2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 1 of 62 Pg ID 6831

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

DWAYNE B., by his next friend, John Stempfle; )

CARMELA B., by her next friend, William Ladd; ) No. 2:06-cv-13548

LISA J., by her next friend, Teresa Kibby; and

)

WLIA, SIMON, and COURTNEY G., by their . ) HON. NANCY G. EDMUNDS

next friend, William Ladd;· for themselves and

)

others similarly situated,

) Class Action

)

Plaintiffs,

) MODIFIED SETTLEMENT

) AGREEMENT AND CONSENT

) ORDER

v.

)

)

RICK SNYDER, in his official capacity as

)

Governor of the State of Michigan, MAURA D.

)

CORRIGAN, in her official capacity as Director of )

the Michigan Department of Human Services, et al, )

)

Defendants.

)

)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys for Defendants:

Marcia Robinson Lowry Susan Lambiase Sara M. Bartosz Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue, Fourth Floor New York, New York 10001 Phone: 212.683.2210

Joseph E. Potchen (P49501) William R. Morris (P31957) Assistant Attorneys General Health, Education and Family Services Div. P.O. Box 30758 Lansing, MI 48909 Phone: 517.373.7700

Elizabeth Phelps Hardy (P37426) Noel D. Massie (P28988) Jay C. Boger (P58805) Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton, P.L.C. 280 North Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400 Birmingham, Michigan 48009 Phone: 248.645.0000

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 2 of 62 Pg ID 6832
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Glossary.................................................................... i, ii I. Preamble .............................................................. 1 II. Principles ..............................................................3 III. Outcomes ..............................................................4 IV. Organizational Structure .................................................. 8 V. Responding to Reports of Child Abuse and Neglect. ............................9 VI. Staff Qualifications, Training, Caseloads, and Supervision ....................... 10 VII. Assessments, Case Planning, and Provision of Services .......................... 17 VIII. Services and Placement Resources Development and Utilization ..................26 IX. Needs Assessment .......................................................41 X. Placement Standards and Limitations ....................................... .42 XI. Limitations On Use of Psychotropic Medications,
Corporal Punishment, and Seclusion/Isolation ................................ .46 XII. DHS Supervision of Contract Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47 XIII. Management Information System .......................................... 49 XIV. Quality Assurance .......................................................50 XV. Monitoring ............................................................ 51 XVI. Enforcement, Dispute Resolution, and Termination ............................55 XVII. Attorneys' Fees .........................................................57

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 3 of 62 Pg ID 6833
GLOSSARY
APPLA-E (Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement- Emancipation)- A subset of the federally approved permanency planning goal APPLA for youth at least 16 years old for whom there is no goal for placement with a legal, permanent family and is preparing to live independently upon his or her exit from foster care. APPLA-E is considered an acceptable designation only if there are compelling reasons that make the other permanency options unacceptable.
Corporal Punishment - Hitting, paddling, shaking, slapping, spanking, or any other use of physical force as a means of behavior management.
Flexible Funds - As used in this agreement, versatile financial resources available to allow caseworkers to arrange for special cash assistance and/or the purchase of specific goods and services in addition to those normally available through Department of Human Services' regular contracting processes.
High Risk Cases a. Children who have been the subject of an allegation of abuse or neglect in a residential care setting or a foster home, whether licensed or unlicensed, and who remain in the facility or home in which the maltreatment is alleged to have occurred; b. Children who have been the subject of three or more reports alleging abuse or neglect in a foster home, and who remain in the foster home in which maltreatment is alleged to have occurred; c. Children who have been in three or more placements, excluding return home, within the previous 12 months; d. Children who are in an unlicensed, unrelated caregiver placement.
Michigan Counties Referenced in this Agreement-
Big 14 Counties- Berrien, Calhoun, Genesee, Ingham, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Kent, Macomb, Muskegon, Oakland, Saginaw, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne.
1

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 4 of 62 Pg ID 6834
Big 14 Contiguous Counties- Allegan, Arenac, Barry, Bay, Branch, Cass, Clinton, Eaton, Gladwin, Gratiot, Hillsdale, Huron, Ionia, Isabella, Lake, Lapeer, Lenawee, Livingston, Mason, Mecosta, Midland, Monroe, Montcalm, Newaygo, Oceana, Osceola, Ottawa, Sanilac, Shiawassee, St. Joseph, Tuscola, and Van Buren.
Designated Counties - Genesee, Kent, Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne.
Northern Counties- Alcona, Alpena, Antrim, Benzie, Cheboygan, Clare, Crawford, Emmet, Gladwin, Grand Traverse, Iosco, Kalkaska, Leelanau, Manistee, Missaukee, Montmorency, Ogemaw, Oscoda, Otsego, Presque Isle, Roscommon, and Wexford.
Upper Peninsula Counties -Alger, Baraga, Chippewa, Delta, Dickenson, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, Luce, Mackinac, Marquette, Menominee, Ontonagon, and Schoolcraft.
MYOI (Michigan Youth Opportunities Initiative)- A partnership between the Department of Human Services and the Jim Casey Youth Opportunities Initiative that provides foster care youth training in leadership, advocacy, financial, literacy and independent living skills.
Non-Child Welfare Supervisor- A supervisor who does not supervise foster care, adoption, CPS, POS, or licensing caseworkers.
POS (Purchase of Service) Worker- A specialized child welfare position within the Michigan Department of Human Services assigned to monitor child welfare case management services administered by private child placing agencies.
University-Based Child Welfare Certificate- A certificate acquired after successful completion of a university program composed of a core child welfare courses and a child welfare field placement (in DHS or a contract agency) to assure that BSW and MSW graduates are able to successfully address Michigan's child welfare competencies. In addition to achieving competencies, this certificate program is embedded in the Michigan Schools of Social Work (accredited by the Council on Social Work Education) curriculum and is aligned with DHS preservice training content and goals such that the DHS will accept this content as equivalent to a significant portion of the pre-service training.
ii

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 5 of 62 Pg ID 6835
I. PREAMBLE
A. The provisions of this Modified Settlement Agreement and Consent Order (Agreement) supersede and replace the October 24, 2008 consent decree and Settlement Agreement ·and satisfies and resolves the claims of the Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class for injunctive and declaratory relief in the above entitled case. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 25 (d), the individually named public officer defendants have been substituted as parties.
B. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over this action and therefore the authority to enter this Agreement.
C. This Court shall have continuing jurisdiction over this action to ensure compliance with the terms of this Agreement for as long as the Agreement remains in effect.
D. Any state agency responsible for the care, protection, and/or supervision of Plaintiff class members shall be bound by the provisions of this Agreement. For as long as this Agreement remains in effect, all provisions of this Agreement referring to the "Department of Human Services," "the Department," or "DHS," upon any subsequent changes to the current governmental organizational structure ofthe Michigan Department of Human Services concerning the children in the Plaintiff class as defined in this Agreement, shall apply with full force and effect to the State of Michigan and to any subsequent agency or agencies with any of the responsibilities that apply to the current Michigan Department of Human Services under this Agreement as ofthe date ofthis Agreement.
E. The term "DHS" as used in this Agreement refers to all Defendants in the case of Dwayne B. v. Snyder, Civil Action Number 2:06-cv-13548, including but not limited to Rick Snyder, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan; and Maura D. Corrigan, in her official capacity as Director of DHS.
F. The term "Plaintiffs" as used in this Agreement refers to all members of the class certified by Judge Nancy G. Edmunds on February 15,2007 in the case of Dwayne B. v. Snyder, Civil Action Number 2:06-cv-13548.
1

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 6 of 62 Pg ID 6836

G. This Agreement, along with any of its provisions, is not, and shall not be construed to be, an admission of any liability on the part ofDHS concerning any ofthe claims and allegations in the complaint in this litigation.

H. Defendants do not speak for the Michigan Legislature, which has the power under Michigan law to determine the appropriations for the State's child welfare programs. However, at least annually after Court approval of this Agreement, and consistent with existing state budgetary practices and legal requirements, Defendants shall request State funds and any federal/special fund authorization sufficient to effect the provisions and outcome measures set forth in this Agreement in connection with any budget, funding, or allocation request to the executive or legislative branches of State government. To the extent that it is anticipated that the funding of critical needs shall be met, in whole or in part, by way of federal fund sources, Defendants shall request federal fund authorization in amounts which are determined to be realizable and consistent with regular budgetary needs assessments.

I.

Such budgetary requests, which shall be provided to the Monitors, shall, among other

things, identify for the executive and legislative branches of State government, with

sufficient particularity, the known and anticipated costs to the State for the timely

implementation ofthe reforms and outcome measures provided for herein. Defendants

shall maximize available federal funding opportunities. Nothing in this paragraph limits

Defendants' obligations under this Agreement.

J. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement shall be controlled by and implemented in accordance with the United States Constitution and federal law and subject to federal court supervision and enforcement. The parties further acknowledge that this Agreement shall be implemented consistent with the Michigan Constitution and State law insofar as the provisions of the Michigan Constitution and State law do not conflict with controlling federal law.

2

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 7 of 62 Pg ID 6837
II. PRINCIPLES
Interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement shall be guided by the following principles:
A. Safety: The first priority of the Department of Human Services (DHS) child welfare
system is to keep children safe.
B. Children's Needs: Whenever possible, children must have a voice in decisions that affect
them, and DHS must consider the specific needs of each child as decisions are made on his or her behalf.
C. Families and Communities: Families must be treated with dignity and respect, and,
whenever possible, included in decisions that affect them and their children. DHS must actively partner with communities to protect children and support families when determining the intervention plan for a child.
D. Placement: The ideal place for children is in their own home with their own family.
When DHS cannot ensure their safety in the family home, it must place children in the most family-like and least restrictive setting required to meet thdr unique needs and must place siblings together whenever possible. DHS must strive to make the first placement the best and only placement.
E. Reunification and Permanency: DHS must reunify children with their siblings and
families as soon as is safely possible. When reunification is not possible, DHS must provide children with a permanent home and/or permanent connection with caring, supportive adults as soon as possible. DHS must also ensure that children in its care are connected with the resources necessary for physical and mental health, education, financial literacy, and employment and that they acquire the life skills necessary to become successful adults.
F. Services: When DHS intervenes on behalf of children it must strive to leave children and
families better off than if there had been no intervention. DHS must tailor services to meet the unique needs of each family member and provide those services in a manner
3

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 8 of 62 Pg ID 6838
that is respectful of the child and the family. Services should be outcome-based, datadriven, and continuously evaluated.
III. OUTCOMES
A. Changes in Federal Indicators: The indicators set forth in this section were developed by
the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of the Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) process. In the event that, during the term of this Agreement, HHS modifies these indicators or the methodologies underlying these indicators, the parties and the Monitors shall meet to determine whether to make corresponding changes in DRS's responsibilities under the Agreement.
B. Content ofReports and Compliance Expectations: DHS shall report on aggregate
performance for the outcome indicators identified in subsections C and D below in each Reporting Period, as defined in Section XV(L), and shall comply with the identified interim measures. By December 2013, DHS shall meet or exceed the federal indicators for each outcome. Additionally, DHS shall report in each Reporting Period on its performance with regard to each of the component elements of the Permanency outcomes set forth in Section III(D) below, as such components are defined by HHS. Effective December 2013 and thereafter, DHS's performance shall exceed the median performance of all states with regard to each such component element.
C. Safety: 1. Recurrence ofMaltreatment within Six Months (OAJ): By September 30, 2010,
DHS was to achieve, and thereafter maintain, the national indicator of 94.6% or higher. DHS commits to maintaining or exceeding this percentage throughout the duration of this Agreement. DHS shall use the following definition to report on this measure: Of all children who were victims of a substantiated or indicated maltreatment allegation during the first six months of the applicable federal reporting period, what percent were not victims of another substantiated or indicated maltreatment allegation within a six-month period?
2. Maltreatment in Foster Care (%): By September 30, 2009, DHS was to achieve,
and thereafter maintain, the national indicator of99.68% or higher. DHS commits
4

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 9 of 62 Pg ID 6839
to maintaining or exceeding this percentage throughout the duration of this Agreement. DHS shall use the following definition to report on this measure: Of all children in foster care during the applicable federal reporting period, what percent were not victims of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member?
D. Permanency: 1. Composite One: Timeliness and Permanency ofReunification: By September 30,
2013, DHS shall achieve, and shall thereafter maintain, a score of 122.6 or greater on this composite. DHS shall meet interim targets as follows: by September 30, 2011, a score of 105; by September 30, 2012, a score of 113. DHS shall report the following individual component measures for Composite One: a. Of all children who were discharged from foster care to reunification in
the target 12-month period, and who had been in foster care for eight days or longer, what percent were reunified in less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal from home? b. Of all children who were discharged from foster care to reunification in the 12-month target period, and who had been in foster care for eight days or longer, what was the median length of stay in months from the date of the latest removal from home until the date of discharge to reunification? c. Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in the 6-month period immediately prior to the target 12-month period, and who remained in foster care for eight days or longer, what percent were discharged from foster care to reunification in less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal from home? d. Of all children who were discharged from foster care to reunification in the 12-month period immediately prior to the target 12-month period, what percent re-entered foster care in less than 12 months from the date of discharge? 2. Composite Two: Timeliness to Adoption: By September 30, 2013, DHS shall achieve, and shall thereafter maintain, a score of 106.4 or greater on this composite. DHS shall meet interim targets as follows: by September 30, 2011, a
5

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 10 of 62 Pg ID 6840
score of 100; by September 30, 2012, a score of 103. DHS shall report the following individual component measures for Composite Two: a. Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized
adoption during the 12-month target period, what percent were discharged in less than 24 months from the date of the latest removal from home? b. Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption during the 12-month target period, what was the median length of stay in foster care, in months, from the date of the latest removal from home to the date of discharge to adoption? c. Of all children in foster care on the first day of the 12-month target period who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, what percent were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption by the last day of the 12-month target period? d. Of all children in foster care on the first day of the 12-month target period who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, and who were not legally free for adoption prior to that day, what percent became legally free for adoption during the first six months of the 12-month target period? e. Of all children who became legally free for adoption during the 12 months prior to the target 12-month period, what percent were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free? 3. Composite Three: Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care for Long Periods ofTime: By September 30,2013, DHS shall achieve, and shall thereafter maintain, a score of 121.7 or higher on this composite. DHS shall meet interim targets as follows: by September 30, 2011, a score of 120; by September 30, 2012, a score of 121. DHS shall report the following individual component measures for Composite Three: a. Of all children who were discharged from foster care during the 12-month target period, and who were legally free for adoption (i.e., there was a termination of parental rights for both parents) at the time of discharge,
6

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 11 of 62 Pg ID 6841
what percent were discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th birthday? b. Of all children who were in foster care for 24 months or longer on the first day of the 12-month target period, what percent were discharged to a permanent home by the last day of the 12-month period and prior to their 18th birthday? c. Of all children who either (I) were, prior to age 18, discharged from foster care during the 12-month target period with a discharge reason of emancipation, or (2) reached their 18th birthday while in foster care but had not yet been discharged from foster care, what percent were in foster care for three years or longer? 4. Composite Four: Placement Stability While in Foster Care: For all Reporting Periods, DHS shall maintain a score of 101.5 or higher on this composite. DHS shall report the following individual component measures for Composite Four: a. Of all children in foster care during the 12-month target period, and who were in foster care for at least eight days but less than 12 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings? b. Of all children in foster care during the 12-month target period, and who were in foster care for at least 12 months but less than 24 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings? c. Of all children in foster care during the 12-month target period, and who were in foster care for at least 24 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings? In reporting on placement stability, DHS shall provide information separately stating scores for each stability measure for children placed in relative foster homes; children placed in non-relative foster homes; and children placed in residential care.
7

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 12 of 62 Pg ID 6842
IV. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
A. The DHS organizational structure shall be as follows: 1. There shall be established within DHS a Children's Services Administration (CSA), headed by a CSA Director, who shall be at the rank of Deputy Director of the Department of Human Services or higher. 2. DHS shall establish a CSA that shall develop child welfare policy and determine statewide standards. DHS's CSA shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that statewide policies, standards and practices are implemented and maintained in each county of the state and each county uses uniform forms, data collection, and reporting. 3. Individuals within the Designated Counties of Wayne, Genesee, Kent, Macomb and Oakland, including but not limited to caseworkers, supervisors, and managers, shall be assigned full-time to children's services, and shall not hold responsibility for any ofDHS's other functions, such as cash assistance, Medicaid, and adult services. 4. Within the CSA, and reporting directly to the CSA Director, there shall be a person responsible for all children's services field operations in Michigan (Director of Children's Field Services Operations). 5. The Quality Assurance (QA) unit shall be a permanent unit of the CSA. It shall continue to perform the functions described in this Agreement after full implementation and DHS exit from Court jurisdiction. 6. In the Designated Counties of Wayne, Genesee, Kent, Macomb and Oakland Counties, DHS offices providing children's services shall be distinct from those providing other services, and there shall be a county-level Administrator of Children's Services in each of the Designated Counties who reports directly to the Director of Children's Field Services Operations as described in paragraph 4, above. 7. Ingham County is not a Designated County, but shall maintain a bifurcated management structure. 8. The CSA shall include units containing a sufficient number of qualified staff to exercise their functions effectively. 8

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 13 of 62 Pg ID 6843
9. Dedicated staff shall be responsible for child welfare data collection and analysis, and child welfare training.
10. The CSA shall hold responsibility for evaluating the performance of private Child Placing Agencies (CPAs) and Child Caring Institutions (CCis). These duties include, but are not limited to, requiring and approving corrective action plans when necessary and making recommendations to the DHS Director concerning contract renewal, modification, and termination.
B. Nothing in this section prevents the Governor or DHS Director from proposing and implementing a stand-alone child welfare executive department.
V. RESPONDING TO REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
A. DHS shall ensure that its system for receiving, screening, and investigating reports of child abuse and neglect is adequately staffed and that investigations of all reports are commenced as required by state law and completed pursuant to policy requirements. Any extensions of the timeframes set forth in DHS policy for the completion of investigations are subject to the review and approval of the Monitors. DHS shall monitor commencement of investigations through regular review ofDHS data-driven reports.
B. DHS shall establish a statewide centralized hotline, to be operated 24 hours per day. It shall be adequately staffed and supported by adequate telecommunications equipment and information technology, for the receipt, screening, and assignment for investigation of reports of abuse and neglect, as follows: 1. A phased, pilot implementation beginning October 2011, including but not limited to the following counties: Kalamazoo, Kent, Ottawa, Cass/St. Joseph. 2. A fully operational statewide centralized hotline by April2012.
C. By December 31, 2011, DHS shall establish and implement a quality assurance process to ensure that reports of abuse and neglect are competently investigated and that, in cases in which abuse and/or neglect is indicated, actions are taken and services are provided appropriate to the circumstances.
9

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 14 of 62 Pg ID 6844
D. DHS shall investigate all allegations of abuse or neglect relating to any child in the foster care custody of DHS (Maltreatment in Care). 1. In Designated Counties, DHS shall maintain separate Maltreatment in Care (MIC) units responsible for all MIC investigations. 2. In the non-designated counties: a. DHS shall maintain three separate regional MIC units responsible for all investigations of abuse or neglect occurring in child caring institutions. b. DHS shall provide specially trained local office and or regional Children's Protective Services (CPS) staff, responsible for conducting all investigations of abuse or neglect occurring in a foster home in the nondesignated counties. No local office MIC investigation shall be conducted by an employee that has an established relationship with the foster family or alleged perpetrator. 3. DHS shall provide specialized supervision of all MIC investigations: a. For designated counties, MIC investigations shall be supervised by designated MIC supervisors who report to the county child welfare director. b. For non-designated counties, MIC investigations shall be supervised by three designated regional MIC supervisors who report to a Child Welfare Field Operations MIC manager. 4. DHS Child Welfare Field Operations shall ensure dedicated supervision, oversight and coordination of all MIC investigations.
VI. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS. TRAINING. CASELOADS, AND SUPERVISION
A. Caseworker Qualifications and Training: All provisions of this section shall apply to all
DHS caseworkers for positions in CPS, foster care, and adoption, who are responsible for cases of Plaintiff class members either directly or as purchase of service (POS) workers, and any private agency caseworkers with corresponding responsibilities for class members. 1. Entry level caseworkers shall have a bachelor's degree in social work or a related
human services field.
10

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 15 of 62 Pg ID 6845

2. All caseworkers who do not possess the University-based Child Welfare

certificate shall complete pre-service training that includes a total of 270 hours of

competence-based training which shall be completed within 16 weeks from date

ofhire. The training shall include a minimum of four weeks' classroom

instruction and five weeks' field instruction, and may include eLearning. The

Department may modify the number of weeks in specific instructional settings

upon consultation with the Monitors.

3. New caseworkers who possess the University-based Child Welfare certificate

shall be required to complete program-specific training. The program-specific

training curriculum for Child Welfare certificate holders shall be reviewed and

approved by the Monitors.

4. Each trainee shall shadow an experienced child welfare caseworker and

progressively build case practice knowledge through intensive classroom and

field training. An experienced caseworker (mentor) shall also shadow each trainee

as they complete key activities in a case. No mentor assigned to shadow a trainee

shall have a caseload exceeding current caseload standards.

5. Each trainee shall also complete a competence-based performance evaluation,

which shall include a written examination. As part of pre-service training, a

trainee may be assigned specific tasks or activities in connection with a case that

is the primary responsibility of an experienced caseworker and may, under

appropriate supervision, be assigned responsibility for a "training caseload" with

progressively responsible caseload assignments as follows:

a. Caseload Progression for CPS:

1.

No cases shall be assigned until the completion of the first four

weeks of pre-service training.

n. Upon completion of week four of pre-service training and

successful completion of Competency Test One, up to five total

cases may be assigned with supervisory approval using the Child

Welfare Training Institute (CWTI) case assignment guidelines.

The first five cases shall not include an investigation involving

11

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 16 of 62 Pg ID 6846
children under eight years of age or children who are unable to communicate. iii. Final caseload may be assigned after nine weeks of pre-service training, successful completion of Competency Test Two, and satisfactory review by the trainer and the supervisor. b. Caseload Progression for Foster Care and Adoption: i. Three training cases may be assigned on or after day one of preservice training at the supervisor's discretion using CWTI case assignment guidelines. ii. Upon completion of week three of pre-service training and successful completion of Competency Test One, up to five total cases may be assigned with supervisory approval using CWTI case assignment guidelines. iii. Final caseload may be assigned after nine weeks of pre-service training, successful completion of Competency Test Two, and satisfactory review by the trainer and the supervisor. 6. All caseworkers shall receive a minimum number of hours of in-service training annually, as follows: for the state fiscal year beginning October 1, 2010, at least 16 hours; for the state fiscal year beginning October 1, 2011, at least 24 hours; for the state fiscal year beginning October 1, 2012, at least 32 hours. By October 2012, the Monitors shall meet with parties to discuss in-service training and in consultation with parties, shall establish the minimum number of in-service training hours.
B. Supervisor Qualifications and Training: All provisions of this section shall apply to (1) all DHS supervisory positions in CPS, foster care, and adoption, who are responsible for cases of Plaintiff class members either directly or as POS workers, and (2) all private agency supervisors with corresponding responsibilities for class members. 1. Supervisor Qualifications: All staff either promoted or hired to a child welfare supervisory position shall possess one of the following qualifications: a. A master's degree from an accredited college or university in a human
',
behavioral science and three years of experience as a social service worker 12

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 17 of 62 Pg ID 6847
in a child welfare agency, a child caring institution, or in an agency performing a child welfare function. b. A bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university in a human behavioral science and four years of experience as a social service worker, three years of which shall have been in a child welfare agency, a child caring institution, or in an agency performing a child welfare function. 2. DHS shall implement a competency-based supervisory training program that is both consistent with the principles set forth in Section II of this Agreement and designed to serve the overall goals and purposes of this Agreement. This competency-based training shall address the work management skills, conceptual skills, interpersonal skills, self-management skills, and technical knowledge recognized among child welfare professionals as fundamental requirements for an effective child welfare agency supervisor. The supervisory training program shall be at least 40 hours. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit DHS from delegating the delivery aspect of training. 3. All staff either promoted or hired to a child welfare supervisory position shall complete the supervisory training program and pass a competency-based performance evaluation based on that training within three months of assuming the supervisory position. The competency-based performance evaluation shall include a written examination. Failure to achieve a passing grade on the competency-based performance examination as a whole, including a passing grade on its written portion, within two sittings shall require the subject individ'ual to complete additional training before becoming eligible to sit for the performance evaluation again. The additional training shall occur within 45 days of the most recent failed exam. The failure to pass the performance evaluation in the third sitting shall render the subject individual ineligible for further service as a child welfare supervisor. 4. University-Based Training Opportunities: DHS shall continue to develop and maintain relationships, joint programs, and such other programs as are deemed worthwhile with the accredited schools of social work to enhance and improve
13

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 18 of 62 Pg ID 6848

existing opportunities for the training and education of DHS and private CPA caseworkers and child welfare supervisors.

C. Licensing Worker Qualifications and Training: Licensing,workers shall have a bachelor's
degree in social work or a related human services field. DHS submitted a plan to the Monitors on March 5, 2009 identifying the type and amount of training to be provided to all licensing workers. The Monitors approved this plan. DHS shall continue to train licensing workers in accordance with this plan.

D. Oversight ofTraining Requirements: There shall be a designated individual within the
DHS central office who is responsible for overseeing and ensuring compliance with all training requirements for both DHS and private CPA workers and supervisors. DHS county offices and private CPAs shall be required to submit records to this individual attesting to the completion of pre-service training requirements and satisfactory performance on competency-based performance evaluations.

E. Caseload Standards:

1. DHS shall achieve the caseload standards set forth in this section. These standards

shall apply equally to both DHS caseworker and supervisor caseloads and

caseloads of private CPA caseworkers and supervisors with comparable case

responsibilities.

2. Supervisors:

a. Each foster care, adoption, CPS, POS, and licensing supervisor shall be

responsible for the supervision of no more than five caseworkers. This

Agreement does not apply to non-child welfare supervisors. In addition,

supervisors may provide supervision to administrative support staff

associated with the caseworkers.

b. DHS shall achieve this standard as follows:

1.

By January 1, 2012, 70% of foster care, adoption, CPS, POS, and

licensing supervisors shall supervise no more than five

caseworkers;

14

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 19 of 62 Pg ID 6849
ii. By September 30, 20I2, 80% of foster care, adoption, CPS, POS, and licensing supervisors shall supervise no more than five caseworkers;
iii. By December 3I, 2013,95% of foster care, adoption, CPS, POS, and licensing supervisors shall supervise no more than five caseworkers.
c. For purposes of applying this subsection to non-designated counties, "caseworkers" shall include child welfare caseworkers and any other caseworker, including but not limited to juvenile justice, mental health, cash assistance, and adult protective services caseworker.
d. By December 3I, 20II, DHS shall submit to the monitors and plaintiffs a proposed formula for determining the ratio of caseworkers to supervisors in circumstances where supervisors provide supervision to both child welfare and non-child welfare caseworkers. The formula shall be subject to the Monitors' approval.
3. Foster Care Workers: Each Foster Care caseworker shall have a caseload of no more than I5 children. DHS shall achieve this standard as follows: a. By January I, 20I2, 80% of foster care caseworkers shall have caseloads of no more than I5 children; b. By September 30, 20I2, 90% of foster care caseworkers shall have caseloads of no more than I5 children; c. By September 30, 20I3, 95% of foster care caseworkers shall have caseloads of no more than 15 children.
4. Adoption Workers: DHS reserves the right to alter the permanency model with agreement of the parties. Each adoption caseworker shall have a caseload of no more than I5 children. DHS shall achieve this standard as follows: a. By January I, 20I2, 80% of adoption caseworkers shall have caseloads of no more than 15 children; b. By September 30, 20I2, 90% of adoption caseworkers shall have caseloads of no more than I5 children;
I5

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 20 of 62 Pg ID 6850
c. By September 30, 2013, 95% of adoption caseworkers shall have caseloads of no more than 15 children.
5. CPS Investigation Workers: Each CPS caseworker assigned to investigate allegations of abuse or neglect, including maltreatment in care, shall have a caseload of no more than 12 open investigations. DHS shall achieve this standard as follows: a. By January 1, 2012,65% of investigation staff shall have no more than 12 open investigations; b. By September 30,2012,75% of investigation staff shall have no more than 12 open investigations; c. By December 31,2013,95% of investigation staff shall have no more than 12 open investigations.
6. CPS Ongoing Workers: Each CPS caseworker assigned to provide ongoing services shall have a caseload of no more than 17 families. DHS shall achieve this standard as follows: a. By January 1, 2012,65% of CPS ongoing staff shall have no more than 17 families; b. By September 30,2012,75% of CPS ongoing staff shall have no more than 17 families; c. By December 31,2013,95% of CPS ongoing staff shall have no more than 17 families.
7. POS Workers: 95% ofPOS workers shall have a caseload of no more than 90 children. a. By September 30,2011, DHS shall implement an interim POS monitoring model. As part of this model, the POS worker shall no longer: 1. Review and approve assessments and case plans; ii. Attend court hearings unless ordered to do so by the court; iii. Enter social work contacts into SWSS/FAJ; iv. Attend quarterly visits with child placing agencies; v. Attend permanency planning conferences.
16

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 21 of 62 Pg ID 6851

b. By December 31, 2011, DHS shall provide a plan to the Monitors,

including an implementation schedule, for the revised POS monitoring

model, subject to the review and approval of the Monitors.

8. Licensing Workers: Each licensing worker shall have a workload of no more than

30 licensed foster homes or homes pending licensure. DHS shall achieve this

standard as follows:

a.

By January 1, 2012, 80% of licensing workers shall have a caseload of no

more than 30 licensed foster homes or homes pending licensure;

b. By September 30, 2012, 90% of licensing workers shall have a caseload of

no more than 30 licensed foster homes or homes pending licensure;

c.

By September 30, 2013, 95% oflicensing workers shall have a caseload of

no more than 30 licensed foster homes or homes pending licensure.

This workload standard may include the relevant licensing worker responsibilities

of initial foster home studies, managing foster home licenses, special

investigations, and recruitment activities.

9. Mixed Caseloads: A mixed caseload comprised of more than one program type

shall not exceed the prorated total equal to one full caseload.

10. Caseload Tracking and Reporting: DHS shall provide quarterly reporting on the

percentage of supervisors and caseworkers in each of the categories above whose

workloads meet the standards set forth in this section. Upon implementation of

Michigan's SACWIS, each worker's monthly average caseload shall be used to

determine compliance.

VII. ASSESSMENTS, CASE PLANNING, AND PROVISION OF SERVICES

A. Assessments and Service Plans: DHS shall complete a written assessment ofthe child(ren)'s and family's strengths and needs, designed to inform decision-making about services and permanency planning, within 30 days after a child's entry into foster care, and shall update the assessment at least quarterly thereafter. Assessments shall be of sufficient breadth and quality to usefully inform case planning. DHS shall complete an Initial Service Plan within 30 days ofplacement, and an Updated Service Plan at least

17

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 22 of 62 Pg ID 6852
quarterly thereafter. The written service plan shall accord with the requirements of 42
U.S.C. § 675(1), and shall indicate:
1. The assigned permanency goal; 2. How DHS, other service providers (including the private CPAs, where
applicable), parents, and foster parents shall work together to confront the difficulties that led to the child's placement in foster care and achieve the permanency goal; 3. The services to be provided to the child(ren), parent(s), and foster parent(s); 4. Who is to provide those services and by when they are to be initiated; and 5. The actions to be taken by the caseworker to help the child(ren), parent(s), and foster parent(s) connect to, engage with, and make good use of services. The service plan shall contain attainable, measurable objectives with expected timeframes, and shall identify the party or parties responsible for each task. Service plans shall be signed by the caseworker, the caseworker's supervisor, the parent(s), and the child(ren), if of age to participate. If the parent(s) and/or child(ren) are not available or decline to sign the plan, the service plan shall include an explanation of the steps taken to involve them and shall identify any follow-up actions to be taken to secure their participation in services. When a child is placed with a private CPA or CCI, the private CPA or CCI shall complete the assessment and the service plan in accordance with the provisions above.
B. Supervisory Oversight ofAssessments and Service Plans: Supervisors shall meet at least
monthly with each assigned worker to review the status and progress of each case on the worker's caseload. Supervisors shall review and approve each service plan. The plan can be approved only after the supervisor has a face-to-face meeting with the worker, which can be the monthly meeting.
C. Provision ofServices: DHS shall ensure that the services identified in the service plan are
made available in a timely and appropriate manner to the child and family, and shall monitor the provision of services to determine whether they are of appropriate quality and are having the intended effect. DHS is responsible for helping the parent(s) from whom the child has been or may be removed, the child(ren), and the foster parent(s)
18

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 23 of 62 Pg ID 6853

identify appropriate, accessible, and individually compatible services; assisting with transportation when necessary; helping to identify and resolve any barriers that may impede parent(s), child(ren), and foster parent(s) from making effective use of services; and intervening to review and amend the service plan when services are not provided or do not appear to be effective.

D. Family Engagement Model: DHS shall develop the policies, procedures, and

organizational structure necessary to implement a family engagement model, which shall

include family engagement, child and family team meetings, and concurrent permanency

planning. DHS shall implement the model under the timetables set in Section VII(D)(6)

below. 1. Family Team Meetings: Family Team Meetings shall be utilized to engage

families in case planning, service identification, assessing progress, and safety

planning. A Family Team Meeting (FTM) shall be offered to make or

recommend critical case decisions. Should the family decline to attend, the

meeting shall proceed with the other participants in attendance. FTMs shall be

led by a trained facilitator, and shall include written invitations in advance of the

FTM whenever possible to the parent(s) of the child; foster parent(s); child(ren) if

of age to participate; family, friends, or other supports identified by the parent(s)

and child(ren); other service providers as appropriate; Lawyer Guardians Ad

Litem (LGALs), parents' attorneys and the caseworker, with supervisory

participation when necessary.

a. At a minimum, the following events shall trigger Family Team Meetings

for in-home cases:

1.

CPS case opening/transfer to ongoing worker

ii. Case service plan development/identification of safety issues

iii. Prior to removal or at the earliest date possible after removal

IV. Case closure b. At a minimum, the following events shall trigger Family Team Meetings
for out-of-home cases:

i.

Case service plan development

ii. Permanency goal change

19

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 24 of 62 Pg ID 6854
iii. Placement preservation/disruption iv. Permanency Planning at six months in care v. Annual Transition Planning for Youth- every six months from age
16 to case closure vi. 90-Day Discharge Planning for Youth vii. Case closure 2. At the conclusion of each FTM, the facilitator shall prepare a written report detailing the decisions and recommendations emerging from the meeting. The report shall be provided to the worker, family, the worker's supervisor, and other appropriate team members and shall include a section identifying areas in which follow-up is needed. 3. Transition from PPC to FTM: PPCs shall continue to occur at three trigger points in the case until full implementation of the FTM: a. Removal b. Re-placement c. Six months in care to review permanency plan 4. Concurrent planning shall continue in Clinton, Gratiot, and Ingham counties and shall be fully implemented in the Family Engagement Model. 5. Pre-Implementation: Prior to full implementation of the FTM, the State shall engage in the following activities: a. Finalization of the Family Engagement Model by March 2012. b. Policy development surrounding the Family Engagement Model by June 2012. c. Communication of model to all counties, private CPAs, and key stakeholders by June 2012. d. Identification of Peer Coaches in county offices and private CPAs ongoing. e. Conduct training for peer coaches, management, and caseworkers ongoing.
20

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 25 of 62 Pg ID 6855
6. Implementation: The FTM model, including concurrent planning, shall be
implemented in phases as follows: a. Big 14 counties by March 2013. b. Big 14 contiguous counties by February 2014. c. Northern Michigan counties by August 2014. d. Upper Peninsula counties by December 2014.
E. Additional Provisions Regarding Certain Permanency Planning Goals: 1. Maintaining a Permanency Goal ofReunification Beyond 12 Months: For any
child who has a permanency goal of return home for more than 12 months, the child's worker, with written approval from the supervisor, shall include in the record a written explanation justifying the continuation of the goal, and identifying the additional services necessary or circumstances which must occur in order to accomplish the goal. No child shall have a permanency goal of return home for more than 15 months unless there are documented in the record and approved by the child's worker's supervisor compelling reasons to believe that the child can be returned home within a specified and reasonable time period.
2. Concurrent Planning: Strategic planning and preparation for possible alternate
permanency placement of a child shall occur concurrently with the delivery of reunification services to the child's birth parent(s), unless clearly inappropriate for case-specific reasons that are documented in the child's record. DHS shall implement concurrent planning in the schedule set forth in Section VII(D)(6)
3. Change ofGoal to Adoption: In the event that a child's primary permanency goal
is changed to adoption, DHS, or the assigned private CPA, shall within 30 days of the goal change: a. Assign a worker with adoption expertise to the case; b. Determine whether the child's foster parent(s) or relative(s) are prepared
to adopt the child and, if so, take appropriate steps to secure their consent to adoption; c. If no adoptive family has been identified, register the child on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges and develop and implement a child-specific plan to recruit an adoptive family for the child.
21

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 26 of 62 Pg ID 6856
d. The child-specific recruitment plan shall be reviewed in a face-to-face case review meeting at least quarterly following the primary goal change until the child is placed in the home of a family that plans to permanently care for the child as follows: (i) in the first six months following the child's goal becoming adoption or guardianship, in a face-to-face meeting between the Adoption worker and the Adoption supervisor; (ii) in cases where a permanent home has not been identified within six months of the child's permanency goal becoming adoption or guardianship, in a face-to-face meeting attended by the Adoption worker, the Adoption supervisor and a person designated by the central office, not previously involved in the case, who is specially trained in permanency and adoption processes and planning; (iii) in cases where a permanent home has not been identified within one year of the child's permanency goal becoming adoption or guardianship, in a face-to-face meeting attended by the Adoption worker, the Adoption supervisor, and an outside expert engaged by DHS with expertise in permanency and adoption processes and planning.
4. Preparation and Filing ofPetition for Termination ofParental Rights: The process of freeing a child for adoption/guardianship and seeking and securing an adoptive/guardianship placement shall begin as soon as the child's permanency goal becomes adoption/guardianship, but in no event later than as required by federal law.
5. Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative: DHS, and the assigned contract agency where applicable, shall not assign a permanency goal of placement with a fit and willing relative to a child for whom it has not made adoption efforts unless: a. An appropriate relative has been identified and has cleared all background checks required for placement of a child in the home;
22

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 27 of 62 Pg ID 6857
b. The relative is willing to assume long-term responsibility for the child but has legitimate reasons for not adopting the child or pursuing permanent legal guardianship;
c. It is in the child's best interests to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption by another person; and
d. The permanency goal receives the documented approval of the following: 1. In a Designated County, by the county Child Welfare Director; ii. In any other county, by the County Director.
DHS and the relative shall execute an agreement that ensures the permanency and stability of this placement. 6. Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement: DHS, and the assigned private CPA where applicable, shall not assign the permanency goal of Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) unless: a. The child is at least 14 years old; b. Every reasonable effort has been made, and documented in the record, to
return the child home, to place the child with appropriate family members, or to place the child for adoption/guardianship; c. The foster parent(s) caring for the child has agreed in writing to continue to do so until the child is emancipated; and d. The permanency goal receives the documented approval of the Children's Services Administration designee. e. Immediate Action Steps For Children With APPLA Goals: i. By September 30,2012, DHS shall:
1) Conduct a review for each child who had an unapproved goal of APPLA or Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement-Emancipation (APPLA-E), as of July 1, 2011;
2) Determine the appropriateness of the permanency goal for each child reviewed; and
23

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 28 of 62 Pg ID 6858
3) Ensure that no child shall have a recommended goal of APPLA or APPLA-E without DHS approval, unless ordered by the court.
11. By December 31, 2011, DHS shall provide to the Monitors a report regarding the status of the case reviews.
111. By September 30, 2012, DHS shall reduce the number of children with a goal of APPLA or APPLA-E to 9% of the total foster care population on September 30, 2012, excluding youth over 18 years of age with a voluntary foster care agreement.
7. Immediate Action Steps For Children With A Goal OfAdoption Or Guardianship: a. By September 30, 2012, DHS shall finalize 70% of adoptions for children with a goal of adoption on September 30, 2011. By September 30, 2013, DHS shall finalize 77% of adoptions for children with a goal of adoption. To determine the percentage of adoptions to be finalized in a fiscal year, DHS shall utilize the number of adoptions completed (i.e. final order of adoption) as of the last date of the Fiscal Year divided by the number of youth available for adoption who have a goal of adoption as of the last day of the previous Fiscal Year. b. DHS shall finalize 150 juvenile guardianships for calendar year 2011 and shall fmalize 165 juvenile guardianships for each calendar year 2012, 2013, and 2014.
8. Adoption Subsidies: Upon identification of an adoptive family for a child legally freed for adoption, DHS shall within 14 days provide the prospective adoptive family with an adoption subsidy application and explanatory materials regarding the adoption subsidy program in Michigan and related federal Title IV-E regulations and HHS policies. DHS shall include a written record of delivery of such materials in the child's file.
9. Disrupted Pre-Adoptive Placements: DHS shall monitor the number of cases in pre-adoptive placement that disrupt before adoption finalization. A sample of these cases shall be reviewed annually by the Quality Assurance unit.
24

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 29 of 62 Pg ID 6859
F. Special Reviews for Children Legally Free I In Care More Than One Year: 1. The provisions of this section shall apply to all children in DHS foster care custody, including those children placed through private CPAs, who, at any time from the date of execution of this Agreement (a) have had the parental rights of their parents terminated and have been legally free for adoption for more than 365 days or (b) have a goal of reunification and have been in care for more than 365 days. 2. DHS shall maintain an adequate number of Permanency Resource Manager (PRM) positions to review cases for children in care more than one year. PRM staff shall: a. Receive specialized PRM training; b. Raise awareness of the importance of establishing permanency for children in foster care; c. Possess expertise and knowledge of community resources and new approaches to planning for children who have been in the system for extended periods; and d. Collaborate with case managers and supervisors to identify new strategies to focus on permanency through case reviews and Family Team Meetings.
G. Caseworker Contacts and Visits: 1. The provisions of this section shall apply to all children in DHS foster care custody, including those children placed through private CPAs. 2. Worker-Child Contacts: By October 2011, each child in foster care shall be visited by the assigned foster care case manager at least two times during the child's first month of placement, and at least one time per month thereafter. At least one visit each month shall take place at the child's placement location and shall include a private meeting between the child and the case manager. By October 2012, the requirement of two visits per month shall apply for the first two months following an initial placement or a placement move. 3. Worker-Parent Visits: For each child in foster care with a permanency goal of reunification, the child's caseworker shall have face-to face contacts with the child's parent(s) as follows: (a) for the first month the child is in care, two face-to-
25

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 30 of 62 Pg ID 6860
face contacts with each parent, at least one of which must occur in the home; (b) for each subsequent month, at least one face-to-face contact with each parent and phone contact as needed, with at least one contact in each three-month period occurring in the parent's place of residence. 4. Parent-Child Visits: DHS shall take all reasonable steps to assure that children in foster care with a goal of reunification shall have at least twice-monthly visitation with their parents. Reasonable exceptions to this requirement shall include cases in which: (a) a court orders less frequent visits; (b) the parents are not attending visits despite DHS taking adequate steps to ensure the parents' ability to visit; (c) one or both parents cannot attend the visits due to exigent circumstances such as hospitalization or incarceration; or (d) the child is above the age of 16 and refuses such visits. All exceptions, and all reasonable steps to assure that visits take place, shall be documented in the case file. If such exceptions exist, DHS shall review the appropriateness of the child's permanency goal. 5. Sibling Visits: DHS shall take all reasonable steps to assure that children in foster care who have siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have at least monthly visits with their siblings who are placed elsewhere in DHS foster care custody. Reasonable exceptions to this requirement shall include cases in which: (a) the visit may be harmful to one or more of the siblings; (b) the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children; (c) the distance between the children's placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative; or (d) one of the siblings is above the age of 16 and refuses such visits. All exceptions, and all reasonable steps taken to assure that visits take place, shall be documented in the case file.
VIII. SERVICES AND PLACEMENT RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION
A. Access to Services: DHS shall ensure that children in foster care have access to
appropriate services sufficient in range and quantity to meet their service and placement needs, including medical and dental care, mental health services, and appropriate educational services. Consistent with the provisions of Section VII(C), DHS shall ensure
26

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 31 of 62 Pg ID 6861

that appropriate action is taken in each case to assist the child(ren), parent(s), and foster parent(s) in connecting to, engaging with, and making use of these services.

DHS shall be responsible for helping the parent(s), child(ren), and foster parent(s) identify appropriate, accessible, and individually compatible services; assisting with transportation when necessary; helping to identify and resolve any barriers that may impede parent(s), child(ren), and foster parent(s) from making effective use of services; and intervening to review and amend the service plan when services are not provided or do not appear to be effective.

DHS shall monitor the provision of services to determine whether they are of appropriate quality and are having the intended effect.

B. Provision ofHealth Services

1. Health Services Plan: By September 30, 20II, DHS shall submit to the Monitors

a detailed Health Services Plan, which shall set forth the specific action steps

DHS shall implement in order to ensure that each child entering foster care

receives medical, dental, and mental health services as described in Section

VIII(B)(2). The Health Services Plan shall be subject to the approval of the

Monitors. DHS shall implement the plan after the Monitors' approval.

2. Medical, Dental, and Mental Health Services: DHS shall take all necessary and

appropriate steps to ensure that each child entering foster care receives each ofthe

following:

a. Any needed emergency medical, dental, and mental health care.

b. A full medical examination and screening for potential mental health

issues within 30 days of the child's entry into care and a referral for a

prompt further assessment by an appropriate mental health professional

for any child with identified mental health needs. DHS shall implement

this provision as follows:

i.

By December 3I, 20II, 75% of children shall have the initial

medical and mental health examination within 45 days ofthe

child's entry into foster care.

27

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 32 of 62 Pg ID 6862

u. By June 30, 2012, 95% of children shall have the initial medical

and mental health examination within 45 days of the child's entry

into foster care.

iii. By December 31,2012,75% of children shall have the initial

medical and mental health examination within 30 days of the

child's entry into foster care.

IV. By June 30, 2013 and thereafter, 95% of children shall have the

initial medical and mental health examination within 30 days of the

child's entry into foster care.

c. An initial dental examination within 90 days of the child's entry into care

unless the child has had an exam within six months prior to placement or

the child is less than four years of age. DHS shall implement this provision

as follows:

1.

By December 31, 2011, 40% of children shall have a dental

examination within 90 days of the child's entry into foster care.

ii. By June 30, 2012, 60% of children shall have a dental examination

within 90 days of the child's entry into foster care.

m. By September 30, 2012, 80% of children shall have a dental

examination within 90 days of the child's entry into foster care.

1v. By June 30, 2013, and thereafter, 95% of children shall have a

dental examination within 90 days of the child's entry into foster

care.

d. All required immunizations, as defined by the American Academy of

Pediatrics, at the appropriate age.

e. Periodic and ongoing medical, dental, and mental health care

examinations and screenings, according to the guidelines set forth by the

American Academy of Pediatrics. DHS shall implement this provision as

follows:

1. By December 31, 2011, the Monitors, in consultation with DHS,

shall determine the baseline for periodic medical, dental, and

28

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 33 of 62 Pg ID 6863

mental health examinations and set an interim target to be met by

September 30, 2012.

ii. By June 30,2013, DHS shall ensure 80% of children have received

periodic medical, dental and mental health care examinations.

iii. By December 31, 2013 and thereafter, DHS shall ensure 95% of

children have received periodic medical, dental and mental health

care examinations.

f.

Any needed follow-up medical, dental, and mental health care as

identified.

3. Medical Files: DHS shall maintain an up-to-date medical file for each child in

care, including medical history information reasonably available to DHS.

a. At the time a child is placed in a foster home or residential care facility,

the foster care provider receives specific written information about the

child's present health status and any present medical needs or health

concerns, as well as any medical history of which DHS is aware, that is

reasonably necessary for the foster care provider to responsibly care for

the child.

1.

By December 31, 2011, the Monitors, in consultation with DHS,

shall determine the baseline for foster care providers receiving

specific written health information about the child entering their

care and set interim targets to be met by September 30, 2012 and

June 30, 2013.

n. The Monitors, in consultation with DHS, shall also set the final

standard, which shall not be later than December 31, 2013, or less

than 95%.

b. In maintaining medical records, DHS shall ensure that it is in compliance

with MCL 722.954c(2) by preparing, updating, and providing medical

passports to caregivers. In addition, DHS shall ensure that the medical

passport, or some other DHS document inserted in each child's file,

includes a complete and regularly updated statement of all medications

prescribed to and given to the child. All such information shall be

29

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 34 of 62 Pg ID 6864

provided to all medical and mental health professionals to whom the child

is referred and accepted for treatment, as well each foster care provider

with whom a child is placed.

1.

By December 31, 2011, the Monitors, in consultation with DHS,

shall determine the baseline for foster care providers receiving

specific written health information about the child in their care and

set interim targets to be met by September 30, 2012 and June 30,

2013.

11. The Monitors, in consultation with DHS, shall also set the final

standard, which shall not be later than December 31, 2013, or less

than 95%.

4. Medical Care and Coverage:

a. Each child entering foster care shall be provided access to medical

care immediately upon placement. The foster parent or other

placement provider shall receive a Medicaid card, or an alternative

verification of the child's Medicaid status and number as soon as it

is available, but in no case later than 30 days of the child's entry

into foster care.

1.

By December 31, 2011, DHS shall assure 90% of children

have access to medical coverage within 30 days of entry

into foster care.

11. By June 30, 2012 and thereafter, DHS shall assure 95% of

children have access to medical coverage within 30 days of

entry into foster care.

b. For any subsequent placement during the same episode of care, the

foster parent or other placement provider shall receive the child's

Medicaid card or alternative verification of Medicaid status and

number upon the child's placement.

1.

By October 31, 2011, the Monitors, in consultation with DHS,

shall determine the baseline for foster children to have access to

30

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 35 of 62 Pg ID 6865
medical coverage upon the child's placement for any subsequent placement during the same episode of care. u. If the baseline determines that DRS's compliance is at 85% or greater, then, by June 30, 2012 and thereafter, DHS shall assure 95% of children have access to medical coverage upon subsequent placement. iii. If the baseline determines that DRS's compliance is less than 85%, then, by December 31, 2012 and thereafter, DHS shall assure 95% of children have access to medical coverage upon subsequent placement. 5. Psychotropic Medications: a. DHS shall maintain a full-time Health Unit Manager, with appropriate qualifications, who shall, among other things, be responsible for overseeing the implementation of policies and procedures concerning the use of psychotropic medications for all children in DHS foster care custody. The Health Unit Manager shall have the authority to recommend corrective actions. The Health Unit Manager shall report directly to the Children's Services Administration. DHS shall hire or contract for the services of a medical consultant who shall be a physician. The medical consultant shall provide consultation on all health related matters required under this Agreement. The medical consultant shall report to the Health Unit Manager. The duties and responsibilities of the medical consultant and the hours required to fulfill those duties and responsibilities shall be set forth in the health services plan required in Section VIII(B)(l) and subject to approval of the Monitors. b. When possible, parents shall consent to the use of medically necessary psychotropic medication. In the event that a parent is not available to provide consent for psychotropic medication, DHS shall comply with applicable sections of state law. c. DHS shall maintain processes to ensure documentation of psychotropic medication approvals, documentation of all uses of psychotropic
31

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 36 of 62 Pg ID 6866
medication, and review of such documentation by appropriate DHS staff, including the Medical Consultant. The Medical Consultant and the Health Unit Manager shall take immediate action to remedy any identified use of psychotropic medications inconsistent with the policies and procedures approved by the Monitors.
6. Reconfiguration ofMental Health Services Spending: Beginning October 2008, DHS was to redirect at least $3 million to fund mental health services. In order to
help ensure that children in foster care in each county have access to the range of mental and behavioral health services and supports necessary to address their needs, including behavior management training and supports for caregivers working with children with behavioral problems, DHS shall gather and analyze data on the way in which DHS funds are utilized to provide mental health services. DHS shall determine whether the allocation ofthese funds matches the priority needs ofthe children served, and if not, shall implement a plan to reallocate those funds to support the development and provision of services to meet the priority needs.
Mental Health Services Spending has been reconfigured using the SED waiver and implemented as follows: a. By October 2009, in Wayne, Kent, Oakland, Genesee, and Macomb
Counties; b. By October 2010, in Ingham, Kalamazoo, and Saginaw Counties; and c. By October 2011, in Muskegon, Washtenaw, Eaton, and Clinton Counties. d. For all remaining counties, DHS shall continue to engage the Michigan
Department of Community Health, Community Mental Health Service Providers, and Medicaid Health Plans to ensure that all children with mental health needs are assessed and served.
This paragraph is not intended to limit any other obligations under this Agreement.
32

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 37 of 62 Pg ID 6867

C. Additional Supports for Foster Youth:

1. Supports for Youth Transitioning to Adulthood:

a. Immediate Action Steps for Youth Transitioning To Adulthood:

DHS shall continue to seek expansion of foster care options for state

wards up to age 21 as follows:

1.

By December 31,2011, DHS shall ensure for each youth age 16

and older, a Family Team Meeting shall be held to address issues

of support, housing, education, employment, transportation,

financial management and health. These meetings shall occur 90

days before planned discharge from care or within 30 days after an

unexpected discharge.

ii. By March 31,2012, in Wayne, Clinton/Gratiot, and Ingham

Counties, the Michigan Youth Opportunities Initiative (MYOI)

shall be implemented and youth leadership boards shall be created

or sustained that meet quarterly to provide information, training,

and supportive services to youth.

111. By March 31,2012, in Wayne, Clinton/Gratiot, and Ingham

Counties where MYOI is being implemented, Individual

Development Accounts (IDAs) shall be established for youth

attending youth leadership board meetings enrolled in MYOI.

IV. By September 30, 2012, an additional12 counties shall begin

implementation ofMYOI, including IDAs.

v. By December 31,2011, DHS, in consultation with the Monitors,

shall establish a baseline and the Monitors, in consultation with

DHS, shall establish targets in the Big 14 counties for 2012, to

increase the number of youth 18 and older leaving the foster care

system with a high school diploma, and for those without a

diploma, to increase the number of youth who are 18 or older with

GEDs.

v1. DHS shall support the Michigan Fostering Connections legislation

(SB 435-440) and implement as applicable upon passage.

33

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 38 of 62 Pg ID 6868

vu. DHS shall support higher education for older foster youth through

partnerships with Michigan colleges and universities and through

collaboration with community partners to create and expand

scholarships and onsite programs, supports, and mentorships.

vm. DHS shall support the Seita Scholars program at Western

Michigan University.

b. DHS shall ensure that youth age 16 and older in foster care with a

permanency goal of APPLA, APPLA E, or goal of adoption without an

identified family have access to the range of supportive services necessary

to support their preparation for and successful transition to adulthood,

including but not limited to independent living services eligible for federal

reimbursement under the Chafee program, which in part promote

employment or remove barriers to employment and shall maintain

sufficient resources to deliver independent living services to all youth

described above.

c. DHS also shall develop and implement the following policies, services,

and programs focused on meeting the needs of foster children who are 16

years and older with a permanency goal other than a goal of reunification:

1.

DHS shall continue to implement policy and the necessary

resources to extend all foster youths' eligibility for child foster care

custody until age 20 and to make available independent living

services through the age of 21;

ii. DHS shall continue to implement a policy and process by which all

youth emancipating from the foster care system at age 18 or

beyond are enrolled for Medicaid managed care coverage so that

their coverage continues without interruption at the time of

emancipation;

111. Beginning September 30, 2011, DHS shall refer all youth without

an identified housing situation at the time of emancipation from the

foster care system at age 18 or beyond to community partners for

34

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 39 of 62 Pg ID 6869
housing, rental assistance, and services under the Homeless Youth Initiative; and tv. DHS shall maintain 14 regional Education Planners who shall provide consultation and support to youth age 14 and older in accessing educational services and in developing individualized education plans, including identifying all available financial aid resources. 2. Provision ofEducational Services: a. DHS shall take reasonable steps to ensure that school-aged foster children receive an education appropriate to their needs. b. DHS shall take reasonable steps to ensure that school-aged foster children are registered for and attending school within five days of initial _ placement or any placement change, including while placed in child care institutions or emergency placements. No child shall be schooled pursuant to MCL 380.1561(3)(±). c. DHS shall make reasonable efforts to ensure the continuity of a child's educational experience by keeping the child in a familiar or current school and neighborhood, when this is in the child's best interests and feasible, and by limiting the number of school changes the child experiences. 3. Improved Utilization ofExisting Sources ofFunding for Child/Family-Specific Goods and Services: In order to ensure that the range of funds, including "flexible funds", available to meet individualized needs of families and children can be readily accessed by case managers working with those families and children, DHS shall continue to implement a system that designates appropriate and knowledgeable staff, rather than the case managers, as the staff responsible for determining the specific funding source to be drawn upon for the provision of goods and services identified as needed by the case manager and for coding and processing the necessary paperwork.
35

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 40 of 62 Pg ID 6870
D. Foster and Adoptive Home Recruitment, Retention, and Support: 1. Immediate Action Steps For The Recruitment OfFoster And Adoptive Homes:
DHS shall license 1,300 new non-relative foster homes by June 30, 2012 and an additional1,450 new non-relative foster homes by June 30, 2013.
2. Foster Home Capacity and Placement Selection:
DHS shall: a. Ensure that each county has a sufficient number and adequate array of
foster homes capable of serving the needs of those children coming into care for whom foster home placement is appropriate. b. Ensure that relatives of children in foster care and non-relatives with whom a child has a family-like connection are identified and considered as potential foster home placements for children; where a relative or nonrelative with whom the child has a family-like connection is an appropriate foster home placement for a child, DHS shall ensure that appropriate steps are taken to license the relative or non-relative as a licensed foster home as set forth in Section VIII(D)(6) below; and c. Develop a placement process in each county that ensures that a child entering foster care for whom a suitable relative foster home placement is not available is placed in the foster home that is the best available match for that child, irrespective of whether that foster home is a DHS- or private CPA-operated foster home.
3. Foster and Adoptive Home Capacity for Special Populations:
a. Recruitment of Placement Resources for Adolescents, Sibling Groups, and Children with Disabilities: In June 2012 and June 2013, DHS shall for the Big 14 counties continue to develop and provide to the Monitors and Plaintiffs recruitment plans, to increase the number of available placements for adolescents, sibling groups, and children with disabilities. The recruitment plan shall include, for each category of placements, the number of placements to be developed; the strategies to be followed in developing such placements; and specific timetables with interim targets.
36

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 41 of 62 Pg ID 6871
DHS shall implement each county recruitment plan consistent with the requirements set forth above. b. Development of Treatment Foster Homes: DHS shall maintain 200 treatment foster home beds. c. By June 30, 2013 and thereafter, DHS, in consultation with the Monitors, shall develop for each county, annual foster home targets based on need and number of children in care. DHS shall implement and meet those targets.
4. State Oversight ofFoster Home Recruitment: A designated unit or person within
the DHS central office shall be responsible for monitoring the development and implementation ofthe foster and adoptive home recruitment and retention plans by county offices; providing or arranging for technical assistance to the county offices concerning recruitment and retention; and reporting to the Children's Services Administration Director on progress and problems in achieving the goals set forth in the recruitment and retention plans.
5. Adequacy ofFoster Home Board Payments and Maximization ofTitle IV-E Reimbursements:
a. In order to ensure that payments to foster parents are sufficient to meet the needs ofthe children in foster care, DHS shall ensure that the Determination of Care (DOC) process is applied consistently and appropriately across all counties and offices. DHS shall identify, after consultation with the Monitors and Plaintiffs, a state office responsible for ensuring that DOCs are made uniformly across the state and in accordance with DHS policy. DHS shall also establish procedures by which a foster parent or CPA may obtain review by a designated official in the central office of a DOC decision; and
b. DHS shall maintain a unit within the Children's Services Administration charged with maximizing Title IV-E reimbursements from the federal government.
37

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 42 of 62 Pg ID 6872

6. Licensing ofRelative Foster Homes:

a. Immediate Action Steps for Licensing Relative Foster Homes:

1. DHS shall reduce the days required to license new relative foster

parents as follows:

1) By June 30, 2012, 55% of new relative foster parents shall

be licensed within 180 days from the date of placement.

2) By December 31, 2012, 65% of new relative foster parents

shall be licensed within 180 days from the date of

placement.

3) By June 30,2013, 75% of new relative foster parents shall

be licensed within 180 days from the date of placement.

4) By December 31, 2013, 85% of new relative foster parents

shall be licensed within 180 days from the date of

placement.

n. DHS shall reduce the number of pending relative foster home

licenses as follows: By August 30, 2011, DHS shall complete a

review of current relative foster homes pending licensure, as of

July 1, 2011, to determine the number of days since enrollment.

The Monitors shall immediately thereafter set targets for the

resolution of the pending applications to be met by December 31,

2011, June 30, 2012, and December 31, 2012.

b. With regard to all children entering DHS foster care custody, all foster

parents shall be licensed except in the following situations:

1.

The child, placed with a relative, achieves permanency prior to

issuance of a foster home license or approved waiver;

ii. The child, placed with a relative, moves to a new placement prior

to the issuance of a foster home license or approved waiver;

iii. A relative foster home is granted a licensing waiver as identified in

sub-section (c) below;

iv. The child is placed in an unlicensed, unrelated foster home

pursuant to an order of the court that the child be so placed.

38

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 43 of 62 Pg ID 6873

c. When placing a child with a relative who has not been previously licensed

as a foster parent, DHS shall:

i.

Prior to placement, visit the relative's home to determine that it is

safe;

ii. Within 72 hours following placement, check law enforcement and

central registry records for all adults residing in the home; and

111. Within 30 days, complete a home study determining whether the

relative should, upon completion of training and submission of any

other required documents, be licensed as a foster parent.

d. All licensed relative foster care providers shall receive the same foster

care maintenance rates paid by DHS to similarly situated unrelated foster

care providers, including the ability to qualify for enhanced DOC rates.

e. All permanent wards living with relative caregivers shall be provided

foster care maintenance payments equal to the payments provided to

licensed foster caregivers.

f. If the foster care provider is related to the child, and exceptional

circumstances exist such that it is in the child's best interest to be placed

with the relative despite the relative's desire to forego licensing, such

exceptional circumstances for foregoing licensing must be documented in

the child's record, and must be approved by:

1.

In a Designated County, the county Child Welfare Director;

u. In any other county, the County Director.

In such instances, the relative caregiver and the other adult household members must meet the same safety standards as non-relative providers; the relative caregiver must be fully informed of the benefits, including the exact amount of monetary benefits, of licensure; and the relative caregiver must sign a waiver stating understanding that he or she is foregoing the benefits, including the exact amount of monetary benefits of licensure.

39

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 44 of 62 Pg ID 6874

The Monitors shall report on the percentage of relative caregivers who

elect to waive licensing. In the event that more than 10% of unlicensed

relative caregivers decline to be licensed, the Monitors shall conduct a

review and report on whether DHS has adequately instituted and followed

the procedures set forth in this section.

g. DHS shall continue to implement the form waiver letter used, consistent

with the requirements of this section. This waiver must be re-signed by the

relative caregiver annually and a copy must be placed in the child's

record. The relative caregiver may change his or her mind and choose to

undergo licensing at any time, and when this occurs, DHS must allow the

relative caregiver to undergo the licensing process.

h. DHS shall prepare and make public the procedures on obtaining variances

from standard foster care licensing requirements for purposes of licensing

relative homes. DHS shall not waive any licensing standards that are

essential for the safety and well-being of the child.

1.

DHS shall require:

1.

Pre-service and in-service foster parent training be provided to

relative caregivers pursuing licensure and that the content of the

training include those parts of the general foster parent training

curriculum that are relevant to relative caregivers;

n. The designation of sufficient licensing staff to complete the

licensing process for each family within 180 days from the date of

placement;

iii. The designation of sufficient staff to ensure that all mandatory

training is provided to newly licensed relative care foster parents;

J. DHS shall continue to implement the policies, procedures, and

organizational structures required to license all unlicensed relative

caregivers. Included within this effort, DHS shall maintain a position of

Relative Licensing Coordinator with overall responsibility for

development of a combined/coordinated Family Home Assessment for

relative providers, family foster care, and adoption; monitoring and

40

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 45 of 62 Pg ID 6875
reporting on the number of unlicensed relative homes and the foster children in those homes, broken down by county and private CPA, where applicable; and ensure the availability of adequate training staff to develop curriculum and training for and to train Relative Licensing staff.
7. Implementation ofan Adequate Child Placement Process: Upon statewide
implementation of SACWIS, DHS shall develop an adequate child placement process in each county or region, subject to the approval of the Monitors in consultation with the Plaintiffs. DHS shall implement the process after the Monitors' approval.
8. Provision ofPost-Adoption Services: DHS shall develop and implement a full
range of post-adoption services to assist all eligible special needs children adopted from state foster care and their permanent families (including, but not limited to, physical therapy, counseling, and other services required to address the developmental and/or physical disabilities of an adopted child) and shall maintain sufficient resources to deliver such post-adoption services to all children in the Plaintiff class who qualify for these services, along with their permanent families.
IX. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A. In May 2009, DHS issued a comprehensive Needs Assessment, conducted by an independent expert, which detailed additional services and placements needs. The Needs Assessment was comprehensive in scope and recommendations, and remains a reliable and valid assessment to determine additional child welfare services.
B. DHS shall make available an additional $4 million in FY12, plus any unspent FYll Needs Assessment funds, for services and placements identified in the 2009 Needs Assessment. DHS shall, in consultation with the Monitors, submit a plan for the expenditure of the $4 million for FY12.
C. In order to fund the POS positions needed to meet the caseload standards set forth in this Agreement, the State allocated $2 million of additional state funds. In the event that the review of the POS monitoring function set forth in this Agreement leads to a revised staffing plan that allows some or all of this $2 million in additional funding to be saved,
41

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 46 of 62 Pg ID 6876
such savings shall be re-allocated to funding the items and services identified in the 2009 Needs Assessment, supplementing the amount of funding provided pursuant to Section IX(A) above.
X. PLACEMENT STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
A. General Standards: DHS shall place children according to the following standards: 1. All children shall be placed in accordance with their individual needs, taking into account a child's need to be placed as close to home and community as possible, the need to place siblings together, and the need to place children in the least restrictive, most home-like setting. 2. Children for whom the permanency goal is adoption should, whenever possible, be placed with a family in which adoption is a possibility. 3. Race and/or ethnicity and/or religion shall not be the basis for a delay or denial in the placement of a child, either with regard to matching the child with a foster or adoptive family or with regard to placing a child in a group facility. Race and/or ethnicity shall otherwise be appropriate considerations in evaluating the best interest of an individual child to be matched with a particular family. DHS shall not contract and shall immediately cease contracting with any program or private CPA that gives preference in its placement practices by race, ethnicity, or religion. 4. Children in the foster care custody ofDHS shall be placed only in a licensed foster home, a licensed facility, or, subject to the requirements of Section VIII(C)(6) of this Agreement, an unlicensed relative home.
B. Placement Limitations: DHS shall make placement decisions pursuant to DHS placement selection criteria. 1. Limitations on Placements Outside a 75-Mile Radius: DHS shall place all children within a 75-mile radius of the home from which the child entered custody unless:
42

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 47 of 62 Pg ID 6877
a. The child's needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility within a 75-mile radius;
b. The child needs re-placement and the child's permanency goal is reunification with his/her parents who at that time reside out of the 75mile radius;
c. The child is to be placed with a relative/sibling out of the 75-mile radius; or,
d. The child is to be placed in an appropriate pre-adoptive or adoptive home that is out of the 75-mile radius.
If a child is placed outside the 75-mile radius: a. In a Designated County, the county Child Welfare Director shall be
specifically required to certify the circumstances supporting the placement in writing, based on his or her own examination of the circumstances and the child's needs and best interests; b. In any other county, the County Director shall be specifically required to certify the circumstances supporting the placement in writing, based on his or her own examination ofthe circumstances and the child's needs and best interests. 2. Limitations on Separation ofSiblings: Siblings who enter placement at or near the same time shall be placed together, unless doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, one of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, or the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding efforts to place the group together. If a sibling group is separated at any time, except for reasons set forth above, the case manager shall make immediate efforts to locate or recruit a family in whose home the siblings can be reunited. These efforts shall be documented and maintained in the case file and shall be reassessed on a quarterly basis. 3. Limitations on Number ofChildren in Foster Home: No child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three foster children in that foster home, or a total of six children, including the foster family's birth and/or adopted children. No placement shall result in more than three children under the
43

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 48 of 62 Pg ID 6878

age ofthree residing in a foster home. Exceptions to these limitations may be

made, on an individual basis, documented in the case file, when in the best

interest of the child(ren) being placed, as follows:

a. In a Designated County, by the county Child Welfare Director;

b. In any other county, by the County Director.

4. Limitations on Use ofEmergency or Temporary Facilities:

a. Time limit for placement in emergency or temporary facility:

Children shall not remain in emergency or temporary facilities, including

but not limited to shelter care, for a period in excess of 30 days. An

exception to this limitation may be made for:

i.

Children who have an identified and approved placement but the

placement is not available within 30 days of the child's entry to an

emergency or temporary facility.

ii. Children whose behavior has changed so significantly that the

County Director or his/her manager designee has certified that a

temporary placement for the purposes of assessment is critical for

the determination of an appropriate foster placement. In no case

shall a child remain in an emergency or temporary facility more

than 45 days.

b. Number ofplacements in an emergency or temporary facility:

Children shall not be placed in an emergency or temporary facility,

including but not limited to shelter care, more than one time within a 12-

month period. An exception to this limitation shall be made for:

1.

Children who are absent without legal permission;

n. Children facing a direct threat to their safety, or who are a threat to

the safety of others such that immediate removal is necessary; or

m. Children whose behavior has changed so significantly that the

County Director or his/her manager designee has certified that a

temporary placement for the purposes of assessment is critical for

the determination of an appropriate foster placement.

44

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 49 of 62 Pg ID 6879
Children experiencing a second emergency or temporary-facility placement within one year shall not remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than seven days.
5. Limitations on Placement in Jail, Correctional, or Detention Facility: No
child in DHS foster care custody shall be placed, by DHS or with knowledge ofDHS, in a jail, correctional, or detention facility unless such child is being placed pursuant to a delinquency charge. DHS shall notify the State Court Administrative Office and the Michigan State Police of this prohibition, and provide written instructions to immediately notify the local DHS office of any child in DHS foster care custody who has been placed in a jail, correctional, or detention facility.
If it comes to the attention ofDHS that a child in DHS foster care custody has been placed in a jail, correctional, or detention facility, and such placement is not pursuant to a delinquency charge, DHS shall ensure the child is moved to a DHS foster care placement as soon as practicable, and in all events within five days, unless the court orders otherwise over DHS objection. If a child in DHS foster care custody is placed in a jail, correctional, or detention facility pursuant to a delinquency charge, and the disposition of such a charge is for the child to return to a foster care placement, then DHS shall return the child to a DHS placement as soon as practicable but in no event longer than five days from disposition, unless the court orders otherwise over DHS objection.
6. Limitations on Placement ofHigh Risk Youth: DHS shall not place any child
determined by a clinical assessment to be at high risk for perpetrating violence or sexual assault in any foster care placement with foster children not so determined without an appropriate assessment concerning the safety of all children in the placement.
7. Limitations on Residential Care Placements: No child shall be placed in a child
caring institution unless there are specific findings, documented in the child's case file, that: (1) the child's needs cannot be met in any other type of placement; (2) the child's needs can be met in the specific facility requested; and (3) the facility
45

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 50 of 62 Pg ID 6880
is the least restrictive placement to meet the child's needs. A description of the services available in the facility to address the individual child's needs must also be documented in the case file. The initial placement must be approved as follows: a. In a Designated County, the county Child Welfare Director; b. In any other county, the County Director.
The need for a residential placement shall be reassessed every 90 days. Children shall not be placed in a residential placement for more than six months without the express authorization, documented in the foster care file, of: a. In a Designated County, the county Child Welfare Director; b. In any other county, the County Director.
No child shall be placed in a residential placement for more than 12 months without the express authorization, documented in the foster care file, of Child Welfare Field Operations.
XI. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATIONS, CORPORAL PUNISHMENT, AND SECLUSION/ISOLATION
A. Psychotropic Medications: 1. Psychotropic medication shall not be used as a method of discipline or be used in place of psychosocial or behavioral interventions that the child requires. a. By September 30, 2011, DHS shall provide the Monitors with a draft policy, including a timetable for implementing this Section. b. By October 31, 2011, the Monitors shall respond to DHS's proposed policy and timetable for implementation. c. When the Monitors have approved DHS's proposed policy and timetable for implementation, DHS shall implement the policy according to the timetables set by the Monitors.
46

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 51 of 62 Pg ID 6881
B. Corporal Punishment and Seclusion/Isolation:
1. DHS shall prohibit the use of Positive Peer Culture, peer-on-peer restraint, and any other forms of corporal punishment in all foster care placements. All uses of corporal punishment in any placement, and all uses of seclusion/isolation in child caring institutions shall be reported to the Quality Assurance (QA) unit. Such reports shall be made available to the state's licensing agency for appropriate action. a. By September 30, 2011, DHS shall provide the Monitors with a draft policy, including a timetable for implementing this Section. b. By October 31, 2011, the Monitors shall respond to DHS's proposed policy and timetable for implementation. c. When the Monitors have approved DHS's proposed policy and timetable for implementation, DHS shall implement the policy according to the timetables set by the Monitors.
2. The state's licensing agency and Child Welfare Contract Compliance unit shall be responsible for monitoring the implementation of policies and procedures surrounding all forms and use of corporal punishment and seclusion/isolation of children in DHS foster care custody, and shall issue and impose corrective actions.
XII. DHS SUPERVISION OF CONTRACT AGENCIES
A. Contract Requirements: DHS's contracts with private CPAs and CCis shall be
performance-based and shall include all of the following requirements: 1. Compliance with performance goals as set forth in this Agreement; 2. Compliance with all aspects of all DHS policies and procedures that apply to the
provider; 3. Any reports of suspected abuse or neglect of any Plaintiff class member while
receiving such contracted placements or services shall be reported to DHS for investigation;
47

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 52 of 62 Pg ID 6882
4. All placement providers for foster children in DHS foster care custody are prohibited from using or authorizing the use of corporal punishment for children under the care and supervision of DHS or the private CPA or CCI;
5. Any reports of suspected corporal punishment while in that provider's care shall be reported to DHS for investigation, as necessary; and
6. All CCis or private CPAs that provide placements and child welfare services to Plaintiff class members report to DHS accurate data on at least a six-month basis in relation to the requirements of this Agreement.
DHS shall independently monitor and enforce these contracts. Further, DHS shall maintain a set of enforcement measures to be imposed in the event that a contract agency fails to comply with material terms or requirements of the performance-based contract.
B. Substantiated Incidents ofAbuse, Neglect, and Corporal Punishment: DHS shall give due
consideration to any and all substantiated incidents of abuse, neglect, and/or corporal punishment occurring in the placements licensed and supervised by a contract agency at the time of processing its application for licensure renewal. The failure of a contract agency to report suspected abuse or neglect of a child to DHS shall result in an immediate investigation to determine the appropriate corrective action up to and including termination or modification of relevant portions of a contract, or placement of the provider on provisional licensing status. A repeated failure within one year shall result in a review of the contract agency's violations by a designated Administrative Review Team, which shall include the Director ofCSA, the Director ofBCAL or its successor agency, or the Manager of Child Welfare Contract Compliance Unit, that shall consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances to determine the appropriate corrective action up to and including license revocation and contract termination.
C. Contract Evaluations: DHS shall conduct contract evaluations of all CCis and private
CPAs providing placements and services to Plaintiff class members to ensure, among other things, the safety and well-being of Plaintiff class members and to ensure that the contract agency is complying with the applicable terms of this Agreement. At least once each year:
48

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 53 of 62 Pg ID 6883
1. DHS shall inspect each private CPA to review all relevant aspects of the agency's operations;
2. DHS shall visit a random sample of each agency's foster homes as a part of the annual inspection. Agencies with less than 50 foster homes shall have three foster homes visited. Agencies with 50 foster homes or more shall have 5% of their foster homes visited; and
3. DHS shall conduct an unannounced inspection of each CCI.
DHS shall prepare written reports of all inspections and visits, detailing findings. DHS shall require corrective actions and require private CPAs and CCis to report to DHS on the implementation of these corrective action plans, and shall conduct follow-up visits when necessary. Such reports shall routinely be furnished to the Monitors.
D. Resources: DHS shall maintain sufficient resources to permit its staff to undertake timely
and competent contract enforcement activities as set forth in this section.
XIII. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
A. Until the full implementation of the statewide automated child welfare information system (SACWIS), DHS shall generate from automated systems and other data collection methods accurate and timely data reports and information regarding the requirements and outcome measures set forth in this Agreement. Upon implementation of the SACWIS, DHS shall generate from the SACWIS accurate and timely data reports and information regarding the requirements and outcome measures set forth in this Agreement.
B. By October 2012, DHS shall implement a pilot of the SACWIS with the components and functionality as described in the purchase contract executed between DHS and Unisys on March 22, 2011. By October 2013, DHS shall have an operational SACWIS in all counties, with the functionality as described in the purchase contract executed between DHS and Unisys on March 22, 2011. DHS shall promptly seek, and take necessary steps to secure, federal approval of the SACWIS upon completion of the full rollout to all counties.
49

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 54 of 62 Pg ID 6884
C. DHS shall maintain a permanency tracking system and associated reports. Until October 2013, SWSS shall be the permanency tracking system. After October 2013, the SACWIS shall be the permanency tracking system. The permanency tracking system shall, at a minimum, be capable of reporting pertinent status information sorted by individual child, DHS worker/CPA, and county, for all children in foster care.
D. Both leading up to and subsequent to the full implementation of a SACWIS, DHS shall at all times satisfy all federal reporting requirements and shall maintain data integrity and accuracy on a continuous basis.
XIV. QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. DHS shall, in consultation with and subject to the approval of the Monitors, develop and implement a statewide Quality Assurance program that shall be directed by the QA Unit identified in Section IV(A)(S). DHS shall ensure accurate data collection and data verification. In administering the QA program, the QA Unit shall develop an internal DHS capacity to undertake data analysis, case record or qualitative service review and other such oversight and reporting functions that, in coordination with the Monitors and any external data review processes undertaken by the Monitors, shall facilitate ongoing assessment of DHS child welfare performance in relation to the performance requirements and goals contained in this Agreement. The QA unit shall support the DHS Director and DHS management in identifying areas of systemic strengths and weaknesses and in formulating strategies to improve in areas of substandard performance. The QA unit shall provide ongoing critical evaluation and oversight of the strategies designed and undertaken to improve substandard services and outcomes.
B. By December 31,2011, DHS shall provide a QA plan subject to the approval ofthe Monitors that shall define the process for the ongoing assessment ofDHS child welfare performance in relation to the performance requirements and goals contained in this Agreement. DHS shall address in the QA plan a mechanism for the consideration of high risk cases, as defined in the Glossary. DHS shall implement the QA plan pursuant to timetables established in agreement with the Monitors.
50

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 55 of 62 Pg ID 6885
C. The CSA Director shall appoint a director to administer the QA unit who possesses the necessary qualifications and experience to conduct competent data collection, evaluation, as well as the management skills necessary to manage a staff tasked to perform QA functions encompassing DHS state, regional, and county offices. The director of the QA unit shall report directly to the Children's Services Administration Director. The QA unit shall be adequately staffed, and its staff shall receive specialized training to fulfill all unit responsibilities.
D. All reports provided by the QA unit shall be public record so long as any individually identifying information in relation to the temporary or permanent wards in DHS foster care custody is redacted from such report consistent with applicable state and federal confidentiality laws.
XV. MONITORING
A. The parties agree that Kevin M. Ryan and Eileen Crummy of the Public Catalyst Group shall be the Monitors ofDHS's compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
B. Neither party, nor any employee or agent of either party, shall have any supervisory authority over the Monitors' activities, reports, findings, or recommendations. The retention of the Monitors shall be conducted solely pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Agreement and shall not be governed by any formal or legal procurement requirements. The Monitors shall hire such staff as the Monitors deem necessary to discharge their responsibilities under this Agreement.
C. The Monitors shall have free and complete access to records maintained by DHS, its divisions and any successor agencies or divisions, and by its private CPAs and CCis. The Monitors shall also have free and complete access to the staff ofDHS; its divisions and any successor agencies or divisions; persons within the executive branch; private CPAs and CCis; children in the care ofDHS and of private CPAs and CCis; and other individuals that the Monitors deem relevant to their work. DHS shall direct all employees and contract providers to cooperate fully with the Monitors and shall assist the Monitors in gaining free access to other stakeholders in the child welfare system.
51

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 56 of 62 Pg ID 6886
D. · All non-public information obtained by the Monitors shall be maintained in a confidential manner. In providing the public reports described in Section XV(L), and consistent with applicable state and federal confidentiality requirements, the Monitors shall not identify public or private staff or private agencies, except to the extent that such information about public or private staff and private agencies has already been made public. The parties shall have access, through the Monitors, to all information made available to the Monitors, subject to the existing protective order in effect in this case.
E. The Monitors shall have the authority to conduct, or cause to be conducted, such case record reviews, qualitative reviews, and audits as the Monitors reasonably deem necessary. In order to avoid duplication and build capacity within the agency, DHS shall provide the Monitors with copies of all state-issued data reports regarding topics covered by this Agreement. Notwithstanding the existence of state data, data analysis or reports, the Monitors shall have the authority to prepare new reports on outcome measures and all other terms of this Agreement to the extent the Monitors deem necessary.
F. The Monitors and Plaintiffs shall receive, and the Monitors shall review (and, for data, verify the accuracy of) all written processes, programs, procedures, statements of work, formal analyses, system designs, and data reports developed pursuant to this Agreement. The Monitors shall take into account the timeliness, appropriateness, and quality of these work products in reporting on the State's compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
G. Reporting on DHS Performance: By April2014, the QA unit shall, within 60 days following the end of each Reporting Period as defined in Section XV(L) of this Agreement compile and analyze, in consultation with the Monitors, all pertinent information regarding statewide performance in relation to the requirements and outcome measures contained in this Agreement. This data shall be furnished to the Monitors and Plaintiffs.
H. The Monitors may grant extensions to due dates outlined in this Agreement after consultation with Plaintiffs.
52

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 57 of 62 Pg ID 6887

I.

In addition to the requirements set forth above, the Monitors' duties shall be to: confirm

independently the data reports and statistics provided pursuant to this Agreement;

conduct independent case record or other qualitative reviews or audits; review and

approve plans, documents, and data reports agreed to be developed and produced by DRS

pursuant to this Agreement; and report on DRS's progress in implementing the terms of

this Agreement and the achievement ofthe outcomes set forth herein.

J. For the purposes of determining compliance with requirements of this agreement, DRS and the Monitors shall meet at least 30 calendar days before the end of each reporting period to ensure methods of data collection and data definitions are consistent with the expected reports for that period.

K. Within three months from the date of court approval of this Modified Settlement Agreement, the Monitors shall provide the parties with a written monitoring plan setting forth the methodologies by which the Monitors shall measure DRS's progress in implementing the terms of this Agreement and achieving the outcomes set forth herein. Specifically, the Monitors' methodologies may include, but are not limited to, analyses of information collected: (1) by DRS's management and information systems if and when available and accurate; (2) from a review of relevant case records; (3) from the production of data aggregated by the Monitors or third parties; and (4) from interviews with DRS staff, resource families, class members or prior class members and their families, contract agency staff, service providers, and other child welfare stakeholders. The Monitors shall make best efforts to specify the methods they will utilize to perform their duties as to each and every section of this Agreement. The plan may be periodically revised by the Monitors, after consultation with the parties, particularly if and when DRS data becomes more available and accurate and when a QA unit becomes functional. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to in any way limit the scope of the Monitors' access to information and individuals as otherwise set forth herein.

L. For each Reporting Period, the Monitors shall issue a report setting forth the measurable progress made by DRS in relation to each of the performance (process and outcome) requirements contained in this Agreement. Reporting Period One ofthe Modified

53

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 58 of 62 Pg ID 6888
Settlement Agreement (MSA 1) shall begin on October 1, 2011, and end on December 31, 2011. Each subsequent Reporting Period shall be six-month periods of time beginning on the day following completion ofthe previous Reporting Period.
M. The Monitors' reports shall be public documents upon formal submission to the Court.
N. The Monitors' reports shall set forth the steps taken by DHS, the reasonableness of these efforts, and the adequacy of support for the implementation of these steps; the quality of the work done by DHS in carrying out those steps; and the extent to which that work is producing the intended effects and/or the likelihood that the work will produce the intended effects. Such reports shall be issued every six months, unless the parties agree otherwise.
0. The Monitors and the parties shall develop a plan to transfer the primary monitoring function to DRS's QA unit upon the termination of this Agreement, or at such earlier time as the parties may agree. The Monitors shall work in collaboration with DHS in building its QA capacity.
P. The Monitors shall not express any conclusions as to whether DHS has reached legal compliance on any item or items required under this Agreement.
Q. If at any time the Monitors can no longer serve, the parties shall agree on another Monitor, with input and recommendations from the outgoing Monitors.
R. DHS shall enter into a contract to secure the services of the Monitors. The Monitors shall have a budget and staff sufficient to allow the Monitors to carry out the responsibilities described in this Agreement, and may contract with such experts or consultants as he or she may deem appropriate, in consultation with the parties. Experts or consultants hired
by the Monitors may initiate and receive ex parte communications with the parties.
S. Other than as expressly provided in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or right DHS may assert, including those recognized at common law and created by statute, rule, or regulation against any other person or entity with respect to the disclosure of any information.
54

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 59 of 62 Pg ID 6889
T. The Monitors shall be permitted to engage in ex parte communications with all parties.
The Monitors 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.
U. Unless such conflict is waived by the parties, the Monitors and any expert hired by the Monitors shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitors' responsibilities under this Agreement, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant's or claimant's attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against the state of Michigan or its departments, officers, agents, or employees.
V. The Monitors are not a state or local agency or an agent thereof, and accordingly the records maintained by the Monitors shall not be deemed public records subject to public inspection. Neither the Monitors nor any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitors to assist in furthering any provision of this Agreement shall be liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising out of the Monitors' good-faith performance pursuant to this Agreement. This paragraph does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement.
W. For provisions of this Agreement requiring Monitors' approval, the Monitors shall respond in writing within 45 days of receiving the required proposal, unless otherwise specified in this Agreement. Signature by either Kevin Ryan or Eileen Crummy on a written approval shall be deemed approval by the Monitors.
X. For provisions of this Agreement requiring Plaintiffs' approval, the Plaintiffs' counsel shall respond in writing within 45 days of receiving the required proposal, unless otherwise specified in this Agreement.
XVI. ENFORCEMENT. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. AND TERMINATION
A. This Agreement shall constitute the entire integrated Agreement of the parties. No prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, shall be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein in this matter or in any other proceeding. 55

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 60 of 62 Pg ID 6890
B. In the event that Plaintiffs identify an area in whic4 they believe DHS is not in substantial compliance with an enforceable provision of this Agreement: 1. Plaintiffs shall, prior to seeking judicial relief, notify DHS and the Monitors, in writing, of the compliance issue. 2. Within 15 calendar days of Plaintiffs' notification, DHS shall respond in writing to Plaintiffs and the Monitors as to what actions, if any, it proposes to take with regard to the issue of alleged non-compliance. The 15 day period may be extended by the Monitors for good cause. 3. The parties shall meet with the Monitors within 15 calendar days from Plaintiffs' receipt ofthe DHS response, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The purpose of this meeting shall be for the parties to engage in good faith discussions facilitated by the Monitors to determine whether additional actions are necessary to address Plaintiffs' assertion of non-compliance. The parties shall engage in these facilitated dispute resolution discussions for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties. 4. If at the end of the 30-day 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. 5. To the extent that any non-compliance by DHS is in whole or in part attributable to DHS's organizational structure, changes in organizational structure shall be considered as among the elements of the corrective actions needed to correct the non-compliance. 6. If Plaintiffs believe that DHS has violated this Agreement and, as a result, have caused or are likely to cause immediate and irreparable harm to a child(ren) in DHS's foster care custody, they may seek emergency judicial relief. Before taking such action, however, Plaintiffs must give DHS 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. DHS shall respond to this notice in writing within three business days. The parties must then invoke the provisions in Sections XVI (B)(1-5), provided that the entire process
56

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 61 of 62 Pg ID 6891
shall be completed within 10 business days ofDHS's response to Plaintiffs' notice, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties. C. This Agreement shall terminate upon the finding by the Court that DHS has achieved compliance with all terms of the Agreement and has remained in compliance with those terms for a period of 18 months. The burden shall be on DHS to demonstrate compliance. D. DHS shall maintain sufficient records to document its compliance with all of the requirements of this Agreement. During the period of this Agreement, DHS shall maintain any and all records required by or developed under this Agreement. E. In the event that legislation known as the "Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act" is enacted into law, DHS agrees that it shall not invoke their right under that Act to modify or vacate the consent decree resulting from this Agreement. Nothing in this section limits DHS's ability to seek to modify or vacate the provisions of this Agreement under other law. F. This Agreement shall be binding on all successors, assignees, employees, agents and all those working for or on behalf of Plaintiffs and DHS. XVII. ATTORNEYS' FEES For purposes of this agreement, the parties acknowledge that Plaintiffs, as prevailing parties in this lawsuit, are entitled to recover and reserve the right to seek expenses of litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and nontaxable costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h).
57

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 195 Filed 07/18/11 Pg 62 of 62 Pg ID 6892

The parties, by and through their duly authorized representatives, execute this Modified Settlement Agreement; intending that it shall become effective as a Court Order upon its approval and entry by the Comt.

~ FORP=LA'~-¥ -~~ . Marcia Robinson Lowry Susan Lambiase Sara M. Bartosz CHILDREN'S RIGHTS , INC. 330 Seventh Ave., Fomih Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: 212. 683.2210
Elizabeth Phelps Hardy (P37426) Noel D. Massie (P28988) Jay C. Boger (P58805) Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton, P.L.C. 280 North Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400 Birmingham, Michigan 48009 Phone: 248.645 .0000
IT IS SO ORDERED :
~~J
?Ldr DATED:

Rick Snyder, in 1 · ICial capacity
as Governor ofthe State of Michigan
Maura D. Corrigan, in her official capacity as Director ofDHS
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~ 2~~·
osepliE:P0tchen (P49501) William R. Morris (P319 57) Assistant Attomeys General Health, Education & Family Services Div. P.O. Box 30758 Lansing, MI 48909 Phone: 517.373.7700

58

D. B. et al v. Granholm et al, Docket No. 2:06-cv-13548 (E.D. Mich. Aug 08, 2006), Court Docket
General Information
No information to display
© 2012 Bloomberg Finance L.P. All rights reserved. For terms of service see bloomberglaw.com // PAGE 1 Document Link: http://www.bloomberglaw.com/ms/document/X1Q6MHOIKAO2

 
 Analysis of Case Practice and Compliance with Standards in Michigan Foster Care
Report Date February 5, 2008
Class Action Lawsuit Dwayne B., Carmela B., Lisa J., and Julia, Simon, and Courtney G., “Plaintiff Children”
vs. Governor Jennifer Granholm, et al.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. i
I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 A. Michigan Foster Care Profile...................................................................................1 B. Study Purpose ..........................................................................................................4 C. Sample Criteria ........................................................................................................4 D. Case Reader Qualifications......................................................................................7 E. Inter-rater Reliability ...............................................................................................7
II. PROFILE OF THE STUDY SAMPLE .............................................................................10 A. Counties Represented.............................................................................................10 B. Demographics ........................................................................................................12 C. Legal Status............................................................................................................14 D. Time in Care/Current Placement Episode..............................................................15 E. Prior Child Welfare Involvement...........................................................................16 F. Permanency Planning.............................................................................................17 G. Placement with Siblings.........................................................................................19 H. Data Analysis and Presentation .............................................................................20
III. PLACEMENTS .................................................................................................................21 A. Number of Placements ...........................................................................................21 B. Number of Caseworkers ........................................................................................23 C. Number of Placement Changes: Licensed vs. Unlicensed Homes .......................24 D. Reasons for Child Placement Changes ..................................................................25 E. Placement with Siblings.........................................................................................26 F. Screening for Safety in Relative Placements .........................................................28 G. Requirements for Psychological Assessments, Required Medical/Dental Exams, Immunizations, and Special Education .....................................................29 H. Compliance with Placement Requirements: Provision of Medical, Dental, and Educational Records to Caretakers in Applicable Placements...........33 I. Transfers to New School Due to Placement Change .............................................36 J. Post-secondary Assistance .....................................................................................37 K. Denial and Appeal of Requests for a Determination of Care Supplement for Sample Children ...............................................................................................37 L. Denial of Requests for a Residential Care Placement for Sample Children..........40
IV. WORKER CONTACT WITH CHILDREN, CARE PROVIDERS, AND PARENTS ..........................................................................................................................41 A. Worker Contacts during the First Month ...............................................................41 1. Children......................................................................................................41 2. Foster Care Providers.................................................................................43 3. Parents........................................................................................................43 B. Ongoing Worker Contacts .....................................................................................45 1. Children......................................................................................................45 2. Foster Care Providers.................................................................................46 3. Parents........................................................................................................48 C. Worker Contact in Licensed vs. Unlicensed Homes .............................................50
O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

V. VISITATION WITH PARENTS AND SIBLINGS ..........................................................52 A. Parenting Time.......................................................................................................52 B. Sibling Visits..........................................................................................................54

VI. PERMANENCY PLANNING HEARINGS AND DISPOSITIONAL REVIEWS ..........56 A. Permanency Planning Hearings .............................................................................56 B. Dispositional (“Quarterly”) Reviews .....................................................................57 C. Concurrent Planning ..............................................................................................59 D. Termination of Parental Rights ..............................................................................60

VII. ALLEGED CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT IN CARE ...................................................63 A. Formal Investigation and Substantiation of Child Abuse or Neglect of Sample Child..........................................................................................................63 B. Formal Investigation and Substantiation of Child Abuse or Neglect for Other Child(ren) in Same Placement as the Sample Child ....................................65 C. Sample Child Victim of Child Abuse or Neglect – No Formal Report to CPS ....................................................................................................................66 D. Other Child Victims of Child Abuse or Neglect – No Formal Report to CPS ....................................................................................................................69

VIII.

SERVICE PLANS .............................................................................................................71 A. Completion.............................................................................................................71
1. Initial Service Plans ...................................................................................71 2. Updated Service Plan Completion .............................................................73 B. Child Needs and Service Referrals ........................................................................76 C. Child Needs and Service Referrals: Licensed vs. Unlicensed Placements ...........81 D. Family Needs and Service Referrals......................................................................83

IX. CHILDREN WITH GOAL OF ADOPTION ....................................................................90 A. Time to Adoption ...................................................................................................90 B. Other Adoption Procedures/Requirements ............................................................93

BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................................................94

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On August 8, 2006, Children’s Rights filed a civil rights class action suit on behalf of children in foster care custody in Michigan. The suit cited serious systemic and operational deficiencies in the Michigan foster care system. Questions raised in the suit include the following:

1. Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with safe, appropriate, and stable foster care placements as required by law and reasonable professional standards;

2. Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with services necessary to keep them safe and properly cared for, and to prevent them from deteriorating physically, psychologically, or otherwise while in state custody as required by law and reasonable professional standards;

3. Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with timely and appropriate services necessary to ensure that they are either safely reunited with their families or promptly freed for adoption and placed in a permanent home as required by law and reasonable professional standards; and

4. Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with the supports necessary to maintain family relationships, including the provision of parent and sibling visits as required by law and reasonable professional standards.

The purpose of this study was to collect information on a large, random sample of cases to address the questions cited above based on actual case practice in Michigan. Data collection began in September 2007 and was completed in the first week of December 2007. The project was jointly funded by the State of Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS), the plaintiffs’ court-appointed counsel, Children’s Rights (CR), and McDermott, Will & Emery, and conducted by the Children’s Research Center (CRC, a division of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency), a nonprofit organization in Madison, Wisconsin. CRC has acted as an independent expert appointed by Judge Nancy G. Edmunds of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to design and perform an overall case record review process, including the preparation and validation of a case record review instrument, case reader training, data extraction, data analysis, and the preparation of a final report setting forth findings regarding Michigan case practice in relation to applicable laws, policies, and standards.

CRC requested computerized data files from DHS. Case records were extracted by DHS from the Children’s Services Management Information System (CSMIS) to include all cases opened for service as of June 30, 2007, in Ingham, Washtenaw, Jackson, Calhoun, Berrien, Kalamazoo, Muskegon, Kent, Genesee, Saginaw, St. Clair, Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne Counties.

CRC randomly selected 530 cases from approximately 15,000 cases in the 14 counties. Because this was a study of overall child welfare practice and not a comparison of county compliance rates, sampling was not done by county, but across the entire foster care population of all 14 counties. Random selection was employed to ensure adequate representation of DHS and private agency cases and to ensure an adequate reflection of child permanency goals. These cases were then split into 460 primary sample cases and 70 replacement cases. The 70 replacement cases were randomly selected and set aside to be used in the event that one of the sample cases did not meet case selection criteria. The sample of cases included in this study reflects 439 of the

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

i

original sample cases and 21 replacement cases. In most instances, cases that were replaced in this sample had been closed prior to June 30, 2007, but their closure had not yet been entered in the computerized data system from which the sample was drawn.

Both DHS and CR participated in and approved the selection of counties included in this study. The selection of these counties was not random; instead, their inclusion was based on the following criteria:

1. Combined, they represent more than 70% of the state’s foster care population.

2. Together, these counties have a racially diverse population from large, medium, and small cities; small towns; and rural areas.

3. The location of these counties simplified the logistics involved in collecting and returning files to DHS offices, controlled travel costs, and permitted the study to be completed within the desired timeframe.

The parties (DHS, CR, and CRC) agreed that case practices documented in these counties would constitute a fair representation of the child welfare practice in Michigan relative to state and federal foster care standards.

Compliance rates attained in these counties were to be viewed as sufficient to answer questions raised in the class action lawsuit. To simplify the presentation, results from the 14 counties are reported as “Michigan results.” However, race, age, legal status, and other characteristics of the sample are representative of the foster care population in the 14 sample counties, not the overall state foster care population.

The sample size establishes the following confidence levels: In the worst case scenario, (i.e., where 50.0% of cases meet standards and 50.0% do not), we can say with 95.0% confidence that between 44.5% and 54.5% of cases met the standard. The estimates produced are within 4.5% of the actual number.

In essence, the number of cases analyzed is sufficient to provide a high level of confidence that the results obtained are a fair representation of foster care practice in Michigan. Up to three separate files were examined on each case: the DHS county file, case files from private agencies when a private agency was involved in case management, and the automated case record. The latter file was utilized to collect data on recent case activities that may not have been in the hard copy files at the time of the case reading.

There were eight case readers employed by CRC for this project. Seven of the case readers were recruited for the project by the on-site coordinator from a pool of individuals previously employed by CRC for other data collection efforts, including a validation of the Michigan child protective services (CPS) risk assessment instrument in 2003 and an examination of the Michigan Determination of Care schedule in 2005. The eighth case reader was an employee of CRC who worked in Lansing for three weeks on the project. Of the first seven, one had extensive experience working in private agencies in Ingham and Genesee Counties as a caseworker and adoption specialist. The other six were retirees of DHS and had extensive experience with child welfare services in Michigan. Four of the six retirees had prior supervisory and management experience that ranged from CPS to foster care and adoption. Of the remaining two readers, one had casework experience in both county offices and private

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

ii

agencies and was a program specialist with the foster care program office, and the last reader had a long career as a data analyst with the foster care program. Collectively, this group of readers had been involved in many major DHS program initiatives and had a wealth of experience at the direct casework and management levels of the agency.
The Michigan foster care population, the seventh largest in the country (CR, 2006), is nearly equally divided between boys and girls and between Whites and African Americans, with a small (5.9%) percentage of cases either multi-racial, American Indian, or from other racial minorities.
Nearly one third of all foster care cases are Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI) state wards. This designation means attempts at reunification with the ward’s family have been exhausted, the legal rights of the child’s birth parents have been terminated, and another permanency plan is in place. MCI is an office within DHS currently headed by Superintendent William Johnson.
On September 30, 2007, 12.0% of the foster care population was at home with a parent and nearly 37.7% were placed with relatives. The latter figure represents a 5.6% rate of growth over the number of relative placements in 2006.1
In total, Michigan has 88 offices that support activities in 83 counties, ranging from the heavily populated Wayne County to the sparsely populated counties of the state’s Upper Peninsula. The Michigan child welfare system is comprised of both public and private agencies, with substantial variation in the degree to which private providers are utilized.
This study documents many areas where the foster care system in Michigan fails to comply with legislative requirements, state policy, federal performance standards, and best practice standards promulgated by national child welfare organizations. The study also revealed some areas of relative strength. Key elements of each area are presented below.
Placement Stability
This study documented that a substantial number of children in the Michigan foster care system experience multiple moves during their time in care. For those spending two or more years in care, 40.9% experienced three or more placements. Overall, about 40.7% of children in the study were moved at least three times during their placement tenure. Placement changes were often the result of problems encountered with child behavior, indicating that initial screening and/or the initial placement decision or placement options could be improved. It may also indicate that better services to foster care providers are needed to prevent disruption of placements.

1 Michigan Department of Human Services, September 2007, Foster Care Fact Sheet.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

iii

Placement with Siblings
Although keeping sibling groups together in care whenever possible is required by policy, sibling groups are often placed in different settings. Given the size of sibling groups (16.0% of the children in the study had four or more siblings in out-of-home care), special needs of individual children, and other factors, this is an especially difficult requirement for foster care systems to meet. Nevertheless, performance by DHS in relation to sibling placements fails to meet policy requirements by a substantial margin.
In total, only 34.6% of sample children were always placed with all of their siblings while in foster care. Another 18.4% were placed with siblings on some occasions but not others. When siblings were not placed together, workers are required to document reasons for separate placements. Such documentation was not found for 64.0% of sample child placements.

Placement with Unlicensed Relatives
Placement with unlicensed relatives presents some special concerns for foster care agencies. Because these homes have not been subjected to the review process required for licensing, workers are required to conduct a criminal history check to ensure the placement will not endanger the child, and to determine if any adult in the proposed placement home is listed on the state’s child/abuse/neglect central registry. In addition, agencies promulgating information on best practices (including the National Resource Center for Child Protective Services) recommend use of a standard safety assessment to evaluate potential problems in placement settings. Although safety assessments are not required for non-licensed placements in Michigan, the importance of such screening was recognized by some workers; safety assessments were completed for over one fourth of all placements with relatives (26.7%). As Table ES1 indicates, compliance with Michigan’s requirements is approximately 65.0% for both criminal history and central registry checks. This represents a potentially critical oversight for a large number of children. It is essential that these reviews be conducted routinely for all relative placements to ensure child safety.

Table ES1

Safety Screening for Relative Placement

Yes

No

N

%

N

%

Criminal history check

117

65.0%

63

35.0%

Central registry check

116

64.4%

64

35.6%

Safety assessment*

48

26.7%

132

73.3%

*A safety assessment is not required by Michigan policy.

Total

N

%

180

100.0%

180

100.0%

180

100.0%

Child Well-being: Medical, Dental, and Education Requirements

Findings regarding psychological assessments, medical and dental examinations, and special education include the following:

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

iv

• Among children who required at least one physical exam between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2007, 59.4% received all those required, 18.0% received some of the required exams, and 22.6% had not received any. The standard is that a child must have a physical examination within 30 days after initial foster care placement and every 14 months thereafter (CFF 722-2, Foster Care Administrative Rules).
• A child over the age of four requires periodic dental examinations. All required exams were completed on schedule for 49.2% of the 299 children that required them. An additional 21.1% received at least some of the required exams, while 29.8% did not receive a dental exam. The standard is that a child age four and over must have a dental examination within 90 days of placement, unless the child has had an exam within the 12 months prior to placement, and annually thereafter, unless greater frequency is indicated (CFF 722-2, Foster Care Administrative Rules).
• Case reviewers found child medical records in the case file for 75.7% of the cases reviewed. No file could be located for 24.3% of the children. (See standard for medical passports.)
• Michigan requires that the child’s medical passport be available and updated for all children. Case readers could not locate the passport in 49.3% of the sample cases reviewed. In 35.0% of the cases the passport was in the file but not updated as of June 30, 2007. An additional 15.7% were present and updated. The standard is that the supervising agency must maintain a medical passport for each child, which contains all medical information required by policy or law. The passport is to be provided to foster parents/relatives/unrelated caregivers (CFF 722-2, Foster Care Administrative Rules).
• Immunizations are required for all children in care and must be updated periodically. The majority (67.0%) of the children in the sample had received updated immunizations, but 33.0% had not received them or documentation could not be found in the file. The standard is that the supervising agency must ensure that each child is up-to-date with all immunizations (CFF 722-2, Foster Care Administrative Rules).
• Case readers identified 152 (33.0% of sample) children who at some point had special educational needs. As of June 30, 2007, 49.3% of these children had an individual education program (IEP) in the file, while 50.7% did not have an IEP in the file. Approximately half of all children with a special education need identified received special education services in the current school year.
Caseworkers are expected to provide the child’s medical records to placement caretakers prior to the child’s transfer. This standard applies to all placements. Full compliance was indicated for 40.3% of the children in the sample, and partial compliance for 18.2%. Medical records were not provided in any applicable placement for 41.6% of the sample cases.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

v

The standard for providing caretakers with the child’s medical passport is identical to that for medical records, but compliance with the medical passport requirement is lower. It was provided to caretakers in every applicable placement for 9.0% of the sample cases. Partial compliance was noted for 6.6% of cases, but 84.5% had no placement in which the medical passport was provided to the caretaker. These and other requirements are presented in Table ES2.

Placed in potential adoptive home Medical record provided to placement
Medical passport provided
Dental records provided
Educational records provided
IEP provided
Placed less than 60 miles of parents2

Table ES2

Compliance with Placement Requirements

Never

Partial

100%

N

%

N

%

N

%

174 53.7% 53 16.4% 97 29.9%

190 41.6% 83 18.2% 184 40.3%

386 84.5% 30

6.6%

41

9.0%

206 59.4% 54 15.6% 87 25.1%

166 52.7% 48 15.2% 101 32.1%

33 21.7% 17 11.2% 102 67.1%

29

6.8%

31

7.3% 366 85.9%

Total

N

%

324 100.0%

457 100.0% 457 100.0% 347 100.0% 315 100.0% 152 100.0% 426 100.0%

To ensure child well-being in Michigan, improvements in all of these areas are clearly required. The rate at which medical and dental examinations are conducted and/or documented in files is substantially out of compliance with state policy and federal standards. In addition, case readers could not document that critical medical, dental, and educational records were shared with foster care providers as required by state and federal policy for a substantial percentage of placements.

Caseworker Face-to-face Contact with Children, Care Providers, and Parents
Contact requirements with care providers, children, and parents in Michigan vary based on legal and time-in-care criteria. These factors were considered in computing the compliance rates discussed below.
• On average, workers made 74.0% of required monthly contacts with children in care. Contacts in the foster home occurred, on average, during 63.1% of applicable months. Consistent and regular contact between caseworkers and children in foster care placements is essential to basic child safety and identifying child and provider needs, as well as monitoring changes in those needs.

2 Good case practice calls for placing children close to their homes to facilitate visits and to maintain community relationships. There is no specific standard defining “close;” data were collected on those placed within 60 miles (approximately one hours driving time) of their home.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

vi

• The number of contacts with parents was far below standards. On average, standards were met in 42.9% of all applicable months during the study period. Home visits were rare. In 52.8% of cases reviewed, no home visits with parents were documented in file.
• Contacts with foster care providers were conducted more frequently, but still not at standard. Providers were seen on average in 64.5% of applicable months. Home visits were conducted on average during 58.6% of applicable months.
Parent and Sibling Visitation
The figure below shows the percentage of months in which cases were in full compliance with parenting time standards, the percentage of months in which cases were in partial compliance, and the percentage of months in which cases were not in compliance (i.e., there were no visits) with parenting time standards. Regular visitation between parents and children is an important element in the reunification process, as it supports and sustains the parent/child relationship. As shown in Figure ES1, the sample child visited his/her parent(s) at least four times a month during all required months in only 38 (10.6%) of the 358 cases requiring parenting time.3 Parenting time did not occur in any required months for 80 (22.3%) cases (i.e., parents did not visit their child at all while the child was in care). For the remaining 240 (67.0%) cases, CRC found partial compliance with parenting time standards.4 Of those in partial compliance, 34 (14.2%) of the 240 cases were in partial compliance during 76 – 100% of required months, 34 (14.2%) cases were in partial compliance during 51 – 75% of required months, 93 (38.8%) were in partial compliance during 26.0 – 50.0% of months, and 79 (32.9%) cases were in partial compliance during 0.1 – 25% of the months in which parenting time was required.5

3 Parenting time was not required during months in which the child was AWOL, a permanent ward, had no legal parents, the parent(s) was incarcerated, the child was back in the removal home, the child was in an independent living placement, a TPR had been filed, the parent was in a drug rehabilitation center, visitation had been suspended, the parent(s) was deceased, or the parent(s) or child was out of state or out of the country. There were 102 cases in which these circumstances existed for the entire period between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2007. These cases were removed from the analysis.
4 Partial visitation on a monthly basis is defined as one to three visits between the parent and the child during that month. In aggregate, partial visitation defines cases in which the parent and child had partial visitation during some or all months in which parenting time was required. When partial visitation occurred during some months, the other required months may have been full compliance, no compliance, or a combination of full and no compliance. Partial compliance also includes cases in which the parent and child had full visitation (four times per month) during some months and no visitation during other months.
5 The number of months that a case was considered in partial compliance was determined by dividing the number of months in which the parent(s) and child met one to three times per month by the number of required months. If the cases included months in which the parent and child met four or more times and months in which there was no parent/child contact, the rate of partial compliance was determined by dividing the number of months parenting time reached full compliance by the number of required months.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

vii

Figure ES1
Parenting Time

Full (All Contacts, All Months)
38 (10.6%)
None (No Contacts, No Months)
80 (22.3%)

Partial** (Some Contacts in Some Months)
240 (67.0%)

76 – 100% 34 (14.2%)
51 – 75% 34 (14.2%)
26 – 50% 93 (38.8%)
0.1 – 25% 79 (32.9%)

CRC

N = 358* *Parenting time was not required for 102 cases in the study. **Partial compliance includes cases in which parent visits were in partial compliance (between one and three per month) for some of the months in which visits were required. Some of these cases may have included other months in which visits were in full compliance, some where there were no visits, or a combination of full and no compliance.

Of the 460 cases in the sample, 297 were eligible for sibling visits in at least one month between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2007. No visits with siblings were documented for 91 (30.6%) cases. At the other end of the spectrum, 90 (30.3%) children had at least one visit with one or more siblings recorded in every month such visits were possible. In total, sibling visits were completed in at least half the months a sample child was in out-of-home care for 142 (47.8%) cases in which visits could be expected. DHS clearly requires significant improvement in supporting sibling relationships, a vital connection for children in foster care whose lives have been uprooted by removal from the family home.

Permanency Hearings and Dispositional Reviews
Federal and state law require that periodic permanency hearings be conducted to monitor the progress of DHS in meeting a child’s permanency goal and to assess the appropriateness of that goal. There were 288 children in the study sample who should have had one or two permanency planning hearings between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2007. For more than half (176, or 61.1%) of these cases, two hearings were required by statute. In total, standards were met for 204 (70.8%) of the 288 children. Two hundred forty-three (84.4%) children had one hearing during the study period. There were 110 hearings that should have been held but were not. In 26 cases, two hearings were required, but none were conducted.
Federal and state law also mandate that periodic dispositional reviews be conducted to monitor the status and appropriateness of a child’s placement, the permanency goal, and the service plan. The number of dispositional reviews required is based on a combination of legal status, placement type, and time in care as described in state statutes. If the legal status was temporary court ward (TCW) as of June 30, 2007, the child was considered to be TCW for the entire time in care. Children for whom adjudication was pending were considered TCW. If a child was a state ward, also known as an MCI ward, or a permanent court ward (neglect)—legal status of children in foster care whose parents’ rights have been terminated and whose legal custody has been retained by the court—the child was considered to be a permanent ward (PW) from the time the TPR was granted through June 30, 2007. If the child had been adopted, the child was considered a PW for the time in care between July 2005 and June 2007. There were two non-court wards in

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

viii

the sample who were in permanent relative or permanent foster family (PFFA) placements. These cases were subject to the applicable review schedule.
At least one dispositional review (referred to in Michigan as a “quarterly review”) was required for 369 sample cases. For 262 (71.0%) of the 369 sample cases, all required reviews were conducted. In 53 (14.4%) cases, half or fewer of the reviews required were conducted. Fourteen (3.8%) cases had no reviews completed. Overall, review requirements were met for 71.0% and not met for 29.0% of children (see Figure ES2).
Figure ES2
Percentage of Cases Meeting Quarterly Review Requirement
Met Requirement
71.0%

CRC N = 369

Did Not Meet Requirement
29.0%

Termination of Parental Rights
Termination of parental rights (TPR) petitions had been filed in 234 (50.9%) of 460 cases in the study sample.6 In total, 187 (79.9% of the 234 filed) TPRs were granted by the court. An additional six cases were pending trial. The TPR order had been appealed in 40 cases. Of the 40 appeals, 25 (62.5%) of the TPR decisions were upheld; four (10.0%) were overruled and four (10.0%) were still pending. In seven (17.5%) cases, the outcomes of appeals could not be determined.
Federal law provides that DHS file petitions for TPRs when a child has been in out-of-home care for 15 months of any 22-month period unless documented reasons exist. This federal statutory provision was established to prevent children from languishing in foster care and to help ensure that permanent placements for children are established within a reasonable timeframe. Of the sample children, 213 (46.3%) met this condition. Of these, 156 (73.2%) cases had TPRs filed.7
When a TPR is not filed after a child has been in placement for 15 of 22 months, the agency is required under federal law to provide documented justification. Of the 57 cases in which no TPR had been filed, justifications were found to support only 27 (47.4%) of these decisions.
6 This figure includes two cases where the court terminated parental rights, but there was no DHS petition for TPR; four children whose parents released rights; and two children who had no parents.
7 Includes one child whose parents had released him/her; two children for whom a TPR was granted but no DHS petition was filed; and one child who had no parents.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

ix

Reasons for not filing ranged from the child being 14 years of age or older and refusing adoption to the current caretaker being unwilling to adopt.
In 30 cases (14.1% of 213 children in care for 15 of 22 months) there was no TPR filed and there was no documentation available to support the decision for not filing for termination of parental rights. In total, Michigan was compliant with federal requirements for filing TPR (or documenting why a TPR was not filed) for approximately 86.0% of out-of-home cases for 15 of 22 months.
Maltreatment While in Care
Abuse or neglect at the hands of foster care providers is a relatively rare event nationally, and the threshold established by the federal government for assessing aggregate level of safety in foster care placements reflects this fact, as the threshold is empirically based on the overall instances of substantiated abuse or neglect in foster care reported from the states. The Administration for Children and Famillies (ACF), a unit of the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), reports that, in 2004, maltreatment rates from states reporting to the federal government ranged from 0.0% to less than 1.5% of children in out-of-home placements during that year. Based on these data, ACF set a state threshold of 0.32% or less of the reporting state’s foster care population for purposes of assessing whether the incidence of substantiated maltreatment by providers in the state’s foster care system exceeds reasonable performance expectations. Of course, the goal of every foster care system should be to prevent any instance of abuse or neglect to the children removed into and dependent on state care.
In 2006, three children (0.8% of sample cases) in care were victims of maltreatment by providers in Michigan. This is two and a half times the federal threshold. A comparison of rates over time when the measured event occurs infrequently must be done with caution, as relatively small fluctuations in annual substantiated episodes of abuse or neglect in foster care can move a state in or out of compliance with the HHS threshold.
Michigan reported the following rates of substantiated maltreatment of children in care for the years 2003 through 2006: 0.40% in 2003, 0.32% in 2004, 0.12% in 2005, and 0.20% in 2006.8 A mere 0.2% change in the rate of maltreatment represents as much as a 167% change viewed in relative terms. With rare events such as maltreatment in care, any sampling strategy utilized can seriously overestimate (or underestimate) the rate at which maltreatment occurs in the general foster care population. Furthermore, CRC believes there are serious issues with the way abuse and neglect rates are computed for ACF that also make comparisons between years and between jurisdictions problematic. Therefore, extreme caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions from differences between the federal threshold (0.32%) and maltreatment rate for sample cases (0.80%).

8 Child and Family Services Review, 2003 – 2006.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

x

It is notable, however, that the three substantiated incidents of maltreatment all occurred in licensed foster homes. No such events were recorded or reported for children in unlicensed relative homes. DHS should examine this data more fully to determine whether incidents of abuse or neglect in unlicensed relative homes are being appropriately identified, reported, and addressed by the agency. There were fewer worker contacts recorded with unlicensed homes; hence less opportunity to observe problem behavior.
In total, 5.9% of sample cases (27 children) were alleged victims of abuse or neglect during their time in care. Only four (0.9%) of these incidents were substantiated. In 33 additional instances (7.2% of all cases in the sample), the home (or facility) where a sample child was residing was investigated for abuse/neglect of another child residing in the home. Two of these allegations were substantiated.
Service Plans
Under Michigan foster care policy and standards of good social work practice, initial service plans (ISPs) are required within 30 days of placement. An ISP is the tool with which DHS assesses the needs of a child in foster care and establishes a schedule for meeting those needs. Timely completion of ISPs is a key area of acceptable practice, since children are generally highly vulnerable in the initial weeks following the traumatic event of removal from their family home due to abuse or neglect. On average, foster care workers took nearly 58 days to complete an ISP. One in five (20.2%) ISPs were not completed within 90 days of placement. ISPs are critical for effective service delivery, both to parents and to children. Any delay in the development of a formal plan can lengthen time in care and have a detrimental impact on reunification efforts.
Michigan policy further requires that an updated service plan (USP) be completed “within 120 calendar days of removal and at least every 90 days thereafter, or more frequently, if necessary, to ensure coordination with the court report” (CFF 722-9 Foster Care – Updated Service Plan). All required USPs were completed for 252 (61.0%) children, and some but not all USPs were completed for 120 (29.1%) children. There were no USPs in the case file for 41 (9.9%) children. This failure by DHS to meet basic case planning and service planning policy requirements needs to be rectified to assure proper support to children.
Service Referrals
Considerable information on service referrals and participation for sample children and their families was analyzed in this review. In total, needs identification, service referrals, and service participation are relative areas of strength for the Michigan foster care system. Needs are systematically identified and frequently multiple service referrals are made on behalf of both children and families served by DHS. However, the system could be further strengthened by initiating better methods for tracking participation and monitoring program outcomes. There were, however, few services for foster care providers documented in the files. The analysis does not examine the timeliness of service referrals (i.e., how quickly the referral was made following needs identification), nor can it reflect the appropriateness of the needs identification, service referral, or effectiveness of the services.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

xi

On average, families of children in the case reading sample had more than five service needs identified and received over four separate service referrals. Two hundred eighty-five children (62.0% of the 460 sample children) had mental health needs identified by workers, and nearly 90% were referred for services. Over 58.0% received multiple referrals.

Adoption
Interpreting data produced by case reading studies presents challenges when analyzing issues such as “time to adoption.” Because permanency planning goals change over time, and because not all children with adoption goals are ultimately adopted, all data collection strategies have some drawbacks. Adoption cohorts reflect only the experiences of those actually adopted, while entry cohorts require longitudinal studies that delay findings for years. The federal government, in its attempts to establish standards for measuring agency performance, has struggled with this issue for over a decade without a clearly satisfactory solution. This analysis examines cases in which the TPR was granted and the goal was adoption.
There were 131 children with TPR petitions granted (for both parents) and adoption as the initial goal. Of these, 103 (78.6%) had an adoptive family identified at the time of the TPR, yet few of these children were actually adopted prior to June 30, 2007. There were 91 children whose goal was still adoption as of June 30, 2007. Forty-four (48.4%) of these 91 children had been in care for more than 12 months. Figure ES3 shows the time since the TPR was granted for children with an adoption goal on June 30, 2007. On average, 482 days had elapsed since a TPR was granted. The delay in adoptions seems to start with a failure to quickly notify adoption services of the TPR. Michigan policy requires that adoption services be notified within 14 days. Readers found notification dates for only 75 cases. The average time to notification was 72 days.9

Figure ES3
Time Since TPR for Children with Adoption Goal on June 30, 2007

6 to 12 Months 24 (26.4%)

0 to 6 Months 23 (25.3%)

CRC N = 91

More than 12 Months
44 (48.4%)

9 To compute this average, all notifications that occurred prior to a TPR were given a negative value. There were also two cases where notification was not documented until several years had elapsed since a TPR was granted. These “outliers” may not reflect contemporary practice. When all notifications that occurred on or prior to the TPR grant date are calculated as zero days and two outliers are omitted from the analysis, the average number of days between TPR and notification is 56.5 days. While this provides what could be considered a better review of actual practice, it is still well beyond the standard of 14 days established by Michigan policy.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

xii

I. INTRODUCTION A. Michigan Foster Care Profile
There were approximately 19,000 children who were in foster care at the end of June 2007.10 This study is based on a random sample of 460 children in the Michigan foster care system as of June 30, 2007, and was drawn from 14 selected counties in which over 70.0% of the foster care population resides.
The Michigan foster care population, the seventh largest in the country (CR, 2006), is nearly equally divided between boys and girls and between Whites and African Americans, with a small (5.9%) percentage of cases either multi-racial, American Indian, or from other racial minorities. Complete age, sex, race, and legal status breakdowns, based on the Michigan DHS Foster Care Fact Sheet from September 2007, are presented in Table 1.

10 Michigan Department of Human Services Foster Care Fact Sheet.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

1

Table 1

Characteristics of the Michigan Foster Care Population September 2007

N*

%

Gender

Female

9,562

50.0%

Male

9,555

50.0%

Age

0-6

7,509

39.4%

7-11

3,882

20.4%

12+

7,679

40.3%

Race

White

9,004

47.2%

African American

8,944

46.9%

Multi-racial

792

4.2%

American Indian

191

1.0%

Other and unknown

139

0.7%

Legal Status of Children

Permanent court neglect wards

68

0.4%

Temporary court neglect wards

12,370

64.9%

MCI state neglect wards

6,116

32.1%

Other (OTI, non-wards)

517

2.7%

Source: Michigan Department of Human Services, September 2007, Foster Care Fact Sheet. *N sizes are not the same for all categories.

Nearly one third of all foster care cases are Michigan Children’s Institute (MCI) state wards. This designation means attempts at reunification with the ward’s family have been exhausted, the legal rights of the child’s birth parents have been terminated, and that another permanency plan is in place.
As of September 30, 2007, DHS reported the following placements for abused/neglected children: 37.7% of placements were with relatives, 35.5% of children were living with foster families, and 12.0% of the foster care population was at home with a parent. Just over one percent (1.3%) of all foster care cases were AWOL on the date of reporting. Table 2 presents complete data on placement as of September 2007.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

2

Table 2 Placements of Abuse/Neglect Children

September 2007 N

Relatives (in- and out-of-state)

7,195

Foster care families

6,768

Own parent home (reunification with open court case)

2,287

Institutions, including shelters

1,263

Independent living

847

Unrelated caregiver

324

AWOL

242

Detention, jail, and court treatment

57

Legal guardians

17

Mental health hospital

16

Other

55

Total

19,071

Source: Michigan Department of Human Services, September 2007, Foster Care Fact Sheet.

% 37.7% 35.5% 12.0% 6.6% 4.4% 1.7% 1.3% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 100.0%

It should be noted that not all of the children at home were ever in out-of-home care. Some are siblings of children in care. When any child in a family is placed, responsibility for the family is transferred from the child protection unit to foster care. Therefore, a small percentage of cases in the study sample are siblings of children in out-of-home care who have never themselves been placed. Services to these children are provided by foster care staff.11 Since these children were not placed in out-of-home care, they are not included in many of the analyses related to compliance.
In total, Michigan has 88 offices that support activities in 83 counties, ranging from the heavily populated Wayne County to the sparsely populated counties of the state’s Upper Peninsula. The Michigan child welfare system is comprised of both public and private agencies, with substantial variation in the degree to which private providers are utilized.

11 In total, 15 (3.3%) sample children were never out of the parent’s home.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

3

B. Study Purpose
In 2006, Children’s Rights filed a civil rights class action suit on behalf of children in
foster care custody in Michigan. The suit cited serious systemic and operational deficiencies in
the Michigan foster care system. Questions raised in the suit include the following:
1. Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with safe, appropriate, and stable foster care placements as required by law and reasonable professional standards;
2. Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with services necessary to keep them safe and properly cared for, and to prevent them from deteriorating physically, psychologically, or otherwise while in state custody as required by law and reasonable professional standards;
3. Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with timely and appropriate services necessary to ensure that they are either safely reunited with their families or promptly freed for adoption and placed in a permanent home as required by law and reasonable professional standards; and
4. Whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with the supports necessary to maintain family relationships, including the provision of parent and sibling visits as required by law and reasonable professional standards.
The purpose of this study was to collect information on a large, random sample of cases
to answer the questions cited above. Data collection began in September 2007 and was
completed in the first week of December 2007. The project was jointly funded by the State of
Michigan DHS, the plaintiffs’ counsel, Children’s Rights (CR), and McDermott, Will & Emery,
and conducted by the Children’s Research Center (CRC, a division of the National Council on
Crime and Delinquency), a nonprofit organization located in Madison, Wisconsin.

C. Sample Criteria

CRC requested computerized data files from DHS. Case records were extracted by DHS

from the Children’s Services Management Information System (CSMIS) to include all cases

opened for service as of June 30, 2007, in Ingham, Washtenaw, Jackson, Calhoun, Berrien,

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

4

Kalamazoo, Muskegon, Kent, Genesee, Saginaw, St. Clair, Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne

Counties.

CRC requested basic information on case characteristics, current permanent planning

goal, placement type, child placing agencies versus service delivery status, and current case

location (i.e., load number). Data also included case information necessary to identify the

agency(s) that served the case (currently or previously). This information was used to identify

the location of the case files DHS provided for the case reading. Finally, CRC requested current

CSMIS data file descriptions and codebooks.

CRC randomly selected 530 cases from approximately 15,000 cases in the 14 counties.

(The number of cases in the database represents over 78% of all cases in the state. However, a

small percentage of cases were not active on June 30, 2007. Therefore, throughout this report,

these 14 counties are conservatively reported to represent over 70% of Michigan foster care

cases.) Because this was a study of overall child welfare practice and not a comparison of

county compliance rates, sampling was not done by county, but across the entire foster care

population of all 14 counties. Random selection was employed to ensure adequate representation

of DHS and private agency cases and to ensure an adequate reflection of child permanency goals

in these counties. These cases were then split into 460 primary sample cases and 70 replacement

cases. The 70 replacement cases were randomly selected and set aside to be used in the event

that one of the sample cases did not meet case selection criteria. The sample of cases included in

this study reflects 439 of the original sample cases and 21 replacement cases. In most instances,

cases that were replaced in this sample had been closed prior to June 30, 2007, but their closure

had not yet been entered in the computerized data system from which the sample was drawn.

Both DHS and CR participated in and approved the selection of counties included in this

study. The selection of these counties was not random; instead, their inclusion was based on the

following criteria:

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

5

1. Combined, they represent more than 70% of the state’s foster care population. 2. Together, these counties have a racially diverse population from large, medium,
and small cities; small towns; and rural areas. 3. The location of these counties simplified the logistics involved in collecting and
returning files to DHS offices, controlled travel costs, and permitted the study to be completed within the desired timeframe.
The parties (DHS, CR, and CRC) agreed that case practices documented in these counties would constitute a fair representation of the child welfare practice in Michigan relative to state and federal foster care standards.
Compliance rates attained in these counties were viewed as sufficient to answer questions raised in the class action lawsuit. To simplify the presentation, results from the 14 counties are reported as “Michigan results.” However, race, age, legal status, and other characteristics of the sample are representative of the foster care population in the 14 sample counties, not the overall state foster care population.
The sample size (460) establishes the following confidence levels: In the worst case scenario, (i.e., where 50.0% of cases meet standards and 50.0% do not), we can say with 95.0% confidence that between 44.5% and 54.5% of cases met the standard. The estimates produced are within 4.5% of the actual number.
In essence, the number of cases analyzed is sufficient to provide a high level of confidence that the results obtained are a fair representation of foster care practice in Michigan. Up to three separate files were examined on each case: the DHS county file, case files from private agencies when a private agency was involved in case management, and the automated case record. The latter file was utilized to collect data on recent case activities that may not have been in the hard copy files at the time of the case reading.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

6

D. Case Reader Qualifications There were eight case readers employed by CRC for this project. Seven of the case
readers were recruited for the project by the on-site coordinator from a pool of individuals previously employed by CRC for other data collection efforts, including a validation of the Michigan child protective services (CPS) risk assessment in 2003 and an examination of the Michigan Determination of Care schedule in 2005. The eighth case reader was an employee of CRC who worked in Lansing for three weeks on the project. Of the first seven, one had extensive experience working in private agencies in Ingham and Genesee Counties as a caseworker and adoption specialist. The other six were retirees of DHS and had extensive experience with child welfare services in Michigan. Four of the six retirees had prior supervisory and management experience that ranged from CPS to foster care and adoption. Of the remaining two readers, one had casework experience in both county offices and private agencies and was a program specialist with the foster care program office, and the last reader had a long career as a data analyst with the foster care program. Collectively, this group of readers had been involved in many major DHS program initiatives and had a wealth of experience at the direct casework and management levels of the agency.

E. Inter-rater Reliability

Inter-rater reliability provides a measure of the degree to which different readers

independently reached the same response for items on the case survey form. Reliability was

tested to ensure that data were reliably collected by all case readers.

The data collection survey used in this study is 24 pages long. As a result, the database

consists of 18 tables and more than 750 variables. Some of the tables are designed so that

records for each sample case in the study line up to one another on a one-to-one basis. Other

tables bear a one-to-many relationship in that there could be multiple records in the table for each

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

7

sample case in the study. This means that if a reader missed an item such as a child need, all

variables that are contingent on the child need, such as how the need was identified, the type of

service, referral for service, participation in service, service start date, service end date, and the

reason the service ended would also be missed. This makes it extremely difficult to present

percent agreement across all variables in summary fashion. CRC, however, not only did an

extensive review of rater agreement/disagreement, but also used the inter-rater reliability portion

of the study as a training mechanism to ensure that readers were able to find and record the same

information from the case file on the data collection survey.

Reliability was tested twice. The first test occurred during the first week of case reading

following training, and included eight cases from outside Wayne County and eight readers.

Readers worked in pairs. Each pair of readers read the same case, independently completed the

case survey form, compared results, and identified areas in which there was disagreement

between the two readers. Results were used to identify areas on the case reading survey that

required additional clarification and/or training. Some areas of the survey were subsequently

modified so that data could be reliably collected. Based on results, CRC staff provided feedback

to the entire group of readers and provided additional training in any areas that appeared to be

problematic.

The second reliability test occurred during the first week of case reading in Wayne

County, and included seven Wayne County cases and the same eight case readers. As in the first

reliability test, readers worked in pairs. Each pair of readers read the same case, independently

completed the case survey, and compared responses. Results indicated that there were few

instances in which case readers responded differently. CRC staff shared results with the entire

group.

Throughout the course of study, the case reading coordinator, a senior CRC staff

member, randomly selected and validated case reading completed by every member of the team.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

8

If problems were encountered, they were discussed with readers to aid consistency. Readers were also encouraged to discuss coding issues as they arose with other members of the group to ensure proper coding. Hence, information that was difficult to interpret and code was often recorded based on group consensus.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

9

II. PROFILE OF THE STUDY SAMPLE A. Counties Represented
The study sample of 460 cases was randomly selected from 14 Michigan counties.12 In total, the sample provides a representative cross-section of foster care cases, deviating in any significant way from the total Michigan population in area few areas including racial composition. Because there were more urban centers in counties selected for the study sample than in other parts of Michigan, there were a higher percentage of African Americans in the study than there are in the entire Michigan foster care population (54.6% of the sample compared to 46.9% of the state’s foster care wards). Whites comprised 34.3% of the sample cases, but 47.2% of the state’s foster care wards (Michigan DHS, 2007). This difference, however, should have no impact on findings related to standards and performance.
Sample characteristics presented in this section of the report provide a general profile of cases in the study. Additional characteristics are presented throughout the report. The data presented in this section reflect circumstances of cases on June 30, 2007, and will not always match numbers used to measure compliance with standards, as these data (in subsequent sections of the report) often reflect circumstances at other points in time. Table 3 presents the number of cases in the study from each of the 14 counties. Numbers ranged from five cases from Muskegon County (1.1%) to 179 (38.9%) from Wayne County.

12 Child-based cases.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

10

County Berrien Calhoun Genesee Ingham Jackson Kalamazoo Kent Macomb Muskegon Oakland Saginaw St. Clair Washtenaw Wayne Total Sample *Child-based cases.

Table 3
Sample Demographics by County Number of Cases* 16 8 55 21 14 12 26 46 5 47 13 8 10 179 460

Percent of Sample 3.5% 1.7% 12.0% 4.6% 3.0% 2.6% 5.7% 10.0% 1.1% 10.2% 2.8% 1.7% 2.2% 38.9%
100.0%

Case management responsibility for 38.7% of the sample rested with private providers. DHS county agencies were responsible for case management for the remaining (61.1%) cases.13 This is very close to the statewide breakdown of cases served by private providers. Findings presented throughout this report are not broken down by the service provider (i.e., private versus county). These questions all relate to compliance with standards regardless of the service delivery model used in different counties. A presentation of findings, delineated by the service model utilized does not add substantiability to the findings. Sample data, however, could permit such breakdown and could provide valuable information on remedies to problems if there are significant differences in service delivery and/or compliance rates when the service delivery models are compared.

13 For one (0.2%) case, primary responsibility was not identified.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

11

B. Demographics Children in the study sample were nearly equally divided by gender, with 51.1% of the
sample male and 48.9% female. Over half (50.4%) of the children in the sample entered care before the age of 6 and, as of June 30, 2007, 39.8% were still less than 6 years of age. Complete age breakdowns are presented in Figures 1 and 2.
As noted earlier, the majority (54.6%) of children in the sample were African American; just over 34.3% were White, and the remaining 11.1% were multi-racial, American Indian, Asian, and other minorities.

Figure 1
Age at Placement
0 – 5 Years 50.4%

Figure 2
Current Age*
0 – 5 Years 39.8%

6 – 10 Years 20.0%
CRC N = 460

16+ Years 3.7%
11 – 15 Years 25.9%

6 – 10 Years 21.5%

CRC

11 – 15 Years 17.6%
N = 460 *As of June 30, 2007.

16+ Years 21.1%

As of June 30, 2007, 70 (15.2%) of 460 sample children were at home with a parent.14 In 19 (4.1%) of these 70 cases, the child was placed with a parent that did not reside in the household from which the child was removed. In 51 of the 70 cases, the child was in the removal home. Over one third (35.7%) of the 460 children in the sample were with relatives, 32.0% of the 460 children were living with a foster family, 23 (5.0%) were in independent living,

14 There were 15 children in a parental home for the entire placement episode. This may reflect trial reunification efforts.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

12

20 (4.3%) were in a private child care facility, and nine (2.0%) children were AWOL on June 30, 2007. Table 4 provides a complete breakdown of living arrangements for sample children.

Table 4

Living Arrangements on June 30, 2007 N

Parental home

Removal

51

Non-removal

19

Relative

Licensed

44

Non-licensed*

120

Foster family

Specialized

23

Regular

124

Independent living**

23

Private child care facility

20

AWOL

9

Adoptive home

6

Mental health facility/residential treatment center

5

Fictive kin

5

Detention/jail

4

Shelter facility

3

Nursing home/hospital

2

Unknown

1

Total

460

*Includes three cases where the current living arrangement could not be determined. **Includes three supervised independent living arrangements.

%
11.1% 4.1%
9.6% 26.1%
5.0% 27.0% 5.0% 4.3% 2.0% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 0.9% 0.7% 0.4% 0.2% 100.0%

Of the 70 children living in a parental home, 15 (21.4%) were returned to a parent within seven months of placement; another 23 (32.9%) were returned prior to the end of their twelfth month in placement. The remaining 32 (45.7%) children were in care 13 months or more before going to a parental home. Seventeen (24.3%) of these children were in care for more than 24 months. Note that eight (1.7%) children were in out-of-state placements as of June 30,

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

13

2007.15 Nationally, in 2004, between 44.3% and 92.5% of children were reunified with a parent in less than 12 months. Michigan is close to the midpoint of this range, with 67.1% of children returned home within 13 months.16 This is under the national median of 69.9%. However, the national definition included the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) reason for discharge of “live with relative” in the return home total. Hence, these figures are not totally comparable.
C. Legal Status As of June 30, 2007, most (61.3%, or 282) of the 460 children were temporary court
wards, 167 (36.3%) were state wards, three (0.7%) children were non-court wards, three (0.7%) children were categorized as permanent wards (neglect), two (0.4%) children had been adopted, adjudication was pending for two (0.4%) children, and wardship for one (0.2%) child had been dismissed (see Figure 3).

15 Five children were with unlicensed out-of-state relatives, one child was with an out-of-state child placing agency, one child was in an out-of-state childcare institution, and one child was living with a licensed relative out of state.

16 For this comparison, an extra 30 days as the “start date” for counting time in out-of-home care was added. (Start date varies somewhat among states; some allow as much as 60 days in out-of-home care before formally opening a foster care case).

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

14

Figure 3
Legal Status as of June 30, 2007

Temporary Court Ward
282 (61.3%)
CRC N = 460

Dismissed Wardship 1 (0.2%)
Pending 2 (0.4%)

Adopted 2 (0.4%)
Permanent Court Wards 3 (0.7%)

Non-court Wards

State Wards

3 (0.7%)

167 (36.3%)

D. Time in Care/Current Placement Episode Children in the study sample had been in care from 12.0 days to 15.8 years. On average,
children had spent 26.9 months in out-of-home care since the placement episode began. Approximately 37.0% of the sample had been in care for more than 24 months as of June 30, 2007. Figure 4 presents a more complete breakdown of time in care, delineated in six-month increments.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

15

Figure 4
Time in Care Current Placement Episode through June 30, 2007
6 – 12 Months 98 (21.3%)
13 – 18 Months 63 (13.7%)
19 – 24 Months 46 (10.0%)

Less than 6 Months
83 (18.0%)
More than 48 Months
68 (14.8%)

CRC N = 460

25 – 36 Months 59 (12.8%)

37 – 48 Months 43 (9.3%)

Of the 170 children who were in care for more than 24 months, 16 (9.4%) had a reunification goal. Sixty-three (37.1%) of these 170 children had TPR/adoption as a permanency plan; another 45 (26.5%) children had a goal of emancipation by age 19; 21 (12.4%) had maintain own placement as a goal; 13 (7.6%) children were to remain in permanent placement with a relative; five (2.9%) were to remain in a permanent foster family home; two (1.2%) children had guardianship as a goal; one (0.6%) had a goal of custodial care; and no goal was stated for four (2.4%) children.

E. Prior Child Welfare Involvement There were 354 (77.0%) children who came from homes in which there had been
allegations of abuse or neglect prior to the incident that resulted in the child’s removal.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

16

Abuse/neglect had been alleged five or more times for 114 (24.8%) children in the sample. Sixty-five (14.1%) children had previously been in placement.
In 216 (61.0%) of the 354 cases in which there was a history of CA/N, case readers found that abuse or neglect had been substantiated on one or more occasions.17 The number of prior substantiations (substantiations occurring before the event leading to the latest removal) ranged from one (23.7% of the families of children in the sample) to 15 (one family). For 86 (24.3%) of the 354 families, prior allegations of abuse/neglect were not substantiated.

F. Permanency Planning In 66 (14.3%) of the 460 cases in the study, there was no federal permanency plan goal in
the file.18 Of the 394 cases with a goal stipulated, 48.7% of children were to be reunified with their families and 28.9% were to be adopted (not shown). The absence of a federal goal is not a failure of performance, as current state goals were available for nearly all cases. Crossreferencing the data collected in state and federal goals, however, provides an additional check on case file reliability.
Due to the amount of data missing on federal permanency goals, a cross-tabulation of both state and federal permanency plans provides a more complete picture of the status of permanency plans on June 30, 2007. Only ten (2.2%) cases failed to have a state permanency plan goal in their files. It should be noted that even when differences in goal definitions were taken into account, the federal and state goals in the files did not match in absolutely every case. However, when missing federal goals were removed from the analysis, there was a high level of agreement between state and federal permanency planning goals. For example, of the 192 cases with a federal goal of reunification, four (2.1%) had conflicting state permanency plan goals. Of

17 In 58 families, readers could not determine if allegations of abuse/neglect were substantiated.

18 A large number of these were private provider cases in which the updated service plan template did not include the federal goal and therefore could not be collected by case readers.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

17

the 114 cases with a federal goal of adoption, three (2.6%) still had a state goal of reunification or maintain own placement. A complete comparison of federal and state goals is found in Table 5.

Table 5

State Permanency
Plan
Return home/ reunification Maintain own placement* Termination of parental rights/ adoption Adoption

Reunification
N % 142 90.4% 46 65.7%

Federal versus State Permanency Plans as of June 30, 2007

Federal Permanency Plan

Adoption

Guardianship

Permanent Placement
with a Relative

Placement in Another Planned Living Arrangement

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

2 1.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

1 1.4% 1 1.4% 9 12.9% 1 1.4%

No Goal Stated

Total

N

%

N

%

13 8.3% 157 100.0%

12 17.1% 70 100.0%

2 10.5% 15 78.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 5.3% 1 5.3% 19 100.0% 1 0.9% 95 84.8% 0 0.0% 3 2.7% 0 0.0% 13 11.6% 112 100.0%

Guardianship

0

Permanent

placement with

1

relative

Permanent foster

family agreement 0

(PFFA)

Emancipation by age 19

0

No goal stated

0

0.0% 5.3%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

0 0.0% 3 75.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 25.0% 4 100.0% 0 0.0% 1 5.3% 12 63.2% 2 10.5% 3 15.8% 19 100.0%
0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 12.5% 6 75.0% 1 12.5% 8 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 3.3% 46 76.7% 12 20.0% 60 100.0% 1 10.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9 90.0% 10 100.0%

Custodial care

0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 1 100.0%

Total

192 41.7% 114 24.8% 5 1.1% 27 5.9% 56 12.2% 66 14.3% 460 100.0%

*Child is in parental home and the goal is to remain home. Most represent children reunified with their parents but the case is still open for services.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

18

Table 6 illustrates the permanency plan goals delineated by length of time in care for the 460 cases included in the study.

Permanency Plan Goal
Return home/reunification Maintain own placement Termination of parental rights/adoption Adoption
Guardianship Permanent placement with relative Permanent foster family agreement (PFFA) Emancipation by age 19 No goal stated
Custodial care
Total

Table 6

Less Than One Year

N

%

105 61.8%

Time in Care by State Permanency Plan Goal
(as of June 30, 2007)
Time in Care

1.0 – 1.99 Years 2.0 – 2.99 Years

N

%

N

%

35 30.4% 12 18.8%

3.0 – 15.8 Years

N

%

5

4.5%

27 15.9% 22 19.1% 7 10.9% 14 12.6%

9

5.3%

8

7.0%

1

1.6%

1

0.9%

11

6.5%

38 33.0% 29 45.3% 34 30.6%

1

0.6%

1

0.9%

0

0.0%

2

1.8%

2

1.2%

4

3.5%

4

6.3%

9

8.1%

2

1.2%

1

0.9%

9

5.3%

4

4

2.4%

2

0

0.0%

0

170 100.0% 115

3.5%
1.7% 0.0% 100.0
%

1

1.6%

4

3.6%

10 15.6% 37 33.3%

0

0.0%

4

3.6%

0

0.0%

1

0.9%

64 100.0% 111 100.0%

Total

N

%

157 34.1%

70 15.2%

19 4.1%

112 24.3%

4

0.9%

19 4.1%

8

1.7%

60 13.0%

10 2.2%

1

0.2%

460 100.0%

G. Placement with Siblings State, federal, and best practice guidelines call for placing siblings together whenever
possible (for example, see Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2006). Case readers determined that 404 (87.8%) of the 460 sample children had siblings. Of these, 332 (82.2%) sample children had brothers or sisters in out-of-home care as of June 30, 2007.19 Just over 40% (134 of 332, or

19 In total, the families of the 460 sample children had 1,212 children in out-of-home care on June 30, 2007.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

19

40.4%) of this group were placed with all of their siblings; 106 (31.9%) were placed with some siblings, and 92 (27.7%) were not placed with other siblings, who were in out-of-home care.

H. Data Analysis and Presentation Additional demographics and characteristics of the sample children and their families are
detailed in appropriate sections of the report. These include educational profiles, treatment needs, services provided, termination of parental rights (TPR) status, and other factors that require discussion in the context of accepted standards and best practices.
Measuring performance against federal standards, state legislation, and best practice is a complex undertaking since many standards are time dependent and must be applied differently to cases in various legal designations. The following sections of this report attempt to “roll up” data in a manner that presents overall findings in a clear, concise, and uncomplicated format, wherever feasible.
Subsequent sections of this report present findings of the study in relation to the questions posed by CR when litigation was initiated. Findings are compared to state and federal standards as well as applicable practice standards promulgated by CWLA, the Committee on Accreditation (COA), the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), the Federal Resource Center, and other organizations. These standards and recommendations are discussed in each section of the report. They serve as the benchmarks against which agency performance is measured.
The number of cases represented in each table will vary depending on the applicability of standards, best practices, and state policy to the individual circumstances of each sample case. Applicability depends on various factors, including time in care, age of the child, number of siblings in care, and legal status. In some instances, multiple factors have an impact on the number of cases that were in each analysis.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

20

III. PLACEMENTS A. Number of Placements
Placement stability is a major goal of the U.S. child welfare system. Disruptions can be traumatic for children who have already suffered removal from their parental homes. Federal guidelines and state policy both account for the fact that when a child is first removed, time constraints may not permit the agency to match child needs with foster care capabilities in the first placement. Therefore, the need for emergency placements or transition homes is recognized, usually in the goal of two or fewer placements for each child placed.
Table 7 outlines the number of placements recorded between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2007, delineated by time in care. The number of placements for each child is counted three different ways: the first count excludes placement with parents, guardians, hospitals, detention/jail, and residential treatment centers. These placements result from attempts to reunify with parents/guardians or address the specific needs/problems of the child. More than 70% (72.2%) of all sample children had two or fewer placements. Of those who had been in care for less than 24 months, 80.3% had two or fewer placements.
The second count includes all placement changes from July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2007. Using this approach, 67.8% of the sample children had two or fewer placements. This was the case for 80.9% of children in care for 12 or fewer months, and 63.4% of those in care for 13 to 24 months.
The final count includes all movements recorded for the current placement episode, including those made prior to July 1, 2005.20 Using this method, the percentage of children with two or fewer placements declined to 59.3%. Among children in care for more than 24 months, 35.8% had two or fewer placements, while nearly half (46.0%) had five or more.

20 This includes placements for children who entered foster care prior to July 1, 2005.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

21

Placement count* (minus parents, guardian, adoptive home, and hospital) (July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2007)

One or two Three Four Five Six 7 – 13

Total
One or two Three

Placement count

Four

(July 1, 2005 – June 30, Five

2007) Six

7 – 13

Total
One or two
Three

Four

Total placements in current episode

Five Six 7 – 10

11 – 15

16 – 41

Total

Table 7

Placement Counts by Months in Placement

Eight Days – 12 Months

13 Months – Less Than 24 Months

24 Months or More

N

%

N

%

N

%

155 84.7%

73

72.3% 104

59.1%

16

8.7%

13

12.9%

21

11.9%

9

4.9%

4

4.0%

11

6.3%

1

0.5%

2

2.0%

12

6.8%

1

0.5%

5

5.0%

13

7.4%

1

0.5%

4

4.0%

15

8.5%

183 100.0% 101 100.0% 176 100.0%

148 80.9%

64

63.4% 100

56.8%

22

12.0%

21

20.8%

20

9

4.9%

2

2.0%

12

2

1.1%

2

2.0%

16

11.4% 6.8% 9.1%

1

0.5%

5

5.0%

10

5.7%

1

0.5%

7

6.9%

18

10.2%

183 100.0% 101 100.0% 176 100.0%

145 79.2%

65

64.4%

63

35.8%

22

12.0%

18

17.8%

24

13.6%

11

6.0%

1

1.0%

8

4.5%

3

1.6%

3

3.0%

13

7.4%

1

0.5%

5

5.0%

8

4.5%

1

0.5%

9

8.9%

25

14.2%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

19

10.8%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

16

9.1%

183 100.0% 101 100.0% 176 100.0%

Total

N

%

332 72.2%

50

10.9%

24

5.2%

15

3.3%

19

4.1%

20

4.3%

460 100.0%

312 67.8%

63 13.7%

23

5.0%

20

4.3%

16

3.5%

26

5.7%

460 100.0%

273 59.3%

64 13.9%

20

4.3%

19

4.1%

14

3.0%

35

7.6%

19

4.1%

16

3.5%

460 100.0%

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

22

B. Number of Caseworkers As of June 30, 2007, there were 187 (42.9%) sample children who had had one primary
worker assigned to their case. The majority had been served by two or more workers (26.8% had two, 11.9% three, and 18.3% four or more). As the table indicates, the number of workers assigned increases with the length of the placement episode. Among children in placement from eight days to 12 months, 68.8% had only one assigned primary caseworker, 25.0% had two, 3.4% had three, and 2.8% of the 176 children had four to 18 workers in the first year. Among those in care 13 to 24 months, 59.6% had two or more workers, as did 83.1% of the children in care more than two years.

Table 8

Number of primary workers during current episode

Eight Days – 12 Months

N

%

Months in Placement Episode by Workers Assigned

13 Months – Less Than 24
Months

24 – 36 Months

37 – 48 Months

49 – 60 Months

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

One 121 68.8% 38 40.4% 17 27.0% 6 15.8% 2 8.3%

Two 44 25.0% 36 38.3% 22 34.9% 10 26.3% 2 8.3%

Three 6 3.4% 14 14.9% 15 23.8% 8 21.1% 4 16.7%

4 – 18 5 2.8% 6 6.4% 9 14.3% 14 36.8% 16 66.7%

Total 176 100.0% 94 100.0% 63 100.0% 38 100.0% 24 100.0%

61+ Months

Total

N

%

N

%

3 7.3% 187 42.9%

3 7.3% 117 26.8%

5 12.2% 52 11.9%

30 73.2% 80 18.3%

41 100.0% 436 100.0%

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

23

C. Number of Placement Changes: Licensed vs. Unlicensed Homes In order to examine differences in placement stability between cases in licensed homes
versus unlicensed homes, CRC categorized cases (as licensed or unlicensed) based on their first placement within the July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2007, study period. All subsequent placements were then tabulated.21 Of the 460 cases sampled, 203 (44.1%) were categorized as in a “licensed placement” and 131 (28.5%) included an unlicensed placement.
As Table 9 shows, 64.9% of children who were in unlicensed relative placements had no placement changes between July 1, 2005, (or first placement date) and June 30, 2007, while 43.3% of children in licensed homes had no placement changes during that time.22 When all placement changes (including return home, hospitalization, adoptive homes) are considered, 56.5% of children in unlicensed homes did not have any placement changes during the study period, while 35.5% of children first placed in a licensed home remained there at least through June 30, 2007.
The results presented in this table could be biased by the time children in each category spent in out-of-home care during the study period. For instance, if children in licensed homes spent an average of 20 months in care, while those in unlicensed care entered later in the study period and spent an average of ten months in care, additional time in care could be one reason for the higher number of moves recorded for children in licensed foster homes. However, the table indicates this is not the case. The mean time in care for both groups was similar: 11.1 months for licensed homes and 10.7 months for unlicensed.

21 Licensed placements included in this analysis include licensed relative placements and foster family placements (specialized or unspecialized). Unlicensed placements include unlicensed relatives (in- and out-of-state).
22 Placements in a parent’s home, an adoptive home, and hospital placements were excluded from this analysis.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

24

Table 9

Placement Changes Following Placement in Licensed and Unlicensed Home
as of July 1, 2005, or upon Entering Care*
Licensed

N

%

Unlicensed

N

%

None

88

43.3%

85

64.9%

One Placement changes**

59

29.1%

23

17.6%

(minus parents, guardian, Two

28

13.8%

8

6.1%

adoptive home, and hospital)

Three

9

4.4%

6

4.6%

(July 1, 2005 – June 30, Four

6

3.0%

3

2.3%

2007)

Five or more

13

6.4%

6

4.6%

Total

203

100.0%

131

100.0%

None

72

35.5%

74

56.5%

One

63

31.0%

31

23.7%

All Placement changes (July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2007)

Two Three Four

34

16.7%

11

14

6.9%

3

7

3.4%

3

8.4% 2.3% 2.3%

Five or more

13

6.4%

9

6.9%

Total

203

100.0%

131

100.0%

*Includes children in placement prior to the study period who were in a licensed or unlicensed home as of July 1, 2005. Also includes children who entered care after July 1, 2005, whose first placement was in a licensed or unlicensed placement.

D. Reasons for Child Placement Changes Case readers recorded the reason for each placement if it was available in the case file.
Table 10 below examines reasons for placement changes. It describes instances in which the child’s behavior or the child’s problems with foster parents or other children in the home caused at least one placement change.23 It also indicates when child abuse or neglect in placement was stated as a cause. This includes abuse or neglect by other children in the home, foster caretakers, and the child’s parents. Abuse or neglect was cited as a placement change reason for 3.7% of the 460 children in the sample. Conflict with the foster parent or another child in the foster home

23 This study did not determine whether the DHS supports to the foster placement or DHS services to the child were adequate to address and stabilized the behavior without the need for a placement change.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

25

was noted for ten (2.2%) of the sample, and problems with the foster family for 26 (5.7%) of children in the study. The sample child’s behavioral problems (including AWOL, runaway, and arrest) was the reason most frequently recorded by case readers; 100 (21.7%) of the children had at least one placement terminated for this reason.24 Other reasons for placement changes were typically related to changes in permanent planning status (e.g., placement with a parent, adoptive home, or relative; independent living; residential care; or other reasons). Reasons for placement change for 29 (6.3%) children were not in the case file.

Table 10

Reasons for Placement Change (N = 460)
N

Child Behavioral Problems, Problems with Foster Family, or Abuse/Neglect in Placement

Child’s behavior (including runaways)

100

Problems with foster family

26

Abuse or neglect (by other children, foster parents, or birth parents)

17

Conflict with other children or foster parents

10

Change in Status

Placed in parent, relative, or adoptive home

139

Placed in independent living

15

Place in residential care

51

Other reasons

108

Not documented

29

*Other reasons include arrest and other, unspecified reasons.

%
21.7% 5.7% 3.7% 2.2%
30.2% 3.3% 11.1% 23.5% 6.3%

E. Placement with Siblings

For children in out-of-home placement, Michigan policy and legislation stipulates that

“Brothers and sisters are entitled to be placed together.” Further, when separated, “relationships

between siblings must be maintained by a detailed plan of visits, phone calls, and letters.” (CFF

772-8C and RFF 67.)

24 This study did not determine whether the DHS supports to the foster placement or DHS services to the child were adequate to address and stabilize the behavior without the need for a placement change.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

26

To measure compliance with the above standards, sample children with siblings in outof-home care during the study period were identified. In total, there were 364 children with siblings in out-of-home care at some time during the study period. Specific types of placements in which placement with siblings could not be expected (e.g., group homes, residential treatment facilities, detention centers, hospitals, etc.) were eliminated from the analysis. The results for remaining placements are presented in Table 11. A total of 126 children in the sample (34.6% of 364 children with siblings in care) were always placed with all of their siblings. An additional 67 (18.4%) children were placed with all siblings on some occasions, but not others. Over 75% of sample children were placed with one or more siblings on at least one occasion. Nearly one quarter of sample children (24.5%) were never placed with a sibling.

Table 11

Children Placed with Siblings*

Always

Sometimes

Never

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

Child placed with ALL SIBLINGS 126 34.6% 67 18.4% 171 47.0% 364 100.0%

Child placed with at least one sibling 223 61.3% 52 14.3% 89 24.5% 364 100.0% *Figures do not include placements in group homes, residential treatment centers, detention, jail, or hospitals.

There are many reasons why siblings are not always placed together, ranging from the difficulty of keeping large family groups together (16% of the sample children had four or more siblings in out-of-home care) to the special needs of individual children that cannot all be met in a single placement. When siblings are not placed together, workers are required to document the reasons for separating them (to assure that the reason reflects good practice rather than mere space availability). Available documentation showed that efforts had been made to keep brothers and sisters together for 36% of these cases. In 64% of cases in which siblings were not placed with one another, readers did not find any documentation that there were efforts made to keep them together.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

27

F. Screening for Safety in Relative Placements A total of 180 children were placed with relatives (although some, as noted earlier, were
in other living arrangements) as of June 30, 2007. Most were in unlicensed homes. When a home has not been subjected to the licensing process, other basic screening is needed to ensure the home is safe. In Michigan, workers are required to conduct a criminal history check and to determine if any adult in the home is on the state’s child abuse/neglect central registry (CFF 7229B 2007-006; CFF 722-3). As illustrated below, criminal history background checks were conducted for the relatives of 117 (65.0%) of 180 children, and the central registry was checked in 116 (64.4%) cases. Formal safety assessments were conducted for 48 (26.7%) of 180 cases. Safety assessments, although not required by Michigan policy, are highly recommended before children are placed in out-of-home settings and clearly seen as valuable by some Michigan staff. Protocols and training for assessing safety in foster care settings have been developed and distributed by several national organizations including the National Resource Center for Child Protective Services.

Table 12

Compliance with Safety Screening Requirements

Yes

No

N

%

N

%

Criminal history check

117

65.0%

63

35.0%

Central registry check

116

64.4%

64

35.6%

Safety assessment*

48

*Not required by Michigan policy.

26.7%

132

73.3%

Total

N

%

180

100.0%

180

100.0%

180

100.0%

Compliance rates which Michigan standards was approximately 65.0% for both criminal history and central registry checks. Failing to conduct these screenings leaves children vulnerable to potential maltreatment. Workers are also required to provide social histories to

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

28

relatives (CFF 722-3 10 2007-006; DHS-197). Compliance with this requirement was 50.6% (not shown in the above table).
G. Requirements for Psychological Assessments, Required Medical/Dental Exams, Immunizations, and Special Education The following describes case compliance with requirements for psychological
examinations, medical and dental examinations, and immunizations. It also describes information about children with special education needs. The information presented in this section reflects case status as of June 30, 2007.
As illustrated, the number of cases where these requirements are relevant varied substantially (see Table 13). For instance, under DHS policy, only MCI wards with severe sexual abuse, physical abuse, or mental illness require a psychological assessment. Of the 61 applicable MCI sample cases, 44, or 72.1%, received an assessment, while 17 (27.9%) did not. It should be noted that this standard is well below best practice standards advocated by CWLA and other national agencies. CWLA, for example, recommends that “standardized diagnostic mental health assessment be completed by a qualified mental health practitioner within 30 days of placement” for all children entering care (CWLA HC 2.7). The American Academy of Pediatrics (2002) recommends an even higher standard: foster children should receive assessments of their development and emotional status at least every six months through adolescence. COA (S21.5.02) standards require a mental health assessment on all children within 30 days of placement.
By comparison, in Michigan, the caseworker, rather than a mental health practitioner, assesses each child for emotional and mental health needs upon entry into care, and reassesses each child every three months. If these assessments, using a standardized assessment tool,

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

29

indicate a need for further evaluation, the child is, by policy, to be referred to a mental and/or emotional health professional.
Findings regarding psychological assessments, medical and dental examinations, and special education include the following:

• Among children who required at least one physical exam between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2007, 59.4% received all those required, 18.0% received some of the required exams, and 22.6% had not received any. The standard is that a child must have a physical examination within 30 days after initial foster care placement and every 14 months thereafter (CFF 722-2, Foster Care Administrative Rules).
• A child over the age of four requires periodic dental examinations. All required exams were completed for 49.2% of the 299 children who required them. An additional 21.1% received at least some of the required exams, while 29.8% did not receive a dental exam. The standard is that a child age four and over must have a dental examination within 90 days of placement, unless the child has had an exam within the 12 months prior to placement, and annually thereafter, unless greater frequency is indicated (CFF 722-2, Foster Care Administrative Rules).
• Case reviewers found the child’s medical record in the case file for 75.7% of the cases reviewed. No file could be located for 24.3% of the children. (See standard for medical passports.)
• Michigan requires that the child’s medical passport be available and updated for all children. Case readers could not locate the passport in 49.3% of the sample cases reviewed. In 35.0% of cases, the passport was in the file but not updated as of June 30, 2007. In 15.7% of cases the passport was present and updated. The standard is that the supervising agency must maintain a medical passport for each child, which contains all medical information required by policy or law. The passport is to be provided to foster parents/relatives/unrelated caregivers (CFF 722-2, Foster Care Administrative Rules).
• Immunizations are required for all children in care and must be updated periodically. Though the majority (67.0%) of the children in the sample had received updated immunizations, 33.0% had not received them or documentation could not be found in the file to confirm immunization. The standard is that the supervising agency must ensure that each child is up-to-date with all immunizations (CFF 722-2, Foster Care Administrative Rules).
• Case readers identified 152 (33.0% of 460 sample cases) children who at some point had special educational needs. As of June 30, 2007, 75 (49.3%) of these children had an individual education program (IEP) in the file. A total of 77 (50.7%) of the 152 children with special education needs did not have an IEP

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

30

in the file. Approximately half (49.3%) of all children with a special education need identified received special education services in the current school year.

Table 13

Medical, Dental, and Psychological Examination Requirements

Requirement

Met Policy?

N

None

102

Received required physical exams?

Some

81

(July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2007)

All

268

Total

451

None

89

Received required dental exams?

Some

63

(July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2007)

All

147

Total

299

No

112

Were medical records in file? (As of June 30, 2007)

Yes

348

Total

460

Not in file

227

Was the medical passport in file and up to In file, not updated

161

date?

(As of June 30, 2007)

In file, updated

72

Total

460

No

152

Child immunizations up-to-date? (As of June 30, 2007)

Yes

308

Total

460

No

17

MCI ward received a required psychological assessment?

Yes

44

Total

61

% 22.6% 18.0% 59.4% 100.0% 29.8% 21.1% 49.2% 100.0% 24.3% 75.7% 100.0% 49.3% 35.0% 15.7% 100.0% 33.0% 67.0% 100.0% 27.9% 72.1% 100.0%

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

31

Table 14

Requirement

Special Education Requirements

Met Policy?

N

No

308

Was child identified with special education needs?

Yes

152

Total

460

No

77

If special education needs – child had IEP (or IEP was being developed)

Yes

75

Total

152

No

77

If special education needs – has child

received special education services in

Yes (current or previous)

75

current year?

Total

152

% 67.0% 33.0% 100.0% 50.7% 49.3% 100.0% 50.7% 49.3% 100.0%

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

32

H. Compliance with Placement Requirements: Provision of Medical, Dental, and Educational Records to Caretakers in Applicable Placements The tables below examine compliance with placement standards, such as placement near
parents or the provision of the child’s medical, dental, and educational records to caretakers. These data cover the period between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2007, for all placements where standards were applicable. Caretaker access to the child’s medical, dental and educational information is essential to service delivery efforts to address the needs of children in placement.
Not all children in the sample entered placements where a specific standard for providing information could be applied. For example, questions concerning the child’s placement in a potential adoptive home cannot be evaluated in a group home, residential treatment center, jail, or hospital. In addition, children age four or older require periodic dental examinations but those under four do not. Consequently, children under four may not have dental records for workers to provide to a placement caretaker. The measures shown below reflect compliance with standards for sample cases with at least one placement applicable to the standard applied.
Because children often experience more than one placement where a standard is applicable, compliance can vary from 100% (i.e., full compliance with the standard in all applicable placements) to none (i.e., compliance in none of the applicable placements). Partial compliance indicates that standards were met for some but not all of the child’s applicable placements (e.g., partial compliance can range from 1% to 99% of applicable placements). However, since sample cases averaged 2.6 placements during the study period, partial compliance generally means that standards were met in about 40% to 50% of placements.
Federal law requires that children be placed in close proximity to their parents (42 U.S.C. 675[5][A]) to facilitate visitation and reunification. National practice standards (CWLA FC 2.29) state that “Placement with foster families who live outside of the child’s community should be avoided.”

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

33

Certain cases were eliminated from the analysis, primarily those in residential care

placements. For remaining cases, close proximity was defined as within 60 miles (approximately a one-hour drive) of a parent’s home.25 There was a high rate of compliance

with this standard, despite problems often encountered in finding the right placement for a child

within a community. The findings indicate that 366 (85.9%) of the sample children were located

within 60 miles of their parents in all applicable placements, 31 (7.3%) children in at least some

placements, and 29 (6.8%) children in none.

Child welfare practice encourages placement of children with caretakers who have the

potential to become adoptive parents. Placement in group homes, residential treatment centers,

jails, or hospitals were removed from the analysis, as were child placements with parents. This

standard was met in all applicable placements in only 97 (29.9%) of 324 sample cases, and

53 (16.4%) of the 324 children were placed with potential adoptive parents in some of their

placements. The 174 (53.7%) remaining children were not placed in a potential adoptive home

at any time during the two-year study period.

Caseworkers are expected to provide the child’s medical records to placement caretakers

prior to the child’s transfer. This standard applies to all placements with the exception of AWOL

status. Full compliance was indicated for 184 (40.3%) of 457 children, and partial compliance

for 83 (18.2%) children. Medical records were not provided in any applicable placement for

190 (41.6%) of 457 sample cases.

The standard for providing caretakers with the child’s medical passport is identical to that

for medical records, but compliance with the medical passport requirement is lower. It was

provided to caretakers in every applicable placement in 41 (9.0%) of 457 sample cases. Partial

compliance was noted for 30 (6.6%) of cases, but 84.5% (386 of 457 children) had no placement

in which the medical passport was provided to their caretaker.

25 Case readers consulted a map to determine if placement was within 60 miles. The use of 60 miles is in the opinion of CRC, a

liberal interpretation of “close proximity” especially in an urban area where traffic volume can result in considerably longer

travel time. It takes into account difficulties often encountered in finding a suitable placement in the community where the

family resides.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

34

The provision of dental records to placement providers applies to children age four and older for placements other than AWOL. In 25.1%, or 87 of 347, cases that met this criteria, the child’s placement providers received these records in every applicable placement, and partial compliance was found for 54 (15.6%) cases. In 59.4% (or 206) of the 347 cases, dental records were not provided in any applicable placement.
The provision of educational records applied to 315 children. In 101 (32.1%) of 315 cases, the child’s educational records were provided to all foster parents. In an additional 48 (15.2%) of 315 sample cases, records were provided for some, but not all, placements. Educational records were not provided in any applicable placement for 166 (52.7%) of the 315 children.
Provision of the IEP educational record is applicable only if the child has one available. In 102 (67.1%) of the 152 cases with an IEP (at any point in time while in placement), the child’s placement providers received it in every applicable placement; in an additional 17 (11.2%) of 152 sample cases, there was partial compliance with this requirement. The IEP record was not provided in any applicable placement for the remaining 33 (21.7%) of 152 children with an IEP.

Placed in potential adoptive home Medical record provided to placement
Medical passport provided
Dental records provided
Educational records provided
IEP provided
Placed less than 60 miles of parents26

Table 15

Compliance with Placement Requirements

Never

Partial

100%

N

%

N

%

N

%

174 53.7% 53 16.4% 97 29.9%

190 41.6% 83 18.2% 184 40.3%

386 84.5% 30

6.6%

41

9.0%

206 59.4% 54 15.6% 87 25.1%

166 52.7% 48 15.2% 101 32.1%

33 21.7% 17 11.2% 102 67.1%

29

6.8%

31

7.3% 366 85.9%

Total

N

%

324 100.0%

457 100.0% 457 100.0% 347 100.0% 315 100.0% 152 100.0% 426 100.0%

26 Good case practice calls for placing children close to their homes to facilitate visits and to maintain community relationships.

There is no specific standard defining “close;” data were collected on those placed within 60 miles (approximately one hours

driving time) of their home.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

35

I. Transfers to New School Due to Placement Change There were 281 children who were school aged and should have been enrolled in school
at some time during the two-year study period. School records were found for 263 of these children (records for 18 children could not be located in the case file or the child was not enrolled). Of these, 91 (34.6%) children had to transfer to another school due to a change in placement. There were 49 (18.6%) children who changed schools one time; 28 (10.6%) children changed schools twice; nine (3.4%) children experienced three school changes; and there were five (1.9%) children who transferred to a new school four times during the two-year study period due to placement changes. Note that results should be interpreted with caution, as a substantial amount of information was missing from case files (see Table 16).

Table 16

Number of School Changes Due to a Change in Placement

Number of Changes Per Child

N

%

None

172

65.4%

One

49

18.6%

Two

28

10.6%

Three

9

3.4%

Four

5

1.9%

Total

263

100.0%

Note: School records were found for 263 of 281 school-aged children. School aged reflects children in kindergarten through twelfth grade.

Enrollment in the new school was delayed for 14 (15.4%) of the 91 children; there was no delay for 51 (56.0%) children; and enrollment delays could not be determined for 30 (33.0%) children due to a lack of information in the case file. Case readers were able to locate the number of days of school that children missed for seven of the 14 children who experienced an enrollment delay due to a change in placement. The number of missed school days ranged from

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

36

five to 30. On average, these seven children missed 14 days of school when transferring to a new school because of a change in placement.

J. Post-secondary Assistance There were 129 children who were eligible to attend high school during the two-year
study period. Twelve of these children earned a high school diploma and three earned a GED; 80 were still in high school as of June 30, 2007; and there was not enough information in the case file to determine whether or not the other 34 children remained enrolled or had graduated. However, 24 of these children were under age 18, so many of them could have been enrolled in school. Six of the 15 children who graduated from high school (or earned a GED) enrolled in a post-secondary institution such as a college or trade school. Evidence in the case file suggested that the department assisted four of these children with a college or trade school application.

K. Denial and Appeal of Requests for a Determination of Care Supplement for Sample Children

The social worker or foster parent may request a determination of care (DOC)

supplement to the standard foster care reimbursement paid to the placement provider to care for

children with documented special needs (based on an assessment). A DOC supplement is paid at

a level one (lowest) to a level four rate based on the child’s assessed need for special care. An

initial DOC request can be made immediately after a child enters foster care. Once a DOC

supplement is granted, a continuation request must be submitted every six months. Continuation

requests may ask for a higher or lower DOC level than was previously received.

The DHS may deny, grant, or modify requests for an initially granted DOC or a

continuation (modifications can be to a higher or lower DOC level). The foster parent may

appeal decisions to modify or deny a request. The findings below describe DHS approvals,

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

37

denials, and modifications of DOC requests and the appeal of the DHS decision for the period between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2007.
At least one DOC request was processed for 138 (30.0%) of the sample children. Note that a child could have multiple requests denied, modified, or granted. The majority (72.5%) of the 138 children for whom a DOC request was made had all of them granted. In other words, the DOC level was approved at the level requested. The DHS review process denied at least one request for 24 (17.4%) of the 138 sample children, and at least one request was modified for nine (6.5%) of the 138 children.27 In nine (6.5%) cases the DHS review decision was not known.
Only six appeals of DHS denial or modification decisions were recorded in the case files; all of these were for different children. Of these, three families were successful in obtaining the DOC level they requested. In two appeals, the DHS decision was upheld (both asked for an increase to an existing DOC level). The results of the other two appeals were not found in the files.

27 There were four modified requests for one child, two modified requests for two children, and the DOC supplemental request was modified one time for six children, for a total of 14 modifications. DHS approved a lower-level DOC supplement than the one requested in 12 of the 14 requests. DHS decision was not recorded for two requests.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

38

Table 17

Determination of Care Requests

N

%

No
Determination of Care Requested (N = 460) Yes

322

70.0%

138

30.0%

DHS Review Outcomes* (n = 138)

Granted

100

72.5%

One, two, or three denied

24

17.4%

One, two, or four modified

9

6.5%

Decision unknown

9

6.5%

Determination of Care Decision Appealed?

No

(n = 138)

Yes

132

95.7%

6

4.3%

Result of Appeal (n = 6)

Determination of care level requested was granted

3

50.0%

Modification/denial upheld

2

33.3%

Unknown result

1

16.7%

*Cases may have included more than one request. Therefore, more than one outcome was possible for each case.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

39

L. Denial of Requests for a Residential Care Placement for Sample Children Case readers were asked to record each request for a residential placement of the sample
child during the period between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2007. The decision made by DHS to grant or deny each request was also captured. At least one request was recorded for 37 (8.0% of sample) children, and ten of these cases had multiple requests in their file. Only one denial was noted, and one request was pending a decision.

Request for residential care?
DHS Decision (n = 37) Granted Denied Pending decision

Table 18

Requests for Residential Care N

No

423

Yes

37

Total

460

35 1 1

% 92.0% 8.0% 100.0%
94.6% 2.7% 2.7%

There were ten cases with multiple requests whose collected data did not permit any analysis of why multiple requests were made. They could constitute perceived need for residential care at different points in time, or could represent requests that were denied one or more times, but later granted.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

40

IV. WORKER CONTACT WITH CHILDREN, CARE PROVIDERS, AND PARENTS A. Worker Contacts during the First Month
The first month in foster care can be particularly difficult for parents, children, and foster care providers. Parents may need extra support to understand the circumstances surrounding the removal; children may find the first month difficult as they adjust to being separated from their families; and foster care providers require (and deserve) additional contact with the worker to share information about the child’s adjustment and needs. This is a period in which important relationships are initiated, and practitioners emphasize the importance of the period immediately following removal (see for example, Child Information Welfare Gateway, 2006). The following section describes contacts between workers and children, workers and care providers, and workers and parents during the first month.

1. Children

Michigan policy requires that workers make two face-to-face contacts with the child in

the first 30 days, and one of those contacts is to be in the foster provider’s home (CFF 722-6,

CFB 2007-006). National standards state that agency social workers should be available to “help

children in their care cope with the effects of separation from their parents and other family

members. Dealing with separation and loss is pivotal to the casework help that children in

placement must receive to counter the trauma of separation” (CWLA 2.37).

National practice standards (CWLA FC 2.35) also direct social workers to provide

information to children about the move, including “an emergency plan with the child in the event

the child should need the immediate help of the social worker.” COA standards (S21.4.02)

require that the agency social worker meet “privately with the child to conduct a preliminary

assessment within the first 72 hours of the child’s initial placement or any subsequent

replacements [and] [conduct] a complete assessment within 45 days.”

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

41

The Michigan standard was met for 66 (23.4%) of 282 children entering care during the study period.28 Eleven (3.9%) additional cases had two contacts recorded but no home visit. In 90 of 116 cases (77.6%) one contact was made and it was in the foster care home and in 26 cases (9.2%) the worker made a contact but did not visit the foster home. In 89 (31.6%) cases, there were no contacts documented in the first month of care. In total, of 282 cases entering care in the study period, workers visited 55.3% of children in the providers’ homes during the first month in care. Workers did not visit the other 44.7% of children in the placement home.

Figure 5

Face-to-face Contacts with Children First 30 Days of Placement

One Contact; in Foster Care Home
90 (31.9%)

Two or More; None in Foster
Care Home 11 (3.9%)

Two or More; One in Foster Care
Home 66 (23.4%)

CRC

One Contact; Not in Foster Care
Home 26 (9.2%)
N = 282

No Contact Recorded 89 (31.6%)

28 There were 284 children who entered care between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2007. Of those, two children were out of state and did not require any worker contact.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

42

2. Foster Care Providers Michigan has no increased requirements for the worker to meet with the foster care
provider during the child’s first month in care. However, this is a practice area that Michigan may wish to review. As noted earlier, national organizations have stressed the importance of this period of transition, and call for increased contact in the first thirty days to ensure that providers have the information, skills, and support needed to provide the appropriate level of care. CRC first applied a standard of one contact per month and then examined foster care provider contacts during the first month using the same standards applied to children and parents (two contacts, at least one of which is in the home). In 58.8% of applicable cases, workers documented at least one contact with foster parents (or other providers) during the first month of care. Of the 277 children who entered care between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2007, and required care provider contacts; workers saw foster parents at least twice and at least one of these contacts occurred in the home for 57 (20.6%) children. An additional three (1.1%) of the 277 cases included two contacts, but neither was in the care provider’s home; 103 (37.2%) included one contact (91 of which were in the placement home); and 114 (41.2%) cases included no care provider contact during the first month of placement.
3. Parents Michigan policy requires that the worker see each parent twice during the first month that
the child is placed in out-of-home care. At least one of these contacts must be at the parent’s home (CFF 722-6, CFB 2007-006).
There were 284 children (of 460 in the sample) who entered out-of-home care between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2007. Worker contact with the parent(s) was required during the first

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

43

month of care for 280 of these children.29 In only 52 (18.6%) of these cases, workers saw each parent two or more times during the first month a child was in out-of-home care. Few of these contacts occurred in the home: in only 16 (5.7%) cases did worker contact include a home visit. Workers made a single contact with parents in the first month for 79 (28.2%) of applicable cases; this included 21 (26.6%) home visits. In 149 (53.2%) cases, there were no contacts with parents during the first month of care.

Figure 6
Face-to-face Contacts with Parents First 30 Days of Placement

One Contact; No In-home
58 (20.7%)

One Contact; In-home 21 (7.5%)

Two or More; No In-home 36 (12.9%)

Two or More; One In-home
16 (5.7%)

CRC N = 280

No Contact Recorded 149 (53.2%)

29 In four of the 284 cases in which the child entered care after July 1, 2005, the child was a permanent ward during all months in care. Therefore, worker contact with parents was not required.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

44

B. Ongoing Worker Contacts 1. Children
Michigan policy is that the worker must see the child at least one time per month, with the contact in the placement home at least every other month (CFF 722-6, CFB 2007-006).
On average, child contacts were made in 74.0% of months required; home visits were done, on average, 63.1% of the time. Table 19 provides the average number of months in which the worker met face to face with the child over the course of the study period.

Table 19
Average Percentage of Months with Worker Face-to-face Contact with Child
Requirements Met July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2007
(N = 458) Person Contacted
Child
Child at the placement site

% 74.0% 63.1%

Table 20 presents additional data on child contacts throughout the two-year study period. As illustrated, the worker met with the child every month in 20.3% of cases.30

Type of Face-to-face
Contact
Child contacted Child contacted in placement

None Recorded N %
10 2.2%
17 3.7%

Table 20

Face-to-face Contact by Workers between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2007 Percent of Months Required Contact Made
0.1 – 24.9% 25.0 – 49.9% 50.0 – 74.9% 75.0 – 99.9%

100.0%

Total

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

% N %

N

%

18 3.9% 35 7.6% 124 27.1% 178 38.9% 93 20.3% 458 100.0%

32 7.0% 79 17.2% 143 31.0% 142 31.0% 46 10.0% 458 100.0%

30 Michigan foster care workers are required to visit children in the placement setting at least every other month. The data presented in this table regarding child contact in placement does not represent the number of times the worker saw the child every other month. It is a count of the number of times the worker saw the child in the placement during all months. The number of times the every-other-month standard was met can be approximated by counting the number of times in which workers saw children in the placement 50% or more of applicable months. Of the 458 cases in which child placement contacts were required, 331 children were seen in the placement during 50% or more of the required months.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

45

2. Foster Care Providers National practice standards (CWLA FC 2.54, 2.55; COA S21.4.02, S21.8.05a) require
that the agency social worker meet face to face at least monthly with the child’s foster caregivers. CWLA (FC 1.7) further requires that the monthly meetings with the caregiver must occur in the foster home. Practice standards (CWLA FC 2.54) state that the agency social worker and the foster parents “should work as partners for the safety and welfare of the children in care and as partners in assisting parents to meet the objectives in their service plans.” Social workers and foster parents should meet regularly “to review and assess the needs of children and the services they are receiving.”
Michigan policy is that the worker must have face-to-face contact with the care provider at least once per month in the placement home. Foster care provider contacts were made, on average, in 64.5% of applicable months. Care providers were seen at home, as required, on average, 58.6% of the time (see Table 21).

Table 21

Average Percentage of Months Worker Face-to-face Contact with Care Provider
Requirements Met July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2007
(N = 448)

Person Contacted

%

Care provider

64.5%

Care provider at the placement site

58.6%

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

46

The percentage of months in which workers made face-to-face contacts during the study is illustrated below. Workers met with care providers during all required months in 14.3% of 448 cases, but saw care providers in the placement home during all months, as required by Michigan policy, in only 48 (10.7%) cases.

Type of Face-to-face
Contact
Care provider contacted Care provider contacted in home

None Recorded N %
30 6.7%
35 7.8%

Table 22

Face-to-face Contact by Workers between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2007 Percent of Months Required Contact Made
0.1 – 24.9% 25.0 – 49.9% 50.0 – 74.9% 75.0 – 99.9%

100.0%

Total

N % N % N % N %N% N %

35 7.8% 49 10.9% 126 28.1% 144 32.1% 64 14.3% 448 100.0%

43 9.6% 79 17.6% 124 27.7% 119 26.6% 48 10.7% 448 100.0%

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

47

3. Parents Michigan standards for worker contacts in the months following the first month of care
require that workers see parents once per month and that the worker visit the parental home every three months (CFF 722-6, CFB 2007-006).
Table 23 presents a complete breakdown of contacts with parents, relative to agency requirements, for the entire study period.31 In over 50% of the study cases, there was no documentation of a home visit with the child’s parents during the study period. In 17.9% of the cases where face-to-face contacts were applicable, there was no documentation of contact with parents at all. All monthly contacts with parents were made in only 7.7% of cases.

Table 23

Type of Face-to-face
Contact
Parents/caretakers contacted Parents/caretakers contacted in home

None Recorded
N %

Face-to-face Contact with Child’s Parent(s) July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2007
Percent of Months Required Contact Made

0.1 – 24.9% 25.0 – 49.9% 50.0 – 74.9% 75.0 – 99.9% 100.0%

N%N %

N % N % N%

Total

N

%

70 17.9% 63 16.1% 80 20.5% 94 24.0% 54 13.8% 30 7.7% 391 100.0%

201 52.8% 96 25.2% 44 11.5% 24 6.3% 9 2.4% 7 1.8% 381 100.0%

31 This count represents the number of times the worker met with the parents/caretakers in the home, not the number of times the worker met with the parent/caretakers every third month. Therefore, it does not directly represent the Michigan standard for inhome parent contacts. The number of times that standard was met can be approximated by examining the number of cases in which workers met with parents/caretakers in the home in 33.3% or more of the required months. Of the 381 cases in which inhome parent contacts were required, contacts were made 33.3% or more of the months for 63 (16.5%) cases.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

48

On average, parent contact standards were met in 42.9% of the applicable months over the two-year study period. Home visits were made in 14.3% of months (see Table 24).

Table 24

Average Number of Months Worker Face-to-face Contact with Parents
Requirements Met July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2007
Person Contacted

Parent/caretaker

(N = 391)

Parent/caretaker at home (N = 381)

% 42.9% 14.3%

The data presented above were adjusted to remove months in which contacts could not or need not be made, including any month after a TPR was filed. To further examine the validity of these findings, all cases other than those where return home was the goal as of June 30, 2007, were removed from analysis. As illustrated in Table 25, workers made slightly more contacts with these parents during applicable months. Parents/caretakers were contacted every month in 12.2% of cases in which return home was the goal versus 7.7% of all cases. There were also fewer cases among those with a return home goal on June 30, 2007, in which no parent contact was made (8.3% versus 17.9% of all cases). Even with this constricted view of parental visits, it is evident that Michigan failed to conduct the number of visits required.

Type of Face-to-face
Contact
Parents/caretakers contacted Parents/caretakers contacted in home

Table 25

None Reported N %
13 8.3%

Face-to-face Contact with Child’s Parent(s) Cases with Return Home Goal as of June 30, 2007
July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2007

Percent of Months Required Contact Made

0.1 – 24.9%

25.0 – 49.9%

50.0 – 74.9%

75.0 – 99.9%

N % N % N % N %

14 9.0% 29 18.6% 53 34.0% 28 17.9%

100.0%

Total

N

% N

%

19 12.2% 156 100.0%

73 47.4% 50 32.5% 16 10.4% 10 6.5% 3 1.9% 2 1.3% 154 100.0%

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

49

In sum, both views of the data clearly illustrate that Michigan is falling far short of compliance standards to meet with the parents of children in care. For approximately 80% of these cases, home visits were made in less than one of every four months that a home visit was required. For 73 (47.4%) cases, there were no home visits documented. Working with parents is obviously critical to reunification efforts. Before returning a child, workers need to know if the family met case planning goals and that safety issues that led to removal have been resolved.
The failure to meet regularly with parents of children in care and with foster parents and children as required raises questions regarding the quality of case plans and services provided. Better monitoring of cases is needed to ensure the safety and well-being of children in care.
C. Worker Contact in Licensed vs. Unlicensed Homes Table 26 compares worker face-to-face contacts with children and care providers when
the sample child was in a licensed or unlicensed home as of July 1, 2005, or for children entering care after July 1, 2005, whose first placement was in a licensed or unlicensed home.32 Because children could move between licensed and unlicensed homes or between two or more licensed or unlicensed homes, only children who remained in one licensed or unlicensed home following their initial placement there were included. As illustrated, 57.0% (41 of 72) of children in licensed care were seen at least 75.0% of the time, whereas children in unlicensed care were seen far less frequently. Only 27 (37.5%) of 72 children in unlicensed care were seen by the workers at least 75.0% of the time.

32 Licensed homes included licensed relative homes and foster family homes (specialized and unspecialized). Unlicensed homes include unlicensed, in-state relative homes. There were two children placed with unlicensed relatives out of state for the entire period. Because contacts with care providers and the child in these cases would be difficult, they were dropped from the analysis.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

50

Table 26

Type of Face-to-face
Contact Child in the foster home
Care provider in the foster home

Face-to-face Contact with Child and Care Providers

Sample Children in Licensed versus Unlicensed Placements

July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2007

Percent of Months

Licensed

Required

N

%

N

Contact Made

None Recorded

1

1.4%

4

Unlicensed %
5.6%

0.1 – 24.9%

1

1.4%

3

4.2%

25.0 – 49.9%

10

13.9%

10

13.9%

50.0 – 74.9%

19

26.4%

28

38.9%

75.0 – 99.9%

29

40.3%

21

29.2%

100.0%

12

16.7%

6

8.3%

Total

72

100.0%

72

100.0%

None Recorded

1

1.4%

4

5.6%

0.1 – 24.9%

1

1.4%

3

4.2%

25.0 – 49.9%

12

16.7%

13

18.1%

50.0 – 74.9%

20

27.8%

24

33.3%

75.0 – 99.9%

25

34.7%

19

26.4%

100.0%

13

18.1%

9

12.5%

Total

72

100.0%

72

100.0%

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

51

V. VISITATION WITH PARENTS AND SIBLINGS

A. Parenting Time

Michigan policy states that parenting time between parents and their children who are in foster care must occur frequently prior to the initial disposition and at least weekly thereafter.33

For the purposes of this report, parenting time during each month in which parent/child contact was required was considered in full compliance if four or more visits occurred.34 Parenting time was defined as partial compliance if one to three visits were made during the month.35 Finally, if

no visits occurred between a parent and the child during a required month, parenting time was

defined as none, or not in compliance at any level. Because a case could be in full, partial, or no

compliance during different months throughout the life of the case, an overall compliance rate

could not be calculated for each case. Rather, the analysis examines the number of months in

which cases were in full compliance, partial compliance, and no compliance separately for each

child.

Figure 7 shows the percentage of months in which cases were in full compliance, partial

compliance, or not in compliance (i.e., there were no visits) with parenting time standards. As

shown, the sample child visited his/her parent(s) at least four times a month during all required months in 38 (10.6%) of the 358 cases requiring parenting time.36 Parenting time did not occur

in any required months for 80 (22.3%) cases (i.e., parents did not visit their child at all while the

child was in care). For the remaining 240 (67.0%) cases, CRC found partial compliance with

33 Parenting time standards apply to any parent with legal rights to the child, whether the parent resides in the removal home or elsewhere. State of Michigan. (2007). Foster care—developing the service plan. Children’s Foster Care Manual (pp. 7 and 9). CFF 722-6, CFB 2007-006.

34 Four visits per month was used as the standard for full parenting time compliance as there are approximately four full weeks in each month.

35 Partial parenting time is defined as one to three visits during a particular month. Therefore, when a case included partial parenting time compliance during some months, the case may have included full compliance during some of the months and/or no compliance during other months.

36 Parenting time was not required during months in which the child was AWOL, a permanent ward, had no legal parents, the

parent(s) was incarcerated, the child was back in the removal home, the child was in an independent living placement, a TPR had

been filed, the parent was in a drug rehabilitation center, visitation had been suspended, the parent(s) was deceased, or the

parent(s) or child was out of state or out of the country. There were 102 cases in which these circumstances existed for the entire

period between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2007. These cases were removed from the analysis.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

52

parenting time standards.37 Of those in partial compliance, 34 (14.2%) of the 240 cases were in partial compliance 76 – 100% of required months, 34 (14.2%) cases were in partial compliance during 51 – 75% of required months, 93 (38.8%) were in partial compliance 26 – 50% of months, and 79 (32.9%) cases were in partial compliance during 0.1 – 25% of months in which parenting time was required.38, 39

Figure 7
Parenting Time

Full (All Contacts, All Months)
38 (10.6%)
None (No Contacts, No Months)
80 (22.3%)

Partial** (Some Contacts in Some Months)
240 (67.0%)

76 – 100% 34 (14.2%)
51 – 75% 34 (14.2%)
26 – 50% 93 (38.8%)
0.1 – 25% 79 (32.9%)

CRC

N = 358*
*Parenting time was not required for 102 cases in the study. **Partial compliance includes cases in which parent visits were in partial compliance (between one and three per month) for some of the months in which visits were required. Some of these cases may have included other months in which visits were in full compliance, some where there were no visits, or a combination of full and no compliance.

37 Partial visitation on a monthly basis is defined as one to three visits between the parent and the child during that month. In aggregate, partial visitation defines cases in which the parent and child had partial visitation during some or all months in which parenting time was required. When partial visitation occurred during some months, the other required months may have been full compliance, no compliance, or a combination of full and no compliance. Partial compliance also includes cases in which the parent and child had full visitation (four times per month) during some months and no visitation during other months.

38 The number of months that a case was considered in partial compliance was determined by dividing the number of months in which the parent(s) and child met one to three times per month by the number of required months. If the cases included months in which the parent and child met four or more times and months in which there was no parent/child contact, the rate of partial compliance was determined by dividing the number of months parenting time reached full compliance by the number of required months.

39 Updated service plans (USPs), by policy, are to include documentation of parenting time compliance. While visitation plans

were in place for the vast majority of cases, actual reasons visits were not made were seldom provided.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

53

B. Sibling Visits When siblings are not placed together, Michigan policy requires that contact be
maintained through visits, phone calls, and letters. This reflects best practice as defined by CWLA, COA, and other standard-setting organizations. CWLA, for example, states “If siblings must be placed with separate foster families, frequent and regular ongoing contact between the children should be maintained” (FC 2.30). COA states that relationships between siblings should be maintained through “visits and shared activities” (S21.25d, S21.3.05b).
Analysis dealt strictly with face-to-face visitation, as accurate data on the frequency of phone calls and letters would be extremely difficult to obtain from files. While Michigan policy calls for “a detailed plan of visits, phone calls, and letters,” collecting data on phone calls and letters requires a level of documentation rarely found in files. There is no specific standard established for sibling visits in Michigan. For this analysis, CRC assumed a minimum expectation of one visit per month between siblings, although this expectation may be well below what CWLA intended in using the term “frequent contact.”
Of the 460 cases in the sample, 297 were eligible for sibling visits in at least one month between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2007.40 No visits with siblings were documented for 91 (30.6%) cases. At the other end of the spectrum, 90 (30.3%) children had at least one visit with one or more siblings recorded in every month such visits were possible. In total, sibling visits were held in at least half the months a sample child was in out-of-home care for 142 (47.8%) cases in which visits could be expected (see Table 27).

40 Sibling visits were not possible if the child was AWOL, did not have any siblings, or was out of the state or country. Sibling visits were unnecessary when the siblings were placed together, and not recommended if one sibling perpetrated on another. For 163 sample cases, these circumstances existed during all months the child was in care and, therefore, these children were not eligible for sibling visits.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

54

Table 27

Sample Child Visitation with Sibling(s)

July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2007

Visitation with

Percent of Months Visit(s) Occurred

Sibling (all or some)

N

%

None

91

30.6%

0.1 – 24.9%

32

10.8%

25.0 – 49.9%

32

10.8%

50.0 – 74.9%

29

9.8%

75.0 – 99.9%

23

7.7%

100.0%

90

30.3%

Total

297

100.0%

Note: There were 460 sample cases. Of those, 163 were not eligible for sibling visitation during any months. Those cases are not included in the analysis. Months when a child was AWOL, when all siblings were placed together, siblings were placed out of state, and other months when visits were not possible were also excluded.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

55

VI. PERMANENCY PLANNING HEARINGS AND DISPOSITIONAL REVIEWS A. Permanency Planning Hearings
Permanency hearings are required on an annual basis for children in care in the State of Michigan. However, CRC discovered that the DHS policy manual does not directly align with State of Michigan statutes regarding permanency planning and dispositional reviews schedules. State statute Section 712A.19a stipulates that a permanency planning hearing is required for all children within 12 months of the child’s removal date.41 The DHS policy manual states that the permanency planning hearing must occur within 12 months from the date of the original petition (CFF 722-7, CFB 2007-006). While these dates would presumably be the same, this was true for only 41.5% of children in the sample.42 The following analysis is based on state statute requirements.
There were 288 children in the study sample who should have had one or two permanency planning hearings between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2007. For more than half (176 or 61.1%) of these cases, two hearings were required by statute. In total, standards were met for 204 (70.8%) of the 288 children. Two hundred forty-three (84.4%) children had at least one hearing during the study period. There were 110 hearings that should have been held but were not. In 26 (14.7%) cases, two hearings were required, but none were conducted. Table 28 below presents a complete breakdown of findings.

Table 28

Number of Hearings Required

Permanency Planning Hearings Number of Hearings Held

None

One

Two

Children with one hearing required

19

93

n/a

Children with two hearings required

26

39

111

Note: Shaded cells indicated cases in which permanency planning hearing standards were met.

Total 112 176

41 Probate Code of 1939, Act 288 of 1939, Chapter XIIA, Jurisdiction, Procedure, and Disposition Involving Minors, Section 712A.19a.

42 The petition date was the same as the removal date for 191 (41.5%) of 460 cases; placement occurred prior to petition in

117 (25.4%) cases; placement occurred after petition for 142 (30.9%) cases; and the petition date was not recorded for ten (2.2%)

of the 460 cases.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

56

B. Dispositional (“Quarterly”) Reviews Dispositional reviews (referred to in Michigan as “quarterly reviews”) are required, in
general, on a quarterly or semi-annual basis. CRC discovered a disparity between state statutes and the DHS policy manual regarding when dispositional reviews should occur. The policy manual states that “State law requires a dispositional review 91 days from the original dispositional hearing and every 91 days thereafter for a child(ren) that is placed and remains in foster care, as long as the child(ren) is subject to the jurisdiction, control or supervision of the court, or the Michigan Children’s Institute, or other agency.” The policy manual then describes exceptions for children permanently placed with a relative, in a permanent foster family agreement (PFFA), or in the family home (CFF 722-10, CFB 2005-008). State statutes (Section 712A.19, 712A.19c.), however, set a review schedule based on a combination of the child’s legal status and placement type, and in nearly all instances, requirements are based on the removal date—the exception is when the child is in the home. In those cases, the review is due 182 days from the initial petition filing date (not the original dispositional order date, as stated in DHS policy manual.) The following is based on the review schedule established by state statute.
The number of dispositional reviews required was based on a combination of legal status, placement type, and time in care as described in state statutes. If the legal status was temporary court ward (TCW) as of June 30, 2007, the child was considered to be TCW for the entire time in care. Children for whom adjudication was pending were considered TCW. If a child was a state ward or a permanent court ward (neglect), the child was considered to be a permanent ward (PW) from the time the TPR was granted through June 30, 2007. If the child had been adopted, the child was considered PW for the time in care between July 2005 and June 2007. There were two non-court wards in permanent relative or PFFA placements who were subject to the applicable review schedule.43

43 These were children who initially entered the system as court wards, but were in a long-term placement without court jurisdiction as of June 30, 2007.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

57

Review schedules for children whose status changed from TCW to PW between July 2005 and June 2007 were established based on the amount of time the child spent as a TCW and the amount of time the child was a PW. That is, the time from the most recent placement to the TPR date was considered time as a TCW and from the time of TPR through June 30, 2007, the child was considered a PW. (Note that the TPR must have been granted for both parents.) There were ten cases in which the TPR date was not available because it was not in the file or it was not explained. Because it was not clear when the child’s status changed from TCW to PW, these ten cases were dropped from the analysis.
At least one dispositional review was required for 369 sample cases. For 262 (71.0%) sample cases, all required quarterly reviews were conducted. In 53 (14.4%) cases, half or fewer of the reviews required were conducted. Fourteen (3.8%) cases had no reviews completed. Overall, review requirements were met for 71.0% and not met for 29.0% of children (see Figure 8).
Figure 8
Percentage of Cases Meeting Quarterly Review Requirement
Met Requirement
71.0%

CRC N = 369

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

58

Did Not Meet Requirement
29.0%

C. Concurrent Planning When parental rights are terminated, the state is responsible for developing and
implementing a new plan for permanency. In many cases, planning begins long before a petition to terminate parental rights is filed. In instances where there is any potential for adoption or long-term out-of-home care, many states engage in concurrent planning. Concurrent planning differs from the traditional approach of sequential planning currently used in Michigan. In sequential planning, one permanency plan is pursued at a time. A new plan is established only when all efforts to achieve the plan have failed. Concurrent planning allows the worker to pursue multiple permanency options for each child. That way, should the primary permanency plan prove untenable, an alternative plan has already been established and can been be pursued.
As described by Katz, Robinson, and Spoonemore (1994):

Concurrent planning provides for reunification services while simultaneously developing an alternative plan, in case it is needed. The approach follows logically from family-centered practice, as parents are involved in decision making and are given candid feedback from their worker throughout the process. It depends on accurate assessment and culturally sensitive interviewing.

Michigan lags behind other states in utilizing a concurrent planning approach to permanency. Since the 1990s, practitioners and researchers have examined the benefits of using concurrent planning to shorten the length of time to reach permanency for children in foster care and most states (38 plus the District of Columbia) have enacted legislation addressing the issue of concurrent planning. Some of this legislation is general in nature, stating that agencies may initiate a plan. However, legislation in 14 states directs child welfare agencies to use concurrent planning (Child Welfare Information Gateway, July 2005.) A stronger policy on concurrent planning is currently under consideration by the Michigan legislature and the legislation is supported by DHS.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

59

Evidence of concurrent planning was found in only 57 files, or 12.4% of the sample. This finding was not surprising since concurrent planning is not department policy.

D. Termination of Parental Rights Termination of parental rights (TPR) had been filed in 234 (50.9%) cases in the study
sample.44 In total, 187 (79.9% of those filed) TPRs were granted by the court. An additional six cases were pending trial. The TPR order had been appealed in 40 cases. Of the 40 appeals, 25 (62.5%) of the TPR decisions were upheld, four (10.0%) were overruled, and four (10.0%) were still pending. In seven (17.5%) cases, the outcomes of appeals could not be determined.
Of the 187 children with a TPR, most (70.1%) had adoption listed as the permanency goal; the goal for 16 (8.6%) children was emancipation (independent living). For 27 (14.4%) children, the permanency plan goal was not recorded. A complete breakdown is presented below:

Table 29

Goal

Permanency Plan Goals for TPR Cases N

Adoption

131

Emancipation

16

Placement with relative/guardian

6

Permanent foster family

4

Maintain own placement

3

Not available

27

Total

187

% 70.1% 8.6% 3.2% 2.1% 1.6% 14.4% 100.0%

In total, adoption represents nearly 82% of the known goals for cases where parental rights were terminated. Emancipation (independent living) accounts for 10% of known goals.

44 This figure reflects TPR petitions filed on both parents and includes two cases where the court terminated parental rights but there was no DHS petition for TPR; four children whose parents released rights; and two children who had no parents.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

60

Federal law requires that TPRs be filed when a child has been in out-of-home care for 15 months of any 22-month period unless a reason is documented to show TPR would not be in child’s best interest. The law was established to prevent children from languishing in foster care and to help ensure that permanent placements for children are established within a reasonable timeframe. Of the sample children, 213 (46.3%) met this condition. Of these, 156 (73.2%) cases had TPRs filed.45
When a TPR is not filed after a child has been in placement for 15 of 22 months, the agency is required to provide justification. Of the 57 cases in which no TPR had been filed, justifications were found to support 27 (47.4%) of these decisions. Reasons for not filing ranged from the child being 14 years of age or older and refusing adoption to the current caretaker being unwilling to adopt (see Table 30).

Table 30

Reasons for Not Filing a TPR Child in Care 15 of 22 Months
N

Child is 14 or older and refuses adoption

9

Child custodial and treatment services not completed

3

Child 18 or older

2

Supervising agency did not provide services to make reunification possible

1

Appropriate relative/non-relative caregiver will care for child, no adoption

1

Other

11

Not in file

30

Total

57

% 15.8% 5.3% 3.5% 1.8% 1.8% 19.3% 52.6% 100.0%

In total, 30 cases (14.1% of 213 children in care for 15 of 22 months) had no TPR filed and there was no documentation available to support the decision for not filing for termination of

45 Includes one child whose parents had released him/her; two children for whom a TPR was granted but no DHS petition was filed; and one child who had no parents.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

61

parental rights. There were an additional 72 cases in which TPRs were filed before the child reached the milestone of 15 of 22 months in out-of-home care.46

46 Included two cases in which parents released rights. There was one case in which parents released the child and one case in which the child had no parents. There were four cases in which readers were unable to determine if the child had been in care for 15 of 22 months. These six cases are not included.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

62

VII. ALLEGED CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT IN CARE

A. Formal Investigation and Substantiation of Child Abuse or Neglect of Sample Child

Investigations of the sample child’s parents or placement provider for abuse or neglect of

a sample child during the placement episode are described in Table 31. Incidents were split into

two categories. One category describes child abuse or neglect (CA/N) allegations involving

individuals in the care providers’ homes and the other describes allegations involving the

parental home.

In 27 (5.9%) sample cases, alleged CA/N in a placement provider’s home or facility was

investigated. Four (0.9%) of these investigations were substantiated. No child was substantiated

in more than one placement. In all four instances where an allegation was substantiated the

perpetrator was identified as a placement provider. In three of the four substantiated incidents,

the child was removed from the placement. Action taken by investigators in one substantiated

case could not be determined from information contained in the case file.

A parental home of 22 (4.8%) sample children was investigated for abuse or neglect.

Abuse or neglect was substantiated for six children, or 1.3% of the sample. One child was

substantiated in a parental home on two separate occasions. Action was taken by investigators

(e.g., removal of the child or implementation of a corrective action plan) in all six substantiated

incidents. The incidents could have occurred during visitation, when the child was returned

home for a period to maintain family ties and facilitate eventual reunification, or during an

attempt at reunification. Some reports of abuse or neglect that occurred prior to removal were

reported and investigated subsequent to removal. These could be included in this total because

the investigation fell within the timeframe analyzed.

The current federal measure (CFSR) for abuse/neglect of children in foster care provides

that the rate recorded in a given year should not exceed 0.32% (Federal Register, 2006). This

measure represents the number of abuse/neglect substantiations in a given year where a care

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

63

provider was the perpetrator divided by the total number of children in care during that year. In calendar year 2006, 377 sample children were in out-of-home care for at least some portion of the year. Three of these children were maltreated by care providers in 2006, a rate of 0.8%.
Although reported maltreatment at the hands of providers is rare in Michigan, it occurred at 2.5 times the federal standard for sample children in 2006. Maltreatment rates in all jurisdictions that submit data to the federal government ranged from 0.0% to 1.41% in 2004 (the last year published). The rate calculated for sample cases in 2006 is in the upper half of this range, well above the CFSR standard and the median rate reported for all jurisdictions, 0.52% (Federal Register, 2006). However, it should be noted that there is an extremely low rate of substantiated maltreatment in foster homes reported in Michigan and nationally. It is CRC’s position that the federal measure of CA/N in care is far from optimal. It is cited here only because it is the accepted measure at this point in time. The combination of the extraordinarily low base rate and small annual fluctuations in the numbers recorded can move a state into or out of compliance with this standard.
Michigan reported the following rates of substantiated maltreatment of children in care for the years 2003 through 2006: 0.40% in 2003, 0.32% in 2004, 0.12% in 2005, and 0.20% in 2006.47 A mere 0.2% change in the rate of maltreatment represents as much as a 167% change viewed in relative terms. With rare events such as maltreatment in care, any sampling strategy utilized can seriously overestimate (or underestimate) the rate at which maltreatment occurs in the general foster care population. Furthermore, CRC believes there are serious issues with the way abuse and neglect rates are computed for ACF that also make comparisons between years and between jurisdictions problematic. Therefore, extreme caution should be exercised in drawing conclusions from differences between the federal threshold (0.32%) and maltreatment rate for sample cases (0.80%).

47 Child and Family Services Review, 2003 – 2006.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

64

Table 31

Abuse/Neglect Complaints Involving the Sample Child Investigated While the Child was in Out-of-home Care

Allegations/Substantiations

N

Allegations involving individuals in the foster home (N = 460)

27

Substantiated

4

Action taken (i.e., child removed) (n = 4)

3

Allegations involving parental home (N = 460)

22

Substantiated

6

Action taken (n = 6)

6

Note: In one case, it could not be determined if corrective actions were initiated.

% 5.9% 0.9% 75.0%* 4.8% 1.3% 100.0%

In every case where data were available, DHS took corrective action following a substantiated incident of abuse neglect of a child in care.

B. Formal Investigation and Substantiation of Child Abuse or Neglect for Other Child(ren) in Same Placement as the Sample Child In addition to identifying children in the sample who were alleged victims of
abuse/neglect while in out-of-home care, case readers also collected information on allegations involving other children living in the same placement as the sample child. If the alleged perpetrator was a parent/caretaker of the alleged victim, it was considered an incident in the parental home. If the alleged perpetrator was the placement provider (foster parent or residential staff member), another adult in that household, the sample child, or another child in that household, it is referred to as allegations involving individuals in the foster home.
Abuse/neglect allegations involving another child in the sample child’s placement were found in 33 (7.2%) cases. The alleged victim was a foster care provider’s child in six (1.3%) cases, another foster child in 29 (6.3%) cases, and another child in the home for six (1.3%) cases (not shown).

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

65

As illustrated in Table 32 below, an investigation of alleged abuse on another child in placement with a sample child was conducted on a care provider in 11 (2.4%) sample cases.48 Allegations of abuse by a care provider were substantiated in two (0.4%) sample cases. Investigators initiated protective action(s) in both of the cases in which allegations of CA/N by a care provider were substantiated.
A family member of the alleged victim was investigated for CA/N in 20 (4.3%) sample cases. The investigation of the family member was substantiated seven times, affecting 1.5% of sample children. Corrective action (removal of child[ren] or implementation of a corrective action plan) was taken in four (57.1%) of the seven cases; no corrective action was taken in three (42.9%) cases.49

Table 32

Abuse/Neglect Complaints Involving Other Children Investigated While the Sample Child was in Out-of-home Care*

Investigations/Substantiations

N

Investigations involving individuals in the foster home (N = 460)

11

Substantiated

2

Action taken (n = 2)

2

Investigations involving parental home (N = 460)

20

Substantiated

7

Action taken (n = 7)

4

*In two cases, there were investigations in the foster home and in the parental home.

% 2.4% 0.4% 100.0% 4.3% 1.5% 57.1%

C. Sample Child Alleged Victim of Child Abuse or Neglect – No Formal Report to CPS Case file narrative suggested that eight (1.7%) sample children were victims of CA/N
while in foster care but the allegations were not formally reported to CPS. A parent/family member was named as the perpetrator in two (25.0%) cases, a care provider was the alleged

48 There were two cases in which the alleged incident was not investigated, and there were two cases in which CA/N allegations involved someone other than the care provider or parent. These are not included in the analysis.

49 In one of the cases in which no corrective action was taken, the complaint was made on a foster child’s father after the child was placed in foster care with the sample child. Therefore, the abuse did not occur in the placement home.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

66

perpetrator in four (50.0%) cases, and the alleged perpetrator was unknown in two (25.0%) cases.
The source of information for two alleged incidents was the sample child. The source for two other alleged incidents was the foster care worker. A foster care worker and sample child were both sources for one case, and the source was other/unknown (unspecified) in three cases.
The alleged CA/N incidents noted in the case file but not formally reported to CPS included the following: one allegation of deplorable housing, one extremely dirty foster home, two alleged incidents of physical abuse, and four alleged incidents of sexual abuse by adult(s) while in placement.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

67

Table 33

Alleged Incident of CA/N for Sample Child in Case File Not Formally Reported to CPS

N

%

Alleged CA/N incident not formally reported

Yes No Total

8

1.7%

452

98.3%

460

100.0%

Family/relative

2

25.0%

Alleged perpetrator

Care provider Other/unknown

4

50.0%

2

25.0%

Total

8

100.0%

Sample child

2

25.0%

Worker/worker observation

2

25.0%

Source of allegation

Sample child and worker

1

12.5%

Other/unknown

3

37.5%

Total

8

100.0%

Deplorable housing

1

12.5%

Extremely dirty foster home

1

12.5%

Allegation

Physical abuse

2

25.0%

Sexual abuse*

4

50.0%

Total

8

100.0%

Note: Includes sexual abuse by other adults in placement, a friend of the child’s mother, an older sibling, and another foster child in the sample child’s placement.

It is important to note that these incidents were not investigated and therefore not subjected to the level of scrutiny required to determine if the allegations were supported. In three instances, however, the source of the information was the assigned social worker and all were deemed important enough to be included in case narrative.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

68

D. Other Child Victims of Child Abuse or Neglect – No Formal Report to CPS Information in case files suggested that a child who was in placement with a sample child
may have been a victim of CA/N, but there was no formal report of the incident to CPS. There were six (1.3% of sample) incidents of this nature found in files. The alleged victims were a foster care provider’s children in three (0.7%) cases and other foster children in three (0.7%) sample cases.
The alleged perpetrator of the incident was a family member/relative in two (33.3%) of the six cases, another child in the placement in one (16.7%) case, the sample child in one (16.7%) case, and unidentified in two (33.3%) cases. In two cases, the information in the file was based on observations of the foster care worker. The source for the other four incidents was not specified. The alleged CA/N incidents included the following: one allegation of deplorable housing, two alleged incidents of physical abuse, and two alleged incidents of sexual abuse (see Table 34).

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

69

Table 34

Alleged Incident of CA/N in Case File for an “Other” Child in Placement Not Formally Reported to CPS

N

%

Alleged CA/N incident not formally reported

Yes No Total

6

1.3%

454

98.7%

460

100.0%

Alleged CA/N incident involved foster care provider children

Yes No Total

3

0.7%

457

99.3%

460

100.0%

Alleged CA/N incident involved foster children

Yes No Total

3

0.7%

457

99.3%

460

100.0%

Alleged CA/N incident involved other children in the placement home

Yes No Unknown Total

0

0.0%

458

99.6%

2

0.4%

460

100.0%

Family/relative

2

33.3%

Other child in placement

1

16.7%

Alleged perpetrator

Sample child

1

16.7%

Other/unknown

2

33.3%

Total

6

100.0%

Worker/worker observation

2

33.3%

Source of allegation

Other/unknown

4

66.7%

Total

6

100.0%

Deplorable housing

1

16.7%

Allegation

Physical abuse Sexual abuse*

2

33.3%

2

33.3%

Total

6

100.0%

Note: Includes sexual abuse by the sample child’s uncle and another foster child in the sample child’s placement.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

70

VIII. SERVICE PLANS A. Completion 1. Initial Service Plans
Case readers recorded data from all service plans completed during the study period (July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2007). Initial service plans (ISPs) are required within 30 days of a child’s initial placement.50 Hence, children must have been in placement for at least 30 days prior to the end of the sample period to be included in the analysis. Of 460 sample cases, 284 children entered care on or after July 1, 2005, but two of those children were in placement less than 30 days at the end of the study period. Of the 282 remaining children, 252 (89.4%) had an ISP in the case file; however, only 79 (28.0%) ISPs were completed within 30 days of the start of the placement episode. One hundred seventy-three (61.3%) ISPs were completed more than 30 days after the start of the placement episode. As of June 30, 2007, there were an additional 30 (10.6%) cases for which no ISP was completed (see Figure 9).51 Of the 30 cases without an ISP, 28 had been in placement for 61 or more days; 22 of these were in placement for more than 90 days.

50 CFF 722-8 Foster Care – Initial Service Plan.

51 This analysis only includes service plans that were completed on or before June 30, 2007. Therefore, the 30 cases with no service plan may have had one completed after that date in the case file.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

71

Figure 9
Initial Service Plan Completion
Completed on Time
79 (28.0%)

Completed but Late
173 (61.3%)
CRC N = 282

Not Completed 30 (10.6%)

On average, it took foster care workers 57.9 days from the child’s placement date to complete the initial service plan. Table 35 shows a breakdown of days to completion for the 282 sample cases.

Table 35

Days to Completion

Time to Initial Service Plan Completion* July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2007
N

0 – 30 days

79

31 – 45 days

77

46 – 60 days

26

61 – 90 days

43

91+ days

57

Total

282

*Includes cases where no ISP was found in file.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

72

% 28.0% 27.3% 9.2% 15.2% 20.2% 100.0%

When cases in placement more than 60 days with no ISP on file are combined with those where ISPs took 61 or more days to complete, a total of 100 (35.5%) of the 282 children requiring an ISP did not have an ISP completed within 60 days of placement.
ISPs are critical for effective service delivery, both to parents and to children. Any delay in the development of a formal plan can lengthen time in care and have a detrimental impact on reunification efforts.
Michigan policy also requires supervisors, parents, and children over age 14 to sign each service plan (CFF 722-8C, 2007-006).52 Of the 252 cases with completed ISPs, 231 (91.7%) included a supervisor signature. Seventeen service plans indicated that a parent signature was not required or that the parent was unable to sign. Of the 235 requiring a parent’s signature, only 33 (14.0%) included one. There were 41 cases in which the sample child was 14 years of age or older at the time the ISP was completed. Of those, a child’s signature was included on the service plan in only three (7.3%) cases. The service plan indicated the child signature was not applicable for one (2.4%) case, and the remaining 37 (90.2%) cases did not include a signature. Without the signatures of parents and children (where applicable), there is little evidence of the existence of family involvement in case planning activities. Family involvement is critical to success and has become a major focus of several national efforts supported by such agencies as the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the American Humane Association’s child protection division. Family involvement is also a major focus of the Administration for Children and Families’ Children and Family Services Reviews.

2. Updated Service Plan Completion Michigan policy requires that an updated service plan (USP) be completed “within 120
calendar days of removal and at least every 90 days thereafter, or more frequently, if necessary,

52 If the child is a permanent ward, parent signatures are not required.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

73

to ensure coordination with the court report” (CFF 722-9 Foster Care – Updated Service Plan).
Case readers were asked to record service plans completed by staff between July 1, 2005, and
June 30, 2007. Since sample children were placed at different times, the sample cases were
divided into three groups based on the date the child’s placement episode began, and the number
of USPs required for each child was calculated. The three groups are defined below:
1. Cases in which the placement episode began prior to July 1, 2005 and had been open 30 days or more as of July 1, 2005. These cases required eight USPs during the study period.
2. Cases in which the placement episode began prior to July 1, 2005, but had been open less than 30 days prior to that date. These cases required seven USPs during the study period.53
3. Cases that opened on or after July 1, 2005 and had been open for 120 days or more as of June 30, 2007. The number of USPs required for these cases was based on the number of days the child had been in care. Cases with placement episodes beginning on or after July 1, 2005 required different numbers of USPs, depending on how many days the placement episode was open as of June 30, 2007.54
All service plans completed during the study period, excluding the first ISP for cases that opened during the study period, were included in the analysis.55 The number of completed USPs
was then compared to the number of required USPs. As Figure 10 shows, there were 413 cases
that required at least one USP during the study period. All required USPs were completed for
252 (61.0%) children, and some but not all USPs were completed for 120 (29.1%) children.
There were no USPs in the case file for 41 (9.9%) children.

53 Cases open less than 30 days as of July 1, 2005 required one less USP than those open longer than 30 days because the first ISP for those cases may have been completed up to one day prior to the start of the study period. Therefore, seven USPs (as calculated using a 90-day count) would have been required prior to June 30, 2007.

54 There were 47 cases open less than 120 days. Since these cases did not require any USPs, they were removed from the analysis.

55 ISPs and/or PW ISPs may be completed during the placement episode if a child becomes a permanent ward or switches from a direct service to purchase-of-service agency or vice versa. Since these ISPs were completed during the period for which USP requirements were calculated and may have affected the number of USPs required, these service plans (ISPs and PW ISPs) were included in the analysis.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

74

Figure 10
Updated Service Plan Completion
All USPs Completed 252 (61.0%)

CRC N = 413

One or More USPs Not Completed
120 (29.1%)

No USPs Completed 41 (9.9%)

Each USP should include the signature of the supervisor, parents, and the child, if he/she was over age 14. Of the 372 cases with at least one service plan completed, 262 (70.4%) included a supervisor signature on all service plans, 100 (26.9%) included a supervisor signature on some of the service plans, and 10 (2.7%) cases did not include a supervisor signature on any of the service plans in the file.
Of the 87 children who were 14 or over, only one (1.1%) child signed all of the service plans in his/her file, 17 (19.5%) children signed some of the service plans, and 69 (79.3%) children did not sign any of the service plans included in the case file.
Parents are required to sign all case plans, unless the child is a permanent ward. There were 200 cases in which at least one service plan was completed and parental rights had not been

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

75

terminated.56 A parent signed some of the service plans for 23 (11.5%) cases. The remaining 177 (88.5%) cases did not include any parent signatures (see Table 36).

Table 36

Updated Service Plans Supervisor, Child, and Parent Signatures

N

%

All

262

70.4%

Supervisor signature

Some None

100

26.9%

10

2.7%

Total

372

100.0%

All

1

1.1%

Child signature (age 14 or older)

Some None

17

19.5%

69

79.3%

Total

87

100.0%

All

0

0.0%

Parent signature (temporary court wards only)

Some None

23

11.5%

177

88.5%

Total

200

100.0%

Note: There were 460 sample cases. Of those, 413 required at least one USP during the study period. Forty-one of those cases did not have any service plans in the case file. Of the 372 cases that did have at least one service plan in the case file, 87 children were 14 years of age or older for the entire study period and 200 children were temporary court wards during the study period.

B. Child Needs and Service Referrals Case readers recorded child needs identified in service plans and/or case narrative
completed between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2007. They also recorded service referrals made to address the identified needs of the child and collected information on service participation. These service planning and referral activities were typically made to improve child well-being in areas such as mental or physical health or education. Independent living was identified as a special need separate from these areas.

56 CRC used the child’s current legal status to determine which children were still temporary court wards as of June 30, 2007. Parents of these children were required to sign all service plans during the study period.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

76

This analysis reflects child needs identified as well as service referrals made at any time during the study period. It does not reflect whether or not a particular need was identified on multiple occasions (for example, at the ISP and all subsequent USPs). The analysis does not examine the timeliness of service referrals (i.e., how quickly the referral was made following needs identification), nor can it reflect the appropriateness of the needs identification, service referral, or effectiveness of the services.
Table 37 summarizes the findings for 458 of the 460 sample cases.57 The service planning process assesses children at the time of initial and updated service planning to identify their needs and develop a treatment plan. Five of the 458 children did not receive an assessment, so no needs were identified for them. These cases are included in the analysis that follows.
Each child may have multiple needs identified and may receive multiple service referrals to address them. On the other hand, service referrals may occasionally be made for issues not identified by the needs assessment instrument used in Michigan. Among the 458 sample cases examined here, 353 (77.1%) had at least one need identified, and 331 (72.3%) children received at least one service referral.
Among the 331 children who received one or more service referrals, participation in at least one related service was observed for 313 (94.6%) children. A very small number (18, or 5.4%) of the sample children did not participate in at least one service to which they were referred. Documentation of participation was not found for one or more of the referrals made for 87 (26.3%) of children referred.

57 Two cases in foster care for less than 30 days did not require an initial service plan and were dropped from this analysis.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

77

Table 37

Identified Child Needs, Service Referrals, and Service Participation N

None

105

Child need identified

One or more

353

Total

458

None

127

Service referral

One or more

331

Total

458

None

18

Service participation

One or more

313

Total

331

None

313

No service participation or refused One or more

18

Total

331

None

244

Service participation unknown

One or more

87

Total

331

% 22.9% 77.1% 100.0% 27.7% 72.3% 100.0% 5.4% 94.6% 100.0% 94.6% 5.4% 100.0% 73.7% 26.3% 100.0%

Table 38 describes service referrals made for the child’s identified needs in several areas including independent living, mental health, physical health, and all other areas.58 For instance, in 95 cases a child was identified as needing independent living services. In 30 (31.6%) of these sample cases, readers observed one service referral to address this issue, and 48 (50.5%) had two or more referrals. The remaining 17 (17.9%) cases did not receive a referral.
For the 285 children with mental health – related needs, one referral was made for 89 (31.2%) of children, multiple referrals for 166 (58.2%) children, and 30 (10.5%) children were not referred. Similar findings are shown for educational and physical care needs. Very few (seven) children had other needs, e.g., those identified outside the four areas.

58 Mental health includes problems such as social or emotional behavioral issues, relationship issues, substance abuse, and sexual adjustment. Educational needs include child development, life skills, cognitive development, or language/communication issues. Other referrals include cultural identity issues.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

78

It should be noted that multiple needs may be identified in each of the areas shown. In fact, the cases shown above averaged a total of four needs; the maximum was 21 needs.

Independent living referral Mental health referral (includes substance abuse) Education referral
Physical health referral Other referral

Table 38

Service Referrals for Identified Child Needs N

None

17

One

30

Two or more

48

Total

95

None

30

One

89

Two or more

166

Total

285

None

31

One

99

Two or more

61

Total

191

None

22

One

75

Two or more

12

Total

109

None

3

One

4

Total

7

% 17.9% 31.6% 50.5% 100.0% 10.5% 31.2% 58.2% 100.0% 16.2% 51.8% 31.9% 100.0% 20.2% 68.8% 11.0% 100.0% 42.9% 57.1% 100.0%

Table 39 presents service participation findings for referrals made in the previous table. For instance, there were 255 children who received at least one mental health – related referral. In 12 (4.7%) of these 255 cases, no service participation was observed because either none occurred or participation was not documented in the case file. The remaining cases participated in one (87, or 34.1%) or more (156, or 61.2%) of the service referrals received. Once referred, a relatively high percentage of the children participated in at least one related service.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

79

Participation rates for major areas (independent living, mental health, and education-related needs) ranged from 85.9% to 96.5%.

Table 39

Participation in Services Referred for Identified Child Needs N

None

11

One

25

Independent living participated

Two or more

42

Total

78

None

12

One

87

Mental health participated

Two or more

156

Total

255

None

11

One

94

Education participated

Two or more

55

Total

160

None

3

One

73

Physical participated

Two or more

11

Total

87

None

0

One

4

Other participated

Two or more

0

Total

4

% 14.1% 32.1% 53.8% 100.0% 4.7% 34.1% 61.2% 100.0% 6.9% 58.8% 34.4% 100.0% 3.4% 83.9% 12.6% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

80

C. Child Needs and Services Referrals: Licensed vs. Unlicensed Placements Tables 40 – 42 below show the rates at which child needs and service referrals were made
and service participation occurred for cases in which a child was placed in a licensed or unlicensed home for the entire study period (July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2007), or, if the child entered care after July 1, 2005, for the child’s placement from the time the child was placed through June 30, 2007. There were 72 children in licensed homes for the entire period and 72 children in unlicensed instate homes for the entire period. One of the children in an unlicensed home did not have any child needs data reported.
As illustrated, a child need was identified for 76.4% of children in licensed and 62.0% of children in unlicensed homes. Approximately 76.4% of children in licensed homes were subsequently referred for service. Fewer (57.7%) children in unlicensed care were referred for services. Service participation was also slightly higher (96.4%) among cases in which the child was in a licensed placement than cases in which the child was in an unlicensed placement (92.7%).

Table 40

Identified Child Needs, Service Referrals, and Service Participation Sample Children in Licensed versus Unlicensed Placements July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2007
Licensed

Unlicensed

N

%

N

%

None

17

23.6%

27

38.0%

Child need identified

One or more

55

76.4%

44

62.0%

Total

72

100.0%

71

100.0%

None

17

23.6%

30

42.3%

Service referral

One or more

55

76.4%

41

57.7%

Total

72

100.0%

71

100.0%

None

2

3.6%

3

7.3%

Service participation

One or more

53

96.4%

38

92.7%

Total

55

100.0%

41

100.0%

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

81

Table 41 shows service referral rates for cases in which the sample child was in a licensed or unlicensed home and Table 42 shows service participation among cases in which a referral was made. Due to the small size of the cohorts in these tables, results should be interpreted with caution.

Table 41

Service Referrals for Identified Child Needs Sample Children in Licensed versus Unlicensed Placements
July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2007
Licensed

Unlicensed

N

%

N

%

None

1

10.0%

2

28.6%

Independent living referral

One

2

Two or more

7

20.0% 70.0%

2

28.6%

3

42.9%

Total

10

100.0%

7

100.0%

None

3

7.3%

3

8.8%

Mental health referral

One

19

46.3%

19

55.9%

Two or more

19

46.3%

12

35.3%

Total

41

100.0%

34

100.0%

None

4

10.3%

5

33.3%

Education referral

One

27

69.2%

7

46.7%

Two or more

8

20.5%

3

20.0%

Total

39

100.0%

15

100.0%

None

2

8.7%

5

35.7%

Physical health referral

One

20

87.0%

9

64.3%

Two or more

1

4.3%

0

0.0%

Total

23

100.0%

14

100.0%

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

82

Table 42

Participation in Services Referred for Identified Child Needs Sample Children in Licensed versus Unlicensed Placements
July 1, 2005 – June 30, 2007
Licensed

Unlicensed

N

%

N

%

None

1

11.1%

2

40.0%

One

2

22.2%

2

40.0%

Independent living participated

Two or more

6

66.7%

1

20.0%

Total

9

100.0%

5

100.0%

None

1

2.6%

3

9.7%

Mental health participated

One

18

47.4%

17

54.8%

Two or more

19

50.0%

11

35.5%

Total

38

100.0%

31

100.0%

None

1

2.9%

1

10.0%

Education participated

One

26

74.3%

6

60.0%

Two or more

8

22.9%

3

30.0%

Total

35

100.0%

10

100.0%

None

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Physical participated

One

20

Two or more

1

95.2% 4.8%

9

100.0%

0

0.0%

Total

21

100.0%

9

100.0%

D. Family Needs and Service Referrals In addition to child-related service needs, case readers recorded the identified needs of
the child’s caretaker or family during the period between July 1, 2005, and June 30, 2007. Service referrals made to address these needs were also recorded, as was service participation. These service planning and referral activities were typically made to address barriers to the reunification of the child with his or her caretaker(s). In a very small number (three) of cases, the needs of foster care providers were also identified and service referrals were made. This analysis employs the same methodology used for child needs and services referrals.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

83

Table 43 summarizes the findings for 390 sample cases. Two cases in foster care for less than 30 days did not require an initial service plan and were excluded from this analysis. There were 68 children in the sample that did not have a caretaker associated with their case during the 24-month time period because parental rights were terminated. These cases were also excluded. Among the 390 remaining cases, 338 (86.7%) had at least one family service need identified and 326 (83.6%) received at least one service referral. Participation in at least one service related to a referral was observed for 268 (82.2%) of the 326 families referred. Caretakers in 107 (32.8%) of the 326 cases either refused to or did not participate in at least one service referral. In over half (167, or 51.2%) of the 326 cases, participation information was not available in the case file for at least one of the referrals made.

Table 43

Identified Caretaker Needs, Service Referrals, and Service Participation

N

%

No

52

13.3%

Family need identified

One or more

338

86.7%

Total

390

100.0%

No

64

16.4%

Service referral

One or more

326

83.6%

Total

390

100.0%

No

58

17.8%

Service participation

One or more

268

82.2%

Total

326

100.0%

No

219

67.2%

No service participation or refused One or more

107

32.8%

Total

326

100.0%

No

159

48.8%

Service participation unknown

One or more

167

51.2%

Total

326

100.0%

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

84

As was the case with sample child needs, caretakers in the family may have multiple needs identified and receive multiple service referrals during the 24-month study period. On average, these families had more than five needs identified and received over four separate referrals for services.
Table 44 describes the service referrals made for caretaker needs identified in several areas including mental health, substance abuse, parental skills training, physical health, etc. For instance, in 298 families (76.4% of applicable cases), a caretaker was identified as having a mental health issue. In 150 (50.3%) of these 298 cases, one service referral was made to address this issue, and 130 (43.6%) cases had two or more referrals. Only 18 (6.0%) of 298 cases did not receive a referral for an identified mental health need. The percentage of cases in which a referral was not made for an identified need ranges from a low of 5.7% for substance abuse to 56.0% for literacy and intellectual functioning issues. The vast majority of caretaker(s) did receive at least one service referral for needs identified in case plans and/or case narrative.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

85

Table 44

Service Referrals for Identified Caretaker Needs N

None

18

One

150

Mental health referral

Two or more

130

Total

298

None

13

One

145

Substance abuse referral

Two or more

71

Total

229

None

18

One

183

Parenting skills referral

Two or more

105

Total

306

None

15

One

17

Physical health referral

Two or more

3

Total

35

None

15

One

72

Domestic relationships referral

Two or more

24

Total

111

None

28

One

39

Social support referral

Two or more

2

Total

69

None

18

One

25

Communication skills referral

Two or more

3

Total

46

None

28

Literacy/intellectual functioning One

16

referral

Two or more

6

Total

50

None

39

One

94

Employment referral

Two or more

11

Total

144

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

86

% 6.0% 50.3% 43.6% 100.0% 5.7% 63.3% 31.0% 100.0% 5.9% 59.8% 34.3% 100.0% 42.9% 48.6% 8.6% 100.0% 13.5% 64.9% 21.6% 100.0% 40.6% 56.5% 2.9% 100.0% 39.1% 54.3% 6.5% 100.0% 56.0% 32.0% 12.0% 100.0% 27.1% 65.3% 7.6% 100.0%

Table 44

Service Referrals for Identified Caretaker Needs N

None

45

One

110

Housing referral

Two or more

9

Total

164

None

35

One

71

Resource availability referral

Two or more

6

Total

112

None

16

One

30

Child needs issues referral

Two or more

6

Total

52

None

11

One

21

Sexual abuse issues referral

Two or more

2

Total

34

% 27.4% 67.1% 5.5% 100.0% 31.3% 63.4% 5.4% 100.0% 30.8% 57.7% 11.5% 100.0% 32.4% 61.8% 5.9% 100.0%

Table 45 presents service participation findings for referrals made in the previous table. For example, there were 280 cases in which a caretaker was referred to mental health – related services. In 71 (25.4%) of these 280 cases, no service participation was observed for one of three reasons: 1) the client failed to participate; 2) the client refused to participate; or 3) participation was not documented in the case file. Participation was noted in one mental health – related service in 112 (40%) of these 280 cases, and 97 (34.6%) participated in two or more services. Participation rates range from a low of 57.1% (resource availability referrals) to a high of 83.3% (child needs issues).

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

87

Table 45

Participation in Services Referred for Identified Caretaker Needs N

None

71

One

112

Mental health participation

Two or more

97

Total

280

None

59

One

109

Substance abuse participation

Two or more

48

Total

216

None

75

One

139

Parenting skills participation

Two or more

74

Total

288

None

8

One

9

Physical health participation

Two or more

3

Total

20

None

21

Domestic relationships

One

60

participation

Two or more

15

Total

96

None

12

One

28

Social support participation

Two or more

1

Total

41

None

9

One

16

Communication skill participation

Two or more

3

Total

28

None

9

Literacy/intellectual functioning

One

10

participation

Two or more

3

Total

22

% 25.4% 40.0% 34.6% 100.0% 27.3% 50.5% 22.2% 100.0% 26.0% 48.3% 25.7% 100.0% 40.0% 45.0% 15.0% 100.0% 21.9% 62.5% 15.6% 100.0% 29.3% 68.3% 2.4% 100.0% 32.1% 57.1% 10.7% 100.0% 40.9% 45.5% 13.6% 100.0%

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

88

Table 45

Participation in Services Referred for Identified Caretaker Needs N

None

41

One

59

Employment participation

Two or more

5

Total

105

None

45

One

69

Housing participation

Two or more

5

Total

119

None

33

One

43

Resource availability participation

Two or more

1

Total

77

None

6

One

25

Child needs issue participation

Two or more

5

Total

36

None

4

One

17

Sexual abuse issues participation

Two or more

2

Total

23

% 39.0% 56.2% 4.8% 100.0% 37.8% 58.0% 4.2% 100.0% 42.9% 55.8% 1.3% 100.0% 16.7% 69.4% 13.9% 100.0% 17.4% 73.9% 8.7% 100.0%

In total, needs identification, service referrals, and service participation are relative areas of strength for the Michigan foster care system. Needs are systematically identified and multiple service referrals are made on behalf of both children and families served by DHS. The system could be further strengthened by initiating better methods for tracking participation and monitoring program outcomes. At present, it is difficult to determine the appropriateness of services provided or their relationship to outcomes.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

89

IX. CHILDREN WITH GOAL OF ADOPTION Interpreting data produced by case reading studies presents challenges when analyzing
issues such as time to adoption. Because permanency planning goals change over time, and because not all children with adoption goals are ultimately adopted, all data collection strategies have some drawbacks. Adoption cohorts reflect only the experiences of those actually adopted, while entry cohorts require longitudinal studies that delay findings for years. The federal government, in its attempts to establish standards for measuring agency performance, has struggled with this issue for over a decade without a clearly satisfactory solution.
The sampling strategy used for this study selected cases still open to foster care services as of June 30, 2007. It therefore automatically eliminated children who could have entered foster care and were successfully adopted within the study period. Consequently, the results presented below should not be viewed as representative of all cases with adoption goals. It does, however, reflect the experience of children in care as of June 30, 2007, who had adoption as their permanency goal. This limitation is especially important when considering the amount of time that transpires between events: the statistics presented in this section of the report are not averages for all cases going through the adoptive process, but, again, do reflect the circumstances of children in foster care whose goal was adoption at the time of the TPR.

A. Time to Adoption There were 131 children in the sample who had TPRs granted (for both parents) and
adoption as the initial permanency plan. Of these, two children had been adopted (but were still receiving services from foster care) as of June 30, 2007. There were 91 children who still had adoption as their permanency plan goal on June 30, 2007. On average, it had been 482 days (1.32 years) since TPRs were granted for these 91 children. Figure 11 presents time from TPR to

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

90

June 30, 2007, for the 91 children, divided into six-month increments. Forty-four (48.4%) children had been in care for over a year since the TPR was granted.
Figure 11
Time Since TPR for Children with Adoption Goal on June 30, 2007

6 to 12 Months 24 (26.4%)

0 to 6 Months 23 (25.3%)

CRC N = 91

More than 12 Months
44 (48.4%)

The goal for 38 of the 131 children was no longer adoption by June 30, 2007. Thirteen of these 38 children were to maintain their placement, eight had an independent living goal, and eight had goals of permanent placement with relatives (five cases) or a foster family (three cases). One child had a goal of custodial care. For the remaining cases, the goal was missing or unclear as of June 30, 2007.59
The length of time between TPR and adoption seems excessive given the fact that for 103 (78.6%) of the 131 children with an initial goal of adoption, an adoptive family had been

59 In one instance, the TPR was overturned and the child was removed from the adoptive home.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

91

identified at the time of the TPR. In 71 (68.9%) of the 103 cases, a relative was named as the adoptive family. The delay in adoptions seems to start with a failure to quickly notify adoption services of the TPR. Michigan policy requires that adoption services be notified within 14 days. Readers found notification dates for only 75 cases. The average time to notification was 72 days.60
Other procedural problems that could delay adoptions were also evident. For instance, any child who has been a permanent ward for six months or more and not placed with an adoptive family can be listed on the Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange (MARE). Noncustodial agencies are paid by the state to find permanent homes for children listed on MARE. Evidence of a MARE listing was found for only ten of 23 sample children for whom an adoptive family had not been identified.
For those children where immediate adoption was not the plan at TPR, workers are required to document barriers to adoption and include a plan to resolve those barriers. Barriers were identified for two thirds (66.7%) of 45 applicable cases (i.e., children with long-term adoption plans), and plans to resolve barriers were discussed in just over half (53.3%) of these children’s case files.61
Documentation of child-specific recruitment was found for 26 (19.8%) of 131 children for whom a TPR had been granted and the child’s goal was adoption.
Over one fourth (38 of 131, or 29.0%) of all children with adoption goals at the time of TPR had revised goals by June 30, 2007. With 91 additional children still not legally adopted on that date, this figure could grow substantially over time. However, increased monitoring of the

60 To compute this average, all notifications that occurred prior to a TPR were given a negative value. There were also two cases where notification was not documented until several years had elapsed since a TPR was granted. These “outliers” may not reflect contemporary practice. When all notifications that occurred on or prior to the TPR grant date are calculated as zero days and two “outliers” are omitted from the analysis, the average number of days between TPR and notification is 56.5 days. While this provides what could be considered a better review of actual practice, it is still well beyond the standard of 14 days established by Michigan policy.

61 There were an additional three children with long-term adoption plans for whom there were no barriers to adoption. These three cases were not included.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

92

adoption process to ensure compliance with agency policy could lead to more and faster adoptions in Michigan.
B. Other Adoption Procedures/Requirements As noted earlier in the placement section of this report, standards require that siblings be
placed together whenever possible. In 43 applicable instances (32.8% of 131 cases with adoption goals), the adoption plan did not include keeping sibling groups together. Workers provided explanations, as required, for 40 (93.0%) of these 43 cases. Reasons most often cited were existing behavioral problems with either the sample child or his/her siblings (10 cases) or the fact that siblings were already in separate placements (16 cases). In three cases, the sample child was to be adopted by a relative who could not accept additional children. In 20 of the 43 instances where sibling groups would be split, workers had identified a plan to maintain sibling contact.
Michigan encourages workers to provide a “lifebook” for every child with an adoption goal. A lifebook is a history of the child and contains information such as the child’s health, schools, friends, and placements. Evidence that a lifebook had been prepared was found in only eight (6.1%) of the 131 applicable files.

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

93

BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2002). Health care of young children in foster care. Pediatrics, 109, 536 – 541.
Council on Accreditation for Children and Family Services. (2001). Standards and self-study manual (7th ed.). New York: Author.
Child and Family Services Review. (2004). Table A: Data indicators for federal Child and Family Services Review. Available from http://www.nd.gov/dhs/info/pubs/docs/cfs/ defntable-cfsr-data-indicators.pdf
Children’s Rights, Inc. (2006). The Michigan child welfare system at a glance. Available from http://www.childrensrights.org/site/PageServer?pagename=Michigan_Ata Glance
Children’s Rights, Inc. (2006). Dwayne B., Carmela B., Lisa J., and Julia, Simon, and Courtney G. v. Jennifer Granholm, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, and James Hennessey.
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2005). Concurrent planning for permanency for children: Summary of state laws. Available from http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/ laws_policies/statutes/concurrent.cfm
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2006). Family reunification: What the evidence shows. Available from http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/family_reunification/ research.cfm
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2006). Sibling issues in foster care and adoption. Available from http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/
Child Welfare League of America. (2005). Concurrent planning: What the evidence shows. Available from http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/issue_briefs/concurrent_evidence
Katz, L., Robinson, C., and Spoonemore, N. (1994). Concurrent planning: from permanency planning to permanency action. Seattle: Lutheran Social Services of Washington and Idaho.
MI DHS. (2007). Department of Human Service full-time equated (FTE) report, September 2007. Available from http://www.michigan.gov/dhs/0,1607,7-124-5458_7695_ 8368--,00.html
Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration. Federal register, Volume 17, 109, 32980 – 32981. Washington, D.C.: Author.
State of Michigan Department of Human Services. (2007). Foster Care Fact Sheet. Available from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/DHS-FosterCare-FactSheet_ 131252_7.pdf

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

94

Michigan State Policies/Statutes State of Michigan Department of Human Services. (2007). Children’s Foster Care Manual. State of Michigan Probate Code of 1939, Act 288 of 1939, Chapter XIIA, Jurisdiction,
Procedure, and Disposition Involving Minors, Section 712A.19a and 712A.19c. Federal Statutes 42 U.S.C. 675(5)(A)

O:\537MI_CRI\Michigan Report\Michigan Report FINAL.doc

95

 
 Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 27 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DWAYNE B., by his next friend, John Stempfle; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et al.,
Defendants. /

Case No. 06-13548 Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND APPOINTMENT OF CLASS COUNSEL [2]

This lawsuit seeks class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy alleged ongoing failures of Michigan’s Governor, the Director of Michigan’s Department of Human Services (“DHS”), the Director of DHS Operations, and the Director of DHS Children’s Services (collectively “Defendants”) to care for and protect Michigan’s foster children and to provide them and their families the child welfare services required by the United States Constitution and federal law. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Plaintiff Children”)’s motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. Plaintiff Children ask this Court to certify a class defined as “all children who are now or will be in the foster care custody of Michigan’s Department of Human Services (“DHS”) in inhome or out-of-home placements,” pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), to approve the named Plaintiffs as representative Plaintiff Children, and to appoint named Plaintiffs’ counsel as class counsel. Because Plaintiff Children have satisfied the

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 27 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 2 of 12
requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2), this Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel. I. Background
Plaintiff Children allege that Michigan, with nearly 19,000 children in foster care custody, has the seventh largest foster care population in the nation. As their legal custodians, Plaintiff Children assert, Defendants are required by the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and federal law1 to protect their safety and well-being and to find them permanent homes. Plaintiff Children also seek to enforce their federal procedural due process rights to the benefits of certain entitlements conferred by the Adoption Assistance Act and certain Michigan statutory provisions.
Plaintiff Children further allege that Defendants’ conduct with respect to each named Plaintiff reflects systematic violations of some or all of the federal constitutional and statutory rights of Michigan’s foster children. (See Plfs.’ Br. at 2-3, providing examples.) Moreover, it is alleged that each named Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer harm as a result of multiple constitutional deprivations and statutory violations stemming from a foster care system that is poorly resourced and managed. Collectively, Plaintiff Children assert, the named Plaintiffs’ experiences illustrate and represent the profound systemic failings of Michigan’s foster care system and the ongoing harms suffered by Plaintiff Children while in Defendants’ care.
1Specifically, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, 42 U.S.C. §§ 620-29(i) and 670-679(b) (hereinafter “Adoption Assistance Act”), and regulations promulgated under the Adoption Assistance Act.
2

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 27 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 3 of 12
Plaintiff Children’s complaint alleges that the constitutional deprivations and statutory violations that each named Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, are typical of the harms being inflicted upon thousands of foster children throughout Michigan. These claims are based upon allegations that Defendants (1) fail to perform caseworker visits essential for the safety of foster care children, (2) place children in unlicensed kinship homes, (3) maintain an inadequate number and array of foster care placements to meet Plaintiff Children’s needs, (4) jail foster care children who run from inappropriate placements, (5) fail to provide adequate foster care maintenance payments, (6) move children repeatedly, undermining their stability and security, (7) cause children in DHS custody to languish without adequate permanency services, (8) fail to deliver adequate medical and educational services to children in DHS custody, and (9) fail to prepare teens in foster care for life as adults. (Pls.’ Br. at 4-5.) Plaintiff Children’s action seeks to stop these and other systemic legal violations and the harms to foster children that are directly caused by Defendants. Finally, because these violations affect all class members, Plaintiff Children seek systemwide declaratory and injunctive relief to stop these violations and to ensure Defendants’ compliance with their constitutional and federal statutory obligations. II. Standard of Review
Plaintiff Children bear the burden of showing that Rule 23's requirements for class certification have been satisfied. Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 614 (1997); In re Am. Med. Sys., 75 F.3d 1069, 1079 (6th Cir. 1996). As observed by the Sixth Circuit, “[t]he district court retains broad discretion in determining whether an action should be certified as a class action, and its decision, based upon the particular facts of the case,
3

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 27 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 4 of 12
should not be overturned absent a showing of abuse of discretion.” Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1197 (6th Cir. 1988).
When deciding a motion for class certification, courts do not examine the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims. Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177 (1974). “A Rule 23 determination is wholly procedural and has nothing to do with whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the substantive merits of its claim.” Little Caesar Enter. v. Smith, 172 F.R.D. 236, 241 (E.D. Mich. 1997). Courts also assume that the substantive allegations of the complaint are true and that cognizable claims are stated. Eisen, 417 U.S. at 178. “[W]hen a court is in doubt as to whether to certify a class action, it should err in favor of allowing a class.” Little Caesar, 172 F.R.D. at 241. III. Analysis
A. Rule 23(a)'s Requirements for Class Certification Are Satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) contains four prerequisites that must be met before a court may certify a class. These are known as the numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy requirements. The Court considers each in turn and concludes that Plaintiff Children have shown that all four requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied. 1. Numerosity Rule 23(a)(1) requires that the class be “so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). This is not a difficult burden to satisfy. Plaintiffs need not prove the exact size of the proposed class, but rather must demonstrate only that the number is sufficiently large so as to make joinder impracticable. “When class size reaches substantial proportions . . . , the impracticability requirement is usually satisfied by numbers alone. Am. Sys., Inc., 75 F.3d at 1079. See also Bacon v. Honda of Am. Mfg.,
4

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 27 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 5 of 12
Inc., 370 F.3d 565, 570 (6th Cir. 2004) (observing that the “sheer number of potential litigants in a class, especially if it is more than several hundred, can be the only factor needed to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1)”), cert denied, 543 U.S. 1151 (2005).
In this case, Plaintiff Children propose a class of 19,000 children who are now or will be in the foster care custody of Michigan’s DHS in in-home or out-of-home placements. This is a number well beyond that where joinder would be practical. Accordingly, the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a) is satisfied. See Bacon, 370 F.3d at 570. Defendants’ arguments to the contrary impermissibly examine the merits of the plaintiffs’ underlying claims. See Eisen, 417 U.S. at 177.
2. Commonality The commonality prerequisite of Rule 23(a)(2), requiring that “there be questions of law or fact common to the class,” is also satisfied. All that is required is that Plaintiff Children show that there are some common questions; not a predominance of common questions as required under Rule 23(b)(3). It is “qualitative rather than quantitative, that is, there need be only a single issue common to all members of the class.” In re Am. Sys., 75 F.3d at 1080 (internal quotes and citation omitted). Here, Plaintiff Children allege that systemic deficiencies in Defendants’ foster care system – including a severe shortage of foster homes, dangerously high caseloads, poor monitoring of child safety, poor planning and services to move children into permanent homes, inadequate payments to foster care providers and fiscal waste – have resulted and continue to result in severe harms to Plaintiff Class members and constitute violations of the Class members’ federal constitutional and statutory rights. A few of the questions of fact common to all Class members include whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff
5

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 27 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 6 of 12
Children with (1 ) safe, appropriate and stable foster care placements as required by law and reasonable professional standards, (2) services necessary to keep them safe and properly cared for, and to prevent them from deteriorating physically, psychologically, or otherwise while in state custody as required by law and reasonable professional standards, (3) timely and appropriate services necessary to ensure that they are either safely reunited with their families or promptly freed for adoption and placed in a permanent home as required by law and reasonable professional standards, and (4) supports necessary to maintain family relationships, including the provision of parent and sibling visits as required by law and reasonable professional standards. (See Compl. ¶ 82.)
A few of the questions of law common to all Class members include whether Defendants’ actions and inactions violate Plaintiff Children’s (1) right to be free from harm as guaranteed under the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, (2) right to mandated foster care and adoption services and foster care maintenance payments as provided under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, (3) rights guaranteed under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, (4) rights to procedural due process guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment, and (5) rights, as third-party beneficiaries, to the Title IV-E and Title IV-B state plans entered into between the state of Michigan and the federal government. (See Compl. ¶ 83.)
Similar claims, questions of fact and law were at issue in Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 1994), where foster children in Philadelphia alleged systemic deficiencies that they claimed interfered with the provision of child welfare services as required by the Constitution, federal, and state law. The Court in Baby Neal observed that “[c]hallenges
6

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 27 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 7 of 12
to a program’s compliance with the mandates of its enabling legislation, even where plaintiff-beneficiaries are differently impacted by the violations, have satisfied the commonality requirement.” Id. at 56. It further observed that, because the plaintiff class was seeking injunctive relief as opposed to a damage award, the case did not “involve an individualized inquiry” and rather “present[ed] common questions satisfying Rule 23(a)(2).” Id. at 57 (internal quote and citation omitted). “Indeed, (b)(2) classes have been certified in a legion of civil rights cases where commonality findings were based primarily on the fact that defendant’s conduct is central to the claims of all class members irrespective of their individual circumstances and the disparate effects of the conduct.” Id. (citing cases).
Rejecting arguments similar to those raised by Defendants here, the Baby Neal Court observed that "[i]nsofar as the children challenge the scheme for the provision of child welfare services, their claims share a common legal basis." Id. at 61. It then concluded that "the plaintiffs' attack on the DHS's systemic deficiencies in providing legally mandated child care services" was "a sufficiently common legal basis to support class certification here." Id. "The fact that all plaintiffs are subject to the risk of deprivation of services to which they are currently entitled (or which they may at some point in the future require) suffices to support their common claim against DHS." The same analysis and result apply here. Factual and legal commonality is inherent in cases such as this which present a class challenge to a common course of conduct by a unitary executive agency. To the extent the decision in Carson P. v. Heineman, Case No. 05-3241 (D. Neb. Jan. 19, 2007), holds otherwise, this Court finds that the decision, based on its adoption and approval of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, unpersuasive.
3. Typicality 7

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 27 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 8 of 12
Rule 23(a)(3) requires that the "claims or defenses of the representative parties [be] typical of the claims or defenses of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). As the Sixth Circuit observed in In re American Medical Systems, "a plaintiff's claim is typical if it arises from the same event or practice or course of conduct that gives rise to the claims of other class members, and if his or her claims are based on the same legal theory." In re Am. Med. Sys., 75 F.3d at 1082 (internal quote and citation omitted). "A necessary consequence of the typicality requirement is that the representative's interests will be aligned with those of the represented group, and in pursuing his own claims, the named plaintiff will also advance the interests of the class members." Id. (citing 1 Newberg on Class Actions, § 313, at 3-75). Here, the named Plaintiffs advance the same legal and remedial theories as the putative class. Again, the Baby Neal decision is illustrative. There, the court reasoned that because "the common theme of attacking DHS's systemwide failure to comply with its legal mandates is equally central to the claims of the named plaintiffs as it is to the claims of the absentees," the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a) is satisfied. Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 63. The Baby Neal Court further observed, "[i]t bears remembering that the plaintiffs here seek only injunctive and declaratory relief; there are no other claims that could compromise the named plaintiffs' pursuit of the class claims." Id. "Because there are no individual claims as such, the differences among the plaintiffs do not affect the central claim that DHS violates a variety of the children's (putative class members') constitutional and statutory rights by failing to provide mandated welfare services." Id. The Court further observed that, similar to most cases seeking class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) as opposed to Rule 23(b)(3), the "dangers that the typicality requirement was intended to avoid" are absent; i.e., "that the named plaintiffs have unique interests that might motivate
8

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 27 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 9 of 12
them to litigate against or settle with the defendants in a way that prejudices the absentees." Id. at 63. For the same reasons asserted in Baby Neal, this Court concludes that Plaintiff Children have satisfied the typicality requirement.
Defendants' arguments against typicality are rejected. Defendants assert that "the vast majority of the putative class receives appropriate services, treatment, and placement." (Defs.' Resp. at 11.) This argument ignores that Plaintiff Children's common theme of attacking DHS's systemwide failure to comply with its legal mandates is equally central to the claims of the named plaintiffs as it is to the claims of the absent class members. See Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 63 (finding the typicality requirement met after observing that "[a]t any one time, the plaintiffs do not suffer from precisely the same deficiency, but they are all alleged victims of the systemic failures"; "they each potentially face all of the system's deficiencies.").
4. Adequacy Rule 23(a)(4) requires that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). This requirement is essential to due process as a final judgment is binding on all class members. See Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32, 42 (1940). To satisfy this requirement, Plaintiff Children must show that: (1) the representatives' interests do not conflict with the class members' interests, and (2) the representatives and their attorneys are able to prosecute the action vigorously. The named Plaintiffs in this action satisfy the adequacy requirement because their interests do not conflict with those of absent class members. They seek broad declaratory and injunctive relief addressing systemic problems in a unitary executive agency that will provide all Class members with the protection, care, treatment, and services to which all
9

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 27 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 10 of 12
are equally entitled under the Constitution and federal law. All Class members share the same federal statutory and constitutional rights and a common interest in a child welfare system that meets its legal obligations to keep them safe from harm. Appropriate remedial relief will ensure that Defendants meet their legal obligations to all Class members in all counties of the State, irrespective of relative costs. This Court is persuaded that Plaintiff Children satisfy the no-conflict portion of the adequacy requirement and rejects Defendants' arguments to the contrary.
Moreover, Plaintiff Children have retained experienced and competent counsel to protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff Children are represented by attorneys associated with both the advocacy organization, Children's Rights, and the law firm of Dykema Gossett PLLC. Children's Rights is a privately funded, non-profit organization with extensive experience in complex class action litigation involving child welfare systems. Attorneys at Children's Rights have represented foster children in class actions around the nation. (See Pls.' Br. at 16, n.7 citing cases.) This Court is convinced that Plaintiff Children's counsel are able to prosecute the action vigorously. Defendants' arguments to the contrary are rejected.
Having determined that Plaintiff Children satisfy all the requirements under Rule 23(a), the Court now considers whether the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) are satisfied.
B. Class Certification is Warranted Under Rule 23(b)(2) Rule 23(b)(2) requires that the opposing party's conduct or refusal to act must be "generally applicable" to the class, "thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole." Fed. R. Civ. P.
10

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 27 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 11 of 12
23(b)(2). A putative class, such as the Class here, that seeks declaratory and injunctive relief on grounds that are generally applicable to the Class, typifies the circumstances that satisfy Rule 23(b)(2). See, e.g., Baby Neal, 43 F.3d at 64 (observing that "[a]n order forcing the DHS to comply with their statutory and constitutional mandates would constitute relief generally applicable to the entire putative class," and concluding that "the violations alleged here are precisely the kinds targeted by Rule 23(b)(2).").
As discussed above, Plaintiffs seek relief from Defendants' systemic failures to provide and maintain the legally mandated services, processes, and placements critical to the safety and well-being of putative Class members in Michigan's foster care system. These failures generally affect all Class members, and the declaratory and injunctive relief sought here is intended to provide class-wide relief. Accordingly, this Court concludes that class certification is warranted under Rule 23(b)(2).
C. Appointment of Class Counsel Rule 23(g) provides that "[a]n attorney appointed to serve as class counsel must fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(B). In making its appointment, the Court considers: (1) "the work counsel has done in identifying or investigating potential claims in the action," (2) "counsel's experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and claims of the type asserted in the present action," (3) "counsel's knowledge of the applicable law," and (4) "the resources counsel will commit to representing the class." Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(C). This Court concludes that Plaintiff Children's counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the putative Class. Plaintiffs' counsel have identified and thoroughly investigated all claims in this action over a two-year period; are competent and
11

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 27 Filed 02/15/2007 Page 12 of 12
experienced in litigating complex class actions and similar claims; have comprehensive knowledge of the applicable law; and have committed sufficient resources to the prosecution of this matter in a thorough and expeditious manner. III. Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, Plaintiff Children's motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel is GRANTED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge Dated: February 15, 2007 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on February 15, 2007, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. s/Carol A. Hemeyer Case Manager
12

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

DWAYNE B., by his next friend, John Stempfle; )

CARMELA B., by her next friend, William Ladd; )

LISA J., by her next friend, Teresa Kibby; and )

JULIA, SIMON, and COURTNEY G.,

)

by their next friend, William Ladd;

)

for themselves and others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, in her official

)

capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan; )

MARIANNE UDOW, in her official

)

capacity as Director of the Michigan

)

Department of Human Services (“DHS”);

)

LAURA CHAMPAGNE, in her official capacity as )

Chief Deputy Director of DHS Operations; and )

JAMES HENNESSEY, in his official capacity as )

Deputy Director of DHS Children’s Services,

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

)

)

MARCIA ROBINSON LOWRY (Bar No. 1187053))

SUSAN LAMBIASE (Bar No. 2099489)

)

SARA MICHAEL BARTOSZ (Bar No. 6194058) )

ELISSA HENDLER (Bar No. 4269569)

)

CHILDREN’S RIGHTS

)

330 Seventh Avenue, Fourth Floor

)

New York, New York 10001

)

Phone: (212) 683-2210

)

)

RICHARD LANDAU (P42223)

)

HEIDI NAASKO (P58783)

)

DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC

)

400 Renaissance Center

)

Detroit, Michigan 48243

)

Phone: (313) 568-6800

)

CASE NO. _______________ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION
1. This is a civil rights class action against Jennifer Granholm, Governor of
Michigan; Marianne Udow, Director of the Michigan Department of Human Services (“DHS”);
Laura Champagne, Chief Deputy Director of DHS Operations; and James Hennessey, Deputy
Director of DHS Children’s Services (collectively, “Defendants”), on behalf of all children who
are now or will be in the foster care custody of DHS in in-home or out-of-home placements
(“Plaintiff Children”). Plaintiff Children seek declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy
violations of their legal rights and to prevent Defendants, by their actions and inactions, from
continuing to harm vulnerable children who rely on the State for care and protection.
2. With almost 19,000 children in its foster care custody, Michigan has the
seventh largest foster care population in the nation. As the legal custodians for these children,
Defendants are required by the United States Constitution and federal law to protect their safety
and well-being and find them permanent homes. Defendants have failed to meet these
obligations, and have knowingly subjected Plaintiff Children to ongoing physical, emotional, and
psychological harm.
3. As a result of serious systemic deficiencies that have been known to
Defendants for many years, the Michigan child welfare system inflicts numerous harms on
Plaintiff Children, including:
a. Maltreatment or neglect of foster children while in state custody. Too often children brought into Michigan’s foster care custody because they have suffered abuse or neglect are subject to further maltreatment while in the custody of DHS. This maltreatment occurs because of Defendants’ failure to (i) appropriately screen and oversee foster homes; (ii) segregate sexually reactive children (often themselves victims of prior sexual abuse) or physically aggressive children from other foster children; and (iii) adequately monitor and support caregivers, including unlicensed caregivers, who provide homes for children in the foster care custody of DHS.
- 1 -

b. A lack of basic physical and mental health services for foster children. Michigan’s foster children are routinely denied the services necessary to address known psychological, behavioral and emotional issues due to the absence of a minimally adequate mental health system. Moreover, due to agency cost-cutting measures, children are frequently left in foster homes that are unable to meet their special needs and in which their mental health further deteriorates. Foster children are also routinely denied timely basic medical and dental examinations and services.
c. Excessive lengths of stay in state custody. Michigan’s foster children are unnecessarily spending large portions of their lives – and sometimes their entire childhoods – in foster care custody. Defendants fail to provide foster children with appropriate case management, case plans and the services, including adoption-related services, required to prevent children from growing up in state custody. Michigan’s foster children who cannot return home are routinely denied the opportunity to be adopted, and many are discharged from the foster care system at the state’s age of majority without the life skills necessary to live independently.
d. Frequent moves among multiple placements. Subjecting foster children, who have already undergone the trauma of being removed from an abusive or neglectful home, to repeated changes in their primary caregivers causes serious harm to their development and psychological health. Yet, data collected by DHS and reported to the federal government shows that over 62% of the children in DHS foster care custody during fiscal year 2002, the last year for which such data is available, had been in foster care for more than 12 months, and over 40% of these children had already experienced three or more different placements during their lengthy foster care episodes.
4. These continuing harms to Plaintiff Children are caused by a number of
severe deficiencies in Michigan’s foster care system, including:
a. A severe shortage of foster homes. Defendants fail to maintain an adequate number and variety of foster homes and other appropriate placements for foster children. Foster children are placed wherever a bed or “slot” is available and not according to their individual needs. As a result, foster children are too often moved from one foster home to another because their needs are not being met, repeatedly suffering emotional harm.
b. High caseloads and turnover. Caseworkers responsible for overseeing the care and protection of children in Defendants’ foster
- 2 -

care custody often have dangerously high caseloads that are frequently multiples of the national standard of 12-15 foster children per caseworker. High caseloads and an unsupportive environment for many caseworkers have led to soaring caseworker turnover rates of almost 40%. The DHS early retirement programs implemented in 1997 and again in 2002 caused significant numbers of experienced DHS caseworkers to retire, resulting in a largely inexperienced frontline and supervisory child welfare workforce.
c. Poor monitoring of child safety. Michigan’s foster homes are often inadequately screened for safety. The State Auditor’s 2005 “Performance Audit of the Children’s Foster Care Program” identified more than 320 homes that had never undergone a safety assessment as required by DHS policy. Additionally, high caseloads prevent caseworkers from devoting the time needed to adequately monitor the safety of foster children assigned to them. As of March 2006, DHS reported that more than 30% of foster children statewide were not receiving even the minimally required monthly contact from their caseworker.
d. Poor planning and services to move children out of foster care and into permanent homes. Defendants routinely fail to provide foster children with the appropriate case-planning and adoption-related services required to ensure that children do not languish in their care. As a result, there are more than 6300 children in the foster care custody of DHS who are legal orphans – or “permanent wards” – for whom parental rights have been terminated, but no adoptive home has been identified. More than 400 of these children age out of the child welfare system each year, ill-equipped for adult life.
e. Grossly inadequate payments to foster care providers. The payments that Defendants provide to those caring for foster children do not even approach the actual cost of care for a child. DHS pays foster parents as little as $433 per month to raise a two-year-old foster child, though the federal government estimates that the average monthly cost of raising a similarly aged child in the urban Midwest is $733, net of health care expenses. Though Defendants increasingly rely upon relatives, such as retired grandparents, to care for its foster children, Defendants provide inadequate, and often no, financial support to these caregivers who are themselves frequently of limited means.
f. Fiscal waste. Michigan regularly fails to collect available federal funds for foster children in state custody, foregoing many millions of dollars that could be used to provide desperately needed homes and services for children. The State Auditor reported in December 2005 that the State now may be exposed to over $99 million in
- 3 -

reimbursements to the federal government due to the mismanagement of its federally-subsidized child welfare programs including Title IV-E foster care, adoption assistance, and the Chafee independent living program for teen youth. These failures to properly access and manage federal funding are particularly glaring given that Michigan is among the nation’s bottom 12 states in the ratio of state and local funds to federal funds directed to support its child welfare system. 5. In August 2005, the State Auditor released its “Performance Audit of the Children’s Foster Care Program.” Having scrutinized the system, the state auditor concluded, (1) “DHS and the contracted service providers generally did not comply with material provisions of State laws and regulations related to the delivery of Program services,” (2) “DHS was generally not effective and efficient in monitoring the delivery of services by Program contracted service providers,” and (3) “the Program was generally not effective in meeting its outcome goals.” 6. For years, knowledgeable state officials, children’s advocates, and dependency judges, among others, have warned that Defendants’ child welfare system fails to protect and actually endangers Michigan’s foster children. DHS Director Marianne Udow has admitted that “families and children are at risk.” Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan reported in a May 18, 2004 Detroit News article, “[o]ur current foster care system is in disarray, with terrible consequences for the children.” A child welfare performance review conducted by the federal government in 2002 revealed significant and widespread systemic failures and gaps in basic services. 7. The decline of Michigan’s child welfare system has been fueled, in part, by a series of budget cuts that have slashed almost a fifth of the State’s social services caseworker staff and reduced funding for basic services intended to benefit children and their families.
- 4 -

8. The tragic and wholly avoidable consequence of a depleted and
overburdened foster care workforce that cannot keep adequate watch over the children it is
responsible for protecting is further abuse of children who already have been abused and
neglected. For example:
a. On November 22, 2005, the Battle Creek Enquirer reported that a 15year-old girl in DHS custody had twice been impregnated by her biological father during unsupervised visits at a local motel;
b. On October 31, 2005, the Lansing State Journal reported that an eightyear-old Ingham County girl in DHS care had been sexually assaulted by a 13-year-old boy living in her foster home;
c. On January 15, 2005, the Detroit Free Press reported that two teenaged girls in DHS care had complained of assault by a staff member at a residential treatment center (“RTC”) in Inkster, Michigan despite a prior court order mandating that the children not be placed at the RTC due to its unsuitability;
d. On May 13, 2003, the Detroit Free Press reported that a four-year-old foster child had been beaten to death by his foster parent in Wayne County.
These public stories represent only a subset of the harms inflicted upon foster children
throughout Michigan. Many of the abuses suffered by children remain hidden from the public.
9. Defendants’ failures are further evidenced in the growing number of
“permanent wards” in its custody, the designation assigned to foster children who have been in
care for a period of at least 12 months and whose parents have lost their parental rights through
the legal process. The number of permanent wards in DHS custody has grown by 20% in the last
six years. There are currently more than 6,300 children – approximately 30% of all children in
Defendants’ care – languishing in foster care as permanent wards.
10. Foster children failed by Michigan’s child welfare system often develop
anger, fear, anxiety, and an inability to trust. Without safe and permanent homes and needed
- 5 -

therapeutic services, they fall behind in school, their medical and dental problems go unmet and they develop behavioral problems. Further, foster children frequently go from foster care into the juvenile justice system, the adult mental health system, jail, or homelessness when they are not given the permanency and services they need. Their long-term relationships with the State’s criminal justice or public welfare systems will cost taxpayers millions of dollars more than the cost of having provided constitutionally required services when they came into Defendants’ care as abused and neglected children.
11. Defendants have failed to implement meaningful and necessary systemic reform to remedy these severe violations. Plaintiff Children remain in danger.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 12. This action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress violations of the United States Constitution and federal statutes. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3). 13. Venue is proper here pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). The claims arise in this district.
PARTIES Named Plaintiffs1 Dwayne B. 14. Dwayne B. first came into the foster care custody of Wayne County DHS in January 2001, after his mother’s live-in boyfriend threw him against the floor with such force that his breathing may have temporarily stopped. Prior to removing Dwayne and his brother,
1 In accordance with Administrative Order No. 05-AO-025, the identities of the minor named Plaintiffs have been protected. Because some of the named Plaintiffs share common initials, pseudonyms have been used to avoid confusion.
- 6 -

DHS had received reports that the boys’ parents were not giving them adequate care. Upon removal, Dwayne and his brother were immediately separated and placed into different foster homes.
15. More than five years later, Dwayne, now seven, still lives in foster care and is no closer to placement with a permanent family. Dwayne has been moved through eight different placements during his time in care and has been subjected to three different placements within the last three months alone. He suffered a damaging three-day reunification with his mother more than three years after he was removed from her. These many moves have disrupted Dwayne’s educational and developmental progress as well as the continuity of his medical and mental health care and have left him severely behaviorally disturbed.
16. Dwayne was moved among three different foster family homes during his first three years in DHS custody. He was separated from his brother until December 2003, when the boys were reunited and his brother came to live in Dwayne’s foster home.
17. During this prolonged period, Defendants’ permanency plan for Dwayne and his brother was to reunify them with their mother. However, Defendants did not adequately assess the mother’s ability to care for the boys and did not concurrently plan for the boys to be adopted should reunification fail. Dwayne’s mother – who is hearing-impaired and developmentally delayed – utilized mandated services only sporadically and showed little or no promise of acquiring the parenting skills necessary for reunification with Dwayne.
18. Dwayne and his brother were reunified with their mother on May 30, 2004, despite the clear signs that their mother could not safely care for them, and without adequate safeguards to ensure they would be protected. By this time, Dwayne’s mother had given birth to a third baby boy who lived with her. Just five days later, on June 1, 2004, all three
- 7 -

boys were removed by DHS when Dwayne’s mother physically abused her baby boy while Dwayne and his brother were in the house. The baby was left permanently brain-damaged and must be fed through a tube.
19. Defendants did not obtain an order terminating Dwayne’s mother’s parental rights for another 15 months, by which point Dwayne had spent most of his young life in foster care without receiving the care and services necessary to allow him to develop normally and form permanent attachments.
20. From June 2004 through May 2006, Dwayne and his younger brother were returned to the foster home where they had lived prior to reunification with their mother. Although the foster mother showed interest in adopting the boys, Dwayne came to refer to this foster home as the “devil house.” The foster mother’s teen daughter and an infant foster child also lived in the home. The teen daughter had a history of two prior criminal charges for assault with the intent to do bodily harm, had engaged in physical disputes with her mother, and had been the subject of physical discipline in the home.
21. Dwayne and his brother were removed from this two-year foster placement on May 10, 2006, following an incident that required police intervention. That day, while the foster mother and boys were away, the teen daughter and a 19-year-old male daycare provider were at the home caring for the infant girl. The daycare provider became involved in a physical altercation in the front yard of the home, and the teen daughter stepped outside to observe the disturbance with the infant girl in her arms. Gunshots were heard, and the police reported to the scene. Defendants removed Dwayne and his brother from the home and placed them in separate foster homes, even though they had a close relationship with one another. Dwayne remains separated from his brother without regular visitation.
- 8 -

22. The multiple disruptions, inappropriate placements, and indifference to Dwayne’s needs that have marked his life in foster care have caused Dwayne significant emotional harm, manifested in increasingly unstable behavior. Recently, Dwayne has been harming animals, intentionally urinating in inappropriate places in the home, fire-setting, breaking windows and light fixtures, engaging in inappropriate behavior with other children, and habitually self-mutilating. Dwayne is currently on a daily dose of multiple psychotropic medications, a drug regimen prescribed by DHS-provided physicians to address his uneven behavior. Dwayne weighs just 40 pounds, well below the ideal weight for a child of his age.
23. Dwayne’s behavior has deteriorated to the point that family foster care providers can no longer handle him. For his own protection as well as the safety of children around him, Dwayne requires more intensive treatment than can be provided in a foster home setting, at least in the short term. Nevertheless, Defendants continue to move Dwayne among different foster homes, accelerating the cycle of placement disruptions and transitions. With each new move, Dwayne experiences increased feelings of detachment and rejection, a greater sense of instability, and worsening psychological trauma.
24. At present, Dwayne has no prospect of an adoptive placement and the stability and permanency he so badly needs. He is not receiving necessary medical and mental health care to address his deteriorating condition. Further aggravating this harm, Dwayne’s unaddressed behavioral problems have caused numerous disruptions to his schooling as teachers have felt it necessary to remove him from the classroom, even though Dwayne has been enrolled in a program for emotionally impaired children.
25. Defendants’ actions and inactions are part of a systemic pattern of conduct that has caused, and continues to cause, irreparable harm. Defendants have violated, and acted in
- 9 -

deliberate indifference to and beyond the bounds of reasonable professional judgment regarding Dwayne’s constitutional and statutory rights by failing to provide necessary services and appropriate placement for him; by failing to make periodic comprehensive assessments of his needs, including his mental health needs, and providing services consistent with those needs; by failing to make timely and meaningful casework contacts and monitoring his progress in foster care in order to ensure his safety and well-being; by failing to provide him with monitoring and services necessary to prevent him from deteriorating physically, psychologically, emotionally, educationally or otherwise while in state custody; by failing to pay foster care maintenance payments on his behalf that cover the reasonable costs of caring for him; by failing to support his family relationships, in particular by not providing child-sibling visits; by failing to provide appropriate management and supervision while he has been in DHS custody in accordance with his individual needs, best interests, and reasonable professional standards; by failing to provide case management and planning in accordance with his individual needs, best interests, and reasonable professional standards; and by failing to develop and implement a viable permanency plan that will allow him to leave foster care and secure a safe and appropriate permanent home in accordance with his individual needs, best interests, and reasonable professional standards. Carmela B.
26. Carmela B. has been languishing in DHS foster care custody for the last 14 of her 16 years, during which time she has been physically and sexually abused and subjected to at least 10 different placements, a number of them dangerous and clearly inappropriate to meet her needs. As a result of Defendants’ failure to provide Carmela with appropriate treatment and case-planning services, Carmela has been denied the opportunity for a stable and permanent home and has suffered emotional harm.
- 10 -

27. Carmela was removed from her mother, who was engaged in prostitution and drug abuse, in 1992. She was two years old.
28. Although there was no evidence that Carmela’s biological father – then imprisoned for selling drugs – would be able to care for her, DHS originally placed Carmela in a temporary foster home with a goal of reunifying Carmela with him. She was placed with her father when he was released from prison one year later, but within a month was moved to a temporary shelter when her father was arrested on another drug charge and sent back to prison.
29. In 1994, Carmela was moved again, this time to an unlicensed relative placement with her paternal step-grandmother. For the first time since her entry into DHS care, Carmela bonded with her caretaker. Carmela adjusted well in her placement, and her behavior improved.
30. Carmela’s paternal step-grandmother expressed a desire to adopt her in 1997, two years after the parental rights of both of Carmela’s parents had been terminated. However, when Carmela’s step-grandmother was not approved for adoption, DHS moved Carmela to yet another temporary foster home in a different community. Forced to adjust to a new placement, a new school, and the severance of ties with her grandmother, Carmela became increasingly angry and disruptive. Languishing in temporary placements, Carmela was treated with a range of psychotropic medications.
31. In 2001 – nine years after Carmela entered DHS custody, and more than six years after she had been freed for adoption – DHS placed Carmela in her first pre-adoptive home. However, when the potential adoptive mother died just three months later, Carmela was again cycled through a series of temporary placements.
- 11 -

32. Having made no progress towards finding a permanent home for Carmela after more than eleven years, DHS next sent Carmela to Kentucky, to live with the parents of her deceased pre-adoptive mother. While in Kentucky, Carmela was sexually abused by her foster parent.
33. In 2003, Carmela was moved back to Michigan and placed in “Bridges,” a residential treatment program at Vista Maria. Carmela remained in this placement for 11 months.
34. While at Bridges, Carmela’s behavior stabilized and she began to make friends. Yet in 2004, rather than moving Carmela into a less restrictive placement and placing her with a family when appropriate, Carmela was moved to Vista Maria’s “Grace Program,” a more intensive, “locked placement,” designed for severely behaviorally-impaired adolescents.
35. While at Grace, Carmela was subjected to restrictive practices and monitored by guards. She was locked in her room at night, and forcibly restrained and secluded on a regular basis. On one occasion, a Grace guard fractured Carmela’s arm, allegedly in an attempt to restrain her.
36. The repeated and serious psychological traumas Carmela suffered during her time at Grace – and her years in DHS custody – manifested themselves in progressively more unmanageable behavior. In one three-month period in 2005, Grace staff noted that Carmela engaged in 13 incidents of misbehavior and multiple incidents of self-mutilation, requiring three emergency room visits. The guards at Grace increased their use of restraints, forced seclusion, and psychotropic medications. Carmela remained at Grace for a full year.
37. Carmela was denied adequate educational services while at Vista Maria’s Bridges and Grace programs. She attended school only sporadically, and then at a school that
- 12 -

served only foster children in residential care where classes were well below grade level. By the time Carmela left Vista Maria’s temporary care after more than two years, she was almost three years behind in school and had received no special education services.
38. Carmela was moved by Defendants for the ninth time in late 2005, when she was placed in a group foster home. By early 2006, she was exhibiting suicidal behavior that necessitated a four-week stay at a psychiatric hospital. Upon her release from the hospital, Carmela was returned to the same group home and enrolled in an intensive outpatient program where she received therapy, but no schooling.
39. Carmela remains in the group home and her behavior continues to deteriorate.
40. Carmela has been in DHS custody for more than 14 years – almost her entire life – and has been legally free for adoption for more than 11 years. As a result of the extensive time she has spent in DHS custody and the frequent, inappropriate and unsafe placements to which she has been subjected, Carmela suffers from extensive behavioral and emotional problems. Although Carmela desperately needs the permanency of a supportive adoptive home, no prospective families have been identified by Defendants. Just three years from aging out of the child welfare system, Carmela continues to languish in foster care without a stable, long-term placement, much less an adoptive or otherwise permanent home, and is not being prepared for life as an adult.
41. Defendants’ actions and inactions are part of a systemic pattern of conduct that has caused and continues to cause Carmela irreparable harm. Defendants have violated, and acted in deliberate indifference to and beyond the bounds of reasonable professional judgment regarding, Carmela’s constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect her from harm; by
- 13 -

failing to provide necessary services and an appropriate permanent placement for her; by failing to make periodic comprehensive assessments of her needs; by placing her in inadequately screened and monitored foster homes; by placing her into circumstances while in DHS custody which Defendants knew or should have known would have and did render her vulnerable to danger, placed her at risk of harm and which in fact resulted in severe harm to her; by failing to make timely and meaningful casework contacts and monitor her progress in foster care in order to ensure her safety and well-being; by failing to place her in the least restrictive placement available according to her needs; by failing to provide her with monitoring and services necessary to prevent her from deteriorating physically, psychologically, emotionally, educationally or otherwise while in state custody; by failing to provide appropriate management and supervision while she has been in DHS custody in accordance with her individual needs, best interests, and reasonable professional standards; by failing to provide case management and planning in accordance with her individual needs, best interests, and reasonable professional standards; and by failing to develop and implement a viable permanent plan that will allow her to leave foster care and secure a safe and appropriate permanent home in accordance with her individual needs, best interests, and reasonable professional standards. Lisa J.
42. Lisa J. first entered the foster care custody of Berrien County DHS in December 2002, when she was nine. Within her first 12 months in foster care, Lisa was moved through five different foster homes and sexually abused by a foster father. She also engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with one of her older brothers. She suffers and continues to suffer emotional harm.
- 14 -

43. DHS took custody of Lisa and her two brothers in 2002, removing them from their alcoholic father and abusive stepmother after discovering that her eldest brother, then ten years old, had been physically beaten as well as forced to live in an unheated basement and urinate in a bucket.
44. DHS initially placed Lisa in a foster home, but soon moved her and her two brothers into the unlicensed care of their paternal grandparents. This kinship arrangement lasted only two months.
45. DHS then placed Lisa in a second foster home. Lisa’s behavior gradually deteriorated during this highly disruptive period in her young life. During this time, Lisa reported having been sexually abused by one of her foster parents and having engaged in sexual behavior with her youngest brother. Lisa’s caseworker did not visit her for almost a year.
46. In January 2004, Lisa was returned home – without her two brothers – despite her father having tested poorly on reunification assessments that gauged his parenting skills, his emotional stability, the suitability of his domestic partner arrangement and his financial capacity to provide for his children’s basic needs. Lisa’s father, in fact, physically and verbally threatened numerous reunification workers, causing two service providers to stop working with him entirely. He also failed to regularly attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
47. Lisa had resided with her father for less than a month when she again was removed from the home and returned to foster care because the father’s new live-in girlfriend had been emotionally abusive to her. Lisa’s emotional health suffered and she began to complain that she felt possessed by the devil; she did not receive regular psychological counseling because neither her foster parent nor her caseworker was willing to transport her to therapy.
- 15 -

48. Despite two removals from her father’s home and the history of sexual behavior between Lisa and her sibling, Defendants facilitated unsupervised visits between Lisa, her father and her brother every other weekend. Though Lisa reported that her father behaved “meanly” and that he often ignored her during these visits, the visits continued unsupervised. Lisa later disclosed to her foster parents that she had engaged in sexual intercourse with her brother during the weekend visits with her biological father. Defendants continued to allow Lisa and her brother to jointly visit their father, even though the father admitted that he could not control his children’s behavior.
49. Lisa attempted to run away from foster care placements and engaged in physical confrontations at school. Her basic hygiene deteriorated and her increasingly unstable behavior led to continued placement disruptions. Each time a foster care placement disrupted, Defendants simply placed Lisa in a new foster home without implementing particularized supports or services to address her needs.
50. When Defendants finally considered terminating Lisa’s father’s parental rights in October 2005, after Lisa had languished in foster care for three years, Defendants decided that Lisa was unadoptable and that parental rights, therefore, should not be severed.
51. In January 2006, Lisa’s therapist determined that a residential treatment program was necessary to address Lisa’s escalating behavioral and emotional needs; however, residential treatment was not approved by Defendants. Since then, Lisa has remained in a family foster care setting that is inadequate to meet her diagnosed needs.
52. Lisa is presently 13 years old. She has moved through 11 different foster care placements over the last three years. Though her father’s parental rights finally were terminated this year as to Lisa alone, under the current plan Lisa will never know a permanent,
- 16 -

adoptive family due to the Defendants’ failure to provide her with the services she needs and Defendants’ abandonment of any attempt to find her an adoptive home.
53. Though Lisa’s father has never benefited from the reunification services offered to him and continues to display an unchecked temper, Defendants reunified Lisa’s oldest brother with him in January 2006 and still plans to reunify her other brother as well. Lisa no longer has any contact with either her father or her siblings.
54. Lisa’s overall well-being has been significantly harmed as a direct result of Defendants’ failures, a fact Lisa herself recognized when she recently told her caseworker: “I am mad at the world because the world has done me wrong, and is not helping me.”
55. Defendants’ actions and inactions are part of a systemic pattern of conduct that has caused Lisa, and continues to cause Lisa, irreparable harm. Defendants have violated, and acted in deliberate indifference to and beyond the bounds of reasonable professional judgment regarding, Lisa’s constitutional and statutory rights by failing to provide necessary services and an appropriate placement for her; by failing to make periodic comprehensive assessments of her needs, including her mental health needs, and providing services consistent with those needs; by failing to make timely and meaningful casework contacts and monitor her progress in foster care in order to ensure his safety and well-being; by failing to provide her with monitoring and services necessary to prevent her from deteriorating physically, psychologically, emotionally, educationally or otherwise while in state custody; by failing to pay foster care maintenance payments on her behalf that cover the reasonable costs of caring for her; by failing to provide appropriate management and supervision while she has been in DHS custody in accordance with her individual needs, best interests, and reasonable professional standards; by failing to provide case management and planning in accordance with her individual needs, best
- 17 -

interests, and reasonable professional standards; and by failing to develop and implement a viable permanency plan that will allow her to leave foster care and secure a safe and appropriate permanent home in accordance with her individual needs, best interests, and reasonable professional standards. Julia, Simon and Courtney G.
56. Julia, Simon and Courtney G., ages 16, 17 and 18, have been in DHS custody for more than three years. Victims of physical abuse and fetal alcohol syndrome, the siblings have serious physical, mental health and behavioral needs. Julia has an IQ of 56, indicating mental retardation; Simon is autistic; and Courtney is developmentally delayed. Throughout their tenures in foster care, Julia, Simon and Courtney have routinely been denied access to treatment and services necessary to meet their significant needs. Defendants also have failed to take any steps to secure a permanent home for these siblings, and they each now have the assigned permanency goal of “Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement” (“APPLA”), with no opportunity for finding permanent families. Parental rights have not been terminated as to any of them, and Defendants have no plan to seek termination.
57. Julia, Simon and Courtney came into DHS custody in 2003. While living at home, the children had been neglected, exposed to drugs and alcohol, and physically abused by their mother’s boyfriend.
58. During their time in foster care, Julia, Simon and Courtney each have been subjected to multiple dangerous and inappropriate foster placements. DHS has made no apparent attempt to place the siblings together since their initial entry into care. At times they have been placed miles apart from each other. They were denied visitation with one another for more than their first two years in state care.
- 18 -

59. Julia has suffered through more than a dozen placement changes and has spent most of her three years in care languishing in temporary shelters. Julia was initially placed in a short-term shelter unequipped to address her significant behavioral and emotional needs. Unsupervised, and in need of adequate attention and care, Julia ran away from the shelter. Rather than properly assessing Julia to identify a placement better suited to her severe mental health needs, DHS apprehended and handcuffed this disabled girl. She was then locked in a juvenile detention facility with juvenile offenders. Nine days later, she was placed in a second temporary shelter.
60. During the next two years, Julia was moved through as many as ten shelter placements, each of which failed to provide the services and supervision critical to Julia’s wellbeing. Julia frequently ran away from these placements to the home of her mother, where she used liquor, marijuana, and crack because “that’s all there was at home.” Each time, she was apprehended, handcuffed and placed in another shelter, often remaining beyond the 30-day maximum stay, once for a period of eight months.
61. When, after almost three years in DHS custody, Julia was finally placed in what DHS labeled a therapeutic foster home, the first-time foster parents lacked the necessary training and experience to meet Julia’s needs. Rather than helping Julia to develop the skills necessary to overcome her significant limitations, they verbally and, on at least one occasion, physically abused Julia to punish her for her lack of understanding and her inability to take care of herself. After terminating the foster care license of the home, Defendants placed Julia in a respite home. Unable to meet Julia’s needs, the foster parents in the respite home requested that she be removed from their care, and Julia was placed in another respite placement.
- 19 -

62. In April 2006, Julia’s placing agency caseworker, placing agency supervisor, and DHS worker appeared in court for a permanency hearing. When it was determined that the case would not be heard that day, the placing agency supervisor announced that she would not take Julia back into care unless DHS approved a residential placement. DHS refused and a loud argument ensued. In care for almost three years without minimally adequate care and with no hope of permanency, Julia listened as the workers fought about who would have to take her home. The placing agency then abandoned Julia in the courtroom, and DHS nonetheless returned her to the care of the same placing agency later that day. To date, Defendants refuse to approve residential care for Julia.
63. Like his sister Julia, Simon requires heightened care, attention and therapeutic intervention. Also like her, he has been subjected to a series of inappropriate and dangerous placements while in DHS care. Simon, who is autistic, was initially placed in a specialized foster home, where he was physically abused. After removing Simon from this foster home, Defendants placed him in a temporary shelter, where he was again subjected to physical abuse. He remained in the shelter for more than a year, in gross violation of the 30-day maximum stay limit.
64. Simon is currently housed in a therapeutic foster home occupied primarily by emotionally disturbed adults. He is frequently left alone with unlicensed individuals hired by the foster mother to supervise in her absence. DHS has recognized that this practice violates state law and endangers Simon, but has allowed Simon to remain in the home because it currently lacks an appropriate placement for him.
- 20 -

65. Simon has no prospect of a permanent family given his assigned APPLA goal. In effect, Defendants’ goal is for Simon to linger in foster care until he ages out and enters an adult life likely to be spent in adult foster care or in an institutional setting.
66. Courtney, who is developmentally delayed, has also been placed in a series of inappropriate placements. Separated from and denied regular visitation with her siblings, she spent her first nine months in DHS custody in a specialized foster home for children with developmental disabilities. However, when she threatened others in the home with a knife, Defendants moved her through two temporary shelters, inappropriate placements that failed to address Courtney’s escalating behavior.
67. Courtney currently resides in a group facility. She continues to exhibit significant behavioral problems. Despite the fact that she will age out of the foster care system in less than a year, Courtney is not receiving federally mandated transitional living services, and is wholly unequipped to live independently.
68. All three siblings have been subjected to dangerous and inappropriate placements and denied needed services and the opportunity for stable and permanent homes.
69. Defendants’ actions and inactions are part of a systemic pattern of conduct that has caused Julia, Simon and Courtney, and continues to cause Julia, Simon and Courtney, irreparable harm. Defendants have violated, and acted in deliberate indifference to and beyond the bounds of reasonable professional judgment regarding, Julia, Simon and Courtney’s constitutional and statutory rights by failing to provide necessary services and an appropriate placement for them; by failing to make periodic comprehensive assessments of their needs, including their mental health needs, and providing services consistent with those needs; by failing to make timely and meaningful casework contacts and monitor their progress in foster
- 21 -

care in order to ensure their safety and well-being; by failing to provide them with monitoring and services necessary to prevent them from deteriorating physically, psychologically, emotionally, educationally or otherwise while in state custody; by placing them in emergency shelters for more than thirty days and contrary to their individual needs and best interests; by failing to place them in the least restrictive placements available according to their needs; by failing to pay foster care maintenance payments on their behalf that cover the reasonable costs of caring for them; by failing to support their family relationships, in particular by not providing child-sibling visits; by failing to provide appropriate management and supervision while they have been in DHS custody in accordance with their individual needs, best interests, and reasonable professional standards; by failing to provide case management and planning in accordance with their individual needs, best interests, and 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 in accordance with their individual needs, best interests, and reasonable professional standards.
Next Friends 70. Named Plaintiff DWAYNE B., appears through his next friend, John Stempfle. Mr. Stempfle currently serves as Dwayne’s lawyer guardian ad litem in the Wayne County Juvenile Court. He maintains his principal office in Detroit, Michigan. 71. Named Plaintiff CARMELA B. appears through her next friend, William Ladd. Mr. Ladd currently serves as Carmela’s lawyer guardian ad litem in the Wayne County Juvenile Court. He maintains his principal office in Detroit, Michigan.
- 22 -

72. Named Plaintiff LISA J. appears through her next friend, Teresa Kibby. Ms. Kibby currently is a DHS-licensed foster parent in Kalamazoo County and is the former foster parent of Lisa’s sibling. She resides in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
73. Named Plaintiffs JULIA, SIMON and COURTNEY G. appear through their next friend, William Ladd. Mr. Ladd currently serves as their lawyer guardian ad litem in the Wayne County Juvenile Court. He maintains his principal office in Detroit, Michigan.
Defendants 74. Defendant JENNIFER GRANHOLM is the Governor of Michigan and is sued in her official capacity. Pursuant to Article V, Section 1 of the Constitution of Michigan of 1963, the executive power of the State is vested in the Governor. Pursuant to Article V, Section 8 of the Constitution of Michigan of 1963, the Governor is responsible for ensuring that all executive departments and agencies within the State, including DHS, faithfully execute and comply with applicable federal and state law. Governor Granholm maintains her principal office at the Office of the Governor, 111 S. Capitol Avenue, George W. Romney Building, Lansing, Michigan 48933. 75. Defendant MARIANNE UDOW is the Director of DHS and is sued in her official capacity. Pursuant to Section 400.3 of the Social Welfare Act, MCL § 400.1 et seq. and Executive Reorganization Order E.R.O. No. 2004-4, Director Udow is responsible for administering all DHS child welfare services and programs and assuring that all such services and programs operate in conformity with constitutional, statutory, and regulatory requirements. Director Udow maintains her principal office at the Department of Human Services, 235 S. Grand Avenue, Lansing, Michigan 48909.
- 23 -

76. Defendant LAURA CHAMPAGNE is the Chief Deputy Director of DHS Operations and is sued in her official capacity. Defendant Champagne reports directly to Director Udow and has overall operational responsibility for Michigan’s foster care system. Deputy Director Champagne maintains her principal office at the Department of Human Services, 235 S. Grand Avenue, Lansing, Michigan 48909.
77. Defendant JAMES HENNESSEY is the Deputy Director of DHS Children’s Services and is sued in his official capacity. Defendant Hennessey reports directly to Defendant Champagne and has day-to-day management responsibility for Michigan’s foster care system. Deputy Director Hennessey maintains his principal office at the Department of Human Services, 235 S. Grand Avenue, Lansing, Michigan 48909.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 78. This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 79. The class is defined as all children who are now or will be in the foster care custody of DHS in in-home or out-of-home placements. 80. The class is sufficiently numerous to make individual joinder impracticable. As of March 2006, almost 19,000 children resided in the foster care custody of DHS. 81. The questions of law and fact raised by the named Plaintiffs’ claims are common to and typical of those raised by the putative class they seek to represent. Each child relies on Defendants for child welfare placement, services and permanency, and is harmed by the systemic and legal deficiencies existing within Michigan’s child welfare system. 82. Questions of fact common to the class include:
- 24 -

a. whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with safe, appropriate and stable foster care placements as required by law and reasonable professional standards;
b. whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with services necessary to keep them safe and properly cared for, and to prevent them from deteriorating physically, psychologically, or otherwise while in state custody as required by law and reasonable professional standards;
c. whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with timely and appropriate services necessary to ensure that they are either safely reunited with their families or promptly freed for adoption and placed in a permanent home as required by law and reasonable professional standards; and
d. whether Defendants fail to provide Plaintiff Children with the supports necessary to maintain family relationships including the provision of parent and sibling visits as required by law and reasonable professional standards.
83. Questions of law common to the class include:
a. whether Defendants’ actions and inactions violate Plaintiff Children’s rights under the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from harm while in state custody;
b. whether Defendants’ actions and inactions violate Plaintiff Children’s rights under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, and relevant federal regulations, to mandated foster care and adoption services and foster care maintenance payments;
c. whether Defendants’ actions and inactions violate Plaintiff Children’s rights under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
d. whether Defendants’ actions and inactions violate Plaintiff Children’s rights to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and
e. whether Defendants’ actions and inactions violate Plaintiff Children’s rights as third party beneficiaries to the Title IV-E and Title IV-B state plans entered into between the state of Michigan and the federal government.
- 25 -

84. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiff Children.
85. The violations of law and resulting harms averred by the named Plaintiffs are typical of the legal violations and harms suffered by all class members.
86. Each named Plaintiff child appears by a next friend, and each next friend is sufficiently familiar with the facts of the child’s situation to fairly and adequately represent the child’s interests in this litigation.
87. Plaintiff Children are represented by attorneys employed by Children’s Rights, a non-profit legal organization whose attorneys have substantial experience and expertise in child welfare class actions; and Dykema Gossett, PLLC, a private law firm headquartered in Detroit, Michigan with extensive experience in complex civil litigation. Plaintiff Childrens’ attorneys have identified and thoroughly investigated all claims in this action, and have committed sufficient resources to represent the class.
88. Defendants have acted or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to all Plaintiff Children, necessitating declaratory and injunctive relief for the class. Plaintiff Children’s counsel knows of no conflicts among class members.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SYSTEMIC DEFICIENCIES IN THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM THAT HARM CHILDREN
Defendants Have Long Known of the Urgent Need for Systemic Reform of the Child Welfare System
89. In 2002, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), through the Administration of Children and Families (“ACF”), conducted a performance review of Michigan’s child welfare system. The purpose of this review, called a “Child and Family Service Review” (“CFSR”), was to determine whether Michigan’s child
- 26 -

welfare system substantially conforms to the requirements of its own “State Plan For Title IV-E of the Social Security Act Foster Care, Independent Living and Adoption Assistance,” submitted and approved under Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. Title IV-E provides an essential stream of federal foster care funds.
90. The CFSR process includes two essential phases. In Phase I, a state develops a Statewide Assessment of its child welfare system, and applies a State Profile measuring six statewide performance indicators related to safety and permanency for children entering the child welfare system. In Phase II, ACF reviews the Statewide Assessment and the State Profile, audits randomly-drawn case files from three counties, and interviews a wide range of stakeholders (including children, parents, foster parents, DHS personnel, and service providers) to determine the quality of services to foster children and to verify the performance data in the State Profile. Conformity to seven safety, permanency and well-being outcomes established by HHS is assessed. A score of 90% or higher is considered “substantial conformity.”
91. In its Phase I Statewide Assessment, submitted in September 2002, Michigan recognized serious failures in its child welfare system. The assessment, based on data from 2000-2002, reported that placements are often a “‘mismatch’, with the needs of children not being considered,” and that “there is not adequate support for foster families to prevent replacements.” Moreover, it noted that “the volume of work still prevents [caseworkers] from being successful at their jobs,” and “only 59% of cases had a permanency planning hearing held in a timely matter.”
92. In its Phase II review, conducted in September 2002, ACF determined that DHS had failed to achieve substantial conformity to each of seven safety, permanency and well-
- 27 -

being outcomes. ACF further determined that DHS had failed to achieve substantial conformity to two of the six statewide performance indicators: the percentage of children reunified within 12 months of entry into foster care and the percentage of children experiencing no more than two placements during the first 12 months in foster care.
93. Recent reports of the Michigan Office of the Children’s Ombudsman, whose mission is to “assure the safety and well-being of Michigan’s children in need of foster care, adoption and protective services and to promote public confidence in the child welfare system,” have highlighted similar failures by DHS. The 2003-2004 Children’s Ombudsman Annual Report described a foster care system in need of significant reform. The report found that DHS too often fails to (1) achieve timely permanency for children removed into its care consistent with federal and state law mandates, (2) maintain stable foster family placements for children or foster placements that allow siblings to live together, and (3) identify children’s needs and to provide services commensurate with those identified needs.
94. The 2005 Annual Report of the Michigan Foster Care Review Board (“FCRB”), whose mission is to review and evaluate permanency planning processes and outcomes for children and families in the Michigan foster care system, reported that, “high caseloads in both the court and foster care agencies, and high caseworker turnover related to the stresses inherent in this type of work continue to plague efforts to ensure the safety, well- being, and timely permanency for all children in the foster care system. These barriers were highlighted in our 2003-2004 Annual Report. These same factors are likely to impact Michigan’s compliance with federal foster care requirements.” The repeat nature of these findings underscores the failure of Defendants to implement needed systemic reform despite repeated notice of systemic deficiencies.
- 28 -

95. The FCRB further reported that it had observed in many cases “a general lack of early assessment and treatment of children once they enter into foster care,” “delays in court-ordered referrals for treatment, long waiting lists for mental health services, and frequent breaks and disruptions in treatment and/or therapy once it begins,” typically due to “therapist turnover, foster placement changes, and funding problems.” Additionally, the FCRB noted, “the inability of the foster care system, as it is presently funded and configured, to provide these [foster] children with stable and appropriate placements and/or necessary treatment and support services.” Defendants Have Not Taken Adequate Steps to Achieve Systemic Reform of the Child Welfare System
96. Under the CFSR review process, jurisdictions that fail to achieve “substantial conformity” are required to submit a Program Improvement Plan, (“PIP”) that sets forth remedial actions to be completed within 24 months. A state’s failure to implement its PIP and reach its targets may expose a state to Title IV-E funding penalties. On May 24, 2004, DHS submitted to HHS its required PIP. The PIP set forth measurable performance improvements that were to be achieved by May 24, 2006.
97. DHS has failed to achieve the performance improvements to which it committed in its PIP. Instead, DHS performance has substantially declined in many areas of child welfare performance. For example, as of March 2006, DHS reported:
a. a score of 59.46% in addressing the needs and providing services to children, parents and foster parents. This represented a serious decline in the agency’s performance from the 2002 CFSR;
b. a score of 37.90% in achieving the permanency goal of reunification for children in state foster care custody. This represented a decline in the agency’s performance from the 2002 CFSR;
- 29 -

c. a score of 68.92% in meeting its basic obligation to assure monthly social worker visits with foster children in state custody, the primary means by which DHS assures the safety of foster homes and identifies the needs of the children in its foster care custody. This score represented a serious decline in the agency’s performance from the 2002 CFSR; and
d. a score of 64.79% in making required social worker visits with parents of foster children in state custody. Social worker visits with biological parents are a vital element of DHS efforts to preserve family relationships where appropriate and safe for the child. The March 2006 score represented a serious decline in the agency’s performance from the 2002 CFSR.
98. Despite the fact that Defendants have long been on notice of the severe
failures in the child welfare system they operate, they have not taken adequate steps to remedy
the systemic deficiencies that are harming children.
Excessive Caseloads, Inadequate Training, Inexperienced Caseworkers and Inadequate Supervision Threaten Basic Child Safety
99. No child welfare system can effectively perform its basic functions absent
a well-trained, experienced, and adequately staffed workforce. Caseworkers are the vehicles by
which children in foster care custody access the vital safety, health, educational, and permanency
services critical to their well-being.
100. When caseworkers are inadequately trained, inexperienced, and/or over-
burdened, the child welfare system predictably breaks down; and children served by the system
suffer reasonably foreseeable harm.
101. Generally accepted professional caseload standards issued by the Child
Welfare League of America (“CWLA”) provide for:
a. between 12 and 15 children per worker for foster care services; and b. between 10 and 12 children per worker for adoption services.
- 30 -

102. As admitted by DHS Director Marianne Udow on September 6, 2005, “caseload ratios in Michigan range from 25:1 to 40:1, far higher than the optimal ratio recommended by the Child Welfare League of America.”
103. Moreover, for FY 2006, DHS reduced its already over-burdened foster care caseworker staff by redirecting 41 full-time equivalent positions (“FTEs”) from foster care services to another function.
104. On January 11, 2006, the Board of Directors of the Michigan County Social Services Association (“MCSSA”) adopted a resolution stating, “the Michigan Department of Human Services released their new field staffing allocation which the MCSSA finds substantially inadequate to meet the expectations of the Legislature, the county social services boards and the public, and . . . there is not enough field staff to meet basic child welfare needs, rehabilitation and counseling needs, to encourage clients to work, or to help people solve problems.” A copy of this board resolution was transmitted to Governor Granholm and DHS Director Udow. MCSSA is a statewide association whose membership includes county DHS board members as well as the DHS directors, district managers, and supervisors from all 83 counties in Michigan.
105. The FY 2007 DHS budget proposed by Governor Granholm and Director Udow failed to request a single additional foster care or adoption caseworker.
106. DHS officials and other system stakeholders have long known of the critical staff shortage within the State’s child welfare program. This severe staff shortage has existed at least since March 2002 when former Governor John Engler introduced the second of two early retirement initiatives for state employees, the first such initiative having occurred under Governor Engler’s authority in 1997. Ruth Mutchler, UAW 6000 Chairwoman of the
- 31 -

Family Independence Agency (“FIA”) labor team, then observed, “[o]ur staff is stretched thin. We are really fearful we will see more children die and vulnerable adults impacted, and in some places die, too, because we cannot service them.”
107. The Michigan League for Human Services more recently has noted, “since March 2002, when the most recent state employee Early Retirement initiative was announced, department staffing has declined by over 20%. The loss of a large share of DHS’ most experienced staff, together with significant increases in most of the department’s program caseloads, suggests that the burden on remaining staff has increased very significantly.”
108. Governor Engler’s March 2002 Early Retirement initiative came after a state summoned April 2001 “Foster Care Services Workload Study Report” by the Children’s Research Center (“CRC”) finding that 348.79 additional full-time foster care caseworkers were needed if the State was to provide services consistent with even a diluted set of agency foster care service standards used for purposes of the workforce study. CRC noted that “a strict interpretation of existing agency contact standards resulted in an insufficient number of cases that met standards. Therefore, a revised version of agency standards was applied for the purpose of the study.”
109. In its FY 2006 staffing allocation, DHS distributed 783.95 funded foster care caseworker positions among 83 county offices. By its own admission, DHS determined that a workforce of 783.95 foster care caseworkers constituted only 74.93% of actual agency workforce need.
110. As of May 6, 2006, DHS employed only 708.9 active foster care caseworkers in the field.
- 32 -

111. Because of this staff shortage, the FY 2006 DHS appropriation was made subject to the requirement that all DHS county offices refer foster children to private child placing agencies (“CPAs”) for out-of-home placement and services when the average DHS county office foster care caseload exceeds 20 per caseworker. Yet, DHS submitted renewal contracts to its CPAs, effective April 15, 2006, that require the CPAs to maintain general foster care caseloads of 30:1, 50% higher than DHS’ own caseload standard and almost three times the national standard. This incongruent and irrational approach to addressing the severe staffing shortage within DHS exemplifies the serious inadequacies in the current funding and management of the child welfare system in Michigan.
112. There has been no significant increase in payment rates to the CPAs to compensate for the increased – and inappropriately high – caseloads imposed on them by DHS. Without adequate income flow to engage the necessary caseworker staff to meet their contractual requirements, CPAs are forced to further overload caseworkers to the detriment of the vulnerable children they serve. DHS has simply passed the burden of heavy caseloads from its staff to CPA staff, without addressing the underlying problem.
113. DHS caseworkers are also burdened by a very high turnover rate, which threatens children’s safety by creating an unending churning of inexperienced caseworkers taking on new cases, resigning, and then turning their cases over to caseworkers with even less experience.
114. Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Protective Services in 2001 reported a foster care caseworker turnover rate “as high as 40 percent.”
115. The 2003-2004 FCRB Annual Report states that “there continues to be a high rate of turnover in foster care workers in Michigan. Turnover causes delays in the
- 33 -

implementation of service plans and court hearings, and adds stress to workers who must handle additional workload until new people are hired and trained.”
116. The high turnover also has reduced the overall level of experience within DHS’ caseworker and supervisory ranks, exacerbating the stresses imposed by excessive caseloads. Defendants have not hired sufficient additional caseworker staff or provided adequate training to its existing caseworkers to overcome this safety issue.
117. Further aggravating the high caseloads and inexperience among caseworkers and supervisors, Defendants have failed to take necessary steps to ensure that county offices comply with DHS policy and reasonable professional standards across Michigan’s 83 counties. This management failure has resulted in inconsistent case practice, with the quality of practice often varying tremendously from county to county. Children often fail to receive the benefits to which they are entitled. Defendants Do Not Perform Caseworker Visits Essential for the Safety of Foster Care Children
118. Regular caseworker visitation to foster homes is a vital element of any safe foster care system. Without the direct observations and remedial responses by trained caseworkers regarding the condition of foster children, foster homes, and foster care providers, the child welfare system cannot adequately monitor and assure child safety.
119. Pursuant to the DHS Foster Care Manual and standard social work practice, DHS caseworkers are required to visit all children assigned to them two times in the first month of out-of-home placement, and once per month thereafter. Caseworkers are also required to make monthly visits with the foster parent(s) or relative caregiver(s), as well as the biological parent(s). When children are returned home, caseworkers must meet with them weekly during the first month and twice a month thereafter.
- 34 -

120. DHS failed to conform with caseworker visitation requirements in the 2002 CFSR. Michigan’s PIP required DHS to raise its child visitation performance to 84% by May 2006. As of March 2006, DHS reported a score of only 68.92%.
121. One child residing in a group home in Wayne County reports that her numerous “housemates” rarely, if ever, see their caseworkers. She reports that the girls complain that their caseworkers routinely file court reports and case plans without having met with them in their home first to discuss the contents of these vital papers or the girls’ actual needs and desires. The children feel completely detached from and even uninformed about their caseworkers’ decisions to provide (or not provide) services to them and Defendants’ plans for their future. Defendants Place Children in Unlicensed Kinship Homes
122. Reasonable professional standards encourage the placement of children in foster care with relatives. Of the almost 19,000 children in DHS foster care custody as of June 2006, 6784 were placed with relatives. However, more than 90% of these relative foster care placements are unlicensed and not subject to the same level of scrutiny that licensed homes receive for purposes of assuring child safety.
123. Though relative foster care providers, as a general matter, are eligible for licensure in accordance with DHS policies, Defendants have not taken the necessary steps to screen and license these relative foster homes to ensure the well-being of the children placed with them.
124. These unlicensed foster homes do not receive monthly foster care maintenance payments from Defendants and, therefore, often lack the financial resources required to meet the basic needs of an additional child or children.
- 35 -

125. HHS determined in its 2002 CFSR that “Michigan places a large number of children with relatives but does not provide financial support beyond TANF and has no subsidized guardianship program. Frequently relative disruptions are caused because of financial issues for the relative caregiver.”
126. The Office of Children and Adult Licensing (“OCAL”) of DHS carries out the agency’s obligation to regulate CPAs and foster homes to assure the safety of all foster children. OCAL does not oversee unlicensed relative foster homes. DHS oversight of unlicensed relative foster placements comes solely from DHS caseworkers at the time of their periodic child visits, assuming these visits even occur.
127. Relative foster homes in Michigan receive fewer services and supports than their licensed counterparts. As Defendants increasingly rely on relative care, in part motivated by the desire to reduce costs in a tight fiscal climate, the safety breakdowns occasioned by the absence of proper DHS oversight will only worsen, and children will predictably suffer.
128. Defendants are aware that children are frequently placed with relatives who are unfit to provide safe temporary or long-term care. As determined by the State Auditor in its August 2005 “Performance Audit of the Children’s Foster Care Program,” DHS routinely fails to conduct criminal background checks on adult relatives and other immediate family members within the home before placing children in their physical custody. Defendants Maintain an Inadequate Number and Array of Foster Care Placements to Meet Children’s Needs
129. The chronic shortage of appropriate foster homes maintained by DHS frequently results in the placement of children wherever an open bed exists, rather than in the placement best-suited to the child’s needs based upon a complete assessment of all relevant
- 36 -

circumstances and an effort to match a child’s needs with a foster care provider’s capabilities. Children have frequently been placed in temporary shelters for extended periods of time, even though such shelters are designed to be short-term in nature and licensed for only limited stays. This practice directly contravenes State law and policy requiring children to be placed in the least restrictive, most family-like setting available. Children have been forced to spend nights in DHS offices due to the unavailability of beds – caseworkers refer to them as “lobby kids.”
130. In its 2002 CFSR, HHS determined that “initial placements did not match the needs of the children,” and “inadequate information about children’s behavior was provided to foster parents at initial placement, inadequate support was given to foster parents to prevent disruption and there were not enough specialized homes in Michigan.”
131. The number of licensed foster parents has dropped from 8201 in 2002 to about 7569, as of June 2006. The resulting severe shortage of available family foster homes strains the DHS placement system and leads to poor matches between child and foster home that are driven solely by the immediate availability of a bed, not the needs of the child and the capabilities of the foster family.
132. Due to the shortage of suitable foster homes capable of providing specialized or more intensive levels of care, Defendants too often send children to locations far from their homes, schools, communities and siblings, in violation of DHS policy. Though some remote or out-of-county placement decisions are made to accommodate available relative placements, too many of these distant placements are the result of a basic failure to recruit and retain a sufficient array of properly licensed and trained foster homes. Nor do Defendants recruit sufficient foster homes to keep sibling groups together.
- 37 -

133. In its 2002 CFSR, HHS found that Michigan had recruited too few foster homes capable of accepting large sibling groups and deemed the placement of children with their siblings as an “Area Needing Improvement.” Defendants Jail Foster Care Children Who Run From Inappropriate Placements
134. Due to the inadequate number of suitable foster care placements, Defendants frequently place foster children in foster homes or other settings that are inadequate to meet the individual needs of the child. As a result, a significant number of children in DHS foster care custody run away from their placements, often back to the homes of their parents or relatives.
135. DHS has developed an Away Without Legal Permission (“AWOLP”) project to address the issue of runaway children in its foster care custody. As described by DHS, the AWOLP project “is to track and locate missing Michigan wards of the state who are absent without legal permission from their legal placement. These children are considered at high risk of becoming involved in and/or being the victims of criminal activity. The AWOLP project works with police in locating these children and returning them to their legal home.”
136. Though DHS characterizes the AWOLP project as an initiative aimed at returning runaway children to their foster care placement, these children are actually treated as juvenile delinquents by Defendants when they are found. Under the AWOLP project, runaway foster children are frequently tracked down and apprehended by Warrant Enforcement Officers, handcuffed and transported to the county juvenile detention facility, where they are housed with juvenile offenders who have committed serious criminal offenses.
137. The AWOLP project violates federal law and state policy prohibiting the placement of foster care children into secure detention facilities. The practice is unnecessarily
- 38 -

punitive and inflicts further emotional harm on innocent children who already have suffered abuse and neglect in their homes and the emotional turmoil that accompanies separation from their families. Defendants Fail to Provide Adequate Foster Care Maintenance Payments
138. Federal law requires any state receiving federal foster care funds to pay foster care maintenance payments, or “per diem” rates, to childcare providers to cover the costs associated with care, including food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, school supplies, incidentals, liability insurance, and reasonable travel to the child’s home for visitation. Institutional care maintenance payments must also include administrative and operational costs.
139. The purpose of a foster care maintenance payment is to facilitate and support the placement of a child in a foster home by relieving the financial burden that caring for a child places on foster parents. Without adequate foster care maintenance payments, foster parents cannot meet the needs of the children in their care, and it becomes more difficult to recruit and maintain a sufficient number of foster placements.
140. DHS fails to provide foster care maintenance payments that fully meet the cost elements enumerated under federal statute. As of 2005, the United States Department of Agriculture estimated that the average monthly expenditures on a child by middle income, husband-wife families in the urban Midwest ranged from $733 to $815, net of health care, depending on the age of child. Yet, the average payment provided to foster parents by Defendants ranges from $433 to $535, depending on the child’s age.
141. The “level of care” system established by Defendants allows for incremental increases to foster care maintenance payments for children with intensive needs.
- 39 -

Foster parents frequently experience unwarranted difficulty from DHS caseworkers and supervisors when they request authorization for an enhanced Level I, II or III payment rate.
142. When a child is moved to a new foster home, the new foster parent with whom the child is placed is paid only a basic foster care maintenance rate, even if the child had been approved for an increased rate in the previous foster home. The newly assigned foster parent is then burdened with reestablishing the need for an elevated level of care rate. Vital services to children, therefore, are often disrupted or completely discontinued when a child is moved to a new foster home. This often aggravates the child’s behavioral and emotional problems and sets into motion a cycle of disrupted foster family placements and replacements. Defendants Move Children Repeatedly, Undermining Their Stability and Security
143. Generally accepted professional standards and DHS policy require that caseworkers avoid moving a child from one foster home or facility to another, because such moves result in a lack of stability and feelings of loss, rejection, and trauma for foster children, who are particularly vulnerable to such harms due to the abusive or neglectful circumstances that initially prompted their entry into foster care.
144. Children in the foster care custody of DHS are routinely moved a multitude of times during their prolonged stays in out-of-home care. This is particularly true for the approximately 6,300 permanent wards in DHS legal custody, most of whom have lingered in foster care for more than 24 months. Michigan’s most recent Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (“AFCARS”) data reports that 53.6% of the children in temporary care for at least 24 months, but less than 36 months, have experienced at least three foster care placements, and 63.3% of the children in temporary care over 36 months have experienced at least three placements.
- 40 -

145. During a June 19, 2006 radio interview, Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan reported that foster children in Wayne County experience an average of 5.8 placements during their lengthy stays in care.
146. In its 2002 CFSR, HHS found stability of foster care placement to be an “Area Needing Improvement” in Michigan, noting that, “[f]ocus groups with FIA staff, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), and FCRB members (conducted as part of the State’s self-assessment process) identified the following as affecting movement of children in foster care: initial placements do not match children’s needs; inadequate information is provided to foster parents regarding the child’s behavior when the child is initially placed; inadequate support of foster parents to prevent movement when children entering foster care have many problems; and specialized foster homes are lacking in Michigan.”
147. In addition, Defendants routinely refuse to authorize more intensive placements for children who manifest difficult emotional and behavioral problems. CPAs repeatedly find Defendants unwilling to authorize and pay specialized rates of care, even when a foster child’s behavior has already resulted in five or more disrupted placements in basic family foster care settings. Authorization of specialized care frequently follows six or seven placement disruptions, and then only after the child has experienced maximum instability and emotional harm. Children in DHS Custody Languish Without Adequate Permanency Services
148. Reasonable professional standards require that foster children should be placed in permanent, loving homes as quickly as possible, whether back with their parents or with an adoptive family. Social science research shows that children who do not grow up in
- 41 -

stable family environments are less likely to complete their education, to form healthy relationships, or to be otherwise prepared to live healthy, satisfying adult lives.
149. To that end, federal law requires states that receive federal funding for their foster care systems to assign foster children one of the following “permanency goals”: reunification with their parents or other legal guardian; placement with a fit and willing relative; adoption; or another planned permanent living arrangement. The state child welfare agency is required to provide casework and social services as required to achieve a child’s permanency goal as expediently as possible. This process is known as permanency planning.
150. Defendants fail to develop and implement permanency plans for many of the children in its foster care custody, a reality that is borne out by the growing number of children for whom parental rights have been terminated and who nonetheless linger in temporary care, many until they age out of the foster care system. Defendants Fail to Furnish Adequate Services to Permit Timely and Safe Reunification of Children With Their Parents When Appropriate
151. State law and DHS policy require that caseworkers work to reunify foster children with their parents once it is has been determined that the problem that merited removal has been alleviated and that a safe return is possible. Under the so-called “Binsfield” reforms, a package of 1997 statutory revisions to Michigan’s child welfare laws implemented under the leadership of then Lieutenant Governor Connie Binsfield, DHS is required to return children with a goal of reunification to their parents’ home within one year of removal. Though unusual circumstances on the part of the parents may warrant an exception, DHS policy provides that that “[t]his 12 month goal is not to be extended or delayed because of a change in the caseworker or a case transfer.”
- 42 -

152. Defendants failed to meet the HHS national indicator for length of time to achieve reunification in the 2002 CFSR. HHS requires that at least 76.2% of all children reunified with their biological parents in the period under review have done so within 12 months of their initial removal from home. Michigan scored only 52.9% in 2002, and its performance subsequently plummeted to 29.70% as of June 2005.
153. As explained by the FCRB in its 2003-2004 Annual Report, “the most prevalent barriers to permanency for temporary wards are those related to parental issues. Among the parental issues, three of the most challenging are concerns related to substance abuse, mental health, and domestic violence.” Yet, “timely and high quality services are not consistently available throughout [Michigan] to address substance abuse and mental health issues.”
154. The availability of these necessary services for parents in Michigan has only declined in recent years. The state’s Family Reunification Program has seen its budget sliced from five million dollars in FY 2003 to less than four million dollars in FY 2007, a reduction of more than 20%.
155. Further, Defendants often develop reunification case plans for parents that are boilerplate in form, and insufficient to address the parents’ individual needs.
156. The FCRB made numerous recommendations regarding the reunification process in its 2001 Annual Report, including that DHS (1) facilitate psycho-social assessments for all involved parents and incorporate recommendations from the assessments into Parent Agency Treatment Plans; (2) require caseworkers to develop Parent Agency Treatment Plans in conjunction with children (age permitting), parents, and such other professionals as appropriate in order to arrive at a plan which takes into account the specific needs and capabilities of all parties involved; (3) research and develop more effective parenting classes that will address the
- 43 -

specific needs of parents and their children; and (4) expand parent mentoring programs using trained volunteers in order to provide parents with additional resources as appropriate.
157. DHS has not adequately implemented these critical recommendations, nor has it requested the additional funding and supports needed for the delivery of minimally adequate reunification services. The FCRB reported in its 2005 Annual Report that, “in the majority of cases reviewed, the Parent Agency Treatment Plan-Service Agreement provided by DHS was not signed, indicating that the parent was not involved in the development of the agreement and may not have understood the requirements listed. Of the parents responding to the Board’s inquiry into this matter, the vast majority felt they had little input, and that the Agreement was basically developed by the caseworker and sent to the parent for signature.”
158. The use of out-of-county foster care placements (due to an inadequate service array in many locations) makes it practically impossible for parents to regularly visit their children and to sustain connections, as necessary for successful reunification. By placing children with the permanency goal of reunification in distant or inaccessible locations, Defendants create a substantial obstacle to the reunification of a child with his parents. Defendants Fail to Timely Place Children Who Cannot Return Home into Permanent Adoptive Homes
159. Federal and state law and reasonable professional standards require that Defendants make prompt efforts to find foster children an alternative permanent home, typically through adoption, when reunification with their parents is not possible. Under the Binsfield reforms, children who cannot be reunified are to be freed for adoption through the termination of the parental rights (“TPR”) within one year of removal.
160. At present, over 6300 children in Michigan are legally free for adoption. However, DHS does not have a sufficient number of adoption caseworkers and supporting
- 44 -

resources to recruit adoptive homes effectively or to perform the home studies and related assessments required for matching children with willing and appropriate adoptive homes; nor are Defendants making adequate efforts to recruit adoptive homes for all those children in need of them.
161. In its 2005 Annual Report, the FCRB described the typical foster child awaiting adoption while in DHS custody as “10-17 years in age; multiple foster care placements; chaotic/abusive history prior to coming into care; three or more years in the foster care system; oppositional and defiant behavior toward adults; physical and verbal aggression; poor peer relationships; behavioral and academic problems in school.” This profile aptly demonstrates the profound and lasting harm routinely caused to children who linger in DHS foster care custody without a permanent home, and the vital importance of a fully staffed and well-functioning adoption system to address the needs of these oftentimes troubled children.
162. Defendants have long understood the importance of adoption services, and the high individual and societal costs of failing to effectively provide such services. In 1992, DHS adopted Direction 14 providing, “[e]very child deserves a loving, nurturing family. For most children, a family is their birthright. For too many others, that right somehow has been violated and they await adoption through a complex process . . . . We believe that the cost of inaction is enormous and that each year we wait, a larger long-term burden is placed on society – a burden that causes more children to experience needless and preventable pain and suffering. We believe there is no excuse for inaction.”
163. On September 2, 2003, the Adoption Work Group that had been formed by Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan reported critical failures in Michigan’s provision of adoption and permanency services:
- 45 -

The first involves temporary wards and the requirement that each child has an appropriate written case plan. The federal [CFSR] review concluded that despite Michigan’s policy requirements for preparation of such plans, they were not being developed in many cases. Further, it found that case plans were not being consistently developed jointly with the children and parents . . . . Case plans are often generic and do not address individualized family needs. Appropriate case plans developed early in the process can insure that there are fewer obstacles to permanency later. Michigan was also cited as needing improvement in providing a process to ensure that a permanency hearing is held at least every 12 months. The [CFSR] review found that the requirement was met in only 59 percent of the cases. 164. Despite the fact that the Adoption and Safe Families Act requires Defendants to search for potential adoptive families simultaneously with its efforts towards family reunification – a practice known as concurrent planning – Defendants delay adoptive recruitment until after a TPR order is secured. Even then, Defendants often take several months to simply reassign a case file from the foster care worker to an adoptions worker so that adoptive planning can proceed. 165. Some children are never referred for adoption at all, because, in the view of Defendants, they are not “adoptable.” Many of these children have physical, emotional, or cognitive disabilities. For various reasons, they cannot be reunified with their parents. But rather than pursuing individualized adoption strategies for these children, Defendants leave them to languish in foster care. 166. Adoptions are also delayed, or even disrupted, due to Defendants’ unreasonable refusal to authorize increased levels of care for children with special needs where appropriate. Federal law does not permit the payment of monthly adoption subsidies in excess of the child’s monthly foster care maintenance payment at the time of adoptive placement. Defendants’ refusal to authorize heightened foster care per diems, therefore, drives away fit and
- 46 -

willing adoptive parents who cannot carry the financial risks associated with a child with special medical, psychological and educational needs absent government support.
167. Though DHS is required by law to list all children free for adoption on the State’s adoption registry, known as the Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange (“MARE”), many such children are never listed on MARE. Defendants Fail to Deliver Adequate Health Care Services to Children in DHS Custody
168. Defendants are required to provide for the medical, dental and mental health needs of all children in state foster care.
169. DHS policy requires that all children in DHS custody are to have a physical examination within 30 days of their initial foster care placement, with regular examinations to occur every 14 months after the initial exam. DHS is also required to provide all children in its custody with a dental exam within 90 days of placement, unless the child had an exam in the 12 months prior to placement or is less than 4 years old.
170. The 2002 CFSR reported that Defendants failed to substantially conform to the well-being outcome requiring that “children receive adequate services to meet their physical and mental health needs.” According to the CFSR Final Report, “[a] key concern identified was that mental health services were not always available or of sufficient quality to meet the children’s needs. In addition, in some cases children did not receive adequate monitoring to ensure that recommended mental health services were actually received.” The CFSR Statewide Assessment noted “the lack of adequate funding in the State for mental health services.”
171. The 2005 Annual Report of the FCRB found, “[t]he majority of foster care workers who come before the Review Board have minimal training or experience in assessing
- 47 -

whether mental health services or medications prescribed are having the desired impact on the child. Even when it is obvious the child is not benefiting from either, there is a reluctance on the part of most caseworkers to advocate for a change in treatment provider or reevaluation of the medication, as they do not believe that they have the expertise to do so.” The FCRB recommended that DHS provide more suitable training to caseworkers on mental health issues, and that necessary steps be taken to provide “adequate funding and accessibility to comprehensive and appropriate mental health assessment services for all children who come into the state foster care system.”
172. Additionally, DHS providers too often resort to medicating children with difficult behavior with psychotropic drugs which, in many instances, are not medically appropriate.
173. The ongoing failure of Defendants to provide adequate mental health services to the children in its legal custody is exacerbated by the high incidence of diagnosable mental health disorders in the foster care population.
174. Defendants also fail to provide foster children with their required federally-subsidized Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (“EPSDT”) program services, including periodic medical, psychological and dental screenings aimed at identifying and treating children’s health needs.
175. According to a statewide external quality review of EPSDT services for calendar year 2001, 63.45% of foster children in Michigan did not receive basic EPSDT screenings and services. Another 12.27% of the Title IV-E wards in Michigan received no health services at all.
- 48 -

176. These findings were made seven years after DHS (through its predecessor agency, FIA) adopted Direction 10, “Improving Child’s Health through EPSDT (1994),” which mandated a “number of initiatives to increase the EPSDT participation of Medicaid eligible children.” Defendants have failed to implement Direction 10.
177. Two years after the statewide external quality review of EPSDT services, the Michigan Statewide Independent Living Council reported that “for many years, the state of Michigan has failed to comply with its obligations under the EPSDT program which guarantees comprehensive medical care to children eligible for Medicaid. As a result, children on Medicaid who are entitled to comprehensive preventive and treatment services are not getting them.”
178. The state of Michigan spent only $1,581 per foster child enrollee on Medicaid services in federal fiscal year 2001, the fifth lowest rate in the nation. In contrast, the average national rate in 2001 was $4,336 per foster child enrollee, and the high was $19,408 per enrollee by the state of Maine.
179. DHS also fails to maintain the basic capacity to identify the types and volume of health needs of foster care children, specifically in relation to children with disabilities who often require special medical services. According to the “Developmental Disabilities FiveYear Strategic State Plan, Fiscal Years 2002-2006,” jointly prepared by the Michigan Developmental Disabilities Council and the Michigan Department of Community Health, “although it is clear that many children with disabilities are in foster care, it is difficult to identify what types of disabilities are represented because of a limited reporting capacity. It is therefore critical for the agency to increase its data collecting capacity to identify children with disabilities more specifically to assure that appropriate supports are being provided.” Without sufficient records, it is impossible for Defendants to plan for the care of children in its custody.
- 49 -

180. Defendants fail to adequately provide for the health needs of children in private agency placements. CPAs frequently experience long waits simply to obtain a foster child’s Medicaid card from DHS, even though all children in state foster care are automatically eligible for Medicaid coverage. In one such instance, a young child was removed from her home due to medical neglect resulting in serious dental and oral health issues; Defendants did not furnish her Medicaid card for another six months.
181. Defendants also often fail to furnish CPAs and foster parents with complete and accurate medical histories of the children in their care, making it impossible for foster care providers to address the children’s medical needs. This failure is aggravated by Defendants’ practice of moving foster children among multiple foster placements. Defendants Fail to Deliver Adequate Educational Services to Children in DHS Custody
182. Generally accepted professional standards provide that all children in foster care custody must attend school full-time; be provided educational assessments and services; receive the education most appropriate to their needs, including special education; receive supplementary educational support as necessary; and be helped to achieve the maximum level of formal education of which they are capable.
183. As reported by HHS in the 2002 CFSR, Defendants fail to adequately meet the basic educational needs of the children in its foster care custody. The CFSR noted that, “according to the Statewide Assessment, focus groups with FCRB members and CASA (convened as part of the state’s self-assessment process) identified a lack of tutoring services and special education services for children in foster care.” In a mail survey of FIA foster parents, 45% of respondents did not feel adequately supported by their caseworker in addressing the educational needs of the children in their care.
- 50 -

184. Foster children frequently moved among placements are forced to change schools repeatedly. It is not unusual for children in foster care who have experienced multiple placements to fall two years or more behind in their schooling because of repeated absences from class or the disruptive process of school enrollment and reenrollment.
185. Additionally, DHS caseworkers do not regularly or adequately collaborate with schoolteachers and school administrators regarding the special needs presented by foster children, most of whom frequently enter new schools without knowing anyone, and with learning problems that have not been addressed. Many of these foster children manifest their feelings of instability, loss, grief, and anger through disruptive behaviors in the classroom. Frequently, and without sufficient, if any, intervention by DHS, elementary schools and high schools in Michigan place these children on suspension or probation, rather than addressing the very real needs they present, so as to remove obstacles to their learning.
186. Defendants’ failure to assure proper educational outcomes for foster children is documented in a study by Wayne State University’s Research Group on Homelessness and Poverty that determined that 43% of foster children who had aged out of the Macomb and Wayne County systems in 2002 and 2003 were high school dropouts. Defendants Fail to Prepare Teens in Foster Care for Life As Adults
187. In making the transition to life as an independent, healthy adult, it is important for a young person leaving foster care to have a number of key services in place, including a stable place to live; job training or education; Medicaid or other medical insurance; and any government benefits for which they may be eligible. It is essential that Defendants ensure that children who are “aging out” of care have all these needs met before they leave the
- 51 -

custody of the State. Yet, more than 400 children age out of the Michigan foster care system each year without the necessary supports and services.
188. In January 2004, Professor Gary Anderson of the Michigan State University School of Social Work published “Aging Out of Foster Care in Michigan,” finding that “the State of Michigan faces a significant challenge in responding to young adults who age out of care. For many years, there was no funding for services and assistance for young people who in effect were kicked out of the child welfare system at age 18. The outcomes for these youth were harsh with high rates of homelessness, unemployment, and involvement in the criminal justice system and low rates of college attendance.”
189. The report recommended that DHS (1) increase access to life skills and employment training, (2) increase funding for post-secondary education, (3) provide access to health care coverage, and (4) improve access to employment pathways. It also recommended that DHS utilize proper data management and evaluation techniques in implementing these changes: “[t]here is a paucity of centralized data regarding services provided to youth aging out of foster care and what happens to youth after they leave the child welfare system. Assessment and evaluation of the processes and outcomes of programs or interventions identified in the implementation strategies should be conducted.”
190. In 2004, DHS turned down $1.2 million in federal Chafee funds, resources targeted to help youth aging out of foster care, because DHS’ dwindling workforce was insufficient to process or expend the funds as required by federal guidelines. The federal government reallocated this $1.2 million among other states, including neighboring Ohio. As noted by Sharon Peters, Executive Director of Michigan’s Children, “[i]t’s an outrage. With
- 52 -

Michigan being a donor state already, putting in more federal dollars than we receive back, it is unacceptable for us to not be getting federal resources for vulnerable young people.”
191. Defendants continue to ignore these problems in the current FY 2007 budget cycle.
192. DHS officials readily admit the challenges and hardships experienced by teen foster children. Director Udow stated on January 26, 2006, “[e]very year, hundreds of children age out of our foster care system without a connection to a caring adult. They face enormous challenges staying in school, finding safe and stable housing, supporting themselves financially, and getting needed physical and mental health care.” While Director Udow has announced a new state task force to study the issue, this comes fully two years after DHS learned of the aging out crisis in Michigan. The time for study has long since passed, yet further study, rather than concrete, fully funded and aggressive action, is now underway.
193. A recent study conducted by the Wayne State University Research Group on Homelessness and Poverty revealed that almost half of the children who had aged out of the Macomb and Wayne County child welfare systems in 2002 and 2003 were homeless at some point during their first three years on their own, and fully 25% were homeless immediately after aging out. 16.7% lived on the streets, in cars, or in abandoned buildings. These youth were unemployed for 48% of the time since aging out and earned a median income of only $598.33 per month. Defendants Squander Available Federal Funds
194. Pursuant to Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq., the federal government provides matching funds to all state-managed child welfare systems to reimburse a portion of the costs of maintaining abused and neglected children in foster care. The
- 53 -

Title IV-E foster care program is an open-ended entitlement that provides matching funds for all eligible children without the imposition of a federal spending cap. It is the obligation of the states to meet certain federal criteria to access and sustain the flow of Title IV-E funding.
195. HHS conducted an audit of Michigan’s Title IV-E foster care program in March 2004 to determine whether DHS was properly determining eligibility and accurately submitting costs for federal reimbursement. HHS found that DHS had failed to comply with federal program standards and required the State to return $283,223.89 to the federal government.
196. In response, HHS required DHS to submit a Title IV-E Program Improvement Plan (“Title IV-E PIP”) setting forth a remedial process to assure compliance with Title IV-E eligibility rules and regulations. DHS is currently implementing the Title IV-E PIP and, as a result of a statewide audit of all Title IV-E foster care case files, has disclosed that the state may be required to return another $40 million to the federal government due to erroneous eligibility determinations.
197. Specifically, as a result of the internal state audit, DHS has restated its statewide total of Title IV-E eligible and reimbursed foster children from 5101 as of February 2006 to 3817 as of April 2006. Similarly, DHS restated its Wayne County total of Title IV-E eligible and reimbursed foster children from 1298 as of February 2006 to 670 as of April 2006.
198. In December 2005, the Office of the Auditor General in Michigan released its “Financial Audit Including the Provisions of the Single Audit Act of the Department of Human Services.” Having reviewed the federally subsidized child welfare programs operated by DHS, the state auditor concluded:
- 54 -

Federal expenditures for the Foster Care Program totaled approximately $253.4 million for the two-year period ended September 30, 2004. We identified known questioned costs of $8,924,359 and known and likely questioned costs totaling $47,152,137.
. . . FOR THE SECOND CONSECUTIVE AUDIT, WE RECOMMEND THAT DHS IMPROVE ITS INTERNAL CONTROL OVER THE FOSTER CARE PROGRAM TO ENSURE ITS COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS . . . . (emphasis in original). 199. The state auditor further identified in relation to the Title IV-E adoption assistance program “known and likely questioned costs totaling $45,559,881” and in relation to the Chafee Foster Care Independent Living Program “known and likely questioned costs totaling $7,026,735.” 200. In total, the State Auditor has identified $99,738,753 in known or likely questioned costs that DHS may be required to reimburse to the United States government because of accounting irregularities and a lack of suitable controls within DHS over program eligibility determinations and payment processes. Such mismanagement of the state’s federally subsidized child welfare programs is unconscionable. 201. An appropriately managed child welfare system in the United States qualifies about 50% of its foster care population for Title IV-E reimbursements from the federal government. Prior to the HHS Title IV-E audit and Title IV-E PIP implementation in Michigan, DHS reported a Title IV-E utilization or “penetration” rate of only 36% in 2002 and 33.8% in 2003. In 2004, the average penetration rate in the United States was 54%. DHS fails to access millions of dollars in available federal funds to finance the State’s overburdened child welfare system, instead drawing down on limited state funds far more than prudent or necessary.
- 55 -

Defendants Have Failed to Implement an Electronic Management Information System That Conforms to Federal Standards and Meets Agency Need
202. Given the large population of children in foster care custody and the number and variety of state and private agencies involved in child welfare service delivery and oversight, it is critical that Defendants maintain an efficient data information system that facilitates the timely and accurate provision of services, a performance-based management approach, and the expeditious transmission of important funding documentation.
203. FIA, the predecessor agency to DHS, contracted with Unisys in 1993 to develop and install Michigan’s Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (“SACWIS”), a computer system called the Services Worker Support System (“SWSS”). The SWSS system has a protective services module, known as SWSS CPS, and a foster care, adoption and juvenile justice module, known as SWSS FAJ. As of September 1998, Michigan had expended over $31 million on the development of SWSS. To this day, however, SWSS has not been certified as conforming to federal SACWIS requirements, including the mandate that it be a unified system. Indeed, as noted by HHS in the course of Michigan’s 2002 CFSR, “the existence of multiple case management systems would be problematic in a SACWIS review.” Michigan is now identified by HHS as one of only 16 states without an operational SACWIS conforming to federal requirements or at least subject to an ongoing compliance assessment, 23 years after the State first contracted with Unisys.
204. As recently summarized by Ruth Mutchler, a senior union representative for DHS caseworkers, “the new SWSS FAJ computer program continues to cause considerable grief and makes an impossible job harder.” Moreover, stakeholders throughout the system are concerned with the quality and accuracy of the SWSS FAJ database due to a lack of proper controls and quality assurance in data input.
- 56 -

Defendants Fail to Provide Children in DHS Custody With Meaningful Court Access 205. Under Michigan law, a lawyer guardian ad litem (“L-GAL”) must be
appointed to represent the minor child in every child protective proceeding instituted under the Juvenile Code in Michigan.
206. The quality and scope of legal representation provided by many L-GALs in Michigan is too frequently impaired, if not completely eviscerated, by oppressive caseloads. Foster children from across the state commonly complain that they rarely, if ever, meet with their appointed counsel in dependency proceedings. The failure of appointed counsel to satisfy this fundamental element of representation prevents L-GALs from communicating with their client children before appearing in court on the child’s behalf. The dependency process in Michigan provides little or no meaningful opportunity for the children in foster care to enforce their basic rights.
207. As one example, the L-GALs in Genesee County carry caseloads of 450 cases or higher. Due to the oppressive demands generated by such excessive caseloads, the LGALs are not able to interview their minor clients on a regular basis to determine their best interests and needs, to conduct complete and fully competent independent investigations of all cases, or to be fully prepared for court appearances and hearings.
208. In its 2005 Annual Report, the FCRB noted, “[i]nformation provided to the review board by the caseworkers, foster care providers, and in some cases, the children themselves, would indicate that the L-GALs in many cases are not fulfilling their statutory responsibility. Reasons given to the Board by the L-GALs include inadequate financial compensation and large client caseloads.” Regardless of the reason(s) for this pervasive non-
- 57 -

performance by L-GALs, Plaintiff Children ultimately suffer the loss of meaningful access to the dependency court.
COUNT I (Substantive Due Process under the U.S. Constitution) (Asserted by all named Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Children) 209. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 210. A state assumes an affirmative duty under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to protect a child from harm when it takes that child into its foster care custody. 211. The foregoing actions and inactions of Defendants Jennifer Granholm, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne and James Hennessey, in their official capacities, constitute a failure to meet the affirmative duty to protect from harm all named Plaintiffs and class members, which is a substantial factor leading to, and proximate cause of, the violation of the constitutionally-protected liberty and privacy interests of all named Plaintiffs and class members. 212. The forgoing actions and inactions of Defendants Jennifer Granholm, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne and James Hennessey, in their official capacities, constitute a policy, pattern, practice and/or custom that is inconsistent with the exercise of reasonable professional judgment and amounts to deliberate indifference to the constitutionally-protected rights and liberty and privacy interests of all named Plaintiffs and class members. As a result, all named Plaintiffs and class members have been and are being deprived of the substantive due process rights conferred upon them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
- 58 -

213. These substantive due process rights include, but are not limited to: the right to protection from unnecessary harm while in government custody; the right to a living environment that protects foster children’s physical, mental and emotional safety and well-being; the right to services necessary to prevent foster children from deteriorating or being harmed physically, psychologically, or otherwise while in government custody, including but not limited to the right to safe and secure foster care placements, appropriate monitoring and supervision, appropriate planning and services directed toward ensuring that the child can leave foster care and grow up in a permanent family, and adequate medical, dental, psychiatric, psychological, and educational services; the right to treatment and care consistent with the purpose of the assumption of custody by DHS; the right not to be maintained in custody longer than is necessary to accomplish the purposes to be served by taking the child into custody; the right to receive care, treatment and services determined and provided through the exercise of accepted, reasonable professional judgment; and the right to be placed in the least restrictive placement according to a foster child’s needs.
COUNT II (First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution)
(Asserted by all named Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Children) 214. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 215. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants, Jennifer Granholm, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne and James Hennessey, amount to a pattern, practice, or custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and of deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and are the cause of the violation of such rights. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, all named Plaintiffs and class members have been and are being severely
- 59 -

harmed and deprived of the liberty interests, privacy interests and associational rights conferred on them by the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution not to be deprived of a child-parent or a child-sibling family relationship.
COUNT III (The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq.)
(Asserted by all named Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Children) 216. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated herein as if fully set forth. 217. As a result of the foregoing actions and omissions by Defendants, Jennifer Granholm, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne and James Hennessey, in their official capacities, Defendants are engaging in a policy, pattern, practice, and/or practice of depriving all named Plaintiffs and class members of rights conferred on them by the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, as amended by the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (collectively the “Adoption Assistance Act”) and the regulations promulgated under the Act, 45 C.F.R. Parts 1355-1357. These rights include, but are not limited to: the right to timely written case plans containing mandated elements, and to the implementation of these plans; the right to placement in foster homes or other settings that conform to national professional standards and are subject to a uniformly applied set of standards; the right to have a petition to terminate parental rights filed, or have a compelling reason documented why such a petition has not been filed, in accordance with specified, statutory standards and time frames; the right of children whose permanency goal is adoption to planning and services to obtain a permanent placement, including documentation of the steps taken to secure permanency; the right to services to facilitate the child’s return to his family home or the permanent placement of the child; the right to services that protect children’s safety and health; the right to have health and educational
- 60 -

records reviewed, updated, and supplied to foster parents or foster care providers with whom the child is placed at the time of placement; the right to receive services in a child welfare system that has an information system adequate to permit the State to make fully informed decisions concerning each foster child’s best interests; and the right of each Plaintiff child to foster care maintenance payments paid to the foster parents or foster care providers with whom the child is placed that cover the actual cost (and the cost of providing) the Plaintiff child’s food, clothing, shelter, daily supervision, school supplies, reasonable travel to visitation with family, and other expenses; and in the case of a Plaintiff child who has reached 16 years of age, the right to services needed to help the child prepare for the transition from foster care to independent living.. 42 U.S.C. Sections 671(a)(10); 671(a)(16); 671(a)(22); 672(b) and (c); 675(1); 675(5)(D); 675(5)(E); 622(b)(10)(B); 45 C.F.R. Section 1355.20.
COUNT IV (Procedural Due Process) (Asserted by all named Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Children) 218. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 219. The foregoing actions and inactions of the Defendants amount to a pattern, practice, and custom of failure to exercise reasonable professional judgment and of deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs, and are the cause of the violation of such rights. As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have been and are being harmed and deprived of both federal and state-created liberty or property rights without due process of law in violation of their constitutional rights. 220. Defendants’ actions and inactions have resulted and are continuing to result in deprivations of the following federal-law entitlements to which Plaintiff Children have a
- 61 -

constitutionally protected interest: the entitlements arising from the Adoption Assistance Act and regulations promulgated thereunder; and
221. Defendants’ actions and inactions have resulted and are continuing to result in deprivations of the following state-law entitlements to which each Plaintiff child has a constitutionally protected interest:
a. the entitlements arising from MCL § 722.954c(2) and (5), requiring DHS, and its supervising child placing agencies, inter alia, to provide each child with a medical examination when the child is first placed in foster care and to develop a medical passport for each child who comes under its care;
b. the entitlements arising from MCL § 722.954b(3), requiring DHS, and its supervising child placing agencies, to require that its workers make monthly visits to the home or facility in which each child is placed and that its workers monitor and assess in-home visitation between the child and his or her parents;
c. the entitlements arising from MCL § 722.954b(2), requiring DHS, and its supervising child placing agencies, to submit the necessary information for inclusion of a foster child in the statewide adoption registry if an adoptive family has not been identified within 90 days after entry of an order of termination of parental rights;
d. the entitlements arising from MCL § 722.954b(1), requiring DHS, and its supervising child placing agencies, to strive to achieve a permanent placement for each child in its care, including either a safe return to the child’s home or implementation of a permanency plan, no more than 12 months after the child is removed from his or her home; and
e. the entitlements arising from MCL § 712.18f(3), requiring DHS, and its supervising child placing agencies, inter alia, to provide for the placement of each child in the
- 62 -

most family-like setting available and in as close proximity to the child’s parents’ home as is consistent with the child’s best interests and special needs.
COUNT V (Breach of Federal Contractual Obligations to Third Party Beneficiaries)
(Asserted by all named Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Children) 222. Each and every allegation of the Complaint is incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 223. Under Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act, states receive certain federal monies so long as they enter into plans approved by the United States Department of Health and Human Services and comply with their terms. Michigan receives federal funding under Titles IV-B and IV-E of the Social Security Act and has submitted such State Plans, which are legal contracts between the federal government and the State, and such plans have been approved. In these State Plan contracts, the State agrees to provide child welfare, foster care and adoption services to Plaintiffs in accordance with specific statutes, regulations and policies and all applicable federal regulations and other official issuances of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. 224. As a result of their foregoing actions and inactions, Defendants have breached and continue to breach their obligations under Michigan’s State Plan contracts, and all Plaintiffs, as the intended direct third-party beneficiaries to these State Plan contracts, are (i) being denied their rights under law to the services and benefits that the state of Michigan is obligated to provide to them under such contracts, and (ii) being harmed thereby.
- 63 -

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
225. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Children respectfully request that this
Honorable Court:
a. Assert jurisdiction over this action;
b. Order that Plaintiff Children 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:
i. Defendants’ violation of Plaintiff Children’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
ii. Defendants’ violation of Plaintiff Children’s rights under the First, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution;
iii. Defendants’ violation of Plaintiff Children’s rights under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq.;
iv. Defendants’ violation of Plaintiff Children’s right to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and
v. Defendants’ breach of their contractual obligations to Plaintiff Children under the state of Michigan’s Title IV-E and Title IVB state plans.
d. Permanently enjoin Defendants from subjecting Plaintiff Children to practices that violate their rights;
e. Order appropriate remedial relief to ensure Defendants’ future compliance with their legal obligations to Plaintiff Children;
f. Award to Plaintiff Children the reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1988, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(e) and (h); and
- 64 -

g. Grant such other and further equitable relief as the Court deems just, necessary and proper to protect Plaintiff Children from further harm by Defendants.
DATED: August 8, 2006 Respectfully Submitted: By: _______________________________________ MARCIA ROBINSON LOWRY (Bar No. 1187053) SUSAN LAMBIASE (Bar No. 2099489) SARA MICHAEL BARTOSZ (Bar No. 6194058) ELISSA HENDLER (Bar No. 4269569) CHILDREN’S RIGHTS 330 Seventh Avenue, Fourth Floor New York, New York 10001 Phone: (212) 683-2210 Facsimile: (212) 683-4015 By: _______________________________________ RICHARD LANDAU (P42223) HEIDI NAASKO (P58783) DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, Michigan 48243 Phone: (313) 568-6800 Facsimile: (313) 568-6893
- 65 -

 
 Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DWAYNE B., by his next friend, John Stempfle; et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et al.,
Defendants. /

Case No. 06-13548 Honorable Nancy G. Edmunds

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS [16]

This lawsuit seeks class-wide declaratory and injunc tive relief to remedy alleged ongoing failures of Michigan’s Governor, the Director of Michigan’s Department of Human Services (“DHS”), the Direc tor of DHS Oper ations, and the Director of DHS Children’s Services (collectively “Defendants”) to care for and protect Michigan’s foster children and to provide them and their families the child welfare services required by the United States Constitution and federal law. This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Defendants’ motion is DENIED because: (1) Plaintiff Children’s representatives do not lack the capacity to bring this lawsuit on their behalf, (2) Plaintiff Children’s complaint satisfies the threshold pleading requirements for Article III standing, and (3) this case does not present the sort of except ional circumstances that justif y a federal court’s refusal to decide a case in deference to the State.

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 2 of 17
I. Background Plaintiff Children allege that Defendants – each an official responsible for the
administration of DHS – operate a foster care system that fails to protect the safety and well-being of the children entrustedto its care, in violation ofthe United States Constitution and federal law. The named Plaintiff Children’s complaint seeks, for themselves and for the nearly 19,000 similarly situated children lingering in state foster care, the declaratory and prospective inj unctive relief they claim is necessary to fix Michigan’s child welfare system so that it complies wit h their constitutional and federal rights. Their complaint alleges the following.
Myriad systemic f ailings injure foster children in Michigan, including the named Plaintiffs, because Defendants: (1) fail toensure that overloaded caseworkers make even the bare minimum monthly visits to foster children necessary to monitor their safety and well-being; (2) place approximately 40% of foster children with unlicensed relatives, who do not receive the financial and ohter support provided to non-relatvi e foster care providers; (3) fail to find permanent families for a grownig population of childrenwho are legal orphans growing up in foster care; and (4) fail to re cruit and maintain foster and adoptive homes sufficient to meet the foreseeable needs ofchildren coming into foster care. S( ee generally Compl. ¶¶ 96-208.) These syset mic deficiencies have been known to Defendants for years (see Compl. ¶¶ 89-95) and cause harm to the named Plaintiff Children and those similarly situated in the foster care system by th reatening their basic health, saf ety, education, security, stability, and well-being. (Compl. ¶¶ 96-208.)
II. Motion to Dismiss Standard 2

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 3 of 17
A Rule 12 (b) (6) motion to dsimiss tests the sufficiency ofa complaint. In a light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court must assume that the plaintiff’s factual allegations are true and determine whether the complain t states a valid claim for relief. See Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994); Bower v. Federal Expres s Corp., 96 F.3d 200, 203 (6 th Cir. 1996); Forest v. United States Postal Serv,. 97 F.3d 137, 139 (6th Cir. 1996). This standard of review “‘requir es more than the bar e assertion of legal conclusions.’” In re Sofamor Danek Group, Inc., 123 F.3d 394, 400 (6th Cir. 1997) (quotingColumbia Natural Resources, Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F.3d 1101, 1109 (6 th Cir. 1995)). The complaint must include direct o r indirect allegations "respecting all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory." See In re DeLorean Motor C o., 991 F.2d 1236, 1240 (6 th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). A court should not grant a 12(b)(6) motion unless the movant shows “beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove noset of facts in support of his claim."Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). The Court’s function “is not to weigh the evidence or assess the credibility of witnesses but rat her to ex amine the complaint and determine whether the plaintiff has pleaded a cognizable claim.” Marks v. Newcourt Credit Group, Inc., 342 F.3d 444, 452 (6th Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted). III. Analysis
Defendants’ motion argues that Plaintiffs’ lawsuit must be dismissed, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12( b)(6), because: (1) Plaintiff Children’s representatives lack the capacity to bring thislawsuit on their behalf, (2) Plaintiff Children’s complaint fails to satisfy the threshold pleadni g requirements for Article III standing, and (3) this Court should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction over this lawsuit under either the Younger or Burford abstention doctrines. This Court addresses each of these arguments
3

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 4 of 17
in turn.
A. Whether The Named Plaintiffs’ Representatives Have Capacity to Sue
Defendants first argue that the nam ed Plaintiffs’ representatives do not have the
capacity, under the law ofthe forum state (Michigan), to bring this lawsuit, and thus it must
be dismissed. This Court disagrees.
Defendants correctly construe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 17(b) and 17(c) and
observe that the forum state’s capacity rules govern who may bring suit in feder al court when acting in a representative capacity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b)1, 17(c)2 See Brimhall v.
Simmons, 338 F.2d 702, 706 (6th Cir. 1964) (construing Fed. R. Civ. P. Rules 17(b) and
(c) and holding that “the capacityto sue by one acting in a representative capacity shall be
determined by the law of the state in which the district court is held.”). Defendants’
argument for dismissal, however, is premised on a misinterpretation of Michigan law.
1Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(b) provides in pertinent part that:
(b) Capacity to Sue or be Sued. The capacity of an individual, other than one acting in a represent ative capacity, to sue or be sued shall be determined by the law of the individual’s domicile. . . . In all other cases capacity to sue or be sued shall be det ermined by the law of the state in which the district court is held . . . .
Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b) (emphasis added). 2Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c) provides in pertinent part that:
(c) Infants or Incompetent Perso ns. Whenever an i nfant . . . has a representative, such asa general guardian, committee,conservator, or other like fiduciary, the representative may sue or defend on behalf of the infant or incompetent person. An infant . . . who does not hav e a duly appointed representative, may sue by a next frei nd or by a guardian adlitem. The court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant . . . not otherwise represented in an ac tion or shall make such ot her order as it deems proper for the protection of the infant . . . .
4

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 5 of 17
Michigan’s Probate Code addresses the duties/powers of a lawyer-guardian ad litem (“guardian ad litem”) appointed to represent a juvenile in juvenile court proceedings. Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 712A. 17d. That statut e expressly requires the lawyer-guardian ad litem “[t]o request authorization bythe [probate] court to pursueissues on the child’s behalf that do not arise specifically from the court appointment.” M ich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 712A.17d(1)(l). Accordingly, Defendants argue that, because the two guardians ad litem identified in Plaintiff Children’s complaint asthe next friend of Plaintiffs Dwayne B., Carmela B., or Julia, Simon and Courtney G. have not soughtprior juvenile court approval to serve as next friends in this federal court action, they lack the capacity under state law to bring this suit. Defendants are mistaken.
The Michigan courts have long recognized that Michigan’s st atutes and court rules addressing the appointment of guardians ad litem by theprobate court judge contemplate the appointment as being restricted to representation of the minor in the matters being prosecuted in the probate/juvenile court; not other courts. See King v. Emmons, 277 N.W. 851, 854 (Mich. 1938) (observing that “it was not itnended by this rule to attempt to vest the probate court with authority to appoint a next friend for the purpose of instituting litigation in the circuit court. That power is vested by statute in the circuit court itself.”); Powell v. Monolidis, 408 N.W.2d 525 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987) (construing Michigan’s substantive and procedural law and holding that the State probate court’s appointment of a conservator to oversee a minor’s estate did notdeprive that State’s trial court of authority to appoint a next friend for the minor in a medical malpractice action). See also 3 Mich. Pleading & Practice, Guardians ad Litem and Next Friends, § 28:1 (observing that “[a] ‘guardian ad litem’ is a guardian appointed to represent a ward in legal proceedings in which the ward is a party
5

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 6 of 17
plaintiff” and, in contrast, “[a] ‘next friend’is a person who appears in a lawsuit to act for the benefit of an incompetent or minor plaintiff but who is not a party to the lawsuit and is not appointed as a guardian.”) Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 712A.17d(1)(l) does not preclude Plaintiff Children’s next friends from fili ng suit o n their behalf in federal court, 3 and Defendants cite no other Michigan authority precluding their capacity to bring this lawsuit.
Defendants further argue that, because neither this Court nor any state court has appointed Teresa Kibby as next friend for Plaintfif Lisa J, she too lacks the capacity to bring this lawsuit on Plaintiff Lisa J’s behalf . Because Defendants cite no statutory or other substantive legal authority as support, this argument is rejected.
This Court also rejects Defendants’ argument that Michigan’s court rules; i.e., Mich. Ct. R. 2.201(E)(2), govern the appointment of a representative for a minor bringing suit in federal court. Because this raises a proceduralmatter (not one of substance), the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern.
Rule 17(c) of the FederalRules of Civil Procedure provides that “[w]henever an infant . . . has a representative, suchas a general guardian, committee,conservator, or other like fiduciary, the representative may sue . . . on behalf of the infant. ...” It further provides that
3Even if this statute did apply, it would not require dismissal of this action. Rather, Plaintiff Children’s representatives would need only to obtainthe permission of the juvenile court to pursue this action. In the absence of such permission, the Court could appoint a next friend for the named Plaintiff Children. Rule 17(a) provides that “[n]o action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed afterobjection for ratification of commencement of the action . . . “, and Rule 17(c) directsthat “[t]he Court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant . . . not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other order as it deems proper for the protection of the infant. . . .”
6

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 7 of 17
“[a]n infant . . . who does not . . . may sue by a next friend. . . .” There is no requirement under Rule 17(c) that a next friend obtain pr ior court authorization to commence suit on behalf of a minor child.
Each named Plaintiff has commenced suit through a competent and suitable next friend pursuant to Rule 17(c). Because the named Plaintiffs, like other foster children, have been removed from home and have had their preex isting ties to family and friends effectively severed, they have few, if any, significant relationships with adults who are suitable and willing to act as “next friends.” The named Plaintiffs in this case appea r through next friends whom t hey have stated they have come to know through their involvement in Michigan’s foster care system. Dwayne B., Carmela B., and the G. siblings appear through their next friends who also serve as their court-appointed lawyer-guardian ad litems in the Wayne County juvenile court.(Compl. ¶¶ 70, 71, 73.) Named Plaintiff Lisa J. appears through her next friend Teresa Kibby. As the former licensed foster parent for Lisa J’s sibling, Ms. Kibby is well acquaint ed with the circumstances leading to Lisa J’s entry into care and the later termination of hepr arents’ custodial rights. (Compl. ¶ 72.) She is, therefore, adequately informed and appropriately positioned to act on Lisa J’s behalf in this lawsuit. Defendants do not challenge t he competency or suitability of these next friends.
Having rejected Defendants’ first argument for dismissal, the Court now turns to its second argument.
B. Whether Plaintiffs Have Alleged Facts Showing Standing To Sue Defendants next argue that Plaintiff Children lack Article III standing to pursue their
7

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 8 of 17
claims for prospective injunctive relief andthus their lawsuit must be dismissed.See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). Plani tiff Children respond that they have met their burden at this early stage of the litigation by sufficiently pleading facts that satisfy Article III’s standing requirement. This Court agrees withPlaintiffs. “At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from t he defendant’s conduct may suffice, for on a motion to dismiss we pres ume that general allegat ions embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim.” Id. at 561 (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Article III standing requires allegations that: (1) Plaintiffs suffered an “injury in fact” – “an invasion of a legally protected interest” that is both concrete and particularized and actual or imminent (as opposed to hypothetical or conjectural); (2) there is a causal connection between the injury and Defendants’ conduct; and (3) it is “‘likely,’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61 (internal quotations and citation omitted).
Here, unlike in Lujan, Plaintiff Children are themselves “the object of the government action or inaction” that they challenge. Id. at 562. Accordingly, as the Supreme Court observed, “there is ordinarily little question t hat the action or inaction has caused [the plaintiff’s] injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the action will redress it.” Id. at 561-62. Defendants’ arguments, that actors other than Defendants could have been a cause of the harms Plaintiffs allege and thus their harms are not likely to be redressed by a favorable decision, are both improper and premature. (Defs.’ Mot. at 10; Reply at 2.)
At this stage of the litigati on, the Court mus t assume that the plaintiff’s factual allegations are true and draw all reasonable infe rences flowing from those allegations in
8

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 9 of 17
Plaintiffs’ favor. Id. at 560-61; Ziegler v. IBP Hog Market, Inc., 249 F.3d 509, 512 (6th Cir. 2001). Thus, it is improper on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to consider facts not alleged in Plaintiffs’ complaint and to ignore those that are alleged. It isalso premature to argue that Plaintiffs have not established (as opposed to peld) the requirements for Article III standing. These arguments are properly considered on a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment.
Applying the proper Rule 12(b)(6) standard, this Cour t observes that Plaintiff Children’s complaint alleges numerous system- wide failures in Michigan’s child welfare system that have caused, and will cause ( unless redressed as requested) actual, particularized harms to Plaintiffs who are inthat child welfare system. It sufficiently alleges that these systemic failings threaten imminent, continuing harms to Plaintiffs’ constitution and federal statutory rights can be remedied by the prospective injunctive relief they seek in this laws uit. Spec ifically, as to Plaintiff Children in general, it is alleged that: (1) excessive caseloads and inadequate monitoring of caseworkers results in abuse and neglect of Plaintiffs by unfit caretakers (Compl. ¶¶ 99-102, 118, 120-21); (2) inappropriate placements and excessive moves between placem ents harm Plaintiffs by violating their legally protected interests ( id. at ¶¶ 143-46); (3) the lack of adoption caseworkers and inadequate procedures to encourage adoption smi ilarly cause Plaintiffs harm (id. at ¶¶ 16062, 165-66); and (4) the failure to deliver basic heathl care services to Plaintiffs also causes them harm (id. at ¶¶ 170-75). Plaintiffs further assert that their allegations of specific, concrete harms caused by these chronic, systemic failures of Michigan’s foster care system can be remedied by a prospective injunc tion that addresses Defendants’ challenged conduct. (Compl. at 64.) Contrary to Defendants’ arguments here (Reply at 3), Plaintiffs’ complaint need only seek injunctive relief thaits “likely” to remedy Defendants’ conduct that
9

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 10 of 17
they allege causes their harms; not inj unctive relief that “assures” these injuries will be redressed. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561.
The Court now addresses Defendants’ final arguments that this Court should invoke abstention doctrines and decline to exercise its jurisdiction in this matter.
C. Whether Abstention Doctrines Should be Invoked 1. Younger Abstention Doctrine
Defendants, invoking the abstention doctrine recognized in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), argue that this Court should abstian from taking jurisdiction over this matter because Michigan’s juvenile courts have continuing jurisdiction over each child in that state’s child welfare system and thus these juvenile courts provide an adequate forum for asserting the claims raised here. This Court disagrees.
The Court begins its analysis by examining the Sixth Circuit’s treatment of the Younger abstention doctrine, a judicially-created doctrine founded on notions of “comity” and “federalism.” Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assoc., 457 U.S. 423, 431 (1982).
“The Younger abstention doctrine counsels a federalcourt to refrain from adjudicating a matter that is proper ly before it in defer ence of ongoing state criminal proceedings.” Executive Arts Studio, In c. v. City of Grand Rapids , 391 F.3d 783, 791 (6t h Cir. 2004). There is no ongoing state criminalproceeding that touches on this litigation. Nonetheless, the Younger abstention doctrine “has been extended to include certain civil enforcement proceedings and civil proceedings uniquely involving the ability of state courts to perform their judicial functions, such as civil contempt orders or appellate bond requirements.” Id. (citing New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of the City of New Orleans (“NOPSI”),
10

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 11 of 17
491 U.S. 350, 367-68 (1989)). Desp ite this extension, the Sixth Circuit emphasizes that
“it remains ‘the rule that only exceptional circumstances justify a federal court’s refusal to
decide a case in deference to the States.’” Id. (quoting NOPSI, 491 U.S. at 368). “There
is no more right to decline the exercise of ju risdiction which is given, than to usurp that
which is not given. Theone or the other would be treason to the Constitution.”Id. (internal
quotes and citations omitted).
A three-part inquiry, devisedby the Supreme Court inMiddlesex County, is used when
determining whether the Younger abstention doctrine should be invoked: (1) would the
federal proceeding interfere with “an ongoing st ate judicial proceeding;” (2) do the
proceedings “implicate important state interests;” and (3) isthere “an adequate opportunity
in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges.” Executive Arts, 391 F.3d at
791-792 (internal quotations and citation omitted). Considering these factors, this Court
rejects Defendants’ argument that this case persents the sort of exceptional circumstances
that justify a federal court’s refusal to decide a case in deference to the State.4
It is not disputed that Michigan has a strong in terest in the welfare of children in its
4A number of federal dist rict and appellate courts have considered and r ejected Defendants’ Younger arguments in substantially si milar cases – federal lawsuits commenced by a putative class of foster chilrden seeking prospective injunctive relief.See, e.g., Olivia Y. v. Barbour, No. 3:04CV251LN (S.D. Miss. Aug. 29, 2006); Olivia Y. v. Barbour, 351 F. Supp.2d 543 (S.D. Miss. 2004);Kenny A. v. Perdue, 218 F.R.D. 277, 286 (N.D. Ga. 2003); Charlie H. v. Whitman, 83 F. Supp.2d 476, 514 (D. N.J. 2000);Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 929 F. Supp. 662, 689 (S.D. N.Y. 1996); LaShawn A. v. Kelly, 990 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (D.C. Cir. 1993); Baby Neal v. Casey, 821 F. Supp. 320, 331-33 (E.D. Pa. 1993), rev’d on other grounds, Baby Neal v. Casey, 43 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 1994); L.H. v. Jamieson, 643 F.2d 1351, 1354 (9th Cir. 1981). Cf. 31 Foster Children v. Bush, 329 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2003) (applying Younger abstention based on presumption that requested injunctive relief would interfere with juvenile court proceedings); Carson P. v. Heineman, ___ F.R.D. ___, No. 4:05CV3241, 2007 WL 172482 (D. Neb. Jan. 19, 2007) (among other things, relying on 31 Foster Children decision and invoking the Younger abstention doctrine).
11

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 12 of 17
foster care system.5 Rather, the dispute here is over the first and third Middlesex County factors.
As to the first factor, Defendants’ claim that there are ongoing judicial proceedings is misleading. While it is true that Michigan has in place a juvenile court system that sets out procedures for bringing and maintaining a childunder that court’s jurisdiction and there may be some ongoing juvenile court proceedings for indvi idual foster care children, this lawsuit does not seek to interfere wiht any such proceedings. The relief sought here is not directed at the juvenile courts. It is driected at the executive branch. See Brian A. v. Sundquist, 149 F. Supp.2d 941, 957 (M.D. Tenn. 2000) (declining to invoke the Younger abstention doctrine in a s imilar suit brought on behalf of foster care children in the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services and observing that “nothing in this litigation seeks to interfere with or enjoin” ongoing and pending state juvenile proceedings and further observing that t he injunctive relief sought is against the executive branch and not the courts).
As to the third factor, this Court concludes, as did the district court iBnrian A., that the state juvenile courts “are not more appropriate vehicles for adjudicating the claims raised” in this class action. Id. “Although technically Plaintiffs could raise constitutional questions in their individual juvenile proceedings, there is no pending judicial proceeding which could serve ‘as an adequate forum for the class of childern in this case to present its multifaceted request for broad-based injunctive relief’ based on the Constitutionand on federal and state
5Nonetheless, there are no “comity” or “federalism” concerns presented by this lawsuit because the State of Michigan has voluntarily agreed to federal oversight of its foster care system in exchange for federal funding. (See Plfs.’ Mot. at 11-13.)
12

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 13 of 17

law.” Id. (quoting LaShawn A. v. Kelly, 990 F.2d 1319, 1323 (D.C. Cir. 1993)). This Court

observes, as did the Court in Brian A., that “[t]he Sixth Circu it Court of appeals ‘has

squarely held that abstention fr om hearing claims of instit utional violation of rights

guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution is inappropriate and federal courts must hear federal

constitutional claims.’” Id. (quoting Hanna v. Toner, 630 F.2d 442, 444 (6th Cir. 1980)).

Defendants’ reliance on J. P. v. DeSanti, 653 F.2d 1080 (6th Cir. 1981), for a contrary

result is misplaced. In that case, the Sixth Circuit c onsidered whether the Younger

abstention doctrine should have been invoked, thus requiring the district court to abstain

from exercising jurisdiction over a class action challenge to Ohio’s juvenile court

procedures that allowed those courts to use social histories of juveniles appearing in

pending matters. The plaintiff class sought to enojin the juvenile court’s use of those social

histories in pending juvenile court proceedings. Id. at 1082. Because the plaintiff class’s

civil rights action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, interef red with those state juvenile

court proceedings, the Sixth Circuit held that theYounger abstention doctrine should have

been invoked and the district court should haveabstained from exercising jurisdiction over

that issue. It explained:

The federal suit by appellant class clearly int erfered with Cuyahoga County

juvenile proceedings. The challenged

practice[,] the juvenile court’s

predisposition use of social histories[,] is an integral part of the juvenile court’s

handling of cases. The relief granted [by the district court] entails ongoing

federal court interference with the daily operation of the juvenile court.

Id. at 1084.

The Sixth Circuit went on, however, to distni guish the plaintiff class’s challenge to the

state’s post-adjudication dissemination of juvenile social histories. Id. at 1085. In contrast

to the plaintiff class’s challenge to the state juvenile court’s use of juvenile social histories

13

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 14 of 17
in judicial proceedings, this latter challenge did “not interfere in any manner with ongoing juvenile court proceedings.” Id. Thus, the Court concluded, it was not appropriate for the district court to invoke the Younger abstention doctrine and decline to exercise jurisdiction over this second challenge. Id.
The same distinction applies here. Plaintiff Children’s clami s here do not interfere with Michigan’s juvenile court proceedings. The in junctive relief they seek is directed to Michigan’s executive branch, notits courts. Such relief, if gar nted, will not require ongoing federal court interference with the daily operation of Michigan’s juvenile courts.
Defendants’ reliance on the Si xth Circuit’s decision in Parker v. Turner, 626 F.2d 1 (6th Cir. 1980), is simila rly misplaced. I n Parker, similar to J.P., the federal action challenged the procedures of a state’s juvenile court system. Ther e, a putative class of indigent fathers brought suit against individual juvenile court judges in an effort to obtain an injunction forcing the juvenile courts intwo Tennessee counties to change they way they adjudicated civil contempt proceedings for untimely child support payments. Id. at 2. The Parker Court held that theYounger abstention doctrine applied because the injunctive relief sought would interfere with state judicial contempt proceedings. J.P., 653 F.2d at 1083 (citing Parker, 626 F.2d at 10). Again, the injunctive relief Plaintiff Children seek here is directed to Michigan’s executive branch, not itscourts. Accordingly, such relief, if granted, will not require ongoing federal court oversight or interference with the daily operations of Michigan’s juvenile courts.
Finally, Defendants’ reliance on ht e Tenth Circuit’s decision inJ.B. v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 1999), is also misplaced. There, a putative class of developmentally disabled children filed a lawsuit against va rious New Mexico state agency officials
14

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 15 of 17
employed by three separate staet agencies. The district coutrdenied class certification and dismissed the individual named plaintiffs’ lawsuit on Younger abstention grounds. Id. at 1283. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of class certification, dismissed a number of the individual named plaintiffs’ claims as moot, and then held that as to the remaining threeindividual plaintiffs, theYounger abstention doctrine was properly invoked because those three plaint iffs’ lawsuit was likely to interfere with their ongoing proceedings in New Mexico’s Children’s Court. In contract, this case has been certified as a class action, raises § 1983 challenges as to executive branch condu ct, and seeks prospective equitable relief on a systemic and calss-wide basis against a solitary executive branch agency. Thus, unlike t he circumstances presented in J.B., any prospective injunctive relief granted by this Court will not threaten interference with a ny particular Plaintiff’s ongoing juvenile court proceedings or existing juvenile court procedures.
2. Burford Abstention Doctrine Defendants also ask this Court to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction by invoking the abstention doctrine set out in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315 (1943). This Court declines to do so as the Burford abstention doctrine is properly invoked in two narrow circumstances, neither of which is present here. First, the Burford abstention doctrine is invoked in cases that present “difficult questions of state law bearing on policy probl ems of a substantial public import whose importance transcends the result of the case at bar.” Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 814 (1976). Here, Planitiff Children’s complaint raises questions of federal, not state law. Second, Burford abstention is applied in cases where the “exercise of federal review
15

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 16 of 17
of the quest ion in a case and in similar ca ses would be disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect to a matter of substantial public concern,” id., and the federal court’s decision on the legal issue is likely to “interfere with the proceedings or orders of state administrative agencies.” Rouse v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. UAW, 300 F.3d 711, 716 (6th Cir. 2002) (citingNOPSI, 491 U.S. at 361). Plaintiff Children’s case questions whether Defendants are complying with federal law and seeks por spective injunctive relief. As discussed above, it does notinterfere with a state administrative agencies’ proceedings or orders. Plaintiff Children’s case will not disrupt the state’s efforts to create a uniform policy governing children in its foster care system. Rather, it will serve to achieve those efforts in a way that complies wit h constitutional and federal law. See Habich v. City of Dearborn, 331 F.3d 524, 534 (6th Cir. 2003) (declining to inv oke the Burford doctrine of abstention to dismiss the plaintiff’s § 1983 claims alleging that the defendant city violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause by refusing to sell her land adjacent to her property and violated her due process rights when it padlocked her home without providing her with a hearing). IV. Conclusion
For the above-stated reasons, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.
s/Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge Dated: April 17, 2007 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or
16

Case 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Document 37 Filed 04/17/2007 Page 17 of 17 counsel of record on April 17, 2007, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
s/Carol A. Hemeyer Case Manager
17

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

DWAYNE B., by his next friend, John Stempfle; et al.,

Case No. 2:06-CV-13548

Plaintiffs, v.
JENNIFER GRANHOLM, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan, et al.,

Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds Class Action

Defendants. _______________________________________________

ORDER ENTERING CONSENT DECREE

Pursuant to this Court’s Order granting the parties’ Joint Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement, and its Memorandum Opinion granting the motion, both entered on this date, the Settlement Agreement attached to this Order is hereby entered as a consent decree and Order of this Court.

Dated: October 24, 2008

s/Nancy G. Edmunds Nancy G. Edmunds United States District Judge

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

DWAYNE B., by his next friend, John Stempfle; CARMELA B., by her next friend, William Ladd; LISA J., by her next friend, Teresa Kibby; and JULIA, SIMON, and COURTNEY G., by their next friend, William Ladd; for themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v.
JENNIFER GRANHOLM, et. al.,
Defendants. _________________________________________

) ) No. 2:06-cv-13548 ) Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds ) Hon. Mag. Donald A. Scheer ) ) Class Action ) ) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ) ) )
) ) )

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys for Defendants:

Marcia Robinson Lowry Susan Lambiase Sara M. Bartosz Elissa Hendler Gena Wiltsek Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue, Fourth Floor New York, New York 10001 Phone: 212.683.2210
Edward P. Leibensperger Kevin M. Bolan McDermott Will & Emery LLP 28 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Phone: 617.535.4046

Michael G. Frezza (P46949) Assistant Attorney General Cadillac Place, Su 10-200 Detroit, MI 48202 Phone: 313.456.0040
B. Jay Yelton Brad Sysol P. Rivka Schochet Miller, Canfield, Paddock, and Stone 444 West Michigan Ave. Kalamazoo, MI 49007 Phone: 269.381.7030

Elizabeth Phelps Hardy Noel D. Massie Jay C. Boger Kienbaum Opperwall Hardy & Pelton, P.L.C. 280 North Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 400 Birmingham, Michigan 48009 Phone: 248.645.0000 ____________________________________________/

I. PREAMBLE
A. The provisions of this Agreement resolve the existing disputes and issues in the case of Dwayne B. v. Granholm, Civil Action Number 2:06-cv-13548, and satisfy and resolve the claims of the Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class for injunctive and declaratory relief in the above-entitled case as of the date of this Agreement.
B. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over this action and therefore the authority to enter this Agreement.
C. This Court shall have continuing jurisdiction over this action to ensure compliance with the terms of this Agreement for as long as the Agreement remains in effect.
D. Any state agency responsible for the care, protection, and/or supervision of Plaintiff class members shall be bound by the provisions of this Agreement. For as long as this Agreement remains in effect, all provisions of this Agreement referring to the “Department of Human Services,” “the Department,” or “DHS,” upon any subsequent changes to the current governmental organizational structure of the Michigan Department of Human Services concerning the children in the Plaintiff class as defined in this Agreement, shall apply with full force and effect to the state of Michigan and to any subsequent agency or agencies with any of the responsibilities that apply to the current Michigan Department of Human Services under this Agreement as of the date of this Agreement.
E. The term “DHS” as used in this Agreement refers to all Defendants in the case of Dwayne B. v. Granholm, Civil Action Number 2:06-cv-13548, including but not limited to Jennifer Granholm, in her official capacity as Governor of the state of Michigan; Ismael Ahmed, in his official capacity as Director of DHS; and Stanley Stewart, in his official capacity as Chief Deputy Director of DHS.
1

F. The term “Plaintiffs” as used in this Agreement refers to all members of the class certified by Judge Nancy G. Edmunds on February 15, 2007 in the case of Dwayne B. v. Granholm, Civil Action Number 2:06-cv-13548.
G. This Agreement, along with any of its provisions, is not, and shall not be construed to be, an admission of any liability on the part of DHS concerning any of the claims and allegations in the complaint in this litigation.
H. Defendants do not speak for the Michigan Legislature, which has the power under Michigan law to determine the appropriations for the State's child welfare programs. However, at least annually after Court approval of this Agreement, and consistent with existing state budgetary practices and legal requirements, Defendants shall request state funds and any federal/special fund authorization sufficient to effect the provisions and outcome measures set forth in this Agreement in connection with any budget, funding, or allocation request to the executive or legislative branches of State government. To the extent that it is anticipated that the funding of critical needs shall be met, in whole or in part, by way of federal fund sources, Defendants shall request federal fund authorization in amounts which are determined to be realizable and consistent with regular budgetary needs assessments.
I. Such budgetary requests, which shall be provided to the Monitor, shall, among other things, identify for the executive and legislative branches of State government, with sufficient particularity, the known and anticipated costs to the State for the timely implementation of the reforms and outcome measures provided for herein. Defendants shall maximize available federal funding opportunities. Nothing in this paragraph limits Defendants' obligations under this Agreement.
J. The parties acknowledge that this Agreement shall be controlled by and implemented in accordance with the United States Constitution and federal law and subject to federal court supervision and enforcement. The parties further acknowledge that this Agreement will be implemented consistent with the Michigan Constitution and state
2

law insofar as the provisions of the Michigan Constitution and state law do not conflict with controlling federal law.
II. PRINCIPLES
Interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement will be guided by the following principles:
A. Safety: The first priority of the Department of Human Services (“DHS”) child welfare system is to keep children safe.
B. Children’s Needs: Whenever possible, children must have a voice in decisions that affect them, and DHS must consider the specific needs of each child as decisions are made on his or her behalf.
C. Families and Communities: Families must be treated with dignity and respect, and, whenever possible, included in decisions that affect them and their children. DHS must actively partner with communities to protect children and support families when determining the intervention plan for a child.
D. Placement: The ideal place for children is in their own home with their own family. When DHS cannot ensure their safety in the family home, it must place children in the most family-like and least restrictive setting required to meet their unique needs and must place siblings together whenever possible. DHS must strive to make the first placement the best and only placement.
E. Reunification and Permanency: DHS must reunify children with their siblings and families as soon as is safely possible. When reunification is not possible, DHS must provide children with a permanent home and/or permanent connection with caring, supportive adults as soon as possible. DHS must also ensure that children in its care are connected with the resources necessary for physical and mental health, education,
3

financial literacy, and employment and that they acquire the life skills necessary to become successful adults.
F. Services: When DHS intervenes on behalf of children it must strive to leave children and families better off than if there had been no intervention. DHS must tailor services to meet the unique needs of each family member and provide those services in a manner that is respectful of the child and the family. Services should be outcome-based, data-driven, and continuously evaluated.
III. OUTCOMES
A. Reporting Periods: Except in relation to the outcome measures set forth in subsection III.D below, reporting on all other outcome measures set forth in this section shall begin in Reporting Period Three, as defined in Section XVII.H below.
B. Changes in Federal Indicators: The indicators set forth in the remainder of this section were developed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) as part of the Child and Family Services Review (“CFSR”) process. In the event that, during the term of this Agreement, HHS modifies these indicators, the parties and the Monitor will meet to determine whether to make corresponding changes in DHS’s responsibilities under the Agreement.
C. Content of Reports and Compliance Expectations: DHS shall report on aggregate performance for the outcome indicators identified in paragraphs D and E below in each Reporting Period, as defined in Section XVII.H below, and shall comply with the identified interim measures. By October 2013, DHS shall meet or exceed the federal indicators for each outcome. Additionally, DHS shall report in each Reporting Period on its performance with regard to each of the component elements of the Permanency outcomes set forth in Section III.E below, as such components are defined by HHS. Effective October 2013 and thereafter, DHS’s performance shall
4

exceed the median performance of all states with regard to each such component element.
D. Safety: 1. Recurrence of Maltreatment within Six Months (%): By the end of Reporting Period Four, the percentage of children without a recurrence of maltreatment within six months following their exit from foster care will be 94.6% or higher. This percentage is the national indicator. Michigan will commit to maintaining or exceeding this percentage over the duration of the Agreement. 2. Maltreatment in Foster Care (%): By the end of Reporting Period Two, the percentage of children not maltreated while in foster care will be 99.68% or higher. This percentage is the national indicator. DHS will commit to maintaining or exceeding this percentage over the duration of the Agreement.
E. Permanency: 1. Composite One: Timeliness and Permanency of Reunification: By Reporting Period Ten, DHS shall achieve, and shall thereafter maintain, a score of 122.6 or greater on this composite. DHS shall meet interim targets as follows: by Reporting Period Two, a score of 99; by Reporting Period Four, a score of 100; by Reporting Period Six, a score of 105; by Reporting Period Eight, a score of 113. DHS shall report the following individual component measures for Composite One: a. Of all children who were discharged from foster care to reunification in the target 12-month period, and who had been in foster care for 8 days or longer, what percent were reunified in less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal from home? b. Of all children who were discharged from foster care to reunification in the 12-month target period, and who had been in foster care for 8 days or longer, what was the median length of stay in months from the date of the latest removal from home until the date of discharge to reunification?
5

c. Of all children who entered foster care for the first time in the 6-month period immediately prior to the target 12-month period, and who remained in foster care for 8 days or longer, what percent were discharged from foster care to reunification in less than 12 months from the date of the latest removal from home?
d. Of all children who were discharged from foster care to reunification in the 12-month period immediately prior to the target 12-month period, what percent re-entered foster care in less than 12 months from the date of discharge?
2. Composite Two: Timeliness to Adoption: By Reporting Period Ten, DHS shall achieve, and shall thereafter maintain, a score of 106.4 or greater on this composite. DHS shall meet interim targets as follows: by Reporting Period Two, a score of 93; by Reporting Period Four, a score of 96; by Reporting Period Six, a score of 100; by Reporting Period Eight, a score of 103. DHS shall report the following individual component measures for Composite Two: a. Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption during the 12-month target period, what percent were discharged in less than 24 months from the date of the latest removal from home? b. Of all children who were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption during the 12-month target period, what was the median length of stay in foster care, in months, from the date of the latest removal from home to the date of discharge to adoption? c. Of all children in foster care on the first day of the 12-month target period who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, what percent were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption by the last day of the 12-month target period? d. Of all children in foster care on the first day of the 12-month target period who were in foster care for 17 continuous months or longer, and who were not legally free for adoption prior to that day, what percent became legally free for adoption during the first 6 months of the 12-month target period?
6

e. Of all children who became legally free for adoption during the 12 months prior to the target 12-month period, what percent were discharged from foster care to a finalized adoption in less than 12 months from the date of becoming legally free?
3. Composite Three: Achieving Permanency for Children in Foster Care for Long Periods of Time: By Reporting Period Ten, DHS shall achieve, and shall thereafter maintain, a score of 121.7 or higher on this composite. DHS shall meet interim targets as follows: by Reporting Period Two, a score of 118; by Reporting Period Four, a score of 119; by Reporting Period Six, a score of 120; by Reporting Period Eight, a score of 121. DHS shall report the following individual component measures for Composite Three: a. Of all children who were discharged from foster care during the 12-month target period, and who were legally free for adoption (i.e., there was a termination of parental rights for both parents) at the time of discharge, what percent were discharged to a permanent home prior to their 18th birthday? b. Of all children who were in foster care for 24 months or longer on the first day of the 12-month target period, what percent were discharged to a permanent home by the last day of the 12-month period and prior to their 18th birthday? c. Of all children who either (1) were, prior to age 18, discharged from foster care during the 12-month target period with a discharge reason of emancipation, or (2) reached their 18th birthday while in foster care but had not yet been discharged from foster care, what percent were in foster care for three years or longer?
4. Composite Four: Placement Stability While in Foster Care: For all Reporting Periods, DHS will maintain a score of 101.5 or higher on this composite. DHS shall report the following individual component measures for Composite Four:
7

a. Of all children in foster care during the 12-month target period, and who were in foster care for at least 8 days but less than 12 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings?
b. Of all children in foster care during the 12-month target period, and who were in foster care for at least 12 months but less than 24 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings?
c. Of all children in foster care during the 12-month target period, and who were in foster care for at least 24 months, what percent had two or fewer placement settings?
In reporting on placement stability, DHS shall provide information separately stating scores for each stability measure for children placed in relative foster homes; children placed in non-relative foster homes; and children placed in residential care.
IV. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
A. The DHS organizational structure shall be modified as follows:
1. There shall be established within DHS a Children’s Services Administration, headed by a Director of Children’s Services Administration, who shall be at the rank of Deputy Director of the Department of Human Services or higher.
2. Within the Children’s Services Administration, and reporting directly to the Director of Children’s Services Administration, there shall be: (a) a person responsible for all children’s services policy, program development, and support functions (“Director of Bureau of Child Welfare”); (b) a person responsible for child welfare improvement (“ Director of Child Welfare Improvement Bureau”); and (c) a person responsible for children’s services field operations in Designated Counties (“Director of Bureau of Children’s Field Services Operations”) as further described in paragraph 3, below.
8

3. In, at minimum, Wayne, Genesee, Kent, Macomb, and Oakland Counties (identified as “Designated Counties”), DHS offices providing children’s services shall be distinct from those providing other services, and there shall be a county-level Administrator of Children’s Services in each of the Designated Counties who reports directly to the Director of Bureau of Children’s Field Services Operations as described in paragraph 2, above.
4. The Children’s Services Administration shall include units containing a sufficient number of qualified staff to exercise their functions effectively and shall be responsible for data collection and analysis, quality improvement, federal compliance, and training.
5. The Children’s Services Administration shall hold responsibility for evaluating the performance of private providers of children’s services, including, but not limited to, private Child Placing Agencies (“CPAs”). These duties include, but are not limited to, requiring and approving corrective action plans when necessary and making recommendations to the Director of DHS concerning contract renewal, modification, and termination.
6. Individuals within the Children’s Services Administration, including but not limited to caseworkers, supervisors, and managers, shall be assigned full-time to children’s services, and shall not hold responsibility for any of DHS’s other functions, such as cash assistance, Medicaid, and adult services.
7. Within the Field Operations Administration of DHS, there shall be established the position of Children’s Services Field Manager. This position shall be responsible for ensuring that policies and practices established in the Children’s Services Administration are followed in all parts of the state other than the Designated Counties, and that the needs of these other counties are taken into account by the Children’s Services Administration as it formulates policies and practices. The Children’s Services Field Manager shall report
9

directly to the Deputy Director for Field Operations, and shall consult regularly with the Director of Children’s Services Administration.
8. DHS shall establish a Children’s Services Cabinet, which shall be headed by the Director of Children’s Services Administration and shall include the persons described in subsections IV.A.2 and IV.A.7 above. The Cabinet shall meet regularly as determined by the Director of Children’s Services Administration for the purposes of uniformly and efficiently administering all child welfare programs, policies, and practices.
9. The changes enumerated in this section shall be phased in, beginning with the establishment of separate Children’s Services offices in Wayne County, and shall be completed by March 31, 2009.
B. On or before January 31, 2009, DHS, Plaintiffs, and the Monitor shall meet to review the progress of implementation of the organizational changes enumerated above. On or before June 30, 2009, the parties shall meet to further review the implementation of the organizational changes and to consider whether structural changes similar to those implemented with respect to the Designated Counties identified in Section IV.A.3 above should be implemented, with whatever modifications may be appropriate, in any remaining non-designated counties. Should either party recommend that these terms be modified, the parties will engage in good faith negotiations with the assistance of the Monitor. Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude the parties from holding earlier and/or additional meetings to review and consider changes to the organizational structure.
V. RESPONDING TO REPORTS OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT
A. DHS shall ensure that its system for receiving, screening, and investigating reports of child abuse and neglect is adequately staffed and that investigations of all reports are initiated and completed within the time periods required by state law.
10

B. DHS shall establish a statewide centralized hotline, to be operated 24 hours per day. It shall be adequately staffed and supported by adequate telecommunications equipment and information technology, for the receipt, screening, and assignment for investigation of reports of abuse and neglect, as follows: 1. A Wayne County pilot, by October 2009; 2. A statewide centralized hotline, by October 2011.
C. DHS shall, by April 2009, establish and implement a quality assurance process to ensure that reports of abuse and neglect are competently investigated and that, in cases in which abuse and/or neglect is indicated, actions are taken and services are provided appropriate to the circumstances.
D. DHS shall establish separate units to investigate all allegations of abuse or neglect relating to any child in the foster care custody of DHS, whether directly supervised by DHS or privately supervised by one of its private CPAs or child caring institution (“CCI”) providers. Such units shall be established within each of the Designated Counties. There shall be no more than three additional units responsible for other areas of the state and each of these additional units shall report to a person within the Children’s Services Administration at the level of Deputy Director or higher. DHS shall also establish a mechanism to ensure accountability in those cases in which the abuse or neglect is substantiated, including appropriate follow-up on corrective action plans. These units shall be established according to the following schedule:
1. For the Designated Counties as defined in Section IV.A.3 above, by October 2009;
2. For the remainder of the state, by April 2010.
E. The scope of the Needs Assessment provided for in Section IX of this Agreement shall include consideration of services required to prevent abuse and neglect and to
11

keep children who have been the subject of abuse or neglect investigations safe in their own homes.
VI. STAFF QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING, CASELOADS, AND SUPERVISION
A. Caseworker Qualifications and Training: 1. Entry level caseworkers for positions in Child Protective Services (“CPS”), foster care, and adoption, who are responsible for cases of Plaintiff class members either directly or as Purchase of Service (“POS”) monitors, shall have a bachelor’s degree in social work or a related human services field.
2. All such caseworkers shall complete an eight week pre-service training that includes a total of 270 hours of competence-based classroom and field training. Beginning April 2009, and continuing thereafter, each trainee will receive a competence-based performance evaluation, which shall include a written examination. As part of pre-service training, a trainee may be assigned specific tasks or activities in connection with a case that is the primary responsibility of an experienced worker and may, under appropriate supervision, be assigned responsibility for a “training caseload” not to exceed three cases. Prior to assuming any other casework responsibilities, including the assumption of a caseload other than a training caseload, the worker must demonstrate an appropriate level of knowledge and ability to meet the case practice expectations of this Agreement by passing the performance evaluation.
3. All caseworkers shall receive a minimum number of hours of in-service training annually, as follows: a. CPS workers: for the state fiscal year beginning October 1, 2008 (“SFY 2009”), at least 16 hours; for the state fiscal year beginning October 1, 2009 (“SFY 2010”), at least 24 hours; for the state fiscal year beginning October 1, 2010 (“SFY 2011”), at least 32 hours; for state fiscal
12

years beginning October 1, 2011 (“SFY 2012”) and thereafter, at least 40 hours. b. Foster Care and Adoption workers: for SFY 2009, at least 24 hours; for SFY 2010 and thereafter, at least 40 hours.
4. Private CPA and CCI caseworkers whose activities and responsibilities are comparable to those of DHS caseworkers shall be required to meet the same qualifications, pre-service and in-service training, and competency-based performance evaluation requirements as DHS workers. Such private CPA workers shall receive a minimum of 24 hours of in-service training for SFY 2010, and a minimum of 40 hours of in-service training for SFY 2011 and thereafter.
B. Supervisor Qualifications and Training: 1. By April 2009, DHS shall develop and implement a competency-based Supervisory Training Program for all DHS, CPS, foster care, adoption, and POS supervisors (“Supervisors” or “Supervisory Positions”) that is both consistent with the Principles set forth in Section II of this Agreement and designed to serve the overall goals and purposes of this Agreement. This competency-based training shall address the work management skills, conceptual skills, interpersonal skills, self-management skills, and technical knowledge recognized among child welfare professionals as fundamental requirements for an effective public agency supervisor. The Supervisory Training Program shall consist of at least 40 class hours.
2. Beginning in April 2009 and continuing thereafter, all staff either promoted from within DHS or hired from outside DHS to a Supervisory Position shall complete the supervisory training program and pass a competency-based performance evaluation based on that training within three months of assuming the Supervisory Position. The competency-based performance evaluation shall include a written examination. Failure to achieve a passing grade on the competency-based performance examination as a whole,
13

including a passing grade on its written portion, within two sittings shall require the subject individual to complete an additional training before becoming eligible to sit for the performance evaluation again, said training to occur within an additional 45 days. The failure to pass the performance evaluation in the third sitting shall render the subject individual ineligible for further service as a DHS supervisor with responsibility for supervision of CPS, foster care, and adoption cases.
3. All DHS Supervisors who were promoted or hired to Supervisory Positions before April 2009, and who have not previously received supervisory training, shall receive the competency-based supervisory training, as described above for new promotions and hires, and pass the associated competency-based performance evaluation, which shall include a written examination, by July 2010. Failure to achieve a passing grade on the performance evaluation as a whole, including a passing grade on its written portion, within two sittings shall require the subject individual to complete additional training before becoming eligible to sit for the evaluation again, said training to occur within an additional 45 days. The failure to pass the performance evaluation in the third sitting shall render the subject individual ineligible for further service as a Supervisor with responsibility for supervision of CPS, foster care, and adoption cases.
4. Supervisor Qualifications: Except as set forth below, all staff hired from outside DHS or promoted from within DHS after January 2009 to fill positions including responsibility to supervise child welfare casework shall have earned a master’s in social work from an accredited school of social work or a master’s or higher degree in a comparable/equivalent field as a condition for such hiring or promotion. All current DHS Supervisors with either (1) less than 18 months of experience as a DHS Supervisor or (2) less than 18 months of combined experience as a DHS Supervisor and as a similarly situated supervisor in another public child welfare system, or duly licensed CPA or CCI, shall be required to earn a master’s in social work from
14

an accredited school of social work or a master’s degree in a comparable/equivalent field within four years following the date of entry of this Agreement as a condition of continued employment as a supervisor of CPS, foster care, or adoption cases. Exceptions to the requirement of a master’s degree can be made for persons who have demonstrated the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to be an effective supervisor; however, such exceptions can only be made with the approval of the DHS Director and the Director must set forth in the approval the factual basis for the Director’s conclusion that the person has demonstrated the competencies necessary to provide high quality supervision. The Monitor shall report on the percentage of supervisors who are granted such exceptions. In the event that such exceptions are granted to more than 10% of DHS supervisors, the Monitor shall conduct a review and report on whether (a) DHS has followed appropriate practices in proposing and granting exceptions, and (b) the individuals granted such exceptions are in fact qualified to perform supervisory duties.
5. Development of University-Based Training Opportunities: DHS shall encourage its child welfare staff, and the staff of private CPAs, to pursue master’s-level work under a tuition reimbursement program (Title IV-E funded or other appropriate funding source as available) with accredited schools of social work. DHS shall develop relationships, joint programs, and such other programs as are deemed worthwhile with the accredited schools of social work to enhance and improve existing opportunities for the training and education of DHS and private CPA and CCI caseworker and supervisory staff.
6. Private CPA or CCI supervisors whose activities and responsibilities are comparable to those of DHS Supervisors shall be required to meet the same training and performance evaluation requirements as DHS Supervisors within the timeframes set forth in Sections VI.B.2 and VI.B.3 above. Private CPA supervisors whose activities and responsibilities are comparable to those of
15

DHS supervisors shall be required to meet the qualifications set forth in Sections VI.B.3 and VI.B.4 above by April 2011.
C. Licensing Worker Qualifications and Training: By December 15, 2008, DHS shall develop and provide to the Monitor and Plaintiffs a plan identifying the type and amount of training to be provided to all staff responsible for conducting home studies, licensing inspections, annual evaluations, and other activities related to the licensing or monitoring of foster homes or residential care facilities, whether employed by DHS or by a private provider. The plan shall include timetables for implementation. Upon the Monitor’s approval of the plan as submitted or modified, DHS shall implement the plan.
D. Oversight of Training Requirements: There shall be a designated individual within the DHS central office who is solely responsible for overseeing and ensuring compliance with all training requirements for both DHS and private CPA and CCI workers and supervisors. DHS county offices and private CPAs shall be required to submit to this individual records attesting to the completion of pre-service training requirements and satisfactory performance on competency-based performance evaluations.
E. Caseload Standards: 1. DHS shall achieve the caseload standards set forth in this section. These standards will apply equally to both DHS worker caseloads and caseloads of private CPA caseworkers with comparable case responsibilities.
2. Supervisors: Each Foster Care, Adoption, CPS, Licensing, and POS monitoring Supervisor will be responsible for the supervision of no more than five caseworkers. DHS will achieve this standard as follows: a. By January 2010, 50% of Foster Care, Adoption, and CPS Supervisors will supervise no more than five caseworkers;
16

b. By January 2011, 95% of Foster Care, Adoption, and CPS Supervisors will supervise no more than five caseworkers;
c. By January 2011, 50% of Licensing and POS monitoring Supervisors will supervise no more than five caseworkers; and
d. By January 2012, 95% of Licensing and POS monitoring Supervisors will supervise no more than five caseworkers.
3. Foster Care Workers: Each Foster Care worker will have a caseload of no more than 15 children. DHS will achieve this standard as follows: a. By November 15, 2008, 95% of Foster Care workers will have caseloads of no more than 30 children and 60% of Foster Care workers will have caseloads of no more than 25 children; b. By October 2009, 70% of Foster Care workers will have caseloads of no more than 22 children; c. By October 2010, 80% of Foster Care workers will have caseloads of no more than 20 children; and d. By October 2011, 95% of Foster Care workers will have caseloads of no more than 15 children.
4. Adoption Workers: Each Adoption worker will have a caseload of no more than 15 children. DHS will achieve this standard as follows: a. By February 2009, 60% of Adoption workers will have caseloads of no more than 25 children; b. By April 2009, 95% of Adoption workers will have caseloads of no more than 30 children; c. By October 2009, 70% of Adoption workers will have caseloads of no more than 22 children; d. By October 2010, 80% of Adoption workers will have caseloads of no more than 20 children; and e. By October 2011, 95% of Adoption workers will have caseloads of no more than 15 children.
17

5. Investigation/Assessment Workers: a. Each CPS worker assigned to investigate or assess allegations of abuse or neglect will have a caseload of no more than 12 open cases. DHS will achieve this standard as follows: i. By April 2009, 95% of investigation/assessment staff will have no more than 16 open cases; ii. By October 2009, 60% of investigation/assessment staff will have no more than 14 open cases; iii. By October 2010, 80% of investigation/assessment staff will have no more than 13 open cases; and iv. By October 2011, 95% of investigation/assessment staff will have no more than 12 open cases.
b. Each CPS worker assigned to provide ongoing services will have a caseload of no more than 17 families. DHS will achieve this standard as follows:
i. By April 2009, at least 95% of CPS ongoing services workers will have no more than 30 families;
ii. By October 2009, 60% of CPS ongoing services workers will have caseloads of no more than 25 families;
iii. By October 2010, 80% of CPS ongoing services workers will have caseloads of no more than 20 families; and
iv. By October 2011, 95% of CPS ongoing services workers will have caseloads of no more than 17 families.
6. POS Monitoring Workers: Each POS monitoring worker will have a caseload of no more than 45 cases. DHS will achieve this standard as follows: a. By October 2009, 60% of POS monitoring workers will have a caseload of no more than 55 cases;
18

b. By October 2010, 75% of POS monitoring workers will have a caseload of no more than 50 cases; and
c. By October 2011, 95% of POS monitoring workers will have a caseload of no more than 45 cases.
7. Licensing Workers: Each licensing worker will have a caseload of no more than 30 cases. DHS will achieve this standard as follows: a. By October 2009, 60% of licensing workers will have a caseload of no more than 36 cases; b. By October 2010, 75% of licensing workers will have a caseload of no more than 33 cases; and c. By October 2011, 95% of licensing workers will have a caseload of no more than 30 cases.
8. Mixed Caseloads: With respect to mixed caseloads, DHS, in consultation with Plaintiffs and subject to the approval of the Monitor, shall establish caseload maximums and timeframes by which they will be achieved, based upon an appropriate weighting formula.
9. Caseload Tracking and Reporting: Beginning on a date to be established by the Monitor after consultation with the parties, DHS will provide regular reporting, at least quarterly, on the percentage of supervisors and workers in each of the categories above whose workloads meet the standards set forth in this section.
VII. ASSESSMENT, CASE PLANNING, AND PROVISION OF SERVICES
A. Assessments and Service Plans: DHS shall complete a written assessment of the child(ren)’s and family’s strengths and needs, designed to inform decision-making about services and permanency planning, within 30 days after a child’s entry into foster care, and shall update the
19

assessment at least quarterly thereafter. Assessments shall be of sufficient breadth and quality to usefully inform case planning.
DHS shall complete an Initial Service Plan within 30 days of placement, and an Updated Service Plan at least quarterly thereafter. The written service plan shall accord with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 675(1), and shall indicate: 1. The assigned permanency goal; 2. How DHS, other service providers (including the private CPA, where
applicable), parents, and foster parents will work together to confront the difficulties that led to the child’s placement in foster care and achieve the permanency goal; 3. The services to be provided to the child(ren), parent(s), and foster parent(s); 4. Who is to provide those services and by when they are to be initiated; and 5. The actions to be taken by the caseworker to help the child(ren), parent(s), and foster parent(s) connect to, engage with, and make good use of services. The service plan shall contain attainable, measurable objectives with expected timeframes, and shall identify the party or parties responsible for each task.
Service plans shall be signed by the caseworker, the caseworker’s supervisor, the parent(s), and the child(ren), if of age to participate. If the parent(s) and/or child(ren) are not available or decline to sign the plan, the service plan shall include an explanation of the steps taken to involve them and shall identify any follow-up actions to be taken to secure their participation in services.
When a child is placed with a private CPA or CCI, the private CPA or CCI shall complete the assessment and the service plan in accordance with the provisions above. DHS shall review and approve assessments and service plans prepared by a private CPA or CCI. In the event that the parties agree to a different form of oversight of private CPA performance, pursuant to the review set forth in Section XII.G below, this paragraph shall no longer apply.
20

B. Supervisory Oversight of Assessments and Service Plans: Prior to being finalized, each assessment and service plan shall be reviewed and approved by a supervisor only after a face-to-face meeting with the worker. Supervisors shall meet at least monthly with each assigned worker to provide consultation on their cases.
C. Team Decision-Making: A Team Decision-Making meeting (“TDM”) shall be held to make or recommend critical case decisions. TDMs shall be led by a trained facilitator, and shall include the parent(s) from whom the child has been or may be removed; foster parent(s); child(ren) if of age to participate; family, friends, or other supports identified by the parent(s) and child(ren); other service providers as appropriate; and the caseworker, with supervisory participation when necessary. For children placed with a private CPA, the private CPA caseworker, and the private CPA supervisor when necessary, shall also be present. A TDM shall be held: 1. Prior to placement, or by the next working day after an emergency placement; 2. Prior to the transfer of a child in foster care to a different placement setting, or by the next working day after an emergency transfer; 3. Prior to reunification; 4. Prior to a change in the permanency goal; 5. When a child returns from Absent Without Legal Permission (“AWOLP”) status; 6. When a child has been in care for 9 months with a goal of reunification, and sufficient progress has not been achieved to ensure reunification within 12 months; 7. When a child has been legally free for adoption for three months but does not have a permanent placement identified.
At the conclusion of each TDM, the facilitator shall prepare a written report detailing the decisions and recommendations emerging from the meeting. The report shall be
21

provided to the worker and the worker’s supervisor, and shall include a section identifying areas in which supervisory follow-up is needed.

D. Provision of Services: DHS will ensure that the services identified in the service plan are made available in a timely and appropriate manner to the child and family, and will monitor the provision of services to determine whether they are of appropriate quality and are having the intended effect. DHS is responsible for helping the parent(s) from whom the child has been or may be removed, the child(ren), and the foster parent(s) identify appropriate, accessible, and individually compatible services; assisting with transportation when necessary; helping to identify and resolve any barriers that may impede parent(s), child(ren), and foster parent(s) from making effective use of services; and intervening to review and amend the service plan when services are not provided or do not appear to be effective.

E. Implementation Schedule: Assessments, service plans, and TDMs shall be implemented by the dates set forth in the following tables.

Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Kent, and Genesee Counties:
Initial assessment and initial service plan Quarterly re-assessment and updated service plan Placement TDM Change of placement TDM Return from AWOLP TDM TDM for children awaiting reunification more than 9 months TDM for children free for adoption for more than 3 months with no permanent resource identified Reunification TDM Change of permanency goal TDM

DHS Oct., 2009 Oct., 2009 Oct., 2009 Oct., 2009 Oct., 2009 Oct., 2009 Oct., 2009
Oct., 2009 Oct., 2009

CPA Oct., 2009 Oct., 2009
N/A Oct., 2009 Oct., 2009 Oct., 2009 Oct., 2009
Oct., 2009 Oct., 2009

22

Berrien, Calhoun, Ingham, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Muskegon, Saginaw, St. Clair, and

Washtenaw Counties:

DHS

CPA

Initial assessment and service plan

Oct., 2009

Oct., 2009

Quarterly re-assessment and updated service plan

Oct., 2009

Oct., 2009

Placement TDM

Oct., 2009

N/A

Change of placement TDM

Oct., 2010

Oct., 2010

Return from AWOLP TDM

Oct., 2010

Oct., 2010

TDM for children awaiting reunification more than 9

Oct., 2011

Oct., 2011

months

TDM for children free for adoption for more than 3 months

Oct., 2011

Oct., 2011

with no permanent resource identified

TDM for children free for adoption for more than 3 months

Oct., 2011

Oct., 2011

with no permanent resource identified

Reunification TDM

Oct., 2010

Oct., 2010

Change of permanency goal TDM

Oct., 2010

Oct., 2010

Remainder of State:
Initial assessment Quarterly re-assessment Placement TDM Change of placement TDM Return from AWOLP TDM TDM for children awaiting reunification more than 9 months TDM for children free for adoption for more than 3 months with no permanent resource identified Reunification TDM Change of permanency goal TDM

DHS Oct., 2009 Oct., 2009 Oct., 2010 Oct., 2011 Oct., 2011 Oct., 2011
Oct., 2011
Oct., 2011 Oct., 2011

CPA Oct., 2009 Oct., 2009
N/A Oct., 2011 Oct., 2011 Oct., 2011
Oct., 2011
Oct., 2011 Oct., 2011

23

F. Additional Provisions Regarding Certain Permanency Planning Goals: A child shall be assigned only one permanency goal at any time and this goal shall be a federally recognized permanency goal. Where appropriate, a child shall also be assigned a concurrent goal in conformity with federal regulations and subsection VII.F.2 below.
1. Maintaining a Permanency Goal of Reunification beyond 12 Months: For any child who has a permanency goal of return home for more than 12 months, the child’s worker, with written approval from the supervisor, shall include in the record a written explanation justifying the continuation of the goal, and identifying the additional services necessary or circumstances which must occur in order to accomplish the goal. No child shall have a permanency goal of return home for more than 15 months unless there are documented in the record and approved by the child’s worker’s supervisor compelling reasons to believe that the child can be returned home within a specified and reasonable time period.
2. Concurrent Planning: Strategic planning and preparation for possible adoptive placement of a child shall occur concurrently with the delivery of reunification services to the child’s birth parent(s), unless clearly inappropriate for case specific reasons that are documented in the child’s record. The adoption planning 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.
3. Change of Goal to Adoption: In the event that a child’s permanency goal is changed to adoption, DHS, and the assigned contract agency where applicable, shall within 30 days of the goal change: a. Assign a worker with adoption expertise to the case;
24

b. Determine whether the child’s foster parent(s) or relative(s) are prepared to adopt the child and, if so, take appropriate steps to secure their consent to adoption;
c. If no adoptive resource has been identified, register the child on national, regional, and local adoption exchanges; and
d. If no adoptive resource has been identified, develop and implement a child-specific plan to recruit an adoptive family for the child.
The child-specific recruitment plan shall be reviewed at least quarterly until the child is placed in the home of a family that plans to care for the child through the age of majority as follows: (a) in the first six months following the child’s goal becoming adoption or guardianship, in a face-to-face meeting between the Adoption worker and the Adoption Supervisor; (b) in cases where a permanent home has not been identified within six months of the child’s permanency goal becoming adoption or guardianship, in a face-to-face meeting attended by the Adoption worker, the Adoption Supervisor and a person designated by the central office, not previously involved in the case, who is specially trained in permanency and adoption processes and planning, and (c) in cases where a permanent home has not been identified within one year of the child’s permanency goal becoming adoption or guardianship, in a face-to-face meeting attended by the Adoption worker, the Adoption supervisor, and an outside expert engaged by DHS with expertise in permanency and adoption processes and planning.
Beginning November 15, 2008, DHS in consultation with the Monitor shall develop a process that will identify barriers to adoption and guardianship in cases in which a permanent home has not been identified within six months of the child’s permanency goal becoming adoption or guardianship.
4. Preparation and Filing of Petition for Termination of Parental Rights: The process of freeing a child for adoption and seeking and securing an adoptive
25

placement shall begin as soon as the child’s permanency goal becomes adoption, but in no event later than as required by federal law. A petition to terminate the parental rights of any parent whose rights must be terminated in order for the child to achieve permanency shall be filed within two weeks of the date on which the goal is changed to adoption, whether the goal change results from DHS’s decision or from a court order.
5. Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative: DHS, and the assigned contract agency where applicable, shall not assign a permanency goal of placement with a fit and willing relative to a child for whom it has not made adoption efforts unless: a. An appropriate relative has been identified and has cleared all background checks required for placement of a child in the home; b. The relative is willing to assume long-term responsibility for the child but has legitimate reasons for not adopting the child or pursuing permanent legal guardianship; c. It is in the child’s best interests to remain in the home of the relative rather than be considered for adoption by another person; and d. The permanency goal receives the documented approval of the Director of the Bureau of Child Welfare or a higher-ranking official. In such circumstances, DHS and the relative shall execute an agreement that ensures the permanency and stability of this placement.
With respect to any child assigned the goal of placement with a fit and willing relative as of the effective date of this Agreement, DHS shall ensure that, as part of the next regularly scheduled permanency plan review process, the goal is reviewed and changed, or there is documentation established in the case record that the conditions of this subsection of the Agreement have been met.
26

6. Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement: DHS, and the assigned contract agency where applicable, shall not assign the permanency goal of Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (“APPLA”) unless: a. The child is at least 14 years old; b. Every reasonable effort has been made, and documented in the record, to return the child home, to place the child with appropriate family members, or to place the child for adoption; c. The foster parent(s) caring for the child have agreed in writing to continue to do so until the child is emancipated; and d. The permanency goal receives the documented approval of the Director of the Bureau of Child Welfare, or a higher-ranking official.
With respect to any child assigned the goal of APPLA as of the effective date of this Agreement, DHS shall ensure that, as part of the next regularly scheduled permanency plan review process, the goal is reviewed and changed, or there is documentation established in the case record that the conditions of this subsection of the Agreement have been met.
7. Independent Living and Emancipation: DHS, and the assigned contract agency where applicable, shall not assign a permanency goal of independent living or emancipation to any child. No child below the age of 16 may be placed in an independent living placement.
With respect to any child assigned the goal of independent living or emancipation as of the effective date of this Agreement, DHS shall ensure that, as part of the regularly scheduled permanency plan review process, the goal is reviewed and changed.
8. Adoption Subsidies: Upon identification of an adoptive family for a child legally freed for adoption, DHS shall within 14 days provide the putative adoptive family with an adoption subsidy application and explanatory
27

materials regarding the adoption subsidy program in Michigan and related federal Title IV-E regulations and HHS policies. DHS shall include a written record of delivery of such materials in the child’s file.
9. Disrupted Pre-Adoptive Placements: DHS shall maintain a list, which shall be made available to the Monitor, of all Michigan Children’s Institute (“MCI”) wards and permanent court wards whose pre-adoptive placements disrupt prior to finalization. This list shall include: a. The name of the child; b. The name and address of the child’s putative adoptive parents; c. The date of and reason for the placement disruption; and d. The current placement of the child.
G. Special Reviews for Backlogged Children: 1. Backlog Cohorts: The provisions of this section shall apply to all children in DHS foster care custody, including those children placed through private CPAs, who, at any time from the date of execution of this Agreement until January 1, 2009 (a) have had the parental rights of their parents terminated and have been legally free for adoption for more than 365 days or (b) have a goal of reunification and have been in care for more than 365 days. 2. Actions to Be Taken During SFY 2008: Upon execution of this Agreement and throughout the remainder of SFY 2008, DHS will develop and implement the policies, procedures, and organizational structures required to achieve legal permanency for children whose cases are part of the Backlog Cohorts. DHS shall:
a. Establish the position of Permanency Planning Coordinator, with overall responsibility for implementing this section. The Permanency Planning Coordinator shall ensure the development of position descriptions and qualification requirements for the Permanency Planning Specialists described below, develop statements of work for any such positions to be filled by
28

contract providers, and develop policies and procedures for implementing the other steps required by this section.
b. Create at least 200 positions for Permanency Planning Specialists, including related supervisory and support staff. These shall be limited-term, specialized assignment positions responsible for reviewing cases of and pursuing legal permanency for children in the Backlog Cohorts. If DHS decides to fill some or all of these positions by contract, the statement of work developed for the contracting process will be provided to Plaintiffs and to the Monitor for review and comment prior to issuance. DHS shall fill 108 of these positions during SFY 2008, and the balance during SFY 2009.
c. Develop policies and procedures for permanent legal guardianship, subsidized guardianship, concurrent planning, post-adoption services, postpermanency guardianship services, community services, and youth permanency services that will facilitate the effort to achieve timely permanency for children for whom parental rights are terminated.
d. Undertake a gap analysis study to identify the services and supports required, but not currently available, to adequately address the needs of children in the Backlog Cohorts. e. Develop and submit to the Michigan Legislature for legislative action Permanent Legal Subsidized Guardianship legislation.
f. Hire sufficient training staff to develop curriculum for training, and train Permanency Planning Specialists.
g. Begin reporting on the number, characteristics, and progress of children in the Backlog Cohorts, sorted by county, worker, and private CPA.
29

h. Continue to assign the Permanency Planning Coordinator to manage the Backlog Project and monitor and report on progress.
3. Actions to be Taken During SFY 2009: In SFY 2009, DHS shall:
a. Hire and/or contract for and train an additional 92 Permanency Planning Specialists, including related supervisory and support staff, to review and pursue legal permanency for Backlog Cohort cases.
b. Continue to assign the Permanency Planning Coordinator to manage the Backlog Project and monitor and report on progress.
c. By September 30, 2009, achieve legal permanency for at least 50% of the children in each of the two backlog groups identified in Section VII.G.1 above.
4. Actions to Be Taken During SFY 2010 and SFY 2011: During SFY 2010 and 2011, DHS shall:
a. Continue to employ and/or contract for sufficient Permanency Planning Specialists, as required, to pursue legal permanency for all Backlog Cohort cases not already in permanency status in the manner described above.
b. Continue to assign the Permanency Planning Coordinator to manage the Backlog Project and monitor and report on progress.
c. By the conclusion of SFY 2010 (September 30, 2010), achieve legal permanency for 85% of the children in each of the two Backlog Cohorts identified in Section VII.G.1 above.
30

d. By the conclusion of SFY 2011 (September 30, 2011), achieve legal permanency for 100% of the children in each of the two Backlog Cohorts identified in Section VII.G.1 above.
H. Caseworker Contacts and Visits: 1. Worker-Child Contacts: By October 2011, each child in foster care shall be visited by the assigned foster care case manager at least two times during the child’s first month of placement, and at least one time per month thereafter. At least one visit each month shall take place at the child’s placement location and shall include a private meeting between the child and the case manager. By October 2012, the requirement of two visits per month shall apply for the first three months following an initial placement or a placement move.
2. Worker-Parent Visits: By October 2009, for each child in foster care with a permanency goal of reunification, the child’s caseworker will have face-toface contacts with the child’s parent(s) as follows: (a) for the first month the child is in care, two face-to-face contacts with each parent, at least one of which must occur in the home, and two phone contacts with each parent, if the parent has a phone; (b) for each subsequent month, at least one face-to-face contact with each parent and phone contact as needed, with at least one contact in each three-month period occurring in the parent’s place of residence.
3. Parent-Child Visits: By October 2009, DHS shall take all reasonable steps to assure that children in foster care with a goal of reunification shall have at least twice-monthly visitation with their parents. Reasonable exceptions to this requirement shall include cases in which: (1) a court orders less frequent visits; (2) the parents are not attending visits despite DHS’s having taken adequate steps to ensure the parents’ ability to visit; (3) one or both parents cannot attend the visits due to exigent circumstances such as hospitalization or incarceration; or (4) the child is above the age of 16 and refuses such visits.
31

All exceptions, and all reasonable steps to assure that visits take place, shall be documented in the case file. If such exceptions exist, DHS shall review the appropriateness of the child’s permanency goal.
4. Sibling Visits: By October 2009, DHS shall take all reasonable steps to assure that children in foster care who have siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have at least monthly visits with their siblings who are placed elsewhere in DHS foster care custody. Reasonable exceptions to this requirement shall include cases in which: (1) the visit may be harmful to one or more of the siblings; (2) the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children; (3) the distance between the children’s placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative; or (4) one of the siblings is above the age of 16 and refuses such visits. All exceptions, and all reasonable steps taken to assure that visits take place, shall be documented in the case file.
VIII. SERVICES AND PLACEMENT RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION
A. Provision of Services: DHS shall ensure that children in foster care have access to appropriate services sufficient in range and quantity to meet their service and placement needs, including medical and dental care, mental health services, and appropriate educational services. Consistent with the provisions of Section VII.D, DHS shall ensure that appropriate action is taken in each case to assist the child(ren), parent(s), and foster parent(s) in connecting to, engaging with, and making use of these services.
DHS shall be responsible for helping the parent(s), child(ren), and foster parent(s) identify appropriate, accessible, and individually compatible services; assisting with transportation when necessary; helping to identify and resolve any barriers that may impede parent(s), child(ren), and foster parent(s) from making effective use of
32

services; and intervening to review and amend the service plan when services are not provided or do not appear to be effective.
DHS will monitor the provision of services to determine whether they are of appropriate quality and are having the intended effect.
1. Provision of Medical, Dental, and Mental Health Services: DHS shall, by October 2009, take all necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that each child entering foster care receives: a. Any needed emergency medical, dental, and mental health care; b. A full medical examination within 30 days of the child’s entry into care;
2. Health Services Plan: By June 2009, DHS shall provide to the Monitor and Plaintiff a detailed Health Services Plan, which shall set forth the specific action steps DHS will implement in order to ensure that each child entering foster care receives: a. A screening for potential mental health issues utilizing a valid and reliable tool within 30 days of entry into foster care, and a referral for a prompt further assessment by an appropriate mental health professional for any child with identified mental health needs as indicated by the screening tool; b. All required immunizations, as defined by the American Pediatric Association, at the appropriate age; c. Periodic medical, dental, and mental health care examinations and screenings, according to the guidelines set forth by the American Pediatric Association; and d. Any needed follow-up medical, dental, and mental health care as identified.
The Health Services Plan shall be subject to the approval of the Monitor in consultation with the parties. The Monitor shall establish timeframes for
33

implementation of subsections VIII.A.2.a-d above in consultation with the parties.
DHS shall maintain an up-to-date medical file for each child in care, including medical history information reasonably available to DHS. DHS shall ensure that, at the time a child is placed in a foster home or residential care facility, the foster care provider receives specific written information about the child’s present health status and any present medical needs or health concerns, as well as any medical history of which DHS is aware, that is reasonably necessary for the foster care provider to responsibly care for the child.
In maintaining medical records, DHS shall ensure that it is in compliance with MCL 722.954c(2) by preparing, updating, and providing medical passports to caregivers. In addition, DHS shall ensure that the medical passport, or some other DHS document inserted in each child’s file, includes a complete and regularly updated statement of all medications prescribed to and given to the child. All such information shall be provided to all medical and mental health professionals to whom the child is referred and accepted for treatment, as well each foster care provider with whom a child is placed.
By November 15, 2008 and thereafter, each child entering care shall be assigned a Medicaid number and the foster parent or other placement provider shall receive a Medicaid card, or an alternative verification of the child’s Medicaid status and number, within 30 days of the child’s entry into care. For any subsequent placement during the same episode of care, the foster parent or other placement provider shall receive the child’s Medicaid card or alternative verification of Medicaid status and number upon the child’s placement.
3. Reconfiguration of Mental Health Services Spending: Beginning October 2008, DHS shall redirect at least $3 million to fund mental health services. In
34

order to help ensure that children in foster care in each county have access to the range of mental and behavioral health services and supports necessary to address their needs, including behavior management training and supports for caregivers working with children with behavioral problems, DHS will gather and analyze data on the way in which DHS funds are utilized to provide mental health services. DHS shall determine whether the allocation of these funds matches the priority needs of the children served, and if not, shall implement a plan to reallocate those funds to support the development and provision of services to meet the priority needs. New contracts for reconfiguration of Mental Health Services Spending will be implemented as follows: a. By October 2009, in Wayne, Kent, Oakland, Genesee, and Macomb
Counties; b. By October 2010, in Berrien, Calhoun, Ingham, Jackson, Kalamazoo,
Muskegon, Saginaw, St. Clair, and Washtenaw Counties; and c. By October 2011, in all remaining counties. This paragraph is not intended to limit any other obligations under this Agreement.
4. Supports for Children Transitioning to Adulthood: a. DHS will ensure that children age 14 and older in foster care and youth transitioning from foster care to adulthood have access to the range of supportive services necessary to support their preparation for and successful transition to adulthood, including but not limited to independent living services eligible for federal reimbursement under the Chafee program, and shall maintain sufficient resources to deliver independent living services to all children in the Plaintiff class who qualify for them. b. DHS also shall develop and implement the following policies, services, and programs focused on meeting the needs of foster children who are 14 years and older with a permanency goal other than a goal of reunification:
35

i. Beginning November 15, 2008 and thereafter, DHS shall refer all children age 14 and older in foster care and youth transitioning from foster care to adulthood to Michigan Works! Agencies for participation in youth programs and services administered under the Workforce Investment Act, 29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq., designed to assist youth in developing job skills and career opportunities, and shall refer suitably qualified children for summer training, mentorship, and enrichment opportunities;
ii. By November 15, 2008, DHS shall have developed and implemented a policy and the necessary resources to extend all foster youths’ eligibility for child foster care custody until age 20 and to make available independent living services through the age of 21;
iii. By November 15, 2008, DHS shall develop and implement a policy and process by which all children emancipating from the foster care system at age 18 or beyond are enrolled for Medicaid managed care coverage so that their coverage continues without interruption at the time of emancipation;
iv. Beginning November 15, 2008, DHS shall refer all children without an identified housing situation at the time of emancipation from the foster care system at age 18 or beyond to the Michigan State Housing Development Authority for rental assistance and services under the Homeless Youth Initiative; and
v. By October 2009, DHS shall hire 14 regional Education Planners who shall provide consultation and support to youth age 14 and older in accessing educational services and in developing individualized education plans, including identifying all available financial aid resources.
5. Provision of Educational Services: a. DHS shall ensure that each child is screened for general and educational needs within 30 days of his/her entry into foster care.
36

b. DHS shall take reasonable steps to ensure that school-aged foster children are registered for and attending school within 5 days of initial placement or any placement change, including while placed in congregate care or emergency placements. No child shall be schooled pursuant to MCL Section 380.1561(3)(f).
c. DHS shall make reasonable efforts to ensure the continuity of a child’s educational experience by keeping the child in a familiar or current school and neighborhood, when this is in the child’s best interests and feasible, and by limiting the number of school changes the child experiences.
6. Improved Utilization of Existing Sources of Funding for Child/Family-Specific Goods and Services: In order to ensure that the range of funds, including “flexible funds” (referred to in Section IX.B), available to meet individualized needs of families and children can be readily accessed by case managers working with those families and children, DHS shall implement a system that designates appropriate and knowledgeable administrative staff, rather than the case managers, as the staff responsible for determining the specific funding source to be drawn upon for the provision of goods and services identified as needed by the case manager/TDM team and for coding and processing the necessary paperwork. This system shall be implemented statewide by October 2009.
B. Foster and Adoptive Home Recruitment, Retention, and Support 1. DHS shall: a. Ensure that each county has a sufficient number and adequate array of foster homes capable of serving the needs of those children coming into care for whom foster home placement is appropriate; b. Ensure that relatives of children in foster care and non-relatives with whom a child has a family-like connection are identified and considered as potential foster home placements for children; where a relative or nonrelative with whom the child has a family-like connection is an
37

appropriate foster home placement for a child, DHS shall ensure that appropriate steps are taken to license the relative or non-relative as a licensed foster home as set forth in Section VIII.B.7 below; and c. Develop a placement process in each county that ensures that a child entering foster care for whom a suitable relative foster home placement is not available is placed in the foster home that is the best available match for that child, irrespective of whether that foster home is a DHS- or private CPA-operated foster home.
2. Immediate Recruitment of Placement Resources for Adolescents, Sibling Groups, and Children with Disabilities: By December 15, 2008, DHS shall develop and provide to the Monitor and Plaintiffs a recruitment plan to increase the number of available placements for adolescents, sibling groups, and children with disabilities. The recruitment plan shall include, for each category of placements, the number of placements to be developed; the strategies to be followed in developing such placements; and specific timetables with interim targets. Within 30 days of receiving the proposed plan, the Monitor shall, in consultation with the parties, either approve the plan or, if the Monitor determines that the plan is not appropriate, convene the parties for the purpose of revising the plan so that the plan can be approved within an additional 30 days. DHS shall implement the approved recruitment plan consistent with the timetable and interim targets set forth therein.
3. Development of Treatment Foster Homes: DHS shall develop treatment foster homes, a category of foster homes designed to serve children with higher levels of need. a. By November 15, 2008, DHS will have 50 treatment foster home beds available; b. By October 2009, DHS will have 100 treatment foster home beds available; and
38

c. By October 2010, DHS will have 200 treatment foster home beds available.
4. Assessment of Adequacy of Foster Home and Adoptive Home Capacity: As part of the Needs Assessment set forth in Section IX of this Agreement, DHS shall gather, analyze, and report relevant data and identify the extent to which its present array of available foster and adoptive homes is appropriate to the characteristics and needs of the foster care population. This review shall focus on issues relating to both recruitment and retention of foster and adoptive homes.
DHS will develop and implement, for each county, a foster and adoptive home recruitment and retention plan reasonably designed to ensure adequate foster and adoptive home capacity. Consistent with the Needs Assessment, DHS will ensure that resources are available to support the development and implementation of individualized adoption recruitment plans for children who are free for adoption and whose goal is adoption but for whom no adoptive family has been identified.
The assessments of foster and adoptive home capacity shall be completed as follows: a. By March 2009, for the following counties: Wayne, Oakland, Macomb,
Kent and Genesee; b. By October 2009, for the balance of the state. Foster and adoptive home recruitment and retention plans shall be developed, and implementation initiated, within three months of the completion of the assessments.
5. State Oversight of Foster Home Recruitment: A designated unit or person within the central office shall be responsible for monitoring the development and implementation of the foster and adoptive home recruitment and retention
39

plans by county offices; providing or arranging for technical assistance to the county offices concerning recruitment and retention; and reporting to the Children’s Services Cabinet on progress and problems in achieving the goals set forth in the recruitment and retention plans.
6. Adequacy of Foster Home Board Payments and Specialized Rate Determinations: In order to ensure that payments to foster parents are sufficient to meet the needs of the children in foster care, DHS shall ensure that the Determination of Care (“DOC”) process is applied consistently and appropriately across all counties and offices. DHS shall identify, after consultation with the Monitor and Plaintiffs, a state office responsible for ensuring that Determinations of Care and decisions regarding payment of a specialized administrative rate to contract providers are made uniformly across the state and in accordance with DHS policy. DHS shall also establish procedures by which a foster parent or CPA may obtain review by a designated official in the central office of a Determination of Care or administrative rate (general or specialized) decision.
7. Licensing of Relative Foster Homes: a. Subject to the timeframes for implementation set forth in subsections (k) through (o) below, other than in some exceptional circumstances, as defined in subsection (e) below, all foster parents (relatives and nonrelatives) shall be licensed.
b. When placing a child with a relative who has not been previously licensed as a foster parent, DHS shall: i. Prior to placement, visit the relative’s home to determine that it is safe; ii. Within 72 hours following placement, check law enforcement and child abuse registry records for all adults residing in the home; and
40

iii. Within 30 days, complete a home study determining whether the relative should, upon completion of training and submission of any other required documents, be licensed as a foster parent.
c. All licensed relative foster care providers shall receive the same foster care maintenance rates paid by DHS to similarly situated unrelated foster care providers, including the ability to qualify for enhanced Determination of Care rates.
d. All permanent wards living with relative caregivers shall be provided foster care maintenance payments equal to the payments provided to licensed foster caregivers.
e. If the foster care provider is related to the child, and exceptional circumstances exist such that it is in the child’s best interest to be placed with the relative despite the relative’s desire to forego licensing, such exceptional circumstances for foregoing licensing must be documented in the child’s record, and must be approved by: i. In a “Designated County,” as defined in Section IV.A.3 of this Agreement, the county Administrator of Children’s Services; ii. In any other county, the Children’s Services Field Manager.
In such instances, the relative caregiver and the other adult household members must meet the same safety standards as non-relative providers; the relative caregiver must be fully informed of the benefits, including the exact amount of monetary benefits, of licensure; and the relative caregiver must sign a waiver stating understanding that he or she is foregoing the benefits, including the exact amount of monetary benefits of licensure. The Monitor shall report on the percentage of relative caregivers who elect to waive licensing. In the event that more than 10% of unlicensed relative caregivers decline to be licensed, the Monitor shall conduct a review and
41

report on whether DHS has adequately instituted and followed the procedures set forth in this section.
f. DHS shall submit for pre-approval to Plaintiffs the form waiver letter to be used consistent with the requirements of this section. This waiver must be re-signed by the relative caregiver annually and a copy must be placed in the child’s record. The relative caregiver may change his or her mind and choose to undergo licensing at any time, and when this occurs, DHS must allow the relative caregiver to undergo the licensing process.
g. DHS shall prepare and make public the procedures on obtaining variances from standard foster care licensing requirements for purposes of licensing relative homes. DHS shall not waive any licensing standards that are essential for the safety and well-being of the child.
h. Other than pursuant to the exception for unlicensed relative foster homes set forth in subsection (e) above, no child shall be placed in an unlicensed foster home unless there is an order of the juvenile court that the child be so placed.
i. By November 15, 2008, DHS shall produce and begin the implementation of a written plan, as set forth below, to ensure the speedy licensing of all current unlicensed relative caregivers in a phased-in time period, beginning immediately and to be completed no later than September 30, 2010.
j. The plan shall include: i. The requirement that pre-service and in-service foster parent training be provided to relative caregivers pursuing licensure and that the content of the training include those parts of the general
42

foster parent training curriculum that are relevant to relative caregivers; ii. The designation of sufficient licensing staff to review all current unlicensed foster homes, and to complete the licensing process for each family within 90 days; iii. The designation of sufficient training staff to ensure that all mandatory training is provided to newly licensed relative care foster parents; iv. A process for the re-placement of any child currently in a relative foster home that does not meet the licensing standards, unless exceptional circumstances have been documented and approved, as outlined above; and v. Identification of any categories of relative caregivers whose licensure is to be prioritized.
k. With regard to all children entering DHS foster care custody on or after October 1, 2008, relatives providing foster care for children in DHS foster care custody shall be licensed unless exceptional circumstances have been documented and approved, as outlined above.
l. With regard to all children who, prior to October 1, 2008, are placed in an unlicensed relative foster home (as temporary wards, permanent wards, or state MCI wards), referred to as the “Relative Caregiver Backlog Cohort,” actions are to be taken as set forth in subsections m, n, and o below.
m. Actions to be Taken During SFY 2008: Upon execution of this Agreement and throughout the remainder of SFY 2008, DHS will develop and implement the policies, procedures, and organizational structures required to license all currently unlicensed relative caregivers. Included within this effort, DHS shall do at least the following:
43

i. Establish and fill the position of Relative Licensing Coordinator with overall responsibility for implementing this section. The Coordinator shall ensure the development of position descriptions, qualification requirements, and work processes for the Relative Licensing positions described below, and/or develop statements of work for any such positions to be filled by contract providers, and shall develop policies and procedures for implementing the Backlog Reviews required in this section and to oversee implementation of these reviews;
ii. Create and fill, or provide sufficient funds to contract providers for such providers to fill, 40 Relative Licensing positions. These are to be limited-term, specialized assignment positions dedicated to the Relative Caregiver Backlog Cohort whose responsibilities shall include reviewing cases of unlicensed relative caregivers and implementing licensing processes to determine whether to license these homes and, if so, to get them licensed. Responsibilities shall also include the identification of those homes with the most immediate needs for licensure. The development of necessary forms, agreements, promotional/informational materials, and services manuals will be completed by the Children’s Services Administration;
iii. Establish a unit within the Children’s Services Administration charged with maximizing Title IV-E reimbursements from the federal government;
iv. Develop a combined/coordinated Family Home Assessment for relative providers, family foster care, and adoption;
v. Begin reporting on the number and characteristics of unlicensed relative homes and the children in those homes, and on progress in licensing the homes, broken down by county and private CPA, where applicable; and
44

vi. Have available adequate training staff to develop curriculum and training for and to train Relative Licensing staff.
n. Actions to be Taken During SFY 2009: In SFY 2009, DHS shall:
i. Continue to employ or contract for Relative Licensing staff as necessary and to maintain Licensing Teams, as required, to address all remaining cases within the Relative Caregiver Backlog Cohort; and
ii. Continue to assign the Relative Licensing Coordinator to oversee implementation of this Backlog Review; and to monitor and report on progress.
By September 30, 2009, review of at least 50% of the Relative Caregiver Backlog Cohort shall have been completed, and all homes reviewed shall have been duly licensed as foster care providers, or specially waived from licensure pursuant to the provisions of this section, or, if not licensed or waived, any children placed in such homes shall have been re-placed within 30 days of the decision not to license the home or waive licensure.
o. Actions to be Taken During SFY 2010: In SFY 2010, DHS shall:
i. Continue to employ or contract for Relative Licensing staff as necessary and to maintain Licensing Teams, as required, to address all remaining cases within the Relative Caregiver Backlog Cohort; and
ii. Continue to assign the Relative Licensing Coordinator to oversee implementation of this Backlog Review; and to monitor and report on progress.
45

By September 30, 2010, review of 100% of the Relative Caregiver Backlog Cohort shall have been completed, and all homes reviewed shall have been duly licensed as foster care providers, or specially waived from licensure pursuant to the provisions of this section. If the home is not deemed appropriate for licensure or waiver, pursuant to the provisions of this section, all foster children placed in the home shall be re-placed within 30 days of the decision not to license the home or waive licensure.
8. Implementation of an Adequate Child Placement Process: DHS shall implement an adequate child placement process in each county or region. Prior to implementing the process, DHS shall conduct a review and analysis of the Child Placement Network (“CPN”) process presently in place in Wayne County, and submit to the Monitor a report indicating the results achieved by the CPN pilot in Wayne County, the strengths and weaknesses of that process, and DHS’s conclusions with respect to the appropriateness and effectiveness of a potential rollout of that process in other counties. DHS shall submit for review and approval by the Monitor plans for implementation of adequate placement processes in the remainder of the state, along with any modifications of the CPN process in Wayne County. Full implementation of an adequate placement process will be implemented according to the following schedule: a. By October 2009, in Oakland, Genesee, Kent, and Macomb counties; b. By October 2010, in Berrien, Calhoun, Ingham, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Muskegon, Saginaw, St. Clair, and Washtenaw Counties; and c. By October 2011, in the remainder of the state.
9. Provision of Post-Adoption Services: DHS shall develop and implement a full range of post-adoption services to assist all eligible special needs children adopted from state foster care and their permanent families (including, but not limited to, physical therapy, counseling, and other services required to address the developmental and/or physical disabilities of an adopted child) and shall
46

maintain sufficient resources to deliver such post-adoption services to all children in the Plaintiff class who qualify for these services along with their permanent families.
IX. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
A. No later than November 15, 2008, DHS shall begin an Assessment of the need for additional services and placements, including the need for family preservation services, foster and adoptive placements (including placements for children with disabilities or other behavioral needs), wraparound services, reunification services, and medical, dental, and mental health services, for children in foster care throughout the state.
B. The Assessment shall also include a review of and recommendations regarding the use and availability of “flexible funds” − funds that are available to allow caseworkers to arrange for special cash assistance and/or the purchase of specific goods and services in addition to those normally available through DHS’s regular contacting processes – in order to meet identified needs of children or families and/or remove barriers to reunification or permanency.
C. A second Needs Assessment shall be conducted two years after the conclusion of the first Needs Assessment. The second Needs Assessment will include, in addition to the scope outlined in Sections IX.A and IX.B above, a specific review and recommendation as to whether the additional treatment foster home beds provided pursuant to Section VIII.B.3 are sufficient to meet the needs of children in foster care.
D. Each Needs Assessment shall be conducted in consultation with and subject to the approval of the Monitor, and shall make use of independent experts to the extent that the Monitor reasonably deems necessary. The first Needs Assessment shall be forwarded to the Monitor and the parties by May 15, 2009, and the Monitor, after receiving comments from Plaintiffs, shall issue a final report containing his or her
47

findings within 60 days thereafter. The report shall set forth the findings and recommendations with respect to additional services and placements to be developed and a timeline for development of those additional services and placements. A similar process shall apply to the second Needs Assessment.
E. DHS shall make available additional funds of at least $4 million to develop the additional services and placements identified by the first Needs Assessment, and further additional funds of at least $4 million to develop the additional services and placements identified by the second Needs Assessment. If the costs for implementing the recommendations from the Needs Assessments exceed the additional funds made available pursuant to this subsection, DHS will consult with Plaintiffs and the Monitor to determine how to prioritize the use of the additional funds. If DHS believes that it can create the new services and placements identified by the Needs Assessment, in whole or in part, by re-programming existing funds rather than expending new funds, DHS, in consultation with Plaintiffs and the Monitor, and with the approval of the Monitor, may utilize such reprogramming of existing funds to support the implementation of the Needs Assessment recommendations.
F. In order to fund the additional POS monitoring positions needed to meet the caseload standards set forth in Section VI.E.6 of this Agreement, the State has allocated $2 million of additional state funds. In the event that the review of the POS monitoring function set forth in Section XII.G of this Agreement leads to a revised staffing plan that allows some or all of this $2 million in additional funding to be saved, such savings shall be re-allocated to funding the items and services identified in the Needs Assessment, supplementing the amount of funding provided pursuant to Section IX.E above.
48

X. PLACEMENT STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS
A. General Standards: DHS shall place children according to the following standards:
1. All children shall be placed in accordance with their individual needs, taking into account a child’s need to be placed as close to home and community as possible, the need to place siblings together, and the need to place children in the least restrictive, most home-like setting.
2. Children for whom the permanency goal is adoption should, whenever possible, be placed with a family in which adoption is a possibility.
3. Race and/or ethnicity and/or religion shall not be the basis for a delay or denial in the placement of a child, either with regard to matching the child with a foster or adoptive family or with regard to placing a child in a group facility. Race and/or ethnicity shall otherwise be appropriate considerations in evaluating the best interest of an individual child to be matched with a particular family. DHS shall not contract and shall immediately cease contracting with any program or private CPA that gives preference in its placement practices by race, ethnicity, or religion.
4. Children in the foster care custody of DHS shall be placed only in a licensed foster home, a licensed facility, or, subject to the requirements of Section VIII.B.7 of this Agreement, an unlicensed relative home.
B. Placement Limitations: 1. Limitations on Out-of-County Placements: DHS shall place all children within their own county or within a 75 mile radius of the home from which the child entered custody (whichever is greater), unless: a. The child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility within the county or 75 mile radius; b. The child needs re-placement and the child’s permanency goal is to be returned to his/her parents who at that time reside out of the county or 75 mile radius;
49

c. The child is to be placed with a relative out of the county or 75 mile radius; or,
d. The child is to be placed in an appropriate pre-adoptive or adoptive home that is out of the county or 75 mile radius.
If placement outside the county or 75 mile radius is made: a. In a “Designated County,” as defined in Section IV.A.3 of this Agreement, the county Administrator of Children’s Services shall be specifically required to certify the circumstances supporting the placement in writing, based on his or her own examination of the circumstances and the child’s needs and best interests; b. In any other county, the Children’s Services Field Manager shall be specifically required to certify the circumstances supporting the placement in writing, based on his or her own examination of the circumstances and the child’s needs and best interests.
2. Limitations on Separation of Siblings: Siblings who enter placement at or near the same time shall be placed together, unless doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings, one of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, or the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding diligent efforts to place the group together. If a sibling group is separated at any time, except for reasons set forth above, the case manager shall make immediate efforts to locate or recruit a family in whose home the siblings can be reunited. These efforts will be documented and maintained in the case file and shall be reassessed on a quarterly basis.
3. Limitations on Number of Children in Foster Home: Beginning March 2009, for children entering the foster care system, no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three foster children in that foster home, or a total of six children, including the foster family’s natural
50

and/or adopted children. No placement will result in more than three children under the age of three residing in a foster home. Exceptions to these limitations may be made, on an individual basis, documented in the case file, when in the best interest of the child(ren) being placed, as follows: a. In a “Designated County,” as defined in Section IV.A.3 of this Agreement,
by the county Administrator of Children’s Services; b. In any other county, by the Children’s Services Field Manager.
4. Limitations on Use of Emergency or Temporary Facilities: a. Time limit for placement in emergency or temporary facility: Beginning October 2009, children shall not remain in emergency or temporary facilities, including but not limited to shelter care, for a period in excess of 30 days. b. Number of placements in an emergency or temporary facility: Beginning October 2009, children shall not be placed in an emergency or temporary facility, including but not limited to shelter care, more than one time within a 12-month period. An exception to this limitation shall be made for: i. Children who are AWOLP; ii. Children facing a direct threat to their safety, or who are a threat to the safety of others such that immediate removal is necessary; or iii. Children whose behavior has changed so significantly that the county director or his/her manager designee has certified that a temporary placement for the purposes of assessment is critical for the determination of an appropriate foster placement.
Children experiencing a second emergency or temporary-facility placement within one year shall not remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than seven days.
51

Replacements under this section shall take place in accordance with the determinations made at a TDM held pursuant to the provisions in Section VII.C of this Agreement.
For the period of time between the entry of the Agreement by the Court and the time table for implementation of the TDM process as set forth in Sections VII.C and VII.E of this Agreement, whenever the re-placement of a child is under consideration as a result of any one of the three circumstances set forth in this section, DHS shall conduct a special placement review by the caseworker, which will include talking with the supervisor, the child, and either the most recent foster care provider or the child’s therapist. The special placement meeting shall be for the purpose of examining the circumstances surrounding the potential placement disruption and making a placement decision that is in the child’s best interest. The review shall result in a written determination setting forth the placement decision and its basis.
5. Limitations on Placement in Jail, Correctional, or Detention Facility: No child in DHS foster care custody shall be placed, by DHS or with knowledge of DHS, in a jail, correctional, or detention facility unless such child is being placed pursuant to a delinquency charge. Within 90 days of the signing of this Agreement, DHS shall notify the State Court Administrative Office and the Michigan State Police of this prohibition, and provide written instructions to immediately notify the local DHS office of any child in DHS foster care custody who has been placed in a jail, correctional, or detention facility.
If it comes to the attention of DHS that a child in DHS foster care custody has been placed in a jail, correctional, or detention facility, and such placement is not pursuant to a delinquency charge, DHS shall ensure the child is moved to a DHS foster care placement as soon as practicable, and in all events within five days, unless the court orders otherwise over DHS objection.
52

If a child in DHS foster care custody is placed in a jail, correctional, or detention facility pursuant to a delinquency charge, and the disposition of such a charge is for the child to return to a foster care placement, then DHS shall return the child to a DHS placement as soon as practicable but in no event longer than five days from disposition, unless the court orders otherwise over DHS objection.
6. Limitations on Placement of High Risk Youth: DHS shall not place any child determined by a DHS assessment to be at high risk for perpetrating violence or sexual assault in any foster care placement with foster children not so determined.
7. Limitations on Residential Care Placements: No child shall be placed in a residential treatment center or any other group care setting with a capacity in excess of eight children (campus-wide) without express written approval by: a. In a “Designated County,” as defined in Section IV.A.3 of this Agreement, the county Administrator of Children’s Services; b. In any other county, the Children’s Services Field Manager.
Such approval shall be based on certification and specific findings, documented in the child’s case file, that: (1) the child’s needs cannot be met in any other type of placement; (2) the child’s needs can be met in the specific facility requested; and (3) the facility is the least restrictive placement to meet the child’s needs. A description of the services available in the facility to address the individual child’s needs must also be documented in the case file.
The need for a residential placement shall be reassessed every 90 days. Children may not be placed in a residential placement for more than six months without the express authorization, documented in the foster care file, of:
a. In a “Designated County,” as defined in Section IV.A.3 of this Agreement, the county Administrator of Children’s Services;
b. In any other county, the Children’s Services Field Manager.
53

No child may be placed in a residential placement for more than 12 months without the express authorization, documented in the foster care file, of the Director of Children’s Services Administration or a higher-ranking official.
XI. USE OF PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATIONS, PHYSICAL RESTRAINTS, AND SECLUSION
A. Psychotropic Medications: 1. Psychotropic medication shall not be used as a method of discipline or control for any child.
2. Within six months of the signing of this Agreement, DHS shall undertake a review of the policies and procedures surrounding the use of psychotropic medications. This evaluation will be designed in close collaboration with the Monitor and any additional experts on the use of psychotropic medication for children it deems appropriate. The Monitor shall make recommendations, which shall include timetables for implementation, promptly upon reviewing the results of the evaluation, which DHS shall implement. The Monitor shall consult with Plaintiffs in designing the evaluation and issuing recommendations.
3. By November 15, 2008, DHS shall create and as soon as possible thereafter hire or contract for the services of a full-time Medical Director, with appropriate qualifications, who shall, among other things, be responsible for overseeing the implementation of policies and procedures concerning the use of psychotropic medications for all children in DHS foster care custody, and who shall have the authority to issue and impose corrective actions. The Medical Director shall report directly to the Director of Children’s Services Administration.
54

4. When possible, parents shall consent to the use of medically necessary psychotropic medication. In the event that a parent is not available to provide consent for psychotropic medication, DHS shall, pursuant to applicable sections of state law, apply to the court for consent.
5. By January 15, 2009, DHS shall establish and implement processes to ensure documentation of psychotropic medication approvals, documentation by contract agencies of all uses of psychotropic medication, and review of such documentation by appropriate DHS staff, including the Medical Director, on an ongoing basis.
B. Use of Physical Restraint and Seclusion/Isolation: 1. DHS shall prohibit the use of Positive Peer Culture, peer-on-peer restraint, and any other forms of physical discipline in all foster care placements. All uses of physical restraint for children in any placements, and all uses of seclusion/isolation in group, residential, or institutional placements, shall be reported to the Quality Assurance (“QA”) unit. Such reports shall be made available to the licensing unit and the Medical Director for appropriate action.
2. Within six months of the signing of this Agreement, DHS shall undertake a review of the policies and procedures surrounding all forms and use of physical restraint and seclusion/isolation of children in foster care. This evaluation will be designed in close collaboration with the Monitor and any additional experts on the use of physical restraint and seclusion/isolation of children as it deems appropriate. The Monitor shall make recommendations, which shall include timetables for implementation, promptly upon reviewing the results of the evaluation, which DHS shall implement.
3. The QA unit, in consultation with the Medical Director, shall be responsible for monitoring the implementation of policies and procedures surrounding all
55

forms and use of physical restraint and seclusion/isolation of children in DHS foster care custody, and shall issue and impose corrective actions.
XII. DHS SUPERVISION OF CONTRACT AGENCIES
A. All CCIs and private CPAs that provide placements and child welfare services to Plaintiff class members shall be bound by all applicable terms of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the caseload limits and supervisor-to-caseworker ratio limits set forth in Section VI.E, the supervisory staff training and qualifications set forth in Section VI.B, and the caseworker training and qualifications requirements set forth in Section VI.A.
B. By November 15, 2008, all DHS contracts with CCIs or private CPAs that provide placements and child welfare services to Plaintiff class members shall be performance-based contracts that require an annual review of the CPAs’ and CCIs’ performance. By October 2009, DHS shall incorporate all applicable performance outcome goals set forth in Section III of this Agreement and process requirements of this Agreement into the performance-based contracts, but will do so without limiting the ability of DHS to independently monitor and enforce these contracts. Further, DHS shall develop a set of enforcement measures to be imposed in the event that a contract agency fails to comply with material terms or requirements of the performance-based contract. DHS shall specify in any such contract: (1) that any reports of suspected abuse or neglect of any Plaintiff class member while receiving such contracted placements or services shall be reported to DHS for investigation; (2) that all placement providers for foster children in DHS foster care custody are prohibited from using or authorizing the use of corporal punishment for children under the care and supervision of DHS or the private CPA; and (3) that any reports of suspected corporal punishment while in that provider’s care shall be reported to DHS for investigation, as necessary.
56

C. DHS shall give due consideration to any and all substantiated incidents of abuse, neglect, and/or corporal punishment occurring in the placements licensed and supervised by a contract agency at the time of processing its application for licensure renewal. The failure of a contract agency to report suspected abuse or neglect of a child to DHS shall result in an immediate investigation to determine the appropriate corrective action up to and including termination of the contract or placement of the provider on provisional licensing status, and a repeated failure within one year shall result in termination of the contract.
D. By March 2009, DHS shall ensure that all CCIs or private CPAs that provide placements and child welfare services to Plaintiff class members report to DHS accurate data on at least a six-month basis in relation to the requirements of this Agreement.
E. Beginning October 2009, DHS shall conduct contract evaluations of all CCIs and private CPAs providing placements and services to Plaintiff class members, to ensure, among other things, the safety and well-being of Plaintiff class members and to ensure that the contract agency is complying with the applicable terms of this Agreement. At least once each year, DHS shall inspect each private CPA to review all relevant aspects of the agency’s operations; shall conduct an unannounced inspection of each residential care facility; and shall visit a random sample of each agency’s foster homes, including the greater of 5% of the total number of homes supervised by the agency or 10 homes. Visits to foster homes shall assess the safety of children placed in the home and the extent to which children and foster parents are receiving appropriate supports from the CPA. DHS shall prepare written reports of its inspections and visits, detailing findings. DHS shall require corrective actions and require providers to report to DHS on the implementation of these corrective action plans, and shall conduct follow-up visits when necessary. Such reports will routinely be furnished to the Monitor.
F. DHS shall maintain sufficient resources to permit its staff to undertake timely and
57

competent contract enforcement activities as set forth in this section. As necessary based upon workload, DHS shall expand its staff to allow for increased monitoring and oversight responsibilities.
G. By April 2009, DHS will, in coordination with the Monitor, review the effectiveness of the DHS POS monitoring function in providing case-level oversight of private CPAs.
XIII. MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM
A. By October 2009, DHS shall generate from an automated system accurate and timely data reports regarding each of the requirements and outcome measures set forth in this Agreement and regarding those other requirements of this Agreement for which automated reporting is reasonable and appropriate, as determined by the Monitor in consultation with the parties. Extensions to this date, allowing additional time during which DHS may supply particular reports based upon manual counts, may be granted by the Monitor after consultation with Plaintiffs.
By October 2012, DHS shall have an automated statewide child welfare information system (“SACWIS”) compliant with applicable federal regulations governing functionality, data integrity, and QA measures.
B. By January 2009, in consultation with the Monitor and in coordination with Children’s Services Administration, Field Operations Administration, private CPA representatives, and Local/Regional DHS office representatives, DHS shall design a permanency tracking system and associated reports. The system shall, at a minimum, be capable of reporting pertinent status information sorted by individual child, DHS worker/CPA, and county, for all children in foster care. By April 2009, DHS shall issue accurate data from the permanency tracking system to the Monitor and Plaintiffs.
58

C. Both leading up to and subsequent to the full implementation of a SACWIS, DHS shall at all times satisfy all federal reporting requirements and shall maintain data integrity and accuracy on a continuous basis.
XIV. QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. DHS shall, in consultation with and subject to the approval of the Monitor, develop and implement a statewide QA program that will be directed by a QA unit established within the DHS central office. In administering the QA program, the QA unit shall develop an internal DHS capacity to undertake data collection, data verification, data assessment, case record or qualitative service review and other such oversight and reporting functions that, in coordination with the Monitor and any external data review processes undertaken by the Monitor, will facilitate ongoing assessment of DHS child welfare performance in relation to the performance requirements and goals contained in this Agreement. The QA unit will support the DHS Director and DHS management in identifying areas of systemic strengths and weaknesses and in formulating strategies to improve in areas of substandard performance. The QA unit shall provide ongoing critical evaluation and oversight of the strategies designed and undertaken to improve substandard services and outcomes.
B. The QA unit shall become a permanent unit of the Child Welfare Improvement Bureau within the DHS central office. It shall continue to perform the functions described in this section after full implementation of this Agreement and DHS exit from Court jurisdiction.
C. The DHS Director shall appoint a director to administer the QA unit who possesses the necessary qualifications and experience to conduct competent data collection, evaluation, as well as the management skills necessary to manage a staff tasked to perform QA functions encompassing DHS state, regional, and county offices. The director of the QA unit shall report directly to a member of the Children’s Services
59

Cabinet. The QA unit shall be adequately staffed, and its staff shall receive specialized training to fulfill all unit responsibilities.
D. All reports provided by the QA unit shall become public record so long as any individually identifying information in relation to the temporary or permanent wards in DHS foster care custody is redacted from such report consistent with applicable state and federal confidentiality laws.
E. Reporting on DHS Performance: The QA unit shall, within 60 days following the end of each Reporting Period as defined in Section XVII.H of this Agreement, compile and provide, in consultation with the Monitor, all pertinent data regarding statewide performance in relation to the requirements and outcome measures contained in this Agreement. This data shall be furnished to the Monitor and Plaintiffs.
F. Special Reviews for Higher Risk Cases: 1. By November 15, 2008, DHS shall designate the membership of a special review team, reporting to the Director of Children’s Services Administration, charged with conducting reviews designed to assess and meet the needs of children in the following higher risk categories: a. Children who have been the subject of an allegation of abuse or neglect in a residential care setting or a foster home, whether licensed or unlicensed, between June 2007 and September 2008, and who remain in the facility or home in which the maltreatment is alleged to have occurred; b. Children, not subject to the provisions of Section XIV.F.1.a above, who have been the subject of three or more reports alleging abuse or neglect in a foster home, the most recent of which reports was filed during or after July 2007, and who remain in the foster home in which maltreatment is alleged to have occurred; c. Children who, at the time of review, have been in three or more placements, excluding return home, within the previous 12 months;
60

d. Children who, at the time of review, have been in residential care for one year or longer; and
e. Children who, at the time of review, are in an unrelated caregiver placement, defined as an unlicensed home in which the caregiver is not a relative of the child but has been approved as a placement resource because of prior ties to the child and/or the child’s family.
2. By November 15, 2008, DHS shall develop, subject to the approval of the Monitor and in consultation with Plaintiffs, a plan setting forth: a. The dates and processes by which DHS shall have compiled an accurate list of children subject to review because they meet one or more of the criteria set forth above; b. The number and type of special reviews DHS proposes to undertake in the upcoming 90-day period, and the rationale for these choices; and c. The data to be reported at the conclusion of the 90-day period.
3. At the conclusion of the initial 90-day period, DHS shall report to the Monitor and Plaintiffs the results of the reviews conducted during the period, and shall develop and implement a corrective action plan, as appropriate, to address the findings.
4. The review process set forth in Sections XIV.F.1 and XIV.F.2 above shall be repeated every 90 days until all special reviews are completed. The Monitor may, upon DHS’s request and after consultation with Plaintiffs, terminate the requirement for completing any or all categories of special reviews, upon finding that either (a) DHS has developed sufficient, generally useful information as a result of these reviews, and further special review of individual cases is unlikely to provide significant benefit, or (b) because of DHS’s implementation of other relevant sections of this Agreement, such reviews are no longer necessary.
61

G. Fatality Reviews: DHS shall ensure that a review, conducted by qualified and competent individuals and independent of the county in which the fatality occurred, has been conducted, and the findings and recommendations of that review conveyed to the Monitor and Plaintiffs, of each child who died while in the foster care custody of DHS, as follows: 1. For such children who died during the three-year period ending March 31, 2008, no later than November 15, 2008; 2. For child fatalities occurring after March 31, 2008, within six months of the date of death. Findings and recommendations of these reviews will be incorporated into all relevant QA activities, program improvement, contract agency oversight, and other related policies and practices.
XV. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
No later than December 15, 2008, DHS will develop a detailed implementation plan, approved by Plaintiffs and the Monitor, that will become part of this Agreement and fully enforceable. The implementation plan will set forth the steps, timetables, and persons responsible by which DHS will achieve compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The parties will review this implementation plan on an annual basis to determine whether modifications are necessary to ensure that DHS achieve compliance in the manner and within the time periods contained in this Agreement.
XVI. NAMED PLAINTIFFS
A. DHS will provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with regular quarterly updates of the individual Named Plaintiffs’ case records until such time as the Named Plaintiffs are no longer in DHS foster care custody. Within 30 days of the Court’s approval of this Agreement, and each quarter thereafter, the parties will meet and confer in good faith regarding the Named Plaintiffs’ case plans and the placements and services provided to the Named Plaintiffs, and attempt to agree on necessary services and plans. In the
62

event the parties cannot agree on such services and plans, the issue shall be referred to the Monitor for resolution.
B. In addition to the case record updates described above, DHS will provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with prior notification, if possible, and if not possible, with notification as soon as practicable, of any significant events or developments concerning the Named Plaintiffs, including but not limited to any change in placement, services, permanency goal, or permanency plans; and any allegations of abuse or neglect involving any of the Named Plaintiffs or occurring in their placement(s). Plaintiffs may meet and confer in good faith with DHS regarding these events and developments. In the event the parties cannot agree on the actions to be taken with respect to such events or developments, the issue shall be referred to the Monitor for resolution. If there is no monitor for any reason, the issue will be referred to the Court.
C. Nothing in this section shall be read to waive or preclude any and all individual damages claims by Plaintiff class members, including the Named Plaintiffs.
XVII. MONITORING
A. The parties agree that Kevin M. Ryan shall be the Monitor of DHS’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
B. Neither party, nor any employee or agent of either party, shall have any supervisory authority over the Monitor’s activities, reports, findings, or recommendations. The retention of the Monitor shall be conducted solely pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Agreement and will not be governed by any formal or legal procurement requirements. The Monitor shall hire such staff as the Monitor deems necessary to discharge his or her responsibilities under this Agreement.
C. The Monitor shall have free and complete access to records maintained by DHS, its divisions and any successor agencies or divisions, and by its contract providers. The
63

Monitor shall also have free and complete access to the staff of DHS; its divisions and any successor agencies or divisions; persons within the executive branch; contract providers; children in the care of DHS and of contract providers; and other individuals that the Monitor deems relevant to his or her work. DHS shall direct all employees and contract providers to cooperate fully with the Monitor and shall assist the Monitor in gaining free access to other stakeholders in the child welfare system. All non-public information obtained by the Monitor shall be maintained in a confidential manner. In providing the public reports described in Sections XVII.H XVII.I and below, and consistent with applicable state and federal confidentiality requirements, the Monitor shall not identify public or private staff or agencies, except to the extent that such information about public or private staff and agencies has already been made public. Plaintiffs shall have access, through the Monitor, to all information made available to the Monitor, subject to the existing protective order in effect in this case.
D. The Monitor shall have the authority to conduct, or cause to be conducted, such case record reviews, qualitative reviews, and audits as the Monitor reasonably deems necessary. In order to avoid duplication and build capacity within the agency, DHS shall provide the Monitor with copies of all state-issued data reports regarding topics covered by this Agreement. Notwithstanding the existence of state data, data analysis or reports, the Monitor shall have the authority to prepare new reports on outcome measures and all other terms of this Agreement to the extent the Monitor deems necessary.
E. The Monitor and Plaintiffs shall receive, and the Monitor shall review (and, for data, verify the accuracy of) all written processes, programs, procedures, statements of work, formal analyses, system designs, and data reports developed pursuant to this Agreement. The Monitor shall take into account the timeliness, appropriateness, and quality of these work products in reporting on the State’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
64

F. In addition to the requirements set forth in paragraph E above, the Monitor’s duties shall be to: confirm independently the data reports and statistics provided pursuant to this Agreement; conduct independent case record or other qualitative reviews or audits; review and approve all plans, documents, and data reports agreed to be developed and produced by DHS pursuant to this Agreement; and report on DHS’s progress in implementing the terms of this Agreement and the achievement of the outcomes set forth herein. The Monitor shall specifically review and approve, prior to implementation, the following specific products required by this Agreement: 1. The plan for training staff responsible for home studies and licensing, as set forth in Section VI.C; 2. The assessment and case planning process (to ensure that the processes provide the information necessary in high quality case planning) set forth in Section VII.A; 3. The process by which information from the TDM is provided to and utilized by the supervisors (to ensure that this process results in appropriate follow-up, effective on-going case supervision, and timely supervisory oversight of case plan implementation), set forth in Section VII.C; 4. Procedures by which a foster parent or CPA shall seek review of a Determination of Care or administrative rate decision, set forth in Section VIII.B.6; 5. The Needs Assessments set forth in Section IX; 6. The policies and procedures for use of psychotropic medications, set forth in Section XI.A; 7. Data reports for each of the outcome measures in this Agreement and for those other requirements of this Agreement for which the Monitor determines that automated reporting is reasonable and appropriate (in consultation with the parties); 8. The design of a permanency tracking system and associated reports, set forth in Section XIII.B; 9. The development and implementation of a statewide QA program, set forth in Section XIV;
65

10. The special review plans set forth in Section XIV.F; and 11. The Health Services Plan required to be developed pursuant to Section
VIII.A.2.
G. During Reporting Period Two, unless another timeframe is agreed upon by the parties, the Monitor shall provide the parties with a written monitoring plan setting forth the methodologies by which the Monitor will measure DHS’s progress in implementing the terms of this Agreement and achieving the outcomes set forth herein. Specifically, the Monitor’s methodologies may include, but are not limited to, analyses of information collected: (a) by DHS’s management and information systems if and when available and accurate; (b) from a review of relevant case records; (d) from the production of data aggregated by the Monitor or third parties; and (d) from interviews with DHS staff, resource families, class members or prior class members and their families, contract agency staff, service providers, and other Michigan child welfare stakeholders. The Monitor shall make best efforts to specify the methods he or she will utilize to perform his or her duties as to each and every section of this Agreement. The plan may be periodically revised by the Monitor, after consultation with the parties, particularly if and when DHS data becomes more available and accurate and when a QA unit becomes functional. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to in any way limit the scope of the Monitor’s access to information and individuals as otherwise set forth herein.
H. For each Reporting Period, the Monitor will issue a report setting forth the measurable progress made by DHS in relation to each of the performance (process and outcome) requirements contained in this Agreement. Reporting Period One will begin on October 1, 2008, and end on March 31, 2009. Each subsequent Reporting Period (to be identified as “Reporting Period Two,” “Reporting Period Three,” and so forth in consecutive number sequence) shall be the six-month period of time beginning on the day following completion of the previous Reporting Period. The end of each Reporting Period will coincide with the end of a federal reporting period.
66

I. The Monitor’s reports, which shall be public documents, shall set forth DHS’s levels of compliance with the outcome measures and processes set forth in this Agreement. The reports shall also set forth the steps taken by DHS, the reasonableness of these efforts, and the adequacy of support for the implementation of these steps; the quality of the work done by DHS in carrying out those steps; and the extent to which that work is producing the intended effects and/or the likelihood that the work will produce the intended effects. Such reports shall be issued every six months, unless the parties agree otherwise. The reports shall be provided to the parties in draft form for comment at least two weeks prior to formal issuance.
J. The intent of the parties is that the Monitor shall develop a plan to transfer the primary monitoring function to DHS’s QA unit upon the termination of this Agreement, or at such earlier time as the parties may agree. The Monitor shall work in collaboration with DHS in building its QA capacity.
K. The parties may request that the Monitor review and issue recommendations regarding the provision of services to the Named Plaintiffs in this case.
L. The Monitor shall not express any conclusions as to whether DHS has reached legal compliance on any item or items.
M. If at any time the Monitor can no longer serve, the parties shall agree on another Monitor, with input and recommendations from the outgoing Monitor.
N. DHS shall enter into a contract to secure the services of the Monitor. The Monitor shall have a budget and staff sufficient to allow the Monitor to carry out the responsibilities described in this Agreement, and may contract with such experts or consultants as he or she may deem appropriate, in consultation with the parties. Experts or consultants hired by the Monitor may initiate and receive ex parte communications with the parties.
67

O. Other than as expressly provided in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or right DHS may assert, including those recognized at common law and created by statute, rule, or regulation against any other person or entity with respect to the disclosure of any information.
P. The Monitor shall be permitted to engage in ex parte communications with all parties. 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.
Q. Unless such conflict is waived by the parties, the Monitor shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitor’s responsibilities under this Agreement, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant’s or claimant’s attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against the state of Michigan or its departments, officers, agents, or employees.
R. The Monitor is not a state or local agency or an agent thereof, and accordingly the records maintained by the Monitor shall not be deemed public records subject to public inspection. Neither the Monitor nor any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitor to assist in furthering any provision of this Agreement shall be liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising out of the Monitor’s good-faith performance pursuant to this Agreement. This paragraph does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement.
XVIII. ENFORCEMENT, DISPUTE RESOLUTION, AND TERMINATION
A. This Agreement shall constitute the entire integrated Agreement of the parties. No prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, will be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein in this matter or in any other proceeding.
68

B. In the event that Plaintiffs identify an area in which they believe DHS is not in substantial compliance with an enforceable provision of this Agreement:
1. Plaintiffs shall, prior to seeking judicial relief, notify DHS and the Monitor, in writing, of the compliance issue.
2. Within 15 calendar days of Plaintiffs’ notification, DHS 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.
3. Regardless of whether DHS agrees with Plaintiffs’ assertion of noncompliance, the parties shall meet with the Monitor within 15 calendar days of Plaintiffs’ notice, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The purpose of this meeting shall be for the parties to engage in good faith discussions facilitated by the Monitor to determine whether additional actions are necessary to address Plaintiffs’ assertion of non-compliance. The parties shall engage in these facilitated dispute resolution discussions for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
4. If at the end of the 30-day 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.
5. To the extent that any non-compliance by DHS is in whole or in part attributable to DHS’s organizational structure, changes in organizational structure shall be considered as among the elements of the corrective actions needed to correct the non-compliance.
6. If Plaintiffs believe that DHS has violated this Agreement and, as a result, have caused or are likely to cause immediate and irreparable harm to a child(ren) in DHS’s foster care custody, they may seek emergency judicial relief. Before taking such action, however, Plaintiffs must give DHS 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. DHS will respond to this notice in writing
69

within three business days. The parties must then invoke the provisions in Sections XVIII.B.1-5 above, provided that the entire process shall be completed within 10 business days of DHS’s response to Plaintiffs’ notice, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
C. This Agreement shall terminate upon the finding by the Court that DHS has achieved compliance with all terms of the Agreement and has remained in compliance with those terms for a period of 18 months. The burden shall be on DHS to demonstrate compliance.
D. DHS shall maintain sufficient records to document its compliance with all of the requirements of this Agreement. During the period of this Agreement, DHS shall maintain any and all records required by or developed under this Agreement.
E. The parties agree to defend the provisions of this Agreement. The parties shall notify each other of any court challenge to this Agreement. In the event any provision of this Agreement is challenged in any local or state court, the party(ies) affected shall remove the matter to a Michigan federal court and seek consolidation with the present action.
F. In the event that legislation currently known as the “Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act” is enacted into law, DHS agrees that it will not invoke their right under that Act to modify or vacate the consent decree resulting from this Agreement. Nothing in this section limits DHS’s ability to seek to modify or vacate the provisions of this Agreement under other law.
G. This Agreement shall be binding on all successors, assignees, employees, agents and all those working for or on behalf of Plaintiffs and DHS.
70

 
 2:0C6-acsve-1: 31514-181-N40GED-DoAcuSmeDnot:c0#061191209F2i1le0d8084/0F7il/e1d1: 0P4/g071/2o0f 121 PPgagIDe:61814

Leonard Green Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540 POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988

Filed: April 07, 2011

Ms. Dari C. Bargy Mr. Brad H. Sysol Mr. B. Jay Yelton III Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone 277 S. Rose Street, Suite 5000 Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Mr. Charleszetta Cheeks 131 Atkinson Street Detroit, MI 48202
Mr. William R. Morris Office of the Michigan Attorney General P.O. Box 30758 Lansing, MI 48909
Mr. Joseph E. Potchen Public Employment Elections & Tort Division P.O. Box 30736 Lansing, MI 48909-0000

Tel. (513) 564-7000 www.ca6.uscourts.gov

Re: Case No. 11-1140 , Dwayne B., et al v. Jennifer Granholm, et al Originating Case No. : 06-13548
Dear Mr. Cheeks & Counsel, The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case.
Sincerely yours,

cc: Mr. David J. Weaver Enclosure

s/Mary C. Patterson, Case Manager Direct Dial No. 513-564-7014

2:0C6-acsve-1: 31514-181-N40GED-DoAcuSmeDnot:c0#061191209F2i1le0d8094/0F7il/e1d1: 0P4/g072/2o0f 121 PPgagIDe:61815

Case No. 11-1140
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
ORDER
DWAYNE B., by his next friend, John Stempfle; et al.
Plaintiffs
CHARLESZETTA CHEEKS
Petitioner - Appellant
v.
JENNIFER GRANHOLM, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan; MARIANNE UDOW, in her official capacity as Director of the Michigan Department of Human Services; LAURA CHAMPAGNE, in her official capacity as Chief Deputy Director of DHS Operations; JAMES HENNESSEY, in his official capacity as Deputy Director of DHS Children's Services
Defendants - Appellees

Appellant having previously been advised that failure to satisfy certain specified obligations
would result in dismissal of the case for want of prosecution and it appearing that the appellant
has failed to satisfy the following obligation(s):
The motion for pauper status and financial affidavit, which were previously provided to appellant, has not been filed with this Court by March 24, 2011, or the $455.00 appeal filing fee was not paid to the U.S. District Court by March 24, 2011.
It is therefore ORDERED that this cause be, and it hereby is, dismissed for want of
prosecution.
ENTERED PURSUANT TO RULE 45(a), RULES OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Leonard Green, Clerk

Issued: April 07, 2011

___________________________________

 
 2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 160 Filed 01/22/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 5940

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

DWAYNE B., by his next friend, John Stempfle, ) No. 2:06-cv-13548

et al., for themselves and others similarly

) Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds

situated,

) Hon. Mag. Donald A. Scheer

Plaintiffs,

)

v.

) Class Action

)

JENNIFER GRANHOLM, in her official

)

capacity as Governor of the state of Michigan, et )

al.,

)

Defendants.

)

_______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND NON-TAXABLE EXPENSES

The Court, having considered the Parties’ Joint Motion for Approval of

Settlement Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable Expenses, notice to the Class

having been given by Defendants in accordance with the Order of this Court, no written

objections having been submitted in response to the Notice, two written responses

favoring approval of the Settlement Regarding Attorneys’ Fees and Non-Taxable

Expenses having been submitted and reviewed by the Court, and the Court being fully

advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Court finds that the Parties’ settlement of Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’

fees and non-taxable costs is fair, reasonable and adequate, pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §1988,

2. The Court approves the Parties’ settlement agreement that Plaintiffs shall be

awarded $6,200,000.00 to compensate Class Counsel for their investment of

professional services and non-taxable expenses in this class action,

1

2:06-cv-13548-NGE-DAS Doc # 160 Filed 01/22/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 5941

3. The Court’s approval of the Parties’ settlement of Plaintiffs’ claim for attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs shall not be construed to constitute any finding regarding the appropriate hourly rates to be charged by Plaintiffs’ Counsel for professional services rendered in monitoring and enforcing the Court’s October 24, 2008 order,
4. Defendants shall make full payment of the settlement amount of $6,200,000 to Plaintiffs within twenty-eight (28) days of entry of this Order, and
5. For purposes of the award of attorneys’ fees and non-taxable expenses relating to ongoing monitoring and enforcement activities of Plaintiffs’ courtappointed counsel, no further Notice to the Class shall be required.

Nancy United

s/Nancy G. Edmunds G. Edmunds States District Judge

Dated: January 22, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties and/or counsel of record on January 22, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Carol A. Hemeyer Case Manager

2

 
 22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg11oof f4466 PPggIDID88221506
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

DWAYNE B., by his next friend, John Stempfle; CARMELA B., by her next friend, William Ladd; LISA J., by her next friend, Teresa Kibby; and JULIA, SIMON, and COURTNEY G., by their next friend, William Ladd; for themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 2:06-cv-13548
Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds
Class Action
IMPLEMENTATION, SUSTAINABILITY, AND EXIT PLAN

RICK SNYDER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan, et al.,

Defendants.
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Sara M. Bartosz Children’s Rights 330 Seventh Avenue, Fourth Floor New York, New York 10001 Phone: 212.683.2210

/
Attorneys for Defendants:
Michelle Brya (P66861) William R. Morris (P31957) Assistant Attorneys General Health, Education and Family
Services Division P.O. Box 30758 Lansing, MI 48909 Phone: 517.373.7700
John J. Bursch (P57679) Special Assistant Attorney General Warner Norcross & Judd LLP 111 Lyon Street, N.W., Suite 900 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503-2487 Phone: 616.752.2474

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg22oof f4466 PPggIDID88221517
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................ i Index of Definitions ....................................................................................................... 2 1. Preamble.............................................................................................................. 3 2. Principles............................................................................................................. 4 3. Implementation, Sustainability, and Exit ......................................................... 5 4. Structures and Policies ....................................................................................... 8 5. To Be Maintained.............................................................................................. 14 6. To Be Achieved .................................................................................................. 18 7. Monitoring ......................................................................................................... 37 8. Enforcement and Dispute Resolution .............................................................. 41 9. Attorneys’ Fees .................................................................................................. 43
i

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg33oof f4466 PPggIDID88221528

Index of Definitions

Agreement ................................................3 CCI ..........................................................12 CFSR ......................................................... 8 Commitment .............................................5 CPA .........................................................10 CPS ...........................................................9 CSA ...........................................................9 CWTI ....................................................... 14 DCWL .....................................................13 Designated Counties.................................9

Designated Performance Standard ......... 5 DHHS ....................................................... 3 Floor Performance Standard ................... 5 MiSACWIS ..............................................13 Monitors ..................................................37 Plaintiffs................................................... 3 POS .......................................................... 9 QAP .......................................................... 3 QSR .......................................................... 3 Reporting Period .....................................38

2

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg44oof f4466 PPggIDID88221539
The parties agree and the Court orders as follows:
1. Preamble
1.1 The provisions of this Implementation, Sustainability, and Exit Plan (the “Agreement”) supersede and replace the July 18, 2011 Modified Settlement Agreement and Consent Order. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the individually named public officer defendants have been substituted as parties.
1.2 This Court has subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over this action and the authority to enter this Agreement. The Court has continuing jurisdiction over this action to ensure compliance with the Agreement for as long as the Agreement remains in effect.
1.3 The term “DHHS” refers to all Defendants in the case of Dwayne B. v. Snyder, Civil Action 2:06-cv-13548, including but not limited to Rick Snyder, in his official capacity as Governor of Michigan, and Nick Lyon, in his official capacity as Director of DHHS. Any state agency responsible for the care, protection, and/or supervision of Plaintiffs shall be bound by the provisions of this Agreement. For as long as this Agreement remains in effect, all provisions referring to the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department, or DHHS, upon any subsequent changes to the current government organizational structure of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services concerning the Plaintiffs, will apply with full force and effect to the State of Michigan and any agency or agencies with responsibilities that apply to the current DHHS under this Agreement.
1.4 The term “Plaintiffs” refers to all members of the class certified by Judge Nancy G. Edmunds on February 15, 2007, in the case of Dwayne B. v. Snyder, Civil Action Number 2:06-cv-13548.
1.5 This Agreement is not a DHHS admission of any liability concerning any of the claims and allegations in the Complaint in this litigation.
1.6 The parties acknowledge that this Agreement is controlled by and implemented in accordance with the United States Constitution and federal law and subject to federal court supervision and enforcement. The parties further acknowledge that this Agreement will be implemented consistent with the Michigan Constitution and State law insofar as the provisions of the Michigan Constitution and State law do not conflict with controlling federal law.
1.7 In this Agreement, “QAP” means a quality assurance process, approved by the Monitors with input from Plaintiffs, that includes cases reads and may also include other quality improvement activities like interviews and focus groups.
1.8 In this Agreement, “QSR” means a quality service review approved by the Monitors with input from Plaintiffs.
3

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg55oof f4466 PPggIDID88221640
2. Principles
2.1 Interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement shall be guided by the following principles: (a) Safety. The first priority of the DHHS child welfare system is to keep children safe. (b) Children's Needs. Whenever possible, children must have a voice in decisions that affect them, and DHHS must consider the specific needs of each child as decisions are made on his or her behalf. (c) Families and Communities. Families must be treated with dignity and respect, and, whenever possible, included in decisions that affect them and their children. DHHS must actively partner with communities to protect children and support families when determining the intervention plan for a child. (d) Placement. The ideal place for children is in their own home with their own family. When DHHS cannot ensure their safety in the family home, it must place children in the most family-like and least restrictive setting required to meet their unique needs and must place siblings together whenever possible. DHHS must strive to make the first placement the best and only placement. (e) Reunification and Permanency. DHHS must reunify children with their siblings and families as soon as is safely possible. When reunification is not possible, DHHS must provide children with a permanent home and/or permanent connection with caring, supportive adults as soon as possible. DHHS must also ensure that children in its care are connected with the resources necessary for physical and mental health, education, financial literacy, and employment and that they acquire the life skills necessary to become successful adults. (f) Services. When DHHS intervenes on behalf of children it must strive to leave children and families better off than if there had been no intervention. DHHS must tailor services to meet the unique needs of each family member and provide those services in a manner that is respectful of the child and the family. Services should be outcome-based, data driven, and continuously evaluated.
4

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg66oof f4466 PPggIDID88221651
3. Implementation, Sustainability, and Exit
3.1 Movement of Commitments Between Sections.
(a) Commitments To Be Achieved.
(1) Each Arabic-numeraled section designated as a commitment (each such section, a “Commitment”) in section 6 (To Be Achieved) is a Commitment for which DHHS’s performance, as validated by the Monitors, has yet to attain the required standard or standards of performance for the Commitment for one Reporting Period (each such standard, a “Designated Performance Standard”). DHHS will provide to the Monitors for each Reporting Period all data and information necessary to assess performance on Commitments in section 6. The Monitors will review and validate this data and information, conduct whatever other monitoring it deems appropriate, and periodically report on progress to the Court, providing a monitoring report at least every six months on the status of DHHS’s performance on each Commitment.
(2) When the Monitors determine that DHHS’s performance has satisfied the Designated Performance Standard or Standards for a Commitment in section 6 (To Be Achieved) at the end of one Reporting Period, the Commitment will be moved to section 5 (To Be Maintained).
(b) Commitments To Be Maintained.
(1) Commitments in section 5 (To Be Maintained) are those for which DHHS’s performance, as validated by the Monitors, has attained its Designated Performance Standard or Standards for at least one Reporting Period. DHHS will provide to the Monitors for each Reporting Period all data and information necessary to assess performance on all Commitments within section 5. The Monitors will review and validate this data and information, conduct whatever other monitoring they deem appropriate, and periodically report on progress to the Court, providing a monitoring report at least every six months on the status of DHHS’s performance on each Commitment.
(2) Provided that DHHS’s performance remains above a threshold level or levels designated for a Commitment (each such threshold level, a “Floor Performance Standard”), that Commitment will remain in section 5 (To Be Maintained). If performance falls below a Floor Performance Standard for two consecutive Reporting Periods, the Monitors will have discretion to return the Commitment to section 6 (To Be Achieved). Before such a reclassification, DHHS will have the opportunity to provide information demonstrating that the performance change resulted from unforeseen and
5

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg77oof f4466 PPggIDID88221662
temporary circumstances not within DHHS’s control. Commitments that the Monitors move to section 6 (To Be Achieved) must be returned to section 5 (To Be Maintained) if the Monitors determine that DHHS performance meets the Designated Performance Standard or Standards in a single Reporting Period.
(c) Rolling Exit and Movement from To Be Maintained. Each Commitment will become eligible for exit, subject to court approval, based on the criteria specified in this Agreement for that Commitment, which unless otherwise specified, falls into one of the following three categories:
(1) Can Become Eligible for Rolling Exit. Once DHHS’s performance on a Commitment in this category, as validated by the Monitors, has been sustained at the Designated Performance Standard or Standards for at least two consecutive Reporting Periods while the Commitment is in section 5 (To Be Maintained), the Commitment will become eligible for rolling exit from this Agreement.
(2) Never Eligible for Rolling Exit. A Commitment in this category is ineligible for rolling exit from this Agreement. It will remain in section 5 (To Be Maintained) and be subject to full monitoring until this Agreement terminates.
(3) Can Become Eligible To Move to Structures and Policies. Once DHHS performance on a Commitment in this category, as validated by the Monitors, has been sustained at the Designated Performance Standard or Standards for two consecutive Reporting Periods (which may include the period of compliance while in the “To Be Achieved” classification), the Commitment will move to section 4 (Structures and Policies), where it will remain for the duration of court jurisdiction, under the terms of section 3.1(d).
(d) Structures and Policies. Commitments in section 4 (Structures and Policies) are structural and policy components of the DHHS child welfare system that DHHS will maintain for the duration of this Agreement. Upon placement in section 4, these Commitments will not be actively monitored. At the Monitors’ discretion, the Monitors may request, and DHHS will supply, information and data relating to any Commitment in this classification. If the information and data demonstrates a substantial departure from the structural or policy Commitment, the Monitors may request that DHHS propose corrective action. If DHHS fails, within a reasonable period of time as determined by the Monitors, to propose and implement a corrective action that reestablishes compliance with the structural or policy Commitment, the Monitors may, in their discretion, move the Commitment into section 6 (To Be Achieved) or
6

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg88oof f4466 PPggIDID88221673
section 5 (To Be Maintained) and undertake full monitoring in relation to the Commitment. (e) Default Performance Standard. Unless specifically stated otherwise, for each Commitment, the Designated Performance Standard and the Floor Performance Standard are compliance with the terms of that Commitment. 3.2 Termination. This Agreement will terminate when the following conditions are simultaneously met: (a) Every Commitment is in section 4 (Structures and Policies) or section 5 (To Be Maintained), (b) DHHS has performed at the Designated Performance Standard on every Commitment in section 5 (To Be Maintained) for at least two consecutive Reporting Periods while that Commitment is in section 5, and (c) There are neither outstanding requests for corrective action nor incomplete corrective actions, with respect to any Commitment in section 4 (Structures and Policies).
7

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg99oof f4466 PPggIDID88221684
4. Structures and Policies
4.1 State and Federal Funding (Commitment 1). DHHS does not speak for the Michigan Legislature, which has the power under Michigan law to determine the appropriations for the State’s child welfare programs. However, at least annually after Court approval of this Agreement, and consistent with existing state budgetary practices and legal requirements, DHHS shall request State funds and any federal/ special fund authorization sufficient to effect the provisions and outcome measures set forth in this Agreement in connection with any budget, funding, or allocation request to the executive or legislative branches of State government. To the extent that it is anticipated that the funding of critical needs shall be met, in whole or in part, by way of federal sources, DHHS shall request federal fund authorization in amounts which are determined to be realizable and consistent with regular budgetary needs assessments. Such budgetary requests, which shall be provided to the Monitors, shall, among other things, identify for the executive and legislative branches of State government, with sufficient particularity, the known and anticipated costs to the State for the timely implementation of the reforms and outcome measures provided for herein. DHHS shall maximize available federal funding opportunities. Nothing in this paragraph limits Defendants’ obligations under this Agreement.
4.2 Changes to Federal Indicators (Commitment 2). The indicators set forth in this Agreement for safety and permanency were developed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services as part of the Child and Family Service Review (“CFSR”) process. In the event that, during the term of this Agreement, Health and Human Services further modifies these indicators or the methodologies underlying these indicators, the parties and the Monitors shall meet to determine whether to make corresponding changes in DHHS’s responsibilities under this Agreement.
4.3 Quality Assurance Program (Commitment 3). DHHS shall maintain a statewide quality assurance program, approved by the Monitors, that shall be directed by a Quality Assurance Unit. DHHS shall ensure accurate data collection and data verification. In administering the quality assurance program, the Quality Assurance Unit will maintain internal DHHS capacity to undertake data analysis, case record or qualitative service review, and other such oversight and reporting functions that, in coordination with the Monitors and any external data review processes undertaken by the Monitors, shall facilitate ongoing assessment of DHHS child welfare performance in relation to the performance requirements and goals contained in this Agreement. The Quality Assurance Unit shall support the DHHS Director and DHHS management in identifying areas of systemic strengths and weaknesses and in formulating strategies to improve in areas of substandard performance. The Quality Assurance Unit shall provide ongoing critical evaluation and oversight of the strategies designed and undertaken to improve substandard services and outcomes. All reports provided by the Quality Assurance Unit shall be public record so long as 8

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg1100oof f4466 PPggIDID88221695
any individually identifying information in relation to the temporary or permanent wards in DHHS foster care custody is redacted from such report consistent with applicable state and federal confidentiality laws. The Quality Assurance Unit shall, within 60 days following the end of each Reporting Period, compile and analyze, in consultation with the Monitors, all pertinent information regarding statewide performance in relation to the requirements and outcome measures contained in this Agreement. This data shall be furnished to the Monitors and Plaintiffs.
4.4 Child Protective Service Investigations (Commitment 4). DHHS will maintain a QAP to ensure that Child Protective Services (“CPS”) reports are competently investigated and actions taken and services provided are appropriate to the circumstances. In addition, DHHS will maintain a Book of Business that will provide CPS caseworkers with an at-a-glance look at the previous 30 days’ performance, present status, and future benchmarks.
4.5 Caseworker Qualifications and Training (Commitment 5).
(a) DHHS will maintain a policy that entry-level caseworkers have a bachelor’s degree in social work or a related human services field and providing for a caseload progression for all workers that includes appropriate training before the assignment of cases and competency examinations and supervisory approval before assignment of a full caseload. DHHS will also maintain a policy that entry level licensing workers have a bachelor’s degree in social work or a related human services field.
(b) The requirements in this Commitment apply to all DHHS caseworkers for positions in CPS, foster care, and adoption, who are responsible for cases of Plaintiffs either directly or as purchase-of-service (“POS”) workers, and any private agency caseworkers with corresponding responsibilities for class members.
4.6 Children’s Services Agency (Commitment 6). DHHS shall maintain a Children’s Services Agency (“CSA”) headed by an Executive Director at the Deputy level within DHHS and dedicated solely to child welfare services. The CSA will develop child welfare policy and determine statewide standards. The CSA will take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that statewide policies, standards, and practices are implemented and maintained in each county of the state, whether services are provided by public or private agencies, and that each county uses uniform forms, data collection, and reporting. Individual staff within Genesee, Kent, Macomb, Oakland, and Wayne counties (each county, a “Designated County”), including but not limited to caseworkers, supervisors, managers, and county-level Administrators, shall be assigned full-time to children’s services and shall not hold responsibility for any of DHHS’s other functions, such as cash assistance, Medicaid, or adult services.
9

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg1111oof f4466 PPggIDID88222606
4.7 Maltreatment in Care Units (Commitment 7). DHHS will maintain regional maltreatment-in-care units, staffed by specially trained CPS staff, responsible for all investigations of abuse or neglect relating to any child in the foster care custody of DHHS. DHHS shall ensure dedicated supervision, oversight, and coordination of all maltreatment-in-care investigations.
4.8 Foster Home Capacity (Commitment 8). DHHS shall continue to conduct a diligent search for kin and fictive kin caregivers upon removal of a child into DHHS custody. A designated unit or person within the DHHS central office shall be responsible for monitoring the development and implementation of the foster and adoptive home recruitment and retention plans by county offices; providing or arranging for technical assistance to the county offices concerning recruitment and retention; and reporting to the CSA Director on progress and problems in achieving the goals set forth in the recruitment and retention plans.
4.9 Relative Foster Care Providers and Caregivers (Commitment 9). All licensed relative foster care providers shall receive the same foster care maintenance rates paid by DHHS to similarly situated unrelated foster care providers, including the ability to qualify for enhanced Determination of Care rates. All permanent wards living with relative caregivers shall be provided foster care maintenance payments equal to the payments provided to licensed foster caregivers.
4.10 Relative Foster Home Licensing (Commitment 10). DHHS shall continue to implement the policies, procedures, and organizational structures required to license all unlicensed relative caregivers. Included within this effort, DHHS shall maintain a position of Relative Licensing Coordinator with overall responsibility for development of a combined/coordinated Family Home Assessment for relative providers, family foster care, and adoption; monitoring and reporting on the number of unlicensed relative homes and the foster children in those homes, broken down by county and private Child Placement Agency (“CPA”), where applicable; and ensure the availability of adequate staff to develop curriculum and training for and to train relative licensing staff. DHHS shall require that pre-service and in-service foster parent training be provided to relative caregivers pursuing licensure and that the content of the training include those parts of the general foster parent training curriculum that are relevant to relative caregivers.
4.11 Relative Licensing Waivers (Commitment 11). DHHS shall prepare and make public the procedures on obtaining variances from standard foster care licensing requirements for purposes of licensing relative homes. DHHS shall not waive any licensing standards that are essential for the safety and well-being of the child.
4.12 Provision of Post-Adoption Services (Commitment 12). DHHS shall develop and implement a full range of post-adoption services to assist all eligible special needs children adopted from state foster care and their permanent families (including, but not limited to, physical therapy, counseling, and other services required to address
10

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg1122oof f4466 PPggIDID88222617
the developmental and/or physical disabilities of an adopted child) and shall maintain sufficient resources to deliver such post-adoption services to all Plaintiffs who qualify for these services, along with their permanent families.
4.13 Placement Standards and Limitations, Policy (Commitment 13). All children shall be placed in accordance with their individual needs, taking into account a child’s need to be placed as close to home and community as possible, the need to place siblings together, and the need to place children in the least restrictive, most homelike setting. DHHS shall not place any child determined by a clinical assessment to be at high risk for perpetrating violence or sexual assault in any foster care placement with foster children not so determined without an appropriate assessment concerning the safety of all children in the placement. Race and/or ethnicity and/or religion shall not be the basis for a delay or denial in the placement of a child, either with regard to matching the child with a foster or adoptive family or with regard to placing a child in a group facility. Race and/or ethnicity shall otherwise be appropriate considerations in evaluating the best interest of an individual child to be matched with a particular family. DHHS shall not contract and shall immediately cease contracting with any program or private CPA that gives preference in its placement practices by race, ethnicity, or religion.
4.14 Transitional Youth Services (Commitment 14). DHHS will maintain its Homeless Youth Initiative policy, which connects emancipated youth with community housing resources.
4.15 Family Engagement Model (Commitment 15). DHHS will continue using its family engagement model, including Family Team Meetings, to make critical case decisions. DHHS will maintain a QSR process to monitor fidelity of implementation and the continuous improvement of the model.
4.16 Special Reviews for Children Legally Free/In Care More Than One Year (Commitment 16). DHHS is committed to moving to permanency all children (a) who have had the parental rights of their parents terminated, have had the goal of adoption for more than 365 days, and do not have an identified adoptive placement, and (b) who have a goal of reunification and have been in care for more than 15 months. DHHS will commit to conducting special reviews for all children in these categories.
4.17 Health Care (Commitment 17). DHHS shall maintain a full-time Health Unit Manager, with appropriate qualifications, who shall, among other things, be responsible for overseeing the implementation of policies and procedures concerning the use of psychotropic medications for all children in DHHS foster care custody. The Health Unit Manager shall have the authority to recommend corrective actions. The Health Unit Manager shall report directly to the CSA. DHHS shall hire or contract for the services of a medical consultant who shall be a physician. The medical
11

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg1133oof f4466 PPggIDID88222628
consultant shall provide consultation on all health related matters required under this Agreement. The medical consultant shall report to the Health Unit Manager.
4.18 Medical, Dental, and Mental Health Services, Policy (Commitment 18).
(a) DHHS shall ensure that every child receives all needed emergency medical, dental, and mental health care.
(b) DHHS shall ensure that every child receives all needed follow-up medical, dental, and mental health care as identified.
4.19 Corporal Punishment & Seclusion/Isolation, Prohibition and Policy (Commitment 19). DHHS shall prohibit the use of Positive Peer Culture, peer-onpeer restraint, and any other forms of corporal punishment in all foster care placements and shall maintain a policy regarding seclusion/isolation.
4.20 Contract Agency Requirements (Commitment 20).
(a) DHHS’s contracts with private CPAs and Child Caring Institutions (“CCI”s) shall be performance-based and shall include all of the following requirements: (1) compliance with performance goals as set forth in this Agreement; (2) compliance with all aspects of all DHHS policies and procedures that apply to the provider; (3) any reports of suspected abuse or neglect of any Plaintiff while receiving such contracted placements or services shall be reported to DHHS for investigation; (4) all placement providers for foster children in DHHS foster care custody are prohibited from using or authorizing the use of corporal punishment for children under the care and supervision of DHHS or the private CPA or CCI; (5) any reports of suspected corporal punishment while in that provider’s care shall be reported to DHHS and investigated by DHHS, the CPA, or the CCI, as necessary; and (6) all CCIs or private CPAs that provide placements and child welfare services to Plaintiffs report to DHHS accurate data on at least a sixmonth basis in relation to the requirements of this Agreement. DHHS shall independently monitor and enforce these contracts. Further, DHHS shall maintain a set of enforcement measures to be imposed in the event that a contract agency fails to comply with material terms or requirements of the performance-based contract.
(b) DHHS shall give due consideration to any and all substantial incidents of abuse, neglect, and/or corporal punishment occurring in the placements licensed and supervised by a CPA or CCI at the time of processing its application for licensure renewal. The failure of a CPA or CCI to report suspected abuse or neglect of a child to DHHS shall result in an immediate investigation to determine the appropriate corrective action up to and including termination or modification of relevant portions of a contract, or placement of the provider on provisional licensing status. A repeated failure within one year shall result in a review of the contract agency’s violations by a designated Administrative 12

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg1144oof f4466 PPggIDID88222639
Review Team, which shall include the Director of CSA and the Director of the Division of Child Welfare Licensing (that division, the “DCWL”) or its successor agency that shall consider mitigating and aggravating circumstances to determine the appropriate corrective action up to and including license revocation and contract termination. (c) DHHS shall conduct annual contract evaluations of all CCIs and private CPAs providing placements and services to Plaintiffs to ensure, among other things, the safety and well-being of Plaintiffs and to ensure that the contract is complying with the applicable terms of this Agreement. (d) DHHS shall maintain sufficient resources to permits its staff to undertake timely and competent contract enforcement activities as set forth in this section. 4.21 Reporting (Commitment 21). For the purposes of determining compliance with requirements of this Agreement, DHHS and the Monitors shall meet at least 30 calendar days before the end of each Reporting Period to ensure methods of data collection and data definitions are consistent with the expected reports for that period. 4.22 MiSACWIS (Commitment 22). DHHS will maintain an operational statewide automated child welfare information system (“MiSACWIS”) which will be the primary tracking system and satisfy federal reporting requirements.
13

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg1155oof f4466 PPggIDID88222740
5. To Be Maintained
5.1 Caseload Progressions for New Employees (Commitment 23).
(a) No cases will be assigned to a new CPS worker until the completion of the first four weeks of pre-service training. At that point, up to five total cases may be assigned using the Child Welfare Training Institute (“CWTI”) case assignment guidelines. The first five cases will not include an investigation involving children under eight years of age or children who are unable to communicate. Final caseload may be assigned after nine weeks.
(b) For foster care and adoption workers, three training cases may be assigned on or after day one of pre-service training at the supervisor’s discretion using CWTI case assignments guidelines. After completion of week three of pre-service training, up to five total cases may be assigned with supervisory approval using CWTI case assignment guidelines. Final caseload may be assigned after nine weeks.
(c) The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 90%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 90%. If DHHS achieves the Designated Performance Standard in Reporting Period 9, the parties and Monitors will recommend this outcome for immediate exit. If not achieved in Reporting Period 9, this Commitment will progress pursuant to the terms of section 3 and can become eligible for rolling exit.
5.2 Support for Transitioning to Adulthood, YAVFC (Commitment 24).
(a) DHHS will continue to implement policies and provide services to support youth transitioning to adulthood, including ensuring youth have been informed of services available through the Young Adult Voluntary Foster Care program, as measured through a QAP.
(b) The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 90%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 80%, using a QAP instrument that is approved by the Monitors (in consultation with the parties) within 30 days following court approval of this Agreement. The instrument will be used beginning 30 days following the Monitor’s approval. This Commitment can become eligible for rolling exit.
5.3 Support for Transitioning to Adulthood, Independent Living Services (Commitment 25).
(a) DHHS will continue to implement policies and provide services to support youth transitioning to adulthood, including ensuring access to independent living services through age 20, as measured through a QAP process.
14

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg1166oof f4466 PPggIDID88222751
(b) The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 90%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 80%, using a QAP instrument that is approved by the Monitors (in consultation with the parties) within 30 days following court approval of this Agreement. The instrument will be used beginning 30 days following the Monitors’ approval. This Commitment can become eligible for rolling exit.
5.4 Support for Transitioning to Adulthood, MYOI (Commitment 26).
(a) DHHS will continue to implement policies and provide services to support youth transitioning to adulthood, including maintaining Michigan Youth Opportunities Initiative programming, with model fidelity, at current levels in Michigan.
(b) This Commitment can become eligible for rolling exit.
5.5 Support for Transitioning to Adulthood, MYOI Coordinators (Commitment 27).
(a) DHHS will continue to implement policies and provide services to support youth transitioning to adulthood, including maintaining established Michigan Youth Opportunities Initiative coordinators.
(b) This Commitment can become eligible for rolling exit.
5.6 Support for Transitioning to Adulthood, Family Team Meetings (Commitment 28).
(a) DHHS will continue to implement policies and provide services to support youth transitioning to adulthood, including ensuring that all youth age 16 and older have a Family Team Meeting occurring 90 days before planned discharge from care or within 30 days after an unexpected discharge (DHHS shall use the 90day exit meeting as an opportunity to inform youth leaving the child welfare system regarding resources available in their community, such as support, housing, education, employment, transportation, financial management, and health, as measured through a QAP).
(b) The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 90%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 80%, using a QAP instrument that is approved by the Monitors (in consultation with the parties) within 30 days following court approval of this Agreement. The instrument will be used beginning 30 days following the Monitors’ approval. This Commitment can become eligible for rolling exit.
15

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg1177oof f4466 PPggIDID88222762
5.7 Support for Transitioning to Adulthood, APPLA Goals (Commitment 29).
(a) DHHS will continue to implement policies and provide services to support youth transitioning to adulthood, including ensuring that youth age 16 and older in foster care with a permanency goal of Another Planned Living Arrangement, Another Planned Living Arrangement – Emancipation, or goal of adoption without an identified family have access to the range of supportive services necessary to support their preparation for and successful transition to adulthood, as measured through a QAP.
(b) The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 90%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 80%, using a QAP instrument that is approved by the Monitors (in consultation with the parties) within 30 days following court approval of this Agreement. The instrument will be used beginning 30 days following the Monitors’ approval. This Commitment can become eligible for rolling exit.
5.8 Permanency Indicator 2 (Commitment 30). DHHS shall achieve an observed performance of at least the national standard (43.6%) on CFSR Round 3 Permanency Indicator Two (Of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period who had been in foster care [in that episode] between 12 and 23 months, what percent discharged from foster care to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the 12month period?). Notwithstanding section 3.1, this Commitment is eligible for rolling exit after a single period of compliance.
5.9 Permanency Indicator 3 (Commitment 31). DHHS shall achieve an observed performance of at least the national standard (30.3%) on CFSR Round 3 Permanency Indicator Three (Of all children in foster care on the first day of a 12-month period, who had been in foster care [in that episode] for 24 months or more, what percent discharged to permanency within 12 months of the first day of the 12-month period?). Notwithstanding section 3.1, this Commitment is eligible for rolling exit after a single period of compliance.
5.10 Permanency Indicator 4 (Commitment 32). DHHS shall achieve an observed performance of the national standard (8.3%) or less on CFSR Round 3 Permanency Indicator Four (Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period who discharged within 12 months to reunification, living with a relative(s), or guardianship, what percent re-enter foster care within 12 months of their discharge?). Notwithstanding section 3.1, this Commitment is eligible for rolling exit after a single period of compliance.
5.11 Permanency Indicator 5 (Commitment 33). DHHS shall achieve an observed performance of the national standard (4.12) or less on CFSR Round 3 Permanency Indicator Five (Of all children who enter foster care in a 12-month period, what is the
16

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg1188oof f4466 PPggIDID88222773
rate of placement moves per 1000 days of foster care?). Notwithstanding section 3.1, this Commitment is eligible for rolling exit after a single period of compliance. 5.12 Contract-Agency Evaluation (Commitment 34). (a) DHHS shall conduct contract evaluations of all CCIs and private CPAs
providing placements and services to Plaintiffs to ensure, among other things, the safety and well-being of Plaintiffs and to ensure that the CCI or private CPA is complying with the applicable terms of this Agreement. At least once each year: (1) DHHS shall inspect each private CPA to review all relevant aspects of the
agency’s operations; (2) DHHS shall visit a random sample of each CPA’s foster homes as a part of
the annual inspection. CPAs with less than 50 foster homes shall have three foster homes visited. CPAs with 50 foster homes or more shall have 5% of their foster homes visited; and (3) DHHS shall conduct an unannounced inspection of each CCI. DHHS shall prepare written reports of all contract-agency inspections and visits, detailing findings. DHHS shall require corrective actions and require private CPAs and CCIs to report to DHHS on the implementation of these corrective action plans and shall conduct follow-up visits when necessary. Such reports shall routinely be furnished to the Monitors. (b) This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit. 5.13 Health Care Liaison Officers (Commitment 35). DHHS shall maintain at least 34 Health Liaison Officers, as defined in the “Health Liaison Officers (HLO)” section of DHHS Policy FOM 801 (dated 3-1-15) or any successor policy approved by the Monitors. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies. 5.14 Psychotropic Medication, Prohibition on Disciplinary Use (Commitment 36). Psychotropic medication shall not be used as a method of discipline or be used in place of psychosocial or behavioral interventions that the child requires. The Monitors will measure DHHS performance of this Commitment with case-record reviews. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
17

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg1199oof f4466 PPggIDID88222784
6. To Be Achieved
6.1 Safety - Recurrence of Maltreatment Within Six Months (Commitment 37). DHHS shall ensure that of all children who were victims of a substantiated or indicated maltreatment allegation during the first six months of the applicable federal reporting period, at least 94.6% were not victims of another substantiated or indicated maltreatment allegation within a six-month period. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.2 Safety - Maltreatment in Foster Care (Commitment 38). DHHS shall ensure that of all children in foster care during the applicable federal reporting period, at least 99.68% were not victims of substantiated or indicated maltreatment by a foster parent or facility staff member. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.3 Permanency Indicator 1 (Commitment 39). DHHS shall achieve an observed performance of at least the national standard (40.5%) on CFSR Round 3 Permanency Indicator One (Of all children entering foster care in a 12 month period, what percent discharged to permanency within 12 months of entering foster care?). Notwithstanding section 3.1, this Commitment is eligible for rolling exit after a single period of compliance.
6.4 Licensing Worker Qualifications and Training (Commitment 40). DHHS submitted a plan to the Monitors on March 5, 2009 identifying the type and amount of training to be provided to all licensing workers. The Monitors approved this plan. DHHS shall continue to train licensing workers in accordance with this plan or in accordance with a successor plan approved by the Monitors. The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 95%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 90%. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.5 Foster Home Array (Commitment 41). DHHS will maintain a sufficient number and array of homes capable of serving the needs of the foster care population, including a sufficient number of available placements for adolescents, sibling groups, and children with disabilities, when foster home placement is appropriate. In consultation with the Monitors, DHHS will develop for each county an annual recruitment plan with foster home targets based on need and number of children in care, including targets for the special populations identified above. After further consultation with and input from the Monitors, DHHS will implement that plan. Notwithstanding section 3.1, this Commitment will be eligible to move to section 4 (Structures and Policies) after compliance has been verified for two consecutive annual recruitment cycles.
6.6 Foster Home Placement Selection (Commitment 42). DHHS shall develop a placement process in each county that ensures that a child entering foster care for whom a suitable relative foster home placement is not available is placed in the foster 18

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg2200oof f4466 PPggIDID88222795
home that is the best available match for that child, irrespective of whether that foster home is a DHHS- or private CPA-operated foster home. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.7 Placement Standard (Commitment 43). Children in the foster care custody of DHHS shall be placed only in a licensed foster home, a licensed facility, pursuant to an order of the court, or an unlicensed relative with a waiver. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.8 Placement in Jail, Correctional, or Detention Facility (Commitment 44). No child in DHHS foster care custody shall be placed by DHHS or with knowledge of DHHS, in a jail, correctional, or detention facility unless such child is being placed pursuant to a delinquency charge. DHHS shall notify the State Court Administrative Office and the Michigan State Police of this prohibition, and provide written instructions to immediately notify the local DHHS office of any child in DHHS foster care custody who has been placed in a jail, correctional, or detention facility. If it comes to the attention of DHHS that a child in DHHS foster care custody has been placed in a jail, correctional, or detention facility, and such placement is not pursuant to a delinquency charge, DHHS shall ensure the child is moved to a DHHS foster care placement as soon as practicable, and in all events within five days, unless the court orders otherwise over DHHS’s objection. If a child in DHHS foster care custody is placed in a jail, correctional, or detention facility pursuant to a delinquency charge, and the disposition of such a charge is for the child to return to a foster care placement, then DHHS shall return the child to a DHHS placement as soon as practicable but in no event longer than five days from disposition, unless the court orders otherwise over DHHS objection. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.9 Placement Outside 75-Mile Radius (Commitment 45).
(a) DHHS shall place all children within a 75-mile radius of the home from which the child entered custody unless:
(1) the child’s needs are so exceptional that they cannot be met by a family or facility within a 75-mile radius;
(2) the child needs re-placement and the child’s permanency goal is reunification with his or her parents who at that time reside out of the 75mile radius;
(3) the child is to be placed with a relative or sibling out of the 75-mile radius; or
(4) the child is to be placed in an appropriate pre-adoptive or adoptive home that is out of the 75-mile radius.
19

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg2211oof f4466 PPggIDID88223706
(b) If a child is placed outside the 75-mile radius, the County Director or, in a Designated County, a county-level child welfare Administrator, shall be specifically required to certify the circumstances supporting the placement in writing, based on his or her own examination of the circumstances and the child’s needs and best interests.
(c) This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.10 Separation of Siblings (Commitment 46).
(a) Siblings who enter placement at or near the same time shall be placed together unless:
(1) doing so is harmful to one or more of the siblings;
(2) one of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility; or
(3) the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical notwithstanding efforts to place the group together.
(b) If a sibling group is separated at any time, except for the above reasons, the case manager shall make immediate efforts to locate or recruit a family in whose home the siblings can be reunited. These efforts shall be documented and maintained in the case file and shall be reassessed on a quarterly basis.
(c) Compliance with this Commitment will be measured through a QAP. The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 90%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 85%. This measure is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.11 Treatment Foster Homes (Commitment 47). At any given time, DHHS shall have at least 200 treatment foster home beds. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.12 Maximum Children in a Foster Home (Commitment 48).
(a) No child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in: (1) more than three foster children in that foster home; (2) a total of six children, including the foster family’s birth and adopted children; or (3) more than three children under the age of three residing in that foster home.
(b) Exceptions to these limitations may be made by the Director of the DCWL, on an individual basis documented in the case file, when in the best interest of the child(ren) being placed.
(c) DHHS will continue working to implement a system in which this measure can be evaluated in MiSACWIS by the end of Reporting Period 12 unless the parties agree to an extension. This Commitment will be measured with a QAP until 20

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg2222oof f4466 PPggIDID88223717
MiSACWIS can produce data to measure it. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.13 Emergency or Temporary Facilities, Length of Stay (Commitment 49).
(a) Children shall not remain in emergency or temporary facilities, including but not limited to shelter care, for a period in excess of 30 days. An exception to this limitation may be made for:
(1) children who have an identified and approved placement but the placement is not available within 30 days of the child’s entry to an emergency or temporary facility, and
(2) children whose behavior has changed so significantly that the County Director or the County Director’s manager designee has certified that a temporary placement for the purposes of assessment is critical for the determination of an appropriate foster placement.
(b) The Designated Performance Standard and Floor Performance Standard for this Commitment are 95%. In determining DHHS’s compliance with this Commitment a child in custody may never remain in a shelter in excess of 60 days, with no exceptions. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.14 Emergency or Temporary Facilities, Repeated Placement (Commitment 50).
(a) Children shall not be placed in an emergency or temporary facility, including but not limited to shelter care, more than one time within a 12-month period. An exception to this limitation may be made for: (1) children who are absent without legal permission; (2) children facing a direct threat to their safety or who are a threat to the safety of others such that immediate removal is necessary; and (3) children whose behavior has changed so significantly that the County Director or the County Director’s manager designee has certified that a temporary placement for the purpose of assessment is critical for the determination of an appropriate foster placement.
(b) No child experiencing a second or greater emergency or temporary-facility placement within one year may remain in an emergency or temporary facility for more than seven days.
(c) The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 97%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 95%. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
21

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg2233oof f4466 PPggIDID88223728
6.15 Residential Care Placements (Commitment 51).
(a) No child shall be placed into a CCI unless:
(1) there are specific findings, documented in the child’s case file, that:
(i) the child’s needs cannot be met in any other type of placement;
(ii) the child’s needs can be met in the specific facility requested; and
(iii) the facility is the least restrictive placement to meet the child’s needs; and
(2) A description of the service available in the facility to address the individual child’s needs must also be documented in the case file.
(b) The initial placement of a child into a CCI must be approved by the County Director or, in a Designated County, a county-level child welfare Administrator. The need for a CCI shall be reassessed every 90 days. No children shall be placed in a residential placement for more than six months without the express authorization, documented in the child’s case file, of the County Director or, in a Designated County, a county-level child welfare Administrator. No child shall be placed in a residential placement for more than 12 months without the express authorization, documented in the child’s case file, of the director of Child Welfare Field Operations or the director’s manager designee.
(c) The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 97%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 95%. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.16 Relative Foster Parents (Commitment 52).
(a) When placing a child with a relative who has not been previously licensed as a foster parent, DHHS shall:
(1) prior to placement, visit the relative’s home to determine that it is safe;
(2) within 72 hours following placement, check law enforcement and central registry records for all adults residing in the home; and
(3) within 30 days, complete a home study determining whether the relative should, upon completion of training and submission of any other required documents, be licensed as a foster parent.
(b) The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 95%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 90%. DHHS’s compliance with this Commitment will be measured through a QAP until MiSACWIS can produce data to evaluate this measure. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit. 22

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg2244oof f4466 PPggIDID88223739
6.17 Relative Foster Parent Licensing, Generally (Commitment 53).
(a) Relative caregivers will be licensed unless exceptional circumstances exist such that it is in the child’s best interest to be placed with the relative despite the relative’s desire to forgo licensing. Such circumstances must be documented in the child’s case file and approved by the County Director or, in a Designated County, a county-level child welfare Administrator.
(1) In such circumstances:
(i) the relative caregiver and the other adult household members must meet the same safety standards as non-relative providers;
(ii) the relative caregiver must be fully informed of the benefits, including the exact amount of monetary benefits, of licensure; and
(iii) the relative caregiver must sign a waiver stating understanding that he or she is foregoing the benefits, including the exact amount of monetary benefits of licensure.
(2) DHHS will continue to use a form waiver letter, consistent with this Commitment. This waiver must be re-signed by the relative caregiver annually and a copy must be placed in the child’s case file. The relative caregiver may change his or her mind and choose to undergo licensing at any time, and when this occurs, DHHS must allow the relative caregiver to undergo the licensing process.
(b) The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 90%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 85%. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.18 Relative Foster Parent Licensing, Timeliness (Commitment 54). DHHS must license at least 85% of newly licensed relative foster parents within 180 days of the date of placement. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.19 Relative Foster Parent Licensing, Proportion Licensed (Commitment 55). Except for a direct placement by court order into an unlicensed relative home, at least 80% of all relative caregivers must either (a) have submitted a license application to DHHS and not had a child placed in their home for more than 180 days, or (b) hold a valid license. Compliance with this Commitment will be measured on the last work day of each Reporting Period. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
23

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg2255oof f4466 PPggIDID88223840
6.20 CPS Investigations, Commencement (Commitment 56).
(a) DHHS shall commence all investigations of report of child abuse or neglect within the timeframes required by state law.
(b) The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 85% for Reporting Period 10 and is 95% for Reporting Period 11 and thereafter, and the Floor Performance Standard is 90% for all Reporting Periods. Although there is no Designated Performance Standard for Reporting Period 9, DHHS must still provide the Monitors with data for that Reporting Period. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit. This Commitment cannot move to section 5 (To Be Maintained) until DHHS has met the Designated Performance Standard of 95%.
6.21 CPS Investigations, Completion (Commitment 57).
(a) DHHS shall complete all investigations of reports of child abuse or neglect within the following timeframes:
(1) completion of the investigation by the worker and submission of the investigative report to the supervisor within 30 days; and
(2) supervisory review (review and approval of the investigation report) within 14 days.
(b) Measuring DHHS performance on this Commitment will exclude supervisorapproved extensions for the following circumstances: (1) arranging travel and coordinating interview schedules with the alleged victims who do not reside in the county or are not available for immediate interviews; (2) obtaining a second medical opinion to verify an injury was not accidental or related to an existing medical condition; and (3) coordinating interviews of sexual abuse victims with law enforcement.
(c) The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 85% for Reporting Period 10 and is 90% for Reporting Period 11 and thereafter, and the Floor Performance Standard is 88% for all Reporting Periods. Although there is no Designated Performance Standard for Reporting Period 9, DHHS must still provide the Monitors with data for that Reporting Period. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit. This Commitment cannot move to section 5 (To Be Maintained) until DHHS has met the Designated Performance Standard of 90%.
6.22 CPS Investigations, Screening (Commitment 58). DHHS shall investigate all allegations of abuse or neglect relating to any child in the foster care custody of DHHS (Maltreatment in Care). DHHS shall ensure that allegations of Maltreatment in Care are not inappropriately screened out for investigation. In addition, when DHHS transfers a referral to another agency for investigation, DHHS will independently take appropriate action to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the child. Compliance
24

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg2266oof f4466 PPggIDID88223851
with this measure will be evaluated through a QAP based on a sample size agreed on between DHHS and the Monitors. The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 95%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 90%. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.23 Caseload, Supervisors (Commitment 59).
(a) 95% of foster care, adoption, CPS, POS, and licensing supervisors shall be responsible for the supervision of no more than five caseworkers, excluding nonchild welfare supervisors. Supervisors may provide supervision to administrative support staff associated with the caseworkers. An employee of DHHS or a private child placing agency that is non-caseload carrying will count as .5 towards the worker to supervisor ratio (with the exception of new staff that are currently participating in the CWTI, which will count as 1.0 towards the worker to supervisor ratio). Administrative and technical support staff that support the supervisor’s unit are not counted toward the worker to supervisor ratio. In instances where a DHHS or Private Agency Foster Care supervisor provides direct case management for one or more of the programs listed in this Agreement, one-fifth of a caseload equals a services worker position. (For example, a supervisor carrying one-fifth of a caseload and four services workers would meet the 5:1 ratio.)
(b) This Commitment applies equally to both DHHS caseworkers and supervisor caseloads and caseloads of private CPA caseworkers and supervisors with comparable case responsibilities. Compliance will be measured by taking the average of three data reports each Reporting Period, prepared on the last work day of February, April, June, August, October, and December. A mixed caseload comprised of more than one program type shall not exceed the prorated total equal to one full caseload. Mixed caseloads will be measured pursuant to the “Caseload Definitions and Calculating Methodology” approved by the Monitors. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.24 Caseload, Foster Care Workers (Commitment 60).
(a) 95% of foster care caseworkers shall have a caseload of no more than 15 children.
(b) This Commitment applies equally to both DHHS caseworkers and supervisor caseloads and caseloads of private CPA caseworkers and supervisors with comparable case responsibilities. Compliance will be measured by taking the average of three data reports each Reporting Period, prepared on the last work day of February, April, June, August, October, and December. A mixed caseload comprised of more than one program type shall not exceed the prorated total equal to one full caseload. Mixed caseloads will be measured pursuant to the
25

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg2277oof f4466 PPggIDID88223862
“Caseload Definitions and Calculating Methodology” approved by the Monitors. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.25 Caseload, Adoption Workers (Commitment 61).
(a) 95% of adoption caseworkers shall have a caseload of no more than 15 children.
(b) This Commitment applies equally to both DHHS caseworkers and supervisor caseloads and caseloads of private CPA caseworkers and supervisors with comparable case responsibilities. Compliance will be measured by taking the average of three data reports each Reporting Period, prepared on the last work day of February, April, June, August, October, and December. A mixed caseload comprised of more than one program type shall not exceed the prorated total equal to one full caseload. Mixed caseloads will be measured pursuant to the “Caseload Definitions and Calculating Methodology” approved by the Monitors. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.26 Caseload, CPS Investigation Workers (Commitment 62).
(a) 95% of CPS caseworkers assigned to investigate allegations of abuse or neglect, including maltreatment in care, shall have a caseload of no more than 12 open investigations.
(b) Compliance will be measured by taking the average of three data reports each Reporting Period, prepared on the last work day of February, April, June, August, October, and December. A mixed caseload comprised of more than one program type shall not exceed the prorated total equal to one full caseload. Mixed caseloads will be measured pursuant to the “Caseload Definitions and Calculating Methodology” approved by the Monitors. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.27 Caseload, CPS Ongoing Workers (Commitment 63).
(a) 95% of CPS caseworkers assigned to provide ongoing services shall have a caseload of no more than 17 families.
(b) Compliance will be measured by taking the average of three data reports each Reporting Period, prepared on the last work day of February, April, June, August, October, and December. A mixed caseload comprised of more than one program type shall not exceed the prorated total equal to one full caseload. Mixed caseloads will be measured pursuant to the “Caseload Definitions and Calculating Methodology” approved by the Monitors. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
26

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg2288oof f4466 PPggIDID88223873
6.28 Caseload, POS Workers (Commitment 64).
(a) 95% of POS workers shall have a caseload of no more than 90 children. If DHHS changes operations such that the job function of POS Workers is modified or eliminated, DHHS may present to the Monitors a report that details the changes and a proposal to modify or eliminate the POS workers caseload measure. If the Monitors approve, the Monitors will recommend to the Court that the proposal be adopted.
(b) Compliance will be measured by taking the average of three data reports each Reporting Period, prepared on the last work day of February, April, June, August, October, and December. A mixed caseload comprised of more than one program type shall not exceed the prorated total equal to one full caseload. Mixed caseloads will be measured pursuant to the “Caseload Definitions and Calculating Methodology” approved by the Monitors. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.29 Caseload, Licensing Workers (Commitment 65).
(a) 95% of licensing workers shall have a workload of no more than 30 licensed foster homes or homes pending licensure.
(b) This Commitment applies equally to both DHHS caseworkers and supervisor caseloads and caseloads of private CPA caseworkers and supervisors with comparable case responsibilities. Compliance will be measured by taking the average of three data reports each Reporting Period, prepared on the last work day of February, April, June, August, October, and December. A mixed caseload comprised of more than one program type shall not exceed the prorated total equal to one full caseload. Mixed caseloads will be measured pursuant to the “Caseload Definitions and Calculating Methodology” approved by the Monitors. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.30 Supervisory Oversight (Commitment 66). Supervisors shall meet at least monthly with each assigned worker to review the status and progress of each case on the worker’s caseload. Supervisors shall review and approve each service plan. The plan can be approved only after the supervisor has a face-to-face meeting with the worker, which can be the monthly meeting. The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 95%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 90%. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.31 Assessments and Service Plans, Timeliness of Initial Plan (Commitment 67). DHHS shall complete an Initial Service Plan, consisting of a written assessment of the child(ren)’s and family’s strengths and needs and designed to inform decisionmaking about services and permanency planning, within 30 days after a child’s entry into foster care. The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 95%,
27

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg2299oof f4466 PPggIDID88223884
and the Floor Performance Standard is 90%. This Commitment can become eligible for rolling exit.
6.32 Assessments and Service Plans, Timeliness of Updated Plans (Commitment 68). For every child in foster care, DHHS shall complete an Updated Service Plan at least quarterly. The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 95%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 90%. This Commitment can become eligible for rolling exit.
6.33 Assessments and Service Plans, Content (Commitment 69).
(a) Assessments and service plans shall be of sufficient breadth and quality to usefully inform case planning and shall accord with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 675(1), and shall indicate:
(1) the assigned permanency goal;
(2) how DHHS, other service providers (including the private CPAs, where applicable), parents, and foster parents shall work together to confront the difficulties that led to the child’s placement in foster care and achieve the permanency goal;
(3) the services to be provided to the child(ren), parent(s), and foster parent(s);
(4) who is to provide those services and by when they are to be initiated; and
(5) the actions to be taken by the caseworker to help the child(ren), parent(s), and foster parent(s) connect to, engage with, and make good use of services.
(b) The service plan shall contain attainable, measurable objectives with expected timeframes, and shall identify the party or parties responsible for each task.
(c) Service plans shall be signed by the caseworker, the caseworker’s supervisor, the parent(s), and the child(ren), if of age to participate. If the parent(s) or child(ren) or both are not available or decline to sign the plan, the service plan shall include an explanation of the steps taken to involve them and shall identify any follow-up actions to be taken to secure their participation in services.
(d) When a child is placed with a private CPA or CCI, the private CPA or CCI shall complete the assessment and the service plan in accordance with the requirements of this Agreement.
(e) Compliance with this Commitment will be measured through a QAP subject to the approval of and independently verified by the Monitors. The Designated
28

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg3300oof f4466 PPggIDID88223895
Performance Standard for this Commitment is 90%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 85%. This Commitment can become eligible for rolling exit.
6.34 Provision of Services (Commitment 70). DHHS shall ensure that the services identified in the service plan are made available in a timely and appropriate manner to the child and family, and shall monitor the provision of services to determine whether they are of appropriate quality and are having the intended effect. DHHS is responsible for helping the parent(s) from whom the child has been or may be removed, the child(ren), and the foster parent(s) identify appropriate, accessible, and individually compatible services; assisting with transportation when necessary; helping to identify and resolve any barriers that may impede parent(s), child(ren), and foster parent(s) from making effective use of services; and intervening to review and amend the service plan when services are not provided or do not appear to be effective. Compliance with the requirements of this Commitment shall be measured through a QSR, subject to the approval of and independently verified by the Monitors. This Commitment can become eligible for rolling exit.
6.35 Seclusion/Isolation (Commitment 71). All uses of seclusion or isolation in CCIs shall be reported to DCWL for appropriate action. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.36 Education, Appropriate Education (Commitment 72). DHHS shall take reasonable steps to ensure that school-aged foster children receive an education appropriate to their needs. Compliance with the requirements of this Commitment shall be measured through a QSR, subject to the approval of and independently verified by the Monitors. This Commitment can become eligible for rolling exit.
6.37 Education, Attendance (Commitment 73). DHHS shall take reasonable steps to ensure that school-aged foster children are registered for and attending school within five days of initial placement or any placement change, including while placed in child care institutions or emergency placements. No child shall be schooled pursuant to MCL 380.1561(3)(f). Compliance with the requirements of this Commitment shall be measured through a QAP, subject to the approval of and independently verified by the Monitors. This Commitment can become eligible for rolling exit.
6.38 Education, Continuity (Commitment 74). DHHS shall make reasonable efforts to ensure the continuity of a child’s educational experience by keeping the child in a familiar or current school and neighborhood, when this is in the child’s best interests and feasible, and by limiting the number of school changes the child experiences. Compliance with the requirements of this Commitment shall be measured through a QSR, subject to the approval of and independently verified by the Monitors. This Commitment can become eligible for rolling exit.
29

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg3311oof f4466 PPggIDID88224806
6.39 Visits, Worker-Child (Commitment 75).
(a) Each child in foster care shall be visited by a caseworker at least two times per month during the child's first two months of placement in an initial or new placement, and at least one time per month thereafter. At least one visit each month shall take place at the child's placement location and shall include a private meeting between the child and the caseworker.
(b) This Commitment applies to all children in DHHS foster care custody, including those children placed through private CPAs. In this Commitment “caseworker” is defined as (1) a caseload-carrying caseworker, or (2) a supervisor.
(c) The Designated Performance Standard for both the total number of visits and the number of visits occurring in the placement location is 95%. The Floor Performance Standard for both of these measures is 90%. The performance standards for this Commitment will be calculated as the number of visits that occurred during the Reporting Period divided by the number of visits required by the Commitment during the Reporting Period. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.40 Visits, Worker-Parent (Commitment 76).
(a) For each child in foster care with a permanency goal of reunification, the child’s caseworker shall have face-to-face contacts with the child’s parent(s) as follows:
(1) for the first month the child is in care, two face-to-face contacts with each parent, at least one of which must occur in the parent’s place of residence;
(2) for each subsequent month, at least one face-to-face contact with each parent and phone contact as needed, with at least one contact in each three-month period occurring in the parent's place of residence.
(b) Exceptions to section (a) are cases in which:
(1) the parent is not attending visits despite DHHS taking adequate steps to ensure the visit takes place; or
(2) a parent cannot attend a visit due to exigent circumstances such as hospitalization or incarceration.
(c) Exceptions and reasonable steps to assure that visits take place shall be documented in the case file.
(d) This Commitment applies to all children in DHHS foster care custody, including those children placed through private CPAs. In this Commitment “caseworker” is defined as (1) a caseload-carrying caseworker, or (2) a supervisor.
30

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg3322oof f4466 PPggIDID88224817
(e) The Designated Performance Standard for each measure in this Commitment is 85%, and the Floor Performance Standard for each measure in this Commitment is 80%. The performance standards for this Commitment will be calculated as the number of visits that occurred during the Reporting Period divided by the number of visits required by the Commitment during the Reporting Period. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.41 Visits, Parent-Child (Commitment 77).
(a) DHHS shall ensure that children in foster care with a goal of reunification shall have at least twice-monthly visitation with their parents. Exceptions to this requirement are cases in which:
(1) a court orders less frequent visits;
(2) the parents are not attending visits despite DHHS taking adequate steps to ensure the parents' ability to visit;
(3) one or both parents cannot attend the visits due to exigent circumstances such as hospitalization or incarceration; or
(4) the child is above the age of 16 and refuses such visits.
(b) All exceptions and all reasonable steps to assure that visits take place shall be documented in the case file. If such exceptions exist, DHHS shall review the appropriateness of the child's permanency goal.
(c) This Commitment applies to all children in DHHS foster care custody, including those children placed through private CPAs. In this Commitment “caseworker” is defined as (1) a caseload-carrying caseworker, or (2) a supervisor.
(d) The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 85%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 80%. The performance standards in this Commitment will be calculated as the number of visits that occurred during the Reporting Period divided by the number of visits required by the Commitment during the Reporting Period. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.42 Visits, Between Siblings (Commitment 78).
(a) DHHS shall ensure that children in foster care who have siblings in custody with whom they are not placed shall have at least monthly visits with their siblings who are placed elsewhere in DHHS foster care custody. Exceptions to this requirement are cases in which:
(1) the visit may be harmful to one or more of the siblings;
(2) the sibling is placed out of state in compliance with the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children; 31

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg3333oof f4466 PPggIDID88224828
(3) the distance between the children's placements is more than 50 miles and the child is placed with a relative; or
(4) one of the siblings is above the age of 16 and refuses such visits.
(b) All exceptions and all reasonable steps taken to assure that visits take place shall be documented in the case file.
(c) This Commitment applies to all children in DHHS foster care custody, including those children placed through private CPAs. In this Commitment “caseworker” is defined as (1) a caseload-carrying caseworker, or (2) a supervisor.
(d) The Designated Performance Standard in this Commitment is 85%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 80%. The performance standards in this Commitment will be calculated as the number of visits that occurred during the Reporting Period divided by the number of visits required by the Commitment during the Reporting Period. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.43 Medical and Mental Health Examinations (Commitment 79). At least 85% of children shall have an initial medical and mental health examination within 30 days of the child’s entry into foster care, and at least 95% of children shall have an initial medical and mental health examination within 45 days of the child’s entry into foster care. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.44 Dental Examinations (Commitment 80). At least 90% of children shall have an initial dental examination within 90 days of the child's entry into care unless the child has had an exam within six months prior to placement or the child is less than four years of age. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.45 Immunizations, In Custody Three Months or Less (Commitment 81).
(a) Children shall receive all required immunizations according to the guidelines set forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics. For children in DHHS custody for three months or less at the time of measurement: DHHS shall ensure that 95% of children in this category receive any necessary immunizations according to the guidelines set forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics within three months of entry into care.
(b) The following exceptions apply to this category:
(1) the child’s immunizations are not up to date, and it is documented in the child’s case file that the physician determined that a longer schedule will be in the child’s best interest. When this exception applies, DHHS shall ensure that the child’s immunizations will be brought up to date within a schedule established by a qualified physician.
32

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg3344oof f4466 PPggIDID88224839
(2) the child’s parent refuses to consent, and DHHS obtains a signed statement from the parent as required by the “Immunizations” provisions contained in DHHS Policy FOM 801 (dated 3-1-2015) or any successor policy approved by the Monitors.
(c) Compliance with this Commitment will be measured through a QAP conducted in coordination with the Monitors. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.46 Immunization, In Custody Longer than Three Months (Commitment 82).
(a) Children shall receive all required immunizations according to the guidelines set forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics. For children in DHHS custody for longer than three months at the time of measurement: DHHS shall ensure that 95% of children in this category receive all required immunizations according to the guidelines set forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
(b) The following exceptions apply to this category:
(1) the child’s immunizations are not up to date, and it is documented in the child’s case file that the physician determined that a longer schedule will be in the child’s best interest. When this exception applies, DHHS shall ensure that the child’s immunizations will be brought up to date within a schedule established by a qualified physician.
(2) the child’s parent refuses to consent, and DHHS obtains a signed statement from the parent as required by the “Immunizations” provisions contained in DHHS Policy FOM 801 (dated 3-1-2015) or any successor policy approved by the Monitors.
(c) Compliance with this Commitment will be measured through a QAP conducted in coordination with the Monitors. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.47 Examinations and Screenings (Commitment 83). Following an initial medical, dental, or mental health examination, at least 95% of children shall receive periodic and ongoing medical, dental, and mental health care examinations and screenings, according to the guidelines set forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics. This Commitment is never eligible for rolling exit.
6.48 Child Case File, Medical and Psychological (Commitment 84). DHHS shall maintain an up-to-date medical file for each child in care containing the information required by DHHS Policy FOM 722-05 or any successor policy approved by the Monitors. By Reporting Period 11 and thereafter, the Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment will be 95%, and the Floor Performance Standard will be 90%. Incremental performance standards for Reporting Periods 9 and 10 shall be
33

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg3355oof f4466 PPggIDID88224940
set by DHHS, subject to the approval of the Monitors. But this Commitment cannot move to section 5 (To Be Maintained) until DHHS has met the Designated Performance Standard of 95%. Compliance with this Commitment will be measured through a QAP conducted in coordination with the Monitors. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.49 Medical Passports (Commitment 85).
(a) At the time the child is placed or re-placed, the foster care provider shall receive the child’s Medical Passport, which must contain the information required by MCL 722.954c(2) and DHHS Policy FOM 801 (dated 3-1-2015) (or any successor policies approved by the Monitors). And at least quarterly thereafter, an updated Medical Passport must be prepared, as required by the “Medical Passports” section of DHHS Policy FOM 801 (dated 3-1-2015) (or any successor policy approved by the Monitors), and provided to the foster care provider.
(b) By Reporting Period 11 and thereafter, the Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment will be 95%, and the Floor Performance Standard will be 90%. Incremental performance standards for Reporting Periods 9 and 10 shall be set by DHHS, subject to the approval of the Monitors. But this Commitment cannot move to section 5 (To Be Maintained) until DHHS has met the Designated Performance Standard of 95%. Compliance with this Commitment will be measured through a QAP conducted in coordination with the Monitors. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.50 Medical, Dental, and Mental Health Content in Case Service Plan (ISP/USP) (Commitment 86).
(a) DHHS shall provide case service plans containing the information required by DHHS Policy FOM 801 (dated 3-1-2015) (or any successor policy approved by the Monitors).
(b) By Reporting Period 11 and thereafter, the Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment will be 95%, and the Floor Performance Standard will be 90%. Incremental performance standards for Reporting Periods 9 and 10 shall be set by DHHS, subject to the approval of the Monitors. But this Commitment cannot move to section 5 (To Be Maintained) until DHHS has met the Designated Performance Standard of 95%. Compliance with this Commitment will be measured through a QAP conducted in coordination with the Monitors. If the child’s case service plan lacks an affirmative statement as to whether the child needs medical or dental follow-up treatment or needs mental health treatment, it will be treated as a deficiency for purposes of compliance. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
34

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg3366oof f4466 PPggIDID88224951
6.51 Medical Care and Coverage, At Entry (Commitment 87). DHHS shall ensure that at least 95% of children have access to medical coverage within 30 days of entry into foster care by providing the placement provider with a Medicaid card or an alternative verification of the child’s Medicaid status and Medicaid number as soon as it is available. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.52 Medical Care and Coverage, Subsequent Placement (Commitment 88). DHHS shall ensure that at least 95% of children have access to medical coverage within 24 hours or the next business day following subsequent placement by providing the placement provider a Medicaid card or an alternative verification of the child’s Medicaid status and Medicaid number as soon as it is available. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.53 Psychotropic Medication, Diagnosis (Commitment 89). Prior to initiating each prescription for psychotropic medication, the child must have a mental health assessment with a current DSM-based psychiatric diagnosis of the mental health disorder. The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 97%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 95%. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.54 Psychotropic Medication, Informed Consent (Commitment 90). DHHS shall ensure that informed consent is obtained and documented in writing in connection with each psychotropic medication prescribed to a child in DHHS custody. This informed consent must be obtained in accordance with the “Informed Consent” section contained in DHHS Policy FOM 802-1 (dated 5-1-2015) or any successor policy approved by the Monitors. The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 97%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 95%. To provide DHHS time to integrate this Commitment into MiSACWIS, monitoring will begin with Reporting Period 11. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.55 Psychotropic Medication, Documentation (Commitment 91). DHHS shall ensure that the administration of psychotropic medication to children in DHHS custody is documented in accordance with the “Documentation” section in DHHS Policy FOM 802-1 (dated 5-1-2015) or any successor policy approved by the Monitors. The Designated Performance Standard for this Commitment is 97%, and the Floor Performance Standard is 95%. To provide DHHS time to integrate this requirement into MiSACWIS, monitoring will begin with Reporting Period 11. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.56 Psychotropic Medication, Oversight Review (Commitment 92). DHHS shall ensure that a qualified physician completes and documents an oversight review of a child whenever one or more of the criteria listed in the “Psychotropic Medication Oversight” section of DHHS Policy FOM 802-1 (dated 5-1-2015) or any successor
35

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg3377oof f4466 PPggIDID88224962 policy approved by the Monitors are met. The review shall be completed according to the “DHHS 1643 Physician Review Form” that DHHS currently uses, or any successor form approved by the Monitors. Compliance with this Commitment will be measured through a QAP conducted in coordination with the Monitors. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
6.57 Generation of Data (Commitment 93). DHHS shall continue to generate from automated systems and other data collection methods accurate and timely data reports and information until the full implementation of MiSACWIS. DHHS shall generate from MiSACWIS accurate and timely reports and information regarding the requirements and outcome measures set forth in this Agreement. This Commitment can become eligible to move to structures and policies.
36

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg3388oof f4466 PPggIDID88224973
7. Monitoring
7.1 The parties agree that Kevin M. Ryan and Eileen Crummy of the Public Catalyst Group shall be the monitors (the “Monitors”) of DHHS's compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
7.2 Neither party, nor any employee or agent of either party, shall have any supervisory authority over the Monitors' activities, reports, findings, or recommendations. The retention of the Monitors shall be conducted solely pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Agreement and shall not be governed by any formal or legal procurement requirements. The Monitors shall hire such staff as the Monitors deem necessary to discharge their responsibilities under this Agreement.
7.3 The Monitors shall have free and complete access to records maintained by DHHS, its divisions and any successor agencies or divisions, and by its private CPAs and CCIs. The Monitors shall also have free and complete access to the staff of DHHS; its divisions and any successor agencies or divisions; persons within the executive branch; private CPAs and CCIs; children in the care of DHHS and of private CPAs and CCIs; and other individuals that the Monitors deem relevant to their work. DHHS shall direct all employees and contract providers to cooperate fully with the Monitors and shall assist the Monitors in gaining free access to other stakeholders in the child welfare system.
7.4 All non-public information obtained by the Monitors shall be maintained in a confidential manner. In providing the public reports described in section 7.10, and consistent with applicable state and federal confidentiality requirements, the Monitors shall not identify public or private staff or private agencies, except to the extent that such information about public or private staff and private agencies has already been made public. The parties shall have access, through the Monitors, to all information made available to the Monitors, subject to the existing protective order in effect in this case.
7.5 The Monitors shall have the authority to conduct, or cause to be conducted, such case record reviews, qualitative reviews, and audits as the Monitors reasonably deem necessary. In order to avoid duplication and build capacity within the agency, DHHS shall provide the Monitors with copies of all state-issued data reports regarding topics covered by this Agreement. Notwithstanding the existence of state data, data analysis or reports, the Monitors shall have the authority to prepare new reports on outcome measures and all other terms of this Agreement to the extent the Monitors deem necessary.
7.6 The Monitors and Plaintiffs shall receive, and the Monitors shall review (and, for data, verify the accuracy of) all written processes, programs, procedures, statements of work, formal analyses, system designs, and data reports developed pursuant to this Agreement. The Monitors shall take into account the timeliness, appropriateness, and 37

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg3399oof f4466 PPggIDID88224984
quality of these work products in reporting on the State's compliance with the terms of this Agreement.
7.7 The Monitors may grant extensions to due dates outlined in this Agreement after consultation with Plaintiffs.
7.8 In addition to the requirements set forth above, the Monitors' duties shall be to: confirm independently the data reports and statistics provided pursuant to this Agreement; conduct independent case record or other qualitative reviews or audits; review and approve plans, documents, and data reports agreed to be developed and produced by DHHS pursuant to this Agreement; and report on DHHS's progress in implementing the terms of this Agreement and the achievement of the outcomes set forth herein.
7.9 Within three months from the date of court approval of this Agreement, the Monitors shall provide the parties with a written monitoring plan setting forth the methodologies by which the Monitors shall measure DHHS's progress in implementing the terms of this Agreement and achieving the outcomes set forth herein. Specifically, the Monitors' methodologies may include, but are not limited to, analyses of information collected: (a) by DHHS's management and information systems if and when available and accurate; (b) from a review of relevant case records; (c) from the production of data aggregated by the Monitors or third parties; and (d) from interviews with DHHS staff, resource families, class members or prior class members and their families, contract agency staff, service providers, and other child welfare stakeholders. The Monitors shall make best efforts to specify the methods they will utilize to perform their duties as to each and every section of this Agreement. The plan may be periodically revised by the Monitors, after consultation with the parties, particularly if and when DHHS data becomes more available and accurate and when a Quality Assurance Unit becomes functional. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to in any way limit the scope of the Monitors' access to information and individuals as otherwise set forth herein.
7.10 The Monitors shall issue a report setting forth the measurable progress made by DHHS in relation to each of the performance (process and outcome) requirements contained in this Agreement for each six-month period (each such period, a “Reporting Period”). Reporting Period 10 begins on January 1, 2016 and ends on June 30, 2016. Each subsequent Reporting Period begins on the day following the completion of the previous Reporting Period.
7.11 The Monitors' reports shall be public documents upon formal submission to the Court.
7.12 The Monitors' reports shall set forth the steps taken by DHHS, the reasonableness of these efforts, and the adequacy of support for the implementation of these steps; the quality of the work done by DHHS in carrying out those steps; and the extent to which that work is producing the intended effects and/or the likelihood that the work
38

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg4400oof f4466 PPggIDID88224995
will produce the intended effects. Such reports shall be issued every six months, unless the parties agree otherwise.
7.13 The Monitors and the parties shall develop a plan to transfer the primary monitoring function to DHHS's Quality Assurance Unit upon the termination of this Agreement, or at such earlier time as the parties may agree. The Monitors shall work in collaboration with DHHS in building its quality assurance capacity.
7.14 The Monitors shall not express any conclusions as to whether DHHS has reached legal compliance on any item or items required under this Agreement.
7.15 If at any time the Monitors can no longer serve, the parties shall agree on another Monitor, with input and recommendations from the outgoing Monitors.
7.16 DHHS shall enter into a contract to secure the services of the Monitors. The Monitors shall have a budget and staff sufficient to allow the Monitors to carry out the responsibilities described in this Agreement, and may contract with such experts or consultants as he or she may deem appropriate, in consultation with the parties. Experts or consultants hired by the Monitors may initiate and receive ex parte communications with the parties.
7.17 Other than as expressly provided in this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any privilege or right DHHS may assert, including those recognized at common law and created by statute, rule, or regulation against any other person or entity with respect to the disclosure of any information.
7.18 The Monitors shall be permitted to engage in ex parte communications with all parties. The Monitors 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.
7.19 Unless such conflict is waived by the parties, the Monitors and any expert hired by the Monitors shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitors' responsibilities under this Agreement, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant, or such litigant's or claimant's attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against the state of Michigan or its departments, officers, agents, or employees.
7.20 The Monitors are not a state or local agency or an agent thereof, and accordingly the records maintained by the Monitors shall not be deemed public records subject to public inspection. Neither the Monitors nor any person or entity hired or otherwise retained by the Monitors to assist in furthering any provision of this Agreement shall be liable for any claim, lawsuit, or demand arising out of the Monitors' good-faith performance pursuant to this Agreement. This paragraph does not apply to any proceeding before a court related to performance of contracts or subcontracts for monitoring this Agreement.
39

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg4411oof f4466 PPggIDID88225906 7.21 For provisions of this Agreement requiring Monitors' approval, the Monitors shall
respond in writing within 45 days of receiving the required proposal, unless otherwise specified in this Agreement. Signature by either Kevin Ryan or Eileen Crummy on a written approval shall be deemed approval by the Monitors. 7.22 For provisions of this Agreement requiring Plaintiffs' approval, Plaintiffs' counsel shall respond in writing within 45 days of receiving the required proposal in writing, unless otherwise specified in this Agreement.
40

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg4422oof f4466 PPggIDID88225917
8. Enforcement and Dispute Resolution
8.1 This Agreement shall constitute the entire integrated Agreement of the parties. No prior or contemporaneous communications, oral or written, shall be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein in this matter or in any other proceeding.
8.2 In the event that Plaintiffs identify an area in which they believe DHHS is not in substantial compliance with an enforceable provision of this Agreement:
(a) Plaintiffs shall, prior to seeking judicial relief, notify DHHS and the Monitors, in writing, of the compliance issue.
(b) Within 15 calendar days of Plaintiffs' notification, DHHS shall respond in writing to Plaintiffs and the Monitors as to what actions, if any, it proposes to take with regard to the issue of alleged non-compliance. The 15 day period may be extended by the Monitors for good cause.
(c) The parties shall meet with the Monitors within 15 calendar days from Plaintiffs' receipt of the DHHS response, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. The purpose of this meeting shall be for the parties to engage in good faith discussions facilitated by the Monitors to determine whether additional actions are necessary to address Plaintiffs' assertion of non-compliance. The parties shall engage in these facilitated dispute resolution discussions for a period not to exceed 30 calendar days, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
(d) If at the end of the 30-day 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) To the extent that any non-compliance by DHHS is in whole or in part attributable to DHHS's organizational structure, changes in organizational structure shall be considered as among the elements of the corrective actions needed to correct the non-compliance.
(f) If Plaintiffs believe that DHHS has violated this Agreement and, as a result, have caused or are likely to cause immediate and irreparable harm to a child(ren) in DHHS's foster care custody, they may seek emergency judicial relief. Before taking such action, however, Plaintiffs must give DHHS 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. DHHS shall respond to this notice in writing within three business days. The parties must then invoke the provisions in this section 8.2, provided that the entire process shall be completed within 10
41

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg4433oof f4466 PPggIDID88225928 business days of DHHS's response to Plaintiffs' notice, unless extended by mutual agreement of the parties.
8.3 DHHS shall maintain sufficient records to document its compliance with all of the requirements of this Agreement. During the term of this Agreement, DHHS shall maintain any and all records required by or developed under this Agreement.
8.4 In the event that legislation known as the "Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act" is enacted into law, DHHS agrees that it shall not invoke their right under that Act to modify or vacate the consent decree resulting from this Agreement. Nothing in this section limits DHHS's ability to seek to modify or vacate the provisions of this Agreement under other law.
8.5 This Agreement shall be binding on all successors, assignees, employees, agents and all those working for or on behalf of Plaintiffs and DHHS.
42

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg4444oof f4466 PPggIDID88225939 9. Attorneys’ Fees 9.1 For purposes of this Agreement, the parties acknowledge that Plaintiffs, as prevailing
parties in this lawsuit, are entitled to recover and reserve the right to seek expenses of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and nontaxable costs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h).
[Signature Page Follows]
43

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg4455oof f4466 PPggIDID88235040

Each party is signing this agreement on the date stated opposite that party's signature.
For Plaintiffs
Date: ~Vv~"J"~ 2ot I. By: -~-2--- ~_h __"+_~_-.b.;-.;..___
Sara M. Bartosz CHILDREN'S RIGHTS, INC. 330 Seventh Ave. , Fourth Floor New York, NY 10001 Phone: 212.683.2210

For Defendants

Date ~ ~ '] ~l (p
\ l

By:
·cial capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan

Date:

By:

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Nancy G. Edmunds HON. NANCY G. EDMUNDS, U.S.D.J.

DATED:

February 2, 2016

44

22:0:066-c-cvv-1-133554488-N-NGGEE-D-DAASS DDoocc ## 226610 FFiilleedd 0022//0022//1166 PPgg4466oof f4466 PPggIDID88235051
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on February 2, 2016, I electronically filed the above Implemen-
tation, Sustainability, and Exit Plan with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF
system, which will send notification of such filing to:
Sara M. Bartosz, sbartosz@childrensrights.org Jay C. Boger, jboger15@gmail.com Michelle M. Brya, bryam@michigan.gov Elizabeth P. Hardy, ehardy@kohp.com Kristin M. Heyse, heysek@michigan.gov Noel D. Massie, nmassie@kohp.com William R. Morris, morrisw@michigan.gov P. Rivka Schochet, prschochet@yahoo.com, prschochetpllc@gmail.com
and that copies of said document were placed in first-class United States mail,
addressed to:
Elissa Hendler Marcia Lowry Gena E. Wiltsek Children’s Rights 330 Seventh Avenue, 4th Floor New York, NY 10001
Charleszetta Cheeks 131 Atkinson Street Detroit MI 48202
s/ John J. Bursch John J. Bursch (P57679)
45

 
 Progress of the Michigan Department of Human Services
Period Two Monitoring Report for Dwayne B. v. Granholm
April 1, 2009—September 30, 2009
Issued March 9, 2010

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM Progress of the Michigan Department of Human Services
Period Two Monitoring Report for Dwayne B. v. Granholm
April 1, 2009 – September 30, 2009
Table of Contents
I. Introduction and Overview ................................................................................................................... 1 A. Summary of Progress and Challenges Ahead ................................................................................... 2 B. Summary of Commitments ............................................................................................................... 7 C. Methodology................................................................................................................................... 28 D. Demographics ................................................................................................................................. 29
II. Building the Organizational Capacity to Support Reform ................................................................... 33 A. Building a Children’s Services Organization and Structure............................................................. 33 B. Strengthening Contract Oversight .................................................................................................. 36 C. Assessing the Adequacy of Resources for Reform.......................................................................... 37 D. Developing the Workforce to Deliver High Quality Services .......................................................... 40 E. Developing the Capacity for Assessment & Implementation ......................................................... 53
III. Improving Safety ................................................................................................................................. 58 A. Establishing a Statewide Child Abuse Hotline................................................................................. 58 B. Creating a Robust Child Protective Services Quality Assurance Process ........................................ 60 C. Addressing Maltreatment in Care................................................................................................... 61
IV. Improving Placement Practice ............................................................................................................ 68 A. Implementing a Child Placement Process....................................................................................... 68 B. Changing Specific Placement Practices........................................................................................... 69 C. Building Recruitment, Retention & Licensing Capacity for Foster and Relative Homes................. 75
V. Achieving Permanency for Children and Youth .................................................................................. 91 A. Improving Permanency Practice ..................................................................................................... 91 B. Focusing on Waiting Youth in Need of Permanency: The Backlog Cohorts................................. 110 C. Focusing on Youth Who Do Not Achieve Permanency: Youth Aging Out of Care ....................... 115
VI. Improving the Well-Being of Children in Foster Care ....................................................................... 118
ii

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
Appendices
Appendix A – Caseload Methodology ....................................................................................................... 120 Appendix B – Complaints, Investigations and Substantiations by County ............................................... 133 Appendix C – Ages of Children in Custody by County............................................................................... 136 Appendix D – Length of Stay by County.................................................................................................... 139 Appendix E – Child Protective Services Caseloads (August 2009) ............................................................ 142 Appendix F – Foster Care & Adoption Caseloads (August 2009) .............................................................. 145 Appendix G – Relative & Foster Homes Licensed by County (FY2009)..................................................... 151 Appendix H – Relative and Foster Homes Licensed.................................................................................. 153 Appendix I – Legally Free Permanency Backlog Cohort Progress ............................................................. 154 Appendix J – Reunification Permanency Backlog Cohort Progress .......................................................... 154
iii

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
Tables
Table 1 – DHS Children’s Services Functions .............................................................................................. 29 Table 2 – Staff Qualifications ...................................................................................................................... 41 Table 3 – Pre-Service Training in Period Two ............................................................................................. 42 Table 4 – Training Analysis Based on Caseload........................................................................................... 43 Table 5 – Implementation Schedule for In-Service Training....................................................................... 44 Table 6 – Caseload Standards ..................................................................................................................... 47 Table 7 – Child Protective Services Caseloads – April 2009........................................................................ 49 Table 8 – Child Protective Services Caseloads – August 2009 .................................................................... 49 Table 9 – CPS Case Volume ......................................................................................................................... 50 Table 10 – Foster Care Caseloads – August 2009 ....................................................................................... 51 Table 11 – Adoption Caseloads – August 2009........................................................................................... 52 Table 12 – Special Review Cohorts ............................................................................................................. 56 Table 13 – Licensing Training ...................................................................................................................... 90 Table 14 – Contract Incentive Payments .................................................................................................. 108 Table 15 – Permanency Backlog Cohort Performance ............................................................................. 111 Table 16 – Children Made Legally Free v. Children Adopted.................................................................... 112
iv

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
Figures
Figure 1 – Ages of Children in Custody ....................................................................................................... 30 Figure 2 – Race/Ethnicity of Children in Custody........................................................................................ 31 Figure 3 – Placement of Children in Custody.............................................................................................. 32 Figure 4 – Length of Stay............................................................................................................................. 32 Figure 5 – Length of Stay by Race ............................................................................................................... 33 Figure 6 – Homes Licensed ......................................................................................................................... 76 Figure 7 – Relative Homes Licensed............................................................................................................ 77 Figure 8 – Relative Home Backlog Cohort................................................................................................... 78 Figure 9 – Relative Home Backlog Cohort (Adjusted) ................................................................................. 79 Figure 10 – New Relative Home Cohort...................................................................................................... 80 Figure 11 – Foster Home Licenses Issued ................................................................................................... 82 Figure 12 – Foster Homes Licensed v. Closed: Net Gain............................................................................ 83 Figure 13 – Proposed Goals after Case Review........................................................................................... 95 Figure 14 – Case Goal Approval Requests and Dispositions ....................................................................... 95 Figure 15 – Caseworker Visitation ............................................................................................................ 101 Figure 16 – Caseworker Visits in Child’s Placement.................................................................................. 102 Figure 17 – Finalized Adoptions by Adoptive Family Type ....................................................................... 103 Figure 18 – Time Legally Free.................................................................................................................... 104 Figure 19 – Children Adopted with Siblings .............................................................................................. 104 Figure 20 – Finalized Adoptions by Agency Type...................................................................................... 113 Figure 21 – Older Youth in Care ................................................................................................................ 117
v

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
I. Introduction and Overview
This document serves as the second report to the Honorable Nancy Edmunds of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in the matter of Dwayne B. v. Granholm. On July 3, 2008, the parties, the State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS), and Children’s Rights (CR), signed an Agreement to resolve pending litigation regarding Michigan’s child welfare system. DHS is a statewide multi-service agency providing cash assistance, food stamps, and child protection, prevention and placement services for the State of Michigan. Children’s Rights is a national advocacy organization with more than two decades of experience in class action reform litigation on behalf of children involved in child welfare systems.
The court formally approved the Agreement on October 24, 2008, and appointed Kevin Ryan of the Public Catalyst Group (PCG) as the monitor charged with overseeing and reporting on DHS’ progress implementing its commitments. In turn, he assembled the Michigan monitoring team composed of members of PCG with experience with child welfare reform in other jurisdictions, both as former administrators and advocates. The monitoring team is responsible for assessing the State’s performance under to the Agreement. The parties have agreed that the monitoring team shall take into account timeliness, appropriateness, and quality in reporting on DHS’ performance.
The Agreement is structured into six month periods with public reporting following each period by the monitoring team. This report is for Period Two – April 1, 2009 through September 30, 2009. Subsequent reports will issue approximately every six months until such time as DHS complies with the terms of the Agreement and Court jurisdiction ends.
The Agreement reflects the parties’ joint desire to improve outcomes for children and families in Michigan’s child welfare system as quickly as possible. The parties stressed several goals in the Agreement:
 Achieving permanent homes for more than 6,000 legally-free children and youth;
 Safely reuniting more than 4,000 children and youth with their families;
 Investing in infrastructure and developing practices designed to improve well-being and outcomes for children in foster care;
 Enhancing investigative practice to better identify, address and reduce instances of child abuse and neglect in the community and in foster care; and
 Providing increased supervision, services and support to children in foster care who are placed with relatives, rather than non-relative foster families.
1

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
In order to accomplish these goals, the Agreement also provides for a series of necessary foundational elements, including:
 Supporting the workforce by lowering caseloads and enhancing training;
 Expanding and focusing services for children and families;
 Building planning, data, and continuous quality improvement capacity; and
 Developing an organizational structure to better support child welfare service delivery and to build stronger links and improved accountability among the public offices in the counties, the private agencies, and central office leadership.
A. Summary of Progress and Challenges Ahead
While there were certainly significant accomplishments in Period Two, DHS’ overall performance weakened from Period One. DHS made progress in returning children home; lowering the rate of entry into care; reducing the inappropriate use of detention; maintaining lower caseloads for foster care staff; and developing the placement and permanency policies they will need to improve outcomes for children. The commitment to relative and family placement remained high with reduced use of institutional placements.
However, thousands of children continue to linger in care without permanent families; too many youth continue to age out of care without healthcare or a permanent home; and too many children remain in unlicensed relative homes. The need for additional foster homes remains high without a solid plan for the capacity to recruit, license and retain those homes, and safety, especially for children in placement, needs high-level attention and focus. Critical services for children and families have been cut at a time when they were expected to grow.
The comings and goings and changes in reporting lines among critical DHS leadership staff has prevented the agency from forming a cohesive leadership team that is sufficiently planful and consistently communicates effectively internally and externally. The child welfare reform process is a struggle and it takes time – but other places have done it and Michigan can, too. The State must refocus its efforts to make the reform real for Michigan’s children and families.
Highlights
Children long awaiting reunification with their families went home.
 DHS committed to achieving permanency for 50 percent of the more than 5,000 children who had been awaiting reunification with their families for more than one year. In the first year of the reform, DHS succeeded in reunifying 2,620 children with their families – exceeding their target at 52 percent.
2

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
 Over Period Two, entries into placement continued to decrease, and the number of children in DHS’ custody declined by five percent, from 17,115 to 16,224.
 In Period Three, DHS will begin reporting on such critical federal measures as youth aging out of placement without permanency, re-entries into placement, and safety once children return home, providing important insights into the quality of DHS decisionmaking.
DHS maintained its progress in reducing foster care caseloads.
 After exceeding the foster care caseload standards in Period One, DHS and the private agencies maintained that progress in Period Two.
 DHS committed to meeting and maintaining two foster care caseload standards. The first standard was to ensure that 95 percent of staff engaged in foster care work had caseloads of 30 children or fewer. In Period One, DHS met that standard at 96 percent. In Period Two, DHS met that standard at 97 percent.
 With respect to the second and more challenging standard, that of ensuring that 60 percent of staff doing foster care work had caseloads of 25 children or fewer in Period One, DHS exceeded that standard by 30 percent, achieving 90 percent. In Period Two, DHS again exceeded the standard at 91 percent.
Commitment to relative and family-based placement remained high while use of institutional care declined.
 As in Period One, 82 percent of children in placement at the end of Period Two were living with a relative or in a foster home.
 Use of institutional placement declined from 1,217 children and youth in March to 1,023 in September, a drop of 16 percent.
 Leadership brought intense focus to reviewing some long-term residential placements and working together with stakeholders to begin step-down of children to communitybased alternatives or return home. New therapeutic homes are starting to come on line. There has been good thought given to planning for new supports for youth with mental health needs, but no funding was redirected in Period Two to make that thinking real.
 DHS leadership, particularly in Wayne County, focused on reducing the inappropriate use of detention as a placement for children. The number of children who ran away from placement and were subsequently incarcerated in a jail or detention center upon their return declined from Period One to Period Two, and no children were identified in Period Two as having been detained in contravention of the terms of the Agreement.
3

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
DHS aligned their permanency goals with the federal goals and generated several of the policies necessary to support positive changes to placement and permanency practice.
 DHS committed to assign only federally-recognized case goals for children in foster care, moving away from an acceptance of children aging out of care without support (reflected in the pre-existing goals of emancipation and independent living) and focusing on outcomes, rather than process (reflected in the pre-existing goal of filing a termination of parental rights petition).
 DHS began to define new permanency practices that reflect the state’s commitment to older youth at risk of aging out of foster care. When implemented, these practices will ensure that no youth ages out of foster care without a family or a committed adult in their life. This is an important change and one that holds great promise for youth.
 DHS created the policy necessary to encourage positive placement practices such as placing children with their siblings, placing them closer to home, and committing to family-based placement with an emphasis on relative placement whenever possible.
Challenges
DHS fell short on its safety commitments in Period Two.
 Deeply troubling are a series of reports by the licensing office which appear to document maltreatment of children in placement – but DHS could not demonstrate follow through and resolution. The new maltreatment in care units will begin in Period Three but will not be fully implemented until at least Period Four. These units have the promise of improving identification and redress of maltreatment – but that will take time. In the interim, DHS is aware of the need to improve coordination between licensing, the field, and Children’s Services to ensure a focused, swift, and consistent response to allegations of maltreatment for all children in placement, regardless of the placement setting.
 DHS missed the targets for lowering caseloads for investigative staff by more than 30 percent. With a commitment that 95 percent of investigative staff would have caseloads of 16 or less, DHS was at 42 percent in April, rising only to 60 percent in August, when demand is at its lowest. Similarly, only 63 percent of on-going staff had 30 children or fewer on their caseloads in August, far short of the required 95 percent.
Thousands of children and youth continue to wait too long for adoption.
 DHS did not fulfill its commitment to achieve permanency for 50 percent of the longest waiting children who were legally free. Only 33 percent achieved permanency while nine percent of youth left care without a home. That leaves 2,551 of these children and youth still in care in need of a permanent home.
4

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
 DHS missed the target for improving adoption caseloads. With a commitment to have 95 percent of staff with 30 or fewer children, DHS fell short by six percent. Thirty children are many more than any one adoption staff person should have. It is not surprising that the end result was fewer adoptions than were needed.
 The private agencies added capacity and completed 29 percent more adoptions in FY2009 than in FY2008 but it was not enough. The loss of public sector capacity offset much of that gain. Together they needed a 23 percent increase in adoptions – but had only a two percent increase, leaving many children waiting for a permanent home.
Too many youth left placement without having a home, an adult to provide guidance and support, or health insurance.
 367 or eight percent of the youth in the legally free cohort aged out of care without a permanent home. Having been removed from their homes, moved into care, and made legal orphans, the promise they would have a family was never realized.
 The number of older youth in care ages 18 to 20 grew slightly between Period One and Period Two, from 1,240 to 1,260. There is still tremendous potential to offer continuing placement to youth who might otherwise age out and provide them with the time and support they need to achieve a more permanent outcome.
 DHS improved the number and percentage of older youth enrolled in Medicaid from four percent in the first three months of 2009 to 34 percent during the next six months. While an increase, the majority remain un-enrolled.
 The number of youth in independent living has grown 13 percent. They are at high risk of leaving care without permanency. DHS has created new units of workers focused on older youth. They have written new policy for services, referrals, and goal setting for these older youth but resources to implement that policy remain scarce.
DHS continues to struggle with its commitment to provide support to children living in relative homes.
 Prior to the Agreement, DHS made extensive use of relative homes as a placement option, considered a best practice, but did not license those homes. The parties agreed all relative homes should be licensed as a means to ensure the children in those homes receive the same level of financial support, oversight of their safety, and access to services. The Agreement defined strict circumstances under which waiver from licensure could be granted. But if the home could not be licensed or receive a waiver, the parties agreed the child or children would be moved.
 DHS continues to use relative placements at a high rate with 5,688 children living in relative homes as of the end of Period Two – 41 percent of the children living in out of home placement.
5

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
 For children living in unlicensed relative homes at the time the Agreement was signed, DHS agreed to review 50 percent of those homes by the end of Period Two to achieve one of three resolutions – licensure, waiver, or moving the child. DHS met this goal. There were 6,315 children in this cohort. Of those children, 2,754 exited from care without licensure, waiver or being moved. For the remaining 3,561, 27 percent (951) were moved, 1 percent (29) received a waiver, and 22 percent (794) were licensed. At the end of Period Two, there were 1,787 children (50 percent) from this cohort living in unlicensed relative homes.
 There were 4,025 children placed in new relative care during Periods One and Two. Among those, 518 (13 percent) were closed without licensure, waiver, or being moved. There were 361 children (9 percent) whose home received a license. Nine children lived in homes with a waiver. Another 843 (21 percent) were moved. There were 240 children (6 percent) who moved into their relative home in September 2009 and so those homes would not yet have been subject to licensure at the time DHS reported. At the end of Period Two, there were 2,054 children (51 percent) living in unlicensed relative homes.
 DHS tripled its relative licensing performance in Period Two compared to Period One, but that still left them far short of their commitment. The thousands of relative homes remain unlicensed and without a waiver from licensure requirements.
 DHS did not meet its commitments to develop the staff capacity they needed to license relative homes. For example, they agreed to hire 40 full-time staff but decided instead to substitute 80 public agency staff to do this work part-time. They focused these staff on a relatively minor role and spread the rest of the licensing tasks among other staff. That substitution did not work. As a result, most children living in relative homes are not receiving the support that they need.
DHS has lost foster homes for more than five years. While it looks like 2009 may be a better year than previous years, the projected result is still a net loss when a net gain is needed.
 It is to the credit of DHS that they embarked on a data-based analysis to begin to assess how many more foster homes they need in the five largest counties. In those five counties alone, DHS believes they need an additional 2,160 foster homes.
 They also looked at three special sub-populations: they identified 7,442 siblings who were placed apart; 1,011 children with disabilities, and 1,312 adolescents in non-family settings. They concluded they need 750 additional homes for 2010, with that target increasing each year for the next four years, to address the needs of these three populations.
 Given the tremendous need in this area, DHS has to identify how they are going to recruit, license, and retain thousands of new homes. The current plan is to have existing
6

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

staff do more. Leadership has to address workload, prioritization, and training challenges for these staff.
There are significant challenges facing DHS over the coming months. A series of important commitments to change and improve care for children and youth begin with Period Three. Those include use of Team Decision-Making meetings (TDMs, also referred to as Permanency Planning Conferences or PPCs) with children, their families and advocates; improving children’s healthcare; launching specialized units to investigate abuse in care; strengthening permanency practices to spark better outcomes for children and youth in placement; improving caseloads for foster care, adoption, and child protective services staff and their supervisors; better delivering and coordinating staff training; and growing much-needed services for children and youth. In Period Three, DHS begins to report for the first time on outcomes for children and youth. That reporting will coincide with federal feedback in response to the Child and Family Service Review which occurred in September 2009, with the federal report due in 2010, followed by the drafting of the State’s Program Improvement Plan.
In sum, Michigan approaches a critical crossroads. As the reform continues, DHS leadership must bring a laser-like focus to safety, permanency, and well-being, and stakeholders play a critical role in holding the agency accountable but also in partnering to achieve results. The monitoring team remains hopeful that DHS in partnership with its stakeholders can move forward, can recognize the challenges that exist, and can improve on the results of Period Two.
B. Summary of Commitments

Settlement Agreement Commitment
I.H & I Funding: Defendants shall request funds sufficient to effect the provisions in this Agreement in connection with any budget, funding, or allocation request to the executive or legislative branches of State government. See page 37
IV.A.5 CSA Oversight: The Children’s Services Administration shall hold responsibility for evaluating the performance of contract providers of children's services. See page 36
IV.A.6 Bifurcation: Individuals within the Children's Services Administration shall not hold responsibility for any of DHS's other functions, such as cash assistance, Medicaid, and adult services. See page 34

Due Date Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing

Completed No Yes Yes

Comment

7

Settlement Agreement Commitment
IV.B CSA Structure: DHS, Plaintiffs, and the Monitor will meet to review the progress of implementation of the organizational changes from the organizational structure section. See page 33
V.A. CA/N System: DHS shall ensure that its system for receiving, screening, and investigating reports of child abuse and neglect is adequately staffed and that investigations of all reports are initiated and completed within the time periods required by state law. See page 48
V.C CPS QA: DHS shall establish and implement a quality assurance process to ensure that reports of abuse and neglect are competently investigated and addressed. See page 60
VI.A.1 & 4 BSW Requirement: Entry level caseworkers in both DHS and private agencies will have a bachelor’s degree in social work or a related human services field. See page 40
VI.A.2 & 4 Pre-service Training: All entry level DHS and CPA caseworkers will complete an eight week pre-service training that includes a total of 270 hours of competence-based classroom and field training followed by a competency-based examination. See page 41
VI.A.2 & 4 Pre-service Training: As part of pre-service training, a trainee may be assigned specific tasks or activities with an experienced worker & may have a "training caseload” not to exceed three cases. See page 42

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

Ongoing

Yes

Ongoing

No

4/30/2009

Yes

Ongoing

Yes

Ongoing

No

Ongoing

No

8

Settlement Agreement Commitment
VI.A.3 In-Service Training: All DHS caseworkers shall receive a minimum number of hours of inservice training for FY09: CPS workers: at least 16 hours and foster care & adoption workers: at least 24 hours See page 44
VI.B.1 Supervisor Training Program: DHS shall develop and implement a competency-based supervisory training Program consisting of at least 40 class hours. See page 46
VI.B.2 & 6 Supervisor Training: All newly hired or promoted supervisors in both the public and private agencies shall complete the supervisory training program and pass a competency-based performance evaluation within three months of assuming the supervisory position. See page 46
VI.B.4 MSW Requirement: Beginning February 1, 2009, all staff hired from outside DHS or promoted from within DHS to fill positions including responsibility to supervise child welfare casework will have earned a master’s in social work from an accredited school of social work or a master’s or higher degree in a comparable/equivalent field or receive an approved waiver as a condition for such hiring or promotion. See page 41
VI.B.5 University Based Training Opportunities: DHS shall encourage staff to pursue master's level work under a tuition reimbursement program. DHS shall develop relationships, joint programs and other programs with Universities to enhance and improve existing training opportunities. See page 44

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

Ongoing

No

Ongoing

Yes

Ongoing

No

2/1/2009

Yes

Ongoing

Partially

No, DHS has not implemented tuition reimbursement; Yes, DHS has developed relationships with universities.

9

Settlement Agreement Commitment
VI.C Licensing Worker Training: DHS shall ensure all staff responsible for conducting home studies, licensing inspections, annual evaluations & other activities related to licensing of foster homes or residential facilities are trained. See page 89
VI.D Training Oversight: There will be a designated individual within the DHS central office who is solely responsible for overseeing and ensuring compliance with all training requirements for both DHS and private agency workers and supervisors.
VI.E.3.a Foster Care Worker Caseloads: 95% of Foster Care workers will have caseloads of no more than 30 children and 60% of Foster Care workers will have caseloads of no more than 25 children. See page 51
VI.E.4.a. Adoption Caseloads: 60% of Adoption workers will have caseloads of no more than 25 children. See page 52
VI.E.4.b. Adoption Caseloads: 95% of Adoption workers will have caseloads of no more than 30 children. See page 52
VI.E.5.a.(i) CPS Intake Caseloads: 95% of CPS workers will have caseloads of no more than 16 open cases. See page 48
VI.E.5.b.(i) CPS On-Going Services Caseloads: 95% of CPS workers will have caseloads of no more than 30 families. See page 48
VI.E.9 Caseload Tracking and Reporting: DHS will provide regular reporting, at least quarterly, on the percentage of supervisors and workers in each of the categories whose workloads meet the standards. See page 46

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

Ongoing

No

Ongoing

Reported in Period One. Yes

Ongoing

Yes

Ongoing

Yes

4/30/2009

No

4/30/2009

No

4/30/2009

No

Ongoing

Yes

10

Settlement Agreement Commitment
VII.F.1-7 Permanency Planning Goals (All): A child shall be assigned only one permanency goal at any time and this goal shall be a federally recognized permanency goal. Where appropriate, a child shall also be assigned a concurrent goal in conformity with federal regulations and section VII.F.2 of this Agreement. See page 93
VII.F.2 Concurrent Planning: Strategic planning and preparation for possible adoptive placement of a child shall occur concurrently with the delivery of reunification services to the child's birth parents unless clearly inappropriate for documented case specific reasons. See page 96
VII.F.3 Goal Change to Adoption: If a child's goal is changed to adoption, DHS and the assigned contract agency shall within 30 days of the goal change: a. Assign a worker with adoption expertise to the case; b. Determine whether the child's foster parents or relatives are prepared to adopt the child and if so, take appropriate steps to secure their consent to adopt; c. If no adoptive resource has been identified, register the child on adoption exchanges; and d. Develop a child specific recruitment plan if no adoptive resource has been identified. See page 104
VII.F.3 Barriers to Adoption or Guardianship: Beginning Nov. 15, 2008, DHS in consultation with the Monitor shall develop a process that will identify barriers to adoption and guardianship in cases in which a permanent home has not been identified within six months of the child’s permanency goal becoming

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

Ongoing

Yes

Ongoing

Yes

Ongoing

DHS has amended private agency contracts to include these provisions but in Period Two had not yet issued instructions to the public agency.
Partially

Ongoing

Yes

11

Settlement Agreement Commitment
adoption or guardianship. See page 104
VII.F.4 TPR Petition: 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. A TPR petition shall be filed within two weeks of the date on which the goal is changed to adoption. See Page 104
VII.F.8 Adoption Subsidies: Notification process. Upon identification of an adoptive family for a child legally freed for adoption, DHS shall within 14 days provide the putative adoptive family with an adoption subsidy application and explanatory material regarding the adoption subsidy program in Michigan and related federal Title IV-E regulations and DHS policies. DHS shall include a written record of the delivery of such materials in the child's file. See page 109
VII.F.9 Tracking Disrupted PreAdoptive Placements: DHS shall track and report on children whose pre-adoptive placements disrupt prior to finalization. See page 109
VII.G.2f PPS Training: DHS will hire sufficient training staff to develop curriculum for training and train Permanency Planning Specialists. See page 114
VII.G.3a, b PPS Hiring: DHS will hire and/or contract for and train 200 Permanency Planning Specialists, including related supervisory and support staff, to review and pursue legal permanency for Backlog Cohort cases. See page 114

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

Ongoing

Partially

DHS has amended private agency contracts to include this provision but in Period Two had not yet issued instructions to the public agency.

Ongoing

Yes

Ongoing

No

10/24/2008

Yes

9/30/2009

No

12

Settlement Agreement Commitment
VII.G.3c Permanency Backlog Cohort: By September 30, 2009, DHS shall achieve legal permanency for at least 50% of the children in the legally free backlog identified in Section VII.G.1. See page 110
VII.G.3c Permanency Backlog Cohort: By September 30, 2009, DHS shall achieve legal permanency for at least 50% of the children in the reunification backlog identified in Section VII.G.1. See page 110
VIII.A.2 Health Services Plan: By June 2009, DHS shall provide to the Monitor and Plaintiff a detailed Health Services Plan, which shall set forth the specific action steps DHS will implement in order to ensure that each child entering foster care receives the screenings, examinations and immunizations set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Health Services Plan shall be subject to the approval of the Monitor in consultation with the parties. The Monitor shall establish timeframes for implementation of these subsections in consultation with the parties. See page 118
VIII.A.2d Medicaid Card: Beginning November 15, 2008, each child entering care will be assigned a Medicaid number and the foster parent or other placement provider will receive a Medicaid card, or an alternative verification of the child’s Medicaid status and number, within 30 days of the child’s entry into care. See page 118
VIII.A.3 Mental Health Spending: Beginning October 2008, DHS shall redirect at least $3 million to fund mental health services and will analyze services available in each county to ensure that children in

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

9/30/2009

No

9/30/2009

Yes

6/30/2009

No

Ongoing

No

10/24/2008

No

13

Settlement Agreement Commitment
care have access to necessary services. If they do not, DHS will reallocate those funds accordingly as follows: a. By October 2009, in Wayne, Kent, Oakland, Genesee, and Macomb Counties; b. By October 2010, in Berrien, Calhoun, Ingham, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Muskegon, Saginaw, St. Clair, and Washtenaw Counties; and c. By October 2011, in all remaining counties. See page 119
VIII.A.4.a Youth in Transition (YIT) Supports: DHS will ensure that children age 14 and older in foster care and youth transitioning from foster care to adulthood have access to the range of supportive services necessary to support their preparation for and successful transition to adulthood. See page 116
VIII.A.4.b(i) Michigan Works Referrals: Beginning November 15, 2008, DHS will refer all children age 14 and older in foster care and youth transitioning from foster care to adulthood to Michigan Works! Agencies for participation in youth programs and services administered under the Workforce Investment Act, 29 U.S.C. 2801 et seq., designed to assist youth in developing job skills and career opportunities, and will refer suitably qualified children for summer training, mentorship, and enrichment opportunities. See page 117
VIII.A.4.b(ii) Placement to 20/Services to 21: By November 15, 2008, DHS will have developed and implemented a policy and the necessary resources to extend all foster youths’ eligibility for foster care custody until age 20 and to

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

Ongoing

Partially

Yes, DHS has adopted a new practice model for older youth in care and expanded some services; No, DHS has not offered IL services to all eligible youth.

11/15/2008

No

11/15/2008

Partially

Yes, DHS has changed policy as required; No, DHS has not made available IL services through the age of 21 to all eligible youth.

14

Settlement Agreement Commitment
make available independent living services through the age of 21. See page 116

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

VIII.A.4.b(iii) Medicaid Enrollment

for YIT: Beginning November 15,

2008, DHS will develop and

implement a policy and process by

which all children emancipating

from the foster care system at age

Ongoing

No

18 or beyond are enrolled for

Medicaid managed care coverage so

that their coverage continues

without interruption at the time of

emancipation. See Page 117

VIII.A.4.b(iv) Housing Referrals for

YIT: Beginning November 15, 2008,

DHS will refer all children without an

identified housing situation at the

time of emancipation from the

foster care system at age 18 or

11/15/2008

No

beyond to the Michigan State

Housing Development Authority for

rental assistance and services under

the Homeless Youth Initiative.

See page 117

VIII.B.1a Foster Home Capacity: DHS

shall ensure that each county has a

sufficient number and adequate

array of foster homes capable of serving the needs of those children

Ongoing

No

coming into care for whom foster

home placement is appropriate. See

Page 83

15

Settlement Agreement Commitment
VIII.B.1b Foster Home Capacity: DHS shall ensure that relatives of children in foster care and non-relatives with whom a child has a family-like connection are identified and considered as potential foster home placements for children; where a relative or non-relative with whom the child has a family-like connection is an appropriate foster home placement for a child, DHS shall ensure that appropriate steps are taken to license the relative or nonrelative as a licensed foster home as set forth in VIII.B.7 See page 76
VIII.B.1c Foster Home Capacity: DHS shall develop a placement process in each county that ensures that a child entering foster care for whom a suitable relative foster home placement is not available is placed in the foster home that is the best available match for that child. See page 68
VIII.B.2 Recruitment Plan for Special Populations: By December 15, 2008, DHS shall develop and provide to the Monitor and Plaintiffs a recruitment plan to increase the number of available placements for adolescents, sibling groups, and children with disabilities. The recruitment plan shall include, for each category of placements, the number of placements to be developed; the strategies to be followed in developing such placements; and specific timetables with interim targets. Within 30 days of receiving the proposed plan, the Monitor shall, in consultation with the parties, either approve the plan or, if the Monitor determines that the plan is not appropriate, convene the parties for the purpose of

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date Ongoing

Completed

Comment

Partially

Yes, DHS considers relatives as potential placements for children and has issued policy to that effect; No, DHS has not successfully ensured that all appropriate steps were taken to license relative homes.

Ongoing

No
Yes, plan submitted. The monitoring team and Plaintiffs have provided feedback. DHS to respond in Period Three.

9/1/2009

Partially

16

Settlement Agreement Commitment
revising the plan so that the plan can be approved within an additional 30 days. DHS shall implement the approved recruitment plan consistent with the timetable and interim targets set forth therein. See page 84
VIII.B.3 Treatment Home Expansion: DHS will have 50 treatment foster home beds available. See page 86
VIII.B.4 Foster Home Needs Analysis: As part of Needs Assessment process, DHS will gather, analyze, and report relevant data and identify the extent to which its present array of available foster and adoptive homes is appropriate to the characteristics and needs of the foster care population. This review will focus on issues relating to both recruitment and retention of foster and adoptive homes. The assessments of foster and adoptive home capacity will be completed for the following counties: Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Kent, and Genesee. See page 83
VIII.B.5 State Oversight of Foster Home Recruitment: A designated unit or person within the central office shall be responsible for monitoring the development and implementation of the foster and adoptive home recruitment and retention plans by county offices; providing or arranging for technical assistance to the county offices concerning recruitment and retention; and reporting to the Children's Services Cabinet on progress and problems in achieving the goals set forth in the recruitment and retention plans.

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

7/7/2009

Yes
Yes, plan submitted but does not address adoptive homes.

7/15/2009

Partially

Ongoing

Yes

17

Settlement Agreement Commitment
VIII.B.6 Determination of Care: In order to ensure that payments to foster parents are sufficient to meet the needs of the children in foster care, DHS shall ensure that the Determination of Care (DOC) process is applied consistently and appropriately across all counties and offices. See page 35
VIII.B.6 Determination of Care: DHS shall identify, after consultation with the Monitor and Plaintiffs, a state office responsible for ensuring that Determinations of Care and decisions regarding payment of a specialized administrative rate to contract providers are made uniformly across the state and in accordance with DHS policy. See page 35
VIII.B.6 Determination of Care: DHS shall also establish procedures by which a foster parent or CPA may obtain review by a designated official in the central office of a DOC or administrative rate (general or specialized) decision. See page 35
VIII.B.7b Placement with Unlicensed Kin: When placing a child with a relative who has not been previously licensed as a foster parent, DHS shall: i. Prior to placement, visit the relative's home to determine that it is safe; ii. Within 72 hours following placement, check law enforcement and child abuse registry records for all adults residing in the home; and iii. Within 30 days, complete a home study determining whether the relative should, upon completion of training and submission of any other required documents, be licensed as a foster parent. Other than pursuant to a waiver, no child shall be placed in an unlicensed foster

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

6/12/2009

Insufficient information available to
evaluate

6/12/2009

Yes

6/12/2009 Ongoing

Yes

DHS has issued policies

to support these

changes. Completing the

home studies within 30

days remains a

challenge. The waiver

process was only slowly

being implemented

No

towards the end of the period and so children

continue to be in

unlicensed placements

without a waiver or court

order.

18

Settlement Agreement Commitment
home unless there is an order of the juvenile court that the child be so placed. See page 80
VIII.B.7c Foster Care Rates-Licensed Kin: All licensed relative foster care providers shall receive the same foster care maintenance rates paid by DHS to similarly situated unrelated foster care providers, including the ability to qualify for enhanced DOC rates. VIII.B.7d Foster Care RatesPermanent Wards: All permanent wards living with relative caregivers shall be provided foster care maintenance payments equal to the payments provided to licensed foster caregivers. VIII.B.7e Relative Licensing Waiver: If it is in a child's best interest to be placed with a relative who desires to forego licensing, the exceptional circumstances for waiving licensing must be documented in the child's record, and must be approved by the county child welfare director in the designated counties or the Children's Services Field Manager for any other county. See page 80 VIII.B.7j Licensing: DHS shall designate sufficient licensing staff to review all current unlicensed foster homes and to complete the licensing process for each family within 90 days. See page 86 VIII.B.7k Relative Licensing - New: Beginning October 1, 2008, with regard to all children entering DHS foster care custody as of that date, relatives providing foster care for children in DHS foster care custody will be licensed unless exceptional circumstances have been

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

Ongoing

Reported in Period One. Yes

Ongoing

Reported in Period One. Yes

Ongoing

No

Ongoing

No

Ongoing

No

19

Settlement Agreement Commitment
documented and approved. See page 80
VIII.B.7m Relative Licensing: Create and fill, or provide sufficient funds to contract providers to fill, 40 Relative Licensing Positions. See page 86
VIII.B.7n Relative Caregiver Backlog Cohort: By September 30, 2009, review of at least 50 percent of the relative caregiver backlog cohort shall have been completed, and all homes reviewed shall have been duly licensed as foster care providers, or specially waived from licensure, or if not licensed or waived, children placed in such homes shall have been re-placed within 30 days of the decision not to license or waive licensure. See page 78
VIII.B.8 Child Placement ProcessWayne Pilot: Prior to implementing the child placement process, DHS shall conduct a review and analysis of the Child Placement Network (CPN) currently in place in Wayne County, and submit to the Monitor a report indicating the results achieved by the CPN pilot in Wayne County. See page 68
VIII.B.8.a Child Placement ProcessStatewide: DHS shall submit for review and approval by the Monitor plans for implementation of adequate child placement processes in the remainder of the state, along with any modifications to the CPN process in Wayne County. See page 68
VIII.B.9 Post Adoption Services: DHS shall develop and implement a full range of post-adoption services to assist all eligible special needs children adopted from foster care

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

Ongoing

No

9/30/2009

Yes

9/30/2009

Yes

9/30/2009

No

Ongoing

Yes

20

Settlement Agreement Commitment
and their permanent families and shall maintain sufficient resources to deliver such post-adoption services to all children and families who qualify. See page 109
IX.E Needs Assessment: Beginning November 15, 2008, DHS will begin an Assessment of the need for additional services and placements, including the need for family preservation services, foster and adoptive placements (including placements for children with disabilities or other behavioral needs), wraparound services, reunification services, and medical, dental, and mental health services, for children in foster care throughout the state. The assessment will also address the need for flex funds. See page 39
X.B.1 Limitations on Out of County Placements: DHS shall place all children within their own county or within a 75 mile radius of the home from which the child entered custody (whichever is greater) except as provided in the Agreement. See page 70
X.B.2 Limitations on Separation of Siblings: Siblings who enter placement at or near the same time shall be placed together, unless doing so is harmful to one or more siblings, one of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized program or facility, or the size of the sibling group makes placement impractical despite diligent efforts to place the group together. See page 71

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

Ongoing

Yes

7/7/2009

Insufficient information available to
evaluate

Ongoing

No

21

Settlement Agreement Commitment
X.B.3 Limitations on Number of Children in Foster Home: Beginning in March 2009, For children entering the foster care system, no child will be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three foster children in that foster home, or a total of six children, including the foster family’s natural and/or adopted children. No placement will result in more than three children under the age of three residing in a foster home. Exceptions to these limitations may be made in a child’s best interest by the county Administrator of Children’s Services in a “Designated County” and in any other county by the Children's Services Field Manager. See page 72
X.B.5 Detention, Jail, Correctional Facility: No child in DHS foster care custody will be placed, by DHS or with knowledge of DHS, in a jail, correctional, or detention facility unless such child is being placed pursuant to a delinquency charge. Within 90 days of the signing of this Agreement, DHS will notify the State Court Administrative Office and the Michigan State Police of this prohibition, and provide written instructions to immediately notify the local DHS office of any child in DHS foster care custody who has been placed in a jail, correctional, or detention facility. See page 73
X.B.6 Limitations on Placement of High Risk Youth: DHS shall not place any child determined by a DHS assessment to be at high risk for perpetrating violence or sexual assault in any foster care placement with foster children not so

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

7/7/2009

Insufficient information available to
evaluate

Ongoing

Yes

Ongoing

No

22

Settlement Agreement Commitment
determined. See page 74
X.B.7 Limitation on New Residential Care Placements: No child shall be placed in an RTC or any other group care setting with a capacity in excess of 8 children (campus wide) without express written approval by the designated county director or children's services field manager. The need for a residential placement shall be reassessed every 90 days. Children may not be placed in a residential placement for more than six months without express authorization. No child may be placed in a residential placement for more than 12 months without the express authorization of the Director of the CSA or a higher-ranking official. See page 74
XI.A.1 Prohibition on Psychotropic Medications: Psychotropic medication shall not be used as a method of discipline or control for any child. See page 64
XI.A.3 Medical Director: By November 15, 2008, DHS shall create and as soon as possible thereafter hire or contract for the services of a full-time Medical Director. See page 118
XI.A.5 Psychotropic Medication Documentation: By January 15, 2009, DHS shall establish and implement processes to ensure documentation of psychotropic medication approvals, documentation by contract agencies of all uses of psychotropic medication, and review of such documentation by appropriate DHS staff, including the Medical Director, on an ongoing basis. See page 64

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

7/7/2009

Insufficient information available to
evaluate

Ongoing

Yes

8/1/2009

Yes

1/15/2009

No

23

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Settlement Agreement Commitment
XI.B.1 Prohibition on Physical Discipline: DHS shall prohibit the use of Positive Peer Culture, peeron-peer restraint, and any other forms of physical discipline in all foster care placements. All uses of physical restraint for children in any placements, and all uses of seclusion/isolation in group, residential, or institutional placements, shall be reported to the QA unit. Such reports shall be made available to the licensing unit and the Medical Director for appropriate action. See page 64
XI.B.2 Restraint & Seclusion Policies & Procedures Review: DHS shall undertake a review of the policies and procedures surrounding all forms and use of physical restraint and seclusion/isolation of children in foster care. This evaluation will be designed in close collaboration with the Monitor and any additional experts on the use of physical restraint and seclusion/isolation of children it deems appropriate. The Monitor shall make recommendations, which shall include timetables for implementation, promptly upon reviewing the results of the evaluation, which DHS shall implement. See page 64
XII.B Performance Based Contracting: By November 15, 2008, all DHS contracts with CCIs or private CPAs that provide placements and child welfare services to Plaintiff class members shall be performance-based contracts that require an annual review of the CPAs' and CCIs' performance. See page 36

Due Date Ongoing
7/7/2009
6/1/09 for CPAs; 7/31/09 for CCIs

Completed

Comment

Partially

Yes, DHS has articulated the necessary policies; No, DHS has not implemented the necessary tracking, reporting and quality assurance activities.

Yes
DHS using FY10 data to establish baseline performance; evaluation will begin 10/1/2010. Yes

24

Settlement Agreement Commitment
XII.C Maltreatment in Care & CPAs: DHS will give due consideration to any and all substantiated incidents of abuse, neglect, and/or corporal punishment occurring in the placements licensed and supervised by a contract agency at the time of processing its application for licensure renewal. See page 65
XII.C Maltreatment in Care & CPAs: The failure of a contract agency to report suspected abuse or neglect of a child to DHS will result in an immediate investigation to determine the appropriate corrective action up to and including termination of the contract or placement of the provider on provisional licensing status, and a repeated failure within one year will result in termination of the contract. See page 65
XII.D CPA Data Reporting: DHS will ensure that all CCIs or private CPAs that provide placements and child welfare services to Plaintiff class members report to DHS accurate data on at least a six-month basis in relation to the requirements of this Agreement. See page 53
XII.F DHS Staffing Capacity for Contract Oversight: DHS shall maintain sufficient resources to permit its staff to undertake timely and competent contract enforcement activities. See page 36
XII.G POS Function Review: By April 2009, DHS will, in coordination with the Monitor, review the effectiveness of the DHS POS monitoring function in providing case-level oversight of private CPAs. See page 34

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

Ongoing

No

Ongoing

No

3/31/2009

Partially

Yes, DHS has implemented these requirements by contract with private agencies; No, DHS is still developing the process for private agency data collection.

Ongoing

Yes

Ongoing

Yes

25

Settlement Agreement Commitment
XIII.B Permanency Tracking: In consultation with the Monitor and in coordination with Children’s Services Administration, Field Operations Administration, private CPA representatives, and Local/Regional DHS office representatives, DHS will design a permanency tracking system and associated reports. The system will, at a minimum, be capable of reporting pertinent status information sorted by individual child, DHS worker/CPA, and county, for all children in foster care. See page 99
XIII.C Federal Data Reporting: Both leading up to and subsequent to the full implementation of a SACWIS, DHS shall at all times satisfy all federal reporting requirements and shall maintain data integrity and accuracy on a continuous basis. See page 63
XIV.A QA Program: DHS shall, in consultation with and subject to the approval of the Monitor, develop and implement a statewide QA program that will be directed by a QA unit established within the DHS central office. See page 55
XIV.C QA Capacity: The QA unit shall be adequately staffed, and its staff shall receive specialized training to fulfill all unit responsibilities. See page 55
XIV.F.2 Special Review Plan: DHS shall develop, subject to the approval of the Monitor and in consultation with the Plaintiffs, a plan setting forth: a. The dates and processes by which DHS shall have compiled an accurate list of children subject to review; b. The number and type of special reviews DHS proposes to undertake in the

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

DHS has created initial reports but still needs web dissemination capacity.

9/30/2009

No

Ongoing Ongoing

Partially

Yes, DHS has improved its federal data reporting. No, DHS still cannot satisfy all federal reporting requirements or maintain data accuracy on a continuous basis.

Yes

Ongoing

No

Ongoing

Yes

26

Settlement Agreement Commitment
upcoming 90-day period, and the rationale for these choices; and c. The data to be reported at the conclusion of the 90-day period. See page 55
XIV.F.3 Special Review Reporting: At the conclusion of the initial 90-day period, DHS will report to the Monitor and Plaintiffs the results of the reviews conducted during the period, and will develop and implement a corrective action plan, as appropriate, to address the findings. See page 55
XIV.G Fatalities: Beginning March 31, 2008, DHS shall ensure that a review, conducted by qualified and competent individuals and independent of the county in which the fatality occurred, has been conducted, and the findings and recommendations of that review conveyed to the Monitor and Plaintiffs, of each child who died while in the foster care custody of DHS, as follows: 1. For such children who died during the three-year period ending March 31, 2008, no later than November 15, 2008; 2. For child fatalities occurring after March 31, 2008, within six months of the date of death. Findings and recommendations of these reviews will be incorporated into all relevant QA activities, program improvement, contract agency oversight, and other related policies and practices. See page 57
XV. Implementation Plan: DHS will develop a detailed implementation plan, approved by Plaintiffs and the Monitor, that will become part of this Agreement and fully enforceable. The implementation plan will set forth the steps,

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Due Date

Completed

Comment

Ongoing

DHS to make its first

special review report

public in Period Three.

Corrective Action Plan

Yes

due in Period Three.

3/31/2008

Yes

Ongoing

No

27

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Settlement Agreement Commitment
timetables, and persons responsible by which DHS will achieve compliance with the terms of this Agreement. The parties will review this implementation plan on an annual basis to determine whether modifications are necessary to ensure that DHS achieve compliance in the manner and within the time periods contained in this Agreement. See page 58
XVI. Named Plaintiffs Updates: DHS will provide Plaintiffs’ counsel with regular quarterly updates of the individual Named Plaintiffs’ case records until such time as the Named Plaintiffs are no longer in DHS foster care custody. Each quarter thereafter, the parties will meet and confer in good faith regarding the Named Plaintiffs’ case plans and placements and services.

Due Date Ongoing

Completed Yes

Comment

C. Methodology
During this period, the monitoring team conducted extensive verification activities to evaluate DHS’ progress implementing its commitments in the Agreement. These activities included regular meetings with DHS leadership, verification visits to DHS offices and private agencies throughout the state, and reviews of individual case records and other documentation. During field office visits the monitoring team interviewed staff (CPS, foster care, adoption, and supervisors), reviewed with those workers their current data regarding workloads and training, and talked to office leadership about the pace, progress, and challenges of reform. The monitoring team also reviewed a sample of cases in the reunification and legally-free backlog cohorts, including cases that were managed by the public agency and by private agencies.
During Period One, the monitoring team visited DHS operations in the five largest counties (Genesee, Kent, Macomb, Oakland and Wayne, referenced in the Agreement as the “Designated Counties”); three of the nine next largest counties; and three of the remaining counties. To ensure geographic representation while still building on that work, for Period Two the monitoring team conducted repeat visits to two of the larger counties (Genesee and Wayne), including a repeat visit to the Western Wayne office to compare progress in that office over time; visited Kalamazoo, Calhoun, and Berrien counties in southwestern Michigan; and visited two offices that cover four of the smaller counties, Alpena, Iosco, Presque Isle, and

28

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Alcona. The monitoring team also continued to visit private agencies. The team focused on the larger counties and agencies to reach more caseworkers and, ultimately, the children they serve. To date, the monitoring team has visited offices and agencies that include more than half of those staff serving children in the care of Michigan’s child welfare system. The monitoring team also completed extensive verification work at DHS’ central offices regarding relative home and foster home licensure, adoption subsidies and subsidized guardianships, and waiver processes.
The monitoring team reviewed extensive aggregate and detail data produced by DHS. All of the data cited in this report was produced by DHS, unless otherwise noted. The monitoring team analyzed these data for internal consistency and cross-verified them against other data sets produced by DHS to assess data quality. The monitoring team utilized the detail data provided by DHS with respect to caseloads, the backlog cohorts (both relative and permanency), foster homes, and demographics to do the analyses provided in this report. DHS and its Data Management Unit (DMU) produced an unprecedented amount of data for Period Two. There are major and minor issues with data quality that should be a priority for DHS leadership to resolve in the next monitoring period.
D. Demographics
The table below illustrates the Michigan DHS’ children’s services functions over the last five years and for the first nine months of 2009:
Table 1 – DHS Children’s Services Functions

MICHIGAN DHS CPS Complaints CPS Investigations Substantiated Reports Families Served by FFM1 Children in Foster Care (point in time, last day of period) Adoptions
Adoption Subsidies

2004 135,775 76,694 17,847
2,813
19,140
2,744
23,984

2005 128,854 72,286 16,889
2,696
18,733
2,883
25,029

2006 126,690 71,784 17,534
2,864

2007 123,149 77,012 18,893 2,732

2008 124,716 72,418 17,630 2,830

18,347 18,771 17,946

2,589 2,602 2,585

25,840 26,652 27,021

1/09 - 9/09 89,209 55,123 15,310 2,702*
16,224
1,870 Data not provided

*Data through November 25, 2009.

For the most part, the trends evident between 2004 and 2008 continued through the first nine months of 2009. During that period, 62 percent of complaints were referred for investigation,

1 FFM is an intensive family preservation program funded by DHS.
29

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

similar to 2007, but a slight increase compared to 2008. Similarly, DHS concluded that children had been maltreated in 28 percent of those cases, a slight increase from the historical rate of 24 percent. Even as the trends largely remained consistent statewide, there was nonetheless significant variance across the state in both the percentage of complaints that were referred for investigation and percentage of investigations that resulted in substantiations. With regard to complaints referred for investigation, the minimum percentage was 36 percent (Chippewa and Luce Counties), while the maximum was 86 percent (Wayne County). With regard to substantiations, the minimum substantiation rate was eight percent (Leelanau County) and the maximum rate was 43 percent (Branch County). For full detail by county, see Appendix B.
Significantly, the decline in the number of children in foster care has continued. Between March 31, 2009 (the end of Period One) and September 30, 2009 (the end of Period Two), the number of children in DHS’ custody declined by five percent, from 17,115 to 16,224.2 The number of children entering foster care in Period Two also declined, by approximately two percent, from the number of children who entered during Period One. During State Fiscal Year 2008, children entered care at a rate of just over three per thousand in the general population.3
As of September 2009, of the 16,224 children under supervision, the largest group (43 percent) was under the age of seven. Michigan continues to have a significant population of older youth – 4,806 youth in custody ages 12-17 (29 percent) and 1,260 youth 18 and older (eight percent) as of September 2009.
Figure 1

Ages of Children in Custody

(September 2009)

Ages 0-6,

6,952, 43%

Ages 7-11, 3,206,

20%

Ages 18 and older,
1,260, 8%

Ages 12-17, 4,806, 29%

2 The references in this report to children and youth placed in DHS’ supervision, custody or care refer to child welfare and do not include children and youth who are the responsibility of DHS through the juvenile justice system unless those children and youth also have an open child welfare case.
3 This measurement calculates the number of entries into foster care as a function of the general population of children using census data from the 2008 American Community Survey from the United States Census Bureau. There are multiple methodologies that experts use to measure this, but for simplicity’s sake this methodology has been selected.
30

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
There are significant variations across the state in terms of the ages of children in custody. For example, when calculated as a percentage of the county’s total foster care population, one county has no children between the ages of 12 and 17, while 86 percent of another county’s foster care population consists of children between those ages. The statewide median is 26 percent. For a full table of ages of children in custody by county, see Appendix C.
With regard to gender, the population of children in foster care is equally female and male at 50 percent each. With regard to race, the population is primarily split between White (52 percent) and African-American (46 percent); Native American children comprise one percent; and the remaining one percent includes children who are Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and unidentified.
Figure 2
Race/Ethnicity of Children in Custody
(September 2009)

Asian, 48, 0.3%
Unable to Determine, 72, 1%
Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander,
14, 0.1%

White, 8,437, 52%
African American, 7,449, 46%

American Indian/Alaskan Native, 204, 1%

As noted in the Period One report, and as acknowledged by DHS, racial disparity remains a significant issue in Michigan’s child welfare system. According to 2007 Census estimates, African-American youth between the ages of 0 and 17 are 20 percent of the children in the State of Michigan, compared to 46 percent of the children and youth in foster care as of September 2009.
As the chart below demonstrates, 84 percent of children in DHS custody live in family settings, including foster families (33 percent), with relatives (35 percent), with their own parents (14 percent), and in homes that intend to adopt the child (two percent). Just over one thousand children (1,023, or six percent) live in institutional settings, including residential treatment and other congregate care facilities. Another thousand (1,086, or seven percent) reside in independent living placements, which serve youth on the cusp of aging-out of care. The remaining three percent reside in other settings, with unrelated caregivers, or are AWOL or unidentified.

31

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Figure 3

Placement of Children in Custody
(September 2009)

Own Parent Home,* 2213,

14% Institutions, incl.

Foster Care

shelters, 1023, 6%

Families,* 5438, 33%

Independent Living, 1086, 7%

Relatives,* 5688, 35%

Unrelated Caregiver, 127, 1%
Other,** 159, 1%
AWOL, 181, 1%

Adoptive Home, 283, 2%

Unidentified, 26, 0%

*Includes in- and out-of-state **Includes out-of-state facilities (21), detention, jail, community justice & court treatment (66), legal guardians (27), mental health hospitals (15), and other placements (30)
In terms of length of stay, 62 percent of the children in Michigan’s custody have been in the system for two years or less. Another 15 percent of the children have been in the system for between two and three years. The remaining 23 percent (3,771 children) have been in the system more than three years, as detailed in chart below. For county-by-county detail, see Appendix D.
Figure 4

Length of Stay
(Children in Care September 2009)

Less than 1 year, 5,249,
32%

1-2 years, 4,822, 30%

No LOS Provided, 14,
0.1% More than 6 years, 1,263, 8%

2-3 years, 3-6 years,2,368, 15% 2,508, 15%

32

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

African-American children are more likely to stay in foster care for longer periods of time. The following chart shows the lengths of stay for children in foster care as of September 2009, and indicates the percentage of those children who are African-American and who are White. As the chart demonstrates, 61 percent of the children who have been in care for less than one year are White, while 37 percent of those children are African-American. (As mentioned above, African-American children make up approximately 20 percent of Michigan’s child population.) As children stay longer in care, the percentage of those children who are African-American continually increases until it reaches 92.5 percent of the children remaining in custody for more than 15 years, while White children only comprise 7.5 percent of that same group.
Figure 5

Length of Stay by Race
(September 2009)
(Total n=15,872; includes African American and White children for whom length of stay was provided. There were 5,149 children in care less than 1 year; 1,241 for 4-6 years; 40 for more than 15 years)

African American

White

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

86.7% 92.5%

61.3% 36.8%

56.3% 41.3%

49.7% 47.6%

5426..24%%

60.7% 37.1%

67.7% 31.0%

12.8%

7.5%

Less than 1 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-6 years 6-10 years 10-15 years More than

year

15 years

II. Building the Organizational Capacity to Support Reform
A. Building a Children’s Services Organization and Structure
In the Agreement, DHS committed to a number of organizational, structural, and functional changes to better drive and manage reform. Those include modifications to DHS’ organizational structure, implementing a clear division between DHS’ child welfare and other responsibilities (referred to as “bifurcation”); creation of a high-level coordination entity to ensure consistency in the application of child welfare programs; evaluation of the capacity to assess the on-the-ground relationship between the public and private agencies through the public staff that monitor private agency casework; and creating a structure charged with ensuring equity in financial support to children in foster care.
In Period One, DHS implemented numerous organizational changes consistent with the Agreement and made a series of leadership changes to advance its work on the reform of the
33

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
child welfare system. During Period Two, there were more changes in leadership personnel, as the acting Children’s Services Field Manager (overseeing child welfare work in 78 counties) returned full-time to her position as county director of Genesee County and the Director of Children’s Field Service Operations (overseeing child welfare work in the five largest counties) became a county director. Those two field positions, both reporting to the agency’s Chief Deputy Director, were re-filled by experienced child welfare professionals, one of whom left and the position was re-filled again.
Following the close of Period Two, the Department’s Chief Deputy Director resigned; and the Director of Children’s Field Service Operations stopped reporting directly to the Chief Deputy Director and began reporting to the Deputy Director for the Children’s Services Administration (CSA). DHS continues to strive for a stable leadership team overseeing implementation of the Agreement, as they restructure responsibilities and integrate new leaders, helping them up the learning curve. These changes have added to the challenge of planning and managing the reform.
As noted in the Period One report, DHS has a number of responsibilities for at-risk children and families including both cash assistance for the poor and child welfare and protection services. In the Agreement, DHS committed to bifurcate those responsibilities rather than having the same staff responsible for both.4 DHS initially began to implement bifurcation in the five largest counties (Wayne, Genesee, Oakland, Kent, and Macomb). After meetings with the plaintiffs and the monitoring team during Period Two to review DHS’ organizational changes, DHS decided to implement bifurcation in Ingham County as well. This process is underway.
DHS also committed as part of the Agreement to convene the Children’s Services Cabinet, headed by the CSA Director. Comprised of key DHS leadership, the Cabinet was established for the purpose of more uniformly administering all child welfare programs, policies, and practices. The Cabinet formally began meeting in December 2008 and convened three meetings during Period Two.
Finally, DHS also committed to review the Purchase of Service (POS) monitoring function that public agency staff perform. This role is an outgrowth of Michigan’s partnership with the private sector. Even as case responsibility is contracted out to a private agency (a Child Placing Agency, or CPA), DHS retains legal responsibility for the child and exercises that responsibility by assigning a POS worker to provide oversight and support to the private agency caseworker. POS workers review service plans, assess progress toward permanency, and perform all of the
4 There are two types of bifurcation referenced in the Agreement. One concerns setting up separate child welfare units within DHS (the CSA and the bifurcation of responsibility in the five largest counties, soon to be joined by Ingham County.) The other type of bifurcation is by worker. Workers doing child welfare responsibilities are to be distinct from workers doing other DHS work. With respect to the latter, the monitoring team overwhelming found DHS to be in compliance. A few exceptions, in the smallest counties, are noted in the county caseload reports.
34

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
data entry into DHS’ information technology system regarding the work that CPA staff do on cases (CPA workers do not have access to the system).
The POS role, however, is not uniform across the state. For example, some counties expect POS workers to conduct more frequent visits with children and families, and some county courts require POS workers to attend review hearings in addition to CPA staff. Some CPAs that work in multiple counties have raised concerns about these county-by-county differences, explaining that they are required to comply with different expectations for the same work depending solely on which county is responsible for the child. The CPAs also shared the perspective that the POS function can be duplicative, particularly in light of the Agreement commitments and new CPA contractual provisions that hold CPAs to the same standards as DHS regarding hiring, training, caseload limitations and casework practice. Moreover, the CPAs also noted that the POS monitors’ review and approval of case practice decisions can be a cumbersome process that delays providing services to families and achieving permanency.
Evaluating the effectiveness of the POS monitoring function is complex and will require DHS to engage in careful and thoughtful assessment and planning. The monitoring team will continue to engage in discussions with DHS as it proceeds with this assessment.
Determination of Care
One of the principles of this reform is that DHS should provide good quality services and supports equally to similarly-situated children regardless of where they live in the state; whether they live with relatives or in foster homes or in some other form of placement; and whether it is a private agency or the public agency responsible for their planning and care. To that end, the parties agreed that there needed to be equity statewide in the determination of care (DOC) process, which establishes the rate to be paid for support of a child. The rate itself is also called the DOC. There is a standard rate and then there can be enhancements to that rate based on age and circumstance, particularly with respect to children with special needs.
The Agreement (VIII.B.6) states:
In order to ensure that payments to foster parents are sufficient to meet the needs of children in foster care, DHS shall ensure that the Determination of Care (“DOC”) process is applied consistently and appropriately across all counties and offices. DHS shall identify, after consultation with the Monitor and Plaintiffs, a state office responsible for ensuring that Determinations of Care and decisions regarding payment of a specialized administrative rate to contract providers are made uniformly across the state and in accordance with DHS policy. DHS shall also establish procedures by which a foster parent or CPA may obtain review by a designated official in the central office of a DOC or administrative rate (general or specialized) decision.
35

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
DHS has named the Federal Compliance Office, a unit of the Child Welfare Improvement Bureau within the Children’s Services Administration, as the lead central entity responsible for ensuring uniform payment of DOC. Prior to the implementation of the Agreement, DHS automated the DOC process. DHS public agency staff enter data into an electronic protocol which uses a formula to give each child a score that correlates to a DOC rate. Private agencies must depend on public agency staff to enter the information for the children in their care. As described by the field staff the monitoring team interviewed, this is a standardized process that is designed to limit staff discretion in an attempt to ensure standards are applied consistently. The monitoring team will be assessing the application of this system in future periods.
DHS has also created a new centralized appeal process that is to be fully implemented in Period Three. The revised process removes the administrative review of DOC appeals from the local office and creates a centralized process for review, also housed in the Federal Compliance Office. DHS allocated 12 staff to that office during Period One. Eleven positions were filled during Period Two. In addition to handling the oversight of the DOC process and DOC appeals, those staff are also responsible for handling the CFSR and focusing on Title IV-E eligibility. Since early 2008, DHS also added 97 eligibility specialists5 to the offices to review each case to ensure the required data is entered and that DHS is maximizing federal support. Field interviews suggest these staff have been helpful, improving data entry and assisting public agency staff with completing the DOC protocols.
DHS is only just beginning to build a database tracking and reporting system on DOC levels across counties, private agencies, and DHS. That system will be used to detect trends and patterns of reimbursement levels in order to test that decisions are being made equitably across the state. DHS hopes to have that database and tracking system begin to collect and generate data in Period Three. DHS has also committed to engaging in a quality assurance process in which they will sample DOC case decisions which will inform an annual evaluation of the DOC process.
DHS met the terms of the Agreement with respect to the centralization of the DOC process. DHS also appears to have a viable plan for ensuring accountability with the statewide equity commitments, but as that plan has not yet been implemented the monitoring team cannot yet assess DHS performance in those areas.
B. Strengthening Contract Oversight
In the Agreement, DHS committed to implement performance-based contracting – i.e., to include in its contracts with providers of child welfare and placement services provisions that hold the agencies accountable to achieve the outcomes for children and families that DHS
5 Eighty of these staff split their time between the funding specialist work and providing some support to the relative home licensing effort. See discussion below.
36

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
committed to in the Agreement. DHS also agreed to conduct annual reviews of each provider’s performance against those provisions. Because implementing performance-based contracting requires thoughtful deliberation, planning, and collaboration with providers, DHS and private agencies created a committee that began meeting in January 2008 to review performancebased contracting practices for foster care services. The National Child Welfare Resource Center for Organizational Improvement facilitated the discussion and provided technical assistance and research on states that had implemented performance-based contracting. That process included a review of Michigan’s performance in meeting the national measures established as part of the federal Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) (which are incorporated into the Agreement) and measures established in agreement with the federal Administration for Children and Families as part of the state’s Program Improvement Plan (PIP).
Based on that discussion, the committee established a set of performance-based measures to be applied equally to the public and private sector. DHS requested and was granted an extension to amend the contracts to include performance-based provisions until Period Two so that the contracts could be revised on the contract renewal schedule. DHS amended foster care and adoption contracts in June 2009 and residential facility contracts in July 2009. DHS will begin evaluating private agencies on these performance measures in October 2010, and will establish baseline performance in the interim.
In order to conduct these evaluations, DHS has hired 12 additional staff in its Office of Child Welfare Contract Compliance (CWCC), increasing the unit’s capacity from five to 17 staff. Formerly known as the Purchased Services Division, CWCC is now part of the Children’s Services Administration and is the lead unit responsible for monitoring DHS’ contracts with private agencies. CWCC developed draft policies and procedures to assess contracted providers for compliance with Department policy, administrative and contractual requirements, state statutes and federal regulations. The monitoring team reviewed the draft policy and procedures manual and provided feedback to DHS. CWCC established evaluation criteria and began testing its data systems to ensure performance measures and compliance can be properly tracked. Ahead of schedule, CWCC started conducting reviews of adoption, foster care, and residential providers under contract with DHS. Because the Agreement does not require these evaluations to begin until October 2009, the monitoring team will report on implementation of the evaluation process in future reports.
C. Assessing the Adequacy of Resources for Reform
The Agreement includes a set of necessary commitments to improve the Michigan child welfare system for children and families, many requiring additional investment. With the current economic climate, DHS continued to face intense pressure throughout Period Two to further lower expenses, reduce services, and cap or even decrease the number of staff funded in the public and private agencies that serve children and families. Faced with declining revenues, DHS was able to implement some of its commitments in Period Two by shifting funds within the agency to support the priorities of the Agreement. However, in some instances, those funds were diverted from other Agreement commitments. In sum, over Period Two, DHS has
37

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
struggled to access the resources needed to support its commitments and has cut services to children and families.
DHS reassessed its funding needs for FY2009 after execution of the Agreement and proposed a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $52,327,000: $37,751,800 in State General Fund aid and authorization to spend $13,188,500 in matching federal aid and $1,386,700 in county support. After extensive discussions with the State Budget Office (SBO) and leadership of the Michigan Legislature, DHS was advised that new funds would not be appropriated to the agency in FY2009, and the agency was directed to reallocate existing resources in order to fund the commitments in the Agreement. DHS primarily focused its redirected funds in FY2009 on additional public staff.
In May 2009, the Governor issued Executive Order 2009-22, which was subsequently adopted by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, reducing expenditures in FY2009. The Order created six furlough days for DHS staff and other State employees in FY2009 and reduced State General Fund spending in DHS by an additional $92,429,200. County-based CSA directors were instructed by DHS leadership to reduce certain budgeted services to families by 20 percent in FY2009. Some of these eliminated services are identical to those that both DHS and Michigan State University have identified, as part of needs assessments in the Agreement and discussed more fully later in this report, as critical – but scarce – for children and families involved with Michigan’s child welfare system. The State Budget Office and DHS did not ask the Legislature for funds to prevent these cuts in services to children and families involved with the child welfare system. These cuts are not consistent with DHS’ pledge to build “additional services and placements” in the Agreement (and, more specifically, in the Needs Assessment section). (IX.A).
Moreover, DHS committed in the Agreement that it would, at a minimum, request of the Michigan Legislature “state funds and any federal/special fund authorization sufficient to effect the provisions and outcome measures set forth in this Agreement in connection with any budget, funding, or allocation request to the executive or legislative branches of State government.” (I.H). However, during Period Two, DHS and the State Budget Office did not advance to the Michigan Legislature a request for funds or spending authorization to fully replace the significant cuts in services to children and families that the administration implemented in FY2009 or to fully fund the commitments in the Agreement.
In June 2009, the State Budget Director submitted to the Michigan Legislature a revised FY2010 funding recommendation for DHS that eliminated slightly more than $20 million and 197 child welfare staff positions originally requested to implement the Agreement. DHS indicated these positions were no longer necessary to satisfy its commitments in the Agreement due to reductions in the overall caseload managed by DHS. However, as described later in this report, DHS did not meet several of its caseload commitments in Period Two, standards which are only the starting point in a multi-year process of reducing caseloads from excessive to appropriate levels.
38

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
Assessing the Needs of Children and Families
While the Agreement identifies a number of specific services the parties deemed necessary to improve outcomes for children and families, they also acknowledged the reform would benefit from a more in-depth study of the entire continuum of service needs. To that end, they embedded a Michigan Child Welfare Needs Assessment (Needs Assessment) process in the Agreement.
DHS asked the Michigan State University Child Welfare Resource Center to conduct the first Needs Assessment. They began in November 2008 and concluded the process as scheduled on May 15, 2009. As the parties agreed, the Needs Assessment evaluated the adequacy of existing services and placements, including the need for family preservation services, foster and adoptive placements, wraparound services, reunification services, and medical, dental and mental health services for children in foster care throughout Michigan, as well as the need for flex funds.6 As part of the Agreement, DHS agreed to make available additional funds of at least $4 million in FY2010 to address the service and placement needs identified by the first Assessment, and also committed to make available additional funds of at least $4 million to develop the services and placements identified by a second Needs Assessment in 2011.
Once complete, the Agreement requires that the monitoring team review the Needs Assessment and issue recommendations. To that end, the monitoring team issued the following recommendations in July 2009:7
 DHS should invest $1.5 million in FY2010 in new, independent, transitional and transpermanent housing for exiting foster youth in the five largest counties, which must be funded and operational by February 1, 2010;
 DHS should invest $1.5 million in services designed to support youth stepping down from residential care, including flexible funds, in-home supports and step-down levels of care, in the five largest counties. As a result of this investment, the monitoring team expected that DHS should be able to reduce the number of youth placed in residential care settings in these largest counties. An allocation plan and budget for these new services was due to the monitoring team by September 30, 2009, and such services were to be available by January 1, 2010.
 DHS should invest an additional $1 million in new family preservation services in the five largest counties. An allocation plan and budget for these new services was due to the
6 See Michigan Child Welfare Needs Assessment, http://www.pcg4change.com/2008finalreport.pdf
7 See Needs Assessment Recommendations, http://www.pcg4change.com
39

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
monitoring team by September 30, 2009, and such programs were to be funded and operational by February 1, 2010.
DHS advised the monitoring team that it will divert $4 million in existing family preservation funds, beginning in Period Three, to fund this expansion. Although DHS is not responsible for implementing this expansion of services until Period Three, the monitoring team observes that a diversion of pre-existing resources to fund services is not consistent with the Agreement or the underlying Needs Assessment, and will closely assess funding sources for additional services in future periods.
D. Developing the Workforce to Deliver High Quality Services
In the Settlement Agreement, DHS committed to significant workforce development to ensure that staff serving Michigan’s at-risk children and families have improved qualifications and receive quality training. These commitments, which apply to staff in both DHS and private agencies, include commitments that caseworkers will have a bachelor’s degree in an appropriate field and receive pre-service and in-service training; supervisors will have a master’s degree in an appropriate field and receive supervisory training; and specialized workers, such as licensing staff and permanency planning specialists, will receive training targeted to those functions.
Increasing Worker Qualifications
DHS reported 85 new public agency caseworkers were hired during Period Two. All were required to have a bachelor’s degree in an appropriate designated field. The monitoring team compared the human resources lists provided by DHS with the DHS training database, JJOLTOTP, in order to assess compliance. The monitoring team found that eight staff that appeared on the human resources list did not appear on the training reports and a different five workers on the training reports did not appear on the human resources list. DHS was unable to provide information to explain the difference in the data in the two systems. Based on the information provided, all of the DHS caseworkers possessed the requisite degree. Moreover, 18 percent, or 15, of the DHS caseworkers hired during Period Two had a master’s degree in social work or in a related human services field, although the higher degree was not required.
DHS also reported that 74 private agency caseworkers were hired during Period Two. Eightynine percent, or 66, held the required bachelor’s degree and the remaining 11 percent possessed a bachelor’s degree but course of study information was not provided to determine if the degree attained was in one of the designated fields. Seventeen private agency staff, or 23 percent, possessed a master’s degree in a relevant field.
The table below depicts the results of the monitoring team’s review of the documentation provided.
40

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Table 2 – Staff Qualifications

Agency
DHS Private Agencies Total

Workers Hired in Period Two
85 74 159

Workers with Required
Bachelor’s or Higher Degree
85 100%
66 89%
151 95%

Workers with Unknown Bachelor’s Degree 0 0%
8 11%
8 5%

As noted, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement newly hired or promoted public agency supervisors are required to have a master’s degree in an appropriate designated field. DHS reported hiring or promoting 26 supervisors between April 1, 2009 and September 30, 2009 with responsibility for child welfare work. One supervisor was assigned to administrative functions in central office and is not subject to this commitment. The monitoring team verified performance on this commitment by comparing the human resources reports provided by DHS with the DHS training database. Seventeen DHS supervisors possessed the requisite master’s degree. For the remaining eight, DHS waived the master’s degree requirement based on their experience, which is consistent with the Settlement Agreement. Together with the nine waivers in Period One, these 17 supervisors represent 4.7 percent of the DHS supervisor allocation – currently 357 – which does not exceed the ten percent threshold needed to trigger a case-by-case review by the monitoring team under the Settlement Agreement.

Expanding Training to Strengthen the Workforce

Pre-Service Training

The pre-service training commitments for new entry level caseworkers in CPS, foster care, and adoption staff and for purchase of service (POS) monitors became effective in April 2009 for both DHS and CPA staff. DHS committed to have entry level caseworkers in the public agency and in private agencies complete an eight week pre-service training program that includes 270 hours of competence-based classroom and field training. As part of pre-service training, a trainee may be assigned specific tasks or activities in connection with a case so long as the primary responsibility for that case remains with an experienced worker. Further, under appropriate supervision, a trainee may be assigned responsibility for a “training caseload” of up to three cases. A trainee must pass a performance-based evaluation (PBE), including a written examination, prior to assuming a full caseload.

The Child Welfare Training Institute (CWTI) revised the pre-service training curriculum for caseworkers during the last monitoring period, increasing training to 300 hours. Pre-service training is offered through the public agency and covers a range of topics including engaging children and families, cultural diversity, safety and risk assessments, forensic interviewing, investigations, legal process, and mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence issues. The monitoring team reviewed a random sample of approximately 30 percent of the evaluations completed by workers at the conclusion of training. The evaluations, which are

41

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

anonymously submitted, afford staff an opportunity to candidly express their opinion about the pre-service training experience and offer suggestions for improvement. The evaluations indicate that pre-service training is generally well-received by staff.

Overall, DHS did not meet their commitment to ensure all new caseworkers complete the preservice training program, pass the performance-based evaluation (PBE), and carry no more than three cases prior to completing training.

There were 159 new public and private agency hires during Period Two. Among those 159, 104 (65%) were enrolled in training during Period Two with another 18 staff (11%) scheduled for training in October 2009. For the remaining 37 (23%), the CWTI had no record that those staff had been trained nor were they scheduled for training in October. Of the 104 staff enrolled in training during Period Two, 42 finished training and passed the competency exam. Two staff began but did not finish training, and the remaining 60 were still in training at the end of Period Two.

Table 3 – Pre-Service Training in Period Two

Public
Private TOTAL

New Hire 85 74 159

In Training

66

78%

38

51%

104

65%

Oct 09 Training Date

11 13%

7

9%

18 11%

No Record of Scheduling or
Receiving Training

8

9%

29

39%

37

23%

The parties agreed to focus in the Agreement on ensuring newly hired staff receive the appropriate level of training before they assume responsibility for children and families. Once they begin training, staff can assume between one and three training cases each. Those staff must finish training and take and pass the competency exam before they are allowed to handle their fourth case and go on to assume a full caseload.

During Period Two, DHS struggled to track this information. As a result, among the 159 new hires, CWTI provided caseload information to the monitoring team for only 94 or 59 percent of the new hires. DHS field offices and the contract compliance unit collect the caseload information for all public and private agency staff, respectively – so for Period Three, DHS will need to cross-reference its training records with the caseload data and provide this information for all new hires.

Based on the limited information available during Period Two, both DHS and the private agencies struggled with the training and caseload requirements. Of the 94 new hires for whom caseload information was provided during Period Two, two workers carried no cases, 29 had caseloads between one and three, and 63 had caseloads of four or more. DHS could only document that 14 of those 92 case-carrying staff followed the training caseload protocols and

42

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

started training before picking up cases and passed the PBE before assuming more than three cases.

Table 4 – Training Analysis Based on Caseload

Public Private

New Hires
85 74

Yes

25

29%

67

91%

Caseload No
0 0% 2 3%

Unknown

60 71%

5

7%

Compliant*

8

9%

6

8%

TOTAL

159

92

58%

2 1%

65 41%

14

9%

*Compliant means a worker entered training before being assigned the first case and did not pick up

the fourth case until completing training and passing the PBE. If a worker was assigned cases before

starting training, carried more than four cases before passing the PBE, or the caseload is unknown,

that worker is counted as non-compliant.

Historically, CPA staff had been permitted up to eight months to complete pre-service training and were allowed to have full caseloads during that time – and vestiges of that practice may still linger. Interviews with CPA leaders and managers do indicate that DHS has done a good job of disseminating information about the change in pre-service requirements. They also report improvements in access to training from Period One to Period Two, but that challenges remain, primarily with gaining timely notification and access to training in locations convenient to staff. They report both late notice that staff had been accepted into training, for example, the Friday before a Monday start date, and they report that DHS may require staff to travel to different locations, spread throughout the state, for different training modules. In some instances, the training offered is several hours away, requiring overnight stays, causing staff to have to make last-minute arrangements, if they can, for child-care or other personal responsibilities. They would like to see DHS make further improvements to ensure more predictable access with an increase in the amount of training offered in the locations where training demand is highest. The monitoring team will continue to assess the accessibility to training on an ongoing basis to ensure that sufficient pre-service classes are available to both public and private agency staff.

Although timeliness of training is not a specific commitment in the Agreement, the sooner staff are trained the greater the opportunity for collateral benefits to meet other provisions in the Agreement. If the start of training for newly hired staff is timely, workers will be able to assume a training caseload and then a full caseload sooner rather than later – all of which is beneficial to the public and private agencies. During Period One, for those staff who attended pre-service training and for whom data was available, the median time from the date staff began in the position until the date they began training was 35 days for DHS staff and 49 days for CPA staff. In Period Two, the median time decreased by 40 percent for DHS staff to 21 days, and 49 percent for CPA staff, to 25 days – a tremendous improvement. Gaining access to training quickly is important, especially in a system that continues to struggle with meeting caseload standards. Making access to training predictable and reliable enables coordination of hiring dates and training dates so that neither the public agency nor the private agencies have the burden of paying salaries to staff who are waiting for training to begin.

43

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Timely access also helps agencies manage their workload – and resist the temptation to assign cases to staff who are not yet trained. DHS agreed that staff would not assume a caseload prior to beginning training but that after training began, each staff person could carry up to three cases on a training caseload. Over the first year of the reform, adherence to this requirement improved for both the public and private agencies. Nonetheless, there is still work to be done – particularly for public agency staff hired in rural areas and private agency staff at some agencies. In Period Two, 58 newly hired staff (of those for whom DHS provided information) either carried more than three cases before completing training or in some cases, carried cases without even starting training. The caseloads ranged from two to 24 cases, with 37 staff carrying double-digit caseloads without the requisite level of training.
In-Service Training
DHS also committed that all caseworkers would receive a minimum number of hours of ongoing training annually. The chart below reflects the timetable for implementation of in-service training for caseworkers.
Table 5 – Implementation Schedule for In-Service Training

Training Year
October 2008 – September 2009 October 2009 – September 2010 October 2010 – September 2011 October 2011 and thereafter

CPS Staff
16 hours 24 hours 32 hours 40 hours

FC & Adoption Staff
24 hours 40 hours 40 hours 40 hours

Private Agency Staff
N/A 24 hours 40 hours 40 hours

DHS made significant efforts to develop the capacity to provide in-service training, recognizing the importance of developing the skills staff need to do their work quickly and well. DHS issued instructions advising field staff of the tenets of the in-service commitment and the standards for qualifying in-service training. In partnership with DHS, the Michigan State University Child Welfare Resource Center took the lead in bringing together seven graduate social work schools8 to develop a Child Welfare In-Service training program, offering a wide array of 31 relevant courses for caseworkers. With the support of Casey Family Programs, the partner schools are able to offer in-service training sessions at no charge to DHS child protective services, foster care, and adoption workers, and often at a reduced fee for private agency staff. DHS also committed to encourage its child welfare staff and the staff of private CPAs to pursue master’s level work under a tuition reimbursement program that has not yet been funded.

8 The Michigan Graduate Schools of Social Work participating in the partnership are Andrews University, Eastern Michigan University, Grand Valley State University, Michigan State University, University of Michigan, Wayne State University, and Western Michigan University.
44

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
In addition to the university-based training opportunities, CWTI has pre-approved in-service training sessions that are offered by the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, the State Court Administrative Office, the Department of Community Health, and several online sites. A total of 179 trainings have been pre-approved by CWTI to qualify as in-service training.
Even with this expansion in training offerings, DHS still has work to do in helping caseworkers access in-service training opportunities – and in tracking training information.
As reported in Period One, DHS established a new computer application, JJOLT-OTP, to give staff in both the private and public agencies information on all available qualifying classes, the ability to register for some of those classes on-line, and record class attendance and completion. This database still needs work. Staff report some trouble with the registration process and consistent problems with recording class attendance and completion.
Utilizing JJOLT-OTP, DHS provided in-service training information to the monitoring team for only 1,166 public agency staff, reflecting an in-service completion rate of only 46 percent. This list excludes many other staff covered by the in-service training provision,9 reportedly because they did not complete the registration process to become a JJOLT-OTP user. In visiting local offices and interviewing staff, the monitoring team found each of those offices had a tracking system for training but often it was a system other than or in addition to JJOLT-OTP. The monitoring team compared data from local offices against the JJOLT-OTP and found significant disparities. Staff were interviewed and the monitoring team was able to establish that inservice training occurs at a much higher rate than reported by DHS leadership. Based on that verification activity, it appears that DHS still fell short of meeting the requirement that all covered staff receive the requisite hours of in-service training – but not as far short as DHS’ own data would suggest.
In a few offices, staff also suggested they would benefit from more structured access to training, as they struggled to balance the demands of their daily work and registering for classes that can fill up quickly with the increase in training requirements.
Demand is only likely to increase in the upcoming months. While many private agencies already encourage or provide in-service training to their own staff, the obligation to do so pursuant to the Settlement Agreement becomes effective in Period Three. DHS has to improve its tracking systems in order to identify areas of the state where more training opportunities may need to be developed or where offices may need more assistance accessing training. The monitoring team will continue to report on DHS’ efforts to improve its online training and qualifications tracking.
9 Based on caseload reports, there are more than 2,000 DHS CPS, foster care and adoption workers and POS monitors who are subject to the in-service training requirements.
45

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
Supervisory Training
Finally, DHS committed to develop and implement a competency-based supervisory training program for all CPS, foster care, adoption, and POS supervisors that encompasses the skills and technical knowledge fundamental for child welfare professionals who serve as public and private agency supervisors. The training curriculum was adapted from Michigan State University’s Staff and Retention in Child and Family Services Training Modules, in conjunction with a team that represented both the public and private sectors of Michigan’s child welfare system. The 40-hour training consists of two days of general child welfare supervision and three days of training specific to the CPS, foster care, and adoption programs. Beginning in April 2009, all DHS staff either newly promoted or hired to one of the designated supervisory positions must have completed the training program and passed a competency-based performance evaluation within three months of assuming the supervisory position. The first Child Welfare New Supervisor Training was held on April 13, 2009. The monitoring team reviewed a random sample of approximately 46 percent of the evaluations completed by new supervisors at the conclusion of training which indicates that staff generally consider the supervisory training program effective and beneficial.
DHS reported that 26 public agency staff were promoted or hired into supervisory positions during Period Two. One new supervisor, assigned to an administrative central office position, did not require the training. Thirteen (52 percent) completed training within three months of becoming supervisors, as required. Another five (20 percent) completed training within four months of assuming the supervisory position. The remaining seven (28 percent) new supervisors did not enroll in or attend training during or immediately following the period.
Lowering Caseloads
In the Agreement, DHS committed to lowering caseloads to agreed-upon standards for four types of child welfare casework in Period Two: child protective services investigations; child protective services ongoing cases; foster care cases; and adoption cases. When DHS receives an allegation of child abuse or neglect and decides to investigate, child protective services staff conduct the investigation and determine whether the maltreatment occurred. After the investigation, staff can open a child protective services ongoing case, which involves providing the child and family with services in the family’s home to ensure the child’s safety; place the child in foster care because he or she cannot safely stay in the home and transfer the case to a foster care worker; or close the investigation because the alleged act was not substantiated. Foster care staff works to achieve permanency for children through reunification, adoption, or guardianship, and if adoption becomes the permanency goal, an adoption worker is also assigned to the case. Each type of work is critical to the efficacy of a child welfare system; as a result, reducing caseloads from excessive to appropriate levels is in many ways a linchpin to a system’s success. Systems with excessive caseloads are inefficient and ineffective, leading to negative outcomes for children and families. Systems that reduce excessive caseloads to appropriate levels can work more efficiently to ensure positive outcomes.
46

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

The following table details the applicable standards for caseload staff managing child protective services investigations, child protective services ongoing cases, foster care cases, and adoption cases for Periods One and Two:

Table 6 – Caseload Standards

Period One Standards

Child Protective Services – Investigations

N/A

None

Child Protective Services – Ongoing
Foster Care Direct Services

N/A Nov-08

None
95% of staff will have no more than 30 children; 60% will
have no more than 25 children.

Adoption Direct Services

Feb-09 &
ongoing

60% of workers will have no more than 25
children

Period Two Standards

95% of staff will have no

Apr-09

more than 16

investigations

Apr-09

95% of staff will have no more than 30 families

Nov-08 standard continues
Apr-09

95% of staff will have no more than 30 children; 60% will have no more
than 25 children 95% of staff will have no more than 30 children; 60% of workers will have no more than 25 children

In order to assess caseload performance during this monitoring period, the monitoring team conducted its own analysis of the August 2009 raw caseload data separate from the analysis offered by DHS. The monitoring team will continue to work with DHS to align these analyses.10 The monitoring team also engaged in independent verification activities in Period Two, interviewing staff at private and public agencies and conducting on-site checks of caseloads in some of the public agency’s local offices. Those interviews and checks supported the monitoring team’s assessment of Period Two caseload performance.

Note that one of the common practices in Michigan is to have a single staff person provide more than one type of service. There are many possible combinations: for example, one caseworker can provide both CPS and CPS on-going services, foster care and POS monitoring, adoption and licensing services, or licensing and IV-E reviews. Staff providing mixed services are assessed with respect to caseload compliance for each category of service they provide. As a result, the data below should not be understood as counts of unique staff. In order to assess staffing, DHS would have to provide the monitoring team with FTE or full-time equivalent staff information (e.g., this staff person spends 50% of her time on IV-E reviews and 50% on licensing). The monitoring team expects DHS to provide this information in Period Three. For Period Two, the monitoring team cautions that the lack of FTE information may result in an over-count of DHS compliance with the caseload standards.

10 For a full discussion of the monitoring team’s caseload reporting methodology, please see Appendix A.
47

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
Child Protective Services Caseloads
The Agreement commitments include, for the first time this monitoring period, caseload reductions for child protective services. There are two standards in this category: one for child protective services investigations (CPS-I), the initial investigation and finding regarding an allegation of child abuse or neglect, and one for child protective services ongoing cases (CPS-O), in which the agency’s determination is that the child or children can remain safely at home but that in-home services and/or monitoring are necessary. As of April 2009, for CPS-I cases, DHS agreed that 95 percent of workers would have no more than 16 open investigations. As of April 2009, for CPS-O cases, DHS agreed that 95 percent of workers would have no more than 30 families. DHS’ commitments to reduce CPS caseloads culminate in October 2011, when DHS pledged that it will achieve appropriate caseloads for 95 percent of CPS-I staff, who will have no more than 12 open investigations, and 95 percent of CPS-O staff, who will have no more than 17 families.
At the beginning of the monitoring period, DHS was far from achieving this caseload reduction. As of April 2009, only 42 percent (311 of 747) of CPS-I staff had caseloads of no more than 16 cases, well below the target of 95 percent. Similarly, also as of April 2009, DHS reported that only 40 percent (280 of 698 workers) of CPS-O staff had caseloads of no more than 30 families.11
11 For further explanation of how caseload standards were calculated, please see the methodology section in the Appendix. Note that the DHS caseload information form filled out by the individual offices contains two categories each for CPS investigations and CPS on-going cases – those cases that are pending supervisory review and those cases that are not. On July 9, 2009, in a letter to the Director of the Children’s Services Administration, the monitoring team memorialized for DHS earlier discussions in which it was made clear that all CPS investigations and on-going cases are active cases and as such would be counted on caseloads until they close, including both those cases that are pending supervisory review and those that are not. Caseload print-outs in local office reviews listed both pending and non-pending cases so the monitoring team was able to verify that information during numerous on-site visits across the State. Nonetheless, in February 2010, DHS raised the possibility that some offices – they could not document which ones – could have misunderstood the DHS instructions and included pending cases in both the non-pending and pending categories. DHS cannot reconstruct the caseload data from either April or August 2009 in order to ensure that some cases were not duplicated. Moving forward into Period Three, DHS will provide further detail in the instructions in order to ensure no cases are duplicated. Regardless, however, DHS concedes that even if all potential duplication were eliminated, they still did not comply with the caseload standards for CPS investigations or CPS on-going cases in either April 2009, when the standard was to have been met, or in August 2009.
48

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Table 7 – Child Protective Services Caseloads – April 2009

April 2009
5 Largest Public Counties 78 Public Counties Total

Child Protective Services – Investigations

Staff

1 Staff to 16 Cases Target = 95%

303

83

27%

444

228

51%

747

311

42%

April 2009
5 Largest Public Counties 78 Public Counties Total

Child Protective Services – Ongoing
Staff
284 414 698

1 Staff to 30 Children Target = 95%

69

24%

211

51%

280

40%

These initial data demonstrated that DHS had further work to do to achieve the caseload reductions it committed to as of April 2009, particularly in the five largest counties where performance was 27 percent (CPS-I) and 24 percent (CPS-O).

By August 2009, DHS’ performance had improved on both standards:

Table 8 – Child Protective Services Caseloads (August 2009)

August 2009
5 Largest Public Counties 78 Public Counties Total

Child Protective Services – Investigations

All Staff

1 Staff to 16 Cases Target = 95%

312

179

57%

440

273

62%

752

452

60%

August 2009
5 Largest Public Counties 78 Public Counties Total

Child Protective Services – Ongoing

All Staff

1 Staff to 30 Children Target = 95%

314

185

59%

460

299

65%

774

484

63%

Between April and August 2009, DHS performance on CPS-I cases improved from 42 percent to 60 percent, an improvement of 18 percent, but still fell well below the agreed upon standard of 95 percent. Similarly, on CPS-O cases, DHS improved from 40 percent to 63 percent, an

49

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

improvement of 23 percent, but again, still well below the standard of 95 percent. For detail by county, see Appendix E.

The apparent improvement DHS made in CPS caseload standards over the period warrants an important caveat. Like many child welfare systems across the country, the volume of allegations of child maltreatment reported to Michigan’s DHS fluctuates over the course of each year. Most systems experience a surge in calls during the fall after students return to school because school personnel are often a primary source of referrals, and the data indicates that Michigan’s call volume usually peaks in October.12 That surge ordinarily trends downward during the school year and ends in significantly decreased volume during the summer months when school is not in session. DHS’ caseload data suggest that it is fluctuating volume – higher in April, lower in August – that accounts for DHS’ improved performance:

Table 9 – CPS Case Volume

Volume of CPS Cases* April 2009 Compared to August 2009

April 2009 August 2009 Difference - # Difference - %

5 Largest Public Counties

9,940

6,552

-3,388

-34%

78 Public Counties

11,193

9,394

-1,799

-16%

Private Agencies

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Total

21,133

15,946

-5,187

-25%

* Includes CPS Investigation, CPS Investigation - Pending Review (i.e., awaiting supervisory approval), CPS Ongoing, and CPS - Ongoing Pending Review.

DHS’ caseload reporting for August 2009 included 15,946 cases statewide, a 25 percent drop from the April 2009 total of 21,133. That decline was even more pronounced in the five largest public counties, which saw a 34 percent drop (from 9,940 to 6,552). The decline in cases in and of itself may be appropriate (and, as noted, is consistent with the experience in many other jurisdictions). It is, however, an indication that DHS’ improved performance on caseload

12 DHS’ data confirms that schools are a primary source of referrals in Michigan as well. In FY2007, DHS investigated 13,295 complaints from school staff (including teachers, nurses, administrators, counselors, audiologists, and other school personnel), seventeen percent of all such complaints. Law enforcement was the second largest referral source, with 9,985, or thirteen percent of all such complaints. See Children’s Protective Services 2007 Trends Report (Michigan Department of Human Services, Feb. 2008), available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/DHS-Legislative-Sec514-PA131-2007-CPS_227770_7.pdf. Similarly, in FY2008 DHS investigated 10,532 complaints from school personnel, approximately 15 percent of all such complaints. Law enforcement was again the second largest referral source, with 10,041, or approximately 14 percent of all such complaints. See Children’s Protective Services 2008 Trends Report (Michigan Department of Human Services, September 2009), available at http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/DHS-Sec514-PA2482008-CPS_291362_7.pdf
50

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

standards from April to August may be primarily due to fewer cases to manage, rather than to reform initiatives purposely undertaken pursuant to the Agreement. If that is the case, it suggests that DHS’ progress may reverse itself as the seasonal trends progress. That could be particularly problematic in the five largest public counties, which saw the most significant swing between April and August – from 27 percent to 57 percent on CPS-I cases and from 24 percent to 59 percent on CPS-O cases.

For child welfare systems, it is critically important to manage the inflow of new cases. If CPS workers are overloaded with cases, they are unable to manage each case and make timely and well-informed decisions about how to proceed. That can create a backlog of cases at the front end of the system, which translates into a backlog of cases at each step through the system, compounding those delays again and again. Managing new cases and ensuring that they are handled well and expeditiously can ensure that cases work their way through the system smoothly; not managing new cases can leave a system overburdened with long-delayed cases and constantly working to catch up, delaying permanency for children and youth.

Finally, over-loaded investigators trigger safety concerns. Over and over again, the Achilles heel of child welfare is under-investment in investigative staff, leading to hurried and potentially less than thorough investigations. Investigative staff are the emergency room of the child welfare system – they have to be able to handle the surge when it comes in and staffing needs to be either maintained at a sufficiently high level to handle that surge or there need to be swing staff who can be delegated to CPS when that uptick occurs, returning to other work when it wanes. Staffing to the average does not work with CPS investigations. Given the fact that DHS missed this initial CPS standard even at the lowest point in the cycle, the monitoring team will be watching closely in Period Three for improvement, particularly as volume increases.

Foster Care and Adoption Caseloads

During Period One, DHS met the foster care caseload standards and maintained that achievement throughout Period Two. In April 2009, 90 percent of all foster care staff met the caseload standard of no more than 25 children, well in excess of the 60 percent that DHS committed to meet. At the same time, 96 percent of foster care staff had caseloads of no more than 30 children, just exceeding the standard of 95 percent.

Table 10 – Foster Care Caseloads – August 2009

August 2009 Five Largest Public Counties
78 Public Counties
Private Agencies
Total

Foster Care All Staff
362 359 450 1171

1 Staff to 25 Children Target = 60%

1 Staff to 30 Children Target = 95%

325

90%

353

98%

312

87%

343

96%

430

96%

444

99%

1067

91%

1140

97%

51

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

In August 2009, there were 1,171 staff providing foster care case management services, with 62 percent working in the public agencies and 38 percent working in private agencies. This is a slight decrease from the overall number of staff providing these services in April 2009 (1,192). The number of private agency staff increased slightly from April to August (431 to 450) as did the number of staff in the 78 public counties (350 to 359). The most significant distinction from the April 2009 data is the reduction in the number of public staff providing foster care services in the five largest counties, from 411 in April 2009 to 362 in August 2009. For county and agency detail for foster care caseloads, see Appendix F.

During Period One, DHS also reduced adoption caseloads, meeting the standards in the Agreement. In April 2009, there were 253 staff reported to have performed adoption work. Eighty percent achieved the standard of 25 or fewer children, exceeding the Agreement’s target of 60 percent. In the Agreement, DHS committed to continue to comply with that standard during Period Two. DHS did so, with 84 percent of staff meeting that standard in August 2009. DHS also committed to achieve another adoption caseload reduction during Period Two – that 95 percent of workers have no more than 30 cases. DHS did not achieve that standard, reporting that 89 percent of workers had no more than 30 cases, six percent below the requirement of 95 percent. For county and agency detail for adoption caseloads, see Appendix F.

Table 11 – Adoption Caseloads – August 2009

August 2009 5 Largest Public Counties 78 Public Counties Private Agencies Total

Adoption
All Staff
20 33 210 263

1 Staff to 25 Children 1 Staff to 30 Children

Target = 60%

Target = 95%

15

75%

15

75%

13

39%

16

48%

192

91%

203

97%

220

84%

234

89%

In the course of verification work, the monitoring team identified that DHS’ contracts with private agencies explicitly provide that adoption cases transferred to them do not count on caseloads until termination of parental rights occurs. As discussed later in this report, there is a significant amount of work that the agency is responsible for and may undertake prior to termination, suggesting that these cases should be included on caseloads immediately upon transfer. Caseloads are about ensuring that staff have appropriate levels of work to operate efficiently and achieve good outcomes, and failing to acknowledge required work responsibilities as part of caseloads can create a misleading picture of staff’s level of effort as well as the level of investment in creating manageable caseloads to achieve good outcomes. The monitoring team will continue to assess this practice and engage in discussions with the parties during Period Three regarding the appropriate manner in which to address this group of cases with a focus on the fact that any change in the approach should further the end of achieving more timely adoptions.

52

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
The challenge for DHS moving forward is to identify the additional capacity necessary to meet caseload commitments and, even more important, support the significant expansion in adoption finalizations necessary to address the needs of children who are legally free awaiting an adoptive home.
E. Developing the Capacity for Assessment & Implementation
Accessing and Utilizing Data
Successfully implementing the commitments in the Agreement and the reform of Michigan’s child welfare system require a growth and maturation of the ability to access and use data to diagnose systemic challenges, plan strategic interventions to remedy those challenges, and execute those strategies in a disciplined fashion. To DHS’ credit, Period One saw a sharp increase in access to data, including access to child protective services data regarding investigations and substantiations of child maltreatment for the first time in more than two years. In Period Two, DHS continued to work hard to produce additional data and improve access to that data. Nonetheless, significant challenges identified in Period One continued into Period Two and new issues arose. In particular, the monitoring team is growing concerned about the quality of the data DHS is producing under the strain of increasing demand. Quality data with the time to review and analyze it at the highest levels of the organization are critical to ensuring sound decision-making.
In Period Two the appetite for data sparked in Period One grew, which is a positive development. Requests for data grew and grew to the point that the data management unit (DMU) found itself responsible for hundreds of new reports. As the period came to an end, the increase in volume threatened to overwhelm the DMU staff. The Agreement itself requires the production of extensive data to support the reform. Internal and external stakeholders are making a wide range of other data requests. Budget negotiations demanded significant data production. In addition to the standard NCANDS and AFCARS data (the submission of which has not always gone smoothly for DHS), the federal government’s Child and Family Services Review (CFSR) required data in preparation for the on-site review that occurred in September. A relatively new federal requirement to produce monthly visitation data against aggressive targets loomed large throughout the period with a critical due date in Period Three. The upcoming Title IV-E federal fiscal audit and a range of other state auditing activity also increased the strain. A promising performance indicator system developed over the summer is in limbo, stalled at release because of issues with the web-based delivery system outside the control of the DMU. Finally, DMU is preparing to produce the first set of outcome data to be reported in Period Three based on system performance in Periods One and Two.
As detailed in the Period One report, DHS’ ability to produce quality data is also constrained by limitations in their primary database, the Services Worker Support System (SWSS). Because of those constraints, DHS has retained an outside vendor, Fox Systems, to assess their database, diagnose challenges, and propose solutions, possibly including modification or even replacement of the system. Fox’s report is not due until Period Four. During Period Two, DHS
53

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
invested significant time working with the vendor to diagnose system issues and identify the range of proposed solutions.
As the Fox report is being finalized, DHS will confer with the federal government and with the Legislature and State Budget Office (SBO) to identify the funds to invest to fix or replace the system and to ensure that it becomes compliant with federal standards. This process requires careful planning. It will be time-consuming13 and it will cost money either way – if DHS decides to fix or replace the system it will cost money, or if DHS decides to do nothing and leave SWSS functioning sub-optimally and non-compliant with federal standards, the federal Administration for Children and Families has a claim for repayment of the tens of millions of dollars that they contributed to the development of SWSS. The monitoring team will be following this process closely not only because DHS committed to ensuring their database becomes federally compliant, but more important, because good information is critical for a child welfare system to keep children safe and ensure permanency and well-being. Not addressing system limitations allows children to spend more time in care, inhibits monitoring of the most expensive forms of placement, and prohibits targeting expensive problems and system inefficiencies.
DHS has also faced the inability to find a suitable candidate to fill the statewide SWSS manager position, which left the DMU manager splitting her time between both responsibilities. Toward the end of Period Two, DHS decided to move her full-time to the SWSS manager position in order to keep that project on track and to name an existing DMU staff member as the acting manager.
DHS and some private agencies have agreed to team up on a pilot that will allow those agencies to do direct input into the SWSS system (currently all private agency data is entered by POS monitors). That pilot is promising and has the potential to address a range of issues identified in the Period One monitoring report. Preparation for the pilot is on-going and it is scheduled for implementation in Period Four. Data collection from the private agencies remains a challenge for all of the reasons described in Period One. Because of those challenges, DHS missed the deadline in Period Two to produce baseline data to assess the performance of private agencies against their new performance-based contract provisions.
The release of a new database for cash and food assistance called Bridges also impacted the reform as challenges with that system, which feeds critical functions in the SWSS system, slowed SWSS and even caused it to crash on occasion. Child welfare staff were trained on the elements of Bridges functionality that impact their work, a challenging task in the midst of the reform.
13 The Agreement recognized this process would take time and set a deadline of October 2012 for compliance. Whether the solution is a new system or modifications to the SWSS system, DHS will need all of that time to issue an RFP, make the award, complete the design, build and test the system, and train staff.
54

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
DHS’ data production, while relying primarily on the DMU, is also dependent on other entities within and outside of DHS. The success of DMU depends heavily on strong and cooperative relationships with the State’s Department of Information Technology (DIT). DHS leadership worked hard to partner with DIT throughout Period Two, with good results. The monitoring team will continue to pay close attention to this relationship because it is so critical to DHS’ success. In addition, not all data produced to the monitoring team by DHS comes from the DMU. Other units within DHS are producing data – the Bureau of Child and Adult Licensing (BCAL), the Child Welfare Training Institute (CWTI), human resources, the field and the Children’s Service Administration have built a range of separate tracking systems. DHS is struggling with mixed success to identify the right information and collect and analyze it. Ideally, the data produced by the other units within DHS would go through a standardized review and validation process and intersecting data sets would be tested against one another for consistency. But DHS has not yet created such a process and doing so would require making decisions about the DMU’s capacity – either adding additional staff, prioritizing and reducing the existing workload, or some combination of both.
In the meantime, often because of the lack of coordination, critical data sets produced during Period One – that were represented as complete by DHS – showed flaws during Period Two. Those datasets include the permanency backlog, the relative home backlog, and the special review cohorts. There were also issues with maltreatment in care, failure to report, training, and other data sets necessary for Period Two. The details are discussed in the relevant sections. It is not surprising to the monitoring team that data produced initially in a reform might be flawed. The capacity to identify, input, and report on data needs to be developed – and hand-counting and multiple rounds of verification are a necessity. It takes time to understand the nuances of the existing data and the database. It takes experience to understand what the data means. As a result, it takes much work to produce an accurate data set in the first few years of the reform and the work needs to be approached with care.
In this area, data quality is the most important issue for DHS moving forward. Leadership needs to create an internal data exchange and verification process and that will require decisions about capacity, cooperation, and prioritization.
Implementing Quality Assurance
As reported in Period One, DHS produced a comprehensive continuous quality improvement plan. Work on most of that plan has been on hold as DHS concentrated its available CQI staff on the special reviews and the completion of an integrated fatality overview report.
Staffing remained a challenge throughout Period Two. Optimism that all positions would be filled foundered in the face of turnover, as several newly hired staff left to assume promotions.
55

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

At the end of Period Two, DHS reports 7 of the 12 allotted positions were filled.14 The acting manager of the CQI unit had returned to his underlying position and interviews were underway for a new CQI manager. As a consequence, DHS did not achieve the CQI manager and staffing commitments in the Agreement. DHS did train its staff in CQI processes and provided a concise version of that same training to key child welfare managers. The Quality Council, the membership of which is the same as that of the Children’s Services Cabinet, met during Period Two, received CQI training, and will begin its work in Period Three. The focus for DHS for Period Three must be on hiring a new CQI manager and filling all CQI staff positions.

Given the limited staffing and staff turnover, it is promising that this unit accomplished as many special reviews as it did. Other senior staff partnered with the CQI unit to complete reviews.

Table 12 – Special Review Cohorts

Cohort

Higher Risk Population

A

Maltreatment - single allegation

B

Maltreatment - multiple allegations

C

Multiple placements

D

Long-term residential care

E

Unrelated unlicensed caregiver

Identified Cohort Size*
345 23 2,569 478 172

Reviews Completed

#

%

327

95%

23

100%

307

12%

105

22%

36

21%

*These cohorts are the initial datasets and so include over-counts and some under-counts. See below and discussion in maltreatment in care section of this report.

The CQI unit produced its first special review report this period, focusing on the two
maltreatment in care cohorts DHS is expected to make that report public during Period Three.
The special review reports are due to be produced on a quarterly basis and, as with all quality assurance reports, will be made public. 15

With respect to the other three populations, DHS made some initial findings. The initial review of the multiple placement population cohort surfaced significant data issues with data entry, coding, and changes in provider status that improperly registered as a change in placement. As a result, after reviewing a series of individual cases and refining the data parameters, DHS reduced the cohort by more than 20 percent to 2,023. For those cases that met the cohort definition, the reviewers identified a need for improved practice and documentation with

14 Other information submitted by DHS listed 8 staff – 4 of whom were due to start in November 2009, after Period Two – and 4 vacancies. In either situation, DHS QA was under-staffed.
15 The Agreement provides (XIV.D) that: “All reports provided by the QA unit shall become public record so long as any individually identifying information in relation to the temporary or permanent wards in DHS foster care custody is redacted from such report consistent with applicable state and federal confidentiality laws.”
56

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
respect to prevention of replacement, early identification of and engagement with relatives, and consideration of return home prior to replacement.
DHS reports greater initial success with identifying the long-term residential cohort through the database. But this cohort is shrinking as the overall residential care population is declining. As of September, the revised cohort number was 327, down 32 percent. Senior CSA staff took the lead in conducting these reviews. They identified the need for improved practice in planning for this population. The reviewers also underlined the necessity of developing an increased pool of foster homes and step-down alternatives such as therapeutic foster homes for both adolescents and children with special needs. DHS committed in the Agreement to precisely those initiatives.
Data selection issues surfaced again with respect to the unrelated, unlicensed caregiver cohort. As a result, it took individual case reviews to sort through each case and that cohort decreased to 121, down 30 percent. With the cases that remain in the cohort, the reviewers reported a need to improve documentation of efforts to pursue licensure.
Overall, DHS is seeking to learn from these reviews to revise its data selection and reviewing process. More important, much more will be learned about avenues to improve practice as these reviews continue. Moving forward, DHS will re-pull the quarterly data for each cohort with the revised parameters in order to surface any new children who may be in those cohorts. DHS has created a comprehensive review tool and will be revising that early in Period Three. For Period Three, DHS has set a goal of completing reviews for all identified children in four of the five cohorts. For the fifth and largest, the multiple placement cohort, they have committed to reviewing a statistically significant sample of those children. The results of the sampling and reviews will be shared with the monitoring team and with plaintiffs and integrated into the quarterly public reports.
A further quality assurance activity described in the Agreement involves DHS’ implementation of a process for reviewing the case handling of all children who die while in out-of-home placement, regardless of cause, and to integrate lessons learned from these reviews in ongoing continuous quality improvement efforts. For all foster child deaths that occurred after March 31, 2008, child fatality reviews are due within six months of the date of death, and are shared under a protective order of the federal court with plaintiffs and the monitoring team. The Office of Family Advocate (OFA) is the designated unit within DHS responsible for completing these reviews. In almost all instances, fatality reviews are now undertaken by staff of the OFA.
Child fatality reviews were undertaken and provided to the monitoring team and plaintiffs timely during Period Two. During that period, DHS reported that 13 children died of various causes while in foster care. Of the 13, DHS referred nine for a child protective services investigation, eight of which were accepted for investigation and one of which was rejected. Of the eight investigations, one resulted in a confirmed case of child abuse or neglect.
DHS has also committed to produce an aggregate report of child deaths within 60 days of each reporting period that summarizes all of the deaths and identifies trends that, according to DHS,
57

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
“may identify areas that merit further inquiry and . . . help improve practice across the state.” The first such report, delivered by DHS after the close of Period Two and focusing on the first cohort of reviews that came due in Period One, concluded that DHS should focus on practice with younger children, as “*h+alf of the fatalities reviewed involved children 3 years of age or less.” DHS also concluded there is a need for improvement around documentation of children’s medical needs and care. The monitoring team expects DHS will make this report publicly available shortly, consistent with the Agreement. In future reports, the monitoring team will assess how DHS’ child fatality review process, including its statewide tracking of child fatalities and continuous quality improvement efforts, impacts its practice with children and families across the state.
Creating Effective Plans
As reported in Period One, planning continues to be a struggle. The overarching initial Implementation Plan process described in the Period One report extended into the summer. The revised plan did not meet with approval by the plaintiffs or the monitoring team and the process ended with a finding of non-compliance. The parties committed to re-engaging in the implementation planning process in Period Three.
As referenced in other sections of this report, DHS also had to create a series of other targeted plans throughout Period Two, including plans to create the new maltreatment in care units, for specialized population foster home recruitment, for utilizing data analysis to drive general foster home recruitment, and for improving health services to children involved in the child welfare system. Planning did not go well in any of these instances. DHS did make progress referencing data in its planning, but in some cases that data was inaccurate while in others the data was not utilized to set targets or drive a realistic capacity development process. The plans lack such basics as identification of the point person, timeframes, and targets. Substandard planning in Period One in such areas as the training of licensing staff and licensing or waiver of homes in the relative home backlog cohort continued to haunt DHS throughout Period Two and played a significant role in the agency’s failure to meet its commitments in those areas.
Reform processes have many moving parts and this Agreement contains a large number of elements that have to be implemented quickly. DHS leadership also has to overcome the historic triangulation between central office, the private agencies, and the local public offices. The monitoring team looks forward to DHS improving its planning in future periods.
III. Improving Safety
A. Establishing a Statewide Child Abuse Hotline
Every state child welfare system responsible for investigating reports of alleged child abuse or neglect must have a system to receive calls from members of the public and professionals who suspect that a child may be the victim of child abuse or neglect. Currently, each of DHS’ local offices has its own system in place, with screening staff receiving reports of alleged
58

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
maltreatment during business hours and with arrangements for after-hours screening and investigation. Each DHS local office determines whether to investigate each report and, if so, how quickly to investigate. Effectively, this creates a different system for each office – with different staff, different practices, and even different telephone numbers. Those differences allow for widely varied performance across the state – in two counties (Chippewa and Luce), local offices refer 36 percent of complaints to child protective services workers for investigation, while in another county (Wayne), 86 percent of complaints are referred for investigation. See Appendix B. That variation raises concerns about screening practices around the state that require DHS’ immediate review and attention. The purpose of centralization is to create systems that make the right decisions consistently in the vast majority of cases in order to ensure that the agency investigates when it should, and refrains from investigating when it should not.
In order to bring consistency to the practice of receiving, screening, and acting on calls alleging maltreatment, DHS committed in the Agreement to phase out the local office screening systems and to establish a 24/7 centralized hotline with the necessary staff, information technology, and telecommunications systems to receive and manage all calls alleging child maltreatment across the state. This commitment, which DHS agreed would be fully implemented by April 2011, will create a system for all reporters of child maltreatment to call one well-publicized child abuse hotline number rather than requiring callers to identify the correct number out of many depending on the county they are in. Callers will reach screeners who have received the same training and who will be expected to make decisions in a consistent manner for all calls across the state, and screeners will be managed by supervisors whose only job will be to ensure that all reports are screened appropriately and consistently and are tracked, monitored, and sent to the field for investigation in a timely fashion. Centralization will also allow for robust continuous quality improvement of statewide screening practice, which will inure to the benefit of children across the state.
While the goal of creating the hotline is laudable, creating a statewide system is a formidable challenge. Effectively doing so will require addressing a range of issues, such as objections from local field offices who will be relinquishing control over screening decisions, to assessing the agency’s capacity to ensure the timely transmission of reports from the hotline to the local DHS offices in the 83 counties throughout Michigan. In order for DHS to evaluate how best to design and implement a statewide hotline, the Agreement requires that the existing screening office in Wayne County function as a pilot site beginning in Period Three. Considering the Wayne County office as a pilot will afford DHS the opportunity to start with an existing centralized screening system (the Wayne County screening office receives and screens allegations of maltreatment for all of Wayne County, which includes four local offices) and
59

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
transform that system into a model centralized hotline. Based on that pilot, DHS will have the opportunity to assess what works and what can be replicated on a statewide basis.16
During Period Two, the agency appointed a manager to oversee implementation of both the Wayne pilot and the statewide hotline. A workgroup was established to gain input from screening staff in local DHS offices throughout the state. DHS began the important work of reviewing and evaluating policies; analyzing call volume and the number of calls referred for investigation; reviewing mechanisms for delivering referrals to local offices; and assessing staffing needs. DHS also began a review of its data and telecommunications capacity and has spoken with states throughout the country that have established statewide hotlines in order to review differing models, to understand the challenges, and to ensure that it is well prepared for making real this very important structural change. The monitoring team will report on the Wayne pilot implementation and progress toward establishing the statewide hotline in future monitoring reports.
B. Creating a Robust Child Protective Services Quality Assurance Process
DHS agreed to create a robust quality assurance – more properly, a continuous quality improvement (CQI) – process “to ensure that reports of abuse and neglect are competently investigated and that, in cases in which abuse and/or neglect is indicated, actions are taken and services are provided appropriate to the circumstances.” (V.C).
This process was to begin in April 2009. Initially, DHS believed that existing CPS review processes that relied heavily on local office supervisory case reviews would be sufficient. That process was in place in April (and, indeed, that process had been in place prior to the Agreement). However, DHS leadership reconsidered this approach during Period Two because they wanted to improve feedback between supervisors and staff and improve the case file review process.
To that end, DHS piloted a new CQI CPS process in August and September of 2009 in two counties. They chose one of the big five counties and one of the smaller counties. They incorporated a paper review utilizing the master case reading tool that DHS is committed to using for all of its CQI case reviews, but added a shadowing process in which supervisors would accompany staff on investigations, during visits, to permanency planning conferences, and to court.
The pilot results were very informative. Supervisors deemed the shadowing process invaluable. It added exponentially to what they learned in comparison with the case file review alone. They were positive about the new tool but wanted to see it revised to reflect critical skills like
16 Because Wayne’s rate of referral for investigation is the highest in the state, DHS will have to carefully assess the quality of the decision making in Wayne County to identify whether the pilot is over-referring some number of calls that need not be sent for investigation.
60

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
family engagement. This process retained the previous practice of having supervisors who were not the direct supervisors of that staff person on that case conduct the review and do the shadowing. That also allowed the opportunity for supervisors to communicate with each other about the supervisory practice in the office.
DHS expects to incorporate the learning from this pilot into a new proposal to the monitoring team about their CPS CQI process. The monitoring team expects that proposal to include further information about how the learning in the offices will provide feedback to central office to help shape improvements in training, support, and policy statewide.
For Period Two, the monitoring team finds that DHS does have a CPS QA process as contemplated by the Agreement but it is too soon to tell if that process will produce the necessary results.
C. Addressing Maltreatment in Care
A series of well-publicized maltreatment in care incidents helped trigger public awareness of the need for child welfare reform in Michigan.17 As distinct from child abuse and neglect that occurs in the community, maltreatment in care is the term for abuse or neglect that takes place after a child has been taken into the custody of the state and placed out of their own home in any type of placement – with a relative, in a foster home, or an institutional setting. Healthy child welfare systems pay close attention to identifying, responding to, and preventing abuse or neglect in care while dysfunctional child welfare systems struggle with high rates of maltreatment in care.
By the end of Period Two, DHS still did not know the extent of abuse or neglect in care in Michigan and had fallen behind in delivering on its commitments in the Agreement to define and address this critical issue.
In committing to reform its child welfare system, Michigan agreed to improve its ability to identify and address maltreatment in care when it occurs and to implement a series of reforms to lessen the number of maltreatment incidents. For the first year, the Agreement focused on:
 improving identification and reporting of maltreatment in care (V.D);
 conducting a series of individual special reviews for children living in a placement where there were one or more allegations of maltreatment (XIV.F.1.a);
 addressing issues of restraint, seclusion, and use of psychotropic medication, which present a heightened risk of maltreatment (XI.);
17 See Ruby Bailey, Jack Kresnak & Tina Lam. “Losing Isaac,” Detroit Free Press (Series beginning January 29, 2007); Jack Kresnak, “Ricky Holland’s Story,” Detroit Free Press (Series beginning December 2, 2007).
61

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
 implementing new accountability tools to ensure maltreatment in care and corporal punishment are addressed through the licensing and contracting processes (XII.C); and
 planning for the implementation of new dedicated maltreatment in care investigation units at the start of Period Three (V.D).
With respect to the first two commitments, DHS made some progress but fell short. With respect to the other three, DHS still has much work to do. Entering the second year of reform, the commitments increase with implementation of the new specialized maltreatment investigation units in the five largest counties. DHS needs leadership to bring increased focus to this issue.
Documenting Maltreatment in Care
The threshold challenge in Michigan is that as of the end of Period Two, the size of the problem of maltreatment in care was unknown.
During this first year of reform, DHS’ DMU identified a programming problem in previous maltreatment reporting. That programming defined the parameters of placement too narrowly, excluding, for example, thousands of children who were in the protective custody of the state who had been placed with relatives. The result was an official rate of maltreatment in care that was under-reported. Upon identifying the issue, DMU broadened the reporting parameters and the official maltreatment in care rate went up, an issue that surfaced during the recent Child and Family Services Review. But even with that increase, the new reported rate is still an under-count. DHS reports that their SACWIS database structure makes it difficult to match children in placement with substantiations, and it is also challenging to identify maltreatment in care allegations when a report is recorded. With respect to investigations in foster homes and relative homes, CPS has primary responsibility for conducting those investigations. Those investigations are recorded in the CPS database – but it was difficult for DHS to pull out those investigations that specifically pertain to maltreatment in care from the general pool of investigations. New policy, scheduled for dissemination in Period Three, will require that CPS staff screen, flag, and record maltreatment in care reports at the beginning of the process. That new policy is partnered with a change in the SACWIS database which makes it possible to flag these investigations, which will make it easier in the future to distinguish these reports from other CPS investigations. DHS’ objective is that this change in policy and the change in the database, combined with the deployment of the new maltreatment investigation units, will improve the quality of DHS’ data on maltreatment over time. In addition, DHS plans to do additional work on identifying maltreatment in care in the existing database in Period Three.
The other primary reason for under-reporting is that DHS bifurcates maltreatment in care investigation responsibilities. Investigations in relative and foster homes are handled by the
62

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
local offices through their CPS investigation units.18 But with respect to incidents in institutional care, primary responsibility resides with the Bureau of Child and Adult Licensing (BCAL). While BCAL conducts the investigation, BCAL lacks the authority to make a determination as to whether or not abuse or neglect occurred. Instead, BCAL investigates and then makes a recommendation to the local field office CPS unit to make a finding regarding whether maltreatment can be substantiated. During verification, it became clear to the monitoring team that the flow of information from BCAL to CPS is flawed. DHS did not provide documentation that incidents identified by BCAL which appear to involve maltreatment in care triggered the required CPS review, findings, and response, followed by the recording of those incidents in the principal CPS database. DHS hopes this will improve moving forward as in August 2009, BCAL was given the authority to enter maltreatment findings into the CPS database.
As discussed below, under the terms of the Agreement, responsibility for investigating alleged incidents of maltreatment in care will begin to be consolidated at the start of Period Three with the creation of new specialized maltreatment in care investigation units. These units will have staff dedicated to investigating all allegations in all placements, including institutional placements.19 However, statewide implementation is not targeted until Period Four. DHS cannot wait for full implementation of these new units to address the need to improve coordination between BCAL and local office CPS staff and improve identification and response to maltreatment in care. A review of a sample of BCAL special investigation reports raised serious concerns about the treatment of youth in some placements with the responses focused almost exclusively on institutional remedies – examples include: the firing of a staff person, the need for additional training, or flaws in personnel screening practices or staff coverage ratios with little reference to the needs of the child or children involved. The monitoring team has brought these issues to the attention of DHS leadership and expects to see improvements over the next reporting period.
Between data and bifurcation, by the end of Period Two, DHS still had more work to do in order to be able to report on the extent of maltreatment in care. Moving forward, it is very likely that the reported rate of maltreatment in care will increase. This increase in reporting should not be confused with an increase in actual incidents of maltreatment in care. DHS needs to finish building the capacity to count maltreatment in care thoroughly. Once that information is sound, only then will it be possible to see trends with respect to maltreatment in care – and determine whether or not incidents are going up or down. But as of the end of Period Two, the inability to report accurately on this important measure means that DHS cannot fully meet the
18 In these cases, local licensing staff are also required to conduct a parallel investigations in addition to the CPS worker in the event that an allegation of maltreatment in placement results in a licensing violation.
19 DHS plans to continue to conduct licensing special investigations in parallel with the maltreatment investigations and reports they will coordinate those investigations as much as possible.
63

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
Agreement requirement which mandates accurate federal reporting, as this is a key federal measure. More important, from a practice perspective, DHS needs this information in order to assess patterns of maltreatment to keep children safe.
Special Reviews: A Window into Maltreatment in Care Issues in Michigan
As one element of its strategy to address maltreatment in care, DHS agreed to conduct special reviews of two higher risk groups of children: A) children living in any type of placement where there was an allegation that the child had been mistreated in that placement; and B) children living in an unlicensed relative or licensed foster home placement when there were three or more allegations the child had been mistreated in that placement. DHS has committed to public release of that report concurrent with this report. As a result, the details of that work will not be reported here. One caution: for the reasons reported above, this initial report on maltreatment in care does not include reviews for children in institutional placement, an issue DHS will have to remedy moving forward. In this report, DHS makes several recommendations designed to improve the investigation of allegations of maltreatment in care; improve documentation; and improve coordination between CPS, foster care, and licensing (both local office licensing staff and BCAL). The Corrective Action Plan as a result of this report is due in Period Three.
Restraint, Seclusion, Psychotropic Medication
In the Agreement, DHS agreed to prohibit the use of psychotropic medication as a method of discipline or control of any child, and amended its policies and provider contracts to this end in Period Two. DHS intends to publish these commitments in its Foster Care Manual in Period Three. DHS indicates there were two allegations during Period Two of an improper chemical restraint of children in contravention of this provision, both at the same private agency. Neither led to a substantiation based on DHS’ existing investigative practices during Period Two. DHS also prohibited the use of Positive Peer Culture, peer-on-peer restraint, and any other form of physical discipline in all foster care placements as DHS pledged to do in the Agreement. DHS reviewed copies of every contract provider agency’s policies to ensure that peer restraint has been removed as an authorized practice, and reports that no contract agency has utilized the practice since July 1, 2009. The monitoring team's review in Period Two was limited to a review of DHS' revised policies, interviews with public and private agency leadership staff, and review of the two investigation reports referenced above. In future periods, the monitoring team will assess DHS' implementation of these requirements.
DHS also committed in the Agreement to ensure that “*a+ll uses of physical restraint for children in any placements, and all uses of seclusion/isolation in group, residential, or institutional placements . . . *are+ reported to the Quality Assurance (“QA”) unit. Such reports shall be made available to the licensing unit and the Medical Director for appropriate action.” (XI.B.1). However, DHS has not implemented this reporting requirement, nor taken any steps to do so, and as of the close of Period Two has collected no information in this area. This is particularly concerning because the monitoring team’s review of BCAL special investigations
64

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
identified multiple issues with restraints, many of which identified the need for improved restraint training and adherence to policy. The monitoring team will review this area closely during Period Three.
Deploying New Tools to Improve Accountability for Maltreatment in Care
In the Agreement, DHS committed to deploy two powerful new tools to address concerns about maltreatment in care in contract agency supervised placements. One tool is incorporating an analysis of substantiations of maltreatment and incidents of corporal punishment into the relicensing process. The second tool is a two-tiered response system to address agency failures to report maltreatment, with a second incident mandating contract termination. By the end of Period Two, Michigan had made very little progress in implementing these tools.
Incorporating an Assessment of Maltreatment Trends into Re-Licensure
DHS agreed to incorporate an analysis of maltreatment and substantiation incidents into the relicensure process. As of the end of Period Two, DHS had not yet done so. Based on the information provided to the monitoring team, it appears that BCAL has neither sought access to all of the available and required maltreatment and corporal punishment information – information that would include not only institutional placements, but also non-institutional placements, and would include all such information over the course of the period under review. Nor has BCAL made analysis of that information a standard element of the re-licensure process.
With respect to the re-licensure process, the monitoring team requested the schedule for all agencies subject to re-licensure during the monitoring period; the number of substantiated maltreatment and corporal punishment incidents by contract agency; and an assessment of how those incidents had impacted re-licensure. In response, BCAL provided the list of agencies subject to re-licensure and a list of seven substantiated incidents which had occurred in institutional care during Period Two.
The list of seven incidents falls far short of the monitoring team’s request. While DHS does have challenges with identifying maltreatment in care, as described above, it can generate a more complete list than the information provided here. No information was supplied with respect to corporal punishment.
The monitoring team next compared the list of seven incidents with the re-licensure schedule for Period Two and identified two agencies where the information overlapped. BCAL does post re-licensure reports on their website – but the two re-licensure reports for agencies identified in the substantiation list were not posted. The two agencies were both listed as being on provisional licenses, but it was unclear from the documentation that BCAL provided or the BCAL website whether the provisional licenses were related to consideration of the substantiations.
The monitoring team then read a sample of the available re-licensing reports from Period Two. The monitoring team found no documentation in any of those reports that DHS had, as DHS committed it would in the Agreement, taken into “due consideration” the history (or absence
65

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
of history) of any substantiations or corporal punishment that occurred at any of those facilities or contract agencies. (XII.C). The re-licensure reports concentrated on three areas: documentation that staff were properly screened; individual child-specific case documentation; and the physical plant. There appears to be no place on the standard re-licensure reporting form for the necessary and critical consideration of the history of maltreatment and corporal punishment.
When asked about practice in this area, BCAL asserts that it does not wait to address these issues until re-licensure but instead responds as the incidents arise during the special investigation process. The monitoring team reviewed a series of special investigation reports and confirmed that BCAL does address the issue of licensure with respect to each incident but was troubled by lack of evidence of consideration of patterns or trends with regard to substantiations in those reports, a requirement of the Agreement. In reviewing a sample of 25 special investigation reports, the monitoring team found only a single reference to a prior incident despite evidence in the documentation provided to the monitoring team and found on-line on the BCAL website that there were facilities with multiple incidents. While it makes sense that BCAL addresses these issues as they arise, they must also address these issues during the re-licensure process, in keeping with the Agreement. Looking at incidents – and the lack of incidents over time – provides a more complete picture of the practices at each agency. Moreover, BCAL cannot rely only on their own institutional data – they must coordinate with the rest of DHS to develop a process so that all maltreatment and corporal punishment information is incorporated into the standard re-licensure process.
Failure to Report Maltreatment
The second powerful tool created in the Agreement is a two-tier sanction process when DHS identifies that a contract agency has failed to report an allegation of maltreatment in care. The Agreement provides that with the first incident, DHS is obliged to conduct an immediate investigation and consider licensing or contractual sanctions if a finding of failure to report is sustained. If two incidents of failure to report are sustained within a year, the contract must be terminated.20
This commitment in the Agreement became effective immediately, upon the signing of the Agreement. By the end of Period Two, DHS had not fully implemented it. During Period Two, at least one agency appears to have failed to report maltreatment twice within one year (and with the data and reporting issues there could be others). When alerted to this issue, DHS decided they had failed to put into place the necessary agency notification and administrative review processes and so declined to take required contractual action. DHS leadership reports that it
20 In Michigan, many provider agencies operate multiple programs each of which may hold a different contract with DHS. The monitoring team and the parties are in the process of discussing this issue with the goal of achieving resolution soon.
66

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
will put those processes into place during Period Three. As a consequence, DHS failed to comply with this commitment during Period Two.
Other concerns also arose as the monitoring team conducted its verification work. The obligation to report abuse and neglect in care has always been clear – it is embedded in Michigan’s Child Protection Law and that obligation is reinforced in DHS contracts with private providers. However, it does not appear that this obligation has been consistently defined, recognized, and sanctioned in DHS’ interactions with the private agencies. DHS provided no information to the monitoring team on failures to report with respect to any incidents in noninstitutional care. The only information DHS provided to the monitoring team about failures to report came from BCAL. In the BCAL context, identification of such failures to report rests on coding under the more general licensing violation of failure to adhere to the Child Protection Law. Interviews with private providers surfaced a concern on their part that licensing staff were not consistently defining or applying this provision, and a review of a sample of licensing reports by the monitoring team provided some support for this perspective. The private providers suggested that DHS leadership needed to provide guidance and monitor these findings more closely, particularly given the severe consequences of the sanction of a second finding of failure to report.
While this particular element of the Agreement addresses the obligation of the private agencies to report, the Child Protection Law (CPL) makes it clear that all stakeholders, public and private, have a common responsibility to keep children safe. This commitment is just one element of several in the Agreement designed to address maltreatment in care. DHS leadership must reemphasize to all the importance of identifying and responding to maltreatment in care.
Planning for the Implementation of the Maltreatment in Care Investigation Units
During Period Two, DHS committed to submit their plan for implementing the Agreement requirement to create dedicated maltreatment in care investigation units in the five largest counties beginning in October 2009. Implementation of at least three units for the other 78 counties was scheduled under the Agreement for April 2010, but plaintiffs have consented to a request by DHS to defer that implementation until June 2010.
These units are a promising avenue for DHS to address many of the concerns raised above about the need for improved coordination in responding to allegations of maltreatment in care. The planning process for these units did not begin well. Production of the plan was delayed with the changes in field leadership. When the plan was provided to the monitoring team, it incorporated poor data that severely undercounted allegations of maltreatment in care. In relying on this data, DHS allocated too few staff to these units. The plan lacked information on training; analysis of the challenges inherent in investigations in institutional settings; clarity about reporting lines; and information on tracking, especially with regard to corrective action plans.
The new field leadership did move briskly towards implementation. As implementation began, the flaws in the planning process surfaced and the leadership in the five largest counties are
67

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
working hard to address these challenges as they arise. But that leadership does not have the authority to address the issue of the staffing under-allocations. Staffing for these units remains a grave concern particularly given DHS’ failure to meet the overall child protective services caseload standards, as documented earlier in this report.
IV. Improving Placement Practice
Good placement practice is a combination of having the right range of resources; a good process for assessing the match between a child and a family; and exercising good decisionmaking skills during that matching process. Good placement practices improve safety for children, support their well-being, and aid in attaining swift and positive outcomes. In systems with placement deficits, matching systems tend to be non-existent or weak, and placement decision-making skills are not well-developed because there are very limited options and desperate staff place children wherever there is an opening. To ensure Michigan develops a strong placement practice, DHS committed to assess its existing placement array to develop resources where they were needed; invest in support for relative caregivers; create a statewide placement process that takes the child’s needs and the family’s capacity into account when making placement decisions; and articulate and implement key values and principles to guide that decision-making process to ensure that it leads to placement decisions that are in the best interests of children.
A. Implementing a Child Placement Process
DHS agreed to implement a high quality child placement process statewide. As a first step, DHS committed to complete an analysis of the Wayne County Child Placement Network (CPN), which is a five-year-old system in Wayne County that matches children with foster families. DHS committed that the analysis would include the strengths and weaknesses of the process and the agency’s conclusions with respect to the appropriateness of utilizing the Wayne County system throughout the state. DHS also committed to develop an implementation plan and submit it to the monitoring team for approval.
DHS conducted its analysis of the Wayne CPN, describing the CPN’s practice principles, placement procedures, and management systems. The analysis outlines what DHS perceives as strengths of the system, including: the ability to identify homes with multiple vacancies for sibling placements and homes that are close to the child’s birth family; to provide members of the family team with assurances that the child’s needs were taken into account when making the placement decision; to provide foster parents with significant information regarding the child’s needs; to track both child removal and foster home data by zip code to identify where recruitment is needed; and to track child outcomes. The weaknesses in the system, as identified by DHS, include that there is not a “must accept” policy, with the result that the best matched home will not be available if the foster parent decides not to accept the child for placement; that several agencies do not update information in the system; that agencies place families on “hold” status for an array of reasons, making them unavailable in the CPN matching process; and that after-hours staff are not familiar with the system and so utilization is uneven. Based
68

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
on that analysis, DHS concluded that although there are weaknesses in the CPN model, those weaknesses are not attributed to the tool but to staff utilization in both public and private agencies. DHS further concluded that when accompanied by appropriate technology and additional enhancements, the CPN will be an appropriate placement process for statewide application. Other work by DHS over this same period also shed light on the outcomes associated with the placement process in Wayne County. For example, in the foster home data analysis described in further detail below, DHS noted the relatively low rate of placing siblings together in Wayne County and an overall foster home deficit. The combination of analyses satisfies DHS’ commitment in the Agreement to assess the CPN.
As DHS continues this work and begins to implement the CPN statewide, DHS must pay particular attention to these analyses to ensure that challenges are redressed before statewide deployment.
With regard to implementation, however, DHS reported that they are not prepared to implement the system beyond Wayne County at this time. They plan to convene a public/private agency workgroup starting in Period Three to address the changes that will be needed to implement the CPN in the five largest counties and throughout all of Michigan by October 2011. As a result, DHS did not deliver on its commitment as it has not developed a plan to implement the CPN statewide on the schedule in the Agreement.
B. Changing Specific Placement Practices
As a key element of the reform, DHS committed to making significant changes designed to improve their placement process. Those commitments:
 Value placing children in keeping with their individual needs;
 Maintain DHS’ long-standing commitment to placing children with relatives whenever possible;
 Recognize the benefit of keeping siblings together, which can provide much needed stability along with a built-in support system. Sibling placement is particularly beneficial for adolescents, who are much less likely to run away when placed with their siblings. Joint sibling placement also makes visitation for parents and caseworkers much easier;
 Support placing children in their home neighborhoods to aid parental visitation and to create the opportunity for children to continue attending their own schools and spending time with their friends;
 Strongly favor placing children in relative and foster homes over institutional placement; and
69

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
 Emphasize the need to place children with a permanency goal of adoption in a home where adoption is a possibility.21
Other commitments are designed to guard against negative placement practices that grow in systems under strain:
 Overloading individual foster homes with too many children, particularly too many young children or children with special needs;
 Placing high-risk children, like those with a history of violence or sexual acting out behavior, with children vulnerable to abuse;
 Placing children in detention centers; and
 Over-using temporary placements, like shelters.
Finally, the parties agreed that no child should be barred from a placement – or delayed in receiving the best placement – because of race, ethnicity or religion, and DHS agreed not to contract with any provider who gives preference on any of those bases.
Some of these placement improvements and restrictions are absolute. Others include an exception process that requires documentation that the placement is in the best interests of the child followed by review and approval at the highest levels of DHS leadership. In July 2009, DHS issued instructions to its local offices and the private agencies regarding most of these new placement commitments. That initial set of instructions raised questions, particularly with regard to the exception processes, which the leadership of the five largest counties and the field manager for the other 78 counties sought to address in further instructions. The second set of instructions streamlined that process, bringing many of the placement exceptions together into a single process for review. Field leadership was only just establishing a tracking system for this process towards the end of Period Two, and the monitoring team will begin reviewing that information in Period Three. This tracking system will allow for monitoring and verification, but it will also allow DHS to assess placement practice and identify areas of need.
Limitations on Out-of-County Placements
The Agreement provides two alternatives for measuring whether or not children are being placed relatively close to their home communities – placement within county or placement within a 75 mile radius, whichever is greater. DHS has opted to measure their performance based on the 75 mile radius but is not yet able to produce that data. Data entry on both the
21 The provisions regarding individualized child placement, placement with relatives, and prioritizing placement for a child with an adoption goal in a prospective adoptive home are discussed in the permanency section of this report.
70

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
home of origin and on the current placement needs to be improved before a valid statewide assessment can be completed.
Limitations on Separation of Siblings
The parties agreed that siblings who enter care together should be placed together unless such placement is harmful to one or more of the siblings; one of the siblings has exceptional needs that can only be met in a specialized placement; or the size of the sibling group makes such placement impractical.
The instructions to the field issued in July 2009 reflect the terms of the Agreement, including the exceptions, but do not explain to staff how to reconcile this commitment with the other placement commitments. In Period Two, the specialized foster home recruitment plan and interviews in local offices reflected a misunderstanding that the cap on the number of children who can be placed in a home bars placing sibling groups larger than three together. In fact, those larger sibling groups can be placed together but an exception must be requested for every sibling group over three – and there are hundreds of such sibling groups in Michigan. (Note that exceptions might also have to be requested for sibling groups that are two and three depending on the circumstances of the home and those children.) In reviewing the initial placement tracking information provided by DHS, there are staff who are asking for an exception for placement of siblings together. But as the tracking system was instituted later in Period Two and was not yet fully comprehensive, it does not suffice as documentation that this process of reconciling the placement cap provision and the provision to place siblings together is clearly understood. Moving forward, staff must be encouraged to ask for the exception, and the exception process cannot be so burdensome as to discourage staff from doing so. Field leadership is clear that they would grant such an exception (unless there is a best interest reason to do otherwise) but the challenge is getting staff to understand the inter-locking commitments and make the request. The monitoring team brought this concern to the attention of DHS leadership and will be following up in Period Three to see what measures have been taken to clarify this issue; to make any necessary proposals for changes to the exception process to make it as accessible as possible on this issue; and will be looking at data for new entries into care to see if sibling placement rates are beginning to change.
Currently, as documented in the Needs Assessment and in the DHS special population foster home analysis, and as the parties recognized in the Agreement, DHS has much work to do to improve sibling placement rates. The majority of the children in care in Michigan are part of a sibling group – two out of every three.22 The majority of sibling groups consist of two or three siblings, 80 percent, but one out of every five children is part of a sibling group of four or more. DHS reports that as of June 30, 2009, statewide, only 31 percent of children were living with all
22 Needs Assessment, at 63 (based on DHS data).
71

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
of their siblings in care.23 Surprisingly, only 57 percent of children in groups of two are living together, with only 50 percent for children in the five largest counties. Over the last year, statewide, 45 percent of the children who came into care were placed with their siblings.24 There is wide variation in initial sibling placement rates by county with the small counties presenting both the highest and lowest rates. Eleven of the 78 counties, all small counties, placed 100 percent of their siblings together. The lowest rates are in a mix of small, medium, and large counties with one county at the low of 21 percent and a variety of small, medium and large counties hovering at 35 percent or lower.
In sum, the majority of children in care are not living with their siblings. The large percentage of children in relatively small sibling groups of two and three not living with their siblings is a sign of the need for practice change to place more emphasis on keeping siblings together. The larger sibling groups – and Michigan has a lot of them – require more. These are the children most impacted by any confusion about the placement caps and these are the children for whom specialized foster home recruitment is a necessity.
The monitoring team will utilize the latest data from DHS – the 12-month entry data as of November 18, 2009 – as a baseline from which to begin to measure any progress on sibling placements going forward.
Limitations on the Number of Children in Foster Homes
The parties agreed that beginning in March 2009, “no child shall be placed in a foster home if that placement will result in more than three foster children in that foster home, or a total of six children, including the foster family’s natural and/or adopted children. No placement will result in more than three children under the age of three residing in a foster home.” (X.B.3). Exceptions to this restriction are permitted, but must be made on an individual basis with an explanation of why placing the child in a home with more children is in that child’s best interest. Such placements must be approved by the county child welfare administrator, if the child is from one of the five largest counties, or the field manager in central office if the child is from one of the other 78 counties. The instructions to the field recognize that the request for an exception, review, and approval, if warranted, must occur swiftly as most children are placed in care under emergent circumstances.
This commitment looms largest in discussions the monitoring team had with staff in the public and private agencies. It is understandable that staff in a system such as Michigan’s, which lacks sufficient availability of foster homes (as discussed below), would express concern about a cap. When such a cap exists and available homes are scarce, staff believe that it will be more
23 DHS Special Population Recruitment Plan, at 2.
24 DMU, Data Warehouse, as of November 18, 2009.
72

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
difficult to find a home (even one with too many children) for a child exigently in need. These concerns underline the importance of expanding the pool of available foster homes, discussed below.
DHS cannot yet provide data on the number of children placed in foster homes that exceed the cap. In the absence of this data, the monitoring team cannot currently assess DHS’ performance on this commitment.
Limitations on Placement in Jail, Correctional or Detention Facility
In the Agreement, the parties agreed to ensure that no child in DHS’ custody is placed, either by DHS or with knowledge of DHS, in a jail, correctional, or detention facility unless placed pursuant to a delinquency charge. DHS committed to notify the State Court Administrative Office and the Michigan State Police of this prohibition and provide written instructions to immediately notify the local DHS office of any child in DHS’ custody who has been placed in such a facility, which DHS did during Period Two.
The parties also agreed that if DHS learns that a child in DHS’ custody has been placed in a jail, detention, or correctional facility without a delinquency charge, DHS will ensure the child is moved to a foster care placement as soon as practicable (but no later than five days) unless the court orders otherwise over DHS objection. To implement that commitment, DHS issued instructions to all Wayne County staff and staff of CPAs clarifying that no DHS office or contracted agency should recommend placement of a child or youth in foster care in the Wayne juvenile detention facility (JDF). The instructions also clarified that if a neglected youth is placed in the JDF pursuant to a delinquency petition, the youth should be moved immediately if the delinquency petition is dismissed. DHS leadership in Wayne County also undertook additional discussions with the Assistant Attorney General’s Children and Youth Division to clarify the agency’s position and the legal representation needed in these matters. DHS leadership had observed in Period One that a shortage of appropriate, accessible placements had contributed to the detention of children despite the absence of an underlying delinquency charge. During that period, detention had been the third most frequently used re-placement option statewide for foster children who had run away and then returned to placement.
Several judges and advocates advised the monitoring team that DHS practice improved in Period Two and that agency staff and counsel were careful not to request detention from the courts for youth in foster care custody in the absence of an underlying delinquency charge. Moreover, during Period Two, detention, jail, and correctional facilities went from the thirdmost used replacement option to the sixth, involving 23 (7.4 percent) of 311 youth. DHS also provided a list of 47 youth in foster care who were placed in detention, jail or a community justice center during Period Two. The monitoring team reviewed case records and other available data for 16 of these youth and determined that none of the reviewed children’s detentions contravened DHS’ commitments in the Agreement. Over the next year, the monitoring team will continue to analyze implementation of this commitment and report on Michigan’s progress.
73

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
Limitations on Placement of High Risk Youth
In the Agreement, DHS also committed to not place children who are “at high risk for perpetrating violence or sexual assault in any foster care placement with foster children not so determined.” (X.B.6). DHS reports that it is in the process of drafting policies to implement this commitment, and that it intends to incorporate this commitment into a comprehensive policy that will guide workers’ decision-making regarding placement settings. While such a policy can be valuable, the only caveat is that it must be sufficiently clear that this commitment is mandatory, providing no discretion to override its terms, and this particular commitment cannot be just one of a number of factors to consider in the placement decision.
Limitations on Residential Placements
The parties agreed on a strict approval process in advance of placing a child in “a residential treatment center or any other group setting with a capacity in excess of eight children (campuswide).” (X.B.7). That approval is premised on strict documentation that the child’s needs cannot be met in any other type of placement; that those needs can be met in the placement requested; and that the facility is the least restrictive placement that can do so. Approval can only be granted by the child welfare director in the five largest counties and the central office Children’s Field Services Manager for the other 78 counties. Placement in such a facility is to be reassessed every 90 days and any stay beyond six months must once again be approved at the same management level as the initial placement. If the stay extends beyond 12 months, the CSA Director or DHS Director must approve it.
At the end of Period One the population in institutional care, including shelters, was 1,217. By the end of Period Two that number had been reduced to 1,023, a decline of 16 percent, which is more than three times the overall drop in placement of five percent over that same period. The highest levels of DHS are paying close attention to the population in institutional placements, seeking to reduce the number of children entering those settings and working to either step children down to more family-like settings or return children home. DHS senior staff have taken the lead in the reviews for children in residential care for more than one year and are using that learning to begin to change practice. In Period Three, DHS reports that they will be setting up a residential placement unit to focus all of the agency’s efforts in this area.
Based on the data and the issued instructions, the monitoring team finds that DHS may have achieved this commitment during Period Two. However, because the tracking system is still so new and the information in it is not complete for all of Period Two, there is currently insufficient information for the monitoring team to be able to evaluate compliance. The monitoring team will be reviewing the special review cohort reporting on this group of youth, as well as the placement exception logs, and will have further information to report in this area for Period Three.
74

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
C. Building Recruitment, Retention & Licensing Capacity for Foster and Relative Homes
In order to improve placement practices and processes, the Agreement recognizes that a necessary foundational element is building a sufficient continuum of both foster and relative placements for children in foster care. Without that, matching the child with the optimal placement is impossible and workers will lack the option of a good match, settling instead for an available bed. While the overarching goal in the Agreement – ensuring that children have the right placement when out-of-home care is necessary – is the same for both relative and foster homes, the Agreement by necessity includes different commitments for each.
With respect to relative homes, the Agreement emphasizes sustaining Michigan’s already demonstrated commitment to prioritizing placement with relatives. As is well-documented, children who are removed from their families are at risk of an array of adverse impacts when they are placed in foster care. At times, siblings are split, parental visitation is difficult, children are placed outside of their neighborhoods, and educational stability is compromised. Common sense dictates and research demonstrates that outcomes are better for children who are placed with relatives. Siblings are kept together more frequently; placement stability is better; children remain more often in their schools and neighborhoods; and children visit more frequently with their parents, an important indicator of successful reunification. To encourage relative placements and build on Michigan’s already strong practice of placing children with relatives, the Agreement commitments focus on equity, to ensure that children in relative placement receive the same level of safety, services, and financial support as children placed in foster homes. To that end, DHS committed to transitioning large numbers of relatives from unlicensed to licensed – a status the parties believed would result in increased and equitable financial benefits to these families; improve safety screening during placement and visitation; and improve relative families’ access to the continuum of foster home support services.
With respect to foster homes, the Agreement provides a process for DHS to assess need and build plans for recruitment, retention and support, with an emphasis on three special populations – sibling groups, adolescents, and children with special needs. With foster homes, there was a strong sense in formulating the Agreement that DHS would need to recruit more homes but be very strategic about where and how those homes were recruited. To that end, during the first year, DHS committed to creating two plans – an early one targeting the special populations, followed by a later one for the foster home population in the five largest counties. The due dates for both plans were deferred from Period One to Period Two to allow DHS more time to gather data and conduct more complete analyses.
Finally, to be successful, the parties recognized the need to increase the skill and expand the capacity of the licensing staff who would be responsible for the exponentially increased load of home studies, training, and licensing for both the relative and foster home populations. This series of bold commitments required a dramatic reversal of what had been a steady and significant downward trend in Michigan in recruitment and licensing for several years.
75

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Taken together, DHS increased the number of relative and foster homes licensed by 85% from Period One to Period Two:

Figure 6

Homes Licensed
85% increase in homes licensed in Period Two compared to Period One

1400 1200 1000
800 600 400 200
0

213 462 Period One

651 594 Period Two

Foster Homes Relative Homes

If that performance is sustained for all of 2009, that effort will result in DHS licensing more homes in 2009, 2,205, than in any of the preceding five years. (For detailed performance on foster and relative home licensing by county and by month, see Appendices F and G.) This increase represents progress. Unfortunately, it still falls far short of the more than 3,500 homes DHS needed to meet the terms of the Agreement. Instead of thousands of relative homes being licensed, hundreds were, and a review and waiver process designed to engage relatives to understand the benefits of licensure stalled. Further, DHS’ recruitment plans for special populations and the five largest counties are not adequate to the challenges ahead. DHS leadership knows it needs to re-think its efforts in this arena and adopt different strategies if it is to be successful in meeting the tenets of the Agreement.
Relative Homes
In advance of the Agreement, DHS embraced the need to license relatives. From January through September 2008, DHS licensed 116 relative homes. During Period One of the Agreement (October 2008 – March 2009), DHS licensed 213 relative homes.25 During Period

25 The number of relative homes licensed during Period One increased by 3 compared to the number reported in the Period One Report due to data entry lag. The number of foster homes licensed increased by 6 for the same reason.
76

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Two, DHS increased relative licensure threefold, licensing 651 relative homes. In total, DHS licensed 864 relative homes during FY2009.

Figure 7

Relative Homes Licensed
(Comparison of Period One v. Period Two) (Three-Fold Increase)

700 600

500 400 300

200

100

213

0

Period One

651
Period Two

Among the relative homes that were licensed, one in four were no longer utilized by the end of Period Two because the children had been moved or exited care. While the threefold increase represents progress, DHS needed to license at least 1,300 additional relative homes in order to meet the terms of the Agreement, as described below.26
The commitments in the Agreement concerning relative homes can be divided into two categories. One is an effort to license and support relatives who were already caring for children in placement at the time the Agreement began, referred to as the “relative home backlog cohort.” The second, the “new relative home cohort,” is an effort to license and support relatives who choose to care for children newly entering placement or children who move to relative placement from a foster home or institutional placement after the Agreement began. Notably, critics of this set of commitments in the Agreement flagged for DHS early in Period One their concerns that DHS would retreat from utilizing relative care and that many children would be moved from relatives or not placed with them at all. To date, DHS continues to place children in relative care at a high rate, while the concern about moves remains an open question which DHS needs to resolve, as described below. But the issue looming largest concerns overall execution of the commitment to provide equitable support to relative caregivers through licensure.

26 The Legislature set aside $2.5 million for the private agencies to license 1,086 relative homes for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 but DHS data suggests the private agencies achieved just over 70% of that target. However, DHS reports that all of the funds were expended. Private agencies received partial payments for the work they did towards licensing relative homes that did not complete the licensing process.
77

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
Relative Home Backlog Cohort
DHS achieved its goal of reviewing 50 percent of homes in the relative backlog cohort. To begin, of concern to the monitoring team is DHS’ discovery of the need to make significant changes to the relative home backlog cohort baseline. DHS assessed that as of December 17, 2009, the corrected baseline for October 1, 2008 consists of 6,31527 children living in 4,588 homes, compared to the previous information of 5,998 children in 4,028 homes. DHS reports that when they constructed the initial baseline on September 28, 2008, they did not account for the potential of data entry lag and did not fully review the baseline data in detail. Once they scrubbed the information, they removed 408 cases from the cohort but added another 642. The reasons for removal are basic, largely consisting of children who had either already exited care, were home, or had moved. DHS was silent as to the reasoning for the additions. Because this information was not shared with the monitoring team until January 2010, the team has not yet had the opportunity to verify the new baseline or discuss with DHS the reasoning for the additions. That work will have to happen in Period Three.
Utilizing DHS’ adjusted baseline, the relative home backlog cohort shrunk substantially because of children exiting care, continuing the trend from Period One. Exits are to be expected as children achieve permanency or leave care for other reasons.
Figure 8
Relative Home Backlog Cohort
(Period Two Adjusted Baseline n=6,315)
Closed No Remain in Action
Cohort 44% 56%
As noted, DHS committed to review 50 percent of all homes in the relative home backlog by September 30, 2009. That review was to include a safety screen of the home and a discussion with the relative caretakers about the benefits of licensure as described above. The review process is to achieve one of three results: licensure, waiver, or moving the child.
27 One document provided by DHS about the changes to the baseline cites 6,313 but the data by child adds up to 6,315.
78

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

In practice, the reviews did not go exactly as planned. Very few waivers were processed and so many families who may have been eligible for a waiver did not receive one. Furthermore, in reviewing a sample of waivers, the monitoring team found that at least half did not meet the criteria set forth in the Agreement. DHS then re-screened the waiver pool and reported a downward adjustment in valid waivers. Because that adjustment happened in January 2010, the monitoring team did not have the opportunity to review which waivers were retained by DHS as valid. The monitoring team will be doing further review of waivers in Period Three.
DHS also reported that 27 percent of children in this cohort were moved from relative homes. DHS did not supply comparison data so the monitoring team cannot assess how this compares with the experience of other children in care. The monitoring team expects DHS to address this question in Period Three. For the purposes of this report, the monitoring team is including moves in assessing the degree to which DHS met its obligations to review each home for licensure.
In addition, while most exits are excluded from the backlog – and so do not figure into the calculation of compliance with respect to reviews – exits which were preceded by either a move or licensure are included.
Including all of the moves and any exit preceded by either a move or licensure brings DHS into compliance with the target of reviewing 50 percent of the backlog cohort by September 30, 2009:
Figure 9

Relative Home Backlog Cohort
(6,315 children were living in relative homes when agreement began; excludes 2,754 which were closed, no action taken; n=3,561)

Unlicensed, 1,787 , 50%

Moved, 951, 27%
Licensed, 794, 22%
Waiver, 29, 1%

As this chart illustrates, DHS reviewed 50 percent of the homes in the relative caregiver backlog cohort with moves constituting the largest percent resolved, licensure the next largest group, and waiver with relatively little impact. There were 1,787 children who remained in homes that were unlicensed and without a waiver at the end of Period Two. Homes that were licensed prior to exit or to a move constitute 30 percent of the relative homes in the backlog cohort that were licensed over Periods One and Two.

79

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

New Relative Home Cohort
In total, 4,025 children were in this cohort – 2,839 were children entering placement this year who were initially placed with unlicensed relatives, and another 1,186 were children who had been in other forms of placement and were moved to unlicensed relative homes. During FY09, 361 children (nine percent) resided in relative homes that became licensed. Nine children were in homes which received a waiver. Another 21 percent, or 843 children, were in unlicensed relative homes but they were moved from those homes. There were 518 children (13 percent) who exited care who had been placed in an unlicensed relative home and that home never received a license or waiver, labeled below as “Closed No Action.” Note that some of those children were in care for less than 90 days.
As for the remaining children, the Agreement states that unlicensed relative homes are to be licensed within 90 days. As DHS provided the data on licensure as of December 14, 2009, children placed in relative homes during the month of September were not yet due to be licensed – 240 children or 6 percent. The remaining 2,054 children (51 percent) were placed prior to September and remained in an unlicensed relative home.
Figure 10

New Relative Home Cohort
(incl. children newly entering care placed in unlicensed relative home & children moved to unlicensed relative home during FY09; n=4,025) Moved, 843, 20.9%

Unlicensed 90+ days, 2,054, 51.0%

Closed No Action, 518,
12.9%

Unlicensed Pre90 days, 240, 6.0%

Licensed, 361, 9.0%
Waiver, 9, 0.2%

The Relative Placement Process
To facilitate new placements with relatives, DHS issued instructions to public and private staff explaining the unlicensed relative home placement process in October 2008. But as explained in the Period One report, those instructions resulted in some confusion and concern in the field and among stakeholders. Consequently, DHS issued an updated set of instructions on March 11, 2009. These instructions supported the utilization of relatives as a preferred placement resource; required that relatives meet specific standards related to safety and best interests of the child; and included information on a waiver process to exempt some relative homes from licensure.

80

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
The licensure process is triggered at the time of the relative placement with an emphasis on speed and safety. The home is to be visited and determined to be safe prior to the placement. Within 72 hours of the placement, DHS is to check law enforcement and child abuse registry records for all adults residing in the home. Within 30 days, DHS or one of its contract agencies is to complete the home study to assess whether the relative home can be licensed. If it can be licensed, the entire licensure process is to be completed within 90 days. DHS issued instructions to the field that reflect these requirements. However, a review by the monitoring team of both the waiver requests and licensure documents indicated that it was taking more than 30 days in some cases for the home study to be completed – and more than 90 days in most cases for homes to be licensed.
In the Agreement, the parties expressed a strong preference that all relatives be licensed. The Agreement allows a waiver of this requirement only in exceptional circumstances. In such situations, if the home meets all safety and best interest standards but the relative declines licensure, the assigned foster care worker is responsible for initiating the waiver process. The relative caretaker must sign the Relative Caretaker Licensing Waiver form, and supervisory approval is required with final approval by the County Administrator of Children’s Services in the five largest counties or the Children’s Services Field Manager in the other 78 counties. The waiver process must be completed on an annual basis for as long as the child remains in the relative home.
If the home cannot be licensed and is not eligible for waiver, the Agreement states that the child should be moved. A judge can, however, order that DHS keep children in an unlicensed relative home even if it does not meet licensing standards or standards for waiver.
The waiver process got off to a slow start. Although it was introduced to staff in March 2009, it became clear over the next several months that staff needed further instructions about the protocols for requesting a waiver. New instructions went out on August 5, 2009, outlining the exceptional circumstances that would permit placement to occur with the relative caretaker who either could not or would not become a licensed foster parent:
 Reunification of the child is imminent;
 The child is a permanent ward and the relative caretaker is pursuing adoption;
 The relative caregiver will become the child’s guardian without guardianship assistance;
 The child is an Indian child as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act;
 The case meets the requirements of the ICPC-Priority Placement;
 The court orders placement against DHS recommendation; or
 The Foster Care Review Board recommends that child remain with the relative caretaker against DHS’ recommendation.
81

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

For a waiver to be considered, relative caretakers must be fully informed of the exact financial benefit they would receive if licensed, including consideration of an increased board rate based on the child’s special needs, and must agree to forego all financial benefits. The acknowledgement of waiver is accomplished through face-to-face discussion with the relative caretaker and is memorialized by the signing of the Relative Caregiver Waiver of Licensure form. All the other requirements for the waiver must also be met – background checks, safety assessments, best interest determination, and senior management approvals.

The detailed waiver instructions issued toward the end of Period Two were designed to address some issues with the quality of the waiver process confirmed by the monitoring team during verification. With only two months to absorb that information, the field was only just beginning to act on those instructions as the period came to an end. The monitoring team expects to see improvement in practice during subsequent monitoring periods.

In all, DHS advised the monitoring team that 37 waivers were approved during Period Two.

Foster Homes

In the years preceding the Agreement, the public and private network comprising the Michigan child welfare system experienced a net loss of foster homes. The number of new home licenses issued declined dramatically:

Figure 11

Foster Home Licenses Issued
(excludes relative homes)

2,500

2,147

2,000

1,720

1,500 1,000

1,401

1,159

1,122

824

500

0 CY2005

CY2006

CY2007

CY2008

CY2009 CY2009 (to date) (projected)

And the number of homes closing far exceeded the number of new homes opening:

82

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Figure 12

Foster Homes Licensed v. Closed: Net Gain
(excludes relative homes)

0 -100 CY2005 -200 -300
-297 -400 -500 -600 -700

CY2006 -216

CY2007 -341

CY2008

CY2009 (to date)
-193

CY2009 (projected)
-234

-625

As the Agreement began the net loss hit a new low, with the pool shrinking by more than 600 homes.
Foster homes can close for a wide range of good reasons – children return home, are adopted or gain permanent guardians, or there is a change in the foster family’s circumstances that take them out of the foster home pool – the birth of a new baby, moving, unemployment, illness or age. Foster homes also close for bad reasons – frustration with the level of financial or other support, a series of mismatches between children’s needs and the family’s capacity, or, at worst, because of maltreatment. Healthy child welfare systems reduce the negative reasons for closure but even the healthiest systems will have a substantial number of homes close each year for appropriate reasons. Those homes have to be replaced to ensure there are enough homes for the children coming into placement.
As demonstrated in the charts above, Michigan is projected to lose fewer foster homes in 2009 than in either of the two preceding years. That is a step in the right direction. But the Agreement requires Michigan build the capacity to expand the foster home pool – and by that measure, Michigan still has significant work to do.
Analyzing Overall Foster Home Need & Implementing a Plan to Meet that Need
In the Agreement, DHS committed to ensure there is an adequate supply of foster homes to meet the placement needs of all children in its custody. To that end, DHS committed to “gather, analyze and report relevant data and identify the extent to which its present array of available foster and adoptive homes is appropriate to the characteristics and needs of the foster care population.” (VIII.B.4). The data gathering and analysis were to have been completed for the five largest counties by March 2009, but DHS received an extension until the end of Period Two. A similar analysis is due for the balance of the state in Period Three. DHS also agreed to ensure that resources “are available to support the development and implementation of individualized adoption recruitment plans for children who are free for
83

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
adoption and whose goal is adoption but for whom no adoptive family has been identified.” (VIII.B.4).
During Period Two, DHS submitted its report on the five largest counties, entitled “Adoptive and Foster Home Capacity.” This report includes data regarding the number of children in care, available homes, and the gap between the two. DHS concludes that it must develop an additional 2,160 licensed foster homes statewide per year to accommodate new children entering care from these five counties. The data in the report documents an overall lack of bed capacity in these counties, especially for adolescents and sibling groups. The plan fails to address a required element in the Agreement – support for individualized adoptive home recruitment.
While the need to develop beds is identified, the analysis does not include a plan of action or county targets for home development. Rather, DHS indicates that each individual county will be responsible for implementing an annual foster and adoptive home development plan. It is not clear from this analysis how the counties will utilize data and assess their capacity to license homes and establish reasonable targets for achieving their goals.
The monitoring team appreciates the work that went into this analysis – and particularly applauds the utilization of data. Nonetheless, more work in the area of foster and adoptive home development is required in order for DHS to meet its obligation in this area of the Agreement.
Planning for Special Populations: Adolescents, Sibling Groups, and Children with Disabilities
DHS also agreed to prioritize developing and implementing a recruitment plan to increase the number of available placements for adolescents, sibling groups, and children with disabilities. Although this plan was initially due during Period One, DHS received an extension to complete the plan by September 30, 2009. For each category of placements, the plan was to include the number of placements to be developed; the strategies to be followed in developing such placements; and specific timetables with interim targets. In the Agreement, DHS committed to submit the plan to the monitoring team and plaintiffs for feedback, followed by a determination by the monitoring team as to whether or not the plan was sufficient. In the event the plan was deemed insufficient, the monitoring team is to work with the parties to create a revised plan. At the time of this writing, that process is on-going because the monitoring team has found the submitted plan to be insufficient as described below and the monitoring team will be sharing feedback with DHS from the plaintiffs as well.
DHS’ proposed plan is for five years, with yearly interim reviews. The plan identifies the number of children in each special population: at the point the plan was drafted, DHS identified 7,442 siblings who were placed apart; 1,011 children with disabilities, and 1,312 adolescents in nonfamily settings. The plan notes that the quality of the data in each category varies, expressing confidence with respect to the adolescents and sibling groups but some concerns about how well children with disabilities were identified in the database.
84

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
Rather than analyzing the numbers of children in each population and DHS’ current foster home and licensing capacity, the plan sets the same target for home development for each population for the first year, 250 homes. The plan then sets incremental increases for each subsequent year, reaching 350 homes to be developed for siblings and adolescents by the year 2014, and 300 homes to be developed for children with disabilities in the year 2014. The plan further outlines strategies that DHS intends to employ to reach their designated targets. Strategies include development of a media campaign; a discussion of accessing and developing recruitment resources; training needs; and data collection and analysis.
Missing, however, is analysis of how DHS will develop the necessary capacity to achieve these goals. While there is data in the recruitment plan that identifies the number of children and youth in the populations, an analysis of how DHS established the yearly targets is absent from the plan. Unless DHS understands where the greatest needs exist, where there is staff capacity to begin to do the work, and how to set realistic targets for counties or clusters of counties, it will be very difficult for DHS to experience success.
A further concern is the statement in the plan that it may be “impractical to develop homes for large sibling groups due to the restrictions on placement of more than three foster children in a foster home.” This interpretation is inconsistent with the Agreement commitment that siblings should be placed together, unless there is an exceptional reason to the contrary. As stated above in the section on the commitment to sibling placement, DHS must clear up this misconception and build the capacity to place large sibling groups together.
The monitoring team expects DHS to further analyze its data, evaluate capacity, and then set specific, commensurate targets for each population. DHS should also have a plan for how homes will be developed for sibling groups larger than three and a process for utilizing those homes that abides by all the relevant commitments in the Agreement.
This plan also fails to address the placement needs of the sub-population of these three groups of children, those requiring adoptive homes, which is a required element in the Agreement. Given the large backlog of Michigan’s children awaiting adoption, such an assessment is critical.
Finally, DHS indicated in their plan the intention to embark on a media campaign. This element of the plan falls short because DHS has not addressed the capacity issues that already exist with their current licensing staff. In other jurisdictions, media campaigns have had negative results when those systems did not have the capacity to handle the influx of calls, respond quickly with orientations, or have sufficient capacity to train and license a large number of prospective foster parents. The plan must also balance the message of encouraging families to embrace these children, but also acknowledging the challenges and the supports the agency will offer relating to any special needs.
The recruitment plan, as submitted, falls short in terms of messaging, adequately analyzing, planning, resourcing, and addressing effective recruitment for the special populations.
85

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
Treatment Foster Homes
The Plaintiffs agreed to allow DHS to extend the deadline, from Period One to Period Two, to develop 50 treatment foster homes, a category of foster homes designed to serve children with higher levels of need. During Periods One and Two, DHS converted 59 existing foster homes to provide this level of care by increasing regulatory requirements, lowering the number of children who can be served, and providing clinical support for the homes. Transforming existing foster homes that are known to the agency and well suited for this work makes sense. It does, however, flag the pressing need to recruit more foster homes, as this strategy depletes the already insufficient pool of homes even further.
The Capacity Challenge
DHS made extensive commitments in the Agreement with regard to both foster and relative home licensure – and those commitments extended to ensuring there was sufficient staffing capacity to conduct safety screens, do home studies, review criminal and central registry databases, train families, and provide all of the other supports necessary to achieve licensure. In addition, DHS was obligated to train all licensing staff.
Staff Capacity
Two of the core challenges that DHS faced – and did not successfully address – are the need to designate new licensing staff and to maximize the efficiency of existing staff. The monitoring team is charged with assessing licensing staffing capacity for four commitments in the Agreement, two that pertain to relative homes, one that pertains to foster homes, and one that pertains to both:
 Relative Homes - During Period One, DHS was to have hired or contracted for 40 fulltime staff to be devoted to the licensing of relative homes in the backlog cohort.
 Unlicensed Homes - With respect to unlicensed homes (almost all of which are relative homes), the Agreement requires the monitoring team to assess whether DHS has designated sufficient licensing staff to review all current unlicensed foster homes and to complete the licensing process for each family within 90 days.
 Foster Homes – Beginning in October 2009, the monitoring team must assess whether DHS has sufficient staffing capacity in order to execute the plans for recruitment, licensing and retention of foster homes, particularly the specialized recruitment for adolescents, sibling groups, and children with disabilities.
 Both Relative and Foster Homes - Beginning in October 2009, all licensing staff will have to meet caseload standards.
Based on DHS’ decisions about licensing staff utilization and performance on resolving the backlog of relative caregivers awaiting licensure, the monitoring team concludes DHS did not
86

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
achieve the first two commitments. The third and fourth will be assessed during the next monitoring period but successfully addressing them will be critical to DHS’ efforts to ensure timely licensure of both foster and relative homes.
DHS did not hire or contract for 40 full-time staff to focus on the speedy licensing of unlicensed relative homes. Instead, DHS’ approach to this commitment was to hire 80 child welfare funding specialists (CWFS), with job descriptions that state that they are to spend time engaged in relative licensing activities. DHS maintained that those 80 half-time staff satisfied the Agreement’s commitment to hire 40 full-time staff to be devoted to relative licensing. In the Period One report, the monitoring team raised concerns about how these staff were deployed, and those concerns heightened during Period Two as it became more and more apparent that these staff were playing a relatively small role in licensing relative backlog cohort homes. During verification work, the monitoring team found that most did some initial screening of the backlog cohort homes, criminal and registry background checks, but other licensing responsibilities were delegated elsewhere. CPS or foster care staff were given the responsibility of doing the initial home safety screening and assisting the relative caregivers through the waiver process. Unlicensed relative homes slated for licensing were then referred to private agencies to do the home studies, training, and other tasks associated with certifying the homes for licensure. In short, most relative licensing responsibilities were given to other staff, not the child welfare funding specialists. Not surprisingly, those staff reported that the pending federal IV-E audit and DHS’ important emphasis on maximizing federal revenues consumed much of their attention. A further check of DHS’ caseload reporting bore out this assessment as only six of the 80 CWFS staff had any licensing caseloads. All in all, the CWFS do not satisfy this commitment in the Agreement.28
In addition to the specific requirement regarding the 40 new positions, DHS must also satisfy the Agreement provision requiring that it develop sufficient staff capacity to license unlicensed homes within 90 days. DHS did not meet this requirement during Period Two and needs to address this capacity issue moving forward. Hiring new staff is not the only issue. DHS also has the option of making better use of existing staff. During the first year of the reform, DHS failed to prioritize the work necessary for recruitment and licensure and to convey those priorities to staff, as is illustrated most clearly through its approach to licensing caseload reporting. In Period One, the monitoring team made DHS aware that the historical method DHS utilized to count licensing caseloads did not comport with the commitments in the Agreement and so would need to be revised.
28 If DHS were to provide an analysis of baseline private agency capacity, including FTEs (this baseline appears to already exist) v. private agency hiring over the first year of the reform, also including FTEs, it appears to the monitoring team that there might have been enough private agency hiring to satisfy this provision in the Agreement. But because of DHS’ position, the monitoring team is currently forced to find DHS out of compliance.
87

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
In assessing caseloads of licensing workers, DHS historically tracked the number of existing homes a licensing worker is responsible for maintaining, the number of potential homes a worker is responsible for licensing, and the number of alleged licensing violations; but only counted the first of those – already-existing homes – on the worker’s caseload. Giving no weight to the work associated with licensing new homes conveys to staff – as confirmed by monitoring team site visits – that staff should not prioritize or spend the requisite level of effort on licensure for those homes, which is directly contrary to the expressed aims of the Agreement and the goal of increasing the number of foster homes and licensing relative homes.
Under the Agreement, licensing staff are those “responsible for conducting home studies, licensing inspections, annual evaluations and other activities related to the licensing or monitoring of foster homes or residential care facilities, whether employed by DHS or by a private provider.” (See VI.C). That commitment plainly recognizes new licensing applications, supporting existing homes, and conducting complaint investigations as core licensing work. Therefore, in assessing licensing caseloads under the terms of the Agreement, the monitoring team suggested that DHS conduct a workload study to assess the relative weight of each of those responsibilities. DHS initially accepted then later declined, leaving it to the monitoring team to determine how licensing caseloads would be counted.
The monitoring team has concluded that licensing (relative and foster home) caseloads will be counted as follows: the norm is defined as two complaint investigations, 10 enrolled applications for licensure, and 24 existing homes, which together account for the FY2010 total of 36 cases. Using that standard, it is possible to have variations in the distribution of those responsibilities and still achieve the caseload standard. For example, if a licensing worker had three complaints and as many as 12 pending applications then that worker could oversee only 12 existing homes and stay within the weighted caseload standard. If a staff person conducts licensing work part-time, the percent of time devoted to licensing work must be assessed in evaluating what percentage of a caseload that staff person should have. Furthermore, all staff, including BCAL staff discussed below, must be assessed to determine whether they achieve the licensing caseload standards. The monitoring team continues to be available to work with DHS in applying this methodology to assess licensing caseloads for Period Three.
Using this methodology, DHS should first determine how much licensing staff capacity currently exists. Through Period Two, the licensing staff data improved but had not yet reached the state where it is possible to assess existing capacity. DHS provided the monitoring team with a list of licensing staff at both DHS and the private agencies.29 However, DHS had not yet begun to consistently collect the necessary “full-time equivalent,” or FTE, information indicating whether the staff person did licensing work full-time or part-time. Because so many staff do licensing
29 As in Period One, the list of licensing staff provided by DHS differs from the list of staff who carry licensing caseloads. But in Period Two the lists differed less, which is promising. The monitoring team expects this to be resolved in Period Three.
88

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
work part-time, such as the child welfare funding specialists, it is essential to include FTEs in assessing capacity.
Using the information that is available, the monitoring team estimates that there are approximately 291 FTE licensing staff, public and private. Based on that number of staff, it appears that each FTE staff person licensed four homes during Period Two, or less than one per month. At that rate, it would take more than 150 additional full-time licensing staff to meet this commitment in the Agreement.
In short, DHS needs to decide where to focus or improve the existing capacity, find new capacity, or do both in order to meet the terms of the Agreement.
In addition to field licensing staffing, there is a much smaller group of critical licensing staff in the Bureau of Child and Adult Licensing (BCAL). While staff in the field conduct the majority of the tasks associated with licensure, the final step rests with BCAL staff who review all of the information submitted to ensure it meets the standards for licensure before issuing the license. BCAL’s work is included within the mandated 90-day period. Throughout Period Two, DHS concedes it was consistently not timely because of a lack of capacity at BCAL. In September 2009, BCAL leadership instructed their regional licensing consultants to assist with what had become a backlog of both foster and relative home licensing packets. As a result, 29 percent of relative homes and 21 percent of foster homes licensed for the year became licensed in September. BCAL now requires licensing consultants to spend at least two days per month in central office to assist with the increased volume of licensing packets coming into BCAL. BCAL leadership also has permission to hire an additional staff person full-time to assist with this work. It is not clear that these remedies will be sufficient to address the timeliness issue, but the monitoring team will reserve judgment until Period Three. But for Period Two, DHS did not achieve their licensing staffing capacity commitments both because of performance in the field and in BCAL.
Training
DHS agreed that all staff engaged in licensing work would receive licensing training. In implementing this commitment, DHS decided to rely on both the existing curriculum and existing licensing training infrastructure.
As documented in the Period One report, the licensing training infrastructure is sparse, consisting of two experienced senior licensing staff from BCAL who also have responsibility for reviewing the overwhelming majority of foster and relative home certifications for licensure and licensing those homes (see above). They provide both the certification and complaint training. Note that the training most relevant to foster and relative home recruitment is the certification training. Certification is the process of completing all of the tasks – training, home study, physical plant inspections, references, etc. – necessary to complete a full licensing packet.
89

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

The initial DHS licensing training plan produced during Period One proved inadequate in implementation. In Period One, the number of sessions scheduled and the cap on the number of staff who could be trained at each session fell far short of demand. In Period Two, BCAL increased the number of sessions but demand for licensing training continued to far outstrip the capacity of DHS to provide it. There was a 28 percent increase in the training provided during Period Two compared to Period One but demand was up even more, with registration increasing 74 percent. For the last certification training session of Period Two, 65 people registered for 25 slots.

Table 13 – Licensing Training

CERTIFICATION April May June July I July II
Sept General COMPLAINT
April June August CWFS Licensing Training
Sept CWFS

Registered 62 53 63 60 52 65
Registered 51 49 78

Confirmed 27 26 26 26 26 25
Confirmed 37 30 28

Attended 23 24 18 22 22 20
Attended 25 22 21

Attended

28

Given the shortage in licensing training capacity, there was an opportunity to prioritize the provision of training for those licensing staff who were most likely to provide a return to DHS with respect to licensing either relative homes or foster homes. It does not appear that DHS pursued this opportunity. More than 40 percent of the staff trained were not considered by DHS to be licensing staff, according to the list of licensing staff provided by the agency. Even when caseload-carrying licensing staff omitted from DHS’ list are added, it appears that one third of the staff trained were not involved in licensing DHS foster homes or relative homes. For the staff who were considered to be licensing staff, only 59 percent were trained and only 68 percent of the CWFS staff were trained. In short, there is a clear need to prioritize licensing training to ensure that licensing workers receive it.

Going forward, DHS will offer twelve certification training sessions and six complaint training sessions as it did over the first year of the reform. DHS is considering increasing class size. The monitoring team is concerned that this will still not be enough additional capacity to meet the need to train all licensing staff timely.

90

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
There also continues to be a failure to coordinate among BCAL, the field, the contracting staff, the CSA, and DHS human resources in identifying exactly which staff are hired to be licensing staff and what the expectations are about when and how they are going to be trained. The data provided to the monitoring team was piecemeal and incomplete. More important, given the failure to reach the licensing targets for year one of the reform, DHS needs to consider prioritizing training of these staff in order to get as many staff as possible available as quickly as possible to do licensing work.
V. Achieving Permanency for Children and Youth
In child welfare, permanency means a “legally permanent, nurturing family for every child.”30 For children who must enter foster care because they cannot safely stay in their own homes, permanency means reunifying them with their families and returning them home as soon as the safety concerns are addressed. For those children who cannot return home safely, permanency can mean a family that adopts the child, a caregiver who obtains legal guardianship of the child, or a relative who offers the child a permanent placement. These all can provide a child with the care, support, and guidance that he or she needs through childhood, youth, and adolescence. The research is as clear as it is intuitive: children do better when they have safe, loving, and supportive families throughout their lives. Further, children in foster care are at risk for a whole host of adverse consequences, such as juvenile delinquency, unemployment, or becoming homeless.31 As a result, effective child welfare systems strive to achieve permanency for children as quickly as possible.
Under the Agreement, DHS committed to make dramatic improvements in permanency practice throughout the system to achieve better outcomes for children and families. At the same time, DHS also committed to move two identified groups of children – those who have been legally free for adoption or with a goal of reunification for more than one year as of January 1, 2009 – to permanency expeditiously. Each of these commitments is discussed below.
A. Improving Permanency Practice
During Period Two, DHS began the important work of defining strategies to achieve meaningful change in its permanency practices. In the Agreement, DHS committed to improve the quality
30 http://www.childwelfare.gov/permanency/overview/ (visited January 8, 2010).
31 Courtney, M., and Piliavin, I. (1998). Foster youth transitions to adulthood: Outcomes 12 to 18 months after leaving out-of-home care. Madison: University of Wisconsin; Dworsky, A., and Courtney, M. (2000). Self-Sufficiency of Former Foster Youth in Wisconsin: Analysis of Unemployment Insurance Wage Data and Public Assistance Data. Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty; Widom, C.S., & Maxfield, J.B. (2001). Research in brief: An update on the “cycle of violence.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
91

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
and efficacy of child and family assessments and service plans; to review and assign appropriate permanency goals for children in foster care; to implement family teaming and engagement strategies; and to utilize concurrent planning. DHS committed to begin implementation of these practices in Period Three.
In preparation for implementation, Period Two was well spent – DHS defined much of how current practice must change and articulated those changes to DHS and CPA staff and to system partners, the people who must now implement that change. Defining and articulating those changes, however, are only the first step. DHS is now challenged to ensure that not only are policies developed, but also that training is provided; that there are mechanisms in place to support DHS and CPA staff to understand how the practice elements come together as a whole to achieve good outcomes for children and families; and that there are meaningful opportunities for staff and system partners to raise questions and issues so that DHS can learn what is working well, identify what is not, and make course corrections along the way.
Because achieving timely permanency is such a critical, foundational element of a successful child welfare system, the Agreement’s requirements are both specific and ambitious. DHS committed to improve practice in:
 Permanency Planning Goals and Concurrent Planning – DHS committed to review and revise the permanency goals for children in custody to ensure that children are only assigned federally-recognized goals and that children only have one such goal at a time, unless a concurrent goal is appropriate. Additionally, DHS also agreed to implement concurrent planning, which is the process of working towards family reunification while at the same time establishing an alternative permanency goal in the event the child cannot safely be reunified with his family. Finally, DHS also agreed to eliminate the permanency goals of Independent Living and Emancipation, goals that reflected a youth’s exit from foster care but not a permanent connection to a committed family.
 Assessments and Service Plans – DHS committed to complete, within 30 days after a child’s entry into foster care, a written assessment of each child’s and family’s strengths and needs and an initial service plan. The assessment must be of sound quality to inform decision-making about services and permanency planning, and the service plan must include the permanency goal; the services to be offered; and strategies that DHS and its providers will employ to work with the child, family, and foster parents to ensure that the child and family receive appropriate services and that the case goal is achieved. The assessment and the service plan must be updated quarterly.
 Team Decision Making – DHS committed to implement team decision making, a strategy designed to include every person with a connection to a child in key decisions about the child and the case. Members of the team can include the child (if appropriate), birth parents, foster parents (if any), family, friends, relatives,
92

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
caseworkers, service providers, and any other person identified by the child or family. These meetings are designed to engage the child and the family to empower them to achieve case goals.
 Adoption and Subsidized Guardianship – DHS agreed to specific commitments regarding children who are assigned a goal of adoption, including requirements to ensure timely finalization of the adoption and the provision of an adoption subsidy, as well as monitoring of disrupted adoptions and provision of guardianship subsidies.
Permanency Planning Goals
For each child who enters foster care, DHS identifies the child’s permanency planning goal – e.g., reunification with birth parents or adoption. Historically, DHS assigned each child two goals – a federally-recognized goal and a Michigan-specific goal. As noted in the Agreement, DHS agreed to eliminate the use of Michigan permanency goals and instead assign each child a federal goal. Moreover, DHS also agreed to eliminate the permanency goals of independent living and emancipation, which indicate that a child will leave foster care without a permanent connection to a committed family.
Since the execution of the Agreement, DHS has made progress assigning each child in foster care a federally-recognized goal and eliminating the use of independent living and emancipation goals. This process began on June 12, 2009, when DHS issued instructions to all DHS and CPA staff that defined the new case goals, which include:
 Reunification with the child’s birth family;
 Adoption;
 Guardianship;
 Permanent Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative;
 Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA), which involves the child continuing to live with the foster family while the case is open and the family agreeing to maintain a significant relationship with the child that continues even beyond foster care; and
 Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA-E), which involves a significant connection to an adult willing to be a permanency resource but may not involve the youth residing with the adult.
Compared to independent living and emancipation goals, APPLA goals add higher standards for achieving permanent connections for older youth. This is a critically important change that now
93

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
requires staff to identify a committed adult who agrees, in writing, to support the youth after they have exited from foster care in a range of ways that are identified in that agreement.
The instructions directed staff to review and change, as appropriate, case goals for all children and youth at their next scheduled permanency planning review, court hearing or team decision making meeting, and to establish and document one of the approved goals by September 30, 2009. DHS also developed a Permanency Goal Review Form (DHS 643) to document the case goal decision. Workers and supervisors are required to review and sign the goal review form which is then maintained in the child’s case record.32 For all goals, DHS has been very clear that they cannot change the goal on their own and must receive court approval to effect the goal change.
For children with a case goal of reunification for 12 months or longer, staff were instructed to document the reasons for the continuation of the goal and to describe the services that are required for reunification to be achieved. When children have a reunification goal for 15 months or longer, compelling reasons must be documented and a time frame for return home must be identified. Supervisors must approve the continuation and that approval must be documented in the child’s case file.
DHS also agreed to additional requirements for the permanency goals of APPLA, APPLA-E, and Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative. When one of those goals is established for a child, the goal must be reviewed and approved by the Director of DHS’ Bureau of Child Welfare. DHS created a wavier process that involves field staff submitting the goal review form and relevant case information to the Bureau Director for approval of the case goal. With the Director’s approval, the caseworker then requests court approval. When the court approves the child’s goal, the child will be considered to have achieved permanency. This is not considered “final,” however. The case will stay open and DHS has instructed caseworkers to review the goal every six months to determine if case circumstances have changed that would allow for a more permanent placement through reunification, adoption or guardianship.
DHS held training regarding the new goals and requirements on June 29, 2009. The 83 counties sent representatives who participated in a day-long training that covered the permanency goal changes and the review and approval process. Each county was instructed to have local trainings for DHS staff, CPA staff, and courts no later than September 30, 2009. DHS central office staff also presented the information and training to the statewide Foster Care Review Board, statewide probate judges, the DHS County Directors meeting, and to a number of CPAs. The chart below documents the results of the initial stage of that process, the review by field staff in local offices and CPAs:
32 During the monitoring team’s verification work, evidence of the Goal Review Form was found in children’s case files.
94

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM Figure 13

Proposed Goals after Case Review
(as of September 30, 2009; n=16,178)

Adoption, 4948, 31%
Reunification, 8044, 50%

Guardianship, 2%

324, Permanent Placement with

a

APPLA, 316, 2% APPLA-E ,

Fit & Willing Relative, 662, 4%

1835, 11%

Unknown, 49, 0.003%

As the chart demonstrates, by September 30, 2009, DHS had completed the initial review of each child in placement and assigned a federally-recognized goal and eliminated the use of Michigan-only goals. Moreover, these proposed goals also eliminated the goals of independent living and emancipation.
As noted, however, the goals of Permanent Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative, APPLA, and APPLA-E require an additional approval from the Director of the Bureau of Child Welfare before they can be submitted for court approval. The charts below summarize the results of that approval process through September 30, 2009:
Figure 14

Case Goal Approval Requests
(through September 30, 2009)
PPFWR 33, 12%
APPLA, 85, 30%
APPLAE, 165, 58%

Case Goal Dispositions
(through September 30, 2009)

Withdrawn 7, 2%

Denied, 7, 3%

Pending, 118, 42%
Approved, 151, 53%

During Period Two, staff submitted goal approval requests for goals of APPLA, APPLA-E and Placement with a Fit and Willing Relative for 283 children and youth, only 10 percent of the approximately 2,800 children and youth who have been identified as appropriate for those goals. As would be expected with any new process, DHS reports that there were questions about many of the early waivers submitted that required follow up and dialogue with field staff
95

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
in order to make a determination regarding the goal. The case goal waiver requests improved over the course of Period Two and ongoing implementation of that process continues. The agency anticipates that the case goal approval process will become more integrated throughout Period Three and the monitoring team will continue to verify that all necessary waivers are submitted.
Concurrent Planning
Concurrent permanency planning is the process of working toward a child’s reunification while, at the same time, establishing an alternative permanency goal in the event the child cannot safely be reunified with his or her family. As the case moves forward, if reunification is appropriate the child will be reunified; if not, the case will be ready to move toward the concurrent goal. When concurrent planning is not utilized, permanency work is done sequentially rather than concurrently, thus delaying permanency for a child. With concurrent planning, much – if not most – of the work toward the secondary goal will have been completed at the time of the goal change, meaning that the child can achieve permanency more timely.
DHS spent Period Two preparing to implement concurrent planning. The agency assembled a workgroup to gain input from stakeholders. The workgroup included both internal and external system partners who provided feedback on policy development, system changes, curriculum development, training and program evaluation. DHS also sought technical assistance from Casey Family Programs as well as the Michigan State University Child Welfare Resource Center in developing its plan to deploy concurrent planning.
After review, DHS chose to pilot concurrent permanency planning in Clinton and Gratiot counties based on DHS’ assessment that these counties have a strong combination of the necessary leadership, capacity and court partnerships. DHS reached out to critical system partners in these counties for feedback, including the courts and foster parents, and reports that they drafted policy and protocols for the pilot sites. DHS has indicated that concurrent planning will be utilized for all new foster care cases with the goal of reunification and will include the practice elements of early relative search to identify more placement and permanency options earlier; team decision making; case planning meetings; full disclosure to families regarding the process and concurrent goals; timely and relevant service referrals; and frequent parent/child visitation.
DHS also developed and delivered to DHS and CPA staff in the pilot counties two days of training for caseworkers and a third day of training for supervisors, and central office staff are providing technical assistance. DHS’ goal is to expand from the initial pilot counties to another larger county in early 2010, with statewide implementation continuing throughout that year.
Assessments and Service Plans
In the Agreement, DHS committed to complete written assessments of child and family strengths and needs and to develop comprehensive service plans within 30 days of a child’s
96

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
entry into foster care. Comprehensive, individualized, and quality assessments of strength and needs are critical to effective child welfare practice. These assessments allow the agency to identify the family’s natural strengths (e.g., close relatives or a tightly-knit community) and use them to empower children and families to address the challenges they face. They also identify the family’s needs so that DHS can work with the family to develop individualized plans for services to address those challenges meaningfully and timely. These plans must include attainable and measurable goals; identify parties responsible for each task; and include a strategy to engage effectively with the child, family, and all involved agencies to achieve the permanency goal. The Agreement also recognizes the critical role of the supervisor in guiding caseworkers through this process, requiring that supervisors review the plan and have a faceto-face meeting with the worker to discuss it, as well as meetings at least monthly on all cases.
This commitment is due in Period Three. To date, DHS reports that they have reviewed the case plan documents and have eliminated the Michigan case goals from the forms. A few minor changes have been made to correct scoring errors in the structured decision making tools utilized in the assessments. The monitoring team expects that the child and family assessments and service plan formats will be fully reviewed and updated by DHS to reflect the practice commitments in the Agreement (team decision making, placement decision making, concurrent planning, etc.) and will report on DHS’ efforts in this regard in the next monitoring period.
Team Decision Making
In the Agreement, DHS also committed to implement team decision making, a strategy designed to include every person with a connection to a child in key decisions about the child and the case. Members of the team can include the child (if appropriate), birth parents, foster parents (if any), family, friends, relatives, caseworkers, service providers, and any other person identified by the child or family. Team meetings are intended to engage the child and the family to empower them to achieve case goals. DHS committed to implement team decision making at seven critical points in each case:
1. Prior to placement, or by the next working day after an emergency placement;
2. Prior to the transfer of a child in foster care to a different placement setting, or by the next working day after an emergency transfer;
3. Prior to reunification;
4. Prior to a change in the permanency goal;
5. When a child returns from Absent Without Legal Permission (“AWOLP”) status;
6. When a child has been in care for nine months with a goal of reunification, and sufficient progress has not been achieved to ensure reunification within 12 months; and
97

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
7. When a child has been legally free for adoption for three months but does not have a permanent placement identified.
Although the implementation of team decision meetings is not targeted until the next monitoring period, as part of the Agreement’s implementation plan commitment DHS agreed to produce an assessment of the agency’s TDM capacity by July 31, 2009. The analysis was to include an assessment of current staff who are trained to facilitate team meetings; a workload analysis for the facilitation of team meetings with its consequent impact on caseload size for those chosen to act as facilitators; the number of facilitators needed to complete the TDM schedule set forth in the Agreement; and the impact on caseloads if current caseload-carrying workers are used as facilitators.
DHS’ plan raised serious concerns, in large part due to DHS’ reliance on foster care and other caseload-carrying workers to function as meeting facilitators. DHS intended to utilize caseloadcarrying staff despite the fact that it had not yet reduced caseloads to manageable levels, which would likely compromise the ability of those staff to facilitate TDM meetings and perform other casework in an effective manner. There was also concern that utilizing case carrying staff would lead to inconsistent practice across the state, rather than one statewide model, utilizing full time non-caseload carrying staff, reflecting best practice. As a result of that feedback, DHS reconsidered and revised the TDM plan.
In accordance with the revised plan, DHS reported that it has engaged in a number of activities to prepare to meet the TDM commitment. At the outset, DHS renamed the Team Decision Making meetings “Permanency Planning Conferences,” or PPCs. They did so to reinforce that the meetings must focus on permanency outcomes and to distinguish this initiative from an earlier one that had been deployed in part of the state, though that prior model is the model upon which the Agreement’s commitments are based. DHS then conducted an analysis of the number of facilitators required in order to conduct PPCs for all children in care and began identifying those staff. Staff include existing facilitators deployed as part of the earlier initiative33 as well as newly-identified DHS and CPA staff. The new facilitators received three days of training in preparation for assuming their new responsibilities. As a result, DHS reported that the 14 largest counties were to have trained non-caseload carrying facilitators to lead the PPCs by Period Three. This is a major shift from DHS’ original plan and one that the monitoring team supports. DHS reports that in FY09 the CPA administrative rate was increased in part to enable CPAs to fund team decision making facilitators. The rate increase continued in FY10 and DHS reports that the CPAs have been provided the ongoing resources to fund this Settlement Agreement commitment.
33 The existing facilitators are higher-level staff than DHS currently envisions performing this function. As a result, should these staff leave their positions the positions will be retained but will be filled at a lower level.
98

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
In addition, DHS determined that the SWSS system has the capacity to project when the PPCs should be occurring and is in the process of making that information available to DHS and CPA staff. Until that work is complete, PPCs will be tracked in an Access database. DHS also reports that a draft protocol has been developed, which the monitoring team will review in the next report when this commitment is due.
Permanency Tracking System
DHS spent much of the end of Period One and all of Period Two designing the reports for a Permanency Tracking System to capture and report on the elements of DHS’ permanency practice. The list of reports is comprehensive and ambitious – 74 reports in all. After testing, central office began to make that data available to the local offices. They introduced the suite of reports at a statewide managers’ meeting and then set aside time for individual managers to meet with data staff for some coaching on what information was available, how to access it, and how it might be used. They also planned to post the information on the intranet, utilizing engaging tools like mapping and simple ad hoc reporting tools to help local offices start to pull out their own data and do local targeted analysis. Some issues with the DHS intranet have slowed the ambitious data roll-out.
In introducing the information, leadership acknowledged to the managers that much of the data needed improvement. They struck a tone of partnership with the field to identify data or programming errors and barriers to data entry, and encouraged the field to identify information they thought was wrong or that needed revision. They also emphasized that improved data entry would help improve the quality of the reports.
DHS has shared available reports with the monitoring team. All of the data is available by county, some of it is available by private agency, and it is available at several levels – individual child, monthly, and yearly. Those reports cover all aspects of the permanency process – from removal to exit from care – and include:
 Reasons for removal and the identified challenges to reunification;
 Placement stability for open cases including information on average length of stay;
 Information on goals;
 Case milestones, including: o removal o goal or placement changes o children in care for nine or more months o termination of parental rights at three months o children returning from being absent without leave o reunification
99

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
 Case closures with average length of stay.
Visits to the field indicate that managers and senior staff are starting to use the information. They are hungry for good tracking and information systems – and when they are not satisfied with what they get from central office, they are designing their own. When central office capacity allows, they are trying to solicit feedback from the local offices so that the learning from the home-grown tracking systems can be driven into the statewide process.
DHS’ theory is that the more staff in the field become familiar with the data and the opportunities that it presents, the more they will be willing to invest in improving data entry and teaming up with the central office to improve reporting.
The monitoring team believes this approach is right. The accuracy of the data will improve as more staff in the field use the information. The information at this stage is very raw, which is not surprising, both because it is still relatively early in the life of this reform and because there are real challenges with the existing database. DHS is opting to put a lot of information out to the field. The monitoring team’s caution on this front, shared with leadership, is that there is value in focusing staff on a few critical reports and working to make those better, rather than trying to spread that effort across many. But the focus of DHS leadership in this area on building an active partnership with the field is exactly right. The monitoring team will continue to check in on the development of the permanency tracking system, looking in particular for evidence of its use in implementation, starting with a solution to the existing intranet access barrier.
Caseworker Visitation
Another key element of permanency practice – that also impacts safety and well-being – is visitation. For children removed from their families and placed in foster care, there are few elements of practice more critical than visits between the caseworker and the child, the child and the parents, and the child and siblings. There is a substantial body of data and research demonstrating that more frequent visits with caseworkers, parents, and siblings improve safety, permanency, and well-being for children in care.34 In the Agreement, DHS committed to significant improvements in visitation practice, including:
 By October 2011, DHS committed to ensure that caseworkers visit children in foster care at least two times during each child’s first month of placement (with at least one visit in
34 United States Children’s Bureau (2003). Relationship between caseworker visits with children and other indicator ratings in 2002 cases; Child Welfare Information Gateway, Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption 9 (December 2006). The importance of caseworker visitation with children in foster care has also been recognized by Congress in the Child and Family Services Improvement Act of 2006, Pub. L. 109-288 (2006), which requires that child welfare agencies ensure that caseworkers visit at least 90% of children in foster care monthly by 2011.
100

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

the child’s placement and including a private meeting), and at least one time during each subsequent month;

 By October 2009, DHS committed to ensure that caseworkers visit parents of children with a goal of reunification at least twice during the first month of placement (with at least one visit in the home) and call at least twice, and for subsequent months visit at least once (with one visit in every three-month period in the home) and call as needed;

 By October 2009, DHS committed to ensure that children with a goal of reunification visit their parents at least twice monthly unless specified exceptions exist; and

 By October 2009, DHS committed to ensure that siblings in foster care visit each other at least monthly unless specified exceptions exist.
In order to prepare for the implementation of these commitments, DHS has focused on building the capacity to track and report on these visits. To date, DHS has built and released reporting to track worker/child visits and worker/parent visits statewide, including children supervised by DHS and by private agencies. DHS is currently testing the reporting to track parent/child visits, which DHS anticipates will be released in the near term. DHS cannot yet report on sibling visits.
This new reporting has allowed DHS to establish baseline performance on worker/child visits.
Figure 15

Caseworker Visitation
(April 2009 - September 2009)

41% 44% 42%
42% 42% 39%

71% 71% 71% 70% 67% 69%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Children in Care > One Month (Std=1 Contact)
Children Newly-Entering Care (Std=2 Contacts)

As the data shows, DHS visited between 39 and 44 percent of children in care for one month or less at least twice during that first month, and between 69 and 71 percent of children in care for more than one month at least monthly. Similarly, the baseline data for the location of the visits also shows room for improvement:

101

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Figure 16

Caseworker Visits in Child's Placement
(April 2009 - September 2009)

56% 57% 59% 59% 59% 60% 58% 57%
53% 57% 55% 56%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Children in Care > 1 Month
Children Newly-Entering Care (Std=1 Visit in Placement)

Of the children who had two caseworker visits during their first month in care, at least one visit occurred in the child’s placement for between 56 and 60 percent of the children. For those children in care more than one month who received a caseworker visit, between 53 percent and 59 percent of those children had a visit in their placement. As the data demonstrates, DHS will need to bring focus and attention to visitation practice during the next monitoring period.
Adoption
As children remain in custody, DHS is responsible to ensure that those children achieve permanency through reunification, adoption, or guardianship. For those children whose parents’ rights have been terminated and who are therefore legally free for adoption, DHS must ensure that those children are adopted timely by families who, with the right support, will care for them forever. DHS’ performance moving legally free children to adoption timely is critical to the efficacy of the system for children and families and a core component of the Agreement.
Demographics of Children Adopted
During FY2009 DHS finalized 2,793 adoptions. Of the finalized adoptions,35 1,386 children (51 percent) were five years old and under, 671 (24 percent) were age six to nine, 335 (12 percent)

35 DHS initially reported that it had finalized 2,738 adoptions in FY2009 but has since has reported that, as of January 5, 2010, an additional fifty-five (55) adoptions were identified and recorded properly in SWSS for a total of 2,793 adoptions in FY2009. DHS only provided detailed data for the 2,738, however, so that data serves as the basis for all discussion and analysis in this report. As this report was being finalized, DHS further reported that they believed that the number had risen to 2,951 children with finalized adoptions. DHS plans to do further verification of this data and any updates will be reported in Period Three. DHS is also implementing new processes to ensure the finalization data is recorded more timely.
102

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
were age 10 to 12, and 346 (13 percent) were age 13 and older. With regard to race, 970 (35 percent) of the children adopted were African-American, 1,508 (55 percent) were White, 219 (eight percent) were Multi-racial, and 41 (1 percent) were Asian, American Indian or Alaskan Native, or unidentified. As the chart below demonstrates, the adoptions finalized in FY2009 were almost equally with relatives (46 percent) and with foster families (47 percent), with seven percent in new homes specifically recruited for children awaiting adoption.
Figure 17
Finalized Adoptions by Adoptive Family Type
(FY2009)

Relative Family, 1254, 46%

Foster Family, 1298, 47%

Neither Relative nor Foster, 186, 7%

In addition to ensuring that children are adopted, DHS must also ensure that they are adopted
timely. The Agreement contemplates that children should not be legally free awaiting adoption
for more than one year. As the chart below demonstrates, 43 percent of children adopted in
FY2009 were adopted within one year of becoming legally free, while 57 percent were adopted more than one year later:36

36 This measure is informative, but does not present a comprehensive picture of DHS’ performance because it is based on children who were successfully adopted and does not include those children who remained in care. To illustrate, if 100 children are adopted in a year and all of them had been in care for 12 months or less, this measure would show that 100 percent of children adopted achieved permanency within one year. If, again for example, 100 children are adopted and 50 of those children had been in care for less than 12 months while 50 had been in care more than 12 months, this measure would show that only 50 percent of those children achieved permanency within one year. A measure like this actually creates an incentive for child welfare systems to focus efforts on moving children who have been in the system a short time – and ignore those who are long-awaiting permanency because that will show better performance. Such a measure does not necessarily drive better performance for the children who need it the most.
103

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Figure 18
Time Legally Free
(FY 2009 Finalized Adoptions; n=2,738)

Less than 12 Months, 1179,
43%

12-24 Months, 1043, 38%

48 Months or More, 127, 5%

24-48 Months, 389, 14%

Another key measure of the success of a child welfare agency is the rate at which it keeps siblings together. There is a substantial body of evidence demonstrating conclusively that siblings who stay together achieve better outcomes – fewer runaways, more timely permanency, and improved well being, to name a few. As the chart below shows, a slight majority of all children adopted who have siblings were adopted with all of their siblings, while 83 percent were adopted with at least one sibling:
Figure 19

Children Adopted With Siblings

(Children with Siblings Adopted in FY 2009) (n=1,848)

Adopted

Adopted With All Siblings
955 52%

Without Any Sibling, 308,
17%
Adopted With One or More
Siblings 585 31%

Improving the Adoption Process

If DHS’ efforts to reunify a child in foster care with his or her parents are unsuccessful, the child’s permanency goal may be changed from reunification to adoption. In Michigan, DHS decides that a goal change is appropriate and then seeks court approval for the change. That request may be made either as part of DHS’ petition to terminate the parents’ rights or independently as part of ongoing court review of the case. When that change is approved by the court, a DHS or private agency caseworker officially begins the adoption process, which first involves identifying a family to adopt the child. In the vast majority of cases – 93 percent of children adopted in FY2009, as noted above – the foster family or relative with whom the child

104

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
is living agrees to adopt. Ensuring that children who are legally free for adoption achieve permanency timely – or even at all – has been a mammoth challenge for DHS historically, as evidenced by the many thousands of legally free children awaiting adoption at the beginning of the Agreement. In order to address these challenges, DHS committed in the Agreement to a number of process requirements to ensure that adoptions are finalized timely:
 DHS must ensure that the petition for termination of parental rights is filed within two weeks from the date the child’s goal is changed to adoption;
 DHS (or the CPA) must assign a worker with adoption expertise within 30 days of the goal change;
 Also within 30 days of the goal change, DHS must determine whether the child’s foster parent is prepared to adopt the child. If no adoptive family has been identified, DHS must register the child on local, regional, and national adoption exchanges and develop and implement a recruitment plan to find an adoptive family for that child within 30 days of termination of parental rights.
 DHS must review that recruitment plan quarterly until the child is placed in an adoptive home. During the first six months, the reviews must be attended by the adoption supervisor and the worker; during the next six months, a DHS central office staffer with expertise in permanency must participate as well; and after one year, DHS is required to hire an outside expert to participate.
As part of its planning to implement these commitments, DHS interviewed public and private agency adoption staff across the state to assess current practice and concluded that practice varies by county and by agency.
Because adoption staff is both public and private, DHS is required to employ different mechanisms to implement the Agreement’s commitments for those staff: DHS policy for public agency staff and contractual provisions for private agency staff. For public agency staff, DHS intends to issue instructions to require that:
1. A petition for termination must be filed within two weeks of a Permanency Planning Conference or case plan review meeting in which a decision is made to request that the court terminate parental rights and change the goal to adoption.
2. The foster care worker will request court approval of the goal change at the earliest possible opportunity, such as in cases where there is a court hearing scheduled before the hearing on the petition to terminate parental rights, but no later than at the hearing on the petition itself.
3. If the court agrees to change the goal to adoption – either at an earlier hearing or the petition hearing – a referral to adoption services will be made.
105

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
An adoption worker will be assigned within five working days of the acceptance of the referral and services will be initiated within seven days of assignment.
4. If the court denies the request to change the goal to adoption prior to the petition hearing, the foster care worker will continue with concurrent planning pending the hearing.
5. If the court orders the goal change to adoption at the petition hearing, a referral to adoption services will be made within two work days.
6. Adoption caseworkers will register a child for the adoption exchange37 photo listing and create a child-specific adoptive home recruitment plan within 30 days of termination.
This proposed process does not, however, reflect the conferences the Agreement requires for child-specific recruitment plans. DHS intends to implement this process in Period Three, and the monitoring team will report on that implementation at the end of that period.
DHS applied these requirements to private agencies through contract amendments. Effective July 1, 2009, DHS included provisions in adoption contracts that require:
1. For those cases transferred from DHS to the agency, the agency must assign the case to an adoption worker within two working days from the date the agency accepts the case.
2. For those cases in which the agency is already providing foster care services, the agency must refer the case for adoption services at the change of goal to adoption or within two days of the court order terminating parental rights, whichever comes first, and must assign the case to an adoption worker within two days of the referral.
3. The agency must “begin adoption focused activities within 7 days of the acceptance of the referral for an adoption case transferred from DHS.”
4. The agency must “*e+nsure*e+ that there is a commitment for adoption of the child from the foster parent(s) or relative(s) with whom the child is currently placed.”
37 The Michigan Foster Care and Adoption Services Act, MCL 722.951 et seq., requires DHS to maintain a registry of children available for adoption and a registry of prospective adoptive parents. DHS has contracted for this service, which is known as the Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange (MARE).
106

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
5. The agency must “develop a written child-specific plan to recruit an adoption resource for a child within 30 days of termination or acceptance of the case if there is no identified adoptive resource.“
6. “If no adoptive resource has been identified, the *agency+ shall register the child for photo listing on the Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange (MARE) within 30 days of termination or acceptance of the case from DHS.”
7. In cases where no adoptive resource has been identified for six months, the agency must convene a meeting including the worker, supervisor, and a person designated by DHS to review and revise the recruitment plan.
DHS believes that together the revised policy and the new contractual provisions will address the requirements of the Agreement and create consistency across the state. According to DHS, under this process the adoption worker – whether public or private – will be assigned at the point the court orders the goal changed to adoption. That, according to DHS, will ensure that focused adoption work begins for every child as soon as there is agreement that adoption is the appropriate goal. In addition, DHS believes that this process will result in the filing of termination petitions before the goal is changed to adoption, which is even more ambitious than the Agreement’s requirement of filing the petition within two weeks after the goal change. Finally, DHS intends that both the revised policy and contracts will also mandate the other Agreement commitments: determining whether the foster family or relative will adopt the child and, if not, preparing a plan to recruit an adoptive home for the child and registering the child on adoption services (exchanges) within 30 days.
DHS has also identified that it will need to build the capacity to measure and report on performance on each of these elements. Some of these data will be reported out of DHS’ SWSS system while others will be reported from the Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange (MARE) system, which was recently re-bid and awarded to a new vendor. Until DHS implements this policy in the public agency and performance data are available, the monitoring team cannot assess whether DHS has achieved this commitment. The monitoring team will review all available data and report on performance during Period Three.
Given the legislative shift of the majority of adoption cases to private agencies, DHS now hopes to improve timeliness to adoption through an incentive payment system. These private agency contracts are now structured to pay agencies through two mechanisms: a per diem rate of $17.29 for each day that adoption services are provided, capped at a total of 127 days ($2,195.83); and an incentive payment based on the length of time it takes the agency to move the child from termination of parental rights to an adoptive placement. The incentive payment, which is ultimately reduced by the amount paid for the per diem rate, can significantly increase the amount paid to the agency as the time to adoptive placement decreases:
107

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Table 14 – Contract Incentive Payments

Unit
Basic
Standard
Enhanced Premium MARE

Time from TPR/Acceptance of Case Transfer to Adoptive Placement
More than 12 Months More than eight but less than 13 months More than five but less than nine months Less than five months Children Photo Listed

Rate Finalized Adoption $4,160
$4,327
$7,051
$9,007 $16,000

% Increase From Basic
Rate --
4%
69%
117% 285%

With this framework, an agency will earn the per diem rate for every case assigned up to the cap of 127 days, at which point the agency will no longer earn the per diem rate and will be required to continue to manage the case through adoptive placement without receiving additional funds. Moreover, the rate that the agency will receive when the adoptive placement is achieved is also structured to incentivize timeliness, with enhancements ranging from four percent above the basic rate to more than double that rate. With the transition of the majority of adoption cases to agencies governed by these contracts, DHS believes that the median time to adoptive placement will decrease. The monitoring team will assess whether this strategy is effective in increasing the number of timely adoption finalizations during the next monitoring period.

The monitoring team has identified one concern about this work as it pertains to caseloads for adoption staff. According to DHS, a number of private agencies that have both the foster care and adoption cases routinely involve the adoption worker in the foster care case when the agency intends to request the goal change to adoption – but before the court approves that goal and terminates parental rights. Beginning the adoption work early is both laudable and appropriate because it should move the child to adoption more quickly. DHS’ adoption contracts explicitly provide, however, that “cases will not be counted on an adoption worker’s caseload until the court has ordered termination of parental rights.” With that contractual language, agencies are not required to count cases on adoption workers’ caseloads until termination is entered. As a result, a worker with a caseload of 25 cases where termination has occurred may also have some number of cases that, while not counted on that worker’s caseload because they are pre-termination, are nonetheless assigned to the worker to begin performing adoption-related work. This situation could result in a worker having an inappropriate amount of work to do, in violation of the caseload standards.

Excessive caseloads, as has been shown time and time again, significantly impair a system’s ability to achieve positive outcomes for children and families. That is no different whether the work is pre-termination or post-termination – the work is the same and requires the same attention and focus. This is particularly true because adoption workers may be called on to provide post-adoption services, which are also not counted on their caseloads. This effectively requires staff to do additional work above and beyond their formal caseloads at both the

108

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
beginning and the end of the adoption process. Moving forward, DHS needs to resolve these caseload counting issues to ensure staff receive the support they need to do this work and comply with the terms of the Agreement. Most important, this issue must be resolved with the sole focus on ensuring that children are adopted timely. Any solution that does not advance that objective does not support the values of the reform.
Adoption Disruptions
Finally, DHS also committed to provide the monitoring team with a list of all children whose pre-adoptive placements disrupted. To date, DHS has not produced this list for Period Two due to an issue with the SWSS system and the transition to a new MARE provider. DHS reported that it would be requesting manual counts from DHS adoption supervisors and from private adoption agencies, but the monitoring team was not provided that information.
Supporting Adoptive and Guardianship Families
The key to achieving timely adoptive placements is identifying appropriate adoptive families and providing them with the necessary support and information they need to make the lifelong commitment to adopt a child. To do its part, DHS has committed to support those families both during and after the adoption process. This is particularly important given that children adopted from the public child welfare system may have special needs that could, without support, effectively prohibit a family from welcoming that child into their lives. An array of meaningful post-adoption services is also critical to avoid adoption disruptions. To that end, the Agreement included commitments around providing support for adoptive families, including adoption subsidies, medical subsidies, and, in those cases where legal guardianship rather than adoption is the permanency outcome, guardianship subsidies.
In the Agreement, DHS committed to provide families that have expressed an interest in adopting a child with an adoption subsidy application and information regarding the adoption subsidy program within 14 days. The goal of this commitment is to ensure that families are advised of the subsidy program promptly and that their applications can be processed timely in order to avoid delays in a child’s adoption. During this monitoring period, DHS developed the Adoption Commitment Form (DHS 4809), with instructions for staff to provide families with the adoption subsidy application and explanatory materials and to document that they have been provided. After receiving and reviewing the materials, the family can choose to sign the form, both demonstrating their commitment to adopt and documenting that they have been provided the adoption subsidy application and materials. During verification activities, the monitoring team found evidence that staff have begun to utilize the Adoption Commitment Form to notify families of the adoption subsidy program, as it was present in some case files of legally free children in the backlog cohorts.
In the Agreement, DHS also committed to “develop and implement a full range of postadoption services to assist all eligible special needs children adopted from state foster care and their permanent families (including, but not limited to, physical therapy, counseling, and other services required to address the developmental and/or physical disabilities of an adopted
109

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
child)” and to “maintain sufficient resources to deliver such post-adoption services to all children in the Plaintiff class who qualify for these services along with their permanent families.” (VIII.B.9).
Michigan currently administers a post-adoption medical subsidy program that can fund medical services, assisted care services, educational services, summer camp, outpatient psychological counseling, and out-of-home placement, including short-term residential placement. This program is the payer of last resort and uses solely state funds (rather than any federal funds). DHS reports that in FY2009 it expended $8,089,315 through this program, which is administered by the adoption subsidy unit. In addition, public and private agency adoption staff is often assigned to support post-adoption cases to assist families in accessing services in their local communities (although this work is not counted on their caseloads). There has not been an increase in the amount of funds available for adoption medical subsidy since the signing of the Agreement. When data becomes available, the monitoring team will report on the number of children receiving these services to determine whether the resources are adequate.
As discussed in the first monitoring report, Michigan implemented its Guardianship Assistance Program (GAP) on July 1, 2009. Legal guardianship, in which an adult agrees to serve as a child’s legal guardian in cases where a child cannot be reunified and adoption is not a viable option, is an important permanency option. The Legislature allocated $4.6 million annually to provide a subsidy for 450 children. Around the same time, the federal Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act made federal funding available to states for subsidized guardianship for eligible children and youth. In instructions issued on April 27, 2009 regarding subsidized guardianship, DHS expressed its commitment to post-permanency services for families who become legal guardians. Those families may apply for and receive services through the medical subsidy program, applying the same special needs criteria as for children being adopted. This is critically important for families becoming legal guardians and demonstrates the agency’s commitment to post-permanency services.
As of the end of Period Two, DHS reported that 342 children and youth had a permanency goal of guardianship – an increase of 157 (94 percent) from the beginning of the period. Despite that increase, DHS reported that they have only received guardianship subsidy applications for 31 children and youth. Although no guardianships have been finalized, 22 of those applications have been approved. One application was received for medical subsidy and it was approved. As DHS and CPA staff become more familiar with the process, more subsidy and medical subsidy applications will be received for approval. The monitoring team will continue to evaluate the implementation of the subsidized guardianship program during Period Three.
B. Focusing on Waiting Youth in Need of Permanency: The Backlog Cohorts
As discussed more fully in the Period One report, DHS committed to achieve permanency for two groups of children: those who were legally free awaiting adoption for more than one year and those who were awaiting family reunification for more than one year as of January 1, 2009.
110

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

As reported in Period One, DHS identified 5,052 children in the reunification backlog cohort and 4,260 children in the legally free cohort. During this monitoring period, DHS identified additional children either improperly included in or excluded from the cohorts due to technical or data entry issues. For the reunification cohort, DHS identified 76 children to remove and 41 children to add, for a net change of 35 fewer children and an overall total of 5,017 children. For the legally-free cohort, DHS identified 135 children to remove and 251 children to add, for a net increase of 116 children and an overall total of 4,376 children.

Backlog Cohort Performance

In the first year of the reform, DHS committed to achieve permanency for 50 percent of the children in each of the cohorts. DHS met the target for children in the reunification cohort with 52 percent. Most of those children returned home – 45 percent. Another four percent were adopted and four percent will live permanently with relatives or guardians.38 DHS missed the target for the legally free cohort, reaching 33 percent. Virtually all of the children in that group were adopted – 31 percent – with another two percent living with relatives.

Table 15 – Permanency Backlog Cohort Performance

Full Cohort

Legally Free 4376

Reunification 5017

Reunification Adoption Relative Guardianship
Permanency

5

0.1% 2234 45%

1335 31%

185

4%

83

2%

87

2%

13

0.3%

114

2%

1436 33% 2620 52%

Aged Out Other

367

8%

22

1%

77

2%

15

0.3%

In Care

2551 58% 2305 46%

Some children and youth in each cohort exited care, but not to permanency – 2.3 percent for reunification, and eight percent for the legally free group.39

38 Rounding to the whole percentage accounts for the fact that the four categories do not add up to 52 percent. 39 Other includes youth who exited to the military; entered the adult mental health or disabilities system; were in jail or prison; one who married; and four children who died.
111

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
With respect to the permanency backlog cohorts, there was wide variation in performance by county. (See Appendices I, J). Of the 83 counties, 64 percent met or exceeded the target for the reunification cohort while another six percent had no children in that cohort at all. Fewer counties were successful in meeting the target for the legally free children, but 27 percent did succeed and another five percent had no children in the cohort.
Achieving permanency for children and youth in the legally free cohort is one of the most important challenges confronting Michigan’s child welfare system. As noted in the Period One report, at the beginning of the implementation of the Agreement, DHS had a significant backlog of children – in excess of 4,000 – who were legally free for adoption for more than one year. DHS’ historical performance offers an explanation for that backlog:
Table 16 – Children Made Legally Free v. Children Adopted

Fiscal Year FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 Average

# of Children Made Legally
Free 2950 2953 2994 3082 3045 3064 2887 2996

# of Adoptions
2643 2776 2910 2621 2638 2739 279340 2731

Difference 307 177 84 461 407 325 94 265

Between FY2003 and FY2008, an average of 3,015 children were made legally free for adoption each year and DHS finalized an average of 2,721 adoptions. With an average of 294 more children becoming legally free than being adopted each year, the number of legally free children continued to grow each year, which created the pool of waiting children from whom the legally free backlog cohort was drawn. In FY2009, by comparison, fewer children were made legally free – 2,887 compared to the prior fiscal years’ average of 3,015 – and DHS remained on pace with the number of children adopted – 2,79341 compared to the prior average of 2,721. That resulted in 94 more children becoming legally free than were adopted

40 See footnote above. DHS now reports there may be as many as 2951 adoptions. This number will be verified by DHS and an update provided in Period Three. 41 See note above regarding DHS reporting additional adoptions for FY2009.
112

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

during the year, a decrease from the average of 294 between FY2003 and FY2008. While that could be the initial stage of a positive trend, DHS will have to ensure that it not only continues to reduce the gap between children made legally free and children adopted but reverses course and ensures that more children are adopted than made legally free so that children awaiting adoption do not wait too long for a new home.
During FY2008, a decision was made to shift most of the responsibility for adoptions from DHS to the private sector. The impact of this decision can be seen for the first time in FY2009, as demonstrated by the table below. Between FY2003 and FY2008, DHS completed approximately 45 percent of all finalized adoptions each year, while private agencies completed approximately 55 percent. During FY2009, DHS completed 31 percent of the adoptions finalized, while private agencies completed 69 percent:
Figure 20

Percentage Finalized

Finalized Adoptions by Agency Type
(FY2009)

80%

69%

70% 60%

57%

53%

50%

52%

52%

55%

50%

40% 30%

43%

47%

50%

48%

48%

45%

20%

31%

10%

0%

FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009

DHS Private Agencies

Together, public and private agency performance still fell short of what was needed to remedy the backlog; stem the number of legally free children aging out; and achieve timely adoptions for all legally free children. More overall capacity is necessary to bring down adoption caseloads to the standards agreed to by the parties and that additional capacity is critical to meet the State’s obligations with respect to not only the legally free children in the backlog cohort but all children with a goal of adoption.
In order to move the children in the backlogs to permanency, in the Agreement DHS committed to create 200 Permanency Planning Specialist (PPS) positions by September 2009. The PPS positions are defined in the Agreement as “limited-term, specialized assignment positions responsible for reviewing cases of and pursuing legal permanency for children in the backlog cohorts.” (VII.G.2.B). As discussed in the Period One report, DHS initially identified caseloadcarrying foster care workers to fulfill the requirement of the Agreement. Those workers were assigned full caseloads of children in the backlogs, managing some of the most difficult cases of children and youth in care who often faced substantial barriers to permanency. Plaintiffs

113

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
objected to DHS’ implementation strategy, and the parties and the monitoring team met to discuss the intent of this commitment in the Agreement.
During the meeting both DHS and plaintiffs agreed that the intent of the commitment was for the agency to hire (or contract for) non-caseload carrying staff to serve in the PPS role. The parties acknowledged that the individuals assuming these positions should be experienced and have the capacity to work along with caseload-carrying staff, to commence focused case reviews, to identify barriers to permanency, and to ensure that ongoing efforts to achieve permanency occur. Notwithstanding that agreement, during Period Two, DHS continued to identify the caseload-carrying staff as PPS. They do not satisfy the requirements of the Agreement.
However, it should be noted that late in the monitoring period, DHS committed to establish the position of Permanency Resource Manager (PRM) not only to address the PPS commitment but, importantly, to strengthen its commitment to achieve permanency for children and youth in the backlog cohorts. These are non-caseload carrying staff that will review cases of children in the reunification and legally free cohorts and have the authority to provide direction and technical assistance to staff in the field offices. The PRMs will:
 Identify and address specific and system-wide service gaps;
 Increase accountability in case management and adherence to policy;
 Provide technical assistance regarding case barriers;
 Monitor permanency plan progress;
 Assist in policy development, outcome-based services and best practices; and
 Verify data accuracy.
The PRMs will be term-limited, two-year assignments with the option to extend an additional two years if needed. Twenty-one of the PRMs will be assigned to a county or cluster of counties based on DHS’ analysis of children remaining in the backlog cohorts. Each PRM will have a caseload of between 200 and 250 children. Five PRMs will be assigned reduced caseloads of children in residential placement in order to focus on this specialized population. DHS currently reports that they hired 16 PRMs and that the remaining positions will be filled during the next monitoring period.
The role proposed for the PRMs is consistent with the role envisioned for the PPS staff in the Agreement. However, because only 16 have been hired and their work did not begin until after Period Two, the monitoring team is unable to determine whether, in fact, these staff will satisfy the intent of DHS’ commitment. The monitoring team will assess DHS’ implementation of this plan in the next monitoring report.
114

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
C. Focusing on Youth Who Do Not Achieve Permanency: Youth Aging Out of Care
Youth who exit care as adults without achieving permanency face a host of challenging outcomes: homelessness, incarceration, and poverty among them. For this particularly at-risk population, DHS committed to developing a specialized continuum of services and practice to prepare them to become adults without the support of a family or the child welfare system. These youth ordinarily reside in independent living placements and receive services to provide them with the knowledge, skills, and support systems they will need to obtain an education, employment, housing, and financial stability when they exit the child welfare system. Unfortunately, DHS’ commitments to improve practice and services for these vulnerable youth remain largely unrealized at the close of Period Two.
In the Agreement DHS made a number of commitments to better serve these youth, including:
 Ensuring that exhaustive efforts are made to help youth achieve permanency, rather than age-out of care;
 Ensuring that youth leaving care without permanency at least have a significant connection to a responsible adult to serve as a mentor/guide to the youth;
 Ensuring that youth have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to live independently;
 Allowing youth to continue to receive services beyond the age of majority as they transition into independence;
 Connecting youth to employment and housing opportunities; and
 Ensuring youth exiting care have health insurance.
In the Agreement, DHS committed that it would not place youth under the age of 16 in independent living placements and would instead continue to work to achieve permanency for them. During Period Two, DHS placed 525 youth in independent living placements, none of whom were under the age of 16. Additionally, at the end of Period Two the monitoring team verified that there were 1,043 youth in independent living, none of whom were under the age of 16.
As discussed above, DHS has eliminated the goals of independent living and emancipation and replaced them with the goals of APPLA and APPLA-E. Both of those goals require DHS to continue working to identify a committed adult to play a significant role in the youth’s life, whether the youth resides with that adult or not. It is critically important that DHS ensure that youth entering independent living placements have such a connection as they face the challenges of independence. DHS has begun the important work of defining new permanency practices for youth and as implementation of these practices begins, the monitoring team will assess their impact on youth with these goals.
115

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
In the Agreement, DHS also pledged to ensure that it will maintain sufficient resources to provide all youth age 14 and older and those youth transitioning from foster care to adulthood with the range of supportive services necessary to prepare them for a successful transition. To that end, in March 2009 DHS published an amendment to its Children’s Foster Care Manual, CFF 950, describing a variety of independent living services available “until the youth is discharged from foster care, establishes independence or reaches 21 years of age.” Youth do not need to be in foster care in order to continue to receive these services. These programs offer youth essential life skills that can help them cross the bridge from foster care to independence.
At the close of Period One, DHS reported that 965 youth between the ages of 16 and 20 were receiving independent living services. At the close of Period Two, DHS identified 1,043 youth who were receiving those services, an increase of 78. DHS is not yet able to ensure that all eligible children and youth have access to these services, and there was not a net increase in the overall capacity of independent living services in Period Two.
DHS also agreed to develop and implement a policy and the necessary resources to allow youth to remain in foster care placements through age 20. In July 2008, DHS published an amendment to its Children’s Foster Care Manual, CFF 722-15, announcing that “foster care youths may remain in foster care until the age of 20.” DHS also issued instructions that all legally-free children are eligible for Limited Term and Emergency Foster Care Funding. During Period One, DHS calculated cost projections for increasing federal support for its older youth in out-of-home placement. Pursuant to federal legislation, beginning in October 2010, federal matching funds are available for youth ages 19, 20, or 21 (whichever age a state selects) for an extension of federal Title IV-E foster care maintenance payments, adoption assistance payments, and/or relative guardianship payments. DHS reports that prior to October 2010, it intends to recommend to the Legislature revisions to state law in order to take advantage of these additional federal funds.
At the close of Period One, there were 1,240 youth in foster care ages 18 to 20, representing seven percent of the total foster care population. At the close of Period Two, there were 1,260 youth in foster care ages 18 to 20, representing eight percent of the total foster care population. Of those 1,260, there were 815 youth age 18; 415 youth age 19; and 27 youth age 20:
116

Less than 18,
14,967, 92%

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
Figure 21
Older Youth in Care
(September 30, 2009)
Age 18, 815, 5% Age 19, 415, 3% Age 20, 27, 0.2%

As the expansion of services to youth up to the age of 20 becomes more integrated into the practice, the monitoring team will expect to see both the number and percentage of youth in this group who are 19 and 20 increase.
DHS also committed to refer all youth age 14 and older in foster care and youth transitioning from foster care to Michigan Works! agencies for participation in public programs designed to expand vocational skills and opportunities. In Period Two, DHS published instructions and a Michigan Works! referral form requiring immediate implementation of that commitment. The instructions, which described the referral process for foster youth, were sent to all public and private agencies, published on the DHS website, and distributed to the private agency membership groups. DHS did not collect or track data on the number of youth referrals to Michigan Works! agencies in Period Two and, as a result, provided no data regarding performance.
DHS also committed to refer youth without an identified housing situation at the time of emancipation from foster care to the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) for rental assistance and services under the Homeless Youth Initiative (HYI). In October 2008, DHS officials met with the MSHDA to discuss developing a referral process specifically for foster youth. At that time, the MSHDA observed that funds were not available to develop new programs for foster youth beyond the current DHS Housing Resource Center in Wayne County, which offered 30 youth voucher-supported housing. DHS and MSHDA determined that although referrals could be made beyond Wayne County, they were not likely to be meaningful due to a lack of resources and therefore the referral process has not been implemented. Pursuant to the Needs Assessment commitment of the Agreement, the monitoring team recommended, as a starting point, that DHS invest an additional $1.5 million in FY2010 in new, independent, transitional and trans-permanent housing for exiting foster youth in the five largest counties. The monitoring team will report on DHS’ progress implementing this initiative at the conclusion of Period Three.
Finally, DHS also committed to ensure that older youth exiting care have health insurance. The federal government now makes significant funds available to the states, at their option, to
117

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
extend health insurance coverage to these youth. Michigan’s program providing this coverage is known as Foster Care Transition Medicaid (FCTMA). Michigan’s performance ensuring youth receive the benefits of this program has been inadequate, and most eligible youth exit foster care without health insurance.
Prior to implementation of the Agreement, between May and December 2008, 986 youth age 18 or older exited foster care but only 98, or 10 percent, were enrolled in FCTMA upon exit. That performance actually declined between January and March 2009, when 348 youth agedout of foster care but only 13 young people, or four percent, had open FCTMA cases. At that time, DHS concluded the primary reason youth who age-out of foster care are not enrolled in FCTMA is the lack of knowledge on the part of staff, foster families and foster youth. After undertaking a robust training initiative during Period Two that led to improved performance – 180 (34 percent) of 533 eligible youth enrolled – DHS nonetheless continued to be disappointed by the results. DHS is now pursuing automated enrollment of eligible youth through SWSS and the new Bridges computer system, but has learned that SWSS will require changes that were not yet implemented during Period Two.
VI. Improving the Well-Being of Children in Foster Care
In the Agreement, DHS committed to ensure access to physical and mental health services for children in placement and to retain a full-time Medical Director with responsibility for, among other things, implementing policies and procedures for the use of psychotropic medications for all children in DHS foster care custody. Plaintiffs agreed to permit DHS to extend the deadline for hiring a Medical Director until Period Two, and DHS created and filled the position as agreed.
DHS also committed to develop and submit a detailed Health Services Plan during Period Two that would set forth the specific steps DHS will undertake to ensure that each child entering foster care receives the screenings, examinations and immunizations contemplated in the Agreement. DHS submitted a draft plan in June 2009 but requested additional time to revise the plan after discussions with the monitoring team. Because DHS' current thinking relies heavily on the conversion of foster children's health care coverage to the Medicaid managed care system next fall, DHS asked for additional time to undertake its planning. The parties are discussing a bridge Health Plan that DHS recently submitted, covering the period January to September 2010, and if that plan is acceptable to the parties and the monitoring team, DHS will submit a comprehensive Health Plan addressing all the health-related commitments in the Settlement Agreement in September 2010.
Beginning in Period One, DHS agreed to ensure that each child entering foster care will be assigned a Medicaid number and that foster parents or other placement providers will receive a Medicaid card, or an alternative verification of the child’s Medicaid status and number, within 30 days of the child’s entry into care. DHS was unable to track and ensure implementation of this commitment in Periods One and Two due to defects in its SWSS system. The system currently deletes data entered by caseworkers regarding whether, and if so when, Medical
118

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM Emergency Cards (including the child’s Medicaid number) have been provided to caregivers. As a temporary alternative, in the final month of Period Two DHS began mailing surveys to a random selection of foster caregivers to assess whether they report receiving a Medicaid card timely. Approximately one-quarter of surveyed families have responded, most indicating timely receipt. This is not an adequate methodology to track implementation of this commitment going forward. With respect to children’s mental health needs, DHS had committed to redirect at least $3 million from its FY2009 budget to fund mental health services for youth in placement. The agency did not do so in Periods One or Two, but secured additional funding with the support of the Governor for Period Three. The administration requested, and the Michigan Legislature appropriated, $1.76 million in General Funds for FY2010 to expand to additional counties a federal Section 1915(c) Medicaid program known as the Waiver for Children with Serious Disturbance (SEDW), which operated in 10 counties as of March 31, 2009. DHS reports these appropriated funds will enable the Michigan Department of Community Health to draw down $6 million in matching federal Medicaid funds in Periods Three and Four to provide intensive inhome community-based mental health services to 266 children in foster care. Beginning with Period Three, DHS committed to ensure that children entering foster care receive needed emergency medical, dental, and mental health care, as well as a full medical examination within 30 days of the child’s entry into care. DHS will also be initiating its new model of mental health services. Much work remains to be done.
119

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
Appendix A – Caseload Methodology
Section VI.E of the Settlement Agreement describes the parties’ goal of “right-sizing” caseloads for the public and private agency staff who provide services to the children and families in Michigan’s child welfare system and the supervisors who directly oversee those staff. While it is a relatively simple concept – each staff person should be assigned the optimal number of cases to make it possible to do good work – translating that to the real world in which there is a wide variety of different types of cases as well as a wide variety of work situations is more complicated. This appendix is designed to lay out in detail the methodology for how caseloads are counted and compliance assessed.
This Appendix repeats the information that was included in the caseload methodology included as Appendix C of the Period One Report with some additional information from Period Two. Throughout Period One, the monitoring team met with DHS leadership to discuss staffing caseloads and worked closely with the Director of Urban Field Operations and the Children’s Services Field Manager and their staff to refine data collection and the rules for analysis. In February 2009, the monitoring team exchanged a series of drafts with senior field leadership to memorialize the caseload methodology. The monitoring team also shared a draft of the proposed caseload methodology with the plaintiffs in order to receive their feedback. That document was finalized and provided to the director of the Children’s Services Administration and the chief deputy director of DHS, as well as other members of the DHS senior child welfare leadership team on March 5, 2009. The final document was provided as well to plaintiffs.
At the end of Period One reporting, six important issues with respect to caseload methodology remained outstanding:
1. CPS investigations and CPS on-going cases pending supervisory review 2. The exclusion of adoption cases from caseload counts until termination of parental
rights and the exclusion of post-adoption cases from caseload counts. 3. Purchase of service monitoring of adoption cases 4. Licensing caseloads 5. Ensuring full-time equivalent (FTE) analysis was included in the caseload methodology 6. Comparison of open case data in the SWSS system against hand-counted caseload
data in order to ensure all open cases are reflected in the caseload counts
All six of these issues were discussed during Period Two. The status of each has been incorporated into this appendix below.
The Collection of Caseload Information and Verification by the Monitoring Team
It is important to note that DHS must count caseloads by hand at the local office or agency level. DHS reports that the SACWIS system is not structured so as to allow counting of caseloads in an automated way. The information for public agency staff in the five largest counties is submitted to the Urban Field Operations Director. Information for the public agency staff in the other 78 counties is submitted to the Children’s Services Field Manager.
120

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
Information for the private agency caseloads is submitted to the DHS Child Welfare Contract Compliance Unit. DHS must pull together all of that information in the aggregate in order to determine caseload compliance. DHS provides the monitoring team with the data forms submitted by each local office and private agency. Those forms include the list of caseload carrying staff with the number of each type of case on that person’s caseload. DHS also supplies its analysis of caseload compliance. The monitoring team utilizes the forms to build their assessment of DHS compliance. In both Periods One and Two, there were differences between the analyses reported by DHS and the assessment by the monitoring team. The monitoring team’s assessment is included in the body of this report. The monitoring team has met with DHS over both Periods One and Two to work towards aligning those methodologies and remains available to DHS to do that work together in upcoming periods.
In addition to analyzing the data forms, the monitoring team also visited a variety of local DHS offices and private agencies across the State and interviewed caseload carrying staff. Staff were asked to come to the meeting with a print-out of their open cases. In one-on-one interviews, the staff person is asked to walk a member of the monitoring team through each of their cases listed and note to the team member if any of the cases on the list are closed, are included in error or note if there are other open cases not reflected on the caseload print-out. The monitoring team then compares the information provided with staff against the information provided by DHS in the caseload forms. That information is almost always slightly different as caseloads fluctuate day to day and the date the form was filled out and the date of the interview are always different. Given that expected differential, the monitoring team was satisfied that the data reported during Periods One and Two on the data forms by staff members appear to be an accurate reflection of actual caseloads with only one exception, discussed in the Adoption section below.
Analyzing the Caseload Information
The Agreement addresses seven categories of child welfare work:
 Child protective services investigations (applies only to public staff)  Child protective services ongoing (public only)  Foster care direct services (public and private)  Adoption direct services (public and private)  Foster care and adoption purchase of service monitors (public only)  Licensing (public and private)  Supervisors (public and private)
The discussion here focuses on six of the seven types of work with discussion of supervisors deferred as the first supervisor caseload target date is January 2010. Caseloads for two of these roles – foster care and adoption direct – were reportable in Period One. Two more – CPS investigations and CPS on-going cases – were added in Period Two. Two more will be added at the start of Period Three – licensing and purchase of service monitor caseloads. With respect to both the public and private agencies, many staff have “mixed” caseloads, meaning they serve in
121

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

more than one role. This element of mixing caseloads is what makes assessing Michigan’s caseload compliance particularly challenging.
In negotiating the Settlement Agreement, the parties decided on a final target – the maximum size caseload a staff person would carry if that person did only that type of work full-time. They also established interim standards for each category with interim deadlines in recognition that it will take time to reach the final goal for each caseload type. The Agreement phases in caseload compliance between October 2009 and January 2012.

Type of Work Foster Care Direct Adoption Direct CPS Investigations CPS Ongoing POS
Licensing
Supervisors

Oct2009
Feb2009 Apr2009 Apr2009 Oct2009
Oct2009
Jan2010

First Measurement 95% of staff have no more than 30 children each while 60% have no more than 25 children each
60% of staff have no more than 25 children each 95% of staff have no more than 16 open investigations each
95% of staff have no more than 30 families each
60% of staff have no more than 55 children to monitor 60% of staff will have no more than 36 cases in total, adding together new applications, complaint investigations & oversight of existing licensed homes 50% of supervisors with oversight of foster care, adoption or CPS staff will oversee no more than five caseworkers

Target

Oct- 95% of staff will have no more 2011 than 15 children each

Oct2011
Oct2011
Oct2011 Oct2011

95% of staff have no more than 15 children each
95% of staff have no more than 12 open investigations each 95% of staff have no more than 17 families each
95% of staff have no more than 45 children to monitor

Oct2011

95% of staff will have no more than 36 cases, adding together new applications, complaint investigations & oversight of existing licensed homes

Jan2012

95% of supervisors with oversight of foster care, adoption, CPS, licensing, or POS staff will oversee no more than five caseworkers

Once a target is achieved, the Settlement Agreement expects the target standards will be maintained from that date forward. For example, Period One set the standard for foster care caseloads as of October 2008. That standard held through Period Two and remains the standard until the new interim standard becomes effective in Period Three. Therefore, while there is not a new foster care caseload standard during Period Two, the monitoring team is required to report on DHS’ continuing compliance with the Period One standard throughout Period Two. Interim standards remain in effect until supplanted by a new standard at the rate and on the date detailed in the Agreement.

122

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
In Michigan, some workers do only one type of work – for example, they are full-time child protective services investigators or full-time licensing staff. But many staff are charged with more than one kind of work. For example, some staff split their time between providing foster care direct services and licensing. A public agency staff person could provide both adoption direct services and adoption purchase of service monitoring.
Some staff work part-time doing one of the seven types of roles defined in the Agreement but then spend the rest of their time doing other unrelated work. For example, the public agency child welfare funding specialists spend part of their time doing licensing work and part of their time doing funding eligibility work. A private agency staff member could spend part of their time providing preventive services and the rest of their time providing foster care services. A small number of staff in the public system, especially in the more rural counties, spend part of their time doing child welfare work and part of their time doing adult services work.
Some staff do not work full-time at all – they might work part-time as employees or as contract staff hired to do only a particular task. As a result, the caseload methodology has to take the number of hours they work into account.
However, if a staff person works in any of the roles listed above, they are included in the caseload analysis.
If a worker does only one kind of child welfare work full-time, it is relatively simple to determine when that worker has a full caseload. But in any of the other situations described above, it is more complicated to determine whether or not that person has a caseload that meets the terms of the Settlement Agreement. This document describes the rules for assessing caseload compliance.
Although what follows describes the basic methodology for counting caseloads that will be utilized for all reporting periods, some elements of the methodology will continue to evolve as more data becomes available and more of the caseload interim targets become due. Any adjustments that need to be made to the methodology will be reported in future periods.
Defining Each Caseload Type
The first step in the process of establishing a methodology for counting caseloads is to achieve Agreement on the definition for each individual type of work.
Child Protective Services Investigations
Child protective services (CPS) investigators are assigned to investigate allegations of abuse or neglect. In Michigan, CPS investigations are conducted by the public sector. The CPS process usually begins with a call from the public or any mandated reporter (teacher, doctor, nurse, social worker, etc.) concerned about the safety of a child. The procedure for screening these calls alleging abuse or neglect varies somewhat in Michigan from county to county. In most counties, there are staff who do not carry a caseload but answer the phone and screen calls and
123

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
write up the initial referral. These staff are not included in the caseload counts precisely because they are protected from carrying a caseload. The staff who receive the referrals from the screening staff and proceed to investigate are included. The Agreement defines a full-time CPS investigative caseload at an interim standard of 16 cases with an ultimate target of 12. With regard to CPS, a case is defined as a family. So whether a family involved in an investigation has one child or five children, the family would count as one case. But if a report involves children from two or more families, the report generates two or more cases.
Once an investigation is conducted, a decision is made about whether the allegation of abuse or neglect can be substantiated, meaning there was a preponderance of evidence that a child or children were the victims of maltreatment. As a part of every investigation, the worker utilizes a mandatory safety and risk assessment tool. If the finding is that the allegation cannot be substantiated and the risk assessment instrument does not indicate future risk of harm, then the investigation is closed. An investigation case can also be closed after confirmation that the alleged abuse or neglect occurred, if the investigator determines that although the maltreatment occurred, the level of risk is low (based on the risk assessment tool) and the family is not in need of services. Before a case is closed, it is reviewed by a supervisor who must approve the investigation and findings.
However, if the family needs services in order to ensure the children are safe, a case is opened. It can be opened as a CPS ongoing case if the children remain in the home and the family receives services and supervision in the community. It can be opened as a foster care case if the determination is made that the only way to keep the children safe is to remove them from their home. The third possibility is that a case can be opened if the judge opts to leave a child or children in the home, but is sufficiently concerned about safety to make that child or children wards of the state. In the case of in-home state wards, DHS may decide either to make that child the responsibility of a CPS ongoing worker or a foster care worker, depending on that child’s circumstances (if the child has siblings in placement, the case almost always moves to foster care) and local practice. If the child is placed, DHS policy requires referral to a foster care worker, but there can be a period of dual case management while any remaining investigative issues are resolved and pending the court finding. DHS policy encourages quick resolution of the investigation and limits the period for dual case management except under narrowly defined circumstances.
On DHS’ caseload data collection form, there is a column for CPS investigation cases and CPS investigations pending supervisory review. As reported during Period One, DHS acknowledged a need to resolve a large backlog of investigations pending supervisory review that had built up prior to initiation of the Agreement. DHS allowed staff to work overtime and provided high level attention to resolve these cases. As a result, entering Period Two, the number of cases still open because they were pending review had dropped – but there were still some offices in which this remained an on-going challenge.
Since the execution of the Settlement Agreement, the monitoring team conducted a review of the issues surrounding CPS cases that are pending review. During caseload verification
124

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
activities, the monitoring team discussed these cases with caseload-carrying staff to determine the amount of work required of those workers when a case is pending with a supervisor. Those staff advised that they remain responsible for court hearing preparation and attendance, performing safety and risk assessments, conducting visitation with the child, providing services, and performing any additional work requested by the supervisor during his or her review of the case. DHS policy permits supervisors 30 days to perform their review, such that caseloadcarrying staff may maintain these ongoing responsibilities for as much as a month (or more, if the supervisor’s review is not completed timely).
The monitoring team considered the language in the Agreement, researched the standards utilized in other jurisdictions subject to similar caseload monitoring, and reviewed the standard utilized by accreditation agencies and published by the Child Welfare League of America. In that research, the monitoring team identified no other jurisdiction or standard that removed cases from staff caseloads during supervisory review. Instead, those jurisdictions and standards keep a case on a worker’s caseload until the case is closed.
Based on these facts, the monitoring team concluded that all investigation cases that remain open – whether designated pending review or not – had to be counted as part of the caseload until those cases were closed. The monitoring team memorialized that decision in a letter to the Director of the Children’s Services Administration on July 9, 2009 (page 11) stating:
CPS Investigations and On-Going Cases: In conducting its caseload counts, DHS leadership has chosen to create a subset of CPS investigations and on-going cases which remain open but await supervisor review. For its own tracking and allocation purposes, DHS has chosen to assign those cases “no weight.” The Michigan monitoring team understands from the perspective of managing case flow that it is useful to DHS leadership to understand whether it is a staff person or supervisor who is primarily responsible for those cases. However, as discussed with DHS leadership during Period I, for the purposes of caseload measurement for the [Settlement Agreement], because those cases remain open, they are to be assigned the same weight as any other investigation or on-going case and are to be counted as part of the investigator and/or on-going staff person’s caseload for the purposes of [Settlement Agreement] compliance until they are closed or re-assigned (e.g. an investigation becomes a foster care case after a child is taken into custody.)
Therefore, in conducting the analysis of DHS’ compliance with respect to CPS investigations (and with respect to CPS on-going cases below), the monitoring team included all – pending and non-pending – cases in the analysis.
In late February 2010, DHS suggested that the caseload instructions provided to the local offices may not have been sufficiently clear and there was the possibility that some offices may have double-counted, including the same cases as both pending and non-pending (e.g., counting a case as a CPS investigation assigned to a worker and counting the same case as a CPS investigation pending review).
125

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
DHS’ instructions to the offices do clearly indicate that offices are not to double-count cases.
In more than a quarter of the offices (26 percent), the number of pending review cases exceeded the number of investigation cases, meaning that those offices did not double-count (if they had, the number of investigation cases would always exceed the number of pending review cases because all of the investigation cases would always be included in the pending review cases as well). For the remaining offices, DHS cannot tell whether or not there was double-counting because DHS does not track caseloads by case name or identifier (DHS only counts the existence of a case on the caseload worksheets completed by the local offices, not the name or identification number of each case).
DHS indicated that moving forward it will make the instructions with respect to CPS investigation and on-going caseloads even clearer. For Period Two, however, much of this discussion is academic: even if all pending cases were excluded to address possible doublecounting – and they should not be for the reasons described above – DHS still did not comply with the Period Two CPS caseload standards by any measure.
CPS Ongoing Cases
CPS ongoing cases, handled by the public sector, are cases where there has been a determination by the investigator that the family needs services in order to maintain the child(ren) safely at home. The private sector may provide contracted services to the child or family but case management remains with the state. The interim caseload standard for these in-home cases defines a full caseload as 30 with a final target of 17. A case is defined as a family, as with CPS investigations.
The Agreement assumes that some Michigan staff handle only this type of case. While there are a few instances in which a staff person focuses only on CPS ongoing cases, it is more typical in Michigan that some CPS investigators handle a mixed caseload of both investigations and ongoing in-home cases. This combination constitutes a “mixed” caseload for purposes of the Agreement and so requires a different caseload counting methodology, which is discussed below in the section on mixed caseloads.
The caseload information collection form contains the same two categories for CPS on-going as for CPS investigations – pending supervisory review and non-pending. All of the discussion included in the CPS investigation section above applies here equally. However, the impact of the pending issue with respect to CPS on-going cases is less than it is with respect to CPS investigation cases as the volume of CPS on-going cases pending review is significantly smaller than the same category of cases for investigations.
Foster Care
Foster care responsibilities are divided between the public and private sectors in Michigan. For the purposes of caseload counting, it is irrelevant whether the case is with the public or private sector – the standard is the same. A case for foster care purposes is a child under court
126

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
supervision. Most children under court supervision are in placement but some children may be in their own homes either because, as described above, a judge may opt to place a child in the custody of the state, or a child may be returned home from placement but is court ordered to remain under supervision for a period of time. In all three circumstances, the child is almost always considered as part of a “foster care” caseload (except in those instances where a child is placed on a CPS on-going caseload).
One specialized sub-population of foster care is youth placed in Supervised Independent Living (SIL). If the young person has an open case with DHS, the foster care caseload standard applies to the staff person providing case management services to that youth.42
For the purposes of counting foster care caseloads, every child is considered a case. The initial interim standard for foster care caseloads is a two prong standard, limiting almost all (95%) staff to no more than 30 children, with a significant subset (60%) limited to 25. The final target for a full-time Foster Care worker is 15.
Adoption
As with foster care caseloads, a “case” in adoption is a child and the standard for both the public and private sectors is the same. The interim standard began at 25 children in February 2009 and then scales down until it reaches the target of 15 children per full-time staff person. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, a child must be assigned an adoption worker within 14 days of the date the child’s goal changed to adoption.
DHS asserts that pursuant to state law, a goal change to adoption only becomes official once the court has approved that goal change and so the 14 day window begins on the date of court approval. However, in the adoption contracts, as discussed in the body of the Period Two monitoring report, DHS instructs the contract agencies, which are responsible for the majority of adoption cases, that adoption cases cannot be counted as part of a caseload until the termination of parental rights has been finalized. While it is possible in some instances that both the approval of the goal change to adoption and the termination of parental rights occur at the same time, it is not the norm, which creates the issue that these contractual instructions are at variance with the terms of the Agreement. For the purposes of caseload counting, adoption cases must be counted from the time the adoption worker begins working on those cases – which at the outside, under the terms of the Agreement, should be no more than 14 days from the date of the goal change.
The monitoring team has raised this issue with DHS but as of the end of Period Two, DHS had not yet changed its contractual language. For the purposes of Period Two, as the contract
42 In some SIL placements, case management is provided by staff on-site. Other SIL placements follow the institutional placement model and case management is with a foster care caseworker who is not on-site and may or may not work for the same agency.
127

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
agencies were following DHS instructions, caseload compliance was assessed on the data submitted. Moving forward, however, DHS needs to ensure that adoption cases are counted as part of a caseload when they are assigned.
For the purposes of caseload counting, a child can be counted twice, as both a foster care and adoption case, because in Michigan the foster care worker retains responsibility for visitation and services while the adoption worker is responsible for all the specialized adoption tasks. A child becomes the sole responsibility of the adoption worker only at the very last stage of the pre-adoption process, when the adoption placement occurs, after which, if all goes well, the adoption is finalized within three to six months. But essentially most of the adoption work occurs prior to this point, which is why the caseload count for adoption work begins from the point of assignment.
Finally, after the adoption is finalized, a family may need additional services. Those service needs may arise immediately or they may arise as the child grows older and new needs surface. DHS expects both the public and private agencies to provide on-going post-adoption support to the children if that agency was responsible for the finalization. Those post-adoption cases are not counted as part of the worker’s caseload. It is not acceptable under the Agreement to assign these cases no weight – they require real work and so must be accounted for in assessing a worker’s caseload. There are two options – DHS can either opt to include those cases and discuss the weight which will be assigned with the monitoring team or DHS can opt to continue to exclude those cases – but then must discount the FTE for the worker doing that postadoption worker, as described in the FTE section below. With that option, if a worker spends half of her time on post-adoption services, she can carry only half the caseload for foster care, adoption, etc. as she counts as only 0.5 FTE. The monitoring team expects this issue to be resolved during Period Three and will report on that resolution in an upcoming report.
Purchase of Services Monitors
The purchase of service (POS) monitoring role is an outgrowth of Michigan’s partnership with the private sector. Even as case responsibility is contracted out to the private sector, the state retains legal responsibility for the child and exercises part of that responsibility by assigning a POS worker to provide oversight and support. The role of a POS worker has evolved in different ways in different counties. In some counties, the courts require POS workers appear at every court proceeding while in other counties, the private sector is permitted to assume full court responsibility. POS workers review service plans, check on permanency progress, visit the child every three months, and enter all of the required information into the state database for all the children managed in the private sector. These data entry responsibilities constitute a substantial part of their workload.
Because full-time POS staff do not have direct case management responsibility, the caseload standard is higher, beginning at 55 children (a case is a child) and then scaling down to 45 children. In Michigan, it is possible that the same child could be counted on the caseload of a POS worker, a foster care worker, and an adoption worker if responsibility for foster care or
128

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
adoption (or both) rests with the private sector – and so that one child counts as three cases for the purposes of caseload counting.
While the standard in the Agreement addresses the caseload of a full-time POS worker, in the field, there are relatively few full-time POS staff. Instead, the POS responsibility is often shared among staff with direct foster care, adoption or other responsibilities. Consequently, most POS caseloads fall into the category of mixed caseloads described below.
For a brief period towards the end of Period One and the beginning of Period Two, DHS had changed its caseload collection form and excluded Adoption POS cases from the caseload counts. DHS reported they excluded those counts because of a concern that some offices might be double-counting POS responsibilities with the same case being listed as a POS foster care case and as an adoption POS case. However, there are some offices where those responsibilities are assigned separately. After discussion, DHS resumed counting adoption POS cases as part of the caseload, after issuing clear instructions that if there was really only one worker working on that case, it should count as only one POS case incorporating oversight for both foster care and adoption.
Licensing
In Period One, the monitoring team made DHS aware that the historical method DHS utilized to count licensing caseloads did not comport with the commitments in the Agreement and so would need to be revised. In assessing caseloads of licensing workers, DHS historically tracked the number of existing homes a licensing worker is responsible for maintaining, the number of potential homes a worker is responsible for licensing, and the number of alleged licensing violations, but only counted the first of those – already-existing homes – on the worker’s caseload.
Under the Agreement, licensing staff are those “responsible for conducting home studies, licensing inspections, annual evaluations and other activities related to the licensing or monitoring of foster homes or residential care facilities, whether employed by DHS or by a private provider.” That commitment plainly recognizes new licensing applications, supporting existing homes, and conducting complaint investigations as core licensing work. Therefore, in assessing licensing caseloads under the terms of the Agreement, the monitoring team suggested that DHS conduct a workload study to assess the relative weight of each of those responsibilities. DHS agreed to conduct that workload study as was reported in Period One and worked with the monitoring team to schedule reporting on the results of that study and then building the licensing methodology utilizing that information. Late in Period Two, after DHS had requested and received an extension to complete the workload study, DHS communicated to the monitoring team that it had decided not to conduct the workload study. Therefore, it becomes the monitoring team’s responsibility to determine the methodology for counting licensing caseloads in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
The monitoring team has concluded that licensing (relative and foster home) caseloads will be counted as follows: the norm is defined as two complaint investigations, 10 enrolled
129

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
applications for licensure, and 24 existing homes, which together account for the FY2010 total of 36 cases. Using that standard, it is possible to have variations in the distribution of those responsibilities and still achieve the caseload standard. For example, if a licensing worker had three complaints and as many as 12 pending applications then that worker could oversee only 12 existing homes and stay within the weighted caseload standard. If a staff person conducts licensing work part-time, the percent of time devoted to licensing work must be assessed in evaluating what percentage of a caseload that staff person should have. Furthermore, all staff, including BCAL staff who carry licensing caseloads, must be assessed to determine whether they achieve the licensing caseload standards. The monitoring team continues to be available to work with DHS in applying this methodology to assess licensing caseloads for Period Three.
Mixed Caseloads
In the Agreement, each type of caseload responsibility is dealt with individually, with a provision at the end of the caseload section providing a process to reach agreement for addressing the issue of mixed caseloads.
To begin, there are two broad categories of mixed caseloads. The first type of mixed caseload involves staff engaged in providing child welfare services only part-time who spend the rest of their time on other non-child welfare duties, such as adult services or cash assistance services. Even prior to signing the Agreement, DHS leadership report that they had begun to phase out this type of mixed caseload – and the directive to the field now requires keeping child welfare and non-child welfare responsibilities separated by staff, and private sector contracts require staff be devoted solely to child welfare services. A review of the caseload data suggests that while there is occasional co-mingling of adult and child welfare work responsibilities, it is rare. Consequently, the monitoring team’s task with respect to this issue is simply to verify that this directive is being followed in practice, which the team will do as part of its ongoing monitoring responsibilities.
The second type of mixed caseload involves staff assigned more than one type of child welfare responsibility. The monitoring team’s review of the caseload data confirms that mixed child welfare caseloads in the public and private sector are very common. Over the course of Period One, management in the public sector encouraged some specialization by type of work – in particular, separating child protective services work (investigations and ongoing) from foster care, adoption, licensing, and POS work. As a result, the monitoring team saw less mixed caseloads across those two broad categories over the course of Period One and into Period Two but mixed caseloads within each of those categories remain quite common. With regard to the private sector, there is some mixing of types of child welfare work – foster care and licensing or adoption and licensing are common examples.
Also common in the private sector – but rare in the public sector – are part-time and contract staff. For these staff, the limits of their caseloads are determined by the amount of time they work. If they work half time then they are capped at 50 percent of a full caseload for a full-time worker. Given the wide variation of work situations, each part-time or contract staff person is calibrated against what is called a full-time equivalent (FTE – a common human resources
130

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
term). A person who is full-time has an FTE of 1.0 and then anyone who works less than fulltime becomes a fraction of 1.0. So if the staff person works half-time, they work 0.5 FTE; one day per week, 0.2 FTE; four days a week, 0.8; and so on. FTEs play a critical role in determining caseload compliance as described below.
Both the public and private sectors have staff who are responsible part-time for one or more of the seven types of work identified in the Settlement Agreement and who also spend the rest of their time doing another form of children’s services work – juvenile justice, guardianship reviews (non-custodial), funding eligibility, immigration, or preventive services, to name a few examples. For purposes of the Settlement Agreement caseload standards, these staff are treated as if they were part-time. They are to be assigned an FTE for the relevant portion of their children’s services work. So, for example, a Title IV-E eligibility specialist who is assigned 50 percent of their time to do eligibility work and 50 percent of their time to licensing work is a 0.5 FTE for the purposes of determining caseload compliance.
DHS had collected FTE information from the private agencies prior to the Agreement but then stopped collecting that information when they began utilizing the standard caseload information form for the private agencies that they already utilized for the public agency. That form does not include a field for FTE – DHS will need to add that field for caseload counting purposes beginning in Period Three.
In addition to determining an FTE for each worker, each type of case – CPS investigations or ongoing, foster care or adoption direct, POS or licensing – is assigned a “weight.” Like 1.0 is an FTE, a full caseload of one type of case would also be 1.0. But because each type of case is different, the weight for each type of case is different – and the weights change over time because the definition of a full caseload changes over time. So, for example, a full caseload for foster care is 30 children at the start of the Agreement but then it drops to 25, 22, and so on, down to 15. For the purposes of measuring compliance with the first standard of 30 children, each foster care case is assigned a weight of 0.03 (1 divided by 30) but at the final target, each foster case will be assigned a weight of 0.067 (1 divided by 15). Adoption cases start at 25 children, so each adoption case is assigned a weight of 0.04 (1 divided by 25). POS cases are assigned a weight of 0.018 (1 divided by 55) and licensing cases will be assigned a weight of 0.028 (1 divided by 36). A full caseload adds up to 1.0 weight total.
So to count a caseload, you have to start first with the worker and assess that worker’s FTE.
Then you have to count all of the relevant cases on that worker’s caseload by weight. The weight has to be equal to or less than the worker’s FTE to be in compliance. So, for example, a full-time foster care worker (who does nothing else) has 25 cases. That person has a 1.0 FTE and a 1.0 weight – so that person meets the caseload standard. But if that person works halftime, she has a 0.5 FTE and if she has 25 cases, she has a weight of 1.0 – and because her weight is larger than her FTE, she is out of compliance. On the other hand, if she works halftime (0.5 FTE) and she has a caseload of 12 cases (0.04 x 12 = 0.48), her weight of 0.48 is less than her 0.5 FTE and so she is in compliance.
131

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM
To summarize: 1) FTE: determine how much time that person works doing one of the child welfare services listed in the Agreement. If they are full-time, they have an FTE of 1.0 and if they are part-time, contract, or spend only part of their time on one of those services, they have an FTE that is less and is determined by what portion of their time is spent doing the relevant children’s services work. 2) Weight: multiply each type of case on their caseload by the assigned weight. 3) Compare: if the weight is equal to or less than the FTE, that person counts as being in compliance. But if the weight is more than the FTE, that person is out of compliance.
Counting compliance with each of the standards in the Agreement involves looking at the compliance rates for all workers who do that type of work, whether they do that full-time or part-time, and then seeing what percentage of that total number of workers doing that type of work have caseloads that meet the standard. When a worker carries more than one type of case, they count towards compliance for every type of case they carry. So if a worker has both CPS investigations and CPS ongoing cases and her caseload weight adds up to 1.0 or less, she counts as a staff person with a caseload meeting both standards. However, if she carries the same type of mixed caseload, but has a caseload weight that is 1.1 or higher, she counts against meeting both standards. Therefore, when the monitoring team reports on compliance, they are reporting on all staff doing that type of work, whether they are doing it full or part-time. Because DHS cannot currently generate its caseload counts via its SWSS system and relies instead on hand-counts, DHS needs to create an alternate process that allows comparison between the number of cases reported on the caseload reports and the number of open cases in that office by type of case. The monitoring team has discussed with DHS the need to conduct such an analysis but deferred it to Period Three because of data capacity concerns. Recent concerns by DHS about the possibility of some double-counting underline the utility and necessity of such a comparative analysis. The monitoring team will re-engage in a discussion with DHS in this area during Period Three and report resolution in upcoming periods.
132

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM Appendix B – Complaints, Investigations and Substantiations by County
(January 2009 through September 2009)

County
Alcona Alger Allegan Alpena Antrim Arenac Baraga Barry Bay Benzie Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Charlevoix Cheboygan Chippewa Clare Clinton Crawford Delta Dickinson Eaton Emmet Genesee Gladwin Gogebic Grand traverse Gratiot Hillsdale Houghton Huron

CPS Complaints

CPS Investigations

Percentage of Complaints Resulting In
Investigations

Substantiations

Percentage of Complaints Resulting in
Substantiations

98

59

60%

14

24%

86

44

51%

10

23%

1,205

536

44%

195

36%

406

181

45%

47

26%

405

192

47%

42

22%

249

156

63%

46

29%

86

62

72%

18

29%

601

448

75%

135

30%

1,247

840

67%

124

15%

146

75

51%

24

32%

1,863

1,049

56%

376

36%

604

438

73%

187

43%

2,117

949

45%

231

24%

535

326

61%

79

24%

325

193

59%

38

20%

451

332

74%

111

33%

566

202

36%

42

21%

427

160

37%

54

34%

437

271

62%

95

35%

243

156

64%

49

31%

433

245

57%

27

11%

301

157

52%

45

29%

1,157

799

69%

271

34%

446

250

56%

38

15%

5,419

4,107

76%

1,123

27%

231

110

48%

22

20%

208

90

43%

21

23%

1,145

602

53%

104

17%

550

245

45%

74

30%

674

561

83%

139

25%

156

117

75%

28

24%

248

118

48%

20

17%

133

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

County
Ingham Ionia Iosco Iron Isabella Jackson Kalamazoo Kalkaska Kent Keweenaw Lake Lapeer Leelanau Lenawee Livingston Luce Mackinac Macomb Manistee Marquette Mason Mecosta Menominee Midland Missaukee Monroe Montcalm Montmorency Muskegon Newaygo Oakland Oceana Ogemaw Ontonagon Osceola Oscoda Otsego

CPS Complaints

CPS Investigations

Percentage of Complaints Resulting In
Investigations

Substantiations

Percentage of Complaints Resulting in
Substantiations

3,263

1,821

56%

659

36%

1,143

505

44%

134

27%

300

203

68%

59

29%

153

111

73%

34

31%

772

374

48%

91

24%

1,830

1,121

61%

297

26%

3,515

1,913

54%

711

37%

342

225

66%

36

16%

5,900

3,200

54%

1,147

36%

4

3

75%

1

33%

209

125

60%

23

18%

769

447

58%

111

25%

26

13

50%

1

8%

1,000

498

50%

149

30%

1,030

685

67%

156

23%

131

47

36%

13

28%

101

66

65%

12

18%

4,923

3,375

69%

807

24%

256

152

59%

44

29%

569

267

47%

81

30%

408

283

69%

45

16%

554

247

45%

53

21%

267

133

50%

29

22%

848

323

38%

92

28%

20

17

85%

6

35%

1,196

507

42%

139

27%

858

396

46%

105

27%

85

57

67%

12

21%

2,146

1,190

55%

359

30%

834

472

57%

120

25%

5,864

3,258

56%

1,017

31%

343

214

62%

56

26%

330

153

46%

48

31%

66

28

42%

11

39%

355

174

49%

30

17%

78

54

69%

7

13%

462

277

60%

89

32%

134

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

County
Ottawa Presque isle Roscommon Saginaw Sanilac Schoolcraft Shiawassee St Clair St Joseph Tuscola Van burin Washtenaw Wayne Wexford Grand Total

CPS Complaints

CPS Investigations

Percentage of Complaints Resulting In
Investigations

Substantiations

Percentage of Complaints Resulting in
Substantiations

1,861

806

43%

144

18%

101

47

47%

10

21%

476

271

57%

53

20%

2,157

1,834

85%

523

29%

492

341

69%

50

15%

107

57

53%

15

26%

948

601

63%

189

31%

2,242

1,330

59%

216

16%

1,078

649

60%

153

24%

663

299

45%

90

30%

1,012

556

55%

152

27%

1,856

1,047

56%

265

25%

11,524

9,869

86%

2,726

28%

677

412

61%

111

27%

89,209

55,123

62%

15,310

28%

135

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM Appendix C – Ages of Children in Custody by County (September 2009)

County
Alcona Alger Allegan Alpena Antrim Arenac Baraga Barry Bay Benzie Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Charlevoix Cheboygan Chippewa Clare Clinton Crawford Delta Dickinson Eaton Emmet Genesee Gladwin Gogebic Grand Traverse Gratiot Hillsdale Houghton

Ages 0-6

Children

% of Total

3

50%

7

64%

63

40%

14

37%

7

28%

21

66%

19

58%

25

46%

31

44%

5

42%

182 49%

50

50%

123 50%

42

43%

20

43%

39

51%

24

56%

10

36%

69

51%

22

37%

6

43%

25

52%

83

63%

13

43%

532 43%

4

40%

15

54%

Ages 7-11

Ages 12-17

Ages % of Ages % of 7-11 Total 12-17 Total

1 17% 2 33%

2 18% 2 18%

44 28% 42 27%

10 26% 11 29%

6 24% 11 44%

7 22% 4 13%

9 27% 5 15%

17 31% 11 20%

17 24% 19 27%

2 17% 5 42%

87 23% 89 24%

30 30% 18 18%

48 20% 63 26%

19 19% 34 35%

13 28% 11 24%

14 18% 22 29%

14 33% 4

9%

1

4% 10 36%

29 22% 29 22%

19 32% 15 25%

4 29% 3 21%

8 17% 12 25%

21 16% 21 16%

5 17% 11 37%

236 19% 375 30%

3 30% 3 30%

5 18% 7 25%

Ages 18 and older

Ages 18 and older 0 0 8 3 1 0 0 1 3 0 15 2 12 3 2 1 1 7 7 4 1 3 6 1 99 0 1

% of Total
0% 0% 5% 8% 4% 0% 0% 2% 4% 0% 4% 2% 5% 3% 4% 1% 2% 25% 5% 7% 7% 6% 5% 3% 8% 0% 4%

Total
6 11 157 38 25 32 33 54 70 12 373 100 246 98 46 76 43 28 134 60 14 48 131 30 1,242 10 28

58

49% 30 25% 26 22% 4

3% 118

32

54% 11 19% 12 20% 4

7%

59

49

64% 13 17% 11 14% 4

5%

77

6

46%

2 15% 5 38% 0

0%

13

136

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

County
Huron Ingham Ionia Iosco Iron Isabella Jackson Kalamazoo Kalkaska Kent Keweenaw Lake Lapeer Leelanau Lenawee Livingston Luce Mackinac Macomb Manistee Marquette Mason Mecosta Menominee Midland Missaukee Monroe Montcalm Montmorency Muskegon Newaygo Oakland Oceana Ogemaw Ontonagon

Ages 0-6

Children

% of Total

4

21%

268 42%

52

62%

23

56%

7

58%

46

57%

110 45%

198 49%

14

37%

379 42%

0

0%

7

26%

18

41%

9

33%

74

47%

38

49%

8

80%

9

56%

530 45%

12

80%

29

44%

14

47%

31

54%

12

46%

45

47%

8

53%

54

38%

34

47%

0

0%

192 45%

24

34%

439 39%

10

45%

11

48%

2

100%

Ages 7-11

Ages % of 7-11 Total

4 21%

113 18%

8 10%

5 12%

0%

19 23%

47 19%

74 18%

8 21%

156 17%

1 33%

10 37%

10 23%

7 26%

47 30%

14 18%

0

0%

6 38%

216 18%

1

7%

16 24%

6 20%

16 28%

10 38%

18 19%

3 20%

34 24%

15 21%

1 14%

108 25%

15 21%

238 21%

5 23%

4 17%

0

0%

Ages 12-17

Ages % of 12-17 Total

9 47%

193 30%

18 21%

9 22%

5 42%

12 15%

78 32%

105 26%

14 37%

268 30%

2 67%

9 33%

15 34%

10 37%

32 20%

23 29%

0

0%

1

6%

358 31%

2 13%

19 29%

10 33%

10 18%

4 15%

25 26%

4 27%

37 26%

20 28%

6 86%

107 25%

25 36%

352 31%

5 23%

7 30%

0

0%

Ages 18 and older

Ages 18 and older 2 64 6 4 0 4 10 26 2 89 0 1 1 1 6 3 2 0 65 0 2 0 0 0 7 0 16 3 0 21 6 92 2 1 0

% of Total
11% 10% 7% 10% 0% 5% 4% 6% 5% 10% 0% 4% 2% 4% 4% 4% 20% 0% 6% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 11% 4% 0% 5% 9% 8% 9% 4% 0%

Total
19 638 84 41 12 81 245 403 38 892
3 27 44 27 159 78 10 16 1,169 15 66 30 57 26 95 15 141 72 7 428 70 1,121 22 23 2

137

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

County
Osceola Oscoda Otsego Ottawa Presque Isle Roscommon Saginaw Sanilac Schoolcraft Shiawassee St Clair St Joseph Tuscola Van Buren Washtenaw Wayne Wexford Grand Total

Ages 0-6

Children

% of Total

13

41%

1

20%

24

56%

56

45%

8

57%

25

56%

130 43%

12

35%

0

0%

44

51%

159 52%

108 51%

37

48%

59

44%

91

43%

1,847 37%

28

62%

6,952 43%

Ages 7-11

Ages % of 7-11 Total

7 0 12 16 3 7 50 3 4 13 60 48 13 35 47 914 12 3,206

22% 0% 28% 13% 21% 16% 17% 9% 100% 15% 20% 23% 17% 26% 22% 18% 27% 20%

Ages 12-17

Ages % of 12-17 Total

10 31%

4 80%

7 16%

41 33%

3 21%

11 24%

95 32%

17 50%

0

0%

25 29%

74 24%

48 23%

24 31%

32 24%

54 25%

1,670 34%

4

9%

4,806 30%

Ages 18 and older

Ages 18 and older 2 0 0 12 0 2 24 2 0 5 12 7 3 8 21 532 1 1,260

% of Total
6% 0% 0% 10% 0% 4% 8% 6% 0% 6% 4% 3% 4% 6% 10% 11% 2% 8%

Total
32 5 43 125 14 45 299 34 4 87 305 211 77 134 213 4,963 45 16,224

138

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM Appendix D – Length of Stay by County (September 2009)

Less

More

County

than 1

%

1-2 years

%

2-3 years

%

3-6 years

%

than 6

%

Grand Total

year

years

Alcona

0%

2 33% 3 50% 0 0% 1 17%

6

Alger

9 82%

0% 2 18% 0 0% 0 0% 11

Allegan

74 47% 44 28% 24 15% 13 8% 2 1% 157

Alpena

15 39% 7 18% 9 24% 4 11% 3 8% 38

Antrim

9 36% 7 28% 1 4% 7 28% 1 4% 25

Arenac

16 50% 10 31% 5 16% 1 3% 0 0% 32

Baraga

10 30% 19 58% 1 3% 2 6% 1 3% 33

Barry

36 67% 16 30% 2 4% 0 0% 0 0% 54

Bay

23 33% 19 27% 19 27% 8 11% 1 1% 70

Benzie

6 50% 5 42% 1 8% 0 0% 0 0% 12

Berrien

139 37% 93 25% 80 21% 46 12% 15 4% 373

Branch

34 34% 41 41% 12 12% 13 13% 0 0% 100

Calhoun

75 30% 79 32% 55 22% 27 11% 8 3% 246

Cass

41 42% 21 21% 14 14% 14 14% 8 8% 98

Charlevoix

22 48% 14 30% 5 11% 3 7% 2 4% 46

Cheboygan

30 39% 36 47% 8 11% 2 3% 0 0% 76

Chippewa

27 63% 7 16% 9 21% 0 0% 0 0% 43

Clare

9 32% 7 25% 2 7% 8 29% 2 7% 28

Clinton

43 32% 40 30% 29 22% 22 16% 0 0% 134

Crawford

20 33% 22 37% 10 17% 7 12% 1 2% 60

Delta

4 29% 7 50%

0% 2 14% 1 7% 14

Dickinson

19 40% 11 23% 15 31% 1 2% 2 4% 48

Eaton

67 51% 41 31% 12 9% 11 8% 0 0% 131

Emmet

15 50% 10 33% 3 10% 2 7% 0 0% 30

Genesee

320 26% 338 27% 220 18% 240 19% 124 10% 1242

Gladwin

2 20% 6 60%

0% 2 20% 0 0% 10

Gogebic

10 36% 3 11% 10 36% 2 7% 3 11% 28

Grand Traverse 54 46% 47 40% 12 10% 4 3% 1 1% 118

Gratiot

22 37% 21 36% 4 7% 7 12% 5 8% 59

Hillsdale

22 29% 15 19% 17 22% 18 23% 5 6% 77

Houghton

9 69% 1 8%

0% 1 8% 2 15% 13

Huron

6 32% 7 37% 2 11% 2 11% 2 11% 19

Ingham

221 35% 212 33% 68 11% 101 16% 36 6% 638

Ionia

41 49% 24 29% 7 8% 7 8% 5 6% 84

Iosco

24 59% 3 7% 10 24% 4 10% 0 0% 41

Iron

3 25% 4 33%

0% 5 42% 0 0% 12

Isabella

42 52% 23 28% 8 10% 6 7% 2 2% 81

Jackson

71 29% 65 27% 45 18% 46 19% 18 7% 245

139

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

County
Kalamazoo Kalkaska Kent Keweenaw Lake Lapeer Leelanau Lenawee Livingston Luce Mackinac Macomb Manistee Marquette Mason Mecosta Menominee Midland Missaukee Monroe Montcalm Montmorency Muskegon Newaygo Oakland Oceana Ogemaw Ontonagon Osceola Oscoda Otsego Ottawa Presque Isle Roscommon Saginaw Sanilac Schoolcraft Shiawassee St Clair St Joseph Tuscola Van Buren

Less

More

than 1

%

1-2 years

%

2-3 years

%

3-6 years

%

than 6

%

year

years

177 44% 109 27% 49 12% 43 11% 25 6%

16 42% 14 37% 3 8% 5 13% 0 0%

278 31% 315 35% 144 16% 121 14% 34 4%

0% 3 100%

0% 0 0% 0 0%

14 52% 6 22%

0% 4 15% 3 11%

28 64% 11 25% 2 5% 3 7% 0 0%

1 4% 12 44% 7 26% 6 22% 1 4%

53 33% 57 36% 17 11% 30 19% 2 1%

33 42% 29 37% 9 12% 7 9% 0 0%

5 50% 1 10% 2 20% 1 10% 1 10%

6 38% 9 56% 1 6% 0 0% 0 0%

416 36% 412 35% 163 14% 130 11% 44 4%

7 47% 6 40% 2 13% 0 0% 0 0%

32 48% 16 24% 7 11% 8 12% 3 5%

7 23% 7 23% 3 10% 13 43% 0 0%

15 26% 23 40% 13 23% 5 9% 1 2%

10 38% 7 27% 1 4% 3 12% 4 15%

26 27% 36 38% 7 7% 20 21% 6 6%

13 87% 1 7% 1 7% 0 0% 0 0%

48 34% 45 32% 17 12% 25 18% 6 4%

37 51% 20 28% 6 8% 7 10% 1 1%

6 86% 1 14%

0% 0 0% 0 0%

168 39% 157 37% 41 10% 46 11% 16 4%

24 34% 21 30% 4 6% 17 24% 4 6%

276 25% 417 37% 164 15% 197 18% 67 6%

14 64% 6 27% 2 9% 0 0% 0 0%

11 48% 4 17% 2 9% 4 17% 2 9%

2 100%

0%

0% 0 0% 0 0%

22 69% 4 13% 6 19% 0 0% 0 0%

1 20% 3 60% 1 20% 0 0% 0 0%

25 58% 10 23% 5 12% 3 7% 0 0%

50 40% 39 31% 15 12% 17 14% 4 3%

0% 10 71% 4 29% 0 0% 0 0%

22 49% 14 31% 4 9% 2 4% 3 7%

139 46% 78 26% 8 3% 53 18% 21 7%

9 26% 9 26% 8 24% 7 21% 1 3%

0% 1 25%

0% 3 75% 0 0%

33 38% 22 25% 18 21% 9 10% 5 6%

151 50% 76 25% 45 15% 26 9% 5 2%

76 36% 93 44% 30 14% 8 4% 4 2%

31 40% 25 32% 8 10% 10 13% 3 4%

51 38% 43 32% 21 16% 16 12% 3 2%

Grand Total
403 38 892 3 27 44 27 159 78 10 16 1169 15 66 30 57 26 95 15 141 72 7 428 70 1121 22 23 2 32 5 43 125 14 45 299 34 4 87 305 211 77 134

140

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

County
Washtenaw Wayne Wexford Grand Total

Less

More

than 1

%

1-2 years

%

2-3 years

%

3-6 years

%

than 6

%

Grand Total

year

years

64 30% 63 30% 29 14% 42 20% 14 7% 213

1233 25% 1249 25% 774 16% 977 20% 727 15% 4963

29 64% 11 24% 1 2% 2 4% 2 4% 45

5249 32% 4822 30% 2368 15% 2508 15% 1263 8% 16,210*

*Note: Data for length of stay not provided for 14 children.

141

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Appendix E – Child Protective Services Caseloads

DHS Caseload Reporting August 2009
Alcona-Iosco (1 wkr also handles adult cases) Alger Allegan Alpena-Preque Isle Antrim Arenac Baraga-Houghton-Keweenaw Barry Bay Benzie-Manistee Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Charlevoix-Emmet Cheboygan-Mackinac Chippewa Clare Clinton Crawford Delta Dickinson Eaton Genesee Gladwin Gogebic Grand Traverse-Leelanau Gratiot Hillsdale (1 wkr temp also covering adult ps) Huron Ingham Ionia Iron (1 wkr split with Dickinson, ctd in Dickinson) Isabella

Child Protective Services Investigations
1 staff person has a caseload of no more than
16 investigations Staff #1:16 %1:16

5

4

80%

1

1

100%

8

4

50%

4

0

0%

4

4

100%

3

3

100%

4

3

75%

5

5

100%

8

6

75%

4

4

100%

12

7

58%

7

6

86%

15

9

60%

5

3

60%

6

2

33%

6

2

33%

4

4

100%

3

3

100%

6

1

17%

4

3

75%

3

3

100%

6

4

67%

13

11

85%

49

14

29%

3

3

100%

4

4

100%

6

3

50%

4

0

0%

6

6

100%

2

2

100%

20

13

65%

5

5

100%

2

1

50%

6

4

67%

Child Protective Services – Ongoing
1 staff person has a caseload of no more than
30 families Staff #1:30 %1:30

7

6

86%

1

1

100%

10

6

60%

3

0

0%

5

5

100%

3

3

100%

3

2

67%

7

7

100%

6

4

67%

4

4

100%

12

8

67%

8

7

88%

12

6

50%

4

2

50%

6

2

33%

6

2

33%

4

4

100%

3

3

100%

6

1

17%

5

4

80%

3

3

100%

5

5

100%

15

13

87%

51

17

33%

2

2

100%

4

4

100%

6

3

50%

4

0

0%

8

8

100%

2

2

100%

21

14

67%

4

4

100%

3

2

67%

6

4

67%

142

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

DHS Caseload Reporting August 2009
Jackson Kalamazoo (1 vacant & one FMLA, both with cases) Kalkaska Kent Lake Lapeer Lenawee (1 wkr on FMLA w/ cases) Livingston Luce (covered by worker in Chippewa) Macomb Marquette Mason Mecosta-Osceola Menominee Midland (1 worker on leave w/ open cases) Monroe Montcalm (2 workers unavailable w/ open cases) Montmorency-Oscoda Muskegon Newaygo Oakland Oceana Ogemaw Ontonagon Otsego Ottawa Roscommon Saginaw (2 workers on leave w/ open cases) Sanilac (1 wkr with some adult ps) Schoolcraft Shiawassee St. Clair (1 vacancy w/open

Child Protective Services -

Investigations

1 staff person has a

caseload of no more than

16 investigations

Staff #1:16 %1:16

17

17

100%

17

1

6%

3

3

100%

40

27

68%

2

1

50%

6

4

67%

7

2

29%

7

6

86%

0

0

NA

36

31

86%

4

1

25%

4

3

75%

6

5

83%

3

2

67%

5

3

60%

8

6

75%

4

0

0%

3

3

100%

19

9

47%

7

4

57%

47

27

57%

4

3

75%

4

2

50%

1

1

100%

5

4

80%

13

8

62%

6

2

33%

20

5

25%

5

5

2

2

7

7

14

9

100% 100% 100% 64%

Child Protective Services –

Ongoing

1 staff person has a

caseload of no more than

30 families

Staff #1:30 %1:30

12

12

100%

20

3

15%

3

3

100%

47

33

70%

2

1

50%

6

4

67%

9

4

44%

7

6

86%

1

1

100%

36

31

86%

4

1

25%

4

3

75%

7

6

86%

3

3

100%

6

3

50%

7

6

86%

5

1

20%

3

3

100%

20

10

50%

6

3

50%

46

26

57%

4

3

75%

4

2

50%

1

1

100%

5

4

80%

12

8

67%

6

2

33%

31

15

48%

5

5

100%

3

3

100%

8

8

100%

13

10

77%

143

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

DHS Caseload Reporting August 2009
cases) St. Joseph Tuscola Van Buren Washtenaw Wayne - Ctrl Ops Wayne - N Ctrl Wayne - S Ctrl Wayne - WW Wexford-Missaukee Grand Total

Child Protective Services Investigations
1 staff person has a caseload of no more than
16 investigations Staff #1:16 %1:16

Child Protective Services – Ongoing
1 staff person has a caseload of no more than
30 families Staff #1:30 %1:30

7

2

29%

9

4

44%

5

2

40%

5

2

40%

9

4

44%

9

4

44%

16

13

81%

16

13

81%

0

0

NA

0

0

NA

46

31

67%

45

31

69%

43

27

63%

40

24

60%

51

22

43%

49

23

47%

6

1

17%

6

1

17%

752 452

60%

774

484

63%

144

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Appendix F – Foster Care & Adoption Caseloads (August 2009)

DHS Caseload Reporting
August-09
Alcona-Iosco
Alger Allegan (adoption staff on leave w/cases assigned) Alpena-Preque Isle
Antrim Arenac BaragaHoughtonKeweenaw
Barry
Bay BenzieManistee
Berrien
Branch
Calhoun
Cass CharlevoixEmmet
CheboyganMackinac
Chippewa Clare
Clinton
Crawford
Delta
Dickinson
Eaton Genesee

Foster Care

1 staff person has a caseload of

25 or 30 children

Staff #1:30 %1:30 #1:25 %1:25

3

3 100% 3 100%

1

1 100% 1 100%

Staff 0 0

Adoption

1 staff has a caseload of

25 or 30 children

#1:30 %1:30 #1:25 %1:25

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

7

3

43%

1

14% 0

0

NA

0

NA

4

3

75%

2

50% 0

0

NA

0

NA

3

3 100% 3 100% 0

0

NA

0

NA

3

2

67%

2

67% 0

0

NA

0

NA

2

2 100% 2 100% 0

3

3 100% 3 100% 1

5

5 100% 5 100% 1

2

2 100% 2 100% 0

21 18 86% 18 86% 2

4

4 100% 4 100% 0

15 15 100% 15 100% 2

5

5 100% 4

80% 1

4

4 100% 3

75% 0

4

4 100% 4 100% 0

2

2 100% 2 100% 0

2

2 100% 2 100% 0

8

8 100% 8 100% 1

3

3 100% 3 100% 0

2

2 100% 2 100% 0

6

6 100% 6 100% 0

8

8 100% 8 100% 1

51 51 100% 49 96% 8

0

NA

0

NA

1 100% 1 100%

0

0%

0

0%

0

NA

0

NA

0

0%

0

0%

0

NA

0

NA

0

0%

0

0%

1 100% 1 100%

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

1 100% 1 100%

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

1 100% 1 100%

4

50%

4

50%

145

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

DHS Caseload Reporting
August-09 Gladwin Gogebic Grand TraverseLeelanau Gratiot Hillsdale Huron Ingham Ionia Iron Isabella Jackson Kalamazoo Kalkaska Kent Lake Lapeer Lenawee Livingston Luce Macomb Marquette Mason MecostaOsceola Menominee Midland Monroe Montcalm
MontmorencyOscoda Muskegon Newaygo

Foster Care

1 staff person has a caseload of

25 or 30 children

Staff #1:30 %1:30 #1:25 %1:25

1

1 100% 1 100%

4

4 100% 4 100%

6

6 100% 5

83%

3

3 100% 3 100%

5

5 100% 5 100%

1

1 100% 1 100%

23 23 100% 16 70%

4

3

75%

3

75%

1

1 100% 1 100%

7

7 100% 7 100%

9

9 100% 9 100%

14 14 100% 9

64%

3

3 100% 3 100%

11 11 100% 8

73%

2

2 100% 2 100%

3

3 100% 3 100%

9

9 100% 9 100%

6

6 100% 6 100%

1

1 100% 1 100%

50 50 100% 49 98%

3

3 100% 2

67%

2

2 100% 2 100%

6

6 100% 5

83%

1

1 100% 1 100%

7

6

86%

6

86%

8

8 100% 8 100%

2

2 100% 1

50%

1

1 100% 1 100%

14 14 100% 13 93%

4

4 100% 2

50%

Adoption

1 staff has a caseload of

25 or 30 children

Staff #1:30 %1:30 #1:25 %1:25

0

0

NA

0

NA

0

0

NA

0

NA

3

0

0%

0

0%

0

0

NA

0

NA

1

0

0%

0

0%

0

0

NA

0

NA

2

0

0%

0

0%

0

0

NA

0

NA

0

0

NA

0

NA

0

0

NA

0

NA

1

1 100% 0 100%

1

1 100% 0 100%

0

0

NA

0

NA

0

0

NA

0

NA

0

0

NA

0

NA

0

0

NA

0

NA

0

0

NA

0

NA

0

0

NA

0

NA

0

0

NA

0

NA

3

3 100% 3 100%

0

0

NA

0

NA

0

0

NA

0

NA

1

0

0%

0

0%

0

0

NA

0

NA

1

0

0%

0

0%

1

1 100% 1 100%

1

0

0%

0

0%

0

0

NA

0

NA

1

0

0%

0

0%

0

0

NA

0

NA

146

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

DHS Caseload Reporting
August-09 Oakland Oceana Ogemaw Ontonagon Otsego Ottawa Roscommon Saginaw Sanilac Schoolcraft Shiawassee St. Clair St. Joseph Tuscola Van Buren Washtenaw Wayne - Ctrl Ops Wayne - N Ctrl Wayne - S Ctrl Wayne - WW
WexfordMissaukee Grand Total

Foster Care

1 staff person has a caseload of

25 or 30 children

Staff #1:30 %1:30 #1:25 %1:25

50 50 100% 50 100%

1

1 100% 1 100%

3

3 100% 3 100%

1

1 100% 1 100%

2

2 100% 1

50%

6

4

67%

4

67%

2

2 100% 2 100%

21 21 100% 21 100%

3

3 100% 3 100%

0

0

NA

0

NA

6

6 100% 6 100%

11

9

82%

3

27%

10 10 100% 10 100%

7

7 100% 7 100%

5

5 100% 5 100%

10

9

90%

9

90%

Staff 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1

Adoption

1 staff has a caseload of

25 or 30 children

#1:30 %1:30 #1:25 %1:25

3 100% 3 100%

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

1 100% 0

0%

0

NA

0

NA

5 100% 5 100%

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

0%

0

0%

2 100% 2 100%

1 100% 1 100%

0

NA

0

NA

0

0%

0

0%

1

1 100% 1 100% 6

77 77 100% 68 88% 0

60 60 100% 53 88% 0

62 53 85% 47 76% 0

5

83%

5

83%

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

4

4 100% 4 100% 0

0

NA

0

NA

721 696 97% 637 88% 53 31 58% 28 53%

147

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Private Agency Caseload Reporting Aug-09
Adoption Option Inc. Adoption Options Worldwide, Inc.
Adoption Specialists Alternatives for Children and Families, Inc. Bethany Christian Services Black Family Development Catholic Charities Genesee & Shiawasee Counties/CSS of Flint Catholic Charities Lenawee County Catholic Charities of the UP/Catholic SS of Marquette Catholic Charities West Michigan/CSS of Grand Rapids Catholic Family Services Saginaw
Catholic Social Services Oakland/St. Francis Family Center Catholic Social Services of Washtenaw County Catholic Social Services Wayne County Child & Family Services of NE Michigan Child & Family Services of NW Michigan Child and Family Services Capital Area Child and Family Services Upper Peninsula
Childhelp

Foster Care 1 staff person has a caseload of
25 or 30 children
Staff #1:30 %1:30 #1:25 %1:25
1 1 100% 1 100% 0 0 NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 NA 14 11 79% 10 71% 56 55 98% 53 95% 1 1 100% 1 100%
NP NP NP NP NP 2 2 100% 2 100%
0 0 NA 0 NA
21 21 100% 21 100% NP NP NP NP NP
6 6 100% 5 83% 0 0 NA 0 NA 7 7 100% 7 100% 0 0 NA 0 NA 16 16 100% 16 100% 7 7 100% 7 100% 5 5 100% 5 100% 4 4 100% 4 100%

Adoption 1 staff has a caseload of
25 or 30 children
Staff #1:30 %1:30 #1:25 %1:25
6 6 100% 6 100% 4 4 100% 4 100% 3 3 100% 3 100% 6 6 100% 6 100% 25 23 92% 19 92% 0 0 NA 0 NA
NP NP NP NP NP 2 2 100% 2 100%
0 0 NA 0 NA
11 11 100% 11 100% NP NP NP NP NP
6 6 100% 5 100% 1 1 100% 1 100% 3 3 100% 3 100% 5 5 100% 5 100% 7 7 100% 7 100% 4 4 100% 4 100% 3 3 100% 3 100% 0 0 NA 0 NA

148

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Private Agency Caseload Reporting Aug-09
Children's Center of Wayne County DA Blodgett for Children Don Bosco Hall Eagle Village, Inc. Ennis Center for Children Evergreen Children's Services Family Adoption Consultants Family and Children Services Family Counseling/Children's Services Lenawee County Family Service and Children's Aid of Jackson Federation of Youth Services Forever Families, Inc. Girlstown Foundation Hands Across the Water Holy Cross Children's Services Homes for Black Children Judson Center Listening Ear/Crisis Center Lutheran Adoption Services Lutheran Child/Family Service of MI Lutheran Social Services of Michigan Lutheran SS of Wisconsin & UP
Methodist Children's Home Society
MI Indian Child Welfare Agency

Foster Care 1 staff person has a caseload of
25 or 30 children
Staff #1:30 %1:30 #1:25 %1:25
16 16 100% 16 100% 29 29 100% 29 100% 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 2 100% 2 100% 21 21 100% 21 100%
8 8 100% 7 88%
1 1 100% 1 100%
8 8 100% 8 100%
3 3 100% 3 100%
4 3 75% 3 75%
4 4 100% 4 100% 0 0 NA 0 NA 3 3 100% 3 100% 1 1 100% 1 100%
17 17 100% 17 100% 5 5 100% 5 100% 11 11 100% 11 100%
4 4 100% 4 100%
0 0 NA 0 NA
25 25 100% 24 96%
47 47 100% 45 96%
NA NA NA NA NA
4 4 100% 4 100%
5 5 100% 5 100%

Adoption 1 staff has a caseload of
25 or 30 children
Staff #1:30 %1:30 #1:25 %1:25
5 5 100% 5 100% 14 14 100% 14 100% 0 0 NA 0 NA 3 3 100% 3 100% 10 10 100% 7 100%
4 4 100% 4 100%
0 0 NA 0 NA
5 5 100% 5 100%
3 3 100% 3 100%
4 3 75% 3 75%
0 0 NA 0 NA 2 2 100% 2 100% 0 0 NA 0 NA 4 4 100% 4 100%
0 0 NA 0 NA 3 3 100% 3 100% 5 5 100% 5 100%
0 0 NA 0 NA
20 19 95% 17 95%
0 0 NA 0 NA
0 0 NA 0 NA
NA NA NA NA NA
3 3 100% 2 100%
1 1 100% 1 100%

149

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Foster Care

Adoption

Private Agency Caseload 1 staff person has a caseload of

1 staff has a caseload of

Reporting

25 or 30 children

25 or 30 children

Aug-09

Staff #1:30 %1:30 #1:25 %1:25 Staff #1:30 %1:30 #1:25 %1:25

New Light Child and

Family Institute

2 2 100% 2 100% 0 0 NA 0 NA

Oakland Family Services 4 4 100% 3 75% 6 6 100% 6 100%

Orchards Children's

Services

21 21 100% 21 100% 11 11 100% 11 100%

Pathways MI

6 5 83% 5 83% 2 1 50% 1 50%

Sault Tribe of Binogii

Placing Agency

4 4 100% 4 100% 3 2 67% 2 67%

Spaulding for Children

7 7 100% 7 100% 3 3 100% 3 100%

Spectrum Child and

Family Services

8 8 100% 7 88% 5 5 100% 5 100%

St. Vincent Catholic

Charities

4 4 100% 4 100% 5 5 100% 5 100%

Starfish Family Services 2 2 100% 2 100% 0 0 NA 0 NA

Starr Commonwealth

12 12 100% 10 83% 0 0 NA 0 NA

Teaching Family Homes 2 2 100% 2 100% 1 1 100% 1 100%

Vista Maria

5 5 100% 3 60% 0 0 NA 0 NA

Wayne Center

2 2 100% 2 100% 0 0 NA 0 NA

Wedgewood CS

0 0 NA 0 NA 0 0 NA 0 NA

Wolverine Human

Services

9 9 100% 9 100% 0 0 NA 0 NA

Youth Guidance Foster

Care

2 2 100% 2 100% 2 1 50% 1 50%

TOTAL

450 444 99% 430 96% 210 203 97% 192 91%

NA = Not applicable (does not provide this service); NP = Data not provided. For August 2009, DHS

reported that Child and Family Services for Southwest Michigan's contract has been closed and that the

Adoption Program at Christ Child House had no cases. DHS provided summary data for Lutheran Social

Services of Wisconsin and Upper Michigan indicating that the agency had only one worker who

performed licensing functions.

150

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Appendix G – Relative & Foster Homes Licensed by County (FY09)

County Alcona Allegan Alpena Antrim Arenac Baraga Barry Bay Benzie Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Charlevoix Cheboygan Chippewa Clare Clinton Crawford Delta Dickinson Eaton Emmet Genesee Gladwin Gogebic Grand Traverse Gratiot Hillsdale Houghton Huron Ingham Ionia Iosco Iron Isabella Jackson Kalamazoo Kalkaska

Relative 1 22 1 10 3 5 9 6 2 9 10 12 5 8 11 2 3 10 3 2 1 16 7 47 3 2 18 2 9 1 0 34 3 1 1 2 14 31 4

Foster 0 20 4 9 3 2 11 12 4 15 3 25 1 6 3 2 4 10 4 1 2 16 7 68 0 0 23 5 7 8 2 29 3 2 2 7 17 43 6

County Lake Lapeer Leelanau Lenawee Livingston Luce Mackinac Macomb Manistee Marquette Mason Mecosta Menominee Midland Missaukee Monroe Montcalm Montmorency Muskegon Newaygo Oakland Oceana Ogemaw Ontonagon Osceola Oscoda Otsego Ottawa Presque Isle Roscommon Saginaw St. Clair St. Joe Shiawassee Tuscola Van Buren Washtenaw Wayne Wexford

Relative 1 3 3 12 9 1 0 79 3 10 1 2 0 9 1 2 6 1 34 1 63 7 1 2 0 2 4 17 3 8 32 10 7 7 6 13 16 108 2

Foster 5 2 4 20 12 0 2 78 1 5 3 11 1 15 5 8 10 0 29 2 78 5 6 2 7 2 2 32 1 2 15 20 11 8 15 9 21 128 7
151

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

County Kent

Relative 48

Foster 86

County TOTAL

Relative 864

Foster 1056

Note: DHS data indicates 77% of relative homes and 73% of foster homes were licensed by private agencies with three agencies accounting for one-quarter of all licensed homes. In all, 44 private agencies succeeded in licensing one or more relative home and 50 succeeded in licensing at least one foster home.

152

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Appendix H – Relative and Foster Homes Licensed

Relative Homes Licensed 29% of homes were licensed in Sept
Note: the total # from Period One increased by 3 compared to earlier reported due to data entry lag
300 248
250

200

150

102

100 50

32

19

25

41

43

53

68

84

68

81

0

Foster* Homes Licensed 21% of homes for the year were licensed in September
Note: Period One total increased by 6 compared to the earlier reported total due to data entry lag *Non-relative

250

217

200

150

100

112 45

75

85

75

70

83

82

52

99

61

50

0

153

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Appendix I – Legally Free Permanency Backlog Cohort Progress

COUNTY ALCONA ALGER ALLEGAN ALPENA ANTRIM ARENAC BARAGA BARRY BAY BENZIE BERRIEN BRANCH CALHOUN CASS CHARLEVOIX CHEBOYGAN CHIPPEWA CLARE CLINTON CRAWFORD DELTA DICKINSON EATON EMMET GENESEE GLADWIN GOGEBIC GRAND TRAVERSE GRATIOT HILLSDALE HOUGHTON HURON INGHAM IONIA IOSCO

Starting # in
Cohort 1 0 16 7 13 4 2 6 35 0 94 16 73 16 0 9 3 7 39 9 11 9 12 5
416 2 4 15 17 16 2 7
185 20 11

Exits to Permanency
0 0 4 3 2 2 1 3 21 0 38 9 36 7 0 6 2 2 18 3 7 1 5 3 137 0 0 9 6 5 0 2 66 11 2

% Achieving Permanency
0% NA 25% 43% 15% 50% 50% 50% 60% NA 40% 56% 49% 44% NA 67% 67% 29% 46% 33% 64% 11% 42% 60% 33% 0% 0% 60% 35% 31% 0% 29% 36% 55% 18%

Other Exits
0 0 3 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 6 0 7 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 30 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 19 0 3

Still in Care (as of
10/1/09) 1 0 9 2 11 1 1 1 14 0 50 7 30 8 0 2 1 5 18 6 3 8 7 1
249 2 4 5 9 9 2 5
100 9 6

154

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

COUNTY
IRON ISABELLA
JACKSON KALAMAZOO KALKASKA
KENT KEWEENAW LAKE LAPEER LEELANAU LENAWEE LIVINGSTON LUCE MACKINAC MACOMB MANISTEE MARQUETTE MASON MECOSTA MENOMINEE MIDLAND MISSAUKEE
MONROE MONTCALM MONTMORENCY
MUSKEGON NEWAYGO
OAKLAND OCEANA OGEMAW
ONTONAGON OSCEOLA
OSCODA

Starting # in
Cohort
3
16
94
110
8
158 0 8 3 8 32 14 5 1
287 2 18 5 13 3 32
1
43
10
1
87
11
320
0
7
2
3
0

Exits to Permanency
0
4
40
27
3
70 0 6 2 2 10 5 4 0 103 2 8 0 6 1 15
0
7
5
1
24
0
85
0
1
2
2
0

% Achieving Permanency
0%
25%
43%
25%
38%
44% NA 75% 67% 25% 31% 36% 80% 0% 36% 100% 44% 0% 46% 33% 47%
0%
16%
50%
100%
28%
0%
27%
NA
14%
100%
67%
NA

Other Exits
0
5
6
22
1
15 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 28 0 2 1 2 0 5
1
3
0
0
8
3
28
0
0
0
1
0

Still in Care (as of
10/1/09)
3
7
48
61
4
73 0 1 1 6 20 7 1 0 156 0 8 4 5 2 12
0
33
5
0
55
8
207
0
6
0
0
0

155

COUNTY OTSEGO OTTAWA PRESQUE ISLE ROSCOMMON SAGINAW SANILAC SCHOOLCRAFT SHIAWASSEE ST CLAIR ST JOSEPH TUSCOLA VAN BUREN WASHTENAW WAYNE WEXFORD TOTAL

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Starting # in
Cohort 8 27 1 10
146 18 1 21 53 48 19 20 81 1533 3 4376

Exits to Permanency
5 10 1 3 56 10 0 6 19 29 13 12 35 391 0 1436

% Achieving Permanency
63% 37% 100% 30% 38% 56% 0% 29% 36% 60% 68% 60% 43% 26% 0% 33%

Other Exits
0 3 0 0 16 1 1 2 6 1 0 2 4 130 1 389

Still in Care (as of
10/1/09) 3 14 0 7 74 7 0 13 28 18 6 6 42
1012 2
2551

156

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Appendix J – Reunification Permanency Backlog Cohort Progress

COUNTY ALCONA ALGER ALLEGAN ALPENA ANTRIM ARENAC BARAGA BARRY BAY BENZIE BERRIEN BRANCH CALHOUN CASS CHARLEVOIX CHEBOYGAN CHIPPEWA CLARE CLINTON CRAWFORD DELTA DICKINSON EATON EMMET GENESEE GLADWIN GOGEBIC GRAND TRAVERSE GRATIOT HILLSDALE HOUGHTON HURON INGHAM IONIA IOSCO

Starting # in
Cohort 4 3 34 16 20 10 0 4 17 5 96 18 88 19 28 21 10 2 56 28 1 13 26 7
360 0 21 16 7 35 2 12
112 10 6

Permanency 1 3 23 8 19 2 0 4 9 4 31 9 48 13 15 11 4 2 33 13 0 7 13 4
193 0 13 9 4 12 2 6 61 8 1

% Achieving Permanency
25% 100% 68% 50% 95% 20% NA 100% 53% 80% 32% 50% 55% 68% 54% 52% 40% 100% 59% 46%
0% 54% 50% 57% 54% NA 62% 56% 57% 34% 100% 50% 54% 80% 17%

Other Exits
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

Still in Care (as of
10/1/09) 3 0 11 7 1 8 0 0 8 1 65 9 40 5 13 10 6 0 22 14 1 6 13 3
165 0 8 7 3 23 0 6 48 2 5

157

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

COUNTY IRON ISABELLA JACKSON KALAMAZOO KALKASKA KENT KEWEENAW LAKE LAPEER LEELANAU LENAWEE LIVINGSTON LUCE MACKINAC MACOMB MANISTEE MARQUETTE MASON MECOSTA MENOMINEE MIDLAND MISSAUKEE MONROE MONTCALM MONTMORENCY MUSKEGON NEWAYGO OAKLAND OCEANA OGEMAW ONTONAGON OSCEOLA OSCODA OTSEGO OTTAWA PRESQUE ISLE

Starting # in
Cohort 2 11 90 41 8
275 4 5 9 7 35 11 1 2
272 6 16 10 14 11 14 0 26 10 0 78 9
529 6 2 1 4 1 11 28 5

Permanency 2 8 44 28 8 125 1 5 9 0 24 3 0 0 172 3 7 2 2 5 10 0 13 7 0 48 5 346 4 2 1 4 0 7 16 2

% Achieving Permanency
100% 73% 49% 68% 100% 45% 25% 100% 100% 0% 69% 27% 0% 0% 63% 50% 44% 20% 14% 45% 71% NA 50% 70% NA 62% 56% 65% 67% 100% 100% 100% 0% 64% 57% 40%

Other Exits
0 1 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Still in Care (as of
10/1/09) 0 2 45 13 0 143 3 0 0 7 11 8 1 2 95 2 9 8 12 6 4 0 13 3 0 30 4 170 2 0 0 0 1 4 12 3

158

COUNTY ROSCOMMON SAGINAW ST CLAIR ST JOSEPH SANILAC SCHOOLCRAFT SHIAWASSEE TUSCOLA VAN BUREN WASHTENAW WAYNE WEXFORD TOTAL

EMBARGOED UNTIL TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010, 1:00 PM

Starting # in
Cohort 5 59 84 53 7 0 63 18 28 29
2007 3
5017

Permanency 2 58 54 27 2 0 47 13 16 10 892 2
2621

% Achieving Permanency
40% 98% 64% 51% 29% NA 75% 72% 57% 34% 44% 67% 52%

Other Exits
0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 51 0 91

Still in Care (as of
10/1/09) 3 1 28 26 5 0 15 5 12 19
1064 1
2305

159

 
 Progress of the Michigan Department of Human Services
Period One Monitoring Report for Dwayne B. v. Granholm
October 24, 2008—March 31, 2009
Issued September 30, 2009

Progress of the Michigan Department of Human Services
Period One Monitoring Report for Dwayne B. v. Granholm
October 24, 2008 – March 31, 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction and Overview

3

A. Summary of Progress and Challenges Ahead

4

B. Methodology

7

C. Demographics

9

II. Period One Commitments

16

A. Summary of Period One Commitments

16

B. Period One Commitments Extended to Period Two

27

III. Developing the Organizational Capacity to Support Reform

29

A. Building a Children’s Services Structure

29

B. Strengthening Contract Oversight

32

C. Assessing the Adequacy of Resources for Reform

33

D. Developing the Workforce to Deliver High Quality Services

34

Increasing educational requirements

Expanding training

Lowering foster care and adoption caseloads

E. Developing the Capacity for Assessment and Implementation

42

Accessing and utilizing data

Implementing quality assurance

Creating effective plans

IV. Achieving Permanency for Children and Youth

50

A. Focusing on Youth Waiting for Permanency: The Backlog Cohorts 50

Defining the cohorts

Cohort demographics

Backlog Cohort reporting

B. Assessing the Backlog Cohort

55

C. Creating Permanency Plans for the Backlog Cohort

55

D. Developing Staff Focused on the Permanency Backlog Cohort

56

E. Period One Backlog Trends

56

Update on children awaiting reunification

Update on legally‐free children awaiting permanency

Update on county performance

F. Supporting Permanency through Subsidized Guardianship

61

1

V. Developing Critical Services

62

A. Building a Model of Practice for Older Youth

62

Independent living services

Referrals to Michigan Works!

Identifying housing for youth aging‐out of care

Eliminating detention as a placement

Next steps for supporting older youth

B. Accessing Health Care

67

C. Working to Assess the Needs of Families and Children

68

VI. Increasing Support to Children Living with Relative Caregivers

69

A. Continuing the Commitment to Kin Placement

71

B. Identifying the Resources to Support Licensure

73

Funding

Staffing

Training

Developing an integrated family home assessment

BCAL licensing

C. Reaching Out to Existing Caregivers

76

D. Supporting New Kin Placements

80

E. Next Steps for Licensure

81

V. APPENDICES

A. Baseline Permanency Backlog Cohorts

83

B. Caseload Data

84

C. Caseload Methodology

88

2

I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
This document serves as the first report to the Honorable Nancy Edmunds of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in the matter of Dwayne B. v. Granholm. On July 3, 2008, the parties, the State of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) and Children’s Rights (CR), signed an agreement to resolve pending litigation regarding Michigan’s child welfare system. DHS is a statewide multi‐service agency providing cash assistance, food stamps, and child protection, prevention and placement services for the State of Michigan. Children’s Rights is a national advocacy organization with more than two decades of experience in class action child welfare reform litigation on behalf of children involved in child welfare systems.
The court formally approved the Settlement Agreement on October 24, 2008 and appointed Kevin Ryan of the Public Catalyst Group (PCG) as the monitor charged with overseeing and reporting on progress relative to the Settlement Agreement. In turn, he assembled the Michigan monitoring team composed of members of PCG with experience with child welfare reform in other jurisdictions, both as former administrators and advocates. The monitoring team is responsible for assessing the State’s performance relative to the Settlement Agreement. The parties have agreed that the monitoring team shall take into account timeliness, appropriateness, and quality in reporting on the State’s compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement Agreement is structured into six month periods with public reporting following each period by the monitoring team. This report is for Period One – October 24, 2008 through March 31, 2009. Subsequent reports will issue approximately every six months until such time as the State complies with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Court jurisdiction ends.
The Settlement Agreement reflects the parties’ joint desire to improve outcomes for children and families in Michigan’s child welfare system as quickly as possible. The parties stressed several goals in the agreement:
 Achieving permanent homes for more than 6,000 legally‐free children and youth  Safely reuniting more than 4,000 children and youth with their families  Investing in infrastructure and developing practices designed to improve well‐being
and outcomes for children in foster care  Enhancing investigative practice to better identify, address and reduce instances of
maltreatment in care and abuse and neglect in the community  Providing increased supervision, services and support to children placed in relative
care
3

In order to accomplish these goals, the Settlement Agreement also provides for a series of necessary foundational elements, among them:
 Supporting the workforce by lowering caseloads and enhancing training  Expanding and focusing services for children and families  Building planning, data and continuous quality improvement capacity  Developing an organizational structure to better support child welfare service delivery
and build stronger links and improved accountability between the public offices in the counties, the private agencies and central office leadership
A. SUMMARY OF PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES AHEAD
In Period One, DHS focused on building the foundation for this reform. It made important progress developing a children’s services structure within DHS, lowering staff caseloads, improving training, and beginning to address permanency for some of the longest waiting children. At the same time, DHS has struggled to build a set of implementation plans to guide the reform and communication among the DHS Central Office, DHS county offices and private agencies remains a large challenge.
HIGHLIGHTS
Children long awaiting reunification with their families went home.
 DHS committed to achieving permanency for 50 percent of the 5,052 children who had been waiting for reunification for more than one year. During Period One, 1,719 (34 percent) of the children in the reunification backlog cohort either went home, (1,596 children), or were placed with relatives or adopted, (123 children). As a result, DHS appears to be on track for meeting its September 2009 target for moving 50 percent of those children to permanency.
DHS met its foster care and adoption caseload targets for Period One.
 Together, DHS and its private agencies exceeded the target set for improving foster care caseloads. By the end of Period One, DHS reported that 96 percent of staff with direct foster care responsibilities had caseloads of 30 children or fewer, slightly above the target of 95 percent. Ninety percent of staff had caseloads of 25 children or fewer, well above the target of 60 percent.
 Together, DHS and its private agencies exceeded the target set for improving adoption caseloads. By the end of Period One, DHS reported that 80 percent of staff with direct adoption responsibilities had caseloads of 25 children or fewer, exceeding the target of 60 percent.
4

DHS’ capacity to provide training to child welfare staff increased significantly.
 DHS hired a Child Welfare Training Institute Director, increased the number of training staff from 11 to 29, and nearly quadrupled its training slots by the end of Period One.
 The Child Welfare Training Institute rolled out a Web‐based data management system designed to ease class registration and track DHS and private agency staff training.
 DHS established a statewide training partnership with the Michigan schools of social work to help develop and implement an in‐service training program.
DHS acted ahead of schedule to improve its organizational structure and appoint a well‐ qualified leadership team.
 DHS quickly established a new Children’s Services Administration and began the important process of building its management team. If the individual managers are able to create and sustain a cohesive team and build communication among central office managers, managers in the field and private agency leadership, DHS will be well positioned to undertake this reform.
 DHS also expanded its central contract monitoring, federal compliance and determination of care units, and hired staff to serve as the Permanency Coordinator, Relative Licensing Coordinator and Statewide Recruitment Director.
By the end of Period One, the State made major strides in its ability to collect, analyze and report data.
 While the DHS federally supported case management system, Services Worker Support System (SWSS), remains a struggle and the dilemma of developing an efficient input system for private agency data remains unresolved, Period One investments in leadership and expert data capacity produced impressive and swift returns.
 That new capacity includes the first usable child protective services data in over three years, newly created management reports, critical data to support and report on performance with respect to the Settlement Agreement, and templates for accessible county based outcomes data scheduled to go live in Period Two. This new data capacity is invaluable and was described by one long‐standing staff member as a “miracle.”
Visits to field offices for the public and private agencies by the monitoring team revealed leadership and staff with deep‐seated commitment to children and families coupled with a desire to improve practice and produce better outcomes.
 Despite the formidable challenges that preceded the lawsuit and the resulting Settlement Agreement, the monitoring team is impressed by the large number of staff
5

it encountered throughout Michigan’s child welfare system deeply committed to the children and families they serve. Many echoed the principles of the Settlement Agreement – the need to grow family‐centered practice and team decision‐making; the desire to safely reduce the number of children in placement and increase the safety of children in the community; and the necessity of achieving permanency for children for whom it had been long elusive.  Staff articulated their clear recognition that new practice change must occur in order to address the needs of children who enter the State’s foster care system. They are depending on leadership to provide clarity of practice expectations, relevant training, involved supervision, manageable workloads and an array of relevant services so they have the capacity to ensure positive outcomes for Michigan’s children and families.
CHALLENGES
The tension between Michigan’s ambitions for child welfare reform and the State’s economic situation are significant.
 DHS was able to implement most of its commitments in Period One by shifting funds within the agency. Moving forward, the reform commitments increase, so redirecting funds will no longer be a viable strategy, and the administration will have to advocate for increased investment if this reform is to be successful.
Achieving permanency for the large number of children and youth who are legally‐free remains a challenge and too many older youth continue to leave care without permanency.
 DHS committed to achieving permanency for 50 percent of the 4,260 children in the legally‐free backlog cohort by September 30, 2009. In Period One, DHS achieved permanency for 736 or 17 percent of those children. The State needs to nearly double its performance during Period Two and achieve permanency for an additional 1,394 children by September 2009, if it is to meet its commitment.
 During Period One, a significant number of youth in that cohort aged‐out or left care without permanency – 251 children or six percent of the entire cohort. Overall, the number of youth aging‐out of care without permanency is high and is as yet untouched by reform.
Planning and communicating the reform remains a challenge for DHS.
 Michigan’s child welfare system has functioned historically as a complex combination of county‐based public operations, private agencies and DHS central operations. Often working separately over many years, there have been challenges in coordination among these three components of this system. Relations between the public and private agencies have a history of strain that the current DHS leadership has taken steps to improve. However, planning and communicating the reform–with all its detail and nuance—has proved to be a challenge.
6

Michigan’s commitment to support relative caregivers through licensing was more difficult to implement than anticipated.
 Michigan has a rich tradition of relying on relative caregivers. As part of the reform, DHS committed to increasing support to those relatives by equalizing the payments they received to the same level as foster parents, but decided to leverage a federal match in order to keep that commitment. The federal match depended on DHS licensing those relatives, an enormous undertaking that requires outreach and intensive work with more than 4,000 families serving 6,000 children. DHS leadership has never wavered in expressing its commitment to meeting this provision but implementation has been slow to build momentum. Period One ended with a net increase of 418 children in licensed relative homes.
 While licensing was a struggle for DHS, concerns that the commitment to licensing kin might drive down relative placement were not realized in Period One as 52 percent of all children entering care during the period were placed with extended family, a rate virtually unchanged from the 54 percent from the same period a year earlier.
 Although the number of staff in the public and private agencies charged with licensing responsibilities has expanded, virtually all of those staff juggle a wide range of duties, and several still need the required licensing training. It is not yet clear that as currently utilized, they will give DHS the capacity the agency needs to meet its licensing commitments.
In Period Two, the monitoring team hopes to see children in the reunification cohort continuing to return home; an increase in the number of legally‐free children exiting to permanency through adoption or guardianship; a decline in the number of older youth aging‐ out or exiting without health insurance; continued improvements to caseloads; the end of unnecessary detention for children and youth in foster care; an increase in the number of licensed kinship homes; and the expansion of mental health services for children in care.
Michigan has the benefit of a wide range of stakeholders committed to doing better by vulnerable children and families. But growing pressures to cut services for children and families and DHS' struggle to create strong plans to guide its work make this reform vulnerable as it is getting started. Reform takes time, changes cannot come overnight and persistence is a critical virtue. Nonetheless, reform is eminently achievable. The answer as to whether Michigan will get there lies in the future – and in a series of critical decisions that will need to be made by DHS in Period Two and beyond. In the end, it will take the strong leadership of DHS and the commitment of all of Michigan’s stakeholders to achieve the promise of this Settlement Agreement – Michigan’s children deserve no less.
B. METHODOLOGY
The monitoring team met with young people who had aged‐out of foster care, birth families and foster parents to learn of their experiences with the Michigan child welfare system. Their
7

observations are integrated into the report, and the monitoring team appreciates their candor and insights. Over the past year, the monitoring team met regularly with DHS leadership, interviewed staff in local DHS field offices and in private agencies, and participated in meetings with the Governor; legislators in both houses of the Michigan Legislature; jurists and personnel from the Michigan Supreme Court, circuit courts and probate courts; the Children’s Ombudsman and her staff; and child advocates. With respect to the public agency, the monitoring team attended a session of the Children’s Services Cabinet, and visited DHS operations in the five largest counties (Genesee, Kent, Macomb, Oakland and Wayne, referenced in the Settlement Agreement as the “Designated Counties”); three of the nine next largest counties; and three of the remaining counties. The monitoring team met with private agency leadership collectively in various forums and visited several private agencies to better understand the impact of the Settlement Agreement with respect to their foster care, adoption, and licensing services.
In preparing this report, the primary source of information has been DHS, which provided the monitoring team with extensive aggregate and backup data, the quantity and quality of which improved over the course of the year. The DHS Director of the Bureau of Child Welfare Improvement and key DHS leadership worked closely with the monitoring team to produce the data necessary for reporting in Period One. DHS provided the monitoring team with access to staff at all levels and across the State. DHS is the source of all raw data used to create the charts and tables in this report. The monitoring team audited data through a variety of methodologies discussed in relevant sections of this report, including reviewing exit data for children in the backlog cohorts and caseloads in various DHS offices throughout the State.
The monitoring team reviewed key reports developed during Period One by child welfare leaders and child advocates, including one produced by the Michigan Child Welfare Improvement Task Force, convened by the DHS Director last year. The group’s work amplifies the urgency of this reform effort for children and families, and owes its conclusions to strong participation from young adults and parents who have experience with the Michigan child welfare system; public, private, and government agency staff and administrators; state legislators; leading members of the judiciary, including the Michigan Supreme Court; representatives from the Governor’s cabinet; leaders from federally‐recognized Tribes; leaders of several service organizations; university professors and deans; attorneys; advocates for youth; foundation executives; and other public and private providers. Their comprehensive report, “Improving Michigan’s Child Welfare System: Our Children. Our Future. Our Responsibility,”1 goes well beyond the scope of the Settlement Agreement to address the well‐being of all system‐involved children, such as those in need of preventive services programs and youth in the juvenile justice system, and offers an extensive list of recommendations to inform DHS’ work.
1 See http://www.michigan.gov/documents/cwitf/042809FinalReport_276565_7.pdf (April 2009).
8

C. DEMOGRAPHICS
Michigan, like the rest of the United States, has experienced a serious decline in revenues. Michigan’s economic situation has been deteriorating for some time. It has struggled with the highest unemployment rates in the nation, and at more than 15 percent is now three percentage points higher than any other state.2 According to KIDS COUNT,3 the state by state assessment of child well‐being, Michigan ranks 27th for all states as of 2007 (the most recent data available.) The percentage of children living in poverty has increased steadily over this decade, and by 2007, one in five of Michigan’s children was living in poverty. The percentage of children living in households where no adult has full‐time, stable employment has dropped so significantly that Michigan now ranks 41st among the 50 states, down dramatically from a ranking of 23rd in 2000. Median family income has also steadily declined. Since high unemployment and low median family income are two of the three most significant factors researchers have identified as driving child well‐being indicators across states,4 the decline in economic health places Michigan’s children at increasingly higher risk.
DHS is one of the primary providers of services to children and families in Michigan, through both its cash assistance and children’s services functions. With respect to child protective and placement services, a subset of DHS’ overall responsibilities, the chart below illustrates the trends over the past five years.

MI DHS

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2008 v. 2007

CPS Complaints

135,775 128,854 126,690 123,149 124,716

1.3%

CPS Investigations 76,694 72,286 71,784 77,012 72,418

‐6.0%

Substantiated

Reports

17,847 16,889 17,534 18,893 17,630

‐6.7%

Families Served by

FFM*

2,813 2,696 2,864 2,732 NA

NA

Children in Foster

Care

19,140 18,733 18,347 18,771 17,946

‐4.4%

Adoption Subsidies 23,984 25,029 25,840 26,652 27,021

1.4%

*Families First of Michigan is the name of an intensive family preservation program funded by DHS.

2008 v. Peak ‐8.1% ‐6.0%
‐6.7%
NA
‐6.2% 12.7%

The number of child protective services (CPS) complaints rose slightly from 2007 to 2008, but is still down significantly from 2004. The percentage of complaints that resulted in investigations has remained relatively steady at 58 percent as has the percentage of those reports that are substantiated at 24 percent. The number of families served by Families First of Michigan (FFM), an intensive family preservation program, remained relatively stable

2 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Data for June 2009. http://www.bls.gov/cps. 3 The 2009 KIDS COUNT Data Book. http://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2009. 4 O’Hare & Lee, Factors Affecting State Difference in Child Well‐Being (AECF, August 2007).
9

between 2004 and 2007 but budget cuts in 2008 are expected to lead to a decline in families served when that data becomes available. The number of children in foster care declined from 2007 to 2008 by more than four percent and it is down more than six percent from 2004. Finally, the pool of children receiving adoption subsidies has increased steadily over the past five years, up almost 13 percent. At the start of Period One, there were 18,048 children under DHS’ supervision, of whom 16,067 were in out‐of‐home care.5 By the end of Period One, there were 17,115 children under DHS’ supervision of whom 15,309 were in placement, a decline of five percent in six months. Moreover, over Period One, the number of new entries of children into custody declined significantly when compared against the same period one year before. From October 2007 through March 2008, 4,037 children entered custody compared to 3,725 children from October 2008 through March 2009 – a decline of almost eight percent. As of March 2009, of the 17,115 children under supervision, the largest age group is children six years and younger, 42 percent. But as illustrated in the chart below, Michigan also has a significant population of older youth.
With regard to gender, the population is equally female and male at 50 percent each. As for race, 48 percent of the children were white; 44 percent African‐American; six percent were identified as multi‐racial; one percent Native American; and the remaining one percent as other and unidentified.
5 The references in this report to children and youth placed in DHS’ supervision, custody or care refer to child welfare and do not include children and youth who are the responsibility of DHS through the juvenile justice system unless those children and youth also have an open child welfare case.
10

While the number of African‐American children in care has declined in recent years, racial disparity remains a significant issue, as DHS acknowledges. According to 2007 Census estimates, African American youth between the ages of 0 and 17 represent 20 percent of the children in the State of Michigan, compared to the 44 percent of the children and youth in foster care.
With regard to placement, DHS relies on a combination of kinship placements, paid foster home placements, independent living programs, and residential care settings for children removed from their families as a result of alleged abuse or neglect. Michigan also includes in its placement population children who were in care and have returned home but remain under the supervision of DHS.
As illustrated in the chart below, the largest group of children living in out of home placement live with relatives, and almost as many live with foster families. In total, more than 80 percent of youth placed outside of their own homes live in family settings. The overwhelming majority of youth recorded as living in institutions are placed in residential treatment centers. Independent living placements include a wide array of scatter‐site apartments, group settings (non‐institutional), and boarding arrangements for older youth on the cusp of aging‐out of care.
11

*Includes in‐ and out‐of‐state. **Includes out‐of‐state facilities (20); detention, jail & court treatment (70); legal guardians (20); mental health hospitals (14); and other placements (107).

Licensing staff at both DHS and private agencies report a decrease in the number of new families they have been able to encourage to become foster parents. Data from DHS’ Bureau of Children and Adult Licensing (BCAL) supports their experience. For each of the last four years, the number of newly licensed homes has decreased. This downturn appears to be related to the number of new applications received, as BCAL consistently licenses about 61 percent of enrolled applications.

Total Enrollments Licenses Issued % of Enrollments that Result in License

2005 3462 2147

2006 2769 1722

2007 2370 1410

2008 2208 1351

62% 62% 59% 61%

The number of homes closed has exceeded the number of new homes licensed for each of the last four years.

12

BCAL Data ‐ Licenses Issued v. Homes Closed Licenses Issued Homes Closed
Net

2005 2,147 2,444 ‐297

2006 1,722 1,936 ‐214

2007 1,410 1,742 ‐332

2008 1,351 1,844 ‐493

Over Period One, DHS reports that a total of 664 kin and foster homes were newly licensed of which 69 percent (456) were foster homes. Of those 664, DHS licensed 358 homes (foster and kin) in the first quarter of 2009, which is a pace that, if maintained, will result in an increase in the total number of homes licensed in 2009 compared to 2008. That increase is driven by an uptick in the licensing of relative homes even as the number of newly licensed foster homes is on a pace to continue to decline. In the upcoming periods, one of DHS’ challenges will be to expand the pool of foster homes even as licensing staff also seek to fulfill the commitment to license relative homes.

As for permanency, for the three years preceding the reform, the goal for just over half the children in care has been to return home while another quarter of the children have the goal of adoption. The next two largest groups of children have had the goals of emancipation and long term foster care. The numbers of these two groups of children increased in the three fiscal years preceding the reform – from 3,114 up to 3,531, an increase of 13 percent. Moving forward, DHS committed to eliminating these two goals and committing to permanency for this group of children. Finally, there are two small groups of children with the goals of either living permanently with relatives or guardianship.

Permanency Goals for Children in Care
Reunification Adoption Emancipation Long Term Foster Care Live with Other Relatives Guardianship

FY2006

#

%

10,611 52%

5,391 27%

1,631 8%

1,483 7%

987 5%

124 1%

FY2007

#

%

10,973 53%

5,151 25%

2,020 10%

1,458 7%

982 5%

155 1%

FY2008

#

%

10,203 51%

5,011 25%

1,999 10%

1,532 8%

878 4%

194 1%

While the number of children with a goal of adoption has declined seven percent in recent years, the number remains high.

13

Fiscal Year
FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 Average

# of Children Made Legally
Free
2950 2953 2994 3082 3045 3064 3015

# of Adoptions
2643 2776 2910 2621 2638 2739 2721

Difference
307 177 84 461 407 325 294

As illustrated in the chart above, the number of children made legally free in Michigan grew each year between FY2003 and FY2006, dropped in FY2007, and then increased again in FY2008. Over the six years prior to this reform, an average of 3,015 children were made legally free each fiscal year. Compared to an average number of adoptions of 2,721 over that same six year period, each year almost 300 more children were made legally free than were adopted. This disparity helps explain the large backlog of children awaiting adoption in Michigan.

The responsibility for achieving adoptions has been shared between DHS and its private agencies in Michigan. A decision was made in FY2008 to shift most of the responsibility for adoptions to the private sector.

Adoptions FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008

DHS

1130

43%

1313

47%

1442

50%

1259

48%

1268

48%

1243

45%

Private Agencies

1513

57%

1463

53%

1468

50%

1362

52%

1370

52%

1496

55%

Whether adoptions are done through the private sector, public sector, or both, DHS will have to spark a sharp increase in the overall number of adoptions in order to remedy the backlog of existing legally free children. For FY2008, Michigan reported 5,011 children in care with a goal of adoption. Given the average number of adoptions over the preceding years, achieving adoption for all of the children with a goal of adoptions will require a 46 percent increase in adoption finalizations – a formidable challenge.
Moving forward, increasing adoptions is not the only answer. The reform is an opportunity to explore new avenues for safely averting placements; increasing investments in services to children and families to support an increase in safe, sound, and timely reunifications; adding
14

permanency options such as subsidized guardianship; building post‐adoption and post‐ guardianship supports to give prospective foster families the confidence they can provide a permanent home and the safety net to ensure those homes remain permanent; and a range of other changes in practice. If implemented, all of these reform commitments should drive measurable changes in the number of children in placement and the permanency outcomes for those children in the coming years.
15

II. PERIOD ONE COMMITMENTS
A. SUMMARY OF PERIOD ONE COMMITMENTS

Settlement Agreement Commitment

Due Date

Completed Yes/No/ Partially

FUNDING

I. H & I Funding: The State shall request state

funds and any federal/special fund

authorization sufficient to effect the

provisions & outcome measures set forth in

this Settlement Agreement in connection

with any budget, funding, or allocation

request to the executive or legislative

branches of State government. Such

budgetary requests, which shall be provided

to the monitor, shall identify for the

executive and legislative branches the known

and anticipated costs to the State for the

timely implementation of the reforms &

outcome measures.

[Discussed on page 33]

Ongoing

Yes

DEVELOPING THE ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY TO SUPPORT REFORM

IV.A.1: Establish within DHS a Children’s

Services Administration (CSA), headed by a

Director at the rank of Deputy Director of

DHS or higher.

[Discussed on page 29]

3/31/2009

Yes

IV.A.2: Appoint a Director of Bureau of Child

Welfare, responsible for policy, program

development & support, reporting directly to

the CSA Director.

[Discussed on page 29]

3/31/2009

Yes

IV.A.2: Appoint a Director of Child Welfare

Improvement Bureau, reporting directly to

CSA Director.

[Discussed on page 30]

3/31/2009

Yes

IV.A.2: Appoint a Director of Bureau of

Children’s Field Services Operations (a.k.a.

Urban Field Operations) responsible for field

operations in Designated Counties reporting

directly to the CSA Director.

[Discussed on pages 30‐32]

3/31/2009

Yes

Comment
At the end of Period One, reporting changed to Chief Deputy Director, with approval of the parties.

16

Settlement Agreement Commitment IV.A.3: Bifurcation: In the Designated Counties, at a minimum, there shall be DHS offices providing children’s services distinct from those providing other services. [Discussed on page 30] IV.A.3: In each of the Designated Counties, there will be a county‐level Administrator of Children’s Services reporting directly to the Director of Bureau of Children’s Field Services Operations. [Discussed on page 30] IV.A.4: CSA will have sufficient qualified staff responsible for data collection and analysis, quality improvement, federal compliance, & training. [Discussed on pages 32, 33, 36, 46] IV.A.5: CSA shall hold responsibility for evaluating private providers including requiring & approving corrective action plans when necessary & making recommendations to the Director of DHS concerning contract renewal, modification & termination. [Discussed on pages 32‐33] IV.A.6: Individuals within the CSA, including central office & the Designated Counties, will be assigned full‐time to children’s services. [Discussed on page 30] IV.A.7: Reporting directly to the Field Operations Deputy Director & consulting regularly with the CSA Director, appoint a Children’s Services Field Manager responsible for implementing CSA policies and practices for 78 non‐designated counties. [Discussed on pages 30‐32] IV.A.8: Establish a Children’s Services Cabinet, headed by the CSA Director which includes all of the positions listed above which meets regularly for the purposes of uniformly & efficiently administering all child welfare programs, policies, and practices. [Discussed on page 32]

Due Date 3/31/2009 3/31/2009 3/31/2009 3/31/2009 3/31/2009
3/31/2009 3/31/2009

Completed Yes/No/ Partially

Comment

Yes

Yes Partially

Yes as to data, federal compliance and training. No as to quality improvement.

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

17

Settlement Agreement Commitment IV.B: CSA Structure: DHS, plaintiffs and the Monitor will meet to review implementation of these organizational changes. [Discussed on page 32]

Due Date 1/31/2009

WORKFORCE EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS & TRAINING

VI.A.1: Entry level caseworkers for positions

in Child Protective Services (CPS), foster care

(FC), adoption, & Purchase of Service (POS)

monitors, will have a bachelor’s degree in

social work or a related human services field.

[Discussed on pages 34‐35]

Beginning

10/24/2008

VI.A.4: Private CPA caseworkers whose

activities and responsibilities are comparable

to DHS caseworkers will have a bachelor’s

degree in social work or a related human

services field.

Beginning

[Discussed on page 35]

10/24/2008

VI.B.4: All new DHS supervisors must have a

master’s in social work (MSW) or master’s or

higher degree in a comparable/equivalent

field.

Beginning

[Discussed on page 35]

2/1/2009

VI.B.4: All existing DHS supervisors with less

than 18 months experience as a supervisor

must earn a master’s in social work (MSW) or

in a comparable/equivalent field by

10/24/2012 unless waived by DHS Director. If

such waivers constitute more than 10% of all

supervisors, the monitor must review.

Beginning

[Discussed on page 35]

10/24/2008

VI.B.5: DHS shall develop relationships with

accredited schools of social work.

Beginning

[Discussed on pages 37‐38]

10/24/2008

Completed Yes/No/ Partially

Comment

Yes

Partially

Yes as to DHS CPS, foster care, and foster care POS staff. No as to DHS adoption & adoption POS staff as they could not be verified.

Yes Yes

Yes Yes

18

Settlement Agreement Commitment VI.C: Licensing Training Plan: DHS will develop and provide to the monitor & plaintiffs a plan identifying the type and amount of training to be provided to all staff responsible for conducting home studies, licensing inspections, annual evaluations, & other activities related to the licensing or monitoring of foster homes or residential care facilities, whether employed by DHS or by a private provider. [Discussed on pages 74‐75] VI.D: Appoint Training Director in CSA who is solely responsible for overseeing and ensuring compliance with all training requirements for both DHS and private CPA and CCI workers and supervisors. [Discussed on pages 35‐37]
CASELOADS VI.E.3a: 95% of foster care workers will have caseloads of no more than 30 children and 60% of foster care workers will have caseloads of no more than 25 children. [Discussed on pages 38‐42]
VI.E.4a: 60% of Adoption workers will have caseloads of no more than 25 children. [Discussed on pages 38‐42]
VI.E.8: Mixed Caseloads: DHS in consultation with plaintiffs and subject to approval of the monitor, shall establish caseload maximums and timeframes by which they will be achieved, based upon an appropriate weighting formula. [Discussed in Appendix C]
VI.E.9: DHS will provide at least quarterly caseload reporting. [Discussed on pages 38‐42]

Due Date
12/15/2008 3/31/2009 11/15/2008 2/28/2009 3/31/2009

Completed Yes/No/ Partially

Comment

Yes
Yes
Achieved 96% for 30:1 and 90% for 25:1
Yes Achieved 80%
Yes Discussions between DHS and monitors regarding caseloads for Licensing and POS staff are still underway.
Yes Public agency reporting began in November 2008; private agency reporting began in April 2009

3/31/2009

Yes

19

Settlement Agreement Commitment IMPROVING PERMANENCY FOR CHILDREN
VII.F.3: DHS, in consultation with the Monitor, will develop a process that will identify barriers to adoption and guardianship where a child still lacks a permanent home six months after the goal of adoption/guardianship is established. [Discussed on page 55] VII.F.9: DHS shall track all pre‐adoptive placements that disrupt, including the reason for disruption.
VII.G.2a: Establish the position of Permanency Planning Coordinator, with overall responsibility for achieving permanency for the reunification and legally‐free backlog cohorts. [Discussed on page 51] VII.G.2b: DHS shall create and fill 108 positions for Permanency Planning Specialists (PPS), including related supervisory and support staff. The PPS shall be responsible for reviewing cases of and pursuing legal permanency for children in the backlog cohorts. [Discussed on page 56] VII.G.2d: DHS shall undertake a gap analysis study to identify the services and supports required, but not currently available, to adequately address the needs of children in the backlog cohorts. [Discussed on page 55] VII.G.2e: Submit to the Michigan Legislature Permanent Legal Subsidized Guardianship legislation. [Discussed on pages 61‐62] VII.G.2f: Hire sufficient training staff to develop PPS training curriculum and to train the PPS. [Discussed on page 38]

Due Date
Beginning 11/15/2008 Beginning 10/24/2008
10/24/2008
10/24/2008
Beginning 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 Beginning 10/24/2008

Completed Yes/No/ Partially

Comment

During Period One DHS conducted a gap analysis that identified service needs and barriers to children achieving permanency. Yes

Yes

Yes DHS hired support staff but did not implement the PPS positions as intended by the parties in the Settlement Agreement.
No

Yes Enacted July 2008

Yes Partially

Yes as to curriculum. No as to staff training.

20

Settlement Agreement Commitment

Due Date

VII.G.2g: Begin reporting on the number,

characteristics & progress of children in the

backlog cohorts.

Beginning

[Discussed on pages 51‐61]

10/24/2008

IMPROVING HEALTH & MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

VIII.A.2: Each child entering care will be assigned a Medicaid number and the caregiver will receive a Medicaid card within 30 days. If the child moves, the new caregiver shall receive the Medicaid card upon placement. [Discussed on page 67] VIII.A.3: DHS shall redirect at least $3 million to fund mental health services. [Discussed on page 67] IMPROVING YOUTH SERVICES

Beginning 11/15/2008
Beginning 10/24/2008

VIII.A.4.b(i): Refer all children age 14 and older in foster care & youth transitioning from foster care to adulthood to Michigan Works! & refer suitably qualified children for summer training, mentorship, & enrichment opportunities. [Discussed on page 64] VIII.A.4.b(ii): Extend all foster youths’ eligibility for child foster care custody until age 20 and make independent living services available through age 21. [Discussed on page 63] VIII.A.4b.(iii): Implement a policy and process by which all children emancipating from the foster care system receive uninterrupted Medicaid coverage. [Discussed on pages 67‐68] VIII.A.4.b(iv): Refer all children without an identified housing at the time of emancipation to the Michigan State Housing Development Authority for rental assistance & services under the Homeless Youth Initiative. [Discussed on pages 64‐65]

Beginning 11/15/2008
Beginning 11/15/2008
Beginning 11/15/2008

Completed Yes/No/ Partially

Comment

Yes

No
No Planning occurred during Period One. Implementation scheduled for Period Two.
No
Yes
No

Beginning

11/15/2008

No

21

Completed

Yes/No/

Settlement Agreement Commitment

Due Date Partially

IMPROVING FOSTER & RELATIVE HOME RECRUITMENT, LICENSING & RETENTION

Comment

VIII.B.5: Recruitment Director/Unit: Designate unit or person within the central office responsible for monitoring & providing technical assistance for foster & adoptive home recruitment & retention at the county level & reporting to the Children's Cabinet. [Discussed on page 73] VIII.B.7.c: All licensed relative providers shall receive the same foster care maintenance rates paid to similarly situated unrelated providers, including the ability to qualify for enhanced rates. [Discussed on page 72] VIII.B.7.d: All permanent wards living with relative caregivers shall be provided with foster care maintenance payments equal to the payments provided to licensed caregivers. [Discussed on page 72] VIII.B.7.e: Establish a waiver process for relatives that do not wish to be licensed which ensures safety standards are met, the relative knows the benefits of licensure, high level approvals are secured & documented. [Discussed on pages 77‐81] VIII.B.7.g: DHS shall make public the procedures for obtaining variances for relatives from any standard licensing requirements & those variances shall not include any standards essential for safety & well‐being.
VIII.B.7.i: DHS shall produce & begin to implement a written plan to ensure the speedy licensing of relatives. [Discussed on pages 48‐49, 76‐81]

Beginning 10/24/2008
Beginning 10/24/2008
Beginning 10/24/2008
Beginning 10/24/2008
Beginning 10/24/2008
11/15/2008

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes

Plan produced &

implemented but fewer

homes licensed than

Yes

expected.

22

Settlement Agreement Commitment VIII.B.7.j(i): Provide all relevant parts of pre‐ service & in‐service foster parent training to relative caregivers pursuing licensure.
VIII.B.7.j(ii): Designate sufficient licensing staff to review all current unlicensed foster homes & complete the licensing process for each family within 90 days. [Discussed on pages 73‐74, 76]
VIII.B.7.j(iii): Designate sufficient training staff to provide training for newly licensed relatives. [Discussed on pages 74‐75]
VIII.B.7.j(iv): Create a process for replacement of a child currently in a relative home that does not meet licensing standards, unless approved for a waiver. [Discussed on pages 77‐81] VIII.B.7.j(v): Identification of any categories of relative caregivers whose licensure is to be prioritized. [Discussed on page 77]
VIII.B.7.k: Relative caregivers for any child newly entering care shall be licensed unless exceptional circumstances have been documented and approved. [Discussed on pages 77‐81] VIII.B.7.l: Define the cohort of children already living with unlicensed relative caregivers. [Discussed on pages 76‐79]

Due Date
Beginning 11/15/2008
Beginning 11/15/2008
Beginning 11/15/2008 Beginning 11/15/2008 Beginning 11/15/2008 Beginning 10/24/2008 10/24/2008

Completed Yes/No/ Partially
Yes
Partially
Partially

Comment DHS provided exactly the same training to relatives as to foster care providers but may need to modify in order to better meet the needs of relative caregivers. DHS identified more than 300 staff who provide licensing services, a number that expanded over Period One. But given modest returns, sufficiency needs to be addressed in Period Two. DHS expects the licensing staff to provide the training. Given the modest returns in Period One, sufficiency needs to be addressed in Period Two.

Yes

DHS prioritized families

where a child was not a

permanent ward & exit

from custody was not

Yes

imminent.

No Yes

23

Settlement Agreement Commitment VIII.B.7m(i): Create the position of Relative Licensing Coordinator with overall responsibility for implementing licensing of relative caregivers. [Discussed on page 73] VIII.B.7m(ii): Create & fill 40 relative licensing positions dedicated to the cohort. [Discussed on pages 73‐74]
VIII.B.7m(iii): Develop Title IV‐E unit within CSA to increased federal funding capacity. [Discussed on pages 32, 73‐74]
VIII.B.7m(iv): Develop a combined/coordinated Family Home Assessment for relative providers, family foster care, and adoption. [Discussed on page 76]
VIII.B.7m(v): Track and report on the unlicensed relative home cohort & the children living there. [Discussed on pages 76‐79]
VIII.B.7m(vi): Have available adequate training staff to develop curriculum and train relative licensing staff. [Discussed on pages 74‐75] CONDUCT A NEEDS ASSESSMENT IX.A. Begin an assessment of the need for additional services & placements, including family preservation, foster & adoptive placements, wraparound services reunification services, and medical, dental & mental health services for all children in foster care. [Discussed on pages 68‐69]

Due Date
Beginning 10/24/2008
Beginning 10/24/2008
Beginning 10/24/2008
Beginning 10/24/2008
Beginning 10/24/2008
Beginning 10/24/2008
Beginning 11/15/2008

Completed Yes/No/ Partially

Comment

Yes

DHS allocated 80 Title

IV‐E eligibility staff. Job

description requires

half time dedicated to

Yes

this function.

Yes

Yes
Yes
No Completed as scheduled on 5/15/2009.6

Yes

6 Report available at: http://www.pcg4change.com/2008finalreport.pdf 24

Settlement Agreement Commitment PLACEMENT STANDARDS & LIMITATIONS

Due Date

X.B.5: No child in DHS foster care custody will be placed, by DHS or with knowledge of DHS, in a jail, correctional, or detention facility unless such child is being placed pursuant to a delinquency charge. Within 90 days of the signing of this Settlement Agreement, DHS will notify the State Court Administrative Office and the Michigan State Police of this prohibition, & provide written instructions to immediately notify the local DHS office of any child in DHS foster care custody who has been placed in a jail, correctional, or detention facility. [Discussed on pages 65‐66] OVERSIGHT OF CONTRACT AGENCIES

10/3/2008

XII.D: DHS shall ensure all private agencies

report to DHS accurate data at least every six

months relative to the requirements of this

Settlement Agreement.

[Discussed on pages 32‐33]

3/31/2009

XII.F: DHS shall maintain & if necessary

expand its staff to ensure contract

enforcement, monitoring & oversight in

keeping with the Settlement Agreement. [Discussed on pages 32‐33]

Beginning 10/24/2008

DATA & CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT

XIV.A: QA Capacity: DHS shall, in consultation with and subject to the approval of the monitor, develop and implement a statewide quality assurance program and capacity that meets the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. [Discussed on pages 42, 46‐59]
XIV.C: DHS Director shall appoint a director to administer the QA unit who possesses the requisite qualifications; the Director shall report to a member of the CSA Children’s Cabinet. [Discussed on page 46]

Beginning 10/24/2008
Beginning 10/24/2008

Completed Yes/No/ Partially

Comment

No
Additional reporting requirements will take effect in subsequent periods. Yes

Yes

Partially

DHS developed a QA plan and began limited implementation in Period One but needs to identify the capacity to fully implement.

Yes

25

Settlement Agreement Commitment XIV.C: The QA unit shall be adequately staffed & the staff shall receive specialized training to fulfill their responsibilities. [Discussed on pages 46‐47] XIV.G.1&2: DHS will ensure that a qualified, competent & independent review of each child who died while in the foster care custody of DHS according to the schedule set forth in the Settlement Agreement. [Discussed on pages 47‐48]
NAMED PLAINTIFFS
XVI.A: DHS will provide plaintiffs’ counsel with regular quarterly updates of the individual named plaintiffs (so long as they remain in care) & the parties shall meet quarterly on case planning & services.
XVI.B: DHS will provide plaintiffs’ counsel with prior notification, if possible, or with notification as soon as practicable, of any significant events or developments concerning the named plaintiffs, including but not limited to any change in placement, services, permanency goal, or permanency plans; and any allegations of abuse or neglect regarding one of them or that occurred in one of their placements.

Due Date Beginning 10/24/2008
Beginning 10/24/2008
11/24/2008
11/24/2008

Completed Yes/No/ Partially
No
Partially

Comment Two of 12 staff hired. Those two staff received specialized training. Most reviews were submitted timely, but several lagged significantly and timeliness remains an issue.

Yes

Yes

26

B. PERIOD ONE COMMITMENTS EXTENDED TO PERIOD TWO
The monitoring team and plaintiffs granted DHS extensions for certain activities after it became apparent that DHS was unable to meet all its commitments in Period One. As a result, the following Settlement Agreement commitments will generally not be addressed in this first monitoring report, but will be reviewed in the Period Two report.

Settlement Agreement Commitment

Original Due Date

VIII.B.2: Recruitment Plan for Special Populations: DHS will develop a recruitment plan to increase the number of available placements for adolescents, sibling groups & children with disabilities. VIII.B.3: Development of Treatment Foster Homes: DHS required to develop 50 treatment foster homes. VIII.B.4: Assessment of Adequacy of Foster Home and Adoptive Home Capacity: As part of the Needs Assessment process, DHS will report on its foster & adoptive home capacity in the Designated Counties. VIII.B.6: Determination of Care: DHS shall identify a state entity responsible for uniformly administering the DOC & specialized administrative rate payments & review process. X.B.1: Limitations on Out of County Placements: DHS agreed to set limitations on the use of out‐of‐ county placements for children in foster care. X.B.3a‐b: Limitations on Number of Children in Foster Home: DHS agreed that no child will be placed in a foster home if it will result in more than three foster children, or more than three children under age three, or a total of six children in the home. DHS must approve any exception to this provision. X.B.7: Limitations on New Residential Care Placements: DHS must expressly approve placement of a child in a residential treatment center or any other group care setting with a capacity in excess of eight children.

12/15/2008 11/15/2008 3/31/2009 12/31/2008 10/24/2008 3/31/2009
10/24/2008

Extension Date 9/1/2009 7/7/2009 7/15/2009
6/12/2009 7/7/2009 7/7/2009
7/7/2009

27

Settlement Agreement Commitment
XI.A.2: Psychotropic Policies & Procedures Review: DHS will review its policies and procedures surrounding the use of psychotropic medications. XI.A.3: Medical Director: DHS will hire or contract for the services of a full‐time Medical Director. XI.B.2: Restraint & Seclusion Policies & Procedures: DHS will review its policies and procedures surrounding all forms and use of physical restraint & seclusion/isolation of children in foster care. XII.B: Performance‐Based Contracts: All DHS contracts with CCIs or private CPAs that provide placements and child welfare services shall be performance‐based contracts that require an annual review of the agencies’ performance. XIII.B: Permanency Tracking: DHS will design & implement a permanency tracking system & associated reports.

Original Due Date 1/3/2009 11/15/2008 1/3/2009
11/15/2008
1/31/2009

Extension Date 11/30/2009
8/1/2009 7/7/2009
6/1/2009 for CPAs; 7/31/2009 for CCIs 9/30/2009

28

III. DEVELOPING THE ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY TO SUPPORT REFORM
A. BUILDING A CHILDREN’S SERVICES STRUCTURE
The parties committed in the Settlement Agreement to numerous structural changes within DHS in an effort to develop additional expertise among the senior staff, create more efficient reporting lines throughout the agency, improve communication with and oversight of the private agencies that partner with DHS, and ensure appropriate resources and staff capacity for the child welfare system. Early in Period One, DHS recognized the importance of changing the organizational structure in order to create the required infrastructure and central office staff capacity to manage bold changes in policy and practice and ultimately, to improve outcomes for the children and families of Michigan.
One of the primary concerns identified by plaintiffs in the underlying litigation was the lack of visibility, resources and staffing allocated to Michigan’s child welfare system. Like many state‐ administered social services agencies, DHS is a large entity with diverse responsibilities, including administration of the child welfare system. Prior to the Settlement Agreement, many DHS field staff divided their time between child welfare services and income support services for the poor (often described in Michigan as “cash assistance”), including public welfare and food stamps. In an effort to provide more focused attention to the needs of vulnerable children and families involved with the child welfare system, DHS established a separate Children’s Services Administration (CSA). The CSA added capacity and consolidated critical child welfare policy, practice improvement, training, contracting enforcement and assessment, data and continuous quality improvement activities under one leader, the CSA Director. Organizationally placed under the DHS Chief Deputy Director, the CSA is designed to coordinate with child welfare operations in the field, as well as with the Bureau of Children and Adult Licensing (BCAL). The new structure also designated staff and leadership in the five largest counties solely dedicated to child welfare services.
The State began the process of creating the CSA early. They had identified a CSA Director prior to the signing of the Settlement Agreement, and she, in turn, assembled a team to direct each of the following units:7
 The Bureau of Child Welfare, with responsibility for formulating and implementing policies and programs critical to the DHS mission; directing, implementing and monitoring the activities of major child welfare programs in DHS; and coordinating with field operations and other internal and external stakeholders for assigned programs.
 The Child Welfare Improvement Bureau, with responsibility for managing the agency’s child welfare improvement activities, including the supervision of important DHS Units: Data Management, Quality Assurance, Contract Compliance, and Federal Compliance.
7 The Director of the Bureau of Juvenile Justice also reports to the CSA Director.
29

 The Child Welfare Training Institute, with overall responsibility for the training of child welfare staff and supervisors across DHS and its many private agency partners.
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the CSA Director initially also assumed responsibility for the new Bureau of Children’s Field Services Operations. The bureau provides oversight to child welfare operations in the five largest counties (“Designated Counties” – Genesee, Kent, Macomb, Oakland and Wayne). Responsibility for the bureau shifted from the CSA Director to the Chief Deputy Director of DHS at the end of the Period One.
Ahead of schedule, the DHS Director appointed county‐level Child Welfare Directors in the five largest counties, each of whom is responsible for overseeing DHS child welfare operations within the county. Each of these five county Child Welfare Directors reports to the Director of the Bureau of Children’s Field Services Operations.
Reporting up to these five Child Welfare Directors are county staff solely dedicated to child welfare services. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, DHS agreed to separate staff in the five largest counties so as to create offices devoted only to delivering child welfare services without combining those responsibilities with delivering public assistance and other DHS services. That process was completed early in Period One. DHS could move so quickly because the local managers in these large counties had opted prior to the Settlement Agreement to have staff specialize by function, and so most already had child welfare units. With the Settlement Agreement, the few remaining staff who were handling cross‐system responsibilities were converted to one part of the agency or the other. The child welfare units were formally separated from their colleagues performing other functions and the reporting relationship changed to the newly created Child Welfare Directors in each of those counties. In reviewing the caseload data and visiting these local offices, the monitoring team confirmed that staff were specializing in child welfare services – and in one county where there had been a small number of mixed caseloads, the monitoring team found that was eliminated during Period One.
In addition to the CSA Director and the Director of the Bureau of Children’s Field Services Operations, DHS also created the position of Children’s Services Field Manager, which was conceived in the Settlement Agreement to function as the leader of child welfare operations for the other 78 counties. The Children’s Services Field Manager oversees the central adoption subsidy unit and is responsible for providing leadership, oversight and direction for all matters pertaining to children’s services for those 78 counties.
Like all reorganizations, the launch of the CSA and of the child welfare operations structures has flourished and struggled in ways the parties may not have originally expected. The DHS Director moved briskly to identify leaders for the CSA, each Designated County and the Field Manager position. DHS leadership understood very early that they would be unable to implement their many reform commitments without putting in place strong, capable and
30

experienced leadership. As a result, DHS assembled its leadership group months earlier than required. On the other hand, finding the right reporting structure for field operations proved more challenging. After several months of the Director of Children’s Field Services Operations (overseeing the reform work in the five largest counties) and the Children’s Services Field Manager (overseeing the reform work in the 78 other counties) reporting separately,8 agency leadership at the close of Period One proposed to the monitoring team and plaintiffs a revised structure. In this reformulation, which departs from the Settlement Agreement and which the parties and the monitoring team approved, the Chief Deputy Director of DHS has become the functional head of Michigan’s child welfare reform effort, with three direct reports: the CSA Director, the Director of Children’s Field Services Operations and the Children’s Services Field Manager. See table of organization below.9 Central to the monitoring team’s and the plaintiffs’ approval of this departure from the Settlement Agreement, was DHS’ commitment to the removal of all non‐child welfare responsibilities from the Chief Deputy Director.
Shortly after the change in structure, there was also a change in personnel, as the acting Children’s Services Field Manager returned full‐time to her position as a county director of Genesee and the Director of Children’s Field Service Operations became a county director. Those two field positions were briskly re‐filled.
8 The Director of Children’s Field Services Operations reported to the CSA Director and the Children’s Services Field Manager reported to the Deputy Director for Field Services. 9 The Deputy Director for Children’s Services is a level 20 while the Director of Children’s Field Services Operations and the Children’s Services Field Manager are both level 18.
31

With structural transitions completed, DHS hopes it is now positioned to unite the public field offices, the private agencies and central office, which traditionally operate very separately, in the common goal of reform. Looking ahead, they will have to develop new communication structures, initiate further data sharing and joint planning efforts, and work creatively to develop partnerships to leverage everyone’s hard work into achieving a common end.
The parties agreed to convene regular meetings between themselves and with the monitoring team beginning in January 2009, to review the progress made to complete the structural changes, including bifurcation, described by the parties in their Settlement Agreement. Those meetings occurred during Period One. The monitoring team will continue to assess the State’s implementation of its structural commitments and its ability to devote staff full‐time to child welfare services in subsequent periods.
DHS committed as part of the Settlement Agreement to convene the Children’s Services Cabinet, headed by the CSA Director. Comprised of key DHS leadership, the Cabinet was established for the purpose of more uniformly administering all child welfare programs, policies, and practices. The Cabinet formally began meeting in December 2008 and convened four meetings during Period One.
To carry out federal compliance functions, DHS allocated 12 positions that were all filled during Period One. Created in January 2008, the Federal Compliance Unit is responsible for overseeing and coordinating the federal Child and Family Service Reviews (CFSR), including coordinating the implementation of any subsequent Program Improvement Plans (PIP); maximizing federal Title IV‐E reimbursement for the agency; and coordinating Titles IV‐B and IV‐E state plans consistent with the Settlement Agreement. Based on interviews, analysis of DHS position descriptions, incumbent resumes and internal DHS memoranda, the monitoring team concludes DHS had a sufficient number of staff to effectively carry out the functions reasonably expected of the Federal Compliance Unit during Period One.
In sum, DHS quickly established a new Children’s Services Administration and began the important process of building its management team. If the individual managers are able to create and sustain a cohesive team and build communication among central office managers, managers in the field and private agency leadership, DHS will be well positioned to undertake this reform.
B. STRENGTHENING CONTRACT OVERSIGHT
DHS also committed to a series of actions to improve its communication with and ensure oversight of the private agencies providing child welfare services. The Child Welfare Contract Compliance Unit, formerly the Purchased Services Division, which is now part of the Children’s Services Administration, is the lead unit responsible for monitoring DHS’ contracts with private agencies. Chief among its oversight activities is the commitment to conduct annual
32

evaluations of each private child placing agency (CPA) to review all relevant aspects of the agency’s operations, to conduct unannounced visits of residential care facilities, and to visit a random sample of foster homes. In order to complete this work, DHS hired additional contract compliance monitors, increasing the unit’s capacity from five to 17 staff. The compliance unit also developed draft policies and procedures to assess contracted providers for compliance with DHS policy, administrative and contractual requirements, state statutes, and federal regulations. Evaluation criteria were also developed during Period One that include performance measures as well as key contract compliance areas, such as safety. The monitoring team reviewed the draft policy and procedures manual and provided feedback to DHS and will report on implementation of the evaluation process in future reports.
C. ASSESSING THE ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES FOR REFORM
The tension between Michigan’s ambitions for child welfare reform and the State’s economic situation are significant. The Settlement Agreement includes a set of far‐reaching commitments to improve the Michigan child welfare system for children and families, many requiring additional investment. Even before the Settlement Agreement was signed, both the Legislature and Governor agreed to invest in additional staff in order to lower caseloads, and they added funding in FY2008 and FY2009 to that end, despite the economic downturn in Michigan. DHS reassessed its funding needs for FY2009 last fall after execution of the Settlement Agreement and originally proposed a supplemental appropriation in the amount of $52,327,000. The agency specifically requested $37,751,800 in State General Fund aid, and authorization to spend $13,188,500 in matching federal aid and $1,386,700 in county support. After interacting with the Legislature and with the State Budget Office (SBO), which reports to the Governor, DHS was advised that $13.4 million of the requested $52.3 million would be appropriated to the agency in FY2009. The SBO further directed DHS to reallocate existing resources in order to fund the remaining costs of the Settlement Agreement in Period One.
DHS was able to implement most of its commitments in Period One by shifting funds within the agency. Moving forward, Michigan’s reform commitments increase, so redirecting funds will no longer be a viable strategy, and the administration will have to advocate for increased investment in the child welfare reform effort if it is to be successful.
THE CHALLENGE AHEAD
There is reason to be concerned about the adequacy of resources to support the reform going forward. DHS cut services for children and families involved in the child welfare system after Period One concluded, even as it grew its capacity in other important areas. County directors were instructed to reduce certain child welfare services to families by 20 percent in Period Two. Some of these eliminated services are identical to those identified by DHS in its permanency backlog gap analysis and by Michigan State University in the Needs Assessment as being already scarce for children and families involved with the child welfare system. The
33

monitoring team will assess in Period Two the full impact on the reform of all funding requests made by the executive branch for the remainder of FY2009 and for FY2010. Early analysis suggests that Period Two service cuts are not consistent with the Settlement Agreement commitments to increase investments in services.
D. DEVELOPING THE WORKFORCE TO DELIVER HIGH QUALITY SERVICES
Increasing Educational Requirements
Hiring appropriately credentialed and qualified staff is essential to building an effective child welfare workforce. DHS committed to hire entry‐level caseworkers for positions in child protection services (CPS), foster care and adoption, as well as purchase of services (POS) monitors, with bachelor’s degrees (or a higher level degree) in social work or a related human services field. Private agency caseworkers whose responsibilities are comparable to those of DHS caseworkers are required to meet the same qualifications as DHS workers. To concretize these new requirements, DHS modified the hiring specifications for its caseworkers to more accurately reflect the needed skills and education. New caseworkers hired on October 24, 2008 and thereafter, must hold a bachelor's degree with a major in one of the following areas: social work, sociology, psychology, family ecology, consumer/community services, family studies, family and/or child development, guidance/school counseling, counseling psychology, or criminal justice.
DHS reported 253 public agency caseworkers10 and 79 private agency caseworkers were hired during Period One. All were required to have a bachelor’s degree in an appropriate designated field. The monitoring team verified compliance with this commitment by comparing the human resources lists provided by DHS with local office staff rosters and the DHS training database. Ninety‐nine percent of DHS caseworkers for whom information was provided to the monitoring team possessed the requisite degree. Moreover, 19 percent of the DHS caseworkers hired during Period One had a master’s degree in social work or in a related human services field. Ninety‐five percent of private agency caseworkers held the required bachelor’s degree, and 16 percent of staff possessed a master’s degree in a relevant field. The table below depicts the results of the monitoring team’s review of the documentation provided.
10The DHS caseworker number reported includes only two adoption workers. DHS reported they were unable to provide complete information on the hiring of all of its adoption workers because those staff are hired locally and not through the department’s central hiring pool. In addition, Human Resources could not identify which staff were POS workers – but the monitoring team was informed POS monitors are included among the foster care and identified adoption workers.
34

Agency
DHS Private Agencies Total

Workers Hired in Period
One

Workers with Required
Bachelor’s or Higher Degree

Workers with Other Bachelor’s
Degree

Workers with Master’s or Higher Degree

253 251 99%

79

75 95%

2 1% 4 5%

48 19% 13 16%

332 326 98%

6 2% 61 18%

DHS also committed that beginning February 2009, public agency staff hired or promoted to positions that include responsibility to supervise child welfare casework will possess a master’s degree in social work or a related human services field. DHS implemented new requirements that child welfare supervisors who do not currently have a master’s degree in one of the specified human services fields and with less than 18 months of experience must obtain a master’s degree by October 24, 2012. The master’s degree requirement may only be waived, with the approval of the DHS Director, for current supervisors who have demonstrated the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to provide high quality supervision. The supervisors working at private agencies whose responsibilities are comparable to those of DHS supervisors will be required to meet these same requirements beginning in April 2011.
DHS reported 30 public agency supervisors were hired or promoted between February 1, 2009 and March 31, 2009, all of whom were required to have a master’s degree in an appropriate designated field. The monitoring team verified compliance with this commitment by comparing the human resources reports provided by DHS with local office staff rosters and the DHS training database. DHS supervisors were compliant with this provision, with each possessing the requisite degree or an approved waiver. The DHS Director waived the master’s degree requirement because of their experience for nine supervisors promoted during Period One. Those supervisors represent 2.5 percent of the DHS supervisor allocation—currently 357—which does not exceed the ten percent threshold needed to trigger a case‐by‐case review by the monitoring team.
Expanding Training to Strengthen the Workforce
The Child Welfare Training Institute (CWTI), which had formerly been a unit in the Office of Professional Development under DHS, was moved to the CSA and elevated to a stand‐alone training entity. DHS hired an administrator with extensive experience in training, child welfare practice, investigations and family court practice to serve as the CWTI Director. The new Director immediately began to restructure the CWTI to more effectively deliver on the many training commitments within the Settlement Agreement. For example, a curriculum development unit and two training units were established—to link similar work under a single
35

manager. Additional training staff were hired, increasing the number from 11 to 29 trainers, and their roles were expanded to encompass broader functions in pre‐service and in‐service training. Each DHS local office now has a training coordinator, who is responsible for facilitating the ongoing training and professional development of child welfare staff.
In addition to increasing staff capacity, the CWTI nearly quadrupled its training capacity during Period One. Pre‐service training slots increased from a maximum of approximately 48 slots for new workers in each pre‐service institute to 178 new worker slots, for both DHS and private agencies, in each pre‐service institute. There are six pre‐service institutes scheduled in Periods Two and Three in 2009.
To further develop training capacity, CWTI also implemented a small, pilot private agency “train‐the‐trainer” program for foster care and adoption pre‐service and other program specific training. The first private agency‐led foster care pre‐service class commenced on March 30, 2009, and CWTI is continuing to expand the cadre of private agency trainers through a process of observation, co‐training with a CWTI trainer, and evaluation, mentoring, and feedback.
In early March 2009, CWTI began using Omni Track Plus (OTP), a Web‐based learning management system, which replaced a paper process that required DHS and private agency staff to complete and fax/mail forms to CWTI staff, who then entered the data into DHS’ training database. The new Web‐based system enables staff and supervisors to register for pre‐service and in‐service training, receive enrollment confirmation, and track training electronically. Accessible to both DHS and private agency staff, OTP issued over 1,700 user identification numbers during Period One, allowing staff to self‐register, and supervisors or training coordinators to register staff for training online.
An important feature of OTP is the capability of creating a training “track” for each job title, e.g., CPS worker, adoption supervisor, or foster care caseworker. Each track outlines the training requirements for a specific position. Once staff training tracks are assigned, caseworkers, their supervisors and the training coordinator are able to view a list of the mandatory training required for the worker and the date by which the training must be completed. With supervisory approval, staff may also take advantage of optional training offerings that are not part of the worker’s training track. To ensure that the information in OTP is current, supervisors and the training facility coordinators are required to update the system with any position change or promotion to ensure training tracks and transcripts are accurate.
Notwithstanding the improvements presented by the online tracking system, DHS is still working to develop its capacity and integrate the various tracking systems it has historically used to manage its training program. As a result, the monitoring team found a number of discrepancies when comparing reports provided by DHS, and in some cases, DHS was unable to produce data needed to monitor some of the Settlement Agreement provisions. Examples include identifying newly hired DHS adoption workers so their qualifications could be verified
36

and determining the date when workers started performing licensing functions to confirm compliance with the training commitments. The monitoring team will continue to report on DHS’ efforts to improve its online training and qualifications tracking. The monitoring team has requested, and expects to shortly receive, direct access to OTP in order to regularly run reports and independently verify the accuracy of staff training and qualifications data.
Although the pre‐service training commitments for new entry level caseworkers in CPS, foster care, and adoption and for purchase of service monitors do not become effective until Period Two, the CWTI made significant progress during Period One in preparing to deliver quality training to incoming staff. The CWTI revised the pre‐service training curriculum for child protective services and foster care workers, and began offering the new training in January 2009. To ensure adequate teaching time for the new curricula, DHS extended its pre‐service institute training from eight weeks to nine weeks, involving 300 hours of training—30 classroom days and 15 days of field instruction—well exceeding the 270 hours described in the Settlement Agreement.
DHS also committed that all caseworkers will receive a minimum number of hours of ongoing training annually. The chart below reflects the timetable for implementation of in‐service training for caseworkers.

Training Year October 2008 – September 2009 October 2009 – September 2010 October 2010 – September 2011 October 2011 and thereafter

CPS Staff FC & Adoption Staff Private Agency Staff

16 hours 24 hours

N/A

24 hours 40 hours

24 hours

32 hours 40 hours

40 hours

40 hours 40 hours

40 hours

Since full compliance with the first year’s commitments is not required until the end of Period Two, performance on the in‐service training requirements will appear in the next monitoring report. DHS has, however, already done considerable work to advance successful compliance with this provision.
In partnership with DHS, the Michigan State University Child Welfare Resource Center took the lead in bringing together seven graduate social work schools11 to develop a Child Welfare
11 The Michigan Graduate Schools of Social Work participating in the partnership are Andrews University, Eastern Michigan University, Grand Valley State University, Michigan State University, University of Michigan, Wayne State University, and Western Michigan University.
37

In‐Service training program, offering a wide array of relevant courses for caseworkers. With the support of Casey Family Programs, the partner schools are able to offer in‐service training sessions at no charge to DHS child protective services, foster care, and adoption workers, and often at a reduced fee for private agency staff. The consortium also developed a specialized curriculum for Permanency Planning Specialists and Permanency Planning Assistants. The training includes skill‐building exercises on areas related to interviewing children and adolescents, family finding strategies, making contact, case mining and key permanency principles.
In addition to the university based training opportunities, CWTI has pre‐approved in‐service training sessions that are offered by the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan, the State Court Administrative Office, the Department of Community Health and several online sites.
Lowering Foster Care and Adoption Caseloads
The State recognizes that lowering caseloads to manageable sizes is a necessary foundational element of child welfare reform. As documented by the federal government, child welfare staff must have manageable caseloads in order to do essential tasks including: investigate thoroughly; make sound screening and placement decisions; develop individualized case plans; address family and child service needs; conduct family meetings; engage in regular visitation themselves and arrange regular visitation between parents and children and among siblings if the siblings are separated; and ensure brisk and appropriate permanency for children in placement.12 Routinely, systems that do not function well – that unnecessarily remove children from their families; have poor safety records; neglect the well‐being of children in placement; keep children in care for the longest periods of time; and often that are the most expensive and least efficient – have staff with high caseloads.
In other jurisdictions that have benefitted from child welfare reform efforts, caseloads have declined and child safety has improved. Reform introduces sufficient staff to investigate thoroughly reports of child maltreatment in care or child abuse and neglect in the community. Children, youth, parents, relatives, and foster parents report that caseworkers are available when needed, focused on the unique needs of the family and able to achieve better outcomes with children, youth and families. Turnover rates among staff are reduced as the work becomes manageable, and children do not move from caseworker to caseworker.
By all reports, prior to the Settlement Agreement, Michigan’s caseloads had risen over the years. Budget cuts and two waves of early retirements brought reductions in staffing, leaving the remaining staff in the public and private agencies struggling with increased responsibilities. This issue compounded as the numbers of legally‐free children in placement continued to rise–a population requiring focus and attention not possible with a high caseload.
12 GAO Report, 2003.
38

As a result of staff investments in FY2008 implemented into FY2009, caseloads did get demonstrably better for the two types of public and private agency staff targeted for caseload reductions in Period One ‐ those providing foster care and adoption services directly to children. Interviews across the State revealed those staff were beginning to feel the difference.

In Period Two (see Table below) caseload targets for the critical child protective services functions – both investigative and ongoing – become effective, and the adoption standard moves another step closer to the ultimate target number. Period Three, which starts at the beginning of FY2010, will require further investment in order to ensure DHS can meet its commitments with respect to licensing staff and POS monitoring staff, as well as the continued lowering of caseloads for foster care, adoption and child protective services staff. Period Three also marks the initiation of a supervisory standard – requiring lower ratios of staff to supervisors to ensure staff get the level of oversight they need.

Type of Staff
Foster Care Direct Adoption Direct CPS Investigations

Initial Measurement 95% of staff have no more than 30 children each Oct‐ while 60% have no more 2008 than 25 children each Feb‐ 60% of staff have no more 2009 than 25 children each 60% of staff have no more Apr‐ than 16 investigations 2009 each

Target

Oct‐ 2011 Oct‐ 2011
Oct‐ 2011

95% of staff will have no more than 15 children each 95% of staff have no more than 15 children each 95% of staff have no more than 12 investigations each

CPS Ongoing
POS
Licensing Supervisors (CPS/FC/A)

Apr‐ 2009
Oct‐ 2009
Oct‐ 2009
Jan‐ 2010

95% of staff have no more than 30 families each 60% of staff have no more than 55 children to monitor 60% of staff will have a workload that will be defined in the future 50% of supervisors will oversee no more than five caseworkers

Oct‐ 2011
Oct‐ 2011
Oct‐ 2011
Jan‐ 2012

95% of staff have no more than 17 families each 95% of staff have no more than 45 children to monitor 95% of staff will have a workload that will be defined in the future 95% of supervisors will oversee no more than five caseworkers

It currently requires a great deal of work to collect all of the information necessary to count caseloads. (See Appendix C for a more detailed discussion of the development of the caseload methodology.) DHS’ ultimate goal is to be able to count caseloads electronically through the DHS child welfare information system – Services Worker Support System (SWSS) – but DHS

39

believes that goal is still several months away. In the interim, each DHS office and private agency must count by hand each staff person and the number of cases assigned to that person. The five largest counties forward their public agency data to the Director of Children’s Field Services Operations. The data for the other 78 counties is forwarded to the Children’s Services Field Manager. Finally, the more than 60 private agencies forward their data to the Child Welfare Contract Compliance Unit. Each of those units collates their data and then combines it to analyze whether DHS is meeting its commitments.
For Period One, DHS was able to begin measuring the public agency caseloads in October; at the end of January/beginning of February; and then again at the end of March/beginning of April. The private agency counting process proved more challenging. An initial count was done in August 2008. That count provided substantial information about private agency performance, missing information from only two agencies providing foster care services and adoption services. DHS did not repeat that process until late March/early April 2009, missing foster care information from only one agency. Because DHS did not measure the private agencies’ performance at the time each of the two standards came due – October 2008 for foster care and February 2009 for adoption – the monitoring team has had to extrapolate between the August 2008 and the March/April 2009 data to analyze performance. The monitoring team’s expectation is that the caseload counts for the future will be conducted as each standard comes due in order to accurately assess performance – and that is DHS’ plan with respect to Period Two.
In order to assess caseload performance, the monitoring team conducted its own analysis of the raw caseload data separate from the analysis offered by the State.13 The monitoring team found some small differences between its analysis and the State’s, but those differences did not prove significant in Period One. Both analyses concluded that the State was in compliance. The monitoring team also engaged in independent verification activities in Period One, interviewing staff at private and public agencies, and requesting on‐site checks of caseloads in some of the public agency’s local offices. Those interviews and checks supported the monitoring team’s assessment of Period One caseload performance.
13 See Appendix B for the list of the number of staff engaged in foster care and adoption services, and the rates of caseload compliance by county and private agency. The monitoring team relied on its analysis for this report, but will continue to work closely with DHS to align analyses in upcoming periods. Note that for reasons discussed in detail in the Caseload Methodology section found in the Appendix, both DHS and the monitoring team count all staff providing any foster care or adoption services in assessing compliance. That does not mean those staff provide those services full‐time – indeed, the majority do not. In the public agency, for example, it is very common to blend both direct service and POS responsibilities in one person. Similarly, some of the private agencies allocate one staff person to spend part of their time on foster care, for example, and the rest of their time on licensing. The private agencies are also more likely to utilize part‐time or contractual staff. The relevant caseload standard is adjusted against the time available for each staff person in order to determine compliance – for example, if a staff can devote only 50 percent of her time to foster care services, she is limited to 50 percent of the caseload standard. In short, the numbers of staff listed with respect to each standard must not be confused with full‐time equivalent (FTE) counts.
40

By the end of Period One, there were 1,192 staff reported to be providing direct foster care case management services – with 36 percent of those staff working in private agencies and 64 percent in the public agency. The percent for each is proportional to their share of the foster care caseload. Among all staff (the sum of both public and private), 1,072 of 1,192 staff (90 percent) reported caseloads at the level of 25 children or fewer, while 96 percent reported caseloads of 30 children or fewer.

April 2009 Five Public Largest Counties 78 Public Counties Private Agencies TOTAL

FOSTER CARE

All

1 Staff to 25 Children

Staff Target = 60%

411

374

91%

350

285

81%

431

413

96%

1,192 1,072 90%

1 Staff to 30 Children Target = 95%
399 97% 324 93% 425 99% 1,148 96%

DHS’ performance meets the standard set for October 2008, which required that a subset of 60 percent of foster care staff have responsibility for 25 children or fewer, while 95 percent have 30 children or fewer. With respect to the private agencies, of the 49 agencies reporting in August 2008, 89 percent of their staff had caseloads at the level of 25 children or fewer while 97 percent had caseloads of 30 children or fewer – levels which improved further by the end of Period One to a total of 52 agencies reporting 96 percent for 25 children or fewer, and 99 percent for 30 children or fewer.
With regard to adoption staff, by the end of Period One, there were 253 staff between the public and private agencies. Eighty percent had achieved the standard for having 25 or fewer children on their caseloads, exceeding the Settlement Agreement target of 60 percent.

April 2009 5 Public Largest Counties 78 Public Counties Private Agencies

ADOPTION All

1 Staff to 25 Children

Staff

Target=60%

25

19

76%

35

16

46%

193

173 90%

TOTAL

253

208 80%

The FY2008 Michigan State Budget shifted the bulk of adoption services work to the private agencies. As a result, most (76 percent) of the identified adoption staff were with the private agencies. Caseloads were better for these staff in the private agencies – 91 percent had
41

caseloads of 25 or fewer children – while the DHS staff struggled in the wake of the shift of resources from the public to the private agencies. Nineteen of 25 adoption staff in the five largest counties (76 percent) and only 16 of the 35 staff providing adoption services in the other 78 counties (46 percent) achieved the adoption caseload standard.
It is important to note that in comparing the number of available public agency staff with the number of counties, many public agency staff were assigned to cover cases across more than one county. In part, higher public agency caseloads reflect the fact that adoption staffing positions were dramatically and suddenly scaled down in the public sector leaving other DHS staff to pick up adoption cases that had not or could not be shifted to the private sector. More important is the fact that there was a sudden growth in demand for POS monitoring for those adoption cases that were shifted to the private sector – and so public agency staff with direct adoption services cases often also handle POS responsibilities as well, which placed some of them out of caseload compliance. Nonetheless, when all of the adoption staff are assessed as a whole, the State achieved compliance for adoption direct services staff for Period One.
In Period One, much hard work by DHS went into addressing CPS caseloads. They began by developing accurate counts of CPS cases; data that was unavailable at the start of the period. By the end of the period, the hiring of a data manager with deep experience with CPS data and a strong commitment by the DHS central office had produced the first CPS data available to the field in more than two years. To further support staff in the field, the DHS central office authorized limited overtime – a precious resource in a time of very tight fiscal constraints – for supervisors and administrators to complete reviews of outstanding investigations. The DHS central office communicated with the DHS county offices to ensure adequate CPS staffing was put into place in anticipation of the commitment to meet the CPS caseload standard in Period Two. The results of all of these efforts will be assessed following Period Two. However, it is fair to say that one of the essential aspects of this reform is ensuring adequate staffing to thoroughly investigate allegations of child abuse and neglect – and the monitoring team recognizes the focus of DHS leadership and the field on this issue in Period One.
E. DEVELOPING THE CAPACITY FOR ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
Recognizing that the capacity to conduct quantitative and qualitative analysis and develop successful implementation plans are fundamental elements to effect reform, the parties agreed to focus in Period One on building the State’s infrastructure in these essential arenas. By the end of Period One, DHS had made strides in its ability to collect, analyze and report out data. Slower to come – as would be expected – was building a new capacity to conduct quality assurance as described by the Settlement Agreement. This new capacity includes the growth of a continuous quality improvement culture and team; special reviews of high risk populations of children; and child fatality reviews. Finally, Period One required the development of planning capacity in order to produce a series of implementation plans and that proved a struggle.
42

Accessing and Utilizing Data
At the start of this reform effort, the parties agreed that Michigan suffered from a lack of usable data to inform decision‐making. In prior years, an investment had been made to build a comprehensive database known as the Services Worker Support System (SWSS) that conformed to the federal Statewide Automated Child Welfare Information System (SACWIS) database requirements – but that was only partially successful. That system was still so incomplete at the start of Period One that federal regulators declared Michigan to be non‐ compliant with federal standards. While that declaration of non‐compliance has important potential fiscal and administrative implications, even more important are the complaints about SWSS from caseworkers and supervisors in the field. DHS field staff complain that SWSS is exceedingly labor intensive; that the data input is difficult and can consume hours for what should be simple reporting; and that it is difficult to utilize the database to manage daily work. This means staff often do the double‐work of entering the data in SWSS but keep their own separate hand‐counts for tracking, or local offices maintain their own ad hoc databases. Judges and attorneys have complained about the format and sequencing of the SWSS court reports – with the result that in many counties, staff enter the information into SWSS but then have to write separate court reports. DHS has met with the judges in order to begin addressing their concerns.
SWSS also requires specific skill sequences to do important tasks, such as enrolling a newly placed child in Medicaid or completing a Determination of Care form, triggering payment to a foster parent (or to a private agency to pay a foster parent). Familiarity with these skills varies from worker to worker with some really struggling, causing delay in the delivery of these critical services.
For years, SWSS was limited to foster care and adoption case management and a separate database was kept for CPS reporting (there was some SWSS CPS functionality but not for CPS data reporting). Three years before the Settlement Agreement, a new SWSS CPS functionality was brought online and the older CPS database was eliminated. The inherent difficulties of data conversion from the old database to the new one, allied with several glitches in the design, essentially eliminated the staff’s capacity to access CPS data. Given how very essential that data is, this absence caused tremendous problems, from handicapping the DHS central office’s ability to assess whether or not there were proper staffing allocations, to managers and supervisors being unable to assess timeliness and risk levels of open investigations, to local office staff keeping hand counts of their own CPS cases.
As difficult as SWSS has proved to be from the perspective of public agency staff, it is completely inaccessible to the private agencies. Instead, they fill out paper reports, forward those to their purchase of service (POS) monitors at DHS, and those POS monitors in turn are charged with the responsibility of entering that data into SWSS. As POS monitors have a wide variety of monitoring responsibilities aside from data entry, entering this information has not always been seen as high priority and so the data could be entered after weeks or months. Moreover, because the staff entering the data are not the staff doing the work, sometimes
43

information gets lost in translation leading to erroneous data entries – and ultimately inaccurate data. Private agencies have also had to rely on DHS staff to do the data entry to trigger the basic services referenced above – such as enrolling a child in Medicaid or completing the Determination of Care – and they report that sometimes it takes several phone calls to get those tasks done. Moreover, as with the DHS staff, the private agencies received no reporting from SWSS and the occasional points of data that were shared with them were reported as being inaccurate – not a surprise given the data entry barriers.
The limitations of SWSS and data reporting were not felt only among caseworkers. Critical central office functions often had to go without data or require staff in the local offices to produce laborious hand count reports. The lack of data made such tasks as staffing allocations based on caseloads, foster home recruitment planning, performance based contracting, and any type of quality assurance activity extremely challenging to execute. As a result, DHS often did without or used a more limited data set to try to accomplish these tasks.
The Settlement Agreement, therefore, commits to remedying this lack of information at several levels. At the broadest level, it commits to ensuring the State can report important, federally required child welfare data accurately and that the State ultimately achieves compliance with the federal database reporting requirements. According to DHS leadership, this commitment may require an overhaul of SWSS – or it may require abandoning SWSS in favor of a new database. In order to assess what needs to be done, DHS proposed in Period One, and the federal government agreed, to secure an independent assessment of its SWSS system. Through a competitive process, DHS contracted with Fox Systems to do that assessment – and that report is expected to be issued in Period Three. While the assessment of and solutions to the existing system challenges are explored, the federal government has restricted DHS’ ability to modify SWSS, permitting only maintenance of the existing system to discourage investment in a system that might not be continued. But that restriction does handicap DHS’ ability to respond directly to many of the challenges with the SWSS system identified above and requires alternative work‐arounds in order for DHS to satisfy its federal and Settlement Agreement reporting requirements. The Settlement Agreement did anticipate these solutions might take some time and so targets the year 2012 for ultimate resolution.
At the next level, the Settlement Agreement commits to developing the data capacity sufficient to provide a wide range of child welfare processes and outcome measures. Several of those (e.g. the permanency tracking system or the relative home backlog tracking system) are referenced elsewhere in this report. Moreover, the Settlement Agreement recognizes DHS has to overcome the barrier of integrating private agency data into its overall data collection and reporting system. Consequently, the Settlement Agreement makes explicit the requirement to collect all Settlement Agreement relevant data from the private agencies; requires that contracts with those agencies make this data collection and reporting obligations explicit and clear; relies on the collection and reporting of such data to support the commitment to utilize performance based contracting; and commits to regular (at least quarterly) reporting on performance.
44

In order to achieve any of those goals, DHS first had to overhaul its internal capacity. Previously, virtually all database development and reporting had been outsourced to Michigan’s Department of Information Technology (DIT). DIT had centralized all State technology functions and support for all state agencies. In the process, however, DHS lost its close connection to the databases and reports it needed to do its work. In Period One, DHS leadership took a two‐pronged approach to address the gap. First, the DHS Director hired an experienced manager to oversee the Bureau of Child Welfare Improvement, and she in turn, over the course of Period One, assembled a data team with the relevant experience to produce the necessary child welfare specific data. Secondly, DHS leadership worked closely with DIT to reconstruct the service delivery system and build a structure that worked to close the gap. For the first time, DHS regularly accessed data from DIT’s Data Warehouse which incorporates information from SWSS, as well as data from other parts of DHS and some other public agencies – and utilized that information to provide regular reporting.
This new team and new relationship with DIT began to bear fruit in Period One. By the end of the period, CPS reporting had resumed – a very significant accomplishment. This team has organized county level child welfare reporting and developed a template to produce critical information on the intranet for DHS managers, supervisors, and staff so they can see how they are performing. Focusing first on federally required child welfare outcome reporting, DHS and private agencies came to an agreement about a lengthy list of outcomes to be monitored. The county level reporting has been designed to use those same federal measures to help public managers and supervisors assess how they are performing and compare themselves against their peers. Period One witnessed the design of these systems and the building of the infrastructure to collect the information and produce the reporting in reader‐friendly formats – but the fruits of these efforts will be seen and reported on in subsequent periods.
During Period One, DHS allocated 14 positions to the Data Management Unit, including one manager, four Business Analysts, eight Data Unit Reporting Analysts (two positions vacant during Period One), and a statewide SWSS Coordinator (vacant in Period One). According to DHS, the Data Unit was responsible for reviewing and analyzing all program areas of child welfare data as it relates to the Settlement Agreement: efficient receipt, clarification, assignment, production, and tracking of child welfare data reports; validating all child welfare data released within and outside DHS to ensure program statistics are communicated accurately and consistently; evaluating the intersection of state and federal policy and law with automated data systems to ensure compliance in data collection and reporting; providing subject matter expertise to IT staff for systems development and upgrade; and coordinating SWSS implementation among DHS, its state agency partners and the United States Department of Health and Human Services to ensure compliance within established timeframes. Based on numerous interviews, analysis of DHS position descriptions, incumbent resumes and internal DHS memoranda, the monitoring team concludes DHS had a sufficient number of staff to effectively carry out the functions reasonably expected of the Data Collection and Analysis Unit during Period One.
45

Implementing Quality Assurance
As referenced at the start of this section, the Settlement Agreement also incorporated the development of new quality assurance (QA) capacities including continuous quality improvement (CQI) staffing and activities, as well as the ability to deliver a series of special reviews of high risk populations and of fatalities.
DHS has proposed a set of far‐reaching CQI activities that go beyond their commitments in the Settlement Agreement. CQI incorporates the concept that the information collected will be utilized for more than compliance purposes – traditional QA activity – but instead will be actively employed to feed information back to the point of service delivery to help staff and managers improve their performance. It also encourages recognition of agencies or units that excel to be used as living laboratories from which the rest of the system can learn.
By the end of Period One, the State had hired a CQI manager – fulfilling that commitment in the Settlement Agreement. The State did not, however, identify individuals with the right skill set to fill 12 analyst positions; succeeding in only filling two of them. A comprehensive quality assurance initiative requires experienced staff with a unique skill set and a commitment to the trajectory of the reform. The agency continues to recruit and hire for these critical and specialized roles and committed to filling all of them early in Period Two. The monitoring team will report on DHS’ progress in its next report.
Once hired, five Quality Assurance Analysts (QAA) will be dedicated to each DHS child welfare operation in the five largest counties, and the remaining seven QAAs will be strategically placed to cover the remaining 78 counties. QAAs will work with county directors to develop local Quality Improvement Teams, which will provide ongoing feedback about ways to improve child welfare service delivery. But it will be challenging to balance these CQI activities along the other responsibilities also assigned to these staff, particularly the special reviews for high risk populations of children.
Completing all of the special reviews is clearly a high priority in the Settlement Agreement as this work focuses on children who are at high risk of having urgent safety and service needs. Specifically, the Settlement Agreement committed the CQI unit to planning, executing and reporting on a series of special reviews for five higher risk populations (total of 3,609 children):
i. Alleged Maltreatment in Care: 367 children in care who were the subjects of an allegation of abuse or neglect in a residential setting or foster home, whether licensed or unlicensed, between June 2007 and September 2008, and who remain in the placement in which the maltreatment was alleged to have occurred;
ii. Multiple Allegations of Maltreatment in Care: 23 children in foster homes who were the subject of three or more reports alleging abuse or neglect, the most
46

recent of which was filed during or after July 2007, and who remain in the foster home in which the maltreatment was alleged to have occurred;
iii. Multiple Placements: 2,569 children who have been in three or more placements (excluding home) within the previous 12 months;
iv. Residential Placements: 478 children who have been in residential care for one year or longer; and
v. Unrelated and Unlicensed Caregiver: 172 children who are in an unrelated and unlicensed caregiver placement in which the caregiver is not a relative of the child but has been approved as a placement resource because of prior ties to the child and/or the child’s family.
In order to define each population, DHS had to sort through the data, structure the queries, and analyze the results. The initial analysis occurred in October 2008 but the lists were not refined and finalized until after Period One ended.
Early on it became clear that conducting the special reviews was going to take a great deal of thought and capacity. Although the parties had sought to define limited target populations, even after the lists were refined, the number of children and youth in these groups was much larger than expected. Triaging, DHS started with the highest risk among those populations of children, focusing first on the 23 children who were the subject of multiple allegations of maltreatment in foster homes. That work was ongoing at the end of Period One and will be the subject of future reporting by the monitoring team. DHS has committed to increasing its capacity to conduct these reviews in Period Two and has targeted completion of the reviews for the 367 children in the alleged maltreatment in care group by September 30, 2009.
Overall, DHS struggled to develop a viable plan for conducting all of these reviews. It proposed an initial team of reviewers in January 2009, but as the data developed it soon became clear this team could not complete all of this work by itself. The CQI analysts, who were to be critical members of the team, were, as explained above, coming onboard more slowly than anticipated, and the remaining members of the team had other full‐time responsibilities and so could only participate in a limited number of reviews. Entering Period Two, DHS understands it will need to identify a different source of capacity and a different approach for tackling the large number of reviews that remain in the other four special review populations. At the end of Period One, the State was still engaged in planning in this area.
A further quality assurance activity described in the Settlement Agreement involves DHS’ implementation of a process for reviewing the case handling of all children who die while in out‐of‐home placement, regardless of cause, and to integrate lessons learned from these reviews in ongoing continuous quality improvement efforts. Specifically, DHS committed to review all cases where children died while in care, using qualified and competent individuals to complete the reviews and ensuring that the reviewers are independent of the county in
47

which the fatality occurred. For all foster child deaths that occurred after March 31, 2008, child fatality reviews are due within six months of the date of death, and are shared under a protective order of the federal court with plaintiffs and the monitoring team. For all foster child deaths that occurred between March 31, 2005 and March 31, 2008, DHS agreed to complete reviews during Period One and share them with plaintiffs and the monitoring team under a protective order of the federal court.
Most child fatality reviews due to the monitoring team and plaintiffs were provided timely by DHS during Period One. Several reviews were not, reportedly because the central CSA Office of Family Advocate, which oversees the fatality review process for the agency, was unaware of the children’s deaths for significant periods of time after the fatalities. The agency attributed the lapses to communication gaps between the Office of Family Advocate and county DHS offices, and timely notification and review remains an issue in some cases. Based on its first set of reviews, DHS reported that 70 children died of various causes while in foster care between March 31, 2005 and March 31, 2008, and 17 children died of various causes while in foster care between April 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009. The monitoring team subsequently learned during its verification work that another youth died between April 1, 2008 and March 31, 2009, whom DHS had not previously identified as being subject to review, bringing the total number of children who died in care between March 31, 2005 and March 31, 2009 to 88 children. Some of the children were medically fragile, and they died from a wide variety of causes including chronic medical conditions, terminal illnesses, accidents, and suicide. In all, of the 88 cases reviewed, 51 were referred to CPS for investigation of suspected child abuse or neglect. Of the 51, ten were confirmed cases of child abuse or neglect.
The reviews were conducted by a variety of parties. The Michigan Children’s Ombudsman and her staff, consistent with their statutory authority, conducted seven of the reviews. The Michigan Public Health Institute, serving as one of the State’s Citizen Review Panels, conducted 27 reviews. The CSA Office of Family Advocate had conducted five of the reviews prior to the Settlement Agreement, and oversaw the review process for the balance of the reviews due during the period. The reports vary in their breadth and depth. Some offer detailed findings and recommendations; others none. As DHS builds its continuous quality improvement efforts over the next year, the monitoring team will assess how DHS improves its child fatality review process, including its statewide tracking of child fatalities, and integrates its learning from these reviews into ongoing practice improvement for its work with children and families across the state.
Creating Effective Plans
DHS committed in the Settlement Agreement to produce a comprehensive Implementation Plan by December 15, 2008 but that process extended into Period Two. In addition, DHS committed to producing a series of other plans in Period One – a kinship licensing plan, a licensing training plan and a quality assurance plan. Several other plans were postponed to Period Two. In Period One, the results of the required wide range of planning activities was mixed – but on balance, DHS was not successful in creating effective plans.
48

Initially, the parties, with the monitoring team, agreed the Implementation Plan should be brief and focus on planning for activities that were most imminent. That work included those commitments coming due in Periods One and Two or which required critical infrastructure investments, training or other fundamental groundwork to be done in Periods One and Two in preparation for subsequent periods. An initial extension was granted in recognition of the fact that the planning could improve once DHS got some of its critical data capacity up and running and could feed that information into the planning process. As that data became available, it made its way into the drafting process. Nonetheless DHS’ ability to utilize that data to identify the resources necessary to achieve the Settlement Agreement goals, set interim targets, or identify potential areas of strength or challenge remained elusive. Indeed, drafts of the Implementation Plan evolved into reporting on current activities and proposed short‐term activities but lost specificity when it came to future activities. In an attempt to be more concrete, DHS agreed to focus on subsets of implementation activities – the development of the permanency planning specialist capacity, team decision‐making implementation, and the creation of special investigative units focused on maltreatment in care – with the thought that those more specific plans could then be incorporated into the Implementation Plan.
The Implementation Plan production process spread out over many months – to the frustration of all. As the planning process evolved, more pressing concerns appeared to intrude and impact the scope of the plans. As public revenues in Michigan were dropping, the pressures on DHS to cut their budget became intense. In the face of being asked to cut existing resources, the DHS team struggled to resolve how to deliver on its promises in the Settlement Agreement – promises that relied in part on resources that looked to no longer be available. That struggle continued into Period Two.
With respect to other required planning processes, the results were mixed. The continuous quality improvement plan is ambitious and incorporates laudable goals – but is vague about what capacity will be needed to get there. Some of the other plans produced by DHS – kinship licensing and licensing training – initially appeared viable but had not produced satisfactory results by the end of Period One (see the relevant parts of this report), suggesting a need for mid‐course corrections, which will require DHS to revisit these plans.
Of course, viable implementation plans are not the end themselves. They are a means to an end, improving lives of children and families—for example, achieving permanency for the large number of legally‐free children; supporting kin caregivers to provide safe homes for children in placement; reducing the numbers of youth aging‐out of care without permanency; insuring children’s safety in care, etc. Staff at DHS and the private agencies are working hard – but they will need critical tools, like planning and resources, to achieve reform.
49

IV. ACHIEVING PERMANENCY FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH
A major focus of the Settlement Agreement is improving permanency outcomes for children and youth in foster care. Michigan, like many states, has struggled to meet its commitment to children who have been removed from their families and who are placed temporarily in the State’s custody.
A variety of factors over the years, including service gaps, resource contraction, high turnover among DHS leadership and field staff, and a pattern of making more children legally free than were adopted each year (see Demographics section of this report above) contributed to the mounting backlog of children who were awaiting permanency in July 2008, when the parties entered into their Settlement Agreement. These circumstances were longstanding and adversely impacted the State’s ability to effectively implement the permanency provisions of the 1997 federal Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and Michigan’s 1998 Binsfield legislation. Both laws contained major changes that shortened the timeframe for the achievement of permanency outcomes for children in foster care. Successful implementation of ASFA and Binsfield would have required the State to have the fundamental elements of its child welfare system soundly in place more than a decade ago, including a wide array of readily available services for birth parents and children, a well‐trained and competently supervised workforce who have manageable caseloads, a robust pool of foster and adoptive parents, and effective data and tracking systems. Unfortunately, DHS lacked that capacity. As a result, as this Settlement Agreement began, Michigan faced one of the country’s most daunting backlogs of children in foster care awaiting permanency: 5,052 children awaited family reunification for more than one year and 4,260 children had been legally free for adoption for more than one year. The children in these groups are referred to in the Settlement Agreement as members of the “backlog cohorts” and the State has committed to urgently achieve permanency for them.
Equally important are DHS’ commitments to achieve timely and positive permanency outcomes for all children and youth entering foster care. The Settlement Agreement contains many provisions intended to strengthen DHS’ casework practice and to expand the array of relevant services available to children, youth, and their families. DHS is working to create a new model of practice that is strengths‐based and family‐centered. The model will include important practice elements such as team decision‐making, concurrent permanency planning, a youth in transition teaming construct, and an adoption process model. This is vitally important work and the monitoring team will report on DHS progress in developing and implementing its new practice beginning in Period Two.
A. FOCUSING ON WAITING YOUTH IN NEED OF PERMANENCY: THE BACKLOG COHORTS
As part of the Settlement Agreement, DHS agreed to achieve permanency for all children in the backlog cohorts by September 2011. There are also important interim benchmarks that must be met—the first is to achieve permanency for 50 percent of the children in both
50

backlog cohorts by September 2009. The backlog cohorts were defined as those children who as of September 28, 2008: (a) were legally‐free for adoption for more than 365 days based on the termination of their parents’ rights, or (b) had a goal of reunification and were in care for more than 365 days. For purposes of this report, the two cohorts of children are referred to as the legally‐free cohort and the reunification cohort, respectively.
In order to prepare to meet the benchmark of 50 percent for permanency by September 2009, the end of Period Two, DHS agreed to develop and implement improved policies and procedures, build a new organizational structure, hire additional staff, and improve training during this initial period—all essential building blocks to achieve legal permanency for children within the backlog cohorts. In order to ensure that a coherent set of field directives were developed, implemented and monitored and they had the focus needed to reduce the permanency backlogs, DHS established and filled the position of Permanency Planning Coordinator in January 2009. Reporting to the Adoption, Guardianship and Permanency Manager within the Bureau of Child Welfare, the coordinator is responsible for overseeing implementation of all commitments of the Settlement Agreement related to positively resolving the backlog cohorts. The monitoring team met with the coordinator regarding DHS’ strategy to implement a statewide backlog review process, the development of a gap analysis study, and the provision of technical assistance to the public and private agency field offices. The monitoring team was encouraged by the coordinator’s recognition that her role is a broad one that must include communication and support for the field offices so that implementation issues can be understood and addressed. The first Permanency Planning Coordinator has since been promoted to the position of Adoption, Guardianship and Permanency Manager. She now supervises the recently appointed Permanency Planning Coordinator and their ongoing work continues uninterrupted.
DEFINING THE COHORTS
Even before the Settlement Agreement was finalized, DHS embarked on the process of determining which children would comprise two backlog cohorts. Utilizing its initial bare‐bones data capacity – capacity that grew substantially over Period One – DHS used broad search terms within its SWSS system to identify the initial pool of children for the cohorts. Beginning in August 2008, DHS developed lists of children for each cohort, broke those lists down by county, and then sent the lists out to the counties for verification purposes. Those initial lists included any child who was then already in one or the other cohort – and any child who was projected to be joining either cohort if they stayed in care until January 1, 2009. The initial verification process involved data cleaning activities such as the identification of duplicate entries; identification of cases that had previously been closed but that closure had not registered on the database; and cases where the case management responsibility needed to be re‐aligned to the assigned county. After several rounds of data review and verification, DHS established fixed cohorts that were finalized by September 28, 2008.
As Period One progressed and the county child welfare offices focused on children in the backlog cohorts, additional data cleaning issues surfaced – but on a much smaller scale than
51

they had initially. An issue surfaced in January when an unrelated programming change in SWSS created a barrier to registering the closure of adoption cases at finalization; the data system interpreted the opening of an adoption subsidy case as an open case. That challenge had not been solved by the end of Period One, which meant each adoption case had to be reviewed by hand to determine whether or not it was closed. The work to identify the underlying programming issue continued into Period Two.
Finally, there were two categories of over‐inclusion which did not get fully sorted out until after Period One ended and other data cleaning issues continued to surface as the monitoring team did their verification work. Because the original cohorts were defined late in September 2008, there were children who exited care earlier in the month who were included in the cohort reporting and needed to be excluded as the data reporting was finalized after the period ended. Even more substantial were a group of children who had been included in the cohort tracking because they were projected to be entering the cohorts by January 1, 2009, but who in fact exited to permanency before they satisfied the criteria of awaiting reunification for more than a year or being legally‐free for more than a year. Thus, they were excluded from the final counts for Period One. The verification work also revealed youth counted as exits in each cohort for Period One–particularly among the youth who exited without permanency–who had no contact with DHS for many months prior to the initiation of the backlog cohort groups and whose cases had been closed by the courts or could have been closed by the courts, but DHS identified them for closure only during the backlog cohort work.
The monitoring team expects data cleaning and over‐inclusion issues to diminish and ultimately disappear in subsequent periods. Indeed, throughout the verification process, the team found the data to be more accurate over time.
While over‐inclusion proved a challenge during Period One, DHS consistently asserted that it had guarded against under‐inclusion precisely by defining the original data terms broadly. In its verification work, the monitoring team found no indication in Period One that a child had been excluded from the cohort who should have been included but will continue to monitor this issue in subsequent periods.
COHORT DEMOGRAPHICS
Following the Period One data verification, the baseline for the reunification cohort was 5,052 children and the baseline for the legally‐free cohort was 4,260 children. After exits from care in Period One, the number of children in the reunification cohort had decreased to 3,277 children and the legally‐free cohort to 3,287 children (See Appendix A for the number of children in each cohort by county). Together (as the cohorts are unique and a single child can be in only one cohort), there were a total of 6,565 children still in those cohorts at the end of Period One; 38 percent of all 17,115 children in foster care.14
14 Michigan includes in its “in placement” count children who were in placement, have been returned home, and are still under the supervision of the agency pending official closure by the court. Consistently over time, this
52

The reunification cohort has slightly more female children and youth than male while the reverse is true for the legally‐free cohort.
The largest group of children by age in the reunification cohort are five and younger. In the legally‐free cohort, 60 percent of the youth are age 12 and older.
A disturbing characteristic of both backlog cohorts is the over‐representation of African‐ American children. Of the children in the reunification cohort, 50 percent are African‐ American, and in the legally‐free cohort, African‐American children represent 57 percent of the cohort. Similar to most other systems, as the length of stay in care increases, the percentage of African‐American male children and youth also increases.
group comprises about 2,000 children. Where this group of “in home, in placement” children meet the cohort criteria, they were included in the baseline. They are not counted as an exit until the court has officially closed the case.
53

BACKLOG COHORT REPORTING
Beginning in December 2008, all 83 counties received from the CSA central office monthly backlog data reports for updating, review and analysis. The counties update these reports each month and send the information back up to the central office for tracking and analysis. That analysis was in its infancy during Period One but will need to grow in subsequent periods in order to translate this information into action as the reform progresses.
Backlog data was also shared with the courts, which the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) began posting in January 2009 through their Web‐based Michigan Court Application Portal (M‐CAP) information system. This data sharing has fostered local meetings between the courts, DHS and private agencies and enabled backlog reduction strategies to be developed at the county level. Ongoing collaborations between DHS local offices, private agencies, and the courts will be critical to the attainment of permanency for children within the backlog cohorts.
Since February 28, 2009, DHS reports that county child welfare offices have been able to access their backlog data through the DHS intranet‐based Info‐view system with data that has been updated as of the preceding day. The reports can also be downloaded, which allows for local flexibility to sort and filter for particular characteristics. To support the field offices in their analyses of these cases, the Child Welfare Improvement Bureau’s Data Unit will continue to analyze the characteristics of the backlog cohort (such as age, ethnicity, and length of stay) and the characteristics of the backlog cohort cases that are closed, and provide this information regularly to the county offices.
54

B. ASSESSING THE BACKLOG COHORT
During Period One, DHS initiated a tracking system to identify service gaps and barriers preventing permanency for children in their backlog cohorts. Preliminary findings revealed unmet needs in the following areas: parenting skills, child behavioral and mental health services, suitable housing, and substance abuse programs. Rural counties added concerns about the lack of access to transportation.
In addition to unmet service needs, the DHS backlog tracking system helped uncover other challenges. For example, staff need further clarification on how to conform children’s permanency goals with federally approved permanency goals. The system surfaced delays in completing the eligibility process for families entering the subsidized adoption program. And it helped illuminate the shortage of adoptive homes for specific populations of children. This information gives DHS an early sense of the needs of the children in the cohorts as well as barriers to permanency. During Periods Two and Three, DHS will need to translate these findings into an action plan in order to build upon the progress already made in reducing the cohorts in Period One.
C. CREATING PERMANENCY PLANS FOR THE BACKLOG COHORT
In October 2008, each of the 83 county child welfare offices created a “Permanency Plan” to briskly assist children within the backlog cohorts. The plans were submitted to the DHS central office, addressing the unique situations in the respective counties and describing both macro‐ level strategies for managing the backlog cohorts, including administrative and case oversight processes, and micro‐level strategies involving individual case management and supervision.
The monitoring team met with staff in both public and private child welfare offices across Michigan regarding local implementation of the plans. During the monitoring team’s site visits, it became clear that managers and staff are aware of these Settlement Agreement commitments and the associated timelines for reducing the backlogs, and that caseworkers and supervisors are conducting more focused case conferencing. Staff described a wide range of issues that have been surfaced as a result of this focused attention, including the need to address overdue paperwork, respond to court orders for services, access timely and relevant services for children and their parents, and identify permanent families for children and youth.
As would be expected in the early stages of reform, staff – who consistently articulated a commitment to successfully achieve permanency for the children in their care – nonetheless expressed that they are somewhat overwhelmed by the enormity of the backlog work, while at the same time dealing with other Settlement Agreement commitments such as caseload reduction, relative licensing, and required trainings. To ensure that DHS field offices and private agencies can translate their commitment into positive outcomes for children, DHS leadership must provide ongoing support and technical assistance to both the public and
55

private agency field staff so that solutions can be devised for the issues that arise out of this important work.
D. DEVELOPING STAFF FOCUSED ON THE PERMANENCY BACKLOG COHORT
DHS committed to create 108 Permanency Planning Specialist (PPS) positions including supervisory and support personnel, at the signing of the Settlement Agreement, and to increase that number to a total of 200 PPS staff by September 2009. The PPS are defined in the Settlement Agreement as “limited‐term, specialized assignment positions responsible for reviewing cases of and pursuing legal permanency for children in the backlog cohorts.” Initially, DHS chose to hire public staff to assume the role of the PPS. However, because these are term‐limited positions, DHS reported that few qualified individuals applied for the PPS positions, as the agency was hiring permanent caseworkers at the same time. DHS then opted to identify 91 foster care workers in the five largest counties ‐ Genesee, Kent, Macomb, Oakland and Wayne – and assigned them as the primary caseworkers for children and youth in the backlog cohorts. These foster care staff had existing caseloads and the process of transitioning to these new assignments was not smooth. Implementing this model required case transfers, subjecting children to worker changes.
DHS did provide support to the staff by creating 104 Permanency Planning Assistant (PPA) positions. These are case aide positions with non‐direct case service responsibilities, such as document retrieval and transportation. The PPAs were assigned to the five largest counties and by February 2009, 76 PPA’s had been hired.
The parties, in consultation with the monitoring team, met early in Period Two and discussed the intent of the PPS provision in the Settlement Agreement. During those discussions, both DHS and plaintiffs agreed that the intent of the PPS provision was for the State to hire (or contract for) non‐caseload carrying staff to serve in the PPS role. DHS hired no such staff during Period One. The parties acknowledged these staff should have the experience and the skills required to lead a process of focused case reviews in order to identify barriers and urgently achieve permanency for children and youth in the cohorts. As of the writing of this report, DHS has proposed an implementation model for this provision that plaintiffs have rejected. The monitoring team will be meeting with DHS to discuss the proposal further.
E. PERIOD ONE BACKLOG TRENDS
For Period One, DHS committed to organizing and resourcing the process for achieving permanency for children and youth in the backlog cohort groups – but there are no numerical targets to be met in the period. By September 2009 (the end of Period Two), DHS committed to achieve permanency for 50 percent of the children in each of the cohorts – in other words, ensure more than 4,600 children exit foster care into a permanent home. For this report, the monitoring team has focused on the pace and progress of DHS’ efforts—assessing where the
56

State has both exhibited strengths and encountered challenges in striving to meet its ambitious goals for Period Two. Performance by DHS in achieving permanency for children and youth in the two backlog cohorts differed dramatically during Period One. There was a large surge in reunifications, putting DHS on track to meet the 50 percent target for that group by September 2009. At the same time, DHS experienced a slower start achieving permanency for children and youth in the legally‐free cohort, putting DHS at risk of missing the Period Two target. Analysis at a county level reveals wide variations from the statewide pattern – with a significant number of counties exhibiting strong performance with respect to both cohorts; an imbalance in performance favoring one cohort or the other among the majority of counties (including the five largest); and an outlier group of six small counties that struggled with both cohorts. Update on Children Awaiting Reunification For children awaiting reunification, DHS is on course to meet or exceed the September 2009 target of moving 50 percent, or 2,526 children, within the reunification cohort to permanency. By the end of Period One, 1,719 children or 34 percent of the reunification cohort had achieved permanency – approximately nine percentage points ahead of an interim mark of 25 percent. Another one percent of the original cohort had non‐permanent exits (e.g., aging‐out, running away). In all, by the end of Period One, 35 percent of the children in the original reunification cohort had exited placement. Eighty‐three percent of these children’s cases were closed by the public agency and 17 percent by private agencies. In the original baseline, 26 percent were supervised by private agencies, so the outcomes are largely public agency driven in Period One.
57

Virtually all (93 percent) of those children achieved permanency by returning home to their own families, with verification work suggesting that a few of these children went home not to the parent from whom they had been removed, but to their other parent, living separately from the first parent. Four children (0.2 percent) in the reunification cohort achieved permanency through adoption during Period One. The remaining 119, accounting for seven percent, achieved permanency through either guardianship – albeit not subsidized as that was not an option available during Period One– or permanent placement with a relative. Fifty‐six children from this cohort exited from care without achieving permanency, 49 of whom were from the five largest counties. Most (40) of these children “aged‐out” of care with an additional 10 discharged as a result of “running away.” Five transferred to another agency, either entering the adult mental health, developmental disabilities or corrections systems, and one died.15 Update on Legally‐Free Children Awaiting Permanency For children in the legally‐free cohort, DHS is at risk of missing its September 2009 target for achieving permanency for 50 percent of the group, or 2,130 children. By the end of Period One, 736 children, or 17 percent, had achieved permanency, about 8 percent below the interim mark of 25 percent. Another six percent of children and youth in the cohort exited care without achieving permanency. In sum, 23 percent of the original cohort of children and youth had exited the system by the end of Period One.
15 This youth was included in the child fatality review process described in this report.
58

Because responsibility for managing a legally‐free child can be shared between the public and private agencies – if, for example, the public agency provides direct foster care services but delegates direct adoption services to the private agency – it is not possible to attribute clearly which children exited because of public agency efforts versus those who exited due to private agency efforts. The overwhelming majority of children who exited from the legally‐free cohort in Period One, 680 or 92 percent, attained permanency through adoption; another 6 percent, or 44, were placed with a relative; and less than two percent attained permanency through either guardianship or reunification. Compared to the reunification cohort, a much larger group of these children exited care without permanency – 251 youth or six percent of the cohort. Most “aged‐out” – 203 youth – followed by “running away” – 21 youth. Another 14 youth who were under the jurisdiction of another state had their cases closed at the instigation of the referring state. Ten transferred to another agency (adult mental health, developmental disabilities or corrections being the most common); and three died.16 Update on County Performance County‐based child welfare practice and performance differ dramatically in Michigan, resisting generalization and one‐size‐fits‐all solutions. At the start of Period One, every county in the State had at least one child in one of the cohorts. By the end of the period, three small counties had moved all of their cohort children to permanency. At the start of Period One, four counties had no children in the reunification cohort. By the end of the period, that number rose to 10 counties. Six counties had no children in the legally‐free cohort at the start of Period One – but by the end of the period, that number doubled to 12 counties.
16 All of these children and youth are included in the child fatality review process described in the report.
59

The largest trend among the counties – for 33 counties or 40 percent – was to demonstrate strong performance with respect to one cohort, but lag with respect to the other. Preliminary analysis suggests that these counties built on existing strengths – in other words, counties with a history of reunification or adoption produced better results with an increased level of focus but need to develop their practice in the other area if they are to produce consistent
60

permanency results. It is very heartening to see 29 counties (35 percent) that performed well with respect to both cohorts. There was wide variety by size and location among those counties, including four of Michigan’s “Big 9” (the next largest set of counties after the Designated Counties). Fourteen counties made some progress with respect to both cohorts but did not outperform on either. Finally, six counties struggled with their performance with respect to both cohorts – all smaller counties.
For DHS, this stratification of performance among counties presents opportunities to utilize peer‐to‐peer learning – highlighting those counties with strong performances for lessons to be shared with those counties who might be struggling. It also allows a deeper level of diagnostics about what the barriers are in the counties that are struggling – and resources and attention can then be targeted to solving those challenges.
Analyzing trends with respect to backlog cohort performance alone is not a sufficient diagnostic tool to decide on stronger and weaker permanency practices. Some counties that may have had good practice to start with – lower rates of entry into care; richer arrays of family‐friendly services; or cooperative court practices that streamline the reunification or adoption process, for example—may have fewer children in the cohorts, and it is important to identify those strengths. Consequently, the children they do have in their cohorts will be proportionally fewer but permanency for them may be more challenging—and perhaps resistant to quick resolution—so their cohort performance may lag in comparison to other counties.
Only county‐by‐county comparative analyses will help surface these differences – a practice that has previously proven elusive in Michigan as each county has largely operated in isolation from each other. With the Settlement Agreement supporting the development of new capacities, such as the new county level data sets available on the DHS intranet to all managers; the creation of continuous quality improvement capacity within the CSA; DHS leadership’s decision to tap into national expertise for technical assistance; and a central office with the promise of focusing more on supporting performance in the field, Michigan has the opportunity to learn from its own pockets of excellence and lift performance statewide.
F. SUPPORTING PERMANENCY THROUGH SUBSIDIZED GUARDIANSHIP
In the Settlement Agreement, DHS agreed to submit draft legislation to the Michigan Legislature for its consideration that creates a subsidized legal guardianship program. Guardianship creates another permanency path for children and youth who cannot be reunified with their birth families. DHS estimates that as many as 1,500 children currently in its custody may achieve permanency through subsidized guardianship, and as Michigan encourages relatives to become foster parents, this is a particularly important permanency alternative. Historically, many relatives have had difficulty with the concept of adopting a family member when they cannot be reunified with their parent. Legal guardianship allows relatives to make lifelong commitments to children and youth without participating in legal proceedings that involve the termination of a family member’s parental rights.
61

In July 2008, the Michigan Legislature and the Governor created the Guardianship Assistance Program (GAP), a State funded program that allocates $4.6 million annually to provide a subsidy to 450 permanent guardians. A few months later, in October 2008, the federal government passed the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, which included additional resources for a federally‐funded relative guardianship assistance program. Initially, DHS anticipated using the federal funds to supplement the Michigan GAP program and expand the number of families who could become permanent guardians for children in foster care. But in implementing the law, the federal regulators required guardians to become licensed foster parents in order to be eligible for the federal guardianship subsidy and required the child to have lived with the family for at least six months after the guardian becomes a licensed foster parent. The state program did not contain those two provisions and DHS chose to reconcile the program requirements prior to implementation. DHS requested program instructions from the federal government concerning these provisions to ensure that the State and federal guardianship programs were implemented with consistent requirements. That process delayed implementation of the GAP program until April 27, 2009, after Period One closed. The monitoring team will report on Michigan’s progress implementing the subsidized guardianship program following Period Two.
V. DEVELOPING CRITICAL SERVICES
DHS recognized it would need to develop its continuum of services to improve outcomes for the children who rely on the agency for safety, permanency, and well‐being. During Period One, the agency committed to implementing a range of services for older youth in care and leaving care; ensuring access to physical and mental health services for all children in placement; and assessing the needs of all of the children and families who rely on DHS for services.
A. BUILDING A MODEL OF PRACTICE FOR OLDER YOUTH
In many jurisdictions across the country, the specific needs of older teens in foster care are too often unaddressed. In the Settlement Agreement, DHS made a series of important commitments designed to redress this problem by bringing a heightened focus to adolescents’ need for permanency and well‐being, especially for youth growing up in and transitioning out of the foster care system. As DHS observes in its Children’s Foster Care Manual, CFF 722‐15, “Older youths exiting the [foster care] system encounter additional obstacles and many are not prepared to meet financial, health, social and educational challenges.” The practice changes which DHS seeks to implement within the child welfare system are sweeping, and the agency leadership focused primarily in Period One on developing a vision for practice change and beginning to lay the groundwork for implementing this vision.
62

In the Settlement Agreement, DHS agreed to develop and implement a policy and the necessary resources to extend all foster youths eligibility for foster care placement until age 20 and to make available independent living services through age 21. In July 2008, DHS published an amendment to its Children’s Foster Care Manual, CFF 722‐15, announcing that “foster care youths may remain in foster care until the age of 20.” DHS also announced, in L‐ Letter‐09‐021‐CW, that all legally‐free children are eligible for Limited Term and Emergency Foster Care Funding. During Period One, DHS calculated cost projections for increasing federal support for its older youth in out‐of‐home placement. Pursuant to federal legislation, beginning in October 2010, federal matching funds are available for youth ages 19, 20, or 21 (whichever age a state selects) for an extension of federal Title IV‐E foster care maintenance payments, adoption assistance payments, and/or relative guardianship payments. DHS reports that prior to October 2010 Michigan will need to revise statute and policy in order to take advantage of these additional federal funds. DHS reports that, as of March 31, 2009, there were 849 foster youth, age 18; 357 foster youth, age 19; and 34 foster youth, age 20.
In September 2008, DHS convened a committee comprised of public and private agency staff and two youth living in foster care, and charged the group to make recommendations to better integrate all supports to youth ages 14 and older in out‐of‐home placement. Meeting throughout the fall, the committee was asked to review best practices for Independent Living services and create a process and a procedure for effective practice with youth that addressed their need for permanency and well‐being in order to develop a Youth Service Delivery Model. The committee provided recommendations to DHS. DHS then met with additional stakeholders, refined the committee’s recommendations and developed the Michigan Service Delivery Model for Older Youth in Foster Care. The model outlines a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to permanency and well‐being for adolescents in foster care. The
63

monitoring team expects that implementation of this model will be the focus of DHS’ efforts, and the subject of future monitoring, over the next year.
Independent Living Services
Additionally, in March 2009, DHS published an amendment to its Children’s Foster Care Manual, CFF 950, describing a variety of independent living services available “until the youth is discharged from foster care, establishes independence or reaches 21 years of age.” Youth do not need to be in foster care in order to continue to receive these services. These programs offer youth essential life skills that can help them cross the bridge from foster care to independence. The State identified 965 youth, between the ages of 16 and 20, who were receiving independent living services as of March 31, 2009.
Referrals to Michigan Works!
DHS also committed to refer all youth age 14 and older in foster care and youth transitioning from foster care to Michigan Works! agencies for participation in public programs designed to expand vocational skills and opportunities. The State convened a committee to develop the referral process—a group comprised of representatives from DHS and the Department of Energy, Labor, and Economic Growth, as well as the private child welfare agencies, the statewide Michigan Works Director and members of workforce development agencies. The group had nine face‐to‐face meetings and/or phone conferences between August 2008 and February 2009.
As a result of the group’s work, shortly after the conclusion of Period One, the State published an L‐Letter and Michigan Works referral form, with an immediate effective date. The L‐Letter, which describes the referral process for foster youth, was sent to all committee members, public and private agencies, published on the DHS Web site, and distributed to the private agency membership groups. The monitoring team expects to assess implementation of this process over the next year.
Identifying Housing for Youth Aging‐Out of Care
Many stakeholders have observed that a shortage of safe and affordable housing for youth exiting foster care without permanency leads to homelessness for too many young people. DHS committed to refer youth without an identified housing situation at the time of emancipation from foster care to the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA) for rental assistance and services under the Homeless Youth Initiative (HYI). Between 2006 and January 2009, five MSHDA‐funded private agencies across Michigan have provided 120 youth, ages 18‐24, with transitional housing through the Homeless Youth Initiative. Historically, the Homeless Youth Initiative has not specifically identified youth aging‐ out of foster care or former foster youth as a priority population; the only requirement beyond age has been homelessness. In October 2008, DHS officials met with MSHDA to discuss developing a referral process specifically for foster youth. At that time, MSHDA
64

observed that funds were not available to develop new programs for foster youth beyond the current DHS Housing Resource Center in Wayne County, which provides 31 youth up to 24 months of voucher‐supported housing. The agencies determined that although referrals could be made beyond Wayne County, they were not likely to be meaningful and therefore the referral process was not implemented. Pursuant to the Needs Assessment provisions of the Settlement Agreement, described below, the monitoring team has recommended, as a starting point, that DHS invest an additional $1.5 million in FY2010 in new, independent, transitional and trans‐permanent housing for exiting foster youth in the five largest counties. Such programs should be funded and operational by February 1, 2010.
In late November 2008, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Family Unification Program (FUP) housing choice vouchers. MSHDA and DHS collaborated to request 100 housing choice vouchers for former foster youth and youth transitioning from foster care, but the grant was not funded. DHS took the additional step of requiring, as of January 1, 2009, State‐supported homeless and runaway youth agencies across Michigan provide 25 percent of their placement services to youth who have transitioned from foster care and are in need of housing. These are preliminary steps, and the monitoring team expects the State to expand its resources in this and other areas in order to support the successful implementation of its Service Delivery Model for Older Foster Youth, building a stronger foundation for exiting adolescents to safely cross into adulthood.
Eliminating Detention as a Placement Option
The parties agreed to ensure that no child in DHS foster care custody is placed, by DHS or with knowledge of DHS, in a jail, correctional, or detention facility unless placed pursuant to a delinquency charge. DHS committed to notify the State Court Administrative Office and the Michigan State Police of this prohibition within Period One and provide written instructions to immediately notify the local DHS office of any child in DHS foster care custody who has been placed in a jail, correctional, or detention facility. The parties further agreed that if it comes to the attention of DHS that a child in DHS foster care custody has been placed in a jail, correctional, or detention facility, and such placement is not pursuant to a delinquency charge, DHS shall ensure the child is moved to a DHS foster care placement as soon as practicable, and in all events within five days, unless the court orders otherwise over DHS objection. DHS notified the State Court Administrative Office and the Michigan State Police of the foregoing commitments after Period One concluded.
Several judges, lawyers and family members advised the monitoring team that DHS, at times during and after the conclusion of Period One, requested detention from the courts for youth in foster care custody, particularly those who have a history of running away or have acute mental health needs, despite the absence of an underlying delinquency charge. The concerns were primarily but not exclusively focused on Wayne County. DHS is not able to determine at this point how many children and youth statewide were detained in breach of the commitments during Period One, nor in how many instances DHS sought detention despite
65

the lack of a pending delinquency charge. The monitoring team observed that detention was the third most frequently used re‐placement option statewide for foster children who returned to placement during Period One, and brought to the attention of DHS the identities of four youth, in particular, as examples of children who appear to have been detained for some period of time in contravention of the Settlement Agreement. DHS concurred that all four youth were either improperly detained and/or remained detained after the delinquency charges were dismissed.
After review of the above noted cases, and a total of 27 other youth who were detained at the Juvenile Detention Facility in Wayne County, DHS issued a Management Directive Letter (MDL 09‐007) to all Wayne County staff of the Children’s Services Administration and staff of CPAs clarifying that no DHS office or contracted agency should recommend placement of a child or youth who is a neglect ward in the Juvenile Detention Facility (JDF). Included in the MDL was clarification that if a neglected youth is placed in the JDF pursuant to a delinquency petition, the youth should be moved immediately if the delinquency petition is dismissed. DHS leadership in Wayne County also undertook additional discussions with the Assistant Attorney General’s Children and Youth Division to clarify the agency’s position and representation needed in these matters. DHS leadership observed that a shortage of appropriate, accessible placements has contributed to the detention of children despite the absence of an underlying delinquency charge.
Several years ago, Michigan child welfare leaders, including members of the judiciary, key DHS leadership and other child advocates, assisted by a national expert in alternatives to detention, pioneered a model interdisciplinary approach to eliminate the detention of non‐ delinquent children and youth. Participants in that workgroup who spoke with the monitoring team, several of whom remain key public leaders in the child welfare system, continue to believe in the group’s core values, most notably that a single day in jail or detention changes a child’s life forever. By all accounts, the model approach implemented several years ago changed practice and led to the development of additional placement options in Michigan, most of which have now been shuttered. DHS may want to re‐convene this model approach, and continue to work collaboratively with law enforcement, the courts and others to expand the service and placement array for youth. Over the next year, the monitoring team will closely analyze implementation of these commitments and report on Michigan’s progress.
Next Steps for Supporting Older Youth
DHS spent much of Period One mining and assessing its data about youth in care, understanding where they are placed and the current state of practice supporting older youth while they are in care and as they leave. They had hoped to do more. For FY2009, DHS had requested and initially received $1 million funding for a new program, Bridges Towards Responsible Adulthood, to support youth in transition from the child welfare system, but that funding was eliminated before the program could be implemented. On balance, during Period One, the State has taken some preliminary steps to focus on the specific needs of the older
66

youth population. The monitoring team hopes that in the future, additional progress will be made in providing for the permanence and well‐being of adolescents.
B. ACCESSING HEALTH CARE
With the Settlement Agreement, DHS committed to ensuring access to physical and mental health services for children in placement and for older youth transitioning out of placement. Beginning in Period One, DHS agreed to ensure that each child entering foster care will be assigned a Medicaid number and the foster parent or other placement provider will receive a Medicaid card, or an alternative verification of the child’s Medicaid status and number, within 30 days of the child’s entry into care. This commitment grew from the plaintiffs’ concern that children were not receiving adequate healthcare because of gaps in communication and delays in the insurance system. DHS was unable to ensure implementation of this provision in Period One. The agency is developing a systemic way to ensure enrollment of foster children in Medicaid and a methodology to track the timely receipt of Medicaid cards by caregivers, but implementation has been slow. The monitoring team will assess the performance of DHS at the conclusion of Period Two.
With respect to children’s mental health needs, DHS committed to redirect at least $3 million from its FY2009 budget to fund mental health services for youth in placement. In another example of DHS straining for resources to implement the reform, the agency did not do so in Period One. Following discussions with plaintiffs and the monitoring team, DHS advised that it will effect this redirection in FY2010 by expanding to additional counties a federal Section 1915(c) Medicaid program known as the Waiver for Children with Serious Disturbance (SEDW), which operated in 10 counties as of March 31, 2009.
The expanded SEDW is expected to be used in FY2010 as a vehicle for piloting a new identification and referral process for youth with mental health needs and expanding services to identified youth. The State Budget Office forwarded, as part of the June budget revision, a request to the Michigan Legislature for mental health funding of $1.7 million in the FY2010 DHS budget. DHS is responsible for identifying the balance of funds needed, $1.3 million, within its existing appropriation. These State General Funds, if authorized, will be passed to the Department of Community Health to provide the state match for the federal waiver program, which DHS expects will generate significant additional federal funding for Medicaid‐ supported mental health services to children in foster care. The monitoring team will continue to follow these developments closely in subsequent periods.
With respect to older youth, the federal government now makes significant funds available to the states, at their option, to extend health insurance coverage to youth aging‐out of foster care. Michigan committed to do so, but DHS acknowledges the results do not yet meet the State’s own expectations for its performance. DHS reports that 986 youth, age 18 or older, exited foster care between May and December 2008, but only 98, or 10 percent, were enrolled in Foster Care Transition Medicaid (FCTMA) upon exit. The ratio of youth enrollment
67

actually declined in the period January to March 2009, when 348 youth aged‐out of foster care, but only 13 young people, or four percent, had open FCTMA cases. DHS reports the primary reason youth who age out of foster care are not enrolled in FCTMA is the lack of knowledge on the part of its staff, foster families and foster youth, due to DHS’ challenges in communicating the reform to the county‐based CSA offices and private agencies where work with children, youth and families occurs directly. This was confirmed in discussions and focus groups the monitoring team conducted with youth, families and staff.
DHS has committed to robust outreach efforts in Period Two to all parties to promote FCTMA for aging‐out youth, including distribution of an L‐Letter to all DHS and private agency employees regarding FCTMA. In addition, DHS administered a series of trainings on FCTMA for DHS and CPA staff and designated a staff person to conduct workshops statewide on FCTMA. DHS has recently begun to include FCTMA among the topics covered in the New Worker Training. The agency undertook a mass mailing on FCTMA to 1,000 youth, at their last known addresses, who aged‐out of foster care between May 2008 and March 2009, and updated its Foster Youth in Transition Web site to include FCTMA information. DHS also plans to update SWSS, the DHS child welfare database, to automatically transition a youth from Medicaid to FCTMA when the foster care case closes. DHS reports that the statewide transition to DHS’ new Bridges computer system will support the process of FCTMA being automatically activated. The monitoring team will follow implementation of these efforts closely over the next several months and will report on the State’s progress in improving the enrollment of aging‐out youth in FCTMA in the next report.
During Period Two, DHS will be hiring a medical director, building a health services plan, beginning to implement its new model of mental health services, and pressing forward on ensuring that aging‐out youth have access to healthcare as they leave placement. DHS acknowledges much work remains to be done in this arena and the monitoring team will continue to watch closely the development of services in this arena.
C. WORKING TO ASSESS THE NEEDS OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN
While the Settlement Agreement identifies a number of specific services the parties deemed necessary to improve outcomes for children and families relying on DHS for services, they also acknowledged the reform would benefit from a more in‐depth study of the entire continuum of service needs. To that end, they embedded a Michigan Child Welfare Needs Assessment (Needs Assessment) process in the Settlement Agreement.
DHS asked the Michigan State University Child Welfare Resource Center to conduct the first Needs Assessment. They began in November 2008 and concluded the process as scheduled on May 15, 2009. As the parties agreed, the Needs Assessment evaluated the adequacy of existing services and placements, including the need for family preservation services, foster and adoptive placements, wraparound services, reunification services, and medical, dental and mental health services for children in foster care throughout Michigan, as well as the need
68

for funds.17 As part of the Settlement Agreement, DHS agreed to make available additional funds of at least $4 million in FY2010 to develop the additional services and placements identified by the first Needs Assessment, and further additional funds of at least $4 million to develop the services and placements identified by a second Needs Assessment in 2011.
Once complete, the Settlement Agreement further requires that the monitoring team review the Needs Assessment and issue recommendations. To that end, the monitoring team issued the following recommendations in July 2009:18
 DHS invest $1.5 million in FY2010 in new, independent, transitional and trans‐ permanent housing for exiting foster youth in the five largest counties, which must be funded and operational by February 1, 2010.
 DHS invest $1.5 million in services designed to support families and youth stepping down from residential care, including flexible funds, in‐home supports and step‐down levels of care, in the five largest counties. As a result of this investment, the monitoring team expects DHS should be able to reduce the number of youth placed in residential care settings in the five largest counties, and will assess this, as well as any barriers, in future reports. An allocation plan and budget for these new services is due to the monitoring team by September 30, 2009, and such services shall be available by January 1, 2010.
 DHS invest an additional $1 million in new family preservation services in the five largest counties. An allocation plan and budget for these new services is due to the monitoring team by September 30, 2009, and such programs must be funded and operational by February 1, 2010.
The monitoring team will be reporting in subsequent periods on the progress of DHS in these areas.
VI. INCREASING SUPPORT TO CHILDREN LIVING WITH RELATIVE CAREGIVERS
In the Settlement Agreement, DHS committed to ensuring that “each county has a sufficient number and adequate array of foster homes capable of serving the needs of children coming into care for whom foster home placement is appropriate” and “that relatives of children in foster care and non‐relatives with whom a child has a family like connection are identified and considered as potential foster home placements for children.” Period One focused on the State’s commitment to license kinship homes. Those commitments include:
17 See Michigan Child Welfare Needs Assessment http://www.pcg4change.com/2008finalreport.pdf 18 See Needs Assessment Recommendations at http://www.pcg4change.com.
69

 Establish and fill the statewide central office positions of relative licensing coordinator and foster home recruitment and retention director;
 Create and implement a plan to license existing relative homes, including ensuring the provision of initial and in‐service training equal to that provided to non‐relative foster parents;
 Designate sufficient licensing staff to review all current unlicensed foster homes and complete the licensing process for each family within 90 days;
 Create and fill, or provide sufficient funds to contract providers for such providers to fill, 40 relative licensing positions;
 Develop curriculum and provide training to all of the licensing staff;  Designate sufficient training staff to provide the required training to relatives and to
the licensing staff;  Develop and implement safety, screening and home study processes for relatives who
agree to provide a home to children newly entering care;  Develop and implement a waiver process for situations in which placement with a
relative is in a child’s best interest and that home is safe but the relative cannot or will not be licensed;  Develop and implement a process for the re‐placement of any child currently in a relative foster home that does not meet licensing standards, unless exceptional circumstances have been documented and approved, as set forth in the Agreement;  Develop a combined/coordinated family home assessment for relative providers, family foster care, and adoption;  Ensure equity in payment of rates for children placed with licensed relatives as with their peers placed in licensed foster homes; and  Continue equity in payment of rates for children who are permanent wards placed with relatives (licensed or not) as with their peers placed in licensed foster homes.
Structurally, licensing in Michigan is a two part process. The process begins with either a local public office or a private agency. Each of those recruits their own prospective foster homes; provides their own orientation to prospective foster parents; arranges for foster parent training; conducts the home study; and if they conclude the family is eligible for licensing, “certifies” that family to the DHS Bureau of Children and Adult Licensing (BCAL) for licensure. The only slight difference between that initial public and private agency process is that the private agency needs to rely on the public agency to do both the criminal background checks and the child abuse/neglect registry checks – but otherwise, the processes are the same. BCAL first becomes aware of a prospective foster home applicant (kin or non‐kin) when the local office or agency submits a completed application for that home and BCAL registers the family on their system. Once the home is certified for licensure, BCAL takes over. The process of BCAL review changed over the course of Period One, as described below, but ultimately, it is BCAL who issues the actual license.
Most children (82 percent) in out‐of‐home placement in Michigan live either with their extended family in kinship care or in foster homes.
70

Placements

Reported

Excluding Own

Placements

Home

Relatives*

6278

37% 6278

41%

Foster Care Families*

6215

36% 6215

41%

Own Parent Home*

1806

11%

Institutions, Including

Shelters

1217

7% 1217

8%

Independent Living

958

6% 958

6%

Unrelated Caregiver

211

1% 211

1%

Other**

231

1% 231

2%

AWOL

199

1% 199

1%

TOTAL

17,115

15,309

*Includes in and out‐of‐state.

**Includes out‐of‐state facilities (20); detention, jail & court treatment (70); legal

guardians (20); mental health hospitals (14); and other placements (107).

Kinship placements are made by DHS with a child’s grandparent, aunt, uncle or other relative. As a means of increasing supervision of children, access to services and support to families by accessing federal matching funds, the Settlement Agreement prioritized the licensing of kinship families – virtually all of whom had previously been unlicensed. As shown in the table above, that was a huge undertaking, with the potential to affect more than 6,000 children, or about 4,000 homes.

A. CONTINUING THE COMMITMENT TO KIN PLACEMENT
Michigan’s commitment to extended family as the placement of first resort began more than a decade ago and is supported by a growing body of research demonstrating that outcomes for abused and neglected children are generally better in kinship care. In general, kin are more likely to stretch themselves to keep siblings together; adolescents are less likely to run away; the placements tend to be more stable; and parental visitation is more easily facilitated. On the other hand, kin are generally more economically challenged than foster parents; their physical homes are more likely to need repair or renovation in order to be licensed; they tend not to be as compliant with case management or licensing oversight as they see themselves tending to their own family rather than adhering to regulations; and permanency can take longer, particularly in the absence of more kin‐friendly permanency options like subsidized guardianship.19
19 See Zinn, Foster Family Characteristics, Kinship and Permanence (Social Service Review 2009); Winokur et al., Matched Comparison of Children in Kinship Care and Foster Care on Child Welfare Outcomes (Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 2008); Zinn et al., A Study of
71

If a child welfare system is under strain, as Michigan’s has been, kinship care can be misused. Such misuse can include laxity in original safety screenings for prior criminal convictions or abuse or neglect substantiations; tolerance of unsafe living conditions; or placement with a sick or infirm relative unable to properly supervise the child. In part, this may occur because the child protection worker is desperate for a placement and overwhelmed with a high volume of both investigations and removals. Once placed in a kinship home, if a system is under strain, children in those homes may not receive the same level of supervision and services as their peers in foster homes.
By committing to license relative homes in the Settlement Agreement, the parties sought to achieve a balance between preserving the virtues of kinship placements and avoiding the pitfalls. DHS and plaintiffs agreed that licensing provided an avenue to achieve equity between kinship and foster homes. Indeed, DHS’ leadership was so committed to the concept that they began implementation even prior to the signing of the Settlement Agreement. They asked for, and the Legislature agreed to provide, $2.5 million dollars in FY2008 and FY2009 to underwrite private agencies licensing 1,086 kinship homes.
DHS also committed to equalize payments for children in kinship care. Historically, kinship parents in Michigan average one‐quarter the financial support for the children in their homes compared to children placed with foster parents. In order to receive even that level of support, kinship parents were encouraged to apply for public assistance and other services through DHS. It was only if a child was made legally‐free that a kinship parent would begin receiving standard foster care payments. That left the majority (over 60 percent) of children in kinship placements without the support available to their peers in foster homes.
This commitment to financially support children in kinship care is significant because it provides much needed additional support to a vulnerable population. It also carries with it a significant cost, the full size of which is still being debated. To mitigate that cost and ensure the full burden did not fall on the State and counties alone but could be shared with the federal government, Michigan has focused on implementing licensure in a manner that comports with the requirements of the federal Title IV‐E program to ensure that federal matching funds are available. The federal government requires licensing as a pre‐requisite to paying a match for children who are Title IV‐E eligible (and a higher proportion of relative children are Title IV‐E eligible). Moreover, halfway through Period One, the federal government decided that in implementing the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act, which provided federal financial support for the first time for subsidized guardianships, it would require licensure for a period of at least six months as a pre‐requisite for matching federal support.
Placement Stability in Illinois (Chapin Hall 2006); Courtney et al., Youth Who Run Away from Out‐of‐ Home Care (Chapin Hall 2005); Cuddeback. Kinship and Family Foster Care: A methodological substantive synthesis of research. (Children and Youth Services Review, 2004).
72

B. IDENTIFYING THE RESOURCES TO SUPPORT LICENSURE
In Period One, DHS increased both the financial and staffing resources available to license foster and kinship homes.
Funding
For FY2008 and FY2009, the Legislature appropriated an additional $375,000 to address home repairs and capital expenses associated with the initial licensure of a home or licensure renewal of an existing foster family home. Between April and September 2008, expenditures equaled $58,473. As public and private agency staff grew more familiar with the resource and the processes to access it, expenditures increased to $155,039 between October 2008 and April 2009. The most common expenses were: windows, beds, septic/well repair, home repairs, smoke alarms and carbon dioxide detectors.
Staffing
With regard to staffing, DHS has fulfilled its commitment to expand its central office capacity and establish and fill the position of Relative Licensing Coordinator and hire a statewide Foster Home Recruitment Director. There was turnover in both of these positions during Period One as staff hired into these roles were then deployed to other roles, but going into Period Two, both posts were filled – and the monitoring team will continue to report on these positions in future reports.
DHS also committed to hiring 40 full‐time staff dedicated to the relative caregiver backlog cohort. The Settlement Agreement did not specify whether those were to be public or private agency staff. DHS opted to create a hybrid position to fulfill two important initiatives set forth in the Settlement Agreement–the relative licensing role, and the one focused on increasing the federal share for child welfare costs by hiring staff as Title IV‐E specialists. Consequently, they hired more than 80 of these eligibility specialists utilizing a job description that included both the relative licensing support function and the funding eligibility function—and attributed 50 percent of the relative licensing role to those 80 staff in order to fulfill this commitment.
At the end of Period One, it was not clear whether this approach will achieve the goals the parties intended by embedding this additional resource in the Settlement Agreement. In practice, with regard to these eligibility specialists, local managers have staff juggle these two sets of responsibilities differently – and in interviewing some of these staff across the State, some report they spend a great deal of time screening new relative caregivers and doing the required background checks while others have been more consumed with the Title IV‐E audit scheduled for Period Two. It remains to be seen if this hybrid approach will yield the results DHS anticipates, so the monitoring team will continue to assess this area in subsequent
73

periods, with a heavy emphasis on whether this role is helping DHS achieve the ultimate results – namely, a sharp uptick in the number of relative homes licensed.
In early caseload data provided from August 2008, the private agencies reported having 125 staff engaged full or part‐time in licensing activities. By the end of Period One, that number had risen to 201. The private agencies report being creative in engaging existing staff in doing licensing activities outside of their regular roles and in hiring contractual staff to focus on licensing responsibilities. It is too early to tell if these additional investments on the part of the private agencies will result in substantial increases in the number of licensed homes – foster and kin – moving forward.
Training
In the Settlement Agreement, DHS agreed that effective October 24, 2008, all DHS and private provider staff responsible for relative licensing and for conducting home studies, licensing inspections, annual evaluations and other activities related to the licensing or monitoring of foster homes or residential care facilities would complete licensing training. This provision proved more challenging to execute than expected. As of the end of Period One, DHS still needed to develop both a reliable master list of all staff engaging in licensing activities as well as a tracking system to identify which of those staff were still in need of training. In the absence of certain knowledge about the size of the pool of staff that needed to be trained, DHS did not have the information they needed to analyze whether they had the capacity to train all the staff who needed to be trained. Data provided to the monitoring team suggests demand routinely exceeds capacity – and yet a few training slots go unfilled in every session. In all, DHS was not able to ensure that all staff providing licensing services were trained.
As the arm of DHS that issues licenses, historically BCAL has also assumed responsibility for training licensing supervisors and workers in the certification process, and they continued to do so throughout Period One. BCAL offers two trainings for licensing workers and supervisors: a three‐day classroom training session on the certification process and a two‐day classroom training on investigating complaints in foster homes. Both trainings are conducted by the same two experienced child welfare licensing consultants assigned to BCAL central office who also review all of the certification packets for new homes requesting licensure.
Certification training is offered ten out of twelve months of the year in Lansing, typically with a class size of 25. Participants are tested at the beginning and the end of each class and must achieve a score of 70 percent on the post‐test in order to successfully complete the training. Complaint investigation training is offered every other month in Lansing for approximately 25 participants. A test is given at the beginning and end of each class and participants must achieve a score of 70 percent on the post‐test in order to pass the class.
As illustrated in the table below, DHS licensing training data suggests that the demand for licensing training routinely exceeds the number of available training slots and yet some training slots go unfilled each month because confirmed participants are unable or fail to
74

attend. In all, DHS reported that 101 staff completed certification training, and 41 staff completed complaint investigation training during Period One.

LICENSING TRAINING
Certification Training (no
training in Dec 08)
October‐08 November‐08 January‐09 February‐09 March‐09 Totals

Requested 47 42 36 42 37 204

Confirmed 25 26 27 26 24 128

Attended 21 21 17 21 21 101

Complaint Training (no
training in Oct‐Nov 08, Jan 09, or Mar 09)
December‐08 February‐09
Totals

Requested 40 41 81

Confirmed 28 29 57

Attended 20 21 41

Moving forward, there are gaps in communication and execution between BCAL, Human Resources, the foster care program office, the CWTI, the field offices and the private agencies that will need to be solved in order for DHS to meet the terms of this provision. The first challenge to be solved will be creating a reporting and/or tracking system to identify the staff who provide licensing services. Such a master list does not exist. After Period One ended, DHS provided the monitoring team with a list of 368 staff providing licensing services from both the public and private agencies – but that list still appears to be incomplete as the monitoring team identified an additional 104 staff performing licensing functions from the caseload data. Once a complete master list is assembled (and a process created for ensuring it is kept up to date), DHS will need a device to integrate that information with BCAL’s training database (which is kept separately from CWTI’s training database) in order to identify which staff have already been trained and which staff still need to be trained. The monitoring team checked some samples of identified licensing staff against the BCAL licensing training list and was able to determine from those samples that DHS had not trained all of the licensing staff but cannot report on the full extent of compliance with this provision because a tracking system does not yet exist. Finally, DHS will need to revisit the issue of licensing training capacity and compare the need against resources. The two existing BCAL staff have a challenging portfolio between the upsurge in licensing requests reported elsewhere in this report and their training responsibilities. The monitoring team would hope to see an increase in the numbers of licensing staff trained in future periods.

75

Developing an Integrated Family Home Assessment
As the State promised in the Settlement Agreement, DHS created an integrated Family Home Assessment (FHA) as a substitute for the previously separate forms utilized for foster homes and adoptive homes and so spare the delay of having foster parents go through a separate home assessment in the event they became adoptive parents. The new FHA was also intended to expand to include licensing of relatives. The new format brought some implementation challenges – it takes longer to complete and was not yet distributed electronically as of the end of Period One – but with time and familiarity, it should streamline the assessment process.
BCAL reported they had to engage in outreach in order to get corrections made or collect missing information with respect to 60 percent of the FHAs they reviewed in January 2009. Some of that back and forth resulted from the new format but some of it was the product of a change in BCAL’s own review process. Although not a component of the Settlement Agreement, concurrent with its implementation, BCAL opted to change its licensing process and assigned two centralized staff in Lansing (the same two staff assigned to conduct licensing training) to read every FHA and the supporting documentation submitted for licensure. Previously, BCAL had relied on supervisory level approval at both the public and private agencies to certify the completion of each licensing packet. This additional level of centralized review at BCAL generated fresh inquiries about individual agency processes that had previously been unquestioned and contributed to further delays.
BCAL Staffing
BCAL leadership reported they were initially reluctant to add more staff to do reviews before they had some sense of what the volume was going to be. Prior to the new process, experienced licensing staff in the field reported a four to six week turnaround on licensing approvals. Initially, BCAL committed to the same timeframe with the implementation of their new process and, by bringing in extra staff from the field, were able to get through an initial backlog of packets timely. By the end of Period One, it was becoming increasingly clear that BCAL needed additional capacity in order to improve licensing processing timeframes. The monitoring team will assess this area during Period Two to see what adjustments are made.
C. REACHING OUT TO EXISTING RELATIVE CAREGIVERS
Initial implementation of kinship licensing started early in 2008 – but challenges arose. DHS staff were still struggling with high caseloads, and DHS leadership turned to the private sector to take on the responsibility of licensing relatives. Traditionally, because children in kinship care did not receive standard foster payments, their placement did not generate an administrative overhead rate for the private agencies – so virtually all of those homes and
76

children were supervised by the public agency. With no pre‐existing relationship with these kinship foster parents and more limited experience with kinship care, it was difficult for most private agencies to engage those families. Relatives expressed some bewilderment about why they were now being required to be licensed – and had to be subject to probing questions and reviews by private agency staff who were strangers to them. Moreover, the private agencies reported struggling to make the economics of the licensing payment system work to cover their costs. Some figured it out – primarily through using part‐time or contract staff; a few decided against continuing to participate.
DHS made a concentrated effort between March and September 2008 using State staff to reach out to a target group of relative families–identifying a group of more than 800 families where the child was not legally‐free and was likely to remain in care for more than a few months—to inquire about the families’ openness to licensure. Staff reported back that the majority did not want licensure, and DHS went back to the drawing board to try to figure out if they were not messaging the benefits of licensure correctly or not marketing it well to their own staff or if there was some other barrier. Concluding that they had not expressed their determination to license relative homes clearly enough and worried about examples of unsafe relative homes that had been brought to their attention, they issued an L‐Letter in October 2008 that required all relative homes be licensed and that children be moved from those homes if those homes could not be or refused to be licensed within the required timeframes.
The reaction was immediate. Concerned judges, advocates, and field staff thought this new L‐ Letter presaged a retreat from the State’s longstanding commitment to relative care. Judges also saw a handful of examples of families who were being told children long in their care would be removed if the families did not cooperate with licensure. The majority of staff in the field waited and held off on moving children, asking for clarification about the policy. Staff continued to place children coming into care with kin as subsequent analysis by DHS for children entering care in Period One showed that 52 percent were placed with kin, virtually unchanged from the rate of 54 percent during the same period the previous year.20
DHS issued an updated L‐Letter in March 2009 that pointed to a provision in the Settlement Agreement that allowed for a waiver from licensure for at least 10 percent of the relative home population. A waiver process had been developed – but knowledge about the waiver process had spread only slowly. After the issuance of the revised L‐Letter and outreach by CSA leadership, word spread quickly that mandatory removal of children was not DHS’ policy, and managers and judges were able to reinforce that it was not necessary to remove children from safe relative homes because of licensing challenges.
While the 10 percent waiver threshold has now been well publicized, less understood is a broader provision in the Settlement Agreement which recognizes that there might be a need
20 The monitoring team also asked DHS to analyze replacement data to determine if the new relative licensing policy was triggering an increase in children in relative placement being moved. That data was not yet available as of the writing of this report but will be required for Period Two.
77

for an even higher percentage of waivers. The 10 percent threshold resulted from concerns that the Settlement Agreement be interpreted consistently with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and so not to mandate licensure in Native American communities unless those families and communities sought it. Besides ICWA, at the time of the Settlement Agreement, the parties recognized they lacked the data to know what percentage of all relative families might qualify for a waiver process. The compromise was to set a trigger at 10 percent – and if the percentage of waivers rose beyond that threshold, the monitoring team would have to review those additional waivers to ensure they were being granted consistent with the Settlement Agreement. At the end of Period One, the State was far below the 10 percent waiver threshold. Indeed, only one waiver had been sought and granted.
The Settlement Agreement requires that 50 percent of the pool of existing relative homes be reviewed for licensure by September 30, 2009. The Settlement Agreement did not set a numerical target for Period One so the data that follows is for informational purposes to describe DHS’ performance with respect to the commitments that did become effective in Period One—largely building the necessary infrastructure to tackle the formidable work ahead.
DHS reported the backlog of unlicensed relative homes at the beginning of Period One as 4,023 homes housing 5,998 children residing in 78 (of the 83) counties. As the parties agreed, DHS did develop both a plan for licensure and a tracking system for this population. DHS can report on the demographics of both kin caregivers and the children in their care as well as progress made with respect to licensure. DHS is working towards identifying this information within their main SWSS database. One challenge DHS is attempting to resolve is that once a relative home is licensed it is coded generically as a licensed foster home in the database, making it difficult to differentiate it from non‐relative licensed foster homes. That database challenge had not been resolved by the end of Period One and will be something the monitoring team continues to track in subsequent periods.
The Settlement Agreement contemplates three possible outcomes for the 4,023 relative homes: licensure, waiver, or replacement. The Settlement Agreement did not account for homes that would naturally cycle out as a result of exits from care, exits encouraged by the focus elsewhere in the Settlement Agreement on the permanency backlog cohorts. As illustrated in the chart below, largely through exits, 34 percent of the relative backlog cohort had resolved by the end of Period One, putting DHS on track to resolution of 50 percent by September 2009, the end of Period Two. At the county level, 67 of the 78 counties with children in the relative home backlog cohort were on track to meet or exceed the 50 percent mark by September 30, 2009, including all of the largest 14 counties.
78

*There were an additional 43 children whose homes had been licensed but they subsequently had their cases closed or they moved (they are included in the move/closure statistics.)
Focus groups with foster parents and interviews with a wide variety of stakeholders suggest why a limited number of existing relative homes were licensed in Period One. They report that the pool of existing relatives did not expect to be licensed, had been caring for their children without licensure, and so were not prepared for the implementation of a new process mid‐ stream. Many expected the children in their care to be reunified imminently and so did not see the point of having medical exams and interviews and engaging in the range of other activities required for licensure. After all, the perception is if the children were really going home soon, any financial benefit as a result of licensure would likely be minimal as compared to the burden of the process. The data above supports that expectation for many families.
Additionally, there was the group of homes where the relative family already received equal financial benefit–because the children in their care are legally‐free—and they saw no incentive to pursue licensure. The data also supports this observation. At the end of Period One, 1,605 or 40 percent of the remaining 3,976 children in unlicensed homes were legally‐free.
It is possible that many of the homes in either of these groups would qualify for waivers – but the waiver process was implemented in March 2009 – so it remains to be seen whether large numbers of families will receive waivers over the course of Period Two.
While the circumstances of the kinship caregivers or the children in their homes provide one source of explanations for why so few of these relative homes became licensed, the other set of reasons given for the relatively small number of licenses relate to DHS infrastructure and capacity building. There were relatively few licensing staff in place at the start of Period One and those who were in place were already overwhelmed with other responsibilities. The public agency offices at the county level were encouraged to utilize the private sector as much
79

as possible to support the licensing of these backlog cohort homes – but had mixed results with this outreach.
The private agencies agreed to assume responsibility for 1,018 children, or 17 percent of the entire cohort. There is some debate about whether more could or should have been referred, but private agency licensing staff who were interviewed reported they took as many as they could as fast as they could given the capacity they either had or could develop quickly. In all, DHS reports that 48 private agencies participated in the effort to license this existing pool of relative homes but only about half of those agencies, 23 or 48 percent, handled 10 or more homes. Twenty‐nine of these agencies succeeded in getting one or more of these homes licensed during Period One; so 19 agencies licensed none. Those that were successful had a much higher rate of licensure than was achieved by the public agency, licensing homes for 48 percent or 161 children of the total 334.21 DHS reports that the most successful agency during Period One achieved licensing for relative homes providing care to 19 children.
Given this data, it is evident that the public agency retained responsibility for licensing the overwhelming majority (almost 5,000 children or 83 percent) of these existing relative homes. More will be covered in the Period Two report when DHS’ responsibility for achieving the numerical target of 50 percent reviewed comes due – and investments in licensing infrastructure, development of additional data capacity, and the further dissemination of policy in this area bears fruit.
D. SUPPORTING NEW KIN PLACEMENTS
In addition to licensing the backlog of existing relative homes, the public and private agencies also were expected to license new relative placements for children entering care in October 2008. During Period One, virtually the same percentage of children were placed with relatives as during the same six month period the year prior, continuing DHS’ historic commitment to kinship placement. In all, the State placed 1,343 children in 856 relative homes between October 2008 and March 2009. By the end of Period One, 47 of those children were no longer in placement (three percent) and another 168 had been moved to a new placement (13 percent).
Michigan agreed to an ambitious 90‐day timeframe for licensing from time of entry through issuance of the license. Given that timeframe, results for children newly entering foster care from January through March 2009 will be reported in Period Two. For the 685 children who newly entered foster care between October and December 2008, five percent or 32 of their relatives’ homes had been licensed by the end of Period One. For children who newly entered foster care in October 2008, the rate increases to 13 percent, which stands to reason as those homes had more time to become licensed during Period One. For these new relative placements, DHS worked to shape caregivers’ expectations from the beginning of the
21 There are some indications that the homes referred to the private agencies could be more readily licensed.
80

placement to understand that licensure was now a normal part of agreeing to assume responsibility for their relative child. The CSA central office encouraged local leadership to equip child protective service workers with licensing checklists and asked them to brief new relative foster parents on the licensure process. DHS asked managers to deploy the newly hired Title IV‐E funding specialist staff to engage in immediate screening of those new relative placements and do criminal and child registry background checks. Most counties set up a referral process to try to quickly identify a private agency to begin the licensing process.
Interviews with local public and private staff indicate that implementation of these new practices was uneven. Some reported that CPS staff were routinely informing new relative caregivers of the licensing requirements and Title IV‐E staff were successfully screening. Others reported that previous practice lingered, leaving some new relative placements not as fully screened as leadership had hoped and subsequent background checks and physical inspections surfaced issues that would surely be barriers to that home being licensed.
DHS reports they referred virtually all of these new cases to private agencies. Each county child welfare office was responsible for reporting to the CSA central office those referrals and any outcomes to be entered into the master tracking system. The private agencies continued to assert through the end of Period One that DHS’ data needed updating and their efforts were being under‐reported – and it does appear there were some glitches that need to be worked out but the quality of the data did improve over Period One. The tracking system itself was not yet ready for automation during Period One, which made data entry and analysis onerous – but DHS planned to move to a more automated system as they grew both their central office foster home licensing capacity and their data unit.
E. NEXT STEPS FOR LICENSURE
Coordinating Licensing Efforts
As is the case in most areas of child welfare practice in Michigan, every county and private agency operates independently when it comes to recruitment, licensing, and retention of foster homes – with elements of competition and tension among them. With very rare exception, each agency (public or private) does its own recruitment campaigns, offers its own orientation sessions, does its own foster parent training, engages in its own certification activities, investigates complaints regarding its own providers, and then is responsible for supporting its own foster parents. There are undoubtedly virtues to this individualized approach. Some agencies may be better at recruiting some types of families and the differences in culture among agencies allow a diversity of potential experiences for prospective families. Nonetheless, given the collective challenge of licensing thousands of kinship homes and the slow start in that arena; the Settlement Agreement’s express commitment to a new approach for investigating maltreatment in care; and the existing financial crisis which demands leveraging each dollar for maximum benefit – it may prove
81

beneficial for DHS to revisit this approach and look for more opportunities to provide recruitment activities, training and support services across local offices and private agencies. On balance, with regard to Period One, DHS does appear to have increased its capacity to license homes – both relative and foster homes – in both the public and private sectors and so fulfilled its initial commitment. Many of these staff were only beginning to get trained and to learn how to do this work as the period ended. For Period Two, the monitoring team expects staff to be trained, the additional capacity be harnessed to achieve better results, and some creative analysis and implementation of new approaches to licensing by central office to encourage improved results in both the public local offices and private agencies. The monitoring team will continue to assess DHS’ capacity to license and, most importantly, the results of those investments in the coming periods.
82

COUNTY ALCONA ALGER ALLEGAN ALPENA ANTRIM ARENAC BARAGA BARRY BAY BENZIE BERRIEN BRANCH CALHOUN CASS CHARLEVOIX CHEBOYGAN CHIPPEWA CLARE CLINTON CRAWFORD DELTA DICKINSON EATON EMMET GENESEE GLADWIN GOGEBIC GRAND TRAVERSE GRATIOT HILLSDALE HOUGHTON HURON INGHAM IONIA IOSCO IRON ISABELLA JACKSON KALAMAZOO KALKASKA KENT KEWEENAW

APPENDIX A

Number of Children in Permanency Backlog Cohorts

(9/28/08)

Legally

Reunification

Free

COUNTY

Reunification

4

1

LAKE

5

3

0

LAPEER

10

36

15

LEELANAU

7

16

7

LENAWEE

35

20

13

LIVINGSTON

13

10

3

LUCE

1

0

2

MACKINAC

2

6

1

MACOMB

270

17

33

MANISTEE

6

5

0

MARQUETTE

16

96

86

MASON

10

20

16

MECOSTA

14

89

72

MENOMINEE

11

19

16

MIDLAND

14

27

0

MISSAUKEE

1

21

9

MONROE

26

10

3

MONTCALM

9

2

8

MONTMORENCY

0

55

38

MUSKEGON

80

28

7

NEWAYGO

11

1

12

OAKLAND

527

13

10

OCEANA

8

27

12

OGEMAW

4

7

5

ONTONAGON

1

361

418

OSCEOLA

4

0

2

OSCODA

1

21

4

OTSEGO

12

20

12

OTTAWA

31

7

17

PRESQUE ISLE

5

35

13

ROSCOMMON

5

2

2

SAGINAW

58

13

7

ST CLAIR

85

117

173

ST JOSEPH

53

10

21

SANILAC

7

6

11

SCHOOLCRAFT

0

2

3

SHIAWASSEE

63

15

17

TUSCOLA

18

89

86

VAN BUREN

28

43

115

WASHTENAW

27

8

8

WAYNE

2009

277

138

WEXFORD

3

4

0

TOTAL

5052

Legally Free 10 3 9 32 15 5 1 283 2 18 5 13 3 37 1 43 8 1 83 13 295 0 7 2 3 0 8 26 1 9 144 60 46 18 1 21 22 19 79 1493 5 4260

83

DHS Caseloads
Apr‐09
Alcona‐Iosco Alger Allegan* Alpena‐Presque I Antrim Arenac Baraga H K Barry Bay Benzie‐Manistee Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Char‐Em Cheboygan‐Mac Clare Clinton Crawford Delta Dickinson Eaton* Genesee Gladwin Gogebic Gd Trv‐Llnw* Gratiot Hillsdale Huron Ingham Ionia Iron Isabella Jackson Kalamazoo Kalkaska Kent Lake Lapeer

APPENDIX B

Foster Care & Adoption Caseloads
(*reports needing 1 staff person for uncovered caseload)

Foster Care Direct

Adoption Direct

1 to 25

#

Children

1 to 30 Children

# Std 1 to 25

3

3

100%

3

100%

0

NA

NA

1

1

100%

1

100%

0

NA

NA

7

7

100%

7

100%

1

1

100%

4

2

50%

3

75%

0

NA

NA

3

3

100%

3

100%

0

NA

NA

3

2

67%

2

67%

0

NA

NA

5

5

100%

5

100%

0

NA

NA

3

3

100%

3

100%

1

1

100%

6

6

100%

6

100%

2

1

50%

1

1

100%

1

100%

0

NA

NA

18 12

67%

13

72%

2

0

0%

5

5

100%

5

100%

0

NA

NA

15 15 100%

15

100%

2

0

0%

4

0

0%

3

75%

0

NA

NA

4

3

75%

3

75%

0

NA

NA

4

1

25%

2

50%

0

NA

NA

2

2

100%

2

100%

0

NA

NA

7

6

86%

6

86%

1

0

0%

4

4

100%

4

100%

0

NA

NA

2

2

100%

2

100%

0

NA

NA

6

5

83%

6

100%

0

NA

NA

4

2

50%

4

100%

0

NA

NA

52 45

87%

49

94%

9

4

44%

1

1

100%

1

100%

0

NA

NA

3

1

33%

1

33%

0

NA

NA

5

5

100%

5

100%

2

0

0%

3

3

100%

3

100%

0

NA

NA

5

5

100%

5

100%

1

0

0%

1

1

100%

1

100%

0

NA

NA

20 11

55%

19

95%

1

0

0%

3

1

33%

2

67%

0

NA

NA

1

0

0%

0

0%

0

NA

NA

7

7

100%

7

100%

0

NA

NA

8

7

88%

8

100%

2

2

100%

16

12 75%

16

100%

1

1

100%

3

3

100%

3

100%

0

NA

NA

11

9

82%

9

82%

1

1

100%

2

1

50%

1

50%

0

NA

NA

2

2

100%

2

100%

0

NA

NA

84

DHS Caseloads
Apr‐09
Lenawee Livingston Luce Macomb Marquette Mason Mecosta‐Osc Menominee Midland Monroe Montcalm Mont‐Osc Muskegon Newaygo Oakland Oceana Ogemaw Ontonogan Otsego Ottawa Roscommon Saginaw Sanilac Shiawassee St. Clair St. Joe's Tuscola Van Buren Washtenaw Wayne ‐ Ctrl Ops Wayne ‐ N Ctrl Wayne‐ WW Wayne ‐ SC Wex‐Miss
TOTAL

Foster Care Direct

1 to 25

#

Children

1 to 30 Children

8

7

88%

8

100%

5

3

60%

4

80%

1

1

100%

1

100%

61 58

95%

61

100%

3

3

100%

3

100%

2

1

50%

2

100%

7

7

100%

7

100%

1

1

100%

1

100%

7

4

57%

4

57%

9

9

100%

9

100%

2

1

50%

1

50%

1

1

100%

1

100%

12 10

83%

12

100%

4

4

100%

4

100%

60 59

98%

59

98%

1

1

100%

1

100%

3

3

100%

3

100%

1

1

100%

1

100%

3

3

100%

3

100%

6

6

100%

6

100%

2

2

100%

2

100%

22 22 100%

22

100%

4

4

100%

4

100%

6

6

100%

6

100%

13

4

31%

13

100%

10

8

80%

9

90%

6

6

100%

6

100%

5

3

60%

4

80%

11 10

91%

10

91%

4

4

100%

4

100%

96 95

99%

96

100%

68 57

84%

64

94%

59 47

80%

57

97%

4

4

100%

4

100%

761 659 87%

723

95%

Adoption Direct

# Std

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

4

3

0

NA

0

NA

1

0

0

NA

2

0

1

1

1

0

0

NA

1

0

0

NA

5

5

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

1

1

0

NA

6

5

0

NA

0

NA

1

0

2

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

6

6

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

0

NA

60 35

1 to 25
NA NA NA 75% NA NA 0% NA 0% 100% 0% NA 0% NA 100% NA NA NA NA 100% NA 83% NA NA 0% 50% 100% 0% 100% 100% NA NA NA NA
58%

85

Private Agency Caseload Reporting
April‐09
Adoption Option Inc. Adoption Options Worldwide, Inc. Adoption Specialists Alternatives for Children and Families, Inc. Bethany Christian Services Black Family Development Catholic Charities Lenawee County
Catholic Charities Genesee & Shiawasee Counties/CSS of Flint
Catholic Charities of UP/Catholic SS of Marquette
Catholic Charities West Michigan/CSS of Grand Rapids Catholic Family Services ‐ Saginaw
Catholic Social Services Oakland/St. Francis Family Center Catholic Social Services Washtenaw County Catholic Social Services Wayne County Child and Family Services Capital Area Child and Family Services NE Michigan Child and Family Services NW Michigan Child and Family Services SW Michigan Child and Family Services Upper Peninsula Childhelp Children's Center of Wayne County DA Blodgett for Children Don Bosco Hall Eagle Village, Inc. Ennis Center for Children Evergreen Children's Services Family and Childrens Services Family Adoption Consultants

Staff
1
NA NA
11 36 1
1
3
NA
20
NA
7
NA
9
7
1
16
2
3 4
14 30 3 2 21 6 6 NA

Foster Care

1 staff person has a caseload of

25 or 30 children

# 1:30 % 1:30 # 1:25 % 1:25

1

100%

1

100%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

11

100%

11

36

100%

34

1

100%

1

100% 94% 100%

1

100%

0

0%

3

100%

3

100%

NA

NA

NA

NA

19

95%

19

95%

NA

NA

NA

NA

7

100%

6

86%

NA

NA

NA

NA

9

100%

9

100%

7

100%

7

100%

1

100%

1

100%

16

100%

16

100%

2

100%

2

100%

2

67%

2

4

100%

4

67% 100%

14

100%

14

30

100%

28

3

100%

3

2

100%

2

21

100%

21

6

100%

6

6

100%

5

100% 93% 100% 100% 100% 100% 83%

Adoption

1 staff has a caseload of

25 children

Staff # 1:25 % 1:25

4

4

100%

4

4

100%

3

3

100%

6

5

83%

15

11

73%

NA

2

2

NA

4

3

75%

NA NA

NA

11

8

73%

2

2

100%

6

6

1

1

3

3

4

4

5

5

7

7

NA NA

3

2

NA

7

7

10

10

NA NA

3

3

9

6

4

4

3

3

4

4

100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
NA
67%
100% 100% NA 100% 67% 100% 100% 100%

86

Private Agency Caseload Reporting
April‐09

Foster Care 1 staff person has a caseload of
25 or 30 children Staff # 1:30 % 1:30 # 1:25 % 1:25

Family Counseling/Children's

Services Lenawee County

4

4

100%

4

100%

Family Service and Children's Aid

of Jackson

3

3

100%

3

100%

Federation of Youth Services

4

4

100%

4

100%

Forever Families, Inc.

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Girlstown Foundation

5

5

100%

5

100%

Hands Across the Water

1

1

100%

1

100%

Holy Cross Children's Services

20

20

100%

20

100%

Homes for Black Children

5

5

100%

5

100%

Judson Center

12

12

100%

12

100%

Listening Ear/Crisis Center

4

4

100%

4

100%

Lutheran Adoption Services

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Lutheran Child/Family Service of

MI

24

22

92%

22

92%

Lutheran Social Services of

Michigan

45

45

100%

45

100%

Lutheran SS of Wisconsin & UP

1

0

0%

0

0%

Methodist Children's Home Society

4

4

100%

4

100%

MI Indian Child Welfare Agency

NP

New Light Child and Family

Institute

2

NP

NP

NP

2

100%

1

NP 100%

Oakland Family Services

6

6

100%

6

75%

Orchards Children's Services Pathways MI Sault Tribe of Binogii Placing Agency Spaulding for Children Spectrum Child and Family Services St. Vincent Catholic Charities Starfish Family Services

20

20

100%

20

100%

4

4

100%

4

100%

5

5

100%

5

100%

7

7

100%

6

86%

8

8

100%

7

88%

5

5

100%

5

100%

2

2

100%

2

100%

Starr Commonwealth

11

10

91%

8

73%

Teaching Family Homes

2

2

100%

2

100%

Vista Maria

7

7

100%

7

100%

Wayne Center

2

2

100%

2

100%

Wedgewood CS Wolverine Human Services Youth Guidance Foster Care

4

4

100%

4

100%

8

8

100%

8

100%

2

2

100%

2

100%

TOTAL

431

425

99%

413

96%

NA=Not applicable (does not provide this service); NP= Data not provided

Adoption 1 staff has a caseload of
25 children Staff # 1:25 % 1:25

3

3

2

2

NA NA

2

2

NA NA

4

4

NA NA

3

3

4

4

NA NA

18

14

NA NA

NA NA

1

0

3

3

NA NA

NA NA

5

5

9

9

1

1

4

4

2

1

5

4

6

6

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

NA NA

1

1

193 173

100%
100% NA
100% NA
100% NA
100% 100%
NA 78%
NA
NA 0%
100% NA
NA 100% 100% 100%
100% 50%
80% 100%
NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100% 90%

87

APPENDIX C CASELOAD METHODOLOGY

Section VI.E of the Settlement Agreement describes the parties’ goal of “right sizing” caseloads for the public and private agency staff who provide services to the children and families in Michigan’s child welfare system and the supervisors who directly oversee those staff. While it is a relatively simple concept – each staff person should be assigned the optimal number of cases to make it possible to do good work – translating that to the real world in which there are a wide variety of different types of cases as well as a wide variety of work situations is more complicated. This appendix is designed to lay out in detail the methodology for how caseloads are counted and compliance assessed.

The agreement addresses seven categories of child welfare work:  Child protective services investigations (applies only to public staff)  Child protective services ongoing (public only)  Foster care direct services (public and private)  Adoption direct services (public and private)  Foster care and adoption purchase of service monitors (public only)  Licensing (public and private)  Supervisors (public and private)

The discussion here focuses on six of the seven types of work with discussion of supervisors deferred to the future as the first supervisor caseload target date is January 2010. Although only two of these roles – foster care and adoption direct – are reportable in Period One, this discussion also covers the four other types of work because of the common practice in Michigan of mixing different types of work on the same person’s caseload.

In negotiating the Settlement Agreement, the parties decided on a final target – the maximum size caseload a staff person would carry if that person did only that type of work full‐time. They also established interim standards for each category with interim deadlines in recognition that it will take time to reach the final goal for each caseload type. The agreement phases in caseload compliance between October 2009 and January 2012.

Type of Work
Foster Care Direct Adoption Direct CPS Investigations

Oct‐ 2009 Feb‐ 2009
Apr‐ 2009

First Measurement 95% of staff have no more than 30 children each while 60% have no more than children each 60% of staff have no more than 25 children each 60% of staff have no more than 16 investigations each

Target

Oct‐ 2011 Oct‐ 2011
Oct‐ 2011

95% of staff will have no more than 15 children each 95% of staff have no more than 15 children each 95% of staff have no more than 12 investigations each

88

Type of Work CPS Ongoing
POS
Licensing Supervisors (CPS/FC/A)

Apr‐ 2009
Oct‐ 2009
Oct‐ 2009
Jan‐ 2010

First Measurement 95% of staff have no more than 30 families each 60% of staff have no more than 55 children to monitor 60% of staff will have a workload that will be defined in the future 50% of supervisors will oversee no more than five caseworkers

Oct‐ 2011
Oct‐ 2011
Oct‐ 2011
Jan‐ 2012

Target 95% of staff have no more than 17 families each 95% of staff have no more than 45 children to monitor 95% of staff will have a workload that will be defined in the future 95% of supervisors will oversee no more than five caseworkers

Once a target is achieved, the Settlement Agreement expects the target standards will be maintained from that date forward.

In Michigan, some workers do only one type of work – for example, they are full‐time child protective services investigators or full‐time licensing staff. But many staff are charged with more than one kind of work. For example, some staff split their time between providing foster care direct services and licensing. A public agency staff person could provide both adoption direct services and adoption purchase of service monitoring.

Some staff work part‐time doing one of these seven types of tasks but then spend the rest of their time doing other unrelated work. For example, the Title IVE eligibility specialists spend half their time doing licensing work and half their time doing funding eligibility work. A private agency staff member could spend part of their time providing preventive services and the rest of their time providing foster care services. A small number of staff in the public system, especially in the more rural counties, spend part of their time doing child welfare work and part of their time doing adult services work.

Some staff do not work full‐time at all – they might work part‐time as employees or as contract staff hired to do only a particular task. As a result, the caseload methodology has to take the number of hours they work into account. Finally, if a staff person does any one of the seven tasks listed above, they are included in the caseload analysis.

If a worker does only one kind of child welfare work full‐time, it is relatively simple to determine when that worker has a full caseload. But in any of the other situations described above, it gets a more complicated to determine whether or not that person has a caseload that meets the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, the monitoring team met with DHS leadership several times between October 2008 and March 2009 to review the existing caseload data and to establish a preliminary set of rules for caseload counting. Once those rules were drafted, they were shared with plaintiffs for their review and they concurred.

89

Although what follows describes the basic methodology for counting caseloads that will be utilized for all reporting periods, some elements of the methodology will continue to evolve as more data becomes available and more of the caseload interim targets become due. Any adjustments that need to be made to the methodology will be reported in future periods.
Defining Each Caseload Type
The first step in the process of establishing a methodology for counting caseloads is to achieve agreement on the definition for each individual type of work.
Child Protective Services Investigations
Child protective services (CPS) investigators are assigned to investigate allegations of abuse or neglect. In Michigan, CPS investigations are conducted by the public sector. The CPS process usually begins with a call from the public or any mandated reporter (teacher, doctor, nurse, social worker, etc.) concerned about the safety of a child. The procedure for screening these calls alleging abuse or neglect varies somewhat in Michigan from county to county. In most counties, there are staff who do not carry a caseload but answer the phone and screen calls and write up the initial referral. These staff are not included in the caseload counts precisely because they are protected from carrying a caseload. The staff who receive the referrals from the screening staff and proceed to investigate are included. The agreement defines a full‐time CPS investigative caseload at an interim standard of 16 cases with an ultimate target of 12. With regard to CPS, a case is defined as a family. So whether a family involved in an investigation has one child or five children, either size family would count as one case. But if a report involves children from two or more families, the report generates two or more cases.
Once an investigation is conducted, a decision is made about whether the allegation of abuse or neglect can be substantiated, meaning there was a preponderance of evidence that a child or children were the victims of maltreatment. As a part of every investigation, the worker utilizes a mandatory safety and risk assessment tool. If the finding is that the allegation cannot be substantiated and the risk assessment instrument does not indicate future risk of harm, then the investigation is closed. An investigation case can also be closed after confirmation that the alleged abuse or neglect occurred, if the investigator determines that although the maltreatment occurred, the level of risk is low (based on the risk assessment tool), and the family is not in need of services. Before a case is closed, it is reviewed by a supervisor who must approve the investigation and findings.
However, if the family needs services in order to ensure the children are safe, a case is opened. It can be opened as a CPS ongoing case if the children remain in the home and the family receives services and supervision in the community. It can be opened as a foster care case if the determination is made that the only way to keep the children safe is to remove them from their home. The third possibility is that a case can be opened if the judge opts to leave a child or children in the home, but is sufficiently concerned about safety to make that child or children wards of the state. In the case of in‐home state wards, DHS may decide either
90

to make that child the responsibility of a CPS ongoing worker or a foster care worker, depending on that child’s circumstances (if the child has siblings in placement, the case almost always moves to foster care) and local practice. If the child is placed, DHS policy requires referral to a foster care worker, but there can be a period of dual case management while any remaining investigative issues are resolved and pending the court finding. DHS policy encourages quick resolution of the investigation and limits the period for dual case management except under narrowly defined circumstances.
CPS Ongoing Cases
CPS ongoing cases, handled by the public sector, are cases where there has been a determination by the investigator that the family needs services in order to maintain the child(ren) safely at home. The private sector may provide contracted services to the child or family but case management remains with the state. The interim caseload standard for these in‐home cases defines a full caseload as 30 with a final target of 17. A case is defined as a family, as with CPS investigations.
The agreement assumes that some Michigan staff handle only this type of case. While there are a few instances in which a staff person focuses only on CPS ongoing cases, it is more typical in Michigan that some CPS investigators handle a mixed caseload of both investigations and ongoing in‐home cases. This combination constitutes a “mixed” caseload for purposes of the agreement and so requires a different caseload counting methodology, which is discussed below in the section on mixed caseloads.
Foster Care
Foster care responsibilities are divided between the public and private sectors in Michigan. For the purposes of caseload counting, it is irrelevant whether the case is with the public or private sector – the standard is the same. A case for foster care purposes is a child under court supervision. Most children under court supervision are in placement but some children may be in their own homes either because, as described above, a judge may opt to place a child in the custody of the state, or a child may be returned home from placement but is court ordered to remain under supervision for a period of time. In all three circumstances, the child is almost always considered as part of a “foster care” caseload (except in those instances where a child is placed on a CPS on‐going caseload).
One specialized sub‐population of foster care is youth placed in Supervised Independent Living (SIL). If the young person has an open case with DHS, the foster care caseload standard applies to the staff person providing case management services to that youth.22
22 In some SIL placements, case management is provided by staff on‐site. Other SIL placements follow the institutional placement model and case management is with a foster care caseworker who is not on‐site and may or may not work for the same agency.
91

For the purposes of counting foster care caseloads, every child is considered a case. The initial interim standard for foster care caseloads is a two prong standard, limiting almost all (95%) staff to no more than 30 children, with a significant subset (60%) limited to 25. The final target for a full‐time FC worker is 15, in keeping with the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA) standards.
Adoption
As with foster care caseloads, a “case” in adoption is a child and the standard for both the public and private sectors is the same. The interim standard began at 25 children in February 2009 and then scales down until it reaches the target of 15 children per full‐time staff person. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, a child must be assigned an adoption worker within 14 days of the date the child’s goal changed to adoption.
For the purposes of caseload counting, a child can be counted twice, as both a foster care and adoption case, because in Michigan the foster care worker retains responsibility for visitation and services while the adoption worker is responsible for all the specialized adoption tasks. A child becomes the sole responsibility of the adoption worker only at the very last stage of the pre‐adoption process, when the court formally recognizes a child’s placement as the projected adoptive family, after which, if all goes well, the adoption is finalized within three to six months. But essentially most of the adoption work occurs prior to this point, which is why the caseload count for adoption work begins from the point of assignment.
Purchase of Services Monitors
The purchase of service (POS) monitoring role is an outgrowth of Michigan’s partnership with the private sector. Even as case responsibility is contracted out to the private sector, the state retains legal responsibility for the child – and exercises part of that responsibility by assigning a POS worker to provide oversight and support. The role of a POS worker has evolved in different ways in different counties. In some counties, the courts require POS workers appear at every court proceeding while in other counties, the private sector is permitted to assume full court responsibility. POS workers review service plans, check on permanency progress, visit the child every three months, and enter all of the required SWSS information into the state database for all the children managed in the private sector. These data entry responsibilities constitute a substantial part of their workload.
Because full‐time POS staff do not have direct case management responsibility, the caseload standard is higher, beginning at 55 children (a case is a child) and then scaling down to 45 children. In Michigan, it is possible that the same child could be counted on the caseload of a POS worker, a foster care worker and an adoption worker if responsibility for foster care or adoption (or both) rests with the private sector – and so that one child counts as three cases for the purposes of caseload counting.
92

While the standard in the agreement addresses the caseload of a full‐time POS worker, in the field, there are relatively few full‐time POS staff. Instead, the POS responsibility is often shared among staff with direct foster care, adoption or other responsibilities. Consequently, most POS caseloads fall into the category of mixed caseloads described below.
Licensing
The section on caseload standards for licensing does not define what constitutes a case for a licensing staff member. The training section of the agreement refers to the very wide range of responsibilities that licensing staff can have (Section VI.C). They engage in recruitment; answer inquiry calls; assess prospective foster families, inspect their homes and do all of the other work necessary to complete the full application to certify that a family should be licensed and forward that application packet to BCAL. They provide training to prospective foster parents and in‐service training to licensed foster parents; investigate complaints that are lodged against existing foster homes; and provide support to existing foster parents. In Michigan, this licensing work is done by both public and private sector staff – and the caseload standard is the same.
Before settling on a methodology for counting licensing caseloads, DHS leadership are first going to conduct a workload analysis to collect information on the range of responsibilities associated with licensing work. DHS will collect this information over the course of Period Two and then meet with the monitoring team to propose a methodology for counting licensing caseloads. After sharing the findings of that process with plaintiffs and receiving their feedback, the monitoring team will then finalize a methodology for counting licensing caseloads. The goal is to reach agreement on a licensing caseload counting methodology by September 2009 prior to the October 2009 target date for the initial licensing caseload count.
Mixed Caseloads
In the agreement, each type of caseload responsibility is dealt with individually, with a provision at the end of the caseload section providing a process to reach agreement for addressing the issue of mixed caseloads. The language in this section suggests the issue could be resolved in a single time period. However, the monitoring team’s review of the early caseload data and visits to the field suggest that the process for counting mixed caseloads and setting targets should evolve with the development of Michigan’s reform.
To begin, there could be two broad types of mixed caseloads. The first type of mixed caseload would involve staff engaged in providing child welfare services only part‐time who spend the rest of their time on other non‐child welfare duties, such as adult services or cash assistance services. Even prior to signing the Agreement, DHS leadership report that they had begun to phase out this type of mixed caseload – and the directive to the field now requires keeping child welfare and non‐child welfare responsibilities separated by staff, and private sector contracts require staff be devoted solely to child welfare services. A review of the April 2009 caseload data suggests that while there is occasional co‐mingling of adult and child welfare
93

work responsibilities, it is rare. Consequently, the monitoring team’s task with respect to this issue is simply to verify that this directive is being followed in practice, which the team will do as part of its ongoing monitoring responsibilities.
The second type of mixed caseload involves staff assigned more than one type of child welfare responsibility. The monitoring team’s review of the caseload data confirms that mixed child welfare caseloads in the public sector are very common. Over the course of Period One, management encouraged some specialization by type of work – in particular, separating child protective services work (investigations and ongoing) from foster care, adoption, licensing, and POS work. As a result, the monitoring team saw less mixed caseloads across those two broad categories over the course of Period One but mixed caseloads within each of those categories remains quite common. With regard to the private sector, less data was available during Period One but the data available revealed that there was some mixing of types of child welfare work – foster care and licensing, for example.
Also common in the private sector – but rare in the public sector – are part‐time and contract staff. For these staff, the limits of their caseloads are determined by the amount of time they work. If they work half time then they are capped at 50% of a full caseload for a full‐time worker. Given the wide variation of work situations, each part‐time or contract staff person is calibrated against what is called a full‐time equivalent (FTE—a common human resources term). A person who is full‐time has an FTE of 1.0 and then anyone who works less than full‐ time becomes a fraction of 1.0. So if the staff person works half‐time, they work 0.5 FTE; one day per week, 0.2 FTE; four days a week, 0.8; and so on. FTEs play a critical role in determining caseload compliance as described below.
Both sectors have staff who are responsible part‐time for one or more of the seven types of work identified in the Settlement Agreement and who also spend the rest of their time doing another form of children’s services work – juvenile justice, guardianship reviews (non‐ custodial), funding eligibility, immigration, or preventive services, to name a few examples. For purposes of the Settlement Agreement caseload standards, these staff are treated as if they were part‐time. They are assigned an FTE for the relevant portion of their children’s services work. So, for example, a Title IVE eligibility specialist who is assigned 50% of their time to do eligibility work and 50% of their time to licensing work is a 0.5 FTE for the purposes of determining caseload compliance.
In addition to determining an FTE for each worker, each type of case – CPS investigations or ongoing, foster care or adoption direct, POS or licensing – is assigned a “weight.” Like 1.0 is an FTE, a full caseload of one type of case would also be 1.0. But because each type of case is different, the weight for each type of case is different – and the weights change over time because the definition of a full caseload changes over time. So, for example, a full caseload for foster care is 30 children at the start of the Agreement but then it drops to 25, 22, and so on, down to 15. For the purposes of measuring compliance with the first standard of 30 children, each foster care case is assigned a weight of 0.03 (1 divided by 30) but at the final target, each foster case will be assigned a weight of 0.067 (1 divided by 15). Adoption cases start at 25
94

children, so each adoption case is assigned a weight of 0.04 (1 divided by 25.) POS cases are assigned a weight of 0.018 (1 divided by 55) and licensing cases (which still need to be defined) will be assigned a weight of 0.028 (1 divided by 36). A full caseload adds up to 1.0 weight total.
So to count a caseload, you have to start first with the worker and assess that worker’s FTE. Then you have to count all of the relevant cases on that worker’s caseload by weight. The weight has to be equal to or less than the worker’s FTE to be in compliance. So, for example, a full‐time foster care worker (who does nothing else) has 25 cases. That person has a 1.0 FTE and a 1.0 weight – so that person meets the caseload standard. But if that person works half‐ time, she has a 0.5 FTE and if she has 25 cases, she has a weight of 1.0 – and because her weight is larger than her FTE, she is out of compliance. On the other hand, if she works half‐ time (0.5 FTE) and she has a caseload of 12 cases (0.04 x 12 = 0.48), her weight of 0.48 is less than her 0.5 FTE and so she is in compliance.
To summarize: 1) FTE: determine how much time that person works doing one of the child welfare services listed in the agreement. If they are full‐time, they have an FTE of 1.0 and if they are part‐time, contract, or spend only part of their time on one of those services, they have an FTE that is less and is determined by what portion of their time is spent doing the relevant child welfare services work. 2) Weight: multiply each type of case on their caseload by the right weight. 3) Compare: if the weight is equal to or less than the FTE, that person counts as being in compliance. But if the weight is more than the FTE, that person is out of compliance.
Counting compliance with each of the standards in the Agreement involves looking at the compliance rates for all workers who do that type of work, whether they do that full‐time or part‐time and then seeing what percentage of that total number of workers doing that type of work have caseloads that meet the standard. When a worker carries more than one type of case, they count towards compliance for every type of case they carry. So if a worker has both CPS investigations and CPS ongoing cases and her caseload weight adds up to 1.0 or less, she counts as a staff person with a caseload meeting both standards. However, if she carries the same type of mixed caseload, but has a caseload weight that is 1.1 or higher, she counts against meeting both standards. Therefore, when the monitoring team reports on compliance, they are reporting on all staff doing that type of work, whether they are doing it full or part‐ time.
95

 
 Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 1 of 37
CLOSED,IFP
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:06−cv−13548−NGE−DAS

D. B. et al v. Granholm et al Assigned to: District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds Referred to: Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer

Case in other court:

U.S. Court of Appeals − Sixth Circuit, 11−01140

Cause: No cause code entered

Plaintiff

Date Filed: 08/08/2006 Date Terminated: 10/24/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

D. B. a minor, by his next friend, John Stempfle

represented by Edward P. Leibensperger McDermott, Will, 28 State Street Suite 3400 Boston, MA 02109 617−535−4000 Fax: 617−535−3800 Email: eleibensperger@mwe.com TERMINATED: 02/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elissa Hendler Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth P. Hardy Keinbaum, Opperwall, 280 N. Old Woodward Avenue Suite 400 Birmingham, MI 48009 248−645−0000 Fax: 248−645−1385 Email: ehardy@kohp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heidi A. Naasko Dykema Gossett 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, MI 48243 313−568−6800 Email: hnaasko@dykema.com TERMINATED: 11/01/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jay C. Boger 1546 Covington Woods Lane Lake Orion, MI 48360 (248) 808−4419 Email: jboger15@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marcia Lowry

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 2 of 37
Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noel D. Massie Kienbaum, Opperwall, 280 N. Old Woodward Avenue Suite 400 Birmingham, MI 48009−6255 248−645−0000 Email: nmassie@kohp.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard J. Landau 5340 Plymouth Road Suite 200 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 734−865−1585 Fax: 734−865−1595 Email: rjlandau@rjlps.com TERMINATED: 04/13/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara M. Bartosz Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 Fax: 212−683−4015 Email: sbartosz@childrensrights.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Lambiase Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 Fax: 212−683−2210 TERMINATED: 12/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gena E. Wiltsek Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 212−683−2210 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel C. Damren Dykema Gossett (Detroit) 400 Renaissance Center Detroit, MI 48243−1668 313−568−6800 Email: sdamren@dykema.com

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 3 of 37

TERMINATED: 11/01/2007

Plaintiff
John Stempfle next friend of D. B., a minor

represented by Edward P. Leibensperger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elissa Hendler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth P. Hardy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heidi A. Naasko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jay C. Boger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marcia Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noel D. Massie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard J. Landau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Lambiase (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel C. Damren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007

Sara M. Bartosz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 4 of 37

C. B. a minor, by and through her next friend, William Ladd

represented by Edward P. Leibensperger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elissa Hendler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth P. Hardy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heidi A. Naasko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jay C. Boger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marcia Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noel D. Massie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard J. Landau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara M. Bartosz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Lambiase (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel C. Damren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007

Plaintiff
William Ladd next friend of C. B., J. G., S. G. and C.

represented by Edward P. Leibensperger (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 5 of 37

G., minors

TERMINATED: 02/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elissa Hendler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth P. Hardy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heidi A. Naasko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jay C. Boger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marcia Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noel D. Massie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard J. Landau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara M. Bartosz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Lambiase (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel C. Damren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007

Plaintiff
L. J. a minor, by her next friend, Teresa Kibby

represented by Edward P. Leibensperger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 6 of 37

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elissa Hendler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth P. Hardy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heidi A. Naasko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jay C. Boger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marcia Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noel D. Massie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard J. Landau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara M. Bartosz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Lambiase (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel C. Damren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007

Plaintiff
Teresa Kibby next friend of L. J., a minor

represented by Edward P. Leibensperger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 7 of 37

Elissa Hendler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth P. Hardy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heidi A. Naasko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jay C. Boger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marcia Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noel D. Massie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard J. Landau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara M. Bartosz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Lambiase (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel C. Damren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007

Plaintiff
J. G. a minor, by her next friend, William Ladd

represented by Edward P. Leibensperger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elissa Hendler (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 8 of 37

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elizabeth P. Hardy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Heidi A. Naasko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Jay C. Boger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Marcia Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Noel D. Massie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard J. Landau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara M. Bartosz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Susan Lambiase (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Samuel C. Damren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007

Plaintiff
S. G. a minor, by his next friend, William Ladd

represented by Edward P. Leibensperger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Elissa Hendler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 9 of 37

Plaintiff
C. G. a minor, by and through her next friend, William Ladd

Elizabeth P. Hardy (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heidi A. Naasko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jay C. Boger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noel D. Massie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard J. Landau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Lambiase (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel C. Damren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007
Sara M. Bartosz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edward P. Leibensperger (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elissa Hendler (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth P. Hardy (See above for address)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 10 of 37
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Heidi A. Naasko (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY
Jay C. Boger (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Marcia Lowry (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Noel D. Massie (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard J. Landau (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/13/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara M. Bartosz (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Susan Lambiase (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/15/2011 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Samuel C. Damren (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/01/2007

V.
Defendant
Michigan, Governor of in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan

represented by Brad H. Sysol Miller, Canfield, (Kalamazoo) 444 W. Michigan Avenue Kalamazoo, MI 49007−3752 269−381−7030 Email: sysol@millercanfield.com TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William R. Morris Michigan Department of Attorney General Health, Education and Family Services

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 11 of 37
Division P.O. Box 30758 Lansing, MI 48909 517−373−7700 Email: morrisw@michigan.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
B. Jay Yelton Warner Norcross & Judd, LLP 259 East Michigan Avenue Suite 208 Kalamazoo, MI 49007 (269) 276−8130 Fax: (269) 276−8330 Email: jyelton@wnj.com TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dari C. Bargy Stryker Corporation Legal Department 2825 Airview Boulevard Kalamazoo, MI 49002 (269) 389−7648 Fax: (269) 385−2066 Email: dari.bargy@stryker.com TERMINATED: 07/02/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John J. Bursch Bursch Law PLLC 9339 Cherry Valley Ave SE, #78 Caledonia, MI 49316 616−450−4235 Email: jbursch@burschlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph E. Potchen Michigan Department of Attorney General Corporate Oversight Division P.O. Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48909 517−373−1160 Email: potchenj@michigan.gov TERMINATED: 07/02/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kristin M. Heyse Michigan Department of the Attorney General 525 W Ottawa St. 3rd Floor P.O. Box 30758 48909 517−373−7700 Fax: 517−335−1152 Email: heysek@michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kurt P. McCamman Miller, Canfield,

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 12 of 37
444 W. Michigan Avenue Kalamazoo, MI 49007−3752 269−381−7030 Fax: 269−382−0244 Email: McCamman@millercanfield.com TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael G. Frezza Michigan Department of Attorney General Criminal Division 3030 W. Grand Boulevard Suite 10−350 Detroit, MI 48202 313−456−0180 Fax: 313−456−0181 Email: frezzam@michigan.gov TERMINATED: 10/27/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle M. Brya State of Michigan Department of Attorney General 525 W. Ottawa Street − 3rd Fl P.O. Box 30758 Lansing, MI 48909 5173737700 Fax: 5173351152 Email: BryaM@michigan.gov TERMINATED: 08/31/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Rivka Schochet 6753 Cottonwood Knoll Street West Bloomfield, MI 48322 248 763 6097 Fax: 248 538−8399 Email: prschochetpllc@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara M. Bartosz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Toni L. Harris Michigan Department of Attorney General P.O. Box 30758 Lansing, MI 48909 517−373−7700 Fax: 517335−1152 Email: harrist19@michigan.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Mack Faison Miller, Canfield, (Detroit) 150 W. Jefferson Avenue Suite 2500 Detroit, MI 48226−4415 313−963−6420 Email: Faison@MillerCanfield.com TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 13 of 37

Marianne Udow in her official capacity as Director of the Michigan Department of Human Services ("DHS")

represented by Brad H. Sysol (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William R. Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

B. Jay Yelton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dari C. Bargy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J. Bursch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph E. Potchen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin M. Heyse (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kurt P. McCamman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael G. Frezza (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle M. Brya (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

P. Rivka Schochet (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara M. Bartosz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Toni L. Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 14 of 37

W. Mack Faison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Laura Champagne in her official capacity as Chief Deputy Director of DHS Operations

represented by Brad H. Sysol (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William R. Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

B. Jay Yelton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dari C. Bargy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J. Bursch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph E. Potchen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin M. Heyse (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kurt P. McCamman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael G. Frezza (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle M. Brya (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

P. Rivka Schochet (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sara M. Bartosz

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 15 of 37

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Toni L. Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

W. Mack Faison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
James Hennessey in his official capacity as Deputy Director of DHS Children's Services

represented by Brad H. Sysol (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William R. Morris (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

B. Jay Yelton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Dari C. Bargy (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John J. Bursch (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Joseph E. Potchen (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/02/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kristin M. Heyse (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kurt P. McCamman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael G. Frezza (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/27/2008 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michelle M. Brya (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/31/2016

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 16 of 37
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
P. Rivka Schochet (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara M. Bartosz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Toni L. Harris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
W. Mack Faison (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/26/2012 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Movant
Charleszetta Cheeks TERMINATED: 01/04/2011

represented by Charleszetta Cheeks 131 Atkinson Street Detroit, MI 48202 PRO SE
Gena E. Wiltsek (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara M. Bartosz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 08/08/2006
08/09/2006
08/10/2006 08/10/2006 08/11/2006 08/11/2006 08/11/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B. against Jennifer Granholm, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey, Receipt No: 546500 − Fee: $ 350. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation)(DTyle, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/11/2006 (TMcg, ). (Entered: 08/08/2006)
2 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Counsel by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit A: Declaration of Marcia Robinson Lowry In Support of Motion for Class Certification)(Landau, Richard) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
3 Letter from Clerk's Office to Susan Lambiase regarding attorney admission status (JJoh, ) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
4 Letter from Clerk's Office to Elissa Hendler regarding attorney admission status. (JJoh, ) (Entered: 08/10/2006)
5 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: William R. Morris appearing on behalf of all defendants.(Morris, William) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
6 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Jennifer Granholm served on 8/10/2006, answer due 8/30/2006. (Naasko, Heidi) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
7 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Marianne Udow served on 8/10/2006, answer due 8/30/2006. (Naasko, Heidi) (Entered: 08/11/2006)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 17 of 37

08/15/2006
08/15/2006 08/15/2006 08/17/2006 09/12/2006 09/12/2006 09/29/2006 10/26/2006 11/13/2006 11/13/2006 11/17/2006 11/28/2006
01/12/2007 01/12/2007 01/12/2007 01/12/2007 01/16/2007 01/16/2007 01/19/2007 01/25/2007

8 STIPULATION re 1 Complaint,, 2 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Counsel to extend response time by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, Jennifer Granholm, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey, C. B..(Morris, William) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
9 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. James Hennessey served on 8/11/2006, answer due 8/31/2006. (Naasko, Heidi) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
10 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Laura Champagne served on 8/11/2006, answer due 8/31/2006. (Naasko, Heidi) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
11 ORDER Setting Deadlines as to 2 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Counsel: Responses due by 9/29/2006. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem, ) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
12 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
13 STIPULATED ORDER to Produce Named Plaintiff Records. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem, ) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
14 STIPULATED ORDER as to 2 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Counsel: Extending response deadline to 10/31/2006. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem, ) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
15 STIPULATED ORDER EXTENDING response time as to 2 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Counsel: Responses due by 11/13/2006. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem, ) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
16 MOTION to Dismiss by all defendants. (Morris, William) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
17 RESPONSE to 2 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Counsel filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Morris, William) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
18 NOTICE of hearing on 2 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Counsel. Motion Hearing set for 1/31/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem, ) (Entered: 11/17/2006)
19 STIPULATION AND ORDER to extend response and reply deadlines: 2 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Counsel Replies due by 1/12/2007., 16 MOTION to Dismiss: Responses due by 1/12/2007. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem, ) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
20 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel by all plaintiffs. (Landau, Richard) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
21 REPLY to Response re 2 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Counsel filed by all plaintiffs. (Landau, Richard) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
22 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendants' First Motion to Dismiss by all plaintiffs. (Landau, Richard) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
23 RESPONSE to 16 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−−Olivia Y. Order)(Landau, Richard) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 22 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages− Entered by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem, ) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 20 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages− Entered by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem, ) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
24 REPLY to Response re 16 MOTION to Dismiss filed by all defendants. (Morris, William) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
25 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 21 Reply to Response to Motion, 17 Response to Motion, 2 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Counsel filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Morris, William) (Entered: 01/25/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 18 of 37

01/29/2007 02/14/2007
02/15/2007 02/16/2007
02/16/2007 02/23/2007 03/02/2007 03/09/2007 03/26/2007 03/26/2007 04/02/2007
04/10/2007 04/11/2007
04/11/2007 04/11/2007
04/13/2007 04/17/2007 04/19/2007

26 AMENDED NOTICE of hearing on 2 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Counsel. Motion Hearing re−set for 2/14/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem, ) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 2/14/2007 re 2 MOTION to Certify Class and for Appointment of Class Counsel filed by D. B.,, S. G.,, John Stempfle,, C. B.,, William Ladd,, L. J.,, Teresa Kibby,, J. G.,, C. G., before Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem, ) Modified on 2/15/2007 (CHem, ). (Entered: 02/15/2007)
27 ORDER granting 2 Motion to Certify Class− Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem, ) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
28 [FILING ERROR: WRONG IMAGE UPLOADED. WILL REFILE.]Cross MOTION for Order for Setting Scheduling Conference by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation Brief in Support)(Naasko, Heidi) Modified on 2/16/2007 (KClark, ). (Entered: 02/16/2007)
29 Cross MOTION for Order for Setting of Scheduling Conference by all plaintiffs. (Naasko, Heidi) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
30 NOTICE of hearing on 16 MOTION to Dismiss. Motion Hearing set for 4/11/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
31 RESPONSE to 29 Cross MOTION for Order for Setting of Scheduling Conference filed by all defendants. (Morris, William) (Entered: 03/02/2007)
32 REPLY to Response re 29 Cross MOTION for Order for Setting of Scheduling Conference filed by all plaintiffs. (Naasko, Heidi) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
Set Deadlines: Scheduling Conference set for 4/11/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Nancy G Edmunds (to be held after the motion hearing). (CHem) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 29 Motion setting scheduling conference. Scheduling conference to be held after the 4/11/2007 motion hearing; discovery plan due 4/10/2007. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
33 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 24 Reply to Response to Motion, 23 Response to Motion, 16 MOTION to Dismiss on abstention grounds filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Federal Agency Guidance) (Morris, William) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
34 DISCOVERY plan jointly filed pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(f) (Morris, William) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 4/11/2007 re 16 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Marianne Udow, James Hennessey, Laura Champagne, Jennifer Granholm before Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
Minute Entry −Scheduling Conference held on 4/11/2007 before Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
35 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 5/20/2008 02:00 PM before Honorable Nancy G Edmunds, Bench Trial set for 6/3/2008 09:00 AM before Honorable Nancy G Edmunds,Discovery due by 10/15/2007 Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (Refer to image for additional dates) (CHem) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
36 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Attorney Richard J. Landau by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B.. (Landau, Richard) (Entered: 04/13/2007)
37 ORDER denying 16 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
38 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Samuel C. Damren appearing on behalf of all plaintiffs (Damren, Samuel) (Entered: 04/19/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 19 of 37

04/24/2007 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 05/01/2007 05/02/2007 05/16/2007 05/30/2007 06/11/2007 06/13/2007 06/13/2007 06/22/2007 07/05/2007 07/06/2007
07/10/2007
07/16/2007 07/17/2007 07/20/2007 07/20/2007

39 NOTICE of Appearance by Gena E. Wiltsek on behalf of all plaintiffs. (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
40 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by all defendants. (Morris, William) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
41 STATEMENT of DISCLOSURE of CORPORATE AFFILIATIONS and FINANCIAL INTEREST by Jennifer Granholm, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey (Morris, William) (Entered: 04/30/2007)
42 MOTION for Reconsideration re 37 Order on Motion to Dismiss by all defendants. (Morris, William) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
43 ORDER denying 42 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
44 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability by all defendants. (Morris, William) (Entered: 05/16/2007)
45 STIPULATED ORDER extending dates as to 44 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability : Responses due by 6/11/2007 Replies due by 6/25/2007 Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 05/30/2007)
46 RESPONSE to 44 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
47 NOTICE of Appearance by B. Jay Yelton, III(attorney not admitted) on behalf of Jennifer Granholm, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey. (PPau) Modified on 6/14/2007 (Paul, P.). (Entered: 06/14/2007)
48 NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY with Local Rule 5.1.1 re 47 Notice of Appearance (PPau) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
49 REPLY to Response re 44 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Secondary Review Results) (Morris, William) (Entered: 06/22/2007)
50 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: P. Rivka Schochet appearing on behalf of all defendants and Proof of Service (Schochet, P.) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
51 [FILING ERROR: RULE 18 VIOLATION] MOTION to Compel and For Entry Of Confidentiality Order by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Sara M. Bartosz# 3 Exhibit 1# 4 Exhibit 2# 5 Exhibit 3# 6 Exhibit 4# 7 Exhibit 5# 8 Exhibit 6# 9 Exhibit 7# 10 Exhibit 8# 11 Exhibit 9# 12 Exhibit 10# 13 Exhibit 11# 14 Exhibit 12# 15 Exhibit 13# 16 Exhibit 14) (Wiltsek, Gena) Modified on 7/9/2007 (Hollier, N.). (Entered: 07/06/2007)
52 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer: 51 MOTION to Compel and For Entry Of Confidentiality Order filed by C. G., Teresa Kibby, William Ladd, C. B., D. B., L. J., S. G., J. G., John Stempfle., Set Motion Deadlines/Hearings as to 51 MOTION to Compel and For Entry Of Confidentiality Order : Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 7/31/2007 Motion Hearing set for 8/2/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 07/10/2007)
53 ORDER denying 44 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 07/16/2007)
54 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Dari C. Bargy appearing on behalf of all defendants (Bargy, Dari) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
55 RESPONSE to 51 MOTION to Compel and For Entry Of Confidentiality Order filed by all defendants. (Bargy, Dari) (Entered: 07/20/2007)
56 INDEX of Exhibits re 55 Response to Motion by all defendants to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Mtn to Compel# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit Exhibit E# 7 Exhibit Exhibit F# 8 Exhibit Exhbiit G# 9 Exhibit Exhibit H) (Bargy, Dari) (Entered: 07/20/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 20 of 37

07/24/2007 07/25/2007
07/30/2007 07/31/2007 08/03/2007 08/06/2007 08/06/2007
08/07/2007 08/08/2007 08/10/2007 08/17/2007

Reset Deadlines as to 51 MOTION to Compel and For Entry Of Confidentiality Order. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 8/3/2007 Motion Hearing set for 8/7/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer (MLan) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
57 MOTION for court−appointed expert and entry of scheduling order by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Email from W. Morris to S. Bartosz of 6/1/07# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 − Michigan Foster Care Review Board 2006 Annual Report# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3 − State of Michigan Office of Childrens Ombudsmans Annual Report 2004−2005# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4 − Provisional License Reports# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5 − Curriculum Vitae of S. Christopher Baird) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
58 REPLY to Response re 51 MOTION to Compel and For Entry Of Confidentiality Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1 −− FCRB 2006 Annual Report# 3 Exhibit 2 −− Declaration of Sara M. Bartosz) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 07/30/2007)
Set Deadlines as to 57 MOTION for court−appointed expert and entry of scheduling order. Response due by 8/6/2007 Motion Hearing set for 8/7/2007 01:00 PM before Honorable Nancy G Edmunds (CHem) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
59 STATEMENT of Resolved and Unresolved Issues by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, Jennifer Granholm, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey, C. B. (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 08/03/2007)
60 NOTICE of Appearance by B. Jay Yelton on behalf of all defendants. (Yelton, B.) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
61 RESPONSE to 57 MOTION for court−appointed expert and entry of scheduling order filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion and Brief for A Court−Appointed Expert and Entry of A Scheduling Order# 2 Exhibit Exhibit A − Declaration of William R. Morris# 3 Exhibit Exhibit B − Declaration of B. Jay Yelton, III# 4 Document Continuation Tab 1 − Agenda, June 19, 2007# 5 Document Continuation Tab 2 − Outline and Draft Budget, June 28, 2007# 6 Document Continuation Tab 3 − July 12−13, 2007 Correspondence# 7 Document Continuation Tab 4 − Declaration of B. Jay Yelton, III, July 20, 2007# 8 Document Continuation Tab 5 − Correspondence, July 12, 20,23 and 24, 2007# 9 Document Continuation Tab 6 − Plaintiffs' MOU, July 24, 2007# 10 Document Continuation Tab 7 − Correspondence, July 25, 2007# 11 Document Continuation Tab 8 − Defendants' MOU, July 25, 2007# 12 Document Continuation Tab 9 − Correspondence regarding proposed MOU, July 25, 2007# 13 Document Continuation Tab 10 − Correspondence, July 25−26, 2007# 14 Document Continuation Tab 11 − CRC's Timeline for MOU, July 27, 2007# 15 Document Continuation Tab 12 − Michigan DHS SOW for CRC Joint Case Review# 16 Exhibit Exhibit C − Transcript, April 11, 2007# 17 Exhibit Exhibit D − Plaintiffs' Proposed Stipulation, August 2, 2007# 18 Exhibit Exhibit E − Declaration of Steve Yager# 19 Exhibit Exhibit F − Tangwall v Robb, 2003 WL 23142190 (E.D. Mich. 2003)# 20 Exhibit Exhibit G − Hannah v. U.S., 2006 WL 2583190 (N.D. Tex. 2006)) (Schochet, P.) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 8/7/2007 re 51 MOTION to Compel and For Entry Of Confidentiality Order filed by C. G., Teresa Kibby, William Ladd, C. B., D. B., L. J., S. G., J. G., John Stempfle before Honorable Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Motion Taken Under Advisement (Tape #DAS 07−082) (MLan) (Entered: 08/07/2007)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 8/8/2007 re 57 MOTION for court−appointed expert and entry of scheduling order filed by C. G., Teresa Kibby, William Ladd, C. B., D. B., L. J., S. G., J. G., John Stempfle before Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. Disposition: held and resolved(Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
62 ORDER For Court Appointed Independent Expert; report due 12/14/2007. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
63 ORDER granting 51 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 08/17/2007)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 21 of 37

08/17/2007 08/17/2007 09/24/2007 10/12/2007 10/26/2007 11/01/2007 11/20/2007
11/26/2007 11/27/2007 11/27/2007 11/30/2007 12/04/2007
12/04/2007
12/05/2007 12/05/2007 12/11/2007

64 PROTECTIVE ORDER Re: Review of Confidential Files and Records of Minors. Signed by Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
65 STIPULATION Regarding Depositions by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., S. G., John Stempfle (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 08/17/2007)
66 STIPULATED ORDER Regarding Fact Discovery Cut Off. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 09/24/2007)
67 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 8/7/07. (Court Reporter: Deborah Kremlick) (Number of Pages: 36) (AGre) (Entered: 10/15/2007)
68 NOTICE of Appearance by W. Mack Faison on behalf of all defendants. (Faison, W.) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
69 ORDER with stipulation appointing attorneys Edward P. Leibensperger, Kevin M. Bolan, Elizabeth P. Hardy, Noel D. Massie, and Jay C. Boger as attorneys for plaintiffs and terminating attorneys Samuel Damren and Heidi Nassko. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (DPer) (Entered: 11/02/2007)
70 [FILING ERROR: RULE 18 VIOLATION, EXHIBITS] MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit # 3 Exhibit # 4 Exhibit # 5 # 6 # 7 Exhibit # 8 Exhibit # 9 Exhibit # 10 Exhibit # 11 Exhibit # 12 Exhibit # 13 Exhibit # 14 Exhibit # 15 Exhibit # 16 Exhibit) (Wiltsek, Gena) Modified on 11/21/2007 (Hollier, N.). (Entered: 11/20/2007)
71 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer: 70 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions filed by C. G., Teresa Kibby, William Ladd, C. B., D. B., L. J., S. G., J. G., John Stempfle. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
72 STIPULATED ORDER Regarding Additional Depositions. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
73 NOTICE of hearing on 70 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 12/11/2007, Motion Hearing set for 12/13/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
74 [EXHIBIT LABELING ERROR] NOTICE by Jennifer Granholm re 62 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief of Filing Pursuant to August 10, 2007 Order for Court−Appointed Independent Expert (Schochet, P.) Modified on 12/3/2007 (Greer, A.). (Entered: 11/30/2007)
75 [FILING ERROR: EXHIBIT LABELING ERROR]RESPONSE to 70 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1# 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2# 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3# 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4# 6 Exhibit Exhibit 5# 7 Exhibit Exhibit 6# 8 Exhibit Exhibit 7# 9 Exhibit Exhibit 8# 10 Exhibit Exhibit 9# 11 Exhibit Exhibit 10# 12 Exhibit Exhibit 11# 13 Exhibit Exhibit 12# 14 Exhibit Exhibit 13# 15 Exhibit Exhibit 14# 16 Exhibit Exhibit 15) (Yelton, B.) Modified on 12/5/2007 (Eldridge, D.). (Entered: 12/04/2007)
76 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1−Plaintiffs' Fifth Request for Production of Documents# 3 Exhibit 2−Defendants' Objections to Fifth Requests# 4 Exhibit 3−Affidavit of George Noonan# 5 Exhibit 4−Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories# 6 Exhibit 5−Defendants' Objections to First Interrogatories) (Bargy, Dari) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
77 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer: 76 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery filed by Marianne Udow, James Hennessey, Laura Champagne, Jennifer Granholm. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
78 NOTICE of hearing on 76 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 1/4/2008, Motion Hearing set for 1/8/2008 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 12/05/2007)
79 REPLY to Response re 70 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions and Response to 76 MOTION for Protective Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 22 of 37

12/11/2007
12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/14/2007
01/03/2008 01/07/2008 01/10/2008

Index of Exhibits Index of Exhibits# 2 Exhibit 1 − Deposition Transcript of Angelo Nicholas, November 29, 2007# 3 Exhibit 2 − January 18, 2006, and August 20, 2007, DHS CPS Reports to the Michigan Legislature# 4 Exhibit 3 − PS−830 Reports, Bates No. MIDHS00410815 − MIDHS00410864) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
80 APPENDIX re: 79 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by C. G., Teresa Kibby, William Ladd, C. B., D. B., L. J., S. G., J. G., John Stempfle. by all plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit A − Emails between Sara Bartosz and William Morris, November 13, 2006# 3 Exhibit B − Emails between Sara Bartosz and William Morris, December 11−12, 2006# 4 Exhibit C − Emails between Sara Bartosz and William Morris, February 16, 2007# 5 Exhibit D − Joint Discovery Plan, April 10, 2007# 6 Exhibit E − Letter from Gena Wiltsek to Defendants counsel, October 12, 2007# 7 Exhibit F − Emails from Sara Bartosz to B. Jay Yelton, November 12−13, 2007# 8 Exhibit G − Email from B. Jay Yelton to Sara Bartosz, November 13, 2007# 9 Exhibit H − Email from Sara Bartosz to B. Jay Yelton, November 14, 2007# 10 Exhibit I − Emails between Sara Bartosz and B. Jay Yelton, November 14−16, 2007# 11 Exhibit J − Emails between Sara Bartosz and B. Jay Yelton, November 16−17, 2007) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 12/11/2007)
81 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit A − Defendants' Brief in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)# 3 Exhibit B − Proposed Order Granting Defendants' Ex Parte Motion to Extend Page Limitation) (Schochet, P.) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
82 EXHIBIT A − Amended re 81 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Jennifer Granholm (Schochet, P.) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
83 MOTION to Dismiss Count III and Count V Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by Jennifer Granholm. (Schochet, P.) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
84 MEMORANDUM re 83 MOTION to Dismiss Count III and Count V Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by Jennifer Granholm (Schochet, P.) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 81 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Entered by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
Reset Deadlines as to 76 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery, 70 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions. Motion Hearing adjourned to 12/14/2007 09:30 AM before Honorable Donald A Scheer (MLan) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
85 REPLY to Response re 76 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery filed by all defendants. (Bargy, Dari) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 12/14/2007 re 76 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery filed by Marianne Udow, James Hennessey, Laura Champagne, Jennifer Granholm, 70 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions filed by C. G., Teresa Kibby, William Ladd, C. B., D. B., L. J., S. G., J. G., John Stempfle before Honorable Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Hearing continued to 1/10/08 at 2:00 p.m. Parties to meet and confer and supplement unresolved issues list by 1/8/08. (Tape #DAS 07−134) (MLan) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
86 NOTICE of hearing on 83 MOTION to Dismiss Count III and Count V Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Motion Hearing set for 3/19/2008 02:00 PM before Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
87 STIPULATED ORDER 83 MOTION to Dismiss Count III and Count V Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by Jennifer Granholm. Responses due by 1/11/2008; Replies due 1/22/2008 Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 1/10/2008 re 76 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery filed by Marianne Udow, James Hennessey, Laura Champagne, Jennifer Granholm, 70 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions filed by C. G., Teresa Kibby, William Ladd, C. B., D. B., L. J., S. G., J. G., John Stempfle before Honorable Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Parties to Meet and Confer

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 23 of 37

01/11/2008 01/11/2008 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 01/14/2008 01/14/2008
01/14/2008 01/15/2008 01/17/2008 01/24/2008 01/24/2008 01/28/2008 01/28/2008
01/29/2008 01/29/2008 01/31/2008

and contact Court on 1/14/08. (Tape #DAS 08−002) (MLan) (Entered: 01/10/2008)
88 RESPONSE to 83 MOTION to Dismiss Count III and Count V Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit A) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
89 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Plaintiff Children's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by all plaintiffs. (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 01/11/2008)
90 TRANSCRIPT of Motion hearing held on 12/14/07. (Court Reporter: Marie Metcalf) (Number of Pages: 102) (Metcalf, M) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 89 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Entered by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
Minute Entry −Status Conference held before Honorable Donald A Scheer 1/14/2008. Conference continued to 1/29/08 at 10:00 a.m. by telephone. (MLan) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
91 MOTION to Compel by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Scheduling Order# 2 Exhibit Joint Stipulation Regarding Depositions# 3 Exhibit Stipulated Order Regarding Fact Discovery Cutoff# 4 Exhibit Order for Court−Appointed Independent Expert# 5 Exhibit Email from Counsel Reflecting Mutual Agreement to Future Deadlines# 6 Index of Exhibits Defendants First Set of Interrogatories# 7 Exhibit Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Set of Interrogatories# 8 Exhibit Defendants First Request for Production of Documents# 9 Exhibit Plaintiffs Responses to Defendants First Request for Production of Documents) (McCamman, Kurt) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
92 INDEX of Exhibits re 91 MOTION to Compel by all defendants (McCamman, Kurt) (Entered: 01/14/2008)
93 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer: 91 MOTION to Compel filed by Marianne Udow, James Hennessey, Laura Champagne, Jennifer Granholm. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
94 STIPULATED ORDER as to 83 MOTION to Dismiss Count III and Count V Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) : Replies due by 1/28/2008 Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
95 NOTICE of hearing on 91 MOTION to Compel. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 2/12/2008, Motion Hearing set for 2/14/2008 02:00 PM before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
96 STIPULATED ORDER Concerning Responses: Responses due 2/8/2008. Signed by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
97 Ex Parte MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Order) (Yelton, B.) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
98 REPLY to Response re 83 MOTION to Dismiss Count III and Count V Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by all defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits to Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)# 2 Exhibit 1 − Excerpts of AACWA Showing Absence of "Rights−Creating Language") (Yelton, B.) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 97 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Entered by Honorable Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 01/29/2008)
Minute Entry −Telephone Conference held on 1/29/2008 re: 70 and 76 before Honorable Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
99 RESPONSE to 91 MOTION to Compel and to Amend Scheduling Order filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit A − Deposition of William Ladd# 3 Exhibit B − A Challenge for Change Report# 4 Exhibit C − December 29, 2007 Email) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 01/31/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 24 of 37

02/05/2008 02/07/2008 02/14/2008
02/14/2008 03/03/2008 03/07/2008 03/07/2008 03/10/2008
03/10/2008
03/17/2008
03/27/2008 04/04/2008
04/04/2008 04/07/2008

100 Court Appointed Expert REPORT by D. B. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation cover letter by court appointed expert) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 02/05/2008)
101 REPLY to Response re 91 MOTION to Compel and Motion to Amend Scheduling Order filed by all defendants. (Bargy, Dari) (Entered: 02/07/2008)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 2/14/2008 re 76 MOTION for Protective Order Limiting Discovery filed by Marianne Udow, James Hennessey, Laura Champagne, Jennifer Granholm, 70 MOTION to Compel Discovery and for Sanctions filed by C. G., Teresa Kibby, William Ladd, C. B., D. B., L. J., S. G., J. G., John Stempfle before Honorable Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Parties to continue to confer − Telephonic Status Conference set for 3/7/08 at 1:30 p.m. before Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer (Tape #DAS 08−015) (MLan) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 2/14/2008 re 91 MOTION to Compel filed by Marianne Udow, James Hennessey, Laura Champagne, Jennifer Granholm before Honorable Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Motion Granted in Part. (Tape #DAS 08−015) (MLan) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
102 MOTION to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) by Jennifer Granholm. (Sysol, Brad) (Entered: 03/03/2008)
Minute Entry −Telephone Status Conference re 70 and 76 held on 3/7/2008 before Honorable Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Parties to confer and submit order to Court. (MLan) (Entered: 03/20/2008)
Minute Entry −Status Conference held on 3/7/2008 regarding pending discovery motions 70 , 76 before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
103 [CORRECTED] BRIEF re 102 MOTION to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Defendants' Corrected Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(c)) filed by Jennifer Granholm. (Sysol, Brad) Modified on 3/11/2008 (CHem). (Entered: 03/10/2008)
104 ERRATA Sheet re: 103 Supplemental Brief, filed by Jennifer Granholm, 102 MOTION to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by Jennifer Granholm. by Jennifer Granholm (Errata Page Correcting Defendants' Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)) (Sysol, Brad) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
Reset and Set Deadlines as to 102 MOTION to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 83 MOTION to Dismiss Count III and Count V Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Motion Hearing re−set for 5/28/2008 02:00 PM before Honorable Nancy G Edmunds (CHem) (Entered: 03/17/2008)
105 RESPONSE to 102 MOTION to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B.. (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 03/27/2008)
106 REPLY to Response re 102 MOTION to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count IV Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) filed by Jennifer Granholm, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey. (Sysol, Brad) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
107 MOTION to Seal, MOTION for Sanctions Due to Spoliation of Evidence by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B.. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − Declaration of Sara M. Bartosz) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
108 NOTICE of error re 107 Motion to seal and/or for sanctions. (DPer) (Entered: 04/07/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 25 of 37

04/09/2008 04/14/2008 04/18/2008 04/23/2008
04/25/2008
04/28/2008 05/01/2008 05/06/2008 05/06/2008 05/20/2008 05/28/2008
05/30/2008 06/09/2008

109 ORDER REFERRING MOTION to Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer: 107 MOTION to Seal MOTION for Sanctions Due to Spoliation of Evidence filed by C. G., Teresa Kibby, William Ladd, C. B., D. B., L. J., S. G., J. G., John Stempfle. Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
110 NOTICE of hearing on 107 MOTION for Sanctions Due to Spoliation of Evidence. Resolved/Unresolved Issues due by 4/29/2008. Motion Hearing set for 5/1/2008 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
111 STIPULATION AND ORDER re: 107 MOTION for Sanctions Due to Spoliation of Evidence :( Defendants' Response due by 4/23/2008, Plaintiffs' Reply due by 4/25/2008) Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 04/18/2008)
112 RESPONSE to 107 MOTION to Seal MOTION for Sanctions Due to Spoliation of Evidence filed by Jennifer Granholm. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Declaration of William R. Morris, # 2 Exhibit Holt vs. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., # 3 Exhibit Petcou v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., # 4 Exhibit Goldman v. Healthcare Management Systems, Inc., # 5 Exhibit Cohn v. Taco Bell Corp.) (Yelton, B.) (Entered: 04/23/2008)
113 REPLY to Response re 107 MOTION to Seal MOTION for Sanctions Due to Spoliation of Evidence filed by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B.. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − Stipulated Confidentiality Order, # 3 Exhibit B − E−Mail Discovery Timetable, # 4 Exhibit C − Defendants' Response, # 5 Exhibit D − E−mail Transmissions) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 04/25/2008)
114 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/6/2008 11:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds (CHem) (Entered: 04/28/2008)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 5/1/2008 re 107 MOTION for Sanctions Due to Spoliation of Evidence filed by C. G., Teresa Kibby, William Ladd, C. B., D. B., L. J., S. G., J. G., John Stempfle before Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. Disposition: Motion Granted. (Tape #DAS 5/1/08) (MLan) (Entered: 05/01/2008)
115 ORDER resolving 70 Motion to Compel; 76 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald A Scheer. (MLan) (Entered: 05/06/2008)
Minute Entry −Telephone Conference held on 5/6/2008 before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. Disposition: Telephonic Status Conference to be held on 5/20/2008 at 1:30 p.m.; Motion hearing adjourned to 6/11/2008 at 2:00 p.m.; Dates for Final Pretrial Conference and Trial to be re−set after 6/11/2008 motion hearing. (CHem) (Entered: 05/08/2008)
Minute Entry −Telephone Conference held on 5/20/2008 before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. Disposition: held and continued to May 28, 2008 at 1:30 p.m.; Parties to notify the Court of date they are meeting with facilitator (CHem) Modified on 5/21/2008 (CHem). (Entered: 05/20/2008)
Minute Entry −Telephone Conference held on 5/28/2008 before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. Disposition: Final Pretrial Order and Final Pretrial Conference set for June 24, 2008 at 2:00 p.m.; Bench Trial July 7, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.; Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (hard copy and email) due July 7, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.; Defendants to immediately file notice of withdrawal of pending motions to dismiss 83 & 102 without prejudice. (CHem) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
116 NOTICE by Michigan, Governor of of withdrawal of 83 MOTION to Dismiss Count III and Count V Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 102 MOTION to Dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs' Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Bargy, Dari) (Entered: 05/30/2008)
117 MOTION in Limine to Estop Defendants' Challenge to Stipulated Rule 706 Expert Sampling Methodology and to Limit Scope of Defendants' Expert Report by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B.. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − Order for Court−Appointed Expert, # 3 Exhibit B − Notice of Filing Contract Agreement for

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 26 of 37

06/10/2008 06/18/2008
06/20/2008 06/23/2008 06/23/2008
06/23/2008 06/24/2008 06/24/2008
06/24/2008 06/24/2008 06/25/2008 06/25/2008

CRC, # 4 Exhibit C, part 1 − Deposition of Dennis Wagner, # 5 Exhibit C, part 2 − Deposition of Dennis Wagner, # 6 Exhibit D − CRC Report, # 7 Exhibit E − Sawilowsky Report) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 06/09/2008)
118 TRANSCRIPT of Motion Hearing held on 5/1/08. (Court Reporter: Karin Dains) (Number of Pages: 58) (Hryshko, T) (Entered: 06/10/2008)
119 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Any Evidence and Argument Related to a "Lack−of−Funds" Defense by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B.. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits to Plaintiff Children's Motion to Exclude Any Evidence and Argument Related to a "Lack−of−Funds" Defense, # 2 Exhibit A − Defendants Notice of Disclosure of Expert Witnesses, # 3 Exhibit B − Defendants Witness List, # 4 Exhibit C − Excerpts from the Deposition of Marianne Udow, # 5 Exhibit D − Excerpts from the Deposition of Jerry S. Frank, # 6 Exhibit E − Excerpts from the Deposition of Margaret C. Warner, # 7 Exhibit F − Excerpts from the Deposition of Angelo Nicholas, # 8 Exhibit G − Excerpts from the Deposition of Sheryl Thompson, # 9 Exhibit H − Letter from Marianne Udow, dated August 23, 2007, # 10 Exhibit I − Excerpts from the Deposition of Susan Kangas) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 06/18/2008)
120 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum of Law on Scope of Plaintiffs' Substantive Due Process Rights and Applicable Liability Standard by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B.. (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
121 MOTION to Compel the Deposition of Kathryne O'Grady by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B.. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − Stewart Dep. June 10, 2008) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
122 RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Estop Defendants' Challenge to Rule 706 Expert Sampling Methodology and to Limit Scope of Defendants' Expert Report and Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Cross−Motion in Limine to Exclude or Limit the February 8, 2008 CRC Report filed by Michigan, Governor of. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6) (Schochet, P.) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
123 Cross MOTION in Limine to Exclude or Limit the February 8, 2008 Children's Research Center Report by Michigan, Governor of. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7) (Schochet, P.) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
124 EXHIBIT 7 re 122 Response to Petition/Request/Application, 123 Cross MOTION in Limine to Exclude or Limit the February 8, 2008 Children's Research Center Report by Michigan, Governor of (Schochet, P.) (Entered: 06/24/2008)
125 OBJECTION to Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Due to Spoliation of Evidence by Michigan, Governor of. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 − Plaintiffs' Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 − May 1, 2008 Motion Hearing Transcript, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3 − Nejo vs. Tamaroff Buick Honda Isuzu Nissan, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 4 − Defendants' Alternative Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Due to Spoliation of Evidence) (Yelton, B.)[EXHIBIT 1 OMITTED] Modified on 6/25/2008 (PPau). (Entered: 06/24/2008)
Minute Entry −Final Pretrial Conference held on 6/24/2008 before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
127 JOINT FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
126 EXHIBIT 1 − Plaintiffs' Proposed Order re 125 Objection,, by Michigan, Governor of (Yelton, B.) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
128 EXHIBIT A − Stipulated Facts re 127 Pretrial Order − Joint Final by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B. (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 06/25/2008)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 27 of 37

06/25/2008 06/25/2008 06/25/2008 06/26/2008 06/26/2008 06/26/2008 06/30/2008 07/02/2008 07/03/2008 07/03/2008 07/03/2008 07/18/2008
07/21/2008 07/28/2008
07/28/2008 09/03/2008

129 EXHIBIT B − Plaintiffs' Witness List re 127 Pretrial Order − Joint Final by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B. (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
130 EXHIBIT C − Defendants' Witness List re 127 Pretrial Order − Joint Final by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B. (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
131 EXHIBIT D − Joint Exhibit List re 127 Pretrial Order − Joint Final by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B. (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 06/25/2008)
132 ORDER granting 121 Motion to Compel. Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
133 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Michigan, Governor of re 122 Response to Petition/Request/Application, (Amended Certificate of Service of Response) (Schochet, P.) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
134 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Michigan, Governor of re 123 Cross MOTION in Limine to Exclude or Limit the February 8, 2008 Children's Research Center Report (Amended Certificate of Service of Defendants' Cross−Motion in Limine) (Schochet, P.) (Entered: 06/26/2008)
135 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph E. Potchen on behalf of Michigan, Governor of, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey. (Potchen, Joseph) (Entered: 06/30/2008)
136 RESPONSE to 119 MOTION in Limine to Exclude Any Evidence and Argument Related to a "Lack−of−Funds" Defense filed by Michigan, Governor of. (Yelton, B.) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
137 RESPONSE to 120 MOTION in Limine and Memorandum of Law on Scope of Plaintiffs' Substantive Due Process Rights and Applicable Liability Standard filed by Michigan, Governor of. (Yelton, B.) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
138 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION for Michigan, Governor of, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey: Michael G. Frezza added. Attorney William R. Morris and Joseph E. Potchen terminated. (Frezza, Michael) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
139 AMENDED 138 Attorney Substitution by Michigan, Governor of, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey (Frezza, Michael) (Entered: 07/03/2008)
140 Joint MOTION for Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement Agreement, Setting Hearing, and Directing Notice by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B.. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Proposed Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement, Setting Hearing, and Directing Notice, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Notice of Proposed Class Action Settlement, # 5 Exhibit 4 − Kevin Ryan Resume) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
141 NOTICE of hearing on 140 Joint MOTION for Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement Agreement, Setting Hearing, and Directing Notice. Motion Hearing set for 8/13/2008 02:00 PM before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 07/21/2008)
Minute Entry −Telephonic Motion Hearing held on 7/28/2008 re 140 Joint MOTION for Order Preliminarily Approving Class Action Settlement Agreement, Setting Hearing, and Directing Notice filed by C. G., Teresa Kibby, William Ladd, C. B., D. B., L. J., S. G., J. G., John Stempfle before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
142 ORDER granting 140 Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement Agreement, Setting Hearing and Directing Notice; Fairness Hearing set for 10/7/2008 at 10:00 a.m.. Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 07/28/2008)
143 DECLARATION by P. Rivka Schochet Certifying Compliance with Notice Requirements of July 28, 2008 Order filed by Michigan, Governor of (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1− Order July 28, 2008, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Declaration

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 28 of 37

09/30/2008
09/30/2008 09/30/2008
10/07/2008 10/24/2008 10/24/2008 10/27/2008 10/30/2008 11/06/2008 11/24/2008
11/26/2008 11/26/2008 12/09/2008

Maria Hanken, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Declaration Matthew Markham, # 5 Document Continuation Certificate of Service) (Schochet, P.) (Entered: 09/03/2008)
144 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment of Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B.. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits to Joint Motion, # 2 Exhibit A − Class Action Settlement Agreement, # 3 Exhibit B − Proposed Order for Final Approval, # 4 Exhibit C − Order Granting Preliminary Approval, # 5 Exhibit D − Declaration of Rivka Schochet, # 6 Exhibit − Appendix A − Written Submissions (part 1), # 7 Document Continuation − Appendix A − Written Submissions (part 2)) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
145 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 144 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment of Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement Memorandum of Law filed by Michigan, Governor of. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − Settlement Agreement Fact Sheet) (Yelton, B.) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
146 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 144 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment of Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement filed by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B.. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits to Plaintiffs' Submission in Support of Joint Motion, # 2 Exhibit 1 − Order Granting Class Certification, # 3 Exhibit 2 − Resume of Kevin Ryan, # 4 Exhibit 3 − Declaration of Marcia Robinson Lowry, # 5 Exhibit 4 − Affidavit of Mae Ackerman−Brimberg) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 09/30/2008)
Minute Entry −Motion Hearing held on 10/7/2008 re 144 Joint MOTION to Approve Consent Judgment of Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement filed by C. G., Teresa Kibby, William Ladd, C. B., D. B., L. J., S. G., J. G., John Stempfle before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem) (Entered: 10/07/2008)
147 MEMORANDUM OPINION granting 144 Joint Motion to Approve Consent Judgment. Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 10/24/2008)
148 ORDER ENTERING CONSENT DECREE Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) Modified on 10/24/2008 (CHem). (Entered: 10/24/2008)
149 NOTICE of Appearance by William R. Morris on behalf of Michigan, Governor of, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey., NOTICE of Withdrawal of Attorney Michael G. Frezza by on behalf of Michigan, Governor of, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey. (Morris, William) (Entered: 10/27/2008)
150 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Joseph E. Potchen appearing on behalf of Michigan, Governor of, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey (Potchen, Joseph) (Entered: 10/30/2008)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER setting date for filing motion for attorneys' fee and releated non−taxable expenses due no later than 28 days after entry of judgment. Entered by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
TEXT−ONLY ORDER extending to 11/26/2008 to file 1. Joint Motion for Final Approval of the Parties Settlement of Plaintiffs Claim for Section 1988 Fees and Non−Taxable Costs; 2.Joint Motion for Approval of Notice to the Class Regarding the Joint Motion for Final Approval of the Parties Settlement of Plaintiffs Claim for Section 1988 Fees and Non−Taxable Costs; and 3.Plaintiffs 28 U.S.C. §1920 Bill of Costs. Entered by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 11/24/2008)
151 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Index of Exhibits) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
152 BILL OF COSTS by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Order Appointing FRE 706 Expert, # 2 Exhibit Contract for FRE 706 Expert) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 11/26/2008)
153 ORDER Setting Hearing and Approving Form and Manner of Notice: ( Hearing to consider whether the Proposed Fees Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 29 of 37

12/10/2008 12/12/2008 12/17/2008 12/29/2008
01/07/2009 01/09/2009 01/15/2009
01/22/2009 01/23/2009 09/30/2009 03/05/2010 03/09/2010 03/16/2010 03/17/2010 03/29/2010
03/29/2010

and should receive Court approval may be heard 1/21/2009 02:00 PM before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds) Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. [see order for additional dates] (CHem) (Entered: 12/09/2008)
154 COSTS TAXED in amount of $156,160.00 against defendants. (DPer) (Entered: 12/10/2008)
155 OBJECTIONS to Taxed Bill of Costs filed by Michigan, Governor of, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey. (Morris, William) Modified on 12/17/2008 (CHem). (Entered: 12/12/2008)
Set Deadlines: Responses due by 12/29/2008 to 155 OBJECTIONS to Taxed Bill of Costs filed by Michigan, Governor of, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey. (Morris, William) Replies due 1/9/2009 (CHem) (Entered: 12/17/2008)
156 BILL OF COSTS Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Objections to Taxed Bill of Costs by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B. (Wiltsek, Gena) Modified on 12/30/2008 (DHam). [RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO TAXED BILL OF COSTS] (Entered: 12/29/2008)
157 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Hearing on Objections to Taxed Bill of Costs set for 1/21/2009 02:00 PM before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds (CHem) (Entered: 01/07/2009)
158 REPLY to Response to Plaintiffs' Taxation of Costs filed by Michigan, Governor of, Marianne Udow, Laura Champagne, James Hennessey. (Morris, William)[REPLY TO BILL OF COSTS] Modified on 1/9/2009 (PPau). (Entered: 01/09/2009)
159 NOTICE by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B. re 153 Order,, Set Deadlines/Hearings, Joint Submission of the Parties of the Written Responses from Stakeholders Served with Notice of Proposed Settlement of Attorneys' Fees and Non−taxable Expenses (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits to Joint Submission, # 2 Exhibit A − Submission of Judith Zischke, # 3 Exhibit B − Submission of Jewell Closz) (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 01/15/2009)
160 ORDER granting 151 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 01/22/2009)
161 ORDER Overruling 155 Objection to Taxed Bill of Costs filed by Michigan, Governor of, Marianne Udow, James Hennessey, Laura Champagne. Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 01/23/2009)
Minute Entry − Hearing held on 9/30/2009− Appointed monitor Kevin Ryan presented report on the State's compliance with consent decree before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem) (Entered: 10/07/2009)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Monitor's Report to be presented 3/9/2010 01:30 PM before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds (CHem) (Entered: 03/05/2010)
Minute Entry − Hearing held on 3/9/2010− Appointed monitor Kevin Ryan presented second report on the State's compliance with consent decree before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem) (Entered: 03/10/2010)
162 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees by William Ladd, L. J., Teresa Kibby, J. G., D. B., S. G., C. G., John Stempfle, C. B.. (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 03/16/2010)
163 ORDER granting 162 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 03/17/2010)
164 TRANSCRIPT of Second Report on the State's Compliance with Consent Decree held on 3/9/2010. (Court Reporter: Suzanne Jacques(www.transcriptorders.com)) (Number of Pages: 24) Redaction Request due 4/19/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/29/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/28/2010. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Jacques, S.) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
165 TRANSCRIPT of Report on State's Compliance with Consent Decree held on 9/30/2009. (Court Reporter: Suzanne Jacques(www.transcriptorders.com)) (Number of

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 30 of 37

06/18/2010 06/18/2010 06/21/2010 07/13/2010
07/15/2010 09/10/2010
09/13/2010 09/28/2010 11/18/2010 11/19/2010 12/07/2010 12/07/2010 12/22/2010
12/23/2010

Pages: 25) Redaction Request due 4/19/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/29/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/28/2010. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Jacques, S.) (Entered: 03/29/2010)
166 Monitoring REPORT 1 by Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation) (PPau) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
167 Monitoring REPORT 2 by Plaintiffs (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation, # 2 Document Continuation, # 3 Document Continuation) (PPau) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
168 NOTICE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY with Local Rule 5.1.1 issued to attorney Susan Lambiase re 167 Report (Free), 166 Report (Free) (PPau) (Entered: 06/21/2010)
169 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees by C. B., C. G., D. B., J. G., Teresa Kibby, L. J., William Ladd, S. G., John Stempfle. (Wiltsek, Gena) Modified on 7/13/2010 (PMil).[DOCUMENT TITLED PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES FOR THE PERIOD 2/1/09−1/31/10] (Entered: 07/13/2010)
170 ORDER granting 169 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
171 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees by All Plaintiffs. (Wiltsek, Gena) Modified on 9/10/2010 (DWor). [DOCUMENT FILED IS ENTITLED "JOINT MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES FOR THE PERIOD 2/1/10−4/30/10"] (Entered: 09/10/2010)
172 ORDER granting 171 Motion for Attorney Fees for the February 1, 2010 to April 30, 2010 time period. Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 09/13/2010)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Hearing to present third report on State's compliance with consent decree before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds set for 12/7/2010 02:00 PM before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds (CHem) (Entered: 09/28/2010)
173 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees by All Parties. (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 11/18/2010)
174 ORDER granting 173 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 11/19/2010)
Minute Entry − Miscellaneous Hearing presenting third report on State's compliance with consent decree held on 12/7/2010 before District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
175 PERIOD Three Monitoring Report. (CGre) (Entered: 12/07/2010)
177 STRICKEN− MOTION to Enforce settlement agreement and consent decree − dated 2/15/07, request for an evidentiary Hearing and entry of a written order granting enforcement of settlement agreement and reunification and placement of foster care children with petitioner Charleszetta Cheeks and request for Rule 11 Sanctions against Governor Jennifer Granholm by Charleszetta Cheeks. (Attachments: # 1 Document Continuation, # 2 Document Continuation, # 3 Document Continuation, # 4 Document Continuation) (DTyl) Modified on 1/4/2011 (CHem). (Entered: 12/23/2010)
176 TRANSCRIPT of Third Report on the State's Compliance with Consent Decree held on 12/7/2010. (Court Reporter: Suzanne Jacques(jacques@transcriptorders.com)) (Number of Pages: 19) Redaction Request due 1/13/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/24/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/23/2011. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Jacques, S.) (Entered: 12/23/2010)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 31 of 37

12/28/2010 12/28/2010
01/04/2011
01/14/2011 01/14/2011 01/19/2011 02/01/2011 02/01/2011 02/03/2011 02/10/2011 02/15/2011 02/23/2011 03/24/2011 03/29/2011 04/07/2011
04/22/2011
04/22/2011 07/12/2011

178 STRICKEN− APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL Financial Affidavit by Charleszetta Cheeks. (CGre) Modified on 12/29/2010 (CGre). Modified on 1/4/2011 (CHem). (Entered: 12/29/2010)
179 STRICKEN− MOTION Requesting Appointment of Legal Counsel to Represent this Petitioner Regarding the Motion to Enforce Settlement and Consent Decree and Request for Issuance of Subpoenas as to the Governor Jennifer M Granholm, Ismael Ahmed, Judge Mary Beth Kelly and Superintendent William Johnson by Charleszetta Cheeks. (CGre) Modified on 1/4/2011 (CHem). (Entered: 12/29/2010)
180 ORDER Striking 178 Application for Appointment of Counsel filed by Charleszetta Cheeks, 177 MOTION to Enforce Judgment MOTION for Evidentiary Hearing MOTION for Order MOTION for Sanctions filed by Charleszetta Cheeks, 179 MOTION to Appoint Counsel filed by Charleszetta Cheeks. Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 01/04/2011)
181 Copy of Letters from Non Party Charleszetta Cheeks (PPau) (Entered: 01/18/2011)
182 MOTION for Reconsideration re 180 Order to Strike, by Charleszetta Cheeks. (PPau) (Entered: 01/19/2011)
183 ORDER denying 182 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 01/19/2011)
184 NOTICE OF APPEAL by Charleszetta Cheeks re 183 Order on Motion for Reconsideration, 180 Order to Strike,. Fee Status: No Fee Paid. (DWor) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
186 APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal by Charleszetta Cheeks. (DWor) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
185 Certificate of Service re 184 Notice of Appeal. (DWor) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
187 ORDER denying 186 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal. Signed by District Judge Nancy G Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
188 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Attorney Edward P. Leibensperger by All Plaintiffs. (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 02/15/2011)
189 APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal by Charleszetta Cheeks. (BSoc) (Entered: 02/24/2011)
190 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees by C. B., C. G., Laura Champagne, D. B., James Hennessey, J. G., Teresa Kibby, L. J., William Ladd, Michigan, Governor of, S. G., John Stempfle, Marianne Udow. (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 03/24/2011)
191 ORDER granting 190 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 03/29/2011)
192 ORDER from U.S. Court of Appeals − Sixth Circuit re 184 Notice of Appeal filed by Charleszetta Cheeks − Disposition: It is therefore ORDERED that this cause be, and it hereby is, dismissed for want of prosecution. [Appeal Case Number 11−1140]. (CGre) (Entered: 04/07/2011)
193 TRANSCRIPT of Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action via Telephone Conference Call held on 7/28/2008. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Suzanne Jacques (email: jacques@transcriptorders.com) (Number of Pages: 14) Redaction Request due 5/13/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 5/23/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/21/2011. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Jacques, S.) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
194 Notice of Filing Transcript. (Jacques, S.) (Entered: 04/22/2011)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Miscellaneous Hearing presenting modified consent decree set for 7/18/2011 10:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (CHem) (Entered: 07/12/2011)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 32 of 37

07/18/2011 07/18/2011
08/03/2011 08/23/2011 08/24/2011 08/26/2011 08/29/2011 09/20/2011 12/14/2011 12/15/2011 12/15/2011
12/15/2011 03/20/2012 03/22/2012 03/29/2012 06/15/2012 06/20/2012 06/20/2012 06/25/2012
06/26/2012 06/26/2012 06/26/2012 06/26/2012 07/02/2012

195 MODIFIED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND CONSENT ORDER. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (KHil) (Entered: 07/18/2011)
Minute Entry − Miscellaneous Hearing presenting modified consent decree held on 7/18/2011 before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem) (Entered: 07/29/2011)
196 Notice of E−mail Delivery Failure as to attorney P. Rivka Schochet. Bounced NEF for Miscellaneous Hearing. (KCla) (Entered: 08/03/2011)
197 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees by All Parties. (Wiltsek, Gena) (Entered: 08/23/2011)
198 Notice of E−mail Delivery Failure as to attorney P. Rivka Schochet. Bounced NEF for 197 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees. (KCla) (Entered: 08/24/2011)
199 ORDER granting 197 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
200 Notice of E−mail Delivery Failure as to attorney P. Rivka Schochet. Bounced NEF for 199 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. (KCla) (Entered: 08/29/2011)
201 MOTION for Withdrawal of Attorney Susan Lambiase by All Plaintiffs. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 09/20/2011)
202 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees by All Parties. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 12/14/2011)
203 ORDER granting 202 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 201 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Susan Lambiase terminated. Entered by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
204 NOTICE by All Defendants Notice of Removal from Electronic Filing (ECF) (Yelton, B.) (Entered: 12/15/2011)
205 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Miscellaneous Hearing set for 6/25/2012 02:00 PM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (CHem) (Entered: 03/20/2012)
206 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees by All Parties. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 03/22/2012)
207 ORDER granting 206 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 03/29/2012)
208 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees by All Parties. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 06/15/2012)
209 ORDER granting 208 Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Regarding Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
210 NOTICE by All Defendants of Removal from Electronic Filing (ECF) (Yelton, B.) (Entered: 06/20/2012)
Minute Entry − Miscellaneous Hearing− Status Update presented to the Court held on 6/25/2012 before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
Attorney B. Jay Yelton is discontinued from receiving Notices of Electronic Filing. Reason: No longer in this case. (Yelton, B.) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
Attorney Kurt P. McCamman is discontinued from receiving Notices of Electronic Filing. Reason: No longer in this case.. (McCamman, Kurt) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
Attorney W. Mack Faison is discontinued from receiving Notices of Electronic Filing. Reason: no longer in case. (Faison, W.) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
Attorney Brad H. Sysol is discontinued from receiving Notices of Electronic Filing. Reason: No longer in case. (Sysol, Brad) (Entered: 06/26/2012)
211 TRANSCRIPT of Fifth Report on the State's Compliance with Consent Decree held on 6/25/2012. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Suzanne Jacques) (Number of Pages: 24) The

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 33 of 37

07/02/2012 08/14/2012 08/15/2012 11/15/2012 11/29/2012 01/07/2013 03/04/2013 03/07/2013
03/12/2013 03/14/2013
03/20/2013 03/20/2013 03/20/2013
06/26/2013 07/01/2013 08/02/2013 09/25/2013 10/08/2013
10/24/2013

parties have 21 days to file with the court and Court Reporter/Transcriber a Redaction Request of this transcript. If no request is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 days. Redaction Request due 7/23/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/2/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/1/2012. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Jacques, S.) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
Attorney Dari C. Bargy is discontinued from receiving Notices of Electronic Filing. Reason: No longer on this case. (Bargy, Dari) (Entered: 07/02/2012)
212 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees by All Parties. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 08/14/2012)
213 ORDER granting 212 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 08/15/2012)
214 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees by All Parties. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
215 ORDER granting 214 Joint Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 11/29/2012)
216 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Miscellaneous Hearing set for 3/18/2013 02:00 PM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (CHem) (Entered: 01/07/2013)
Re−Set Deadlines/Hearings: Miscellaneous Hearing set for 3/20/2013 09:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (CHem) (Entered: 03/04/2013)
217 MOTION Clarification of Certain Provisions of the Modified Settlement Agreement by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4) (Potchen, Joseph) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
218 RESPONSE to 217 MOTION Clarification of Certain Provisions of the Modified Settlement Agreement filed by All Plaintiffs. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 03/12/2013)
219 REPLY to Response re 217 MOTION Clarification of Certain Provisions of the Modified Settlement Agreement filed by All Defendants. (Potchen, Joseph) (Entered: 03/14/2013)
Minute Entry − Miscellaneous Hearing held on 3/20/2013 before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
220 ORDER denying 217 Motion for Clarification. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CHem) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
Minute Entry − Motion Hearing held on 3/20/2013 re 217 MOTION Clarification of Certain Provisions of the Modified Settlement Agreement filed by Michigan, Governor of, Marianne Udow, James Hennessey, Laura Champagne before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CHem) (Entered: 03/20/2013)
221 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION for Michigan, Governor of: Kristin M. Heyse added. (Heyse, Kristin) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
222 ORDER of Attorney Substitution. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (KKra) (Entered: 07/02/2013)
223 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 10/8/2013 11:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (JCur) (Entered: 08/02/2013)
224 NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle M. Brya on behalf of All Defendants. (Brya, Michelle) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds: Status Conference held on 10/8/2013 (Court Reporter Carol Sapala) (JCur) (Entered: 10/08/2013)
225 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on 10/8/2013. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Carol S.Sapala, 313−961−7552) (Number of Pages: 31) The parties have 21 days to file with the court and Court Reporter/Transcriber a Redaction Request of this transcript. If no request is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 34 of 37

12/20/2013 12/30/2013 01/15/2014 02/27/2014 03/10/2014 03/26/2014
03/26/2014
04/09/2014 04/14/2014 07/11/2014 09/04/2014 09/08/2014

available to the public without redaction after 90 days. Redaction Request due 11/14/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/25/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/22/2014. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Sapala, C) (Entered: 10/24/2013)
226 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses for the Period 8/1/12−6/30/13 on behalf of All Parties by All Plaintiffs. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
227 ORDER granting 226 Joint Motion For Approval Of Settlement Regarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees And Expenses For The Period 8/1/12−6/30/13. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (JCur) (Entered: 12/30/2013)
228 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference submitting progress report on the record set for 3/10/2014 02:00 PM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (CHem) (Entered: 01/15/2014)
229 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: John J. Bursch appearing on behalf of All Defendants (Bursch, John) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds: Status Conference held on 3/10/2014 Disposition: Progress Report presented to the Court on the record. (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (JCur) (Entered: 03/11/2014)
230 TRANSCRIPT of Miscellaneous Hearing/Sixth Report on State's Compliance with Consent Decree held on 3/20/2013. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Suzanne Jacques(email: jacques@transcriptorders.com) (Number of Pages: 27) The parties have 21 days to file with the court and Court Reporter/Transcriber a Redaction Request of this transcript. If no request is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 days. Redaction Request due 4/16/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/28/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/24/2014. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Jacques, S.) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
231 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference/Seventh Report on State's Compliance with Consent Decree held on 3/10/2014. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Suzanne Jacques(email: jacques@transcriptorders.com) (Number of Pages: 30) The parties have 21 days to file with the court and Court Reporter/Transcriber a Redaction Request of this transcript. If no request is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 days. Redaction Request due 4/16/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/28/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/24/2014. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Jacques, S.) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
232 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses for the Period 7/1/13−9/30/13 by All Plaintiffs. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
233 ORDER granting joint 232 Motion for Approval of Settlement regarding plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses for the period of 7/1/13−9/30/13. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
234 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference submitting progress report on the record set for 9/29/2014 11:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (CBet) (Entered: 07/11/2014)
235 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees and Expenses for the Period 10/1/2013−12/31/2013 by All Plaintiffs. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 09/04/2014)
236 ORDER granting Joint 235 Motion for Approval of settlment regarding Plaintiff's Attorney Fees & expenses for the period of 10/1/13−12/31/13. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet) (Entered: 09/08/2014)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 35 of 37

09/29/2014 09/30/2014 10/03/2014 10/06/2014
12/01/2014 12/02/2014
12/02/2014 12/05/2014 12/30/2014
01/13/2015 01/14/2015 01/29/2015 02/04/2015 03/18/2015 03/18/2015 03/18/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds: Status Conference held on 9/29/2014 (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CBet) (Entered: 09/29/2014)
237 MSA 5 Monitoring REPORT by All Plaintiffs (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 09/30/2014)
238 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Miscellaneous Hearing submitting progress report on the record set for 4/13/2015 10:30 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (Conference in chambers at 10:00 a.m.) (CBet) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
239 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference and Eighth Report on the State's Compliance with Consent Decree held on 9/29/2014. (Court Reporter/Transcriber: Suzanne Jacques(email: jacques@transcriptorders.com) (Number of Pages: 22) The parties have 21 days to file with the court and Court Reporter/Transcriber a Redaction Request of this transcript. If no request is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 days. Redaction Request due 10/27/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/6/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/5/2015. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Jacques, S.) (Entered: 10/06/2014)
240 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference Hearing set for 1/12/2015 10:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (CBet) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
241 MOTION to vacate or modify the July 18, 2011 Modified Settlement Agreement consent decree injunction re 195 Order by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − MSA standards (tracked and met), # 3 Exhibit B − MSA standards (substantially achieved), # 4 Exhibit C − Continuing MSA standards (not yet met), # 5 Exhibit D − Standards subject to full MiSACWIS implementation) (Bursch, John) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
242 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference RESET for 1/14/2015 10:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (previous date of 1/12/15 vacated (CBet) (Entered: 12/02/2014)
243 STIPULATION AND ORDER extending time to 12/30/14 for pltf to file response to deft's motion to dissolve or modify settlement agreement. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet) (Entered: 12/05/2014)
244 RESPONSE to 241 MOTION to vacate or modify the July 18, 2011 Modified Settlement Agreement consent decree injunction re 195 Order filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A − MSA 1 Progress Report, # 3 Exhibit B − MSA 2 Progress Report, # 4 Exhibit C − MSA 3 Progress Report, # 5 Exhibit D − MSA 4 Progress Report, # 6 Exhibit E − Oct. 16, 2013 Letter, # 7 Exhibit F − May 28, 2014 Letter, # 8 Exhibit G − Oct. 1, 2014 Letter) (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
245 REPLY to Response re 241 MOTION to vacate or modify the July 18, 2011 Modified Settlement Agreement consent decree injunction re 195 Order filed by All Defendants. (Bursch, John) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds: Status Conference held on 1/14/2015, ( Further Status Conference set for 2/4/2015 10:30 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds) (CBet) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
246 NOTICE by All Defendants of withdrawal of 241 MOTION to vacate or modify the July 18, 2011 Modified Settlement Agreement consent decree injunction re 195 Order , without prejudice. (Bursch, John) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds: Status Conference held on 2/4/2015 (CBet) (Entered: 02/04/2015)
247 MSA 1 Monitoring REPORT by All Plaintiffs (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
248 MSA 2 Monitoring REPORT by All Plaintiffs (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
249 MSA 3 Monitoring REPORT by All Plaintiffs (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 03/18/2015)

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 36 of 37

03/18/2015 03/31/2015 04/08/2015 04/09/2015 04/09/2015 04/13/2015 04/14/2015 05/22/2015
09/29/2015 10/01/2015 12/04/2015 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 02/02/2016 02/08/2016 02/09/2016 02/12/2016

250 MSA 4 Monitoring REPORT by All Plaintiffs (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 03/18/2015)
251 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 03/31/2015)
252 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation and Memorandum Regarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Expenses for the Period 1/1/14−12/31/14 on behalf of All Parties by All Plaintiffs (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 04/08/2015)
253 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of withdrawal of 251 Joint MOTION for Attorney Fees . (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
254 ORDER approving 252 Stipulation regarding pltf's atty fees and expenses from the period 1/1/14 − 12/31/14. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet) (Entered: 04/09/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings re: progress report before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds: Hearing held on 4/13/2015 (Court Reporter Suzanne Jacques) (CBet) (Entered: 04/13/2015)
255 MSA 6 Monitoring REPORT by All Plaintiffs (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
256 TRANSCRIPT of Sixth Report on State's Compliance with Consent Decree held on 4/13/2015. (Court Reporter: Suzanne Jacques) (Number of Pages: 26) The parties have 21 days to file with the court and Court Reporter/Transcriber a Redaction Request of this transcript. If no request is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 days. Redaction Request due 6/12/2015. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/22/2015. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/20/2015. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Jacques, S.) (Entered: 05/22/2015)
257 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation and Memorandum Regarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Expenses for the Period 1/1/15−6/30/15 on behalf of All Parties by D. B. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
258 ORDER re 257 Stipulation approving pltf's attorney fees and expenses for the period from 1/1/15−6/30/15. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet) (Entered: 10/01/2015)
259 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 2/2/2016 02:00 PM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (CBet) (Entered: 12/04/2015)
260 MEMORANDUM for approval by the Court re: Implementation, Sustainability, and Exit Plan by All Defendants (Bursch, John) Modified on 2/2/2016 (CBet). (Entered: 02/02/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds: Status Conference held on 2/2/2016 (Court Reporter: Suzanne Jacques) (CBet) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
261 ORDER re 260 approving Implementation, Sustainability, and Exit Plan. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet) (Entered: 02/02/2016)
262 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation and Memorandum Regarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Expenses for the Period 7/1/15−9/30/15 on behalf of All Parties by D. B. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 02/08/2016)
263 ORDER approving 262 Stipulation regarding pltf's Attorney fees and expenses for the period 7/1/15 − 9/30/15. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet) (Entered: 02/09/2016)
264 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference held on 2/2/2016. (Court Reporter: Suzanne Jacques(email: jacques@transcriptorders.com)) (Number of Pages: 22) The parties have 21 days to file with the court and Court Reporter/Transcriber a Redaction Request of this transcript. If no request is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 days. Redaction Request due 3/4/2016. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/14/2016. Release of

Case: 2:06-cv-13548 As of: 03/16/2018 10:29 PM EDT 37 of 37

06/08/2016 07/14/2016 07/15/2016 08/26/2016 08/26/2016 08/31/2016 03/10/2017 03/14/2017 04/07/2017 04/14/2017 06/08/2017 06/09/2017
06/09/2017 06/12/2017 06/13/2017 07/25/2017 02/01/2018 02/15/2018

Transcript Restriction set for 5/12/2016. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, the transcript is publicly available. (Jacques, S.) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
265 NOTICE of Change of Address/Contact Information by Sara M. Bartosz on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
266 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation and Memorandum Regarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Expenses for the Period 10/1/15 to 12/31/15 on behalf of All Parties by D. B. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
267 ORDER re 266 approving Joint Stipulation regarding pltfs' attorneys fees and expenses for the period of 10/1/15 thru 12/31/15. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
268 STIPULATION of Substitution of Counsel by All Defendants (Harris, Toni) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
269 NOTICE by All Defendants of Substitution of Counsel (Harris, Toni) (Entered: 08/26/2016)
270 ORDER of Attorney Substitution with stipulation of Attorney Toni L. Harris for Michelle Brya. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
271 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 6/6/2017 02:30 PM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (on the record after status conference) (CBet) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
272 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference RESET for 6/8/2017 02:00 PM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (after conference, will then go on the record) (CBet) (Entered: 03/14/2017)
273 STIPULATION Joint Stipulation and Memorandum Regarding Plaintiffs' Attorneys' Fees and Expenses for the Period 1/1/166/30/16 on behalf of All Parties by D. B. (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 04/07/2017)
274 ORDER approving joint 273 Stipulation re: atty fees and expenses for the period 1/1/16−6/30/16. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet) (Entered: 04/15/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds: Status Conference held on 6/8/2017 (Court Reporter: Suzanne Jacques) (CBet) (Entered: 06/08/2017)
275 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re Status Conference Plaintiffs' Submission Regarding ISEP Section 6.12 and ISEP Sections 6.43, 6.44 and 6.47 filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
276 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF re 275 Supplemental Brief, Regarding Definition of "Foster Home" and ISEP Healthcare Commitments filed by All Defendants. (Heyse, Kristin) (Entered: 06/09/2017)
277 STIPULATION AND ORDER regarding ISEP 10. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet) (Entered: 06/12/2017)
278 ISEP 10 Monitoring REPORT by All Plaintiffs (Bartosz, Sara) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
279 OPINION and ORDER regarding disputed provisions of Implementation, Sustainability and Exit Plan. Signed by District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds. (CBet) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
Minute Entry for proceedings before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds: Status Conference held on 2/1/2018 (LBar) (Entered: 02/01/2018)
280 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 5/10/2018 @ 10:00 AM before District Judge Nancy G. Edmunds (LBar) (Entered: 02/15/2018)