRU) worker in the receiving DYFS field office will respond and, according to written materials provided to the Study Team, the expectation is that SPRU workers initiate an investigation within an hour of receiving the assignment from SCR. Calls alleging abuse or neglect that appear to have a lesser degree of urgency are assigned as CPS 24 hours and are required to be investigated by field investigative staff within 24 hours.
Calls that a Screener determines require assistance and services for families, termed “assessments”, are coded as “CWS” referrals. CWS referrals are assigned either a 72 hour or 5 day response time, depending on their urgency. However, DYFS policy states that the SCR Screener “after hours, on weekends, or during State holidays, may dictate a quicker field response” and “an ‘immediate’ response (within two hours) may be appropriate, often in matters assigned after hours to SPRU.”8 This enables the family to access services as soon as possible without needing to wait until the next business day.

supports or calls that would otherwise be coded as CWS are directly referred (sometimes through a warm-line
transfer) to the DR pilot programs. 7 See Section 2.I.E. of SCR Revised Operations Manual. 8 See Section II.209.1, Field Operations Casework Policy and Procedures Manual.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 8

At the time of the review, there were two pilot projects underway that modified SCR decisionmaking and coding for a subset of counties. Calls referred to the participating counties in the Differential Response (DR) pilot were coded as No Action Required, with another NJ SPIRIT field used for indicating it was actually a Differential Response referral. For all calls involving families in the designated counties, the Screener connects the Caller directly with designated personnel in the pilot sites through a telephone transfer. The counties then proceed to make decisions about the appropriate response to the call. In the other pilot project, SCR Screeners takes the information from the call about a family or circumstance in one of the counties participating in the CWS Pending pilot, but if the Screener considers the circumstances meet the criteria for a Child Welfare Services referral, the referral is sent to the appropriate county as a CWS Pending referral and the DYFS field office makes the determination as to whether to send Intake staff to the home or refer the family to a community agency.
Figure 3 below depicts the classifications of and subsequent expected response times to calls that are received by the Screeners.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 9


1‐877‐NJ‐Abuse

Figure 3: SCR Call Classification and Flow

DETERMINATION
CPS ‐ FAMILY
CPS ‐ IAIU

RESPONSE PRIORITY
 Immediate  24 hour
 Immediate  24 hour

CWS

 Immediate  72 hour  5 day
72 hour Pending Status

No Action
Related Information

For Differential Response, 72 hours by responding agency
None

RESPONDER
Field Office
Regional IAIU
Field Office
Field Office in:  Mercer  Passaic  Middlesex
Differential Response in:  Camden  Cumberland  Gloucester  Salem
Field Office

Information & Referral
Information Only
The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

Direct Response by the Screener
Direct Response by the Screener
July 30, 2008 Page 10

C. Operations
There are various levels of staff responsible for the efficient operation of the SCR. The SCR Administrator has the overall responsibility for SCR performance and reports directly to the DCF Director of Central Operations. The lead Casework Supervisor oversees day-to-day screening operations, which includes managing staff schedules and supervising screening Supervisors. Screeners are organized into units consisting of four to six full time Screeners for every one full time Supervisor.
• Technology The SCR employs a sophisticated telephone system that supports operations management. The call system automatically directs calls to the first available Screener. It also notifies Supervisors of the length of time a call is waiting to be answered and it allows the Supervisors to track the availability of Screeners to take calls. Supervisors have the ability to listen in on calls. All calls, both incoming and outgoing, are recorded.
• Multiple shifts Multiple shifts of Screeners are necessary to provide coverage 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. There are approximately nine distinct shifts each day. During the time period under review (October and November 2007), there were 188 designated Screeners, 70 percent were full-time employees of the SCR and the remaining 30 percent were parttime staff members primarily working on the evening and weekend shifts.9 At any given time during regular working hours there are typically 35 - 45 Screeners on the call floor who are available to answer phone calls and take reports.
• Supervision The SCR is organized into multiple supervisory units. Each Screener reports to a designated Supervisor (SFSS2) for general supervision on day-to-day activities and evaluation. Supervisors report to Casework Supervisors (SFSS1).
During each shift, at least one Supervisor (SFSS2) is designated as the Call Floor Supervisor (CFS) to provide direction to staff on the call floor; review any reports or referrals as a back up to unavailable Supervisors; ensure sufficient staffing patterns; and generally monitor staff on the call floor.
• Screener training In addition to new worker training for all DYFS staff, Screeners receive classroom training by SCR trainers about SCR policies and protocols for 8 weeks prior to taking any SCR calls. On-the-job training involves listening in on Supervisors’ or more experienced staff’s calls to become familiar with expectations. Supervisors evaluate when Screeners are ready to take calls on their own, and provide on-going supervision and support as discussed herein.

9 Part‐time staff are DCF employees who work in other operations during the day
The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 11

D. Quality Assurance
As of the review period (October and November 2007), the SCR had established measures to ensure consistent decision-making among staff and to ensure that calls that did not appear to need field follow-up (coded variously as “No Action Required (NAR),” or Information and Referral (I&R)) were correctly classified. These measures included the following:
• Two Screener “levels” have been created -- certified and uncertified. Certified Screeners are able to transmit reports or referrals to the field without obtaining prior supervisory approval. Screeners are certified through a three-step review process. First, Supervisors are continually assessing who may be considered for certification through weekly assessment of general screening abilities. If a Supervisor determines that a Screener is ready, the certification process continues with two more activities. Supervisors listen to minimally ten randomly selected calls and employ a worker evaluation tool that is part or the NICE call recording system to “score” the calls. If a Screener receives an average score of 85 from the selected calls, and there are no serious errors or omissions, his/her Supervisor may recommend certification. As a final step, the Casework Supervisor then reviews the Supervisor’s recommendation and listens to the same calls selected by the Supervisor and five additional randomly selected calls of the recommended Screener. If the Casework Supervisor agrees with the Supervisor, the Screener is certified and NJ SPIRIT is modified to allow the Screener to transmit reports and referrals to the field without obtaining prior supervisory approval. Uncertified Screeners are required to get approval from a Supervisor regarding each report or referral before it is sent to the field for investigation or a child welfare assessment. All Screeners are directed to consult a Supervisor any time they are uncertain about (1) whether the information obtained on the call meets the criteria for an abuse or neglect report, or (2) whether DCF should be offering services, and (3) response priority.
• According to SCR quality assurance protocol, Supervisors are required to listen to at least two randomly selected recorded calls per week for each certified Screener and at least three randomly selected recorded calls per week for each uncertified Screener to evaluate each Screener on several dimensions, including thoroughness and sequencing of questions, telephone demeanor, and clarity of communication.
• Protocol exists to review the NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries of calls coded as not requiring SCR response or field intervention (“NAR” calls -- No Action Required) and calls seeking information but not intervention (“I&R” calls – Information and Referral) to ensure that all reports have been coded and responded to appropriately.10 The protocol requires that documentation of all NAR and I&R reports received by the SCR are reviewed daily by a rotation of SCR Supervisors and their screening units. Each morning, reports of calls from the previous day that were coded as not requiring DYFS field office intervention are reviewed a second time by a rotating unit of

10 See Section 7, SCR Operations Manual
The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 12

Screeners and Supervisors. Sometimes the coding of calls changes as a result of this second look, but more often the process confirms the original coding.11
E. SCR workload: call type and duration
The SCR received between 15,000 to 19,000 calls per month in the first half of 2007 and the combined total number of calls for October and November 2007 (the study period) was approximately 34,000. Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of call types for the 266 NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries in the review sample. Approximately 40% of calls which the Study Team reviewed were reporting child abuse or neglect allegations or requesting child welfare services and thus were sent to DYFS field offices or to a regional office of the Institutional Abuse Investigations Unit (IAIU) for a response. Thirteen percent of the calls were categorized as SPRU calls. These calls were from field office workers in the Special Response Unit (SPRU)12 who were calling to check in for their shifts.13 The other 46 percent of calls were Information Only (IO), Information and Referral (I&R), No Action Required (NAR) or Related Information calls which required no action by DYFS field offices.14
Figure 4: Percent of Calls by Type n = 266 NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries

ADMIN/SPRU 13%
Child Welfare Services 9%
CPS IAIU 3%

Information Only 22%
Information and Referral 4%
No Action Referral 4%

CPS Family 28%

Related Information 17%

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.

11 During the review period, the Study Team was able to observe five morning review sessions. All five were
conducted by one Supervisor with her screening unit. Given this, the Study Team is unable to comment on
consistency among units. 12 The unit which investigates allegations of abuse and neglect after hours and on weekends. 13 SPRU staff are to report into SCR when they start their shift. This can be done by calling a dedicated number and
using answering machine or by calling the SCR directly. 14 While the SPRU calls represented 13% of the calls, it should be noted that they were of short duration.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 13

Depending on the nature of the allegation or inquiry, the length of the recorded calls varied from less than one minute to 30 minutes or more to gather the necessary facts. Figure 5 provides the range of call duration for the 266 calls in the sample. Table 1 provides a summary of the average call duration by type of call in the same 266 calls reviewed. The call duration is longest for CWS calls which last a median of fifteen minutes. Comparatively, administrative or SPRU calls end within one minute. The median length of an I&R or IO call duration is about three minutes.

Figure 5: Distribution of Call Duration n = 266
15%

12%

Percent of Calls

9%

6%

3%

0% <1m 3m 6m 9m 12m 15m 18m 21m 24m 27m 30m Duration in minutes (m)
Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.

Table 1: Average and Median Call Duration by Call Type n = 266

Call Type

Number of Applicable Calls

Average Duration Median Duration

CPS

85

Child Welfare

23

I & R and IO15

70

12 minutes 14 minutes 4 minutes

11 minutes 15 minutes 3 minutes

Related Information

44

9 minutes

7 minutes

No Action Required

10

12 minutes

10 minutes

Admin/SPRU

34

1 minute

1 minute

Total

266

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.

9 minutes

7 minutes

Figures 6 and 7 below show the distribution of CWS and CPS calls by response priority times. In both types of calls, Screeners considered about one-third of calls to be very urgent, requiring the highest priority response time.

15 I&R is Information and Referral and IO is Information Only.
The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 14

Figure 6: Distribution of CWS Calls in Study Sample by Response Priority16 n=23

72-Hour 65%

Immediate 35%

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.
Figure 7: Distribution of CPS Calls in Study Sample by Response Priority n=85
Immediate, 33%

24 Hour, 67%

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.

16 SCR policy does not dictate an immediate response priority or criteria for such urgency for CWS calls. It does allow SCR Screeners to dictate a “quicker field response” if the referral is taken after hours, weekends, and State holidays. An “immediate” response is framed as “within 2 hours”. The CWS immediate response referrals indicated in Figure 6 were taken after hours or on weekends and all were assigned to SPRU workers either by SCR or at the request of the field.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 15

IV. Findings
This assessment was designed to determine whether:
1. SCR screening decisions are appropriate; 2. SCR screening documentation is accurate and sufficiently complete to enable the
field to respond appropriately; and 3. Accurate and complete information is reaching the DYFS field office staff in a timely
manner.
After listening to 266 calls17 and comparing them to the NJ SPIRIT documentation, the Study Team found the following with regard to decision-making, documentation, timeliness, and professionalism of the SCR.
A. Decision-Making
• The Study Team Reviewers concurred with the SCR call classification in 92 percent of the calls reviewed.
The Study Team rated their agreement with the decisions made by the Screener regarding the classification of each call based on what was heard on the recorded call and what was written in the NJ SPIRIT Screening Summary. To ensure consistency among the Study Team Reviewers, a second Reviewer evaluated every call in which a Study Team Reviewer disagreed with the SCR Screeners’ original coding or response priority decision.18 If there was disagreement among the team, a third member listened to the call.
The Study Team agreed with the Screener’s determinations in 92 percent of the calls that required a determination (213 of 232).19 The Study Team disagreed with the SCR call classification or believed there was insufficient information to assess the determination in 19 calls.
Table 2 below provides a summary by call of the original coding decision and the Study Team’s determination for the 19 calls in which there was a disagreement. In the Study Team’s judgment, two calls would be downgraded from CPS to CWS and one would be downgraded from CWS to Related Information. More calls would be upgraded: three from CWS to CPS; two from Related Information to CPS-IAIU; and one from No Action Required to CPS-IAIU. In addition, as shown in Table 2, the Study Team identified several calls where no additional or different field action may have been required but they disagreed with how the call was classified based on SCR

17 The analysis for these findings excluded 34 calls from the 266 calls listened to that were primarily administrative
calls related to SPRU staff calling the SCR to report in for work shifts, indicate that they were unable to reach a
family during their shift, or request some other information. This left a total of 232 calls where the Screener had to
decide about the nature of the call, its classification and appropriate follow-up action(s). 18 In addition to the quality assurance check on calls which a Study Team Reviewer disagreed with the SCR
Screeners’ original coding or response priority decision, ten percent of the completed instruments received a second
review by the Monitor to ensure consistency and inter-rater reliability among the reviewers. 19 The sample of 232 still had a margin of error of +6%.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 16

criteria. Finally, there were four calls where the Study Team could not assess Screener judgment because of insufficient information for decision-making.

Case SCR Code

1

CPS Family

2

CPS Family

3

CWS

4

CWS-

Pending

5

CWS

6

CWS

Table 2: Nature of Study Team Disagreement

with the SCR Screeners’ Coding Decision

n = 19

Study Team Code

Study Team Justification

Downgrade Calls (3)

CWS

No indication of safety concerns for child in question. Caller stated

that teen mother had asked a girlfriend to babysit at school. Baby

was released to grandfather with whom mother and infant live.

Caller stated baby was fine but there were concerns that mother

might be using drugs but reporter had not witnessed drug use. No

indication baby was in danger or at risk.

CWS

No indication of risk or safety concerns for child in question. No

new allegation on a family with an open case. Mother had just given

birth to a 23-week old baby who died shortly after birth due to

medical complications unrelated to substance abuse or neglect of the

mother. However, mother did test positive for marijuana and mother

said it was from “contact” with her friends who smoke. Mother has

a child age 3 and half who was with her father while she was in the

hospital. Mother had a restraining order against the father of the

deceased child. Reporter stated that field office intake worker was

aware of the situation, however the NJ SPIRIT Screening Summary

did not reference any previous or current open investigations.

RI

There did not appear to be a new allegation; call was related to an

open investigation. County case manager asked for a CWS referral

to enable case manager to interview other children living in the same

household with a family who had been reported two weeks earlier

regarding sexual abuse by a family member.

Upgrade Calls (6)

CPS

Educational neglect. Seven year old child who had not been in

school for a month, after being sent home with head lice. Mother

would not allow school personnel to see child but reported child

broke her hand when it was slammed in a door. Mother could not

specify when child would return to school and had not contacted

school about child’s missed school work. At least one younger child

is in the home.

CPS

Inadequate Shelter. At 4:30 in the afternoon, police reported youth

in station who had been a runaway for two weeks and could not

return to the shelter from which she had run. SCR appears to have

coded CWS but given to local SPRU for immediate follow-up. The

child is homeless and in need of services. In the absence of a policy

for CWS immediate code, assigning this to SPRU is a work-around

that provided an immediate response, but Study Team judged this

CPS.

CPS

Inadequate Supervision. Abandonment. Lockout. Custodial care-

taker told teen mother to leave her house without helping her to

make other living arrangements and was unaware of teen’s location

at time of call. Teen’s infant remained with care taker. Care taker

wants to relinquish legal rights of teen. Custodial care-taker leveled

several allegations of neglect against teen mother.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 17

Case SCR Code

7

NAR

8

RI

9

RI

10

I&R

11

IO

12

IO

13

IO

14

IO

15

RI

Study Team Code

Study Team Justification

CPS-IAIU Environmental Neglect or “placing a child in an environment that is

injurious to the health and welfare of the child.” Parent and

Grandparent calling to complain about a facility where child lived

Monday through Friday. Callers believed facility had bed bug

infestation. SCR consulted with internal IAIU unit supervisor who

advised routing call to licensing. Screener sent report to licensing.

CPS-IAIU No indication that this case was already open but indication of

intimidation. Caller reported concern about day care program’s staff

intimidation of the children by screaming at them and children are

fearful. Appears to be coded Related Information because the

reporter’s sister has as an open CWS case and reporter’s nephew is

in the day care program.

CPS-IAIU Inadequate Supervision. AWOL youth returned to group home and

almost immediately started a fight with another resident. Reporter

did not know what started fight. Reporter indicated that she was on

the phone when youth returned to facility and came to see reporter

but reporter did not put call on hold or end in order to immediately

address youth and her absence so youth went outside and the

altercation with another youth began.

Other Reclassification (4)

IO

Reporter accused her daughter’s cheerleading coaches of being

verbally abusive with offensive language and demeaning attitude

toward the teenagers. Screener advised caller to address concerns

with coaches or program that employs them, did not refer the caller

to any resource.

I&R

Caller was specifically concerned with scheduling someone to come

speak with staff on how to report. Screener could have referred caller

to area office in her locale. Caller put on hold quickly while Screener

tried to connect all. If coded I and R caller could be referred directly

to field office for response.

RI

Caller identified herself as sister of mother in open case. Caller

indicated she's acting per her conversation with the caseworker on

her sister's case and identifies the case worker. Caller specifically

wanted to verify the correct number to contact when she located her

sister and the child. Screener confirmed that caller should call SCR

number when she locates sister and the child. Screener did not get

specifics on case asserted to be open and coding as Information Only

perhaps created a potential gap.

RI

Reporter calling for second time in four hours because no one had

yet responded to her earlier call in the evening about a foster youth.

The Foster Parent had “put the youth in the ambulance with a note

that she wanted nothing more to do with the youth.” Without a

DYFS staff member being there, the reporter said they could not

interview, treat, or medicate the youth. This was not a call with a

new allegation, but a follow-up to an earlier report.

RI

Caller had called previously and was giving more information on an

open investigation.

IO

No indication of open case or ongoing investigation. Caller was

calling about school truancy issue but reported that the parents had

decided to home school child.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 18

Case SCR Code

Study Team Code

Study Team Justification

Insufficient Information To Assess SCR Decision-Making (4)

16 CPS Family

Police reported that two children, ages 10 and 5 were left alone by

father for reportedly 20 minutes during which time there was an

attempted burglary. Children were not harmed. Father had left them

to drive the baby sitter to her home. Screener did not ask pertinent

questions to determine risk or frequency of harm to children to know

whether services or an investigation should be initiated.

17

RI

Youth in a facility punched the wall with his fist several times and

was taken to the Emergency Room where she was found to have

contusions. She then returned to the facility. Screener did not obtain

the circumstances surrounding the youth’s behavior to know if the

youth had been inadequately supervised or to know if youth was

returning to a potentially risky situation. This call does not appear to

have been referred to IAIU or any investigative staff to collect more

information about the incident.

18

RI

Youth calling and asking for someone to “come and get me” at her

mother’s home. Screener was unable to gather more information

because of poor phone connection and youth hung-up. However, it

was known that there were 2 prior CPS intakes for this family.

Study team believed this call should have been addressed

immediately because it is an open case and the child’s request

sounded urgent.

19

NAR

Anonymous Caller could provide little information. Alleged that

infant was not being fed and clothed properly. Provided father’s

name and indicated that the family was getting TANF and disability

and had been involved with DYFS with two other children. Father

has a criminal record. Believed the family lived in Newton but

reporter said they moved “a lot.” However, the Screener indicated

that they were unable to search in SPIRIT or other data bases

because reporter was not aware of correct names. Caller did not

provide any location information.

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.

For the first three calls listed in Table 2, Study Team Reviewers would have downgraded the coding of the call from CPS-Family or Child Welfare Services (CWS) to a (CWS) referral or Related Information code. While all three of these cases require DCF attention, child welfare assessments or intervention by another DYFS case manager were appropriate. CPS investigations did not appear warranted based on the information in the calls. For example, one caller was concerned about a mother leaving her baby with a girl friend at school and that the mother might be using drugs. However, at the time of the call, the baby was with his grandparents who said they would care for the child and there was no indication offered by the caller that the baby was in immediate danger or at risk. The Screener selected allegations of “substantial risk of physical injury or environment injurious to health and welfare” and “inadequate supervision” as the CPS allegations to be investigated. An assessment for child welfare services appeared to be more appropriate to the Study Team given that there was no indication that the child was at risk.

The second call that the Study Team believed could be downgraded from a CPS report to a Related Information call was the situation of a mother of a 3 year old with an open DYFS case. The mother had a child who died at birth, and while she was known to use marijuana, the death

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 19

of the child was not attributed to the marijuana use. There was no information provided by the caller to suggest the 3 year old was at risk of harm, and, in fact, the caller reported that the family watches the child when the mother is with her friends who smoke marijuana.
The third call was a DYFS field office case manager asking for a CWS referral to be made back to his office to enable him to interview other children in the household of an accused sexual perpetrator. This was not a new allegation, nor was it a request for services by the family. In addition, DYFS was already involved.
For the next six of the 19 calls listed in Table 2, Study Team Reviewers would have upgraded the coding of the call from CWS, NAR or RI to CPS or CWS. A pattern among these disagreements raises concerns about what circumstances require a response from the Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU). The Study Team determined that three calls should be upgraded to CPS- IAIU as the reporters raised questions about the safety and well-being of youth in group homes, other foster care settings, or other institutional programs. The circumstances of these three calls are as follows:
• Caller with concern that staff “conduct/discipline” at a public school in a YMCAsponsored after school K-3 program was making children fearful was coded as “Related Information” because the reporter, who wished to remain anonymous, appeared to be the aunt of a child in a family with an open Child Welfare Services assessment. However, this call was not an allegation regarding the family, it was an allegation regarding the institution/after school program. The information indicated the children were being “screamed at” and “pointed at” which could have supported an allegation of intimidation as encompassed by “Substantial Risk of Physical Injury or Environment Injurious to Health.” No information appeared to have been sent to IAIU.
• Call from a group home administrator reporting a fight between two youths that sent one youth to the hospital for evaluation of injuries was coded as “Related Information” because both youth were in DYFS’s custody. The Screener asked some relevant questions which may have supported an allegation of “inadequate supervision” and attempted to create the scenario (by asking leading questions and stating assumptions about what had occurred) that prompted the attack of one youth on the other. Caller disagreed with Screener’s assumptions and said that the attack appeared to be unprovoked. However, the caller said she was talking on the telephone at the time of the attack and did not witness it.
• In a call that was coded “No Action Required”, the caller described a program that was infested with bed bugs. The caller was not satisfied that the program’s response was sufficient because it did not include supplying new mattresses. The caller was told to raise this concern with the program administrator. The child in question was not in DFYS custody and the family did not appear to have any prior involvement with DFYS. The call was discussed with the IAIU Supervisor who suggested that the NJ SPIRIT Screening Summary be routed to the Office of Licensing although it was not referred to IAIU for investigation.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 20

Among the remaining three calls that the Study Team determined should be upgraded, all were CWS referrals that were judged to be CPS reports. Finally, there were four calls in which there was insufficient information provided or gathered to enable the Study Review Team to assess the SCR decision-making.
In summary, these findings document that the SCR decision-making regarding the classification of calls based on the information received is substantially sound. However, there remain some areas of possible confusion and inconsistency. In each of the staff focus groups conducted by the Study Team, some staff expressed concern that SCR decision-making, especially in some of the more difficult areas, was inconsistent and, to a degree, arbitrary, particularly among Supervisors. For example, Screeners report that some Supervisors interpret policy as requiring an immediate investigation more often than other Supervisors. In more than one focus group, Screeners reported that they felt that perhaps 20 percent of cases are arbitrarily coded. It is important to note however that the prevalence of this staff perception is not fully supported by the Study Team findings based on the call review.
• Identifying which calls require IAIU action appears to be particularly challenging to Screeners.
The Study Team judged that calls should be coded as “CPS-IAIU” and referred to IAIU for investigation more often than the SCR Screeners. Three of the six calls that were judged to require an upgrade should have, in the Study Team’s judgment, been routed to IAIU. This pattern actually matched what was seen in the seven calls in the sample that appeared to be correctly classified as CPS-IAIU. Four of the seven had initially been coded differently by the Screener and were upgraded by a Supervisor. Two of the four were initially coded by Screeners as No Action Required; one was coded Child Welfare Services; and it is unclear how the fourth call was initially coded. All four of these calls were upgraded to CPS-IAIU as a result of supervisory review several hours after the initial call and screening decision.
The summaries below provide information on the four calls that were initially coded as CWS or NAR and eventually changed to an IAIU referral as a result of SCR supervisory review:
• One call initially coded Child Welfare Services involved sexual contact between 5 different children who were placed at a congregate care facility. Three of the five children were in the custody of DYFS. During the call and through the initial coding, the SCR Screener focused on the child-on-child sexual activity as opposed to the location in which this activity occurred. This focus resulted in the call initially being coded as a CWS with a 72 hour response instead of a CPS-IAIU.
• Two calls were initially coded No Action Required. One of the two calls reported that a child had sex with a counselor while living at a residential facility. The other call involved a teacher inappropriately touching a 13 year old child. Both were upgraded to CPS-IAIU as a result of further supervisory review.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 21

• The fourth call involved a physical altercation between an 11 year old child and a teacher. The documentation does not indicate how this call was originally coded, but after supervisory review, a new report was generated with a CPS-IAIU coding.
These findings, coupled with staff comments in the focus groups and the Study Team’s own judgments of the calls cited previously, raise questions about criteria for referrals to IAIU in particular. In the focus groups, Screeners reported a lack of clarity as to the coding of a report of abuse or neglect in an institutional setting. A certified Screener summarized the concern by saying that sometimes a report comes in that would be considered in need of immediate action (CPS) if the parent was the perpetrator, but is not coded as an abuse or neglect call (CPS-IAIU) if the call comes from a facility or is about a foster parent. In fact, some focus group participants said it was their impression that IAIU consultant staff may be contacted first before a coding decision is made and sometimes “challenges” the decision to code a report “CPS-IAIU,” requesting the report to be downgraded.
• Criteria for classifying calls as Child Welfare Services referrals versus “Related Information” are not clear.
Since its inception, the SCR has struggled with what constitutes a CWS referral.20 The analysis of the 23 CWS-designated calls in the sample indicate a pattern of either 1) confusion for SCR and the field; or 2) concern that assigned DYFS field office case managers would be unable to respond quickly enough to address the emerging urgent child/family circumstances; or 3) both. In addition to the four Child Welfare Services referrals described in Table 2 that the Study Team thought should be coded differently, there were seven CWS referrals that appeared to relate to open permanency cases and could possibly have been coded “Related Information” instead. Although the Study Team did not disagree with the decision-making during the process of listening to the taped calls, this later analysis does raise questions for further follow-up.
In five of the seven calls that could have been coded “Related Information,” the SCR assigned an “immediate” response time by sending it to a designated SPRU worker. In one instance, it was the field office who asked that referral be “upgraded to SPRU.” The circumstances involved a mother with an open permanency case who had just given birth to another child. Because DYFS had previously requested the mother’s prenatal care records, the hospital called to report the birth but reported that the baby was healthy and they had no concerns. This call was on a Saturday. The field office with the open case reported that it actually was on the verge of closing the family’s case, but wanted a SPRU worker assigned to conduct an assessment that day to ensure that the baby was safe. SCR leadership report that field staff sometimes leave “special instructions” at SCR in case a call comes in on an open case after hours. The practice is that the field office case manager and Supervisor conference and make a joint decision to leave such special instructions prior to calling them into SCR.

20 New Jersey Child Welfare Panel, Period I Monitoring Report, March 2005, p 30. and Period II Monitoring Report, October 2005, p36.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 22

Other instances of CWS “immediate” referrals included: o A 17-year old youth who had runaway from her placement the previous month was about to be discharged from a hospital emergency room at midnight. o Two foster children being transported at midnight to the hospital for treatment of bronchitis and needed someone to “sign them in.” Foster mother was with them. o A 16-year old youth who had run away from placement two weeks previously and was at a police station at 4:30 p.m. The reporting police wanted someone to come immediately. o A group home director calling at 10:30 p.m. asking for the immediate removal of a 17-year old placed in home. The Director believed the youth was a risk to himself and others thus he did not want to wait until the next day to call DYFS.
• For calls not requiring a field response, multiple classification choices are confusing
The final set of six coding disagreements listed in Table 2 focused on calls that do not require a field response. Although the Study Team did not agree with the specific coding of these six calls, they were in agreement that none of them required a field office response. For example, in some cases “Information Only” calls were judged to more appropriately be “Related Information” to existing cases or investigations because they provided information relevant to open cases or investigations. The importance of these coding differences may not be that significant although it is possible that with incorrect coding, the timely transfer of important information to the appropriate parties is compromised.
The Study Team Reviewers documented confusion over the difference between Information Only (IO) calls and Information and Referral (I&R) calls. Minutes of the SCR Supervisor Meetings reflect a rapid change of policy on this issue. The November 7, 2007 minutes instruct Supervisors not to code calls made from SPRU workers (field staff working as first responders outside of regular working hours) calling in to schedule shifts as “Related Information” or “Information and Referral” calls. Instead, Screeners are instructed to code such calls as “Information Only” calls. Less than two weeks later, Supervisor Meeting Minutes dated November 20, 2007 appear to instruct Screeners not to code calls taken from SPRU workers as “Information Only” calls.
• The Study Team agreed with the assigned response priority for 93 percent of the calls.
In addition to assessing the appropriateness of the call classification, the Study Team judged whether the assigned response priority appropriately reflected the urgency of the circumstances conveyed in the call (e.g. immediate or 24 hours for CPS calls or immediate or 72 hours for CWS calls21). The Study Team agreed with the Screener’s assigned response priority in 93 percent of the calls (215 of 232). The Study Team disagreed with the SCR response priority for 17 calls.

21 SCR policy does not dictate an immediate response priority or criteria for such urgency for CWS calls. However, it does indicate that an “immediate response (within 2 hours) may be appropriate, often when assigned to SPRU.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 23

For 9 of the 17 calls in which there was disagreement, the Study Team’s previously described disagreement with the coding decision also affected the response time priority assignment. For example, a case coded a CWS referral with a 72 hour response time by the Screener was judged a CPS report with a 24 hour response time by the Study team. This case was a report of a sevenyear old child who had attended school one day in September and the first part of October. The school social worker had visited the child’s home on the day of the report, but the mother had not allowed the social worker to see the child. The mother said that the child had a broken right hand which was the reason for missing so much school. The case was coded “CWS,” but it was actually passed along to the field office as a “Pending Status” as part of a DCF pilot project. As previously noted, this pilot project allows the field office 72 hours to determine if the referral should be assigned to a field office first responder or to a community agency.

Another example involved a child who had run away from a shelter two weeks previously and was in a police station at the time of the call. This incident was determined to be a CWS referral and, by policy, the most urgent response would be 72 hours, but since the call came late in the day (nearly 5 PM) SCR was able to refer it to a “SPRU” worker who would likely make an immediate response. The Study Team believed this type of situation should have a definitive urgent response, and therefore believed it should be a CPS immediate response.

In four of the 17 calls, Study Team Reviewers agreed with the Screener’s decision regarding its status as a Child Protective Services report or a Child Welfare Services referral, but believed the information communicated by the caller suggested a more urgent response than was assigned.

As previously described there were four calls where there was insufficient information obtained for the Review Team to confirm Screener classification of the call. Therefore, the Review Team could not assess the assigned response priorities for these calls.
Table 3 below shows the change in the level of urgency evaluated to be appropriate by the Study Team.

Case
1 2 3 4 5

SCR Response Priority
24 hours 24 hours 72 hours
72 hours 72 hours

Table 3: Nature of Study Team Disagreement with

The SCR Screeners’ Response Priority Decision

n = 17

Study Team

Study Team Justification

Response Priority

Less Urgent as a Result of Coding Downgrade (3)

72 hours

No indication of risk to the child, no need for heightened

response time.

Response priority not Additional information on an open investigation/ case does not

applicable

require a response time.

Response priority not Additional information on an open investigation/ case does not

applicable

require a response time.

More Urgent as a Result of Coding Upgrade (6)

24 hours

Caller reporting that no one has seen the child in a month,

requiring a more immediate response

Immediate

Child in need of shelter, caller expressed an urgency requiring

a more immediate response

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 24

Case SCR

Study Team

Study Team Justification

Response Response Priority

Priority

6

72 hours

24 hours

Allegation of teenage mother abandoning newborn, but both

teenager and newborn in the legal custody of the reporter and

reporter requested a response as soon as possible

7

Response

24 hours

Environmental health issues in a facility needed a time certain

priority not

for follow-up which would require a response by a regional

applicable

IAIU office.

8

Response

24 hours

Report of potential abuse in a facility which would require a

priority not

response by a regional IAIU office. Tangentially related to an

applicable

open case/investigation

9

Response

24 hour

Potential child abuse or neglect which would require a response

priority not

by a regional IAIU office

applicable

More Urgent Response for Code assigned (4)

10

24 hours

Immediate

Caller reporting a 9 year old child without supervision, should

have required an immediate response

11

24 hours

Immediate

The NJ SPIRIT Screening Summary did not communicate any

of the sense of reporter’s urgency in narrative nor was the

school social worker’s concern that child would not go home

communicated. Summary does say child reports not feeling

safe at home.

12

24 hours

Immediate

Child at school with bruise on face from temple to upper cheek,

mother and child have different stories, mother going to school

to take child home. NJ SPIRIT Screening Summary does not

convey school’s concern about sending child home with mother

at 950 am. Insufficient information gathered to know if child

needed medical attention and if evidence would be lost by

releasing child to mother before an investigative interview.

13

24 hours

Immediate

NJ SPIRIT Screening summary did not contain all the details

provided by caller as to how long children had not eaten so 24

hour response seems to match. But, the allegation was that

children had not eaten in 2 days, therefore an immediate

response was more appropriate.

Insufficient Information to Assess Response Priority (4)

14

24 hours

Insufficient information to confirm response priority.

15

Response

Screener needed to obtain much more information as to context

priority not

of client's actions (punching the wall several times so severely

applicable

as to cause bruising.)

16

Response

Poor phone connection prevented gathering sufficient

priority not

information to determine circumstances, but child’s plea

applicable

sounded urgent.

17

Response

Anonymous caller was unable to supply sufficient information

priority not

about the location of an infant allegedly being neglected.

applicable

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 25

B. Information Collection and Documentation
• Most of the information necessary for decision-making on whether to code the call a CPS report or a CWS referral was routinely collected by Screeners.
As noted in the previous discussions, there were a few calls where the Study Review Team believed the information was insufficient to assess SCR decision-making. However, in general, Study Team Reviewers found that in 92 percent or more of the calls alleging abuse or neglect22, the SCR Screeners obtained or at least asked for key information critical to supporting decisionmaking for coding the call correctly as a CPS report. These key items related to the age of the children involved (96%); the perpetrator’s identity (96%) and relationship to the child (99%); the harm or risk of harm the child suffered (98%); how (95%) and when harm occurred (96%); and the need for immediate medical attention (92%) when circumstances indicated a serious injury. In 5 percent or fewer of the calls, the callers were unable to provide the information requested by the Screener. Figure 8 below displays this information for the calls in the CPS-designated calls in the sample.
Figure 8: Information Collected by SCR Screeners in Calls coded CPS Reports Related to Call Classification n=85 except where noted23
Collected or Asked For Not Asked For

Perpetrator's Relationship to Child

99%

1%

Harm or Risk of Harm Child Suffered

98%

2%

Perpetrator's Identity

96%

4%

Age of All or Some Children (n=82)

96%

4%

When the Harm Occurred

96%

4%

How the Harm Occurred

95%

5%

Immediate Medical Attention (n=12)

92%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008

For CWS calls, the SCR Screeners collected information on the age of the child (96%) and the urgency of intervention (96%) in an overwhelming majority of the calls. Figure 9 below displays the information collected by the SCR Screeners for CWS calls. There were no instances when the caller was unable to or did not provide the requested information.

22 Conclusions drawn from the subgroup of 85 CPS reports are subject to a larger margin of error than the +/- 6% for
the entire sample because the subgroup was not randomly selected from the universe of all CPS reports during the
period and the subgroup is very small. The margin of error is at least +/- 10 percent. 23 The n varies because the information was determined to be not applicable in some instances.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 26

Figure 9: Information Collected by SCR Screeners in Calls coded CWS Referrals Related to Call Classification n=23

Collected or Asked For

Not Asked For

Urgency of Intervention

96%

4%

Age of All or Some Children

96%

4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% 100%

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008

• Information critical to determining the response priority for CPS calls was collected by Screeners less frequently than was needed for call coding.

Information that could contribute to determining the appropriate response priority to assign to a report was obtained or at least asked for in 62 percent to 91 percent of the calls. As displayed in Figure 10, these pieces of information include perpetrator’s access to the child (91%); urgency of intervention (77%); frequency of harm or risk of alleged action (73%), how dangerous the current situation was (71%); location of child at time of call (71%) and knowledge of domestic violence (61%). In addition to a larger proportion of calls where Screeners did not attempt to collect the information, there was a slightly larger gap between what Screeners asked for and what callers were able to provide for some elements when compared to the thoroughness of information collected for classification. For example, callers did not provide the current location of the child in 12 percent of the cases where Screeners asked for it and they did not provide any response to the possibility of domestic violence in 10 percent of the calls when asked by Screeners.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 27

Figure 10: Information Collected by SCR Screeners in Calls coded CPS Reports Related to Response Priority n=85 except where noted
Collected or Asked For Not Asked For

Perpetrator's Access to Child

91%

9%

Current Location of Child

71%

29%

Urgency of Intervention (n=84)

77%

23%

Frequency of Harm/Risk Occurrence

73%

27%

Danger of Current Situation

71%

29%

Knowledge of Domestic Violence

61%

39%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008

• All of the information needed by DYFS field office case managers to follow up on reports and referrals was not captured routinely.
As seen in Figure 11 for CPS calls, there were categories of information that the SCR Screeners did not routinely collect which would be helpful for the field to effectively respond to the report, although perhaps less critical to basic decision-making on classification and response priority. Less frequently collected information included the contact information (65%) for the child at the time of the call; whether or not the child had a disability (62%), and the primary language spoken by the family (21%).24 Callers were most likely not able to provide a contact number for the child – 16 percent were asked but did not have the information. Likewise callers were not able to provide the number of children in 10 percent of the calls. Soliciting information about the family’s primary language is not currently required of Screeners although this could prove to be important information for the investigator. Screeners have the ability to link into a language translation service if a caller’s primary language is something other than English, but DYFS field office case manager may not have any indication that the family of the alleged victim is not English-speaking until they initiate the investigation.

24 This is not currently required by SCR policy.
The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 28

Figure 11: Information Collected by SCR Screeners in Calls coded CPS Reports Related to Providing Additional Information to the Field n=85 except where noted
Collected or Asked For Not Asked For

Primary Address of Child

92%

8%

Number of Children (n=81)

78%

22%

Contact Number of Child

65%

35%

Disability of Child (n=84)

62%

38%

Primary Language

21%

79%

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008

Similar to the finding for CPS reports, important location and contact information helpful to the field was collected less often for CWS referrals.25 The SCR Screeners collected the family’s address in 87 percent of the calls; in fewer calls information was collected on the current location (78%) and contact information (78%) of the family. There was a gap in ability of the callers to provide current location and current contact information, however. In both circumstances 13 percent of the callers could not provide the information. The family’s primary language was collected in 26 percent of the calls. Figure 12 depicts this information.

In CWS referrals, a key piece of information for the field’s response is to know whether the family in need of services is aware of the referral. Screeners obtained this information in less than half of the calls. They did not ask for it in 52 percent of the calls. However, as described earlier under decision-making, approximately one-third of the CWS referrals were related to open cases.

25 The same caveats regarding conclusions from the CPS report subgroup apply to CWS as well but the margin of error will be even greater.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 29

Figure 12: Information Collected by SCR Screeners in Calls coded CWS Referrals Related to Call Classification n=23
Collected or Asked For Not Asked For

Family's Home Address

91%

9%

Contact Number of Family

78%

22%

Current Location of Family

78%

22%

Number of Children

61%

39%

If Family Aware of Call to SCR

48%

52%

Primary Language

26%

74%

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008

• NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries substantially reflected what was heard on the calls in 72 percent of the calls but the accuracy and completeness of documentation remains a problem.
In general, the SCR Screeners collect the information required to make decisions as to how to code a call and in the majority of cases provide the field sufficient information on which to act. However, in comparing what was heard on the calls to the written information that was transferred to the field through NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries, the information obtained from the caller was not completely documented for more than one-quarter (28%) of the calls. Thus, the documentation of the call did not always contain complete information used by the Screeners for decision-making
When the family’s primary language was identified as something other than English, it was reflected in the Screener’s narrative of the problem or request from the caller. However, in a separate section of the Screening Summary that allows Screeners to record the family’s primary language and indicate if an interpreter is needed, it appears that NJ SPIRIT defaults to “English” as the primary language and “no interpreter needed” if the Screener does not actively change it. Documentation of the language issue was highlighted in one CWS example: the reporter spoke Spanish and the Screener used the language line to obtain information from the reporter. The

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 30

reporter was requesting services for her 15 year old daughter. The Screener ascertained that the reporter’s husband, the youth’s father, spoke Spanish and English and this was reflected in the narrative of the NJ SPIRIT Screening Summary. However, the Screening Summary also indicates that the family’s primary language is English and no interpreter is needed. Further interviews of the mother may be hampered if the responding case manager is not prepared to speak Spanish.
Likewise, in a CPS-Family report, the narrative indicated that the child had disclosed the allegation of physical abuse to his English as a Second Language (ESL) teacher. The narrative also states very clearly “SPANISH SPEAKING.” Again, however, the NJ SPIRIT Screening Summary indicates that the family’s primary language is English and no interpreter is needed.
Other examples of documentation lapse and errors that may be problematic for the field: • Incomplete or inaccurate contact information for Caller or child’s current location. • Incomplete contact information to coordinate investigation with school or law enforcement. • Discrepancy in current location of child or family. • Misspelled street name.
In both the CPS and CWS calls, the documentation shortcomings may be a result of workload issues and the “time crunch” Screeners report feeling they are often under. Screeners—certified and uncertified alike –- strongly indicated that they need more time to complete their written reports. Focus group participants articulated different opinions as to how much time Screeners believe they have to write reports. Some Screeners understand policy to be that once they complete three CPS phone calls, they are permitted to take an hour to write them all up. Others disagreed that this was the SCR policy. Uncertified Screeners said that new calls were too often waiting “in queue” while Screeners complete reports, and that, despite policy, some Supervisors do not permit Screeners to take time to write and transmit reports after completing three calls. Focus group participants told the Study Team that they felt this compromises the accuracy and thoroughness of their reports, although they understand the priority of promptly answering all calls.
• Over 80 percent of the NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries contained sufficient information supporting the coding and/or the response priority.
Even though there was important information missing from the documentation or incorrect documentation in NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries, the Study Team found that the NJ SPIRIT Screening Summary supported the coding of the call in 84% of the calls and supported the response time priority in 85% of the calls. However, the purpose of the documentation is not only to support decision-making, it is also intended to give the DYFS field office case manager knowledge about the circumstances of the incident or phone call in order to facilitate the appropriate action.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 31

C. Timeliness
• A majority (80%) of the CPS reports and CWS referrals were sent to the field office within 3 hours from the ending time of the call.
According to SCR staff, the one hour policy with regard to how long an SCR report or referral should take to be sent to the field after a call has been completed is unrealistic and has either been suspended or is not enforced. The Study Team was told that when a response time of “immediate” is given to a CPS report, a phone call is immediately made to the DYFS field office and the formal written report follows shortly thereafter. The Study Team did not have a means for assessing or verifying this practice.
As illustrated in Table 4, the Study Team found that 23 percent of calls that were classified as reports or referrals reached the field offices within 60 minutes of the Screener completing the call. Another 56 percent reached the field offices within 3 hours of the call ending, for a total of approximately 80 percent of calls reaching the field offices within three hours from the time the call ended.
There were three calls which appear to have taken between 6 and 24 hours to reach the field office. Among these three calls, two appeared to be delayed as a result of supervisory review and upgrade to CPS-IAIU, one alleged sexual activity between a youth and a counselor in a residential facility and the other alleged child-on-child sex in a facility. For the third call, a CPS report with a 24 hour response priority, there was no apparent reason for a 6 hour time elapse between the call coming to SCR and the report arriving in the field.
Five reports or referrals appear to have arrived in the field office more than 24 hours after the call to the SCR. In two situations, the delay appears to be the result of supervisory review and decision to change the initial coding to CPS-IAIU, arriving in the regional IAIU office approximately 34 and 52 hours after the phone calls. One call arrived in the field office 28 hours after the SCR call because, according to supervisory review, a new report had to be generated because the initial report was “linked” incorrectly. The other two cases reflect supervisory consultation, but no clear reasons for delays of 71 and almost 76 hours, respectively.26

26 The call that appears to have taken 71 hours to reach the field was a CPS Family Report with a 24 hour response assigned that was called into SCR on a Thursday at 1:12 PM. Time of Intake was 2:39 that afternoon. It was assigned to the receiving local office on the following Sunday at 12:30 PM. The call that appears to have taken almost 76 hours to reach the field was a CWS Referral with a 72 hour response that was called into SCR on a Friday at 12:47 PM. Time of Intake was 2:16 that afternoon. It was assigned the following Monday afternoon at almost 5:00 PM and a case conference appears to have been held in the local office that resolved that the case would remain a CWS referral with a 72 hour response.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 32

Table 4: Time between End of Call and Transmittal to Field Office* For Calls Coded CPS Reports or CWS Referrals - n = 10827

Time Screening Summary was Sent to Field Office28

Number

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Within 1 hour after call ending

25

23%

Between 1 hour and 3 hours after call ending

61

56%

80%

Between 3 hours and 6 hours after call ending

13

12%

92%

Between 6 hours and 12 hours after call ending

2

2%

94%

Between 12 hours and 24 hours after call ending

1

1%

94%

Between 24 hours and 76 hours after call ending

5

Missing data29

1

5%

99%

1%

100%

Total

108

100%

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.

Table 5 provides the transmittal times for CPS reports alone. As indicated, a slightly higher proportion of CPS calls are transmitted to the field within 60 minutes (26%). Including those transmitted to the field within an hour, 84 percent of calls were transmitted within 3 hours of the call being completed. However, there were 3 calls for which it took more than 24 hours for the report to be transmitted to the field office after the call was completed.

Table 5: Time between End of Call and Transmittal to Field Office* For Calls Coded CPS Reports - n = 8530

Time Screening Summary was Sent to Field Office31

Number

Percent

Cumulative Percent

Within 1 hour after call ending

22

26%

Between 1 hour and 3 hours after call ending

49

58%

84%

Between 3 hours and 6 hours after call ending

8

9%

92%

Between 6 hours and 12 hours after call ending

2

2%

95%

Between 12 hours and 24 hours after call ending

1

1%

96%

Between 24 hours and 76 hours after call ending

3

4%

100%

Total

85

100%

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.

27 This is the number of calls that were coded CPS reports or CWS referrals. All other calls were excluded because
they were calls that do not get passed onto to the field: “Information and Referral” and “Information Only” or “No
Action Required.” 28 Field Office refers to either a field office in a county or a regional IAIU office. 29 According to SCR, one report created on October 5,2007 did not get assigned in the field office until October 31,
2007 due an error in NJ SPIRIT 30 This is the number of calls that were coded CPS reports. 31 Field Office refers to either a field office in a county or a regional IAIU office

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 33

D. Professionalism and Competence of SCR Screeners
The Study Team evaluated the Screeners’ professional demeanor on a number of dimensions including:
1) relevancy and logical sequence of questions to caller, This dimension measured how well the Screener’s questions followed the flow of the caller’s narrative. Economy and effectiveness of the questions were considered more important than the quantity of questions. Reviewers listened for Screener questions that pertained directly to the reason or circumstance that prompted the call and what was needed to form an adequate basis for decisionmaking about the call. Reviewers also listened for how the Screener may have had to re-direct the caller to keep him/her focused on the pertinent issues.
2) calmness and objectivity during call, This dimension focused on the Screener’s tone of voice and exhibition of emotion. Reviewers listened for such qualities as a conversational tone, Screener speaking pace, and fluctuation that indicated excitement.
3) empathy, care and concern demonstrated to caller, This dimension focused on the Screener’s efforts to engage the caller in order to obtain the maximum amount of pertinent information. Reviewers listened for the use of reflective listening skills, appropriately but not excessively repeating caller concerns to indicate that they had heard what caller had to say, and a calm, engaging voice.
4) direct and clear communication with caller, This dimension focused on the Screener’s speech pattern. Reviewers listened for whether the Screeners mumbled, spoke too fast, spoke to be clearly heard, and used respectful conventions such as “pardon me” to interrupt the caller when necessary.
5) effort to ensure accuracy of information, This dimension focused on how the Screener attempted to make sure he/she had received the information as the caller had provided. Reviewers listened for Screener efforts to repeat back information to the caller or asked for spelling or names.
6) respectful call conclusion This dimension focused on how the Screener ended the call. Was it courteous? Did the Screener say “thank you,” at a minimum?
A three point scale was applied to “rate” Screeners on each of the first five dimensions. A rating of “1” was used to indicate that the dimension was completely satisfied; a rating of “2” meant it was partially satisfied; and a rating of “3” meant it was not satisfied. The sixth dimension used a “yes”/”no” criteria.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 34

• The majority of calls were handled thoroughly and professionally, but performance on some dimensions needs strengthening.

As shown in Table 6 below, 72 percent or more of the calls completely met the criteria along all dimensions. In nearly all calls Screeners demonstrated calmness and objectivity (91%) and in 93 percent of calls, Screeners ended the call respectfully.

The Screeners appear to need improvement in asking relevant questions in a sequence which follows the flow of the call (72% met criteria) and in summarizing pertinent information back to the caller (72% met criteria). Screeners could also improve their efforts to listen and communicate with callers with empathy, care, and concern.

Table 6: Screener Response to Calls n=232
Number

Percent

Screeners demonstrated

Completely Partially N o Total
Completely Partially N o Total

Relevancy and logical sequence of questions of caller

168

54

11

232

72%

23%

5 %

100%

Calmness and objectivity during call

211

16

5

232

91%

7%

2 %

100%

Empathy, care and concern to caller

181

42

9

232

78%

18%

4 %

100%

Direct and clear Communication with caller Parties

208

19

65

232

89%

8%

3 %

100%

Efforts to ensure accuracy

162

64 22632 72%

28 %

100%

Respectful end to call

213

15 22833 93%

7 %

100%

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.

Examples of both solid professional performance and those where professionalism was lacking were cited by the Study Team.

32 6 calls were considered not applicable because they were internal calls or, in one case, the caller hung-up before
Screener could repeat information. 33 4 calls were considered not applicable because they were internal requests for information.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 35

Study Team comments about strong performance include:

• Screener was very thorough and documentation was very accurate.

• This Screener is excellent. Assured, firm, engaging and very successful in getting a lot of specific information from a caller who preferred to be much vaguer than Screener needed her to be. Model Screener.

• Screener was very pleasant and helpful. Screener gave caller good direction and asked questions to focus on getting the information that the caller was struggling to provide.

• Very efficient, courteous handling of call. However, overall quality is compromised by documentation.

• Screener was logical, respectful and supportive. She asked very good questions and supported the caller during difficult moment when discussing specifics of sexual abuse her child has experienced.

• Screener politely and clearly obtained needed information but rarely used reflective listing skills.

• Screener was great. Found out information from Supervisor to do a warm transfer to Differential Response pilot. When she was given wrong number, she persevered and eventually connected caller to Differential Response worker in county.

• This Screener was excellent in steering caller to salient facts in a clear but empathetic and respectful way.

• Screener did excellent job; asked good, clarifying questions of caller. Screener was very empathetic of caller who sounded very concerned for child.

• Caller was excitable, sometime rambling, almost always vague. Screener did good job in focusing the caller to specific facts and/or allegations.

Study Team comments about weaker performance include:

• Twice the Screener exceeded professional boundaries commiserating with police about difficult teens (alleged victim was a 15 yr old girl who allegedly had been slapped by brother-in-law as a “ wake up call”), noting how glad she was not to have teenagers anymore.

• Screener exhibited impatience and cut off caller.

• Caller was a boy, age 15, who had been kicked out of his adoptive house. The Screener displayed no patience; inappropriately hurrying and interrupting.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 36

• Screener could have used more empathetic language. Caller's daughter, son-in-law and grandchildren were losing their home and Screener spoke matter-of-factly about separating the family. Screener confused caller with advice about having parents call for help and whether children would be removed from parents due to homelessness. Caller was surprised to learn that if you call and ask for help, a possible result would be the separation of children from parents. The Screener was not sympathetic to the Catch-22 caller was pointing out.
• Caller was from a group home reporting a fight between two teenage residents. The Screener did not ask some relevant questions and attempted to create the scenario in a way that prompted the attack of one girl on the other. The Caller stated that was not the case and that the attack appeared to be unprovoked. The Screener mumbled, as if talking to himself, and was not clear on what he was doing so that caller apologized for her misunderstanding.
• Although pertinent information was gathered, the Screener often interrupted caller with questions, and was restating bits and pieces while caller attempted to continue with story as though the Screener was talking to herself out loud as she recorded information. Care and concern were apparent, as was the interest to get the story straight, although there was more repeating for the sake of recording than reflective listening.
• Callers were trying to explain that child will be homeless in 2 days and the Screener was saying there was nothing she could do. Screener took awhile to grasp what caller's concern was about.
• Screener sounded impatient and asked questions designed to elicit more specific information in a challenging way to caller.
E. The Effect of Screener Certification
As previously described, the SCR has established two Screener levels – certified and uncertified. Within the study sample, 98 calls were handled by certified Screeners and 134 were handled by uncertified Screeners. Focus groups of Screeners expressed frustration that bifurcating the role of Screener by skill level was not helpful to morale and did not serve any meaningful purpose. In addition, there was a lack of clarity about how Screeners become certified. Those who knew that it was the responsibility of Supervisors to rate Screeners and make recommendations noted that some people had not achieved certification status solely because their Supervisors had not had the time to do the rating and prepare the packet for review and approval by the designated case work Supervisor. Therefore the analysis in this section is intended to provide information on the effect that Screener certification has on operations.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 37

• Calls handled by uncertified Screeners generally were longer.

As indicated in Table 7 below, calls handled by uncertified Screeners generally lasted longer. The one exception to this pattern was duration of the calls that were eventually coded “No Action Required.” Certified workers spent longer on this type of call. This finding is not surprising given the required supervisory consultation for uncertified Screener decision-making.

Table 7: Call Duration by Type of Call Resolution and Screener Certification Status

Call Type

Applicable Calls (#)

CPS

85

Child Welfare

23

I & R

70

Related Information

44

No Action Required

10

Grand Total

232

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.

Median
11 m 15 m 3 m 7 m 10 m 7 m

Average

Certified Uncertified

11 m

14 m

12 m

15 m

4 m

4 m

8 m

9 m

17 m

10 m

8 m

9 m

• Certified Screeners appear to make more accurate coding and response priority determinations

The proportion of calls in the sample handled by uncertified Screeners was 58 percent. However, the uncertified Screeners represented a larger proportion of the 23 calls that Study Team disagreed with or could not assess either the coding or the response priority designation. Among the 23 calls, 15 (65%) were calls handled by uncertified Screeners. This is a particularly interesting finding given that all uncertified decisions must be reviewed by Supervisors. This may be reflective of what focus groups suggested were inconsistencies among Supervisors.

• Uncertified Screeners are as thorough as certified Screeners in collecting key pieces of information for CPS reports

Among the 85 calls in the sample that were coded as CPS reports, 44 were handled by certified Screeners and 41 were handled by uncertified Screeners. Figures 13 and 14 summarize the frequency of information collection by each subgroup of Screeners for the CPS-designated calls in the sample. As indicated, neither subgroup was universally better than the other. For example, certified Screeners collected information more often about the child’s current location (80% compared to 61%) while the uncertified Screeners collected information about whether or not a child had a disability (69% compared to 52%). Overall, uncertified Screeners did as well or better than certified Screeners on 14 of the 18 items listed. In addition to the child’s current location, certified Screeners more often collected information about when the harm occurred, danger of the current situation, and the family’s primary language.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 38

Figure 13: Information Collected by SCR Screeners on CPS Calls by Certified Screeners n=44
Collected or Asked For Not Asked For

Primary Language Knowledge of Domestic Violence
Perpetrator's Access to Child Disability of Child (n=42)
Immediate Medical Attention (n=11) Urgency of Intervention
Danger of Current Situation How the Harm Occurred
Frequency of Harm/Risk Occurrence When the Harm Occurred
Harm or Risk of Harm Child Suffered Perpetrator's Relationship to Child Perpetrator's Identity Primary Address of Child Contact Number of Child Current Location of Child
Age of All or Some Children (n=41) Number of Children (n=42)

27%

73%

52%

48%

86%

14%

52%

48%

64%

36%

75%

25%

70%

30%

95%

5%

70%

30%

100%

0%

97%

2%

98%

2%

95%

5%

91%

9%

66%

34%

80%

20%

92%

7%

71%

29%

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100 %

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 39

Figure 14: Information Collected by SCR Screeners on CPS Calls by Uncertified Screeners n= 41
Collected or Asked For Not Asked For

Primary Language 15% Knowledge of Domestic Violence
Perpetrator's Access to Child Disability of Child (n=39)
Immediate Medical Attention (n=4) Urgency of Intervention (40) Danger of Current Situation How the Harm Occurred
Frequency of Harm/Risk Occurrence When the Harm Occurred
Harm or Risk of Harm Child Suffered Perpetrator's Relationship to Child Perpetrator's Identity Primary Address of Child Contact Number of Child Current Location of Child
Age of All or Some Children (n=40) Number of Children (n=39)

85% 53%
95% 69%
100% 80% 70%
95% 75%
93% 98% 100% 98%
92% 63% 61%
100% 85%

46% 5%
31% 0%
20% 29%
5% 24%
7% 2% 0% 2%
7% 37% 39%
0% 15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 40

• CPS reports generated by certified Screeners reach the field offices more quickly than those generated by uncertified Screeners.

As shown in Table 8, of the 44 calls handled by certified Screeners, 16 (37%) were received by the field office within an hour compared to 6 (15%) of the 41 calls handled by uncertified Screeners. This performance is not unexpected because uncertified Screeners must have their decisions reviewed by Supervisors before they are transmitted to the field. The proportion of reports that reached the field within 3 hours is also greater for certified Screeners: 89 percent of the reports from certified Screeners and 78 percent of the reports by uncertified Screeners reached the field within 3 hours.

Of the 3 CPS calls which took the longest to be received by the field office, 2 were handled by uncertified Screeners. Both of these were calls that SCR Supervisors upgraded to CPS-IAIU calls.

Table 8: Time between End of Call and Transmittal to Field Office34

For Calls Coded CPS Reports

Comparison of Certified and Uncertified the Screeners n = 8535

Certified

Uncertified

Time Screening Summary was Sent to Field Office

Number Percent Number Percent

Within 1 hour after call ending

16

37%

6

15%

Between 1 hour and 3 hours after call ending

23

52%

26

63%

Between 3 hours and 6 hours after call ending

4

9%

4

10%

Between 6 hours and 12 hours after call ending

2

5%

Between 12 hours and 24 hours after call ending

1

2%

Between 24 hours and 76 hours after call ending

136

2%

2

5%

Total 44

100%

41

100%

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.

34 Field Office refers to either a field office in a county or a regional IAIU office. 35This is the number of calls that were coded CPS reports. 36 According to SCR, one report created on October 5, 2007 did not get assigned in the field office until October 31,
2007 due an error in NJ SPIRIT.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 41

• There appears to be little difference in professional demeanor between calls handled by certified and uncertified SCR Screeners

With regard to the professionalism of the SCR Screeners and the thoroughness and quality of a call, there was little apparent difference and in some cases, calls handled by uncertified Screeners were more likely to be more thorough. For example, nearly the same proportion of each subgroup demonstrated calmness, objectivity, and direct and clear communication. Uncertified Screeners, however, appeared to demonstrate more relevancy in their line of inquiry; more empathy care and concern; and greater efforts to ensure accuracy.

Table 9: Screener Response to Calls

Source: SCR Assessment, January 2008.

Certified (n=98)

Uncertified (n=134)

Screeners demonstrated

Completely Partially N o Total
Completely Partially N o Total

Relevancy and logical sequence of questions of caller Calmness and objectivity during call Empathy, care and concern to caller Direct and clear Communication with caller Parties
Efforts to ensure accuracy
Respectful end to call

67% 30% 3% 100% 76%

91% 6% 3% 100% 91% 76% 20% 4% 100% 80%

91% 7% 2% 100% 89%

69%

31% 100%37 74%

93%

7% 100%39 94%

19% 5% 100%

7%

1% 100%

16% 4% 100%

9%

2% 100%

26% 100%38 6% 100%

37 Valid calls for calculation is 96 because two calls were considered not applicable since they were internal calls, or
were hang-ups 38 Valid calls for calculation is 130 because 4 calls were not considered applicable. 39 Valid call for calculation is 94 since 4 calls were not applicable because they were internal requests.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 42

V. Factors Affecting Performance

A. Strengths of the SCR

The operations, daily functioning and decision-making of the SCR was found to be competent and professional. It was vastly improved since it was last evaluated by the Child Welfare Reform Panel in 2005. The Study Team noted many strengths including:

• Strong and competent leadership as demonstrated by: o Systematic methods of quality assurance, including:  daily peer reviews of calls that are not initially sent to the field; and  supervisory review and evaluation of calls; o Effective use of the available technology; o Improved real time supervision through additional call floor Supervisors and assignment of a dedicated Casework Supervisor to training and supervision of part-time staff; and o Improved guidance to Screeners on how to apply the Allegation Based System of evaluating and determining reports of child abuse or neglect and child welfare services.
• Overall, a high degree of professionalism of administrators and screening staff; • Available technology
o A sophisticated telephone system that appears to effectively route calls as well as assist with staff supervision and management;
o An effective recording system that permits recall and evaluation of any incoming call to the SCR; and
o A state of the art management information system that, despite its need for regular modifications, is reliable and performs well.

B. Opportunities for Improvement

Despite the Study Team’s finding that the SCR decision-making in 92 percent of calls reviewed was generally sound and consistent, the Study Team identified several important areas where there are opportunities for improvement. These opportunities include:

• The SCR written policies, definitions, and expectations. Although staff have received training and guidance on applying the Allegation Based system and many focus group participants acknowledge improved consistency around CPS reports, there are still inconsistent and ill defined standards and criteria. For example, the standard for accepting a call to the hotline is defined in more than one way.40 There is also no longer an established policy for expected timeliness in transmitting reports to the field. Some focus group participants reported that there is an informal expectation among the SCR staff that calls are transferred to investigative staff in the field within two hours. Others said it was shorter and still others were unaware of any expectation.

40 E.g. N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10 cited in the introduction to the Field Operations Casework Policy and Procedures Manual at tab 2 Section 203.1 of the Manual, where the “reasonable cause to believe” standard is found is in conflict with the “circumstances that suggest harm” language in tab 2 Section 208 of the same Field Operations Manual.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 43

Some of the confusion over policy indentified in the focus groups may be tied to the inconsistency in written policy and other reference material.
Finally, although DYFS policy at the time of the review allows the field office to respond to a CWS referral sooner than 72 hours, SCR does not appear to have a clear set of written criteria for when it should assign a more immediate response time than 72 hours. The options Screeners have when they believe that the appropriate coding is CWS but that a more urgent response time is indicated are to document the request in the narrative, call the DYFS field office to indicate the urgency, and/or send it to the SPRU worker assigned which typically generates a more urgent response. Another informal “work around” used by Screeners is to code the call a CPS report and assign a more urgent response time priority. As indicated in Figure 5, one third of the CWS referrals in the sample were designated as “immediate” by Screeners and sent to SPRU staff. Likewise, as indicated by the analysis, Screeners appear to use CWS referrals for open cases when circumstances suggest a more immediate response than the assigned case manager may be able to provide, even though there is nothing in policy to support this use.
• The SCR Operations Manual. The Study Team found the manual to be outdated, disorganized, hard to use and in need of significant editing, restructuring and clarification. Even the updated version provided to the Study Team was not current; it makes reference to the old DYFS adoption units called “ARCS” as if they still existed and lists a previous Director, Jim Davy, on the cover as the current DYFS Director.
• Training. The DYFS workforce and others statewide are being intensively trained on DCF’s new Case Practice Model. The SCR should be part of that larger training process. SCR Screeners and staff who are new DCF employees will receive initial Case Practice Model training in the Pre-Service new worker training curriculum. However, other Screeners and staff with more tenure who joined the SCR prior to the current Pre-Service training curriculum or transferred in from another unit will not have received Case Practice Model training unless they are included in broader Inservice training.
Within the SCR, a training unit has been designated to provide new Screeners with basic job training and information on the policies current at the time of the training. However, Screeners report that the primary means of training on new SCR policy or DCF initiatives is supervisory action; Supervisors typically conduct supervisory meetings and distribute minutes to ensure new directives are disseminated. Uncertified Screeners report that they often receive changes to policy or updates by email or through paper correspondence, which they experience as haphazard. For example, Screeners reported that they had no formal training when DYFS’s new Differential Response initiative was introduced although according to SCR Administrators, training was provided. Certified and uncertified Screeners were uncertain as to which calls to code as CWS and whether Supervisors were able to upgrade a CWS report to one requiring an immediate response. Certified Screeners report that because of this kind of confusion they would sometimes code reports as

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 44

NARs to ensure that they would be evaluated a second time. Finally, some focus group participants reported that they were never formally trained on NJ SPIRIT and that they had to learn “while doing.” They felt whatever training they had was not given the priority it should have had, and was “squeezed” in between other priorities.
• NJ SPIRIT functionality. Although it appears to be operating well, Screeners, especially certified Screeners and Supervisors who have been at the SCR since before introduction of NJ SPIRIT, reported some loss of critical functionality in searching for information and linkages with other data systems. For example, a childcare service provider with offices statewide was coded in NJ SPIRIT as having offices only in Camden, necessitating Screeners to hunt through many addresses to find the correct location to provide a caller seeking a referral. Until this is corrected, they have to “work around” an otherwise simple operation, spending valuable time they could have devoted to calls or reports. SCR leadership reports that these issues are being addressed and they expect an early fall 2008 deployment of an enhanced search function in NJ SPIRIT that will not return multiple instances of the same provider. This should eliminate the need for Screeners to scroll through each record
In addition, new programmatic initiatives designed primarily to be implemented in DYFS field offices have had implications for NJ SPIRIT functionality at the SCR and it takes time for NJ SPIRIT to catch up to the innovations. Two examples of this are the Differential Response (DR) Pilot and the “CWS Pending” pilot. Both initiatives are designed to give the DYFS field offices more autonomy in responding to reports and referrals from the SCR. However, NJ SPIRIT was not designed with these initiatives in mind. Therefore, the SCR had to use a code within the “No Action Required” classifications to be able to transmit the NJ SPIRIT Screening Summary to the DR pilot counties after the “warm transfer” of the callers to the counties. Likewise, there was no designated code for “CWS Pending” except to indicate when a summary was awaiting a supervisory approval. When the pilot was initiated SCR Supervisors found themselves with electronic “in-boxes” full of “pending” summaries, which in fact had been transmitted to the appropriate field offices to assess or refer within 72 hours.
• Use of the SCR for administrative functions. In its role as DCF’s only 24-hour per day, 7-day per week operation, the Study Team observed an overuse of the hotline for administrative functions. Every call taken by a Screener from a SPRU worker registering for a shift or responding to a request for another DCF phone number takes time away from other SCR calls in queue. In addition, Screeners are required to complete a NJ SPIRIT Screening Summary for each of these calls, which is an unnecessary diversion from more urgent calls and screening summaries that need to be written. This is especially important given the issues noted previously about incomplete documentation and the Screener’s view that some of this is caused by excessive workload demands.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 45

VI. Recommendations
The Study Team’s recommendations fall into three broad areas: Policy, Operations, and Staff Development.
A. Policy
• Establish realistic and consistent timeframe expectations for transmittal of reports and referrals to the DYFS field offices and review staffing to ensure adequate resources are in place to meet expectations.
The current expectation for SCR “call turn around” is not clear. The data show that the majority of calls take up to three hours from the time the call ends to the time the report reaches the field. However, the Study Team was consistently told that Screeners call the field immediately when they are about to send a report that requires immediate attention. It is recommended that a clear expectation be set in written policy on the expected timeframes for reports to be transmitted to field staff by report type and response priority time. Along with the expectation should come a means of measuring how successful SCR is in both meeting the response time and in answering calls promptly. In setting a clear timeframe, steps must be taken to ensure that Screeners have sufficient time to accurately document the information they have gleaned from the calls so that accurate information can be conveyed to the field in a timely manner. The SCR may want to clarify its policy as to how many calls Screeners are expected to take before beginning documentation responsibilities. It may want to consider a policy of Screeners documenting each call immediately after it is received. The SCR may also want to do its own analysis of this issue, involving Screeners and Supervisors alike to examine how other states manage this issue. Illinois, for example, employs the same Allegation Based system as New Jersey and has chosen to set different time frames for reports to reach the field depending on the nature of the call, but there are certainly many ways to establish a set policy on this critical hotline function.41
• Continue to clarify CWS referral criteria including formally designating a response time for those CWS referrals that require a more urgent response than 72 hours.
Although Child Welfare Services referrals are typically less urgent than allegations of abuse or neglect, they are not always. And, there can be a fine line between a family’s need for services and an appropriate allegation of child neglect. The difference can be the timing of the response. SCR management and Supervisors recognize this challenge and have developed work-around methods to generate faster responses. This should not be dependent on individual Supervisors, however and it is recommended that the Department consider developing policy and criteria for designating urgent CWS reports with a shorter response time and effect the change. In addition, Field Operations and SCR together should clarify whether an “immediate” CWS referral is the appropriate mechanism for responding to an urgent need in an open case.

41 Pp.39 – 42 of Illinois Hotline Manual.
The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 46

• Clarify policies and criteria for reports of alleged abuse or neglect involving resource parents and other institutional providers which by policy are to be directed to the specialized Institutional Abuse Investigation Unit (IAIU) for investigation.
As indicated by the data, coding reports for IAIU requires greater SCR attention. The reports in the sample that were appropriately upgraded for an IAIU response by SCR Supervisors demonstrate a strength of SCR’s internal quality assurance efforts. However, valuable time was used to arrive at the final coding. Reports of youth fighting within a group home must be shared with their respective case managers, but the facilities’ actions or lack of action must also be reviewed. The allegation should be the primary criteria for decision-making, not the location of the allegation. It is recommended that the Department further review the types of calls that are being coded Related Information and compare them to those coded CPS-IAIU to begin formulating clearer policies and criteria for screening calls as CPS-IAIU.
• Streamline classification categories.
The Study Team experienced confusion in deciding how to categorize Information and Referral (I&R), Information Only (IO) and Related Information phone calls. Screeners do not consistently code calls within these three categories. Some calls coded as IO were really I&R or Related Information calls. Additionally, the data show that around 20 percent or more of the Information Only calls were from DYFS field offices and were made for administrative purposes. As the purpose of the SCR is to respond to allegations of abuse or neglect or requests for services or referrals, DCF may want to consider a different mechanism for DYFS field offices to perform some of these administrative tasks. The Study Team recommends at a minimum to eliminate the Information Only (IO) classification.
B. SCR Operations
• Reorganize and update operations manual
Editing the Operations Manual should include a wholesale updating of the information it contains so that outdated information is deleted and new information regarding the Differential Response and other pilot programs and information reflecting current policy and practice are included. We recommend researching other states’ manuals for models, and suggests a close examination of the Illinois hotline manual for its clarity and organization. In addition, this report highlights areas that should also be a primary focus in updating the Operations Manual.
• Continue to enhance NJ SPIRIT functionality for SCR
As discussed in detail above, Screeners have legitimate concerns about how NJ SPIRIT affects their work. Although staff have been creative in developing “work arounds” to the current functionality challenges and enhancements are planned, the timetable for the enhancements should not be allowed to slip. NJ SPIRIT limitations for SCR need to be addressed by the Department in a timely manner.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 47

In addition, it is recommended that when the Department is in the planning stages of new pilot projects or their expansion, it incorporates what has been learned from the SCR experience with Differential Response (DR) and the CWS Pending pilot. Both experiences, as reported by SCR leadership, offer some useful reflections. For the DR pilot, SCR leadership reports that staff jointly developed a methodology to track DR calls using existing functionality that would not require changes to NJ SPIRIT, and did so before the implementation of DR. With regard to the CWS pilot, SCR reported raising issues with NJ SPIRIT staff only after the initial deployment to four pilot offices and after the “pending” designation had caused the total pending referrals attached to supervisory groups to spike. As a result, teams from SCR and NJ SPIRIT met to discuss how to address the situation and jointly agreed that the necessary changes to the application could be delayed until the expansion of the CWS pilot to additional areas caused the volume of “pending” referrals to become unmanageable. According to SCR, this work is slated for design, development, and implementation, and the time frame will be determined by the timing of the expansion of the CWS pilot.
Without sacrificing innovation and experimentation to identify best practice for New Jersey, it is clear that the complexity of interactions requires joint planning and communication when considering a pilot effort. This will minimize unintended consequences and help to create realistic expectations for both SCR and the field.
• Consider developing and using alternative mechanisms for non-urgent business, such as SPRU registration or internal DCF queries.
Coupled with the elimination of IO calls, the Department needs to develop a new mechanism for SPRU communications. Of the sample NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries reviewed by the Study Team, 34 (13%) were calls relating to after hour investigators (Special Response Unit – SPRU) registering for shifts or indicating that they had been unable to reach family and “re-referring” the report or referral. The SCR Unit has a designated phone number for SPRU staff to call to register, but it appears that calls are also received on the same hotline the public uses. Although these calls are brief, they can be a distraction to Screeners trying to get their own work completed. In addition, the number of SPRU calls may affect accurate reporting of the volume of calls SCR receives.
C. Staff Development
• All SCR staff need regular and on-going training opportunities to ensure application of SCR polices and practices consistent with the DCF’s Case Practice Model.
Creative, real time teaching needs to be a regular part of each work week. In an agency undergoing significant cultural and operational changes, policies often change. It is, therefore, recommended that the SCR institute regular unit based training opportunities to ensure that all Screeners and staff are trained in new policies and practice. Additionally, there needs to be more systematic ongoing in-service training opportunities developed for continued on the job training at the SCR for both full time and part time Screeners and Supervisors, particularly when there is a change in SCR policy or practice.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 48

It is also recommended that SCR leadership respond to staff requests for more in-service training on New Jersey SPIRIT. Lastly, DYFS is engaged in a statewide intensive effort to train its workforce on DCF’s new Case Practice Model. The Study Team is not aware of any efforts to include SCR Screeners and staff in that process and it is recommended that all Screeners, their Supervisors and other staff have opportunities to be trained on the new Case Practice Model.
• Strengthen internal methods to support quality of work and staff competency: expanded peer review and Screener and Supervisor evaluation.
The SCR currently has three vehicles for ensuring the quality of work: regular supervisory review of NJ Screening Summaries written by uncertified Screeners; systematic worker evaluations using the mechanism that is part of the call recording system; and peer review of summaries that are coded as I&R and I&O. In addition, the Supervisors occasionally engage in case practice reviews of challenging cases. All of these are excellent mechanisms for not only quality assurance but also for staff development, but they can be strengthened.
Worker evaluations and peer review of the “no action” calls could be strengthened in two ways. First, given the degree of discrepancy that the Study Review Team identified between what was heard on the call and what was documented, more attention is needed to improving documentation. Reviews of decision-making should not rely on taped calls only or the documentation only. The daily peer review should consider listening to a sample of the calls in addition to reviewing the documentation and should be expanded to involve all levels of screening staff, and using select calls to model desired practice.
With some additional steps, the daily peer review can also become a useful mechanism for gathering data on the consistency among staff and supervisory decision-making and the consistency of supervisory units doing the peer review. The SCR should consider the following steps:
1. Aggregate the data from daily peer reviews by supervisory unit. • This could include how often a particular Screener’s and supervisory unit’s work is reviewed. On its own, this information may not be sufficient to draw definitive conclusions, but patterns may help to indicate areas for inquiry and development • It could also include how often a particular’s Screener’s decision-making is questioned by the peer reviewers. Again, aggregating this information by supervisory units may reflect some patterns worth investigating further for developmental purposes.
2. Aggregating the decision-making results of the peer review units, by unit. This could include aggregating all decisions-reviewed by units doing the review for patterns. For example, does a particular unit tend to question its peers more often than others? Again, such information should not lead to definitive conclusions but rather patterns that trigger further investigation.
Furthermore, SCR should consider investigating how the worker evaluation protocol that is a feature of the call recording system could be modified to be more tailored to the work of SCR rather than a generic telemarketing type of operation.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 49

• Evaluate the criteria and process for Screener certification and Supervisor qualification.
The decision to certify Screeners to recognize skills and to support more timely transmission of reports and referrals to the field is appropriate. Furthermore, it appears that certified Screeners make appropriate decisions more often than uncertified Screeners. However, the Study Team found little measurable difference between certified and uncertified Screener in terms of thoroughness and professionalism in conducting calls. In addition, the Study Team heard some concerns from staff about the certification process and status. Therefore, it is important for the SCR to review its current process and establish clear criteria for certification, perhaps through a committee of Supervisors and Screeners, including both certified and uncertified. Further, if the Department continues to allow less frequent supervisory review of decisions by certified Screeners, it will need to establish procedures for periodic re-certification.
Additionally, it is important for the SCR to review the qualifications for Supervisors and evaluate their performance. The Study Team found that uncertified Screeners represented a larger proportion of the 23 calls that the Study Team disagreed with or could not assess either the coding or the response priority designation. Given that uncertified decisions must be reviewed by Supervisors, this finding may indicate inconsistencies among Supervisors which might pertain to both their qualifications and their performance. Attention must be paid to the process of how Supervisors are evaluating their workers, but also to their own decision-making.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page 50

Appendix A: Methodology
The assessment involved several components. This appendix provides a detailed description of each component.
A. Call and Documentation Review
The core component of the assessment was a structured review of a sample of calls and the documentation produced as a result of the calls. To accomplish this task, the Study Review Team designed a sampling plan, developed a structured data collection instrument, employed a quality assurance approach to ensure inter-rater reliability, and developed a data base for analysis. These activities were accomplished as follows:
1. Sample Plan and Implementation.
Every call received or made on an SCR phone is automatically recorded using the NICE system. Screeners then classify and document in a Screening Summary in NJ SPIRIT (the State’s automated case processing system) all incoming calls. In designing the sample, the Study Team chose to draw the sample from among the NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries rather than the from among the taped calls to better ensure the sample would have a sufficient number of useable calls on which to base analysis and conclusions. Drawing the sample from among the taped calls would have produced a sample with a percentage of outgoing calls that would not be useful to the purposes of this assessment. However, drawing a sample from the NJ SPIRT Screening Summary data base had limitations as well because these summaries can be generated as the result of correspondence such as a court ordered home evaluation. Never the less, a sample of 300 NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries was randomly selected from 34,114 Screening Summaries generated between October 1 and November 30, 2007.
The sample size was designed to have no more than a 6 percent margin of error with 95 percent confidence.
Before beginning data collection, each call that was associated with each of the selected NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries and copied over the calls into a separate file of calls designed for use by the Study Review Team. Data collection was not completed for 32 Screening Summaries in the sample primarily because call quality was poor, it was an internal administrative call, it was an outgoing call, or the Screening Summary selected for the sample was generated by correspondence rather than a telephone call. This reduction was not great enough to affect the margin of error.
2. Data Collection
A structured data collection instrument was designed in collaboration with senior SCR management, the Office of Child Advocate, and a member of the DCF Quality Analysis and Information unit. The data collection instrument allowed reviewers to compare what they heard to written documentation, to assess whether decisions were made in accordance with law and policy and to evaluate the competency and professionalism of the SCR Screener. In addition, the

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page A-1

team used the instrument to compare the information provided by the caller to what was documented in the associated NJ SPIRT Screening Summary. On-site data collection took place January 28-February 4, 2008. A copy of this structured instrument is in Appendix B.
3. Quality Assurance
The Study Team trained for the review by discussing each question and its meaning and listening to parts or all of several taped calls. In particular, the Study Team spent time reviewing the dimensions to be used to assess Screener professionalism. Through this process, behavioral criteria for each rating were thoroughly discussed among Study Team members. This helped ensure consistency of interpretation among the Study Team.
All completed data collection instruments were reviewed for completeness and internal consistency prior to data entry and analysis. Ten percent of the completed instruments received a second review by the Monitor to ensure consistency and inter-rater reliability among the reviewers. Reviewers also often consulted with one-another about the circumstances of a call and sought clarification from SCR leadership when questions arose.
Additionally for all instruments in which a Study Team member disagreed with the original the SCR determination, a second, and in some cases a third, independent review was completed by the Monitor’s staff.
4. Data Analysis
The data collection instruments were keyed into a format that allowed electronic analysis using both Excel and SPSS42. These tools allowed the Study Review Team to generate frequencies of answers for pertinent questions. Team comments were also captured and reviewed to gain greater understanding of the circumstances.
B. Focus Groups
Five focus groups were held with the assistance of SCR leadership. These focus groups were designed to elicit general themes about the SCR operations and polices. A standard set of topics and questions were created for the focus groups. These questions are in the back of Appendix B, following the Call review instrument. The focus groups had different compositions, two groups consisted of Supervisors, two other groups were mostly certified Screeners, and one group was conducted with all uncertified Screeners.
C. Review of Peer-Review and Supervisor Consultation
Study team members observed the daily peer review of calls that had been screened-out the previous day. During these peer-reviews, the unit on duty for the week reviews the NJ SPIRIT Screening Summaries for calls which were classified as No Action Required (NAR) to confirm or revise the original Screener’s decision.

42 SPSS was formerly known as the Statistical Package for Social Science
The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page A-2

Study Review Team members also spent some time on “the call floor” observing SCR activity in general and, more specifically, Screener consultation with call floor supervisors.
D. Review of Policies, Procedures and Staffing
DCF updated its policies and procedures for the SCR in 2007. The new policies are part of the broad effort to revise many of the State’s policies to implement overall reforms. Study Team members reviewed the SCR policies, organization charts, staff credentials, position descriptions, staffing schedules, NJ SPIRIT screens and training materials.

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page A-3

Appendix B-1: SCR Call Review Data Collection Instrument

Observer Name:

Observation ID:_______________________

2008 Assessment of the Department of Child and Family Services State Central Registry (SCR)

Hotline Review Tool

Conducted by the Center for the Study of Social Policy (court-appointed Monitor for Charlie and Nadine H. v. Corzine) with the assistance of the New Jersey Office of the Child Advocate, and the Department of Children and Families.

SECTION ONE: REFERRAL BASICS AND TIMING

1.1 NJ SPIRIT Intake ID:_____________________________________ [Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary]

1.2 CLS ID #:_____________________________________________[Source: NICE]

1.3 Name of SCR Screener:

[Source: NICE]

5.5 Certification Status: [Source: List of Certified Screeners] 1. Certified 2. Uncertified

1.5 Date and Time of Intake [Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary] 1.6 Starting Date and Time of Call [Source: NICE] 1.7 Ending Date and Time of Call [Source: NICE] 1.8 Date and Time Intake sent to Local Office: [Source: SPIRIT Assignment Sheet Time Listed Under Assignment Designee]

Date (MM/DD)

Time Circle AM or PM

NA

_____/______

Am/Pm

_____/______

Am/Pm

_____/______

Am/Pm

_____/______

Am/Pm

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-1

SECTION TWO: CALL CONTENT

FOR ALL CALLS
Did the Screener collect the following information?
2.1 Caller’s identity 2.2 Caller’s contact information 2.3 Circumstances prompting Caller’s call 2.4 Did the Screener contact the Language Line/in-house interpretation assistance in order to communicate with Caller?

Answer from Listening to Call [Source: NICE Tape]
Screener asked for
but Yes No Caller NA
did or could not provide

Does Screening Summary Reflect What Caller Provided?
[Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary] MATCHES INFORMATION IS DIFFERENT information MORE = Additional information – use
as caller 4.3 and/or Section 6 to explain provided LESS = Information is missing – use
Section 6 to explain DIFFERENT = Information is different – use Section 6 to explain MORE LESS DIFFERENT

[Source: [Source:

Reporter Info Reporter Info

Box] Box]

5.5 How was the call coded? (Check one) [Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary Intake Type Box] 1. Information Only: handled by Hotline (Skip to 2.7) 2. Information & Referral: referred to other agency or other DCF division (Skip to 2.7) 3. No Action Required (Skip to Section 3) 4. Related Information (Go to 2.6) 5. CPS Family – Abuse/Neglect (Skip to 2.10) 6. CPS Other – Conflict Case (Skip to 2.10) 7. CPS IAIU – Institutional Abuse (Skip to 2.10)

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-2

8. Child Welfare Service (Skip to 2.32) 9. Child Welfare Service Pending (Skip to 2.32) [Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary Stated Problem/Request Box]

5.5 For Related Information Calls, did the Caller reference one of the following? 1. Making a previous call with a report or request and current call is to provide additional information [same Caller calling again] (Skip to Section 3) 2. A current investigation/assessment [Different Caller calling on same matter] (Skip to Section 3) 3. An open services case with no reference to an allegation [e.g. foster parent leaving a message for child’s caseworker] (Skip to Section 3) 4. Other _______________________________________________ (Conference with Lead Reviewer) 5. N/A sounded as though it was a new allegation/assessment request (Go to Questions for CPS 2.10 or CWS 2.32 depending on what prompted the call)

Questions 2.7 – 2.9 For:
Information & Referral Information Only
2.7 Did the Screener get the location where the services were needed?
2.8 Did the Caller request specific information from the Screener?
2.9 Did Screener provide Caller with a referral/requested information?

Listening to Call (Source: NICE Tape)

Does Screening Summary Reflect What Caller Provided?
(Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary)

MATCHES INFORMATION IS DIFFERENT

Screener

information MORE = Additional information – use

asked

as caller

4.3 and/or Section 6 to explain

Yes No

for but Caller

NA provided

LESS = Information is missing – use Section 6 to explain

did not

DIFFERENT = Information is different

provide

– use Section 6 to explain

MORE LESS DIFFERENT

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-3

[For any answer in 2.9, SKIP to SECTION 3]

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-4

Questions 2.10-2.31 For:
CPS Family CPS IAIU CPS Other – Conflict Case
Did Screener collect the following information? 2.10 Number of children in household 2.11 Information (i.e. DOB, age, grade) to
determine ages ALL children in the household (If Yes, Skip to 2.13) 2.12 Information (i.e. DOB, age, grade) to determine age of SOME children in the household 2.13 Complete address of current location of the alleged victim child(ren) 2.14 Phone number of the current location of the alleged victim child(ren) 2.15 Alleged victim child(ren)’s primary address 2.16 Alleged perpetrator’s identity 2.17 Alleged perpetrator’s relationship to alleged victim(s)

Listening to Call (Source: NICE Tape)

Does Screening Summary Reflect What Caller Provided?
(Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary)

MATCHES INFORMATION IS DIFFERENT

Screener

information MORE = Additional information – use

asked for

as caller 4.3 and/or Section 6 to explain

Yes No

but Caller

NA

provided

LESS = Information is missing – use Section 6 to explain

did not

DIFFERENT = Information is different

provide

– use Section 6 to explain

MORE LESS DIFFERENT

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-5

Questions 2.10-2.31 For:
CPS Family CPS IAIU CPS Other – Conflict Case

Listening to Call (Source: NICE Tape)

Does Screening Summary Reflect What Caller Provided?
(Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary)

MATCHES INFORMATION IS DIFFERENT

Screener

information MORE = Additional information – use

asked for

as caller 4.3 and/or Section 6 to explain

Yes No

but Caller

NA

provided

LESS = Information is missing – use Section 6 to explain

did not

DIFFERENT = Information is different

provide

– use Section 6 to explain

MORE LESS DIFFERENT

2.18 What harm or substantial risk of harm has the child(ren) suffered
2.19 That the alleged perpetrator was a parent or guardian, a parent’s paramour, a relative, or an older sibling/half sibling or step sibling
2.20 When the harm or substantial risk of harm occurred
2.21 With what frequency has the harm or substantial risk of harm occurred

2.22 How the harm or substantial risk of harm occurred
2.23 How dangerous is the child(ren)’s current situation
2.24 Urgency for intervention to ensure safety of child(ren)
2.25 Location of the alleged harm or substantial risk of harm to indicate IAIU involvement is appropriate

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-6

Questions 2.10-2.31 For:
CPS Family CPS IAIU CPS Other – Conflict Case
2.26 Where appropriate, a child required immediate medical attention
2.27 Information about victim child(ren)’s disability
2.28 Alleged perpetrator’s access to the alleged victim(s)
2.29 Knowledge of domestic violence in the household

Listening to Call (Source: NICE Tape)

Does Screening Summary Reflect What Caller Provided?
(Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary)

MATCHES INFORMATION IS DIFFERENT

Screener

information MORE = Additional information – use

asked for

as caller 4.3 and/or Section 6 to explain

Yes No

but Caller

NA

provided

LESS = Information is missing – use Section 6 to explain

did not

DIFFERENT = Information is different

provide

– use Section 6 to explain

MORE LESS DIFFERENT

2.30 Was there information provided by the Caller about the family’s primary language?
2.31 Was there any information provided by the Caller to indicate potential danger to caseworker who will intervene in the situation?

[For any answer in 2.31, SKIP to SECTION 3]

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-7

Questions 2.32-2.41 For Child Welfare Service/Child Welfare
Service Pending
Did Screener collect the following information? 2.32 Number of children in the household 2.33 Information (i.e. DOB, age, grade) to determine ages ALL minor child(ren) in the household (Skip to 2.35) 2.34 Information (i.e. DOB, age, grade) to determine age of SOME minor children in household 2.35 Complete address of current location of the family 2.36 Phone number of the current location of the family 2.37 Family’s home address 2.38 Urgency for intervention

Listening to Call (Source: NICE Tape)

Screener

asked for

Yes No

but Caller

NA

did not

provide

Does Screening Summary Reflect What Caller Provided?
(Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary) MATCHES INFORMATION IS DIFFERENT information MORE = Additional information – use as caller 4.4 and/or Section 6 to explain provided LESS = Information is missing – use Section 6 to explain DIFFERENT = Information is different
– use Section 6 to explain MORE LESS DIFFERENT

2.39 Was there information provided by the Caller about the family’s primary language?

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-8

Questions 2.32-2.41

Listening to Call (Source:

Does Screening Summary Reflect What Caller

For Child Welfare Service/Child Welfare

NICE Tape)

Provided?

Service Pending

(Source: SPIRIT

Screening Summary)

MATCHES INFORMATION IS DIFFERENT

Screener

information MORE = Additional information – use

asked for

as caller 4.4 and/or Section 6 to explain

Yes No

but Caller

NA

provided

LESS = Information is missing – use Section 6 to explain

did not

DIFFERENT = Information is different

provide

– use Section 6 to explain

MORE LESS DIFFERENT

2.40 If appropriate, was there any information

provided by the Caller to indicate potential

danger to caseworker who will intervene in

the situation?

2.41 Was there information provided by the Caller

to suggest that the family was aware of this

call to SCR?

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-9

SECTION THREE: QUALITY OF CALL [Source: NICE call tape only]
3.1 Did the Screener ask relevant questions in a logical sequence to obtain information from the Caller regarding the reason/circumstances that prompted the call? [Guidance: “logical sequence” may not be the same in each call, it is important that the Screener not interrupt the caller in mid-sentence but ask questions that follow the flow of the caller’s narrative. Economy and effectiveness of the questions are more important than quantity of questions]
1. Yes, completely [Standard: Screener’s questions pertained directly to the reason/circumstances that prompted the call and were at least the minimum questions necessary to get the information needed to form an adequate basis for a decision about the action to be taken. Questions that may have interrupted the flow of the Caller’s narrative were used to re-direct the caller and keep the caller focused on the issue pertinent to the SCR: CPS; Family needs, Information needs, Referral needs; Screener asked clarifying questions]
2. Yes, partially, [Standard: Screener’s questions did not always pertain to the reason/circumstances that prompted the call or seemed to flow with the Caller’s narrative, but a sufficient amount of information was obtained to form an adequate basis for a decision about the action to be taken.] Briefly provide an example(s) of questions you believe should have been asked but were not and/or what was the problem with the sequence of the Screener’s questions _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. No, [Standard: Screener did not ask sufficient questions to obtain all relevant information necessary to form an adequate basis for a decision about the action to be taken; and/or Screener continued to repeat questions more than twice after the Caller had provided the answer; Screener asked too many questions that were not relevant; Screener ‘s sequence did not fit the context of the caller’s narrative] Briefly provide an example(s) of questions ns you believe should have been asked but were not and/or what was the problem with the sequence of the Screener’s questions
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-10

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3.2 Did the Screener appear to remain calm and objective?
1. Yes, completely [Standard: Screener’s tone remained moderate and conversational through out call and did not exhibit any excitement, such as a raised voice; or spoke too fast]
2. Yes, partially, [Standard: Screener occasionally exhibited an excited tone of voice] briefly explain
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. No, [Standard: Screener became very excited and expressed a strong emotion – out rage, frustration, etc.] briefly explain
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-11

3.3 Did the Screener demonstrate empathy, care and concern? 1. Yes, completely [Standard: Screener throughout the call used reflective listening skills, appropriately, but not excessively, repeating Caller concerns to indicate they heard what Caller had to say, and used a calm, engaging voice] 2. Yes, partially, [Standard: Screener generally used reflective listening skills and a calm, engaging voice, not a “monotone” voice”] Briefly explain how this call fell short of the “Completely” standard.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. No, [Standard: Screener inappropriately hurried the Caller’s narrative and/or exhibited impatience with the Caller – complete monotone] briefly explain _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-12

3.4 Was the Screener direct and clear in communicating with parties? [explain things where necessary] 1. Yes, completely [Standard: Screener did not mumble, did not speak too fast and spoke clearly and at a voice level that appeared to be clearly heard by the Caller and if Screener did not hear or understand Caller, Screener used conventions such as “pardon me” to interrupt the Caller] 2. Yes, partially, [Standard: Screener occasionally spoke too fast or at a voice level where the Caller had to ask the Screener to repeat him/herself or said they did not understand Screener’s question] Briefly explain
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3. No, briefly explain ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.5 Did the Screener seek to summarize pertinent information to Caller? 1. Yes, completely 2. No

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-13

3.6 Did the Screener provide information about the next steps in the investigation and service process? 1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A, caller did not ask about next steps or it was an Information and Referral, Information Only or No Action Required Call
3.7 Did the Screener acknowledge/respectfully end the Caller? 1. Yes 2. No
3.8 Did Caller express dissatisfaction with the Screener’s response? 1. Yes, explain
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. No, skip to Question 3.10
3.9 Did Screener make all reasonable efforts to resolve the Caller’s concern? 1. Yes 2. No, explain
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
3.10 Was Caller at any point put on hold? 1. Yes 2. No (Skip to3.14)

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-14

3.11 Was Caller put on hold more than once? 1. Yes 2. No
3.12 How long was the longest “hold period”? 1. Less than 5 minutes 2. 6-10 minutes 3. 11-20 minutes 4. More than 20 minutes
3.13 Did the Screener indicate that s/he had conferred with his or her supervisor while the Caller was put on hold? 1. Yes 2. No

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-15

3.14 For Information Only or I&R calls what type of information was requested in call?

[This question is being included here because a “glitch” in NJ SPIRIT does not allow this to be included in the Screening Summary]

1. Adoption

18. Food

2. Adult Services

19. Hang-ups/wrong numbers

3. Bomb Threat

20. Harassment/Threat

4. Camp

21. Health Services

5. Child Care/Services

22. Housing

6. Child Support

23. Interstate Compact

7. Complaints

24. Juvenile Matters

8. Court

25. Law Enforcement

9. DHS Services

26. Legal Services

10. Disabilities

27. Mental Health

11. Domestic Violence

28. Other ______________

12. DYFS Administrative

29. Resource Family Information

13. DYFS Services

30. SPRU

14. Education

31. State Government

15. Employment

32. Substance Abuse

16. Family Support

33. Utilities

17. Financial Assistance

34. N/A

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-16

SECTION FOUR: DOCUMENTATION [Primary Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary only]
4.1 Was there evidence in the narrative section that the family was known to DCF? [Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary Other Intake Narrative Box] 1. Yes, there is evidence the family is known 2. No, there is n o evidence that the family is known 3. No indication in narrative 4. N/A
4.2 Was there evidence in the documentation narrative of the Screener’s conference with a Supervisor (FSSI or Super FSSII or Administrator)? 1. Yes, but content of conference was not documented [Narrative simply says “conferenced with supervisor/administrator” with no detail] 2. Yes, conferenced about (briefly explain
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 3. No evidence of a conference
4.3 Was there evidence in the documentation that the Screener consulted with other sources to include information not obtained through the initial call? (e.g. the Screener may have made some follow-up calls, or the Caller may have called again with additional information) 1. Yes 2. No

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-17

4.4 How was the call coded? (Check one) [Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary] (should match response in 2.5) 1. Information Only: handled by Hotline (Go to 4.5) 2. Information & Referral: referred to other agency or other DCF division (Go to 4.5) 3. No Action Required (Skip to Section 5) 5. Related Information (Skip to Section 5) 6. CPS Family – Abuse/Neglect (Skip to 4.6) 7. CPS Other – Conflict Case (Skip to 4.6) 8. CPS IAIU – Institutional Abuse (Skip to 4.6) 9. Child Welfare Service (Skip to 4.9) 10. Child Welfare Service Pending (Skip to 4.9)

4.5 For Information Only or Information & Referral, to who was the Caller referred? [Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary Referred To Box]

1. Adoption Services 2. Community Agency 3. County (Other Agencies) 4. County Welfare Services 5. Court/Legal Services 6. Crisis Intervention Unit (Mental Health) 7. Division of Child Behavioral Health Services 8. Division of Prev. & Com. Partnership 9. Domestic Violence Services 10. DYFS Office 11. Emergency Services 12. FAFS (For Foster and Adoption Inquiries) 13. Family Crisis Intervention Unit 14. Hotline/800#/211 15. IAIU

16. Interstate Services 17. Law Enforcement 18. Licensing 19. Medical Services 20. Mental Health Services 21. Mobile Response 22. No Action Required 23. Other DHS Services 24. Other NJ State Agency 25. School District 26. Shelter 27. Substance Abuse Services 28. Value Options 29. No Action Required/Differential Response 30. Other _______________________________________

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-18

[For any answer in 4.5, SKIP to SECTION 5]

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-19

4.6 For CPS calls, what allegation(s) was indicated in the documentation? (Check all that apply) [Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary Description Box]

1. Child death 1/51 2. Head injuries 2/52 3. Internal injuries 4/54 4. Burns 5/55 5. Poison or noxious substances 6/56 6. Wounds 7/57 7. Bone fractures 9/59 8. Substantial risk of physical injury or environment injurious to health and welfare 10/60 9. Cuts, bruises, abrasions, welts or oral injuries 11/61 10. Human bites 12/62 11. Sprains or dislocations 13/63 12. Tying/Close Confinement 14 13. Risk of harm due to substance abuse by the parent, caregiver or the child 15/65 14. Torture 16/99 15. Mental and Emotional Impairment 17/67/98 16. Sexually transmitted diseases 18 17. Sexual penetration 19 18. Sexual exploitation 20 19. Sexual molestation 21 20. Substantial risk of sexual injury 22 21. Inadequate supervision 74 22. Abandonment or desertion 75 23. Inadequate food 76 24. Inadequate shelter 77 25. Inadequate clothing 78

26. Medical neglect 79 27. Failure to thrive 81 28. Environmental neglect 82 29. Malnutrition 83 30. Lock-out 84 31. Medical neglect of a disabled infant 85 32. Educational neglect 86 33. No Allegations indicated 34. Unable to determine allegations

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-20

4.7 Were any of the following circumstances documented? (Check all that apply) [Source: SPIRIT Screening Stated Problem/Request Box] 1. Law enforcement requested an immediate response 2. A child died due to abuse/neglect and a sibling remained in the home/under the care of parent/caregiver. 3. The child is a hospital “boarder child” or a drug exposed newborn 4. A child, under the age of six was being left alone 5. A child required immediate medical attention 6. A child was being seriously physically abused 7. A child suffered serious physical harm or sexual trauma and there is reason to believe that a parent, guardian, or caregiver may have been responsible and the child’s immediate safety needed to be assured. 8. A child suffered serious physical harm or sexual trauma and physical evidence may be lost if not immediately and properly documented. 9. None of these circumstances were documented
4.8 What response time was coded for the allegation of abuse and neglect? [Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary Response Time Box] 1. Immediate (Skip to Section 5) 2. 24 hours (Skip to Section 5)
4.9 For Child Welfare Services calls what type of service was requested? [Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary Other Information Box] 1. Adoption Services 2. Child Services 3. Court/Prosecutor Requests 4. ICPC 5. Juvenile Services 6. Parent/Caregiver Services 7. Other Services/Requests 8. No service request documented

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-21

4.10 Were any of the following circumstances documented? [Source: SPIRIT Screening Stated Problem/Request Box] 1. Request for a home study under the Parole Exchange Program 2. Request for home study under the OCS/DYFS/Juvenile Justice Commission Affiliation Agreement 3. Request for a home study from another state’s CPS agency 4. ICPC request 5. Call came in and referral was directed to SPRU worker because it was after 5 pm, a weekend day, holiday, etc. 6. None of these circumstances were documented
4.11 What response time was coded for Child Welfare Services referral? [Source: SPIRIT Screening Summary Response Time Box] 1. Immediate (Skip to Section 5) 2. 72 hours (Skip to Section 5) 3. 5 days (Skip to Section 5)

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-22

SECTION FIVE: REVIEWER JUDGMENT
5.1 In the Reviewer’s judgment was what was heard on the call transferred to the SPIRIT Screening Summary? 1. Yes 2. No
Please briefly explain/support judgment ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.2 In the Reviewer’s judgment does the SPIRIT Screening Summary documentation support the coding of the call? 1. Yes 2. No
Please briefly explain/support judgment ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.3 In the Reviewer’s judgment was the call appropriately coded? 1. Yes 2. No
Please briefly explain/support judgment ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-23

5.4 In the Reviewer’s judgment does the SPIRIT Screening Summary documentation support the response priority of the call? 1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A because case was IO, I&R, NAR, or Related Information
Please briefly explain/support judgment ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
5.5 In the Reviewer’s judgment was the response priority appropriately assigned? 1. Yes 2. No 3. N/A because case was IO, I&R, NAR, or Related Information
Please briefly explain/support judgment ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-24

SECTION SIX: OTHER COMMENTS
Briefly provide any additional comments you believe provide important insights to the review of this call. If the comments are in reference to a previous answer, please include the question number

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-25

Appendix B-2 SCR Focus Group Questions
SCR PROJECT FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS SCREENERS When started at SCR Prior experience If Part time what is Fulltime job Specific training/certification
1. What do you think is working well at SCR? (e.g. supervision, technical support -- SPIRIT, management, training, etc); • Probe about i. SPIRIT system ii. Guidelines for defining abuse/neglect, child welfare services and other call classifications are clear and consistent iii. Adequate time to devote to each call iv. Sufficient time to adequately complete screening summary
2. What aspect of your job do you find most time consuming? Do you feel this is time well spent? How can this be streamlined or improved?
3. What barriers, if any, do you experience that hinder your ability to do any part of your job effectively? (e.g. supervision, technical support -- SPIRIT, management, training, etc) • make accurate and timely screening decisions? • gather information about each case? • relay referrals to the field in a timely manner? What ideas do you have about overcoming those barriers?
• Probe about i. SPIRIT system ii. Guidelines for defining abuse/neglect, child welfare services and other call classifications are clear and consistent
iii. Adequate time to devote to each call iv. Sufficient time to adequately complete screening summary
What ideas do you have about overcoming those barriers?
4. How often do you rely on your supervisor for support or guidance? How helpful are they and are they easily available? Can you think of any improvements that would help this relationship? If you disagree with a supervisor’s decision, how are those disagreements resolved?

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-26

5. How able are you to provide appropriate information and/or referrals to meet the specific needs of the caller? If you do not know the information a caller is requesting, how do you ensure they receive it?
6. Do you feel the training you receive is adequate to enable you to perform your job to the best of your ability? Why or why not? Are there any areas that you feel you need additional training?
7. What would be two changes that can improve your work or enable you to better perform your job?
8. Is there anything about the SCR that we haven’t asked about that you want to share?

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-27

SUPERVISORS When started at SCR Prior experience

1. Please explain the supervisory responsibilities. Probe for: • relationship you have with your screeners. • most common issues that arise in your interactions with screeners (do they mean what questions are they most frequently asked?) • How issues/differences are resolved

2. What do you think is working well at SCR? (e.g. supervision, technical support -- SPIRIT, management, training, etc); • Probe about i. SPIRIT system ii. Guidelines for defining abuse/neglect, child welfare services and other call classifications are clear and consistent iii. Adequate time to devote to assisting screeners iv. Training provided to them and the screeners v. Management oversight and support

3. What aspect of your job do you find the most time consuming? Do you feel this is time well spent? How can this be streamlined or improved?

4. What barriers, if any, do you experience that hinder your ability to do any part of your job effectively? (e.g. supervision, technical support -- SPIRIT, management, training, etc)

• Probe about i. SPIRIT system ii. Guiding screeners in making accurate decisions
iii. Guiding screeners in gathering the most thorough information possible iv. Adequate time to devote to assisting screeners v. Relay referrals to the field in a timely manner vi. Training provided to them and the screeners vii. Management issues

What ideas do you have about overcoming those barriers?

5. Are there additional resources/tools that would improve your ability to perform the duties of your job?

6. How difficult do you find it to ensure that referrals are provided to the field in a timely manner? How could this be improved?

7. How would you describe the differences in performance between certified and non-certified screeners? Does the high percentage of non-certified screeners present in a challenge? Do you feel confident that, once certified, a screener can appropriately code a call?

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-28

8. What role does QA play in your work? How does that help your job as a supervisor?
9. Whom do you go to and how do you get answers to policy questions? If management makes a new policy, how does it get to you and to the screeners?
10. What would be two changes that can improve your work or enable you to better perform your job?
11. Is there anything about the SCR that we haven’t asked about that you want to share?

The New Jersey State Central Registry: An Assessment Center for the Study of Social Policy

July 30, 2008 Page B-29